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

If I remember right, Clinton gave North Korea the nuclear building blocks that we see them misusing today. Dems throw around the "idiot" moniker on Bush's neck left and right, but geez, Clinton deserves a gold plated one for this screw up.

2006-10-17 16:54:29 · 20 answers · asked by baseballandbbq 3 in Politics & Government Politics

It was the trip to North Korea in 1994 by Bill Clinton's emissary, Jimmy Carter, that set the scene for the North Koreans to get nukes. Carter negotiated a settlement that said we would give them the necessary "supplies" for them to build nuclear power plants in exchange for us not attacking them; they were not to build nuclear bombs with the "supplies." We kept our part of the deal and, of course, North Korea broke its part and built weapons.

2006-10-17 17:08:03 · update #1

I am independent, but find it funny how blindly those without objectivity follow their party. Read the comments, and see how I am painted as a right wing wacko! I voted for Clinton once, but I disagree strongly with giving rogue nations nuclear technology, imagine that!

2006-10-17 17:17:24 · update #2

Where am I getting my facts? The news. It was in every paper and on all the newscast when it happened, but I did find my facts for this question on LA Times site. Thanks for paying attention to world news. If you missed it, don't bother answering.

2006-10-17 17:25:15 · update #3

Wow, I never thought I would see apologists for Kim Jong Il, but my point wasn't anything more than, why the hell would Clinton give nukes to a rogue nation? It wasn't a secret that he is a little nutty.

2006-10-17 17:35:05 · update #4

20 answers

Look this isn't a conservative or liberal issue or a Republican or Democrat issue. It is a Kim Jung Il issue. Clinton tried direct negotiations with N.Korea. An agreement was reached. N. Korea started violating that agreement around 2001. Since that had not worked the present administration, intelligently decided to try another approach. This was 6 party talks (which include Japan, Russian, S. korea and China in the negotiations). These have had no success either and N. Korea has continued to work on their nuclear weapons program.

There is also Pakistani complicity. I blogged on this last week in "Nuclear Jihad" at http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-GgIFACYzfqWx8YwvtspSWVmWzA--?cq=1&p=3315

The bickering by either party or ideolgical bent in this regard is not only wrong it is not productive.

2006-10-17 18:02:34 · answer #1 · answered by beckychr007 6 · 0 0

During President Clinton's Administration, an agreement was set up with North Korea where Kim Jong-Il's father Kim Il-Sung agreed to commit himself to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, seal up the plutonium, and let the IAEA in. The deal was that the United States would supply two light-water nuclear reactors and a supply of oil. Donald Rumsfeld himself profited from the contract supplying the reactors.

In the beginning, North Korea kept to their side of the bargain. Very soon after, the Congress switched to Republican control and the US did not go ahead with the plan, and instead sanctioned North Korea for being a terrorist state.

US foreign policy is forcing so-called "terrorist" states to resort to drastic actions in order to gain power. It is this first strike doctrine that makes other countries want to be armed. Furthermore, our invasion in Iraq is seen as a blunder and a travesty throughout the world and, right now, Bush has no bite to back up his bark. The world knows we do not have the military capacity right now to invade North Korea, and Russia and China are repeatedly making our threat of economic sanctions a joke.

The Bush regime has been (and is currently being) more responsible for terrorism around the world than any predecessor.

2006-10-17 17:17:59 · answer #2 · answered by Gwen 4 · 0 0

Let's look at this from Kim Jong-il's perspective as a megalomaniac dictator.

1) Bush calls Iran, Iraq, and North Korea the 'Axis of Evil.'

2) Bush claims Iraq has WMDs.

3) Bush invades Iraq.

4) Iraq actually does NOT have WMDs.

5) Saddam is captured, his country taken over.

So, if KIm doesn't want #5 to happen to HIM, he needs to make sure that #4 is not true on his part. HE NEEDS NUKES!

So he revitalizes the 80s-era nuclear program that he shut down after talks with Clinton and starts building a nuke.

Thanks, George. Fear is humanity's #1 motivator, and you pushed every Fear button your could find.

2006-10-17 17:21:33 · answer #3 · answered by Chredon 5 · 1 0

Where are you getting your facts? Proof please I didn't think so sound like some Rush Bulls**t Clinton really work toward peace and Bush messed all of it up. Armygirl give me a break you spent 4 years in the army and got out 10 years ago and now all of a sudden you are an expert on the military give me a break. If you were enlisted you may have made E-5 and if you were an Officer you were a O-2 so please stop you are not a Gen officer. You just jumping on the Conservative band wagon that say if you are pro military or pro church come be with us. Eventhough they do nothing for you. Bush say how much he has done for the military that is because we have been at war since Oct 01 Afghan and Mar 03 Iraq.

2006-10-17 17:11:06 · answer #4 · answered by meanblacktiger 5 · 1 0

What are the nuclear building blocks that you speak of? Quite rhetorical and symbolic expression ("building blocks") if you ask me.

I think that calling that country evil really sped up their efforts to get the bargaining power that is the A-bomb. Maybe that notion is too logical, though.

Would you become my enemy if I called you a right wing fascist moron? Would you be my friend, then? If you would try and get on my good side after I called you that, then this North Korean thing must be all Clinton's fault.

ADDED 9:16 PM PST: As for the building blocks, I guess that you could say the same thing about the Afghanis, because they are using our weapons against us. Whose fault was that (Reagan)? Also you could probably say the same thing for Sadaam Hussein because Don Rumsfeld helped install Sadaam. It really is the profit motive here that ends up screwing Americans 10 years down the line EVERYTIME. Each party is guilty of it. Don't turn a blind eye to that.

2006-10-17 17:00:41 · answer #5 · answered by C J 4 · 1 0

well your memory is all jacked up Clinton didn't give N. Korea anything. in fact it is proven that 12 years ago N. Korea stopped all pursuit of Nuclear research and only started again when Bush came into office with his Axis of Evil statement.

2006-10-17 16:59:32 · answer #6 · answered by Tony w 2 · 5 0

... Korea has had a military program since the mid 80s... they even had a rudimentary nuke before Clinton even got into office...

most likely, these are from China... you know... their best friend in the area...

2006-10-17 17:00:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Clinton did nothing for 8 years but appease No. Korea and now look whats going on.

Clinton is and will forever be the Joke of the US presidency.

2006-10-17 17:02:49 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 1 3

It was Don Rumsfeld as a war profiteer who sold them the stuff.

2006-10-17 17:00:12 · answer #9 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 3 0

Hey--Dee Dee Deee! C'mon now---get with the program.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html

Your so wrong you don't even know your wrong--put down the Kool-aid and see for yourself!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100900047.html

Next!!

2006-10-17 17:07:06 · answer #10 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers