Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

What do you do, in the real world, with a dictator who does some good and some bad?

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.

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?

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?

In 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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
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?

I didn't say that, and I doubt it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Spanky & club:

The arguments you are making depend on the premise that the North Koreans continued to process plutonium after the 1994 agreement (before Bush formally pulled the plug on it). So why don't you try to find some support on the web that says this is so. I've already pointed you to materials showing otherwise, but apparently you're both too invested in the notion that everything is Clinton's fault to wake up to reality.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
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?

you have to stop now. we proven that NK had more than enough plutonium and we gave them training, and we have proven those facts with 2000 documents. Ty has been linking to 2006 blog cites. Until he does something that contradicts the proofs, with real evidence, you only do harm by responding to him. I'm a troll because I found actual cites from the relevent time period, sure Ty, but you are bad as he is if you continue to engage him.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty has been linking to 2006 blog cites.

I haven't posted to a single blog on this stuff, dumbass. Meanwhile, Spanky still thinks that we build North Korea those two light-water reactors, and club insists that it's 99% likely that North Korea continued to process plutonium between 1994 and 2002.

Even if -- if -- North Korea had some plutonium in 1994, they didn't make more for eight years.

eta: Even if they had enough to make a bomb -- there seems to have been no question in 1994 that North Korea had small quantities of plutonium.

eata: Congrats on Harvard's victory over Lafayette today.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I haven't posted to a single blog on this stuff, dumbass. Meanwhile, Spanky still thinks that we build North Korea those two light-water reactors, and club insists that it's 99% likely that North Korea continued to process plutonium between 1994 and 2002.

Even if -- if -- North Korea had some plutonium in 1994, they didn't make more for eight years.

The only evidence posted here was they had some in 2000, had enough in fact.

no evidence of the "didn't make more."

do you agree making an agreement we wouldn't honor was not a good idea, other than "buying time until Clinton's admin was over?" and I'm not hanging Spank out to dry, I'm going SJ mode- assume what Ty says is true- Clinton never intended to honor the agreement and provide the technology- isn't that way worse than not making the agreement- for the future I mean? I get how it helped Clinton focus on more important stuff.

Do you agree providing know-how wrt the power plants was a really bad idea?

[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?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I didn't say that, and I doubt it.

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."

They broke the deal under the Clinton administration. So why did they? Because they thought Clinton broke the deal first? Because something Bush said while he was Governor of Texas? Why did they brake the deal?

Or maybe they can't be trusted and bribing them was a completely idiotic move.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
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."

They broke the deal under the Clinton administration. So why did they? Because they thought Clinton broke the deal first? Because something Bush said while he was Governor of Texas? Why did they brake the deal?

Or maybe they can't be trusted and bribing them was a completely idiotic move.

Spank. You need to migrate to FB.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky & club:

The arguments you are making depend on the premise that the North Koreans continued to process plutonium after the 1994 agreement (before Bush formally pulled the plug on it). So why don't you try to find some support on the web that says this is so. I've already pointed you to materials showing otherwise, but apparently you're both too invested in the notion that everything is Clinton's fault to wake up to reality.

no no no, it is all Clinton's fault because it wasn't permanent. See. It proves that negotiating with North Koreans doesn't work. So now we get to invade.

it is all really simple, really.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
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."

They broke the deal under the Clinton administration. So why did they? Because they thought Clinton broke the deal first? Because something Bush said while he was Governor of Texas? Why did they brake the deal?

Or maybe they can't be trusted and bribing them was a completely idiotic move.

Kim suddenly thought he was T.O.?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
no no no, it is all Clinton's fault because it wasn't permanent. See. It proves that negotiating with North Koreans doesn't work. So now we get to invade.

it is all really simple, really.

Ty if you don't want to do what I've challenged you to do, do this: show how what you have posted is any more responsive then what Sped-boy has driveled here.

[Spanky]

This debate reminds me of two other decisions Democrats made that were a screw up and the fact that they still deny they were screw ups shows why they can't be trusted with foreign policy.

1) Pulling the support from the Contras in Nicaragua. Every time a Communist dictatorship took over the liberals accused the opposition to the communist regime as corrupt and terrorists. They also always claimed that this new Communist regime were good communists who were going to set up a good socialist system and not make the same mistakes as the previous attempts at communism and socialism. They have never learned the lesson. During the Soviet Civil war, the White armies were accused of being terrorists and corrupt so we pulled our support. Chiang Kai Check was accused of being corrupt and a terrorist by the left. Chiang Kai Check moved to Taiwan produced an economic miracle where the average citizen is worth twenty times the per capita income of the average Chinese. Of course corrupt and terrorist Chiang never inflicted a cultural revolution, great leap forward, or political purge on his country and his government eventually turned into a democracy. During the Korean War the South Korean government was accused by the liberals as a corrupt and terrorist regime and did all sorts of terrible things. Of course that corrupt and evil government has turned South Korea into an economic miracle that is a multiparty democracy. Ron Dellums and Tom Hayden said that Castro was a new type of Communist who wouldn't set up a regime similar to that of China or Russia. Of course Cuba is now an Economic basket case with tens of thousands of people in prison and labor camps. Then came Nicaragua. The Democrats claimed that Ortega was a different type of communist and would not set up the same type of system that existed in Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Of course once they started grabbing peasants’ land, these people turned into the Contras, but these peasants who lost their land were immediately labeled as terrorists by the liberals in this country. Kerry went down and met with Ortega and said he was a nice guy that we could work with. Of course the Contras pushed Ortega into having elections, in which "the terrorists" won overwhelmingly (and put a former Contra into the presidency) and still the liberals claim that pulling support form the Contra's was the right thing. Isn't it amazing how these evil terrorists that did so many terrible things won the hearts of the people, where Ortega, who was such a wonderful new socialist, the people turned him out? If the Liberals had their way (and Oliver North and Pointdexter didn't) Nicaragua (and El Salvador) would be no different from Cuba right now. The liberals were doing their best to turn Nicaragua and El Salvador into another Cuba, China, Cambodia or Vietnam, but because they did not have their way, these people are not now living in a country no different from a prison. Until they admit they were wrong on Nicaragua, they can't be trusted.

2) SDI. North Korea has a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it. Iran may be in the same situation soon, but the liberals still argue that SDI is a mistake. Until they admit they were wrong on SDI they can't be trusted.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty if you don't want to do what I've challenged you to do, do this: show how what you have posted is any more responsive then what Sped-boy has driveled here.

Since Spanky says that CRS reports are good authority, this summary from one repeats what I've been saying:

• North Korea ended the eight-year freeze on its nuclear program in late 2002, expelling international inspectors and restarting plutonium production facilities. Before then, the CIA estimated that North Korea might have enough plutonium (Pu) for 1 or 2 weapons. Since then, North Korea may have reprocessed the 8000 spent fuel rods previously under seal at Yongbyon, yielding enough Pu for 6 or 8 weapons. In 2005, North Korea announced it had nuclear weapons and was building more. It restarted construction on two larger reactors, and shut down its small reactor, possibly to extract plutonium.

Now you post a link to something that says that what I've said is incorrect.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
And what are you a nuclear scientist?

Compared to you, yes.

Are you ready to admit that the two plants we promised in the 1994 agreement were never built, and therefore did not help North Korea obtain nuclear weapons?

We taught the North Koreans that if they did bad stuff we would reward them for it.

This is the crux of where you and I disagree, I think, apart from your refusal to research or acknowledge well-established facts. To me, the question of whether North Korea did or did not have nuclear weapons was more important than any behavioral lesson they might have learned through getting us to give them fuel oil in exchange for shutting down their plutonium processing. I would take the eight year respite in their plutonium processing, understanding that it is bad and yet the lesser of two evils to give fuel oil to a dictator. You are so concerned with the Munich/Chamberlain/appeasement symbolism thing that you can't get over it. And then, in a neat trick, as Adder notes, you blame Clinton for not getting more than an eight-year delay. So somehow it becomes a bad thing, attributable to Clinton, that North Korea built bombs this decade instead of last.

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."

No fucking shit. Have you read any of my posts? Do you have any inkling what my response to that is? If you haven't figured it out yet, you are a dumbass and I'm not repeating it.

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?

Yes. Try reading any of those CRS reports. I know you can find them with Google, but you haven't shown you can read them yet.

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.

I don't think I denied this. I think I suggested it was stupid. North Korea, while poor, has the resources of a poor, medium-sized country. I've never seen anyone but you suggest that without the fuel oil we sent them, they didn't have the resources for a nuclear program.

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?

They stopped processing plutonium for eight years. That was a good thing.

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.

North Korea built the reactor it's getting the plutonium from in the mid-1980s, so they've obviously had designs on nuclear weapons -- or the leverage from the program -- for a while. I don't think I suggested otherwise.

We don't know that Clinton got them to stop producing Plutonium.

The rest of us do. You and club can't be bothered to figure it out. Go read up.

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?

Off the top of my head, I thought Clinton's Haiti policy was well-intentioned but hapless and ineffective. And I supported the invasion of Afghanistan.

Look, I'm not saying that Clinton's North Korea policy was brilliant. Like Bush does now, he had a set of poor choices. He played for time, with some success. I started posting on this subject because I think it's ridiculous for Republicans such as yourself (recall: you brought the subject up, not me) to somehow try to blame Clinton for the current situation on the Korean peninsula. Bush took a poor policy and made it worse. He has talked a lot, but he has done nothing. Six years into the Bush Presidency and you're still trying to blame his foreign policy messes on Clinton -- that should be telling you something.