Posted on 03/05/2003 8:23:37 AM PST by Heartlander2
The United States and its Asian allies have begun to accept the idea of a nuclear-armed North Korea and are turning their attention to preventing Pyongyang from selling nuclear material to the highest bidder, US media reported on Wednesday.
Citing unnamed officials and analysts, The Washington Post said that envoys for the new South Korean president, Roh Moo Hyun, shocked Bush advisers in Washington recently when they said they would rather have a nuclear North Korea than a chaotic collapse of its government there.
In Japan, officials feel their neighbour cannot be stopped from producing a bomb, the newspaper said.
According to The Los Angeles Times, administration officials said in closed briefings and private conversations with members of Congress over the last several weeks, that they expected North Korea to begin reprocessing its plutonium stockpiles perhaps within a few weeks.
Once reprocessing begins, North Korea will be able to produce enough plutonium for one nuclear weapon a month.
"The administration has acquiesced in North Korea becoming a nuclear power," The Post quoted a well-informed US Senate source as saying.
According to the paper, US officials have begun to contend that a decision by North Korea to begin reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods into weapons-grade plutonium will represent a diplomatic opportunity to swing international opinion to its side.
The administration thinks the shock of a decision by Pyongyang to export nuclear materials would force Russia, China, South Korea and other nations to drop their reluctance to confront the communist state, The Post pointed out.
Responding to questions from The Times, Senator Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the reports, if true, are "disturbing."
"I'm amazed that we would sit back and let North Korea become a plutonium factory churning out the world's most dangerous material and possibly selling it to the highest bidder," Biden said.
The South Koreans have to live with North Korea what ever happens, America doesnt.
Tony
Well, then I read you wrong.
Sorry.
You're not dealing with some newbie that hopped on FR yesterday, and I don't have any "misperceptions" about you.
But I just can't wait to hear your opinions re: GWB's NK policy.
When you get through dealing with your own misperceptions, you might want to come back and ask me what I think regarding this article and Bush's policy regarding North Korea. I didn't address that either.
You're not dealing with some newbie that hopped on FR yesterday,
It really makes no difference to me how long you have been here. I would however think that after more than four years on the forum you'd have attained a little better assessment tools.
and I don't have any "misperceptions" about you.
Now you've morphed the misperception issue from what I've said on this thread, to one of a misperception about me. What is the basis for this animosity? I've said nothing on this thread that could be construed by any rational person to be an affront to Bush or his supporters.
I don't really care what you think about me, but I am going to challenge any of your stated misperceptions based on my actual comments on this thread. You have acted as if I attacked Bush or Bush policies on this thread, and state that I was all too willing to believe the article contained in post one.
There is no basis for any of these comments on your part, at least not present on this thread.
Perhaps you would like to mention some comment on another thread that could be used for the basis of your comments here, since nothing on this thread could have been. Better yet, why don't you just make a comment on that thread so we can discuss real issues on the actual thread containing something you disagree with.
But I just can't wait to hear your opinions re: GWB's NK policy.
I told you that I would be willing to state my thoughts on Bush's policy regarding North Korea upon request. This was not a request. It was simply another manifestation of your disgust with me personally.
47 posted on 03/06/2003 7:03 AM PST by Cable225
Instead of reacting in kind, I have been pretty methodical with you here. I listed issue by issue what you might be upset with me for on this thread, then stated why you shouldn't be based on my comments. Instead of reading my comments and realizing that your first impression was wrong, you refused to acknowledge this and morphed the issue to one of having me pretty well sized up based on something outside this thread.
I'm not sure what the basis for your animosity is. Perhaps you could level with me and tell me what the real issue is.
Personal animosity? The list of posters on this forum that warrant that label is pretty short, and you're not on it.
I don't really care what you think about me, but I am going to challenge any of your stated misperceptions based on my actual comments on this thread.
I didn't misrepresent anything you said. Like it or not, we all have histories here. You know as well as I do that after a while, you get a pretty good idea of what people's positions are without them having to state it explicitly on every single thread.
It doesn't take much for you to find fault with GWB. This is hardly some earth-shaking secret. Knowing that, it's fairly easy to make assumptions from what you say to what you mean.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. You want me to pick out the exact words you used to pick at the guy in this thread? I can't, and we both know that. In this thread, you did not "exactly" criticize him. You want me to pull something from another thread? I tried that yesterday, and the first two threads you were supposed to be in didn't have any comments I could find from you. I decided that was becoming more trouble than it was worth for something that really doesn't matter all that much to me.
We'll do this the easy way. Apparently, I've touched a nerve with you. I'm sorry. I'm sure we both have better things to do than carry on this useless spitting match.
And to recap, I really don't have any personal animosity, or disgust, or whatever other word you would like to use towards you. You've been around a long time (like me), you contribute to the discussion (like me) and I'm pretty sure you contribute financially (like me). If we disagree on subjects (as we have in the past and will again) we don't have to be thin-skinned about it.
It's not like we're liberals, y'know.
![]()
|
You're really reading a lot into the few words I've thrown out here.
So anotherwords, this is all my fault (my overreaction). That's a bit rich.
Personal animosity? The list of posters on this forum that warrant that label is pretty short, and you're not on it.
Okay lets look at some of your comments to me, since you seem to have forgotten them.
In post 25 you stated: So, all it takes is a bunch of conjecture and leftist make-believe neatly encapsulated from a site named iafrica.com and you guys get your shorts in a bunch. Of course, it's not like you ever pass up an opportunity to disparage GWB, so why am I surprised? With friends like you guys, who needs enemies?
That was false premises one and two. I don't disparage Bush all the time and the implication that I am hostile to Bush, in essence an enemy, is also false.
I did not disparage George Bush here. Would you have objected to me accusing you of doing that? You also stated that I never pass up an opportunity to disparage George Bush. Since I didn't do that here, you're obviously wrong. Would you have objected to me accusing you of that? Out of the individuals on this thread, you chose to address those comments to me, as well as others. That's personal. If you wished to make a non-personal comment you should have made a blanket statement without naming individuals.
In post 36 you stated: It may be your own policy statement, but you had no problem believing it was true. Not a verifiable statement in the whole article (unless you count the Biden quotes) and you're ready to accept it as gospel.
I made no attempt to evaluate this article on this thread. Your assessment that I was ready to accept it as gospel is not supportable.
This was false premise three.
Inpost 47 you stated: You're not dealing with some newbie that hopped on FR yesterday, and I don't have any "misperceptions" about you.
I'm sorry to have to bring this up, but you obviously do have misperceptions about me. Based on the comments I've quoted here, it's indisputable.
This was false premise four.
Again, from post 47: But I just can't wait to hear your opinions re: GWB's NK policy.
Is this the tone you take with people you bear no personal animosity? The implication is that I must disagee with Bush.
That was false premise five.
Insofar as I have seen, Bush has made few substantive statements with regard to North Korea. I agreed with his initial statement that North Korea was part of an Axis of Evil. I agree with the assessment that North Korea's entry into the "nuclear club" is very problematic. I agree with his efforts to consult with periferal nations in the region. I agree with his movements of military resources into the region.
You don't know jack about me do you.
I don't really care what you think about me, but I am going to challenge any of your stated misperceptions based on my actual comments on this thread.
I didn't misrepresent anything you said. (6) Like it or not, we all have histories here. You know as well as I do that after a while, you get a pretty good idea of what people's positions are without them having to state it explicitly on every single thread. It doesn't take much for you to find fault with GWB. (7) This is hardly some earth-shaking secret. Knowing that, it's fairly easy to make assumptions from what you say to what you mean. (8)
That was false premise six.
You misrepresented everything I said on this thread.
Then there's false premise seven.
Even at best this is a half-truth. I support Bush on many issues. The implication is that I am silent, just lurking for the opportunity to pounce. This thread disproves that theory. Sadly you can't acknowledge this fact.
Here's false premise number eight.
Obviosly it isn't very easy for you to make accurate assumptions based on anything I've said.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. (9) You want me to pick out the exact words you used to pick at the guy in this thread? I can't, and we both know that. (1) In this thread, you did not "exactly" criticize him. (10) You want me to pull something from another thread? I tried that yesterday, and the first two threads you were supposed to be in didn't have any comments I could find from you. (2) I decided that was becoming more trouble than it was worth for something that really doesn't matter all that much to me. (11)
I'm sorry fella, but that's false premise number nine.
I did not seek you out on this thread. Even when I called you on your misperception, you stuck with your original premise and added to it. You made charges you couldn't support and I called you on it. You instigated this discussion, I didn't.
Well whadya know. This is your first correct premise.
Look, I don't gain much glee from this. The point was to call you on your false premise, have you gracefully admit the error, we'd both laugh about it and forget it. Instead you refused to do so and continued to make comments that were either patently false, or simply serious mischaricterizations.
False premise ten.
The implication is that I besmirched Bush by inuendo. I did no such thing. You know it. I know it. Just flat out admit I didn't do the things you accused me of with no qualifiers.
Correct premise two.
Okay, you tried to find a disparaging remark from me about Bush. At least you tried. I have disputed Bush's policies at times. Immigration is an area where I stridently disagree with his policies. I believe I made a fairly pointed statement yesterday regard his appointment of an unqualified individual to head up the INS under the new name. If you would have found that statement, what would it prove? You seem to think that one or even a series of stated disagreements makes me a Bush hater. Quite frankly, I'm sick to death of well meaning people who insult other based on false premises. My record of support for Bush will show strident support for him across this forum. It will also show that I take him to task when I think it's warranted.
False premise eleven.
At this point, after making false premise eleven, why don't we just agree that this was VERY important to you.
We'll do this the easy way. Apparently, I've touched a nerve with you. I'm sorry. (3) I'm sure we both have better things to do than carry on this useless spitting match. (12)
Correct premise three.
I'm going to accept your appology even though you've made it quite clear you still don't understand why I called you on your comments. In fact you've said yourself that you never mischaracterized my offering here, or my forum participation at large. So I think my acceptanc of your appology is more consideration than you have given me.
False premise twelve.
Setting the record straight is never useless. If I had inpugned your character, would you think it useless to respond?
And to recap, I really don't have any personal animosity, or disgust, or whatever other word you would like to use towards you. You've been around a long time (like me), you contribute to the discussion (like me) and I'm pretty sure you contribute financially (like me).
False premise thirteen.
I don't go around the forum trashing people based on false premises, so I'd have to disagree that I contribute to the discussion like you do.
If we disagree on subjects (as we have in the past and will again) we don't have to be thin-skinned about it.
False premise fourteen.
It is not being "thin skinned" to call someone to account for making false premises regarding your character. Your attempt to excuse away what you did on this thread is distrubing to me. I have seen it so many times in the last three years, that I'm sick of it. You folks throw around the accusations, refuse to recant when faced with the truth, then seek to minimize the whole incident when you can't back up your charges.
It's not like we're liberals, y'know.
False premise fifteen.
Look I'm not calling you a liberal, but your efforts on this thread represent classic leftist tactics.
1. You make an assessment that you don't like the messenger, so you do your best to trash their character.
2. When called on it, you state that your charges were dead on, then pile on more false charges.
3. When you can't back up any of this, you basicly say, "So what! Who cares. It isn't imporant."
4. When push comes to shove, you contine to say you didn't make any mischaracterizations, then offer an appology surrounded by attempts to excuse away your efforts and belittle the person who objected to them.
49 posted on 03/06/2003 10:02 AM PST by Cable225
Yep, this is a very long-winded response. If a person is willing to sit there and make a substantial post to me that is as full of untruths, misrepresentations and weasle words as you did, I'm going to take the time to call them on every one of them.
This is a classic example of the BushBot mentality. That's why I am documenting it on this thread. Some of you folks are quite content to insult everyone on the forum rather than act in a rational manner with folks who bear you, your politician, and conservatism at large no animosity.
Nearly every single day, I slam people in the public who trash Bush unfairly. I do it right here on this forum. I create graphics that broadly support him and conservatism. And no, I am nobody's doormat. I supported Pat Buchanan during the last election. I take him to task on this forum. I have stridently in the last few weeks regarding Iraq. If I'm going to take him to task, I'm certainnly going to take Bush to task from time to time.
If you and your cohorts would purchase a clue, you would realize that folks are more often than not multi-faceted. I just posted a series of graphic links. Click on the one on the right side. It will link you to a sign/poster page. Look around over there. If you can find one sign that is detrimental to President Bush, I'll be very surprised.
Knock off the attacks on people who have not demonstrated any "valid" reason for you to attack them. If I make a statement you disagree with, by all means take me to task for it.
Thanks for the discussion.
So anotherwords, this is all my fault (my overreaction).
and stopped there. I don't have the time, energy, or inclination to carry this on any further.
See you around.
Things in the discussion were getting out of hand, so I thought I'd try to extend an olive branch and tone it down a little bit. But that wasn't good enough for you. No, you launched into some thousand-word screed (which I still didn't bother with) that I'm guessing is all about how much more of a conservative you are than me. I'm thrilled for you.
Been in enough of those to know when further discussion is a wasted effort. Normally it's with libertarians, but whatever. Since we aren't discussing the article or any conservative points, after talking to brick walls for a while I get bored. Like now.
And since I'm apparently soooooo far off the mark, the next time I come across you trashing GWB I'll point it out for you. Oh, wait, you don't trash him, you probably just point out how conservative he's not. I'll point that out for you instead.
I'll even tag this thread so that when you can't possibly understand what I'm talking about, you can have a handy pointer to jog your memory.
You don't have to respond because I guarantee you will have plenty of chances in the future to impress me with what a great conservative you are.
Here's another diatribe from you that is rather silly. Most of what you address herein, I responded to or nailed down the in the last response I made to you. Then you say you didn't bother to read it. I have no choice but to take your word for it. Still I have to regard your attempt to respond to the post you never read with some amusement.
Here we go again.
To: DoughtyOne
Yes, that's definitely it.
Excellent point. What it's in reference to I don't know.
Things in the discussion were getting out of hand, so I thought I'd try to extend an olive branch and tone it down a little bit. (1) But that wasn't good enough for you. No, you launched into some thousand-word screed (2) (which I still didn't bother with) that I'm guessing is all about how much more of a conservative you are than me. (3) I'm thrilled for you.
Falsehood one:
You made a statement with 15 false charges in it. Also included were three somewhat accurate comments, and that's only due to me being generous. One of them was a half-truth that was only partially accurate. This was your idea of how to tone it down? That was an olive branch?
Falsehood two:
My screed, as you call it, was a point by point response to your comments. I pointed out the ones that were inaccurate, and the ones that were accurate. I then made comments why I felt that way. Now that's vicious hugh.
Falsehood three:
I made some comments regarding ways that I am supportive of Bush. You chose not to read them. I didn't make a comment regarding your conservatism other than to note that you use leftist tactics to argue.
I did specificly state that I was not trying to cast you as a liberal overall. So once again, you're wrong. I didn't express the view that I was a better conservative than you.
Been in enough of those to know when further discussion is a wasted effort. Normally it's with libertarians, but whatever. Since we aren't discussing the article or any
conservative points, after talking to brick walls for a while I get bored. Like now.
Each one of my posts has responded to specific issues you have raised. If you are board, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Here are two examples.
You stated that I was always quick to damn Bush. I responsed that I did not slam Bush on this thread.
You stated that I was quick to believe this article. I responded that I didn't make any evaluation on the article.
If you're board, quit making false statements that I'm going to point out to you.
And since I'm apparently soooooo far off the mark, the next time I come across you trashing GWB I'll point it out for you. Oh, wait, you don't trash him, you probably just point out how conservative he's not. I'll point that out for you instead.
I'll even tag this thread so that when you can't possibly understand what I'm talking about, you can have a handy pointer to jog your memory.
Well perhaps you'll find the courage to own up to the fact that you were wrong on this thread. Drop on by, I'd love to see you.
And I'm sure you'll also follow me around to threads where I post graphics I've developed in suport of Bush. I'm sure you'll visit the Sign Page I developed as a direct response to Al Gore trying to steal the election in 2000. There you'll find a multitude of posters supportive of Bush, none that detract.
I supported Pat Buchanan in 2000. I take him to task too from time to time. I'm certainly not going to refrain from taking Bush to task when I think it's warranted. This does not alter the meaning of my three sentence comment on this thread which you mischaracterized. You have tried to excuse you pathetic behavior on this thread by damning me for something you yourself couldn't prove. You ignored any evidence to the contrary. Now you threaten to follow me around and make sure you catch me doing the unthinkable.
Right here on this thread I admitted that I take Bush to task, so why would you need to point it out, refer to this thread or anything else. It still isn't going to change the fact that you teed of on me without cause and simply haven't been grown up enough to appologize without make qualifying side coments, insults and promises to hound me on the forum.
You don't have to respond because I guarantee you will have plenty of chances in the future to impress me with what a great conservative you are.
I have responded to you on point. I have addressed every issue you raised. I have pointed out where you were wrong. Instead of admitting you were off base, you ignored my attempts to reason with you and escalated the exchange. The fact that I replied methodicly and on point has sailed right over your head. You have escalated this to the point that you now appear to imply that you are going to follow me around the forum and start similar behavior on other threads.
I would urge you not to do that, but then commons sense hasn't exactly been your strong suit on this thread.
56 posted on 03/06/2003 5:00 PM PST by Cable225
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.