Act of War
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Friday, May 9, 2025 18:56
VIEWED: 7198
PAGE 7 of 10
Quote:OK, show me where I said N Korea is a good place with well-intentioned honest leaders; ... or anything approaching that, or even implying that.
North Korea has been working the exact same plan for the past 55 years. They have no reason to change. But as far as you can see, it's all Bush's fault.
What I'm getting at is that the problem that is N Korea needs to be dealt with intelligently. That means keeping allies you can work with, refraining from needlessly escalating the pissing match, and not making threats you can't back up.
Like it or not, Clinton actually got N Korea to back down from plutonium processing with the support of BOTH China and Russia.
Now under Bush's goading, N Korea is (allegedly) pursuing uranium enrichment, is definitively restarting the plutonium work it shelved, and is now launching missiles. On top of that, China and Russia aren't supporting the US. That looks like going backwards to me on many fronts.
Of course Dear Leader is a bad and possibly crazy man. But this immediate crisis (that's been brewing since 2003) is a result of Bush's ineptitude. Like Iraq, N Korea could have been contained with global support. But Bush blew it, and this is the consequence.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
OK, show me where I said N Korea is a good place with well-intentioned honest leaders; ... or anything approaching that, or even implying that.
Never said that either. Just that the current situation is North Korea's fault, and part of their plan.
Quote:
hat I'm getting at is that the problem that is N Korea needs to be dealt with intelligently. That means keeping allies you can work with, refraining from needlessly escalating the pissing match, and not making threats you can't back up.
US led six-party talks, including Russia and China, have been going on since 2003. In 2005 all parties agreed to the goal of de-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula. The US has offered a security assurance that it has no nukes in South Korea and that it has no intention to attack or invade the North with nuclear or other weapons. Sounds pretty intelligent and diplomatic to me.
Quote:
Like it or not, Clinton actually got N Korea to back down from plutonium processing with the support of BOTH China and Russia.
Now under Bush's goading, N Korea is (allegedly) pursuing uranium enrichment, is definitively restarting the plutonium work it shelved, and is now launching missiles. On top of that, China and Russia aren't supporting the US. That looks like going backwards to me on many fronts.
You're trying to have it both ways again. Twice. #1. Clinton offered incentives (oil, trade, light-water reactors), not sanctions. Why wouldn't China and Russia support that? Russia and China don't want sanctions because it doesn't fit in with THEIR political agendas, not because Bush pissed them off. If only it WERE so easy to push their buttons.
#2. If North Korea is (allegedly) pursuing uranium enrichment, then they say they were (allegedly) pursuing it in 1996, well before Bush's watch.
And I assume that Bush's goading was the "axis of evil" remark, back after 9/11. I guess the years of six-party talks and pledges to not attack or invade don't carry any weight with you. Got your "Bush is Evil" goggles on there, Rue?
Quote:
Of course Dear Leader is a bad and possibly crazy man. But this immediate crisis (that's been brewing since 2003) is a result of Bush's ineptitude. Like Iraq, N Korea could have been contained with global support. But Bush blew it, and this is the consequence.
Yep. No country has its own policies, plans, and agendas. They all just blindly react to whatever Bush does. What power.
Of course it's not really like that. Nations have free will, and pursue their own goals. But if you want to blame Bush for everything hard enough, and hold your eyes just right, it may look that way to you.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Now see, there you go again, misquoting me. Where did I ever say the world or the US should trust N Korea? Please feel free to quote me. Search the entire database. I'd welcome it.
Ah, so your policy would be to sit down, talk to, and strike a deal with people you already acknowledge can't be trusted.
Do you work for the Carter Institute or the UN Weapon Inspectors?
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
BTW we have still not figured out who made such highly weaponized anthrax
Untrue - it was our Anthrax, right from Ft Detrick stores.
They tried like hell to blame Hatfill for the theft, involving some pretty out-there accusations, but that is primarily because the best suspect is Zack, who was observed on camera, and physically recorded, entering the storage area unauthorised shortly after his firing for a racially motivated attack on a co-worker.
Problem is, Zack is of a belief and nationality the press finds 'inconvenient' to link with terrorism (i.e. he's neither arabic nor muslim) and thus it didn't fit with the picture of the way things are they wish to present to us - this is all proven facts, and enough hard evidence is laying around to send PN into fits of orgasmic joy about it, believe it.
Anyhow, it was our own Anthrax, right from our own WMD labs, that fact is undeniable
As for N Korea.
Let's be brutally honest, current american leadership is the most gutless pansies since milquetoast - for all their posturing and arrogant cowboy swagger, they're naught more than than the school bullies of the world playground, quickly defeated by even the *perception* of effective retaliation.
You're damned right Kim wants some nukes he can point at us that we take seriously - it's the ONLY defense that keeps our nasty little nose out of someone's country, cause the cowards in our high command wouldn't dare take on a military engagement with a country who could actually shoot back, oh hell no.
Given our own actions, is it any damned surprise that any folks without nukes want them really, really bad right now ?
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you don't mind me asking, where are the reports that the missile was aimed at Hawaii?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Slick,
Now you're just being an asshole. I let some things slide on the notion that you could control your worst instincts. But you apparently can't. You misrepresented the debate. So let's start on that.
Slick:
Try finding anything of substance which has successfully been negotiated with North Korea.
Rue:
.. how did Jimmy Carter get the N Koreans to shutter their nuclear facilites and put them under 24 hour surveillance?
Slick:
we don't have anything to worry about. ... a secret program in April 2003 to have processed 8000 fuel rods into plutonium and created nuclear weapons
Rue:
... "in April 2003" What does that have to do with Clinton and Carter?
Clinton/ Carter were successful containing N Korea by leveraging sanctions - and Bush was not.
Slick:
North Korea can't be trusted to hold up their end of any deal.
Rue:
No one ever said just let's just trust the N Koreans and go along with whatever.
Slick:
I realize that you have a bias towards anyone who might stick it to Bush, but trying to make North Korea seem like anything but a danger to everyone around it just ain't gonna fly.
Rue:
Now see, there you go again, misquoting me. Where did I ever say the world or the US should trust N Korea? Please feel free to quote me. Search the entire database. I'd welcome it.
2003 is when NK verifiably re-started its plutonium work in direct response to Bush's policies.
Slick:
Hey, maybe they were just BSing us then too. You can't have it both ways. The word "disengenuous" comes to mind.
Rue:
OK, show me where I said N Korea is a good place with well-intentioned honest leaders; ... or anything approaching that, or even implying that.
Slick:
Never said that either. (except here: SLICK: "but trying to make North Korea seem like anything but a danger to everyone around it just ain't gonna fly.")
Rue:
Of course Dear Leader is a bad and possibly crazy man. (but) N Korea could have been contained with global support. Bush blew it, and this is the consequence.
Slick:
Yep. No country has its own policies, plans, and agendas. They all just blindly react to whatever Bush does. What power.
So let's see. You said I said things I didn't. You said you didn't say things you did. You misreprsented my positions. Yup, an asshole.
For the record:
I NEVER SAID N KOREA SHOULD BE TRUSTED.
I NEVER SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE THEIR OWN AGENDA.
I DISTINGUISHED N KOREA'S CLAIMS (URANIUM ENRICHMENT) FROM VERIFIED ACTIVITIES (PLUTONIUM REPROCESSING).
MY POSITION WAS THAT N KOREA WAS COMING UNDER CONTAINMENT IN RESPONSE TO CLINTON'S THREAT OF SANCTIONS SUPPORTED BY BOTH THE RUSSIANS AND CHINESE.
THE US DOESN'T HAVE THAT SUPPORT NOW DUE TO BUSH.
I NEVER SAID BUSH HAD COMPLETE POWER. WHAT I SAID WAS THAT GLOBAL COOPERATION WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM AND BUSH LOST IT.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SimonF
I have not seen any direct reports. What I have read is that the Japanese said the missiles were aimed at Hawaii. But the source was unspecified. It didn't say if it was Japanese intelligence, defense, or just generic news reports.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I dunno "Hero", ask Geezer 'cause this is what HE said:
Ah, so your policy would be to sit down, talk to, and strike a deal with people you already acknowledge can't be trusted. Do you work for the Carter Institute or the UN Weapon Inspectors?
Quote:So when you geniuses have this all figured out, let me know.
There's not much to negotiate about except what kind of a bribe we'll offer North Korea to make nice this time.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I vote we get together a battalion of sabre-rattling chairborne rangers led by Hero and Auraptor and drop them in North Korea ..."
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha .... LMAOROTF
N.Korea fires off 7 or so missles, one long distance version that was reportedly targeted just off of Hawaii. The world universally condemns the acts by N.Korea
And you call Hero and me 'sabre-rattling' ... ?
Does that seem right to you?
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow. Take you long to put that together? But back to the point.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
MY POSITION WAS THAT N KOREA WAS COMING UNDER CONTAINMENT IN RESPONSE TO CLINTON'S THREAT OF SANCTIONS SUPPORTED BY BOTH THE RUSSIANS AND CHINESE.
Well, actually, the Clinton/Carter negotiations were trying bring North Korean back under containment after they had violated a previous treaty they signed during the Bush I administration. Since those violations occurred on Clinton's watch, was that his fault? Hmm.
Quote:
THE US DOESN'T HAVE THAT SUPPORT NOW DUE TO BUSH.
I NEVER SAID BUSH HAD COMPLETE POWER. WHAT I SAID WAS THAT GLOBAL COOPERATION WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM AND BUSH LOST IT.
I'd really like to see some proof, or even just a good argument, rather than just the bald assertion of an obviously biased person (that would be you, Rue) that Bush:
1. Took some action which forced North Korea to violate the Clinton/Carter agreement. (Assuming they hadn't already violated it by enriching uranium since 1996.)
2. Took some action that lost the cooperation of Russia and China, considering they are still involved in the six-party talks. Consider that China in 1994 was trying to become a major trading partner with the US, and may have felt withholding a veto then would get them an in. They are now in and don't need to do a deal like that any more.
3. Has lost global cooperation on the issue, considering that a large chunk of the globe is signing on to chastize North Korea in the UN.
Rather than argue about this and hear the "Bush is Evil" Chorus yet again, maybe I should just wait and see how it plays out in the UN. If a sanctions resolution does get passed, cool. If not and we eventually re-negotiate with North Korea, it'll be 1994 all over again. Also cool.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME