Zipp0 1 #1 February 13, 2007 In the spirit of "credit where due", Bravo to the Bush administration on the NK nuclear deal. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2870673 Now don't muck it up! -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IanHarrop 42 #2 February 13, 2007 I am pleased that there is an agreement, but not optimistic. There seems to be a track record of N.K. saying one thing and doing another. I wonder how much aid they'll get before the agreement is abandoned? Or worded differently - How much free stuff will they get and still have their nuclear programs?"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #3 February 13, 2007 We gave into Pyongyang's extortion demands. We lost.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 February 13, 2007 Credit should be given to the SIX parties involved. This was not simply a bilateral agreement. Sorry but I can't simply give all the credit to the Bush Administration for either its potential success or failure.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #5 February 13, 2007 QuoteCredit should be given to the SIX parties invloved. This was not simply a bilateral agreement. Sorry but I can't simply give all the credit to the Bush Administration for either its potential success or failure. Nah, give it all to Bush. That way the right wingers who criticized Clinton for a similar deal can pipe down. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,077 #6 February 13, 2007 Indeed; kudos for Bush for pulling this off. If all sides can stick to the terms of the deal, that will go a long way towards easing tensions in that area of the world. I'm glad to see he is using diplomacy to get what he wants in this case - it's far more effective in the long term. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #7 February 13, 2007 Somehow I doubt that the hardliners will acknowledge any success in this. As we have seen so far in just a few posts people who hate Bush tend to find fault with everything he does. He could save a drowning child and somebody would bitch because his shoes then got the carpet in AF-1 wet. As far as giving in the NK demands, it is what is know as "compromise", something the Bush Bashers have been accusing him of lacking in the past. And, no, the agreement is not just between U.S.and NK. As has been pointed out there are several parties involved, something else the Bush Bashers have been known to tear him apart on. The agreement is far from perfect, but it is a start. If nothing else it will calm things down for a while. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #8 February 13, 2007 QuoteIn the spirit of "credit where due", Bravo to the Bush administration on the NK nuclear deal. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2870673 Now don't muck it up! F*CK THAT SH*T!!!!! History repeats itself. Once again the world and my president gave in to the "Nuke Perp" of the planet!!! Here is a quote from that article......... Under the deal, the North will receive initial aid equal to 50,000 tons heavy fuel oil within 60 days for shutting down and sealing its main nuclear reactor and related facilities at Yongbyon, north of the capital, to be confirmed by international inspectors. AND WHO PAYS FOR IT?????? Thank you tax payers for once again stepping up to the plate of appeasement (A.K.A. Diplomacy) and floating the TAB! All we are doing is delaying the inevitable.... Disarmament By Force! Please tell me that someone reading this thread TRULY thinks that N.K. will "adhere" to this negotiated deal like they did in the past. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #9 February 13, 2007 QuoteIndeed; kudos for Bush for pulling this off. If all sides can stick to the terms of the deal, that will go a long way towards easing tensions in that area of the world. I'm glad to see he is using diplomacy to get what he wants in this case - it's far more effective in the long term. Does anyone know what the word "appeasement" means??? Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #10 February 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteIn the spirit of "credit where due", Bravo to the Bush administration on the NK nuclear deal. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2870673 Now don't muck it up! F*CK THAT SH*T!!!!! History repeats itself. Once again the world and my president gave in to the "Nuke Perp" of the planet!!! Here is a quote from that article......... Under the deal, the North will receive initial aid equal to 50,000 tons heavy fuel oil within 60 days for shutting down and sealing its main nuclear reactor and related facilities at Yongbyon, north of the capital, to be confirmed by international inspectors. AND WHO PAYS FOR IT?????? Thank you tax payers for once again stepping up to the plate of appeasement (A.K.A. Diplomacy) and floating the TAB! All we are doing is delaying the inevitable.... Disarmament By Force! Please tell me that someone reading this thread TRULY thinks that N.K. will "adhere" to this negotiated deal like they did in the past. 50,000 tons of heavy fuel is much cheaper than a war. Reference - see Iraq. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,077 #11 February 13, 2007 >AND WHO PAYS FOR IT? We do. A million gallons of oil will cost us around 2 million bucks, and may succeed. Or it may not, and we may have to try again. The Iraq war has cost us $370 billion so far, and failed in its objective of locating and securing Saddam's WMD's. It has also cost the lives of thousands of US troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Which bill would you rather pay? Personally, I'd rather pay $370 billion and NOT lose any US troops (or innocent Iraqis) than pay $370 billion and lose all those people. And by those standards, $2 million is peanuts. If it works it will be the best money we ever spent. Yes, it's a "bribe" in a way. We give them money, they do what we want. It's much, much cheaper than another war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #12 February 13, 2007 Quote>AND WHO PAYS FOR IT? We do. A million gallons of oil will cost us around 2 million bucks, and may succeed. Or it may not, and we may have to try again. Hey Bill, that's one million TONS of fuel oil, not gallons. So closer to 500 million dollars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,077 #13 February 13, 2007 >that's one million TONS of fuel oil, not gallons. So closer to 500 million dollars. You're right, my bad. So now we're at half a billion. To put it another way, we could do that 10 times and still not come close to the cost of a war (not to mention the cost in lives.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #15 February 13, 2007 Quote>AND WHO PAYS FOR IT? We do. A million gallons of oil will cost us around 2 million bucks, and may succeed. Or it may not, and we may have to try again. The Iraq war has cost us $370 billion so far, and failed in its objective of locating and securing Saddam's WMD's. It has also cost the lives of thousands of US troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Which bill would you rather pay? Personally, I'd rather pay $370 billion and NOT lose any US troops (or innocent Iraqis) than pay $370 billion and lose all those people. And by those standards, $2 million is peanuts. If it works it will be the best money we ever spent. Yes, it's a "bribe" in a way. We give them money, they do what we want. It's much, much cheaper than another war. Well said. Foreign relations can be done one of two ways: We can trade for influence or kill for it. I'd rather trade, even if some trades end up total write offs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #16 February 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteIn the spirit of "credit where due", Bravo to the Bush administration on the NK nuclear deal. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2870673 Now don't muck it up! F*CK THAT SH*T!!!!! History repeats itself. Once again the world and my president gave in to the "Nuke Perp" of the planet!!! Here is a quote from that article......... Under the deal, the North will receive initial aid equal to 50,000 tons heavy fuel oil within 60 days for shutting down and sealing its main nuclear reactor and related facilities at Yongbyon, north of the capital, to be confirmed by international inspectors. AND WHO PAYS FOR IT?????? Thank you tax payers for once again stepping up to the plate of appeasement (A.K.A. Diplomacy) and floating the TAB! All we are doing is delaying the inevitable.... Disarmament By Force! Please tell me that someone reading this thread TRULY thinks that N.K. will "adhere" to this negotiated deal like they did in the past. 50,000 tons of heavy fuel is much cheaper than a war. Reference - see Iraq. So you are saying that you are okay with being bullied by other countries just because we have more $$$ ???? Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #17 February 13, 2007 Are there any other examples of the US government giving another country $500 million to curtail their military buildup? Is the US footing the entire bill for the settlement? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #18 February 13, 2007 QuoteQuote>AND WHO PAYS FOR IT? We do. A million gallons of oil will cost us around 2 million bucks, and may succeed. Or it may not, and we may have to try again. The Iraq war has cost us $370 billion so far, and failed in its objective of locating and securing Saddam's WMD's. It has also cost the lives of thousands of US troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Which bill would you rather pay? Personally, I'd rather pay $370 billion and NOT lose any US troops (or innocent Iraqis) than pay $370 billion and lose all those people. And by those standards, $2 million is peanuts. If it works it will be the best money we ever spent. Yes, it's a "bribe" in a way. We give them money, they do what we want. It's much, much cheaper than another war. #1 IT'S THE PRINCIPLE OF IT! #2 My point is that it never worked before in past administrations. Just ask a bar tender what a quarter means to him.... it all adds up. It's time to stop acting like "little johnny" who just got his lunch money taken by the playground bully. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #19 February 13, 2007 QuoteWell said. Foreign relations can be done one of two ways: We can trade for influence or kill for it. I'd rather trade, even if some trades end up total write offs. Willard, I have no issue with that if we were working with a country that keeps their end of the bargin. N.K. never has!!! Why can't we see that? Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #20 February 13, 2007 You are right invading is always the better option...the US should do the same with Iran. Non of this talking stuff.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #21 February 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIn the spirit of "credit where due", Bravo to the Bush administration on the NK nuclear deal. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2870673 Now don't muck it up! F*CK THAT SH*T!!!!! History repeats itself. Once again the world and my president gave in to the "Nuke Perp" of the planet!!! Here is a quote from that article......... Under the deal, the North will receive initial aid equal to 50,000 tons heavy fuel oil within 60 days for shutting down and sealing its main nuclear reactor and related facilities at Yongbyon, north of the capital, to be confirmed by international inspectors. AND WHO PAYS FOR IT?????? Thank you tax payers for once again stepping up to the plate of appeasement (A.K.A. Diplomacy) and floating the TAB! All we are doing is delaying the inevitable.... Disarmament By Force! Please tell me that someone reading this thread TRULY thinks that N.K. will "adhere" to this negotiated deal like they did in the past. 50,000 tons of heavy fuel is much cheaper than a war. Reference - see Iraq. So you are saying that you are okay with being bullied by other countries just because we have more $$$ ???? World opinions vary as to who is playing the part of Bully. In this case, this could be a good thi9ng. We just need to remember the Reagan "Trust but verify" thing. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #22 February 13, 2007 You need to read my previous post to yours. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #23 February 13, 2007 QuoteIn this case, this could be a good thi9ng. We just need to remember the Reagan "Trust but verify" thing. Okay, check this out. Trust but verify is the right thing to do. I then ask you who was verifying the last time we did this with N.K.? Since they didn't uphold their end in the past, what inclination do you have which draws you to believe they will uphold it this time? Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #24 February 13, 2007 You have a point, anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the NK issue knows that similar deals have been done in the past and had no effect, in fact NK engaged in the enrichment of weapons grade ore despite these deals as the State Department ignored repeated evidence of breaches. When they finally couldn't ignore the breaches (NK announced they had been making nukes all along in an act of foolish brinkmanship) everyone blamed the current administration for "getting tough". It's quite frustrating to witness the partizan idiots on the NK issue, who ignore the mismanaged history of broken deals and insist on wishful thinking as the primary solution to an uncomfortable dilema. Let's face it though, it's not as if anything else is going to get done on the NK issue with the perpetual snowstorm of bullshit everyone is fed on this, and a congress full of 2 faced losers waiting to exploit any move regardless of what it is, and damn the consequences. They might as well do the deal, I don't see much downside. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #25 February 13, 2007 Quote AND WHO PAYS FOR IT?????? There was a column by now-dead satirist Robert Benchley, way back, entitled: "Benchley Pays". He made the point in a very witty manner, without profanity or curses, that in the end, it's always the taxpayer (him) that pays.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
