Bill says U.S. can pay North Korea for destroying nukes
By Roxana Tiron
Posted: 06/29/08 10:18 AM [ET]
The war supplemental funding bill that is awaiting the president’s signature includes a provision that allows the U.S. to help pay for the dismantling of North Korea’s nuclear weapons.

The Senate passed the measure on Thursday, the same day the White House announced that it would begin removing North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. President Bush’s move followed North Korea’s detailed release of its nuclear activities.

As part of the supplemental, both chambers passed a waiver to the so-called 1994 Glenn amendment, which prohibits the U.S. from providing funding to states that detonate a nuclear device but are officially considered non-nuclear weapon states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“The absence of the waiver could have led to an embarrassing situation where progress on dismantling North Korea’s nuclear program would have been delayed because of a technicality,” said Leonor Tomero, Director of Nuclear Non-Proliferation at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

The administration supports the waiver to the amendment.

North Korea, in accordance with a 2007 agreement that it struck with the U.S., South Korea, China, Japan and Russia, handed over a declaration of its nuclear program on Thursday. The communist nation also took steps to disable a reactor that helped extract plutonium to build nuclear weapons. On Friday, it destroyed the reactor’s cooling tower.

North Korea could soon become eligible to receive economic and energy assistance if the U.S. and other nations agree it is complying with efforts to dismantle its nuclear program.

However, some lawmakers disagreed with the administration’s decision to take North Korea off the terror list.

“Removing the regime from the list of state sponsors of terrorism is premature. This dictatorship remains a real threat to the region and their blatant violations, time and time again, should not be forgotten,” said Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“Lifting sanctions and removing North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism flies in the face of history and rewards its brutal dictator for shallow gestures,” said Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), Bond’s House counterpart.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/congress-allows-u.s...ukes-2008-06-29.html

The foreign policy of this admin is so upside down and backwards it makes me sick.

So, what's the point, buy it or stomp their guts out, the nukes will be gone...
Much rather buy 'em, than have our sons and daughters coming home in more flag draped caskets...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

So, what's the point, buy it or stomp their guts out, the nukes will be gone...
Much rather buy 'em, than have our sons and daughters coming home in more flag draped caskets...

So why not just buy off Iran while were at it? Taliban members? Al Qaeda? Where does it end? Nowhere as long as it saves lives?

Sounds like a bargain.

It's gotta be alot cheaper to pay the enemy to blow up their own stuff, than it is to execute a mission that would cost millions AND more importantly, put US lives at stake.

As a taxpayer, I'd rather pay the enemy to do it.

I have a feeling we would not be giving any money directly to the government per-se. Someone has to dismantle the reactors ect..Those people have to be paid for their labor. I have no prob paying those who are doing the work so long as it is supervised, also it could very well be international workers doing the dismateling. Then there must be a ton of waste that has to be dealt with, and I know that it is very expensive to get rid of any product that is hazardous. We are not giving money because it's going to be done we are giving so that it can be accomplished.

quote:

Originally posted by AnArmyMom:
I have a feeling we would not be giving any money directly to the government per-se. Someone has to dismantle the reactors ect..Those people have to be paid for their labor. I have no prob paying those who are doing the work so long as it is supervised, also it could very well be international workers doing the dismateling. Then there must be a ton of waste that has to be dealt with, and I know that it is very expensive to get rid of any product that is hazardous. We are not giving money because it's going to be done we are giving so that it can be accomplished.

Isn't this the same type of scenario Clinton was criticized for in the 90's with North Korea?

quote:

Originally posted by goarmy06:
The foreign policy of this admin is so upside down and backwards it makes me sick.

Hate to burst your bubble(well not really), but tell me, how is this different then what President Clinton was doing with incentives toward North Korea?

I've been trying to find some info on what Clintons incentives were. Anyone with a link to the actual document..

quote:

Originally posted by AnArmyMom:
I've been trying to find some info on what Clintons incentives were. Anyone with a link to the actual document..

Here's a link to the wikipedia entry. I know how some people feel about wikipedia, but the references will take you to the actual documents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework

quote:

Originally posted by goarmy06:

quote:

So, what's the point, buy it or stomp their guts out, the nukes will be gone...
Much rather buy 'em, than have our sons and daughters coming home in more flag draped caskets...

So why not just buy off Iran while were at it? Taliban members? Al Qaeda? Where does it end? Nowhere as long as it saves lives?

Hey, what ever works, works!...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by SATCOM_VET:
Sounds like a bargain.

It's gotta be alot cheaper to pay the enemy to blow up their own stuff, than it is to execute a mission that would cost millions AND more importantly, put US lives at stake.

As a taxpayer, I'd rather pay the enemy to do it.

wow...some sense in a world of nonsense...

quote:

Originally posted by goarmy06:

quote:

So, what's the point, buy it or stomp their guts out, the nukes will be gone...
Much rather buy 'em, than have our sons and daughters coming home in more flag draped caskets...

So why not just buy off Iran while were at it? Taliban members? Al Qaeda? Where does it end? Nowhere as long as it saves lives?

The big difference is that we have been "negotiating" with the DPRK for decades over a variety of issues and most of the time the US gave concessions. The goal this time was to get them to abandon their weapons program. Some more concessions were agreed to and the objective was met. That is what matter here, the objective was met. I would rather spend the funds to dismantle their weapons than to take them by force.

BTW - IIRC we were paying former USSR nations to dismantle their nukes, inventory and account for the material, and secure them.

Another difference was that the DPRK really needed this deal as their country is just a train wreck that has happened a dozen times. Iran believes it does not need any deal and that they hold all the cards. Time will tell.

quote:

Originally posted by 67NOV:

quote:

Originally posted by goarmy06:
The foreign policy of this admin is so upside down and backwards it makes me sick.

Hate to burst your bubble(well not really), but tell me, how is this different then what President Clinton was doing with incentives toward North Korea?

That was my first thought too. Bill did the same exact thing in 1994. God how people's memories are seriously lacking Gingko Biloba.

quote:

Originally posted by 6486143:

quote:

Originally posted by SATCOM_VET:
Sounds like a bargain.

It's gotta be alot cheaper to pay the enemy to blow up their own stuff, than it is to execute a mission that would cost millions AND more importantly, put US lives at stake.

As a taxpayer, I'd rather pay the enemy to do it.

wow...some sense in a world of nonsense...

Wow, I agree!

What's next- cats & dogs sleeping together?

quote:

Originally posted by hooah71:

quote:

Originally posted by 67NOV:

quote:

Originally posted by goarmy06:
The foreign policy of this admin is so upside down and backwards it makes me sick.

Hate to burst your bubble(well not really), but tell me, how is this different then what President Clinton was doing with incentives toward North Korea?

That was my first thought too. Bill did the same exact thing in 1994. God how people's memories are seriously lacking Gingko Biloba.

I was trying to point out the hyprocisy of the republicans. They chastisted bill for his agreement with North Korea, now Bush is doing the same thing. Before Clinton's agreement, North Korea was going to have the capability of making about 10 bombs a year.

quote:

Originally posted by SATCOM_VET:
Sounds like a bargain.

It's gotta be alot cheaper to pay the enemy to blow up their own stuff, than it is to execute a mission that would cost millions AND more importantly, put US lives at stake.

As a taxpayer, I'd rather pay the enemy to do it.

But the case that's being made (or asked rather) is more about the fact that it's essentially just caving from earlier demands just a few years ago concerning their program. The policy at the time was simply taking a hard stance removing incentives that didn't work and staring down NK until compliance. This isn't the massive USSR, how difficult is it to demolish NK's site(s)? Just seems more like a bribe rather than any kind of victory.

And of course, like someone else stated ... why not just start buying off the rest of our enemies if it's that effective? We already have enough purchased alliesin countries such as Egypt and Pakistan ... why not just buy em off?

And while we are at it ... how much of our tax money is still pouring into Russia to dismantle their nukes on our dime while their economy is roaring?

quote:

Originally posted by esample1:

quote:

Originally posted by hooah71:

quote:

Originally posted by 67NOV:

quote:

Originally posted by goarmy06:
The foreign policy of this admin is so upside down and backwards it makes me sick.

Hate to burst your bubble(well not really), but tell me, how is this different then what President Clinton was doing with incentives toward North Korea?

That was my first thought too. Bill did the same exact thing in 1994. God how people's memories are seriously lacking Gingko Biloba.

I was trying to point out the hyprocisy of the republicans. They chastisted bill for his agreement with North Korea, now Bush is doing the same thing. Before Clinton's agreement, North Korea was going to have the capability of making about 10 bombs a year.

Yep, you gotta point. I see now Barack seems to be embracing faith based inniatives, same arguement(hypocracy wise), Dems were bashing now embracing.
It's all politics, it doesn't have to make sense!

quote:

Originally posted by 67NOV:
Barack seems to be embracing faith based inniatives, same arguement(hypocracy wise), Dems were bashing now embracing.
It's all politics, it doesn't have to make sense!

Yeah, don’t' be shocked the Republicrats switch every few years what they back and fight ... it's all relative to who's in power. Parties are out for themselves nothing more. Only thing they'll ever come together to resolve is stopping or hindering any type of third party options.

quote:

Originally posted by 67NOV:

quote:

Originally posted by goarmy06:
The foreign policy of this admin is so upside down and backwards it makes me sick.

Hate to burst your bubble(well not really), but tell me, how is this different then what President Clinton was doing with incentives toward North Korea?

Then why was it called appeasement when Clinton did it?