Forums

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No Spanky, you don't know. You know so little about this stuff that you thought the North Koreans were making bombs with reactors we built for them. We know where they process plutonium, and we can tell whether the plant is operating or not.

And what are you a nuclear scientist? How many plants do they have? We can't know for sure if they are processing plutonium unless they give us access. That is why it was such a big deal when they turned of the cameras.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It worked better than doing nothing, which is better than nothing. I don't know why you can't admit that, except that you turn irrational if there's a way to work Clinton into things.

No it made things worse. We taught the North Koreans that if they did bad stuff we would reward them for it. We gave them extra resources.

As I stated before on Oct. 17, 2002 the New York Times reported on the front page "Confronted by new American intelligence, North Korea has admitted that it has been conducting a major clandestine nuclear weapons development program for the past several years."

I still don't know where you got that this was just Uranium and not Plutonium, but even if that is true does that make a difference? They were developing a "clandestine nuclear weapons" program. If you get hit by a Uranium bomb or a Plutonium bomb you are still just as radioactive. Clinton bribed them and they kept making bombs. Why are you so obsessed with the Plutonium Uranium distinction.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You don't just need "resources" to build the bomb. You need certain kinds of resources. Fuel oil is not one of them.

It is expensive to build a bomb. Takes specific resources and lots of money. By sending them resources we were freeing up more money for them to focus on the nuclear program. How can you possibly deny that.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We're not training dogs. You and I both agree that the North Koreans cannot be trusted. Clinton knows this too.

Who said we are training dogs? We are dealing with a selfish totalitarian dictator who will do whatever it takes to get what he wants. We have dealt with many like him in the past. In the past bribing has never worked. Why has it this time?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Suppose that they stopped processing plutonium for several years. You do agree that this would have been a good thing, right?

I have seen no evidence of this. And even if they did, I showed you that they were still developing their weapons program. Why does it matter if they are developing weapons grade Uranium or Plutonium? They were still making atomic bombs and that is all that matters.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What do you do, in the real world, with a dictator who does some good and some bad?

Did some good? What good? So he stopped producing VHS and instead built Betamaxs. That is a distinction without a difference. He has done no good. We bribed him to stop building his weapons program and he continued it. What possible good is there?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hard to know what they would have done. They don't always act predictably. But once Bush told them that they were part of the axis of evil, and invaded Iraq, can you see why they might have wanted nuclear weapons more?

I already showed you he was working on a Clandestine nulcear program at the end of the Clinton administration. He clearly wanted a nuclear bomb. It is beyond stupid to claim that Bush's action proddded this guy into wanting a bomb. It is like saying the Lion did not want to eat you until you started provoking him.

I

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop n a world in which North Korea is close to having nuclear weapons, we don't have a lot of good options. Why can't you just admit that Clinton did something right when he got the North Koreans to stop processing plutonium for several years? Meanwhile, Bush has done jack shit.

We don't know that Clinton got them to stop producing Plutonium. But even if we did, if they were still producing weapons grade uranium, what good did it do us?

Why can't you also admit that by setting the precedent if they did something bad we would reward them was a bad thing? Are you that much in denail?

When Clinton has done something right, I have recognized it. When Bush does something wrong, I have also recognized it. Can you name one foreign policy move by Clinton you disagree with and one foreign policy move by Bush you have agreed with?