how are you damed if you dont? your president squanded the sympathy that other people had for america when he used it to get more oil. i have nothing against americans but if you seriously think that you can do whatever you want then so can THEY. Fairs fair. But if on the other hand you surported the international court, surported the UN, didnt go after "WMD" while having the biggest stock pile in the world yourselves, didnt have an atitude that says "i can do what i want and the world can go to hell" then you WOULDNT be damed think about this for a second. Would so many people be against you if you, as the world "leaders" lead the world by example? If you didnt try to make tretises that aplie to everyone BUT you? (LIKE the world court, LIKE the ban on nukes, LIKE you pulling out of the balistic missiles tretie, the chemical weapond tretie and the bio weapons tretie). Just think how you would react if say china acted like this? or better yet what about NK? you call them evil because they MIGHT be building nukes but what about all these treites YOU have pulled out of? the world looks at you and coughs "hipocrits". No i dont hate you, but i hate the atitude that we can do what we want and stuff you. It makes me a little more on the other side of the fence I will give you an example from my own county. The howard goverment blindly followed bush everytime he wanted surport and we were surposed to get a really good trade agreement as a thank-you. Yet when this reward came around you know what happened? the industries who were hoping to benifit from it got nothing and the US wanted us to remove the phamasutical benifits scheme which is designed to help people pay for medicine so not only the ritch can aford to live, is that a reward? im not blaming YOU for your goverments actions but i am saying that unless you change atitudes like his then why should I care? and even further why do you REALLY think they do it in the first place? its not because they "hate your freedom" as many have tried to state unless that is the freedom to opress other countries
Well, just to kinda address your question without rehashing old ground, one thing that might be useful looking ahead to the future is to try and find ways to put things more fully into perspective for the general public. I think if people could measure the *level* of objections to policies then they would have a greater understanding of which policies are objectionable. Because even the most benign policies always generate *some* kind of objections from extremists, which is why frustration starts to creep in. Just to give an example of that, I think one of the reasons why Americans favored the war in Iraq (and the majority of Americans did) is because of a general sense of frustration with the world's inability to deal with the problems over there. The case for NOT going into Iraq was not well made, and the consequences of going in were not well-examined by the achievement-oriented American media. In short, we opted for an "easy answer", even though it should have been very clear at the time that it was NOT an easy answer at all. So what we saw here in the states is a lot of protest and objection to the war, but it really didn't look any different from all the protests and objections we always get from the world, on everything from world trade to who we elect as president to how we treat our poor. A protester screaming into a microphone about one thing looks pretty much the same as a protester screaming into a microphone about another. There's no level of measure in this. When the media focuses on a tiny crowd, it looks just like a massive crowd. There WERE levels of measure being applied, of course. Opinion polls in Europe for example were painting a very clear picture before the war. They just weren't being passed on to the American public. It wasn't getting stuck in our faces where it needed to be. I'm not making excuses, mind you. Just doing a little analysis. I think we have a big problem in this country with stopping at superficial solutions and answers when more complex reasoning is required. As I think is true with humans all over the planet, most people really just want to go about their lives and take care of their business. But as Undecided points out, we have a lot of power, and if we're going to wield it on the world stage, we have a higher obligation to do so only after careful consideration. Anyway, that's what I mean by "damned if we don't". I think a lot of Americans feel that way, and if we can find a way to show them that there are *levels* of objection, and that a very low level of objection means that what we're doing is probably a good thing, then we might make some progress.
but you havent changed you think that people like the redcross, Amnestie international, the peace movememt ect wouldnt be over joyed if you came out and said "look we fucked up and from now we will try to change it starting with joining the ICC, declaring ALL prisonors POW's and giving them the protections they are intitled to, resigning the balistic, chem and bio treities, begining to destory our OWN WMD before complaining about otheres" the problem isnt with what happened in the past but what is happerning NOW
one more thing if GWB was the CEO of a companie in australia and did what he did he would be expected to reigne or be fired well as the "leader of the free world" he should be held to a HIGHER standard. well the free world is waiting for the board to do what MUST be done, he might be a great guy but that doesnt mean that he shouldnt be held accountable for lying to the american people and if he honestly belived it too bad, the buck stops with him
This administration in the US has put the US in a permanent downward spiral. I am telling NK, Iran, and the gang don’t worry America has degraded her power so much that she can’t do much against you. America is becoming a true pariah, and it is literally not worth its weight in Fort Knox Gold, America better reform or die. This is a NWO and America needs a new mission, and new leader not Kerry not Bush something better.
"look we fucked up and from now we will try to change it starting with joining the ICC, declaring ALL prisonors POW's and giving them the protections they are intitled to, resigning the balistic, chem and bio treities, begining to destory our OWN WMD before complaining about otheres",Asguard "Just think how you would react if say china acted like this? or better yet what about NK? you call them evil because they MIGHT be building nukes but what about all these treites YOU have pulled out of?", Asguard Are we now going to attempt to compare the U.S. government to that of North Korea? This rationalization of "if you have them, why can't we" sounds wonderfully fair, but it does not take into account the complexities of the real world. North Korea would starve its own population rather then reduce the size of its army. It sells weapons technology to whomever without regards to who's hands that information may fall into. Their foreign policy is basically to threaten a war. Would it have been safe to allow Afghanistan to acquire WMD's if Omar Mohammad was still in control of that country? There are still many nations as unstable and careless attempting to gain access to such weapons. We do not call NK evil because it is trying to build nuclear weapons, I assure you. And yes, China's foreign policy is similar to that of the U.S., but on more of a regional scale. China dominates politics of other nations, especially to the south of it. It also agrees with much of the U.S. policy on North Korea. As for the POW's, most of them are treated with Geneva Convention rights. Those who deliberately target innocent civilians are not issued this courtesy and do not deserve those rights. If you want to go into the letter of the law, Iraq is not even a signer of the Geneva Convention. As for an International Court and its effectiveness, just take a look at the U.N. It has called on 12 special sessions regarding Israel and Palestine, the last being permanent, regarding a conflict resulting in the deaths of 3000 people. There has never been a special session dedicated to either Sudan, leading to the deaths of 2 million, or of Central Africa, which led to the deaths of half a million. These international institutions are hopelessly corrupted by politics to be even remotely effective. Do you not think that many countries will use this as a tool to promote their grudges against the U.S.? Finally, the ballistic missle treaty is a relic of the cold war and pointless now. It was only a deterrant for the U.S. since Russia could no longer even afford to keep its full arsenal of nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, the U.S. even paid Russia billions to reduce its ballistic missles, and then paid to reduce its own. Does this sound like a treaty relevant to the present situation? The U.S. does continue to greatly reduce all of its arsenals of WMD's including ballistic missles, chemical, and biological weapons. Is this not what you want Asguard?
It sells weapons technology to whomever without regards to who's hands that information may fall into. This is an exclusive NK trait? Are you serious? Their foreign policy is basically to threaten a war. The Korean War never ended, so what do you expect from NK really? Consider that NK has built herself up to be a true threat to the region and now the world. It would folly for Kim not to use his power to get what he wants the US does it all the time. Would it have been safe to allow Afghanistan to acquire WMD's if Omar Mohammad was still in control of that country? I’m not sure who Omar Mohammad is, the US allowed the Afghani’s to get advanced hi tech weaponry back in the 80’s even to good ole Osama. Also the situation in Afghanistan is partially due to the US like the USSR leaving the country to her own devices after the Soviet withdrawal. We do not call NK evil because it is trying to build nuclear weapons, I assure you. You call it evil because its easy for Bush to say, the “Axis of Evil” is one of histories greatest intellectual defeats, and has only emboldened NK and Iran to build their weapons. The US up-ed the ante here not NK. It also agrees with much of the U.S. policy on North Korea. But it will not allow that policy to go too far… As for an International Court and its effectiveness, just take a look at the U.N. It has called on 12 special sessions regarding Israel and Palestine, the last being permanent, regarding a conflict resulting in the deaths of 3000 people. Oh surely more then 3000, 4000+ in this last intifada alone. These international institutions are hopelessly corrupted by politics to be even remotely effective. Do you not think that many countries will use this as a tool to promote their grudges against the U.S.? That’s why there is preliminary hearings to discern if there is enough evidence, and to see if the charges are valid ones. I think that argument is a copout for the US, Abu Gharib and other incidents proved without a shadow of a doubt the US cannot control herself, and for such a powerful country to do things unimpeded is dangerous. Finally, the ballistic missle treaty is a relic of the cold war and pointless now. Not when China is building hundreds of ICBM’s, not virtually unimpeded.
"This is an exclusive NK trait? Are you serious?" Undecided The only one who sells ballistic missle technology while millions go hungry, yes. "I’m not sure who Omar Mohammad is, the US allowed the Afghani’s to get advanced hi tech weaponry back in the 80’s even to good ole Osama. Also the situation in Afghanistan is partially due to the US like the USSR leaving the country to her own devices after the Soviet withdrawal. "Undecided Mohammad Omar.... oh forgive me. The U.S., by the way did not sell ballistic technology or chemical weapons to Afghanistan. THe chemical weapons were sold to Iraq, it this only proves the mistake of the "if they have them, why cant we policy" "Oh surely more then 3000, 4000+ in this last intifada alone", Undecided Ok, you got the point. Its not 2 million. "Not when China is building hundreds of ICBM’s, not virtually unimpeded." Undecided Ok heres the point. This is why we dropped the old one. Make a new one with China, who was never a member of the old treaty and developed its current arsenal during that time. China, obviously, will not be cutting back on their ballistics. Thanks for making my point so clear.
Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer (AP) Link: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/natio...asp?category=1152&slug=Guantanamo Commissions Title: "Prisoners to challenge interrogations" Date: August 17, 2004 Two Yemeni men, an Australian, and a Sudanese man are going before the military tribunals intended to convict enemy combatants netted in the United States' War on Terror. Comment: This is your War on Terror. After nearly three years, 15 of the 585 prisoners at Guantanamo have been declared eligible for trial by commission; of those, only four have been charged. Can justice be swift or sure in this Age of Terror? ____________________ • Lumpkin, John J. "Prisoners to challenge interrogations." Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Associated Press), August 17, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/natio...asp?category=1152&slug=Guantanamo Commissions
The only one who sells ballistic missle technology while millions go hungry, yes. Well honestly how else in NK supposed to make money? Granted the regime in NK cares about one thing over all other things, regime survival. But the NK’s haven’t really been given a chance to get money from many other sources of legal trade. The US gave up on the Sunshine policy which SK had successfully tried to woo the NK’s into co-option with the south and eventual peaceful relations, and who knows even reunification without a war. The failure of the Sunshine policy and the Bush administration’s tact with the Koreans have made them into the threat are now. Because prior to Bush the situation was getting much better with North Korea. NK does export ballistic missile technology…so what? It has a right to export those missiles, it has a military industrial complex too. If you don’t like it then do something about it, but don’t expect NK not to react. If you are ready to speak Bluster get ready to make sure its more. The U.S., by the way did not sell ballistic technology or chemical weapons to Afghanistan. THe chemical weapons were sold to Iraq, it this only proves the mistake of the "if they have them, why cant we policy" It’s not a policy; the policy should be that no one should have them, period so other nations are enticed to develop these weapons. I support nuclear weapons believe it or not, why? Because the chances of war happening are effectively nullified. You won’t see the US touching NK anytime soon, America has been one up-ed. Ok, you got the point. Its not 2 million. It’s not two million I’ll give you that, it’s actually 3 million that have died in Congo and I share your disgust with the apathy that the international community has given the region. Although we mustn’t forget that a UN force is in place in Congo. It’s not like the world has completely forgotten them. But the difference btwn Isr/Pal, and Congo is that one has the potential to engulf the world into a conflict of truly biblical proportions. Ok heres the point. This is why we dropped the old one. Make a new one with China, who was never a member of the old treaty and developed its current arsenal during that time. Bull Shit…the Chinese could have been amended in the ABM treaty, there are no plans for such a treaty with China, and it’s wishful thinking on your part. Thanks to the US getting rid of the ABM treaty SALT III I believe was not ratified. China, obviously, will not be cutting back on their ballistics. Thanks for making my point so clear. Actually the principal reason why is increasing her ICBM stocks is because of NMD, your point is unsubstantiated and is largely based on emotion not intellect…I mean who with any self-respect uses “evil” when discussing international relations. This isn’t Billy Graham’s sermons.
"Actually the principal reason why is increasing her ICBM stocks is because of NMD" , Undecided Here is two websites about China's nuclear capabilities in 1999, when NMD was still in star wars stage. At this time it is predicted that China had over 400 warheads, one can only conclude its abilities have substantially increased since then... http://cns.miis.edu/research/china/nuc/nstock.htm http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/brief28.htm China has an intention of increasing that arsenal with or without NMD. Why would they not want to? It is only a benefit to China in becoming a full blown nuclear power, when the only downside is expense. "your point is unsubstantiated and is largely based on emotion not intellect", Undecided "I mean who with any self-respect uses “evil” when discussing international relations. This isn’t Billy Graham’s sermons.", Undecided I responded to Asguard's use of "evil" in his post: this was the reason I included it in my response. As to getting emotional, I have yet to refer to you as Billy Graham or described one of your responses as bullshit. "Because prior to Bush the situation was getting much better with North Korea. NK does export ballistic missile technology…so what? It has a right to export those missiles, it has a military industrial complex too." Undecided "I support nuclear weapons believe it or not, why? Because the chances of war happening are effectively nullified", Undecided Actually the "sunshine" policy was used based on a false belief. That false belief was that NK was not continuing its Nuclear program. I am not a big fan of Bush at all, but in this point he was correct. Clinton already began to slow production of two nuclear power plants in NK because he too knew they continued to defy the treaty. What was the point of the U.S. continuing to support a treaty that no longer existed? The NK did not need a nuclear program to prevent the U.S. invading simply because it had a plethora of artillery. Seoul would be destroyed during any outbreak of war, since it stands so near its border. I would not be so excited about the proliferation of nuclear weapons if I were you. One day a unstable country will produce one that falls into a terrorists groups hands.... and that will be the day it ends up blowing up a U.S. city. Hope that you wont be in that city.
I'm actually pretty comfortable with the world telling North Korea that it won't be allowed to sell ballistic missile technology. But it should also be mentioned that the real problem was not so much that it was selling BM tech, but whom it was selling it to. (Who? Whom? Damn, I never get those right.)
Here is two websites about China's nuclear capabilities in 1999, when NMD was still in star wars stage. At this time it is predicted that China had over 400 warheads, one can only conclude its abilities have substantially increased since then... As quoted by the Chinese and Russians themselves: http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/russiachinamissiledefstatement.htm This is their official stance…there’s a reason for real worry here and NMD is the main impetus for it. China has an intention of increasing that arsenal with or without NMD. True, but the problem is China will now feel it necessary to make her missiles that much more deadly, and more numerous. Russian already has developed maneuverable warheads to defeat the system, and who knows one day maybe one of those “rogue states” may get that technology as well. Already if the news out of NK is true, she can defeat NMD as well. I have yet to refer to you as Billy Graham or described one of your responses as bullshit. It’s all rhetoric’s man, don’t get angry I could have used “emotive-intellectual complex” and “lies” or “that’s wrong instead” it all means the same thing. Actually the "sunshine" policy was used based on a false belief. That false belief was that NK was not continuing its Nuclear program. That is questionable, the questions are not if NK was breaking the accord but the real question is when NK broke the accord before or after the lack of US investment, I’ll have to review my books on that. Clinton already began to slow production of two nuclear power plants in NK because he too knew they continued to defy the treaty. Substantiation please…I am not aware of this, the decision to stop building the nuclear power plant was decided on in ’03. The NK did not need a nuclear program to prevent the U.S. invading simply because it had a plethora of artillery. Seoul would be destroyed during any outbreak of war, since it stands so near its border. Tell that to NK, I fully understand why Kim would want his nukes. NK is a country on the verge and its great trump card is nuclear weapons. Before Bush it was not widely regarded that NK actually posed a threat to the US proper, thus war imo for the US was an option. The US was seriously discussing pre-emptive and targeted attacks against NK nuclear facilities that was only last year. Talking about attacking Yongbyon, etc. Now that NK has missiles that can attack the US, you won’t see the US blustering at all. In 1994 the US almost went to war with NK so the artillery for the US is a “concern” but not enough to prevent war. I would not be so excited about the proliferation of nuclear weapons if I were you. I’m excited? One day a unstable country will produce one that falls into a terrorists groups hands.... and that will be the day it ends up blowing up a U.S. city. Hope that you wont be in that city. Trust me I won’t, I wouldn’t go the US unless I have too. If anything a much more realistic and much greater worry is the loose nukes and poorly secured fmr. Soviet stockpiles.
As quoted by the Chinese and Russians themselves: “ To undermine the ABM Treaty will trigger off another round of arms race and subsequently reverse the positive trend emerged in world politics after the end of the Cold War. This will undoubtedly not be in the fundamental interest of any country in the world. The country which press for amending this fundamental treaty on the disarmament front will have to bear the full responsibility for undermining international stability and security, and for all the consequences that may arise therefrom." Of course the Russians and Chinese will say that, it is against their intrests to see NMD. Certaintly Russia will not be increasing their arsenal. China's largest concern at the moment is the fast pace of development of nulcear weapons right at its own border. Pakistan and India now present a serious threat, and China cannot let those countries become its equal. NMD is just China's rhetoric, but they do not have a genuine concern about a missle defense that does not even work. "Substantiation please…I am not aware of this, the decision to stop building the nuclear power plant was decided on in ’03.", Undecided http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/2/4/63631 Best I can do for the moment. It mentions the delay that I speak of in 1998, still in the Clinton presidency. The official reason given was NK's launching of a ballistic missle over Japan, but the project began to be hopelessly delayed. The real reason was CIA intelligence of NK's development of nuclear weapons. It is going to be very difficult for me to find an article on this, but I remember reading about it so ill keep looking. I mean it was obvious as to NK's intent when it was shooting missles over the Pacific. "If anything a much more realistic and much greater worry is the loose nukes and poorly secured fmr. Soviet stockpiles." Undecided I agree with this, there are still reports of some missing warheads in Russia.
tiassa, "A man who uses a great many words to express his meaning is like a bad marksman who, instead of aiming a single stone at an object, takes up a handful and throws at it in hopes he may hit." - Samuel Johnson Yes. Yes, I have.
what has ANY of this got to do with anything NK may stave its own people but have you SEEN what american companies do to third world countries? this is STILL continuing hell they started a WAR so that the oil companies could get ritch, not to mention how Nike treats the workers it employes. Ever herd the term "sweatshop"? and you accuse the international comuntity of "picking on the US" how many "illegal combatants" are you holding in contervention of ALL laws, oh they atacked civillans so its ok if we torcher them (in violation of the Geniva convention, the international treties on the banning of torcher, the international decleration of human rights and the US constitution), hold them without trial (in violation of the US constitution, and the international decleration of human rights), ignore there rights as captured solders (violation of the geniva convention we are the good guys well let me ask you this, if i invaded your country and you have all the weapons lying around that you do would you fight back? if the answer is yes then i can do what i like to you because your not a person, and the HIPOCRASY of bush coming out and saying "oh please treat our captured solders with respect", well if it was me and i knew what i would face if I was captured i would be slicing pieces off my prisioners too, and sending every piece to you in a box and so WHAT if the balistic missile tretie was aimed at russa, it was aimed at you too and because mad is no longer there is MORE reason to stick to the LETTER of all your treties not less how true is that statement your county in genral has acted like nothing than the school yard bully, and STILL DOES. your companys rape and pillage, when they dont get there way they loby surport for your goverment to FORCE the countrys to let them rape and pillage. You think that everyone isnt as good as you are. HELL the bloody KKK has more sence of justice than you do half the time. Everything is about ME and there is nothing about the good of all, be that internally or in international politics well people you can do what you want for the moment because have the big stick but dont go around thinking you have the high ground and dont be surprised when "terriousim" increases. After all when your forces are smaller than the other side you dont stand in lines and charge, you fight in ambush
"NK may stave its own people but have you SEEN what american companies do to third world countries?", Asguard Yes, there are many examples of U.S. interference that has gone terribly wrong. Central Africa and Iran are prime examples. You do, however, tend to forget how American investment has also helped change the world for the better. 1) South Korea: Strong economically, strong democracy. Never would have existed without the U.S. fighting the Korean war. American investment has done wonders for this country. 2) Taiwan: Would be a part of mainland China a long time ago if not for American investments, and weapons support. Strong economy strong democracy. 3) Kosovo: humanitarian crisis avoided for Albanian MUSLIMS (the ones we supposedly hate). Albania would have been flooded with refugees. Europe would have stood by and watched while possible genocide took place 4) China: A tremendous amount of American investment and U.S. interest in Chinese goods has helped stimulate its economy. Interest in capitalism has broken down communism in the country and helped bring about many reforms. May end up as a democracy in time. American companies like Nike have indeed paid workers there ridiculous wages, but you have to remember those are CHINA'S laws and these are international companies. These companies do not do it in the U.S. because they simply are not allowed. 5) Eastern Europe: the collapse of communism, due to no small part Americas policy towards Russia, is now beginning to improve the lives of those living there. The European union has allowed many of these countries to join. Things have improved in these countries considerably, I know first hand. Businesses have opened, and a wealth of once unavailable products and services have flooded their markets. Unemployment and corruption are still a difficult factor, but the Europeon union and its standards in time will change this. My wife can attest to this fact,.... shes from there and described life living under communism. American investment is growing stronger in these countries. 6) Saudi Arabia: One can only imagine the poverty that would be there now if the U.S. did not purchase its oil. The downside is the money helps keep the House of Saud in power, but the U.S. did not place that government. It has been there for two centuries. I can continue.... but you get the point. The U.S. is not always bad, it does considerable good, as well. "well if it was me and i knew what i would face if I was captured i would be slicing pieces off my prisioners too, and sending every piece to you in a box",Asguard Please, the vast majority of the prisoners in Iraq are treated well and under the Geneva Convention. As for the problems of Abu Ghurayb Prison, they were mainly isolated to that facility. Unlike other nations, this problem came to light because an AMERICAN reported it to the press. I think standing naked in front of woman or being subjected to a dog pile is a far cry from being cut into pieces as you suggest. Guantanamo bay has had rumors of torture, but this is all simply speculation. Many who have been removed so far have not claimed torture at all. The biggest argument here is wether they were detained unfairly for to long of a period. Again, they were not cut into pieces and sent home in a box, LIKE YOU SUGGESTED. Please do not forget, that this is 500 of hundreds of thousands of prisoners the U.S. has handled. "oh they atacked civillans so its ok if we torcher them (in violation of the Geniva convention, the international treties on the banning of torcher, the international decleration of human rights and the US constitution)", Asguard/I] Again, a naked dog pile is far different then blowing up innocent civilians, especially members of your own country. "well let me ask you this, if i invaded your country and you have all the weapons lying around that you do would you fight back?", Asguard Yes, but I would not be blowing up my neighbors. Then again, I did not have Sadam Hussein as my government either. I can speak my mind about Bush without getting shot for it. "After all when your forces are smaller than the other side you dont stand in lines and charge, you fight in ambush ", Asguard You see.. again, I would be ambushing the soldiers, not innocent people. Many nations in the world like to contribute their own countries failures to the United States' foreign policy. Most of the worlds problems, I hate to tell you, have to do with the rest of the world and its own behavior.
Of course the Russians and Chinese will say that, it is against their intrests to see NMD. Certaintly Russia will not be increasing their arsenal. Russia isn’t going to increase her arsenal thanks to an agreement with Bush, but Russia’s arsenal will become significantly more deadly, more accurate, and more sopshicated warheads to combat NMD. But Russia isn’t the problem, Russia with her sheer numbers can overwhelm NMD, the problem is China. China's largest concern at the moment is the fast pace of development of nulcear weapons right at its own border. Pakistan and India now present a serious threat, and China cannot let those countries become its equal. I don’t think China fears Pakistan, China gives Pakistan technology. India is a threat but China is still way ahead of India, this is a game of numbers and China wants to achieve second strike, and to achieve true ICBM status along with the Russians and the US. India is secondary in the minds of the Chinese establishment, China’s future is not the Indian ocean it’s the Orient. NMD is just China's rhetoric, but they do not have a genuine concern about a missle defense that does not even work. That’s not true, NMD is a threat to Chinese security in the sense that assuming it does work (which it doesn’t no) Japan, even Taiwan may become part of the system. China’s nuclear forces will have to modernize and increase numerically which creates an arms race. Already the Chinese were angry that Taiwan may get Aegis capabilities. It mentions the delay that I speak of in 1998, still in the Clinton presidency. The official reason given was NK's launching of a ballistic missle over Japan, but the project began to be hopelessly delayed. The real reason was CIA intelligence of NK's development of nuclear weapons. It is going to be very difficult for me to find an article on this, but I remember reading about it so ill keep looking. I mean it was obvious as to NK's intent when it was shooting missles over the Pacific. NK according to the Clinton Administration did not break the treaty with the US, the missile launches were not a violation of the accord btwn NK and the USA, the NK’s have stuck to their agreement to stop all missile launches until 2004. The US on the other hand did not build the LWR in time; they were supposed to be finished by 2003, to my knowledge only the foundations are laid. North Korea thought that she had been be betrayed, and started to reconstitute a nuclear program. The crux of the agreement for NK was the LWR, it was never a serious attempt by the US.
