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: GST who wrote (107816)	7/24/2003 4:50:41 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I think that one should negotiate from a position of strength. North Korea wants something, and we should not be too willing to give it to them, so that we accomplish our objectives. I am sure we will negotiate further, eventually........

To: GST who wrote (107816)	7/24/2003 6:58:15 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Seems to me that Mr. Perry was as Clinton's Secretary of Defense, we have found out already how (non) successful it was to negotiate with the North Koreans....... **************** Notes from the article you posted: How did we get into this mess? >>>>In the late 1980s the first Bush administration saw the potential danger and persuaded the Soviet Union to pressure North Korea to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and subject its nuclear facilities to international inspection. The North Koreans complied, but they stalled long enough to give them time to make and store enough plutonium for one or two nuclear bombs before the inspectors arrived.<<<<<<< >>>>>>>> Shortly after the Clinton administration took office, they tried again. As spent fuel was being taken from the nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, the North Koreans ejected the inspectors and began preparations for reprocessing. <<<<<<< >>>>>>>When Kim Il Sung offered to negotiate the issue, Clinton responded that he would negotiate only if the North Koreans froze all activity at Yongbyon during the negotiation. In the end, military force was not necessary. <<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>But the North Koreans never gave up their desire for nuclear weapons. Even as they complied with the freeze at Yongbyon, they covertly started a second nuclear program at a different location. American intelligence discovered signs of this program and last fall confronted the North Koreans, who did not dispute the charge. <<<<<<< There are three basic approaches for dealing with this dangerous situation. >>>>>>>The administration can continue to refuse to negotiate, "outsourcing" this problem to the concerned regional powers. <<< >>>>>>>>But hope is not a strategy. <<<< >>>>>>> A second alternative is to put economic pressure on North Korea and hope for "regime change." Or the United States could take military action to bring this change about. <<<<<<< The third alternative is to undertake serious negotiations with the North Koreans to determine if there is a way to stop their nuclear program short of war. Per Mr Perry: "It is imperative that we stop that drift, and the only clear way of doing that is by negotiating." The writer was secretary of defense from 1994 to 1997. ***********

To: GST who wrote (107816)	7/24/2003 7:57:00 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

GST, I have to return to this Chinese embassy bombing issue. That's a major charge you've made against the Clinton administration. Intentionally bombing the Chinese embassy would have been an unprovoked act of war. One committed secretly without Congressional approval. This would have been much more significant grounds for removal of Clinton from office than lying about Monica. (And BTW its very different from the Iraq situation where there was no secrecy about the policy of war to change the Iraqi regime, where there was a Congressional authorization to go to war was obtained and a significant national debate occurred.) If your charge is true and you know it to be true you should reveal your reasons for believing it publicly - to the press I'm thinking. In fact it's a public duty to do so. Even though Clinton is out of office now, some of the persons involved may still be holding reins of power & his wife is a possible future presidential candidate who if elected might bring back some of those involved in the international crime you claim to know have been committed. If you know the charge to be true based on evidence you know and don't go public with whatever info you have, one would have to wonder why. Is it a case of political loyalty being placed ahead of the national interest?