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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (55286)	10/28/2002 7:20:40 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

Thanks LB... Re: Iraq and North Korea, ref this article, and a most important and informative FA link at the bottom of this....Great Resource Korea Nuclear Resources - Carnegie Endowment for Peace Part two of the "Reason" debate on Iraq. No more 9/11s The case for invading Iraq By Brink Lindsey >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As to the headline question, "What's the rush?," my reply is: North Korea. In 1994 President Clinton, with the help of former President Carter, swept the Korean threat under the rug and trusted that "nature," or something, would deal with that "devil du jour." Now North Korea's psychopathic regime informs us that it has nuclear weapons?a fact that vastly complicates any efforts to prevent the situation from getting even worse. We can look forward to similar complications with Iraq unless we act soon.<<<<<<<<<<<<< ceip.org Great Resource Korea Nuclear Resources - Carnegie Endowment for Peace

To: LindyBill who wrote (55286)	10/28/2002 7:28:02 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

This Report from Dr. William J. Perry, Oct 1999 re Findings and Recommendations on US Policy Toward North Korea is very much worth reviewing. This report is now 3 years old, and provides a good background for our present situation, both in regard to North Korea, and some of the ME Countries, including Iraq. This is only a highlight. There certainly is more to the article. Review of United States Policy Toward North Korea: Findings and Recommendations Unclassified Report by Dr. William J. Perry, U.S. North Korea Policy Coordinator and Special Advisor to the President and the Secretary of State Washington, DC, October 12, 1999 state.gov Key Findings The policy review team made the following key findings, which have formed the basis for our recommendations: 1. DPRK acquisition of nuclear weapons and continued development, testing, deployment, and export of long-range missiles would undermine the relative stability of deterrence on the Korean Peninsula, a precondition for ending the Cold War and pursuing a lasting peace in the longer run. These activities by the DPRK also have serious regional and global consequences adverse to vital U.S. interests. The United States must, therefore, have as its objective ending these activities. 2. The United States and its allies would swiftly and surely win a second war on the Korean Peninsula, but the destruction of life and property would far surpass anything in recent American experience. The U.S. must pursue its objectives with respect to nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles in the DPRK without taking actions that would weaken deterrence or increase the probability of DPRK miscalculation. 3. If stability can be preserved through the cooperative ending of DPRK nuclear weapons- and long-range missile-related activities, the U.S. should be prepared to establish more normal diplomatic relations with the DPRK and join in the ROK's policy of engagement and peaceful coexistence. 4. Unfreezing Yongbyon is North Korea's quickest and surest path to acquisition of nuclear weapons. The Agreed Framework, therefore, should be preserved and implemented by the United States and its allies. With the Agreed Framework, the DPRK's ability to produce plutonium at Yongbyon is verifiably frozen. Without the Agreed Framework, however, it is estimated that the North could reprocess enough plutonium to produce a significant number of nuclear weapons per year. The Agreed Framework's limitations, such as the fact that it does not verifiably freeze all nuclear weapons-related activities and does not cover ballistic missiles, are best addressed by supplementing rather than replacing the Agreed Framework. 5. No U.S. policy toward the DPRK will succeed if the ROK and Japan do not actively support it and cooperate in its implementation. Securing such trilateral coordination should be possible, since the interests of the three parties, while not identical, overlap in significant and definable ways. 6. Considering the risks inherent in the situation and the isolation, suspicion, and negotiating style of the DPRK, a successful U.S. policy will require steadiness and persistence even in the face of provocations. The approach adopted now must be sustained into the future, beyond the term of this Administration. It is, therefore, essential that the policy and its ongoing implementation have the broadest possible support and the continuing involvement of the Congress.

To: LindyBill who wrote (55286)	10/28/2002 9:33:55 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Thanks for continuing to post these, Bill. I'm surprised by two things in this argument. First, the strongest argument I've seen to invade Iraq is Pollack's argument, the oil argument, it's impact on the global economy, and the need to topple Saddam before he can blackmail Saudi Arabia and thus control the supply of a great deal of the world's oil. It's surprising that's not mentioned at all. Second, the Al Q and terrorism argument strikes me as the weakest argument for attacking Iraq. Here again I refer to Pollack who considers it a very low priority for the reasons others often state--secular Iraq versus hyper religious Al Q; Saddam'sd desire to control, etc. Any thoughts?