"DSK" wrote in message
...
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.


NOYB wrote:
Actually, she mentioned them last week. But you can bet that if the Bush
administration enters into any agreements with Kim, it will be on more
than a spit and a handshake...and it will be subject to inspections of N.
Korea by the US and other countries.


In other words, very similar to Clinton's successful policy.


Really? How many U.S.-led inspection teams travelled to Pyongyang during
Clinton's watch?

Actually, she mentioned them last week. But you can bet that if the Bush
administration enters into any agreements with Kim, it will be on more
than a spit and a handshake...and it will be subject to inspections of N.
Korea by the US and other countries.


In other words, very similar to Clinton's successful policy.



NOYB wrote:
Really? How many U.S.-led inspection teams travelled to Pyongyang during
Clinton's watch?

How many have during Bush's watch? How many do you think will? Or Iran?
Or Libya? And why do you think any inspection teams *have* to be led by
an American?

Do you know anything at all about the accepted non-proliferation
protocols? Do you care, since you appear to be hopping from one tub of
mud to the next, flinging away in the hopes that something will stick to
the other guy sooner or later.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Actually, she mentioned them last week. But you can bet that if the
Bush administration enters into any agreements with Kim, it will be on
more than a spit and a handshake...and it will be subject to inspections
of N. Korea by the US and other countries.


In other words, very similar to Clinton's successful policy.



NOYB wrote:
Really? How many U.S.-led inspection teams travelled to Pyongyang during
Clinton's watch?

How many have during Bush's watch?

Bush didn't give N. Korea $4 billion in aid in exchange for an empty
promise.


How many do you think will?

I don't believe Bush will give any aid to Kim...so the question is moot.


Or Iran?

I think it's more likely that Israeli or US forces will strike suspected
Iranian nuke sites than inspect them. The Iranians don't appear to be
willing to cave on the nuke inspection issue.



Or Libya? And why do you think any inspection teams *have* to be led by an
American?

Led, accompanied by, whatever. The point is inspection teams with US
representatives on them.


Do you know anything at all about the accepted non-proliferation
protocols?

The "protocols" change from administration to administration. Clinton
believed in appeasement and Bush believes in pre-emption.


Do you care

Not really.

How many have during Bush's watch?


NOYB wrote:
Bush didn't give N. Korea $4 billion in aid in exchange for an empty
promise.


Got any proof it was just an "empty promise"?

Looks to me (and the rest of the world) that their promise was good...
they didn't build nukes until well after President Bush came into office
and kicked over the applecart.




How many do you think will?


I don't believe Bush will give any aid to Kim...so the question is moot.


Then why is Condi making offers? So as to make another hollow gesture at
diplomacy?


Or Iran?


I think it's more likely that Israeli or US forces will strike suspected
Iranian nuke sites than inspect them. The Iranians don't appear to be
willing to cave on the nuke inspection issue.


The option of making strikes at Iranian facilities must be kept on the
table until we're certain they're not building warheads... or even dirty
bombs... but they're smart enough to've put key facilities far
underground in hard-to-find places... even if you wouldn't have thought
of it. Got any idea how big a country Iran is? Remember Libya? Think
they haven't learned anything, just because you haven't?



Or Libya? And why do you think any inspection teams *have* to be led by an
American?


Led, accompanied by, whatever. The point is inspection teams with US
representatives on them.


That's better. But the point is that the inspection teams see everything
and come away with *real* assurance that no weapons are being produced.


The "protocols" change from administration to administration. Clinton
believed in appeasement

Says you. Whatever Clinton did, it worked. Proven.


... Bush believes in pre-emption.


Hard to say what Bush believes in, he's done everything from make
promises to making empy threats to actually invading countries that
present no threat to us.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
How many have during Bush's watch?


NOYB wrote:
Bush didn't give N. Korea $4 billion in aid in exchange for an empty
promise.


Got any proof it was just an "empty promise"?

Looks to me (and the rest of the world) that their promise was good...
they didn't build nukes until well after President Bush came into office
and kicked over the applecart.


How do you know the promise was good? They didn't allow inspectors in to
verify during Clinton's Presidency. Then Bush announces that he's going to
push for inspections, and Voila! N. Korea claims they have nukes and plan
on reconstituting there nuclear program. Sounds like a case of the hand
caught in the cookie jar.




How many do you think will?


I don't believe Bush will give any aid to Kim...so the question is moot.


Then why is Condi making offers? So as to make another hollow gesture at
diplomacy?



She's not making offers. She said that she doesn't believe aid to N. Korea
would hurt the negotiation and inspection process.

Or Iran?


I think it's more likely that Israeli or US forces will strike suspected
Iranian nuke sites than inspect them. The Iranians don't appear to be
willing to cave on the nuke inspection issue.


The option of making strikes at Iranian facilities must be kept on the
table until we're certain they're not building warheads... or even dirty
bombs... but they're smart enough to've put key facilities far underground
in hard-to-find places... even if you wouldn't have thought of it. Got
any idea how big a country Iran is? Remember Libya? Think they haven't
learned anything, just because you haven't?



Or Libya? And why do you think any inspection teams *have* to be led by
an American?


Led, accompanied by, whatever. The point is inspection teams with US
representatives on them.


That's better. But the point is that the inspection teams see everything
and come away with *real* assurance that no weapons are being produced.


The "protocols" change from administration to administration. Clinton
believed in appeasement

Says you. Whatever Clinton did, it worked. Proven.


... Bush believes in pre-emption.


Hard to say what Bush believes in, he's done everything from make promises
to making empy threats to actually invading countries that present no
threat to us.


He's just continuing with the long-established Presidential policy of
"intentional ambiguity".

Bush didn't give N. Korea $4 billion in aid in exchange for an empty
promise.


Got any proof it was just an "empty promise"?


NOYB wrote:
How do you know the promise was good?

Because they did not build nukes during that period, and did not have
any nukes when George Bush Jr came into office... otherwise, why would
they bother to start up their enrichment plant and start building them then?


.... Bush announces that he's going to
push for inspections, and Voila! N. Korea claims they have nukes and plan
on reconstituting there nuclear program.

Umm, no. They didn't "claim to have nukes," they pulled some fuel from a
depot (verified by satellite) and started an enrichment program
(verified by satellite) and said they were starting to build some nukes.

.. Sounds like a case of the hand
caught in the cookie jar.

No, it sounds like you have no clue what's involved in building a
nuclear fission device, and are willing to distort the facts (and lie
too) to try and "prove" your point.

DSK