US Contributes to North Korean Nuclear Problem

[a_unique_person]

Here is a link to one of the issues that is causing instability with North Korea, at a time when such instability is the last thing that is needed.

The US promised to replace the old NK fast breeder reactors with new safe ones. NK took them up on the offer, and decomissioned the old reactors.

The US, for who knows what reasons, did not keep it's side of the bargain. Not surprisingly, neither has NK now.

[shuize]

What the above article does not mention is that, after the agreement, the North Koreans continued to work on their nuclear program in secret. According to this article, the new reactor was not scheduled for delivery until 2004: Washington Times

I submit that your timeline is wrong.

[edited to clarify links]

Liar.

[Doubt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iwentsouth
Liar.

I would recommend you either expand on this comment to explain what you mean or don't post. One word comments don't do much to enlighten anyone.

[/soapbox]

The US kept it's side of the bargain.

This guy is a liar.

What was the US supposed to do when North Korea broke the agreement? Still send them oil and food?

[synaesthesia]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Here is a link to one of the issues that is causing instability with North Korea, at a time when such instability is the last thing that is needed.

The US promised to replace the old NK fast breeder reactors with new safe ones. NK took them up on the offer, and decomissioned the old reactors.

The US, for who knows what reasons, did not keep it's side of the bargain. Not surprisingly, neither has NK now.

Blaming the Americans on this one is ridiculous (but don't worry, blame the USA for pretty much anything and you'll get about half your audience to nod complacently). North Korea is well aware of their international obligations, and they willingly violated them so that they could blackmail the international community.

N. Korea is a highly dangerous regime. Not only are they militarily advanced, they have no qualms about threatening war in response to possible UN sanctions.

[hammegk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iwentsouth
Liar.

You think more highly of him than I do.

[Ed]

"US Contributes to North Korean Nuclear Problem"

Tediously predictable.

[Richard G]

Bill Clinton, like a traitor that he is, ignored the precedent set by 9 previous administrations, and pandered technology, and funding to further advance a known enemies weapons capability.

This administration has wisely rescinded this flawed policy, and now the lunatic of N. Korea is throwing a temper tantrum. I am not intimidated, and this administration is not intimidated.

If they keep it up, they're going to get their teeth knocked down their throats.

[a_unique_person]

The people of North Korea have a desperate need for power. Eg, old people living on the 40th floor of a block of flats with no heating on power for the elevators.

Both sides have contributed to the problem. I did not say the US was wholly to blame, but maybe a show of faith by making some move to delivering the reactors, which are desperately needed, whould have swung the issue the other way.

[shuize]

AUP: Your statement:

Quote:

The US, for who knows what reasons, did not keep it's (sic) side of the bargain

is false.

If the article I linked above is correct, the reactors were not due until 2004, and the North Koreans continued working on their nuclear program in secret after the same agreement was signed in 1994, how is the United States at all responsible for the current situation?

More importantly, knowing as we do now that North Korea never even tried to abide by the last agreement, what sort of blackmail do you propose we pay this time? And how long should we expect to wait before they come back for more?

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The people of North Korea have a desperate need for power. Eg, old people living on the 40th floor of a block of flats with no heating on power for the elevators.

Both sides have contributed to the problem. I did not say the US was wholly to blame, but maybe a show of faith by making some move to delivering the reactors, which are desperately needed, whould have swung the issue the other way.

No the Communist elite have a desperate need for power.

They will have it at the cost of those old people on the 40th floor. If there are even 40 story building there.

I wonder why there military are not starving?

[LucienVanImpe]

Actually, their military is also starving. Army defectors typically weigh less than 100 pounds (I'm quoting Bill Clinton on this one, so bare with me).

North Korea is one of the most inept examples of governance in the history of the world. They have openly admitted to violating the 1994 Agreed Framework, probably to launch a new extortion scheme.

And now the U.S. gets blamed?

[aerocontrols]

Quote:

Originally posted by LucienVanImpe
And now the U.S. gets blamed?

Of course. What planet have you been living on?

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by LucienVanImpe
Actually, their military is also starving. Army defectors typically weigh less than 100 pounds (I'm quoting Bill Clinton on this one, so bare with me).

North Korea is one of the most inept examples of governance in the history of the world. They have openly admitted to violating the 1994 Agreed Framework, probably to launch a new extortion scheme.

And now the U.S. gets blamed?

Naturally. AUP has never met a despotic regime that does not owe it all to the evil machinations of the USA.

[rikzilla]

Quote:

Originally posted by shuize
What the above article does not mention is that, after the agreement, the North Koreans continued to work on their nuclear program in secret. According to this article, the new reactor was not scheduled for delivery until 2004: Washington Times

I submit that your timeline is wrong.

[edited to clarify links]

AUP won't care that he's wrong....

If UFO's, ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, and Bigfoot could be construed as the fault of America he'd believe in them to.

AUP is not a skeptic...honestly, I don't know why he even posts here...he's just a nut with a hard on for America. He never worries about getting it right....he never apologises when he's shown to be wrong. He has no integrity.

-zilla

[rikzilla]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The people of North Korea have a desperate need for power. Eg, old people living on the 40th floor of a block of flats with no heating on power for the elevators.

Both sides have contributed to the problem. I did not say the US was wholly to blame, but maybe a show of faith by making some move to delivering the reactors, which are desperately needed, whould have swung the issue the other way.

That's why they need a breeder reactor which will produce plutonium!!! To get little old ladies up the stairs!!

yeah...that's the ticket!

-z

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by rikzilla


That's why they need a breeder reactor which will produce plutonium!!! To get little old ladies up the stairs!!

yeah...that's the ticket!

-z

maybe the US could come up with the goods it has promised.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed


Naturally. AUP has never met a despotic regime that does not owe it all to the evil machinations of the USA.

have you read the thread on singapore. i raised the problems i have with that regime. however, like most countries on the planet, the damage it causes is relatively mild compared to the 600 pound gorilla stomping around it at present.

[synaesthesia]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Both sides have contributed to the problem. I did not say the US was wholly to blame, but maybe a show of faith by making some move to delivering the reactors, which are desperately needed, whould have swung the issue the other way.

The United States did the only thing that they could have done. Are you bloody joking? Deliver reactors while N Korea is actively pursuing a path of weapons development that could spark a major arms race in the region??

What you are suggesting is even more ridiculous than appeasement. It's like giving France to germany after they invade poland: The treaty has been broken, the question is not whether or not the US gives it's side of the broken bargain, but how to go about preventing North Korea from successfully using the threat of nuclear weapons to get political influence.

[Skeptic]

Both sides have contributed to the problem. I did not say the US was wholly to blame,

Ah, yes, the old "I'm even-handed" trick: since blaming ONLY the fireman (the US) for the fire (NK's insane policy and total disregard for all treaties, human rights, etc.) is too obviously hypocritical, blame both the fireman and the arsonist (NK) equally.

Who do you think you're fooling, AUP?

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by synaesthesia


The United States did the only thing that they could have done. Are you bloody joking? Deliver reactors while N Korea is actively pursuing a path of weapons development that could spark a major arms race in the region??

What you are suggesting is even more ridiculous than appeasement. It's like giving France to germany after they invade poland: The treaty has been broken, the question is not whether or not the US gives it's side of the broken bargain, but how to go about preventing North Korea from successfully using the threat of nuclear weapons to get political influence.

the proposed reactors could not have been used for weapons. hence the proposal by the US in the first place to replace the breeders with the safer kind.

NKs need for energy is desperate, and it is only surviving on food handouts. If the US had no interest in replacing the reactors, it should not have made the offer. The old reactors were shut down, which would have reduced the scant power resources they already have, and they then waited for the replacement.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
Both sides have contributed to the problem. I did not say the US was wholly to blame,

Ah, yes, the old "I'm even-handed" trick: since blaming ONLY the fireman (the US) for the fire (NK's insane policy and total disregard for all treaties, human rights, etc.) is too obviously hypocritical, blame both the fireman and the arsonist (NK) equally.

Who do you think you're fooling, AUP?

if you read the topic heading, the word used was contributes. That is, the US is not helping. While the effort to remove nuclear weapons from NK was laudable, the follow through has been empty, like many US promises. Now if the US would make good on it's promise, maybe some progress in the desired direction could be made.

[shuize]

AUP:

I am beginning to think you are just trolling and I am wasting my time even trying to respond to your foolishness:

Quote:

... the follow through has been empty, like many US promises

Quote:

If the US had no interest in replacing the reactors, it should not have made the offer.

You certainly realize that North Korea broke their side of the bargain by continuing to pursue nuclear weapons in secret from the time they signed the treaty. Or is your prejudice against the United States so pervasive that this concept is beyond you?

Perhaps you would consider answering my question posted above. If North Korea never honored their obligations to discontinue their nuclear weapons program, and the new reactor was not scheduled for delivery until 2004, how could the United States contributed in any way "to the North Korean nuclear problem" as your topic suggests? Backtracking, as you did, to say that "both sides have contributed to the problem" is still incorrect and shows your unwillingness to face facts.

By your post above, I take it you think that the United States
should ignore the violations and bow to the nuclear blackmail by delivering the new reactor as scheduled in 2004? After all, as you point out, they really need the electricity so it doesn't matter if they don't keep end of the bargain and threaten us with nuclear weapons to get what they need.

By such reasoning, you obviously believe that nuclear brinksmanship is an acceptable method of negotiating international agreements. Fair enough. In that case you certainly will not mind then if the United States resorts to the same sort of nuclear poker and announces to Iraq that Bagdad will burn up in a nuclear fireball unless they comply with our demands post-haste.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by shuize
AUP:

You certainly realize that North Korea broke their side of the bargain by continuing to pursue nuclear weapons in secret from the time they signed the treaty. Or is your prejudice against the United States so pervasive that this concept is beyond you?

that is a ridiculous use of logic. You can't say that it turns out the US was right, because it turns out they broke their side of the bargain, too. This was only known recently, and the Koreans were the ones who stated it.

lets think of another scenario, NK is making tentative steps to freeing up it's country to the outside world, the US makes good it's deal to supply nuclear reactors, it realises that things will be better if it engages peacefully with the outside world, and current craziness never happens.

Now, i don't know if this would have happened, but since the US did not keep good it's deal, then we will never know.

Quote:

Perhaps you would consider answering my question posted above. If North Korea never honored their obligations to discontinue their nuclear weapons program, and the new reactor was not scheduled for delivery until 2004, how could the United States contributed in any way "to the North Korean nuclear problem" as your topic suggests? Backtracking, as you did, to say that "both sides have contributed to the problem" is still incorrect and shows your unwillingness to face facts.

So why wait till the last moment, and in terms of building a nuclear reactor, this is the last moment? The dire need for power in NK is well known to everyone. A bit of a show of good faith may have gone a long way. i did not backtrack, as i stated right from the start, the title states 'contributes'. If I felt it was the sole cause, i would have stated 'causes', but i knew this to not be the case.

Quote:

By your post above, I take it you think that the United States
should ignore the violations and bow to the nuclear blackmail by delivering the new reactor as scheduled in 2004? After all, as you point out, they really need the electricity so it doesn't matter if they don't keep end of the bargain and threaten us with nuclear weapons to get what they need.

who is being blackmailed? NK threatening the US? They were threatening to retaliate to a 'pre-emptive' strike. with what? They are so poverty striken that at most they might get a couple of missiles off, that probably will crash on take off, that probably won't make the distance, that even if they do make the distance, probably won't go off.

Quote:

By such reasoning, you obviously believe that nuclear brinksmanship is an acceptable method of negotiating international agreements. Fair enough. In that case you certainly will not mind then if the United States resorts to the same sort of nuclear poker and announces to Iraq that Bagdad will burn up in a nuclear fireball unless they comply with our demands post-haste.

strawman.

[Skeptic]

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
Both sides have contributed to the problem. I did not say the US was wholly to blame,

Ah, yes, the old "I'm even-handed" trick: since blaming ONLY the fireman (the US) for the fire (NK's insane policy and total disregard for all treaties, human rights, etc.) is too obviously hypocritical, blame both the fireman and the arsonist (NK) equally.

Who do you think you're fooling, AUP?

Sorry about replying to myself, but, P.S.:

AUP, wasn't it the "peace-loving liberals" who were originally all supportive for the US helping NK with it's "peaceful" nuclear program in order to "avoid war", "improve relations", "bring peace to the region", and other liberal cliches?

Weren't you or your collegues also denouncing the "War mongering US" for daring to be reluctant about supplying an insane state with nuclear capabilities on its worthless promise not to use them for weapons?

In short, isn't the US helping NK with its nuclear program YOUR idea in the first place?

So how can you now, with a straight face, "blame" the US for supporting NK's nuclear program, when it was people like you who demanded it do so initially, and the US (rather stupidly) followed your advice?

Oh, yes, I forget: "peace activists" and "progressive liberals" NEVER take responsibility for the dire results of their own policies. They either ignore them, claiming that the fact that they were about 99%-100% wrong in the past is no reason to think they're wrong now, or, better, blame their opponents for executing the very same policies THEY supported a few years back!

Moral: Never let a liberal convince you of anything. If you do, and the result is positive--fat chance--he'll claim the credit for the success; if you do and the result is a catastrophe, he'll blame you for the failure.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic


Sorry about replying to myself, but, P.S.:

AUP, wasn't it the "peace-loving liberals" who were originally all supportive for the US helping NK with it's "peaceful" nuclear program in order to "avoid war", "improve relations", "bring peace to the region", and other liberal cliches?

except that it didn't happen.

Quote:

Weren't you or your collegues also denouncing the "War mongering US" for daring to be reluctant about supplying an insane state with nuclear capabilities on its worthless promise not to use them for weapons?

it was about replacing a fast breeder reactor with one that did not create plutonium

Quote:

In short, isn't the US helping NK with its nuclear program YOUR idea in the first place?

thats right, now that you mention it, i recall now that i was watching the telly one night, when the US President called me and asked me how to deal the the NK issue. I have to admit, I told him to do exactly that.

Quote:

So how can you now, with a straight face, "blame" the US for supporting NK's nuclear program, when it was people like you who demanded it do so initially, and the US (rather stupidly) followed your advice?

Oh, yes, I forget: "peace activists" and "progressive liberals" NEVER take responsibility for the dire results of their own policies. They either ignore them, claiming that the fact that they were about 99%-100% wrong in the past is no reason to think they're wrong now, or, better, blame their opponents for executing the very same policies THEY supported a few years back!

Moral: Never let a liberal convince you of anything. If you do, and the result is positive--fat chance--he'll claim the credit for the success; if you do and the result is a catastrophe, he'll blame you for the failure.

I can't recall convincing you of anything.

[hammegk]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I can't recall convincing you of anything.

You convinced me -- long long ago -- that your mama dropped you on your head way too many times.

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Here is a link to one of the issues that is causing instability with North Korea, at a time when such instability is the last thing that is needed.

The US promised to replace the old NK fast breeder reactors with new safe ones. NK took them up on the offer, and decomissioned the old reactors.

The US, for who knows what reasons, did not keep it's side of the bargain. Not surprisingly, neither has NK now.

Regarding this and the posts that follow; the entire position of aup is that NK is an nation that can be dealt with as a sovereign nation and through diplomacy, as the rest of us understand it (and J. Carter likes to think he does).

It isn't! It's a gang holding millions of people hostage, just like Iraq, and a few others that could be named. Sure we can play the game, but if aup thinks we could ever depend on NK to change character or live up to the next set of agreements, then he must be one of those people out demonstrating against democracies in support of Iraq.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Elind


Regarding this and the posts that follow; the entire position of aup is that NK is an nation that can be dealt with as a sovereign nation and through diplomacy, as the rest of us understand it (and J. Carter likes to think he does).

It isn't! It's a gang holding millions of people hostage, just like Iraq, and a few others that could be named. Sure we can play the game, but if aup thinks we could ever depend on NK to change character or live up to the next set of agreements, then he must be one of those people out demonstrating against democracies in support of Iraq.

the fact is they did shut it down, for a number of years.

are they rational? not very, they are not entirely insane, however, and did comply partly with the request.

apart from trying to persist with diplomatic measures, which have had some successes, what other alternative is their to war?

[synaesthesia]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person

the proposed reactors could not have been used for weapons. hence the proposal by the US in the first place to replace the breeders with the safer kind.

NKs need for energy is desperate, and it is only surviving on food handouts. If the US had no interest in replacing the reactors, it should not have made the offer. The old reactors were shut down, which would have reduced the scant power resources they already have, and they then waited for the replacement.

You have totally missed the point. US aid is not an unconditional promise but a bargain. Korea broke the bargain and choose to blackmail the region in exchange for military and economic benefits from the United States. Anyone who would criticize the US for not simply capitulating is totally ignorant of the situation.

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by hammegk


You convinced me -- long long ago -- that your mama dropped you on your head way too many times.

Happy with your constructive contribution to this thread so far?? I remember you telling me that my only contribution to this forum was random ad-homs.....So which one are you? the pot or the kettle?


Now, the thread topic...Feel free to join me in this Hammy....

It seems to me that every country that got cut in half after WW2 has gone through a long period of war/turmoil until the inevitable solution of re-unification is achieved.

Anyone got any bright Ideas how Korea could be put back together? All the Kings Horses and All the Kings men have (so far)failed to put it together again. Maybe the superpowers that played global cake slicing at the end of WW2 could take some responsibility in this area?

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person


the fact is they did shut it down, for a number of years.

are they rational? not very, they are not entirely insane, however, and did comply partly with the request.

apart from trying to persist with diplomatic measures, which have had some successes, what other alternative is their to war?

I propose that diplomatic measures have had NO success beyond maintaining a status quo of sorts. Do you seriously think that 50 years later, a country that proposes among other things, to revert to a state of war because it has realized that it can't continue to exist without more blackmail, can be dealt with diplomatically?

Your finer distictions between rationality and insanity are meaningless, and your statement that they "partly" complied with a "request" is equally meaningless.

You can take either the position that they need to be destroyed via manipulation (call it diplomacy and/or sanctions if you want) or militarily. Obviously the former is prefered, but in the meantime their people will continue to die one way or another, and the millions of fools who give comfort to Saddam and have never demonstrated against real evil in their lives continue their hypocrisy.

Iraq could perhaps have been resolved by now, if there had been unanimity where the world stood regarding that sort of regime, and you can be sure NK would have paid close attention. Instead we have self serving frogs like Chirac and pious pacifists like the krauts, whose actions do nothing but give comfort to those who are also, ultimately, their enemies.

NK will have to be dealt with somehow. How I don't know, but I do know that you and your wimpish philosophy will be perfectly happy to call the USA to help when the going gets tough, as you have in the past.

And as a btw, I quote you elsewhere "Which is a point I have often raised, that the average USian is not necessarily such a bad guy. The peace demonstrations confirm this."

All that proves is that we have our share of fools as well, but dare I say; less than you? And please, call us by our accepted terms. American or US citizen will do fine.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Elind


I propose that diplomatic measures have had NO success beyond maintaining a status quo of sorts. Do you seriously think that 50 years later, a country that proposes among other things, to revert to a state of war because it has realized that it can't continue to exist without more blackmail, can be dealt with diplomatically?

Your finer distictions between rationality and insanity are meaningless, and your statement that they "partly" complied with a "request" is equally meaningless.

You can take either the position that they need to be destroyed via manipulation (call it diplomacy and/or sanctions if you want) or militarily. Obviously the former is prefered, but in the meantime their people will continue to die one way or another, and the millions of fools who give comfort to Saddam and have never demonstrated against real evil in their lives continue their hypocrisy.

Iraq could perhaps have been resolved by now, if there had been unanimity where the world stood regarding that sort of regime, and you can be sure NK would have paid close attention. Instead we have self serving frogs like Chirac and pious pacifists like the krauts, whose actions do nothing but give comfort to those who are also, ultimately, their enemies.

NK will have to be dealt with somehow. How I don't know, but I do know that you and your wimpish philosophy will be perfectly happy to call the USA to help when the going gets tough, as you have in the past.

And as a btw, I quote you elsewhere "Which is a point I have often raised, that the average USian is not necessarily such a bad guy. The peace demonstrations confirm this."

All that proves is that we have our share of fools as well, but dare I say; less than you? And please, call us by our accepted terms. American or US citizen will do fine.

who is blackmailing who. the efforts of the US and NK appear to be complementary.

[Ben Shniper]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person


who is blackmailing who. the efforts of the US and NK appear to be complementary.

Only to one as unbiased as you.Oblivious to the difference between good and evil.

How many millions does NK have to starve to death to convince you of this? Perhaps the millions have not been enough to coax you out of your moral know-nothingness.

When did you decide to follow the religion of Marxism? Isn't your god dead? Put down the Chomsky and pick up some Asimov or Adam Smith.

-Ben

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


Only to one as unbiased as you.Oblivious to the difference between good and evil.

How many millions does NK have to starve to death to convince you of this? Perhaps the millions have not been enough to coax you out of your moral know-nothingness.

When did you decide to follow the religion of Marxism? Isn't your god dead? Put down the Chomsky and pick up some Asimov or Adam Smith.

-Ben

yes, that is right, the world is that simple. how could i have missed it, and i haven't read the lensman series either.

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


Only to one as unbiased as you.Oblivious to the difference between good and evil.

How many millions does NK have to starve to death to convince you of this? Perhaps the millions have not been enough to coax you out of your moral know-nothingness.

When did you decide to follow the religion of Marxism? Isn't your god dead? Put down the Chomsky and pick up some Asimov or Adam Smith.

-Ben

Good and Evil Ben? I think you demonstrate at least half the problem with a statement like that.

Where do all the "Evil" people live? Do they wear black Stetsons to make identification easier? Do they Know they are evil, Like Dr Evil? Do they have henchmen in snappy silver suits like in the Movies?

[Richard G]

AUP, are you a NK agent? Your pressing an issue as though you have stock invested in the NK weapons program. Insisting we give a lunatic regime what they want because they threaten us is surely attributed to you giving up your lunch money every day to the school yard bully. I have an idea, lets cut them all welfare checks, that will make them happy for awhile eh?

Your either a communist sympathizer, or a blithering idiot. Could be both.

[DialecticMaterialist]

The agreement was short-sighted and stupid.

Did they really the the communist party fo north korea would sacrifice a nuclear weapons program for more electricity?

If we wanted to trade it should have been for something realistic, some sort of commodity/ immediate gain.

Think of it this way, lets say North Korea breaks the treaty and gets Nukes after it gets its reactors..... what do we do about it? Nothing. We can't do anything about it. I mean we can try and get ourselves blown up.


So basically we'd be dependent on N.Korea's sense of "good will" and honor, something none too reliable.

[rikzilla]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


Only to one as unbiased as you.Oblivious to the difference between good and evil.

How many millions does NK have to starve to death to convince you of this? Perhaps the millions have not been enough to coax you out of your moral know-nothingness.

When did you decide to follow the religion of Marxism? Isn't your god dead? Put down the Chomsky and pick up some Asimov or Adam Smith.

-Ben

Ben!!

Glad to see you back. We missed your laser like ability to cut thru the BS and stick a proper label on our friend AUP. As usual...you have this guy pegged.

-zilla