Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I was having dinner with a friend last night, and he mentioned a mutual friend of ours who has become a New York Times bestselling author. I had no idea.

Last time either one of us had seen Rory, he'd needed to be rescued from Dallas because the corvette he'd bought upon hitting US soil so he could see the country property had died. Last I heard, Rory was doing something stupid like walking across Asia.

Anyhow, this is the New York Times review of his book. I absolutely adore Rory, though I haven't spent much time since we were in school together. I think, though, that a lot of ya'll would probably find what he's been through to be very interesting.

His previous book I think ya'll might find interesting too.

By the way, did I ever mention the time I went bird-watching with Thomas Pynchon? Or the drinking games David Foster Wallace and I used to play? True stories.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This is an example of what I am talking about. Blind acceptance of anything Ty posts as truth- "Dear Leader has won."

At least I know Penske and spank are talking shit half the time.

You are mistaken if you think that I accept everything Ty posts, blindly or not. Actually, my last post should make that clear (the 90% to which you didn't respond.)

OTOH -- that doesn't mean that I bother to argue with him about them, because we're usually basically on the same side. Sort of like the way you treat posts by Spanky and Penske.

BTW -- I appreciate your last post. You took the time and effort to present coherent statements worth reading. (Much better than the 10th reiteration of "My 2000 documents already proved he's wrong.") Thanks.

I read this board not to listen to people I agree with, but: (a) to hear coherent viewpoints with which I disagree, (b) to learn new things (rare); and (c) to hear reasonable discussions on issues I don't know much about by people who know more (occasionally).

Each of these happen from time to time, which makes this discussion board worth more than most, in my view.

Sometimes I understand your frustration, and you can legitimately raise questions about people's sources, but you're going way too far when you shout about how people should not discuss subjects on which they are not themselves expert or have personal knowledge.

We are all lawyers, Hank. Under than standard, our "Politics" Board would be a running monologue by Spanky. (But, can you really be an expert if you almost always lose?)

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Your answer seems to be- "but they blew up a plutonium bomb so the cheating on Uranium doesn't matter."

As a lawyer I think that is an intellectually dishonest argument. We KNOW they are cheating on one type material, but since they didn't build their bomb from it we should not be concerned about the cheating?

No. Obviously the cheating on uranium wasn't good, but we still got something when they stopped plutonium production.

And let's be clear -- I'm not saying that the 1994 agreement solved the problem. This conversation started when Spanky posted something blaming our current problems on Clinton. That's what I was reacting to, and that's ridiculous.

As understood, you are comfortable there was no plutonium development because a camera was running where we would have expected the development.

And for other reasons stated in some of those documents. It's relatively easier to hide a some centrifuges to enrich uranium, and relatively hard to hide a plant of the size and capability needed for the plutonium.

Your other point, that it served to buy time, is the strongest argument for the deal being a bad idea. You point out the plants never were completed so no harm- BUT 2 types of harm are likely:

• We had to back out of a deal. We had to accuse the NK of cheating (n.b. one of your "solid" links (2) seems to imply that the evidence of cheating was contrived- EVEN though NK admitted it).

There's no doubt that they were enriching uranium. The Foreign Affairs article doesn't suggest that the evidence was contrived, but rather that the 1994 deal did not address uranium. Are you just throwing this out there to see if it sticks, or do you really think that the North Koreans were not in violation of the agreement?

If the deal didn't cover uranium, then we didn't have to back out of anything -- we gave them fuel oil and they stopped producing plutonium. If the deal did cover uranium, they were cheating, so where's the harm?

AND given how long the agreement was in place, I find it difficult to believe that a good deal of know-how was not given to NK. We likely trained NK personal in nuclear technology. and that was the damage my one document evidenced.

When you or Spanky find some actual reason apart from your own conjecture to think that the Clinton Administration gave North Korea nuclear know-how, you post here, 'kay?

At best your position, "we never actually followed through on the deal" misses the point that clinton didn't stop the deal AND if Clinton's defense was he knew the deal would get stopped, that's double fucked. He knowingly dumped and worsened the problem.

I truly don't understand what you're arguing here. The problem is that North Korea -- for decades -- has been working to build the problem. Nothing Clinton did "worsened the problem," unless you think that he harmed our happy relations with North Korea, in which case I'm waiting for you to apply the same critique to the Bush White House.

Your 10 links (actually 9, 3 doesn't open) don't change any of the above. Clinton made a deal to get him out of the White House. Gore or whooever could clean it up.

Until now, you tried to say that the North Koreans were processing plutonium -- not just uranium -- between 1994 and 2002. Have you forgotten that already? C'mon, Hank -- you haven't put up, and you haven't shut up. Do you think anyone here isn't going to notice that you were full of shit and are now trying to change the subject?

Oh, and 3 opens if you click on it.

So the new Hank argument is that Clinton didn't wave his magical wand and make the North Korean nuclear program disappear. That's pretty cogent. It must all be Clinton's fault.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Unfair to Bunning - isn't he about 80 and ill?

Also, where is my friend Maxine?

And elected by Kentucky despite public knowledge he was off his rocker and downright bizarre.

The thing is, he belonged on the list in his best day, so maybe he shouldn't be number 1 (Cynthia McKinney and Katherine Harris have bought fought hard for that role) out of deference to his age and mental deterioration, but he certainly belongs somewhere on there.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I was having dinner with a friend last night, and he mentioned a mutual friend of ours who has become a New York Times bestselling author. I had no idea.

Last time either one of us had seen Rory, he'd needed to be rescued from Dallas because the corvette he'd bought upon hitting US soil so he could see the country property had died. Last I heard, Rory was doing something stupid like walking across Asia.

Anyhow, this is the New York Times review of his book. I absolutely adore Rory, though I haven't spent much time since we were in school together. I think, though, that a lot of ya'll would probably find what he's been through to be very interesting.

His previous book I think ya'll might find interesting too.

I gave my FIL his book as a birthday present and he recommended it. Slate ran excerpts a few months ago.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So the new Hank argument is that Clinton didn't wave his magical wand and make the North Korean nuclear program disappear. That's pretty cogent. It must all be Clinton's fault.

yes. that was my point. you've boiled it down. thanks.

See SAM, you were right to trust Ty.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You continue to focus on the Uranium/Plutonium distinction like it was some sort of smoking gun. I frankly don't think it matters which one it was. The point is that they were pursuing nuclear technologies in violation of the Framework.

If your only point is that North Korea violated the framework, then I say:

(1) Argue with Hank, who now says they weren't,

(2) OK, but we still got some benefit out of the deal, by getting them to stop plutonium production, and

(3) Even if the 1994 deal didn't solve all of our problems on the North Korean peninsula, it's wrong to try to blame Clinton for the situation we find ourselves in now.

[sgtclub]

Gorby compares proposed US/Mexico wall with Berlin wall:

http://www.mywesttexas.com/site/prin...ewsid=17342695

I swear, sometimes I think we are living in Bizarro world.

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
True. but I'm nort sure why its more important.

I think its the most important issue of all.

Regardless of what Clinton or Bush knew or didnt know, it has been next to impossible (if not just impossible) to do anything about North Korea when both China and our purported ally to the South have continued to prop up the North from fear that their borders will be overrun someday.

I'm not exactly sure why we never removed all (or most) of our 30,000 troops stationed in South Korea when their recent administration agitated the general public a few years ago into expressing that we leave?

Leaving them alone to face the threat of the maniac to the North might have turned the Sunshine policy on its head and made them face reality a little sooner. Alas...

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
Gorby compares proposed US/Mexico wall with Berlin wall:

http://www.mywesttexas.com/site/prin...ewsid=17342695

I swear, sometimes I think we are living in Bizarro world.

A quasi-socialist state where people are desperate to flee because their is little food and jobs are scarce?

If you look at Mexico as East Germany, it makes some sense - but I don't think ol' Gorby was leaning that way.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Gorby compares proposed US/Mexico wall with Berlin wall:

http://www.mywesttexas.com/site/prin...ewsid=17342695

I swear, sometimes I think we are living in Bizarro world.

Same friend at dinner last night (fiscal Republican, sort of rolls his eyes at the social issues the party has taken on, but he gets a christmas card from the white house every year) said the same thing last night. He was specifically referring to the the clusterfuck that is the edifice between San Diego and TJ, while speculating at how many illegal immigrants are actually going to be involved with building the wall.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I think its the most important issue of all.

Regardless of what Clinton or Bush knew or didnt know, it has been next to impossible (if not just impossible) to do anything about North Korea when both China and our purported ally to the South have continued to prop up the North from fear that their borders will be overrun someday.

Ah. That makes sense.

China really is the key. Query whether they truly more fear : (a) lots of NK immigrants, or (b) that SK would eventually absorb NK (Germany-type scenario) leaving a US-treaty ally on China's border, with US forces stationed there.

The PRC's internal "history" has always been that they intervened in the Korean War to prevent having US troops on their border. (Which made a lot of sense for Chinese communists in the late 1940s and early 1950s.)

I wonder if, as you say, removing US forces from SK might not help break the logjam. One of the problems is that NK has demanded that step -- another reason we won't do it.

NK having nuclear weapons is a big problem for us less because of their direct military threat than because they just might sell them to literally anyone. (Proven track record.) The potential for a miniature nuclear arms race in NE Asia is also a longer term issue.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
See the NYT article from yesterday about how the bomb was made from plutonium.

Why does it matter that the bomb was made of Plutonium. Why does it matter that they stopped producing plutonium for eight years. The whole point of the process is to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. If they continue to develop nuclear weapons then there is something wrong.

Clinton signed a treaty to stop them from developing weapons and they continued to do it. If they hadn't blown up a Plutonium bomb they would have eventually blown up a Uranium one.

Hell the United States developed both in WWII.

[Spanky]

Reported By: Keith Whitney
Web Editor: Michael King
Last Modified: 10/18/2006 8:13:12 AM


Former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday night that an agreement he brokered 12 years ago for North Korea to halt nuclear weapons development is “in the wastebasket." Carter contends the Bush administration turned its back on the deal and labeled the isolated nation part of an “axis of evil.”

But Carter, speaking at a previously scheduled panel discussion on his 1994 mediation, said he does not foresee the current dispute over North Korea’s test of a nuclear bomb leading to war.

Carter said that in 1994, war “appeared to be imminent” if the Clinton administration had pushed sanctions against North Korea through the UN Security Council. But he said it is less likely now. Although North Korea branded sanctions imposed by the security council as an act of war, Carter said they are not as stringent as those proposed by the Clinton administration 12 years ago.

Carter appeared with his wife, Rosalynn, and former Ambassador to South Korea James Laney in the panel discussion at The Carter Center in Atlanta. They were joined by Marion Creekmore, author of the book “A Moment of Crisis,” about his 1994 trip with the Carters to Pyongyang.

Laney said it appeared that war was certain before Carter’s trip, which demonstrated to him that every opportunity for peaceful resolution of a crisis must be used.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why does it matter that they stopped producing plutonium for eight years.

I'm sorry, but THAT is a really stupid question.

Originally posted by Spanky
The whole point of the process is to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. If they continue to develop nuclear weapons then there is something wrong.

Absolutely, there is _something_ wrong, but there is a notable difference between plutonium and enriched uranium weapons. (explosive yield, efficiency, critical mass, etc.)