posted on December 27, 2002 02:58:22 PM new
Helen- first you say WE should remove sanctions that are killing children, implying that the US is the culprit, then you cite an article that says it is the UN that seems to be the culprit. You are too quick to believe what you read about the US, the article stating it was Osama bin Laden's claim!
Bunnicula, IMHO, has it right. Iraq is at the bottom of many heaps, medical and otherwise, due almost 100% to its PTB. The easiest way to reign with oppression is to keep the populace sick and hungry, claiming that you are being sanctioned to death by the infidels.
posted on December 27, 2002 03:24:16 PM new
The thing is that the sanctions are in place and for very good reasons. It keeps the monster in check, although it destroys the people. While you may think that over 100 palaces is a bit extreme, it was suggested by the last inspection team that most of the palaces are cleverly disguised weapons factories. Think of just how sneaky that is to build a weapons factory and then put a palace fascade on the the outside to fool westerners. Of course, that is truely expensive and food and medicine have to be diverted from the populace to the black market to keep raising the funds for the various weapons programs. If we truely want to lift sanctions, we will have to go in there and take out Saddam first. Take your pick of the lesser.
posted on December 27, 2002 04:13:25 PM new
The real nuclear threat in this age is proliferation of weapons/technology. It should be obvious by now that there are pseudo-nations such as Hamas and Al-Queida with whom we can't negotiate (let alone even recognize). That is why we must stop nuclear weapons technology wherever we find it.
The article mentioned by stusi above was about the history of sanctions and included the examimnation of bogus claims. The most outrageous, false claim was spoken by Osama bin Laden who claimed that a million innocent children had been killed by sanctions.
posted on December 29, 2002 02:32:34 PM new
"Bob Woodward relates in his new book on Bush and war that the President admits to being a black and white person who makes decisions from his gut. A dubious enough personality type for a football coach, this trait raises serious concerns when imbedded in the commander-in-chief of the most powerful arsenal on Earth."
"More Americans are wondering why Bush wants peaceful dialogue with a North Korea that has more advanced arms, yet seeks war with a contained, weakened and surrounded Iraq? But then, when decisions are made in the gut, such inconsistencies can bound."
posted on December 29, 2002 04:31:26 PM new
I heard that there was a recent survey which asked a random selection of Americans which country they feared the most- Iraq or North Korea. The results I believe were almost 90% for Iraq. I think it is because of two factors. First, the obvious focus our government has placed on Iraq. Second, it is so easy to put a "face" on Iraq, that of a well known psycho Hussein with a track record of atrocities, as opposed to no commonly known counterpart in North Korea. I would think that Hussein's record would not be considered an "inconsistency" by those in our government at odds with Nader.
[ edited by stusi on Dec 29, 2002 04:32 PM ]
posted on December 29, 2002 06:48:23 PM new
So far the only way you can initiate a nuclear explosion is with a fission bomb. The technology is really not that difficult. It is after all 1940's technology.
The limiting factor is it requires obtaining and processing one of the rarest and most difficult to work metals on earth. The uranium bomb is limited and the plutonium bomb is even more difficult to build. The metal is very very dificult to fabricate with huge shifts in physical qualities in various phase changes of crystaline structure. It has to be assembled into a super critical mass almost twice as fast as a uranium bomb. Nobody has come up with a way to initiate a fusion bomb (H-bomb) without a fission bomb to start it.
Now when some bright boy finds a way to ignite a fusion reaction without requiring a fission bomb the world will become a very dangerous place indeed.
posted on December 30, 2002 06:17:15 AM new
U.S. Eases Threat on Nuclear Arms for North Korea
By DAVID E. SANGER
New York Times
RAWFORD, Tex., Dec. 29 — The Bush administration backed away today from a longstanding declaration by the United States that it would not tolerate a North Korean nuclear arsenal, as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other officials insisted that it would be counterproductive to set deadlines for North Korea to meet American demands or make threats to take military action.
Appearing on several Sunday television news programs, Mr. Powell refused to characterize as a crisis North Korea's expulsion of nuclear inspectors and its declaration that it would begin manufacturing plutonium from spent nuclear fuel, insisting instead that it was a "serious situation." He acknowledged on the ABC News program "This Week" that the Clinton administration had what he called "a declaratory policy" that if North Korea began to reactivate its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, the country's main nuclear facility, "they would attack it."
"We don't have that policy," said Mr. Powell, who served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Bill Clinton during the start of the previous North Korean nuclear crisis. "We're not saying what we might or might not do."
The ambiguous signal to North Korea, made after lengthy consultations with President Bush at his ranch here, represents a major strategic gamble. The C.I.A. has warned that once the North begins reprocessing nuclear fuel into plutonium, it could produce five or six weapons by early summer. The C.I.A. has estimated that it already has two.
But Mr. Bush and his aides have concluded that warning North Korea that it would not be allowed to produce more weapons would only create a sense of crisis, exactly what officials say the North seeks, and what they want to avoid. The administration has opted to pursue economic isolation of a country that is already one of the world's most isolated. The administration's position was met with considerable skepticism today by Democrats and Republicans alike.
The Republican who is about to take over the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, declared during an appearance on the NBC News program "Meet the Press" that "This is a crisis," and he was mildly critical of the administration for refusing to negotiate directly with the North Korean government.
But he welcomed Mr. Powell's announcement that the administration would work through the United Nations Security Council, saying that approach was working in Iraq, and "it's got to work in Korea." ????? (my question marks)
Several of Mr. Bush's national security aides said in interviews that Mr. Powell was simply giving voice to the military reality that the United States has no effective way of protecting South Korea or Japan from a North Korean counterattack if the nuclear facilities at Yongbyon were bombed.
"I'm not saying we don't have military options," one of Mr. Bush's most senior advisers said in an interview. "I'm just saying we don't have good ones."
Still, the diplomatic, nonconfrontational approach the administration has taken has clearly put Mr. Bush's aides in the odd position of explaining why they are massing troops around Iraq, as it lets inspectors roam the country and releases lists of weapons scientists, while insisting on patient diplomacy with a country that has expelled those inspectors and announced that it will restart plutonium production immediately.
Mr. Powell argued today that the approach makes sense because intelligence officials believe that North Korea has probably been an undeclared nuclear power for some time but has never used any weapons or threatened to use them. President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, by contrast, has used chemical weapons before and, Mr. Powell says, has demonstrated far more evil intent, seeking to dominate the Middle East.
cont.
[ edited by Helenjw on Dec 30, 2002 06:18 AM ]
posted on December 30, 2002 11:06:13 AM new
Has anyone explored the possibility of surrendering to them? Maybe whatever tribute they'd demand would be cheaper than a war.
I mean it is all about money isn't it?
posted on December 30, 2002 02:08:28 PM new
Good posts Helen & gravid. The U.S. and Canadian governments are too secretive imo. I thought we were pretty safe until 9/11, then you find out that the government has been watching all these terrorist cells all along. (A lot of good that did.) Now that N.K has made it's announcement, I wonder just how far along they really are. I mean, keeping everything a secret just makes the government look stupid, especially when something happens and they claim they knew all along.
