Subject:
|
The two faces of Rumsfeld [Re: Having it both ways W.R.T. DPRK]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 11 May 2003 09:35:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
81 times
|
| |
|
|
> In other words, US taxpayers were going to pay for (much of the cost of) 2
> new nuclear plants to be built. By making them light water reactors, it was
> felt that they would not be as vulnerable to fuel diversion as the existing
> graphite reactors in the DPRK were.
Harder; but not impossible. Anyhow is the current bogeyman not a "dirty bomb"?
> Would they rather that some French company (the country that let its
> companies build divertable plants in Iraq) or some Russian company (the
> country that let its companies sell GPS jammers to Iraq) got the job? WHO
> did they want to have get the work? (1)
...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 be interested in the USA's nuclear proliferation record:
U.S. Violating Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0311-NPT.html
US increases nuclear ties with Israel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/652858.stm
>
> And for someone to post here essentially swallowing these implications and
> protesting mightily... why that strikes me as a lack of critical thinking on
> their part. Or perhaps rabid uncritical acceptance of anything that makes
> the US look bad, who can say?
My Target was Mr Rumsfeld. I can't believe you are trying to defend Rumsfeld on
this; his hypocrisy is astounding:
He gives SH anthrax, and then attacks him for [allegedly] still having it.
He gives NK nuclear technology, and *then* worries about the risk they present.
See:
The two faces of Rumsfeld
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,952196,00.html
==+==
2000: 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
Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a company which
three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea - a
country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil" and which has been
targeted for regime change by Washington because of its efforts to build
nuclear weapons.
[later]
Critics of the administration's bellicose language on North Korea say that the
problem was not that Mr Rumsfeld supported the Clinton-inspired diplomacy and
the ABB deal but that he did not "speak up against it". "One could draw the
conclusion that economic and personal interests took precedent over
non-proliferation," said Steve LaMontagne, an analyst with the Centre for Arms
Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington.
==+==
What next?
>
> Draw your own conclusions, gentle reader. I did.
Bravo! You have formed your own opinion, rather than plagiarising that of
another!
> I think it makes that
> particular someone look mighty foolish, (as is often the case, in my view)
> but YMMV. You may well think they're doing us all a great service posting
> this stuff.
I may be foolish at times, but I do use my own words to do so. Can you say the
same?
[Readers: Don't expect an answer]
[Larry: Stick to the issues & lay off me]
Scott A
>
> 1 - If there's any annoyance here for anyone, in my view anyway, it's that a
> non US company got the work after US taxpayers get most of the bill. Better
> that a US company would have gotten it so it would be easier for the US to
> keep an eye on things...
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
