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: jttmab who wrote (187048)	5/22/2006 10:28:24 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I believe their position is they were violating the NPT because the US renigged on their commitments. Our position is that they were violating the NPT, no need to say anything else. Wrong.. The US was providing them 500,000 tonnes of fuel oil each year.. Fuel that could READILY be used in their thousands of military vehicles, while continuing to support the construction of two light water reactors. One would think, if Kim Jong Il was serious about diffusing the tensions on the peninsula and entering the community of nations, he would NOT have done anything to undermine the agreement that his father made with Carter/Clinton. We had no time frame for completing the reactors. That was the "carrot" that existed to insure that NK complied with IAEA inspections. If NK failed to comply, the reactor construction would be delayed until that compliance was achieved. We came forward, IN GOOD FAITH, with our end of the bargain and NK failed to provide reciprocal good faith efforts to further that relationship. So here we sit.. at an impasse that ONLY Kim Jong Il can resolve. He had his chance at a bi-lateral agreement between the US and his regime, and NOW he has to deal with ALL OF THE COUNTRIES in that region in a multi-lateral manner. And he is a real threat to his neighbors [unlike Iraq]. But the threat he poses is contained to the Korean Peninsula and Japan (he's no threat to either China or Russia). But an attack against either of those nations would be the end of his regime. S. Korea has the military power necessary to deal with him, although it would come at great cost to their capital city of Seoul (which is in artillery range of the DMZ). There is no oil on the Korean peninsula. Kim poses little threat to the total global economy by controlling vast reserves of an economic resource that the global economy requires. And even should he conquer S. Korea, the war would devastate the economy and he'd gain very little from it technologically or economically. But that is NOT the case in the Mid-East. Furthermore, the ideology that Kim represents, is not nearly as "attractive" as the one that is being perpetrated by Islamo-Fascists such as Ahmadinejad with his fanatical religious beliefs. NOTHING is a stronger motivator for aggressive and repressive dictatorships than fanatical and xenophobic and intolerant religious beliefs. People are FAR MORE WILLING to die for religious reasons, than they are merely for political causes such as advancing democracy or communism, if only because religion has a hold over a person's "afterlife" rather than merely their temporal existence on this planet. So, and I hope I'm wrong, you may have to tell Kim to move over and make room for a new #1 on your list of intransigent leaders. Especially if Ahmadinejad manages to obtain nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. This is a power that he will not likely hesitate to use, if only politically. I didn't understand why Clinton bothered making an agreement with NK and I don't understand why this Administration bothers to make an agreement with them. Look no further than Jimmie Carter, who unilaterally took it upon himself, without authorization, to go to NK and pen a deal with the "Dear Leader". Clinton really had this deal politically "shoved down his throat" since he had power to prevent Carter from acting as a private citizen. After all, what could he politically do? Could he afford to NOT take the opportunity to pursue a possible reapproachment with N. Korea?? And if he didn't, would that send the signal to N. Korea that their only alternative was a desperate act of "all or nothing" aggression?? And what Bush was left with were the repercussions of this flawed policy, one that even Jimmie Carter indirectly admits has failed. So what does Bush do? Pursue the STUPID policy the democrats CONSTANTLY ADVOCATE of bi-lateral discussions with N. Korea by the US government (circumventing ENTIRELY the UNSC or the other concerns of nations neighboring N. Korea)? Or forcing any negotiations into a multi-lateral level where N. Korea is FAR LESS likely to achieve its agenda?? Additionally, Bush multi-lateral policy consequently forces nations like China and Russia to step up to the plate and assume responsibility (and share the blame) for any failure to contain Kim Jong Il. Thus, Kim miscalculated. He had the opportunity advance his "esteem" by dealing one on one with the US via the deal his father struck with Clinton. But now he's diluted his negotiating power and has to please MULTIPLE nations, not just the US. Hawk