Did Carter's appeasement of NK in the 90s help them gain more nuclear capabilities?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by GTech, Oct 4, 2006.

  1. #1
    This is a spin off from two threads. One where Rick was interested in my observation of this, but also from another thread where he and KLB were interacting. I had actually written this reply to join in with Rick and KLB the other night when they were discussing Jimmy Carter's recent comments about Bush. After I typed out the long response, I read even more of their comments that transpired while writing this reply and decided rather than participate, I'd enjoy the well reasoned debate of two gentlemen.

    Since I've already addressed this, but never posted it, below is the portion I had previously typed out, which was in response to KLB:

    Sure, he has the right to. That doesn't mean he is correct or not out of line. I get the impression you believe his international "humanitarian and democracy spreading efforts" give him some qualification. I could not disagree more. There is no doubt here at home, Carter is what many would call a humanitarian. Outside of the political areana, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone to disagree with that. In the polical world, that's a different story. In the international world, Carter has a long history of coddling and appeasing (at any cost) the most rogue and hateful of governments.

    Politically, both domestically and internationally, he is naive at best. At worst, he wilfully takes positions that would undermine the security of the US and the world at large. As evidenced by his presence at elections in the palestinian terroritory this year. After a terrorist organization was elected to office, the first thing he did was call out to the world community to fund this terrorist organization. Of course, Arab countries throughout the middle east *could* do this, but that would defeat their purpose of keeping the palestinian people down. The palestinians are Arab governments pawns to continuously fight Israel. By denying them funding and support (other than weapons), they (palestinians) rely on western countries to fund them. But who wants to fund a terrorist organization who openly admits their single greatest goal is the destruction of Israel? Carter, of course, who else? And what does hamas turn around and do a few months later? Start a war with Israel, of course. This is wilfull naitivity at it's worse.

    Not unlike North Korea. As a result of Carter's actions (or rather, inaction) in the 90's, through wilfull and blind appeasement, our country today is faced with a far greater danger. Clinton appointed Carter to head up a mission to work with North Korea. I know, I find it strange myself that Clinton would appoint, of all people, Carter to negotiate with a hostile enemy. Carter's mission? Peace through appeasement at any cost, even if it mean disastrous results down the road. And that's just what we got. North Korea knew they could get anything they wanted out of Carter and they did.

    In the agreement betweent he US and North Korea in 1994, Clinton (through Carter's gullible efforts), provided North Korea with two light water nuclear reactors and a huge allotment of oil. The US was to annually provide 500,000 metric tons of oil per year at a cost of millions to US taxpayers until the reactors were capable of producing energy.

    In addition, the US provided 1.1 million tons of food worth nearly $200 million which was then redirected to NK's military. A humanitarian effort with a lost cause.

    It's now estimated NK has enough nuclear material to fabricate at least eight nuclear warheads, possibliy more. I've seen varying estimates, some as high as 100. Clinton/Carter's policy of appeasement at all cost has put our country and the world at greater risk some ten years later. This is not diplomacy, it's reckless and naive policy that wasn't properly dealt with at the time. As a result of this reckless policy of appeasement, NK is now a budding problem the entire world faces.

    Along the same lines, we're doing the same thing with Iraq today. There is no question that democrats, virtually everyone calling for defeat and retreat today, knew of the dangers of saddam during the Clinton years. Some (Kerry, Lieberman and others) even urged Clinton to go to war to disarm saddam during the administration.
     
    GTech, Oct 4, 2006 IP
  2. MattUK

    MattUK Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,950
    Likes Received:
    377
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    275
    #2
    It wouldn't surprise me. Various US administrations are usually directly or indirectly behind most of the evil in the world for the past 30 years. You can include the Taliban, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Somoza and the Khmer Rouge, adding North Korea to the long list would hardly surprise me.
     
    MattUK, Oct 4, 2006 IP
  3. Rick_Michael

    Rick_Michael Peon

    Messages:
    2,744
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3
    Why thank you, Gtech. You've always been very polite and nice to me.

    KLB's a member I highly respect in ways. While I see difference every now and then in how we see things, I think this forum would be twice as good, if people had a similiar character as he.



    I read the whole thing. A lot of good info. I read some stuff online that I'll comment on tommrow (concerning this)....kind-of disturb material.
     
    Rick_Michael, Oct 4, 2006 IP
  4. yo-yo

    yo-yo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,619
    Likes Received:
    206
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    185
    #4
    How exactly did it "help" them? :rolleyes:

    You're laying the blame for North Korea's actions on Carter and Clinton? Blaming America first are we? (only on the dems of course) :D

    In the agreement:
    Sounds good... so where did it go wrong? (hint: a new president)

    Oh really? So it's all the dems fault? Lets take a look....
    So the burden wasn't on our taxpayers.. but multiple countries. How unreasonable!
    Of course the republicans had to come in and ruin everything...
    So... clinton had a plan that might have worked, until the republicans refused to hold up america's end of the bargain, of course leading to N. Korea not holding up their end. :rolleyes:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework
     
    yo-yo, Oct 4, 2006 IP
  5. yo-yo

    yo-yo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,619
    Likes Received:
    206
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    185
    #5
    Even more funny -
    How hilarious! Where's all the blame on Bush now gtech? The president who disliked clintons deal, did nothing about north korea, and then tried to offer a new deal just like clinton's! How convenient you left this out :D

    Hmmm...

    So after breaking the agreement and pissing off the koreans, he does nothing but them go on about their business. Very smart..
    Bush has yet another chance... but the moron just can't seem to do anything right...

    More here: http://www.slate.com/id/2102963/

    Quite a different picture than gtech would [falsely] lead us to believe :rolleyes:
     
    yo-yo, Oct 4, 2006 IP
  6. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #6
    Yes I do. They offered a deal of appeasement based on the assumption (as your source notes, but you intentionally left out):


    You could pick and choose, I'm sure!
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/08/20/nkorea.timeline.nuclear/
    Let's do. Whose wreckless policy of appeasement was it? Carter/Clinton?

    I corrected the intentionally incorrect reply above.

    Republicans were not for appeasement in the first place.

    According to your source, Clinton's plan was:

    Also, according to your source:

    It goes on to state:

    Ah, yes, "we're entitled to them, but take our word, we don't possess such!"
     
    GTech, Oct 4, 2006 IP
  7. yo-yo

    yo-yo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,619
    Likes Received:
    206
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    185
    #7
    Where's your condemnation of bush and co "helping" by offering the same "appeasement" deal that clinton offered?

    Even worse, the entire time it's been getting worse, bush has been doing absolutely nothing about it.

    Yet gtech finds it in his heart to relay the blame on clinton, how surprising :D
     
    yo-yo, Oct 4, 2006 IP
  8. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #8
    You'll have to do better than liberal op ed. But I'm glad to see you don't take issue with my last post. Shall we lob out some more claims and hope some stick?

    Getting worse? It's refreshing that you even acknowledge the problem exists! I'd say confronting NK about their additional secret program and taking action to stop the failed policy was exceptional action.

    Does that mean we can conclude you blame Bush only for the appeasement policies of predecessors? Imagine that, Bush (not even knowing he would become a future president) had no idea he was responsible for the decisions made by former presidents and would get the blame for their failures. Oh, the twisted logic! We should give Carter's Nobel Peace Award to Bush now!
     
    GTech, Oct 4, 2006 IP
  9. yo-yo

    yo-yo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,619
    Likes Received:
    206
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    185
    #9
    Your last post was nothing more than a few sentences from the source I'd already read? Like you debunked something? :confused:

    The problem wasn't nearly as big of problem until after bush became president.
    That's 2002, long after clinton left office.

    The north koreans didn't have the ability (for years) to make the nukes until unlocking those rods... which DIDNT HAPPEN UNTIL BUSH WAS PRESIDENT. Lets see what happens next... :rolleyes:

    moving along...
    Bush has let the problem go exponentially and it was UNDER HIS WATCH that they took out the fuel rods to make the bombs that were under lock and key during clintons years. Yet somehow (snake oil comes into play) carter and clinton "helped" north korea :rolleyes:

    So there we have it. Clinton wanted the rods under lock and key and would go to war over it, and that's what he got. AFTER bush ruined things, only then were the rods taken out for north korea's bomb building, and bush's reaction was to do absolutely nothing.

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
     
    yo-yo, Oct 4, 2006 IP
  10. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #10
    LOL, used the same liberal op ed but printed from a different source :D

    Are you trying to pull a quicky on ol' unca GTech?

    Oh heavens no! I was pointing out the important pieces that you deliberately withheld. Did you like them? I thought they were quite telling!
     
    GTech, Oct 4, 2006 IP
  11. Rick_Michael

    Rick_Michael Peon

    Messages:
    2,744
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #11
    I know this isn't the best source ever, but I find the info interesting....



    That must have been embarassing.

    What a great guy.

    This is what disturbs me, if true.

    China's spreading the wealth, so to speak. Which leads me to ask why in 98 was Kim seeking and receiving means of enriching uraninium...in secret?



    hmmm


    Seems like there's some Mao shit going on.



    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/164846.shtml
     
    Rick_Michael, Oct 4, 2006 IP
  12. Rick_Michael

    Rick_Michael Peon

    Messages:
    2,744
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #12
    I must say that the Clinton/Carter plan seem like it wasn't such a wise decesion. Nucluer energy takes a long time to be useful. If Kim wanted to help his people out, and America had an interest in their safety, it would have been best to just supply them with a lot of oil/food and no assistance in nucluer power.

    This somehow reminds me of the money we give to Africa which is suppose to help the starving people, but ends up (for the most part) in the hands of corrupt leaders... except this is a bit more dangerous of a plan.
     
    Rick_Michael, Oct 4, 2006 IP
  13. yo-yo

    yo-yo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,619
    Likes Received:
    206
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    185
    #13
    Rick, the biggest part of the plan was that the fuel rods (that were needed to make a nuclear bomb) were locked away and couldn't be used.

    After bush took over, completely crapped on any relations we had left with N Korea, they broke the lock and took the fuel rods. Which is when action should have been taken, but nothing was done and another major bush screwup was born. :cool:
     
    yo-yo, Oct 4, 2006 IP
  14. Rick_Michael

    Rick_Michael Peon

    Messages:
    2,744
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #14
    I don't see it that way...you don't ever give someone like Kim that sort of opportunity. Kim is not a stable man, thus he should never be given such an opportunity.

    Despite what Bush did or didn't do, we shouldn't have been in that situation in the first place...where a moron could have access to such material or abilities to make such.

    I'm not giving an excuse to anyone.
     
    Rick_Michael, Oct 4, 2006 IP
  15. yo-yo

    yo-yo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,619
    Likes Received:
    206
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    185
    #15
    Who exactly do you think just "gave him" opportunity? It's not like clinton handed over a bunch of fuel rods. If you want to blame their nuclear capabilities on someone, I think you've already pointed out that Pakistan and China have been caught red handed.

    So it's somehow clinton's fault that china/pakistan sold the stuff to n. korea? I'm not following this logic....

    Clinton was faced with a crappy scenario with 2 choices that have undesirable results either way: cut a deal or start a war. He saved american lives and kept our country in peace by cutting a deal that kept things safe.
     
    yo-yo, Oct 4, 2006 IP
  16. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #16
    Much like the peace the clinton admin brought to the middle east, right? Clintons were great peacemakers. Sometimes, it even lasted 3-4 years. Yay!
     
    lorien1973, Oct 4, 2006 IP
  17. edD

    edD Peon

    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #17
    That can be said of any powerful nation in history.
    Powerful groups of people(nations in this context) do things with their own interests in mind.
    The US is the best superpower that the world could ever hope for.
    Please name me a more benign superpower in the history of the world.(and also look at the emerging one in China and ask yourself how friendly you think they will be to the world if they ever amass the influence that the US has)
    Also, if it wasn't for the US you might be speaking Russian...I mean, after you made the transition from German.
     
    edD, Oct 4, 2006 IP
  18. Rick_Michael

    Rick_Michael Peon

    Messages:
    2,744
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #18
    Anyone that assisted him in the advance of his Nucleur technology.

    You must realize that fuel rods are necessary for civil nucleur facilities (the the full rods do not have to be as enriched as atomic weapon would be). My reference was that they were receiving the means to enrichment in a very suspicious manner, rather than a monitored manner or not at all.

    Why would you have something being sent to you through a coffin? And does such action (in 98') go against the agreeement between Clinton/Carter and Kim? Apparently US officials in 99's (as said in above) believed Kim was up to no-good,...so they halted progress. Eventually Clinton agrees to relieve some sanctions, and leads a group which wish to produce 2 nucleur facilities in NK.

    But why do that?

    In ...1994: North Korea and U.S. sign an agreement. North Korea pledges to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for international aid to build two power-producing nuclear reactors.

    What kind of ganster shit is that!? 'I'll produce weapons if you don't give me the means/material I desire.' Fuck you, Kim! Like we owe anything to him.

    I mean if all his intentions were directed towards helping his people (which I can sympathize with), then why not give oil for direct use of such. No one should cave-in to such threats. No country should have to bargain with those sort of chips. Especially with this moron.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Of coarse I don't like the fact that they had access to either, no matter the 'full proof' plan.



    Not necessarily. He could have just gave direct convoys of oil...used only for helping the people in NK (if that was the only intention Kim desired). If NK decided to continued on with it's quest for a nuke or nucleur power, then it would have to do it on it's own money and time.

    In which case the US should have opposed it. The US should never give credence to governments like that.
     
    Rick_Michael, Oct 4, 2006 IP