it's a pretty simple restating of the basic facts. NK was in a deal with us, they held to it and abandoned it when Bush blew it up. They were open to returning to a new deal (at a cost) but abandoned that idea and went full into their nuclear program after we deposed 2 dictators who had no WMDs. One of whom had actually willing surrendered them. This chain of events led them to conclude that WMD's are the only tool which can ensure the survival of the regime. We can never go back to a 1994 deal after removing Saddam and Gaddafi.

Let me know where this is confusing you. I'll try to explain in a manner which even you can understand.

Bush blew the deal up after concluding that they'd restarted a uranium enrichment program. There had been intelligence reports regarding it and as far as comprehension goes you really are rather naive if you believe that actions in Libya or Iraq contributed to it. He tested nukes before Ghaddafi had been overthrown. You repeatedly make the erroneous claim that it was some sort of response but your timeline is way off.

He obviously had the materials all along as the bomb was tested a few years after the deal was blown up.

Once again, you know not of what you speak.

The IAEA and their inspectors have made it clear that North Korea was onboard with the deal until the fall of 2002. This was 9 months after the Axis of Evil Speech and a month after the Iraq resolution. If you want, I can link the IAEA reports for you. Those same intelligence sources Bush used to justify scuttling the deal also claimed North Korea was enriching uranium at the time also said in January 2003 that North Korea had 2 bombs already (which was not true). However, the 1st test was not until the Fall of 2006, 4 years after the fall of the deal, which further indicates that North Korea was compliant as it took them that long to enrich enough weapons grade fissile material for the first test, which was low yield. If North Korea was cheating the deal, that test happens a few years earlier than it did instead of 4 years after the IAEA inspectors left the country after the collapse of the deal.

As for Iraq and Libya, I've already drawn a clear line in the chain of events showing that the US regime change policy led to the North Korean policy of not negotiating. Multiple cited US and international intelligence sources plus the regime's own statements support this conclusion. Prior to Gaddafi's fall, North Korea had indicated they would still be willing to negotiate for the right price. When that happened, any talk of dismantling the nuke program was removed from the negotiating table and the nuclear program was heavily accelerated.

You are extremely willing to believe the word of a rogue dictator for some strange reason. You can choose to believe that he became more aggressive after Bush tore the deal up but I'm not. Of all the WMD proclamations that have been made regarding U.S. enemies North Korea is the one that I do choose to believe.

As far as other things you keep referencing regarding what I do or don't know show me where I was wrong regarding the Cold War or Palestine for that matter. My information was correct and the reason that I choose not to provide sources is because I'm tired of them being ignored or discredited. Its old hat now.

It's not the word of a dictator, but rather the word of the analysts who have examined the situation. Need me to provide more sourcing material?

From a former CIA Analyst: http://world.time.com/2013/04/05/viewpo ... nightmare/

Once again, i have provided dates and facts regarding the timeline and North Korea's intentions regarding the nuclear program. You, in typical fashion, have brought nothing of substance to the thread.

Yeah, you were wrong in the Cold War thread and the Israel threads. In the Cold War thread you completely ignored Stalin's reneging of free elections in Poland, which was the starting point of the Cold War. In the Israel threads, whether it was actions of Mossad, or population figures in sepecific geographic areas, you were once again demonstrably wrong.

Really, you struggle with basic facts and have shown time and time again that you are unable to perform any amount of research to get even an elementary understanding of a topic before discussing. There is a reason you are time and time again discredited on these forums.

To illustrate the point about the uninformed way you go about this stuff.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... RVlYruRV6p

No reference to Poland and also what Historians consider to be the start of the Cold War.

Since you quoted History.com, I'll pull up a source from them as we..

http://www.history.com/topics/world-war ... conference

From my quoted source:

"Yalta became controversial after Soviet-American wartime cooperation degenerated into the cold war. Stalin broke his promise of free elections in Eastern Europe and installed governments dominated by the Soviet Union. Then American critics charged that Roosevelt, who died two months after the conference, had “sold out” to the Soviets at Yalta."
-------

Now let's build off that.

Once again, it was at Yalta that free elections were promised in Poland. The Soviets not only turned Poland and other Eastern European nations into satellite states, but then they moved to interfere in elections in Greece and Italy. These were the events which triggered the Cold War. The US is not blameless, but there is no arguing that Stalin flat out violated the agreements made at Yalta.

Middle East: USA at fault.
Cold War: USA at fault.
North Korea: USA at fault.

Noticing a trend...

BUMP

I actually noticed a trend awhile ago when it comes to you. Your lack of credibility and message board integrity. There is an oxymoron if ever there was one. I actually didn't criticize U.S. actions during this thread Ogie was the person bashing the United States yet you chose to play another one of your gotcha games in order to take a swipe at me.. I didn't call you on it because I wanted to see if someone else would.


You lack credibility because you consistently bring inherent biases to discussions each and every time. Try and debate issues and not the person all time.

Huh?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/george-h-w-bush-accuser-1992/index.html

Bush is basically dead now. What does she gain for BRAVELY coming forward with this story of some meaningless groping 25 years ago?

It's a free for all now. You get your name in the papers for a cycle or two and then we all move on. If you were any man in a position of power over the last 40 years, you better have a PR staff on speed dial. No one is safe.

No ambiguity here. You chimed in as usual and proceeded to misrepresent what I said. It's normal actually.

/\ Right out of the Boliermaker Rick playbook