Author Topic: why the double standard (Read 1174 times)

CptTrips · « **Reply #45 on:** March 11, 2003, 12:49:09 PM »

Quote

'Everyone this...' and 'Everyone that...'.

Thats Dowding's attempt at evading the question.

Wab

Toad · « **Reply #46 on:** March 11, 2003, 01:04:37 PM »

From the "Agreed Framework"

Quote

II. The two sides will move toward full normalization of political and economic relations.

1) Within three months of the date of this Document, both sides will reduce barriers to trade and investment, including restrictions on telecommunications services and financial transactions.

2) Each side will open a liaison office in the other's capital following resolution of consular and other technical issues through expert level discussions.

3) As progress is made on issues of concern to each side, the U.S. and DPRK will upgrade bilateral relations to the Ambassadorial level.

Did I miss the part where "They agreed to not aquire nukes in return for US recongising them." ?

And what about "As progress is made on issues of concern to each side"?

I'm thinking running a clandesting uranium enrichment program is an issue of concern showing no progress.

miko2d · « **Reply #47 on:** March 11, 2003, 01:44:49 PM »

Toad: I'm thinking running a clandesting uranium enrichment program is an issue of concern showing no progress.

How long did they have to wait since 1994 to establish those Ambassadorial level relations?
The terms were clearly non-symmetrical. They were agreeing on non-proliferation in return for basically our promise of non-aggression.

If they break their promise - we are no worse off that if we never made that agreement in the first place.
If we break our promise, it means they are defenseless before us because they wasted time they could have used to develop the weapons.

They can get our non-aggression through our agreement or through their deterrent. Not much difference in the end.
We can only get their non-proliferation from the agreement.
Clearly, we got most benefits while they got most risks plus some scraps off our table.

We should probably have abided by the agreement. Or not - there may have been good reasons not to continue with it. Anyway, the US public should not have been lied about the agreement.

They did not trade their weapons for some rice and oil but for recognition. Period.

miko

Saintaw · « **Reply #48 on:** March 11, 2003, 01:52:08 PM »

To answer your question Toad... if it were Belgium who'd have to send troops out there, we will be victorious capturing a small village in the forest somewhere... but my guess is, that's about it

And well... you already know/are on the spot, right ?

Toad · « **Reply #49 on:** March 11, 2003, 04:22:07 PM »

There's no timeframe in the Agreed Framework. If they wanted a specific timeline, why did they not negotiate for that in '94?

When exactly did they start the uranium enrichment program? My recollection is that is was very soon after the AF was signed.

Their real problem now is that their "deterrent" has no logical adversary to deter.

Only the loonies in the world think the US is a threat to NK. As Bush withdraws US forces from Korea it should become obvious even to the less mentally infirm loonies that the US is no threat.

Their recent saber rattling that intimates war is imminent unless we talk to them directly without other parties present clarifies who the real threat is.

Again, they've put themselves in the corner they are in.

It is absolutely not our problem

We have the IAEA looking out for the world and they have alerted the UN Security Council to the dangers.

We can all rest easy now. France, Russian and China are on the job. Perhaps NK should talk to them, eh?

OIO · « **Reply #50 on:** March 11, 2003, 07:41:47 PM »

i say National Geographic should rename NK as "Manchukuo" in their next set of special features...