North Korea destroys nuclear reactor tower - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums
 

Go Back   Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums > Not the Digital Home > News, Weather, and Sports

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 2008-06-27, 08:23 AM   #1
hugh
Member #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,501
Default North Korea destroys nuclear reactor tower

North Korea on Friday destroyed a water cooling tower at a facility where officials acknowledge they extracted plutonium to build nuclear weapons, CNN's Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour reported from the scene.

Some positive news!
__________________
As of January 2012, I am no longer the owner of the Digital Home website. If you have questions about the operation of the site, please contact VSAdmin. For personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website.
hugh is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 2008-06-27, 09:42 AM   #2
cm_soo
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Posts: 204
Default

Vindication of taking a tough stand with the regime instead of using kid gloves, now on to Iran!
__________________
Shaw 6412, Hitachi 46F510, Onkyo TXSR603B, XBMC, Squeezebox 3, Harmony 628, Garmin GPS Map 60, Cyclods Evolution
cm_soo is offline  
Old 2008-06-27, 09:51 AM   #3
hugh
Member #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,501
Default

Disagree. After reading up on the situation it is clear that North Korea was happy to do this six years ago right after 9/11 but George Bush opened his big mouth and called NK part of the "axis of evil" and we were left with six years of problems.

The Bush administration escalated this crisis through its inept diplomacy.

This problem should never have happened.
__________________
As of January 2012, I am no longer the owner of the Digital Home website. If you have questions about the operation of the site, please contact VSAdmin. For personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website.
hugh is offline  
Old 2008-06-27, 09:56 AM   #4
NeilN
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North York
Posts: 1,630
Default

Agree with hugh. There's no "tough stand" here. No ultimatums were made beyond the usual rhetoric.
NeilN is online now  
Old 2008-06-27, 10:17 AM   #5
eljay
Premium Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ottawa (Orleans), ON
Posts: 8,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cm_soo
Vindication of taking a tough stand with the regime instead of using kid gloves, now on to Iran!
A tough stand? That's funny!
__________________
MY HT SET-UP (PICS & GEAR LIST)
eljay is offline  
Old 2008-06-27, 11:36 AM   #6
runnin'
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: B.C.
Posts: 500
Default

To fully appreciate the NK situation, one needs to look past Bush to Clinton and Carter, who signed an agreement with NK. NK would not pursue nuclear weapons and the US would pay a ransom for this. NK took the cash then developed nuclear weapons anyway.

This proves once again in our generation that you can't negotiate with some types of dictators. Bush didn't cause the problem, but by looking at the history you can understand why he was reluctant to sit at the negotiating table with NK again after they had so recently been fleeced.
runnin' is offline  
Old 2008-06-27, 11:45 AM   #7
hugh
Member #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,501
Default

runnin' you need to review the facts. Here is one article and the facts have been echoed in other articles from other journalists.

North Korea wanted to give up the bomb a long time ago but "hawks" in the Bush administration wanted "regime change" rather than a conciliatory approach and unnecessarily escalated the situation to crisis proportions.

Bush and his administration attitude has always been "your with us or against us" which is an exceedingly juvenile and simplistic approach to solving complex social and political problems.

His approach from 2002 until recently (nothing but the overthrow of the current NK administration would do) was so ludicrous that it was never going to work short of escalating to a nuclear war.
__________________
As of January 2012, I am no longer the owner of the Digital Home website. If you have questions about the operation of the site, please contact VSAdmin. For personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website.
hugh is offline  
Old 2008-06-27, 11:59 AM   #8
Tom_Joad
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by runnin'
Bush didn't cause the problem, but by looking at the history you can understand why he was reluctant to sit at the negotiating table with NK again after they had so recently been fleeced.
I'm sure Bush had absolutely no idea about anything to do with North Korea. The man does not read newspapers, is bored by current events in general, and apparently does not even read the reports written for him by his own staff.

"I glance at the headlines just to get a kind of flavor for what's moving," he told Fox News.

"I'm not sure I've ever spoken to anyone at that level who seemed less inquisitive," said David Kay, CIA, chief weapons inspector for the Iraq Survey Group, on his meetings with Bush.

And Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill was told outright that the president would not be expected to read reports. It became obvious, as O'Neill observed, when "Bush did not ask any questions" during their meetings.

The man is a stump. I doubt he could even find NK on a map, let alone formulate a policy decision towards it.
Tom_Joad is offline  
Old 2008-06-27, 12:05 PM   #9
hugh
Member #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,501
Default

Whoa Tom. It was more than just Bush. Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeldt and hawks within the administration probably had more to do with the formulation of policy than Bush himself.

The point is that anyone advocating diplomacy was shuttled out of the whitehouse. (can you say Colin Powell)
__________________
As of January 2012, I am no longer the owner of the Digital Home website. If you have questions about the operation of the site, please contact VSAdmin. For personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website.
hugh is offline  
Old 2008-06-27, 12:24 PM   #10
runnin'
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: B.C.
Posts: 500
Default

Here is some background of both the Clinton(Jimmy Carter) approach, and Bush's knowledge and opposition of the Clinton/Carter agreement.

It was a very poorly structured agreement that only worsened the situation. Bush inherited a mess:

Quote:
Historians Paul Lauren, Gordon Craig and Alexander George point out that the agreement suffered from a number of weaknesses. There was no specific schedule made for reciprocal moves, and the United States was granted a very long time to fulfil its obligations to replace the dangerous graphite-moderated reactors with LWRs.[3] Furthermore, no organization was chosen "to monitor compliance, to supervise implementation...or to make mid-course adjustments that migh become necessary."[3] Finally, other interested nations, like South Korea, China, and Japan, were not included in the negotiations.[3]
Clinton and Carter were too trusting and then ignored the situation, and I now can see some cause for North Korea to be upset at this.
runnin' is offline  
Old 2008-06-27, 12:25 PM   #11
Tom_Joad
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,345
Default

Granted -- Bush couldn't tie his shoes without help. I just didn't want him getting credit for making a decision regarding North Korea, or having anything close to the semblance of an informed opinion about it...even though he has declared himself the "Decider" .

I think everyone realizes at this point that the clueless bonehead has a complete cast and crew to keep the show moving around him.

And yes, Powell bailed after he realized that he'd allowed them to sacrifice his reputation and integrity.
Tom_Joad is offline  
Old 2008-06-27, 12:45 PM   #12
runnin'
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: B.C.
Posts: 500
Default

Quote:
The man is a stump. I doubt he could even find NK on a map, let alone formulate a policy decision towards it.
Actually Tom, Bush did formulate a policy and the 6 Party Talks was something that even Powell could like. I don't think you read my above link, but it shows an even handed new policy towards NK that did not include regime change.
runnin' is offline  
Old 2008-06-27, 01:27 PM   #13
Tom_Joad
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,345
Default

I don't think Bush is capable of formulating a policy. He might've signed it, but I find it hard to believe that he could actively come up with anything on his own. Especially as he spends 1/3 of his time on vacation.

To observe his lightning quick synapse in action, I submit Bush attempting to explain what his concept of tribal sovereignty means:

Tom_Joad is offline  
Old 2008-06-27, 01:54 PM   #14
runnin'
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: B.C.
Posts: 500
Default

Er... anyway as my link shows, despite the mess Bush inherited, relations with NK are now normalizing. Quite a feat for someone who spends half his time on vacation.
runnin' is offline  
Old 2008-06-27, 02:14 PM   #15
Tom_Joad
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,345
Default

If Bush could fix just one of the myriad of messes he created, that would be impressive.
Tom_Joad is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:12 PM.

Search Digital Home

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.