Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (153577)	10/18/2002 1:15:56 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580264

Ted, <we got interwined with Saddam in the 80s not because he was controversial. We got embroiled/intertwined with Saddam in the 80s because we wanted Iran put down.> That seems pretty damn controversial to me. In fact, we did a lot of controversial things because of the Cold War, and one of them was supporting Saddam Insane because of Iran's relation with the Soviet Union. Sorry, but the Soviet Union actually was closer to Iraq than Iran. The recent trade deal between Iraq and Russia was not the beginning of a new relationship but just one more deal in a long history of deals. It's just like in South Korea, where America supported a brutal dictator (Chun Do Hwan) to contain the North. Now read your posted comment back to yourself; does that make sense to you? You support one brutal dictator to contain another brutal dictator. Do you think it matters to the people who are brutalized whether their dictator of choice happens to claim to be a communist or not? The American public was told that we supported a brutal dictator to contain communism when both leaders were brutal and dictators. So what difference did it make? Nothing......its really pitiful. <Whether its a person or a nation that plays like that, it usually comes back to haunt that person or nation.> No question about it. No one is arguing that it was a good idea to support these bozos during the Cold War. The only thing was whether the alternative (allow the Ayatollah or Kim Il Sung or whoever to have a free reign) would have been worse. Either way, you're screwed, hence the controversy. You don't have to be screwed.....you don't support either. We've never tried it that way. May be we should. <What's the hard line? War with N. Korea?> I don't know. North Korea seems more interested in selling their weapons than using them. But I would not doubt their willingness to sell a nuke to a member of Al Qaeda. And that in itself would be a good enough reason to invade North Korea. Do you really think we can control all the dictators; all the bad people; all the evil empires....in the world? We don't have the resources nor the capabilities. Besides, we would be turning into control freaks. Not good......not good at all. ted

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (153577)	10/18/2002 1:17:26 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580264

Amd what now..........Pakistan? ___________________________________________________________ U.S. Says Pakistan Gave Technology to North Korea By DAVID E. SANGER and JAMES DAO ASHINGTON, Oct. 17 — American intelligence officials have concluded that Pakistan, a vital ally since last year's terrorist attacks, was a major supplier of critical equipment for North Korea's newly revealed clandestine nuclear weapons program, current and former senior American officials said today. The equipment, which may include gas centrifuges used to create weapons-grade uranium, appears to have been part of a barter deal beginning in the late 1990's in which North Korea supplied Pakistan with missiles it could use to counter India's nuclear arsenal, the officials said. "What you have here," said one official familiar with the intelligence, "is a perfect meeting of interests — the North had what the Pakistanis needed, and the Pakistanis had a way for Kim Jong Il to restart a nuclear program we had stopped." China and Russia were less prominent suppliers, officials said. The White House said tonight that it would not discuss Pakistan's role or any other intelligence information. Nor would senior administration officials who briefed reporters today discuss exactly what intelligence they showed to North Korean officials two weeks ago, prompting the North's defiant declaration that it had secretly started a program to enrich uranium in violation of its past commitments. The trade between Pakistan and North Korea appears to have occurred around 1997, roughly two years before Gen. Pervez Musharraf took power in a bloodless coup. However, the relationship appears to have continued after General Musharraf became president, and there is some evidence that a commercial relationship between the two country's extended beyond Sept. 11 of last year. A spokesman for the Pakistan Embassy, Asad Hayauddin, said it was "absolutely incorrect" to accuse Pakistan of providing nuclear weapons technology to North Korea. "We have never had an accident or leak or any export of fissile material or nuclear technology or knowledge," he said. The suspected deal between Pakistan and North Korea underscores the enormous diplomatic complexity of the administration's task in trying to disarm North Korea, an effort that began in earnest today. In Beijing, two American diplomats, James A. Kelly and John R. Bolton, pressed Chinese officials to use all their diplomatic and economic leverage to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program. The subject is expected to dominate a meeting next week between President Bush — who a spokesman said today "believes this is troubling and sobering news" — and President Jiang Zemin of China, at Mr. Bush's ranch in Texas. Mr. Bush did not address the North Korean revelation at appearances in Atlanta and Florida today. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld did talk about the disclosures at the Pentagon, but one official said the effort to play down the topic was part of an administration strategy of "avoiding a crisis atmosphere." At the same time, White House and State Department officials argued that what they called North Korea's "belligerent" announcement to a visiting American delegation two weeks ago demonstrated the need to disarm Iraq before it enjoys similar success. "Here's a case in North Korea where weapons have proliferated and put at risk our interests and the interests of two of our great allies," Japan and South Korea, Richard L. Armitage, the deputy secretary of state, said today. "It might make our case more strong in Iraq." Some Democrats agreed, while opponents of a military strike against Iraq argued the reverse, saying the administration's muted reaction to North Korea, and its announcement that it wanted to solve the problem peacefully, should also apply to Baghdad. There were conflicting explanations today about why the administration kept the North Korean admission quiet for 12 days. The White House said it simply wanted time to consult with Japan, South Korea and other Asian nations, and with members of Congress, before deciding its next step. But some of the administration's critics suggested that the real reason was that the administration did not want to complicate the debate over Iraq in Congress and the United Nations. Continued 1 \| 2 \| Next>>