10/10/2006

10 Responses to “One of Those Glass Half Full or Half Empty Deals”

1. This is interesting. If it was a dud or conventional, then we think NK still does not have nuclear capability but everybody, including Ted Turner, has a new sense of the threat NK poses. That’s good, gives motivation for the world to act. Hopefully the action will be more than Democrats complaining how it’s President Bush’s fault and the Chinese saying the world needs to pay a bigger ransom to NK. (News report said China encouraged the UN to take “positive measures” to handle the problem. That sounds like a “more carrots and no stick” approach).

   MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/10/2006 @ 9:11 am

   
   

2. After talking to some people, it seems pretty clear that it’s a bad idea to make a plutonium bomb from spent fuel rods, because you will have too much “bad” plutonium. See my blog.

   Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 10/10/2006 @ 9:28 am

   
   

3. Hello,

   This is a great blog. I’m going to be sure to link yours to mine. Would you mind doing the same for me?

   Thank you very much.

   My site:
   http://www.americanlegends.blogspot.com

   Take care,
   Mark

   J. Mark English (15bc19) — 10/10/2006 @ 10:57 am

   
   

4. Just add the NK’s nuclear failure (if it was a faiure) to the long list of Slick Willie administration failures. They provided the billions of dollars required to develop a nuclear weapon and then provided the Missile guidance system. Maybe they shouldn’t have loaned NK Dimmy Carter, isn’t his college degree in Nuclear something or the other. LMAO

   Scrapiron (a90377) — 10/10/2006 @ 11:18 am

   
   

5. Just a thought … if they were going for a much bigger boom they got, I would not want to be the guys in charge of the project just now. They have brought shame on the Great Leader Jr. (or Dear Leader Jr. as you prefer)

   quasimodo (edc74e) — 10/10/2006 @ 11:42 am

   
   

6. He has a PhD in Galactic Stupidity.

   Harry Arthur (5af33b) — 10/10/2006 @ 11:43 am

   
   

7. Scapiron…

   Stop laughing at your own jokes. We’re savvy enough to detect sarcasm when we hear it.

   So, Clinton providing aid to a starving North Korea is a bad thing? The alternative looks a lot worse in the eyes of the world. If they don’t use charitable aid from the U.S. to feed their people, that makes them look bad, not us.

   So, which is preferable?

   1) They look bad.
   2) We look bad.

   Not a particularly complicated question.

   Of course, maybe Bush is taking a page out of your book and not sending aid to Darfur on the grounds that they might use the funds to obtain nuclear weapons. It’s always refreshing to see presidents learning from the “mistakes” of their predecessors.

   Leviticus (1daf74) — 10/10/2006 @ 11:52 am

   
   

8. Leviticus: Why give aid to a guy we know isn’t going to use it for aid related purposes?

   It’s the same with Darfur. The government supports the Janjaweed (not offically mind you, but in there actions).. we give them money, who knows whose hands it’ll end up in.

   AndrewGurn (c37ea2) — 10/10/2006 @ 12:18 pm

   
   

9. Leviticus, #7:

   Are you serious? Do you think the aid Clinton gave want to feed the starving population of North Korea? It went to feed the pezzonovantes and the army poised to wipe out our soldiers in the DMZ. It also propped up the pot-bellied pig who, through his totalitarian control of information in that country, made it seem as though it were tribute.

   nk (2ab789) — 10/10/2006 @ 12:24 pm

   
   

10. FWIW, I believe Jimmy Carter had a degree in nuclear engineering- but I don’t think it was a PhD. He also was in the Navy, I think on a nuclear sub.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/10/2006 @ 2:45 pm