 | | Having it both ways W.R.T. DPRK
|
|
The agreed framework ((URL) was a bad idea when the Clinton administration put it forth, and it continued to be a bad idea all along. How bad an idea indeed, we know now, since the DPRK was apparently violating it all along. But under the terms of (...) (22 years ago, 10-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Having it both ways W.R.T. DPRK
|
|
Why should the U.S. engage in these activities in the first place? The fact that people placed highly in goverment are probably reaping some kind of on/offshore monitary benefit only makes it worse. I am also non-patisan on the issue -- Clinton (...) (22 years ago, 10-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Having it both ways W.R.T. DPRK
|
|
Followup to yesterday: "The two faces of Rumsfeld" (URL) director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea 2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change (...) (22 years ago, 10-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The two faces of Rumsfeld [Re: Having it both ways W.R.T. DPRK]
|
|
(...) Harder; but not impossible. Anyhow is the current bogeyman not a "dirty bomb"? (...) ...or the US, the country that sells "thumb cuffs" to Saudi Arabia? Really; what relevance are GPS jammers to this? [other than simple mud slinging?] You may (...) (22 years ago, 11-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | great front page [Re: Having it both ways W.R.T. DPRK]
|
|
(...) this misjudgement by Sharon: Gaza visitors must sign waiver in case army shoots them (URL) story I expect the child killers in the IDF will be happy to read] (...) I partly agree. But I think part of the problem is that he feels obliged to (...) (22 years ago, 11-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
