North Korea blows up it's nuclear tower

[Parkbandit]

North Korea has demolished the cooling tower at its Yongbyon nuclear reactor, in a symbol of its commitment to talks on ending its nuclear programme.

International television crews were invited to witness the tower being blown up.

The move comes a day after the isolated state handed over long-awaited details of its programme, but no account of the weapons many fear it has stockpiled.

In return, the US has agreed to lift some of its economic sanctions.

State media reported North Korea's Foreign Ministry had welcomed the US move on sanctions, regarding it as a "positive step".

The Yongbyon reactor was shut in July last year as part of a six-party agreement reached 16 months ago, when the North said it would scrap its nuclear ambitions in return for aid and diplomatic concessions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7476755.stm


Looks like Bush handled this situation the right way.

[sst]

Its a start.

[Sean of the Thread]

I thought it was a pretty sweet score by Bush admin but it still makes me wonder what they got already or where their real underground shit is. Just like every idiot that thinks Hussein had no WMD... unless he actually did use them all up on his own people first than I call bullshit.

The guy is a nut job.. something just doesn't turn around on a dime like this .. OOPS OUR BAD. I'm sure Putin somehow has a hand in this as well. Very curious situation.

[Warriorbird]

Kim's got a bunch of other angles. He's fuckin nutty.

[Trouble]

it still makes me wonder what they got already or where their real underground shit is.

Yeah, it's a nice gesture, but I don't believe for a second that they aren't still developing weapons/etc in some underground complex.

[Tolwynn]

Probably not that far removed from when we made a show of destroying our stockpiles of chemical weaponry - nevermind that they were aging, becoming unstable and increasingly dangerous to store, and could be replaced in all of 3 weeks, give or take.

[Stanley Burrell]

Probably not that far removed from when we made a show of destroying our stockpiles of chemical weaponry - nevermind that they were aging, becoming unstable and increasingly dangerous to store.

We finally firebombed Elizabeth, NJ. HAPPY DAYS.

[Sypher]

Japan needs nuclear weapons like a few thousand of them. We should also remove all U.S. troops from that part of the world and from Germany too. I can't stand why we have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to babysit the world. Because of North Korea? Give me a break, that country is like number 1302 on the power scale, the South would have invaded and conquered her a long time ago if it wasn't for China.

I think Americans have trouble understanding exactly how powerful this country is relative to just about everyone else, and to claim that some country, other then possibly Russia or China, is a threat to us is like saying a 5'2 100 lb woman forcibly raped a 6'5 250 lb MMA fighter. It just doesn't make sense.

Even Iran, the most powerful nation in the Middle East, is pretty much a cakewalk. Think non-symmetrically,follow the money and vote Ron Paul 2008.

[The Ponzzz]

Ok Backlash.

[crb]

Japan needs nuclear weapons like a few thousand of them. We should also remove all U.S. troops from that part of the world and from Germany too. I can't stand why we have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to babysit the world. Because of North Korea? Give me a break, that country is like number 1302 on the power scale, the South would have invaded and conquered her a long time ago if it wasn't for China.

I think Americans have trouble understanding exactly how powerful this country is relative to just about everyone else, and to claim that some country, other then possibly Russia or China, is a threat to us is like saying a 5'2 100 lb woman forcibly raped a 6'5 250 lb MMA fighter. It just doesn't make sense.

Even Iran, the most powerful nation in the Middle East, is pretty much a cakewalk. Think non-symmetrically,follow the money and vote Ron Paul 2008.
You're right, and so very wrong.



I think Americans have trouble understanding exactly how powerful this country is relative to just about everyone else, and to claim that some country, other then possibly Russia or China, is a threat to us is like saying a 5'2 100 lb woman forcibly raped a 6'5 250 lb MMA fighter. It just doesn't make sense.

This is true.



Japan needs nuclear weapons like a few thousand of them.

Japan's constitution forbids any military force/use for anything other than literal defense.



We should also remove all U.S. troops from that part of the world and from Germany too. I can't stand why we have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to babysit the world. Because of North Korea? Give me a break, that country is like number 1302 on the power scale, the South would have invaded and conquered her a long time ago if it wasn't for China.


Manning a base in Japan or Germany isn't that much more expensive than manning a base in the US.

But what you don't get, is one of the things that makes us so powerful is our incredible reach. You know, in a fight, boxing, MMA, whatever, reach is very important. Our reach kicks ass. Our closest base to China is in Japan. China's closest base to us, is in China. Get it?

If you want to complain about the tactical value or waste of dollars for things like kosovo or somalia or whatever, that is a whole other topic, but the maintaining of bases in friendly nations far from our shores but close to potential enemies is not a waste of money and it gives us a great tactical advantage.

[The Ponzzz]

Sypher isn't a real person, I wouldn't bother getting bent out of shape about him. He is of the same line of accounts such as Lucas, Wardrum, MONK, Cademus, Hunter D, etc.

[Sypher]

You're right, and so very wrong.



This is true.



Japan's constitution forbids any military force/use for anything other than literal defense.



Manning a base in Japan or Germany isn't that much more expensive than manning a base in the US.

But what you don't get, is one of the things that makes us so powerful is our incredible reach. You know, in a fight, boxing, MMA, whatever, reach is very important. Our reach kicks ass. Our closest base to China is in Japan. China's closest base to us, is in China. Get it?

If you want to complain about the tactical value or waste of dollars for things like kosovo or somalia or whatever, that is a whole other topic, but the maintaining of bases in friendly nations far from our shores but close to potential enemies is not a waste of money and it gives us a great tactical advantage.

Thats the thing though. If you're in someone's house waving a gun around, don't you think they'll get pissed?

[ClydeR]

Just think how badly things would have turned out if the United States had done what Kerry wanted us to do in 2004. Kerry feebly argued that Bush had been wrong to stop bilateral negotiations with North Korea. Kerry wanted us to talk directly with North Korea in addition to the six-party talks. What a disaster that would have been!

[Lucas]

It doesn't matter, in a couple decades China will finally remove all the white imperalist scum from that part of the world and Japan can finally get back to being Japan and not a land occupied by castrated men and East Asia will be the first to finally throw off the shit storm that began in 1500.

[The Ponzzz]

Oh shit, logging in the whole crew today, huh?

[Stanley Burrell]

Oh shit, logging in the whole crew today, huh?

I lol'd :(

[Latrinsorm]

ItsGrammatical board karma?

[sst]

Grammatical board karma?

You've got to be kidding... "It's" that better?

[Latrinsorm]

I was pointing out how PB missed it one way in the title, followed by you missing it the opposite way in your post. Board karma, see?

People are awfully testy lately.

[Parkbandit]

It doesn't matter, in a couple decades China will finally remove all the white imperalist scum from that part of the world and Japan can finally get back to being Japan and not a land occupied by castrated men and East Asia will be the first to finally throw off the shit storm that began in 1500.


You sound pro-Chinese. You do realize they are trying to keep monks down, right?

They are like the real life Simutronics.

[Parkbandit]

Grammatical board karma?

Pointing out a single gramatical error might be the most intelligent thing you've ever posted here.

Ever.

I doubt 95% of the readers skipped your post for once.

Grats you!

[Snapp]

You sound pro-Chinese. You do realize they are trying to keep monks down, right?

They are like the real life Simutronics.

:lol:

[longshot]

I was pointing out how PB missed it one way in the title, followed by you missing it the opposite way in your post. Board karma, see?

People are awfully testy lately.

You're a fucking vagina. Seriously. Get fucked.

[longshot]

I agree that Bush's approach was better than what Kerry proposed.

However, I think the whole situation sets a dangerous precedent.

We knew they were making nuclear weapons. They readily admitted to it when confronted by the evidence. And all this behavior has done is gotten them more aid and respect. We know have to barter with someone that has earned their position by being a complete shit head.

So if other nations acquire nuclear weapons, how much will we have to pay to get rid of that mess?

We should have taken the hard line and let them eat each other. Fuck them.

[Sean of the Thread]

We should have taken the hard line and let them eat each other. Fuck them.

Fuck yeah.


You sound pro-Chinese. You do realize they are trying to keep monks down, right?

They are like the real life Simutronics.

rofl

[Latrinsorm]

However, I think the whole situation sets a dangerous precedent.Wouldn't you say this precedent was set with the USSR, at least from our point of view?

[Sean of the Thread]

WE NEED REVEREND RONNIE'S HEAD DEFROSTED FROM CRYO PONTO!


STAT!

"boys will be boys"

[Gan]

However, I think the whole situation sets a dangerous precedent.

/Agreed

And I find it humorous that all the anti-Bush people here are still extremely hesitant to give credit to his policy towards NK. He was right from the start and forced them into a corner - all non-militarily. Imagine that.

[TheEschaton]

We just think it's hilarious, in a hypocritical way.

[Parkbandit]

We just think it's hilarious, in a hypocritical way.


Oh, please do explain.

PS - This may or may not be a trap.

[TheEschaton]

1) Bush puts NK in an Axis of Evil, declares "You're either with us, or against us," and says he we will never negotiate with terrorists.

2) Bush uses those justifications to invade Iraq, yet negotiates w/ NK, which is led by a man far crazier than Saddam, who admits to openly defying the US, and takes a harder stance against us than Saddam did.

3) ???

4) Profit. And the complete fuck up which is Iraq while NK gets off relatively scot free.

I'm not saying invade NK, I'm saying REAL negotiation in Iraq was necessary.

[Parkbandit]

1) Difference between "Axis of Evil" (turns out he was dead on all 3 counts there) and terrorists.

2) Bush actually uses 12 years of failed diplomacy, UN Resolutions, Preemptive strategy and the known intelligence at the time that Iraq had WMD.

3) Not sure what ???? is in reference to.. but it's probably wrong as well.

4) NK gets off scott free? Tell that to it's starving economy and people.

After more than 20 years of negotiations and 3 US Presidents, I'm pretty sure "REAL" negotiations were exhausted.

[Warriorbird]

We're scared of countries with actual WMD.

[Parkbandit]

We're scared of countries with actual WMD.


Yea, that clearly must be the case. I think you really solved it there Brainiac.

[Warriorbird]

Haven't gone after nary a one... and one's harboring Bin Ladin.

[Kembal]

While it's good, anyone who says Bush handled this the right way is wrong. In 2002, NK had no nuclear weapons. Now, they have a few plutonium bombs.

What happened in 2002? Bush stopped talking to the North Koreans. Only after they tested a nuclear weapon did we start talking to them again. We didn't back them into a diplomatic corner, they backed us into one.

[Parkbandit]

Haven't gone after nary a one... and one's harboring Bin Ladin.

Yea.. all they want to do is harbor Bin Laden.

Oops?

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/06/28/pakistan.taliban/?iref=hpmostpop

You picked a hell of a day to look even more retarded.

[Warriorbird]

So... how exactly is them going on an offensive against the Taliban while still holding three counties entirely controlled by Islamic extremists where Bin Ladin is hiding out doing a thing about Bin Ladin?

Oh, wait. You really got me.

There was all that time where they were "helping us find Bin Ladin" and wacking Benzair Bhutto too. The dictator of Pakistan is totally helping us spread democracy. That's the ticket.

[Parkbandit]

While it's good, anyone who says Bush handled this the right way is wrong. In 2002, NK had no nuclear weapons. Now, they have a few plutonium bombs.

What happened in 2002? Bush stopped talking to the North Koreans. Only after they tested a nuclear weapon did we start talking to them again. We didn't back them into a diplomatic corner, they backed us into one.

"They backed us into one"

:rofl:

Was that before or after they blew up their nuclear cooling tower?

Seriously.. do you even bother reading the shit you post and think "Hmm.. I know I'm trying to spin.. but maybe I spun this one a bit too far? I wonder if they will buy it.."

For someone to buy your story that Bush is responsible for nuclear weapons inside North Korea would take an ignorance of epic proportions and a deliberate attempt at ignoring facts about it.

But hey.. you go chump. Bush is the evil and is the cause of everything bad that has happened in the past 20 years. I know of about 5-10 dipshits on this message board that will buy into it.

[Parkbandit]

So... how exactly is them going on an offensive against the Taliban while still holding three counties entirely controlled by Islamic extremists where Bin Ladin is hiding out doing a thing about Bin Ladin?

Oh, wait. You really got me.

There was all that time where they were "helping us find Bin Ladin" and wacking Benzair Bhutto too. The dictator of Pakistan is totally helping us spread democracy. That's the ticket.

The only reason we're not invading them is because they have nuclear weapons.

[Warriorbird]

Well... given as somebody's a repressive dictator and "they have WMD" is all the probable cause we apparently need...

[Lucas]

I actually think Conservatives have the right philosophy when dealing with foreign policy... unfortunately most of the brains reside in the liberal camp.

[Parkbandit]

Well... given as somebody's a repressive dictator and "they have WMD" is all the probable cause we apparently need...

Well, that and what.. 13 UN Resolution and overwelming Congressional approval.

But hey.. if it's easier for you to just say "It's all Bush's fault.. and he only invades countries that don't have WMD"... I can't compete with that type of mental disorder.

[Parkbandit]

I actually think Conservatives have the right philosophy when dealing with foreign policy... unfortunately most of the brains reside in the liberal camp.


If you are going to make fun of liberals, put it in italics so they get the joke as well.

[Sean of the Thread]

1)
2) yet negotiates w/ NK, which is led by a man far crazier than Saddam,



Not sure if you go the memo but Saddam is in the top five dicksmears.

Start at Hitler and count down.

[Kembal]

"They backed us into one"

:rofl:

Was that before or after they blew up their nuclear cooling tower?

Seriously.. do you even bother reading the shit you post and think "Hmm.. I know I'm trying to spin.. but maybe I spun this one a bit too far? I wonder if they will buy it.."

For someone to buy your story that Bush is responsible for nuclear weapons inside North Korea would take an ignorance of epic proportions and a deliberate attempt at ignoring facts about it.

But hey.. you go chump. Bush is the evil and is the cause of everything bad that has happened in the past 20 years. I know of about 5-10 dipshits on this message board that will buy into it.

Please, you're just being ignorant and drinking the Kool-Aid.

The Agreed Framework that Clinton's administration came up with stopped NK from pursuing plutonium bombs. The International Atomic Energy Agency had monitored seals on the damned plant, and so therefore NK was not doing anything with plutonium.

Along came Bush, and he went after a hole in the Agreed Framework, namely that it said nothing about uranium. So Bush said he was going to pull out of the agreement, since it did not stop N. Korea from doing anything with uranium. Except, as all the intelligence pointed out at that time, N. Korea had no clue what the hell to do with uranium. (and no one is sure whether it does now or not. Certainly, any proliferation that's been alleged to have been done by N. Korea has involved plutonium only.)

So Bush pulls out of the agreement, ups the rhetoric against N. Korea, placing it in the Axis of Evil with Iran and Iraq. Then we invade Iraq. Kim Jong Il figures it'd be best for him to have a deterrent against a U.S. invasion, and hell, the U.S. wasn't giving him supplies anyway and it was trying to freeze his bank accounts. So they go break the seal, and produce a plutonium bomb within 2 to 3 years. They do the test and become a declared nuclear power.

Bush realizes now he screwed up bad, and opens up talks again. Takes a year or so, but we have enough measurable progess (such as the destruction of the cooling tower)

Except now, N. Korea has multiple plutonium bombs. And a dictator who's known to sell missile techonology to a bunch of countries that hate us.

So tell me how the hell we're better off than we were in 2002, if N. Korea now has nuclear bombs that they didn't have in 2002. (the estimate is 10 bombs, btw)

And if your retort is going to be "they were probably violating the agreement anyway", let me do some quick logical steps here:

1) If they were violating the agreement in 2002, they had to do it at another plant that is still unknown to us
2) The cooling tower that was blown up was at the plant (Yongbyon) that had the IAEA seals in the first place; ergo
3) They still have the damn secret plant and Bush didn't accomplish anything.

I don't believe there's a secret plant. But that's what makes Bush's pullout of the Agreed Framework in 2002 so devastatingly stupid.

The whole point was to keep their nuclear program stopped so that they didn't make any bombs, not to have them destroy their program after they already made some bombs. (akin to closing the barn doors after the horses ran out)

[Gan]

Along came Bush, and he went after a hole in the Agreed Framework, namely that it said nothing about uranium. So Bush said he was going to pull out of the agreement, since it did not stop N. Korea from doing anything with uranium. Except, as all the intelligence pointed out at that time, N. Korea had no clue what the hell to do with uranium. (and no one is sure whether it does now or not. Certainly, any proliferation that's been alleged to have been done by N. Korea has involved plutonium only.)

So Bush pulls out of the agreement, ups the rhetoric against N. Korea, placing it in the Axis of Evil with Iran and Iraq. Then we invade Iraq. Kim Jong Il figures it'd be best for him to have a deterrent against a U.S. invasion, and hell, the U.S. wasn't giving him supplies anyway and it was trying to freeze his bank accounts. So they go break the seal, and produce a plutonium bomb within 2 to 3 years. They do the test and become a declared nuclear power.
Actually, NK pulled out of the NPT agreement first in 2003.

And lets take a look at the Agreed Framework of the NPT involving the NK. Namely the building of 2 light water reactors (free of charge) and annual delivery of 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil (free of charge). And the lifting of economic sanctions by the US against NK. All in exchange for NK not developing enriched uranium facilities. Bottom line, the administration (Clinton) was betting on the NK government to implode which would limit the financial exposure to such an appeasing (or blackmale depending on how you look at it) strategy (leaving Bush et. al to pick up the check when it didnt).

In essence we were buying their promise not to enrich or weaponize their nuclear product. A promise according to the state department that was not kept by NK.

An interesting link for more information.
http://freekorea.us/2008/01/27/satellite-images-of-north-koreas-nuclear-facilities/

[Kembal]

Actually, NK pulled out of the NPT agreement first in 2003.

And lets take a look at the Agreed Framework of the NPT involving the NK. Namely the building of 2 light water reactors (free of charge) and annual delivery of 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil (free of charge). And the lifting of economic sanctions by the US against NK. All in exchange for NK not developing enriched uranium facilities. Bottom line, the administration (Clinton) was betting on the NK government to implode which would limit the financial exposure to such an appeasing (or blackmale depending on how you look at it) strategy (leaving Bush et. al to pick up the check when it didnt).

In essence we were buying their promise not to enrich or weaponize their nuclear product. A promise according to the state department that was not kept by NK.

An interesting link for more information.
http://freekorea.us/2008/01/27/satellite-images-of-north-koreas-nuclear-facilities/


From wikipedia (and yes, they've sourced it):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework_between_the_United_States_of_Amer ica_and_the_Democratic_People%27s_Republic_of_Kore a


KEDO members considered in November 2002 whether to halt the fuel oil shipments in response to the previous month's developments. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly warned Japanese officials that the U.S. Congress would not fund such shipments in the face of continued violations. The shipments were halted in December.

The stoppage of fuel oil shipments meant the U.S. pulled out of the Agreed Framework first. N. Korea left the NPT in Jan. 2003.

As for the provisions of the Agreed Framework:


- DPRK's graphite-moderated nuclear power plants, which could easily produce weapons grade plutonium, would be replaced with light water reactor (LWR) power plants by a target date of 2003.
- Oil for heating and electricity production would be provided while DPRK's reactors were shut down, until completion of the first LWR power unit.
- The two sides would move toward full normalization of political and economic relations.
- The U.S. would provide formal assurances to the DPRK, against the threat or use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.
- The DPRK would take steps to implement the 1992 Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula[2].
- The DPRK would remain a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
IAEA ad hoc and routine inspections would resume for facilities not subject to the freeze.
- Existing spent nuclear fuel stocks would be stored and ultimately disposed of without reprocessing in the DPRK.
- Before delivery of key LWR nuclear components, the DPRK would come into full compliance with its safeguards agreement with the IAEA.

Like I said, there's nothing about uranium in there. That's what Bush siezed on as a reason to pull out, because the U.S. supposedly had evidence of N. Korea having a uranium enrichment program in 2002. (they believed a centrifuge facility that could enrich uranium was being built) 5 years later, and there's still no centrifuge facility.

Was the Clinton adminstration likely betting on an N. Korea implosion? Probably. However, the fact remains that the N. Koreans weren't producing plutonium bombs until after the Agreed Framework was blown off. And the timeframe makes it clear that the Bush administration ended it first.

[Gan]

Like I said, there's nothing about uranium in there. That's what Bush siezed on as a reason to pull out, because the U.S. supposedly had evidence of N. Korea having a uranium enrichment program in 2002. (they believed a centrifuge facility that could enrich uranium was being built) 5 years later, and there's still no centrifuge facility.
You forgot to source this. Or is this your opinion? As you highlighted above, they already had the capacity to produce plutonium - how do you know they had not already? Not like lying was above their nature...

From the Wiki source you listed above:


In October 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002), a U.S. delegation led by Assistant Secretary of State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_State) James A. Kelly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Kelly) visited North Korea to confront the North Koreans with the U.S. assessment that they had a uranium enrichment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_enrichment) program [21] (http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2004/34395.htm). Both parties' reports of the meeting differ. The U.S. delegation believed the North Koreans had admitted the existence of a highly enriched uranium program [22] (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kim/nukes/nukes.html). The North Koreans stated Kelly made his assertions in an arrogant manner, but failed to produce any evidence such as satellite photos, and they responded denying North Korea planned to produce nuclear weapons using enriched uranium. They went on to state that as an independent sovereign state North Korea was entitled to possess nuclear weapons for defense, although they did not possess such a weapon at that point in time [23] (http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2002/200210/news10/25.htm#1) [24] (http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/188th_issue/2003013001.htm) [25] (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_hr/012104hecker.pdf). Relations between the two countries, which had seemed hopeful two years earlier, quickly deteriorated into open hostility.


Furthermore:


By the fall of 2002, our intelligence community assessed that North Korea was pursuing a covert program to produce enriched uranium – in violation of the Agreed Framework, the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the D.P.R.K.’s Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. In fact, we determined that North Korea had been pursuing the program for a number of years, even as it was negotiating with senior American officials to improve relations.

I led a delegation to Pyongyang in October 2002 to confront the North Koreans with our assessment that they have a uranium enrichment program. D.P.R.K. First Vice Foreign Minister Kang Sok Ju told us that the hostile policy of the U.S. Administration had left North Korea with no choice but to pursue such a program. When I pointed out our assessment that North Korea had been pursuing such a program for years, he had no response.

Instead of taking the opportunity we had afforded them to begin walking back their covert uranium enrichment program, the North Koreans escalated the situation. In December 2002, they expelled IAEA inspectors and began to reactivate the 5-megawatt reactor at Yongbyon. In January, the D.P.R.K. announced its withdrawal from the NPT. And on several occasions in 2003, it declared it had finished reprocessing its 8,000-plus existing spent fuel rods. If that is indeed the case, it could have produced enough fissile material for several additional nuclear weapons. Since then, the D.P.R.K. has stated it is strengthening what it calls its nuclear deterrent capability.
http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2004/34395.htm



However, the fact remains that the N. Koreans weren't producing plutonium bombs until after the Agreed Framework was blown off.

The fact of the matter is that NK had every intention of enriching the spent fuel they already had. There never was any intention of stopping - only the intention of dissembling and lying in front of everyone while they were getting handouts from the US/Japan/South Korea. It was the best of both worlds - and typical of the type of foreign policy the Clinton administration was famous for. Like I said earlier - Clinton left the check to be picked up by the Bush administration... plain and simple. Thats the Clinton way.

[Warriorbird]

I didn't mention Bush once, PB.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

...and I've never claimed to like Congress.

[Parkbandit]

I didn't mention Bush once, PB.


In THIS thread perhaps.. but let's at least be intellectually honest. You rarely lay the blame at the part of our Government that allocates the money.. and put all the blame for anything bad that happens in Iraq on Bush.

[Kembal]

You forgot to source this. Or is this your opinion? As you highlighted above, they already had the capacity to produce plutonium - how do you know they had not already? Not like lying was above their nature...

That was a summary of facts, but the facts are correct. The U.S., for whatever reason, believed that the N. Koreans had the capability to enrich uranium. As for plutonium, we knew they hadn't produced any already, because the Agreed Framework had come about in 1994. Yongbyon had been shut down from 1994 to 2002.

We know now that the N. Koreans don't have the capability to enrich uranium. Whatever intelligence we had (we knew some centrifuges had been shipped in, we didn't have any photos of facilities, from what I can tell), it was determined later that it wasn't enough for the N. Koreans to enrich uranium. You might argue that's hindsight, and I'll grant that. But then you don't pull out of the agreement that's stopping them from making plutonium because you believe that they're enriching uranium. You figure out a way to make them stop enriching uranium while keeping them stopped from producing plutonium.

That's the strategic failure of Bush administration policy from 2002 to about 2007.

BTW, I love how Kelly convinently left out of his report that we stopped fuel oil shipments in Dec. 2002, and only then did the N. Koreans kick out IAEA and restart the Yongbyon reactor.


The fact of the matter is that NK had every intention of enriching the spent fuel they already had. There never was any intention of stopping - only the intention of dissembling and lying in front of everyone while they were getting handouts from the US/Japan/South Korea. It was the best of both worlds - and typical of the type of foreign policy the Clinton administration was famous for. Like I said earlier - Clinton left the check to be picked up by the Bush administration... plain and simple. Thats the Clinton way.

You don't need to enrich plutonium. You just need to produce it.

In any case, if you're arguing that Clinton left the check to the Bush administration, isn't Bush doing the exact same thing in Afghanistan?

[Warriorbird]

And Iraq. And Iran.

Kim has another angle though. He always does.

[Gan]

BTW, I love how Kelly convinently left out of his report that we stopped fuel oil shipments in Dec. 2002, and only then did the N. Koreans kick out IAEA and restart the Yongbyon reactor.

You're talking about a span of 30 days (December) in which the US stopped shipments and NK kicked out the IAEA. Hard to believe NK acted last considering that most of the oil shipments were habitually late anyways. And considering that Kelly already confronted NK leadership with their suspicions in October of that same year.

Sorry, I'm not buying the NK is the victim schtick.

[Parkbandit]

Sorry, I'm not buying the NK is the victim schtick.


Well, how else can you make Bush out to be the evil doer, if you don't have a victim to oppress?

Come on man.. that's Liberalism 101.

[Warriorbird]

Well on that bit I agree with the Republicans. Only the North Korean people are the victims. They're not as important to us as the Iraqi people though.

[Gan]

Well on that bit I agree with the Republicans. Only the North Korean people are the victims. They're not as important to us as the Iraqi people though.

They were 50 years ago it seems.

[Warriorbird]

...

[Gan]

LOL

You brought it up.

[Warriorbird]

No. That silence was me asking if Truman and Eisenhower were still President.

;)

[Gan]

No. That silence was me asking if Truman and Eisenhower were still President.

;)

Perhaps you should have considered silence earlier on in the thread then.

[Warriorbird]

Uh... you were just the one who suggested they were important enough in 1950. That wasn't me stuffing my foot in my mouth. These days oil trumps Communism.

[Kembal]

You're talking about a span of 30 days (December) in which the US stopped shipments and NK kicked out the IAEA. Hard to believe NK acted last considering that most of the oil shipments were habitually late anyways. And considering that Kelly already confronted NK leadership with their suspicions in October of that same year.

Sorry, I'm not buying the NK is the victim schtick.

I fail to see how the late delivery of oil shipments has any relevance when it was publically announced that the shipments would stop. At that point, the public announcement would signal the breaking of the deal. Of course N. Korea would take advantage of it to break the seals.

Anyway, where did I argue that N. Korea is the victim? I've been arguing that the Bush administration made a colossal fuckup in 2002, one that resulted in N. Korea becoming a declared nuclear power. The argument has been whether the adminstration made a strategic failure or not. You and PB have been arguing no, the administration didn't make a failure because this is all somehow Clinton's fault. I've been arguing that the Bush administration made some stupid diplomatic and policy choices in 2002 that created the failure.

Are you guys really trying to argue that the Bush administration made the right choices in 2002?

[Parkbandit]

I fail to see how the late delivery of oil shipments has any relevance when it was publically announced that the shipments would stop. At that point, the public announcement would signal the breaking of the deal. Of course N. Korea would take advantage of it to break the seals.

Anyway, where did I argue that N. Korea is the victim? I've been arguing that the Bush administration made a colossal fuckup in 2002, one that resulted in N. Korea becoming a declared nuclear power. The argument has been whether the adminstration made a strategic failure or not. You and PB have been arguing no, the administration didn't make a failure because this is all somehow Clinton's fault. I've been arguing that the Bush administration made some stupid diplomatic and policy choices in 2002 that created the failure.

Are you guys really trying to argue that the Bush administration made the right choices in 2002?


Easy there Bruce Jenner.. don't go making any sort of leap where I am somehow blaming Clinton for this. It's easy for people like you to criticize because for one thing, you can use hind-site to determine how something went wrong or right. That's not available when making decisions at the time. That and you know a very small amount of information regarding what is really happening and you base your entire assumption on that.

You are like an arm chair quarterback who never played the game before, watching the highlights of the game the next day.

[Daniel]

So, basically critiquing policy or decisions are useless because you know..you don't know what you don't know?

That's convenient.

[Kembal]

This really isn't armchair quarterbacking. Even if you argue that the Bush administration shouldn't have expected N. Korea to break the seals and start producing plutonium again in 2003 in response to the stoppage of oil shipments (it'd be incredibly short-sighted, but whatever), is there any reason for the administration to literally sit on its fucking hands for 4 years instead of trying to negotiate some deal that would stop the production of plutonium? Only when N. Korea did its nuclear tests did the administration start negotiating again.

There was a strategic failure in late 2002-early 2003. That failure, instead of being rectified immediately, continued onward for 4 more years until it became a strategic disaster of the first order. To argue that the Bush administration played this situation right is not seeing the forest for the trees.

The disaster has only been mitigated by the destruction of the cooling tower. Until N. Korea gives up its plutonium bombs and/or somehow transitions to a legitimate and rational government, the disaster continues.

(And, by the way, with the presence of nuclear bombs inside N. Korea, we can no longer hope for the country to just fall apart. Why? Because in the chaos that would occur, how the hell would you secure the nukes?)

[Parkbandit]

This really isn't armchair quarterbacking. Even if you argue that the Bush administration shouldn't have expected N. Korea to break the seals and start producing plutonium again in 2003 in response to the stoppage of oil shipments (it'd be incredibly short-sighted, but whatever), is there any reason for the administration to literally sit on its fucking hands for 4 years instead of trying to negotiate some deal that would stop the production of plutonium? Only when N. Korea did its nuclear tests did the administration start negotiating again.

There was a strategic failure in late 2002-early 2003. That failure, instead of being rectified immediately, continued onward for 4 more years until it became a strategic disaster of the first order. To argue that the Bush administration played this situation right is not seeing the forest for the trees.

The disaster has only been mitigated by the destruction of the cooling tower. Until N. Korea gives up its plutonium bombs and/or somehow transitions to a legitimate and rational government, the disaster continues.

(And, by the way, with the presence of nuclear bombs inside N. Korea, we can no longer hope for the country to just fall apart. Why? Because in the chaos that would occur, how the hell would you secure the nukes?)

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff15/hank_kimball/CaptainHyperbole.jpg

Seriously.. you are preemptively criticise people for blaming Clinton for the mess that N. Korea became.. and now it's Bush's strategic "disaster of the first order?"

Come on man. I can't take you the least bit seriously..

[Daniel]

Oh snap!! Here comes the GIFs!

[Stanley Burrell]

All I can say, is that I'd be thoroughly impressed if any of these banana republics actually made a fusion-capable nuclear device as opposed to archaic fission devices.

1/0n + U235 --> U236 --> Kr92 + Ba141 + 3 1/0n

http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/Emc2/fission_u235-decay1.gif

http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/Emc2/fission_u235-decay2.gif

A fucking child could do this.

[Parkbandit]

Oh snap!! Here comes the GIFs!

Here's one specially made for you. Personally, I would call the manufacturer up and inquire why it's not called the Daniel award.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/zoom/dumbass_award.jpg

[Parkbandit]

All I can say, is that I'd be thoroughly impressed if any of these banana republics actually made a fusion-capable nuclear device as opposed to archaic fission devices.

1/0n + U235 --> U236 --> Kr92 + Ba141 + 3 1/0n

http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/Emc2/fission_u235-decay1.gif

http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/Emc2/fission_u235-decay2.gif

A fucking child could do this.

LOL.. when you post stupid shit like this.. the only person I can think of who could compete with you would be Warclaidhm and his calculus book.

[Stanley Burrell]

It's extremely simple, Warclaidhm's vector calc' is more complicated.

Armed ion chambers on the other hand... Not so simple.

[Warriorbird]

There's a level of not funny that's so not funny that it is funny. Parkbandit reached it in this thread.

[Parkbandit]

There's a level of not funny that's so not funny that it is funny. Parkbandit reached it in this thread.


There is a level of being just useless and pathetic that's more sad than funny. You reach that here in April, 2003.

Grats

[Parkbandit]

It's extremely simple, Warclaidhm's vector calc' is more complicated.

Armed ion chambers on the other hand... Not so simple.


Oh oh, someone's off the wagon again.. so much for /ignoring me :(

[Warriorbird]

I'm... not offended at all. Are you bored or something? I always find not posting for a while helps.

[Stanley Burrell]

Oh oh, someone's off the wagon again.. so much for /ignoring me :(

Seriously: This is ridiculous. I'm taking you off ignore.

Also, Kranar, my man, is that O.K., please? I've mainly been hovering and I find almost anything ParkBandit says to be entertaining. And it's fun to bicker online with people you don't know and/or wouldn't say the same things to their faces in real life.

[Parkbandit]

I'm... not offended at all. Are you bored or something? I always find not posting for a while helps.

You shouldn't take it as an insult.. just pointing out the obvious.

But you should give that not posting thing a try. I'm not sure what we will do without your 1 line, no thought posts... but I'm sure we'll get through it.

[Stanley Burrell]

I took you off ignore, ParkBandit.

Anyway: How's the wife and kids? And the Florida weather? Job doing alright? You been meeting any new people or planning on doing anything exciting this Summer. How's life been treating you?

[Gan]

I fail to see how the late delivery of oil shipments has any relevance when it was publically announced that the shipments would stop. At that point, the public announcement would signal the breaking of the deal. Of course N. Korea would take advantage of it to break the seals.

Anyway, where did I argue that N. Korea is the victim? I've been arguing that the Bush administration made a colossal fuckup in 2002, one that resulted in N. Korea becoming a declared nuclear power. The argument has been whether the adminstration made a strategic failure or not. You and PB have been arguing no, the administration didn't make a failure because this is all somehow Clinton's fault. I've been arguing that the Bush administration made some stupid diplomatic and policy choices in 2002 that created the failure.

Are you guys really trying to argue that the Bush administration made the right choices in 2002?
Blaming the fact that NK has nuclear weaponry is like blaming Bush for the rain. NK is not the victim and was never intending NOT to make fissionable weaponry. I dont fault Bush for his decision in 2002 to stop the handout based on that inevitability. I find it typical that you are faulting Bush - based on your track record of being a bleeding heart liberal.

[Kembal]

Heh. I am now a bleeding heart liberal. Jesus, you two are reaching broken record status here.

You both have blinders on, saying that it was inveitable that N. Korea would have nuclear weapons. Except that for 8 years, N. Korea had no nuclear weapons and didn't have an operating plant to make them with. Now, they do have the nuclear weapons. A chain of events occurred to make that happen. That chain of events happened via decisions made by the Bush administration.

And yes, PB, when an enemy of the United States gets nuclear weapons, and is a known proliferator, it really is a strategic disaster of the first order. Doesn't matter who would've been president at the time...if Gore had made the same decisions as Bush made creating that chain of events, it'd be a strategic disaster on his watch.

If you guys can find a defensible reason for Bush and his administration to not engage the N. Koreans diplomatically from when the seals were broken in 2003 until the testing of nuclear bombs in 2007, please share it.

Or keep going with the broken record thing. Apparently you both think it's convincing or something.

[Daniel]

Here's one specially made for you. Personally, I would call the manufacturer up and inquire why it's not called the Daniel award.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/zoom/dumbass_award.jpg

Sure showed me.

[Daniel]

Blaming the fact that NK has nuclear weaponry is like blaming Bush for the rain. NK is not the victim and was never intending NOT to make fissionable weaponry. I dont fault Bush for his decision in 2002 to stop the handout based on that inevitability. I find it typical that you are faulting Bush - based on your track record of being a bleeding heart liberal.

How do you even know this?

This is your best case estimate of what may or may not have happened. The simple fact of the matter is that the US took a very petulant stance towards NK "We don't negotiate with terrorists!!11!!" which came back to bite us in the ass. To sit here and suggest that the *only* possible outcome was the one that happened, is absolutely ridiculous.

More and more I believe that you and PB live in your own personal fantasy land and that you lost touch with reality a long time ago.

[Parkbandit]

How do you even know this?

This is your best case estimate of what may or may not have happened. The simple fact of the matter is that the US took a very petulant stance towards NK "We don't negotiate with terrorists!!11!!" which came back to bite us in the ass. To sit here and suggest that the *only* possible outcome was the one that happened, is absolutely ridiculous.

More and more I believe that you and PB live in your own personal fantasy land and that you lost touch with reality a long time ago.

How again did it 'bite us in the ass'? Isn't NK doing EXACTLY what we wanted them to do.. which is dismantle their nuclear program?

It really hurts you liberals that Bush was dead on with NK.. and now you will do anything you possibly can to discredit him. It was funny before.. now it just looks pathetic.

[Parkbandit]

Heh. I am now a bleeding heart liberal. Jesus, you two are reaching broken record status here.

You both have blinders on, saying that it was inveitable that N. Korea would have nuclear weapons. Except that for 8 years, N. Korea had no nuclear weapons and didn't have an operating plant to make them with. Now, they do have the nuclear weapons. A chain of events occurred to make that happen. That chain of events happened via decisions made by the Bush administration.

And yes, PB, when an enemy of the United States gets nuclear weapons, and is a known proliferator, it really is a strategic disaster of the first order. Doesn't matter who would've been president at the time...if Gore had made the same decisions as Bush made creating that chain of events, it'd be a strategic disaster on his watch.

If you guys can find a defensible reason for Bush and his administration to not engage the N. Koreans diplomatically from when the seals were broken in 2003 until the testing of nuclear bombs in 2007, please share it.

Or keep going with the broken record thing. Apparently you both think it's convincing or something.


If Gore was President, you would be spinning it into "Gore averted disaster by disarming North Korea after President George H.W. Bush allowed them to have attain nuclear power!"

And I think North Korea agreeing to our terms for disarmament is reason enough. You seem to think that somehow things would be all perfect had we just done what Clinton had done during his administration... like you have some keen insight into the future on different timelines of future events. You assume that North Korea would have never attained a nuclear weapon had we just given them what they wanted and applied no diplomatic pressure on them. I disagree and believe the reason that they are now giving into world demands is from the pressure applied by this administration.

[Warriorbird]

I'm not sure what we will do without your 1 line, no thought posts..

Given that yours are one of the most prolific things in this forum, PB, you're right. We'd clearly miss them greatly.

[Parkbandit]

Given that yours are one of the most prolific things in this forum, PB, you're right. We'd clearly miss them greatly.

Wow, good one. Really. You must have gone to the Daniel School of Regurgitated Insults.

[Gan]

How do you even know this?
Have you even followed this thread? How can you ask this question with a serious face?


This is your best case estimate of what may or may not have happened. The simple fact of the matter is that the US took a very petulant stance towards NK "We don't negotiate with terrorists!!11!!" which came back to bite us in the ass. To sit here and suggest that the *only* possible outcome was the one that happened, is absolutely ridiculous.
Biting us in the ass that the NK developed fissal material regardless of our efforts to buy them from it or not? Seriously. Their actions and intentions, as reported by Kelly were pretty evident that obtaining enough material to make a small number of fission bombs was the ultimate goal regardless of the fuel shipments, NPT agreement, or the sanctions.


More and more I believe that you and PB live in your own personal fantasy land and that you lost touch with reality a long time ago.
At least the feeling is mutual then buddy. At least the feeling is mutual.

[Daniel]

How again did it 'bite us in the ass'? Isn't NK doing EXACTLY what we wanted them to do.. which is dismantle their nuclear program?

It really hurts you liberals that Bush was dead on with NK.. and now you will do anything you possibly can to discredit him. It was funny before.. now it just looks pathetic.

I guess it escapes your notice that NK is doing "exactly what we wanted" *after* a radical shift in our policy.

[Parkbandit]

I guess it escapes your notice that NK is doing "exactly what we wanted" *after* a radical shift in our policy.

So you are under the assumption that this would have automatically happened had we stayed on the same course with NK that we did under Bill Clinton?

When you are don't with Kembal's Time traveling machine.. can I take it for a spin?

And you idiots think we're living in a fantasy world.

:rofl:

[Stanley Burrell]

It really hurts you liberals that Bush was dead on with NK.. and now you will do anything you possibly can to discredit him. It was funny before.. now it just looks pathetic.

I can honestly tell you I never once thought about it. All that really crossed my mind was if N. Korea developed a weapons guidance system capable of carrying ICBMs they've long-pursued; and will again, that if Kim Jong Il attacked the United States (lol), we'd definitely be going to war with Chavez.

[Gan]

You both have blinders on, saying that it was inveitable that N. Korea would have nuclear weapons. Except that for 8 years, N. Korea had no nuclear weapons and didn't have an operating plant to make them with. Now, they do have the nuclear weapons. A chain of events occurred to make that happen. That chain of events happened via decisions made by the Bush administration.
I guess Kelly should have had you on his negotiating team since you seem to know way more than what has been revealed or reported. Its sad that you cant read intent in the NK actions from 93 to present, especially when a non-blindered normal person can.



If you guys can find a defensible reason for Bush and his administration to not engage the N. Koreans diplomatically from when the seals were broken in 2003 until the testing of nuclear bombs in 2007, please share it.
Perhaps you might want to review the timeline of the events more closely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_Nuclear_Program_Chronology



Or keep going with the broken record thing. Apparently you both think it's convincing or something.
Nice to know the label hits a nerve. Regardless of accuracy.

[Kembal]

Pretty obvious you both are living in a dreamworld on this one. I've made my case, no point in arguing further.

[Parkbandit]

Pretty obvious you both are living in a dreamworld on this one. I've made my case, no point in arguing further.

Sure we do Tattoo. Maybe you should keep looking up in the air and calling out when you see the plane.

[Gan]

Pretty obvious you both are living in a dreamworld on this one. I've made my case, no point in arguing further.

Whatever lifts your dress buddy.

I've made my case as well, its refreshing to know that I dont have to keep dumbing it down for you. ;)

[Warriorbird]

All the argument is kind of pointless. Kim has other weapons and the means to make them.