|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 10/11/2006 : 10:38:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Luke T.
Speaking of Machiavelli, North Korea is refusing to participate in six-party talks. They are demanding to only speak to the US about this mess.
Seems status quo for them. They tend to demand bribes and things.
The administration could always talk to PRC and ask them to rattle their saber at the tin plated despot. No need to involve US troops which would tend to make the PRC edgy.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Luke T.
Skeptic Friend
140 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 10:50:21 [Permalink]
|
Yeah. I support the idea of letting China take the lead first. See what they can do.
I don't think anyone is going to get North Korea to disarm, nuclear-wise, though.
|
|
|
|
Luke T.
Skeptic Friend
140 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 12:46:54 [Permalink]
|
Something that has been puzzling me.
If I was to go down the list of entities who coulda-woulda-shoulda known what was going on in North Korea (Clinton, Bush, Rumsfeld, Pat Robertson, Sylvia Brown, International ANSWER, China, South Korea), I would have to put China at the head of that list.
Kind of makes China's current cries of moral outrage a little curious, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 14:04:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Luke T.
Speaking of Machiavelli, North Korea is refusing to participate in six-party talks. They are demanding to only speak to the US about this mess.
That way they can always say we violated something, and half the world, and half the US would believe them whether it was true or not. You can't call 6 countres liars.
Peace
Joe
|
The Circus of Carnage... because you should be able to deal with politicians like you do pissant noobs. |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 14:30:27 [Permalink]
|
China's moral outrage is just about oxymoronic.
Joe |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 10:00:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
China's moral outrage is just about oxymoronic.
Joe
So is Bush's.
The two faces of Rumsfeldquote:
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
Friday May 9, 2003
The Guardian
The reactor deal was part of President Bill Clinton's policy of persuading the North Korean regime to positively engage with the west.
The sale of the nuclear technology was a high-profile contract. ABB's then chief executive, Goran Lindahl, visited North Korea in November 1999 to announce ABB's "wide-ranging, long-term cooperation agreement" with the communist government.
The company also opened an office in the country's capital, Pyongyang, and the deal was signed a year later in 2000. Despite this, Mr Rumsfeld's office said that the de fence secretary did not "recall it being brought before the board at any time".
In a statement to the American magazine Newsweek, his spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said that there "was no vote on this". A spokesman for ABB told the Guardian yesterday that "board members were informed about the project which would deliver systems and equipment for light water reactors".
Just months after Mr Rumsfeld took office, President George Bush ended the policy of engagement and negotiation pursued by Mr Clinton, saying he did not trust North Korea, and pulled the plug on diplomacy. Pyongyang warned that it would respond by building nuclear missiles. A review of American policy was announced and the bilateral confidence building steps, key to Mr Clinton's policy of detente, halted.
Rummy is paid $190,000/yr to be on a board of directors, he attends most meetings and he is claiming not to remember an action of the company that would have stood out as this action would have? Right.
February 24, 2003 - 8:51 AM
Rumsfeld was on ABB board during deal with North KoreaAdd story to my swissinfo panel quote:
The Swiss-based ABB on Friday told swissinfo that Rumsfeld was involved with the company in early 2000, when it netted a $200 million (SFr270million) contract with Pyongyang.
The ABB contract was to deliver equipment and services for two nuclear power stations at Kumho, on North Korea's east coast.
Rumsfeld – who is one of the Bush administration's most strident “hardliners” on North Korea – was a member of ABB's board between 1990 and February 2001, when he left to take up his current post.
Wolfram Eberhardt, a spokesman for ABB, told swissinfo that Rumsfeld “was at nearly all the board meetings” during his decade-long involvement with the company....
...The Bush government has repeatedly used the agreement to criticise the former Clinton administration for being too soft on North Korea. Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, has been among the most vocal critics of the 1994 weapons accord.
Rumsfeld link to sale of reactors to North Korea
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 10:11:30 [Permalink]
|
| I'd call the concept of Clinton's "engagement and negotiation" a stretch. They kept nuclear weapons in the South until 1998 (and probably still have them), they kept nukes pointed at South Korea, which is a violation of the NPT, the promised things they did not deliver. Clinton and Bush are terrorists, and they're blaming NK for attempting to make small moves to defend themselves. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/12/2006 10:20:23 |
|
|
|
Luke T.
Skeptic Friend
140 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 11:48:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
China's moral outrage is just about oxymoronic.
Joe
So is Bush's.
The two faces of Rumsfeld
*sigh*
South Korea agreed to foot the bill for the light water reactors that were promised to North Korea under the 1994 agreeement.
The total bill was $4.5 BILLION.
That Billion, with a B. To be paid by South Korea.
Parts of contracts are subcontracted out. A small piece goes to a Swedish company. $200 Million, with an M.
On the board of that Swedish company was Donald Rumsfeld in a non-executive director role, who received $190,000 a year in that role.
Just can't escape the Six Degrees of Separation, Rummy! So sorry.
Now here's the really evil part. That contract was awarded to the Swedish company in 2000. During Clinton's time. Clinton, who negotiated the agreement to provide DPRK with the reactors in the first place.
It's a conspiracy, I tell you.
A conspiracy of what, I have NO idea. Somebody please tell me. Somebody please explain beskeptigal's "So is Bush's" comment, because I just don't get it.
|
| Edited by - Luke T. on 10/12/2006 11:51:38 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 22:05:18 [Permalink]
|
I'm not sure of your point, Luke. Is the sigh a claim it's all Clinton's fault?
First, there is no question in my mind that Clinton was competent and understood the issues. I have also heard M Albright speak on the N Korea issue. She also showed evidence of competence and knowledge of the country and its mentally ill leader. So that leaves the question, did the Clinton administration do the best it could given the situation and was there never any option of a perfect solution? Or, as Bush is trying to claim, did Clinton's policies make the situation worse?
The evidence clearly shows Bush's policies have made the situation worse. And there is clear evidence that all sorts of people including Rumsfeld, Bush Sr, and Reagan I imagine, contributed to the situation as it developed in some way.
I don't have the expertise in this field, but on the surface, and with all the facts I have seen, (I am as well informed as anyone paying attention to world events and politics for a number of years), I have to conclude Clinton's policies, though perhaps not completely successful, were far more competent than Bush's. I also conclude from the evidence that the Republican attempts to blame Clinton are merely the usual 'Rove playbook' planned distractions and quite disingenuous.
And as for the Rumsfeld articles, I put them in to show the hypocrisy of blaming Clinton, but more importantly, the hypocrisy of blaming anyone while the Bush players feed and collect from the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. It is clear in my mind that all manner of war profiteering by Bush and all his cronies is not a baseless claim.
To pretend as Rumsfeld has that one knows nothing about such a major event in a company one is a board member of is laughable. To think being in a non-CEO position in one of the revolving door boardrooms of the company in question means you are completely removed from any link to a reactor deal that put profit over country is naive. One doesn't need this incident to convict Rumsfeld of putting profit over country. It's highly unlikely he is an exception in the Bush administration.
Bush's whole administration is corrupt and much of our tax dollars and future tax dollars are being shifted to corporation after corporation which have links back to Washington. Cheney's claims to be divorced from the billions of no-bid contracts with Halliburton and from any subsequent profit the contracts resulted in is a farce. That's interesting considering Cheney still holds 433,333 unexercised stock options in Halliburton. The evidence of profit over country as a mantra from these guys goes way way back. And it includes profiting from arming Saddam to profiting from selling nuclear technology to N Korea. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
Luke T.
Skeptic Friend
140 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 11:54:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I'm not sure of your point, Luke. Is the sigh a claim it's all Clinton's fault?
No. The sigh is over your attempt to make something out of Rumsfeld's non-executive position on a Swedish company's board during the Clinton Administration into some kind of bizarro world Bush thing.
I mean, someone had to go to great leaps and twists to come up with that one, and that was the best they could do? And you just went and parrotted it without looking into it.
So don't give me any crap about trying to blame Clinton. I was simply clearing up your crap trying to blame Bush over a contract that a little teensy bit of investigation shows was signed during Clinton's time.
ETA: And now that you know the 200 Million dollar contract was signed under Clinton's watch, do you still think something diabolical was going on? If not, then you are a hypocrite.
I don't blame Clinton or Bush. I blame...North Korea!
|
| Edited by - Luke T. on 10/16/2006 11:59:25 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 12:06:15 [Permalink]
|
What's funny about this is that people in the US are so worked up about North Korea and people in South Korea aren't. North Korea has a single shot at killing a bunch of people, then that's it. China would disown them. We'd bomb them to the stone age. They can't fit anything like a nuke onto a missle. Their economy is just sad. They can make a lot of noise and our leadership takes advantage of that to frighten some of us. I'm not falling for that trick. I'm not worried about North Korea.
@ |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Luke T.
Skeptic Friend
140 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 12:11:47 [Permalink]
|
If you have been reading my posts, beskeptigal, then you would know that in 2002, when according to your Rummy article the SecDef put on his second face, the US confronted the DPRK with evidence that the DPRK had a weapons grade uranium enrichment program going since 1995.
Now think about that. Let's connect the dots for you one more time.
1994. An agreement is reached whereby the DPRK will stop its plutonium reprocessing. It is also agreed they will not do any uranium enriching, weapons-grade or non-weapons-grade.
In exchange, North Korea will be given some light-water reactors, to be paid for by South Korea.
So in 2000, a Swedish company gets a small slice of the pie.
Everything seems just fine. Except North Korea during this entire period since the agreement was signed has not allowed full inspections. I believe I linked the evidence for that, but in case I didn't, see my next post.
So in 2002, the US confronts the DPRK with evidence that they have a uranium enrichment program going on, in violation of the 1994 agreement.
Now how is that two-faced, exactly?
If you are trying to get someone to stop building nukes, and they promise they will, and you try to provide them with the means to abide by that promise, and then you find they have broken that promise, which one of you is two-faced?
Uh, that would be North Korea.
Not Clinton. Not Bush. North Korea.
|
| Edited by - Luke T. on 10/16/2006 12:14:23 |
|
|
|
Luke T.
Skeptic Friend
140 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 12:13:08 [Permalink]
|
Post-1994 Agreement:
quote:
29 March 1995
The IAEA Board of Governors asks North Korea to permit IAEA inspectors to measure the amount of plutonium in the spent fuel of its 5MW gas-graphite reactor and in the waste from its radiochemical lab [reprocessing facility].
quote:
15-20 September 1995
The IAEA sends a team of inspectors to North Korea to monitor its compliance with the NPT and the 21 October 1994 Agreed Framework. The IAEA requests that it be allowed to expand its monitoring activities in North Korea and improve its technical capability to confirm that North Korea's maintenance of the 5MW gas-graphite reactor at Yongbyon and the plutonium processing facility does not reflect an attempt to revive its nuclear program.
quote:
22 September 1995
In his opening statement, IAEA Director General Hans Blix tells the conference that unresolved concerns include the disposition of nuclear spent fuel from North Korea's 5MW gas-graphite reactor and installation of waste tank monitoring equipment at its reprocessing plant.
quote:
25 September 1995
IAEA Director General Hans Blix reports to a special IAEA Board of Governors meeting that North Korea has denied the IAEA permission to measure the amount of plutonium in the 8,000 spent fuel rods or in the liquid-waste at its radiochemical lab [reprocessing facility]. Blix says that North Korea agreed only to allow IAEA inspectors to determine if the fuel rods were irradiated and to photograph the radiochemical lab. North Korea has indicated that it will make the examination of plutonium contingent upon progress in negotiations for a light-water reactor supply contract.
quote:
13 October 1995
IAEA Director General Hans Blix says in a report to the UN Security Council that North Korea has denied the IAEA inspectors permission to evaluate the plutonium levels in the nuclear spent fuel. Blix adds that North Korea has only provided the IAEA with minimal access to its Yongbyon nuclear facilities.
quote:
18 March 1996
IAEA Director General Hans Blix tells the IAEA Board of Governors that North Korea is not cooperating with IAEA efforts to ascertain the quantity of plutonium held at the Yongbyon nuclear facility. IAEA inspectors have made a number of attempts to photograph the facility since September 1995, in accordance with agreements reached with North Korea. However, they have been restricted from taking photographs. North Korea has also been slow in granting visas for IAEA inspectors.
quote:
August 1996
An IAEA safeguards report not released to the public says that the IAEA is unable to verify North Korea's initial declaration under the NPT.
quote:
17 September 1996
North Korea's representative to the UN agencies in Vienna states that North Korea "will not give the IAEA any information whatsoever" about spent fuel from its 5MW gas-graphite reactor "until the new reactors are finished and begin operating."
quote:
17 March 1997
IAEA Director General Hans Blix says that talks between the IAEA and North Korea over the suspected North Korean nuclear program have stalled.
quote:
1 June 1997
After reviewing the implementation of the IAEA safeguards in 1996 with North Korea, the IAEA Board of Governors reports that it is still unable to verify the initial declaration made by North Korea, and that North Korea still remains in non-compliance of its nuclear safeguards agreement.
quote:
17 March 1998
North Korea refuses to cooperate with IAEA inspectors, citing delays in the implementation of the 1994 US-North Korean Agreed Framework. IAEA inspectors are prevented from taking samples of nuclear waste. Inspectors are also barred from taking samples from the high-temperature water plant of the 5MW gas-graphite reactor.
quote:
14 May 1998
North Korea's ambassador to China, Chu Chang-jun, says that pressure is growing in North Korea to reopen the sealed 5MW gas-graphite reactor. Ambassador Chu also indicates that North Korea is angry with the United States for the delays in heavy-fuel oil shipments.
The heavy oil shipments were meant as a holdover measure until the light water reactors were built.
quote:
15 July 1998
A US General Accounting Office (GAO) report says that there are many monitoring problems that affect the IAEA's "ability to ensure that North Korea is complying fully with certain aspects of the nuclear freeze." North Korea has not allowed the IAEA to install monitoring devices in the nuclear waste tanks. The tanks are connected to a "complex and inaccessible piping system that, if operating, would permit the waste to be removed and/or altered." The GAO report warns that North Korea may have "secretly removed some of the nuclear waste in order to hide evidence of earlier diversions of plutonium."
quote:
6 September 1998
The CIA suspects that North Korea has dumped liquid plutonium waste on the grounds of its Yongbyon nuclear facility. The liquid plutonium waste is believed to have been stored underground in unsuitable storage tanks which could leak. The CIA believes that North Korea used these containers in an effort to hide the plutonium waste from IAEA inspectors.
|
|
|
|
Luke T.
Skeptic Friend
140 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 12:17:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
On 22 April 1997, U.S. Defense Department spokesman Kenneth Bacon officially stated, "When the U.S.-North Korea nuclear agreement was signed in Geneva in 1994, the U.S. intelligence authorities already believed North Korea had produced plutonium enough for at least one nuclear weapon." This was the first time the United States confirmed North Korea's possession of plutonium.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
