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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (7986)	2/13/2003 9:54:48 PM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 25898

And so soon you have forgotten the history of Beirut and Arafat's hatreds & fanatics plunging that beautiful facility into chaos and led to it's destruction before ? Lebannon was such a beautiful country before all that... You have no experise , because it seems you have just recently woken up. The Arab world is a complete and shakey mess that hardly anyone knows what to do with . Almost an impossible task , when dealing with the last of the world's secular /theocratic divides ...superstition vs reason , and Islam at war usually always with itself when it can't find other foes to hate.

To: PartyTime who wrote (7986)	2/13/2003 11:18:07 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Moscow attacks referral of N Korea to UN By Andrew Ward in Seoul, James Kynge in Beijing and Guy Dinmore in Washington Published: February 13 2003 19:57 \| Last Updated: February 13 2003 19:57 North Korea Nuclear [....See my comments below....] Russia on Thursday attacked the decision to refer North Korea to the United Nations Security Council, dealing a blow to US efforts to unify the international community against the communist state. Advertisement Moscow said Security Council involvement in the Korean nuclear crisis would be "counter-productive". China also expressed reservations about the UN's role in tackling North Korea, casting further doubt on the chances of Security Council agreement on the issue. North Korea was referred to the Security Council on Wednesday by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, following the state's violation of several non-proliferation agreements. Washington hailed the decision as the start of a multilateral effort to force North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions. However, Thursday's comments by Moscow and Beijing exposed disagreement within the international community about how to deal with Pyongyang. "[Russia] thinks that referring this question to the UN Security Council at this time is a premature, counter-productive step which does not contribute to constructive and trusting dialogue between the concerned parties," said the Russian foreign ministry. As permanent members of the Security Council, Russia and China could veto UN action against North Korea. US officials indicated that Washington would not immediately push for economic sanctions against North Korea but would seek a Security Council statement condemning Pyongyang's nuclear activities. China stopped short of Russia's criticism of the IAEA resolution, but insisted that the stand-off should be resolved by direct negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang. Japan's defence minister, meanwhile, said Tokyo would "use military force as a self-defence measure" if North Korea attacked the country. Shigeru Ishiba said Japan should consider developing a missile defence system to protect against North Korea. Japan's postwar constitution bans the use of military force except in self-defence. Any move to bolster Japan's defensive capabilities would fuel fears that North Korea's nuclear threat could spark an arms race in north-east Asia. In Washington, James Kelly, the chief US envoy to Asia, indicated to a Congressional committee that the US was shifting away from what had appeared to be a conditional approach to talks. But asked if he was being a "little more equivocal" about what North Korea needed to do before talks began, Mr Kelly said he had been "purposely not precise about the timing". Mr Kelly said that despite intelligence indicating that North Korea might be able to strike the US west coast with an as yet untested ballistic missile, he and the Bush administration would not yet describe the issue as a crisis. news.ft.com ============================================================ ============================================================ ============================================================ ============================================================ Japan's defence minister, meanwhile, said Tokyo would "use military force as a self-defence measure" if North Korea attacked the country. Shigeru Ishiba said Japan should consider developing a missile defence system to protect against North Korea. Japan's postwar constitution bans the use of military force except in self-defence. Any move to bolster Japan's defensive capabilities would fuel fears that North Korea's nuclear threat could spark an arms race in north-east Asia. Let me see if I got this straight. In the interests of "promoting peace", the UN rejects its own agency, IAEA. In response, Japan, a nation that has forsworn force except to defend itself, finds it has to do just that. And an arms race ensues. So tell me again, I keep forgetting: What good is the UN if this is the result of its paralysis? Why should the US even bother being a member?

To: PartyTime who wrote (7986)	2/14/2003 4:43:18 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Range of Iraqi missile 'exceeds rules' By James Harding in Washington and Mark Turner at the United,Nations in New York Published: February 13 2003 4:00 \| Last Updated: February 13 2003 10:10 A meeting of missile experts called by United Nations arms inspectors has found Iraq's Al Samoud 2 missile system has a longer operational range than permitted under United Nations resolutions, providing the first clear indication Iraq has continued to develop proscribed weapons. The news is likely to bolster the US case that Iraq is not co-operating with its UN obligations to disarm, ahead of a crucial report by inspectors to the Security Council tomorrow, and to raise the pressure on Saddam Hussein's regime. Under UN rules Iraq may not develop missiles with a range further than 150km, and in his January 27 briefing to the Security Council, Hans Blix, chief weapons inspector, suggested two systems, the Al Samoud 2 and the Al Fatah, "might very well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems". The missiles are now likely to be destroyed. Iraq had declared results of tests in which the missiles went further than permitted, but argued the rockets would fall within accepted ranges once loaded with warheads and guidance systems. Mr Blix also said in January that Iraq had illegally imported 380 rocket engines, which could be used for the Al Samoud 2, despite the sanctions. [...] news.ft.com 150 kilometers!!?!? HOLY SHIT! I didn't know Iraq was THAT close to America!! It's worse than the Cuba crisis of the 1960s!!