North Korea tests nuke

Parent Cafe
101

<p>Is nobody even blaming Carter here?</p>

<p>I can tell you exactly who’s fault it is. NORTH KOREAS. So we get threatened by North Korea, and instead of it being their fault, it’s Bush or Clinton.</p>

<p>Actually, we shouldn’t even care who’s fault is what at the moment. Our priority is to deal with the issue at hand, then later look back.</p>

102

<p>Mini,</p>

<p>In 2003, America’s food/humanitarian assistance to North Korea though the World Food Program (WFP) exceeded the requested amount: <a href=“http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/2003/12/dprk-031224-usia02.htm[/url]”>http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/2003/12/dprk-031224-usia02.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>In fall 2004, WFP assistance to North Korea decreased at the request of North Korea and because the WFP and Bush Administration required North Korea to show that the NK people were receiving the food aid: <a href=“http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/47101.pdf[/url]”>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/47101.pdf&lt;/a&gt;. </p>

<p>In June 2005, North Korea reached an agreement with the WFP to better distribute food aid and shipments resumed: <a href=“http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/2005/dprk-050622-367e0682.htm[/url]”>http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/2005/dprk-050622-367e0682.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>In September 2005, North Korea requested that WFP food aid cease because it had “enough food to meet its people’s needs”: <a href=“http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/2005/dprk-050918-voa01.htm[/url]”>http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/2005/dprk-050918-voa01.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>In May 2006, the WFP was allowed to resume food aid in North Korea: <a href=“http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/2006/dprk-060511-voa01.htm[/url]”>http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/2006/dprk-060511-voa01.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

103

<p>Clinton isn’t to blame nor is Bush</p>

<p>China is the key factor because if the United States were to act alone, the risks of a nuclear confrontation with China or an accidental event - would simply be too great</p>

<p>So it all depends upon China and whether they can live with a nuclear North Korea -along with a nuclear Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan - because all will be going nuclear - if North Korea keeps on the current course</p>

<p>Drastic problems require drastic fixes, and only China and the United States acting as one - can fix this problem, and unfortunately China and the USA will be forced to be ready to use or actually use (on a joint basis) nuclear weapons to take out all or a good part of the North Korea bomb making infrastructure</p>

<p>Imagine a North Korea with 10 to 20 active nuclear weapons full operational. Once that happens, the major powers will be checkmated</p>

<p>In practical terms, facing a unified China and the United States, North Korea could back down</p>

104

<p>Basically China and the United States (with consulations with Russia, France, Uk, Israel, India, Pakistan etc) would set a timetable for North Korea to capitulate and the United States and China would each split up the kiliton load required for simultaneous nuclear strikes to take out the major sites - or as much infrastructure to set it back 5 years</p>

<p>North Korea would have to end all programs immediately - let the United States and Chinese to arrange for conventional explosives destruction of all key nuclear sites</p>

<p>Now obviously the issue on the DMZ is far more complicated, however currently (as bad as it is with the massive artillery) - however when the North Korean’s bring nukes into the theater - it will be 100 times more complicated</p>

<p>The “unthinkable” is made necessary because the alternative is far worse, and of course w/o China and the United States acting together - nothing will happen, except North Korea will soon be a full nuclear power.</p>

105

<p>

Bush forged strong bonds with Tony Blair and Putin. Even China has come around to our causes (sometime). Give Bush credits.</p>

<p>Another example of SELF-GOUGING for those who are SOOO ready to blame what any two-bit dictator in the world decides to do on “the failure of the Bush administation”.</p>

<p>Come to think of it, I don’t think our fore-fathers think like any of the liberal democrats of today. If they did, I doubt the United States of America would have reached the height of of her power and prosperity and a symbol of freedom for the world.</p>

106

<p>Rumsfeld Company Sold Nuclear Weapon Equipment to North Korea
—By Craig Cox, Utne.com</p>

<p>May 2003 Issue</p>

<p>U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld served on the board of a Swiss company that in 2000 sold light water nuclear reactors to the government of North Korea, which critics—including Pentagon hardliners—say could be used to produce nuclear weapons.</p>

<p>Rumsfeld’s involvement in the $200 million deal with the Zurich-based engineering company ABB is seen as an embarrassment to the Bush administration, which vehemently opposed the deal during the 2000 presidential campaign, reports the London-based Guardian. “One could draw the conclusion that economic and personal interests took precedent over non-proliferation,” said Steve LaMontagne of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.</p>

<p>Rumsfeld sat on the ABB board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year. He left to join the Bush administration. Asked about the reactor deal, the defense secretary told the Guardian that he “did not recall it being brought before the board at any time.”</p>

107

<p>

There was no Bush administration during the 2000 presidential campaign.</p>

108

<p>"Mini,</p>

<p>In 2003, America’s food/humanitarian assistance to North Korea though the World Food Program (WFP) exceeded the requested amount: <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...224-usia"&gt;http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...224-usia&lt;/a&gt;"&lt;/p&gt;

<p>So you are saying that 100,000 metric tons of food in 2003 (for a country with 23,000,000 people) represents the Republican policy of appeasement?</p>

<p>Gosh, where is Neville Chamberlain now that the Republicans need him?</p>

<p>But, nonetheless, thank you for illustrating how the Republicans are indeed the Party of Appeasement and Family Values (PAFV).</p>

109

<p>“There was no Bush administration during the 2000 presidential campaign.” </p>

<p>Driver, the article written in 2003 is saying that the deal was vehemently opposed by Bush during the campaign not that there was a Bush administration in 2000. Perhaps, you need to read things more closely before coming to conclusions.</p>

110

<p>I clipped what you posted. Second paragraph. You need to read more closely.</p>

<p>Direct links are always helpful, when posting.</p>

111

<p>I cut and pasted the article, but here is your direct link. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_2003-05/articles/10549-1.html[/url]”>http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_2003-05/articles/10549-1.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

112

<p>unsoccer-mom, so what is your point? That Rumsfeld as one person on the board of directors of a company is supposed to veto a foreign policy agreement that was made by the Clinton administration?</p>

113

<p>

Exactly! The fault lies in North Korea and other nations should ensure that there are consequences for North Korea’s bad decisions. Bill Clinton sent Jimmy Carter to North Korea to attempt to bring them into the world community and it failed. The Bush Administration offered North Korea the security assurances they sought, but they agreed to the deal one day and rejected it the next day. North Korea does not wish to be part of the world community and it should suffer the consequences. The real question is why are we feeding our enemy? Would the US have knowingly sent Japan food while Japan was engaged in war against America? The rest of the world should should cut off all trade with North Korea and hope their country collapses.</p>

114

<p>I fail to see how Clinton (during whose reign no NK nukes were produced or exploded) is responsible for six years of Republican appeasement?</p>

115

<p>warning: driver and fundingfather love to play this game: they ask for sources. you give the sources. they cricitise you for it, and play dumb. (or maybe not just play, i don’t know.) i learned that the hard way, and will now avoid any political thread on which they post.</p>

116

<p>katliamom, part of any discussion is providing supporting arguments to your theories. To just respond “LOL” is not a response. If you provide supporting links, expect them to be read and critiqued. To cry “foul” when they are is not supportive of any debate.</p>

<p>If your recent “warning” was related to my post 112, my question was serious and valid given that the article points out that the nuclear technology that was sold was explicitly agreed to in the negotiations done with NK during the Clinton administration. I know that you would like the ability to just lob bombs like “Rumsfeld Company Sold Nuclear Weapon Equipment to North Korea” and let them go unchallenged, but it doesn’t work that way.</p>

117

<p>Please don;t say “lob bombs.”</p>

118

<p>Thanks, Katliamom! I thought about answering and even drafted a response. Then I realized it was pointless.</p>

119

<p>If you want to have a passive-aggressive party you should just PM with each other.</p>

120

<p>So Clinton had a policy of constructive engagement, and no nuclear weapons were either built or tested, and Rummy sent stuff to NK. Mr. Sleaze had a policy of appeasement for six years after Clinton, and NK built nuclear weapons and actually exploded one.</p>

<p>That’s what we get from the Party of Appeasement and Family Values.</p>