Now that S.Korea and N.Korea signed a peace treaty, who will admit Bush was right not to get involved?

Question

The left blasted him for years by not having a one on one sit down w/ the N Korean President, unlike Clinton who gave him millions.

Looks like President Bush is right, perhaps we should ignore all leaders of tyranny, until they decide to change their minds.

(Oh and this is not an Iraq question... Okay, so if that is your response,,, please do not, stick to the topic)

Corro, you are wrong. but then again you sound ill informed, or just spinning facts. not sure which.

There was NEVER, ever, a one on one sit down with the USA, President Bush would not do it. Requested several countries be involved....

Never one to one, and never caved in. That is what happened.

Make no mistake we were a huge factor, because we did not give them money to stop (in any form, food, aid, medicine)... We did not try buy their kindness.

Answer 1

Certainly looks good on paper...let's hope actions will ultimately speak as loudly as these words of compromise...Yea GW!

Answer 2

WOW, um did you do ANY research? As an American service member that lived in Korea for a few years and just moved a few months ago, America was heavily involved. Matter of a fact, although Bush did not want a TWO way dialogue bewtween the US-and the DPRK, during the "Six Party Talks" I beleive it was Christopher Hill who spent the past few years trying to end this thing(Macau Banking, OUR denuclearization Standards...). ALSO, they have NOT signed anything yet missy. They had said they will do something about it but the have not ended that war. The two bigeest players in the Korean situation were the Americans and Chinese. It was during Kim's visit to china last year that started a real change in his courses of action. The Nuclear test was also, one of those things that he started and he had to do it to prove to his country that they could do it despite the "Imperialist Americans and the puppet Government of the south"

Seriously though, Bush's Idea for Multi-Party Dialogue, was a good POLITICAL move... If there were a two way Dialogue we would have kept all of the involvment of the PRC, Russia, Japan and ROK in the dark, not allowing us to progress as far as we want. There are planty of other reasons too...

Bottomline: He was right to start a Multicountry Dialgue, but make NO mistake we were a HUGE factor in these talks, we were HEAVILY involved.... And there has been NO peace treaty signed....


MY UPDATE (Since you updated yours): Are you kidding? We held milllions of dollars of THEIR money, stopped Their Legal Shipments AND are REWARDING their Denuclearization with AID on levels you can not imagine... ALSO, We did send them tons of aid during this whole process and again I am SURE you do not know that most of the aid given is dealt to the Army... So infact we did support them through this process

Answer 3

I see many biased answers, cause each guy tries to side with his country. Truth is, neither country would have benefited from that and somewhere along the way other countries would have interfered to end the conflict. As I wrote before in an earlier post, Egypt and Israel are the key players in the region. Any conflict between them creates instability in the region and neither nation wants this. Egypt would have lost a lot of economical and military aid. Now Egypt's military is very capable to handle any situation. As for Israel, they would have been isolated completely from the entire region and would have had problems shipping through the Suez Canal. Neither country would have won. @Mohamed, You arabs have been glorifying Nasser for forcing Egypt and Egyptians into accepting pan-arabism. Nasser was born in Egypt into a family of yemeni descent and destroyed Egypt. Take a look at Egypt before Nasser and look at it now. A HUGE DIFFERENCE. It was a very open-minded country with many things to offer. Now it's not open-minded anymore and egyptians are convinced that they are arabs and spat in the face of their own culture, instead of embracing their true identity. Anwar Sadat was a hero and a wise person. He was a nationalist. I dare any egyptian to tell me what have they gained by embracing pan-arabism. I can tell you what Egyptians gained : A bunch of arab cowards that hide behind them whenever Israel responds to their sneaky attacks.

Answer 4

You will not allow me to use Iraq as an example, so I will generalise. Does Vietnam ring a bell? How many people died because we (The Western World) tried to enforce our laws upon them? You, as we did lost thousands of good men and women in that War, For What? The Western World should keep their weapons out of other Countries business.
We can all talk out our problems. Do not push your ideals onto these people, You will only make Enermies all round.
Bush is a HAS BEEN like our Prime Minister.

Answer 5

Do you have a link to a story saying that they signed a peace treaty? I have been able to find articles that mentioned that they were talking about formally ending the Korean war, but none that have stated that a treaty was singed as of yet.

Answer 6

Listen, I'm not trying to oppose or attack your arguments but the Bush adm has been working behind the scenes for about 6 months on underground deals with this... meaning we won't find out the real cost for awhile.

I know this because I was out of the country all summer and doing research... this was one of them. I have records of all the meetings with US officials and even wrote 3 editorials on it... at least 3 times N. Korea promised to let inspectors in but each time there was a glitch..

Anyways, I won't go on because I know you don't want to hear this...

Answer 7

Let's see how this one plays out before we give Bush a big fat kiss. Kim Jong Il has prven time and time again to be untrustworthy. I still don't trust him. And no one was saying Bush was wrong. But to paraphrase President Reagan, "Trust but verify."

Answer 8

Question is very badly framed, to make it look like only an idiot would disagree with you. If you bother checking facts, you'll find that Bush was involved in negotiations with North Korea over its nuclear program. Just a wee bit of you paying attention over the past five years would have had you aware that the two Koreas have been talking about peace and allowing families to visit.

So, to answer your question, Bush was right to GET involved for once instead of acting like a petulant 13 year old who can't go see Hannah Montana.

Answer 9

if they signed a peace treaty that's good no matter how it happened, now we can get the hell out of there also , its another country we don't need to be in. the us spends more on their defense than they do. time we used the money on ourselves.

Answer 10

while i think the President has been doing whats right here, its way to early to tell whether it was right. hilter signed a peace treaty before the war started.

Answer 11

We are seeing a lot of changes in the attitudes of our enemies as a result of Bush's foreign policies.

Gains that are lost upon the left due to their refusal to look.

Gains that will be lost to us all is the dems regain the White House in '09.