Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don't

Published on October 9, 2006 By Dr Guy In Politics

Yep! Sunday proved that adage! North Korea, and Kim Jung Mentally Il, detonated a nuke. About the size of the Hiroshima bomb. And the reaction? Expected. Those who condemned Bush for Iraq, a nation that had a nuclear program by EVERY acount just a few years before the invasion, now are condemning Bush for not invading, or at least Nuking North Korea.

Bush's Crime? He tried Diplomacy, not appeasement (Clinton tried the latter and that is why NK was in the position to test a nuke, but I digress). And for his efforts in insisting upon multilateral talks, and not uni-lateral talks? He did wrong. Yep! They quote a traitor to America on what he MIGHT have done (but of course he never set forth the steps to do anything), and they point to Clinton and Madam Not-so-Bright as the real course to follow (omitting the fact that it was their policies that advanced the NK Nuclear program).

So out of one side of their mouth, they condemn the 'unilateral' invasion of Iraq (unilateral as in 40 nations, but again I digress), and then out of the other condemn the Multilateral talks that Bush insisted upon.

Bush haters are so easy to spot. Just check for the forked tongue, or the both sides of the mouth talking. They cant help but contradict themselves. Hatred is not logical, and neither are they.

Comments (Page 4)

Dr Guy

on Oct 10, 2006

Natural disasters, war, nuclear weapons, scandal...tick tock, tick tock on the Armageddon clock.

At least you did not have to play "Duck and Cover"

30 years ago, the world was going to end in a nuclear holocaust. Now we have to put up with nasty storms and idiot tin pot dictators. It is always something.

TOV

on Oct 12, 2006

But next time, do your own googling. I hate lazy readers.

Actually, documenting sources is your responsibility. I cannot count the nember of tiimes my College English proffesor talked about documenting sources and quotes. You, as a writter, must always assume that the reader is lazy, no matter how much you hates lazy readers.

Oh, and here are some sources to back me up.

Make sure you explain the relevance of quotes you include to your reader. Imagine a lazy reader. Make everything as clear as possible.

Link

Remember that we, as readers, are lazy. We don’t want to have to figure out a writer’s reasoning for ourselves; we want all the thinking to be done for us in the paper.

Link

kingbee

on Oct 13, 2006

The Agreed Framework we negotiated secured the spent fuel they held in storage (enough plutonium for five nuclear weapons), and all other plutonium-producing facilities were frozen under inspection. Had these facilities been allowed to become operational, North Korea would by now be producing enough plutonium for 30 nuclear weapons each year, a capacity far greater than, by most estimates, those of India, Pakistan and Israel combined. This has been greatly in our interest.

i guess none of yall read this (excerpted from drmiler's comment#20). i'm not sure what he point he thought he was making, but for once he got it right. like it or not, nk was much less a threat--not to mention a model for other nations who might not otherwise seriously considered acquiring nukes--during the late 90s than it's been since 2002.

kingbee

on Oct 13, 2006

30 years ago, the world was going to end in a nuclear holocaust. Now we have to put up with nasty storms and idiot tin pot dictators.

no. as long as we have a government that doesn't take non-proliferation seriously enough to lead the world in achieving it, the nuclear threat still looms over us. i'd think people with kids and grandkids--especially those parents and grandparents who spent their childhood never knowing when or if some idiot was gonna push the first button--would be a much more concerned and responsible. no matter who controls em, each new nuke makes the entire planet a lil less healthy place for future generations.

ParaTed2k

on Oct 13, 2006

When their memory only goes back to the day Bush was sworn in, I guess it's easy to throw out anything that happened before that day.

Dr Guy

on Oct 13, 2006

I documented my sources. It is not my place to document his rebutalls. That is the job of the rebutter.

Dr Guy

on Oct 13, 2006

i guess none of yall read this (excerpted from drmiler's comment#20).

Sorry, the Link did not take. Here is my link: http://www.cnsnews.com/Pentagon/Archive/1998-2000/DEF20000417a.html

Specifically let me draw your attention to this part:

17 April, 2000

(CNSNews.com) - North Korea's nuclear production capacity will increase from a dozen nuclear bombs a year to 65 a year by 2010, thanks in large part to American taxpayer money, two renowned U.S. nuclear scientists told congressional leaders last week.

Note the date.

Dr Guy

on Oct 13, 2006

as long as we have a government that doesn't take non-proliferation seriously enough to lead the world in achieving it, the nuclear threat still looms over us

Well, we got rid of that government almost 6 years ago.

When they are in place in 2010, the light water reactors will give the North Koreans 490 kilograms of plutonium every year, allowing them to build 60 to 100 nuclear weapons a year.

That not only looks like an administration not concerned with nuclear proliferation, but was actively aiding it.

Dr Guy

on Oct 13, 2006

When their memory only goes back to the day Bush was sworn in, I guess it's easy to throw out anything that happened before that day.

Fortunately, the written word is hard to destroy, even for Clinton and Sandy Burglar.

Island Dog

on Oct 13, 2006

I wonder if some of the documents he stole were related to North Korea.

Dr Guy

on Oct 13, 2006

I wonder if some of the documents he stole were related to North Korea.

We probably will never know. But it is like Clinton lying. We know he did, so everything becomes suspect.

Island Dog

on Oct 13, 2006

The Sand Burglar story still gets me. If it was a member of the Bush administration we still would be hearing about it. Amazing a member of the Clinton Administration can steal and destroy documents relating to terrorism, and the media barely touches it.

Tell me again they are on the same side as the democrats.

Dr Guy

on Oct 13, 2006

Amazing a member of the Clinton Administration can steal and destroy documents relating to terrorism, and the media barely touches it.

Look where the WP is playing the Dingy Hairy story. There are a lot of avowed left wing web sites, and in this case, they are more reliable than most of the MSM due to the fact they are at least honest about it.

kingbee

on Oct 13, 2006

For the past six years the United States has been trying to put in place two 1,000-megawatt light water reactors in North Korea.

The Clinton administration gambled that construction would take so long that North Korea would collapse politically and economically before the reactors were put in place, Downs said.
When they are in place in 2010, the light water reactors will give the North Koreans 490 kilograms of plutonium every year, allowing them to build 60 to 100 nuclear weapons a year.

17 April, 2000

(CNSNews.com) - North Korea's nuclear production capacity will increase from a dozen nuclear bombs a year to 65 a year by 2010, thanks in large part to American taxpayer money, two renowned U.S. nuclear scientists told congressional leaders last week.

seeing as how there's no real evidence nk currently has any nuclear bombs--or for the 12 seemingly claimed by these two reknowned scientists in 2000, much less 72 they projected by this year--perhaps they weren't as expert as portrayed by your fair n balanced source? on top of which, they're a bit vague as to how many bombs nk would be cranking out in 2010. 60? 65? 100? all of the above?

even more importantly, my confidence in their expertise is further eroded by their lack of knowledge (or, perhaps, their honesty) regarding plutonium production potential of light water plants--such as those the agreed framework called for--and reactors using heavy water or graphite as neutron moderators. unless lwr are shut down to remove fuel rods every 4 months, u-239 concentrations are rendered useless by excessive u-240 concentration. on top of which, all spent rods woulda been accounted for by the iaea and removed from nk before any processing was done.

neither of these two reknowned experts seems to have informed anyone that nk's existing reactor--the one which woulda been replaced under the agreed framework--is exactly the kind needed to produce weapons grade plutonium.

kingbee

on Oct 13, 2006

Well, we got rid of that government almost 6 years ago

whatcha mean 'we'?

it was the replacement that insisted on developing new nuclear weapons and made a point of claiming our right to do so to the point of opting outta non-proliferation treaties.

go right on ahead defending em for such idiocy and ignoring the fact that this is a monkey-do, monkey-see cycle kinda thing. nk, iran, brazil, etc. figure if the chimpster can do it, so can they.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!