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 (61291)	12/12/2002 12:28:26 PM
From: jcky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If they go ahead in spite of warnings, do we take out the plant like Israel took out the Iraqi one? I hope so. If we do, and initiate a two front war, Islam in the Mideast and Sino-Korean in the Southeast, this would qualify as the classic over commitment of military engagement by a hegemonic power. And we all know where this strategy will eventually lead us.

To: LindyBill who wrote (61291)	12/12/2002 12:30:50 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Why are we blocking oil to North Korea?

To: LindyBill who wrote (61291)	12/12/2002 1:18:36 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I wonder how long it will take North Korea to get the plant online? Fast enough to keep their population from freezing to death in the dark? Not that I wish that end on anyone. It just strikes me as strange that the rulers of a nation would rather that their people suffer in order to be able to have the most potent weapons. Using cheap Freudian analysis (worth what you paid for it) reminds me of middle-aged men that have to drive fancy sports cars to compensate for needing Viagra. Not that there's anything wrong with taking Viagra. Better than killing rhinos and baby seals and all the rest of that silly stuff. (Thinking of the reports of declines in killing of world wildlife now that men can buy Viagra -- used to use rhino horn and the like.)

To: LindyBill who wrote (61291)	12/12/2002 2:38:30 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

Thanks. I am bewildered that the NYT and the WP have not picked up on his comment. The PBS reporter was shocked at it. Now we have the dilemma with North Korea opening up the Nuclear Power Plant that produces plutonium. It can make enough for 2 to 3 bombs a year, and they would be willing to sell some, I am sure. If they go ahead in spite of warnings, do we take out the plant like Israel took out the Iraqi one? I hope so. None of us, of course, have the slightest serious idea what will happen. My guess is, to quote myself, it's much more complicated than this and will have to do with precisely what they do, if anything, and precisely what their immediate neighbors, China, South Korea, and Japan do.

To: LindyBill who wrote (61291)	12/12/2002 3:46:46 PM
From: Sam Citron	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Text of N Korea's nuclear warning North Korea has threatened to unfreeze work at a nuclear power plant in response to a US-led halt on fuel aid shipments. The threat was issued in the following statement from North Korea's foreign ministry, carried by North Korean news agency KCNA. On 12 December, a DPRK (North Korean) Foreign Ministry spokesman issued a press statement declaring that to cope with the present situation, the DPRK Government has unavoidably decided to lift the nuclear freeze, which was taken under the premise of 500,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil per year being supplied in accordance with the DPRK-US Framework Agreement, and immediately resume the operation and construction of nuclear facilities necessary for electric power generation. The spokesman pointed out: The United States can never evade the responsibility for thoroughly trampling on both the spirit and letter of the Framework Agreement On 14 November, the United States announced it would suspend the supply of heavy fuel oil, which it had been providing to our country in accordance with the DPRK-US Framework Agreement, and actually suspended the delivery of heavy fuel oil starting in December. Thus the United States has completely abandoned its obligation of supplying heavy fuel oil as stipulated in the Framework Agreement, not only in words but also in deed. The United States is misleading public opinion, as if its abandoning the obligation to supply heavy fuel oil was because we admitted having a nuclear development programme and thus violated the agreement first, but that is a futile attempt. Peacefully resolving the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula is a consistent stance of our republic's government The United States can never evade the responsibility for thoroughly trampling on both the spirit and letter of the Framework Agreement by designating us an axis of evil and a target for pre-emptive nuclear attacks. Our "admitting to nuclear development," which only the United States has raised, was a voluntary admission by the US president's special envoy while visiting the DPRK in early October. We do not particularly feel the need to comment about this. Peacefully resolving the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula is a consistent stance of our republic's government. Proceeding from this, we have manifested a high degree of self-control and patience even in the worst situation, like now, where, in reality the DPRK-US Agreed Framework has been in a state of rupture because of the United States, and nuclear threats against us have become a reality. Nevertheless, the other side is amplifying its pressure offensives by saying we must give up our nuclear development program in verifiable manners while, first, pressing ahead with the measure to suspend the supply of heavy fuel oil. The issue of once again freezing our nuclear facilities is wholly dependent on the United States This is construed as something the United States clearly revealed as its attempt to get rid of our system by disarming us with force. To us, the supply of heavy fuel oil is neither so-called aid nor co-operation, and was a US obligation to compensate for the loss of electricity resulting from the freeze of the nuclear power plants we were operating and constructing. The United States' actual giving up of this obligation has left an immediate vacuum in our electricity production. The issue of once again freezing our nuclear facilities is wholly dependent on the United States. news.bbc.co.uk