Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

No I am saying our facts differ. I am also focusing on the facts that are the most relevant to the issues at hand. What did the treaty say and how stupid was it? Did the North Koreans break the treaty under Clinton or Bush? Did Bush push them into breaking the treaty? If they broke the treaty under Clinton then Clinton royally screwed up. If the resources Clinton gave them under the treaty helped them produce the bombs they have now, then the issue is not whether Clinton royally screwed up, but how much he screwed up. You are saying he did not screw up at all so I am focusing whether he just screwed up. We can discuss the other stuff once you agree he screwed up.

You seem to be saying that our agreement only forbid them from producing Plutonium (this would seem bizarre to me. Weapons can be made from other material from Plutonium so why would we only forbid Plutonium. According to the New York Times and every other document I have read they were continuing with their weapons production during the end of the Clinton administration. So you are saying that even though they were still involved in nuclear weapons production, they weren't producing plutonium so they abided by the treaty. Was Clinton really that stupid to only prevent them from building Plutonium when they could build other weapons grade material?)

You also seem to be saying that they abided by that agreement for a while.

You also seem to imply that the Bush administration pushed them into breaking the treaty.


1) I am saying that agreement said they were not supposed to produce any weapons grade material. They violated the treaty by producing weapons grade material at the end of the Clinton administration, and they admitted to that.

There is no question they were producing weapons grade material at the end of the Clinton administration (New York Times etc), so if that was not a violation of the treaty, then Clinton screwed up by leaving such a big loop hole.

2) We have no idea whether or not they were producing Plutonium. They could have been. However, we do know they were breaking the treaty.

3) Bush's words did not get them to break the treaty because they were already breaking the treaty.

4) To say that Bush's words got them to break the treaty is also stupid because strong words and threats never encourage dictators. Only weakness and lack of determination encourages dictators. He wanted nuclear weapons and whatever Bush said never changed that fact.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

See above.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop 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.

Are you listening to yourself? The idea behind a bribe is that you think the people are trustworthy enough to comply with it. If they are totally dishonorable they will not honor the bribe. There is no reason to think that the bribes would work, and there is no evidence that they did.

It was appeasement. The were running a weapons programs, and in order to get them to stop, instead of threatening them, we gave them stuff hoping that by giving them the bribe they would follow their end of the agreement.

Chamberlain never thought Hitler was a good person, so saying the Clinton administration did not think "Dear Leader" was a good person means nothing. Chamberlain thought Hitler was bad, but could be trusted enough to follow a treaty, so if he gave him the Sudetenland, Hitler would abide by the agreement. Clinton thought the "Dear Leader" was bad, but could be trusted enough to follow a treaty, so if he gave him some oil and other stuff, the "Dear Leader" would bide by the agreement. They were both the exact same kind of appeasement and they both didn't work.

[Spanky]

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

It was clear they were developing their weapons program at the of the Clinton administration. The CIA discovered this and they admitted to this. So was this a violation of the treaty, or did Clinton leave a loop hole in the treaty that allowed them to continue the weapons program?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Bush prompted them to start enriching plutonium again,

Yes because they had no desings on building a bomb. They are just peace loving people that decided they didn't need a bomb because they felt threatened. Yes these dictators only get nasty when they are threatened. If you don't threaten them they behave. How many times have we made that mistake.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop and now North Korea has the bomb. So can you explain to me why Clinton's policy was misguided

He tried to Appease a totalitarian dictator and it didn't work.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop -- maybe you wish North Korea had the bomb sooner? -- or what -- if anything -- Bush has done to improve the situation.

He stopped the bribes. He has focused on punishing them instead giving them stuff. After Hitler invaded Poland, Churchill stood up to them and then Hitler invaded France and bombed England. So was the invasion of France and the bombing of England Churchill's fault? No they were Chamberlin's because he set up an atmosphere of weakness and indecisiveness that gave Hitler courage. It took Churchill time to teach Hitler that England had resolve. It is taking Bush time to undo the impression Clinton gave our "Dear Leader". Our Dear Leader exploded the bomb because Clinton taught him if you are bad enough the west will give you stuff. It is taking us a while to undo the damage of Clinton's message, just like it took Churchill a while to undo Chamberline's message.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
a big fat 2.

:bow2:

[Spanky]

Clinton understood this when it came to Serbia. He bombed the hell out of them and then they came around. The problem Clinton faced was that he couldn't bomb North Korea without losing Seoul. He was in a bad situation. So he got desperate and made the age old mistake of turning to bribes. He took a bad situation and made it even worse. The issue I have, is that people are so partisan they won't cop to the obvious. Bribery and appeasement don't work, and they didn't work this time. The liberals always claim that Bush won't cop to mistakes, but this was the most obvious foreign policy mistake in the past thirty years, and they won't cop to it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky


He stopped the bribes. He has focused on punishing them instead giving them stuff. After Hitler invaded Poland, Churchill stood up to them and then Hitler invaded France and bombed England. So was the invasion of France and the bombing of England Churchill's fault? No they were Chamberlin's because he set up an atmosphere of weakness and indecisiveness that gave Hitler courage. It took Churchill time to teach Hitler that England had resolve. It is taking Bush time to undo the impression Clinton gave our "Dear Leader". Our Dear Leader exploded the bomb because Clinton taught him if you are bad enough the west will give you stuff. It is taking us a while to undo the damage of Clinton's message, just like it took Churchill a while to undo Chamberline's message.

Between us, it's over now. I linked to reports from 2000 that proved you right and him wrong. As best I can understand his defense is now, "Clinton offered the power plants, but never intended to actually deliver, only stall until he could get out of the White House, so that when NK realized it had been cheated it would be someone else's mess. And the mess included at least enough plutonium for a few bombs, and probably a few hundred trained techs."

A troll is someone who posts absolute garbage for effect. Until Ty refutes what I showed earlier, with evidence from the 98-00 timeframe, his every post is troll work. Spanky we now have to go back to ignoring the troll.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Spanky, you seem to think I'm saying things I haven't said, so let me try again.

The North Koreans did some things according to the agreement -- they stopped processing plutonium. They also broke the agreement -- they processed uranium. Even though they broke the agreement, we were still better off than we would have been had they continued processing plutionium.

You seem to think that we can each have our own version of reality -- is that a requirement for Republicans thinking about foreign policy? -- but it is simply a fact that we never built the nuclear reactors promised to the North Koreans under the agreement. As a result, insofar as you think the North Koreans used them to build the bomb, you are wrong.

Notwithstanding all your prattle about appeasement, the fact is that we were better off bribing the North Koreans to stop processing uranium (the Clinton approach) than we were talking a lot and doing nothing (the Bush approach). Neither approach was, ultimately, sufficient, since the fundamental problem is that there's not much we can do to stop the North Koreans from building the bomb if they want to, given the number of guns they have pointing at Seoul, etc. Under Bush, though, we apparently have succeeded in convincing the North Koreans that they need nuclear weapons to ensure that we don't do to them what we did to Iraq.

[SlaveNoMore]

... the gay Congressman that actually fucked Washington pages under the age of 18, is dead.

Much like the current GOP leadership, I might add.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Clinton understood this when it came to Serbia. He bombed the hell out of them and then they came around. The problem Clinton faced was that he couldn't bomb North Korea without losing Seoul. He was in a bad situation. So he got desperate and made the age old mistake of turning to bribes. He took a bad situation and made it even worse. The issue I have, is that people are so partisan they won't cop to the obvious. Bribery and appeasement don't work, and they didn't work this time. The liberals always claim that Bush won't cop to mistakes, but this was the most obvious foreign policy mistake in the past thirty years, and they won't cop to it.

What was Clinton's mistake? North Korea didn't build the bomb with fuel oil we gave them.

You seem to think that Clinton erred by slowing down the North Korean nuclear program but that Bush showed great leadership by talking a lot and doing nothing.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
The North Koreans did some things according to the agreement -- they stopped processing plutonium. They also broke the agreement -- they processed uranium. Even though they broke the agreement, we were still better off than we would have been had they continued processing plutionium.

You know this how? CIA intel? A "slam dunk" assessment? We have no idea what goes on in NK. Never have.

Notwithstanding all your prattle about appeasement, the fact is that we were better off bribing the North Koreans to stop processing uranium (the Clinton approach) than we were talking a lot and doing nothing (the Bush approach). Neither approach was, ultimately, sufficient, since the fundamental problem is that there's not much we can do to stop the North Koreans from building the bomb if they want to, given the number of guns they have pointing at Seoul, etc. Under Bush, though, we apparently have succeeded in convincing the North Koreans that they need nuclear weapons to ensure that we don't do to them what we did to Iraq.

Right. It was those "tough words" that really set them off.

When did you become a moonbat automaton?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
What was Clinton's mistake? North Korea didn't build the bomb with fuel oil we gave them.

You seem to think that Clinton erred by slowing down the North Korean nuclear program but that Bush showed great leadership by talking a lot and doing nothing.

Clinton - to his credit - got stuck with a deal that fucking idiot Carter brokered and Clinton never wanted.

Clinton's biggest failure was letting that loose canon go there in the first place.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What was Clinton's mistake? North Korea didn't build the bomb with fuel oil we gave them.

You seem to think that Clinton erred by slowing down the North Korean nuclear program but that Bush showed great leadership by talking a lot and doing nothing.

by "slowing down," you mean "lied that we would give them power plants so he is that much more distrustful." carry on.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
by "slowing down," you mean "lied that we would give them power plants so he is that much more distrustful." carry on.

The North Koreans think we broke the deal. I wouldn't have expected you to be taking their side on this board, but I guess you're willing to say any old thing to get a reaction.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The North Koreans think we broke the deal. I wouldn't have expected you to be taking their side on this board, but I guess you're willing to say any old thing to get a reaction.

if they think we broke a deal, that makes it harder to deal with them, no?

You seem to be saying that what Clinton promised them was not relevent because he never delivered. If he had delivered we all agreed that would have been bad. You latch on to the failure to deliver, but can you at least admit that lying to NK was not a good thing?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky, you seem to think I'm saying things I haven't said, so let me try again.

The North Koreans did some things according to the agreement -- they stopped processing plutonium. They also broke the agreement -- they processed uranium. Even though they broke the agreement, we were still better off than we would have been had they continued processing plutonium.

OK so the bribes didn't work and you admit they kept processing uranium. You think they stopped processing Plutonium, but actually you really don't know.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You seem to think that we can each have our own version of reality -- is that a requirement for Republicans thinking about foreign policy? --

No one version of reality. I am just glad you finally admitted to it. Clinton tried to bribe the North Koreans and it didn't work.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
but it is simply a fact that we never built the nuclear reactors promised to the North Koreans under the agreement. As a result, insofar as you think the North Koreans used them to build the bomb, you are wrong.

We gave them resources. They have limited resources. We made it easier for them to continue with their nuclear program. How can you argue with that? Would it have been easier for them to continue with their nuclear program if we hadn't given them resources?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Notwithstanding all your prattle about appeasement,

We rewarded bad behavior. How can that be prattle? They do bad stuff we give them things. How can you expect such positive reinforcement to stop them from doing anything?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop the fact is that we were better off bribing the North Koreans to stop processing uranium (the Clinton approach) than we were talking a lot and doing nothing (the Bush approach).

Giving them additional resources and training them that if they act badly we will give them more resources is success? Stop dropping acid.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Neither approach was, ultimately, sufficient, since the fundamental problem is that there's not much we can do to stop the North Koreans from building the bomb if they want to, given the number of guns they have pointing at Seoul, etc.

We may have limited options. But rewarding them for bad behavior just makes the situation worse. That is exactly what Clinton did. He rewarded them for bad behavior which encouraged them to be more of a problem. They need to be consistently, and without exception, punished for bad behavior. That is just basic diplomacy with dictators that you are in denial about.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Under Bush, though, we apparently have succeeded in convincing the North Koreans that they need nuclear weapons to ensure that we don't do to them what we did to Iraq.

In other words, if we hadn't invaded Iraq they wouldn't have built a bomb. That way of thinking is beyond ignorant and incredibly dangerous. Churchill was constantly criticized by Chamberlain for unnecessarily antagonizing the Nazis. What is the difference? The Russians were excused for controlling Eastern Europe because they needed to feel secure and because we were antagonizing them. Castro and Ortega did not call free elections because we made them feel insecure. We are better off bribing them than showing them the consequences of acting badly? We keep paying them extortion money and don't do anything to rile them and everything will be better? Doesn't work with the Mob and it doesn't work with our Dear Leader. You punish bad behavior and never reward it. You keep doing it until they learn the lesson.

Paying extortion money just makes the recipient see you are weak and they can take advantage of you even more. Why can't you see that?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The North Koreans think we broke the deal. I wouldn't have expected you to be taking their side on this board, but I guess you're willing to say any old thing to get a reaction.

They broke the deal during the Clinton administration (at least according to the CIA, the New York Times and the North Koreans own admission). So you are saying they broke the deal because they think Clinton broke the deal first?