Who pays for the NK fuel oil?

ajf3

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 2000
2,566
0
76

They're supposedly willing to halt their nuke activities for a 3M ton fuel oil payoff...

Glad it ended without blood, but I'm hoping we (the US) isn't footing the bill again. Are the UN or any of the other 5 parties contributing? Anyone know?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
The shakedown continues...

We agreed to release some frozen funds and provide some fuel oil. Presumably the South Koreans will be footing part of the bill with us.

In return we get the shutdown of the Yongbyon reactor and return of inspectors which is essentially worth sh!t since they aready have weapons and doesn't address the issue of their Uranium program.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
In the end its cheaper than rebuilding Seoul. NK is a desperate nation ruled by a lunatic... I would not put it past him to lay waste to parts of South Korea before he would be bombed into oblivion.
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: rudder
In the end its cheaper than rebuilding Seoul. NK is a desperate nation ruled by a lunatic... I would not put it past him to lay waste to parts of South Korea before he would be bombed into oblivion.

so we just continue to buy them off until they decide they cannot be bought?


Whats this logic from the late 30s being brought forward for?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
I saw some special with Lisa Ling (sp?) who went into NK guised as a nurse...anyway, the majority of NK's oil and food comes from China.
 

Termagant

Senior member
Mar 10, 2006
765
0
0
Is this deal another defeat for Neoconservativism? The hard line of The Decider gave way and Big Bad North Korea is getting a deal which sounds surprising similar to the deal weak limp wristed girlie man Clinton gave them.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Heh, please don't bomb us! Here is some tribute.

Seriously though, I just hope all sides uphold their ends of the bargain.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: rudder
In the end its cheaper than rebuilding Seoul. NK is a desperate nation ruled by a lunatic... I would not put it past him to lay waste to parts of South Korea before he would be bombed into oblivion.

so we just continue to buy them off until they decide they cannot be bought?


Whats this logic from the late 30s being brought forward for?

What is your solution? The CIA is not allowed to assasinate a leader. They guy is crazy.. his country is starving, what is going to happen when parts of the military in NK start to revolt when they realize how ****** everything for them is? I am sure Kim Jong il has his most loyal troops very well fed and close to him.

Yes it is buying off NK, and it won't last forever because the fuel and food will get used up... but for now it is a good step. An added benefit is that there is a united front against NK.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: rudder
In the end its cheaper than rebuilding Seoul. NK is a desperate nation ruled by a lunatic... I would not put it past him to lay waste to parts of South Korea before he would be bombed into oblivion.

I am sure it is cheaper to pay me off instead of me burning your house down. Does that mean you should pay?

This is only temporary anyways. Once they get what they want, they will kick out the inspectors and go back to business as usual.

Our willingness to be made the fool is getting old.

 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: rudder
In the end its cheaper than rebuilding Seoul. NK is a desperate nation ruled by a lunatic... I would not put it past him to lay waste to parts of South Korea before he would be bombed into oblivion.

I am sure it is cheaper to pay me off instead of me burning your house down. Does that mean you should pay?

This is only temporary anyways. Once they get what they want, they will kick out the inspectors and go back to business as usual.

Our willingness to be made the fool is getting old.

I can go buy a box of bullets for under $15. If you do get through the hail of gunfire, my homeowners insurance will cover my loss. It will cost a little more to defend Seoul and the body count will be higher. Not saying that would definetly happen, but your dealing with a certifiably lunatic leader ruling a starving country. If you see my post above yours you can see that I know this is not the best solution. It is temporary. We do not have unlimited military force at this time.

Best case scenerio.. NK dismantles its facilites. Worst case, it does not... NK uses up its "payment", they beat on their chests again and we are back to square one. But it buys more time and China and Russia are on our side for the moment in agreement. Could you imagine the grin on the Iranians faces if we had to divert more military resources to the Korean peninsula?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: rudder
In the end its cheaper than rebuilding Seoul. NK is a desperate nation ruled by a lunatic... I would not put it past him to lay waste to parts of South Korea before he would be bombed into oblivion.

I am sure it is cheaper to pay me off instead of me burning your house down. Does that mean you should pay?

This is only temporary anyways. Once they get what they want, they will kick out the inspectors and go back to business as usual.

Our willingness to be made the fool is getting old.

I can go buy a box of bullets for under $15. If you do get through the hail of gunfire, my homeowners insurance will cover my loss. It will cost a little more to defend Seoul and the body count will be higher. Not saying that would definetly happen, but your dealing with a certifiably lunatic leader ruling a starving country. If you see my post above yours you can see that I know this is not the best solution. It is temporary. We do not have unlimited military force at this time.

Best case scenerio.. NK dismantles its facilites. Worst case, it does not... NK uses up its "payment", they beat on their chests again and we are back to square one. But it buys more time and China and Russia are on our side for the moment in agreement. Could you imagine the grin on the Iranians faces if we had to divert more military resources to the Korean peninsula?

Since no peace treaty was ever signed and the war was fought under the auspices of the UN, the UN member states have to automatically react in defense of SK. Our close and regional allies would undoubtedly help the fastest.

The Navy and Air force would blow the crap out of the skeleton that is NK pretty quickly. Cut their army's supply lines and watch them defect en masse to SK.



 

johnnobts

Golden Member
Jun 26, 2005
1,105
0
71
s this deal another defeat for Neoconservativism? The hard line of The Decider gave way and Big Bad North Korea is getting a deal which sounds surprising similar to the deal weak limp wristed girlie man Clinton gave them.
____

No, this is a victory for the Bush Admin, but they will get little to no coverage for it. Their stratagem for dealing with NK has worked (multi-lateral talks as opposed to unilateral), and contrary to liberal assertions, the Bush admin is not eager to "rush to war" at every opportunity. This is a "W" for Georger W.

As for this deal being like the Clinton fiasco, its not. Part of the agreement includes full disclosure by officials to enter into NK and verify that plants and components are being dissassembled. Clinton just wrote blank checks to dictators and bombed aspirin factories, and left wounded soldiers in Somalia to die, remember?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,003
8,036
136
Originally posted by: ajf3

They're supposedly willing to halt their nuke activities for a 3M ton fuel oil payoff...

Glad it ended without blood, but I'm hoping we (the US) isn't footing the bill again. Are the UN or any of the other 5 parties contributing? Anyone know?

I would hope the blackmail works, but Clinton did the same exact deal in 1994 and it only resulted in them hiding their nuclear program from us. I think Bush has to (well this is nothing new) be a complete moron to think the same deal can work on the second try.
 

wazzledoozle

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2006
1,814
0
0
Originally posted by: johnnobts
s this deal another defeat for Neoconservativism? The hard line of The Decider gave way and Big Bad North Korea is getting a deal which sounds surprising similar to the deal weak limp wristed girlie man Clinton gave them.
____

No, this is a victory for the Bush Admin, but they will get little to no coverage for it. Their stratagem for dealing with NK has worked (multi-lateral talks as opposed to unilateral), and contrary to liberal assertions, the Bush admin is not eager to "rush to war" at every opportunity. This is a "W" for Georger W.

As for this deal being like the Clinton fiasco, its not. Part of the agreement includes full disclosure by officials to enter into NK and verify that plants and components are being dissassembled. Clinton just wrote blank checks to dictators and bombed aspirin factories, and left wounded soldiers in Somalia to die, remember?

Yeah, nevermind that North Korea already conducted a test and may have built 1 or 2 bombs and hid them somewhere.

Lets just all forget the past and push forward, of course our government has the best intentions for its people. The world's problems are in black and white!
 

2Xtreme21

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2004
7,044
0
0
Originally posted by: johnnobts
s this deal another defeat for Neoconservativism? The hard line of The Decider gave way and Big Bad North Korea is getting a deal which sounds surprising similar to the deal weak limp wristed girlie man Clinton gave them.
____

No, this is a victory for the Bush Admin, but they will get little to no coverage for it. Their stratagem for dealing with NK has worked (multi-lateral talks as opposed to unilateral), and contrary to liberal assertions, the Bush admin is not eager to "rush to war" at every opportunity. This is a "W" for Georger W.

As for this deal being like the Clinton fiasco, its not. Part of the agreement includes full disclosure by officials to enter into NK and verify that plants and components are being dissassembled. Clinton just wrote blank checks to dictators and bombed aspirin factories, and left wounded soldiers in Somalia to die, remember?

Can I borrow the rose-colored glasses you're wearing please? I like how you see what you want to see and disregard what you don't. Must be great living the way you do.