user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Geez, Rightwingers just can't grasp the concept of "accountability," can they.
Six years of total control, and it's still always someone else's fault.
 Hell, I sold them the ploutonium myself.
Of course, they did get a little help from our "ally" Pakistan. 
Cathexis- Do you have any proof that they put more priority on it in the past 6 years? Or are you merely guessing?
Soc: That is my speculation, based on perceived reactions.
BTW, there is a possibility that either the NK bomb was a dud or that it was a fake -- and being at such a primitive stage would seem to affirm the wisdom of the Clinton strategy.
And I am not alone in my perception of NK's actions as a reaction. Former US National Security Advisor Donald Gregg, under Bush I, I believe, adds "Don't panic. Kim Jong Il's objective is survival and eventual change in North Korea, not suicide."
Cath: so they began their nuclear program in the 90s, in the anticipation that a president would be elected in the new millenium, at which point they could finish it, test and bomb and thus avoid an invasion, even though no invasion was threatened and they have an army of several million men? Interesting logic.
I think perhaps your hatred of bush has overridden your common sense.
And their missle test in the mid-90s, which was very provacative, and their attempts to start a war with the US ever since the end of the korean war, were all perhaps just premature ways to stick it to bush? They got a little ahead of themselves it seems.
"BTW, there is a possibility that either the NK bomb was a dud or that it was a fake -- and being at such a primitive stage would seem to affirm the wisdom of the Clinton strategy."
Ha! You assume it was a failure based on no evidence, and then use this assumption to prove that clinton was right?
Think cath, are these the justifications of a rational person or a mindless fanatic?
Voted : They were working on it prior to bush
Yeah, they are iNnOcEnT aNd PuRe LiKe AnGeLs. This approach will work so well with Iran too.
herzog & FF ...
Here is a bit of history for you folks that conveniently forget every politically incovenient event that ever occurred (as outlined by Joshua Marshall) ...
* The 1994 crisis came about because the North Koreans were producing weapons- grade plutonium. Under the Agreed Framework, they agreed to shutter the plutonium production facility and put the already produced plutonium under international oversight.
In return, the US promised aide, help building lightwater reactors (which don't help with bombs) and diplomatic normalization.
* That agreement kept the plutonium operation on ice until the end of 2002.
* President George W Bush came to office wanting to pull out of the agreement and did so when evidence surfaced suggesting that the North Koreans were secretly trying to enrich uranium (a separate path to the bomb).
The bomb that was tested was made with plutonium -- the same stuff that was off- limits from 1994 - 2002.
In all likelihood some of the same stuff that was on ice from 1994 - 2002.
I do not believe that anyone thinks the North Koreans are close to having enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon that way. And it's not even completely clear they were ever trying to enrich uranium.
So Clinton strikes a deal to keep plutonium out of the North Koreans' hands. The deal keeps the plutonium out of reach for the last six years of Clinton's term and the first two of Bush's. Bush pulls out of the deal. Four years later a plutonium bomb explodes.
Clinton's fault, right? Bush is pure and innocent, right?
Wake up and smell the coffee. Self- delusion that is that strong can't be good for you.
Cath: wow, so you actually believe that they kept their promise and did not begin processing uranium elsewhere? While we were watching one place they simply gave up, and pursued it no where else despite having an entire nation where we did not have any access to? I've always known the left tends to naivete, but this is pushing it.
Besides which, doesn't that disprove your notion that they only built a nuclear weapons program in response to bush? It seems if they had one under clinton then it wasn't bushs fault. Unless perhaps you believe him to be so evil that his actions reverberate backwards through time?
And you even stated that we pulled out of the agreement after "evidence surfaced suggesting that the North Koreans were secretly trying to enrich uranium".
Great agreement there. We do nothing, and NK agrees to continue producing weapons, but in secret.
How exactly is that a good thing?
Cathexis- what herzog said.
Plus, although the reactors Clinton built for North Korea supposedly did not contribute to weapon technology- it still gave North Korea more wriggle room in which they could divert more resources toward their weapon program. Clinton responded to North Korean aggression by providing them with aid, reduced sanctioning and built reactors for them- giving the North Koreans much more wriggle room - with reactors built for them, with sanctions reduced - they had more money that they could spend on their weapons program which many say continued after the Clinton Agreement. It also basically displayed to North Korea that being provocative would not be met with a serious resposne, but rather panicked acts of desperation, rewards and benefits to North Korea if it promised not to do so again. Perhaps North Korea launched the 1998 missile over Japan not because it wanted war, but because it knew it could intimidate the USA and the rest into giving it more and more benefits, which would most certainly stabilise the regime there more so and also give it more wriggle room to divert money to projects such as weapon programs (which most analysts believe continued and never really ceased developing during the 90's, regardless of the 'promises' that were made).
North Korea has had a nuclear weapons development program since the 1950s.
NORTH KOREA HAS HAD A NUCLEAR PROGRAM STRIVING TO COMPLETE A FUNCTIONAL DEVICE LONG BEFORE W CAME ALONG
|
|
