after training my little brother years ago to translate Korean, and sending him there every other year since then.........the usa is so worried about Korea that they sent him to iraq.
no no no... you have it all wrong.. it's ten letters! The ten letters everyone laughs at and says it doesn't exist....
Axis Of Evil
you keep buying that
this administration is very bad at "whack a mole"
iraq had bb guns and water pistols = invasion
north korea is testing nukes = sanctions
i wonder what the difference is? let me think abou that for a few minutes
i was talking to a good friend i work with who was a marine for 8 years and is applying for "private security" and he admits without hesitation that this is all about the oil and energy reserves...
i wonder what the difference is? let me think abou that for a few minutes
i was talking to a good friend i work with who was a marine for 8 years and is applying for "private security" and he admits without hesitation that this is all about the oil and energy reserves...
i wonder what the difference is? let me think abou that for a few minutes
i was talking to a good friend i work with who was a marine for 8 years and is applying for "private security" and he admits without hesitation that this is all about the oil and energy reserves...
The difference is not oil. The difference is a war we could win compared with a war we could not win.
i don't understand your point. of course, n korea being armed is no bueno. but what is the point of your probabilities on successful regime change?
The point is simple: you do not launch a war you cannot win. A previous poster claimed that the reason we went into Iraq as opposed to going into N Korea was because Iraq is oil rich and N Korea is not. That is not the reason for the different approach. The reason we didn't invade N Korea three years ago is the same reason we won't invade N Korea tomorrow: we cannot win a war there.
i think you are saying that the US weighed out a war and chose iraq b/c we could probably win it,... that can't be what you are saying.
That is exactly what I'm saying. Iraq was considered the softest target, which it was. More over, Iraq was considered the only viable target among the 3 "Axis of Evil" nations.
The point is simple: you do not launch a war you cannot win. A previous poster claimed that the reason we went into Iraq as opposed to going into N Korea was because Iraq is oil rich and N Korea is not. That is not the reason for the different approach. The reason we didn't invade N Korea three years ago is the same reason we won't invade N Korea tomorrow: we cannot win a war there.
i see,... though, i don't agree. bush is an oil boy. everyone knows it. his ties to the saudis and oil companies are not false. im sure it's more complicated than that, but i think it was their biggest reason for invading iraq.
That is exactly what I'm saying. Iraq was considered the softest target, which it was. More over, Iraq was considered the only viable target among the 3 "Axis of Evil" nations.
if they were evil, why didn't we have more international support? why did bush have to mislead the american people to get there? there are three of them,... how many "Good" nations are there?
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
i see,... though, i don't agree. bush is an oil boy. everyone knows it. his ties to the saudis and oil companies are not false. im sure it's more complicated than that, but i think it was their biggest reason for invading iraq.
If Bush invaded Cuba, would it be because of baseball just because he happened to have an ownership stake in the Rangers while Cuba has a history of producing good baseball players????
What's the point in invading Iraq over oil?? Pre-invasion, the UN largely had control over Iraq's oil output anyway. Furthermore, the US imported little Iraqi oil before the war and has imported little Iraqi oil following the war.
Certainly Middle Eastern nations get much attention from the Western World because of their rich oil deposits. But what you're suggesting is that all foreign policy directed at the Middle East is oil-based. That's a ridiculous over-simplification that ignores the real reason for all of the recent blustering and action by this administration and this country in general. If anything, post-9/11 views of the Middle East are a rejection of the predominant oil-driven policies of the past.
if they were evil, why didn't we have more international support?
They weren't "evil", IMO. They were simply an unfriendly regime. Just because I'm not going to jump on the "no blood for oil" slogan-wagon doesn't mean I supported this war in any shape or fashion.
We didn't have more international support for a myriad of reasons. First, most of the international community didn't really care about Saddam Hussein and were comfortable (though not happy) with the thought of him being well-armed. Secondarily, not too many nations were willing to bear the lives or the costs of a conflict they saw as largely pointless. Finally, many of the opposing nations had similar economic motivations to the US that led them to the opposite conclusions.
While we didn't have much international support we also didn't have much international opposition either. The "coalition of the opposed" was about the same as the "coalition of the willing" -- both were severly outnumbered by the coalition of the indifferent.
why did bush have to mislead the american people to get there?
He didn't. Support for a war against Saddam was popular from the moment it was first discussed. The majority of the American populace didn't have to be convinced that the war was right, they had to be convinced that the war was wrong. Obviously no one in this administration was going to do that, and the actual opposition at the time did a piss-poor job of doing so by doing exactly what you're doing now: yammering on about oil and back-room conspiracies.
there are three of them,... how many "Good" nations are there?
That's a pretty silly question. Nations are not "good" or "evil". But if you're asking me which nations deserve preemptive war, my response is none.
i see,... though, i don't agree. bush is an oil boy. everyone knows it. his ties to the saudis and oil companies are not false. im sure it's more complicated than that, but i think it was their biggest reason for invading iraq.
Oil? That's why you think that we invaded Iraq instead of the DPRK?
China was very firm in their refusal to support strict sanctions against the DPRK. There were many reasons for this, some claim it's because they're "allies" though I would bet it has much more to do with the fact that they don't want to be flooded with Korean refugees or an even MORE unstable neighbor. So if China who, if we really want to get down to it, is the only country's opinion that matters to the US in that region due to the threat they pose, refuses to support strict sanctions, how do you think they would have felt about an American invasion against a country a stone's throw from their border? Let's turn this around, how would you feel if China invaded Canada? Do you think the US would support that?
But you're right, it's nothing to do with geopolitical concerns, it's all about the fucking oil.
"Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
Oil? That's why you think that we invaded Iraq instead of the DPRK?
China was very firm in their refusal to support strict sanctions against the DPRK. There were many reasons for this, some claim it's because they're "allies" though I would bet it has much more to do with the fact that they don't want to be flooded with Korean refugees or an even MORE unstable neighbor. So if China who, if we really want to get down to it, is the only country's opinion that matters to the US in that region due to the threat they pose, refuses to support strict sanctions, how do you think they would have felt about an American invasion against a country a stone's throw from their border? Let's turn this around, how would you feel if China invaded Canada? Do you think the US would support that?
But you're right, it's nothing to do with geopolitical concerns, it's all about the fucking oil.
If Bush invaded Cuba, would it be because of baseball just because he happened to have an ownership stake in the Rangers while Cuba has a history of producing good baseball players????.
Okay. Are you saying the big oil ties and defense contracts are negligible? Did they not play any role in the decision to invade Iraq? We went to war with Iraq, based on two main assumptions, among others: 1) Hussein was tied to Al Qaeda and was involved in the 9/11 attacks. 2) Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Neither of these two assumptions has been proven and they were the basis for our pre-emptive strike and ‘shock and awe campaigns’.
Hussein did not mastermind 9/11. According to the official story, Osama Bin Laden did. Bush protected the Bin Laden family by flying them out of the country in the days following the attacks. Was he trying to protect his business ties to the Saudis? Do you think maybe they could have interrogated some of those people and got some valuable information to catch the mastermind? How many people have been unlawfully detained and tortured as ‘possible’ terrorist suspects? Yet, Bush flies the Bin Ladens out of the country. Okay, my point here is that Bush is looking out for himself.
What's the point in invading Iraq over oil?? Pre-invasion, the UN largely had control over Iraq's oil output anyway. Furthermore, the US imported little Iraqi oil before the war and has imported little Iraqi oil following the war.
IMO, it’s not about where the oil goes; rather, how much it costs. I think that Bush is profiting. Not the US, Bush and company. I admit that I could be wrong, and please don’t label me as a conspiracy nut. But, just like 9/11, none of this shit makes sense.
Certainly Middle Eastern nations get much attention from the Western World because of their rich oil deposits. But what you're suggesting is that all foreign policy directed at the Middle East is oil-based. That's a ridiculous over-simplification that ignores the real reason for all of the recent blustering and action by this administration and this country in general. If anything, post-9/11 views of the Middle East are a rejection of the predominant oil-driven policies of the past..
I never said all of our foreign policy was all about oil. I said, “im sure it's more complicated than that, but i think it was their biggest reason for invading iraq.” I admit that I don’t know a lot about geopolitical concerns (Ebizzie), but forgive me for being suspicious.
They weren't "evil", IMO. They were simply an unfriendly regime. Just because I'm not going to jump on the "no blood for oil" slogan-wagon doesn't mean I supported this war in any shape or fashion..
I’m pretty sure I’ve never labeled you. That is one thing I stand against strongly. I, not really knowing shit, try to learn from all you people on the message board.
We didn't have more international support for a myriad of reasons. First, most of the international community didn't really care about Saddam Hussein and were comfortable (though not happy) with the thought of him being well-armed. Secondarily, not too many nations were willing to bear the lives or the costs of a conflict they saw as largely pointless. Finally, many of the opposing nations had similar economic motivations to the US that led them to the opposite conclusions. .
If most nations didn’t care, why did we? Don’t you think this war was personal? If it was so pointless, why did the US press so hard to invade?
He didn't. Support for a war against Saddam was popular from the moment it was first discussed. The majority of the American populace didn't have to be convinced that the war was right, they had to be convinced that the war was wrong. Obviously no one in this administration was going to do that, and the actual opposition at the time did a piss-poor job of doing so by doing exactly what you're doing now: yammering on about oil and back-room conspiracies..
Put the time frame into perspective. People were pissed off about 9/11. And yes he did. It was only popular because the majority of the american public was upset and wanted to eat up whatever Bush said because they trusted him.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
Okay. Are you saying the big oil ties and defense contracts are negligible?
Not negligible, tertiary.
Did they not play any role in the decision to invade Iraq?
No. They played a role in caring about Iraq in the first place. But they were not a motivator for the recent invasion.
We went to war with Iraq, based on two main assumptions, among others: 1) Hussein was tied to Al Qaeda and was involved in the 9/11 attacks. 2) Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
No one went to war based on #1. We went to war on the pretext of #2.
If most nations didn’t care, why did we?
Because we're afraid.
Don’t you think this war was personal?
Not really.
If it was so pointless, why did the US press so hard to invade?
Because we saw a point that the world did not: stabilizing an unstable region from which we were attacked on 9/11. Not defending their mindset, just telling you how it works.
Put the time frame into perspective. People were pissed off about 9/11. And yes he did. It was only popular because the majority of the american public was upset and wanted to eat up whatever Bush said because they trusted him.
The stupidity of the majority of the American public is no more excusable than the stupidity of George Bush.
Because we saw a point that the world did not: stabilizing an unstable region from which we were attacked on 9/11. Not defending their mindset, just telling you how it works..
since you agree that they haven't done the best job at that, i have nothing else to say.
still not enough reason to invade a country and kill ONE innocent person, by casualty of war or collateral damage. i think you would agree.
Certainly.
the unlikely probability of weapons of mass destruction were, though?
Hindsight. There wasn't much disagreement in the international community that Saddam Hussein had weapons. Certainly some of the threat was knowingly overstated, but I'm certainly not comfortable labelling dozens of governments and intelligence communities as liars.
there are plenty of countries to invade if that is the case. we chose iraq, because of what we could get out of it. tertiary, no,...
What you're forgetting is that we (and many others) have invaded "plenty" of countries throughout our history. Iraq is not unique in that category.
i hope you are using the term 'we' lightly.
Yes -- I mean the "American majority" there.
since you agree that they haven't done the best job at that, i have nothing else to say.
They've done an awful job.
ideally, it is,... isn't it?
No. George Bush is as human as the next man. If it is wrong for him to be a fool, it is just as wrong for the man next to him to be a fool. I will not excuse the American majority for their failures any more than I will George Bush. It's very easy to pick a distant villain. Unfortunately, all that will give you is hate.
I'm torn between wanting to cheer for North Korea, and being scared shitless.
Understand, it won't take a whole lot for N. Korea to develop rocket technology. Hell, if the US keeps pissing on its relations with Russia, lord knows the Russians know a thing or two about making rockets. Their rockets are better than ours!
I'm wondering what China will do. China should do something, and the US should support China in whatever they choose to do.
The future is China. Don't piss off the sleeping giant.
U.S. Aid Helps N. Korea Build Nukes, Congress Told
By Lawrence Morahan
CNS Staff Writer
17 April, 2000
(CNSNews.com) - North Korea's nuclear production capacity will increase from a dozen nuclear bombs a year to 65 a year by 2010, thanks in large part to American taxpayer money, two renowned U.S. nuclear scientists told congressional leaders last week.
North Korea observers have long suspected the communist dictatorship is using Western humanitarian aid to starving North Koreans to feed Kim Jong Il's million-man army.
But an aid policy initiated by the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s to finance two light water nuclear reactors in North Korea puts the isolated communist country on the fast track in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, William R. Graham and Victor Gilinsky told members of the House Policy Committee.
North Korea's missile proliferation has accelerated dramatically since the Clinton-Gore administration began giving aid to the regime in 1994.
"There were no known No-dong missile sales abroad until after the United States signed the so-called Agreed Framework with North Korea," House Speaker Dennis Hastert's North Korea advisory group reported.
But since U.S. aid began, the communist state has sold crucial technology to Iran for the Shahab missile that now threatens U.S. forces and their allies in the Middle East, and for a Pakistani missile in 1998 that disrupted the fragile stability of South Asia.
In 1994 the Clinton administration signed an agreement with North Korea that was designed to halt North Korea's nuclear weapons development program. North Korea sought light water reactors to provide for their energy needs and the U.S. agreed to provide them in exchange for North Korea giving up its nuclear program.
Western aid also earned donor countries the right to inspect the North Korean nuclear facilities.
The U.S. believed the plutonium produced would have to be refined before it could be used for weapons grade plutonium, said Chuck Downs, a leading North Korea expert and author of "Over the Line: North Korea's Negotiating Strategy," in an interview with CNSNews.com. But even though the plutonium wasn't the same yield as that used by the U.S. and some NATO countries, it could still be used to make nuclear weapons, he said.
For the past six years the United States has been trying to put in place two 1,000-megawatt light water reactors in North Korea.
The Clinton administration gambled that construction would take so long that North Korea would collapse politically and economically before the reactors were put in place, Downs said.
"As things have turned out, North Korea has received $380 million in aid from various countries last year, $210 million of it from the U.S., and that is enough to satisfy the needs of their regime. So the regime is roaring drunk and not at all collapsing," Downs said.
When they are in place in 2010, the light water reactors will give the North Koreans 490 kilograms of plutonium every year, allowing them to build 60 to 100 nuclear weapons a year.
"The kinds of facilities that existed in 1994 could only have produced two bombs a year and the kind they conceived [before U.S. aid] a dozen a year," Downs said.
Nuclear critics say it is impossible to decouple the risks from the benefits of nuclear power, or the ability of countries that have nuclear power to manufacture nuclear weapons.
Ted Taylor, a nuclear scientist and critic of U.S. nuclear policy, told CNSNews.com that all of the world's 450-odd nuclear power plants automatically make plutonium as a side product. "So there's a huge amount of plutonium, which is the stuff from which nuclear weapons are made or can be made, spreading worldwide without adequate safeguards against criminals, terrorists, or governments that are disobeying rules."
Taylor, an architect for decades of the U.S. nuclear program, including the program at Los Alamos, was a member of a presidential commission to investigate the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. "Nuclear energy is a major activity for destructive forces," he said.
North Korea Seeks Relations with South Korea
Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who has written extensively on North Korea, told CNSNews.com that North Korea seemed to be headed in a more moderate direction politically and has indicated this by agreeing to meet with South Korea for the first time in 50 years.
"I think everyone accepts the fact that the North Korean nuclear program is in deep freeze at the moment, but the question is if we didn't essentially buy them off, what would be the alternative," Bandow said. "They haven't offered any ... There's reason to be critical but if you're going to be critical you have to come up with an alternative and I haven't seen one yet."
But Downs insisted the U.S. should stand firm when dealing with North Korea, especially in view of its known policies of nuclear proliferation to the United States' enemies around the world.
"If you're in the mode of giving gifts, then you give them gifts that don't kill you. You don't hand children the gun. We could have gone in and said we'll give them $20 billion worth of hydroelectric dams and solar energy, wind power, whatever they wanted. We could have thrown in a $5 billion distribution system so that this energy could actually be used. Right now they have two light water reactors that will produce 490 kilograms of plutonium but no distribution system, and they have no idea how they're going to distribute that electricity - if indeed that was their intention at all."
Kim Jong-Il is a crazy and evil tryant in my view. He pursues nuclear weapons yet he can't even feed his own people. The non-proliferation treaty is just about dead in the water IMO.
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
Comments
3 letters
O-I-L
no, no, no,... you've got it all wrong man. it's eight so we can L-I-B-E-R-A-T-E!
the only thing we've liberated is more terrorists.
~Ron Burgundy
which sucks more. bush going after oil or the fact that america needs oil to survive. for me the latter.
no no no... you have it all wrong.. it's ten letters! The ten letters everyone laughs at and says it doesn't exist....
Axis Of Evil
you keep buying that
this administration is very bad at "whack a mole"
iraq had bb guns and water pistols = invasion
north korea is testing nukes = sanctions
i wonder what the difference is? let me think abou that for a few minutes
i was talking to a good friend i work with who was a marine for 8 years and is applying for "private security" and he admits without hesitation that this is all about the oil and energy reserves...
ok
The difference is not oil. The difference is a war we could win compared with a war we could not win.
scratches head...
which one is the war we can win?
i don't think we could win either. i don't get it, as usual,...
~Ron Burgundy
In the context of regime change, the probabilities of victory were correctly ranked as follows:
1. Iraq
2. Iran
3. North Korea
but why is this good for bush?
~Ron Burgundy
Umm...it's not. A nuclear armed N Korea isn't good for anyone, including N Korea. Perhaps I don't understand your question.
i don't understand your point. of course, n korea being armed is no bueno. but what is the point of your probabilities on successful regime change?
i think you are saying that the US weighed out a war and chose iraq b/c we could probably win it,... that can't be what you are saying.
~Ron Burgundy
The point is simple: you do not launch a war you cannot win. A previous poster claimed that the reason we went into Iraq as opposed to going into N Korea was because Iraq is oil rich and N Korea is not. That is not the reason for the different approach. The reason we didn't invade N Korea three years ago is the same reason we won't invade N Korea tomorrow: we cannot win a war there.
That is exactly what I'm saying. Iraq was considered the softest target, which it was. More over, Iraq was considered the only viable target among the 3 "Axis of Evil" nations.
i see,... though, i don't agree. bush is an oil boy. everyone knows it. his ties to the saudis and oil companies are not false. im sure it's more complicated than that, but i think it was their biggest reason for invading iraq.
if they were evil, why didn't we have more international support? why did bush have to mislead the american people to get there? there are three of them,... how many "Good" nations are there?
~Ron Burgundy
Another short fuck, wreckless wielding military power to support his own personal short comings.
Hail, Hail!!!
If Bush invaded Cuba, would it be because of baseball just because he happened to have an ownership stake in the Rangers while Cuba has a history of producing good baseball players????
What's the point in invading Iraq over oil?? Pre-invasion, the UN largely had control over Iraq's oil output anyway. Furthermore, the US imported little Iraqi oil before the war and has imported little Iraqi oil following the war.
Certainly Middle Eastern nations get much attention from the Western World because of their rich oil deposits. But what you're suggesting is that all foreign policy directed at the Middle East is oil-based. That's a ridiculous over-simplification that ignores the real reason for all of the recent blustering and action by this administration and this country in general. If anything, post-9/11 views of the Middle East are a rejection of the predominant oil-driven policies of the past.
They weren't "evil", IMO. They were simply an unfriendly regime. Just because I'm not going to jump on the "no blood for oil" slogan-wagon doesn't mean I supported this war in any shape or fashion.
We didn't have more international support for a myriad of reasons. First, most of the international community didn't really care about Saddam Hussein and were comfortable (though not happy) with the thought of him being well-armed. Secondarily, not too many nations were willing to bear the lives or the costs of a conflict they saw as largely pointless. Finally, many of the opposing nations had similar economic motivations to the US that led them to the opposite conclusions.
While we didn't have much international support we also didn't have much international opposition either. The "coalition of the opposed" was about the same as the "coalition of the willing" -- both were severly outnumbered by the coalition of the indifferent.
He didn't. Support for a war against Saddam was popular from the moment it was first discussed. The majority of the American populace didn't have to be convinced that the war was right, they had to be convinced that the war was wrong. Obviously no one in this administration was going to do that, and the actual opposition at the time did a piss-poor job of doing so by doing exactly what you're doing now: yammering on about oil and back-room conspiracies.
That's a pretty silly question. Nations are not "good" or "evil". But if you're asking me which nations deserve preemptive war, my response is none.
Oil? That's why you think that we invaded Iraq instead of the DPRK?
China was very firm in their refusal to support strict sanctions against the DPRK. There were many reasons for this, some claim it's because they're "allies" though I would bet it has much more to do with the fact that they don't want to be flooded with Korean refugees or an even MORE unstable neighbor. So if China who, if we really want to get down to it, is the only country's opinion that matters to the US in that region due to the threat they pose, refuses to support strict sanctions, how do you think they would have felt about an American invasion against a country a stone's throw from their border? Let's turn this around, how would you feel if China invaded Canada? Do you think the US would support that?
But you're right, it's nothing to do with geopolitical concerns, it's all about the fucking oil.
I like the cut of your jib. Well put. Thank you.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
www.amnesty.org.uk
Okay. Are you saying the big oil ties and defense contracts are negligible? Did they not play any role in the decision to invade Iraq? We went to war with Iraq, based on two main assumptions, among others: 1) Hussein was tied to Al Qaeda and was involved in the 9/11 attacks. 2) Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Neither of these two assumptions has been proven and they were the basis for our pre-emptive strike and ‘shock and awe campaigns’.
Hussein did not mastermind 9/11. According to the official story, Osama Bin Laden did. Bush protected the Bin Laden family by flying them out of the country in the days following the attacks. Was he trying to protect his business ties to the Saudis? Do you think maybe they could have interrogated some of those people and got some valuable information to catch the mastermind? How many people have been unlawfully detained and tortured as ‘possible’ terrorist suspects? Yet, Bush flies the Bin Ladens out of the country. Okay, my point here is that Bush is looking out for himself.
IMO, it’s not about where the oil goes; rather, how much it costs. I think that Bush is profiting. Not the US, Bush and company. I admit that I could be wrong, and please don’t label me as a conspiracy nut. But, just like 9/11, none of this shit makes sense.
I never said all of our foreign policy was all about oil. I said, “im sure it's more complicated than that, but i think it was their biggest reason for invading iraq.” I admit that I don’t know a lot about geopolitical concerns (Ebizzie), but forgive me for being suspicious.
I’m pretty sure I’ve never labeled you. That is one thing I stand against strongly. I, not really knowing shit, try to learn from all you people on the message board.
If most nations didn’t care, why did we? Don’t you think this war was personal? If it was so pointless, why did the US press so hard to invade?
Put the time frame into perspective. People were pissed off about 9/11. And yes he did. It was only popular because the majority of the american public was upset and wanted to eat up whatever Bush said because they trusted him.
~Ron Burgundy
Not negligible, tertiary.
No. They played a role in caring about Iraq in the first place. But they were not a motivator for the recent invasion.
No one went to war based on #1. We went to war on the pretext of #2.
Because we're afraid.
Not really.
Because we saw a point that the world did not: stabilizing an unstable region from which we were attacked on 9/11. Not defending their mindset, just telling you how it works.
The stupidity of the majority of the American public is no more excusable than the stupidity of George Bush.
still not enough reason to invade a country and kill ONE innocent person, by casualty of war or collateral damage. i think you would agree.
the unlikely probability of weapons of mass destruction were, though?
there are plenty of countries to invade if that is the case. we chose iraq, because of what we could get out of it. tertiary, no,...
i hope you are using the term 'we' lightly.
since you agree that they haven't done the best job at that, i have nothing else to say.
ideally, it is,... isn't it?
~Ron Burgundy
Certainly.
Hindsight. There wasn't much disagreement in the international community that Saddam Hussein had weapons. Certainly some of the threat was knowingly overstated, but I'm certainly not comfortable labelling dozens of governments and intelligence communities as liars.
What you're forgetting is that we (and many others) have invaded "plenty" of countries throughout our history. Iraq is not unique in that category.
Yes -- I mean the "American majority" there.
They've done an awful job.
No. George Bush is as human as the next man. If it is wrong for him to be a fool, it is just as wrong for the man next to him to be a fool. I will not excuse the American majority for their failures any more than I will George Bush. It's very easy to pick a distant villain. Unfortunately, all that will give you is hate.
Understand, it won't take a whole lot for N. Korea to develop rocket technology. Hell, if the US keeps pissing on its relations with Russia, lord knows the Russians know a thing or two about making rockets. Their rockets are better than ours!
I'm wondering what China will do. China should do something, and the US should support China in whatever they choose to do.
The future is China. Don't piss off the sleeping giant.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
Not one of Mr. Clinton's best ideas.....
U.S. Aid Helps N. Korea Build Nukes, Congress Told
By Lawrence Morahan
CNS Staff Writer
17 April, 2000
(CNSNews.com) - North Korea's nuclear production capacity will increase from a dozen nuclear bombs a year to 65 a year by 2010, thanks in large part to American taxpayer money, two renowned U.S. nuclear scientists told congressional leaders last week.
North Korea observers have long suspected the communist dictatorship is using Western humanitarian aid to starving North Koreans to feed Kim Jong Il's million-man army.
But an aid policy initiated by the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s to finance two light water nuclear reactors in North Korea puts the isolated communist country on the fast track in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, William R. Graham and Victor Gilinsky told members of the House Policy Committee.
North Korea's missile proliferation has accelerated dramatically since the Clinton-Gore administration began giving aid to the regime in 1994.
"There were no known No-dong missile sales abroad until after the United States signed the so-called Agreed Framework with North Korea," House Speaker Dennis Hastert's North Korea advisory group reported.
But since U.S. aid began, the communist state has sold crucial technology to Iran for the Shahab missile that now threatens U.S. forces and their allies in the Middle East, and for a Pakistani missile in 1998 that disrupted the fragile stability of South Asia.
In 1994 the Clinton administration signed an agreement with North Korea that was designed to halt North Korea's nuclear weapons development program. North Korea sought light water reactors to provide for their energy needs and the U.S. agreed to provide them in exchange for North Korea giving up its nuclear program.
Western aid also earned donor countries the right to inspect the North Korean nuclear facilities.
The U.S. believed the plutonium produced would have to be refined before it could be used for weapons grade plutonium, said Chuck Downs, a leading North Korea expert and author of "Over the Line: North Korea's Negotiating Strategy," in an interview with CNSNews.com. But even though the plutonium wasn't the same yield as that used by the U.S. and some NATO countries, it could still be used to make nuclear weapons, he said.
For the past six years the United States has been trying to put in place two 1,000-megawatt light water reactors in North Korea.
The Clinton administration gambled that construction would take so long that North Korea would collapse politically and economically before the reactors were put in place, Downs said.
"As things have turned out, North Korea has received $380 million in aid from various countries last year, $210 million of it from the U.S., and that is enough to satisfy the needs of their regime. So the regime is roaring drunk and not at all collapsing," Downs said.
When they are in place in 2010, the light water reactors will give the North Koreans 490 kilograms of plutonium every year, allowing them to build 60 to 100 nuclear weapons a year.
"The kinds of facilities that existed in 1994 could only have produced two bombs a year and the kind they conceived [before U.S. aid] a dozen a year," Downs said.
Nuclear critics say it is impossible to decouple the risks from the benefits of nuclear power, or the ability of countries that have nuclear power to manufacture nuclear weapons.
Ted Taylor, a nuclear scientist and critic of U.S. nuclear policy, told CNSNews.com that all of the world's 450-odd nuclear power plants automatically make plutonium as a side product. "So there's a huge amount of plutonium, which is the stuff from which nuclear weapons are made or can be made, spreading worldwide without adequate safeguards against criminals, terrorists, or governments that are disobeying rules."
Taylor, an architect for decades of the U.S. nuclear program, including the program at Los Alamos, was a member of a presidential commission to investigate the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. "Nuclear energy is a major activity for destructive forces," he said.
North Korea Seeks Relations with South Korea
Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who has written extensively on North Korea, told CNSNews.com that North Korea seemed to be headed in a more moderate direction politically and has indicated this by agreeing to meet with South Korea for the first time in 50 years.
"I think everyone accepts the fact that the North Korean nuclear program is in deep freeze at the moment, but the question is if we didn't essentially buy them off, what would be the alternative," Bandow said. "They haven't offered any ... There's reason to be critical but if you're going to be critical you have to come up with an alternative and I haven't seen one yet."
But Downs insisted the U.S. should stand firm when dealing with North Korea, especially in view of its known policies of nuclear proliferation to the United States' enemies around the world.
"If you're in the mode of giving gifts, then you give them gifts that don't kill you. You don't hand children the gun. We could have gone in and said we'll give them $20 billion worth of hydroelectric dams and solar energy, wind power, whatever they wanted. We could have thrown in a $5 billion distribution system so that this energy could actually be used. Right now they have two light water reactors that will produce 490 kilograms of plutonium but no distribution system, and they have no idea how they're going to distribute that electricity - if indeed that was their intention at all."
Hail, Hail!!!
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?