[goMac]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/06/news/korea.php

I can't wait to see what our fellow forum members who were eager to criticize Clinton's actions in dealing with N. Korea have to say about this.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by goMac 

U.S. offers N. Korea aid, with restrictions - Asia - Pacific - International Herald Tribune

I can't wait to see what our fellow forum members who were eager to criticize Clinton's actions in dealing with N. Korea have to say about this.

PC Guy: Touché.

[Spliffdaddy]

Sounds like a great plan. N. Korea dismantles their processing facilities and discloses all aspects of their nuclear program - and we give them food and humanitarian aid.

This differs from previous administrations. Clinton gave them nuclear fuel rods and reactor technology and cash - all for a promise that N. Korea wouldn't seek nuclear weapons. Of course, they didn't keep their promise - and reprocessed the fuel rods into weapons grade fissionable material for making nukes.

What the "Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill" has proposed would require N. Korea to dismantle their reprocessing facilities and disclose all the rest of their nuclear weapons program *before* getting a thin dime from the US.

I thought 'diplomacy' was what the liberals were screaming for. Well, there it is. And now you're saying it's the wrong thing to do? So we should invade N. Korea, instead?]

No wonder the left is laughed at. They're damned funny.

[Dark Helmet]

Cheaper than war I guess.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

This differs from previous administrations. Clinton gave them nuclear fuel rods and reactor technology and cash - all for a promise that N. Korea wouldn't seek nuclear weapons. Of course, they didn't keep their promise - and reprocessed the fuel rods into weapons grade fissionable material for making nukes.

Except Bush isn't making them dismantle all their nuclear facilities. Only the ones that are directly used for military purposes. N. Korea will still have their nuclear fuel rods and reactor technology, just like Clinton let them have.

So again, how is this different than what Clinton did?

[Spliffdaddy]

Yes, absolutely Bush is requiring the reprocessing facilities to be dismantled before N Korea gets anything. Says so in the article you posted.

Bush has *always* said he would be willing to have discussions with North Korea *if* they would stop their nuclear weapons programs. The only difference this time is he has stated exactly what he would do for N Korea - humanitarian assistance and food.

It is different from what Clinton did because Clinton just wanted a promise from N Korea.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I can't wait to see what our fellow forum members who were eager to criticize Clinton's actions in dealing with N. Korea have to say about this.

I'll say that you obviously have no comprehension of what Clinton offered versus this "deal". Anyone who has a clue about either can easily see the differences.

If Bush were to give the North Koreans the same exact deal, then I'd absolutely bitch and complain.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

YBush has *always* said he would be willing to have discussions with North Korea *if* they would stop their nuclear weapons programs. The only difference this time is he has stated exactly what he would do for N Korea - humanitarian assistance and food.

It is different from what Clinton did because Clinton just wanted a promise from N Korea.

The requirements are the same. Both wanted an inventory of all nuclear devices in North Korea. Bush wants the same promise Clinton got.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I'll say that you obviously have no comprehension of what Clinton offered versus this "deal". Anyone who has a clue about either can easily see the differences.

If Bush were to give the North Koreans the same exact deal, then I'd absolutely bitch and complain.

Alright. Go ahead and list everything that Clinton gave N. Korea in the way of nuclear technology.

Also, please tell me when Clinton made a deal with North Korea. Then tell me when North Korea was found to be making weapons grade plutonium. You might notice something... interesting?

[Spliffdaddy]

Now you're just stalling for time in an effort to make yourself look less wrong.

I'll guess that North Korea started reprocessing the fuel rods after Clinton gave them to North Korea.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Now you're just stalling for time in an effort to make yourself look less wrong.

I'll guess that North Korea started reprocessing the fuel rods after Clinton gave them to North Korea.

Nope. Before Clinton signed the treaty with them they were producing weapons grade plutonium from spent graphite fuel. Clinton did give them one (and only one) nuclear reactor, except North Korea already had quite a few nuclear reactors as it had been running it's nuclear program since the 1980's. North Korea was already making weapons grade plutonium when Clinton made a deal with them. And they already had nuclear reactors.

Clinton made the deal with them, and stipulated that they had to stop their military nuclear programs and fully disclose their nuclear programs. Hmmmm. That sounds familiar. Now where have I heard that before?

[Spliffdaddy]

For the 3rd time....

Bush requires verifiable compliance - where Clinton accepted a promise.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

For the 3rd time....

Bush requires verifiable compliance - where Clinton accepted a promise.

http://www.armscontrol.org/documents/af.asp

"2) Upon conclusion of the supply contract for the provision of the LWR project, ad hoc and routine inspections will resume under the DPRK’s safeguards agreement with the IAEA with respect to the facilities not subject to the freeze. Pending conclusion of the supply contract, inspections required by the IAEA for the continuity of safeguards will continue at the facilities not subject to the freeze."

Again, how is Bush's deal different?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

I thought 'diplomacy' was what the liberals were screaming for. Well, there it is. And now you're saying it's the wrong thing to do? So we should invade N. Korea, instead?]

No wonder the left is laughed at. They're damned funny.

How can you accuse them as being inconsistent on this issue?

1. People you laugh at: Peace with Iraq, war with North Korea
2. You: War with Iraq, peace with North Korea

3. Me: Laughs at all of you for being equally inconsistent.

Bush requires verifiable compliance - where Clinton accepted a promise.

Pakistan gave North Korea its nuclear technology. Pakistan claims now that this was all the action of a renegade scientist. But Pakistan refuses even to let the US interview Khan, who isn't even in jail (he's under house arrest).

Now we are standing by as Iran develops nuclear weapons. (Iran is a better parallel to Iraq than North Korea is, for judging possible policy inconsistencies, since North Korea already has nukes.)

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Again, how is Bush's deal different?

For the 4th time....

Bush requires verifiable compliance - where Clinton accepted a promise.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

For the 4th time....

Bush requires verifiable compliance - where Clinton accepted a promise.

You're still arguing this in the face of evidence I've presented. I've presented you with evidence that Clinton required verifiable compliance, and you have provided no evidence Bush is requiring verifiable compliance.

Just stating that Clinton did not require verifiable compliance over and over won't make it true.

Also, of note, if N. Korea had weapons grade plutonium before Clinton as the treaty and prior intelligence say, it's not really Clinton's fault North Korea has nukes, is it? I mean, sure, you could debate that maybe Clinton gave them more time... But he certainly didn't supply them with the means to make weapons grade plutonium. They already had that. And if you're going to pursue the "he gave them more time argument", well heck, Bush did the exact same thing.

[Atomic Rooster]

I think ALL countries should now threaten to start building a bomb.

[besson3c]

So, how is this Bush deal any different than the deal that Clinton made years ago?

[Ghoser777]

According to Spliffdaddy, it's verifiable compliance.

Or I might have misunderstood him.

[Spliffdaddy]

I think it's pretty damned obvious that North Korea did not comply with the agreement they made with Clinton.

To argue otherwise is laughable.

Either Clinton didn't require compliance - or he didn't verify it - before handing over nuclear technology and materials to North Korea. Either way you slice it, Clinton messed up.

Furthermore, he lied about having sexual relations with a chubby intern. Or do you want to dispute that fact, as well?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, how is this Bush deal any different than the deal that Clinton made years ago?

Originally Posted by Ghoser777 

According to Spliffdaddy, it's verifiable compliance.

Or I might have misunderstood him.

So, I take it the Bush Administration is going to verify that North Korea is diverting resources we give them from their nuclear energy program to their nuclear weapons program. Gotcha!


The Clinton Administration didn't do much, if any, verification regarding what North Korea did with the resources we gave them. But the Bush Administration thinks it is going to do prior and on-going verification once an agreement is signed? Fat Chance! Once Crazy-Kim II™ gets the first bit of food assistance he is going to start up his weapons program again. And when the US stops the food shipments because Crazy Kim II™ violated the agreement he is going to go before the world claiming we are trying to starve him. This will be a win-win situation for North Korea and a no-win situation for the US.

I really think the best way to deal with North Korea is through isolation and a war of attrition. He's got 20 or 30 years left to live and no male heir (Crazy Kim III™) to assume his position. I think we just wait out him and when something happens to his health or there is some kind of uprising we stand ready to expedite the process and remove him from power. This guy is a complete nutter so anything overt we do while he is alive leads to nuclear war on the Korean peninsula. When he croaks his generals will give a second though to launching the missiles when they know that our missiles will be on their way moments later. They may be able to lay waste to Seoul but we can lay waste to the whole peninsula; That will give them pause. I think that in time, cooler heads will prevail and when Crazy Kim II™ is on his death-bed there will be a blood-less coup and war will be averted.

Bookmark this post and come back in 20-30 years to see if I am correct. I think I will be.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

I think ALL countries should now threaten to start building a bomb.

Gays have the irrefutable right to nuclear "energy"! You can't stop us!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Gays have the irrefutable right to nuclear "energy"! You can't stop us!

Will a gay nuclear bomb have the rainbow flag painted on the side of it?

I picture the gay version of Dr. Strangelove with a femme bear in leather chaps and nothing else riding the missile, blowing kisses and shouting out "Hey" the whole way down.



<someone else needs to resurrect the gay-bomb thread from a few years ago. I am too lazy to do a search. It was good stuff, though.>

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Bush requires verifiable compliance - where Clinton accepted a promise.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

So, I take it the Bush Administration is going to verify that North Korea is diverting resources we give them from their nuclear energy program to their nuclear weapons program. Gotcha!

The Clinton Administration didn't do much, if any, verification regarding what North Korea did with the resources we gave them.

Yes they did. Part of the deal required regular inspections on the facilities and reports on what was being used for what. North Korea was also required to have inspectors there to constantly monitor their activities. It also required North Korea to dismantle all their nuclear weapons projects. North Korea had increasingly made it difficult for inspectors and started extracting the rods from their stations. Clinton then stated the U.S. would declare war on North Korea if they proceeded with extractions, at which point North Korea had stopped and negotiations had started. Towards the end of Clinton's second term and into the beginning of Bush's, North Korea kicked out all the inspectors and stopped all negotiations.

If Bush does the same thing, North Korea will just falsify reports and slowly kick out the inspectors just like they did with Clinton.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Either Clinton didn't require compliance - or he didn't verify it - before handing over nuclear technology and materials to North Korea.

They already had the technology, this was for additional power plants.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Either way you slice it, Clinton messed up.

Yes, he did. As usual, the Democrats made hollow threats. They should've invaded North Korea when they were extracting the fuel rods and kicking out the inspectors.

As much as I disagree with the Iraqi war, I'd support Bush 100% if his administration decided to occupy and control North Korea.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

I think it's pretty damned obvious that North Korea did not comply with the agreement they made with Clinton.

To argue otherwise is laughable.

Either Clinton didn't require compliance - or he didn't verify it - before handing over nuclear technology and materials to North Korea. Either way you slice it, Clinton messed up.

Furthermore, he lied about having sexual relations with a chubby intern. Or do you want to dispute that fact, as well?

Ahhhhhh... So now you're taking a few steps back. It's not that Clinton didn't require verification, it's that N. Korea managed out outwit our intelligence. I mean, inspectors entered the country, inspectors didn't find anything.

So now you're saying... North Korea is going to comply simply because George Bush is.... George Bush. I mean, George Bush is making the same deal Clinton did... with the same conditions, and I'm assuming he'll have inspectors in North Korea just like Clinton did... but now somehow it's all going to be different. Using... force powers? Maybe he's hiring a hypnotist. I don't know. Whatever the case, your point simply seems to be that the exact same thing Clinton did will work this time because "it's George Bush!"

(Which is still ignoring that North Korea had weapons grade plutonium before Clinton was in office.)

(Which is also still ignoring that Bush didn't do anything when N. Korea kicked out inspectors out and openly declared they had a military nuclear program. I find it absurd you can attack Clinton for "not doing anything", when North Korea openly declared they had a nuclear program and all Bush did was act like he was 7 and call them bad names in a State of the Union speech. And people wonder why North Korea isn't scared of us.)

[goMac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

As much as I disagree with the Iraqi war, I'd support Bush 100% if his administration decided to occupy and control North Korea.

Ditto. Although I wouldn't want Bush in charge for a war with North Korea. With Bush in charge, we wouldn't emerge from that war without South Korea being a glass parking lot. I think getting some sort, any sort, of military support from China would be the way to go.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Ahhhhhh... So now you're taking a few steps back. It's not that Clinton didn't require verification, it's that N. Korea managed out outwit our intelligence. I mean, inspectors entered the country, inspectors didn't find anything.

So now you're saying... North Korea is going to comply simply because George Bush is.... George Bush. I mean, George Bush is making the same deal Clinton did... with the same conditions, and I'm assuming he'll have inspectors in North Korea just like Clinton did... but now somehow it's all going to be different. Using... force powers? Maybe he's hiring a hypnotist. I don't know. Whatever the case, your point simply seems to be that the exact same thing Clinton did will work this time because "it's George Bush!"

(Which is still ignoring that North Korea had weapons grade plutonium before Clinton was in office.)

(Which is also still ignoring that Bush didn't do anything when N. Korea kicked out inspectors out and openly declared they had a military nuclear program. I find it absurd you can attack Clinton for "not doing anything", when North Korea openly declared they had a nuclear program and all Bush did was act like he was 7 and call them bad names in a State of the Union speech. And people wonder why North Korea isn't scared of us.)

I don't think you should misunderestimate the fear that George W. Bush can instill in people. Fear can be a very powerful tool. Hell, every time W. opens his mouth I fear I am going to wet myself from laughter.

[tie]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

As much as I disagree with the Iraqi war, I'd support Bush 100% if his administration decided to occupy and control North Korea.

I wouldn't. At this point, I think we need new leadership. Bush would try to fight North Korea with 1/2 as many troops as we'd need. No thanks, I'd rather win wars.

[goMac]

I think the best way to take care of it would just be to take Kim out. Not an easy task at all, very risky. If we're found out it would definitely cause issues, I doubt with the international community, but it would make Kim a little more eager to lob some nukes.

That said, Kim doesn't trust other people enough to let them fill critical positions in the government. Taking out Kim might start a revolution or civil war in North Korea.

The downside is you wouldn't want nuclear weapons to get into the hands of a splinter group. We'd have to be willing to also move in and disarm the nuclear weapons.

And again, we're going to need some support from China on this.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by tie 

I wouldn't. At this point, I think we need new leadership. Bush would try to fight North Korea with 1/2 as many troops as we'd need. No thanks, I'd rather win wars.

Good point. I'd support the initiative, but I'd rather have Wesley Clark or someone as president before doing so.

It's too bad, I think Clark would've made a decent president.

[Dakar²]

Clark came off (I think legitimately so) as clueless on domestic social issues.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Gays have the irrefutable right to nuclear "energy"! You can't stop us!

Funny you should mention that. Many years ago there was spoof James Bond type movie and the agent had to stop the evil villain from using a 'gay bomb'.

Bomb made everyone gay.

Damned if I can remember it. It may have starred Peter Sellers.

[macintologist]

Why not just let go of the whole thing and let them have their damn nukes. Does nuclear deterrent mean NOTHING to you people?