 sj |
||
|
||
BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Wolfgang Date: 22 Oct 02 - 02:16 PM Roughly 4 million people die annually in the USA from all causes. More than 50% of them would have to die from 'poverty' if Bobert's 'millions' would be correct. The only widely cited guess I have found is that 27 children die per day in the USA from poverty, which makes less than 10,000 annually. If you add the adults you'd be still far from 'millions'. I think Bobert uses exaggerated figures like that for the effect and we shouldn't read them as an attempt of correct reporting. But even if the truth is closer to 'tens of thousands' it is a shame. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy Date: 22 Oct 02 - 02:56 PM no point in adding to this thread, those who believe a certain thing will not be swayed by facts or arguments, Troll - did you miss the recent revelations about out government exposing unknowing military personnel to chemical and biological agents in the 60s? any parallels do you think to Iraq? justified in our case how? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Oct 02 - 04:17 PM It's true, Bill, that people are generally not swayed by facts or arguments. What they do, in fact, is to look around for facts...or just rhetoric...which support their already established opinion. And they heap contempt on material which doesn't support it...or just ignore such material. This is why it's always a good idea to look to a number of sources, and to bear in mind one's own fallibility...as well as that of leaders, the media, and so on. Nothing beats direct experience, but most people don't have the time or means to seek it out. I did go to Cuba, and as a result of that visit I would never consider supporting a hostile action against that country...I have friends I really love there. So that's one small bit of real experience in an ocean of speculation. It's a start. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR Date: 22 Oct 02 - 04:26 PM While the figures you supplied, Wolfgang, are still too high, they are certainly more believable than the millions claimed by my WV buddy, Ole'Bobert. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: toadfrog Date: 22 Oct 02 - 05:04 PM Doug: One more try. The "Bush is a louse" thread must be fairly old. I couldn't find it. It may be that the author of some article has different views from mind. May even be he publishes in a "liberal" magazine. The only "opinion" I have stated of the USA is that it is not all-powerful, and if someone disagrees with me on that, well, what can I say? But really, I think I am being willfully misunderstood. I believe you are attributing to me a low "opinion" of my country. Not so. I want my country to be strong. I want it to have friends. I don't want it to have a whole lot of deadly enemies. As stated above, W. Bush is making lots of deadly enemies, sometimes it seems for no apparent reason but to whip up nationalistic sentiment and win elections. A political speech about an "axis of evil" is a good example. Such a speech can have no possible purpose other than electioneering. And Bush is also costing us friends. Don't be decieved if the national leaders of European countries go along with Bush for a ways. The U.S. has clout. Bush is unpopular enough with the people over there so that it may cost those leaders a lot to follow. Note, the German Social Democratic Party, which was unpopular, was expected to lose a national election. Its leader said he would not support a war against Iraq, and won another term in office. You will doubtless respond that the two things have nothing to do with each other. But I suggest you give that some thought. Last month I was invited to a reception at the German Consulate here (I'm not claiming I'm a big shot, but I have a known interest in Germany.) Almost everyone there was a German expatriate in the export-import business - a very conservative crew, when it came to things like labor relations. But nobody liked Bush's foreign policy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert Date: 22 Oct 02 - 06:36 PM Boberts 'retraction": Okay, it's not millions every year but it's a lot and if I get time I'll come back with my sources. And Dougie, I said Die "in" poverty not die "of" poverty since then one can say, "Well, what part of poverty caused the death?" and then we end up arguing how many angels can dance on the end of a pin. I'll do some bombing around and come up with some harder numbers for you all who think things are so peachy for our elderly folks. Maybe you eldery folks. I worked as a social worker for many years in Richmond, Va. and worked in adult services and my case load was a mix of revolving door mental folks and old folks. I still have friend who are social workers in adult services who tell me that the case loads are increasing steadily. These folks, my friends all live well below the poverty level most will not see their situations improve before they die. And I'm sticken to the premise that we ain't seen nuthin yet as the Baby Boomers head into old age. Especially with Junior's War still be paid for. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert Date: 22 Oct 02 - 06:58 PM Okay, my fellow Catsters, according to www.nlchp.org there are 3 million homeless people in the US, according to www.panix.com, 14.5 % (approximately 45 million Americans) live in poverty and according to www.clev.fvb.org the poverty line for a family of four is $16,895... Just a few thing for quiet contimplation. Now, back to North Korea. I say, Nuke the bast**ds. (No you don't Bobert!) Opps, sorry, I was reading one of Dougie's lines... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: GUEST,a Limey Date: 22 Oct 02 - 07:56 PM What is it about the US that you're scared of one little country that may, or may not, have the bomb. At the moment you are more likely to suffer at the hands of one nutter who has decided that he doesn't like people who fill up at petrol stations (among other things)in Washington. You should really fear the NRA more, since it is these people who are (indirectly) responsible for killing a lot more Americans than a possible North Korean bomb ever will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Don Firth Date: 22 Oct 02 - 10:36 PM I'm not afraid. Bobert, are you afraid? toadfrog? I don't think Doug is really afraid. Anybody? George says he's afraid, but I'm not sure what he's afraid of. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert Date: 22 Oct 02 - 11:04 PM Not afraid here, Don.... And I work in Northern Virgina... Well, I'm kinda afraid that Mr. Bush is gonna wake up in a drunken stuper and next thing ya' know the planet will be de-populated by 20 or 30 thousand folks... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bagpuss Date: 23 Oct 02 - 06:41 AM Millions die in poverty? Well probably because there's a lot of people in poverty and everyone dies. Whether any individual dies because of poverty is more difficult to state, but you can look at the mortality rates for people of different incomes and there will always be a gap. For those that think that only absolute poverty is important, that is wrong. Relative povery is very important. The US has one of the widest gaps between rich and poor in the developed world, and it also has one of the poorest records as regards health (and other) problems related to poverty in the developed world - including infant mortality figures. The correlation is pretty strong. Even within the US - when comparing states - the important figure linked to these problems is not the overall wealth of the state, but rather the size of the gap between rich and poor - ie the level of inequality. Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Troll Date: 23 Oct 02 - 07:47 AM It's not hard to have an incredible gap between rich and poor when CEOs make millions of dollars a year and are given immense severance packages, when the Board of Directors gets huge bonuses just before the company flies for bankruptcy or "downsizes" half of it's employees out of a job, or when a company moves its operation to a third world country because it's easier to make huge profits that way. And it's not against the law either. But it could be if the voters would force their Congressmen to restructure the tax laws and rewrite the corporate laws. But that'll never happen no matter WHO is in the White House and in control of Congress and the Senate. They are not going to do anything that takes money out of THEIR pockets. troll There will be people sleeping on the sidewalk in NYC this winter but you may be sure that we'll send humanitarian aid to North Korea. And I wouldn't be surprised if sume of it is siphoned off to the NK Army or whoever. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Oct 02 - 11:56 AM By golly, troll, I couldn't agree more with your first paragraph up there. You are speaking of the oligarchy that runs the Democrats, the Republicans, and the USA...and which provides all the key candidates you get a chance to vote for. Sounds like a Catch-22 doesn't it? I'd call it a sort of velvet dictatorship...elections, yes, but no real choice. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR Date: 23 Oct 02 - 12:13 PM Toad: My apologies. I assumed you would know I was referring to the current Bush thread referring to him and his perceived (by many) penchant for war. Sorry if I put you to a time consuming search. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: NicoleC Date: 23 Oct 02 - 12:29 PM Ohmigod, Troll, we agree on something! It was bound to ahppen one of these days. With few exceptions, politicians are wealthy people who have typically been born wealthy. That's because getting nominated for an election requires personal connections. And that's because getting elected takes tons of money. And that's because many voters are sheep who just show up and vote for the names they recognize, making advertising more important than issues to a campaign. Er, that's a lot of issues to tackle to clean up the political process. Where to start? I'm not against rich people or think that we're ever going to get rid of poor people. But it seems unconscionable in a country as rich as ours that we have people dying of malnutrition, dying of exposure because they have to sleep in a park, unable to afford basic medical care, or having to make the choice between buying their kids' medication and buying their kids food. It's wrong. I don't think private or religious charity is the answer because it just doesn't get the job done. No matter how well-meaning and well-organized the charity, they just never have enough donations to service all the people they need to. And we'll cut back on government programs of aid -- ones that work -- yet they'll raise my property taxes to help pay for the 24% pay raise the city council voted themselves when they are already making well above the average salary. It's wrong. Period. We are not some third world country that has a hard time feeding anyone -- we throw out huge amounts of food and plow under fields for market reasons. Basic food, shelter and medicine is something we CAN provide for every citizen. It's do-able, and wouldn't cost half as much as we've spent on bombing empty Afghani mountains this year. But again -- where to start? Why is there no War on Hunger? No War on Homelessness? War on Mental Illness? War on People Dying of Perfectly Preventable Diseases That Couldn't Afford a Doctor? Is it because no one gets rich off off distributing second-hand clothing to folks who can't even afford Goodwill? /rant off |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Don Firth Date: 23 Oct 02 - 01:01 PM I worked for the telephone company for eight years. During that time, all employees received a small amount of AT&T stock (not a 401-K or anything like that, it was just part of the bennie package). When I left the company, I had fifty-one shares, approximately $3,000 worth. I figured, "Okay, AT&T is a pretty solid stock, so I'll just let it sit and build up over time as part of my meager retirement fund." It did appreciate. But some years ago, AT&T switched some of it over to Lucent Technologies, which they said was going to be a real hot item. I figured, "Well, okay. Looks all right, I guess. I'll let it sit. But it's nice to know I can cash it in any time I need it." Just yesterday on the news, I heard that Lucent Technologies is going belly up because of mismanagement, and the stock is now pennies a share and is considered to have fallen into the "junk" category. They are considering bankruptcy. The CEO, who is receiving an annual salary of many millions of dollars says, in effect, "Gee whiz! I don't know how that happened!" Question 1:— What in the hell do CEOs do to earn salaries like that? It seems that the best thing they do is either screw up royally or run off with the money. Question 2:— Do you really want your Social Security invested in the stock market? The Securities and Excange Commission (SEC) is supposed to oversee this kind of thing to prevent it from happening. They've obviously been dozing for the last several years, but instead of giving them a kick in the butt, the Administration just reduced their authority to act when things start looking fishy. Fortunately I still get my monthly Social Security check. But while our fearless leaders are pointing overseas and crying "Wolf!" they're quietly doing their damnedest to change that. And this is only one of the things they're doing while we're all looking the other way. I really think we need to clean our own house before we try to tell the rest of the world how to run theirs. How about a regime change here? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: GUEST Date: 23 Oct 02 - 01:17 PM Doug: what's this crap about lambasting "anti-Bush folks" about not "staying current with the news???" First off that is just plain snotty, and secondly it is wildly inaccurate. YOU the one not paying attention to current headlines, since you seem to think Bush is now being a good boy and doing just what the UN tells him to. You are ignoring what happened in the early days of this most recent line of aggression against Saddam Hussein. Before he declared he was going to go the sane route and proceed with weapons inspections, the news headlines said Bush was calling for an invasion of Iraq within a week to two week's time! Obviously he spoke too hastily and the warmonger strings holding the puppet had to reign him in slightly. Even post-Nine-Eleven he can't away with a sudden declaration of war like this...not when the target is not clearly an immediate threat (no more than usual anyway). This is about the next election. This is about not being able to hunt down Osama bin Laden. This is about justifying the enormous military build-up to the tune of billions of taxpayers' dollars in the last few months. This is about oil. This is NOT about who poses a threat the United States. Anyone realize what's heppening in Columbia this week? It might be in a newspaper near you... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Troll Date: 23 Oct 02 - 01:40 PM Guest, and of course the medias take is 100% accurate. Right. NicoleC, I think we all agree on what needs to be done. Where we disagree is on how. Don, the Postal Service went from Civil Service Retirement to Federal Employees Retirement. FERS is tied to Soc. Sec. while CSRS is not. Since I had the option- due to longevity- I stayed with CSRS even though it was slightly less money (a few dollars). Am I glad I did! troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: toadfrog Date: 23 Oct 02 - 05:48 PM Well but Troll, we all know the media can be wrong, but how are we supposed to "keep current with the news" without watching the media? Or reading the newspaper, which is my preferred approach. Huh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert Date: 23 Oct 02 - 07:26 PM Oh, don't even get my sorry Wse Ginny butt going on the media, toadfrog, because they have very little to do with reporting the news and a lot about manipulating the working class while entertaining it... But, now this privatization of Social Security? That's a different story. We don;t have to go back too far to see that the Repubs *hate* Social Security. They foughg with FDR on it. They said it was socialism. They fought the Medicare program. They said it's socialism. Now I don't like the Dems to much these days because Bill Clinton took it further to the right than its been in my life time, but the Repubs are the biggest crybabies. Heck, they almost always get their way and when they don't they spend million of bucks on PR folks to sway the working class to vote for stuff that is *not* at all in the best interest in the working class. Hmmmmmm? So now they want to bleed the Social Security system by sticking leeches all over and embezzeling the money. Hmmmmmm? Like that's gonna make solve the problems with Social Security?!?!.... That's like amputation to cure the common hangnail. But that's exactly what they are gonna do afetr the Repubs win back control of the Senate. So, like I have menti0oned on another thread. Oh heck, it was this one. If you think you've seen poverty in the US, just give the Repubs *unfettered* access into the working class's wallets and revisit the great US of A in, oh, about 15 years.... You ain't seen nuthin yet... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR Date: 23 Oct 02 - 07:42 PM GUEST: I don't ignore the news. I am going to ignore you though. Put on a name and I'll reply to you. Don: No one would be forced to put a portion of their social security into the stock market. It would in no way affect any of those who currently receive social security. If I were just starting out as a young man, you bet I'd welcome the opportunity to put some of my social security money into the market. Investors would not be allowed to put the money in highly speculative stocks. As for as the Lucent Technology stock is concerned, I'm sorry you are taking a bath with it, but one thing for sure, if you have money in the market, it is up to the investor to stay current with what is going on with the company. Perhaps that was not possible if they were hiding things from investors though. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: toadfrog Date: 24 Oct 02 - 12:24 AM Doug, just out of curiosity, what "Guardian" is it that you keep mentioning? Doesn't sound like the old Manchester Guardian, the way you describe it. Am I missing something? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Troll Date: 24 Oct 02 - 05:59 AM Toadfrog, the best way to get a balanced view of the news is to read a variety of international papers and wire services. The best source that I have found is the Drudge Report website. He has links to the major wire services and links to newspapers all over the world. Plus, he has links to about 100 columnists. Sort of one-stop-shopping in the news market. The alternative is to try to read the one or two papers in your area. Pretty one-dimensional coverage to my way of thinking. Or you can read a paper that caters to your own political bias. Your choice. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Peg Date: 24 Oct 02 - 07:47 AM The GUEST post above was mine, from work yesterday. So Doug, I'm waiting for your explanation of why we should only pay attention to the news headlines YOU think we should pay atention to, and ignore all the rest of them. peg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Teribus Date: 24 Oct 02 - 09:00 AM Hi Peg, In your post above as Guest: Firstly: "YOU the one not paying attention to current headlines, since you seem to think Bush is now being a good boy and doing just what the UN tells him to." Maybe you are paying too much attention to current headlines, while failing to match that up to exactly what is going on. Secondly: "You are ignoring what happened in the early days of this most recent line of aggression against Saddam Hussein. Before he declared he was going to go the sane route and proceed with weapons inspections, the news headlines said Bush was calling for an invasion of Iraq within a week to two week's time!" Your remarks prove the point made above and completely ignores the fact that it was stance taken by the President and his Administration that brought the United Nations to its senses with regard to its responsibilities - That stand and that stand alone got the Iraqi authorities to issue the invitation to the weapons inspection teams - nothing else did that. Thirdly: "This is about the next election. This is about not being able to hunt down Osama bin Laden. This is about justifying the enormous military build-up to the tune of billions of taxpayers' dollars in the last few months. This is about oil. This is NOT about who poses a threat the United States." Oh yes of course - its on the check list of every democratically elected leader - "Six months to elections Sir. Who shall we declare war on." Complete and utter BS. Costs of maintaining the military would be roughly the same irrespective of the situation, they are still there, you still have to pay for them. The US has seen increased costs due to call up of reservists - that was done immediately after 911. Explain to me about how this is about oil? Loads of people have mentioned it none have explained it - primarily because it is also total BS. So far the President of the United States of America has accomplished the following: 1. Suceeded in getting the UN to act with respect to a situation it was quietly ignoring in the hope that it would just go away. 2. Suceeded in getting Iraq to permit the return of weapons inspection teams 3. He is well on the way to getting a new resolution from the UNSC that will allow the UNMOVIC teams to do their job effectively, without Iraqi interference. All the rest is just so much Magpie chatter - as I believe I said in my first post on this topic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR Date: 24 Oct 02 - 01:46 PM "So Doug we are waiting for your explanation of why we should only pay attention to the NEWS headlines you think we should pay atention to, and ignore all the rest of them." Peg, had you identified yourself as the author of that "Guest" thread in the body of the message, I would have been happy to reply. My reply will not be as nasty as your original post, I assure you. I posted the message that you found offensive because so many Mudcatters were riding a dead horse moaning and groaning about the president's approach to the Iraq situation. He began by rattling his sabre and that nearly gave Bobert a heart attack, so after Bobert organized millions of people to march on Washington, he decided to modify his approach and go the U. N., which was what Bobert and Company thought he should have done in the first place. Long after he had done that, Mudcatters were still piling on the president for his approach to handling Saddam. It occurred to me that those who were doing that might not have heard that he had adopted an approach more in line with their thinking. That is why I suggested that they become more current with the news. In my opinion (we are still allowed that ... right?)if Bush had not rattled his sabre in the first place, he would not have gained Saddam's attention. As to your question above: I don't give a hoot what anybody reads. There may be two replies to your query. The first one disappeared when I hit the submit message space. It is difficult to write exactly the same thing in a second post that was written in the first one, so if the first one appears due to some computer internet magic, I'm sure you will look forward to reading it. :>) Teribus: Excellent post you made as of 9:00 A.M. this date. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Don Firth Date: 24 Oct 02 - 03:04 PM Doug, two things:— 1. The deduction from my paycheck for Social Security was, among all the other deductions, relatively insignificant, and since I kept track of what I would receive at retirement, I felt fairly sure that, although I would not be living in the lap of luxury, at least I wouldn't starve. But as they say one should do, I also invested in a couple of mutual funds and a number of other things that a financial advisor friend suggested. These were quite conservative investments, definitely not considered speculative. So in essence, I was already putting some of my money into the market. But not my contribution to Social Security. That, as the name indicates, would keep me relatively secure if other things didn't pan out. During the current dip in the market, aggravated by outright corporate banditry, the mutual funds are not doing very well, and of course the Lucent Technologies stuff, pending investigation, seems to share the fate of Enron, WorldCom, and the others. Were it not for the fact that currently my Social Security is secure, I could be in pretty deep doo-doo. Why should one reduce one's Social Security contribution to invest in something chancy? It seems like using your rainy day fund to buy into the Saturday night poker game. Kinda dumb, if you ask me. 2. All of the annual and quarterly reports from Lucent Technologies that I, as a stockholder, received painted nothing but the rosiest of pictures. And there was nothing—absolutely nothing—in the news until a couple of days ago that Lucent was in any kind of trouble. The buggers lied to the stockholders. It's as simple as that. And the Securities and Exchange Commission, of course, was sitting there with their thumbs up their Like I keep saying, be sure you don't spend so much time looking at foreign policy that you fail to notice what's going on at home. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR Date: 24 Oct 02 - 03:14 PM Good point, Don, and well taken. If you can afford to hold on to those mutual funds, and if they have a good ten year record of earnings, you may still come out ok. I hope so. As I said, though, if I were young and just starting out on a career, I wouldn't hesitate a minute to invest two or three percent of my SS money in conservative mutual funds. Unfortunately, one cannot always control when bad times are going to roll around, and the market does have it's ups and downs. Over the long haul, though, I would still favor what the Commission that studied SS recommended, again, were I young. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert Date: 24 Oct 02 - 05:49 PM I see your point, Doug, and if it were 2 or 3 percent of what would have been paid into Social Security, then I might even come around a little. No promises. But, even though I haven't heard the numbers, I'd bet when the Repubs talk 2 or 3 percent, they are not talking of the money that is taken out for Social Security but 2 or 3 percent of their taxable income which is a ton of dough to take out of the system. Like it or not, my friend, Social Security may not be a perfect system but its premise is sound. And, yeah, it has some aspects of socialism. So what? The ruling class is gonna be comfortable in their old age and I'd like to think thay they'd want that for the working class who serve them. If not, then heck with them, 'cause in the big scheme of things, they need us a lot more than we need them, thank you. Ahhhh, what's the name of the thread? Did I start this drift, or what? Nevermind. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Oct 02 - 07:30 PM A bit back Doug write: "NK violated the accord of 1994 in which in exchange for our providing them nuclear materials, money, and other materials for domestic use, they used it instead for their weapons program." Well actually it was the USA violated that accord, when it failed to come up with the help that was promised as part of the deal, to enable a civil nuclear power programme; in return for which the Koreans agreed to cancel their own nuclear development programme. Not that I'm keen on civil nuclear power myself, but that was the agreement, and it was the USA that ratted on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR Date: 24 Oct 02 - 07:43 PM Interesting, McGrath. That's contrary to everything I have read or heard about the agreement. What is the source of your information? I'll take a second look at mine. Bobert: I don't think I have indicated dissatisfaction with the Social Security program. From all I have read and heard it is going to cease to exist in about 2040 unless something is done to shore it up though. The non-partisan commission the president appointed to study the program and come back to him with suggestions for saving SS recommended the choice for new entrants into the program. As I recall, the amount that could be invested was two to three percent of the total funds put into SS. I could be wrong though. I was wrong in 1941. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Oct 02 - 08:14 PM What was it you were wrong about in '41, Doug? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR Date: 24 Oct 02 - 08:25 PM I thought they were going to hit Guam, but they hit Pearl Harbor instead. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Oct 02 - 08:40 PM Here's a quote from a report (yes, in the Guardian, since that's the paper I read and it's site is very well archived and accessible, compared to the right-wing Telegraph - but I suspect that will have had essentially the same story, since it prides itself on its foreign news coverage): On the Korean peninsula, the Bush administration is seen as having wrecked a two-year peace process between the south and the north and parallel efforts at normalising relations with Japan... ...North Korea is acknowledged to have grounds for complaint about the slow implementation of the 1994 agreement to supply two light water nuclear reactors for peaceful use in return for a freeze on its own programme. The first reactor was due to be completed next year, but 2008 is now thought to be the earliest feasible date. (And note, I'm not sugesting that it's OK for North Korea to break international agreements, as they appear to have done in this case. Breaking international agreemnts is a wretched things to do, whether it's small countries or big countries that do it.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert Date: 24 Oct 02 - 09:51 PM McGrath: Not the US of A reniggin' on an agreement? How could this be? Especially under President Junior, who is a "true believer" in abiding by international law, treaties and resolutions... You do drugs, or what? Opps, sorry, pal. What got into me? For a second there, I thought I was DougR? Whew!?!?!?!?!.... Danged scarey..... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Troll Date: 24 Oct 02 - 11:16 PM Kevin, was any reason given as to WHY NK "is acknowledged to have grounds for complaint about the slow implementation of the 1994 agreement to supply two light water nuclear reactors for peaceful use in return for a freeze on its own programme."? THAT would be much more effective than a simple bare-faced statement. But I doubt that we'll ever hear THAT little tidbit of news. After all, how relevant could it be, right? I mean, everyone knows the US is always wrong. Right? troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Lonesome EJ Date: 24 Oct 02 - 11:54 PM It continues to amaze me how something like this, North Korea announcing it has nukes, gets politicized into a reason to support Bush on attacking Iraq, or attacking Bush as someone who chooses his enemies unfairly,on and on, etcetera etcetera. The crucial fact is another extremist tin-horn dictatorship has gotten its hands on the Bomb, and instead of talking about meaningful control of nuclear proliferation, we turn it into a Bush issue. Because America has the Bomb, we shouldn't have any say about other nations acquiring it?That's fricking ridiculous. When the US and the USSR were poised on opposite sides of the fence with innumerable nukes, why weren't the buttons pushed? Because each power had too much to lose by doing so. If nuclear proliferation is allowed to continue unheeded, sooner or later a fanatic state with nothing to lose will get the Bomb. Then all the noise about whether Bush is right or wrong about Iraq will be put in its true perspective. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Peg Date: 25 Oct 02 - 12:02 AM Teribus: I take issue with a LOT of what you said but the ONE thing you said which leads me to think there is no point in refuting any of it is your claim that the suggestion that an impending invasion of Iraq has everything to do with oil is somehow "BS"...I mean, what planet do you live on? That, and you think somehow BUSH got the UN to see reason? This is a man who'd never even been to Europe before getting, erm, "elected." His grasp of foreign policy is no firmer than his grasp of simple English grammar. Doug: You did not really "suggest" any such thing but I guess it is all mere semantics at this point...and your claim that you;re not being nasty is nasty in itself, isn't it? at the very least, screamingly passive-aggressive. And your assessment of the "Mudcatter view" of the actions of Bush are pretty simple-minded and sweeping. You wouldn't wnat anyone to do as you do, and casually lump you into a big pile with others who thought as you do...except, oops, there aren't many around here who do think as you do. So hard to say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Ebbie Date: 25 Oct 02 - 12:03 AM "sooner or later a fanatic state with nothing to lose will get the Bomb" LEJ, will there ever be a state that has nothing to lose? Yes, I can see that an individual may feel that way, but a state always has an enormous amount at stake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Troll Date: 25 Oct 02 - 12:18 AM Ebbie, Saddam and his ilk have the attitude of l'etat c'est moi. Whatever THEY want is what goes. There is where the problem lies. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Oct 02 - 12:46 AM Yes, a nation with "nothing to lose" is a little hard to imagine...unless it has already been attacked, invaded, and its last strategic positions are about to be overrun. Actual and theoretical examples of such: Hitler in the last days of the Battle of Berlin or Saddam in the last days of the battle of Baghdad or Pakistan with the Indian army entering Karachi and Islamabad. This is one of the numerous reasons why one may be unwise to contemplate the destruction of a regime by outside force...all depending, of course, on how high you like the stakes when you are gambling with people's lives. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Teribus Date: 25 Oct 02 - 01:34 AM Hi Peg, The two points you refer to above, taken in reverse order: "BUSH got the UN to see reason". Subsequent to the ending of "Desert Storm" the Iraqi Government agreed to certain undertakings in relation to a number of UN Resolutions. They did not comply with those resolutions and sanctions were imposed, by the UN, to force compliance. Iraqi authorities continued to hinder the work of the UNSCOM inspection teams and they were withdrawn in 1998. The Iraqi Government invited the UN inspection teams to return 2002. If that had nothing to do with BUSH, what has held up that invitation from the Iraqi Government for three and a half years? - why was the invitation made when it was made? The BS part about this being about oil, is the contention by some that a war is being instigated in order that America can "get it's hands on Iraqi oil". I apologise for not making that clear. So far, none of the people voicing that contention, regarding America doing what it is doing, to "get their hands on Iraqi oil" has come up with any rationale as how that could be done - or why. Where it is about oil is a regional threat whereby the resources of the region could be threatened - that affects other countries more so than it affects America, who still import most of their oil from South American oil fields. To get back to the North Korean question. The agreement was that America would assist North Korea in developing nuclear power stations for civilian use on the proviso that North Korea halted its development in the field of nuclear weapons. I do not believe at any time was the agreement based on continuation of the weapons programme by North Korea up until such time as the civilian reactors were completed. North Korea did not stop its secret weapons programme, therefore US aid was not continued. Again I think it has been your current President's stand that has forced North Korea to "come clean" on what it has been doing since 1994 - When was George W Bush elected again? Who was there before him? Because all this was going on during his watch, much to the consternation of both South Korea and Japan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR Date: 25 Oct 02 - 02:25 AM Peg: You are right of course. The pile on the Mudcat that agrees with me would be a bit small. I think, however, it would represent a "pile" of good quality thinking. The fact that you chose to make a personal attack rather than address the point I made in my post, re the tardy reading of complaining Mudcatters, leads me to believe you have no good argument for it. If I'm wrong, I will look forward to your response. Restraint would be appreciated, but not expected. After all, you are a declared liberal, right? :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Teribus Date: 25 Oct 02 - 06:14 AM Interesting Guardian link supplied by McGoH, the whole article is well worth the read and covers the story, as opposed to the rather selective passages quoted above. In another thread regarding President Bush - Lies, Political or Pathological? NicoleC came out with the following: "Bush has been priviledged, pampered and protected almost all (all?) of his life. Money or friends or Daddy's connections have always bailed him out. I don't think he's ever had to face the consequences of lies or half-truths. And while I don't doubt that intellectually he thinks falsehoods and untruths are wrong, it just doesn't sink in that it applies to HIM." Substitute Kim Jong-il for GWB and it would fit like a glove. Nicole, in the same post goes on to liken politicians lying to teenagers lying. First total denial, etc, through to justification for the lie they have been caught out in. Again it fits the North Korean situation like a glove. The one exception was that having originally denied everything the NK Government owned up knowing that if they didn't their lie would be laid bare to the world. How? - The Guardian article tells us: "Washington's first step towards getting confirmation of North Korea's weapons programme - during an October 3 visit to Pyongyang by the assistant secretary of state Jim Kelly -was to despatch its envoy to Seoul and Tokyo, and he is presently on his way to Beijing. Although Mr Kelly arrived armed with US intelligence of North Korea's efforts to produce enriched uranium, it had been expected that Pyongyang would respond in the traditional fashion: by stonewalling and denial. On the first day of consultations the North Koreans did exactly that, but they returned the next morning and acknowledged the programme, evidently with the approval of their leader, Kim Jong-il." Now I expect that this US Intelligence has been gathered by the same organisations that gathered the US Intelligence somewhere else, the same intelligence that so many in this forum have been pouring cold water on from the minute it was published???? Hmmmmmm?? as Bobert would say. The Guardian article also defines the agreement as follows: "North Korea is acknowledged to have grounds for complaint about the slow implementation of the 1994 agreement to supply two light water nuclear reactors for peaceful use in return for a freeze on its own programme. The first reactor was due to be completed next year, but 2008 is now thought to be the earliest feasible date. But the delay cannot justify the open breach of non-nuclear commitments made repeatedly to other countries as well as to the US." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Troll Date: 25 Oct 02 - 06:21 AM Golly, that last sentence does change the whole tenor of the Guardian article, doesn't it? troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert Date: 25 Oct 02 - 08:07 AM Good point, Little Hawk. I can't see a scenerio where a country would us nuclear waepons knowing that that ver action would bring complete destruction unless that country had allready been "attacked, invaded and its last stategic positions are aboout to be overrun". Given that as a basic premise of man's instinct to survive, I think its way past time to engage the world's leaders in a more inclusive, pro-human, pro-earth serce toward breaking the current cycle of violence. It just takes courage to go where mankind hasn't been BUT it is do-able and within man's capabilities... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Teribus Date: 25 Oct 02 - 09:06 AM Bobert - You are an absolute star!!!! "Good point, Little Hawk. I can't see a scenerio where a country would us nuclear waepons knowing that that ver action would bring complete destruction unless that country had allready been "attacked, invaded and its last stategic positions are aboout to be overrun"." Which you follow with: "Given that as a basic premise of man's instinct to survive" Priceless, absolutely priceless!!!! In Little Hawk's post so called "actual" and "theoretical" examples were given. "Hitler in the last days of the Battle of Berlin or Saddam in the last days of the battle of Baghdad or Pakistan with the Indian army entering Karachi and Islamabad." I am sorry, but the truth was that in the last days of the Third Reich, Hitler could have given orders until he was blue in the face, those to whom he was giving those orders - DID WANT TO SURVIVE - so they just ignored them. I think it was General Slim who said something about, "Of the number of Leaders and Generals who order troops to fight until the last man and the last bullet - the Japanese is the only soldier who will carry that order out." Now onto the theoretical examples: Saddam Hussein and "The Battle of Baghdad", the result would be the same as for Hitler in his Bunker, Saddam would either be shot on the spot for suggesting it, or completely ignored. What this whole Iraq thing has been about is to ensure we never get the opportunity to find out - you Bobert on the other hand seem to be only too willing to give the man that chance. If Iraq, or more accurately, Saddam Hussein gets a nuclear weapon - it will be firmly targeted at Israel, the country he has vowed to wipe from the face of the Earth. Indian Invasion of Pakistan: Because Pakistan has a credible nuclear capability Indian will not invade Pakistan - they are in a stand-off. Pakistan has learned enough in the past not to attack India. But Bobert you saved the best till last - "...,I think its way past time to engage the world's leaders in a more inclusive, pro-human, pro-earth serce toward breaking the current cycle of violence. It just takes courage to go where mankind hasn't been BUT it is do-able and within man's capabilities..." It will be just after you have taken those steps President Bobert that you will learn the truth in that age old saying: "You play ball with me - and I'll jam that bat right up your arse". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Peg Date: 25 Oct 02 - 10:59 AM well I tried to reply earlier but it seems to have disappeared... Doug, I am just wondering why you expect others to adhere to some standard of rhetoric which you seem all too eager to enforce, but you yourself don't think it applies to you? You urge me to use restraint; yet in the same post you insult me several times. Why on earth do you expect others to behave in a certain way when you have no intention or inclination to do so? Your petty insults and prickly sarcasm are getting extremely tiresome, as is your evasion of answering direct questions in order to engage in ad hominem insults and picking apart of other people's replies. You have yet to answer my original questions. You say I have "no good argument for it" but I provided one which you seem to be ignoring. You are accusing me of doing exactly what YOU are doing! Are you blind? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR Date: 25 Oct 02 - 12:11 PM No, Peg, but I'm old and cranky! The fact that you don't like my posts, or disagree with them, or even don't like me, is your problem, not mine. I tried to reply to your post, you didn't get what you wanted, so you attack again. So be it. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Oct 02 - 01:07 PM teribus - You are a cynical fellow, aren't you? I think that you have a lower opinion of the human race than it deserves, but I'm sure you feel it is a reasonable and practical one. All it comes down to is you are saying we are the way we have always been and nothing will ever change us and so the strong and vigilant shall rule...by force or by the threat of force. And I'm saying we can do better than that. That's what Bobert is saying too, although his spelling is lamentable at times. :-) My example regarding Hitler was not intended in quite the fashion you took it. Hitler DID try to bring about the complete destruction of his own society (at the bitter end) and take them all down with him, since he felt that having failed his vision they did not deserve to survive. Of course his people (most of them) disobeyed him. A few (like Goebbels) did not. I guess you'd call those few the "true believers"...well, Goebbels would undoubtedly have been tried and executed anyway, so from his point of view better to go out under his own auspices, I suppose. It's the last possible gesture of still being "in control" of one's own life. Now, I was suggesting that the last possible national gesture of still being "in control" (if you are a primitive-minded fool) is to fire off one's nuclear weapons at the "enemy". Certainly this is what America and Russia were contemplating doing on a few occasions, most notably in the Cuban missile crisis. Recent revelations about that have indicated that it very nearly happened. If it had happened, it would have been a futile and idiotic gesture, self-defeating to both combatants, as well as to all humanity and to nature as well. It would have been remembered as folly, not heroism. It amazes me the pickles that supposedly rational people get themselves into merely because they are too fearful and unimaginative to be able to grasp a simple concept like "we are all one humanity and we have a common interest in cooperating with each other". Is this too idealistic for you, teribus? If so, I suggest that you are trapped in a form of thinking which leads nowhere useful, but simply repeats a savage and primitive past. It's caveman logic. Are the North Korean leaders inclined toward the same caveman logic? Yes. So? They can be characterized as a very small, stunted impoverished little caveman with a tiny little club. The leaders of the USA can be characterized as a caveman 700 feet tall with a steel ax weighing 5,000 pounds in his hand. Ask me which set of leaders worries me more when I go walking through the forest that is the world of today. It all boils down to one thing, teribus...you apparently TRUST those guys at the top, and I don't. I'm cynical about the leadership, while you are cynical about humanity in general, as far as I can see. I have observed humanity in general all my life, and I see that the vast majority of them prefer to live quiet, peaceful lives and get along with each other, unless they are very scared and under great stress. There is great stress in the world, and it's because of poverty and inequality. Do something about that, and you will not need to build more weapons of mass destruction. - LH |