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: combjelly who wrote (386832)	5/28/2008 6:30:27 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1576889

"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. So we should have continued funding them after they had violated the NPT? There's appeasement for ya. "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. They announced Feb 2005, 2 years after the Framework ended. "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. You admit the Framework Agreement was to prevent proliferation at least you did "in spirit", you admit NK violated the NPT, and then you think they should have continued to benefit from the Framework Agreement. Should we have continued the Framework Agreement when they announced they had nukes too? How about when they tested their nukes? Actually it required them to abide by the NPT, when they violated it, they violated the Framework Agreement too. " 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. You haven't said what you think we s/h done about violating the NPT - more specific than "hold their feet to the fire" - presumably a fire fueled by the fuel oil we would still be giving them. "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. Yep. 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. The Framework Agreement was about keeping them in the NPT - not just pretend in, but not cheating on it too. ---------------------------------- Are you in training to be NK's legal advisor?