Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (386819)	5/27/2008 9:05:45 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576361

"But they WERE enriching uranium in violation of the NPT" That they were. "so why keep the Framework?" Because they were following their part of it? Two different agreements. "The Framework was to prevent proliferation. What do you think it was for? " That was the spirit. Which is why the Clinton administration complained about it. However, the wording was to control the development of plutonium weapons. Which it did. "Thats a silly mischaracterization of the facts. " No, it wasn't. A NPT violation should have been addressed as a NPT violation. "How did they develop them so fast if they hadn't been working on them all along?" Because developing a plutonium weapon doesn't take much when you get to the stage of having the plutonium. Note that they didn't actually test until 2006. "Here you're saying NK's violation of the NPT was no big deal" Brumar, can you stop making shit up? As I have made clear, violating the NPT is a big deal. "and we should've kept to the Framework Agreement anyway." How dense can one person be? Do you kick the cat when the dog pees on the floor? The Framework was working. The NPT wasn't. Do you invade Iraq because an organization in Afghanistan attacks you? Oh. Wait... "No, you changed the goalposts by bringing up the DMZ. " How so? " You claim we could have "held their feet to the fire" and kept them from developing nukes, but above you just gave your tacit approval to their violation of the NPT. " By this point I have to assume you are lying. I never said or implied that I thought violating the NPT was a small thing. "We stopped paying them bribes not to cheat on the NPT after we knew they were cheating on the NPT. " There you go again. I suppose you can claim that the Framework was bribes to keep them in the NPT. But, after the Framework was in place, plutonium weapons were under that, everything else stayed with the NPT. No wonder your guys are such disasters at diplomacy. "I think the NPT is pretty important." You might. Smirk clearly doesn't. Because it shows. "Yet you think we should have tolerated it in NK's case." Oh, bullshit. What is the point of discussing something with someone who just makes shit up?