English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

With everyone busy blaming Clinton, we're forgetting that Donald Rumsfeld actually PROFITED from selling nuclear technology to North Korea.

Note this article written in 2003.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,952196,00.html

2006-10-09 16:07:53 · 9 answers · asked by spire2000 2 in Politics & Government Politics

9 answers

It was the A.Q. Khan network. As much as I don't like Rumsfeld, the nuclear tech he (and other people) sold N.K. wasn't the source of their weapons - it was essentially unusable for that purpose.

We do know, and have known for some time, that NK did deal with Khan (from Pakistan), who also sold nuclear secrets to Iran and Libya, as well as helping develop Pakistan's own weapons program.

Of course, this means all the ditto-heads leaping on the "everything is Clinton's fault" bandwagon are entirely mistaken.

Khan is currently under a very loose house arrest, permitted to stay free by Bush because he's afraid to press Pakistan on the issue.

2006-10-09 16:08:54 · answer #1 · answered by Steve 6 · 1 0

President Bush did no longer have a "reign". interior the U. S. there are "words". All instructions pays, no longer inevitably proportionally. i'm particularly specific that there will be no conflict with the two NK or Iran precisely because of the fact they very own nuclear features. because of the fact the nukes have been meant to garner "Int Cred" (international credibility) i could say that yet another chamber or 2 interior the M.A.D. gun. Will make the blame recreation exciting. The question is, will the U. S. positioned a nuclear armed submarine interior the Yellow Sea to furnish some form of missile look after for South Korea and Japan and permit China understand approximately it? How a techniques will China enable NK to pass?

2016-10-16 00:46:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The light-water reactor deal was actually brokered by none else than Jimmy Carter (who else) in 1994.
The Guardian is a far left wing British paper

Following the DPRK's spring 1994 unloading of fuel from its five-megawatt nuclear reactor and the resultant US push for UN sanctions, former President Carter's visit to Pyongyang in June 1994 helped to defuse tensions and resulted in renewed South-North talks. A third round of talks between the US and the DPRK opened in Geneva on July 8, 1994. However, the sudden death of North Korean leader Kim Il Sung on July 8, 1994 halted plans for a first ever South-North presidential summit and led to another period of inter-Korean animosity. The talks were recessed upon news of the death of North Korean President Kim Il Sung, then resumed in August. These talks concluded with the Agreed Framework.

Under the framework agreement, the North would freeze and eventually dismantle its existing suspect nuclear program, including the 50 MW and 200 MW graphite-moderated reactors under construction, as well as its existing 5 MW reactor and nuclear fuel reprocessing facility. In return, Pyongyang would be provided with alternative energy, initially in the form of heavy oil, and eventually two proliferation-resistant light water reactors (LWR). The two 1,000 MW light-water nuclear reactors would be safer and would produce much less plutonium, in order to help boost the supply of electricity in the North, which is now in a critical shortage. The agreement also included gradual improvement of relations between the US and the DPRK, and committed North Korea to engage in South-North dialogue.

Read the whole story at:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html

2006-10-09 16:24:45 · answer #3 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 1 1

As usual, you commislamic fascists are throwing the BS. Of course this is a fresh batch, but BS nevertheless. Harry Truman had this sign on his desk when he was the president. It said "the buck stops here" That was true then and it was true when Clinton was the president. Of course, Clinton may have misread the sign and thought the B was an F.

2006-10-09 16:30:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

It's all supposition on what Rumsfeld did or didn't do. It's fact what Clinton did. It would appear to me that your "source" is a tad bit biased.

2006-10-09 16:12:34 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. Boof 6 · 0 1

Clinton was president ; HE set the ball rolling .

2006-10-09 16:10:27 · answer #6 · answered by missmayzie 7 · 1 0

Sprouts is this good enough for you?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/09/1052280441337.html

2006-10-09 16:24:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yeah, and Mickey Mouse riveted it together while Minnie spit and it went flying a few feet and was deemed a success.
If you read the Guardian - please attempt to obtain a more balanced point of view as well. Somewhere in there is the truth.

2006-10-09 16:11:00 · answer #8 · answered by 34th B.G. - USAAF 7 · 1 2

Clinton gave them the means with only a 'promise' from them that they would behave!!! Please quit trying to deflect yet another of Clinton's screw ups

2006-10-09 16:09:48 · answer #9 · answered by CrazyCatLady 4 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers