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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (99321)	5/28/2003 4:50:25 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Seems to me we shipped a awful lot of free fuel to North Korea under those "broken" promises, and North Korea decided to demand a higher bribe.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (99321)	5/29/2003 5:54:18 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Why do you insist on posting such crap? Not only did the Agreement only stipulate that the US would provide alternative energy sources until light water reactors could be built, it gave NO TIMELINE. The 2003 date was the result of negotiations between Pongyand and the consortium to build the reactors. And GROUND WAS BROKEN for construction. In return for North Korea freezing, and eventually dismantling, its nuclear program and facilities, the US was to provide energy and economic aids - which we did. Congress refused to appropriate our share of the consortium funding. South Korea was obligated to open up politically and economically to the North, which it did. The North was obligated to freeze its nuclear program, and open up politically and economically to the South. Not only did the North continue to REFUSE to admit to its IAEA inspection obligations to assure it had frozen its program and complied with the Agreed Framework, the Korean Denuclearization treaty, and the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty, the South had to BRIBE Kim Il to meet with them, and only faintly opened itself economically. All the while continuing to extract plutonium and we learned later, develop native uranium enrichment technologies in violation of the treaties. So much for "our failure" to carry out the terms of the agreement. Here's a nice rundown: fas.org Derek