[Cody Dawg]

"Except for my wife and family, this is my favourite photo," said Mr Rumsfeld.

The top is NK with no electricity and the bottom is South Korea.

This just shows what a dictator tyrant their "leader" is. I've read about how the people boil grass and eat bark and insects to simply live. Anyone who has any doubts about taking that sick little psychopath Kim Jong Mentally Ill out should re-evaluate their belief systems.

[Spliffdaddy]

but but...Clinton gave them nuclear power plants.

(but I guess they reprocessed the fuel rods into bombs)

whoa. There's a glimmer of light in NK. Wonder if that's Kim's personal residence?

edit:

on a brighter note, it's apparent they aren't contributing to global warming.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

This just shows what a dictator tyrant their "leader" is. I've read about how the people boil grass and eat bark and insects to simply live. Anyone who has any doubts about taking that sick little psychopath Kim Jong Mentally Ill out should re-evaluate their belief systems.

Ahhh yes. We should take out every sick psycopath in the world who causes harm to other people! And hell, **** Africa - those people are starving anyway! Let's invade Korea, mother****ers! **** yeah!

[/ridiculousness]

greg

[Spliffdaddy]

pfft. Canada ain't invading nuthin.

[Kerrigan]

I think that single patch of light is Shortcut's straw man burning.

[Spliffdaddy]

I dunno. Just a thought. But what if we were to promise a flashlight to every North Korean if they would overthrow the government?

Fight Smarter®

[dialo]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

but but...Clinton gave them nuclear power plants.

(but I guess they reprocessed the fuel rods into bombs)

The nuclear power plants were not built.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I think that single patch of light is Shortcut's straw man burning.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by dialo

The nuclear power plants were not built.

Why the hell did we give them fuel rods for non existing power plants?

[Cody Dawg]

Ask Madeline Al-BRIGHT.

Spliffdaddy

but but...Clinton gave them nuclear power plants.

(but I guess they reprocessed the fuel rods into bombs)

whoa. There's a glimmer of light in NK. Wonder if that's Kim's personal residence?

edit:

on a brighter note, it's apparent they aren't contributing to global warming.

Where are all the libs? I'm surprised their not defending their little pot bellied fascist favorite NK dictator. Shortcut, are you taking the entire gig by yourself?

[dialo]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Why the hell did we give them fuel rods for non existing power plants?

???

The "fuel rods" in news reports came from North Korea's own plutonium-producing power plant that the Agreed Framework shut down in 1994 and that North Korea started working on again in 2002 when kim jong il decided to go apeshit again.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

"Except for my wife and family, this is my favourite photo," said Mr Rumsfeld.

The top is NK with no electricity and the bottom is South Korea.

This just shows what a dictator tyrant their "leader" is. I've read about how the people boil grass and eat bark and insects to simply live. Anyone who has any doubts about taking that sick little psychopath Kim Jong Mentally Ill out should re-evaluate their belief systems.

I'm going to take a wild guess where Kim lives.

[BRussell]

I think it's a great idea to take him out. What could possibly go wrong with that?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

"Except for my wife and family, this is my favourite photo," said Mr Rumsfeld.

The top is NK with no electricity and the bottom is South Korea.

This just shows what a dictator tyrant their "leader" is. I've read about how the people boil grass and eat bark and insects to simply live. Anyone who has any doubts about taking that sick little psychopath Kim Jong Mentally Ill out should re-evaluate their belief systems.

Idiot.

Rummy would never have said favourite. He'd have said favorite.

V

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Rummy would never have said favourite. He'd have said favorite.

heh.

so the attempt to blame clinton for supplying NK with weapons has fallen flat. at the very least, it can be said that clinton delayed the inevitabale for six years. with korea withdrawing from the NPT in 2002 and testing a weapon four years later, bush's policy to prevent WMD development there has failed as well.

for this thread to be worthwhile, you have to forget the useless US ethno-centric republican/democrat issue and look at it from a pacific-rim policy issue: china, japan, south korea, the US and russia.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

heh.

so the attempt to blame clinton for supplying NK with weapons has fallen flat. at the very least, it can be said that clinton delayed the inevitabale for six years. with korea withdrawing from the NPT in 2002 and testing a weapon four years later, bush's policy to prevent WMD development there has failed as well.

for this thread to be worthwhile, you have to forget the useless US ethno-centric republican/democrat issue and look at it from a pacific-rim policy issue: china, japan, south korea, the US and russia.

Clinton didn't DELAY anything at all. Kim never followed any of the so-called agreements. I agree that so far the results have been pretty flat all around though.

As I said in another thread: The thing is, two-party talks are useless with Kim and this is something that Bush actually has right. US to NK diplomacy is nothing more than masturbation. The only way to have any leverage over NK is to get China involved and they were all that interested before. This is very important because Bush gets accused for doing little or NOTHING about Kim but there really is little he can do without China.

Now that NK actually has China peeved at them we may have China on board. So as much as we'd all like to blame all these failures on Clinton, Bush or both. I can't really see what else could have been done in the light of China's refusal to go along.

[ironknee]

i suppose to some, this subject excludes any mention to the last 6 years.

more than a 4 year college experience even i tellya

[spindler]

What's really sad here is that 100,000s of Iraqi's are dead for, AND THERE IS NO GAIN.

If we had simply dropped a targeted nuke on Kim Jong Il, perhaps at some point when he left Pyongyang to a less populated area, we might have had to kill 100,000 North Koreans to take him out, but the other 20,000,000 would then be free. Since they are starving, there would be no danger of them forming any militias. And since they aren't psycho religious fanatics, it wouldn't have been hard to form a democracy and live happily ever after.

It would be pretty easy with the help of the South Koreans to get a democracy going.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by spindler

If we had simply dropped a targeted nuke on Kim Jong Il, perhaps at some point when he left Pyongyang to a less populated area, we might have had to kill 100,000 North Koreans to take him out, but the other 20,000,000 would then be free. Since they are starving, there would be no danger of them forming any militias. And since they aren't psycho religious fanatics, it wouldn't have been hard to form a democracy and live happily ever after.

That's a neat idea.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Clinton didn't DELAY anything at all. Kim never followed any of the so-called agreements...

and neither did we!

Originally Posted by smacintush

As I said in another thread: The thing is, two-party talks are useless with Kim and this is something that Bush actually has right. US to NK diplomacy is nothing more than masturbation. The only way to have any leverage over NK is to get China involved and they were all that interested before. This is very important because Bush gets accused for doing little or NOTHING about Kim but there really is little he can do without China.

our relationship with china isn't one where we can demand or influence them much, since we are basically beholden to them for the products that supports our dwindling manufacturing economy.

Originally Posted by smacintush

Now that NK actually has China peeved at them we may have China on board. So as much as we'd all like to blame all these failures on Clinton, Bush or both. I can't really see what else could have been done in the light of China's refusal to go along.

i heard on the radio that a naval blockade would do little since the majority of NK's trade is done through railways into china. i'm not sure what kind of trade goes on along that border, or the nature of that relationship for that matter. despite their obvious differences, japan's recent embargo on NK goods shows that there are plenty of trade amongst the region. trade seems to me to be the key.

i hope that some pressure can be exerted on NK through china. despite living in AK and in view of the taepodong missle recent failure and the abysmal yield of their test, imo NK still remains a SE asia threat only and should be dealt with by those most likely to be affected by any serious threats that NK poses.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by spindler

What's really sad here is that 100,000s of Iraqi's are dead for, AND THERE IS NO GAIN.

If we had simply dropped a targeted nuke on Kim Jong Il, perhaps at some point when he left Pyongyang to a less populated area, we might have had to kill 100,000 North Koreans to take him out, but the other 20,000,000 would then be free. Since they are starving, there would be no danger of them forming any militias. And since they aren't psycho religious fanatics, it wouldn't have been hard to form a democracy and live happily ever after.

It would be pretty easy with the help of the South Koreans to get a democracy going.

And what makes you think China will let the last part happen?

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Dakar

And what makes you think China will let the last part happen?

of course it would be a democracy... or, you know, maybe commercial... er, communism. whatever. one satisfies our idealism. the other our economy. it's win-win!

but not both at the same time.

[dialo]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Clinton didn't DELAY anything at all.

It did. In 1994 North Korea had one running plutonium producing reactor and was in the process of building two more much larger ones. They were pulling out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to start up a full-scale nuclear weapons program. The Agreed Framwork halted all of that and reduced the nuclear program considerably.

If North Korea had just been left to continue going down the path it was on its nuclear program and capabilities would be far, far beyond what they are now.

[D. S. Troyer]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

pfft. Canada ain't invading nuthin.

Clinton, Canada and Foley all give you hard-on.

You need some serious bitch-slappin' Spliffy old boy, but then again you might like it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I'm going to take a wild guess where Kim lives.

And: I can't stand Kim, or his current regime. I don't support him in any way, and I look forward to the day when he's desposed. That's not the point - and I didn't have a straw man, either. People like Cody who go around here pointing out who should be killed or who should be "taken out" because of what they're doing make me shake my head (after all, I'm vindicated making a blanket statement when she posts as many of these threads as she does).

However hot she might be (), her attitude sickens me. She gets incensed when someone talks about teabagging and/or sexual content, yet feels it is right and just to start a major Asian war because Il-Jong won't let his people leave the lights on?? May God damn this misplaced Christian hyprocrisy.

greg

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Ask Madeline Al-BRIGHT.









Where are all the libs? I'm surprised their not defending their little pot bellied fascist favorite NK dictator. Shortcut, are you taking the entire gig by yourself?

Alrighty then, I'll represent the libs here cause I am an avowed tree hugger, therefore I assume I qualify.

First off, I doubt if you'll find anyone, left or right, who'll defend the DPRK.

Your simplistic that dude is bad let's take him out strategy does offer us a glimpse into how little you know of the situation on the ground on the Korean peninsula.

The DPRK has a 1.2 million man army. Estimates range from half to 70% are deployed along the DMZ. That would include about 500 long-range artillery tubes within range of Seoul, and the total rate of fire of thjese artillery pieces would be between 2,000 and 4,000 rounds per minute. The DPRK's two hundred 240mm MRLs fire either 12 or 22 rounds, providing a maximum single salvo of 4,400 rounds. Reports by defectors and other accounts in the open literature indicate that North Korea currently possesses blister (e.g., mustard), nerve (e.g., sarin), choking (e.g., phosgene), and blood agents (e.g., hydrogen cyanide), the best means of delivery for these bio weapons are....large caliber artillery shells.

Reflecting Soviet military doctrine, the DPRK has traditionally viewed chemical weapons as an integral part of any military offensive. There are no indications that this view has altered since the end of the Cold War. The most obvious tactical use of chemical weapons by the DPRK would be to terrorize South Korean civilians. Seoul lies within easy striking distance of North Korea's artillery and rocket systems and, today, the South Korean civilian population has no protection against CW attack.

There's really no point in going further. I'm sure you, in your conservativeness, have a well devised plan which you'll be sharing with the Pentagon on how to eliminate these 700 artillery pieces (BTW: Most of these are in hardened bunkers or caves, exposed only for the time it takes to fire or are highly mobile - which would mean that counter battery measures would have to be highly accurate and within a very very small window of opportunity - what is termed in the military as a extremely sensitive, time–critical target. The MLS systems take 44 seconds to fire their load and another 75 - 120 seconds to lower the launcher, raise the stabilization pads and return to their underground bunkers. We then have 119-164 seconds to return fire and destroy them. That is of course if ours or the RoK soldiers are not choking to death or having their central nervous system destroyed by the chem weapons attack.)

So, your up for launching a war against the DPRK to save it's citizens from starving, a war which would require mobilization on our part, something the paranoid DPRK would see and probably launch a massive preemptive strike against the South. Putting aside our 29,000 2nd Division and other service troops who would be sacrificial lambs Seoul, with a population of 10M would be the main target of the 4000-10000 initial artillery shells (including chems) - it is DPRK military stategy to terrorize the civillian population of SK.

Millions will surely die during the war itself, but in the end DPRK would collapse, the regime has nothing holding it up but the military and eventually, probably in months, not weeks, it would be defeated (we'll have to wait till their fuel supplies are wasted or eliminated). Once it collapses you'll see the rise of local war lords (which by the way already exists there) and then you'll have a humanity crisis of epic proportions. Millions of refugeees will head south, millions in the South themselves will be refugees, millions more will try to cross into China. We are then left responsible for housing, feeding, providing medical care (on a long range - think Japan rebuilding after WWII scale). Considering our track record in handling human crisis in Iraq and our own country (remember Katrina) what gives you the faith that we'd be able to successfully handle one 6000 miles away in yet another foreign culture? Millions more will die from starvation, cold, disease and other hardships.

And what do you say to China and Russia as we go about making things go boom in their backyard and spheres of influence? I guess this is where your"middle finger" foreign policy process comes into affect?

I guess I am just a squeamish lib without the guts to break a few eggs to make the omlet. Certainly Kim is bad for the North Korean people and no one deserves to live under the conditions his regime instills, but taking him out by force, though in the end will probably be successful, will produce results which are far worse than the current situation.

War is a possibility on the Korean Peninsula and the apocolyptic results of it a reality, better we be the ones defending the world from that than the ones bringing it on.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Alrighty then, I'll represent the libs here cause I am an avowed tree hugger, therefore I assume I qualify.

First off, I doubt if you'll find anyone, left or right, who'll defend the DPRK.

Your simplistic that dude is bad let's take him out strategy does offer us a glimpse into how little you know of the situation on the ground on the Korean peninsula.

The DPRK has a 1.2 million man army. Estimates range from half to 70% are deployed along the DMZ. That would include about 500 long-range artillery tubes within range of Seoul, and the total rate of fire of thjese artillery pieces would be between 2,000 and 4,000 rounds per minute. The DPRK's two hundred 240mm MRLs fire either 12 or 22 rounds, providing a maximum single salvo of 4,400 rounds. Reports by defectors and other accounts in the open literature indicate that North Korea currently possesses blister (e.g., mustard), nerve (e.g., sarin), choking (e.g., phosgene), and blood agents (e.g., hydrogen cyanide), the best means of delivery for these bio weapons are....large caliber artillery shells.

Reflecting Soviet military doctrine, the DPRK has traditionally viewed chemical weapons as an integral part of any military offensive. There are no indications that this view has altered since the end of the Cold War. The most obvious tactical use of chemical weapons by the DPRK would be to terrorize South Korean civilians. Seoul lies within easy striking distance of North Korea's artillery and rocket systems and, today, the South Korean civilian population has no protection against CW attack.

There's really no point in going further. I'm sure you, in your conservativeness, have a well devised plan which you'll be sharing with the Pentagon on how to eliminate these 700 artillery pieces (BTW: Most of these are in hardened bunkers or caves, exposed only for the time it takes to fire or are highly mobile - which would mean that counter battery measures would have to be highly accurate and within a very very small window of opportunity - what is termed in the military as a extremely sensitive, time–critical target. The MLS systems take 44 seconds to fire their load and another 75 - 120 seconds to lower the launcher, raise the stabilization pads and return to their underground bunkers. We then have 119-164 seconds to return fire and destroy them. That is of course if ours or the RoK soldiers are not choking to death or having their central nervous system destroyed by the chem weapons attack.)

So, your up for launching a war against the DPRK to save it's citizens from starving, a war which would require mobilization on our part, something the paranoid DPRK would see and probably launch a massive preemptive strike against the South. Putting aside our 29,000 2nd Division and other service troops who would be sacrificial lambs Seoul, with a population of 10M would be the main target of the 4000-10000 initial artillery shells (including chems) - it is DPRK military stategy to terrorize the civillian population of SK.

Millions will surely die during the war itself, but in the end DPRK would collapse, the regime has nothing holding it up but the military and eventually, probably in months, not weeks, it would be defeated (we'll have to wait till their fuel supplies are wasted or eliminated). Once it collapses you'll see the rise of local war lords (which by the way already exists there) and then you'll have a humanity crisis of epic proportions. Millions of refugeees will head south, millions in the South themselves will be refugees, millions more will try to cross into China. We are then left responsible for housing, feeding, providing medical care (on a long range - think Japan rebuilding after WWII scale). Considering our track record in handling human crisis in Iraq and our own country (remember Katrina) what gives you the faith that we'd be able to successfully handle one 6000 miles away in yet another foreign culture? Millions more will die from starvation, cold, disease and other hardships.

And what do you say to China and Russia as we go about making things go boom in their backyard and spheres of influence? I guess this is where your"middle finger" foreign policy process comes into affect?

I guess I am just a squeamish lib without the guts to break a few eggs to make the omlet. Certainly Kim is bad for the North Korean people and no one deserves to live under the conditions his regime instills, but taking him out by force, though in the end will probably be successful, will produce results which are far worse than the current situation.

War is a possibility on the Korean Peninsula and the apocolyptic results of it a reality, better we be the ones defending the world from that than the ones bringing it on.

The only place you lost me RI was the "conservativeness" dig. Most Conservatives I've spoken with are wholly aware of the extreme volatility of that region. I among others, have claimed that N. Korea is no more US's responsibility than Mexico is China's. The conservative approach to this issue has remained consistently in favor of 6 party talks over symbolic bilateral talks with N. Korea. Why? Because N. Korea can only be properly dealt with by all 6 parties, not by any two. Whatever action is taken, must be in concert. When the left throw their hands in the air regarding why we've not acted against N. Korea, they show more ignorance to the volatility of that region than anyone adhering to staunch "conservativeness". IMHO, the only action that can be taken is stiff sanctioning which would be viewed as a declaration of War (according to Kim) and we would then return to the top of your post. This world will indeed come to a head of ideals and you're right, we should be defending the world. Though I must admit, your post was hardly the "tree-hugging" angle I had expected.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The only place you lost me RI was the "conservativeness" dig. Most Conservatives I've spoken with are wholly aware of the extreme volatility of that region.

It's always a mistake to equate "cody" with "conservativism." Something that involves some sort of derangement would probably be more appropriate.

greg

[davesimondotcom]

So why does everyone want to blame either Clinton or Bush for NK getting a nuke? What about the UN? What about the rest of the world?

What about Kim Jong Il???

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

What about Kim Jong Il???

The blame is implied.

That and he's f'in nuts.

[dialo]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

So why does everyone want to blame either Clinton or Bush for NK getting a nuke?

Well, the current crisis is a direct result of the bush admin's inability to exert any amount of control on kim jong il and just scrapping the existing control structure without replacing it with anything. Some amount of US control over the situation is better than none.

What about the UN? What about the rest of the world?

Very good point. Why does so much of the world seem to be so apathetic about North Korea becoming nuclear?! WTF?!

What about Kim Jong Il???

I think it's just implied that he's a total nutcase, and not just in a rhetorical, hyperbolic sense, but rather a real, live nutcase.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

So why does everyone want to blame either Clinton or Bush for NK getting a nuke? What about the UN? What about the rest of the world?

What about Kim Jong Il???

I've actually said this before myself. Really, the one to blame is N. Korea. I haven't jumped on the whole blame Bush/Clinton wagon. As far as the UN, there was a time when China wouldn't even hear talk about N. Korea. Without China I'm afraid there can be no policy on N. Korea.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dialo

Well, the current crisis is a direct result of the bush admin's inability to exert any amount of control on kim jong il and just scrapping the existing control structure without replacing it with anything.

We can tell you're simply not much for Bush, but... what would your suggestions be? Please don't say "talk" and "peace". Please be specific.

*hint; your answer should probably align with your statement that Kim Jong Il is a nutcase. I'll wait right here.

*edited to include; goodbye dialo.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I've actually said this before myself. Really, the one to blame is N. Korea. I haven't jumped on the whole blame Bush/Clinton wagon. As far as the UN, there was a time when China wouldn't even hear talk about N. Korea. Without China I'm afraid there can be no policy on N. Korea.

Our government's story line right now is that a US treaty with NK would be ineffective psycho appeasement, and tough talk is what gets results. But I'd say it's important to point out that the historical record doesn't support that view. The 1994 agreement put an end to NK's announced intention to develop nuclear weapons at the time, and only several years after the Bush admin's withdrawal from the agreement did NK begin testing nuclear weapons.

I know it's partisan of me and we should all be fair and balanced and place blame equally, but there is such a thing as truth, and I believe it's actually a good thing to accurately identify truth and falsity.

We're not going to war with NK. Several years ago Bush said we would not let NK get nuclear weapons, but when they thumbed their nose at the tough talk nothing happened. Of course not - no one wants to go to war with North Korea. Not even this government. So what do we do? Clinton's approach. It worked. If they agree to stop testing nuclear weapons, we agree to not attack them and we open up diplomatic relations. Over time, the country will open up - it will probably take a while, but it will happen.

[dialo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

We can tell you're simply not much for Bush, but... what would your suggestions be? Please don't say "talk" and "peace". Please be specific.

Outmaneuver him without going to war. That's what dimplomacy is about.

Kim jong il is far from a sophisticated statesman and his reactions are pretty much strictly visceral. The 1994 agreement did get North Korea to cease what at the time was a quickly expanding plutonium program. It was far from perfect, but it certainly served its purpose and it made it clear that we can get North Korea to make huge concessions if we use the right tactics.

[DBursey]

That single spot of light in the north is Pyongyang.

The large blob of light directly to the southwest of the DMZ is Seoul.

RIRedinPA spelled out quite aptly what would happen to the large blob of light following an allied attack on North Korea. That white blob would quickly dim to an orange haze.

Spliffdaddy: Canada's armed forces are taking the lead in dealing with the mess left in Afghanistan. This amounts to the 2nd time the US has cut & run in that country.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The only place you lost me RI was the "conservativeness" dig. Most Conservatives I've spoken with are wholly aware of the extreme volatility of that region. I among others, have claimed that N. Korea is no more US's responsibility than Mexico is China's. The conservative approach to this issue has remained consistently in favor of 6 party talks over symbolic bilateral talks with N. Korea. Why? Because N. Korea can only be properly dealt with by all 6 parties, not by any two. Whatever action is taken, must be in concert. When the left throw their hands in the air regarding why we've not acted against N. Korea, they show more ignorance to the volatility of that region than anyone adhering to staunch "conservativeness". IMHO, the only action that can be taken is stiff sanctioning which would be viewed as a declaration of War (according to Kim) and we would then return to the top of your post. This world will indeed come to a head of ideals and you're right, we should be defending the world. Though I must admit, your post was hardly the "tree-hugging" angle I had expected.

I'll recant the conservative dig, I was countering the where are the liberals request, which makes me assume the poster visions him/herself a conservative.

My tree hugging wasn't in there but I am.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Ahhh yes. We should take out every sick psycopath in the world who causes harm to other people! And hell, **** Africa - those people are starving anyway! Let's invade Korea, mother****ers! **** yeah!

[/ridiculousness]

greg

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dialo

???

The "fuel rods" in news reports came from North Korea's own plutonium-producing power plant that the Agreed Framework shut down in 1994 and that North Korea started working on again in 2002 when kim jong il decided to go apeshit again.

Actually he anounced what was going on in 2002. They had been working on it all along.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dialo

Well, the current crisis is a direct result of the bush admin's inability to exert any amount of control on kim jong il and just scrapping the existing control structure without replacing it with anything. Some amount of US control over the situation is better than none.

No, the current crisis isn't current at all. It's one that has been dragged on since the 90s. It never stopped.

And it's neither Bush or Clinton's FAULT. Though the right told Clinton in the 90s that his "solution" wasn't a solution at all, and Kim would continue to do what he wanted behind closed doors regardless.

Guess who was right.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DBursey

Spliffdaddy: Canada's armed forces are taking the lead in dealing with the mess left in Afghanistan. This amounts to the 2nd time the US has cut & run in that country.

I think there is a spin here somewhere. Anyone point it out?

[dialo]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Actually he anounced what was going on in 2002. They had been working on it all along.

Absolutely wrong. You are confusing the plutonium (reactors & fuel rods) program, the program they are using to actually make bombs, with the uranium enrichment program they admitted to in 2002. The plutonium program had been completely halted and put under constant monitoring until the end of 2002/beginning of 2003 when they removed the monitoring equiptment from the reactor and unsealed the fuel rods.

[DBursey]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I think there is a spin here somewhere. Anyone point it out?

C'mon Kevin ... enlighten us!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dialo

Absolutely wrong. You are confusing the plutonium (reactors & fuel rods) program, the program they are using to actually make bombs, with the uranium enrichment program they admitted to in 2002. The plutonium program had been completely halted and put under constant monitoring until the end of 2002/beginning of 2003 when they removed the monitoring equiptment from the reactor and unsealed the fuel rods.

Again, you have no proof they weren't working on such things beforehand. Your information is only what Kim has told us. NEITHER of us actually know the "facts"

Their striving for nuke weapons NEVER STOPPED however.

They have been looking for a legit excuse to have them for decades.

They were working on a plan even before Clinton.

Again, we aren't blaming Clinton for this. This isn't Clinton's fault. NOR is it Bush's

But you seem dead set on blaming him. Why? Partisan wankery?

[dialo]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Again, you have no proof they weren't working on such things beforehand. Your information is only what Kim has told us. NEITHER of us actually know the "facts"

Absolutely untrue. The equiptment was sealed and under constant survelliance. The construction was halted at the other reactors. There has never been any question about what was happening with the reactors.

Their striving for nuke weapons NEVER STOPPED however.

Of course.

But you seem dead set on blaming him. Why? Partisan wankery?

It's not about "blaming," it's about describing what happened and is happening.

[Kevin]

Yes it is blaming

Well, the current crisis is a direct result of the bush admin's inability to exert any amount of control on kim jong il and just scrapping the existing control structure without replacing it with anything.

That is blaming Bush on NK's current happenstances. Which is 100% Silly.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yes it is blaming

Well, the current crisis is a direct result of the bush admin's inability to exert any amount of control on kim jong il and just scrapping the existing control structure without replacing it with anything.

That is blaming Bush on NK's current happenstances. Which is 100% Silly.

Our government is blaming Clinton's agreement - Bush, Condi, future candidate John McCain, have all very directly blamed Clinton's policy. And they're doing so in a way that 1) distorts the actual historical record and 2) buttresses what up to this point has been an ineffective strategy.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Our government is blaming Clinton's agreement - Bush, Condi, future candidate John McCain, have all very directly blamed Clinton's policy.

They said what Clinton did or did not do, did not HELP the matter. None said that Clinton was to blame for NK getting nukes I don't believe. If they did, they too are wrong.

And they're doing so in a way that 1) distorts the actual historical record and 2) buttresses what up to this point has been an ineffective strategy.

1. I don't agree with
2. No strategy is going to stop NK from getting nukes if they want them.

Not throwing money, not "talking" with them. Nothing.

Not that this has anything to do with the post you replied to...