My Way News

Not even close to the same thing. We gave Iraq weapons to fight Iran because we hated Iran. We gave North Korea nuclear technology so they wouldn’t have nuclear technology.

Huge HUGE HUGE difference. Had we given North Korea the technology in order to fend off, say China, and we knew they were building weapons, different story.

Bob – I don’t think that “millions will die if we go to war.” Nukes are a pretty effective deterrent. You can’t tell me that Nikita Kruschev wasn’t a little unbalanced, and yet we managed to make it all this way without an all-out US-USSR nuclear holocaust.

Vinny — I’m not an expert on why “we gave North Korea nuclear technology.” But my understanding is that there’s a difference between the kind of technology used to power a reactor, versus weapons-grade stuff. So it would be more accurate to say that we told them to tear down their existing technology that COULD be used for weapons, then helped them replace it with technology that COULD NOT.

Any attempts to pursue weapons-related nuclear technology would be of their own doing — or with the assistance of our close ally Pakistan — but not ours.

rhazes and Bob — good point. I was thinking about a nuclear war, not a “traditional” one.

I wondered why Vinny’s sudden drive to blame Clinton for North Korea’s current nuclear capacity, but then realized that, as is usually the case in nuclear strategy, Vinny’s point was pre-emptive, and not substantive. Bush’s North Korean “policy” has been an utter disaster: therefore it MUST be made Clinton’s fault.

Here’s an interesting essay from 2001 that sets out in some detail quite precisely just how bad Bush’s failure has been.

http://www.idds.org/iddswkp4.html

Did you take a peek at that article I gave you the link for? What did you think?

Sorry Bal. I read that piece and there was nothing in it that’s new or interesting. Was there something in particular I was supposed to pick up on that hadn’t already been said before?

I mean, she basically boils it down to Bush not wanting to continue to have unilateral talk with North Korea and gives the history of Clinton giving them light-water reactors in the hopes that we could keep our eyes on them.

We already knew this. This was Kerry’s plan for Iran. Give them the tech and watch them closely. I think the Foreign Policy Magazine article that Bob cites does more to explain the situation than the piece you linked.

I think we’re reaching the point with North Korea where everything that can be said has been said, and we’ve hit critical mass on the situation.

My point is that it’s filled with the typical kind of arguments you see from the anti-Bush crowd. The US never should have even attempted to have unilateral talks with North Korea. It’s not our responsibility.

Clinton never should’ve given them any nuclear technology of any kind.

Bush never should’ve entertained the idea of talking to them solo ever. I personally agree with intrusive inspections. If you don’t want them, don’t deal with us. That’s what’s best for us. You want another plan, negotiate with the UN or NATO or some other organization.

This is a mess that Clinton started; there’s no two ways around it. The fact that Bush did not continue Clinton’s pandering to North Korea does not make his policies a failure. The failure was made long before Bush took office.

After 11 years, numerous resolutions, and Hans Blix saying stuff had gone missing, someone had to do something in Iraq. If it wasn’t gonna be the UN, it might as well be us.

With the case of North Korea, the UN has never even made an attempt to deal with it.

Big difference. Everyone seems to think that the US going into Iraq was the first choice and first option. It obviously isn’t, and obviously wasn’t, but it makes for good partisan posturing.

(That teetered dangerously close to a C-4)

That’s odd because I’ve never once heard the UN come out loudly against the US’ involvement in unilateral talks with North Korea. You would think they’d be dead-set against that if they hated unilateral action.

That leads me to two conclusions:

1. They don’t wanna deal with North Korea because they know they won’t accomplish anything (similar to what happened with Saddam).

2. They only didn’t want the US dealing with Iraq because it would stop the pocketlining that was going on over on the East River (more and more credence being lent to that position every day by the UN, particularly in their stonewalling the OFF investigation).

Actually, V, given the popularity of that particular dodge, I think it merits its own code. I’ve amended the original list. Congratulations, my man, on having inspired the D.5. I think I’ll call it the “Kofi Break”.

Not even close to the same thing. We gave Iraq weapons to fight Iran because we hated Iran. We gave North Korea nuclear technology so they wouldn’t have nuclear technology.

Huge HUGE HUGE difference. Had we given North Korea the technology in order to fend off, say China, and we knew they were building weapons, different story.

Bob – I don’t think that “millions will die if we go to war.” Nukes are a pretty effective deterrent. You can’t tell me that Nikita Kruschev wasn’t a little unbalanced, and yet we managed to make it all this way without an all-out US-USSR nuclear holocaust.

Vinny — I’m not an expert on why “we gave North Korea nuclear technology.” But my understanding is that there’s a difference between the kind of technology used to power a reactor, versus weapons-grade stuff. So it would be more accurate to say that we told them to tear down their existing technology that COULD be used for weapons, then helped them replace it with technology that COULD NOT.

Any attempts to pursue weapons-related nuclear technology would be of their own doing — or with the assistance of our close ally Pakistan — but not ours.

rhazes and Bob — good point. I was thinking about a nuclear war, not a “traditional” one.

I wondered why Vinny’s sudden drive to blame Clinton for North Korea’s current nuclear capacity, but then realized that, as is usually the case in nuclear strategy, Vinny’s point was pre-emptive, and not substantive. Bush’s North Korean “policy” has been an utter disaster: therefore it MUST be made Clinton’s fault.

Here’s an interesting essay from 2001 that sets out in some detail quite precisely just how bad Bush’s failure has been.

http://www.idds.org/iddswkp4.html

Did you take a peek at that article I gave you the link for? What did you think?

Sorry Bal. I read that piece and there was nothing in it that’s new or interesting. Was there something in particular I was supposed to pick up on that hadn’t already been said before?

I mean, she basically boils it down to Bush not wanting to continue to have unilateral talk with North Korea and gives the history of Clinton giving them light-water reactors in the hopes that we could keep our eyes on them.

We already knew this. This was Kerry’s plan for Iran. Give them the tech and watch them closely. I think the Foreign Policy Magazine article that Bob cites does more to explain the situation than the piece you linked.

I think we’re reaching the point with North Korea where everything that can be said has been said, and we’ve hit critical mass on the situation.

My point is that it’s filled with the typical kind of arguments you see from the anti-Bush crowd. The US never should have even attempted to have unilateral talks with North Korea. It’s not our responsibility.

Clinton never should’ve given them any nuclear technology of any kind.

Bush never should’ve entertained the idea of talking to them solo ever. I personally agree with intrusive inspections. If you don’t want them, don’t deal with us. That’s what’s best for us. You want another plan, negotiate with the UN or NATO or some other organization.

This is a mess that Clinton started; there’s no two ways around it. The fact that Bush did not continue Clinton’s pandering to North Korea does not make his policies a failure. The failure was made long before Bush took office.

After 11 years, numerous resolutions, and Hans Blix saying stuff had gone missing, someone had to do something in Iraq. If it wasn’t gonna be the UN, it might as well be us.

With the case of North Korea, the UN has never even made an attempt to deal with it.

Big difference. Everyone seems to think that the US going into Iraq was the first choice and first option. It obviously isn’t, and obviously wasn’t, but it makes for good partisan posturing.

(That teetered dangerously close to a C-4)

That’s odd because I’ve never once heard the UN come out loudly against the US’ involvement in unilateral talks with North Korea. You would think they’d be dead-set against that if they hated unilateral action.

That leads me to two conclusions:

1. They don’t wanna deal with North Korea because they know they won’t accomplish anything (similar to what happened with Saddam).

2. They only didn’t want the US dealing with Iraq because it would stop the pocketlining that was going on over on the East River (more and more credence being lent to that position every day by the UN, particularly in their stonewalling the OFF investigation).

Actually, V, given the popularity of that particular dodge, I think it merits its own code. I’ve amended the original list. Congratulations, my man, on having inspired the D.5. I think I’ll call it the “Kofi Break”.