This is what I had in mind Joe
It shows clearly the naivete of the Clinton administration in dealing with a psycho.
The ball is in your court Joe............how about presenting some evidence of your allegations?
The North Korean Nuclear Situation
History of the 'Agreed Framework' and how it was broken
At Issue: What is the history of the now-broken nuclear non-proliferation agreement with North Korea known as the Agreed Framework and what has its failure cost the United States?
Background: On Oct. 16, 2002 North Korean government officials admitted their country had secretly continued development of nuclear weapons in violation of a 1994 non-proliferation agreement with the United States.
Coming from a nation identified, along with Iraq and Iran, as a member of terrorism's Axis of Evil, North Korea's nuclear weapons confession threatened peace in the Korean peninsula and complicated matters for a Bush administration, already planning a war against Iraq.
Fearing that immediate U.S. military action might prompt North Korea to attack South Korea, currently home to some 37,000 U.S. troops, the White House expressed hopes that diplomatic efforts would be sufficient to convince the North Koreans to ''comply with its commitments . . . and to eliminate its nuclear weapons program in a verifiable manner."
It was, however, well-intentioned "diplomatic efforts" by the Clinton administration that failed in the first place. That piece of 1994 diplomacy was known as the "Agreed Framework."
North Korea's Nuclear Past
Lacking its own supplies of traditional energy resources like oil or coal, North Korea turned to nuclear power generation and by the mid-1980s, had at least four nuclear power complexes in operation. However, North Korea's reactors, built with the assistance of China and the Soviet Union, were disclosed to be "graphite-moderated" reactors, a type capable of producing weapons grade plutonium.
This fact spurred the interest of U.S. intelligence forces who determined that North Korea's largest nuclear facility at Yongbyon, along with three smaller facilities, were indeed producing plutonium. By 1985 U.S. defense experts estimated that the newly discovered North Korean nuclear program had already generated enough plutonium for two nuclear weapons and was poised to rapidly expand production. In addition, intelligence showed the N. Koreans to be quickly developing their ballistic missile weapons delivery systems. U.S. defense officials determined a N. Korean nuclear arsenal would create the following threats:
* Direct threat to South Korea and U.S. forces stationed there
* Possibility of igniting a nuclear arms race throughout Asia
* Would compromise enforceability of all international nuclear arms control treaties
* N. Korea could export its weapons technology to other terrorist states and organizations
* With improved missile systems, N. Korea could threaten all of Northeast Asia
Diplomacy and Deception: 'A sea of fire'
From 1985 to 1992, N. Korea "bought time" for its nuclear weapons program by entering into a series of international diplomatic agreements under which it promised to "deweaponize" its reactors and halt further production of plutonium.
By 1994, however, N. Korea had violated the terms of most of the non-proliferation agreements and simply withdrawn from the rest. By refusing in 1993 to disclose to international arms control agencies how much plutonium it had produced, N. Korea virtually admitted that its nuclear weapons program had continued unchecked.
When in June of 1994 the Unites States, S. Korea and several allied nations succeeded in getting the U.N. Security Council to evoke sanctions against them, the N. Koreans declared the sanctions an "act of war" and threatened to turn South Korea into "a sea of fire."
Clinton Negotiates the 'Agreed Framework'
Believing a diplomatic solution still possible, former President Clinton forged an agreement with N. Korean President Kim Il-sung that the North would temporarily halt its nuclear weapons program and return to non-proliferation negotiations in Geneva. The now-violated agreement, signed on Oct. 21, 1994 became known as the "Agreed Framework."
Key components of the 1994 Agreed Framework included:
* The U.S. and N. Korea would cooperate in fully replacing N. Korea's graphite-moderated reactors with light-water reactors (not capable of plutonium production) by 2003. Graphite-moderated reactors were to be shut down until converted.
* To offset energy lost due to the powering down of N. Korea's graphite-moderated reactors, the United States agreed to supply N. Korea with up to 500,000 tons of heavy oil for heating and electricity production annually, until all reactors had been converted.
* N. Korea agreed to return to compliance with all international nuclear non-proliferation agreements and to eventually stabilize, store and dispose of all spent nuclear fuel already produced.
* Both the U.S. and N. Korea would work to achieve full normalization of political and economic relations.
A Broken Framework
As we now know, North Korea failed to uphold its end of the Agreed Framework. Appearing October 20 on NBC's "Meet the Press," Secretary of State Colin Powell stated, "When we told North Korea that we knew what they were doing, they came back the next day, admitted it, blamed us for their actions and then said they considered that agreement nullified."
Sen. Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina), the Ranking Republican Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was not quite so reserved when he stated, "At long last, the truth has come out. North Korea has admitted that the Agreed Framework negotiated by the Clinton Administration is a falsehood."
"The bottom line is that North Korea was out of compliance with its international obligations in 1994 when the Agreed Framework was signed; it remained out of compliance throughout the implementation of the Framework; and it is today out of compliance with its international obligations," said Helms.
Further U.S. Aid to North Korea
In addition to the oil supplied under the 1994 Agreed Framework, the United States, as early as 1997, began sending North Korea food medicine and other forms of humanitarian aid.
The contributions of U.S. humanitarian aid to N. Korea began in 1997, in response to an appeal from the United Nations World Food Program. Unprecedented flooding during 1995 and 1996 had wiped out much of N. Korea's farm land, resulting in chronic food production shortfalls and widespread malnutrition.
U.S. defense analysts, viewing the rapidly declining economic stability and impending starvation in N. Korea as a threat to peace in the region, recommended continuation of the humanitarian aid program. Ironically, defense planners also reasoned that the aid would help "buy" N. Korea's compliance with terms of the Agreed Framework.
By 2000, the United States contribution of food and other forms of humanitarian aid to North Korea had amounted to over $61 million.
Needless to say, North Korea's admission of its continued development of nuclear weapons in direct violation of the Agreed Framework, may bring an end to the flow of U.S. humanitarian and economic aid. When asked about the possibility of ending aid to N. Korea, Secretary of State Powell responded, "We are now looking at what should be the consequences of their [North Korea's] action and we will act, step by step, after we have had a chance to fully consult with our friends and allies."
rayban1 wrote:This is what I had in mind Joe
It shows clearly the naivete of the Clinton administration in dealing with a psycho.
The ball is in your court Joe............how about presenting some evidence of your allegations?
I've gone about as far off-topic as I am willing to go. In a thread regarding the invasion of Iraq, I will not be sidetracked by an in-depth discussion regarding North Korea. As I mentioned previously, if you want to explore this topic in greater detail, I encourage you to start a new thread. And for examples of Bush's maladroit diplomacy, just look at my initial post
here.
Really Joe.........is this the best you can come up with?????
While your opening statement used Iraq to "Hammer" Bush, I believe it is relevant to point out some ineptness and spineless behavior on the part of the Clinton Administration which caused several problems inherited by Bush.
Back to the "unjust war" allegation.........let's go back to the 9/11 commision hearings. I'm certain you can remember the inference that Bush should have invaded Afghanistan prior to the 9/11 attacks. Think how the Democrats and you would have howled at that pre-emptive action.
You and other Liberals have accusations and criticisms of Bush but are totally lacking in any constructive solutions of your own.........except of course.....obstructionism. Good examples are currently taking place......just to name three
1. Blocking Bolton's nomination over his management style.....shouting at subordinates.
2. Taking the position that there is no problem with the solvency of the Social Security Trustfund in the coming years and instead are blocking any proposed solution by Bush.
3. Blocking Bush's energy plan but yet failing to propose one of your own.
The Democrats only answer is to play politics as usual with the future of this country.
rayban1 wrote:
The Democrats only answer is to play politics as usual with the future of this country.
The demokkkrat party really sucks, doesn't it?
rayban1 wrote:Really Joe.........is this the best you can come up with?????
I can only work with what you give me.
rayban1 wrote:While your opening statement used Iraq to "Hammer" Bush, I believe it is relevant to point out some ineptness and spineless behavior on the part of the Clinton Administration which caused several problems inherited by Bush.
Focusing attention on Clinton as a means of deflecting attention from Bush is a rather common, if logically threadbare, tactic here among the Bush apologists, so I'm not surprised to see you use it,
rayban.
rayban1 wrote:Back to the "unjust war" allegation.........let's go back to the 9/11 commision hearings. I'm certain you can remember the inference that Bush should have invaded Afghanistan prior to the 9/11 attacks.
No, I never heard anyone mention or infer that.
rayban1 wrote:Think how the Democrats and you would have howled at that pre-emptive action.
And with good reason.
rayban1 wrote:You and other Liberals have accusations and criticisms of Bush but are totally lacking in any constructive solutions of your own.........except of course.....obstructionism. Good examples are currently taking place......just to name three
1. Blocking Bolton's nomination over his management style.....shouting at subordinates.
2. Taking the position that there is no problem with the solvency of the Social Security Trustfund in the coming years and instead are blocking any proposed solution by Bush.
3. Blocking Bush's energy plan but yet failing to propose one of your own.
Once again, I must remind you that this is a thread about the invasion of Iraq. If you want to discuss any of the foregoing issues, I suggest that you start your own threads.
rayban1 wrote:The Democrats only answer is to play politics as usual with the future of this country.
Then you may want to direct your inquiries to a Democrat.
(I will be away from my computer until Friday; I don't want you to think that I'm ignoring anything that you post in the meantime)
Joe
Once again you have taken refuge in quibbling about what should or should not be included in your thread.............so be it..
Back to the unjust war thesis which you have not proven. The war was supported by over 50 % percent of the American people and their representatives who voted to expend the funds required. Do you not believe in the rule of the majority?
I, as one of the Americans who supported the removal of the tyrannical,murderous regime in Iraq, am certainly not interested in your unproven thesis that it was "unjust" in your eyes.
I am also in favor of a change in several more regimes, but I will just name three. Syria, Iran and Korea. I will let you guess about the methods I would employ.
rayban1 wrote:This is what I had in mind Joe
It shows clearly the naivete of the Clinton administration in dealing with a psycho.
I don't know if the word 'psycho' really does the 'beloved leader' justice. Slick KKKlinton is
a psycho in my view; Kim Jung Il may be beyond that.
Check this out:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050502-101038-4455r.htm
Quote:
Japanese seek U.S. support on sanctions
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Representatives of Japanese nationals abducted by North Korea have appealed to the Bush administration to support sanctions on Pyongyang until the communist regime provides a full accounting of the missing Japanese.
Teruaki Masumoto, head of an association of family members whose relatives were taken to North Korea, said he thinks Pyongyang is lying by claiming that his sister Rumiko died in 1981.
Rumiko Masumoto was 24 when she was abducted by North Korean agents in 1978. Pyongyang said the abductees were forced to teach Japanese to North Korean intelligence officers.
Mr. Masumoto, of the Association of Family Members Kidnapped by North Korea, said North Korea's government provided fraudulent documents indicating his sister had died of a heart attack.
"We stand on the basic premise that our families are alive in North Korea at this time," Mr. Masumoto said in an interview at the Pentagon after meeting with defense officials on the issue.
Yoichi Shimada, a representative of a second group, the National Association for the Rescue of Japanese Kidnapped by North Korea, said Miss Masumoto trained North Korean intelligence agents and if released could identify Pyongyang's agents operating in Japan and elsewhere.
"If she is repatriated, the Japanese police could show her photos of spies she trained. That is why North Korea is refusing to release her," he said.
Mr. Shimada said the solution to the issue is ?regime change? in North Korea and that Japanese sanctions should be imposed on Pyongyang as a way to facilitate the elimination of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il.
"My position is basically regime change is the only way to resolve this abduction issue and nuclear issue and missile issue, for that matter," he said. "We think we have to do something which can shake up the leadership corps in North Korea. More bluntly, we would like to raise the possibility of the assassination of Kim Jong-il."
The North Korean leader first disclosed in 2002 that the intelligence service abducted 15 Japanese and claimed five were alive and 10 had died. Japanese officials say the number of people who were abducted or who were lured to North Korea and then held is more than 100.
The issue has turned public opinion in Japan against North Korea.
Economic sanctions imposed by Japan on North Korea would send a message to military and civilian officials close to the reclusive North Korean leader. The message of sanctions is "eliminate him, more bluntly, assassinate him, then you can expect the lifting of sanctions but better relations with Japan," Mr. Shimada said.
Both men were visiting Washington as part of North Korean Freedom Week, which brought together various human rights groups last week. They met with U.S. government officials at the Pentagon, State Department and White House to urge the Bush administration to support Japanese sanctions against North Korea.
"The families in Japan strongly believe that it was the statements the current Bush administration has made toward North Korea, starting off with the axis of evil and including them in the rogue state status that have been very helpful," Mr. Masumoto said.
Picture American reaction were the govt. of Mexico to send agents over the border to kidnap ordinary American citizens and haul them back to Mexico to be enslaved for life teaching Mexican agents to speak English.
Yeah, I know Mexicans are supposed to be too stupid to learn English so that every automatic machine you ever see any more is in English AND Spanish despite all the people from other countries walking around who learn English in a year, but that just says the kidnappers would keep their victims all the longer if Kim Jung Il were running Mexico....
Is support for the enemy's objective patriotic?
In the OP, joefromchicago writes:
Quote:To be sure, an immediate cessation of hostilities would require an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. That's true, and I want that as well. Of course, such a precipitous withdrawal would undoubtedly lead to chaos --
That's also the objective of the so-called 'insurgency'.
Elsewhere in the OP, joe writes that the war is unjust because it had no sanction from the UN. It's typical of the Left that America should have no legitimacy or sovreignty outside the permissions of the UN.
Americans wonder of the Leftist 'world-citizens', who by unfortunate circumstance also happen to be legal American citizens, "can we question their patriotism
now"?
The Democratic-wing of the Democrat party shows that "dissent is patriotic" during a 032004 rally in San Francisco.
I say again, being the last leftover 60s flower child standing is a tough job, but somebody's gotta do it.
Joe you wrote a well argued and logical piece at the start of this thread. Sorry but I haven't read the intervening 80 odd pages...but in response to the title
"I want the US to lose the war in Iraq"
I would just comment that your wish is slowly but surely coming true.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Joe you wrote a well argued and logical piece at the start of this thread. Sorry but I haven't read the intervening 80 odd pages...but in response to the title
"I want the US to lose the war in Iraq"
I would just comment that your wish is slowly but surely coming true.
..........and you can barely suppress your glee. I suspect you've been running hither and yon trying to punish Mr Blair for his part in the war just as those who wanted to ignore Hitler, tried to prevent Churchill from becoming PM.............will you pacifists never learn.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Joe you wrote a well argued and logical piece at the start of this thread. Sorry but I haven't read the intervening 80 odd pages...but in response to the title
"I want the US to lose the war in Iraq"
I would just comment that your wish is slowly but surely coming true.
You obviously don't share the views of Max Hastings, writing in
The Guardian.
More Democrat patriotism on parade...
More patriotic mainstream "Liberalism" on parade...
... jingoistic flag-waving dupes. But of course when one supports the military and political aims of his nation's enemies, that's prima facie evidence of patriotism.
See more patriotic Democrats on parade here:
Zombietime Some images are graphic, use discretion when/where viewing!
".........and you can barely suppress your glee. I suspect you've been running hither and yon trying to punish Mr Blair for his part in the war just as those who wanted to ignore Hitler, tried to prevent Churchill from becoming PM.............will you pacifists never learn."
Rayban you have no idea. Facts on the ground demonstrate USUK is losing. You presume to think I'm happy about that, well keep presuming. Iraq will just get worse until like Vietnam USUK pulls out.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:".........and you can barely suppress your glee. I suspect you've been running hither and yon trying to punish Mr Blair for his part in the war just as those who wanted to ignore Hitler, tried to prevent Churchill from becoming PM.............will you pacifists never learn."
Rayban you have no idea. Facts on the ground demonstrate USUK is losing. You presume to think I'm happy about that, well keep presuming. Iraq will just get worse until like Vietnam USUK pulls out.
And exactly what "facts" are those????
The Iraqi's had a free election,they have installed a new,freely elected govt.
Attacks on US and UK troops have reduced.
There is more,but you say we are losing and that "facts" prove that.
Have you even been to Iraq?
Do you really know what is going on,or are you relying on hearsay reports from people that want the US to lose?
Quote:
Rayban you have no idea. Facts on the ground demonstrate USUK is losing.
Everything believable I've seen so far contradicts that.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:".........and you can barely suppress your glee. I suspect you've been running hither and yon trying to punish Mr Blair for his part in the war just as those who wanted to ignore Hitler, tried to prevent Churchill from becoming PM.............will you pacifists never learn."
Rayban you have no idea. Facts on the ground demonstrate USUK is losing. You presume to think I'm happy about that, well keep presuming. Iraq will just get worse until like Vietnam USUK pulls out.
Facts... You must be reading the wrong print.
rayban1 wrote:Joe
Once again you have taken refuge in quibbling about what should or should not be included in your thread.............so be it..
If I wanted to talk about North Korea or John Bolton or any other subject that you seem to want to talk about, I would have started a thread on it. Likewise, if you want to talk about those subjects, what are you doing posting to a thread about Iraq?
rayban1 wrote:Back to the unjust war thesis which you have not proven.
I am not interested in "proof;" such a thing cannot even be attempted in a discussion such as this. I am interested in persuasion. I have laid out my argument. If you are not persuaded, then you need to point out the specific aspects of that argument that you deem to be unpersuasive.
rayban1 wrote:The war was supported by over 50 % percent of the American people and their representatives who voted to expend the funds required. Do you not believe in the rule of the majority?
Of course I do. Do you believe that the majority is always right?
rayban1 wrote:I, as one of the Americans who supported the removal of the tyrannical,murderous regime in Iraq, am certainly not interested in your unproven thesis that it was "unjust" in your eyes.
Then why are you even posting to this thread?
rayban1 wrote:I am also in favor of a change in several more regimes, but I will just name three. Syria, Iran and Korea. I will let you guess about the methods I would employ.
The mind reels.
Re: Is support for the enemy's objective patriotic?
fribbley wrote:In the OP, joefromchicago writes:
Quote:To be sure, an immediate cessation of hostilities would require an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. That's true, and I want that as well. Of course, such a precipitous withdrawal would undoubtedly lead to chaos --
That's also the objective of the so-called 'insurgency'.
And if that were the only thing that I said, I might agree with you. But, as I'm sure you're aware, I also wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:It is, nevertheless, incumbent upon the US not only to cease its aggression but to make amends, i.e. to make it so that Iraq is in no worse position than it was before the war, and preferably to make it better.
In this respect, I believe that my position differs from that of the Iraqi patriots.
fribbley wrote:Elsewhere in the OP, joe writes that the war is unjust because it had no sanction from the UN. It's typical of the Left that America should have no legitimacy or sovreignty outside the permissions of the UN.
If anyone was curious about what a "strawman argument" looks like,
this is an excellent example of the genre. I have
never stated that the war was unjust because it did not receive sanction from the UN: not in the original post in this thread nor in any post that I have written in this forum. When you attack this position,
fribbley, you attack the position that you
wanted me to take, not the position that I actually took.
Joe wrote:
<I am not interested in "proof;" such a thing cannot even be attempted in a discussion such as this. I am interested in persuasion. I have laid out my argument. If you are not persuaded, then you need to point out the specific aspects of that argument that you deem to be unpersuasive.>
.......And I have already stated my primary objection to your argument.......It will open a "Pandora's box" of .......unintended consequences. You are probably one who believes that when a butterfly flaps it's wings on one side of the world it causes a hurricane on the other. If that is true, think of the magnitude of what you will cause if your proposal of immediate withdrawal from Iraq is implemented. Speak of the mind reeling................
rayban1 wrote:
The war was supported by over 50 % percent of the American people and their representatives who voted to expend the funds required. Do you not believe in the rule of the majority?
Joe replied:
Of course I do. Do you believe that the majority is always right?
The answer to this surprisingly foolish rhetorical question is self evident.......
The majority has been correct enough times they have produced the most powerful, compassionate, generous, successfull nation the world has ever witnessed. The majority opinion has been correct enough times that you lefties should never even think about tampering with it.
The inane trend toward PC and multiculturalism is approaching epidemic proportions and it can soon be considered the tyranny of the minority..... this trend should be stopped in it's tracks.........it is very dangerous to the continued prosperity and success of majority rule. Of course this is being brought about by the left and their attempts to legislate from the courts.
If your aim is persuasion you are failing miserably simply because of the magnitude of your task in analysing the consequences. In the meantime I will stick with the President because there is some proof that his policies are bringing about a profound and welcome change in the hopes and aspirations of the people of the ME. They can see a dim light at the end of the tunnel.....hope and dreams are like ideas; they cannot be extinguished.
Bush has brought the hope and dreams a little closer to reality and for that he should be praised.......not condemned by the myopic left.
