Futher roll-backs on the Bushevik Stupidity Front

Here is another intersting take on the North Korean issue from 1994 written by a physicist.

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so94albright

It does seem to refute the argument that bombing Yongbyon reactor in 1994 would have destroyed any processed plutonium. The IAEA was doing inspections of the reactor facility in 1992. I doubt North Korea would have kept any processed plutonium in a complex that inspectors were spending time in doing swabs for testing.

Some of the same info can be found here...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/yongbyon.htm

0 Replies

parados, It's only a matter of time that NK will develop the nuke weapon, but they still have a problem with delivering it. Their movements are pretty much restricted, and all their missiles are short-range.

0 Replies

O'Bill's "evidence" about Clinton's military intentions is not conclusive. It demonstrates two things--the first that he was careful to canvas all the plausible scenarios, the second that he was willing to do a little saber-rattling. One thing it does not prove is that he was seriously contemplating military action. He did not send the additional 50,000 troops to Korea, and even had he, that would have been 85,000 US troops to add to the 300,000+ ROK troops, for a total of considerably less than 500,000 troops to attack the at least one million troops in the North, in excellent defensive positions.

O'Bill's evidence does not serve to convince me that Clinton seriously contemplated military action against the North--all it shows is that he was carefully doing his job as commander in chief, something his successor has not shown an inclination to do. At the very beginning of his presidency, Clinton was blind-sided by the disaster in Mogadishu--all of his actions with regard to military matters thereafter provide strong inferential evidence that, although he may not have come to mistrust military leadership, he was determined to carefully assess each situation, and to make the final decisions himself. In eight years, he only came to the conclusion that concerted, large-scale military action was warranted in one situation, the attack on Serbia in 1999, at the end of his presidency.

The evidence O'Bill presents, coupled with the fact that Clinton did not take military action against the North strongly suggests to me that expert military opinion, as he consulted it, convinced him of the "un-wisdom" of such an attack.

O'Bill's faith in our military's prowess and the efficacy of a "surgical" strike is touching, and unrealisitic.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:
You mean the civil discourse like this OB?

Ticomaya wrote:
Clinton was more responsible for North Korea developing nuclear weapons, and only a dumbass would argue otherwise.

Does the shoe fit, parados?

Clearly your mentioning that post was not fostered by any attempt on your part to maintain the civility of this thread; rather, you are simply stirring the turd. That post was my response to kuvasz' crack about my "long line of retarded posts." Funny, you didn't see the need to highlight his diarrhea, now did you?

This thread has certainly been infinitely more civil since kuvasz has stopped posting in it.

I guess by now it would be too much to ask of man who peddles his craft is as a wordsmith that his reference of uncivility by me attacked people's posts, whereas those of wormtonguemaya's actually attacked the person.

and you wonder why people like setanta readily ignore your word twisting?

And my latest link developed into a rare thing; the link posted information used by advocates of the differing theses, his showed little value in producing information or any insight. so indeed they do, as mentioned look like vanity posts and not worth a gob of spit.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

I guess by now it would be too much to ask of man who peddles his craft is as a wordsmith that his reference of uncivility by me attacked people's posts, whereas those of wormtonguemaya's actually attacked the person.

Did that make sense to you before you typed it out? I think you forgot to type out some words.

But if you meant to imply that your reference to my "long line of retarded posts" was only meant to be an attack on my posts, not an attack on me personally, I fail to see why you can feign offense when my post did not call you -- specifically -- a "dumbass." You are construing my post to be an attack on you personally, which is exactly what I did with your post.

Quote:

and you wonder why people like setanta readily ignore your word twisting?

Not really.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

millions of dead Koreans?

Wow.. Are you back to this canard again?

Please present some factual evidence that millions of Koreans have died in the last 12 years, let alone they died as a result of any action by Clinton.

You must think it's fun to use words like canard, while failing to research the FACTS. A simple Google search would suffice.

Two million dead in just 3 years of the 12 you've allotted.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9808/19/nkorea.famine/
It is common knowledge that North Korea is among the biggest recipients of Aid and also that Kim sells same on the black market for gun money... rather than feed the starving masses. If he simply spent his country's gun money on food, North Korea would require no aid, hence, 2 million + people wouldn't have starved to death. In an absolute Autocracy, one man can and must be held responsible for his own decisions. His name is Kim Jong Il. There is no place to pass the buck.

Clinton's heightened responsibility stems from the fact that he let Carter broker a deal that ultimately allowed Kim to maintain his murderous rein unchecked, even while some of his own advisors advised against it. The Agreed Framework folly afforded Kim a free pass to do whatever he pleased within his borders, absent any concerns of an American response.

If I walk past a rape in progress, and do nothing to stop it, I would be responsible in the same way Clinton is. See The Accused for a better understanding.

parados wrote:

I lowered it? WTF? Tico used the word "dumbass".

And despite the fact that meaningful discussion had resumed; you couldn't resist polluting the conversation with petty bickering. Here is the offending post in it's entirety:

parados wrote:

You mean the civil discourse like this OB?

Ticomaya wrote:
Clinton was more responsible for North Korea developing nuclear weapons, and only a dumbass would argue otherwise.

Other than to incite further bickering; what possible motivation could you have had with this post. Clearly, there was no value to the discussion and a cursory review shows you succeeded. Well done. Rolling Eyes

Setanta wrote:

O'Bill's "evidence" about Clinton's military intentions is not conclusive.

Not conclusive, no. But plenty compelling. Conclusive would be a near impossible thing to prove of intentions that ultimately weren't carried out.

Setanta wrote:

The evidence O'Bill presents, coupled with the fact that Clinton did not take military action against the North strongly suggests to me that expert military opinion, as he consulted it, convinced him of the "un-wisdom" of such an attack.

If a man holding a gun threatened to blow your head off, though eventually did not, it would be foolhardy to interpret that to mean he had no intention of doing so in the first place... simply because he didn't and/or because there would be grave consequences if he did. While Clinton's intentions cannot be known beyond a reasonable doubt, the preponderance of the evidence suggests he was prepared for action.

Setanta wrote:

O'Bill's faith in our military's prowess and the efficacy of a "surgical" strike is touching, and unrealisitic.

If you doubt the United States Military could hit the Yongbyon reactor and storage facilities while hitting little else, you apparently haven't seen the video's of smart bombs and guided missiles in action. The U.S. Military doesn't fire Scud's and cross their fingers that they'll hit something worthwhile.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

parados wrote:
millions of dead Koreans?

Wow.. Are you back to this canard again?

Please present some factual evidence that millions of Koreans have died in the last 12 years, let alone they died as a result of any action by Clinton.
You must think it's fun to use words like canard, while failing to research the FACTS. A simple Google search would suffice.

Two million dead in just 3 years of the 12 you've allotted.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9808/19/nkorea.famine/

I didn't realize Clinton could have changed the weather in North Korea if he had only bombed a reactor. That would be the only possible way it would be a 'result' of Clinton's actions.

Quote:

It is common knowledge that North Korea is among the biggest recipients of Aid and also that Kim sells same on the black market for gun money... rather than feed the starving masses. If he simply spent his country's gun money on food, North Korea would require no aid, hence, 2 million + people wouldn't have starved to death.

Read the article before you claim people starved to death.

Quote:

"Two million would be the highest possible estimate," Kirk said. Deaths were most likely from famine-related illnesses, like pneumonia, tuberculosis, and diarrhea, rather than starvation itself, he said

It is not 2 million +. It is 2 million on the HIGH ESTIMATE. The numbers range from 300,000 to 800,000 per year. That is quite a range, wouldn't you say? And most of them didn't starve to death, they died from illnesses.

Quote:

In an absolute Autocracy, one man can and must be held responsible for his own decisions. His name is Kim Jong Il. There is no place to pass the buck.

So it isn't a result of Clinton then? You said it was a direct result of Clinton. Now you are saying it isn't a result of Clinton. I am not sure how Clinton bombing the reactor would have made Kim no longer an autocrat. Perhaps you can explain it to the rest of us.

Quote:

Clinton's heightened responsibility stems from the fact that he let Carter broker a deal that ultimately allowed Kim to maintain his murderous rein unchecked, even while some of his own advisors advised against it. The Agreed Framework folly afforded Kim a free pass to do whatever he pleased within his borders, absent any concerns of an American response.

If only Clinton had bombed the reactor then Kim wouldn't have been free to do what he wanted in his own country. If only Clinton had bombed the reactor then Kim would have accepted more aid from the US. Some mighty big ifs there OB. You do realize the Bush didn't stop Kim's murderous rein, don't you? Doesn't that make Bush just as responsible. I think more so since he didn't keep the plutonium under IAEA control, unlike Clinton.

Quote:

If I walk past a rape in progress, and do nothing to stop it, I would be responsible in the same way Clinton is. See The Accused for a better understanding.

Oh, so that makes Bush responsible for all the deaths in Darfur. Thanks for clearing that up for us OB. I am anxiously awaiting your thread accusing Bush of killing millions. By the way, Clinton stopped the production of plutonium. Bush didn't stop the production of plutonium. Using your idea that failing to stop something makes that person responsible would make Bush responsible for the Plutonium bombs.

Quote:

parados wrote:
I lowered it? WTF? Tico used the word "dumbass".
And despite the fact that meaningful discussion had resumed; you couldn't resist polluting the conversation with petty bickering. Here is the offending post in it's entirety:
parados wrote:
You mean the civil discourse like this OB?

Ticomaya wrote:
Clinton was more responsible for North Korea developing nuclear weapons, and only a dumbass would argue otherwise.
Other than to incite further bickering; what possible motivation could you have had with this post. Clearly, there was no value to the discussion and a cursory review shows you succeeded. Well done.

So rather than responding to any of my 3 posts that cite information refuting your silly claim that the plutonium was kept at the reactor site you decided to take the level of the discussion back down? Congratulations OB. It appears you are succeeding wonderfully. Rather than showing in some reasonable fashion how Clinton did something that no other President had the power to do.

Quote:

Setanta wrote:
O'Bill's "evidence" about Clinton's military intentions is not conclusive.
Not conclusive, no. But plenty compelling. Conclusive would be a near impossible thing to prove of intentions that ultimately weren't carried out.

Setanta wrote:
The evidence O'Bill presents, coupled with the fact that Clinton did not take military action against the North strongly suggests to me that expert military opinion, as he consulted it, convinced him of the "un-wisdom" of such an attack.
If a man holding a gun threatened to blow your head off, though eventually did not, it would be foolhardy to interpret that to mean he had no intention of doing so in the first place... simply because he didn't and/or because there would be grave consequences if he did. While Clinton's intentions cannot be known beyond a reasonable doubt, the preponderance of the evidence suggests he was prepared for action.

Setanta wrote:
O'Bill's faith in our military's prowess and the efficacy of a "surgical" strike is touching, and unrealisitic.
If you doubt the United States Military could hit the Yongbyon reactor and storage facilities while hitting little else, you apparently haven't seen the video's of smart bombs and guided missiles in action. The U.S. Military doesn't fire Scud's and cross their fingers that they'll hit something worthwhile.

Lets look at the technology from that time period. Do you recall the Chinese Embassy? It wasn't destroyed and it wasn't a hardened target nor was it a complex of buildings and underground bunkers in a mountainous region. Or perhaps you can recall all the cruise missiles sent against an Aspirin factory. That was a single building unlike the reactor complex at Yongbyon

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/dprk/fuelfab.html

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Setanta wrote:
O'Bill's "evidence" about Clinton's military intentions is not conclusive.
Not conclusive, no. But plenty compelling. Conclusive would be a near impossible thing to prove of intentions that ultimately weren't carried out.

Bingo . . . it seems to have sunk in with you that you have no proof--you simply have your opinion that the evidence "compels" you to believe something convenient to your thesis. You will probably not be surprised to learn that i don't share that opinion.

You are erecting another strawman. I have not said that the United States could not hit the Yongbyon facilities with precision, i've simply pointed out that it would provide no guarantee that all North Korean nuclear facilities were permanently destroyed, nor guarantee that the North Koreans would not start up elsewhere, nor guarantee that the North Koreans did not have reprocessed fuel stored elsewhere. The only way to have assured that North Korean womd programs were permanently shut down by military means would have been the invasion and occupation of North Korea. For as compelling as you consider the evidence of Clinton's contemplation of military action to have been, he did not even reach the stage of sending additional forces and military resources to the region--which is why i don't find your evidence compelling.

Even a successful strike on Yongbyon would have likely entailed the military response of the North Koreans to which i have already alluded. I rather suspect that in addition to consulting military expertise, Clinton also consulted the Republic of Korea and the Japanese. I also rather suspect they would have been opposed to such a military action. Although you may want to continue to sneer at Clinton for his lack of resolve, it is the essence of international diplomacy and cooperation to consult one's allies, and to take their points of view into consideration. Not all Presidents are loose cannons like the current incumbent.

As this page at Global Security-dot-org details, the North Koreans kept their engagement with regard to their nuclear facility for eight years, until 2002, well after Clinton had left office. As it also shows, the Chinese were instrumental in providing the Koreans with materials they needed to restart their program. I have no good reason to believe that we can unilaterally force the North Koreans to do anything, and very good reason to believe that we need the Chinese on-side in our efforts.

0 Replies

It's ridiculous to believe you can keep simple technology out of the hands of people determined to get it, who have financing to do so. You will never win in the end.

Whose 'watch' it happened on is immaterial.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's ridiculous to believe you can keep simple technology out of the hands of people determined to get it, who have financing to do so. You will never win in the end.

Whose 'watch' it happened on is immaterial.

Cycloptichorn

What is the purpose of having laws, Cyclops? Clearly it is ridiculous to believe we can keep people from behaving in a certain manner if they are determined to behave that way, or from possessing certain substances if they are determined to possess them. Yet laws exist and society tries to enforce them. Why do you suppose that is?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
It's ridiculous to believe you can keep simple technology out of the hands of people determined to get it, who have financing to do so. You will never win in the end.

Whose 'watch' it happened on is immaterial.

Cycloptichorn

What is the purpose of having laws, Cyclops? Clearly it is ridiculous to believe we can keep people from behaving in a certain manner if they are determined to behave that way, or from possessing certain substances if they are determined to possess them. Yet laws exist and society tries to enforce them. Why do you suppose that is?

Because people try the best they can to handle difficult situations.

Take the war on drugs, for example; we all know that for the most part it is a waste of time, money, and counter-productive to the cause.

My point is that the attempt to restrict technology and innovation will never work, not in the long run. Nothing wrong with trying, but you should expect to fail...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It's ridiculous to believe you can keep simple technology out of the hands of people determined to get it, who have financing to do so. You will never win in the end.

Whose 'watch' it happened on is immaterial.

Cycloptichorn

What is the purpose of having laws, Cyclops? Clearly it is ridiculous to believe we can keep people from behaving in a certain manner if they are determined to behave that way, or from possessing certain substances if they are determined to possess them. Yet laws exist and society tries to enforce them. Why do you suppose that is?

Because people try the best they can to handle difficult situations.

Take the war on drugs, for example; we all know that for the most part it is a waste of time, money, and counter-productive to the cause.

My point is that the attempt to restrict technology and innovation will never work, not in the long run. Nothing wrong with trying, but you should expect to fail...

Cycloptichorn

So should we retract all laws that make possession of certain controlled substances illegal, because you think they are a waste of time and money?

You might fail, but there is no guarantee of failure unless you believe you cannot succeed.

0 Replies

It's been nearly 100 years since the beginning of the war on drugs beginning with the Opium Exclusion Act of 1909. The proliferation of illegal drugs in western society has increased at what seems a Malthusian exponential rate ever since. Stay the course? Make more laws? Imprison more users?

0 Replies

It's called supply and demand. In some parts of SE Asia, the penalty for having drugs is death. They still have drug problems.

0 Replies

What's ironic is that a highly addictive drug is pretty freely distributed and sold throughout the world for recreational purposes, and its control isn't nearly as draconian as the other recreational drugs simply and arbitrarily because its use is more culturally accepted.

0 Replies

I didn't mean to lead us into a discussion about drug laws. My point is just because complete success may be futile, it doesn't follow that the effort shouldn't be made. Society will probably never be able to prevent bank robberies, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws proscribing such behavior.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I didn't mean to lead us into a discussion about drug laws. My point is just because complete success may be futile, it doesn't follow that the effort shouldn't be made. Society will probably never be able to prevent bank robberies, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws proscribing such behavior.

Sure. But by extension, realizing that complete success is futile - such as in the case of trying to restrict nuclear technology from countries who have time and money to get it - should soften your attitude as to whose 'watch' certain actions occured under.

Unless you are advocating the military overthrow of NK - something which would undoubtedly have much larger consequences - then it was only a matter of time until this happened. Blaming either Bush or Clinton is futile, as there isn't anything short of armed invasion that would have stopped it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Tico can articulate somethings in a clear manner sometimes, but he seems unable to see the same dynamics from one issue to the next. I'm not sure it's on purpose.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
I didn't mean to lead us into a discussion about drug laws. My point is just because complete success may be futile, it doesn't follow that the effort shouldn't be made. Society will probably never be able to prevent bank robberies, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws proscribing such behavior.

Sure. But by extension, realizing that complete success is futile - such as in the case of trying to restrict nuclear technology from countries who have time and money to get it - should soften your attitude as to whose 'watch' certain actions occured under.

Unless you are advocating the military overthrow of NK - something which would undoubtedly have much larger consequences - then it was only a matter of time until this happened.

Israel's strike against Iraq's nuclear facilities was successful, wouldn't you agree?

Quote:

Blaming either Bush or Clinton is futile, as there isn't anything short of armed invasion that would have stopped it.

Cycloptichorn

Let me clarify my position re pointing blame on this issue. While I am critical of Clinton for not having tried a military strike back in 1993, I fully understand that is with the benefit of hindsight. I do not blame him (or Carter) for attempting a diplomatic solution. I submit we must learn from our mistake. I agree with you that it is rather silly to blame either one. My response here, though, is in reply to posts blaming Bush.

0 Replies

But blaming Bush is based on its own merits.

0 Replies

Futher roll-backs on the Bushevik Stupidity Front

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know