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

Kim Jung shuts his reactor down...and unlike 8yrs of Clinton appeasing the little Commie troll Kim Jung Ill, Bush admin stood firm and forced 6 party talks...Plus he did not use Jimmy Carter to pedal US nuclear technology secrets to the N. Koreans for concessions.

2007-07-17 06:40:14 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

The link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070715/wl_asia_afp/nkoreanuclearweapons

2007-07-17 06:44:07 · update #1

Illitrix: your revisionist history amazes even me. Carter gave them our technology...they never shut the process down until now..Slam dunk for Bush...crap in the pants for Clinton/Carter appeasers.

2007-07-17 06:47:32 · update #2

Here is a photo of Madeline after she and Kim Jung consumated their love for each other...
http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2415001

2007-07-17 07:06:15 · update #3

14 answers

It hurts their (DEMS and MEDIA) agenda. How can they convince the world that Bush and all those who support him are evil war mongers if they show you that he is not.

2007-07-17 06:47:14 · answer #1 · answered by mbush40 6 · 4 6

pretend? Oh, please, will you human beings ever provide up mendacity? the U. S. intelligence companies, besides because of the fact the intelligence companies of France, Russia, England and the UN have been all particular that Saddam had restarted his WMD classes and had WMD stockpiled. What do you morons think of the President might desire to have accomplished? Disbelieve his intelligence companies and have faith Sean "Spicoli" Penn? bypass over to Iraq and verify them himself? Why do you propagandize interior the way of Josef Goebbels? You rail on the subject of the media - in all hazard the least clever team of folk, next to Democrats, natch - no longer believing NK has nukes, yet what of that? Bush isn't "pretending" that NK does no longer have nukes. for this reason there has been some very stern warnings from the U. S. in the direction of Pyongyang, and the U. S. is urgent for extreme sanctions against NK. So, as huge-unfold, you're incorrect. communicate approximately Orwellian - you, interior the face of years of info and testimony approximately what the intelligence centers informed Bush - you attempt to re-write history, making use of the huge Goebbelian lie, to distort the actuality. WTF is inaccurate with you human beings? Why might desire to you deceive justify your irrational hatred of Bush?

2016-10-04 00:38:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You know who won? KIm Jong Il. His demands for North Korea were met.


"North Korea may also want to wrest more concessions from the US before that country's next presidential election in November 2008. President George W Bush has softened his previous hardline policy on North Korea, listening to the advice of the State Department rather than that of Vice President Richard Cheney and other opponents of reconciliation."

2007-07-17 07:00:46 · answer #3 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 4 0

It's good news for sure but blaming it on Carter and Clinton? Sounds like it started operations late in Reagans second term;

"The reactor has produced enough plutonium to make five to 12 bombs since it began operating in 1987, according to varying international estimates."

Was shut down under Clinton and it restarted under Bush II;

US claims in 2002 of the HEU programme, denied by the North, led to the suspension of fuel oil shipments and the collapse of a bilateral deal which had kept Yongbyon shut since 1994.

Plus, the restart in '02 allowed them to accumulate a lot of weapons grade plutonium;

"It is the first time that Yongbyon has been closed as a political act since a previous disarmament deal collapsed in late 2002, but enough plutonium for several more bombs is thought to have been extracted since then."

Did you even read your own link? LOL

2007-07-17 07:05:35 · answer #4 · answered by Dastardly 6 · 2 0

What success? We’re back to where we were when Clinton left office except that in the meantime the North Koreans have developed nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems. This is after they kicked out the IAEA inspectors in 2002 and restarted the Yongbyon reactor. Bush’s name-calling and idiotic behavior had to finally be abandoned in favor of Clinton-style diplomacy.

Bush has made many concessions to the North Koreans to reach this point: he has given them 50,000 tons of oil, sent a senior US official to negotiate in North Korea despite his previous refusal to have one-on-one talks, unfrozen the Macao bank accounts, and sat around for a while waiting for North Korea to shut down its reactor. This North Korean experience doesn't look at all good for Bush.

2007-07-17 06:58:33 · answer #5 · answered by tribeca_belle 7 · 4 1

Under Clinton, Kim Jung ill was shutting down his reactors. He stopped because the new Bush administration stopped the agreement which lead to Kim's advancing nuclear weapons and technology again. Bush simply picked up where Clinton left off and used the same policies that Clinton negotiated to get him to stop his nukes. You are woefully misinformed.

2007-07-17 06:44:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 8 4

We were not even part of the talks....China was the ones that convinced North Korea to cooperate.....keep trusting them....a snake is still a snake...they will turn around and bite us in the azz.

2007-07-17 06:48:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

N-Kore was never a real threat to the UNITED STATES,,its all fixed,,,yes congratulation Bush,,,give them free oil ,free money free everything,,that will last as long as it burns,,see ya,,,101 dummies

2007-07-17 06:48:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

All you'redoing right now is trying to undermine the media coverage on this news, from your "media is anti-republican" paranoidism.

2007-07-17 07:01:06 · answer #9 · answered by MrEntrepreneur 3 · 5 1

It was publicized, I watched a report on it on MSNBC. That's how I know about it, because it was...publicized. How did you find out about it?

2007-07-17 06:53:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5 1

fedest.com, questions and answers