Let me put it this way... Did the N.Koreans unapologetically build atoms
bombs while Clinton was President?


NOYB wrote:
Yes.

No. Denying unpleasant facts won't change them.

... The difference was that they hid it the entire time, and the Clinton
administration took them on their word.

And verified thier actions (or lack of same) by careful intel work
including satellite scanning.




No. Did they do so while George Bush Jr was President? Yes.


They just continued doing what they were doing.

Really? Considering that they did not enrich any fuel (very difficult to
hide) while Clinton was President, then no, they absolutely did *not*
continue what they were doing.

They might have been working their way up to it, but there's a big big
difference between "working on the possibility of someday building a
nuclear weapon" which *might* have been what they were doing during
Clinton's tenure, and "building a nuclear weapon" which is what they are
doing now, or have already done.

Big success for Bush Jr. Almost as big as Harken Energy.


... His intelligence agents met with al Zarqawi and Mohammed Atta.
That's all what you'd call "proof".

Actually, that meeting is now believed to have never taken place.


Believed by whom? You? Democrats?


By me, yes... on the word of the CIA and the State Dept.


Now, that was rather long, NOBBY, and I don't expect you to actually grasp
all of it. The key point is that the US ambassador told Saddam personally
that the US didn't have a problem with his invasion plans.



You're full of **** on this issue.

Actually, I'm not.

... The idea that the US would give tacit
approval to the invasion of Kuwait...and then send 600,000 troops to the
region to toss them out less than a year later flies against any and all
logic.

Yes, it does, doesn't it? But then, logic really isn't the strong point
of either of the Presidents Bush.


... You'd have to be out on the farthest fringe of conspiracy nuts to
even consider such a scenario.

Why? Unfortunately, it really did happen. Actually, it wasn't a case of
giving tacit approval as of having no notion of what was about to
happen... a failure of intelligence (in both meanings of the word).


Yes. We were disgraced and withdrew...

Disgraced? Why? Defeated by superior forces when attempting to bring
order for relief efforts... a humanitarian mission gone extremely awry
due to the sheer murderous insanity on th epart of those we were trying
to help... you consider that a disgrace?

And you say you "support our troops?" Nice.


... and consequently appeared impotent
and weak to the Muslim world.

We've appeared impotent & weak, militarily, to most of the world since
Viet Nam. Appearances aren't everything, fortunately.

If the fundamentalist Muslim really thinks we're so weak, why don't they
attack us with military force against military force? Answer: they're
psychopaths, not idiots. They know we are still far too strong for them,
that way.

In other words, you're wrong again.

... Did you see it happen another way?


Umm, yes. A rather bone headed decision to use insufficient force, with
really tragic results. One response would have been to cluster bomb
Mogadishu to maim everybody who participated in dragging our troops
bodies through the streets... and all their families... but it wouldn't
have brought those men back.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Let me put it this way... Did the N.Koreans unapologetically build atoms
bombs while Clinton was President?


NOYB wrote:
Yes.

No. Denying unpleasant facts won't change them.

... The difference was that they hid it the entire time, and the Clinton
administration took them on their word.

And verified thier actions (or lack of same) by careful intel work
including satellite scanning.



Hehehe. I suppose that same "careful intel work" led Clinton's military
chief of staff to testify in 1998 that N. Korea did not have an active
ballistic missile program...one week before they launched a Taepodong-1
missile over Japan and into the Pacific.




No. Did they do so while George Bush Jr was President? Yes.


They just continued doing what they were doing.

Really? Considering that they did not enrich any fuel (very difficult to
hide) while Clinton was President, then no, they absolutely did *not*
continue what they were doing.

They hid a ballistic missile system...so why not a nuclear rod enrichment
program?



They might have been working their way up to it, but there's a big big
difference between "working on the possibility of someday building a
nuclear weapon" which *might* have been what they were doing during
Clinton's tenure, and "building a nuclear weapon" which is what they are
doing now, or have already done.

Most sources show that the N. Koreans already had a nuke or two in the early
to mid 90's.



Big success for Bush Jr. Almost as big as Harken Energy.


... His intelligence agents met with al Zarqawi and Mohammed Atta.
That's all what you'd call "proof".

Actually, that meeting is now believed to have never taken place.


Believed by whom? You? Democrats?


By me, yes... on the word of the CIA and the State Dept.


Now, that was rather long, NOBBY, and I don't expect you to actually
grasp all of it. The key point is that the US ambassador told Saddam
personally that the US didn't have a problem with his invasion plans.



You're full of **** on this issue.

Actually, I'm not.

... The idea that the US would give tacit approval to the invasion of
Kuwait...and then send 600,000 troops to the region to toss them out less
than a year later flies against any and all logic.

Yes, it does, doesn't it? But then, logic really isn't the strong point of
either of the Presidents Bush.


... You'd have to be out on the farthest fringe of conspiracy nuts to
even consider such a scenario.

Why? Unfortunately, it really did happen. Actually, it wasn't a case of
giving tacit approval as of having no notion of what was about to
happen... a failure of intelligence (in both meanings of the word).


Yes. We were disgraced and withdrew...

Disgraced? Why?

Because our forces weren't given the chance to finish what they started.
Their CIC pulled them out too soon.



Defeated by superior forces when attempting to bring order for relief
efforts... a humanitarian mission gone extremely awry due to the sheer
murderous insanity on th epart of those we were trying to help... you
consider that a disgrace?

The premature withdrawal was a disgrace.


And you say you "support our troops?" Nice.

Our "troops" didn't make the decision to pull out.



... and consequently appeared impotent and weak to the Muslim world.

We've appeared impotent & weak, militarily, to most of the world since
Viet Nam. Appearances aren't everything, fortunately.

Nawww. I think the rest of the World stood up and took notice how quickly
and easily we destroyed the World's 4th largest army in 1991.




If the fundamentalist Muslim really thinks we're so weak, why don't they
attack us with military force against military force?


They meant "weak" in the sense that we don't have the guts to finish what we
start once the casualties start to mount.



Answer: they're psychopaths, not idiots. They know we are still far too
strong for them, that way.

In other words, you're wrong again.

... Did you see it happen another way?


Umm, yes. A rather bone headed decision to use insufficient force, with
really tragic results. One response would have been to cluster bomb
Mogadishu to maim everybody who participated in dragging our troops bodies
through the streets... and all their families... but it wouldn't have
brought those men back.

It would have sent a message that we wouldn't run and hide at the first
sight of American casualties.

NOYB wrote:
Hehehe. I suppose that same "careful intel work" led Clinton's military
chief of staff to testify in 1998 that N. Korea did not have an active
ballistic missile program...one week before they launched a Taepodong-1
missile over Japan and into the Pacific.

Well, everybody has their off days. Like Rummy firing all the generals
who said we need more force to occupy Iraq, and that it would take years
to pacify. Or Cheney's announcement that the Iraq insurgency is on it's
last legs.

Radiation is hard to hide. Spotting radioactive tailings is one of the
few things satellite spy-eyes are very good at.


Most sources show that the N. Koreans already had a nuke or two in the early
to mid 90's.

Really? Like what soources? And if that's true, then it's Reagan and
Bush Sr's fault, not Clintons.

Yes. We were disgraced and withdrew...

Disgraced? Why?


Because our forces weren't given the chance to finish what they started.
Their CIC pulled them out too soon.

WHAT?!? The only outcome of not pulling out would have been a massacre.


The premature withdrawal was a disgrace.


And you say you "support our troops?" Nice.


Our "troops" didn't make the decision to pull out.

No, the theatre command did. Do you have the slightest clue about C-3
and TO? Don't feel bad, most civilians don't. But you're criticising
actions you don't have the foggiest idea about.

To leave those troops in Mogadishu longer would have meant more deaths,
possibly a total loss... a military castrophe unparalleled even by Pearl
Harbor... great leadership, eh NOBBY?





... and consequently appeared impotent and weak to the Muslim world.

We've appeared impotent & weak, militarily, to most of the world since
Viet Nam. Appearances aren't everything, fortunately.


Nawww. I think the rest of the World stood up and took notice how quickly
and easily we destroyed the World's 4th largest army in 1991.

And left a brutal, genocidal, terrorist-harboring dictator in place.


If the fundamentalist Muslim really thinks we're so weak, why don't they
attack us with military force against military force?


They meant "weak" in the sense that we don't have the guts to finish what we
start once the casualties start to mount.


Casualties are not the goal of a military operation, unless you're a
worshipper of Stonewall Jackson.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
Hehehe. I suppose that same "careful intel work" led Clinton's military
chief of staff to testify in 1998 that N. Korea did not have an active
ballistic missile program...one week before they launched a Taepodong-1
missile over Japan and into the Pacific.

Well, everybody has their off days.


That's hardly an "off day". Intel said that N. Korea didn't have an active
ballistic missile program...and they couldn't have been more wrong. That
intel was provided by the same folks that you cited for your "proof" that N.
Korea didn't have an active nuclear program under Clinton. If they were
wrong on the missile issue, then they were most likely wrong on the nuke
issue. Of course, guys like you wouldn't believe it until a mushroom cloud
appeared. So when everybody started screaming and questioning about how
there could be such a huge failure in intel, you'd shrug and say "well,
everybody has their off days"?



Like Rummy firing all the generals who said we need more force to occupy
Iraq, and that it would take years to pacify. Or Cheney's announcement
that the Iraq insurgency is on it's last legs.

I think a more apt analogy is how the same folks providing the poor intel to
Clinton also provided poor intel to Bush on the WMD issue in Iraq. "Oh
well, everybody has an off day".


Radiation is hard to hide. Spotting radioactive tailings is one of the few
things satellite spy-eyes are very good at.

You've been reading too much Popular Science. If it were so easy to spot
"radioactive tailings" on a bomb that's never been detonated, then why all
the fear about a suitcase nuke being smuggled into out ports? Afterall, the
satellite spy-eyes are very good at spotting them.



Most sources show that the N. Koreans already had a nuke or two in the
early to mid 90's.

Really? Like what soources?

How about Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin...in a letter they wrote to the
Washington Post:

"Porter Goss, the director of central intelligence, has reported to the
Senate Armed Services Committee (on March 17) that the number of nuclear
weapons North Korea possesses has increased and that there is now "a range"
of estimates above the one or two weapons that may have been produced in the
early 1990s. "

One or two produced in the early 1990's! And we're supposed to believe that
Kim agreed to quit building them because Clinton handed him $4 billion and
asked "please"?

Hillary wrote this piece to pre-empt the almost certain criticism that her
husband will face should a N. Korean nuke ever hit US soil. But in the
article, she admitted that they already had developed nukes under her
husband's watch.

And if that's true, then it's Reagan and Bush Sr's fault, not Clintons.


Whoa. Wait a minute. If N. Korea developed a nuke in the early 90's during
Clinton's watch, and that was Reagan and Bush Sr.'s fault, then why aren't
nukes built in 2003 (Bush's first term) the fault of the administration that
preceded Bush? You're being quite the hypocrite here, Doug.

Yes. We were disgraced and withdrew...

Disgraced? Why?


Because our forces weren't given the chance to finish what they started.
Their CIC pulled them out too soon.

WHAT?!? The only outcome of not pulling out would have been a massacre.

Yes...a massacre of the Somali warlords and their followers. We could have
and should have gone in with armored vehicles and decimated the population
in that region.



The premature withdrawal was a disgrace.


And you say you "support our troops?" Nice.


Our "troops" didn't make the decision to pull out.

No, the theatre command did.

The commander pulled back, not out. Clinton totally withdrew the troops
from the region.

Do you have the slightest clue about C-3 and TO? Don't feel bad, most
civilians don't. But you're criticising actions you don't have the foggiest
idea about.

Let me ask you this:
If the Chief of Staff at Defense Headquarters decides to pull completely out
of Iraq tomorrow, could he do it without the President's consent? No.



To leave those troops in Mogadishu longer would have meant more deaths,
possibly a total loss... a military castrophe unparalleled even by Pearl
Harbor... great leadership, eh NOBBY?


Those troops weren't in danger once they pulled back. They were in danger
because we sent light infantry into a enemy city that had heavily prepared
positions. There was no need to leave the country to protect the men who
made it out of Mogadishu. We could have gone back in with a more
heavily-armored mechanized infantry force and probably not lost a single
man.






... and consequently appeared impotent and weak to the Muslim world.

We've appeared impotent & weak, militarily, to most of the world since
Viet Nam. Appearances aren't everything, fortunately.


Nawww. I think the rest of the World stood up and took notice how
quickly and easily we destroyed the World's 4th largest army in 1991.

And left a brutal, genocidal, terrorist-harboring dictator in place.


That what a huge policy mistake on Bush's part. Of course, the people who
criticized Bush Sr. for stopping short of Baghdad are the same people who
are now criticizing his son for going there.




If the fundamentalist Muslim really thinks we're so weak, why don't they
attack us with military force against military force?


They meant "weak" in the sense that we don't have the guts to finish what
we start once the casualties start to mount.


Casualties are not the goal of a military operation, unless you're a
worshipper of Stonewall Jackson.

Inflicting casualties is most certainly a goal of any force that squares off
against the US military. Here's why, in the words of Dr. Kenneth Allard,
Colonel, US Army (Ret.), and author of "Somalia Operations: Lessons
Learned""



"One of the things that the Taliban have been absolutely blunt in saying to
us was that they, at least, had absorbed the lessons from Somalia. They
understood that the United States lacked staying power. They understood that
the United States substituted technology for courage. They were the ones
that understood how the United States would simply fire Cruise missiles and
then declare a press conference, but when push came to shove, would cut and
run.

The great tragedy of Somalia is that it was, given what those Rangers did,
one of the great feats of arms in American military history. Two
congressional Medals of Honor that were given out as a result of that --
guys that gave their lives, laid down their lives willingly; 82 more that
were wounded.

That is a classic definition of American courage. It is a classic example of
what the American fighting man is capable of doing. Because we withdrew
those troops under pressure, the lesson that was given to the rest of the
world was that the United States can be had. All you need to do is to shed
their blood. And if you do that, they'll cut and run."



(bin Laden, himself, confirmed that this was the case in the 1996 Fatwah
that I've reposted here several times).

NOYB wrote:
... Intel said that N. Korea didn't have an active
ballistic missile program...and they couldn't have been more wrong. That
intel was provided by the same folks that you cited for your "proof" that N.
Korea didn't have an active nuclear program under Clinton.

So? Nobody has a perfect record. If you want to make a big deal of this,
let's list all the major policy blunders committed by President Clinton
due to bad intel (or wilfully ignoring intel that didn't agree with his
preconceptions); and stack them up next to President Bush's.

My advice to you is to be a little more quiet on this subject.



Radiation is hard to hide. Spotting radioactive tailings is one of the few
things satellite spy-eyes are very good at.


You've been reading too much Popular Science. If it were so easy to spot
"radioactive tailings" on a bomb that's never been detonated, then why all
the fear about a suitcase nuke being smuggled into out ports? Afterall, the
satellite spy-eyes are very good at spotting them.

No, the spy-eye is good at spotting the rasioactive plume emitted as
fuel is enriched. You really know nothing about science, do you?

An already-built bomb does not leave a plume of radioactive tailings and
can be shielded from a geiger counter.



One or two produced in the early 1990's! And we're supposed to believe that
Kim agreed to quit building them because Clinton handed him $4 billion and
asked "please"?

Umm, not exactly. Perhaps if you gave up on lies & distortion, you might
realize how sensible the program was... if the Clinton Administration
believed that the North Koreans had already built nukes on Reagan and
Bush Sr's watches, then the options were either 1- a premptive strike to
take them away or 2- give solid incentive to get back on the
Non-Proliferation bandwagon.

The money was to be handed over in smaller sums, over a period of years,
subject to verification that the N. Koreans were abiding by the
Non-Proliferation rules.



Whoa. Wait a minute. If N. Korea developed a nuke in the early 90's during
Clinton's watch, and that was Reagan and Bush Sr.'s fault, then why aren't
nukes built in 2003 (Bush's first term) the fault of the administration that
preceded Bush? You're being quite the hypocrite here, Doug.

Not at all. First of all, N. Korea only announced that they were
re-activating their nuke program after Bush Jr had been in office for
some time, and given them a ration of ****. Bush Jr has been in office
now going on five years... if the N. Koreans had nukes in 1993, then
Clinton had been in office less than a year.

I guess there's no difference between less than one year and more than 4
1/2 years, is there? I guess there's no difference between "might have
had nukes, which were clearly developed & built while under the eye of
the last administration, and announcing DURING one administration that
they plan to start building, activating enrichment plants, and then
claiming (with credibility) to have active nuclear warheads.

No, those two things are pretty much the same, arent't they?

There is a lot of hypocrisy here, but it's all coming from your side of
the fence. 100% lies, distortion, and hypocrisy... don't you ever stop
to think that it might be nice to believe in something that will stand
up to the truth?





Yes. We were disgraced and withdrew...

Disgraced? Why?


Because our forces weren't given the chance to finish what they started.
Their CIC pulled them out too soon.

WHAT?!? The only outcome of not pulling out would have been a massacre.


Yes...a massacre of the Somali warlords and their followers. We could have
and should have gone in with armored vehicles and decimated the population
in that region.

But we didn't. The force in place had to be evacuated or left to be
massacred.

One problem you seem to consistantly have, wishful thinking versus
dealing with the facts as they exist. It's great to daydream about using
overwhelming force, but that force was not in place at the time.



Casualties are not the goal of a military operation, unless you're a
worshipper of Stonewall Jackson.


Inflicting casualties is most certainly a goal of any force that squares off
against the US military.

That is because we are in the lucky position of having unbeatable
logistic & technological resources, provided from an (almost)
unassailable economic base.

Does this mean that you support the 'body count' concept of going after
'terrorists' and feel that as long as we're killing them faster than
they're killing us, we're winning? That seems to be the prevalent
strategic concept in place now.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
... Intel said that N. Korea didn't have an active ballistic missile
program...and they couldn't have been more wrong. That intel was
provided by the same folks that you cited for your "proof" that N. Korea
didn't have an active nuclear program under Clinton.

So? Nobody has a perfect record. If you want to make a big deal of this,
let's list all the major policy blunders committed by President Clinton
due to bad intel (or wilfully ignoring intel that didn't agree with his
preconceptions); and stack them up next to President Bush's.

My advice to you is to be a little more quiet on this subject.

You've been the master of bad advice. I'd have to be stupid or a masochist
to listen to any it.

What's really interesting is how easily you dismiss poor policy decisions by
Clinton when the the decisions were the result of poor intel, but are so
quick to chastise Bush for acting on intel failures.








Radiation is hard to hide. Spotting radioactive tailings is one of the
few things satellite spy-eyes are very good at.


You've been reading too much Popular Science. If it were so easy to spot
"radioactive tailings" on a bomb that's never been detonated, then why
all the fear about a suitcase nuke being smuggled into out ports?
Afterall, the satellite spy-eyes are very good at spotting them.

No, the spy-eye is good at spotting the rasioactive plume emitted as fuel
is enriched.

Hogwash. We don't have near the ability you think (and hope) we have
regarding the ability to spot nuclear fuel enrichment. Why do you think we
have been pushing so hard for boots-on-the-ground inspections in Iran.




An already-built bomb does not leave a plume of radioactive tailings and
can be shielded from a geiger counter.



One or two produced in the early 1990's! And we're supposed to believe
that Kim agreed to quit building them because Clinton handed him $4
billion and asked "please"?

Umm, not exactly.

"Not exactly" what? N. Korea did "not exactly" develop nukes in the early
90's? Or Hillary did "not exactly" write an article talking about those
nukes.

Perhaps if you gave up on lies & distortion, you might realize how sensible
the program was... if the Clinton Administration believed that the North
Koreans had already built nukes on Reagan and Bush Sr's watches, then the
options were either 1- a premptive strike to take them away or 2- give
solid incentive to get back on the Non-Proliferation bandwagon.


Option 1 would have stopped the continuation of the program. Option 2 ended
up funding the very program that it was trying to abate! Talk about irony.
Kim probably gets hyterical with laughter every time he thinks about it.

The money was to be handed over in smaller sums, over a period of years,
subject to verification that the N. Koreans were abiding by the
Non-Proliferation rules.

The N. Koreans never abided by the rules yet still collected the money.
Some program!




Whoa. Wait a minute. If N. Korea developed a nuke in the early 90's
during Clinton's watch, and that was Reagan and Bush Sr.'s fault, then
why aren't nukes built in 2003 (Bush's first term) the fault of the
administration that preceded Bush? You're being quite the hypocrite
here, Doug.

Not at all. First of all, N. Korea only announced that they were
re-activating their nuke program after Bush Jr had been in office for some
time,

Yeah, yeah...sure, whatever. N. Korea realized that Bush cut them off from
Clinton's gravy train. With nothing more to gain by concealing the nuke
program, they felt they had nothing to lose by revealing it.



and given them a ration of ****. Bush Jr has been in office now going on
five years

Whoah. Wait a minute. The N. Koreans talked about restarting their nuke
program only a year or two into Bush's first term.

... if the N. Koreans had nukes in 1993, then Clinton had been in office
less than a year.

But he was in office for 8 years. He allowed the N. Koreans to keep what
they already had, and then gave them funding which helped expand the program
even further.




I guess there's no difference between less than one year and more than 4
1/2 years, is there?

How about 8 years?

I guess there's no difference between "might have had nukes, which were
clearly developed & built while under the eye of the last administration,
and announcing DURING one administration that they plan to start building,
activating enrichment plants, and then claiming (with credibility) to have
active nuclear warheads.

The N. Koreans announced the same exact thing early on in Clinton's
presidency. They said that they planned to build and activate nuclear
plants if Clinton didn't give them the funding.

The only difference is that Clinton acquiesced...and Bush did not. That's
the *only* difference. When Bush said "get lost", Kim acted like a spoiled
little rich kid stomping his feet for not getting his way.


No, those two things are pretty much the same, arent't they?

They *were* the same. The only difference was the response from each
administration...and the ensuing response from Kim to each of those
responses.







Yes. We were disgraced and withdrew...

Disgraced? Why?


Because our forces weren't given the chance to finish what they started.
Their CIC pulled them out too soon.

WHAT?!? The only outcome of not pulling out would have been a massacre.


Yes...a massacre of the Somali warlords and their followers. We could
have and should have gone in with armored vehicles and decimated the
population in that region.

But we didn't. The force in place had to be evacuated or left to be
massacred.

The force "pulled back" to a safe base of operations. But they were still
in Somalia...right up until Clinton ordered their withdrawal.


One problem you seem to consistantly have, wishful thinking versus dealing
with the facts as they exist. It's great to daydream about using
overwhelming force, but that force was not in place at the time.



Casualties are not the goal of a military operation, unless you're a
worshipper of Stonewall Jackson.


Inflicting casualties is most certainly a goal of any force that squares
off against the US military.

That is because we are in the lucky position of having unbeatable logistic
& technological resources, provided from an (almost) unassailable economic
base.

Does this mean that you support the 'body count' concept of going after
'terrorists' and feel that as long as we're killing them faster than
they're killing us, we're winning?

Absolutely. As long as the numbers are in the neighborhood of 1000 to 1 or
more. I'd like to see closer to 10,000 to 1, but that would require the use
of nukes...which is something that I favor in *some* circumstances.

So? Nobody has a perfect record. If you want to make a big deal of this,
let's list all the major policy blunders committed by President Clinton
due to bad intel (or wilfully ignoring intel that didn't agree with his
preconceptions); and stack them up next to President Bush's.

My advice to you is to be a little more quiet on this subject.


NOYB wrote:
What's really interesting is how easily you dismiss poor policy decisions by
Clinton when the the decisions were the result of poor intel, but are so
quick to chastise Bush for acting on intel failures.


Well, look at the results: did Clinton launch a major war, and throw
away the goodwill & cooperation of almost the entire rest of the world,
based on bad intel? Did Clinton run up a record deficit? Did Clinton
spend tens of millions of dollars, and tens of thousands of valuable
man-hours, hunting for a boogey-man that doesn't exist? Did Clinton turn
his back on the perpetrator of the most deadly attack on the U.S. in
history?




No, the spy-eye is good at spotting the rasioactive plume emitted as fuel
is enriched.


Hogwash. We don't have near the ability you think (and hope) we have
regarding the ability to spot nuclear fuel enrichment.

And we should all take your word for it, you who are not sure what
enriching nuclear fuel involves or how it's done.


... Why do you think we
have been pushing so hard for boots-on-the-ground inspections in Iran.

Because they already have a supply of enriched fuel and some very large,
very fancy facilities for carrying on sophisticated procedures which
would be harder to spot.



One or two produced in the early 1990's! And we're supposed to believe
that Kim agreed to quit building them because Clinton handed him $4
billion and asked "please"?

Umm, not exactly.


"Not exactly" what?

Pay attention.

... N. Korea did "not exactly" develop nukes in the early
90's?

You're the one who said they did, in other words accusing Bush Sr of
letting it happen while blaming Clinton, and simultaneously accusing me
of being a hypocrit.




Or Hillary did "not exactly" write an article talking about those
nukes.


Perhaps if you gave up on lies & distortion, you might realize how sensible
the program was... if the Clinton Administration believed that the North
Koreans had already built nukes on Reagan and Bush Sr's watches, then the
options were either 1- a premptive strike to take them away or 2- give
solid incentive to get back on the Non-Proliferation bandwagon.



Option 1 would have stopped the continuation of the program. Option 2 ended
up funding the very program that it was trying to abate! Talk about irony.
Kim probably gets hyterical with laughter every time he thinks about it.


The money was to be handed over in smaller sums, over a period of years,
subject to verification that the N. Koreans were abiding by the
Non-Proliferation rules.


The N. Koreans never abided by the rules yet still collected the money.
Some program!



Whoa. Wait a minute. If N. Korea developed a nuke in the early 90's
during Clinton's watch, and that was Reagan and Bush Sr.'s fault, then
why aren't nukes built in 2003 (Bush's first term) the fault of the
administration that preceded Bush? You're being quite the hypocrite
here, Doug.

Not at all. First of all, N. Korea only announced that they were
re-activating their nuke program after Bush Jr had been in office for some
time,


Yeah, yeah...sure, whatever. N. Korea realized that Bush cut them off from
Clinton's gravy train. With nothing more to gain by concealing the nuke
program, they felt they had nothing to lose by revealing it.




and given them a ration of ****. Bush Jr has been in office now going on
five years


Whoah. Wait a minute. The N. Koreans talked about restarting their nuke
program only a year or two into Bush's first term.


But that was definitely during Bush's term... if they had nukes in the
"early 1990s" then clearly they were working hard on them before Clinton
took office in 1993.



... He allowed the N. Koreans to keep what
they already had, and then gave them funding which helped expand the program
even further.

Any proof of that statement? Other than your wild fantasy, that is?


I guess there's no difference between less than one year and more than 4
1/2 years, is there?


How about 8 years?

That wouldn't be "the early 1990s" then, would it?


The N. Koreans announced the same exact thing early on in Clinton's
presidency.

Really? When?


The only difference is that Clinton acquiesced...and Bush did not.

No, the difference is that Clinton put into place a workable prgram to
deter the North Koreans from building nukes. Obviously they didn't or
they'd already have them by now.

Another key difference is that Clinton kept open channels with them, and
worked actively at diplomacy, while studying ways to destroy the N.
Korean program. The JCS recommended against it as too uncertain and too
risky. President Bush antagonized and insulted the North Koreans, and
gave them no incentive... and they are building (possibly have already
built) nuclear warheads.

And you call this a Bush success... please explain further.



No, those two things are pretty much the same, arent't they?


They *were* the same.

No, obviously they *weren't* the same. Water flows down hill, NOBBY.

... The only difference was the response from each
administration...and the ensuing response from Kim to each of those
responses.

Yep, the North Koreans response: building nukes while President Bush
went on vacation, *not* building nukes while Clinton was President.

QED


Does this mean that you support the 'body count' concept of going after
'terrorists' and feel that as long as we're killing them faster than
they're killing us, we're winning?


Absolutely. As long as the numbers are in the neighborhood of 1000 to 1 or
more.

And if they can recruit new terrorists & insugrants faster than that?

... I'd like to see closer to 10,000 to 1, but that would require the use
of nukes...which is something that I favor in *some* circumstances.

In other words, you want to fight Viet Nam all over again? Great idea.

DSK

"NOYB" wrote in message
. net...

One or two produced in the early 1990's! And we're supposed to believe
that Kim agreed to quit building them because Clinton handed him $4
billion and asked "please"?

Must be true, and a good idea, too. Similar carrots have been dangled in
front of N. Korea by Nookular Boy.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
. net...

One or two produced in the early 1990's! And we're supposed to believe
that Kim agreed to quit building them because Clinton handed him $4
billion and asked "please"?

Must be true, and a good idea, too. Similar carrots have been dangled in
front of N. Korea by Nookular Boy.

Bush has not made any bi-lateral proposals to the N. Koreans.

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
. net...

One or two produced in the early 1990's! And we're supposed to believe
that Kim agreed to quit building them because Clinton handed him $4
billion and asked "please"?

Must be true, and a good idea, too. Similar carrots have been dangled in
front of N. Korea by Nookular Boy.

Bush has not made any bi-lateral proposals to the N. Koreans.

Rice mentioned aid packages in an interview last year, in return for good
behavior. I suspect she informed the idiot that she was going to mention
aid.