Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
What would actually get the attention of Kim Jong Il, and actually compel him to stop?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Years ago I ripped off a desk and chair from my elementary school for just such an occasion, but now I have to find two more for my wife and son...

Who needs a shelter?

Under the desk Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Have NK used nuclear weapons on a civilian population? If not they're still a fair bit ahead on their nuclear track record than certain others.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rabbit2:
Ok, Lets take a step back and look at the situation.
North Korea now has an experimental A bomb. They might have 4 or 5 practical weapons in a few years.
In the process they have seriously Ped off their friends in China and Russia.
Exactly how many H bombs has the US at the moment?

--------------------------------------------------

Flight Instructor: Son, know what the first rule of flying is?
Me: Don`t crash?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I swear this is all a spoiled brat's bid for attention. Maybe we need Supernanny at the table.

Oh BTW- I was talking about Kim Jong-Il.



---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I don't blame em one bit - the only effective deterrent to cowardly american aggression is "the bomb" and since we've gone completely batshit, everyone who doesn't have one, wants one.

We've become the playground bully of the planet.

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mink:
Man, this board is infested with some serious "It's all America/Bush's fault" numbskulls. I mean, wow. Maybe you need to watch a little less sci-fi and study a little more history or something.

Let me guess, the Neocon/Zionist conspiracy is the root of all agression in the world today.

Mr. Il is only doing what anyone else would do in the face of the Bushist threat, eh? Maybe so. If I was a little sh!thead mass murdering freak I would probably feel the same way. Then again, if I was more interested in a free, open society where people had enough food to eat, I might not be so concerned.

How come North Korea seems to be the only country around there feeling threatened by the US, while everyone else feels threatened by ... North Korea? I don't understand. Maybe they're just scared of the evil Bush and playing along?




It's okay to leave them to die.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I swear this is all a spoiled brat's bid for attention. Maybe we need Supernanny at the table.

Oh BTW- I was talking about Kim Jong-Il.



---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

---

Funny, you could be describing Kim and Bush.

If the talking heads on CNN is to be believed, the six party negotiations had come up with two different deals that all partys except the US found acceptable. The speculation was that the US is fixed on " regime change " and really didn't want a negotiated deal --- leading of course to the well if your not going to deal in good faith, then maybe we really do need the weapons response.

The really funny party will be when Bolton presents his plan at the UN, and half the security council rejects it because they don't want to give the US an open mandate to do whatever the hell they want ( like Iraq )

I hope this doesn't help Bush with the mid term elections... it would be a shame for him to profit from a mess that he helped create.




" Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom the stab in the back
Women and children and cowards attack

Run to the hills run for your lives "

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/ironmaiden/liveafterdeath.html#12

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, we've again come to the conundrum of what to do with rogue nations. The options are pretty limited because N Korea has got one concept right: nuclear nations are treated very, very differently than non-nuclear nations.

The options are:

the carrot: trade and aid
the stick: sanctions
invasion/ bombing: not an option for nuclear nations
assassination: Kim Jong-Il is way too paranoid for this
ignore: not sure this is an option.

So we're left with the carrot and the stick. Any other ideas?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:


"This administration is not batshit crazy, nor is it attempting to create a global environment of perpetual war for the purpose of massive war profiteering and power grabs abroad, while perpetuating a state of constant war (cold or otherwise) on the homefront, further enabling it to rob our programs blind while crushing our oversight and putting a big boot on the necks of the American Citizen..."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:


"This administration is not batshit crazy, nor is it attempting to create a global environment of perpetual war for the purpose of massive war profiteering and power grabs abroad, while perpetuating a state of constant war (cold or otherwise) on the homefront, further enabling it to rob our programs blind while crushing our oversight and putting a big boot on the necks of the American Citizen..."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
BigDamnNoth... Nobody: After six years of Bush doing NOTHING, this is where we are. I asked for ideas- you apparently have none. But you never do, so I'm not surprised.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

I could mention the fact that it was the Clinton administration in power when the agreement started falling off the tracks.

---

Quote:

---

I could mention the fact that the Bush administration did in fact do something (it's in the article which I referenced).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mink:
No, two-party talks are in the realm of doing nothing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNothi ...Nobody:
...I will try to point out that, IMHO, what good are sanctions and/or incentives if the problem will just arise again in a few years time?
The fact that even China is speaking out about North Korea's nuclear test is a positive sign.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

I could mention the fact that it was the Clinton administration in power when the agreement started falling off the tracks.

---

You could mention that, but then I'd have to mention that the Clinton plan's paramenters were for proliferation-proof reactors, watched over by UN inspectors.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I could mention the fact that the Bush administration did in fact do something (it's in the article which I referenced).

---

Yep. They did something all right. In 2002, they agreed to (and I quote) release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country's own nuclear programme ...
In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1908571.stm

---

Quote:

---

But, hey, go ahead and blame Clinton; it's what the GOP's best at.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I shouldn't be surprised that a simple question to SignyM regarding the questionable results derived from the stick and the carrot method of diplomacy with North Korea would be misconstrued as a partisan attack.

---

Quote:

---

Rumsfeld link to sale of reactors to North Korea

By Randeep Ramesh
Sydney Morning Herald
May 10 2003

The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, sat on the board of a company that three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil" and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of its efforts of build nuclear weapons.

Mr Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $US200 million contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. He sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $US190,000 a year. He left to join the Bush Administration.

www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/09/1052280441337.html


The two faces of Rumsfeld

2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea
2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change

Randeep Ramesh
May 9, 2003
London Guardian

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil" and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of its efforts to build nuclear weapons.

Mr Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $200m (£125m) contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. The current defence secretary sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year. He left to join the Bush administration.

www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html


Rummy's North Korea Connection

What did Donald Rumsfeld know about ABB's deal to build nuclear reactors there? And why won't he talk about it?

By Richard Behar
CNN Money
Fortune Magazine
May 12, 2003

Rumsfeld declined requests by FORTUNE to elaborate on his role. But ABB spokesman Bjorn Edlund has told FORTUNE that "board members were informed about this project." And other ABB officials say there is no way such a large and high-stakes project, involving complex questions of liability, would not have come to the attention of the board. "A written summary would probably have gone to the board before the deal was signed," says Robert Newman, a former president of ABB's U.S. nuclear division who spearheaded the project. "I'm sure they were aware."

FORTUNE contacted 15 ABB board members who served at the time the company was bidding for the Pyongyang contract, and all but one declined to comment. That director, who asked not to be identified, says he's convinced that ABB's chairman at the time, Percy Barnevik, told the board about the reactor project in the mid-1990s. "This was a major thing for ABB," the former director says, "and extensive political lobbying was done."

ABB, which was already building eight nuclear reactors in South Korea, had an inside track on the $4 billion U.S.-sponsored North Korea project. The firm was told "our participation is essential," recalls Frank Murray, project manager for the reactors. (He plays the same role now at Westinghouse, which was acquired by Britain's BNFL in 1999, a year before it also bought ABB's nuclear power business.) The North Korean reactors are being primarily funded by South Korean and Japanese export-import banks and supervised by KEDO, a consortium based in New York.

Even so, ABB tried to keep its involvement hush-hush. In a 1995 letter from ABB to the Department of Energy obtained by FORTUNE, the firm requested authorization to release technology to the North Koreans, then asked that the seemingly innocuous one-page letter be withheld from public disclosure. "Everything was held close to the vest for some reason," says Ronald Kurtz, ABB's U.S. spokesman. "It wasn't as public as contracts of this magnitude typically are."

Given the Republican outcry over the reactor deal, Rumsfeld's public silence is nearly deafening. "Almost any Republican was complaining about it," says Winston Lord, President Clinton's assistant secretary of state for East Asian/Pacific Affairs.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/05/12/3423
16/index.htm

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Of course you shouldn't be surprised, you framed the question/answer in such a way as to make it sound like a partisan strike - which I suspect it was, regardless to your assertion to the contrary. You were just waiting till someone responded, then you could play the "Help! I'm being oppressed!" card.

---

Quote:

---

The post I responded to started with a classic "But Clinton" and followed that with a "but Bush did something," framed in such a way as to make Clinton look like the only one to blame for the current situation.

---

Quote:

---

Your response was loaded, and you know it; I called you on it and you're trying to play the neutral "victim."

---