[redmenace]

So, what does Hugo Chavez have to say about this. lol

Probably laughing his ass off at how stupid Bush was to let this spiral this far out of control. Now lots of countries (namely Iran) are going to start thinking "If North Korea can do it, then we can do it too".

Eh, laughing at clinton just as much I suspect. I mean why on earth would you trust NK to begin with. But yes, bush is a general **** up.

[Janos]

So, what does Hugo Chavez have to say about this. lol

Probably laughing his ass off at how stupid Bush was to let this spiral this far out of control. Now lots of countries (namely Iran) are going to start thinking "If North Korea can do it, then we can do it too".

Eh, laughing at clinton just as much I suspect. I mean why on earth would you trust NK to begin with. But yes, bush is a general **** up.

oh dear

Here, Bush's advisers have misinformed him. The fact is, Washington got what it most wanted from the 1994 agreement, a freeze of Pyongyang's plutonium program, but it did not live up to its end of the bargain. When Republicans captured control of Congress in elections just days after the Agreed Framework was signed, they denounced the deal as appeasement. Leery of taking them on, the Clinton administration backpedaled on implementation. It did little easing of sanctions until 2000. Reactor construction was slow to start. Although it pledged to provide the two reactors "by a target date of 2003," concrete for the first foundation was not poured until August 2002. It did deliver heavy fuel oil, but seldom on schedule. Above all, the United States did not live up to its pledge in Article II of the Agreed Framework to "move toward full normalization of political and economic relations"--in plain English, to end enmity and lift economic sanctions.

In 1997, when Washington was slow to fulfill the terms of the accord, Pyongyang threatened to break the agreement. The North's acquisition of technology to enrich uranium from Pakistan began soon thereafter--in 1998, according to Secretary of State Colin Powell. It began with a pilot program, not the operational capability the North moved to acquire in 2001 after the Bush administration refused to negotiate and listed the country as a potential target for nuclear attack.

And actually, http://www.nwc.navy.mil/PRESS/Review/2003/Summer/art1-su3.htm this sheds some light on the entire issue which is FAR more complicated than "b-b-but CLINTON!!". Seriously, read up on these things before you make these kind of statements. It's quite clear that US's hostile stance against NK pretty much forced DPRK's hand. You can get suspicious cease-fire between two hostiles with bribery; you get a fight if you push another too hard.

[redmenace]

Hmm, I thought we gave them food aid that pretty much keeps their military from starving. Honestly I don't know why anyone would trust them to actually give the aid to where it was intended. It all goes to pretty much preserving the current regime.

The only thing that is forcing their hand is NK. It is a **** hole that has been left in the past by its self. It refuses to modernize. Hell I bet that any aid given to NKs was disguised to prevent them from realizing who it is from. And since when does developing nuclear weapons help their humanitarian crisis? Or their energy crisis? It doesn't. From the start, it has been a giant shakedown of western and asian powers to further the current regime in NK.

This is my problem with Clinton. It is a shabby agreement in that respect.

[aldo_14]

As an aside, Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of a compant which sold 2 light water reactors to NK; http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html

[Janos]

Hmm, I thought we gave them food aid that pretty much keeps their military from starving. Honestly I don't know why anyone would trust them to actually give the aid to where it was intended. It all goes to pretty much preserving the current regime.

The only thing that is forcing their hand is NK. It is a **** hole that has been left in the past by its self. It refuses to modernize. Hell I bet that any aid given to NKs was disguised to prevent them from realizing who it is from. And since when does developing nuclear weapons help their humanitarian crisis? Or their energy crisis? It doesn't. From the start, it has been a giant shakedown of western and asian powers to further the current regime in NK.

This is my problem with Clinton. It is a shabby agreement in that respect.

Did you read that article at all?
1. Everyone knows that food aid goes mostly to military and party big shots. However, it also keeps the regime stable which has been the top priority in Korea ever since the collapse of USSR. Except for ROK and their Sunshine Policy failed because NK did not give them anything.
2. NK is power playing and limiting their ability to play forces them to something they would propably not do in other situations. Their number one goal is to preserve North Korea, rest of the world be damned. If you force a desperate lunatic into a diplomatic corner, it's not a wonder he will flip out and do something stupid. It's his own choice but of course you could've think about it first, huh?
3. Nuclear weapons and humanitarian crisis? Never. Nuclear POWER and humanitarian crisis? Propably pretty much. They don't have too much power to use and nuclear, once you get past the first 20 years, only gives you profit. After those 20 years - in capitalistic sense, of course - it has payed itself back in terms of energy and then maintenance is a drop of ink in a swimming pool. NK's nuclear bargaining was always suspicious and that's why they were given reactors not readily suitable for weapons generation. There are different nuclear reactors, you know.
Actually this is kinda like Iran's current situation. Except nothing like it at all!

4. So, about that Clinton bit... please read the article. It's pretty good and gives you a lot of insight about the entire crisis. This is foreign diplomacy, not Agatha Christie novel. Motivations are complex and sometimes irrational.

[redmenace]

Regaurdless of diplomacy being irrational or not doesn't matter and doesn't make the agreement anyless shabby in that regard. My biggest problem isn't the fact that they are pursuing nuclear power, but that they are trying to force the world to give them stuff like they are entitled to it. And the stability of NK: It should be allowed to collapse frankly. All we are doing by making sure that the status quo is kept, is the keeping the NK people enslaved to communism and darkness. On a side note, WTF did NK do with everything it was recieving the USSR.

[NGTM-1R]

As an aside, Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of a compant which sold 2 light water reactors to NK; http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html

That would actually be a point in his favor; the whole idea of light-water reactors is that it's harder to weaponize their byproducts. That article is frankly a masterpiece of stupidity, as the whole deal behind those reactors was to help the DPRK meet its energy needs with nuclear power without giving them a leg up in building atomic arms.

Also as I recall those reactors have never gone operational. Construction was only possible with foriegn aid, which was suspended a few years back when they restarted their other reactor.

[Janos]

As an aside, Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of a compant which sold 2 light water reactors to NK; http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html

That would actually be a point in his favor; the whole idea of light-water reactors is that it's harder to weaponize their byproducts. That article is frankly a masterpiece of stupidity, as the whole deal behind those reactors was to help the DPRK meet its energy needs with nuclear power without giving them a leg up in building atomic arms.

Also as I recall those reactors have never gone operational. Construction was only possible with foriegn aid, which was suspended a few years back when they restarted their other reactor.

Didn't they restart the other reactor because foreign aid was unreliable?

Yeah, they are not entitled to foreign aid but right now they are in pretty good position to throw temper tantrums.

[redmenace]

Maybe, but the precursor to all of this was an attempt to gain more life for their regiem by shaking down the rest of the world. Not that I want to defend the republicans, but the agreement is sorta like appeasement. ALTHOUGH, they do have a right to produce these weapons.

[aldo_14]

As an aside, Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of a compant which sold 2 light water reactors to NK; http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html

That would actually be a point in his favor; the whole idea of light-water reactors is that it's harder to weaponize their byproducts. That article is frankly a masterpiece of stupidity, as the whole deal behind those reactors was to help the DPRK meet its energy needs with nuclear power without giving them a leg up in building atomic arms.

Also as I recall those reactors have never gone operational. Construction was only possible with foriegn aid, which was suspended a few years back when they restarted their other reactor.

Was the other reactor not restarted as a consequence of the US suspending fuel-oil shipments?

[Bobboau]

were the fuel oil shipments not suspended because they were in breach of there deal, ie enriching uranium?

[Nuclear1]

As an aside, Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of a compant which sold 2 light water reactors to NK; http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html

That would actually be a point in his favor; the whole idea of light-water reactors is that it's harder to weaponize their byproducts. That article is frankly a masterpiece of stupidity, as the whole deal behind those reactors was to help the DPRK meet its energy needs with nuclear power without giving them a leg up in building atomic arms.

Also as I recall those reactors have never gone operational. Construction was only possible with foriegn aid, which was suspended a few years back when they restarted their other reactor.

Was the other reactor not restarted as a consequence of the US suspending fuel-oil shipments?

Yes, that would be a cause as a result of the Republicans gaining control of Congress in 1996. 

Anyone else find it disturbing why officials in the Clinton Administration decided to go ahead with the project?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071200220.html

In his meeting with the North Korean leader, Chung said that the decade-old, $5 billion project to build light-water reactors in North Korea was dead. U.S. officials have welcomed that statement, on grounds that those facilities, if built, would still pose a proliferation risk. Clinton administration officials have privately said that they agreed to the plan in 1994 only because they thought the North Korean government would collapse before the project was completed.

[Janos]

Maybe, but the precursor to all of this was an attempt to gain more life for their regiem by shaking down the rest of the world. Not that I want to defend the republicans, but the agreement is sorta like appeasement. ALTHOUGH, they do have a right to produce these weapons.

So what? I mean, what's bad with appeasement? It seems like GOP apologists just throw it around to justify their screw-ups.

[Blue Lion]

Because it is now a sign of weakness

[Kosh]

Maybe, but the precursor to all of this was an attempt to gain more life for their regiem by shaking down the rest of the world. Not that I want to defend the republicans, but the agreement is sorta like appeasement. ALTHOUGH, they do have a right to produce these weapons.

The US has backed NK into a corner, and when an animal is scared and cornered it will always lash out.

[IPAndrews]

they do have a right to produce these weapons.

Nobody has a right to produce these weapons.

[aldo_14]

were the fuel oil shipments not suspended because they were in breach of there deal, ie enriching uranium?

Was that not an allegation, based upon an alleged statement by the NK ambassador (or some other official) to a US representative which the North Koreans denied ever making? (i.e. handy invented pretext)

[redmenace]

Maybe, but the precursor to all of this was an attempt to gain more life for their regiem by shaking down the rest of the world. Not that I want to defend the republicans, but the agreement is sorta like appeasement. ALTHOUGH, they do have a right to produce these weapons.

So what? I mean, what's bad with appeasement? It seems like GOP apologists just throw it around to justify their screw-ups.

Maybe because they have no grounds to be appeased in the first place. Secondly, why should we be supporting an regiem like this?

Maybe, but the precursor to all of this was an attempt to gain more life for their regiem by shaking down the rest of the world. Not that I want to defend the republicans, but the agreement is sorta like appeasement. ALTHOUGH, they do have a right to produce these weapons.

The US has backed NK into a corner, and when an animal is scared and cornered it will always lash out.

NK backed its self into a corner. Have you seen what the communist regiem spends its resources on besides nuclear weapons?

[aldo_14]

So what? I mean, what's bad with appeasement? It seems like GOP apologists just throw it around to justify their screw-ups.

Maybe because they have no grounds to be appeased in the first place. Secondly, why should we be supporting an regiem like this?

Because it's also supporting your allies.  The 'support' of NK is not to prop up the government indefinately, but to prevent a sudden, sharp and ultimately catastrophic collapse that swamps the South with destitute refugees and quite possibly allows China to de-facto annexe the North as part of 'relief', with the long term goal of forcing increasing democratisation (Kim Jong-Il is not immortal, after all).

The US has backed NK into a corner, and when an animal is scared and cornered it will always lash out.

NK backed its self into a corner. Have you seen what the communist regiem spends its resources on besides nuclear weapons?

Because nuclear weapons - threats in effect - represent it's only method of survival; NK is starving, bankrupt, and has virtually no electricity.  Whilst a lot of this is self-inflicted, it doesn't change the fact that co-ercing aid is a key requirement for the country to survive - and with the Us playing a hardball game of effectively trying to starve out NKs' leaders (even ignoring the effect on the people - even with the most corrupt government there is still a trickle that reaches the right place, because the government needs the people to survive), NK have resorted to the only hardball game they can play.  Both sides backed themselves into corners (and I wouldn't be surprised if that was Washingtons '5-year plan', with the expectation of provoking a war to remove NK - except one made failing to anticipate the failures in Afghanistan and Iraq).

[Mars]

Food aid will not change... supposedly