Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You say that they stopped producing plutonium because of the Clinton deal - how do you know that?

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."

In other words, during the end of the Clinton administration they were producing nuclear weapons even though Clinton was bribing them.

Bush made them start producing the bomb? Are you kidding? They were producing one long before he got into office. That is if you assume they ever stopped. We know they were developing weapons in the beginning of the Clinton administration, and at the end, on the only reason we believe they stopped in the middle is because they never admitted that they were.

Your statement is also absurd because it assumes they didn't really want to build a bomb, but when Bush started Saber rattling they decided they needed one? They have one of the largest armies in the world because of their fear of being invaded and yet they only decided they needed a nuclear bomb to scare of the west when Bush made some comments? And I suppose you believe in the tooth fairy.

This idiot has always wanted a bomb. Of course he wants a bomb. Why wouldn't he? He has been trying to build a bomb for years, and we just gave him a bunch of stuff to bribe him from not building a bomb yet he built one anyway. Only an idiot would be surprised by that.

Why is it the Democrats are always saying that these totalitarian regimes only get belligerent because we provoke them? If Bush had not said mean things about the North Koreans they wouldn't have built a bomb, if we were nice to the Iranians they wouldn't build a bomb, if we had just been nice to Castro he wouldn't have turn to the communists, if we had been nice to the Chinese they wouldn't gotten involved in Korea, if we had just been nice to the Russians they wouldn't have felt the need to take over Eastern Europe. Be nice to Hitler and he will stop with the Sudetenland.

When will you idiots realize that these guys don't need any provocation? Nasty words on our part let them know we are on to them. Being nice to them just makes them think they are getting away with something. How many times do we have to learn that lesson?

Appeasement never works with totalitarian dictators. I will say it again.
Appeasement never works with totalitarian dictators. Being nice to them just makes them think we are weak and they can take advantage of us.

Trying to Bribe the North Koreans was one of the dumbest foreign policy moves of this century.

I approved of most of Clintons foreign policy moves. But on this one he fell into the old trap of thinking you could appease this guy. He was wrong.

(sorry Hank, I tried to go Cold Turkey but I just couldn't help myself. :shrug: )

I like that you are no longer saying that you know any of the facts -- like how North Korea used the reactors Clinton built for them to make nuclear weapons -- and instead are just asking me how I know. If you do the sort of web research that you did to find the CRS report, you will learn that North Korea was processing uranium during the Clinton Administration, but not plutonium. When Bush pulled the U.S. out of (what was left of) the deal, North Korea started in with the plutonium again, and fairly quickly had enough to build a bomb.

Clinton did not "appease" the North Koreans in the sense that anyone thought they would become good people. But he essentially bribed them with fuel oil and food aid to stop enriching plutonium for a while. Far from a perfect solution, but better than anything Bush did.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Clinton gave NK a ton of technology, but the blogs I trust say it wasn't dangerous. I have no ability to question what they say, nor to evaluate their knowledge base.

Do you know why the US opposed a nuke power plant that Russia helped Iran build?

Several reasons:

some could be labeled mistrust of the 2 countries, and fear that weapons technology would be transfered. I trust that Clinton wouldn't do that.

another was that the plant will make creating plutonium easier. I'm sure you can blog cite that that wouldn't happen with what clinton gave NK.

The last reason was that teaching people to operate a nuke plant teaches them their way around other nuke technology. Really knowing how to do one makes doing the other really really simpler. So giving a country we know is evil any nuke technology is not a good idea.

The only possible grounds for giving NK nuke technology is the Carter doctrine that there are no bad countries, except us of course. If you really want to keep arguing that what Clinton did was okay you should limit yourself to the point that "NK is a-okay" argument. It is a stupid argument, sure, but not as dumb as saying Clinton didn't help NK get the bomb.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do you know why the US opposed a nuke power plant that Russia helped Iran build?

Several reasons:

some could be labeled mistrust of the 2 countries, and fear that weapons technology would be transfered. I trust that Clinton wouldn't do that.

another was that the plant will make creating plutonium easier. I'm sure you can blog cite that that wouldn't happen with what clinton gave NK.

The last reason was that teaching people to operate a nuke plant teaches them their way around other nuke technology. Really knowing how to do one makes doing the other really really simpler. So giving a country we know is evil any nuke technology is not a good idea.

The only possible grounds for giving NK nuke technology is the Carter doctrine that there are no bad countries, except us of course. If you really want to keep arguing that what Clinton did was okay you should limit yourself to the point that "NK is a-okay" argument. It is a stupid argument, sure, but not as dumb as saying Clinton didn't help NK get the bomb.

I don't know why I am responding to you, since on this board you are a troll, but what nuclear technology do you think the US gave North Korea?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't know why I am responding to you, since on this board you are a troll, but what nuclear technology do you think the US gave North Korea?

at least I admit I'm a troll. That is much better than being one, but pretending (even to yourself?) you are not.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
You say that they stopped producing plutonium because of the Clinton deal - how do you know that?

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."

In other words, during the end of the Clinton administration they were producing nuclear weapons even though Clinton was bribing them.

Bush made them start producing the bomb? Are you kidding? They were producing one long before he got into office. That is if you assume they ever stopped. We know they were developing weapons in the beginning of the Clinton administration, and at the end, on the only reason we believe they stopped in the middle is because they never admitted that they were.

Your statement is also absurd because it assumes they didn't really want to build a bomb, but when Bush started Saber rattling they decided they needed one? They have one of the largest armies in the world because of their fear of being invaded and yet they only decided they needed a nuclear bomb to scare of the west when Bush made some comments? And I suppose you believe in the tooth fairy.

This idiot has always wanted a bomb. Of course he wants a bomb. Why wouldn't he? He has been trying to build a bomb for years, and we just gave him a bunch of stuff to bribe him from not building a bomb yet he built one anyway. Only an idiot would be surprised by that.

Why is it the Democrats are always saying that these totalitarian regimes only get belligerent because we provoke them? If Bush had not said mean things about the North Koreans they wouldn't have built a bomb, if we were nice to the Iranians they wouldn't build a bomb, if we had just been nice to Castro he wouldn't have turn to the communists, if we had been nice to the Chinese they wouldn't gotten involved in Korea, if we had just been nice to the Russians they wouldn't have felt the need to take over Eastern Europe. Be nice to Hitler and he will stop with the Sudetenland.

When will you idiots realize that these guys don't need any provocation? Nasty words on our part let them know we are on to them. Being nice to them just makes them think they are getting away with something. How many times do we have to learn that lesson?

Appeasement never works with totalitarian dictators. I will say it again.
Appeasement never works with totalitarian dictators. Being nice to them just makes them think we are weak and they can take advantage of us.

Trying to Bribe the North Koreans was one of the dumbest foreign policy moves of this century.

I approved of most of Clintons foreign policy moves. But on this one he fell into the old trap of thinking you could appease this guy. He was wrong.

(sorry Hank, I tried to go Cold Turkey but I just couldn't help myself. :shrug: )

a big fat 2.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
a big fat 2.

Clinton bought time during which North Korea stopped enriching plutonium. Bush prompted them to start enriching plutonium again, and now North Korea has the bomb. So can you explain to me why Clinton's policy was misguided -- maybe you wish North Korea had the bomb sooner? -- or what -- if anything -- Bush has done to improve the situation.

[sgtclub]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/13/D8KNVB6O0.html

[air america files BK]

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Clinton bought time during which North Korea stopped enriching plutonium.

There is about a 1% chance this statement is true. I highly doubt it is the case that they stopped during that period and then, magically, started again after Bush takes over. But I don't want to argue this with you because we will go round and round and none of us really has a good handle on the facts.

The policy had good intentions, but it, like many of Clinton's foreign policy decisions, was merely a short-term, bandaid approach to a very serious problem. See Spanky's post. Trying to make deals with psychotic dictators is a no-win proposition, because they don't live up to their end of the agreement.

That said, there is no good solution to the problem of nuclear proliferation. It is going to happen, the speed at which it is going happen, like all developments in technology, is going to quicken, and there is little we can do about it directly.

In my mind, we have 2 options, both of which should be pursued simultanously. We need to develop a truly effective missle defense system. We have a start, although a dissappointing start given the amount of $ we have sunk into it, but I think a reasonably effective system is possible in the medium term.

We also need to encourage the spread of democracy, so that once a country obtains the technology, and they will if they are seeking it, the weapons are in the hands of hopefully rational people that value life above all else.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Clinton bought time during which North Korea stopped enriching plutonium. Bush prompted them to start enriching plutonium again, and now North Korea has the bomb. So can you explain to me why Clinton's policy was misguided -- maybe you wish North Korea had the bomb sooner? -- or what -- if anything -- Bush has done to improve the situation.

In your lawsuits do you rely on evidence created after the fact? Trolls can go back in time.

Here's what people were telling clinton by 2000.

http://www.mi.infn.it/~landnet/corea/proc/020.pdf



Maybe Clinton's response was to formulate a plan to give Bush, ala al Queda.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
There is about a 1% chance this statement is true. I highly doubt it is the case that they stopped during that period and then, magically, started again after Bush takes over. But I don't want to argue this with you because we will go round and round and none of us really has a good handle on the facts.

Even Hank and Spanky will tell you that you are wrong about this. See, e.g., this Congressional report from 2003, noting the distinction:

• The Bush Administration disclosed on October 16, 2002, that North Korea had revealed to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly in Pyongyang that it was conducting a secret nuclear weapons program based on the process of uranium enrichment. North Korea admitted the program in response to U.S. evidence presented by Kelly. The program is based on the process of uranium enrichment, in contrast to North Korea’s pre-1995 nuclear program based on plutonium reprocessing.

With the distinction between the uranium and plutonium processing in mind, check out this summary. (After the U.S. revealed North Korea's uranium activities and pulled out of the deal, North Korea started up again with the plutonium.)

I agree with you that Clinton's policy would have been an egregious failure if North Korea had continued to enrich plutonium.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
There is about a 1% chance this statement is true. I highly doubt it is the case that they stopped during that period and then, magically, started again after Bush takes over. But I don't want to argue this with you because we will go round and round and none of us really has a good handle on the facts.

The policy had good intentions, but it, like many of Clinton's foreign policy decisions, was merely a short-term, bandaid approach to a very serious problem. See Spanky's post. Trying to make deals with psychotic dictators is a no-win proposition, because they don't live up to their end of the agreement.

That said, there is no good solution to the problem of nuclear proliferation. It is going to happen, the speed at which it is going happen, like all developments in technology, is going to quicken, and there is little we can do about it directly.

In my mind, we have 2 options, both of which should be pursued simultanously. We need to develop a truly effective missle defense system. We have a start, although a dissappointing start given the amount of $ we have sunk into it, but I think a reasonably effective system is possible in the medium term.

We also need to encourage the spread of democracy, so that once a country obtains the technology, and they will if they are seeking it, the weapons are in the hands of hopefully rational people that value life above all else.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721_..._jun2000.htm#5

• CIA Unclassified Report to Congress
  on the Acquisition of Technology
  Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction
  and Advanced Conventional Munitions,
  1 January Through 30 June 2000
  
  P'yongyang continues to acquire raw materials from out-of-country entities needed for its WMD and ballistic missile programs. During this time frame, North Korea continued procurement of raw materials and components for its ballistic missile programs from various foreign sources, especially through firms in China. We assess that North Korea is capable of producing and delivering via munitions a wide variety of chemical and biological agents.
  
  During the first half of 2000, P'yongyang sought to procure technology worldwide that could have applications in its nuclear program, but we do not know of any procurement directly linked to the nuclear weapons program. We assess that North Korea has produced enough plutonium for at least one, and possibly two, nuclear weapons. The United States and North Korea are nearing completion on the joint project of canning spent fuel from the Yongbyon complex for long-term storage and ultimate shipment out of the North in accordance with the 1994 Agreed Framework. That reactor fuel contains enough plutonium for several more weapons.

Trolls can survive a nuclear blast Ty. But even unclassified reports in 2000 said they had enough plutonium for 2 bombs.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
In your lawsuits do you rely on evidence created after the fact? Trolls can go back in time.

Here's what people were telling clinton by 2000.

http://www.mi.infn.it/~landnet/corea/proc/020.pdf

Maybe Clinton's response was to formulate a plan to give Bush, ala al Queda.

In your practice of law, are you this sloppy? That dude suggested that we not built the plants we promised North Korea in 1994 -- the ones that Spanky thinks North Korea used to build the bomb. We never built the plants. So I guess Clinton was listening.

club, if you read Hank's thing you'll notice the same discussion of uranium vs. plutonium.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
But even unclassified reports in 2000 said they had enough plutonium for 2 bombs.

If so, where did it come from?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In your practice of law, are you this sloppy? That dude suggested that we not built the plants we promised North Korea in 1994 -- the ones that Spanky thinks North Korea used to build the bomb. We never built the plants. So I guess Clinton was listening.

club, if you read Hank's thing you'll notice the same discussion of uranium vs. plutonium.

have you ever been anywhere near a power plant? do you not think there was training and technology being sent pre-completion? "By the time we would have completed the build we would have trained thousands-" means we trained a bunch.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If so, where did it come from?

I don't know Ty, Cheney's company sold them it?

If i post a blog on myspace saying Clinton was not at fault would you cite to it, you know increase my page hits?