http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/02/25/ammanpour.nkorea/index.html

Sure does seem a far cry from how our administration was painting them 2 years ago doesn't?

Hopeful signs indeed. The New York Philharmonic today -- Bon Jovi and Kid Rock tomorrow!

"Sure does seem a far cry from how our administration was painting them 2 years ago doesn't?"

I assume then you're applauding the progress made by our administration since that time 2 years ago?

The progress that led to NK's development of nuclear weapons?

No, the one that led to the dismantling of the nuclear facility if you had bothered to read the article.

Here you go:


Today is a very different story though. North Korea shut down Yongbyon last summer under an agreement with the United States and four other nations in the nuclear disarmament negotiations.

I read the article, and if you bothered to be aware of recent history, you'd recognize that Bush's "progress" led to NK having nukes in the first place. It's nice to see the administration retreating toward a more realistic policy, though. Rattling sabres and calling countries names isn't very impressive. Sad, though, how those who advocated strong diplomacy have been called enablers, or worse, all this time.

I read the article, and if you bothered to be aware of recent history, you'd recognize that Bush's "progress" led to NK having nukes in the first place. It's nice to see the administration retreating toward a more realistic policy, though. Rattling sabres and calling countries names isn't very impressive. Sad, though, how those who advocated strong diplomacy have been called enablers, or worse, all this time.

According to the article, We still haven't fulfilled our part of the Bargain, and North Korea has slowed the process due to Bush's inaction of making good on his promises.


For all of this, North Korea expected a million tons of heavy fuel oil, a lifting of sanctions and removal from the U.S. list of terrorist sponsors. This has not happened yet, so North Korea has slowed down the disabling process at Yongbyon.

The United States says Pyongyang hasn't yet fully accounted for its past nuclear activities. However, both sides seem determined to overcome this stumbling block and reach out in other ways, too.

Yes, I noticed that, but trying to be brief.

"you'd recognize that Bush's "progress" led to NK having nukes in the first place."

From the article the facility in question was built in the 80s.

Don't think Bush's evil influence goes back that far.

Rewriting of history is running rampant here today.

Maybe Bush is so evil, that he can effect time travel?

"you'd recognize that Bush's "progress" led to NK having nukes in the first place."

From the article the facility in question was built in the 80s.

Don't think Bush's evil influence goes back that far.You mean the facility that created the material for nuclear weapons came before the weapons? Knock me over with a feather.

Before Bush became president, we had Pakistan setting off nuke tests completely unpredicted by our intelligence agencies. Lybia, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran all seeking that exact same capability.

Now we're down to just Iran seeking nukes. Yes, I think Bush and his foreign policies deserve some credit.

Before Bush became president, we had Pakistan setting off nuke tests completely unpredicted by our intelligence agencies. Lybia, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran all seeking that exact same capability.

Now we're down to just Iran seeking nukes. Yes, I think Bush and his foreign policies deserve some credit.

There were also a lot of people still alive before Bush became president, Both American and non American.

Oh what the fuck.

Bush's inane foreign policy in regards to North Korea is what spurred them to move towards nuclear weaponry in the first place. He labeled three countries as the 'axis of evil', Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. We all know what happened to Iraq. We all know how we're handling Iran. Of course these states are going to push for nuclear weaponry. If they have the nukes, we can't attack them. It's the absolute most logical move they could make, and it most definitely was a product of Bush being a fucking idiot.

Not to mention that Bush hasn't even held up his end of the bargain. Give them the fuel and lift the damn sanctions already. Until Bush keeps his word North Korea has ZERO obligation to uphold its commitment of nuclear disarmanment.

Before Bush became president, we had Pakistan setting off nuke tests completely unpredicted by our intelligence agencies. Lybia, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran all seeking that exact same capability.

Now we're down to just Iran seeking nukes. Yes, I think Bush and his foreign policies deserve some credit.

Yes. Pakistan is so stable these days. And I'm sure glad those Iraqis don't want nukes. I wonder why? Oh, that's right. A country requires infrastructure to use weapons like that. Maybe we should just send every country back into the stone age. North Korea? You really think this is over?

AT LEAST WE HAVE LIBYA!

If a country has nukes we won't attack them? I don't think a couple nukes will stop the US from attacking anyone. We haven't had the need to attack anyone who has nukes. Let them fire one nuke off and see what this world would do...

Glad to see North Korea working towards hopefully making a better country for its people. Yea Bush is an idiot..no argument there.

It's like this. North Korea says they have nukes, and will retaliate against any foreign invasion against the United States by launching nuclear weapons at Japan and South Korea. The United States, well aware of this threat, invades North Korea. North Korea then carries out with their threats. Can you imagine the global clusterfuck? Mutually assured destruction scenarios could be null and void considering that North Korea, facing western invasion, is surely facing the annihilation of their society anyways. Would any of us honestly be surprised to see something like this happening?

Obtaining nuclear weapons is the most sure thing you can do to prevent against foreign intrusion. It completely changes the military dynamic. We have to deal with you if you are a nuclear nation. We would not have been able to invade Iraq if we knew that they had the capability to launch a nuclear strike on neighboring regions (Hi Israel).

Its all what you believe what would happen. N.K. was a cluster fuck and were lucky to even get a missle to launch, let alone actually hit a target. They would be more likely to bomb themselves. I am personally more afraid North Korea would of sold missles to other nations who would then launch them/use them in any means they could.

Having nuclear weapons and delivering on them are two differen't things.

The scale of conflict brought by nuclear warfare is too great to leave to chance. Looking at our policies towards other nuclear capable nations demonstrates this. They simply must be accounted for, and they very much are so when we determine our policy towards particular states.

I'm curious as to why you think North Korea is so inept, yet seem to believe that other similar countries would be able to successfully carry out these attacks?

Also, whether or not North Korea carries out these attacks, or provides the means for another group to launch attacks is almost irrelevent. Either way North Korea is responsible, and either way it is a complete product of them having nuclear weapons to begin with. The threat of them launching an attack or a third party launching an attack using NK-provided nukes are one in the same, and great enough that given their possession of capable nuclear weaponry, we would be forced to pursue negotiations with them under a completely different light.

Hell, they aren't even able to blow shit up yet and look what it got them. A bunch oil and lifted sanctions.

True. Guess your right on N.K. or some other back ass country being able to use them. The U.S. or any other nation having them...Great Britian, Israel, ect... doesn't deter people from attacking them. Guess why should I believe the opposite would be true..?

Beside Israel, they don't really have a target (a country?) to aim these nukes at.

And Israel nuking Palestine or something would be like bombing their own garden, "we built a wall, radiations won't reach us!", self-deterrent nuke!
Talk about a fucked up place mid-east... Wherever you fire you'll get one of your own toes anyway.

Beside Israel, they don't really have a target (a country?) to aim these nukes at.


North Korea most likely has their missiles already aimed at Japan. The scars from WWII are still fresh in the minds of those who are constantly being fed the party line.

North Korea most likely has their missiles already aimed at Japan. The scars from WWII are still fresh in the minds of those who are constantly being fed the party line.

Seoul.

My bad, I should have quoted Ibudin's post, I was talking about U.S., Britain and other countries already having functional nuclear weapons, and not wannabe-nukees.

Yup Seoul is a more likely target/deterrant on the Korean peninsula than Japan. NK has already threatened to bomb Seoul if the US takes any military action against them.

The U.S. or any other nation having them...Great Britian, Israel, ect... doesn't deter people from attacking them.

There is a big difference between full scale state on state warfare and terrorist attacks/localized violence.

MAD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction)