What lesson should tyrants learn from Iraq II?

[a_unique_person]

Whatever you do, don't give up your WMD. They are all that is keeping you safely ensconsed in your position of power. If you don't have WMD, get some ASAP.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Whatever you do, don't give up your WMD. They are all that is keeping you safely ensconsed in your position of power. If you don't have WMD, get some ASAP.

Almost sounds like you want tyrants to do that....

[Pyrian]

a_unique_person:
Whatever you do, don't give up your WMD. They are all that is keeping you safely ensconsed in your position of power. If you don't have WMD, get some ASAP.That certainly seems to be the tack Iran is taking. Of course, North Korea already was...

[Skeptic]

Somehow, I doubt tyrants need Iraq II to "discover" they want the A-bomb. Most of them are trying to develop one for years as it is--"Iraq II" or not.

But hey, as long as you can pull some excuse out of your behind that (surprise, surprise) blames nuclear proliferation on US actions...

After all, why should nuclear proliferation be the one thing on earth you AREN'T blaming the US for?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Somehow, I doubt tyrants need Iraq II to "discover" they want the A-bomb. Most of them are trying to develop one for years as it is--"Iraq II" or not.

But hey, as long as you can pull some excuse out of your behind that (surprise, surprise) blames nuclear proliferation on US actions...

After all, why should nuclear proliferation be the one thing on earth you AREN'T blaming the US for?

Saddam complied, grudginly, with the restriction on weapons. For complying, he was invaded. I have no sympathy with Saddam himself, but he met the conditions of the deal. Other countries thought it was wrong to invade, and it appears they were right. The US branded the UN irrelevant. Now it admits that the UN isn't.

NK was actually going along with a deal with the US to stop developing nukes, on the condition it was given nuclear power generation facitilities that couldn't be used to create weapons grade products. The US didn't keep that bargain either. Guess what, NK now finds it's nukes more important to it than ever.

As to your last point, when you are a superpower that does as it pleases in the world, don't be surprised if you get held accountable for your actions.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Saddam complied, grudginly, with the restriction on weapons. For complying, he was invaded. I have no sympathy with Saddam himself, but he met the conditions of the deal. Other countries thought it was wrong to invade, and it appears they were right. The US branded the UN irrelevant. Now it admits that the UN isn't.

NK was actually going along with a deal with the US to stop developing nukes, on the condition it was given nuclear power generation facitilities that couldn't be used to create weapons grade products. The US didn't keep that bargain either. Guess what, NK now finds it's nukes more important to it than ever.

AUP, why you must use half-truths in your posts I do not understand. I also don't understand why you are "cool" with despotic regimes -- Iraq, NK -- that slaughter their people.

Saddam was not complying with UN. He hid his WMDs for years until a defector finally revealed their locations, and then when UN almost disarmed him, he kicked all the inspectors out. Oh yeah, that screams like complying to me.

NK, of course, was very happy with a deal that gives them free power, food and oil as long as they can continue to kill off the population while those in charge live happily. The US finally said it will not contribute to it and of course guess what, you blame US.

You claim to be fair and reasonable but all I see you posting are one sided points from sometime questionable sources with the most bizarre conclusions imaginable. I will give you a benefit of the doubt, perhaps you misspoke on this and would like to correct me or perhaps you want to rebut my conclusions of your post.

[shuize]

North Korea was actually going along with a deal with the US to stop developing nukes...

False. Although this is not the first time you've tried to claim as much AUP: Blame America First (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14194)

[renata]

For a very interesting article on North Korea I recommend a September 8th issue of the New Yorker. Article by Philip Gourevitch, "Alone in the Dark". It is not available online, but it goes quite a bit in depth into history of the country, the personalities, the conflict, and the current situation. It is quite long, so I cannot reproduce it here.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


AUP, why you must use half-truths in your posts I do not understand. I also don't understand why you are "cool" with despotic regimes -- Iraq, NK -- that slaughter their people.

Saddam was not complying with UN. He hid his WMDs for years until a defector finally revealed their locations, and then when UN almost disarmed him, he kicked all the inspectors out. Oh yeah, that screams like complying to me.

NK, of course, was very happy with a deal that gives them free power, food and oil as long as they can continue to kill off the population while those in charge live happily. The US finally said it will not contribute to it and of course guess what, you blame US.

You claim to be fair and reasonable but all I see you posting are one sided points from sometime questionable sources with the most bizarre conclusions imaginable. I will give you a benefit of the doubt, perhaps you misspoke on this and would like to correct me or perhaps you want to rebut my conclusions of your post.

"cool"? Where did that come from. All I am trying to do is work out a 'game plan' that will work. There were warnings that America's invasion of Iraq would only cause more instability. That appears to be the case.

In the case of NK, if we are not going to invade and liberate it, has, in the meantime, citizens who are suffering terribly. By giving power and food to NK, we are not helping old Kim, who already is well fed and has a pleasent lifestyle, but helping out the people who are starving and freezing to death.

It has ignited more threats of terrorism, and confirmed in the minds of dictators the importance of making sure they have their cache of WMD, and that whatever they do, they they should not let go of them.

IIRC, the inspectors were not kicked out.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron


AUP, why you must use half-truths in your posts I do not understand. I also don't understand why you are "cool" with despotic regimes -- Iraq, NK -- that slaughter their people.

Saddam was not complying with UN. He hid his WMDs for years until a defector finally revealed their locations, and then when UN almost disarmed him, he kicked all the inspectors out. Oh yeah, that screams like complying to me.

NK, of course, was very happy with a deal that gives them free power, food and oil as long as they can continue to kill off the population while those in charge live happily. The US finally said it will not contribute to it and of course guess what, you blame US.

You claim to be fair and reasonable but all I see you posting are one sided points from sometime questionable sources with the most bizarre conclusions imaginable. I will give you a benefit of the doubt, perhaps you misspoke on this and would like to correct me or perhaps you want to rebut my conclusions of your post.

Well, I wouldn't say A_U_P is cool with Iran and NK. The point is that America has inflamed those countries by naming them as 'the axis of Evil' and by it's actions in Iraq. Now, both of those countries are scrambling to produce WMD's. Bush is grumbling about them at the moment, threatening sanctions, but that's really all he can do at the moment because he's got the military wasting their time in Iraq.

He could have let the security council handle Iraq. But then, we're talking about the sort of person who likes to appear in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier like GI Joe. And don't the press just love it!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shuize


False. Although this is not the first time you've tried to claim as much AUP: Blame America First (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14194)

True. The US made a deal, that implied a timeline of implementation of nuclear facilities. The US appears to have decided that it could comply with all it's commitments in the last year, rather than implement the committments that it made, as expected. After several years of nothing happening, NK got the message that nothing was going to happen.

The committment to build the nuclear plants was made by the US. It backed down on that. Nothing to do with me or anyone else. Much as the US made a committment to help Vietnam rebuild after attempting to bomb it into the stone age. Nothing happened there either.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


NK was actually going along with a deal with the US to stop developing nukes, on the condition it was given nuclear power generation facitilities that couldn't be used to create weapons grade products. The US didn't keep that bargain either. Guess what, NK now finds it's nukes more important to it than ever.


I don't think even you believe this...

You must know that NK has been trying to get nukes for DECADES.
The idea that they would have stopped if only the US, Japan, and the ROK would have built them more power plants is ridiculous.

Despite what you tell yourself, your worldview is not really rational. If the US had built 50 reactors in NK, you would have said, "Aha, there goes the US supporting another evil dictator."

Maybe there is something to what Skeptic said about you refusing to believe some people are just plain bad.

It couldn't be the two Kims are sociopathic liars who are willing to starve their people in order to do things like send satelites into space that will play, "The Song of Kim Il Sung."

No because evil is some weird construct, right? The Kims can't be bad, so you have to come up with a laughable excuse for their brutal behavior.

(BTW, I think there is a famous example in history of what happens when you give a brutal dictator what they want when they threaten you in order to appease them. I don't think it ended with the dictator saying, "Thanks, I will now cause no more trouble.)

P.S. Goodwin's Law has not been violated since no names were used...;)

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


He could have let the security council handle Iraq. But then, we're talking about the sort of person who likes to appear in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier like GI Joe. And don't the press just love it!

The point was the security council was not handling Iraq. And if we had not done something the sanctions would have been lifted and Iraq would have had the finances to support any action against us and I feel they would have.

As far as the flight suit are you really serious? Every President we have ever had has appeared in military while visiting our troops. Bush has done enough wrong to warrant a lot of criticism. But it would seem we should keep it to serious matters if we wish to be taken seriously.

Just maybe some tyrant somewhere learned that supporting terrorism or pulling on Superman's cape is not very wise. And no, I am not saying Iraq was involved in 9/11.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Well, I wouldn't say A_U_P is cool with Iran and NK. The point is that America has inflamed those countries by naming them as 'the axis of Evil' and by it's actions in Iraq. Now, both of those countries are scrambling to produce WMD's. Bush is grumbling about them at the moment, threatening sanctions, but that's really all he can do at the moment because he's got the military wasting their time in Iraq.


Um,
I seem to remember NK trying to get nukes long before Bush was ever President.

As for Iran, diito.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Um,
I seem to remember NK trying to get nukes long before Bush was ever President.

As for Iran, diito.

Nuclear disarmament has always been a tricky process. Just when headway is being made, someone is trying to start Star Wars mk II. Or create the 'mini nuke'. Or maybe they're just being agressive to foreign powers that have slighted them (like Panama or Grenada), and other countries start to wonder what the point is to disarmament when it will only serve to appease a country that does whatever it wants anyway.

Now, I'm not saying the US is solely responsible for the world's ills. But it has to shoulder some of the blame for its reckless behaviour on the world stage.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


"cool"? Where did that come from. All I am trying to do is work out a 'game plan' that will work. There were warnings that America's invasion of Iraq would only cause more instability. That appears to be the case.

In the case of NK, if we are not going to invade and liberate it, has, in the meantime, citizens who are suffering terribly. By giving power and food to NK, we are not helping old Kim, who already is well fed and has a pleasent lifestyle, but helping out the people who are starving and freezing to death.

It has ignited more threats of terrorism, and confirmed in the minds of dictators the importance of making sure they have their cache of WMD, and that whatever they do, they they should not let go of them.

IIRC, the inspectors were not kicked out.

You must be joking. First of all the government will spin the food into propaganda about how NK is finally making food and so it will be a communist paradise, second it will give the food to its military and not the people. I remember charities having that problem with NK for a while, some even pulled out of the country for that reason.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Shinytop


The point was the security council was not handling Iraq. And if we had not done something the sanctions would have been lifted and Iraq would have had the finances to support any action against us and I feel they would have.
Pfft! Evidence?

As far as the flight suit are you really serious? Every President we have ever had has appeared in military while visiting our troops. Bush has done enough wrong to warrant a lot of criticism. But it would seem we should keep it to serious matters if we wish to be taken seriously.
I remember Michael Dukakis being ridiculed for being photoed in a tank. I don't remember Clinton wearing military uniform, but I do remember a lot of American military personnel saying that Clinton had 'abandoned' them.

Just maybe some tyrant somewhere learned that supporting terrorism or pulling on Superman's cape is not very wise. And no, I am not saying Iraq was involved in 9/11.


Well, foreign powers still give support to organisations like Hamas last time I looked. I'd be interested to see which tyrant you think has learnt his/her lesson after this episode.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mike B.


I don't think even you believe this...

You must know that NK has been trying to get nukes for DECADES.
The idea that they would have stopped if only the US, Japan, and the ROK would have built them more power plants is ridiculous.



But that was the deal the US made. In return for NK removing it's nuclear facilities that could be used to produce nuclear weapons material, the US would build new power generation reactors that couldn't produce weapons grade material.

It was seen as a way of steering NK away from a nuclear weapons direction, and helping out the people of NK. Nice idea.

However, the US didn't ever do anything about it. NK got the idea that nothing was going to happen, and continued on it's merry way.

Note, the US offered to do this deal. It did note keep it's end of the deal. Another lesson learned, don't expect the US to keep it's end of a deal.



Despite what you tell yourself, your worldview is not really rational. If the US had built 50 reactors in NK, you would have said, "Aha, there goes the US supporting another evil dictator."



You are a mind reader now?



Maybe there is something to what Skeptic said about you refusing to believe some people are just plain bad.

It couldn't be the two Kims are sociopathic liars who are willing to starve their people in order to do things like send satelites into space that will play, "The Song of Kim Il Sung."

No because evil is some weird construct, right? The Kims can't be bad, so you have to come up with a laughable excuse for their brutal behavior.

(BTW, I think there is a famous example in history of what happens when you give a brutal dictator what they want when they threaten you in order to appease them. I don't think it ended with the dictator saying, "Thanks, I will now cause no more trouble.)

P.S. Goodwin's Law has not been violated since no names were used...;)

I have never denied that the Kims are sociopaths. That is, people who have no regard for the suffering of others, or the pain that they create. I do not regard them as 'evil' however. Sociopaths are a fact of life.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Nuclear disarmament has always been a tricky process. Just when headway is being made, someone is trying to start Star Wars mk II. Or create the 'mini nuke'. Or maybe they're just being agressive to foreign powers that have slighted them (like Panama or Grenada), and other countries start to wonder what the point is to disarmament when it will only serve to appease a country that does whatever it wants anyway.

Now, I'm not saying the US is solely responsible for the world's ills. But it has to shoulder some of the blame for its reckless behaviour on the world stage.

I agree. People seem to assume that I am putting the US in the same basket as NK and Iraq. Not at all. However, as it is a Democracy which professes a great love for freedom and moral behaviour, I would expect higher level of behaviour from it.

E.g. When you make a deal, stick to it. Don't start a war on false pretences. Don't proceed with advanced weapons research that will add to the instability of the world.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


You must be joking. First of all the government will spin the food into propaganda about how NK is finally making food and so it will be a communist paradise, second it will give the food to its military and not the people. I remember charities having that problem with NK for a while, some even pulled out of the country for that reason.

Yep, they do that, but peoples lives are also saved. Besides, from the number of people trying to escape from NK, I don't think everyone believes everything Mr Kim is telling them.

[shuize]

AUP,

There's probably really no point to my replying, as your timeline apparently makes perfect sense to you.

I don't even know when the US backed out of the nuclear deal. I don't know if it was because the US didn't want to fund the whole project alone, if they suspected the N. Koreans weren't complying, or if they were just slow getting started. Whenever it happened it was well after the agreement was put in place. As I posted months ago, however, it seems very clear that N. Korea never even paused in its quest for nuclear weapons. It wasn't, as you suggested above, that they waited to see whether they would get their light-water reactor and then started the program back up. They never stopped it at all.

But if I understand your reasoning and thread topic, you seem to be saying that because the US did not carry its side of the deal to build the light-water reactor years later, that explains why N. Korea kept pursuing nukes, even before the ink was dry on the agreement.

I suppose in your Blame America First world view, that makes sense.

[peptoabysmal]

What lesson *should* tyrants learn?

Don't f*ck with the USA, baybee!

Being realistic, we are talking about people who have a learning disorder.

[LucyR]

But they've been fcuking with them for years.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
What lesson *should* tyrants learn?

Don't f*ck with the USA, baybee!

Being realistic, we are talking about people who have a learning disorder.

No, they have learned that if you are going to f**k with the US, do it properly.

[Shinytop]

Well, MM, I did state that it was my belief. I think that Saddam's hatred of the US for totally humiliating him in 91 and our efforts at maintaining the sanctions certainly would logically result in his willingness to aid anybody willing to attack us. But hey, that's just my logic.

Regarding Clinton and the military - I googled images of Clinton but found the limit for upload here to be 25K so I will give you one link" http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:Mq8s2FKLciwJ:nasaa-home.org/asa/buley/+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shuize
AUP,

There's probably really no point to my replying, as your timeline apparently makes perfect sense to you.

I don't even know when the US backed out of the nuclear deal. I don't know if it was because the US didn't want to fund the whole project alone, if they suspected the N. Koreans weren't complying, or if they were just slow getting started. Whenever it happened it was well after the agreement was put in place. As I posted months ago, however, it seems very clear that N. Korea never even paused in its quest for nuclear weapons. It wasn't, as you suggested above, that they waited to see whether they would get their light-water reactor and then started the program back up. They never stopped it at all.

But if I understand your reasoning and thread topic, you seem to be saying that because the US did not carry its side of the deal to build the light-water reactor years later, that explains why N. Korea kept pursuing nukes, even before the ink was dry on the agreement.

I suppose in your Blame America First world view, that makes sense.

Hmm, so both sides never had any intention of keeping their end of the deal. This makes the US actions alright then.

[Shinytop]

Actually AUP, we stopped our part of the agreement when it was discovered they were not living up to their end. I suppose, as most US bashers think, we are totally responsible since we should have lived up to our part regardless of their actions?

[shuize]

As I posted above, I don't know what held up the project on the US side ... was it lack of funding, lack up cooperation from our Asian allies, suspicion of N. Korea, or a plan to screw the N. Koreans from the start? I don't know for certain, but as I recall, the reactor was not scheduled for delivery until 2004.

Either way, I doubt the project would ever have been finished when the N. Korean's nuclear program was discovered. Or do you believe that even though it's clear they never even paused in their quest for nuclear weapons, the gift of a light-water reactor would have softened their hearts enough to give up?

What a silly question. Of course you do.

[a_unique_person]

According to this

http://truthout.com/docs_02/10.28B.carter.korea.htm

Part of the deal was to have people monitoring the situation. This means that things can be verified. Both sides welched. Message for other tyrants, you can't trust the US to keep it's word.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shuize
As I posted above, I don't know what held up the project on the US side ... was it lack of funding, lack up cooperation from our Asian allies, suspicion of N. Korea, or a plan to screw the N. Koreans from the start? I don't know for certain, but as I recall, the reactor was not scheduled for delivery until 2004.

Either way, I doubt the project would ever have been finished when the N. Korean's nuclear program was discovered. Or do you believe that even though it's clear they never even paused in their quest for nuclear weapons, the gift of a light-water reactor would have softened their hearts enough to give up?

What a silly question. Of course you do.

Here is the agreement.

http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/koreaaf.htm



1) In accordance with the October 20, 1994 letter of assurance from the U.S. President, the U.S. will undertake to make arrangements for the provision to the DPRK of a LWR project with a total generating capacity of approximately 2,000 MW(e) by a target date of 2003.



If you are going to have the total generating capacity going by 2003, I would suggest you want to have the groundbreaking happening many years earlier. In fact, as a sign of good faith on the part of the US, within a year of the agreement being signed.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
According to this

http://truthout.com/docs_02/10.28B.carter.korea.htm

Part of the deal was to have people monitoring the situation. This means that things can be verified. Both sides welched. Message for other tyrants, you can't trust the US to keep it's word.

You certainly have interesting selective reading and are really trying to avoid saying you were wrong. I really can't respect that.

First, North Korea should forgo any nuclear weapons program and the two Koreas should proceed with good-faith talks. The United States may then move toward normal relations with North Korea.

Now in my experience, the party at fault must first show good faith, yet here Jimmy Carter call on NK to act first.....So how is US at fault?

[shuize]

If you are going to have the total generating capacity going by 2003, I would suggest you want to have the groundbreaking happening many years earlier. In fact, as a sign of good faith on the part of the US, within a year of the agreement being signed.Sure, AUP. And as a sign of good faith on the N. Koreans' part I would suggest that they actually stop trying to develop nuclear weapons anytime after the agreement is signed.

But hey, I know, the fact that the reactors haven't been delivered yet relates back to justify N. Korea not ever keeping their agreement. Sort of like how the N. Koreans are now blaming Japan for the collapse of negotiations on the abductee issue for not returning five abductees held for 25 years in N. Korea after N. Korea was kind enough to allow their return to Japan for a "two week visit."

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shuize
Sure, AUP. And as a sign of good faith on the N. Koreans' part I would suggest that they actually stop trying to develop nuclear weapons anytime after the agreement is signed.

But hey, I know, the fact that the reactors haven't been delivered yet relates back to justify N. Korea not ever keeping their agreement. Sort of like how the N. Koreans are now blaming Japan for the collapse of negotiations on the abductee issue for not returning five abductees held for 25 years in N. Korea after N. Korea was kind enough to allow their return to Japan for a "two week visit."

I haven't seen anything to indicate that NK was developing weapons that soon. However, even if they were, it still confirms in their minds that they were right to be duplicitious, as the US was also playing games.

The US was not aware until many years after the agreement was signed that NK was developing weapons.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shuize
Sure, AUP. And as a sign of good faith on the N. Koreans' part I would suggest that they actually stop trying to develop nuclear weapons anytime after the agreement is signed.

But hey, I know, the fact that the reactors haven't been delivered yet relates back to justify N. Korea not ever keeping their agreement. Sort of like how the N. Koreans are now blaming Japan for the collapse of negotiations on the abductee issue for not returning five abductees held for 25 years in N. Korea after N. Korea was kind enough to allow their return to Japan for a "two week visit."

From the likes of NK, I don't expect much and am grateful for any positive moves towards civilised behaviour towards the world and it's citizens. Strangely enough, I do expect a higher standard of behaviour from the US.

[peptoabysmal]

North Korea has the world's 5th largest military and is only the size of Mississippi, yet 60% of North Korean children suffer from malnutrition. They need food, not nukes.



When the third round of talks started up again in the fall of 1994, negotiators on both sides wrangled over every word of a potential accord. After working late into the night of the last day of the scheduled talks, the two sides finally reached agreement.

In the pact, North Korea agreed to freeze its nuclear weapons development program. In exchange, the United States and its allies promised to provide North Korea with heavy fuel oil and two proliferation-resistant, light-water reactor power plants. The deal also called for gradual improvement of relations between the United States and North Korea and between North and South Korea.

The agreement temporarily diffused tensions. It marked a symbolic step toward resolving historic grievances through diplomacy.

But within a few short months, the rivals' old suspicions of one another crept back. Implementation of the new agreement was stalled.

After a U.S. Army helicopter flying in North Korean airspace crashed, Pyongyang accused the United States of having launched a spy mission. The country held the surviving pilot hostage.

Americans and North Koreans alike had been guilty of espionage for decades, of course. But the United States defended its army officers, claiming they were on a routine training mission and had mistakenly drifted into North Korean airspace.

The North Koreans released the American officer eventually, but the incident re-ignited the same sort of distrust that had plagued relations between the two countries for decades.


Story (http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/northkorea/1994.html)

[a_unique_person]

I have never said that NK is not run by a bunch of lunatic power mongers who starve their own citizens. However, nuclear power reactors, of the light water kind, would have been handy in helping prevent them from freezing to death. They do actually hand out food to their citizens when it is available. I don't believe they starve their people to death for no reason at all.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I have never said that NK is not run by a bunch of lunatic power mongers who starve their own citizens. However, nuclear power reactors, of the light water kind, would have been handy in helping prevent them from freezing to death. They do actually hand out food to their citizens when it is available. I don't believe they starve their people to death for no reason at all.

Do you believe that they wouldn't have set to work immediately trying to figure out how to modify the reactor to make weapons grade fuel with? Maybe it couldn't be modified, but parts scavenged and designs copied. I think it would have been a serious blunder to actually give them one. Kind of like when the Bryant Chucking Grinder Company sold the Soviets the technology for precision micro ball bearings like those used in US multi-warhead targeting systems in 1972. Every Soviet missle, tank, warhead and so on is manufactured with copies of this technology.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Do you believe that they wouldn't have set to work immediately trying to figure out how to modify the reactor to make weapons grade fuel with? Maybe it couldn't be modified, but parts scavenged and designs copied. I think it would have been a serious blunder to actually give them one. Kind of like when the Bryant Chucking Grinder Company sold the Soviets the technology for precision micro ball bearings like those used in US multi-warhead targeting systems in 1972. Every Soviet missle, tank, warhead and so on is manufactured with copies of this technology.

The use made a deal. It didn't keep it. The North Koreans have rightly deduced that even if they can't be trusted, neither can the US. Like the thread title says.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Whatever you do, don't give up your WMD. They are all that is keeping you safely ensconsed in your position of power. If you don't have WMD, get some ASAP.

Spot on AUP!

If one listens to the reasons given by the Bush Administration concerning why they do not want to make war on Iran and/or North Korea, one of the several reasons stated is that they have nukes.

The message I have been getting for the last several months is that provided the USA is reasonably sure that a country has at least one nuke, then that country can do anything it wants to within its own borders without having to worry about USA military action.

If you ask me, if Saddam would have a nuke, then the USA would not have made war with Iraq.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Saddam complied, grudginly, with the restriction on weapons. For complying, he was invaded. I have no sympathy with Saddam himself, but he met the conditions of the deal.

Sorry, but this is wrong.

Although Saddam may not have had WMD at the time of the invasion (he still had some materials he should not have had), the "deal" also required him to be open with his programs. Blix himself said Saddam was not cooperating, as was required.

(Of course, there are the other elements of UN resolutions, on human rights and return of Kuwaiti property, which Iraq was failing on too.)

Originally posted by a_unique_person

"cool"? Where did that come from. All I am trying to do is work out a 'game plan' that will work. There were warnings that America's invasion of Iraq would only cause more instability. That appears to be the case.


In case you hadn't noticed, there was a lot of instability to begin with. Nobody predicted the problems would be solved immediately. Why are you assuming people though otherwise?

Originally posted by a_unique_person

In the case of NK, if we are not going to invade and liberate it, has, in the meantime, citizens who are suffering terribly.


Could it be, horror of horrors, that the US is actually being smart in its decisions on how to handle situations? That deciding that using diplomacy might work in a situation where there are other neighbouring countries that are willing to get involved, and a situation where a country is resource-poor, while diplomacy might not work when dealing with a country that has a large resource base and no countries willing to deal with them?

[Skeptic]

You are a mind reader now?

Nah, he's just reaching a reasonable conclusion based on your past behavior here.

Since essentially you consider ANYTHING the US to be bad, and ONLY post "enlightened criticisms" of the US's "evil" actions, it doesn't take a genius to realize that you would have been criticizing the US no matter how it handled the NK issue.

We judge you by what you write, AUP. When our judgement is that you hate jews and Americans because criticizing them is all you ever do, while you totally ignore far worse offences by non-jews or non-Americans, this is hardly some sort of attempt at "mind reading" or "jumping to conclusions".

It is, rather, a simple deduction: one need not, after all, be a "mind reader" to figure out that the man who just spit in his face doesn't like him.

Of course, we COULD be wrong... and it COULD be that the man who spit in your face is actually saying "hello!" according to the ancient tradition of the blug-blug people... but I'd say it's quite likely that we are right.

Your whiny "what, are you a mind reader now?" is the equivalent of that of the caught thief: "well, can you PROVE the stolen goods you found in my pocket didn't get there LEGALLY?". Well, no... perhaps the victim gave it to him and then suffered an attack of Amnesia. But that's why there's the legal concept of "beyound a REASONABLE doubt", as opposed to "beyound all doubt".

I'd say that, beyound a reasonable doubt, your posts routinely show that you hate jews an Americans--for the reasons I elucidated in my other post, "canaries in the mine".

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Skeptic
You are a mind reader now?

Nah, he's just reaching a reasonable conclusion based on your past behavior here.



Yep.

I could make some other predictions:

AUP will post some more threads about Israel's sins. No matter how suspect the evidence or where it comes from (i.e. the IHR) he will treat it like it is gospel truth, even if it is effectively refuted (i.e. USS Liberty).

AUP will never post anything about a possible legitimate reason why Israel might be worried about security.

AUP will never hold any third world dictator responsible for their own actions. There is always a "real" reason for their brutality. (i.e. His weird apologetics for Saddam's invasion and annexation of Kuwait. The idea that Saddam thought the Kuwaitis were pumping oil that was on his border was a reason to understand Saddam's behavior. Of course, I could see if the US invaded Canada because they thought Canada was logging on US land, how he would think that was reasonable ;) )

AUP will ignore things like the Congo that are exponetially worse than Israel/Palistine because he can not really link them to the USA or Israel. If he could they would suddenly become the most important thing in the world.


There...I don't think this is psychic or mind-reading. I mean if JK was around and I predicted he would blame things on the Communists and Feminazis would I be wrong? Well since AUP is as predictable as JK, am I wrong here?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Yep.

I could make some other predictions:

AUP will post some more threads about Israel's sins. No matter how suspect the evidence or where it comes from (i.e. the IHR) he will treat it like it is gospel truth, even if it is effectively refuted (i.e. USS Liberty).

AUP will never post anything about a possible legitimate reason why Israel might be worried about security.



I don't recall posting anything from IFR. I was pulled up for posting from Zundel, however, that was because I had never heard of it. The same information could be found on another site that was not linked to Zundel.





Did you ever try comprehension training in English classes at school?

What I am doing is trying to point out that Israel's, the regions, and even the world, is suffering a security risk because of Israels inane policies in the west bank and gaza.



AUP will never hold any third world dictator responsible for their own actions. There is always a "real" reason for their brutality. (i.e. His weird apologetics for Saddam's invasion and annexation of Kuwait. The idea that Saddam thought the Kuwaitis were pumping oil that was on his border was a reason to understand Saddam's behavior. Of course, I could see if the US invaded Canada because they thought Canada was logging on US land, how he would think that was reasonable ;) )



I didn't apologise for Saddam. IIRC, I was pointing out that Saddam was not happy with Kuwait stealing his oil. As an ally of the US, for doing his part to kill, IIRC, millions of Iranians, to satisfy the US demand for revenge after being kicked out of Iran, he asked if the US was OK with him invading Kuwait. If the story I quoted was correct, the US ambassador did give him the go-ahead.



AUP will ignore things like the Congo that are exponetially worse than Israel/Palistine because he can not really link them to the USA or Israel. If he could they would suddenly become the most important thing in the world.



False, I posted a thread about exactly this a few weeks ago, I think about 1 person replied.

The problem with Israel/Palestine is that it fuels violence around the world. Problems in Africa don't.




There...I don't think this is psychic or mind-reading. I mean if JK was around and I predicted he would blame things on the Communists and Feminazis would I be wrong? Well since AUP is as predictable as JK, am I wrong here?

Your predictions and analysis have been refuted.

[Agammamon]

Don't forget "Don't trust the US".

Just because we put you in power today doesn't mean we won't yank your arse down tomorrow if it suits our purposes even, or especially, if you are doing the things we set you up to do in the first place.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I don't recall posting anything from IFR. I was pulled up for posting from Zundel, however, that was because I had never heard of it. The same information could be found on another site that was not linked to Zundel.

You found Zundel...no wonder, you guys are fellow travellers. I shouldn't be surprised if I were you. The idea that you didn't know who Zundel was kinda rings false though, coming from such a smart fella as urself. :rolleyes:



Did you ever try comprehension training in English classes at school?

True to the AUP script: Insert cute, yet perfectly predictable ad-hom.

What I am doing is trying to point out that Israel's, the regions, and even the world, is suffering a security risk because of Israels inane policies in the west bank and gaza.

Mid-east suffering = "the Jew's fault"
World suffering = Mid-east suffering
ergo, World suffering = "the Jews fault"

blah,blah,blah ...song and dance = unchanged


I didn't apologise for Saddam. IIRC, I was pointing out that Saddam was not happy with Kuwait stealing his oil. As an ally of the US, for doing his part to kill, IIRC, millions of Iranians, to satisfy the US demand for revenge after being kicked out of Iran, he asked if the US was OK with him invading Kuwait. If the story I quoted was correct, the US ambassador did give him the go-ahead.

From the AUP script: Insert well-worn myth as if it's fact.



False, I posted a thread about exactly this a few weeks ago, I think about 1 person replied.

The problem with Israel/Palestine is that it fuels violence around the world. Problems in Africa don't.

From the AUP script: Call your opponent a "liar". (telling him his pants on fire = optional)


Your predictions and analysis have been refuted.

From the AUP script: Declare yourself the winner.

Some things never change. :rolleyes:

-z

[Tony]

What lesson should tyrants learn from Iraq II?


That no matter how many people he has killed, tortured or raped, the leftists of the world will be there to offer moral support.

[Skeptic]

The problem with Israel/Palestine is that it fuels violence around the world.

TRANALSATION: when muslims want to kill christians around the world, it is really the jews' fault.

Problems in Africa don't.

TRANSLATION: if the three million dead Congolese don't cause anybody to want and kill ME in revenge, why should I care about them?

Obviously, all you really care about is that YOU would not be bothered by violence, no matter what untold misery it creates in the world. Congo? Who cares? Nobody threathens to hurt YOU over it, so it doesn't matter. Butchering the jews? Who cares? They promised not to hurt YOU if they can just kill the jews instead (or so you believe), so you're all for letting them.

Anyway, you're wrong, AUP. It is not israel that is "fueling violence around the world". It is islam. Jama'at al-Islamia, the terrorist organization in souteast asia that wants to create a muslim chalifate over all the area from China to Australia, couldn't care less about israel. They don't even mention the middle east in their war cries to evict the "dirty people who believe in the cross" from the "holy muslim land" of Australia. They want you dead not because Australia supports israel, or because israel did this or that; they want you dead because YOU ARE NOT A MUSLIM. Period.

Your is the classical appeaser's argument: if somebody threathens to kill you unless you let him kill somebody else (like Hitler threathened Chamberline in Munich over Chechoslovakia), let's let them kill the "troublemaker" they want dead, as long as they promise REALLY nicely to only kill those OTHER people, and leave you alone.

That didn't work in Munich, and will not work if israel is destroyed in order to appease muslim fanatics, like you would like it to. It would only make them worse, just like Hitler only became worse after the Munich agreement.

You like to think of yourself as a "liberal" who "undestands" other people. In reality, you're just a cowardly, short-sighted appeaser.

[a_unique_person]

Israeli and Muslim fundamentalists have found the perfect friends. Each side knows exactly what the other wants and is happy to provide it. I don't like being caught of the crossfire.