North Korea admits it has secret nuclear weapons programme
-
(from the Google News site). Hmmm. Was Bush right about the "axis of evil" (god, where did he come up with that phrase anyways)? Are we Americans gulligble fools to believe the treaty that Clinton administration signed in 1994? Are we going to war with NK next? What does it all mean??? Marc
Excellent news. Sniper at home, Saddam in the Middle East, NK in the far east. Will definitely sort out the US population growth. Now if Castro were only to start with his sh*t again. A perfect world. Cheers Mike Johannesburg, South Africa
-
Excellent news. Sniper at home, Saddam in the Middle East, NK in the far east. Will definitely sort out the US population growth. Now if Castro were only to start with his sh*t again. A perfect world. Cheers Mike Johannesburg, South Africa
Sounds like someone is *enjoying* the game.. -- modified at 14:58 Friday 2nd June, 2006
-
Londo wrote: China was backing it up And therein lies the problem, doesn't it? China (and Japan) has a vested interest in NK, Russia (against the rules) has developed a vested interest in Iraq. Both are going to want some major concessions from the US otherwise they'll join in any war. After all Bush's posturing, he's going to look pretty silly if he backs down over Iraq. And after agreeing with Japan that NK might be dropped from the "Axis of Evil", they now admit to having had a nuclear weapons program all along. Bush is also going to look kinda stupid if he just shrugs this off after using this as the basis for the war on Iraq. All-in-all he's being backed into a corner. The question is, will he fight his way out, talk his way out or simply lie down and play dead (another cold war)? Paul Life is just a sexually transmitted desease - Matthew Wright (ex-journalist, TV presenter) 10-Oct-02 I finally have a sig! - Paul Riley (part-time deity) 10-Oct-02
Paul Riley wrote: All-in-all he's being backed into a corner. The question is, will he fight his way out, talk his way out or simply lie down and play dead (another cold war)? Bets? Here's another thought to consider: Russia, in violation of UN agreements, sells weaponry to Iraq and votes against any action in Iraq owing to billions in outstanding collectibles which will be sunk cost if weaponry discovered. France, ditto. The 1st result, no new resolution and no inspections. The 2nd result, America and small group of countries go it alone. The 3rd result, America resigns from UN membership and demands rent for prime NYC real estate. The 4th result, Kofi Annan says, "whats up with that" as UN moves to Geneva to pick the reins from League of Nations.
-
It means they know the US has nukes and therefore feel the need to have them also. This does not prove they are going to aim the first one they get to fly at Hollywood and let 'er rip. Christian Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 During last 10 years, with invention of VB and similar programming environments, every ill-educated moron became able to develop software. - Alex E. - 12-Sept-2002
Christian Graus wrote: This does not prove they are going to aim the first one they get to fly at Hollywood and let 'er rip. Yeah, I seriously doubt they would be willing to do us that *big* of a favor.:laugh: "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Not that I like how Bush has handled things, nor am I a Republican, but he has had a tough job of it. The economy might have been great during the Clinton administration, but the whole thing imploded shortly after he left office with the stock market collapsing and the corporate scandals. Then 9/11. Unfortunately, I don't think Bush is handling these tasks very well--not that Democrats could do better. Our president has a serious lack of leadership when it comes to the economy. There are some great Doonesbury cartoons of the kind of idiotic statements coming from Bush about the economy (but can't we please put duct tape over Al Gore's mouth?). It also seems that Republicans get themselves involved in military actions or promote controversial military technology development. Is it just their karma? What amazes me is (my very skewed observations) that Americans seem to feel that they have no control (an illusion anyways) over these issues, and therefore we aren't very vocal one way or the other. Everyone, (and I mean everyone) at my work thinks war with Iraq is a bad thing, and everyone at work is worried about their jobs and making ends meet. It seems like I work in a vaccuum, compared to the CNN polls where more than 50% of Americans think we should oust Saddam. Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator. (hmm, maybe I've got a good sig line finally!) Marc
Marc Clifton wrote: It seems like I work in a vaccuum, compared to the CNN polls where more than 50% of Americans think we should oust Saddam. Depends on which poll you read. According to this CBS/NY Post poll, only 30% of Americans feel an immediate need for going to war. Looks like these polls are becoming acts of art, and not science anymore.
-
(from the Google News site). Hmmm. Was Bush right about the "axis of evil" (god, where did he come up with that phrase anyways)? Are we Americans gulligble fools to believe the treaty that Clinton administration signed in 1994? Are we going to war with NK next? What does it all mean??? Marc
Marc Clifton wrote: Was Bush right about the "axis of evil" Yes. But that doesn't mean we have to go to war with all of them. We may be able to convince China to put some pressure on NK rather than going in with guns blazing. Marc Clifton wrote: Are we Americans gulligble fools to believe the treaty that Clinton administration signed in 1994? You have to realize that treaties don't mean squat to some people. A treaty is just a peace of paper without the means to back it up. NK, Iraq, Iran, etc. had no problem with violating treaties while Clinton was in orifice because they knew he was spineless.
Jason Henderson
start page
articles
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston Churchill -
(from the Google News site). Hmmm. Was Bush right about the "axis of evil" (god, where did he come up with that phrase anyways)? Are we Americans gulligble fools to believe the treaty that Clinton administration signed in 1994? Are we going to war with NK next? What does it all mean??? Marc
Hopefully the US won't go to war with NK; and here's some info about the treaty from Boortz.com Nealz Nuz[^]: "We’re not going to hear that Bill Clinton extracted a promise from North Korea in 1994 that they would halt all programs aimed at developing nuclear weapons and, in return, Clinton promised to send American nuclear technology to Korea for the development of nuclear power plants. You also won’t hear that many critics said in 1994 that North Korea would almost certainly use that American technology, provided by Clinton, to continue development of nuclear weapons." Now, call me silly, but why GIVE a nation nuclear technology after they just signed a treaty with you not to develop their own... :confused: "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." -- Jeremiah 18:7-10 (God, commenting on the value of the United Nations)
-
Hopefully the US won't go to war with NK; and here's some info about the treaty from Boortz.com Nealz Nuz[^]: "We’re not going to hear that Bill Clinton extracted a promise from North Korea in 1994 that they would halt all programs aimed at developing nuclear weapons and, in return, Clinton promised to send American nuclear technology to Korea for the development of nuclear power plants. You also won’t hear that many critics said in 1994 that North Korea would almost certainly use that American technology, provided by Clinton, to continue development of nuclear weapons." Now, call me silly, but why GIVE a nation nuclear technology after they just signed a treaty with you not to develop their own... :confused: "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." -- Jeremiah 18:7-10 (God, commenting on the value of the United Nations)
Chris Hambleton wrote: Now, call me silly, but why GIVE a nation nuclear technology after they just signed a treaty with you not to develop their own... I couldn't quite figure the logic in that either. :confused: I don't think those facilities were actually started until late '99, though. The N.Koreans, then turned around and threatened to restart their nuclear programs if U.S didn't compensate for electricity lost due to delays in the power plant construction. WTF? Supposedly in early '99, inspectors reported no evidence of "nuclear activity". I guess they were fooled. You don't think the Iraqi's would try to hide their activity too, do you?? :omg: BW The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to talk, mad to live, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding. - Jack Kerouac
-
Not that I like how Bush has handled things, nor am I a Republican, but he has had a tough job of it. The economy might have been great during the Clinton administration, but the whole thing imploded shortly after he left office with the stock market collapsing and the corporate scandals. Then 9/11. Unfortunately, I don't think Bush is handling these tasks very well--not that Democrats could do better. Our president has a serious lack of leadership when it comes to the economy. There are some great Doonesbury cartoons of the kind of idiotic statements coming from Bush about the economy (but can't we please put duct tape over Al Gore's mouth?). It also seems that Republicans get themselves involved in military actions or promote controversial military technology development. Is it just their karma? What amazes me is (my very skewed observations) that Americans seem to feel that they have no control (an illusion anyways) over these issues, and therefore we aren't very vocal one way or the other. Everyone, (and I mean everyone) at my work thinks war with Iraq is a bad thing, and everyone at work is worried about their jobs and making ends meet. It seems like I work in a vaccuum, compared to the CNN polls where more than 50% of Americans think we should oust Saddam. Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator. (hmm, maybe I've got a good sig line finally!) Marc
Hmmmmm......... 1. The economy was dying while Clinton was in office. Tax increases can kill any economy. The Reagan economy was still running until Clinton put the breaks on it. 2. While Republicans generally do build up a strong national defense, the Democrats are generally the ones who send it somewhere to serve food or just generally try to destroy it. One of the reasons for having the government in the first place is to provide for a strong national defense. 3. War with anyone is a bad thing. We should question whether it is necessary. Your work environment is most likely very liberal. If Clinton were in office you would probably be wearing military garb by now! :laugh: 4. CNN poles are worthless. They make polls news. Why? I've taken one and had to stop them in the middle and ask why the questions were so skewed. At the time it was about some environmental question and nearly all the questions were bent. "Are you for preserving the environment." The assumption being that someone is against preserving the environment!! I also heard yesterday of a newspaper whose headline was something to the effect "Our readers are against a war!". They had set up a phone bank and taken 12 calls of which 7 were against the a war with Iraq. If their readership was so small maybe they could make that claim but it was obviously skewed! ed Every time I walk into a singles bar I can hear Mom's wise words: "Don't pick that up, you don't know where it's been!"
-
Chris Hambleton wrote: Now, call me silly, but why GIVE a nation nuclear technology after they just signed a treaty with you not to develop their own... I couldn't quite figure the logic in that either. :confused: I don't think those facilities were actually started until late '99, though. The N.Koreans, then turned around and threatened to restart their nuclear programs if U.S didn't compensate for electricity lost due to delays in the power plant construction. WTF? Supposedly in early '99, inspectors reported no evidence of "nuclear activity". I guess they were fooled. You don't think the Iraqi's would try to hide their activity too, do you?? :omg: BW The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to talk, mad to live, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding. - Jack Kerouac
;P What find absolutely hilarious about this whole nuclear thing is that nuclear power plants are popping up all over the world, and are widely used in "green" countries like France. But what about the US?? Nooo... we don't build new ones, and we try to shut down the ones we have! So, the US burns coal, NG, and oil for power, which are not nearly as efficient as nuclear power, and also produce a lot more pollution. To make it worse, the US helps foreign countries with "questionable" leadership and human rights records build their own nuclear power plants! It's like someone wanting to kill you, and you volunteer to dig the grave, hop in, and nail yourself into the coffin. And all they have to do is toss some dirt on you and walk away... "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." -- Jeremiah 18:7-10 (God, commenting on the value of the United Nations)
-
Sounds like someone is *enjoying* the game.. -- modified at 14:58 Friday 2nd June, 2006
Fazlul Kabir wrote: Sounds like someone is *enjoying* the game.. Process of elimination......;) Cheers Mike Johannesburg, South Africa
-
Megan Forbes wrote: why was peace promoted so nicely while Clinton was in office, but the Bush family seem to cause so much disturbance? Not peace at all, just deferral of the problems. Clinton ignored the terrorist threats, and we had 9-11. Clinton had North Korea agree to cancel it's nuclear weapons program, and now they have the nuclear bomb. Clinton attempted to force feed a solution to the Israeli and Palestinian problem causing an unbelievable escalation to that problem where it would have been much more intelligent to continue the slow pace towards resolution. Clinton bombed Iraq, with impunity just days before hearings on impeachment - then backed off after everyone's attention was distracted. Clinton brokered a peace agreement in Northern Ireland that is a sham. The man was and is a joke, a blight on our history as long as history books are written honestly. 8 years of playing at statesmanship leaving a mess for adults to deal with. Mike
Clinton ignored the terrorist threats, and we had 9-11. My understanding was that the Clinton admin. had a plan in the works for going after Al Queda, and Bush tabled it. Clinton had North Korea agree to cancel it's nuclear weapons program, and now they have the nuclear bomb. Really? I thought they only had a material processing plant. Have they actually built and detonated a bomb (if the answer is yes, then I am woefully ignorant--not the first time!!!) Clinton attempted to force feed a solution to the Israeli and Palestinian problem causing an unbelievable escalation to that problem where it would have been much more intelligent to continue the slow pace towards resolution. But both Palestinian and Israeli diplomats were recently quoted in saying that we should try for the Clinton plan again because it was so close to agreement. Clinton brokered a peace agreement in Northern Ireland that is a sham. I disagree. The man was and is a joke, a blight on our history as long as history books are written honestly. 8 years of playing at statesmanship leaving a mess for adults to deal with. Hmmm. And what president after Kennedy hasn't been (no offense to Carter, who I commend for his post-presidential work). Marc
-
;P What find absolutely hilarious about this whole nuclear thing is that nuclear power plants are popping up all over the world, and are widely used in "green" countries like France. But what about the US?? Nooo... we don't build new ones, and we try to shut down the ones we have! So, the US burns coal, NG, and oil for power, which are not nearly as efficient as nuclear power, and also produce a lot more pollution. To make it worse, the US helps foreign countries with "questionable" leadership and human rights records build their own nuclear power plants! It's like someone wanting to kill you, and you volunteer to dig the grave, hop in, and nail yourself into the coffin. And all they have to do is toss some dirt on you and walk away... "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." -- Jeremiah 18:7-10 (God, commenting on the value of the United Nations)
What find absolutely hilarious about this whole nuclear thing is that nuclear power plants are popping up all over the world, and are widely used in "green" countries like France. But what about the US?? Nooo... we don't build new ones, and we try to shut down the ones we have! Well, the US has something called a "tree hugger". All kidding aside, am I wrong in saying that Europeans are very unhappy with nuclear energy as well? Especially since they were much more impacted by the Chernobel (sp?) disaster? Marc
-
Hopefully the US won't go to war with NK; and here's some info about the treaty from Boortz.com Nealz Nuz[^]: "We’re not going to hear that Bill Clinton extracted a promise from North Korea in 1994 that they would halt all programs aimed at developing nuclear weapons and, in return, Clinton promised to send American nuclear technology to Korea for the development of nuclear power plants. You also won’t hear that many critics said in 1994 that North Korea would almost certainly use that American technology, provided by Clinton, to continue development of nuclear weapons." Now, call me silly, but why GIVE a nation nuclear technology after they just signed a treaty with you not to develop their own... :confused: "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." -- Jeremiah 18:7-10 (God, commenting on the value of the United Nations)
Isn't there a technology difference between a nuclear plant for power generation, vs. a plant designed to refine and enrich uranium into bomb grade material? From everything I've read about how a nuclear power plant works, I think there are very major differences in infrastructure--mining, processing, storage, containment, supporting technology, etc. Just the process of enrichment requires a completely different infrastructure, doesn't it? Marc
-
Marc Clifton wrote: Was Bush right about the "axis of evil" Of course he was. Marc Clifton wrote: Are we Americans gulligble fools to believe the treaty that Clinton administration signed in 1994? Americans? Try "Democrats". Marc Clifton wrote: Are we going to war with NK next? Worse things could happen. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Worse things could happen maybe your wish will come true. Stan Shannon wrote: Try "Democrats". you are truly disgusting. that is truly disgusting. partisan blame - when all else fails. -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
-
Clinton ignored the terrorist threats, and we had 9-11. My understanding was that the Clinton admin. had a plan in the works for going after Al Queda, and Bush tabled it. Clinton had North Korea agree to cancel it's nuclear weapons program, and now they have the nuclear bomb. Really? I thought they only had a material processing plant. Have they actually built and detonated a bomb (if the answer is yes, then I am woefully ignorant--not the first time!!!) Clinton attempted to force feed a solution to the Israeli and Palestinian problem causing an unbelievable escalation to that problem where it would have been much more intelligent to continue the slow pace towards resolution. But both Palestinian and Israeli diplomats were recently quoted in saying that we should try for the Clinton plan again because it was so close to agreement. Clinton brokered a peace agreement in Northern Ireland that is a sham. I disagree. The man was and is a joke, a blight on our history as long as history books are written honestly. 8 years of playing at statesmanship leaving a mess for adults to deal with. Hmmm. And what president after Kennedy hasn't been (no offense to Carter, who I commend for his post-presidential work). Marc
Marc Clifton wrote: My understanding was that the Clinton admin. had a plan in the works for going after Al Queda, and Bush tabled it. And he never had sex with that woman. Please excuse, I couldn't resist the sarcasm. Marc Clifton wrote: But both Palestinian and Israeli diplomats were recently quoted in saying that we should try for the Clinton plan again because it was so close to agreement. I didn't say it was a bad agreement. Fact is I believe Palestiniasns will never see one as good. What I did say was, Clinton attempted to force feed a solution. The force feeding, to create a legacy other than the one he earned, created unrealistic expectations / euphoria - when the promise of the agreement was not delivered because the terrorist Arafat would then be out of work, all hell broke loose and hasn't been reined in since. Marc Clifton wrote: Clinton brokered a peace agreement in Northern Ireland that is a sham. I disagree. And who is currently running the country? Marc Clifton wrote: Hmmm. And what president after Kennedy hasn't been (no offense to Carter, who I commend for his post-presidential work). Ronald Reagan - who brought down the Berlin Wall, brought the USSR to their knees and created the basis for the economy that Clinton touts. Carter, while we're on the subject, is the only president who ever caused me to honestly feel bad about and for my country. A cowardly joke. Mike
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Worse things could happen maybe your wish will come true. Stan Shannon wrote: Try "Democrats". you are truly disgusting. that is truly disgusting. partisan blame - when all else fails. -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
Chris Losinger wrote: you are truly disgusting. Possible. But he is also correct. Please read up on the behavior of the Dems in the year prior to Pearl Harbor. Sounds a lot like today. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Clinton ignored the terrorist threats, and we had 9-11. My understanding was that the Clinton admin. had a plan in the works for going after Al Queda, and Bush tabled it. Clinton had North Korea agree to cancel it's nuclear weapons program, and now they have the nuclear bomb. Really? I thought they only had a material processing plant. Have they actually built and detonated a bomb (if the answer is yes, then I am woefully ignorant--not the first time!!!) Clinton attempted to force feed a solution to the Israeli and Palestinian problem causing an unbelievable escalation to that problem where it would have been much more intelligent to continue the slow pace towards resolution. But both Palestinian and Israeli diplomats were recently quoted in saying that we should try for the Clinton plan again because it was so close to agreement. Clinton brokered a peace agreement in Northern Ireland that is a sham. I disagree. The man was and is a joke, a blight on our history as long as history books are written honestly. 8 years of playing at statesmanship leaving a mess for adults to deal with. Hmmm. And what president after Kennedy hasn't been (no offense to Carter, who I commend for his post-presidential work). Marc
Marc Clifton wrote: And what president after Kennedy hasn't been Might want to include Kennedy in that bunch and put the question back to after Eisenhower. Kennedy's one shining moment was the man on the moon project and even then because we took the wrong approach ( I'm seeing this in hindsight not foresight ) it put the space program in a big hole with a lot of giant expensive boosters that had no use after Apollo. He got us into Vietnam, almost got us in a nuclear war, let Cuba go Communist, raised nepotisim to a new level, and probably would not have been re elected. And these are just the highlights. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Chris Losinger wrote: you are truly disgusting. Possible. But he is also correct. Please read up on the behavior of the Dems in the year prior to Pearl Harbor. Sounds a lot like today. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
Richard Stringer wrote: the Dems in the year prior to Pearl Harbor i'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that none of the people in politics then are active now, or even alive. partisan blame - it's fun and easy, but it gets the country nowhere. disgusting -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
-
Isn't there a technology difference between a nuclear plant for power generation, vs. a plant designed to refine and enrich uranium into bomb grade material? From everything I've read about how a nuclear power plant works, I think there are very major differences in infrastructure--mining, processing, storage, containment, supporting technology, etc. Just the process of enrichment requires a completely different infrastructure, doesn't it? Marc
Marc Clifton wrote: Isn't there a technology difference between a nuclear plant for power generation, vs. a plant designed to refine and enrich uranium into bomb grade material Not in some cases. Most bombs these days are plutonium based weapons - not U235. U238 can be used in power reactors and if the reactor is a type called "fast breeder" reactors they can produce ploutonium as a byproduct. This can be refined fairly easily to produce weapon grade material. Remember that there are no plutonium mines. It is a completly artifical element. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar