You are not logged in.
having worked in a defense contracting facility, yes. i am more connected than a colorado farmboy.
and im no socialite. you cant slap a liberal term on whoever disagrees with you.
Offline
When did I slap a liberal term on you? I though socialite was someone who...oh! I'll bet you though I meant you were a Rockefeller type New York socialite. I'm sorry if I raped that term.
And does taking a tour with your school count as working at a defense contracting facility? I don't know of many 15 year olds who get the chance to work on our nation's fighting machines.
And I'm not a Colorado farmboy, either. That term was exaggerated. My dad is the UPS manager.
"Some have met another fate. Let's put it this way... they no longer pose a threat to the US or its allies and friends." -- President Bush, State of the Union Address
Offline
No, working in a defense contracting facility counts as working in a defense contracting facility. im not going to divulge the name for personal reasons, but if i really needed to, i could prove it with my knowledge of the parts we made.
of course, you can try to belittle what i said. it still stands, i worked at a defense plant.
Offline
To take your word about working in a defense contracting facility at 15 years old would be even more nieve than believing that my government was telling me the truth about drugs and our war on terror.
"Some have met another fate. Let's put it this way... they no longer pose a threat to the US or its allies and friends." -- President Bush, State of the Union Address
Offline
i dont expect you to believe me, and i really dont care...whether or not you believe me doesnt make it more or less true.
Offline
Oh... as long as we don't have to prove our credentials... I'm the UN's chief UNICEF ambassador to Indo-China. And I play golf with President Bush on weekends.
Soph, if you're really just a 35 year old engineer who works in a defense contracting facility, I'm sure we'd all forgive you for faking that you were 20 years younger than you really are. If it makes to feel good to pretend that you're a really smart sophomore, more power to you...
"Some have met another fate. Let's put it this way... they no longer pose a threat to the US or its allies and friends." -- President Bush, State of the Union Address
Offline
for the record, i think youre being an idiot.
if i cared about proving myself to you, who for all i know, could be a truck driver from michigan, i MIGHT give you proof of what ive said. however, im not going to give out personal information over the internet just to show somebody on the other side of a monitor that im telling the truth.
and pretend? i dont need to. ive already gotten into gifted programs, including johns hopkins sat program. but, if you want to belittle me, when all you are is a know-it-all freshman who talks down to everyone, go ahead.
Offline
Sorry if you feel hurt when I question you, especially after all of the long conversations we've had with other people about questioning media sources. It would be hypocritcal of me to not do so in this case.
If you say you've worked in a defense contracting facility, I have no choice but to believe you.
We've spent enough time squabbling about each other's credentials, so let's get back to the business at hand.
Let's get this topic geared toward North Korea, and in particular the statements about expelling UN inspectors, and reactivating the dormant nuclear facilities there.
"Some have met another fate. Let's put it this way... they no longer pose a threat to the US or its allies and friends." -- President Bush, State of the Union Address
Offline
the problem is that north korea broke a treaty that they signed. Now, they play the all-powerful, "Evil American" card. It is a perfect way to rally support for an illegal action. What's in question isnt a nuclear power plant-it's their failure to follow a reasonable, valid treaty. They arent doing that, so they are getting spiteful. It's not our fault they violated the treaty.
And for the record, when we broke the ABM treaty, we got Russia's, somewhat reluctant, approval first. North Korea did no such thing.
Offline
I agree. And I think we have the world's support for not just a unilateral action here, but for a coalition strike.
If I were running things, I'd move some of our troops and air/sea units out of the Persian gulf and ready them near the Korean pennisula, and build up some more troops in our bases in Japan. We have the capability to fight in two theatres at the same time, so I'd just as soon move those troops to Korea while we're waiting on the results from the UN weapons inspection in Iraq.
I would also do some sweet-talking to the Chinese right about now, just to be safe...
"Some have met another fate. Let's put it this way... they no longer pose a threat to the US or its allies and friends." -- President Bush, State of the Union Address
Offline
what i would do, as a show of good faith, is to establish friendlier terms with sadam. lift sanctions. show him that we're willing to work with him. any little thing we do to show our good intentions will bring a huge payoff.
sign a treaty with sadam that allows us to keep inspectors there, gives iraq aid money, and allows us to make sure the money goes to the people. then we cant be accused of starving people. there is no need for a war.
in south korea, offer a public apology for the actions of our soldiers. i believe the problem was that our soldiers killed a girl running across a street. discharge the responsible officers, and apologize. do anything to make amends. pay for a funeral. do community service.
Offline
I would be willing to work with Saddam if we were 100% sure he had stopped his nuclear research program. The fact is, he could still have it running, or possibly have it in hiding right now, and as long as we haven't found his work, he can still make progress on it. Remember, experts say that Saddam could have had a nuclear weapon in 3 months with the right material, and that estimate was made in AUGUST.
As for South Korea, I see no need to kissy up to them. They love us. If it weren't for our troops in the DMZ, they would have been overrun by the North Koreans decades ago.
I think we need to get China on our side at the moment, and get the groundwork laid in Japan to get the area ready for a possible invasion.
"Some have met another fate. Let's put it this way... they no longer pose a threat to the US or its allies and friends." -- President Bush, State of the Union Address
Offline
if we sign a treaty that keeps inspectors there, which he is allowing now, we can keep an eye on whether or not he is building nuclear weapons. that was half of my point.
Offline
Okay. Let's keep Saddam out of this for a while so we can focus our thoughts on Korea.
"Some have met another fate. Let's put it this way... they no longer pose a threat to the US or its allies and friends." -- President Bush, State of the Union Address
Offline
just read a new york times article. a nuclear expert says a decade of dormancy means that the reactor might not even work anymore. its a five megawatt reactor. and they claim to be using it for power purposes...riiight.
well see how it plays out. hopefully the reactor just doesnt work. save us a lot of trouble. but the government just gave lockheed a huge (multibillion dollar) extension on the f-16. you wont see that in the paper. thats one of those pre-war signs ive seen before...
Offline
apparently north korea is using our failure to comply with a promise to build two nuclear reactors as a justification for their recent activity. i can see why theyd be angry, but nuclear weapons are not justified by a lack of power plants.
in any case, from my understanding, the korean reactor is a breeder reactor. this shows the risks these reactors carry, but they are still potentially extremely beneficial, with proper safeguards. it also seems suspiciously like a russian construction: the labels are all in korean and russian
Offline
soph, any breech of an agreement is a justification. In this case, internationally, Korea is in the right. It's unfortunate, but that's how international law works.
I like that everyone sees that Korea is now a much greater threat than Saddam. Then again, I'm sure there are those here with their theories that Korea is acting this way to get the spotlight off of Saddam. And it may be true, we'll see have to see how things pan out.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
no, youve got it backwards. the treaty never stipulated that we had to build the reactors. and not getting the reactors justifying building nuclear weapons is just stupid. where the connection between a and b is, i dont know.
any way you want to view it, the koreans are trying to bully us into new terms by building nukes. its a devious strategy, but we cant let it work. at least we got russian approval before breaking the abm treaty.
Offline
I thought the Koreans were pissed because we stopped oil shipments. Weren't the nuclear reactors built before the treaty in 1994 and then frozen after the agreement?
Anyway, we must stop the North Koreans from building weapons in any way possible. It would be catastrophic to have the South Koreans and the Japanese have to deal with that problem.
"Some have met another fate. Let's put it this way... they no longer pose a threat to the US or its allies and friends." -- President Bush, State of the Union Address
Offline
the oil was part of the treaty.
after the treaty, we made an unofficial promise to build two nuclear reactors, the kinds you cant make weapons from, i suppose. they want them, and they got pissed when we actually held them to their legal word.
Offline
Were they the Uranium reactors, or the Plutonium kind?
"Some have met another fate. Let's put it this way... they no longer pose a threat to the US or its allies and friends." -- President Bush, State of the Union Address
Offline
i dont think the article said, but since its non-weapons, i assume uranium
Offline
It wasn't an ?unoffical? agreement, soph... http://www.cpas.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cis/asi … 81-22.html
Hmm... that seems like a reasonable link, but I'd suggest Googling for "North Korea Nuclear Agreement", lots of hits regarding the subject.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
Though I'd say that N. Korea broke the agreement first, by reenabling their nuclear program.
But yeah, N. Korea is much more dangerous than Iraq, as I've been saying all along...
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
international community contribution of light water reactors
hmmm, i see. so its only the US that could provide them with reactors. the agreement says explicitly international. But of course, blame the Evil US.
Offline