18 total posts
Once again, you and Newsmax distort the story
The truth is that there are nuclear materials that can be used to make weapons and nuclear materials that can't. Kerry was proposing offering Iran the latter, to call their bluff.
But the approach Kerry advocated, which has been taken by the British, Germans, and French, doesn't involve handing over weapons-grade material to Iran and hoping for the best. The agreement those three nations reached last year with Iran stipulated that Iran "could receive Western technology if it stopped its nuclear fuel enrichment program and accepted tougher U.N. inspections," including "intrusive inspections on short notice," according to a September 20, 2003, Washington Post article.
Indeed, the efficacy of such arrangements is the basic premise of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). On September 22, The New York Times explained: "The original purpose [of the NPT] was to encourage a system under which countries without nuclear weapons that signed the treaty were promised full support in developing other nuclear technologies in exchange for renouncing nuclear weapons."
Moreover, contrary to Mitchell's suggestion, credible experts do favor this basic approach. For example, in an article in the January/February 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs, Graham Allison -- Douglas Dillon Professor of Government and director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, former assistant secretary of defense for policy and plans from 1993 to 1994, and author of Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe (Times Books, August 2004) -- explained his recommended approach to Iran. Allison's proposal is similar to the approach that Kerry advocated in the debate.
Once again, you are
blaming the messenger for the message. Mark didn't distort a darn thing in that he didn't even COMMENT and only posted parts of the original story.
He read it and chose to post it
Therefore he is propagating a distortion of the facts. Whether he bothered to check the story out before posting it only he knows.
Excuse me, but
there are very few posters here in SE who actually 'research' a story that shows up in the headlines....they aren't news 'reporters', Josh...they are only people who, like you, spot a headline and post that information here for people to discuss. You're one of the first ones here who complain when the messenger is attacked rather than the message, so where do you get off with 'justifying' your 'attack' on Mark, when he's not paid to research.
If more actual news reporters DID research their stories, maybe we would end up with more REAL facts rather than headlines....but you sure never commented on Newsweek's blunder that caused death and distruction.
As for Mark's posted story...have YOU researched it to check it out in order to give us the facts since you claim it's propagating a distortion of them?
The results of my research were linked in my initial response to Mark's post.
If that's true, why didn't Jimmy and Billie give the North
Koreans the kind of material that could not be used for weapons?
Materials that can and can not, Josh...
Josh, although fuel rods are not suitable for making weapons, suitable material can be extracted from spent fuel rods.
so you say give this rouge state uranium
your scarey josh.
call there bluff and when they nuke you say opps
you scare me josh as you should know better.glad your not in power and your man kerry will never be.
No, I did not say that
All I said was that Kerry's statement was misinterpreted -- probably deliberately -- by Newsmax.
That was before he recommended that we not give them
any fuel. Isn't that classic Kerry? Recommend both sides of any question?
Of course, in this case, he was following in the foot steps of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. We all know the success that their policy acheived in North Korea.
Probably the bigger problem here...
is that ABC's This Week [in particular with George Stephenopolis] as a news source is no more reliable or less radical than a run of the mill tabloid.
BTW, I think it was only media hype that made the North Korean nuclear so-called threat a "crises". I don't think North Korea could send it's hot air down wind if it tried hard.
They can hit all of
Japan and almost to Alaska, from what I've heard. There is, of course, the fact that they could incinerate Seoul and kill a few million people before anyone was in any position to do anything about it.
I don't beleive they have the capabilities, or the cods...
they say they have. I don't think a NK missile would [be permitted] to reach Japan. As far as an
all-out, NK would be liken to Custer at the LBH.
I realize this is just my opinion, but I think NK would prove it fact.
The Military Factory is a good source for strength figures. But I would keep in mind that much of NK's military machine dates to the 50's.
North Korea has a substantial military
RE: 3. North Korea's Military Capability
All nations keep their military capability secret. North Korea is no exception
What would this say about the rest of the paper?
and the beat goes on
The problem, caktus, is that Seoul is only 30 miles from
the DMZ, making it essentially a hostage city. And the NKs have tested missiles that can indeed reach Japan -- whether they're nuke-capable is the question.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email firstname.lastname@example.org
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
RE: The problem
Launching missiles at Japan, and permitting them to reach Japan are two different matters. And I doubt anyone in Seoul has cause to worry.
With all NK's battle cry and so-calle military capability, don't you think SK would have been unified with NK over 50 years ago?
Even China doesn't want much to do with NK any more.