Kerry and North Korea - WTF?!

[PhAntoM MeNaCe]

Not just that, but there is also new evidence released in the Duelfer Report, by Charles Duelfer, the top weapons inspector of the United States. It says there is overwhelming evidence that French officials were bribed by Saddam, in return that the French would support Saddam in the Security Council Resolutions. Also proved in this report, is that as French officials continuously undermined all economic sanctions, in return for Oil Vouchers the French gave KICKBACKS to Saddam, which netted him close to about 10 Billion dollars. This 10 billion dollars was used for numerous things that either directly or indirectly financed terrrorism. Saddam used the money to pay families of Palestinian suicide bombers, who blew up Israeli communities. He used it for more bribery, to funnel more money illegally from oil for food, and he used it to build up his military and military research(such as nuclear ambitions).

There is also evidence, in the Duelfer Report, that France SOLD military missles and weapons to Saddam, even during these UN sanctions(which they broke) and later these same weapons were used to KILL AMERICANS after the invasion. THE FRENCH AIDED SADDAM IN TERRORISM!!!! THEY HELPED FUND IT. Whats also FUCKED UP, is how French Diplomats, during the sanctions and before the invasion, were acting as consultants, or advisors to French Companies, on how to secretly do business with Iraq. Again underminding the US efforts in Iraq. The French need to take responsibility, and ACCOUNTIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS, COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE!!

[PhAntoM MeNaCe]

Balanc very good points, i agree 100%. Fuck the German Government, the French Government, and the Russian Government. This week a connection was reported of Jaque Chirac, and his aids, to the scandel in the oil for food program. Hmmm, does anybody REALLY wonder why France and Germany were so opposed to the US going into Iraq. I hope not, its because one: they were getting MILLIONS of dollars, it has been discovered, in personal oil vouchers which allowed French officials to buy a shiiiiit loads of oil very cheap, then resell it, perhaps to Germany making a VERY large PROFIT. SHAME ON YOU FRENCH GOVERNMENT. Number two: France and Germany BOTH undermined the sanctions put on Saddam, by secretly doing business with Iraq, mostly with hmmmmmm...you guessed it OIL! So all these people saying 'America went into Iraq for oil', understand since the invasion, under American monitoring, all oil proceeds go towards rebuilding Iraq, used to shape their OWN country. Ironic how America is accused of this, but BEFORE the invasion...the money from the oil was going right into the personal pockets of Saddam, members of his regime, and their counter-parts....France and Germany, as well as Russia. Now, Kerry talks about building a 'stronger' coalition, which again undermines the 30 different countries participating in Iraq in one way or another. But when asked, his definition of a 'stronger' coalition is involving France and Germany. WTF, WHY? Why would we wait to include our secret enemies, who are involved in the biggest scandel in the United Nations in world history, and who prior to the war secretly violated trade embargos and commerce sanctions for their own vested interests?? France & Germany were in bed with Saddam, and are DISGRACEFUL!

[Balanc3]

Re: Kerry and North Korea - WTF?!

No. I'm referring to the billions in aid we would be wasting if we say ok you win... here ya go, here's the aid you requested Mr Kim Chong-Il. Another example, France, Germany, and Russia... they all wanted U.S. taxpayers to completely fund the rebuilding of Iraq since we did not have the U.N. support. Which again France, Russia, and Germany were against because they were satisfied with Saddams regime and the oil for food program.

I'm talking about the International community turning to the U.S. because they dont want to assume responsibility for anything.. they say their poeple can't afford it so let the Americans take care of it. They U.S. has been getting played in foreign politics, more so during the Clinton admin. Im talking about Kerry bending over for the whole world to give it to us... just like old times.

[neoee]

So the world will live better with John Kerry as President, because he is the international sellout- and he does this at the cost of MY FUCKIN TAX DOLLARS.

Your pissed because of the potential spending that Kerry will do, what about the $139,207,630,503 that Iraq war has cost? That will probably be a drop in the bucket comparatively.

[Balanc3]

I think it's not good that Bush's administration includes N. Korea among countries which support terrorism. I mean I've never heard of a north korean terrorist?? :wink:



...but of course... I may be wrong.

yep. North Korea sells long range ballistic missiles to Syria, Iran, and anyone else who will buy. So if the country they are selling arms to sponsors terrorism, wouldn't you say they support terrorism as well???.

And if anyone wondered why bilateral talks were such a big deal and why N. Korea has demanded them- its simple. N. Korea has 3million people starving and need of humanitarian aid. These refugees keep pouring over into China and becoming their problem. However the Chinese move the refugees back into N Korea where they are lucky if they are not shot dead. So why would N. Korea want to giveup their arms programs/sales if the U.S. will have bilateral talks. Blackmale, baby!!! Yeah thats right, the U.S. has the humatarian aid that N. Korea wants and needs so badly and have refused to give them any aid since Bush has been in office. So the world will live better with John Kerry as President, because he is the international sellout- and he does this at the cost of MY FUCKIN TAX DOLLARS.

[camposja]

Re: Kerry and North Korea - WTF?!

Kerry is kind of a crackhead too but not as much

yes he doesnt make up his mind and .... you know

but at least hes less of a f!@#$% up than bush

[definiteform]

I agree w/bilateral talks. Bush's reasoning is that "the multilateral talks will break down." But who cares honestly if they do? If we can give them to give up the weapons then who cares!

General Clark stated that as having experience as a supreme allied commander, bilateral talks will not make us look weak. We went to China and basically asked them to talk to NK for us.

I'll take bilateral for 200 please.

[EternalX]

NK wants the US to do everything for it, give it aid, promise not to attack, etc.

NK isnt asking this from China, Russia, etc, they are asking it from us. So why NOT have bi-lateral talks if NK only wants to deal with us and not anyone else?

[definiteform]

Re: Kerry and North Korea - WTF?!

The fact of the matter is: North Korea wants us to aid them. We won't. So they won't give up the missile buildup. I think it's just pressure to make us give them what they want.

[LobsterClan]

^^ That's how I understood it as well -- bi-lateral talks in addition to, not in lieu of, the existing pressure from multi-lateral talks.

Exactly right. Taken from the debate transcript:

"LEHRER: I want to make sure -- yes, sir -- but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand -- the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this.

You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?

BUSH: Right.

LEHRER: And you're willing to do it...

KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.

LEHRER: And you're opposed to that. Right?

BUSH: The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. That's exactly what Kim Jong Il wants. And by the way, the breach on the agreement was not through plutonium. The breach on the agreement is highly enriched uranium. That's what we caught him doing. That's where he was breaking the agreement.

Secondly, he said -- my opponent said where he worked to put sanctions on Iran -- we've already sanctioned Iran. We can't sanction them any more. There are sanctions in place on Iran.

And finally, we were a party to the convention -- to working with Germany, France and Great Britain to send their foreign ministers into Iran.

[toasty]

^^ That's how I understood it as well -- bi-lateral talks in addition to, not in lieu of, the existing pressure from multi-lateral talks.

[bren]

Re: Kerry and North Korea - WTF?!

In watching the debate, something about the whole North Korea point really stuck out to me and left me scratching my head.

Multi-lateral talks vs. bi-lateral talks

Bush wants to keep going with the 6-way talks whereas Kerry was strong about wanting to have bilateral talks. From the outset, I have to really question what Kerry is wanting to accomplish with this. What is the advantage to 2-way talks? Anybody?

To me, it seems as though multilateral talks of some kind would be a much better idea to actually establishing a dialogue. China is the closest thing that North Korea has to a friend - IMO, they must be involved for anything constructive to actually come out. If you suddenly drop that and go with direct 2-way talks, it will take on more of a threatening tone. North Korea will undoubtedly go more on the defensive and nothing is going to happen.

Is this what Kerry is after? Is he wanting to up the direct pressure on North Korea? Is this going to be his Iraq if he gets elected? I just can't find any other logic in his stance on this.

Or is there some other clear advantages to shutting out the other nations that I'm just not seeing here?

I believe that what Kerry actually said is that we should have bi-lateral talks in addition to the multi-lateral talks. The advantage here is that we can make progress with Korea and at the same time get general agreement in the multi-lateral talks.

I think the largest problem is the assumption in the multi-lateral talks that China cares if NK gets WMD. China would be just about the last country to face a threat from NK IMHO.

[brakada]

N Korea does not have the means to buy/build/steal missles with a range to threaten any country within 500 miles.

I'm not quite sure, that you're right about the N. Korean missile range...

Found this article on the internet, although I don't know if it's credible enoguh:

North Korea missile test 'brings US within range'
By Richard Spencer in Beijing
(Filed: 11/06/2004)

North Korea has tested an intercontinental ballistic missile engine capable of hitting the United States, according to a South Korean report.

The potential range of the missile was established by American intelligence from scorch marks and other traces of the engine test, the newspaper Joongang Ilbo said, citing diplomatic sources.

It could reach up to 3,700 miles, enough to hit Alaska.

North Korea is developing a family of long-range missiles called the Taepodong. Taepodong 1 was test-fired over Japan in 1998. It caused consternation, not least because of the determination of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, to pursue a nuclear weapons programme.

The engine test for Taepodong 2 was carried out last month, Joongang Ilbo said. A full missile test - which would cause a diplomatic crisis - would be the next step.

America has been diverted from its attempts to force North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons by the war in Iraq but the possibility of nuclear-armed missiles being aimed at it would provide a new spur to action.

and here's the link:

click here

Although I do agree, that N. Korea isn't a serious threat, even with weapons of mass destruction; there's just too many nuclear weapons and other "super-powers" in the neighbourhood, that they would allow N. korea to try anything...

[Morgan]

Leha, honey, um...dont think that a nuclear threat from N. Korea wont effect the US, same continent or not, there is something called 'missiles' that are a vessel for nuclear destruction. This is a serious threat for everyone, and we need to monitor it closely.

N Korea does not have the means to buy/build/steal missles with a range to threaten any country within 500 miles.

N korea is not a threat, FFS if we(the west) stopped all grain and fuel oil imports then within a year the majority of the country would have starved to death.

Cruel i know, it would be the peasants and middles classes that would suffer, the leaders would still be fat and well fed.

You Americans are shitting your selfs about N Korea, and i cannot understand why, they are no threat, but i suppose if your fed the same lie over and over then you?ll eventully believe it,

[Leha]

btw i'm sure that NK don't have any weapon of mass destruction. The same shit as with Iraq, everybody was talking about WMD in Iraq, and all what they had were old AK's.