5 Wide Posted October 9, 2006 Posted October 9, 2006 Now that North Korea has gone and tested a small nuclear device underground(approx 5-15 kilotons) how exactly does the world address this situation? It is such a catch 22 with the different scenerios. I believe the key ingredient is if the North alienates China, the nation would collapse. I don't think that will happen, and I'm not sure sanctions send a tough enough message.
RayFinkle Posted October 9, 2006 Posted October 9, 2006 Since North Korea had repeatedly violated it treaties with the UN and is clearly in possesion of WMDs this means we will invade right?
Wacka Posted October 9, 2006 Posted October 9, 2006 Thank you Bubba and Kim-Il- Jong's dancing partner Madeline Albright.
PastaJoe Posted October 10, 2006 Posted October 10, 2006 Thank you Bubba and Kim-Il- Jong's dancing partner Madeline Albright. 800037[/snapback] Funny, I thought a president could only serve 2 terms. According to your logic Clinton is in his 4th term.
Wacka Posted October 10, 2006 Posted October 10, 2006 Who do you think gave him the reactors that allowed him build the bomb?
/dev/null Posted October 10, 2006 Posted October 10, 2006 Who do you think gave him the reactors that allowed him build the bomb? 800440[/snapback] Crab people?
kegtapr Posted October 10, 2006 Posted October 10, 2006 Funny, I thought a president could only serve 2 terms. According to your logic Clinton is in his 4th term. 800360[/snapback] So when Bush leaves office his mistakes in Iraq are no longer his? Nice!
Wacka Posted October 10, 2006 Posted October 10, 2006 Clinton gave them a reactor which the shrimp said would be used for "peaceful purposes". We see what happened. Clinton allowed missle technology to be sold to China, who then sold it to NK. Madeline Halfbright was partying with "Mr. Ronrey"saying what a great thing their negotiations were. . I thought she was going to slip him the tongue at one point,. NK wants talks with only the US. We want 6 way talks (US, NK, China, Japan,Rusia,SK), giving a united front of everyone with interests in the area.
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 10, 2006 Posted October 10, 2006 Clinton gave them a reactor which the shrimp said would be used for "peaceful purposes". We see what happened. 800654[/snapback] Proof?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 10, 2006 Posted October 10, 2006 Proof? 800657[/snapback] It was widely reported at the time. You should be able to find it at any media outlet of your choice (though I recommend staying away from FoxSnooze in this case) that keeps it's stories archived for 10+ years online.
KRC Posted October 10, 2006 Posted October 10, 2006 It was widely reported at the time. You should be able to find it at any media outlet of your choice (though I recommend staying away from FoxSnooze in this case) that keeps it's stories archived for 10+ years online. 800659[/snapback] Actually, I think that you are referring to the reactor promised in the Geneva Agreed Framework. That reactor was never finished. Other facilities have been around since before Clinton. You can't blame Clinton for Yongbyon (their main enrichment facility). You can blame him for the enrichment that went on unfettered during his administration (all the fuel that they have for nukes they enriched under Clinton and about a year of W). You can also blame Clinton for having our country internationally mocked by the North Koreans. You can also blame him for the attitude of the DPRK, since they realized under him that they just need to make a fuss and the U.S. would be too scared to do anything about it. Clinton bribed them in every way possible to get them to stay quiet and it failed miserable. You can also blame Clinton for nuclear/missile technology that they acquired while he was looking the other way.
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 10, 2006 Posted October 10, 2006 Why does the US have to solve all of the world's problems? China, Japan, So Korea, and Russia are affected a lot more by NK than we are. Let them handle the midget.
KRC Posted October 10, 2006 Posted October 10, 2006 Why does the US have to solve all of the world's problems? China, Japan, So Korea, and Russia are affected a lot more by NK than we are. Let them handle the midget. 800691[/snapback] Because of the heavy Asian investment in the U.S., among other things. If Asia takes a crap, so does the U.S. economy.
GG Posted October 10, 2006 Posted October 10, 2006 Because of the heavy Asian investment in the U.S., among other things. If Asia takes a crap, so does the U.S. economy. 800713[/snapback] Economy, schmonomy US economy = RJ
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 10, 2006 Posted October 10, 2006 Because of the heavy Asian investment in the U.S., among other things. If Asia takes a crap, so does the U.S. economy. 800713[/snapback] In other words, the Repigs are looking out for big business again. Has Goldman Sachs added North Korean plutonium futures to the GSCI yet?
KRC Posted October 10, 2006 Posted October 10, 2006 In other words, the Repigs are looking out for big business again. Has Goldman Sachs added North Korean plutonium futures to the GSCI yet? 800740[/snapback] They're evil.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 10, 2006 Posted October 10, 2006 They're evil. 800744[/snapback] You guys are the best.
Chilly Posted October 10, 2006 Posted October 10, 2006 Actually, I think that you are referring to the reactor promised in the Geneva Agreed Framework. That reactor was never finished. Other facilities have been around since before Clinton. You can't blame Clinton for Yongbyon (their main enrichment facility). You can blame him for the enrichment that went on unfettered during his administration (all the fuel that they have for nukes they enriched under Clinton and about a year of W). You can also blame Clinton for having our country internationally mocked by the North Koreans. You can also blame him for the attitude of the DPRK, since they realized under him that they just need to make a fuss and the U.S. would be too scared to do anything about it. Clinton bribed them in every way possible to get them to stay quiet and it failed miserable. You can also blame Clinton for nuclear/missile technology that they acquired while he was looking the other way. 800668[/snapback] What, you mean Clinton's foreign policy sucked? Well, I'll be...
KRC Posted October 10, 2006 Posted October 10, 2006 What, you mean Clinton's foreign policy sucked? 800887[/snapback] I didn't want to state the obvious.
Recommended Posts