Comrade
Senior Member
- Thread starter
- #81
wade said:I typed 2000 near the end where I meant to type 2001. Ooops... my bad for replying late at night.
The point I keep trying to get through to you is THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO BE BROKEN! The deal on the table when Bush took office in 2001 was never consumated, so why would you expect NK's nuclear program would not have proceeded?
Wrong, it's something you didn't research with a minute of time like I did:
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/n...Bush-Cuts.Off.Oil.To.North.Korea-323853.shtml
Published: Thursday, November 14, 2002
WASHINGTONPresident Bush decided Wednesday to cut off U.S. oil shipments to North Korea after one more delivery unless the Communist regime dismantles its nuclear weapons program, administration officials said.
Why do you deny that this was an opportunity lost? At worst, Kim would have broken the deal and that would have been that. At best, he would have honored at least enough of it to justify our continuing the deal. If we had gotten inspections as promised, it would have been worth contuinuing, and if not, we would simply have backed out having gained tremeondous intel through the exercise.
Assuming the timeline was as you say, which it is not. So I'll let you rephrase that in terms of how violation preceded a cutoff by what is now a year and a half.
Get the dates in order, please, or else you don't make sense.
Personally, I think Kim could be bought. Make the right offer and he'd be out of Korea making dirty movies and living the playboy life.
Wade.
He's not just a nobody outside of his isolated, murderious little Kimland but also subject to justice by his people, eventually, and a dead man, like Saddam. He'd hang for what he has done, and he deserves it.