Hello Mike
"The reason N Korea is starving it's people and almost killing
itself to get nuclear weapons is precisely because the Bush
administration had developed a policy along the lines you suggest."
Can anyone point to a credible source that outlines the timeline for
the above policies of N Korea?
-Mike
Try the Maria Tomchick article in this post:
http://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org/200
5-June/000097.html
[Biofuel] A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy
http://eatthestate.org/07-10/NorthKoreasWarlike.htm
North Korea's Warlike Noises
by Maria Tomchick
January 15, 2003
Also these:
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/koreatimeline.htm
North Korea Nuclear and Missile Timeline
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-timeline.htm
Korea Crisis Countdown Timeline
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaDprk/index.shtml
News Center : In Focus : IAEA and DPRK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2604437.stm
BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | Timeline: N Korea nuclear standoff
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4253563.stm
BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | Why North Korea won't talk
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/northkorea/timeline.html
CBC News Indepth: North Korea
As it's been said, the lesson some (or many) countries took from the
US invasion of Iraq wasn't that Saddam Hussein had WMDs but that he
didn't have them. If there'd been any real risk of a US city getting
nuked, would the US have invaded? Extremely doubtful. This lesson has
certainly not been lost on Pyongyang.
To put all this in some perspective, if that's at all possible when
folks like Bush and Kim Jong Il are centre-stage, you have to compare
the US attitude to North Korea with the slap on the wrist it gave
Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf last year following
serious nuclear breaches. It's not as if Musharraf is exactly a
beacon of democracy either, nor that the sub-continent is any less of
a potential powder-keg than northeast Asia is.
See:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040308fa_fact
The New Yorker: Fact
The Deal
by Seymour M. Hersh
Why is Washington going easy on Pakistan's nuclear black marketers?
Issue of 2004-03-08
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040229190439.q5jl04vh.html
Pakistan proliferation unpunished so US troops could hunt bin Laden: report
WASHINGTON (AFP) Feb 29, 2004
Best wishes
Keith
Michael Redler wrote:
"The reason N Korea is starving it's people and almost killing
itself to get nuclear weapons is precisely because the Bush
administration had developed a policy along the lines you suggest."
Nice Rick. IMO, that analysis, is one of the most important and
least emphasized in the broken and not so free media. I'm sure that
I'm not the first person to wonder if this kind of provocation is
in the same vein as the Bay of Tonkin (Todd probably has a better
example) -- except perhaps, slower, more sophisticated and overtly
hidden.
There has been a lot of saber rattling in the past. It seems to me
that those involved in manufacturing that rattling, did so as a
political tool for food, technology, trade, etc., with agendas that
didn't include an eminent attack. But, as Rick points out, things
are different now and like Ken described in his"psychopathic
neighbor" analogy, "we" might really do something because (IMO) the
US government has made hegemony, both in and out of the country,
one of it's highest priorities.
Mike
Richard Littrell <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear Jason,
On the face of it your suggestion seems like it should work but in
practice it has not. The reason N Korea is starving it's people and
almost killing itself to get nuclear weapons is precisely because the
Bush administration had developed a policy along the lines you suggest.
Because they think we might strike first they (and apparently Iran as
well) have concluded that they better get a bomb to deter us. It is not
past policy but present policy that has brought about the situation with
N. Korea. Prior to the "axis of evil" speech these countries were
moderating. North and South Korea were talking about steps that could
lead to reunification. Hardliners the world over were on the defensive.
Now, with the US looking like a lose cannon, countries that saw nuclear
weapons as unacceptably costly are reconsidering. It is not easy to have
a nuclear weapons program even with outside help. It requires huge
resources and only a country that is very rich or very frightened will
undertake such a program. By being unpredictable we engender that fear.
North Korea dos not expect to be able to defeat the US in a nuclear war
but they know they don't have to. The destruction of an American city by
a nuclear bomb would be unacceptable to this country. A first strike by
a US administration that brought about such a result would bury that
political party even if we "won" in the end. To borrow your analogy how
long do you think your neighbors would put up with you if, in addition
to having a gun in your house, you took to shooting at passers by
because they looked suspicious or belonged to groups you were enemies
with? You get to keep a gun in your house only as long as your neighbors
feel sure you would only use it on someone who actually broke into your
house first.
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
