Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectRE: word...I don't totally agree...
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=26121&mesg_id=26135
26135, RE: word...I don't totally agree...
Posted by 40thStreetBlack, Thu Mar-03-05 07:08 AM
>>I think we gave them the oil we promised,
>no we didn't. I read that we did for a number of years, and
>then stopped.

I thought we only stopped after the enriched uranium thing came to light? Or maybe we weren't giving them as much as we promised? I dunno.

> but we stalled on
>>the reactors after they started bugging out with test-firing
>>missiles over Japan and shit.
>that was after we balked on the oil.

Really? I didn't know about that.

>Now that I can agree with. He got all of them trained with
>that compulsary BS. He's really crazy. But he has a right
>to defend his country. If he didn't have that complex he's
>got we woulda been marched that 40 thousand across that
>border since China don't care right now.

There's still like 10 million land mines in the DMZ, and they could still flatten Seoul with their old conventional artillery alone, so it's not like we could just waltz right in there unless Kim beefed up his military & weapons programs.

>I was under the impression they did this AFTER we said that
>they couldn't make Nuclear Energy. Where did you get that

Nah, they already had the nuclear reactors going for power generation, shit hit the fan when they started removing the spent fuel rods from the reactor and reprocessing them into weapons-grade plutonium. Here's a timeline of what went down:


>Bush also said he wasn't giving them oil either. At that
>point, what do you do if you are Ill?

Exactly, Bush totally bungled the whole situation. But that's why I thought we were still giving them oil up until that point, otherwise how was Bush threatening to stop giving them oil if we had already cut them off?

Anyway here's a good article detailing how Bush screwed that whole thing up:


>I remember that. It was bold. I laffed. But that's after
>we lied about the oil.

But they were lying about the enriched uranium from jump. Reminds me of Midnight Run when DeNero and Grodin were like:

Grodin: "You lied to me!"

DeNiro: "What the - -YOU LIED TO ME FIRST!"

Grodin: "Yes! Yes. But you didn't know I was lying to you when you lied to me... So as far as you knew, you lied to me first!"

>I mean, he has every right to be
>mad. Who are we to tell another sovereign what to do?

True, but then they have no complaint about the oil and whatnot.

>thumb our noses at the UN. Should Israel and the US alone
>be allowed to do that?

Well technically they're not even doing that I don't think - the NPT treaty is strictly voluntary, so if they want to withdraw from it they're free to do so, they just lose the perks offered under the agreement. The US has threatened sanctions, but NKorea threatened back that that they would take that as a declaration of war and respond accordingly, so it pretty much boils down to a Mexican standoff situation.

And the US and Israel aren't the only ones who thumb their noses at the UN - the most blatant maybe, but certainly not the only ones.

>Yeah, and so was Pakistan n India. Where was the angst on

There was angst over that too, but we're not technically in a state of war with Pakistan & India.

>I think they'll deal with China. And since we aint letting
>China in the game cus we trying to Banana Republic them
>outta a position- u can hang that up.


Maybe I'm slow, but I's still not following. I don't know much about China's energy situation.

> Well at the time, the Dutch were about to corner them.
>Prices were type ridiculous in Britain and I still think
>they are kinda high if I'm not mistaken. If the Euro was
>the currency of choice in the OPEC nations both the Dollar
>and the Pound would suffer. So would the Mark. which is
>prolly why the Germans were quick to show them bunkers.
>When we invaded Iraq, the euro question was no longer a

Oh OK, yeah I see what you're saying.

>We fittna mess with the lot of 'em. Watch. Egypt gets a
>pass as usual of course. They signed that treaty back in
>the day so they get cash and love.

Well we've got Jordan in our pocket too for the most part. Iran and Syria are really the only ones in the region I see us messing with like that.

>I wish that were true. I'm hearing an awful lot about folk
>heading that way. Why would we be bolstering troops?
>especially non combatant groups (are we that short in
>That aint exactly rattling sabers.

I dunno, could just be a show of force to remind them that even though our focus is on Iraq & the Middle East we can still flex in East Asia. But there is really no way we're invading NKorea, especially now that they most likely have several nukes. They've done war game simulations and even without the nukes it would be a total bloodbath, for all their tough talk they really ain't trying to get into it like that.

>Yeah. I mean. I dunno. I just hope I guess, cus I got no
>idea how you'd get that off the ground.
>I hope the younger cats like Zewari and Fredrisco got some
>answers. That's really gonna be their job in the final
>analysis- I think.

There's lots of ideas out there, the problem is getting them off the ground and implementing them. Zewari is right about the oil industry, they are intent on keeping hold of their monopoly on energy and will fight tooth and nail anyone who threatens that. So it's not just a matter of ideas and innovation, it's a matter of fighting that power structure. How to do that? I have no idea.

"If your music was any good it would've been stolen by the white man by now."

- Triumph the Insult Comic Dog