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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mannie who wrote (57420)	9/28/2004 12:22:27 PM
From: Mannie	Respond to of 89467

Minister: N. Korea Has Nuclear Deterrent By EDITH M. LEDERER UNITED NATIONS (AP) - North Korea says it has turned the plutonium from 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods into nuclear weapons to serve as a deterrent against increasing U.S. nuclear threats and to prevent a nuclear war in northeast Asia. Warning that the danger of war on the Korean peninsula ``is snowballing,'' Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su Hon provided details Monday of the nuclear deterrent that he said North Korea has developed for self-defense. He told the U.N. General Assembly's annual ministerial meeting that Pyongyang had ``no other option but to possess a nuclear deterrent'' because of U.S. policies that he claimed were designed to ``eliminate'' North Korea and make it ``a target of preemptive nuclear strikes.'' ``Our deterrent is, in all its intents and purposes, the self-defensive means to cope with the ever increasing U.S. nuclear threats and further, prevent a nuclear war in northeast Asia,'' he told a news conference after his speech. In Washington, a State Department official noted that Secretary of State Colin Powell has said repeatedly that the United States has no plans to attack the communist country. But in his General Assembly speech and at the press conference with a small group of reporters, Choe blamed the United States for intensifying threats to attack the communist nation and destroying the basis for negotiations to resolve the dispute over Pyongyang's nuclear program. Nonetheless, he said, North Korea is still ready to dismantle its nuclear program if Washington abandons its ``hostile policy'' and is prepared to coexist peacefully. At the moment, however, he said ``the ever intensifying U.S. hostile policy and the clandestine nuclear-related experiments recently revealed in South Korea are constituting big stumbling blocks'' and make it impossible for North Korea to participate in the continuation of six-nation talks on its nuclear program. North Korea said earlier this year that it had reprocessed the 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods and was increasing its ``nuclear deterrent'' but did not provide any details. Choe was asked at the news conference what was included in the nuclear deterrent. ``We have already made clear that we have already reprocessed 8,000 wasted fuel rods and transformed them into arms,'' he said, without elaborating on the kinds or numbers. When asked if the fuel had been turned into actual weapons, not just weapons-grade material, Choe said, ``We declared that we weaponized this.'' South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Lee Soo-hyuck said in late April that it was estimated that eight nuclear bombs could be made if all 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods were reprocessed. Before the reprocessing, South Korea said it believed the North had enough nuclear material to build one or two nuclear bombs. The State Department official said he hadn't seen Choe's comments but noted that the Bush administration has long believed that North Korea has at least one or two nuclear weapons. The official, asking not to be identified, said the North Koreans also have made a number of conflicting statements about how far along their weapons development programs have come. The crisis erupted in 2002 when the United States accused North Korea of running a secret nuclear weapons program. The United States, the two Koreas, Japan, China and Russia since have held three rounds of talks on curbing the North's nuclear ambitions, but have produced no breakthroughs. ``If the six-party talks are to be resumed, the basis for the talks demolished by the United States should be properly set up and the truth of the secret nuclear experiments in South Korea clarified completely,'' Choe told the General Assembly. South Korea disclosed recently that its scientists conducted a plutonium-based nuclear experiment more than 20 years ago and a uranium-enrichment experiment in 2000. It denied having any weapons ambitions, and an investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency is under way. Choe told the press conference that North Korea wants an explanation because Pyongyang believes it is impossible that such experiments took place ``without U.S. technology and U.S. approval.'' He also accused President George W. Bush's administration of being ``dead set against'' reconciliation between North and South Korea, and of adopting an ``extremely undisguised ... hostile policy'' toward the country after it came to power in early 2001. ``As it becomes clear that the U.S. has been pursuing the aim to stifle the DPRK by military means, so our determination to build up a powerful deterrent becomes resolute more and more,'' Choe said, using the initials of North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. At the third round of six-party talks in June, the United States proposed that the North disclose all its nuclear activities, help to dismantle facilities and allow outside monitoring. Under the plan, some benefits would be withheld to ensure the North cooperates. But North Korea said it would never scrap its nuclear programs first and wait to get rewarded later. Instead, it insisted on ``reward for freeze.'' Choe said a freeze would be ``the first step toward eventual dismantlement of our nuclear program'' - and that Pyongyang had intended ``to include in the freeze no more manufacturing of nuclear weapons, and no test and transfer of them.'' A freeze would be followed by ``objective verification,'' he said. 09/28/04 05:15 © Copyright The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

To: Mannie who wrote (57420)	9/28/2004 12:41:33 PM
From: abuelita	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 89467

scooter- that's not entirely surprising is it. don't know if you've heard about the cafuffle that a proposed statue to honour war resisters in nelson b.c. is causing in the u.s. the proposed monument will be a bronze statue showing canadians helping u.s. war resisters. the negative reaction blows me away. this from today's paper: Cowards, eh?: The residents of Nelson are taking some abuse over plans for a monument to U.S. war resisters. One of the latter hopes Canadians will continue a principled tradition Peter Prontzos Special to the Sun Tuesday, September 28, 2004 When you have no reasonable arguments to make, throw insults. That's what a number of Americans, including the "national commander" of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, have done regarding the plan by residents of Nelson, B.C., to build a monument to the 125,000 men and women who escaped from the United States rather than participate in its invasion of Vietnam (U.S. veterans ask Bush to halt B.C.'s 'tribute to cowards', Sept. 25.) They call these war resisters "cowards." Moreover, Canada is a "country of cowards," according to one American, and "Yanks" like him are "smarter than you, tougher than you, and we will kick your inbred ass." Of course, not all Americans share this particular view. One woman from Maryland is quoted as saying that parents in the U.S. "bless" Canada, "land of the truly free." In 1967, Noam Chomsky dedicated his first book to those "brave young men who refuse to serve in a criminal war." And when Michael Moore spoke in Vancouver in 2002, his suggestion that a statue should be put up for war resisters received thunderous applause from the audience. This issue is important, not only in its own right, but primarily because the U.S. is currently fighting a war in Iraq, and history is repeating itself. In Vietnam, U.S. president Johnson fabricated a phoney attack on American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin as his excuse to escalate the war and bomb North Vietnam in 1964. Although the U.S. lost the military conflict, more than three million Indochinese were killed, as well as about 55,000 U.S. troops. By the standards established by the United States and its allies after the Second World War at Nuremberg and in the United Nations Charter, Johnson and his advisers would be considered war criminals. And as everyone now knows, the current U.S. president, George W. Bush and the other neo-cons in his administration, fabricated the lies of "weapons of mass destruction" and alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden as their excuse to begin what UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has correctly called an "illegal" war. This act of "preventive" war is probably a violation of international law, and, if so, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others in that circle are also war criminals. There is another ominous parallel between the attacks on Vietnam and Iraq. Retired U.S. general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, has said that the war in Iraq "is far graver than Vietnam," and that it is "achieving Bin Laden's ends." That is, Bush's war has been a boon to those fanatics who use it to recruit more terrorists. Richard Clarke, former U.S. anti-terrorism chief, says that the invasion of Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism not only against the United States, but around the world. "I've never seen it so bad between the office of the secretary of defence and the military," Odom says. "There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster." One of the many ironies is that Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Defence Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the administration were the true "draft-dodgers." They are the ones who supported the war against the Vietnamese -- as long as other people, disproportionately poor, non-white, and working-class, fought and died. But as Cheney said, he had better things to do, while Bush was skipping his obligations in the National Guard and partying throughout the conflict. On the other hand, millions of Americans who opposed the Vietnam war put themselves on the line out of moral principle -- refusing orders to ship out, demonstrating, organizing peace networks, burning draft cards, and going to jail. They are more properly called war resisters. Now, as then, a number of U.S. troops are refusing to fight in Iraq, and some are again seeking asylum in Canada. When I escaped from the U.S. Marine Corps and arrived in Canada (exactly 35 years ago), I was overwhelmed by the generosity and support from everyone that I met here. When I received my Canadian citizenship, the magistrate congratulated me on my decision. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Canada for providing sanctuary to those of us who did not want to kill Vietnamese and I hope that we Canadians will continue our tradition of accepting those who, today, "refuse to serve in a criminal war." Peter Prontzos teaches political science at Langara College and is a member of the peace and justice committee of the city of Vancouver. © The Vancouver Sun 2004

To: Mannie who wrote (57420)	9/28/2004 12:46:31 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

<<...If the Bush administration remains in power, failure in Iraq is a virtual certainty. "Staying the course" during a crisis spiraling rapidly downward will cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives, will continue to sap the operational readiness of this nation's armed forces, and will continue to strengthen Al Qaeda's hand. To paraphrase FDR, it's time to change horses. The one we're on is about to drown...>> *By Retired Air Force Col. Mike Turner (a former military planner who served on the U.S. Central Command planning staff for operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm). commondreams.org

To: Mannie who wrote (57420)	9/28/2004 3:32:58 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Issues in Focus - President Bush has been disappointment on the environment and energy fronts ____________________________________ Sunday, September 26, 2004 Columbian editorial writers columbian.com ___________________________________ Editor's note: This is the third of a five-part "Issues in Focus" series in which The Columbian analyzes key issues in the presidential campaign. We will endorse a candidate on Sunday, Oct. 10, based on these and numerous other issues and factors. Two months after George W. Bush was inaugurated as president, he decided that despite the findings of a 10-year federal study, new U.S. drinking water standards for arsenic content were too stringent. He moved to back off the limit of 10 parts of arsenic per billion parts water and restore the old limit of 50 parts per billion. The Columbian at the time interviewed Gene Taylor, a toxicologist with the federal Environmental Protection Agency in Seattle. He told us the big reason for moving the limit from 50 to 10 "was to reduce cancer risk. It's a clearcut case of needing a lower standard for arsenic." The administration argued that the new 10 ppb limit was not justified and that it would cost cities, states and industry too much to meet it. Bush's critics said he was motivated by ties to mining and other industry. Eventually, public outcry forced Bush to back off. Even earlier, in his first days in office, Bush had moved to roll back Clinton-administration national forest roadless-area rules, a battle that is still raging, as evidenced by a rally in downtown Portland Friday. Thus, the stage was set early in Bush's presidency for something well short of a peaceful co-existence between him and environmentalists, be they backpacking tree huggers or urban clean-water, clean-air guardians. Now, in the 2004 presidential campaign, the environment is a second-tier issue for most Americans, after the Iraq war and the economy/national debt. George W. Bush, on this issue, is no match for his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry. The headlines keep coming. In just one 23-day period this past January, for example, these newspaper headlines were clipped: * "White house would alter streamside mining rules" * "Bush administration limits smokestack pollution testing" * "Plan OK'd for Alaska oil, gas development" * "Nuclear plant contractors may get to write own rules" * "Rule frees EPA's hands on pesticides" Sadly, there's more And that sampling doesn't touch better-known sagas, such as: * The aforementioned assaults on roadless-area designations in national forests, a major concern of Republicans for Environmental Protection, which says at www.rep.org "Our work is being undone through (this) sweeping Forest Service proposal. ..." * The proposed weakening of smokestack mercury emissions. * The ham-handed effort to count hatchery-raised salmon along with native fish in order to meet requirements of the Endangered Species Act. * Exemption of light trucks and SUVs from automobile fuel and pollution standards. * Pushing for oil exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an effort whose leading opponents include Kerry. Kerry in middle of the pack Kerry, who has been labeled by Bush campaign Chairman Marc Racicot as an environmental "extremist," has been a backer in the Senate of major environmental forays, including efforts to raise fuel efficiency in cars, opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and espousing a goal of 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. He has a goal of achieving independence from Middle East oil in 10 years. Still, at least by one major yardstick, Kerry is just in the middle of the pack on the environment. The most recent rating by the League of Conservation Voters (www/lcv.org)has him at only 53 percent favorable, by its standards. (Washington's two Democratic senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, scored 95 and 100 respectively. In the House of Representatives, U.S. Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, scored 90.) The LCV doesn't do legislative scores for presidents, but it's report card says Bush "has failed the environment." But are Kerry's alternative-fuel goals and such just pie-in-the-sky campaign talk? If he is elected, will he pursue them with vigor? As a senator, he has not established much of an "inside game," fighting, and deal-making to push legislation. As presidential candidate or White House occupant, Kerry must be more than just the anti-Bush. When the president pushes for oil exploration in the Arctic, it's hardly productive for Kerry to say Bush is doing it just for his rich contributors and oil-industry pals, as if Bush has zero interest in the average motorist getting to work. Still, Bush doesn't begin to match Kerry's empathy to the whole notion of the outdoors, conservation, wind, wilderness, clean air and water. The senator is sounding the alarm that time is running out for Americans to make things happen in the conservation of our natural resources, enjoyment of the outdoors, and generation of power from sources besides Middle East sheiks and mullahs.