Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

#NK makes new threats

0 views
Skip to first unread message

The Big Weasel

unread,
Jan 14, 2003, 11:26:02 PM1/14/03
to
North Korea Threatens New 'Options'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2321748,00.html

Wednesday January 15, 2003 2:40 AM


SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - China offered Tuesday to host talks between
the United States and North Korea in a bid to end their standoff, and
the North warned it was running out of patience with Washington,
threatening to exercise undefined ``options.''

A vaguely worded statement from Pyongyang did not specify what options
it was considering, but suggested the isolationist communist nation
was prepared to escalate the crisis over its drive to develop nuclear
weapons.

The White House welcomed diplomatic efforts but did not comment
specifically on the China offer.

President Bush said Tuesday that nations in the region should ``bind
together'' and tell the North Koreans ``we expect them to disarm - we
expect them not to develop nuclear weapons.'' If the North does so,
then Washington would consider new talks about food and energy aid to
the impoverished nation.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly, who arrived in China
from Seoul on Tuesday night for meetings on North Korea and its
nuclear-weapons program, said Wednesday morning he was ``very
reassured'' at how his talks with Asian nations about the issue are
unfolding.

On Wednesday, the U.S. military said North Korean soldiers have
stepped up patrols in one area of the Demilitarized Zone separating
the two Koreas.

``Over the past week, we have some increased activity,'' said Lt. Col.
Matthew Margotta, who commands a combined battalion of U.S. and South
Korean soldiers stationed near the border village of Panmunjom. He
described the activity as ``not alarming, just unusual.''

In Seoul, Kelly reassured South Korean officials that Washington would
stick to diplomacy to seek a peaceful settlement to the crisis. He
also held out the prospect of energy assistance to the North if it
verifiably gives up its nuclear ambitions. North Korea suffers an
acute energy shortage.

``I had excellent meetings in (South) Korea,'' Kelly said, leaving his
hotel for the Chinese Foreign Ministry on Wednesday morning. ``I'm
very reassured. We have to keep talking with each other to make sure
that things are done in the best possible way.''

In a statement Tuesday, however, North Korea accused Washington of
being insincere about prospects for dialogue. It insisted it was not
moving to reactivate its nuclear facilities in order to wrest
concessions out of the West.

The North defended its decision last week to withdraw from a global
nuclear non-proliferation treaty and said in a second statement
Tuesday that there was a limit to its ``self control'' in the face of
what it calls U.S. aggression.

If the United States responds to the withdrawal from the treaty ``with
new sanctions, blockade and pressure offensives, (North Korea) will
exercise the second and third corresponding options,'' a commentary in
Rodong Sinmun, North Korea's most prominent state newspaper, said.

Possible further next steps for the North would include suspending its
moratorium on missile tests - as it has threatened - or go ahead with
a test. A more extreme option would be to begin developing
weapons-grade plutonium at a reprocessing plant that they say is ready
for operation.

The commentary, carried by the North's news agency, said the
withdrawal from the nonproliferation treaty had been a ``legitimate
option'' and was ``guaranteed by its powerful military capacity.''

Meanwhile, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer denied a report
by Japan's Kyodo News agency that the United States has proposed
providing North Korea with a written security guarantee signed by
Bush.

``There is no truth to it,'' Fleischer said.

In a push for diplomacy, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said it would be
willing to negotiate talks in Beijing between the United States and
China's communist ally.

Beijing's dual position - as a powerful member of the U.N. Security
Council and one of North Korea's few allies - would give it a unique
perspective on the issue.

Secretary of State Colin Powell said that if North Korea agrees to
abandon its nuclear ambitions, the United States would want to enter a
``a new arrangement'' - stronger than a 1994 deal - to better
constrain Pyongyang's ability to produce nuclear weapons.

Under the 1994 agreement, the North agreed to abandon all weapons
activities in return for U.S. and international aid to build two
light-water nuclear reactors for energy production.

The 1994 agreement ``left intact the capacity for production. I think,
therefore, that we need a new arrangement and not just go back to the
existing framework,'' Powell told The Wall Street Journal in an
interview published in its Tuesday editions.

North Korea has protested the suspension of U.S. fuel shipments
following its admission last fall of a secret nuclear weapons program.
The North says it will resolve U.S. security concerns if Washington
signs a nonaggression pact.

Many see the steps as a ploy by a desperately poor and isolated nation
to trade its nuclear programs for much-needed assistance and
diplomatic ties. On Monday, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer
accused North Korea of attempting blackmail.

But the North's news agency report Tuesday said recent moves were
prompted by Washington's aggressive attitude. While denying that
Pyongyang posed a threat to the world, the report said the country was
ready to fight military moves against it.

The denial of brinkmanship came a day after Kelly suggested the
possibility of American energy aid. On Tuesday, Kelly met President
Kim Dae-jung's two top security advisers.

``Both sides reaffirmed that they should respond calmly and discreetly
to North Korean actions under the principle of resolving the problem
peacefully and diplomatically,'' the presidential office said.

The two sides also agreed to seek cooperation from Russia, China and
the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency for an ``early and
peaceful'' resolution to the standoff, the news release said.

Pyongyang appeared to dismiss such efforts, though analysts regards
its harsh rhetoric as an attempt to push Washington into talks.

On North Korea's drive to develop nuclear weapons, U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan said ``very intensive efforts'' were
under way in Washington, Moscow, Beijing, Seoul and Tokyo to resolve
the crisis. ``I think this is the right way to go,'' he said.

``I think the signals coming from both the U.S. and Korea gives me
hope and encouragement that it will be possible with determined effort
to find a diplomatic solution,'' he said.

International efforts to defuse the confrontation widened Tuesday when
envoys from the United Nations and Australia headed to North Korea.

In addition, Russia said Tuesday that Deputy Foreign Minister
Alexander Losyukov will travel to China, North Korea and the United
States.

[Zeppnote: North Korea stepped up border patrols today. Perhaps they
looked at Putsch and reflected that a coward is dangerous when
cornered.]
******************
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.

Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!

For the finest in leftist/liberal commentary, visit
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com

Christopher Morton

unread,
Jan 15, 2003, 12:03:11 AM1/15/03
to
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 20:26:02 -0800, The Big Weasel
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:

>North Korea Threatens New 'Options'

Zepp just hopes they'll kill a lot of Jews.
--

"sure an a nigger is going to use denigrate." - Glen Yeadon

"Who gives an FF what anyone says about the jooz." - Judy Diarya

"Jews mean nothing to me." - Judy Diarya

"Everyone but you knows the jews were behind 9-11." - Judy Diarya

"Stop using that term homophobia, you idiot. Normal people don't fear
the queers. We just don't like them. Call me a homobigot." - Judy Diarya

"When will you idiot pugs learn that 9-11 was america's fault??" - Judy Diarya

Bill Bonde

unread,
Jan 15, 2003, 2:24:25 PM1/15/03
to

The Big Weasel wrote:
>
> North Korea Threatens New 'Options'
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2321748,00.html
>
> Wednesday January 15, 2003 2:40 AM
>
> SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - China offered Tuesday to host talks between
> the United States and North Korea in a bid to end their standoff, and
> the North warned it was running out of patience with Washington,
> threatening to exercise undefined ``options.''
>

I think it is time for Washington to 'killfile' Pyongyang. Bush should
just ignore them.


> A vaguely worded statement from Pyongyang did not specify what options
> it was considering, but suggested the isolationist communist nation
> was prepared to escalate the crisis over its drive to develop nuclear
> weapons.
>

I just read the book, "The Mouse that Roared" and I think that the US
should realize that North Korea is trolling. It's obvious, isn't it?

--
Large Pharmaceutical Company Merck donates medicine to save lives:

"Parasitologists have discovered that ivermectin actually works
effectively against many other parasites, including O. volvulus. If a
person with river blindness takes the drug, the baby worms that wander
through the skin die. It's not a complete cure, since the adult worms
are left snuggled happily in their nodule, where they can give birth to
thousands more baby worms. But it's the babies that cause the worst
symptoms of the disease --the agonizing itchiness and the scarring of
the eye that leads to blindness. Researchers found that if an infected
person took one pill once a year, he would be free of the babies. Since
an adult worm lives ten years, he would have to take it ten times to be
completely cured. The pharmaceutical colossus Merck has donated as much
ivermecitin as will be necessary to cure the world of river blindness,
and 100 million doses have been handed out so far."
+-"Parasite Rex" by Carl Zimmer page 206

Bill Bonde

unread,
Jan 15, 2003, 2:27:59 PM1/15/03
to

BlackWater wrote:
>
> The Big Weasel <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>

> >North Korea Threatens New 'Options'
> >
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2321748,00.html
> >
> >Wednesday January 15, 2003 2:40 AM
> >
> >SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - China offered Tuesday to host talks between
> >the United States and North Korea in a bid to end their standoff, and
> >the North warned it was running out of patience with Washington,
> >threatening to exercise undefined ``options.''
>

> It's hard to figure out NK ...
>
Think 'trolling' and think about 'killfiling'. North Korea isn't going
to start a nuclear war. This is just ridiculous.

> That we keep hearing different 'messages' from NK
> may suggest that they are not as unified under Kim
> as they might like us to believe. If there are
> factions, we can work 'em against each other to
> achieve our goals.
>
Oh THAT brings back Iran/Contra to me.

> If NK once again has imperial ambitions, their best
> bet would be a lightning takeover of Seoul and a
> good chunk of the south, followed by a deliberate
> move to mix-up the civilian populations ... ie
> bringing lots of southerners north & vice-versa.
> This would leave us with few 100% 'hostile' targets
> for nukes or anything else. So entrenched, they
> would be impossible to dislodge without causing
> civilian casualties on a scale simply unacceptable
> in this day and time.
>
They would get a Pizza Hut 30 minutes or less delivery time nuke if they
even tried to start a war with the South. This isn't a good plan ... for
them.

Scott Erb

unread,
Jan 15, 2003, 2:35:45 PM1/15/03
to

"Bill Bonde" <sst...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3E25B63F...@backpacker.com...

>
> Think 'trolling' and think about 'killfiling'. North Korea isn't going
> to start a nuclear war. This is just ridiculous.

Agreed. I don't consider this a crisis at all. But consider the
implications of what you're saying in this and your last post about just
ignoring Korea.

1. President Bush put Korea in his infamous "axis of evil," ignoring North
Korea would create political difficulties.
2. The concern about North Korea is not its nuclear capacity, but the fact
that whatever it develops, it will try to use the sale of it to raise money,
unless funds come from elsewhere.
3. The US defines its interests in the region as wanting to maintain an
active presence and play a part in a regional balance of power. North
Korean nukes (and delivery systems) can disrupt that balance of power,
eventually leading to nuclear developments in Japan and in a worst case
scenario a regional arms race. This would make US policy very difficult,
and potentially push the US out of the region as a major actor (meaning
diminished influence).

Ultimately, if the US is going to remain engaged, it needs a "final
solution" -- not just aid in return for a promise, but aid, normalized
relations, and other benefits in return for a verifiable dismantling and
continued oversight of any programs to assure compliance. That is what I
think is most likely to come out of this. Consider that North Korea has
been experimenting with market reforms and enhancing ties with other states,
suggesting a nascent move towards reform of the system. That is why South
Korea has chaffed at American reactions to this, and has sympathized with
North Korea, they think North Korea is trying to change, but needs some
assurances and assistance. If the US remains engaged, it may take awhile to
figure out how to do all of this, patience and a diplomatic track is
necessary, which is what seems to be the path the Administration is taking.


Eric da Red

unread,
Jan 15, 2003, 3:30:03 PM1/15/03
to
In article <srq92vg16qg16h15f...@4ax.com>,

Christopher Morton <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 20:26:02 -0800, The Big Weasel
><ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>>North Korea Threatens New 'Options'
>
>Zepp just hopes they'll kill a lot of Jews.

Are you still here? I figured that al-Qaida, the world's best known
well-regulated militia, would have accepted your membership
application by now.

--
Quote Of The Week: "The United States, as the world knows, will never
start a war. We do not want a war. This generation of Americans has
already had enough - more than enough - of war and hate and oppression." -
John F. Kennedy, 1963.

Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush

unread,
Jan 15, 2003, 4:32:39 PM1/15/03
to
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:27:59 -0800, Bill Bonde
<sst...@backpacker.com> wrote:

>
>
>BlackWater wrote:
>>
>> The Big Weasel <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >North Korea Threatens New 'Options'
>> >
>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2321748,00.html
>> >
>> >Wednesday January 15, 2003 2:40 AM
>> >
>> >SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - China offered Tuesday to host talks between
>> >the United States and North Korea in a bid to end their standoff, and
>> >the North warned it was running out of patience with Washington,
>> >threatening to exercise undefined ``options.''
>>
>> It's hard to figure out NK ...
>>
>Think 'trolling' and think about 'killfiling'. North Korea isn't going
>to start a nuclear war. This is just ridiculous.

The only word I see there is "options." And Kim Jong Il isn't exactly
a testament to mental hygiene...


>
>
>
>> That we keep hearing different 'messages' from NK
>> may suggest that they are not as unified under Kim
>> as they might like us to believe. If there are
>> factions, we can work 'em against each other to
>> achieve our goals.
>>
>Oh THAT brings back Iran/Contra to me.

Chances are we couldn't even name the people behind these factions.
Pyongyang is more opaque to us than even Stalinist Russia was.


>
>
>
>> If NK once again has imperial ambitions, their best
>> bet would be a lightning takeover of Seoul and a
>> good chunk of the south, followed by a deliberate
>> move to mix-up the civilian populations ... ie
>> bringing lots of southerners north & vice-versa.
>> This would leave us with few 100% 'hostile' targets
>> for nukes or anything else. So entrenched, they
>> would be impossible to dislodge without causing
>> civilian casualties on a scale simply unacceptable
>> in this day and time.
>>
>They would get a Pizza Hut 30 minutes or less delivery time nuke if they
>even tried to start a war with the South. This isn't a good plan ... for
>them.

Do you really think the Russians and Chinese will be amused by nuclear
weapons only 50 miles from their borders?

Bill Bonde

unread,
Jan 15, 2003, 4:34:53 PM1/15/03
to

"Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:27:59 -0800, Bill Bonde
> <sst...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >BlackWater wrote:
> >>
> >> The Big Weasel <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >North Korea Threatens New 'Options'
> >> >
> >> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2321748,00.html
> >> >
> >> >Wednesday January 15, 2003 2:40 AM
> >> >
> >> >SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - China offered Tuesday to host talks between
> >> >the United States and North Korea in a bid to end their standoff, and
> >> >the North warned it was running out of patience with Washington,
> >> >threatening to exercise undefined ``options.''
> >>
> >> It's hard to figure out NK ...
> >>
> >Think 'trolling' and think about 'killfiling'. North Korea isn't going
> >to start a nuclear war. This is just ridiculous.
>
> The only word I see there is "options." And Kim Jong Il isn't exactly
> a testament to mental hygiene...
>

Thanks for the argument for missile defence.

> >> That we keep hearing different 'messages' from NK
> >> may suggest that they are not as unified under Kim
> >> as they might like us to believe. If there are
> >> factions, we can work 'em against each other to
> >> achieve our goals.
> >>
> >Oh THAT brings back Iran/Contra to me.
>
> Chances are we couldn't even name the people behind these factions.
> Pyongyang is more opaque to us than even Stalinist Russia was.
>

Likely it is just a single lone kook speaking, simularly to your what
your usenet post are.


> >> If NK once again has imperial ambitions, their best
> >> bet would be a lightning takeover of Seoul and a
> >> good chunk of the south, followed by a deliberate
> >> move to mix-up the civilian populations ... ie
> >> bringing lots of southerners north & vice-versa.
> >> This would leave us with few 100% 'hostile' targets
> >> for nukes or anything else. So entrenched, they
> >> would be impossible to dislodge without causing
> >> civilian casualties on a scale simply unacceptable
> >> in this day and time.
> >>
> >They would get a Pizza Hut 30 minutes or less delivery time nuke if they
> >even tried to start a war with the South. This isn't a good plan ... for
> >them.
>
> Do you really think the Russians and Chinese will be amused by nuclear
> weapons only 50 miles from their borders?
>

It will be a joke like Robin Williams would tell.

Christopher Morton

unread,
Jan 15, 2003, 4:23:22 PM1/15/03
to
On 15 Jan 2003 12:30:03 -0800, berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red)
wrote:

>In article <srq92vg16qg16h15f...@4ax.com>,
>Christopher Morton <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 20:26:02 -0800, The Big Weasel
>><ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>North Korea Threatens New 'Options'
>>
>>Zepp just hopes they'll kill a lot of Jews.
>
>Are you still here? I figured that al-Qaida, the world's best known
>well-regulated militia, would have accepted your membership
>application by now.

I don't have an imaginary friend and I believe that women should be
able to say "no" and back it up with lethal force if necessary.

And unlike Zepp and Al Qaeda, I don't hate Jews.

Christopher Morton

unread,
Jan 15, 2003, 4:27:54 PM1/15/03
to
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:24:25 -0800, Bill Bonde
<sst...@backpacker.com> wrote:

>
>
>The Big Weasel wrote:
>>
>> North Korea Threatens New 'Options'
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2321748,00.html
>>
>> Wednesday January 15, 2003 2:40 AM
>>
>> SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - China offered Tuesday to host talks between
>> the United States and North Korea in a bid to end their standoff, and
>> the North warned it was running out of patience with Washington,
>> threatening to exercise undefined ``options.''
>>
>I think it is time for Washington to 'killfile' Pyongyang. Bush should
>just ignore them.

Just tell them to build all of the nuclear weapons they want... and
wish them well in their attempts to eat plutonium.

After that, they should let their conscience be their guide. And if
they decide to use nuclear weapons, hey the Chinese have always been
concerned about a land border with South Korea. A North Korea
consisting of radioactive glass would solve that problem....

Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush

unread,
Jan 15, 2003, 4:42:22 PM1/15/03
to
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:24:25 -0800, Bill Bonde
<sst...@backpacker.com> wrote:

>
>
>The Big Weasel wrote:
>>
>> North Korea Threatens New 'Options'
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2321748,00.html
>>
>> Wednesday January 15, 2003 2:40 AM
>>
>> SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - China offered Tuesday to host talks between
>> the United States and North Korea in a bid to end their standoff, and
>> the North warned it was running out of patience with Washington,
>> threatening to exercise undefined ``options.''
>>
>I think it is time for Washington to 'killfile' Pyongyang. Bush should
>just ignore them.

Good idea. Then they can shore up their economy by selling nukes to
Al-Qaida, and we can get urban renewal in all our major cities done
for free!


>
>
>
>
>> A vaguely worded statement from Pyongyang did not specify what options
>> it was considering, but suggested the isolationist communist nation
>> was prepared to escalate the crisis over its drive to develop nuclear
>> weapons.
>>
>I just read the book, "The Mouse that Roared" and I think that the US
>should realize that North Korea is trolling. It's obvious, isn't it?

I'm not worried about NK attacking up.

SemiScholar

unread,
Jan 15, 2003, 5:34:20 PM1/15/03
to
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:27:54 -0500, Christopher Morton
<chr...@ameritech.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:24:25 -0800, Bill Bonde
><sst...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>The Big Weasel wrote:
>>>
>>> North Korea Threatens New 'Options'
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2321748,00.html
>>>
>>> Wednesday January 15, 2003 2:40 AM
>>>
>>> SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - China offered Tuesday to host talks between
>>> the United States and North Korea in a bid to end their standoff, and
>>> the North warned it was running out of patience with Washington,
>>> threatening to exercise undefined ``options.''
>>>
>>I think it is time for Washington to 'killfile' Pyongyang. Bush should
>>just ignore them.
>
>Just tell them to build all of the nuclear weapons they want... and
>wish them well in their attempts to eat plutonium.


I doubt that NK using nuke is the real problem. More likely, the real
problem is that they are more than willing to sell anything they've
got to anybody who has cash. That includes al Qaeda.

Bill Bonde

unread,
Jan 15, 2003, 8:03:58 PM1/15/03
to

Scott Erb wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde" <sst...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> news:3E25B63F...@backpacker.com...
> >
> > Think 'trolling' and think about 'killfiling'. North Korea isn't going
> > to start a nuclear war. This is just ridiculous.
>
> Agreed. I don't consider this a crisis at all. But consider the
> implications of what you're saying in this and your last post about just
> ignoring Korea.
>
> 1. President Bush put Korea in his infamous "axis of evil," ignoring North
> Korea would create political difficulties.
>

If we said that clearly North Korea was trying to manufacture a crisis
and that we weren't going to be pulled into it, what do you think they'd
do? Taking other nations seriously even when they seem to act kooky is
an important part of diplomacy. That is one thing that I took away from
the novel "The Mouse That Roared".


> 2. The concern about North Korea is not its nuclear capacity, but the fact
> that whatever it develops, it will try to use the sale of it to raise money,
> unless funds come from elsewhere.
>

You don't have to tell me about that. Of course that's an argument for
reacting differently to their nuclear war bluster.

> 3. The US defines its interests in the region as wanting to maintain an
> active presence and play a part in a regional balance of power. North
> Korean nukes (and delivery systems) can disrupt that balance of power,
> eventually leading to nuclear developments in Japan and in a worst case
> scenario a regional arms race. This would make US policy very difficult,
> and potentially push the US out of the region as a major actor (meaning
> diminished influence).
>

Of course it would also tank the possible economic recoveries in the
region, especially in Japan.

> Ultimately, if the US is going to remain engaged, it needs a "final
> solution" -- not just aid in return for a promise, but aid, normalized
> relations, and other benefits in return for a verifiable dismantling and
> continued oversight of any programs to assure compliance.
>

Will you Libs attack Bush for doing a deal like that with NK as helping
a totalitarian government flourish?


> That is what I
> think is most likely to come out of this. Consider that North Korea has
> been experimenting with market reforms and enhancing ties with other states,
> suggesting a nascent move towards reform of the system.
>

I don't believe the leaders are wedded to any one system, they just want
continued power.


> That is why South
> Korea has chaffed at American reactions to this, and has sympathized with
> North Korea, they think North Korea is trying to change, but needs some
> assurances and assistance.
>

You'll recall that they likely stared the uranium enrichment program
right after agreeing to end their plutonium separation program. I think
we cannot trust North Korea and that that is obvious.


> If the US remains engaged, it may take awhile to
> figure out how to do all of this, patience and a diplomatic track is
> necessary, which is what seems to be the path the Administration is taking.
>

One problem with patience is that there are drop dead dates just like
with Iraq. Wait too long and North Korea will have nuclear weapons with
ICBMs to deliver them.

Scott Erb

unread,
Jan 15, 2003, 8:27:02 PM1/15/03
to

"Bill Bonde" <sst...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3E2604FE...@backpacker.com...

-snip-

> > Ultimately, if the US is going to remain engaged, it needs a "final
> > solution" -- not just aid in return for a promise, but aid, normalized
> > relations, and other benefits in return for a verifiable dismantling and
> > continued oversight of any programs to assure compliance.
> >
> Will you Libs attack Bush for doing a deal like that with NK as helping
> a totalitarian government flourish?

I certainly won't attack such a deal, and I'd defend Bush if he were
attacked for making such a deal.

> > That is what I
> > think is most likely to come out of this. Consider that North Korea has
> > been experimenting with market reforms and enhancing ties with other
states,
> > suggesting a nascent move towards reform of the system.
> >
> I don't believe the leaders are wedded to any one system, they just want
> continued power.

Kim Jong Il is still young. I don't want him to become another Castro,
hanging around for decades using American animus as an excuse for
repression.

> > That is why South
> > Korea has chaffed at American reactions to this, and has sympathized
with
> > North Korea, they think North Korea is trying to change, but needs some
> > assurances and assistance.
> >
> You'll recall that they likely stared the uranium enrichment program
> right after agreeing to end their plutonium separation program. I think
> we cannot trust North Korea and that that is obvious.

Any deal worth doing would have to be verifiable. That's the hard part.

> > If the US remains engaged, it may take awhile to
> > figure out how to do all of this, patience and a diplomatic track is
> > necessary, which is what seems to be the path the Administration is
taking.
> >
> One problem with patience is that there are drop dead dates just like
> with Iraq. Wait too long and North Korea will have nuclear weapons with
> ICBMs to deliver them.

But what do you propose? You said "ignore them," but it seems there you are
arguing against ignoring them.

One problem with both the left and right in talking about arms and missiles,
etc., is that people tend to see the weaponry as the problem (whether its
stopping proliferation as the Bush administration wants to do, or promoting
disarmament, as the left has wanted to do). Arms are a symptom of the
problem of distrust, insecurity, and aggressive intent. You won't ever be
rid of the arms, or stop their proliferation, unless the root problem is
dealt with. I haven't seen many good strategies for that lately...


Bill Bonde

unread,
Jan 15, 2003, 9:35:09 PM1/15/03
to

Scott Erb wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde" <sst...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> news:3E2604FE...@backpacker.com...
>
> -snip-
>
> > > Ultimately, if the US is going to remain engaged, it needs a "final
> > > solution" -- not just aid in return for a promise, but aid, normalized
> > > relations, and other benefits in return for a verifiable dismantling and
> > > continued oversight of any programs to assure compliance.
> > >
> > Will you Libs attack Bush for doing a deal like that with NK as helping
> > a totalitarian government flourish?
>
> I certainly won't attack such a deal, and I'd defend Bush if he were
> attacked for making such a deal.
>

You don't defend Reagan for trying to make deals with Iran to improve
our relations there.

> > > That is what I
> > > think is most likely to come out of this. Consider that North Korea has
> > > been experimenting with market reforms and enhancing ties with other
> states,
> > > suggesting a nascent move towards reform of the system.
> > >
> > I don't believe the leaders are wedded to any one system, they just want
> > continued power.
>
> Kim Jong Il is still young. I don't want him to become another Castro,
> hanging around for decades using American animus as an excuse for
> repression.
>

He's already doing that, although by no means is it limited to
badmouthing the US.


> > > That is why South
> > > Korea has chaffed at American reactions to this, and has sympathized
> with
> > > North Korea, they think North Korea is trying to change, but needs some
> > > assurances and assistance.
> > >
> > You'll recall that they likely stared the uranium enrichment program
> > right after agreeing to end their plutonium separation program. I think
> > we cannot trust North Korea and that that is obvious.
>
> Any deal worth doing would have to be verifiable. That's the hard part.
>

The last deal didn't work for that reason.

> > > If the US remains engaged, it may take awhile to
> > > figure out how to do all of this, patience and a diplomatic track is
> > > necessary, which is what seems to be the path the Administration is
> taking.
> > >
> > One problem with patience is that there are drop dead dates just like
> > with Iraq. Wait too long and North Korea will have nuclear weapons with
> > ICBMs to deliver them.
>
> But what do you propose? You said "ignore them," but it seems there you are
> arguing against ignoring them.
>

I'm saying that we don't have to pay much attention to their day-to-day
nuclear brinkmanship nonsense. Long term we'd better do a lot about the
ballistic missile threat.

> One problem with both the left and right in talking about arms and missiles,
> etc., is that people tend to see the weaponry as the problem (whether its
> stopping proliferation as the Bush administration wants to do, or promoting
> disarmament, as the left has wanted to do).
>

Since there is no way to verify disarmament, the idea that all nations
should do it is stupid.


> Arms are a symptom of the
> problem of distrust, insecurity, and aggressive intent. You won't ever be
> rid of the arms, or stop their proliferation, unless the root problem is
> dealt with. I haven't seen many good strategies for that lately...
>

Humans have been fighting for those reasons and more for thousands of
years. Why should they stop now?

Bill Bonde

unread,
Jan 15, 2003, 9:37:04 PM1/15/03
to

SemiScholar wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:27:54 -0500, Christopher Morton
> <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:24:25 -0800, Bill Bonde
> ><sst...@backpacker.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>The Big Weasel wrote:
> >>>
> >>> North Korea Threatens New 'Options'
> >>>
> >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2321748,00.html
> >>>
> >>> Wednesday January 15, 2003 2:40 AM
> >>>
> >>> SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - China offered Tuesday to host talks between
> >>> the United States and North Korea in a bid to end their standoff, and
> >>> the North warned it was running out of patience with Washington,
> >>> threatening to exercise undefined ``options.''
> >>>
> >>I think it is time for Washington to 'killfile' Pyongyang. Bush should
> >>just ignore them.
> >
> >Just tell them to build all of the nuclear weapons they want... and
> >wish them well in their attempts to eat plutonium.
>
> I doubt that NK using nuke is the real problem. More likely, the real
> problem is that they are more than willing to sell anything they've
> got to anybody who has cash. That includes al Qaeda.
>

That is exactly the situation.

Bill Bonde

unread,
Jan 15, 2003, 9:38:38 PM1/15/03
to

"Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" wrote:
>

> On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:24:25 -0800, Bill Bonde
> <sst...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >The Big Weasel wrote:
> >>
> >> North Korea Threatens New 'Options'
> >>
> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2321748,00.html
> >>
> >> Wednesday January 15, 2003 2:40 AM
> >>
> >> SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - China offered Tuesday to host talks between
> >> the United States and North Korea in a bid to end their standoff, and
> >> the North warned it was running out of patience with Washington,
> >> threatening to exercise undefined ``options.''
> >>
> >I think it is time for Washington to 'killfile' Pyongyang. Bush should
> >just ignore them.
>
> Good idea. Then they can shore up their economy by selling nukes to
> Al-Qaida, and we can get urban renewal in all our major cities done
> for free!
>

The issue is what to do now. Killfiling them for a month or two isn't a
bad idea. Bring them back out and tell them to behave.

> >> A vaguely worded statement from Pyongyang did not specify what options
> >> it was considering, but suggested the isolationist communist nation
> >> was prepared to escalate the crisis over its drive to develop nuclear
> >> weapons.
> >>
> >I just read the book, "The Mouse that Roared" and I think that the US
> >should realize that North Korea is trolling. It's obvious, isn't it?
>
> I'm not worried about NK attacking up.
>

Attacking up? They are certainly acting up right now.

The Big Weasel

unread,
Jan 15, 2003, 10:34:08 PM1/15/03
to

Snort might try to eat plutonium -- in fact, I kinda wonder if he
hasn't tried it at least once. It would answer a few questions we've
all been asking about him.

But you CAN sell plutonium. Al-Qaida has lots of money, and India or
Pakistan can trade foodstuffs.

That's the real problem.

The Big Weasel

unread,
Jan 15, 2003, 10:37:26 PM1/15/03
to
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:47:02 -0500, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:

>"Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" <ze...@zeppscommentaries.com>
>wrote:

> Actually, if we do this right, the nukes might
> BE Chinese and/or Russian ... perhaps in addition
> to our own. Both old commie stalwarts aren't
> interested in any ideology nowdays but capitalism.
> They want to do *business* - and NK would be in
> their way.

How so? I haven't heard anyone saying we should stop trading with
China because of North Korea.
>
> The biggest problem with nukes on that peninsula
> is the near certainty that fallout would land in
> China, Russia and, especially to us, Japan. It's
> just too *crowded* around there.
>
> Given that, I don't think NK *would* get that
> Pizza-Hut nuke if they staged a conventional
> takeover of the south. I think we would be
> thwarted - unable to mount a conventional
> defense fast enough and unwilling to go for
> a big conventional or small nuclear conflict.
>
> Ergo, NK would win ... well, sorta. They would
> be utterly isolated from all outside resources
> and pestered with cruise missiles foreverafter.

Um, you mean like they are now?

> Oh, and pretty soon, all those pro-commie/anti-US
> protestors from the south would become VERY
> disappointed with the reality of life under Kim
> and become 5th columnists. Not much of a 'win'
> really.

I know that there's some anti-US protesters of late in South Korea
(something that didn't exist just two years ago). But pro-communist?
You serious, or this just more rightwing bullshit?

Bill Bonde

unread,
Jan 16, 2003, 12:24:11 AM1/16/03
to

Since Pakistan traded the uranium enrichment technologies for ballistic
missile technologies from North Korea, I doubt they have any shortage of
uranium at least compared to North Korea.

Gary Kleppe

unread,
Jan 16, 2003, 7:46:01 AM1/16/03
to
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:37:26 -0800, The Big Weasel
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:

>> Oh, and pretty soon, all those pro-commie/anti-US
>> protestors from the south would become VERY
>> disappointed with the reality of life under Kim
>> and become 5th columnists. Not much of a 'win'
>> really.
>
>I know that there's some anti-US protesters of late in South Korea
>(something that didn't exist just two years ago). But pro-communist?
>You serious, or this just more rightwing bullshit?

It's a pretty standard RW/nationalist propaganda staple: equating
anything that the state doesn't like with anything else it doesn't like.
Not pro-US = anti-US = pro-Communist = pro-Communist boogeyman of the
week has been the rationalization for a lot of atrocities in the past
fifty years or so.


Gary Kleppe
http://www.garykleppe.org/politics.html
http://www.execpc.com/~ajrc/

So-called president G. W. Bush: POT
WTC attackers, whoever they are or were: KETTLE
Murdered civilians in New York and Afghanistan: BLACK

Eric da Red

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 7:16:33 PM1/21/03
to
In article <m8kb2vkcilsniklik...@4ax.com>,

Christopher Morton <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>On 15 Jan 2003 12:30:03 -0800, berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <srq92vg16qg16h15f...@4ax.com>,
>>Christopher Morton <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 20:26:02 -0800, The Big Weasel
>>><ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>North Korea Threatens New 'Options'
>>>
>>>Zepp just hopes they'll kill a lot of Jews.
>>
>>Are you still here? I figured that al-Qaida, the world's best known
>>well-regulated militia, would have accepted your membership
>>application by now.
>
>I don't have an imaginary friend

The word "imaginary" is unnecessary in this sentence.


>and I believe that women should be
>able to say "no" and back it up with lethal force if necessary.
>
>And unlike Zepp and Al Qaeda, I don't hate Jews.

No, you're an equal opportunity hater.


--
Quote Of The Week: "North Korean Dictator Kim Jong-il has been called an
under-achiever that succeeded his father. Thank God nothing like that
could ever happen here!" -- David Letterman

Christopher Morton

unread,
Jan 21, 2003, 8:05:40 PM1/21/03
to
On 21 Jan 2003 16:16:33 -0800, berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red)
wrote:

>In article <m8kb2vkcilsniklik...@4ax.com>,
>Christopher Morton <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>On 15 Jan 2003 12:30:03 -0800, berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <srq92vg16qg16h15f...@4ax.com>,
>>>Christopher Morton <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 20:26:02 -0800, The Big Weasel
>>>><ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>North Korea Threatens New 'Options'
>>>>
>>>>Zepp just hopes they'll kill a lot of Jews.
>>>
>>>Are you still here? I figured that al-Qaida, the world's best known
>>>well-regulated militia, would have accepted your membership
>>>application by now.
>>
>>I don't have an imaginary friend
>
>The word "imaginary" is unnecessary in this sentence.

You're the Al Qaeda, Taliban and Saddam Hussein supporter. Two out of
the three have the same imaginary friend and the third pretends to.

Are you an Islamofascist or do you just hate the United States.

>>and I believe that women should be
>>able to say "no" and back it up with lethal force if necessary.
>>
>>And unlike Zepp and Al Qaeda, I don't hate Jews.
>
>No, you're an equal opportunity hater.

Which if it were true, would set me apart from the Weasels who confine
their hatred to Blacks and Jews.
--
"It was just two buildings, Martin." - Milt Brewster referring to the 9/11 Massacres

0 new messages