LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 224
0 members and 224 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 04:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 10-14-2006, 11:07 PM   #3138
Spanky
For what it's worth
 
Spanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: With Thumper
Posts: 6,793
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Compared to you, yes.




I would take the eight year respite in their plutonium processing, understanding that it is bad and yet the lesser of two evils to give fuel oil to a dictator.


No fucking shit. Have you read any of my posts? Do you have any inkling what my response to that is? If you haven't figured it out yet, you are a dumbass and I'm not repeating it.



Yes. Try reading any of those CRS reports. I know you can find them with Google, but you haven't shown you can read them yet.
I find the above quotes contradictory. My main point which you didn't address, is that North Korea continued with its nuclear program, whether it was plutonium or Uranium. That quote I keep posting, that you say you responded to, and critsize me for reposting because you say you have addressed it, confirms that. But the point of that post is that they continued their nuclear weapons program under Clinton. Why does it matter if its program was plutonium or enriched uranium? They said they wouldn't continue the program and they did. So they didn't do Plutonium, but they did to Uranium, which was a breach of the agreement, and still builds a bomb. What is so important about the Plutonium and Uranium distinction.


Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't think I denied this. I think I suggested it was stupid. North Korea, while poor, has the resources of a poor, medium-sized country. I've never seen anyone but you suggest that without the fuel oil we sent them, they didn't have the resources for a nuclear program.
If it is true how can it be stupid? The country has limited resources. If they focus their resources on a nuclear program, they can't focus it on other places, like perks for communist members, which will destabilize their regime. If we send them resources, they don't have to make the choice.


Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
They stopped processing plutonium for eight years. That was a good thing.
If they are still producing enriched urannium and moving forward with their weapons program why does this matter?


Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
North Korea built the reactor it's getting the plutonium from in the mid-1980s, so they've obviously had designs on nuclear weapons -- or the leverage from the program -- for a while. I don't think I suggested otherwise.
You keep saying that Bush's actions prodded them into making the bomb. I am saying they have always wanted one and have always been working on one.


Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Off the top of my head, I thought Clinton's Haiti policy was well-intentioned but hapless and ineffective.
He got rid of Papa Doc and the Death squads didn't he? Haiti may still suck but it is better off than it was under Papa Doc isn't it?

Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And I supported the invasion of Afghanistan.
Really - you warmongering fascist. You realize we just went in their to set up Cheney's pipeline. The whole thing was a setup.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Look, I'm not saying that Clinton's North Korea policy was brilliant. Like Bush does now, he had a set of poor choices. He played for time, with some success. I started posting on this subject because I think it's ridiculous for Republicans such as yourself (recall: you brought the subject up, not me) to somehow try to blame Clinton for the current situation on the Korean peninsula. Bush took a poor policy and made it worse. He has talked a lot, but he has done nothing. Six years into the Bush Presidency and you're still trying to blame his foreign policy messes on Clinton -- that should be telling you something.
No I am not. This is the only thing I have critisized Clinton for (when it comes to foreign policy). Clinton got suckered by Carter, and went against his better judgement. Until 9-11 the US public did not have the stomach for the invasion of Afghanistan, which was what was needed to deal with Al Queda. I don't blame Clinton or Bush for 9-11. The only other thing I don't think Clinton did well was pulling out of Somalia. But it was really hard for him to stay with the Repubs screaming that he had to pull out, so I understand it.
Spanky is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:24 PM.