Carter-Obama Comparisons Grow

[bloodyminded]

A "simple mistake"? You mean like Mrs. O'Leary's Cow? Sorry, but you have to be an idiot not to know the circumstances of such an adventure, personal and political ramifications, propaganda value, etc., etc. regardless of any border signage. What did they expect...a big wooden monument announcing "Welcome to Iran...Best Camping in the Mideast".

Possibly they naively expected fair warning, who knows? I actually agree with you, if not with the harshness of your assessment.

I doubt that employees at the US State Department would be so kind.

Well, if State Department employees feel a certain way, it must be correct.

[nicky10013]

Canada loves Cuba too...so what?

Where does it say Canada loves either Cuba or the DPRK?

Wrong...it had failed before Clinton ever left office.

I've asked for proof many times. I haven't gotten any yet. If you'd like to provide it, I'd be happy to look at it. Otherwise, the discussion as I see it is over.

The topic is Carter-Obama comparisons, not your hard-on for George Bush vis-a-vis the DPRK.

I'm not the one who claimed Carter gave cover to the DPRK to build nuclear weapons. I'm not the one who brought up the Agreed Framework. Along the way, I've just been askin for you to defend these positions, which you haven't. I guess you could say I'm dispelling republican talking points one at a time. Myths, past and present, are bad for democracy.

[ToadBrother]

Of course they were pursuing nuclear weapons before GWB was President. That isn't the point. The point was, despite popular rhetoric, they were actually complying with international agreements during the 1990s until GWB came into power. Like I've argued earlier, they already had all the equipment and knowledge to make nuclear weapons. They just had to use it. Up until 1994 they had. The notion they had some secret program is hilarious. The whole point of deterrence is to let your enemies know the extent of your weapons programmes. Between 1994 and 2002, their nuclear facilities which we've known about since the 1970s, were sealed and monitored by the IAEA.

North Korea, in particular, was doing the same thing it's doing now, using its nuclear program as a carrot and stick to get international aid. If you think for one moment that the NK and Iranian regimes weren't hell bent on making nuclear weapons at any point in the last fifteen to twenty years, you're just deceiving yourself. And quite frankly, I don't really buy the notion that NK was really letting anyone see the full extent of the program. It's not their style. Any idea that we were in some way imposing some regulatory regime on them is feel-good fantasies.

[ToadBrother]

You'd better check on American pre and inter-war interventions versus "isolationism", especially in the Americas. Fools who label aggressive and purposeful policies as "gross mismanagement" have obviously never been the big dog.

Ah yes, even American mistakes are victories.

[nicky10013]

North Korea, in particular, was doing the same thing it's doing now, using its nuclear program as a carrot and stick to get international aid. If you think for one moment that the NK and Iranian regimes weren't hell bent on making nuclear weapons at any point in the last fifteen to twenty years, you're just deceiving yourself. And quite frankly, I don't really buy the notion that NK was really letting anyone see the full extent of the program. It's not their style. Any idea that we were in some way imposing some regulatory regime on them is feel-good fantasies.

I completely agree. The thing is, with the Agreed Framework, the North Koreans got what they wanted and more. They don't have any oil, coal or hydroelectric capabilty so they have to import pretty much all energy which is heavily sanctioned. In the deal, they recieved 2 light water reactors to produce electricty (due to the use of light water, the reactors cannot produce weapons grade fissile material) and guranteed food aid.

As for the Koreans not showing the full extent of their program, that is certainly possible and I've never said anything to the contrary. My only point is that there is absolutely no evidence that they've been doing it. The second point is at least with the Koreans, despite it being a closed regime and "secretive," at least in terms of it's foreign policy the North Koreans have always told everyone what they're going to do, and then they've done it. They've pulled out of the NPT multiple times and specifically said "We're building weapons as a deterrent." Like I said, they've never acted in a secretive way because that defeats the purpose of the program which is like you said, to gain carrots and to build deterrence.

[bush_cheney2004]

Where does it say Canada loves either Cuba or the DPRK?

In the case of Cuba, right here:

http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/cuba/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/canada_cuba.aspx

I've asked for proof many times. I haven't gotten any yet. If you'd like to provide it, I'd be happy to look at it. Otherwise, the discussion as I see it is over.

It's over for you...others may continue if you don't mind. I have already provided the context and content of American policy for the DPRK....sorry you weren't around at the time.

I'm not the one who claimed Carter gave cover to the DPRK to build nuclear weapons. I'm not the one who brought up the Agreed Framework. Along the way, I've just been askin for you to defend these positions, which you haven't. I guess you could say I'm dispelling republican talking points one at a time. Myths, past and present, are bad for democracy.

I'm not a Republican, so you have already whiffed on that point. President Carter negotiated a protocol that eroded leverage and instantiated repeated violation and ultimately a failed outcome.

[nicky10013]

In the case of Cuba, right here:

http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/cuba/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/canada_cuba.aspx

So where does it state the undying love for Communist Cuba? I, obviously unlike you, actually read it.

Canada takes every opportunity to make clear to the Cuban regime our serious concerns about human rights practices on the island. We consistently call on the Cuban government to release all political prisoners and to dismantle the limits on freedom of expression. Canada takes every opportunity to make clear to the Cuban regime our serious concerns about human rights practices on the island. We consistently call on the Cuban government to release all political prisoners and to dismantle the limits on freedom of expression.

It's over for you...others may continue if you don't mind. I have already provided the context and content of American policy for the DPRK....sorry you weren't around at the time.

I know what American police vis-a-vis the DPRK is. General foreign policy wasn't about this. You've told us all that the DPRK violated the agreement. I asked for the evidence and thus far you've not only not done that, you've tried to switch the topic.

I'm not a Republican, so you have already whiffed on that point. President Carter negotiated a protocol that eroded leverage and instantiated repeated violation and ultimately a failed outcome.

What violations? I've asked again and again what violations and you can't answer the question. Where are they?

[jbg]

No, no it doesn't. We were specifically discussing the Agreed Framework of 1994. The reason why it failed was due to a change in US policy when Clinton left office. Is the original reason why NK was developing nuclear weapons? Maybe, however, we weren't discussing the broad ramifications of US policy towards Pyongyang over the past 50 years, just one policy in the last decade and a half. The reasons why it failed very much happened in the new millenium, not between 1950-1953.

NK is primarily a merchant to other nuclear states. Its (dictator's) ambition is to get rich off nuclear weapons, not use them for "self-defense".

[punked]

NK is primarily a merchant to other nuclear states. Its (dictator's) ambition is to get rich off nuclear weapons, not use them for "self-defense".

Proof. No offense but NK can't get anything across the boarder so I fail to see how this is true.

[bush_cheney2004]

So where does it state the undying love for Communist Cuba? I, obviously unlike you, actually read it.

You are obviously being obtuse....the point has been substantiated...by your own government. Enjoy a Cuban vacation today!

I know what American police vis-a-vis the DPRK is. General foreign policy wasn't about this. You've told us all that the DPRK violated the agreement. I asked for the evidence and thus far you've not only not done that, you've tried to switch the topic.

I have switched nothing save for pointing out your topic error. Try to keep up.

What violations? I've asked again and again what violations and you can't answer the question. Where are they?

If I take the time to do this will you concede the point and shut up forever?

Here is the "proof" you desire so badly:

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaDprk/dprk.pdf&sa=U&ei=vjqhTLeVDJftnQeyjfnHDQ&ved=0CBEQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGbey8k2Jr7bKCly6UUdjGxqwuhmQ

Edited September 28, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[nicky10013]

You are obviously being obtuse....the point has been substantiated...by your own government. Enjoy a Cuban vacation today!

Uhh, how is merely quoting the page you cited being obtuse?

I have switched nothing save for pointing out your topic error. Try to keep up.

It would indeed be a topic error if I was the one who actually brought it up. You did.

If I take the time to do this will you concede the point and shut up forever?

Depends on the points you post. 99% of the crap you post here is misquoted conservative garbage. If they check out, fine. I've never had a problem conceding a point before when I've been wrong.

[bush_cheney2004]

Uhh, how is merely quoting the page you cited being obtuse?

Why so sensitive about an obvious association with Cuba? Canada LOVES Cuba...be proud of the open defiance (US embargo).

It would indeed be a topic error if I was the one who actually brought it up. You did.

The topic is clear....you made a mistake....no biggee.

Depends on the points you post. 99% of the crap you post here is misquoted conservative garbage. If they check out, fine. I've never had a problem conceding a point before when I've been wrong.

It doesn't matter if you "check out" the "points"....anybody alive at the time who was paying attention knows this history.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaDprk/dprk.pdf&sa=U&ei=vjqhTLeVDJftnQeyjfnHDQ&ved=0CBEQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGbey8k2Jr7bKCly6UUdjGxqwuhmQ

[nicky10013]

Why so sensitive about an obvious association with Cuba? Canada LOVES Cuba...be proud of the open defiance (US embargo).

Open trade equates to love? Gee, setting the bar low, are we?

It doesn't matter if you "check out" the "points"....anybody alive at the time who was paying attention knows this history.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaDprk/dprk.pdf&sa=U&ei=vjqhTLeVDJftnQeyjfnHDQ&ved=0CBEQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGbey8k2Jr7bKCly6UUdjGxqwuhmQ

Ok, so where are the violations?

[bush_cheney2004]

Ok, so where are the violations?

This is why members do not offer you "proof"....because you always pull this kind of stunt when faced with the obvious and conclusive counter information, which in this case, is a matter of public record:

1987 NPT Violation Ignored

After joining the NPT, a member state is required to conclude a safeguards agreement with the IAEA within 18 months permitting inspections of all plants using fissile materials. DPRK notified the IAEA 18 months after signing the NPT that it had been sent the wrong paperwork for the safeguards agreement--- that is, it received the form to be filled out for non-NPT safeguards rather than NPT safeguards. The IAEA responded by sending DPRK the correct form and giving the North Koreans another 18 months to complete it.

Apparently under Chinese and Soviet pressure, neither the IAEA nor the Reagan or Bush administrations brought pressure on DPRK to complete its inspections arrangement with the IAEA, despite this clear violation of the NPT.

In 1989, DPRK shut down its 5 megawatt reactor for about three months with no IAEA inspectors present. It is suspected of having removed fuel containing enough plutonium for one or two bombs for its nuclear-weapons program. DPRK did not enter into an NPT safeguards agreement with the IAEA until 1992, more than six years after joining the treaty.

http://www.nci.org/n/nkib1.htm

[punked]

No one was ever going to bring military action on the a state with a standing army of 5 million. They might be a crappy army but there is still 5 million of them. The last thing the west wants or ever wanted is for NK to get into a war.

[bush_cheney2004]

No one was ever going to bring military action on the a state with a standing army of 5 million. They might be a crappy army but there is still 5 million of them. The last thing the west wants or ever wanted is for NK to get into a war.

What? Are you forgetting the Korean War? Didn't that involve the "west"?

[punked]

What? Are you forgetting the Korean War? Didn't that involve the "west"?

Before the North had a STANDING ARMY OF 5 million. The North had about 300,000 at the time the South had around 500,000. Lets not compare apples to Armies here.

[bush_cheney2004]

Before the North had a STANDING ARMY OF 5 million. The North had about 300,000 at the time the South had around 500,000. Lets not compare apples to Armies here.

But you said "ever wanted"....so you didn't mean that, eh? Let's try to be clear here, lest we have misunderstandings and undue conflict. And for the record, President Clinton was prepared to bomb the North's ass for NPT violations.

[punked]

But you said "ever wanted"....so you didn't mean that, eh? Let's try to be clear here, lest we have misunderstandings and undue conflict. And for the record, President Clinton was prepared to bomb the North's ass for NPT violations.

Yah I don't know if you don't know how to read. But I ended after "ever wanted" with "a state with a standing army of 5 million". So when you talk about a state with an army of 300,000 you really are putting words in my mouth.

For the record Clinton thought NK would never last the transition from one leader to another so he would have never bombed them.

[nicky10013]

This is why members do not offer you "proof"....because you always pull this kind of stunt when faced with the obvious and conclusive counter information, which in this case, is a matter of public record:

1987 NPT Violation Ignored

After joining the NPT, a member state is required to conclude a safeguards agreement with the IAEA within 18 months permitting inspections of all plants using fissile materials. DPRK notified the IAEA 18 months after signing the NPT that it had been sent the wrong paperwork for the safeguards agreement--- that is, it received the form to be filled out for non-NPT safeguards rather than NPT safeguards. The IAEA responded by sending DPRK the correct form and giving the North Koreans another 18 months to complete it.

Apparently under Chinese and Soviet pressure, neither the IAEA nor the Reagan or Bush administrations brought pressure on DPRK to complete its inspections arrangement with the IAEA, despite this clear violation of the NPT.

In 1989, DPRK shut down its 5 megawatt reactor for about three months with no IAEA inspectors present. It is suspected of having removed fuel containing enough plutonium for one or two bombs for its nuclear-weapons program. DPRK did not enter into an NPT safeguards agreement with the IAEA until 1992, more than six years after joining the treaty.

http://www.nci.org/n/nkib1.htm

Yeah, you said they violated the Agreed Framework, by your own words, multiple times. Where are those violations?

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah, you said they violated the Agreed Framework, by your own words, multiple times. Where are those violations?

I clearly stated that they violated the NPT, as in years before the Agreed Framework or Bush Jr's "Axis of Evil" speech. Another member also challenged your naive assumption and insistance on "proof" of these prior transgressions.

In addition, as discussed earlier:

In October 2002, North Korean officials acknowledged the existence of a clandestine program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons that is in violation of the Agreed Framework and other agreements.

[nicky10013]

I clearly stated that they violated the NPT, as in years before the Agreed Framework or Bush Jr's "Axis of Evil" speech. Another member also challenged your naive assumption and insistance on "proof" of these prior transgressions.

In addition, as discussed earlier:

In October 2002, North Korean officials acknowledged the existence of a clandestine program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons that is in violation of the Agreed Framework and other agreements.

Ah so you didn't say the below. I got it.

Shady is right...ex-President Carter continued his soft approach with the DPRK, after trying to remove US troops from South Korea during his presidency:

In 1994, the administration of President Bill Clinton had begun preparations for military action against North Korea when former President Jimmy Carter traveled to North Korea in June and extracted a promise from Kim Jong Il to freeze nuclear production. 1 The Agreed Framework was signed on Oct. 21, 1994.

As we know, the DPRK repeatedly violated the framework to force food and fuel oil concessions.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ah so you didn't say the below. I got it.

I said the DPRK violated the NPT and the Agreed Framework....why is it so hard for you to admit that the DPRK did so? What do you have to gain except some twisted axe to grind with the Clinton and Bush administrations (foreign governments)?

But it is fun rubbing your nose in it!

A Broken Framework

As we now know, North Korea failed to uphold its end of the Agreed Framework. Appearing October 20 on NBC's "Meet the Press," Secretary of State Colin Powell stated, "When we told North Korea that we knew what they were doing, they came back the next day, admitted it, blamed us for their actions and then said they considered that agreement nullified."

Sen. Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina), the Ranking Republican Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was not quite so reserved when he stated, "At long last, the truth has come out. North Korea has admitted that the Agreed Framework negotiated by the Clinton Administration is a falsehood."

"The bottom line is that North Korea was out of compliance with its international obligations in 1994 when the Agreed Framework was signed; it remained out of compliance throughout the implementation of the Framework; and it is today out of compliance with its international obligations," said Helms.

Edited September 28, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[RNG]

IMHO, N. Korea survived last time (the 50's) because the west was scared of what we then called Red China. That dog don't hunt anymore. The west right now could blast N. Korea back to the stone age (not much to move them 15 min.) in a heartbeat. And China would silently breath a sigh of relief. Lets stop sucking Kim Dong's dong. Do him and them now. (I know I got his name wrong but give a guy a break.)

[The_Squid]

IMHO, N. Korea survived last time (the 50's) because the west was scared of what we then called Red China. That dog don't hunt anymore. The west right now could blast N. Korea back to the stone age (not much to move them 15 min.) in a heartbeat. And China would silently breath a sigh of relief. Lets stop sucking Kim Dong's dong. Do him and them now. (I know I got his name wrong but give a guy a break.)

Yeah.... bomb them!! We know how well your recent wars have gone... maybe this time leave the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner in the closet until Americans stop dying from bullet holes....

If you don't think that the Chinese will have equipped NK with all sorts of things to kill people with, you're as naive as your last president.