Richardson Endorses Obama

[dragonrider]

1. In the summer of 2002, U.S. intelligence reportedly discovered evidence to support suspicions that North Korea was engaged in procurement activities for the development of a uranium enrichment program. However, in the late 1980s, North Korea was already acquiring dual-use equipment that could be used for uranium metal processing and applied to a uranium enrichment program. On February 4, 2004, Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan confessed that he had led a smuggling ring that transferred uranium enrichment technology to North Korea, but Pakistani authorities have not allowed outsiders to have access to Khan, so the exact details of the transfers are uncertain.
NTI: Issue Brief: North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Program and the Six-party Talks

2. You have proof on that? Active nuke programs take quite a few years to develop the facilities, processes, technology, hardware and then there's the testing. A clandestine program of course takes longer, due to it's secretive nature, and black market delays.

3. NTI: Issue Brief: North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Program and the Six-party Talks
"In April 2006, representatives from the delegations to the Six-party Talks attended an academic conference in Tokyo with the hope of jumpstarting another round of talks; however, their efforts proved to be unsuccessful. The major obstacles to re-starting this diplomatic effort include Pyongyang's insistence on its right to use peaceful nuclear technology, and Washington's efforts to address North Korea's alleged illicit activities such as counterfeiting, narcotics trafficking, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missiles.

4. How would they re-start a nuke weapons program with all those inspectors running around...? Quite the safety hazard, if you ask me.

5. Accountability, witnesses to the dialogue, and leverage from those that give aid to your holier than thou, N. Korea. You act as if the N. Koreans have been abused by us, when we are the propaganda tool Kim Jung Ill uses to whip his folks into a fear of pre-emptive nuke strikes about to be carried out by the US. I guess state sponsored drug trafficking, counterfeiting US currency, and is proliferating WMD's...is fine? Their leader is a nut case, unstable at the very least.

6. Yup. And it was a dud. Do you think they would stop the development of nukes if the talks were deemed "sucessful"? Really? Do you trust anything he does? Do you agree with his foreign policy, or the way he treats his people while amassing a huge and unsupportable army that can't yet pop it's own nukes? Or do you agree with his view, that feeding his nation is secondary to presumed 'international stature'?

Get real. He's not a victim.

Lets get one thing straight --- I despise Kim Jong-il. He's a despot and tyrant. He uses his country like hostages and starves them to extort money, food and fuel out of the rest of the world. We in the US and the other countries of the world care more for his people than he does. He lies. He breaks his agreements. He uses blackmail and extortion. The sooner he is swinging from the end of a rope the better.

This is why it was imperative that he not get a nuclear weapon. It's insulting to me for you to suggest that because I am critical of Bush's failure to prevent this lunatic from getting the bomb that somehow I have some kind of sympathy for Kim. That's idiotic. Where do you get off insinuating that?

Here is how this topic has proceeded so far:

You and P4B opened the subject by suggesting that Kim would be happy to have Obama in office because he would be gullible on the issue of nukes and suggesting that Clinton had been gullible as well.

I pointed out that Kim got the bomb during Bush's term, not Clinton's. And I said Bush deserves the blame for allowing North Korea to develop a nuke.

You said the development happend under Clinton and was only tested under Bush.

I proivided a timeline to support my take on this issue --- the agreement fell apart under Bush, and The Bomb was tested five years into Bush's term.

You suggested I get my information from revisionist websites.

I asked you if you could rebut any of the facts I stated.

You provided links and information that do not rebut those facts, and then you suggested I have some kind of sympathy for this dangerous madman that Bush let get a nuke.

Pretty weak arguments you make when they mostly consist of suggesting I get my information from dubious sources and implying I somehow support a psychotic nutcase that Bush let get the bomb. Maybe try to stick to facts and refrain from making it personal.

5. Accountability, witnesses to the dialogue, and leverage from those that give aid to your holier than thou, N. Korea.

Not MY "holier than thou, N. Korea." How insulting that you even suggest that.

You act as if the N. Koreans have been abused by us, when we are the propaganda tool Kim Jung Ill uses to whip his folks into a fear of pre-emptive nuke strikes about to be carried out by the US.

I never said anything of the kind. Where do you get this?

I guess state sponsored drug trafficking, counterfeiting US currency, and is proliferating WMD's...is fine?

If you feel these things are fine, then that is your belief. But I personally disagree. I certainly never said any of these things are fine, so unless you are presuming to put words in my mouth, I'm assuming you are taking ownership of this conclusion. But honestly, is this the kind of guy who should have a nuclear weapon? I sure wish Bush had done something to keep The Bomb out of this criminal's hands.

Their leader is a nut case, unstable at the very least.

Well, we agree on that. Bush probalby should have done something to keep this unstable nut case from getting a nuke.

6. Yup. And it was a dud.

A dud! Yea! Nothing to worry about then! Bush is a genius for allowing North Korea to develop a dud nuke. The yield was about a kiloton, so it probably was not fully successful. Still, a pretty big bang. How close would you like to be to a one-kiloton blast?

Do you think they would stop the development of nukes if the talks were deemed "sucessful"? Really?

Well, I guess I would define "successful" as stopping the development. How would you define successful? I would say failure would be defined by any strategy that allowed him to continue the development, such as Bush's strategy that resulted in North Korea developing a nuclear bomb. Do you think Bush's strategy was successful? Really?

Do you trust anything he does?

No I do not.

Do you agree with his foreign policy, or the way he treats his people while amassing a huge and unsupportable army that can't yet pop it's own nukes?

No I do not. Are you suggesting I do? What does it have to do with Bush letting him get the bomb?

Or do you agree with his view, that feeding his nation is secondary to presumed 'international stature'?

No I do not. Are you suggesting I do? Anyone with this kind of outlook should not have a nuke.

Get real. He's not a victim.

Again we agree. But are you suggesting I think he is a victim? No, he's not a victim --- he's a dangerous psychopath with a nuclear weapon. Damn, I wish that had been prevented!