Aardvark

No. Quotes vary from around 26,000 upwards, but there is no confirmed figure. This should probably be discussed in the Iraq thread, not the Korea thread.

In 1996 President Clinton offered the full assurance that nuclear weapons would never be used against North Korea provided that North Korea ended the nuclear weapons programme. The terms they set for not nuclearising constantly changed. Sometimes it was in exchange for help with civilian nuclear power as they didn't ever intend to build nuclear weapons at all. Sometimes it was in exchange for economic aid and when large quantities of fuel oil, food and various assistance was handed over they just carried on and asked for more. North Korea repeated broke all agreements entered into, actually infiltrated commandoes into South Korea in 1996 and showed bad faith in every regard. On this issue i think you are allowing your distaste for your government to blind you to the reality of North Koreas duplicity, dishonesty and aggression.

If they have developed nuclear weapons because of evil aggressive G W Bush, why is it that North Korea was so vigourously developing nuclear weapons when Clinton was President? It is transparent that their reasoning that they only have the weapons due to G W Bushs foriegn policy is a lie. I can not see you defending their lies?

Are you saying there shouldn't be a worldwide effort to help these people and that wars should only be fought for economic reasons? And i don't understand the reference to Vietnam.

True. In common parlance North Korea is communist, technically an argument can be had about the exact definition of its political system but it would be pretty pointless. People who start making arguments about whether a country is 'truly' communist tend to be trying to obscure the discussion (i'm not accusing you here). Instead we should be considering how the world should be dealing with North Koreas dangerous behaviour. (unless anyone here is so bold as to actually defend North Koreas behaviour?)

Anything by E O Wilson is great. Basically, humans are part of nature just like all the other organisms. Understand nature and you are on the way to understanding the human mind.

As the idea that North Korea only has nuclear weapons out of fear of G W Bush is wrong, with regards to North Korea i actually do feel safer. North Korea was very merrily developing its nuclear weapons programme under President Clintons regime. President Clintons response was to bribe them to stop. They took the bribes and then carried on anyway. President Clintons response was to then offer even more bribes. President Bush may not be a genius but he has worked out that that strategy was not working. He hasn't threatened to invade, he's stated that North Korea must change its behaviour first and only then will it get bribes (development aid) and that North Koreas threats will no longer yield it results. In the past North Korea simply had to make a belliocoise statement to get placating concessions. Incidently, people seem to assume that china will automatically support North Korea in all matters. On the contrary, North Korea is a bigger headache for China than it is for the USA. Just look at the map.

True in a very pedantic manner. They no longer style themselves a Marxist Leninist state but for all intents and purposes North Korea is what we would define as a communist nation. Possibly a definition of Collectivist, Feudal, Militaristic dictatorship might be technically more accurate.

As it was the USA which invaded Afghanistan and no one else, only they were in any position to be making any promises. They are the only relevant party here.

I do not intend to sweep anything aside, esp human rights abuses. Although it seems obvious that the defeat of the Taliban will have led to fewer human rights abuses in Afghanistan rather than more. What i am pointing out is the matter of intentions. The USA was always clear that the war in Afghanistan was about defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Human rights and democrary were side issues. You may not like that and think that was cynical, but the fact remains that the USA was both open and honest. They repeated stated that they were not in the business of 'nation building', simply in the business of hitting their enemies very hard. As such it is incorrect to criticse the USA for not living up to promises. You can criticse the USA for its intentions, but not for failing to live up to promises. That's not glib or callous but realistic and fair.

Understood. Well the evidence does seem to indicate a meteorite strike at the same time as other ecological stresses so some combination of factors may be possible. But i think the meteorite would still have to be the prime candidate as the biggest factor.

No problems, like coquina states, you're preaching to the choir here. The evidence certainly looks powerful to me that a meteorite strike was the main cause for the KT mass extinction event. As far as i was aware that is on its way to becoming the generally accepted hypothesis. You seem to be expecting to be attacked for holding that opinion. Have you encountered any serious resistance to this hypothesis?

On the orchard i worked on we simply picked out a lot of the smallest apples when they were just starting to form. It left room for the remaining apples to grow to a full size. A bit labour intensive, i could do about 70 trees a day, but better than blossom killing sprays i think. It makes me wonder how we ever grew anything before chemical sprays At the orchard i was working in there were plenty of birds living in the trees and they controlled the insects. It wasn't an organic orchard, the owner just liked to try and minimise unnecessary use of pesticides.

Not so much unreasonable as mentally ill.

Having read the Bonn Agreement it simply states that after a period of UN supervision Afghanistan shall have its own democratically elected administration. That's happened. Am i missing anything?

You contradict yourself. First you state that you think a meteor strike would be too violent, potentialy wiping out all life. Then you state that a meteor strike could have happened in conjuncture with 'other issues' to 'sped things along'. Those are distinct and contradicitory positions.

Which post are you refering to? If it is mine then i don't think you have understood it. I pointed out an alternate explanation for the mass extinction event at the KT boundary but then concluded that i think the meotorite strike (bolid collision) is still the most likely scenario. If you have any factual critic of that i'd welcome it but i don't think it appropriate or fair to dismiss the entire post as 'sheer nonsense'.

Everyone has an agenda. He's just completely honest and open about it. Looking at his work, it does seem to be scientifically rigourous.

Don't take any notice of Syntax, he's just acting like a dumb troll. I'm so sorry to hear about that teacher, why do some people act like that? Petty tyrants everywhere. An MA in Creative writing? Are you writing anything, what sort of stories do you favour?

I don't like the man, but i love his work.