North Korea Agrees to Nuclear Disarmament

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 13 2007, 11:05 AM) [snapback]389452[/snapback]</div>

They do... they apparently support the appeasement of North Korea the same way the Clinton administration did...

Tell you what, when the North Koreans fire up the reactor in a few more years, I will be first in line to blame it on Bush, the same way all the neo-cons and republican talk radio hosts blamed it on Clinton when the North Koreans fired their reactor up again a few years back.

 

The trade scenario w/ China probably had more to do with this than the US persuation. But sure, I'll say that I'm giving Bush credit anyway since I've yet to be able to provide him w/ credit for anything positive resulting from his admnistration.

 

I wonder how many tax $ this will cost us? <_<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Feb 13 2007, 02:09 PM) [snapback]389563[/snapback]</div>

It's cheaper than war and many lives will be saved.

 

Well, as far as cost it’s about $250,000,000.00 (a quarter billion dollars)
The N. Koreans are NOT disarming; they are merely stopping their enrichment.

It’s roughly the same deal Clinton cut, the question is will it be monitored (as it was not under Clinton)
and will the N. Koreans honor the agreement. (Which was also not done under Clinton)

The real question will come when the N. Koreans don't honor the agreement, will whoever is in the White house be willing to insist that the N Koreans are punished. (The US has to since the UN is useless)

The Bush administration deserves the credit on this one and anyone of the peace nic liberals who usually bash the livin crap out of him for acting "unilaterally " and just wanting to wage war should appreciate the pressure and negotiations that went on to get this agreement, and any who don't expose yourselves as the pure partisans that you are!

 

Of course, if the agreement made by Clinton had just been upheld, No. Korea wouldn't have a working plutonium nuke.

DA posted while I was typing.
It was expected that the Koreans would cheat under Clinton's agreement.

But the North could level Seoul in half an hour without a nuke. They really don't need planes for that either. So another option was felt to be a better course.

The agreement, even with cheating, would greatly slow down their program. In that time things could change and other options could present themselvs.

Without Clinton's agreement, No. Korea could have had hundreds of plutonium bombs, or even hydrogen ones.

If Bush had maintained that agreement, the bomb they tested would have been an uranium one, and the test would have used all the material they had. At worst.

Dropping Clinton's agreement led to the No. Koreans driving a truck up where the plutonium fuel rods were stored under seal, packing up, and driving off. We have it on satellite photos, but the drum up for Iraq was going on. So it wasn't relevant at the time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Feb 13 2007, 12:03 PM) [snapback]389559[/snapback]</div>

Always remember how many times Neville Chamberlain came back to Britain confident his shrewd negotiations had avoided war in Europe. We all know how that came out!


Chamberlain holds the paper containing the resolution to commit to peaceful methods signed by both Hitler and himself on his return from Germany at Heston Airport in September 1938. He said:
My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.

 

So how many countries will see that to get $ out of us all they have to do is threaten, make noise, and say they are working on a bomb. We even offered to give Iran $ to stop. Tax time is coming up. How many days do you have to work to supply these nut countries with $? :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Feb 13 2007, 01:14 PM) [snapback]389623[/snapback]</div>

Truthfully, I don't think anything was accomplished. I know many of you will disagree, but unless the will is there to enforce any negotiated deals, what good are they? I know my example above is extreme, but will you sleep better tonight because North Korea is accepting this agreement? I might feel better if they are abiding by the agreement in 18 months. My guess is they will want more attention in less than 18 months. If Kim Jong thought he could get away with invading South Korea do you think he would hesitate for even a moment?

 

I keep hearing on the news that China and Russia brokered the latest agreement since the US won't negotiate with N Korea. If that's the case why are we patting junior on the back?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Feb 13 2007, 02:11 PM) [snapback]389662[/snapback]</div>

Give him confidence to bomb Tehran.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Feb 13 2007, 02:28 PM) [snapback]389679[/snapback]</div>

A nice change, I agree! I hope this doesn't signal the end is near! :lol:

I consider myself a conservative independent and voted for W in 2004. It is time for him to go. No leadership anywhere to be found on Pennsylvania avenue. If only I could take back my vote.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Feb 13 2007, 12:11 PM) [snapback]389662[/snapback]</div>

The U.S. won't negotiate ALONE with N. Lorea. You know, unilaterally!
The administration has always insisted on the "6 party" talks which is what this was, specifically because of the pressure China and Russia could bring to N. Korea.