link

quote:

North Korea said Monday it has performed its first-ever nuclear weapons test, setting off an underground blast in defiance of international warnings and intense diplomatic activity aimed at heading off such a move.

Well I am actually kind of glad N. Korea became a member of the nuclear club.

Don't look so shocked...

it was the best thing to guarantee their sovreignty. Also, if you take a peek at the Bush foreign diplomacy in this matter it really makes this country look like a doube-crossing, backstabbing, liar of a nation...

quote:

Oct. 16, 2006 issue - On Sept. 19, 2005, North Korea signed a widely heralded denuclearization agreement with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. Pyongyang pledged to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs." In return, Washington agreed that the United States and North Korea would "respect each other's sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize their relations."
Four days later, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sweeping financial sanctions against North Korea designed to cut off the country's access to the international banking system, branding it a "criminal state" guilty of counterfeiting, money laundering and trafficking in weapons of mass destruction.

The Bush administration says that this sequence of events was a coincidence.

link

Coincidence?

The leaders of this country actually had the nerve to say that?

Four days later!

I wonder who was in charge of that SNAFU, or did we sign the agreement with our fingers crossed behind our back?


Welcome to the club N.Korea!

Chalk another pre-apocalyptic diplomatic failure to George Bush et al.

quote:

North Korea announced last week it would test a nuclear device saying its hand was forced by what it called U.S. threats of nuclear war and economic sanctions. But it said it would not be the first to use a nuclear weapon.

link

quote:

South Korea's Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources had detected a tremor of a magnitude 3.58 to 3.7 at 0135 GMT.

quote:

Don't look so shocked..

I'm not shocked. I knew you had a soft spot in your heart for communist dictators.

My ex brother in law has a doctorate in political science and is studying the famine in North Korea. He has to study it from their Chinese border because he can't actually go into the country. Hundreds of thousands of North Koreans are starving because of the policies of Kim Jong Il yet he sits in his palace and has his servants sort his rice kernels to make sure they are exactly the same size before they are cooked.

I'm not surprised at all.

I don't see this as a failure of the Bush administration. Fact of the matter is that the effort to get North Korea to stop it's nuclear proliferation should have been fronted by it's neighbors, primarily China and Japan. I'm really tired of everyone around the world pointing to the US and thinking we have some responsibility to fix the worlds problems. It's time for someone else to step up.

quote:

I knew you had a soft spot in your heart for communist dictators.

hmmmm..

Ad Hominem?

Kate you should learn the difference between ad hominem, a joke and an insult.

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy used in debate, Meaning attacking the man instead of the topic.

A joke is something I can't explain to you because you have no sense of humor.

An insult is my comment above about the joke.

Now that I have that off my chest I hope we can go back to loving each other.

quote:

A joke is something I can't explain to you because you have no sense of humor.

lol!

Seems more in line with civilized debate:

quote:

I don't see this as a failure of the Bush administration. Fact of the matter is that the effort to get North Korea to stop it's nuclear proliferation should have been fronted by it's neighbors, primarily China and Japan. I'm really tired of everyone around the world pointing to the US and thinking we have some responsibility to fix the worlds problems. It's time for someone else to step up.

Bush's policy is to wait out his enemies in the naive hope they all will collapse under their own weight.

This is because Bush does not want to reach any agreement that would allow the current regimes to stay in power.

However, this is foolhardy approach.

As we now see, NK has quadrupled its nuclear materials since 2000 and has formally become a nuclear power. This could have been prevented by a wiser President and true leader who understands that regime-change in itself is not always the best goal.

Once again, Bush's idealism does not match real world circumstances, and we are less safe for it.

quote:

Hundreds of thousands of North Koreans are starving because of the policies of Kim Jong Il

Ok, is it possible they are starving because of...

quote:

the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sweeping financial sanctions against North Korea

and in a brazen attempt to be listed in hipocrites-r-us...

quote:

yet he sits in his palace and has his servants sort his rice kernels to make sure they are exactly the same size before they are cooked.

what did you have to eat today while thousands in this country(which certainly is more capable of providing for its citizens than N Korea) starve?

Just another thing (the nuclear device detonation), that never would have happened under a Gore administration. This should be a Democratic talking point, but alas the Dems would need a spine to use it as such.

N. Korea has not broken any international law or treaty with this detonation. It removed from the non-proliferation treaty in 1993.

Maybe this is obvious, but I really can't take this outrage at a test when the U.S. has detonated thousands of devices, seeks a new class of nuclear weapons, and is the only country to have used them on people.

And, BTW, Iran (and the kingdoms there that preceded the modern state) have not initiated war against any other country for over 200 years. There a dozens and dozens of U.S. unprovoked military action against other countries during that time.

there are dozens

quote:

Just another thing (the nuclear device detonation), that never would have happened under a Gore administration.

It was the Clinton / Gore administration that gave them the bomb in the first place.

Bill, do you feel it's incumbant on us to feed North Korea? Do you think that the monitary aid we've given them in the past got to the peasants or could it have been spent on weaponry? Kim Jong Il is a crazy despot and an evil man.

I'll tell you one thing. I would never want our foot soldiers in the middle of a conflict between the North and South. Their armies are the most brutal in the world.

quote:

Originally posted by Astaroth:

quote:

Just another thing (the nuclear device detonation), that never would have happened under a Gore administration.

It was the Clinton / Gore administration that gave them the bomb in the first place.

I'm researching your claim at the moment Astaroth, but from what I can uncover it looks as if Clinton made a deal with them to stop nuclear development, a deal which North Korea reneged on. I believe Clinton was out of office by the time this was found out about, and last I knew Bush was trying to have five-party talks or somesuch with the North Koreans, and they seemed to have been busily working away on their nuclear program since the time we found out they broke the deal that Clinton had agreed to with them.

Anyway, my point about Al Gore was that the only reason North Korea has these outbursts of missile tests, over the top rhetoric etc... is to get international attention. They did this same kind of stuff when they were a Soviet satellite. All they really want is more weapons or food to feed their starving people depending on what mood their dictator is in on a given day. Now, we don't want to prop up their ruthless, diabolical leader, but short of going to war with them we may be forced to negotiate and give into some of their demands. Bush has refused to negotiate with them bilaterally, and thus is culpable for this escalation of their nuclear program.

Joseph Cirincione made a great point on Thom's show today, that these neo-conservative crazies that Bush is so impressed by, don't negotiate. If you don't negotiate with nations who you already have troubled relations with chances are those relations will only get worse, probably why we are seeing North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs progress the way we have during the failed Bush presidency.

quote:

Bush has refused to negotiate with them bilaterally, and thus is culpable for this escalation of their nuclear program.

My memory of the situation is that Bush wanted multi latteral talks with North Korea but Kim Jong Il wanted bi-latteral talks because he wasn't in position to play hardball with China. He wanted bi-latteral talks with the US because he was able to intimidate us into an excessive amount of aid priviously.

quote:

Originally posted by Sawdust:

quote:

Bush has refused to negotiate with them bilaterally, and thus is culpable for this escalation of their nuclear program.

My memory of the situation is that Bush wanted multi latteral talks with North Korea but Kim Jong Il wanted bi-latteral talks because he wasn't in position to play hardball with China. He wanted bi-latteral talks with the US because he was able to intimidate us into an excessive amount of aid priviously.

Well, we're getting into a lot of hypotheticals here, so I don't think I'm going to be able to debate this to death. Let's say I don't know with 100% certainty that Gore would have been able to stop the escalation of N. Korea's nuclear program, but I have all the confidence in him that he would have been able to do so. If we think through every scenario we can get the same result that we have now, but I don't think under a Gore administration this would have been one of the most likely outcomes.

By the way, Sawdust, I'm not sure you're point refutes my argument, but ok I must concede Bush possibly had some valid reasons to not take part in bilateral talks with North Korea.

I'm not a Gore fan and won't speculate about the Korean situation as it relates to him. He did have a special relationship with Buddhists as I recall. Maybe he could have used his connections.

I'm pretty sure that Bush had called for multilateral talks however. I'm not argueing, just trying to remember.

quote:

Originally posted by Sawdust:
I'm not a Gore fan and won't speculate about the Korean situation as it relates to him. He did have a special relationship with Buddhists as I recall. Maybe he could have used his connections.

I would think they are marxist/atheist there, but who knows perhaps he could have gotten lucky. But alas, we're mired again in hypotheticals, ah what good a few less hanging chads could have accomplished.

I'm not sure about the North. I was in South Korea for a year. They have plenty of Buddhists.

quote:

"The five of us -- Russia, South Korea, Japan, China, and the United States -- spoke with one voice about the rocket launches, and we will work together to continue to remind the leader of North Korea that there is a better way forward for his people," he said. "I also strongly believe that it is much more effective to have more than one nation dealing with North Korea. It's more effective for them to hear from a group of nations rather than one nation."

Link Unit

quote:

It was the Clinton / Gore administration that gave them the bomb in the first place.

All this talk about N Korea as if it was a naughty child. Who gave Russia France China India Packistan UK and Israel nukes?

It is the responsibility of all soveriegn nations to defend itself as best it can aginst outside threats. In today's world that means having nuclear capability. Why are we calling N Korea an evil empire and its leader a madman? Why impose sacntions? Why not just do business with each other as if our nations were friendly? What possible threat is N Korea to the USA?

None whatsoever.

All this sabre-rattling is doing nothing but making the world a more volitile mixture of cultures and weaponry.

Right now we need someone like Gore leading the country, the man is peaceful and understands and respects other cultures. Bush and the rest of the warmongers are the madmen if you ask me.

Even Kerry called Pyongyang a madman. that's just plain stupid and unnecessarily inflammatory.

Thanks to Bush, the whole world is on edge and ready to fight at a drop of a hat. Maybe we should all just have nuclear free-for-all and whoever or whatever is left can start over again from scratch...

You all do remember this, don't you:

quote:

WASHINGTON -- It was a catchy phrase. Perhaps too catchy.

A year after President Bush used the State of the Union address to declare Iraq, Iran and North Korea an "axis of evil," the phrase has taken on a life of its own. With this year's address scheduled for Jan. 28 and the U.S. on the cusp of war with Iraq, the legacy of the "axis of evil" weighs heavily on the speechwriters and policy-makers hard at work on Bush's speech.

Even critics agree that the "axis of evil" was a clever piece of rhetoric in explaining the president's policies to the American people. But as foreign policy, there is wide consensus that it exacerbated the dangers it attempted to contain.

"It was a speechwriter's dream and a policy-maker's nightmare," said Warren Christopher, secretary of State under President Clinton.

The phrase caused immediate controversy. A year later, many experts say it's clear it also has caused real damage.

"It was harmful both conceptually and operationally," said Graham Allison, government professor and former dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. "Conceptually, the 'axis' suggested a relationship among the entities that doesn't exist. More important, operationally, the reaction of the world and the North Korea debacle demonstrates that it was a mistake."

The "axis of evil" language upped the rhetorical ante significantly. Some believe it played a role in undermining Iran's moderate leaders and squelching the country's nascent democracy movement. Many believe it helped provoke North Korea into nuclear confrontation.

eley

This article I ran across today pretty much sums up the way I feel about this nuclear club attainment business...

Welcome to the Nuclear Club

quote:

Nuclear weapons can't be controlled by saying, in effect, "Do as we say, not as we do." By developing their own nuclear weaponry, one nation after another has replied to the nuclear-armed states: Whatever you say, we'll do as you've done.

How the hell can we be so technologically advanced while being so emotionally immature and diplomatically naive?

quote:

The invasion of Iraq, on the pretext of non-existent WMDs, sent a powerful message. If the U.S. government was inclined to launch an attack before a country had the capability to generate a mushroom cloud, then the country would be protected from such attack by developing nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

quote:

Whatever you say, we'll do as you've done.

Which is why pre-emptive strike doctrine is dangerous and disasterous. It's an abuse that's open to abuse and so on and so forth.

quote:

Originally posted by bill king:


South Korea's Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources had detected a tremor of a magnitude 3.58 to 3.7 at 0135 GMT.

For what it's worth, the earthquake corrosponded to 250-300 tons of TNT. Two semesters of physics leads me to the conclusion that the exposion was 500 tons to 2.5 kilotons, although that's just an educated guess. The bomb we dropped on Hiroshima was 13 kT. It most likely was a dud, although the US built a 600 ton nonnuclear bomb to film what a nuke exploding would look like above ground. The timing is interesting, seems like Kim wants to embarrass Bush before the elections, with a possibly nonnuclear bomb, or it was a dud, that Kim sped through to try before the elections.

Georgr bush gave kim the footlall

quote:

Originally posted by Raoul Duke:
Just another thing (the nuclear device detonation), that never would have happened under a Gore administration. This should be a Democratic talking point, but alas the Dems would need a spine to use it as such.

The unfortunate truth is that the US has little ability--other than war--to stop NK's nuclear ambitions.

Also, BushJr has done absolutely NOTHING to try to stop NK's ambitions. He has refused to even TALK--let alone go to war.

Every other US president has at least tried to talk, and in Clinton's case, he successfully delayed NK's entry to the nuclear club, which is the oly thing he could have hoped to achieved unless he went to war.

McCain Criticizes Clinton on N. Korea

quote:

By SARAH KARUSH



SOUTHFIELD, Mich. (AP) - Republican Sen. John McCain on Tuesday accused former President Clinton, the husband of his potential 2008 White House rival, of failing to act in the 1990s to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.
"I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure," McCain said at a news conference after a campaign appearance for Republican Senate candidate Mike Bouchard.
"The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military," he said.
Democrats have argued President Clinton presented his successor with a framework for dealing with North Korea and the Republican fumbled the opportunity. In October 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made a groundbreaking visit to Pyongyang to explore a missile deal with Chairman Kim Jong Il. There was even talk of a visit by President Clinton.

There is an important term in the paragraphs above, "framework agreement". That was the name of the outline of the agreement Albright and Kim reached on her state visit. Clinton never bothered to get it ratified by Congress and in reading the history of the agreement, it was affected by different circumstances. First, Kim Il Song died and his son Kim Jung Il took control of the chairmanship. The son is a wack job and refused to cooperate with inspections. Second, congress didn't fund some of the things that Albright promised to give away when she signed the framework agreement. Consequently, Kim Jong Il has totally blown off the framework agreement and that's what Democrats mean when they say that Albright was lied to.

I think the genesis of the Korean problem was the Albright visit and the fact that Clinton never had the framework agreement ratified by congress. Further complicating the situation was the death of Kim Il Song and the rise to power of his crazy son. The son has seen that if he misbehaves, the west will give him things. That's why he won't sit at the six party talks that Bush wants to engage in. The talks include Russia and China and Kim believes he is not in a position to threaten them. He want's bi latteral talks with the US to the exclusion of his neighbors. Does that make sense to anyone?

quote:

The son is a wack job and refused to cooperate with inspections.

Really.

quote:

Originally posted by Sawdust:
McCain Criticizes Clinton on N. Korea

quote:

By SARAH KARUSH



SOUTHFIELD, Mich. (AP) - Republican Sen. John McCain on Tuesday accused former President Clinton, the husband of his potential 2008 White House rival, of failing to act in the 1990s to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.
"I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure," McCain said at a news conference after a campaign appearance for Republican Senate candidate Mike Bouchard.
"The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military," he said.
Democrats have argued President Clinton presented his successor with a framework for dealing with North Korea and the Republican fumbled the opportunity. In October 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made a groundbreaking visit to Pyongyang to explore a missile deal with Chairman Kim Jong Il. There was even talk of a visit by President Clinton.

There is an important term in the paragraphs above, "framework agreement". That was the name of the outline of the agreement Albright and Kim reached on her state visit. Clinton never bothered to get it ratified by Congress and in reading the history of the agreement, it was affected by different circumstances. First, Kim Il Song died and his son Kim Jung Il took control of the chairmanship. The son is a wack job and refused to cooperate with inspections. Second, congress didn't fund some of the things that Albright promised to give away when she signed the framework agreement. Consequently, Kim Jong Il has totally blown off the framework agreement and that's what Democrats mean when they say that Albright was lied to.

I think the genesis of the Korean problem was the Albright visit and the fact that Clinton never had the framework agreement ratified by congress. Further complicating the situation was the death of Kim Il Song and the rise to power of his crazy son. The son has seen that if he misbehaves, the west will give him things. That's why he won't sit at the six party talks that Bush wants to engage in. The talks include Russia and China and Kim believes he is not in a position to threaten them. He want's bi latteral talks with the US to the exclusion of his neighbors. Does that make sense to anyone?

Whatevr yuo like or dislike about Clinton's approach to NK, the fact remains that the leaders of SK and Japan supported Clinton's approach.

Also, it is recognized that Clinton's approach delayed NK's entry into the nuclear club for several years, thereby giving future leaders the chance to refine the approach.

CLinton had only one choice that he did not exercise--attack NK--thus it is hard to criticize Clinton.

Bush on the other hand, DID NOTHING. He ignored the situation--much to the objections of the SK and Japanese leaders--and refused to even talk.

quote:

CLinton had only one choice that he did not exercise--attack NK--thus it is hard to criticize Clinton.

Bush on the other hand, DID NOTHING. He ignored the situation--much to the objections of the SK and Japanese leaders--and refused to even talk.

You know so very little about the situation, I don't know why you bother. Clinton didn't only have one option. He took the easy way out and tried to bribe North Korea with promises he didn't fulfill, making the situation worse. He could have involved the UN, they like giving things to despots. He could have lobbied for sanctions.

Bush on the other hand, to his credit I might add, has supported multi latteral talks with North Korea. Kim Jong Il doesn't want peace with his neighbors, he wants the west to give him things. That's why he won't talk to his neighbors.

Don't you think that it's reasonable for China, Japan, South Korea and Russia to be included in talks when they are the countries most vulnerable to nuclear problems cause by North Korea.

Try taking off that partisan thinking cap for a second and actually consider the problem.

quote:

Jan. 29, 2002: Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address. "By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger," he says.

CNN Timeline (North Korea Nuclear Weapons development)

quote:

"By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger," he says.

Do you have an opinion about this or do you just like to look things up? My opinion is that nuclear proliferation presents a grave and growing danger, especially when the nukes are in the hands of someone who likes his rice sorted for size while his nation starves.

My opinion is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. In this sense, the equalization of force (power) has the potential to negate the use of force.

I might agree if we were dealing with rational people.

It's okay. You can agree with the principle, without attaching it to an individual person. Promise.

So, you can agree with me anyhow.

quote:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States would not attack North Korea, rejecting a suggestion that Pyongyang may feel it needs nuclear weapons to stave off an Iraq-style U.S. invasion.

Rice told CNN that President Bush has told the North Koreans that "there is no intention to invade or attack them. So they have that guarantee. ... I don't know what more they want."

My goodness how the Bush administration has changed its tone! I can just picture Rice with her face contorted into a hurt look and her arms outstreched, palms up as she says "I don't know what more they want."

As I recall, Rice used to reply that all options are being considered when asked by the media about use of military force against N Korea, now it's...

"there is no intention to invade or attack them. So they have that guarantee."

I am fed up with our lying, double dealing, arrogant and stupid diplomatic leadership.

It really is a disgrace.

Kate, If everyone in the world had the same values, I could agree that nuclear parity would work. That's not the case with N. Korea. Kim Jong Il is not rational. One of my suspicions is that the noise coming from N. Korea has something to do with Iran and their nuclear ambitions. I'm sure the Iranians are monitoring the worlds reaction to N. Korea closely. A missile and a nuke from Iran to Tel Aviv, could start the nuclear war everyone should fear.

quote:

My goodness how the Bush administration has changed its tone!

I guess I missed the part when anyone said something different.

quote:

Sawdust:

My ex brother in law has a doctorate in political science and is studying the famine in North Korea.

Brilliant!

[Sorry ... i couldnt read any more]

Anyway, what we were talking about ...

Donald Rumsfeld's North Korea connection - best ignore it, eh?

Posted by Ron F on October 11, 2006, 12:45 am
User logged in as: RonF

Is there a single tyrant or brutal regime that Rumsfeld hasn't done business with?

Rummy's North Korea Connection What did Donald Rumsfeld know about ABB's deal to build nuclear reactors there? And why won't he talk about it?
By Richard Behar Research Associate Brenda Cherry
May 12, 2003

(FORTUNE Magazine) – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rarely keeps his opinions to himself. He tends not to compromise with his enemies. And he clearly disdains the communist regime in North Korea. So it's surprising that there is no clear public record of his views on the controversial 1994 deal in which the U.S. agreed to provide North Korea with two light-water nuclear reactors in exchange for Pyongyang ending its nuclear weapons program. What's even more surprising about Rumsfeld's silence is that he sat on the board of the company that won a $200 million contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors.

The company is Zurich-based engineering giant ABB, which signed the contract in early 2000, well before Rumsfeld gave up his board seat and joined the Bush administration. Rumsfeld, the only American director on the ABB board from 1990 to early 2001, has never acknowledged that he knew the company was competing for the nuclear contract. Nor could FORTUNE find any public reference to what he thought about the project. In response to questions about his role in the reactor deal, the Defense Secretary's spokeswoman Victoria Clarke told Newsweek in February that "there was no vote on this" and that her boss "does not recall it being brought before the board at any time."

Rumsfeld declined requests by FORTUNE to elaborate on his role. But ABB spokesman Bjorn Edlund has told FORTUNE that "board members were informed about this project." And other ABB officials say there is no way such a large and high-stakes project, involving complex questions of liability, would not have come to the attention of the board. "A written summary would probably have gone to the board before the deal was signed," says Robert Newman, a former president of ABB's U.S. nuclear division who spearheaded the project. "I'm sure they were aware."

FORTUNE contacted 15 ABB board members who served at the time the company was bidding for the Pyongyang contract, and all but one declined to comment. That director, who asked not to be identified, says he's convinced that ABB's chairman at the time, Percy Barnevik, told the board about the reactor project in the mid-1990s. "This was a major thing for ABB," the former director says, "and extensive political lobbying was done."

The director recalls being told that Rumsfeld was asked "to lobby in Washington" on ABB's behalf in the mid-1990s because a rival American company had complained about a foreign-owned firm getting the work. Although he couldn't provide details, Goran Lundberg, who ran ABB's power-generation business until 1995, says he's "pretty sure that at some point Don was involved," since it was not unusual to seek help from board members "when we needed contacts with the U.S. government." Other former top executives don't recall Rumsfeld's involvement.

Today Rumsfeld, riding high after the Iraq war, is reportedly discussing a plan for "regime change" in North Korea. But his silence about the nuclear reactors raises questions about what he did--or didn't do--as an ABB director. There is no evidence that Rumsfeld, who took a keen interest in the company's nuclear business and attended most board meetings, made his views about the project known to other ABB officials. He certainly never made them public, even though the deal was criticized by many people close to Rumsfeld, who said weapons-grade nuclear material could be extracted from light-water reactors. Paul Wolfowitz, James Lilley, and Richard Armitage, all Rumsfeld allies, are on record opposing the deal. So is former presidential candidate Bob Dole, for whom Rumsfeld served as campaign manager and chief defense advisor. And Henry Sokolski, whose think tank received funding from a foundation on whose board Rumsfeld sat, has been one of the most vocal opponents of the 1994 agreement.

One clue to Rumsfeld's views: a Heritage Foundation speech in March 1998. Although he did not mention the light-water reactors, Rumsfeld said the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea "does not end its nuclear menace; it merely postpones the reckoning, with no assurance that we will know how much bomb-capable material North Korea has." A search of numerous databases found no press references at the time, or throughout the 1990s, noting Rumsfeld was a director of the company building the reactors. And Rumsfeld didn't bring it up either.

continues ....

Link: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/05/12/3423

quote:

A missile and a nuke from Iran to Tel Aviv, could start the nuclear war everyone should fear.

Or from Pakistan to Tel Aviv, but noone is talking about that because Pakistan is a member of the nuclear club. Once Iran gets a nuke they will be safe from invasion and all the tough-talking leaders of countries who want to highly restrict membership to the nuclear club will shut up.

quote:

Originally posted by Sawdust:

Kate you should learn the difference between ad hominem, a joke and an insult.

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy used in debate, Meaning attacking the man instead of the topic.

A joke is something I can't explain to you because you have no sense of humor.

An insult is my comment above about the joke.

Now that I have that off my chest I hope we can go back to loving each other.

And what about an insulting Ad hominem joke?

The above reminds of someone who seemed to think that sarcasm was somehow a defence against the use of ad hominem (a breach of the new Terms of Service), as if once the ad hom' becomes sarcastic that it is no longer counted as ad hom'.

Brilliant!

Anyway, what were we talking about?

quote:

Originally posted by bill king:

quote:

A missile and a nuke from Iran to Tel Aviv, could start the nuclear war everyone should fear.

Or from Pakistan to Tel Aviv, but noone is talking about that because Pakistan is a member of the nuclear club. Once Iran gets a nuke they will be safe from invasion and all the tough-talking leaders of countries who want to highly restrict membership to the nuclear club will shut up.

Hello, Bill.

As optimstic as ever?

Last night British tv aired a programe titled, i think - 'Will Israel bomb Iran'. It was bascially the [inter]views of three past Israeli leaders telling how they will bomb Iran.

Bill you point out something important. Pakistan isn't involved in the same kind of rhetoric that Iran is. Their beef is with India. If they blow up India, the US will lose call centers and programers, not that it would be a good thing. If there is a nuclear war in the Middle East, the world loses much of it's oil supply and the depression that would follow would make that of the 30's look like childs play. I don't think anyone wants that.

quote:

Originally posted by Sawdust:

Bill you point out something important. Pakistan isn't involved in the same kind of rhetoric that Iran is. Their beef is with India. If they blow up India, the US will lose call centers and programers, not that it would be a good thing. If there is a nuclear war in the Middle East, the world loses much of it's oil supply and the depression that would follow would make that of the 30's look like childs play. I don't think anyone wants that.

As if Iran would ensure its own destruction and be the first to strike, Tel Aviv.

But you did point out something important, Sawdust.

quote:

Pakistan isn't involved in the same kind of rhetoric that Iran is

The Rhetoric and false accusations against Iran from Israel and the US is not the same, not even the same as it is against North Korea.

And Iran doesnt have Nukes.

Mind you, neither did Iraq. And looked what happened there at the hands of both Israel; and the US (655,000 killed in Iraq due to illegal invasion occupation.).

Mind you, the murderous sanctions against Iraq are probably out done by the murderous sanctions against North Korea. And that after the millions (4 million civilians) of Koreans killed by the US.

quote:

the world loses much of it's oil supply and the depression that would follow would make that of the 30's look like childs play.

Which brings up a point I have been meaning to mention recently.

I don't think so.

Despite all the conservative talk on free market this and unfettered that, I have come to realise that the federal government has been keeping the economy up and will continue to do so indefinately. The control they have is enormous. Take the stock market, for example, they routinely prop up the market using treasury funds to prevent a sell off. The oil industry is just as easily manipulated as we have witnessed in the past 2 months with oil prices. The arabs had nothing to do with the drop, its was all engineered by Goldman Sachs reducing its stake in the energy market and the government not buying oil to replenish its reserves.

Up until recently I was concerned that if the threw the cons out of power that the easy credit would dry up and housing and energy markets would squeeze the economy into a deep recession. Well thanks to the cons "spend now, pay later" modus operandi, there is no way we are in a position to weather such a scenario, hence the government wont let it happen, no matter who is in charge.

So now is the time to throw the bums out and start heading this country in the right direction.

quote:

So now is the time to throw the bums out and start heading this country in the right direction.

If they threw all the bums out, there wouldn't be anyone left, although I do have a soft spot for Ron Paul.

If you have a link to the government not replentishing it's reserves, I'd like to see it. Didn't Bush refuse to release oil from the strategic reserve after Katrina? I don't remember when the last time they released oil from the reserve was.

and then there's this:

Newsweek International

quote:

By Selig S. Harrison
Newsweek International
Oct. 16, 2006 issue - On Sept. 19, 2005, North Korea signed a widely heralded denuclearization agreement with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. Pyongyang pledged to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs." In return, Washington agreed that the United States and North Korea would "respect each other's sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize their relations."

Four days later, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sweeping financial sanctions against North Korea designed to cut off the country's access to the international banking system, branding it a "criminal state" guilty of counterfeiting, money laundering and trafficking in weapons of mass destruction.

eley

quote:

If you have a link to the government not replentishing it's reserves, I'd like to see it.

Sure I took my information from ...

here

quote:

What’s behind this buying panic and will it last? We have suggested the recent rally was preordained when Goldman Sachs (GS/$175.65) reduced the gasoline weighting in its much followed Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (GSCI). By taking the weighting from 7.3% to 2.5%, Goldman literally forced the billions of institutional dollars “mirroring” the GSCI to sell gasoline futures. We find it interesting that Goldman chose to reduce the gasoline weighting in incremental stages right into the November elections, but that’s a discussion for another time.

We also find it interesting that the Department of Energy has chosen not to buy any more crude oil for the Strategic Reserve, even though the reserve is below norms, but that too is a discussion for another time. Nevertheless, the “crash” in gasoline and crude oil prices, combined with a 4.7%-yielding benchmark bond, has caused the “Poor Grenvilles” of the world to “lose cash” driven by performance anxiety. Will it last? Well in last Thursday’s strategy comments we opined that the typical trading pattern calls for a short-term peak likely sparked by a rebound rally in energy prices (notably, the Oil & Gas Index, as well as crude oil itself, is more oversold than it has been in years . . . see chart). The envisioned stock selling, however, should not gather much “steam,” leading to a re-rally given the upcoming sequence of economic news.

I knew that financial traders weren't putting their money in oil futures when it became evident that there would be no invasion of Iran. I'd like to know what "normal" levels are for the strategic reserve and what they are today.

Here is a link to the last year or so...

link

According to...

this link

quote:

Today, the SPR has the capacity to hold 727 million barrels. It is the largest emergency oil stockpile in the world. Together, the facilities and crude oil represent a more than $21 billion investment in energy security ($4 billion for facilities and $17 billion for crude oil).

which leaves our current reserve status about 40 million barrels shy of capacity.

i am in no way trying to stick up for the deranged leader of NK, but their nation DOES have a right to defend itself. especially after all the rhetoric the bush administration gave with iraq. in the months before the iraqi invasion, bush DISMISSED the possiblity of an iraqi invasion, saying he wanted diplomacy first. well, we say how well his 'diplomacy' worked. all of this for a nation with no WMD. perhaps if iraq DID have WMD we would not have invaded them.

every nation has a right to defend itself from attacks from other nations. once again bush is spitting out half truths and lies when it comes to international policy. he says that the united states WONT attack NK, yet the united nations resolution he wants enacted against NK also contains article 7, which authorizes the use of force. if bush and rice GARUANTEE NK that it WONT be invaded, why the need for article 7 in the U.N. resolution? once again, another half truth spun by our leaders.

he also said the same thing with iran. he has promised them that no invasion would occur, but yet HASNT ruled out the possibility of an attack on iran. im certainly not trying to stick up for the leaders of iraq, iran ,and NK, but im tried of OUR leaders constantly spitting out lies, half truths, and propaganda spins. here is what bush has said on iran:

"this notion that the united states is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table." -feb 22, 2005

ALL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE! that includes an ATTACK, which contradicts his first sentence. but i have come to expect as much from an administration that steals elections, conciders pre-emptive attacks a first option, and puts signing statements on almost every bill in order for the bills to adhere to their advantage. thank god he can only be in office for 2 more years, but then again, how many more nations will he invade, piss off, and destroy relations with during that time?

Bill, I read through your links yesterday. The desired holding in the strategic reserve is 700 million barrels. Our current holdings are 688 million barrels. I'm not sure what that means. Also, they did release a little from the reserve to help with katrina. I guess I'm good with that.

Ft. Myers, every nation does have a right to defend itself but the problem with nuclear weapons is that radiation dispersed from nuclear fallout affects nations not involved in conflict. For that reasons, many nations have banded together to halt nuclear proliferation. When a new country enters the nuclear club, there is always consternation.

North Korea is a different situation than others in the nuclear club. North Korea has little to offer in the way of natural resources. They aren't a land that is coveted for it's wealth. It's neighbors aren't threatening even though South Koreans would like to see the two countries unified under a democratically elected government. To protect it self, or more accurately, so that Kim Jong Il can protect his power, North Korea has one of the largest armies in the world. With one armed border and no possibility of invasion from the South, the only reason that North Korea has embarked on a nuclear program is that it is a poor nation and it's nuclear program is nothing more than a bargaining chip. Kim Il Song used that chip when Albright went to North Korea to forge the Framework Agreement in which North Korea was supposed to give up it's graphite heavy water reactor in return for light water reactors for the generation of electricity, fuel to get them through a transitional period and food. They never abandoned their heavy water reactor, never got light water reactors, never got fuel, but got food. The Framework Agreement which was never ratified was a failure. Neither party lived up to their end of the agreement.

That brings us to today. North Koreas nuclear program isn't about self defense. It is leverage. North Korea has very little to export. It's people are starving. Food sent to relieve starvation goes first to it's million man army. It's decades of dictatorial leadership and poor economic constructs have left it with nothing but the threat of bad behavior to increase it's foreign aid.

That's what this is about. Nuclear weapons as leverage from a country that can only export bad behavior in an attempt to increase foreign aid. They don't need the bomb for self defense. Their country isn't worth fighting for.

sawdust i have to disagree

"Their country isn't worth fighting for."

however, to the CITIZENS of NK, their nation may be well worth fighting for. even people who belong to worthless nations usually have some sort of patriotism for their nation. when our nation was first founded, many loyalists ( and seperatist i may add) did not think trying to found our nation was a cause worth fighting for. but thanks to the revolutionists, we have a nation that has lasted over 200 years so far.


"For that reasons, many nations have banded together to halt nuclear proliferation. When a new country enters the nuclear club, there is always consternation."

however, our nation is not one of those that have banded together to halt proliferation. even with the Cold War over, Bush is STILL trying to increase our nuclear capacity, as if our THOUSANDS of nuclear warheads arent enough of a deterant. he has authorized the research into even larger nuclear devices than the ones we have now. how can we condemn one nation for having a few nukes when we have enough ourselves to blow up the entire world several times over? and in the eyes of many nations, including some of our allies, OUR leader (George Bush ) is seen as FAR from sane. many nations abroad consider Bush to be just as much as a threat to global peace as the radical governments of NK, iran, and iraq

I was in South Korea for a year and saw North Korea from the DMZ. Let me rephrase. The only reason any nation would want to fight North Korea is self defense or to unify families that were split by the 38th parallel. North Korea is not the envy of it's neighbors. Anyone who took control of it would just be asking for more problems than they could handle. It's a shit hole, hell on earth under it's current leadership. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

I'm not as partisan as many here. I'm not a Bush fan but I don't hate him. I think the probability of our being the target of nukes is greater than our probability our our using them. I think war was officially declared on us in '92 when the WTC bombing took place and we just didn't recognize it. We recognized it on 9/11. I don't think our actions in the Middle East increased the desire for our enemies to attack us, they already did it twice on our soil and always look to make a bigger impact with the next strike.

"I think the probability of our being the target of nukes is greater than our probability our our using them"

that is how americans might see the situation, but you also have to see it from a differnt perspective sometimes.

1)we have more nuclear weapons than ALL other nations combined.
2)we are the ONLY nation to ever use a nuclear weapon in a war.
3)with the Bush policy of pre-emptive attack, no nation is safe from an attack by our military.
4)bush wants to increase our nuclear strength as well as the stregth of the weapons themselves.


with those 4 points, taken from a non-american perspective, one can see why america might be seen as a threat to any other nation. give me your views on this

Don you hit the nail on the head with your analysis, IMO. NK's actions are not just designed to extort more goodies, but their insistence on bilateral talks is meant to make the US look like the bad guy when we refuse, thereby fomenting greater anti-American sentiment among groups around the world.

Bush is right to continue insisting on multi-lateral talks. I think we also ought to try to convince the other nations, China in particular, to adhere to a strict embargo. A few years ago I said I thought a mass famine was a better scenario than a nuclearized NK, and my opinion hasn't changed. I also believe the problem with NK having nukes isn't that they'll use them; it's the likelihood that they'll sell them to someone else. Apart from drugs, weapons are their only salable commodities.

quote:

Originally posted by Sawdust:

quote:

CLinton had only one choice that he did not exercise--attack NK--thus it is hard to criticize Clinton.

Bush on the other hand, DID NOTHING. He ignored the situation--much to the objections of the SK and Japanese leaders--and refused to even talk.

You know so very little about the situation, I don't know why you bother. Clinton didn't only have one option. He took the easy way out and tried to bribe North Korea with promises he didn't fulfill, making the situation worse. He could have involved the UN, they like giving things to despots. He could have lobbied for sanctions.

Bush on the other hand, to his credit I might add, has supported multi latteral talks with North Korea. Kim Jong Il doesn't want peace with his neighbors, he wants the west to give him things. That's why he won't talk to his neighbors.

Don't you think that it's reasonable for China, Japan, South Korea and Russia to be included in talks when they are the countries most vulnerable to nuclear problems cause by North Korea.

Try taking off that partisan thinking cap for a second and actually consider the problem.

Sawdust, I don't know why the mods let you attack people here continually like that.

Anyway, the opinions below are not created by me. I am too dumb for that (to which sawdust will predictably respond to). No, they are shared by many academics on the subject, including Leon Segal.

The first thing to know is that both parties are lying about NK. This is because they have both made many mistakes on NK.

The second thing to know is that even had we not made mistakes, it is possible NK would have cheated or ignored our agreements/desires no matter what we did.

Anyway, the issue is not whether we talk directly 1-1 with NK, or in a multi-lateral fashion.

The CURRENT issue (and CURRENT big mistake) is the Bush admin's ultimatum that until NK gives up its nuclear program, the US will not engage in any meaningful dialogue regardless of the format.

NK is willing to talk to us in either format, but we have refused their advances since 2001 because of the above ultimatum.

Some things to consider:

- the nuke(s) recently tested was fueled with uranium that was NOT processed during the Clinton admin. I.e. it was processed either before Clinton took office or after GWB took office.

- The reactor that uranium was obtained from was built during the Reagan admin.

- NK was estimated to have had enough uranium in 1992 (before Clinton) for 1-2 bombs.

- Also, NK was estimated to have enough uranium in 2000 (after Clinton) for 1-2 bombs. Notice this amount did not change during the Clinton admin because NK did not process any new uranium during the Clinton admin, though it has quadrupled the amount since 2001 after Bush cut off all talks.

- The 94 GOP Congress blocked the 94 Framework agreement from going forward with political pressure and legislative threats. Hence, it was the USA which first broke the terms of the 94 agreement when it failed to transport and install plutonium reactors to NK. Because of this US breech of terms, NK then refused to ship out the previously processed uranium, which was already packed and sealed and ready to go.

- Hence, Clinton screwed up by not meeting the terms of the 94 agreement. And the GOP screwed up by interfering in that agreement and pressuring Clinton to abandon the agreement.

- Again, it is quite possible the NKs would have cheated and broke their agreement no matter what we did. But we have never tested this assumption because it is the USA which keeps breaking agreements with NK (as we did in 94, 2001, and 2002). Clinton (under pressure from the newly elected GOP) did it just after 94, and BushJR did it when he refused to sign the agreements negotiated in 2000 by Clinton--agreements which would have made the recent test impossible and which would have caused the NK's long range missiles to be dismantled. Also, the SK leader was deeply humiliated when he showed up at the White House in 2001 to join Bush in signing the agreement, only to learn in real-time on TV that Bush was going to refuse. The 2002 breach of terms came after we cut off NK's banking access just 5 days after an agreement to respect them.

- Bush's entire philosophy on NK is based on the faulty assumption that China, SK, and Russia will allow NK to be choked to death. However, we shall soon see proof of this faulty logic when those countries refuse US please to stop trading with NK, as they currently do to the tunes of billions each. China will do anything to prevent a NK collapse, because it does not want a pro-American NK gvmt on its NK border. As such, every day Bush waits for NK to collapse, NK simply shrugs its shoulders and plows ahead with its nuclear program, knowing that once it becomes a full nuclear power, it can finally ignore the USA and our threats and broken promises.

- NK is emboldened now to proceed with its nuclear/missile test efforts without fear of an American invasion or attack because SK will not allow a US attack from SK, and also because the USA is entrenched in Iraq.

quote:

with those 4 points, taken from a non-american perspective, one can see why america might be seen as a threat to any other nation. give me your views on this

I know more about being an American than a forigner knows about being an American. Therefore, I respect my opinion of American more than that of a non American.

Those are my views.

quote:

Bush is right to continue insisting on multi-lateral talks

Dave, if nothing else, I'm really tired of people who expect the US to go around the world unilaterally fixing all of the worlds problems. The DPRK has neighbors who should be involved in the process because they have a vested interest in the safety of their region.

quote:

Anyway, the opinions below are not created by me. I am too dumb for that (to which sawdust will predictably respond to). No, they are shared by many academics on the subject, including Leon Segal.

I'm glad you did a little reading. Let me explain something to you. I like playing with you because your opinions are so partisan, they are easy to pick on. Even with this issue, which has potentially catistropic consequences, your primary concern is whether Democrats or Republicans can be held in a bad light. I have been where you are and I have come to realize that what's really important isn't Republican or Democrat, it's right and wrong and neither party holds a patent on that. As a matter of fact, the nature of the quest for power in our nation pretty much insures that neither party seek right and wrong because they are too concerned with left and right. It's a sad state of affairs and the most partisan among us fuel the fire of party politics.

I hope that some day you are smart enough to understand what I'm trying to tell you.

quote:

Originally posted by Sawdust:


I hope that some day you are smart enough to understand what I'm trying to tell you.

If an ad hom drops in the forest, does anyone hear it?

What happened to your Verve thread, it get whacked? I was so enjoying it.

I guess I've been chastised sub silentio.

I'll start up a private collection. Wanna stop by sometime and read my quotes? lol!

Now, don't provoke me, 'cos I won't take responsibility for the words you wrest from my keyboard!

quote:

Wanna stop by sometime and read my quotes?

I told you before, don't stalk me, and I don't want to see your etchings either.

lol

Some cool art work.

quote:

Originally posted by Sawdust:
Even with this issue, which has potentially catistropic consequences, your primary concern is whether Democrats or Republicans can be held in a bad light. I have been where you are and I have come to realize that what's really important isn't Republican or Democrat, it's right and wrong and neither party holds a patent on that. As a matter of fact, the nature of the quest for power in our nation pretty much insures that neither party seek right and wrong because they are too concerned with left and right. It's a sad state of affairs and the most partisan among us fuel the fire of party politics.

I hope that some day you are smart enough to understand what I'm trying to tell you.

Wow! You are a legend in your own mind!

You consistently misrepresent the arguments of those you debate.

Here I am the one pointing out that all the Presidents/parties have failed regarding NK, yet you want to pretend in your puny brain that I am partisan and blame only Bush. I don't recall you blaming anyone but Clinton.

Right now, Clinton is out of office, and the only one pushing us toward a nuclear showdown is Bush's refusal to talk. He's an idiot for thinking NK will collapse like the USSR and then he will achieve regime change. The only thing happening to NK under the current Bush policy is that NK will become a full-fledged nuclear power in a very short time.

BTW, have you beat your wife or kicked your dog today? You seem to be that kind of person.

Strawberry, I wasn't addressing this thread, I was addressing this comment:

quote:

Sawdust, I don't know why the mods let you attack people here continually like that.

Anyway, the opinions below are not created by me. I am too dumb for that (to which sawdust will predictably respond to).

Your participation on the board is the most partisan of any poster on the board at the moment. In truth, I find it amusing.

With respect to the wife and dog comment, I've been married for 25 years and have a strict no hitting policy and my dogs both love me. On the board, I can take as good as I give and you may say anything you want about me with my blessing.

quote:

Originally posted by Sawdust:
Strawberry, I wasn't addressing this thread, I was addressing this comment:

quote:

Sawdust, I don't know why the mods let you attack people here continually like that.

Anyway, the opinions below are not created by me. I am too dumb for that (to which sawdust will predictably respond to).

Your participation on the board is the most partisan of any poster on the board at the moment. In truth, I find it amusing.

With respect to the wife and dog comment, I've been married for 25 years and have a strict no hitting policy and my dogs both love me. On the board, I can take as good as I give and you may say anything you want about me with my blessing.

Perhaps you should treat other online--even if they are anonymous--as you do your family and friends. Otherwise, it is hard to believe anything you say.

Regarding the partisan thing--look in the mirror.

Also, look at the name on the website banner. I am no more or less partisan than him.

quote:

Sawdust, I don't know why the mods let you attack people here continually like that.

Strawberry,

Calling you partisan is not, in my opinion, worthy of moderator intervention. I am not going to get into a discussion of what is or isn't, but I will tell you that none of you will ever know if a moderator has intervened. Noone except the person we choose to warn. So please quit trying to second guess the system publicly and if you have a serious problem then report the post with a detailed explaination.

Sawdust has been here a long time and many of the things he says will upset you but he isn't a troll and he has never harrassed anyone.

"I know more about being an American than a forigner knows about being an American. Therefore, I respect my opinion of American more than that of a non American"


sawdust, just to let you know, i AM an american. (born and raised in chicago, now live in fla)i was just pointing out how someone living OUTSIDE our nation MIGHT possibly view the actions of our nation. i respect my country too, which is why it pains me to see G.W. destroying it the way he is.

Ft, I didn't think you were anything but. I understand how and why Europeans think like they do. I'm an American and I know what's right and wrong about their opinions. I'm also an employer who employs lots of Eastern Europeans. I know that they come here to live because there are opportunities available to them here that don't exist in Europe. I'm also old enough to know that opinions ebb and flow. As long as I know they are wrong, I'm secure enough in my view that I don' let it bother me. I have a question. Why aren't Europeans concerned about what I think of them?

Kate, this is the most comprehensive synopsis I've seen.

I hate the UN but this seems to be going the right direction.

The image in this article explains a lot.

It points to the difference between capitalism and communism and also explains why North Korea wants light water reactors and is willing to go nuclear to get them.