It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: 1000's of Korean's Protest U.S. Presence - Violent Clashes With Police Ensue

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 05:17 AM
link   
Capitulations when faced with the facts? Cant say that I blame you




posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Fact, Fiction Or Fatigue?


Originally posted by subz
Capitulations when faced with the facts? Cant say that I blame you

That could be why some folks stop talking about a topic, and you are, of course, free to assume anything you like.

When a thread peters out, however, the most common reason is because people don't feel like posting to it anymore.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   
If you notice that all the protestors are young people far removed from the events of 55 years ago. Many of the old people who rememeber the war actually support the US presence there. They know that the US presence is a major safeguard against North Korean agression, despite what the young Korean ideologs think.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   

But Clinton pushed on and kept North Korea nuclear weapons free until Bush stole the election.


Considering North Korea may have produced several nukes by a few years ago, it's doubtful they never even stopped working on it, and they may have in fact had some produced under Clinton. It is impossible to know exactly when they had them.

Blaiming this all on Bush is just ignorant:


North Korea has been attempting to obtain nuclear weapons since the late 1970s. In February 2005, they officially announced that they "have manufactured nuclear weapons for self-defense" and North Korea was named as a member of the "Axis of Evil" by United States President George W. Bush and after Pyongyang revealed that it had been running a clandestine nuclear weapons program in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 1994 U.S.-North Korea nuclear pact.


en.wikipedia.org...


The North Koreans have said they will dismantle all their nukes and lock up their reprocessing plant with IAEA inspections in exchange for a non-agression pact from the United States of America. Alas, President Bush wont give his assurance that the United States wont invade N.Korea. Think about it, President Bush could disarm N.Korea with a pen stroke yet he wont!


Yes, they said this after breaking the original agreement they made.


Have a look at the efforts the North Koreans went to to negotiate. They are constantly trying to negotiate with Bush but he doesnt want a bar of it. Thats stonewalling buddy.


The Bush administration negotiates through the Six Party talks. It's the only smart thing to do with North Korea, as nations like China have leverage over them, and it's the only way we can be assured they don't break the agreement they make.


Of course Bush wants to scale back the forces in S.Korea. There are 32,000 troops manning a border. They've been there for 50 years. He would rather push N.Korea into testing a nuclear weapon and pre-emptively nuke them. Problem solved. More troops to invade Iran.


We've never nuked anyone for testing their nuclear technology. We've never said we'd nuke North Korea for testing their technology. It is in fact likely North Korea may have already tested it, as well.

Your statement has no weight.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Disturbed Deliverer, you are wrong.

North Korea's Yongbyon reprocessing plant was sealed by the IAEA during President Clintons terms. It was not possible for North Korea to produce nuclear weapons if they couldnt get any plutonium.

The seals placed on the Yongbyon facility were broken open by the North Koreans when Bush came into power.

Pure speculation on your part doesnt prove that the North Koreans had nuclear weapons during Clinton's term. Wikipedia infering that they were trying for nuclear weapons since the 1970's is a shade above utterly useless.


Originally posted by Disturbed Believer
Yes, they said this after breaking the original agreement they made.

Read what actually happend instead of pontificating off the top of your head. The North Koreans stuck to their side of the Agreed Framework until it was clear the Americans were not sticking to theirs.


Another, less reported, section of the Agreed Framework called for the "move toward full normalization of political and economic relations." After three months of the signing of the accord both nations were to lower trade barriers and install ambassadors in each others capitals.

Initially the North Koreans adhered to the accord, thats more than can be said of the United States. Since the Agreed Framework was an accord and not a formal treaty Congress did not have to ratify its terms. Republicans in Congress balked at the financial investment as did the South Korean. The reactors were never funded and steps towards normalization were never taken.

Republicans objected to what they viewed as Clintons appeasement policy towards North Korea and did not want to be seen as "rewarding bad behaviour". That would be fine if you were dealing with a 2 year old child but is overly simplistic at an international level as can be seen by the consequences.

You're either mistaken or totally ignorant of how the Agreed Framework faired in the U.S Congress. It was the Americans who broke the Agreed Framework first, why should the North Koreans have stuck to it when the Americans had already broken it?


Originally posted by Disturbed Believer
The Bush administration negotiates through the Six Party talks. It's the only smart thing to do with North Korea, as nations like China have leverage over them, and it's the only way we can be assured they don't break the agreement they make.

The Bush administration uses these talks as a platform to state policy. If they are negotiating then what have the Americans offered the North Koreans?


As a rare compromise both countries agreed to "six party talks" involving Russia, China, Japan, South Korea. For the first time at these talks Kelly was allowed to talk one on one with North Korean delegates but only in the same room as the other delegates (no secret one on ones) and had to start his 20-minute-only talk with "This is not a negotiating session. This is not an official meeting."

The 6 party talks are nothing but a ruse. The Americans are not allowed to negotiate.


“We can confirm that we had working-level contact with North Korean officials on Friday, May 13, in New York,” State Department spokeswoman Julie Reside said. “This channel is used to convey messages about U.S. policy, not to negotiate.”

www.msnbc.msn.com...


Your statement has no weight.

You base it on what? No evidence and speculation. Ok then...

[edit on 1/6/05 by subz]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   

NewsMax.com Wires
Wednesday, Dec. 19, 2001

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea has stockpiled enough plutonium to build at least one atomic bomb but is still several years from producing nuclear weapons because of "rudimentary" technology, South Korea's Defense Ministry said Tuesday.

In a report on North Korea's weapons of mass destruction, the ministry estimated the communist country extracted 22 to 26 pounds of weapons-grade plutonium from its Soviet-designed graphite-moderated reactors before shutting them down under a 1994 deal with the United States.

North Korea conducted more than 70 nuclear-related tests of high explosives between 1983 and 1998, the report said. Those tests were a process needed before fabricating a high-explosive device or detonator, and there were problems in the post-1993 tests acquiring parts of the detonator, the report said.

"North Korea may have a capability of putting together a crude nuclear explosion device," the ministry report said. "But its technology is believed to be still in a rudimentary stage and it will take the North at least several years to turn the system into a weapon."

U.S. Blackmailed

Under the 1994 agreed framework, North Korea pledged to freeze its Soviet-designed reactors, in return for a U.S. promise to provide 1,000-megawatt light-water models that make it more difficult to extract weapons-grade plutonium.

The ministry report is considered as confirmation of widespread suspicions North Korea might have extracted weapons-grade plutonium before freezing its nuclear program.
North Korea Stockpiles Plutonium



Proliferation concerns centered around the weapons-grade plutonium production capacity of the 5MW(e) reactor. Although North Korea has not been forthcoming about the details of the operating history of this reactor, several governmental and non-governmental analyses have estimated the amount of weapons-grade plutonium that North Korea may have separated from this reactor's spent fuel. In addition, further analysis has estimated the quantity of plutonium contained in the 8,000 spent fuel rods removed from the reactor in 1994, as discussed below.

Accurately assessing the amount of weapons-grade plutonium produced would require knowing the operating history of the reactors. Determining the amount of plutonium separated from the spent fuel requires knowing how many times the reactors were shut down to be refueled, and how many spent fuel rods were removed and reprocessed during each shutdown. These quantities are uncertain. Knowledge of the operating history is very uncertain, whereas the estimate of the number of shutdowns is on firmer ground. For the 5MW(e) reactor, there appears to have been at least three shutdowns prior to 1994 when North Korea removed all the fuel rods from the reactor. The three other shutdowns were in 1989 for about 70 days, in 1990 for one month, and in 1991 for about 50 days. The 70-day shutdown in 1989 would likely have been sufficient time to remove a significant fraction of the fuel rods or perhaps the entire reactor core, depending on whether the DPRK used one or two de-fueling machines and whether it de-fueled around the clock. According to the DPRK, its nuclear workers removed about 70 fuel rods in 1989 and extracted approximately 90g of plutonium.
Nuclear Capabilities


So it appears that north Korea had enough plutonium to make a bomb back in the mid 90's. They had performed numerous tests needed to make a nuclear bomb. North korea had plans to build a nuke regardless of who is in the White House. Anyone that says otherwise is a fool. Maybe north korea had a nuke before 2000? Nobody knows except for North Korea. Anyone that says otherwise is a liar.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
So it appears that north Korea had enough plutonium to make a bomb back in the mid 90's.

The North Koreans signaled their intent to withdraw from the NPT in 1993 and stopped 1 day short of the 90 day required notice from withdrawing. During this time it is speculated that they extracted some plutonium but it has never been proven.

In 1994 President Clinton stated to Kim Il Sung that reprocessing the spent fuel rods would cross a "red line" and that it would incur military action. How could there be a "red line" if they'd already reprocessed fuel rods?

Even your own source states:


"North Korea may have a capability of putting together a crude nuclear explosion device," the ministry report said. "But its technology is believed to be still in a rudimentary stage and it will take the North at least several years to turn the system into a weapon."
And this is back in 2001.

cryptorsa1001, the Agreed Framework of 1994 had the fuel rods that had been removed from the nuclear power plants locked up and sealed by the IAEA. The reprocessing plant was shut down and also sealed under the agreement, it was impossible for plutonium to be extracted in these circumstance. Circumstances that didnt change until October 20th 2003 when President Bush formally announced its withdrawal from the Agreed Framework. This is when the North Koreans broke the IAEA seals on the Yongbyon reactor and started reprocessing the spent fuel rods for plutonium.

My point, and im not even sure what you're arguing against, is that under Clintons diplomatic efforts the North Koreans were not nuclear armed. Under President Bush's term they went nuclear. How can you argue against that?


Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
They had performed numerous tests needed to make a nuclear bomb.

That source you quoted is misleading:


North Korea conducted more than 70 nuclear-related tests of high explosives between 1983 and 1998, the report said. Those tests were a process needed before fabricating a high-explosive device or detonator, and there were problems in the post-1993 tests acquiring parts of the detonator, the report said.

The North Koreans didnt sign the NPT until 1985 so they could well of conducted nuclear related tests from 1983 to 1985 and broken no treaty or law. The report states that it was testing needed for high-explosive devices or a detonator up until 1998, I have seen no evidence that they conducted any specific nuclear testing between 1985 and 2003 when the North Koreans formally withdrew from the NPT. That report is not specific enough for you to claim what you are claiming. If indeed the North Koreans did conduct nuclear weapons testing between 1985 and 2003 dont you think it would be plastered everywhere and for all to see?


Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
North korea had plans to build a nuke regardless of who is in the White House.

They used their sovereign right to withdraw from the NPT and to develop nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip. There is a difference, they did not intend to develop nuclear weapons during the Clinton administration. They were getting too much out of the Agreed Framework to jeapordize that.

Your mentality on this is flawed. You remember how the United States exercised its sovereign right to withdraw from the ABM treaty? The same right is provided to North Korea and any other signatory to the NPT. If America doesnt want North Korea to exercise its right to withdraw from the NPT it better have an incentive. Clinton's incentive for this was:


In exchange the United States, in conjunction with Japan and South Korea, would provide North Korea with two light-water nuclear reactors to help alleviate its energy problems, 500,000 metric tons of heavy fuel oil annually until completion of the light water reactors and an assurance that the United States would not invade

As well as plans to normalize Pyongyang-Washington relations within 3 months of signing the Agreed Framework.

See, if you want somebody to do what you want with no legal basis to your demands you are best advised to make it worth their while. It is blackmail, I make no excuses for North Korea other than to defend their legal rights, and North Korea used this to their advantage and remained nuclear weapons free because of Clinton's incentives.

Where Bush falls down is that not only did he scupper the previous Agreed Framework, he actively sabotaged diplomatic relations with North and South Korea. Labelling North Korea as part of an "axis of evil" and as an "outpost of tyranny" is not the expected behaviour from a modern-western country that is supposedly striving for negotiations and a diplomatic solution to secure their bereft of legality demands.


Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Anyone that says otherwise is a fool

Well I've said otherwise and shown why.


Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Maybe north korea had a nuke before 2000?

And maybe Bush and Cheney are sexually involved with one and other? Doesnt mean its true, does it?



Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Nobody knows except for North Korea.

I thought you knew



Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Anyone that says otherwise is a liar.



[edit on 1/6/05 by subz]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   


In a report on North Korea's weapons of mass destruction, the ministry estimated the communist country extracted 22 to 26 pounds of weapons-grade plutonium from its Soviet-designed graphite-moderated reactors before shutting them down under a 1994 deal with the United States.


Read this again subz. How is it misleading?

Maybe you did a threesome with bush and cheney. Maybe they laughed at the size of your tally wacker and that is why you have a burning hate for them.


you have no proof that north korea was not trying to build a bomb before Bush was elected into office. all of the evidence shows that they were trying to build nukes. They had enough weapons grade plutonium to build one in the mid 90's.

They had announced that they had a nuke within months of inspectors leaving. So They had to of done years of research in order to build a nuke that fast. North Korea wanted and were going to build a nuke no matter what. They did not build a nuke just because Bush is in the White House. Building a nuke from scratch takes years and is not done over night.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Maybe you did ...


There is no reason to make personal attacking comments against someone. I suggest an apology and a nice walk around the block may be helpful.

Thanks much.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Is it okay to then attack the president and vice president? Is that okay or are they just inanimate objects that can be used to attack and insult at someones leisure? If I got a warning then why doesn't subz get a warning for saying the same thing that he said about bush and cheney? Is one okay and the other isn't? Explain the difference to me please.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   
2.) You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

4.) You will not use profanity in our forums, and will neither post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content. Images of or links to gratuitous gore and/or mutilation are strictly forbidden. This applies to material posted to collaborative fiction and member short story forums. You will also not select usernames that contain profanity.

Terms And Conditions Of Use

Okay so I got warned and i deserved to get warned but I am still waiting for an answer about why subz who posted before me did not get warned.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Prior Warning


Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Okay so I got warned and i deserved to get warned but I am still waiting for an answer about why subz who posted before me did not get warned.

I should know better to step into this, but I don't see what subz posted that is deserving of a warning.

What, specifically, do you think subz should be warned about?



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   


And maybe Bush and Cheney are sexually involved with one and other


I would say this is hatefull and sexually oriented. If i am warned because i suggested he did a threesome with them then he should be warned for what he posted since it violates number 2 and 4 of the conditions of use policy in my opinion.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Sex And Violations


Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
I would say this is hatefull and sexually oriented.

In the context it was posted, it did not attack any member, or even Bush/Cheney for that matter.

If that was truly "warn-worthy", this board would be swimming in a sea of red.

subz' analogy, though conceivably "sexually oriented", was not hateful or an attack, and in light of the sorts of slang and epithets that are routinely tolerated on ATS, isn't even a blip on a moderator's radar screen.

There is a difference.

If folks could get warnings for using the expression "sexually involved", then ATS would be finished as a discussion forum.

Meanwhile, focusing on opinions instead of personally deriding other members is the way to make ATS a better place.

If you disagree, that's great, but please direct your criticism at the opinion, not the member.

[edit on 6/1/2005 by Majic]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Well majic, sometimes I get sick of members that constantly bash the US. It seems like it is there life to bash the US.I mean if you look at the posts by subz he is always bashing bush and cheney, every chance he gets. So either the dude has a lowly pathetic life or he is a paid member that is designed to push peoples buttons. Either way I will avoid his posts from now on.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme
When I was stationed in Korea, we had protests once a week. Albiet, never that large. The worst I saw it was when a US tank ran over a couple of little girls going to a birthday party. There were riots then. But as for the protesters, are you saying Grady that since we gave South Korea freedom, we should protest when they excercise that freedom? Did US soldiers die so the South Koreans could be free to say only what we want them to say?


Oh my god, I actually agree with Curme for once. I need to get my head checked.

I agree, we fought North Korea to keep south Korea from becoming the oppresive police state, so they would have freedom to bitch at us. Free speech is a double edged sword, but one Id be willing to be cut by.

I do however question our presence there. Id like to see us remove ourselves from the penninsula like Id like us to break up NATO. I really doubt North Korea is gonna pose any real threat to the south: They have Japan and even China breathing down their necks, and Im sure the southerners could handle the problem.

Its a waste for us to be there. or anywhere for that matter.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Head-Banger's Ball


Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Well majic, sometimes I get sick of members that constantly bash the US. [...] Either way I will avoid his posts from now on.

Welcome to the club. I didn't reference your post directly, but I wrote this essay in response to your frustration:

OP/ED: America Bashing: National Sociologism

Believe me, I feel your pain. All this is complicated by the fact that America is to blame for a lot of the world's problems. It's the nature of the business.

Plus we Americans revel in our freedom to bash our government, so it's natural that the rest of the world will want to follow our example and join in.

Ultimately, the best you or I can do is remember that to love liberty is to respect the fact that not everyone will agree with or like us. And, pro or con, we recognize their right to have their own opinions, no matter how screwed up they may seem.

That's part of what it means to be an American.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Majic, you are right in what you say. I can take critism over what my country has done. The thing that gets me is when someone consistently goes out of there way to bash the US or anything for that matter that has no real relevance to their point that they are trying to make like saying that cheney and bush may have had sexual relations. How is that relavant to the discussion. It wasn't, it was just another pointless bash on the US.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
American Pride


Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
I can take critism over what my country has done. [...] How is that relavant to the discussion. It wasn't, it was just another pointless bash on the US.

You and I know that we Americans are not blameless. Indeed, we rightfully deserve blame for many of the world's problems today.

I know it's not easy, but pretty much all of America's critics have a point. I think many take it too far and devolve into blaming us for everything, but I urge you to consider their point of view.

America is everywhere. With our omnipresence comes a price.

I know being bashed over and over and over again gets old. Believe me, I really understand. Search around, and you'll see me melt down in some of my posts as well.

It does get old.

At the same time, I urge you to stand firm, keep your chin up and not let it get you down.

That's part of what it means to be an American, too.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Creak, creak goes the soapbox, straining under the weight of self-pity, imagined enemies, and inflated indignance.

What you don't see is that the criticism is directed not at you, but at your government. I am an Australian, and the first to criticize my government where it is warranted, regardless of which particular group of thugs and thieves is in office at the time. Criticize the Howard government or the opposition and I will stand by your side, my voice twice as loud as yours. Criticize Australian foreign policy and I will evaluate your criticism based on its merits, not by how I imagine it is attacking me as an Australian.

The nationalistic seige mentality that you are exhibiting here is exactly what tyrranical governments want. It is what those governments use to convince a nation's citizens to willingly sacrifice their lives to fill the pockets and further the unsrupulous designs of those same governments. History has shown us that the sentiment you are developing here, even in this thread, is a very, very dangerous one.

Those few who direct their blanket criticism at American citizens, or Australian citizens, or Iraqi citizens, or any country's people in general are moronic simpletons who are doing you a favour by proving their own ignorance with every, single word, and hence are not worthy of a reaction from intelligent, astute people such as yourselves.

Please, enough with the poor me posts. You are not your government, and no one is attacking you personally. Your imagination that they are smacks of brainwashing. But, if you can't handle others criticising a bunch of people that spend a few years administrating your government, then ATSNN is not the place for you, and nor is anywhere or anything that has a scope outside of the United States.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join