PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: SirMystiq on February 02, 2005, 05:57:03 PM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146146,00.html
The White House said Wednesday that North Korea\'s nuclear initiative is a threat to world peace and urged the secretive regime in Pyongyang (search) to resume talks aimed at ending the program.
"North Korea\'s nuclear program and nuclear weapons programs and its past and continuing proliferation activities are a threat to global peace and security," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "North Korea\'s actions underscore the importance of moving forward through the six-party talks."
McClellan, however, would not comment on a published report that said that based on scientific testing, U.S. intelligence agencies and government scientists believe that North Korea sold processed uranium to Libya (search). He said he would not discuss intelligence matters.
McClellan urged North Korea to return to the six-party talks soon. He said two members of the National Security Council (search) staff recently traveled to several Asian capitals to discuss ways to restart the negotiations.
"We put forward a proposal at the last round of talks," he said. "We believe it addresses the concerns of all parties involved in those decisions. We believe that the proposal is the way forward to finding a peaceful, diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue in North Korea."
"The proposal and the six-party process is the best way for North Korea to address the concerns of the international community and to end its international isolation," he said.
According to a report in The New York Times Wednesday editions, the scientific finding supports earlier clues that the dictatorship exported fuel for atomic weapons.
Government officials in Washington are trying to determine whether North Korea has sold uranium, an ingredient necessary for atomic weapons, to other countries, including Iran and Syria. So far, there is no evidence of that.
The Times reported that international inspectors tested nearly two tons of uranium material that Libya surrendered to the United States last year when it dismantled its nuclear program. The material, uranium hexafluroide, can be converted into bomb fuel.
An unnamed official at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (search) in Tennessee, where extensive testing was performed in recent months, told the Times, "with a certainty of 90 percent of better, this stuff\'s from North Korea."
Experts said the findings advance the West\'s understanding of North Korea\'s uranium program.
"It means the North Koreans have built a facility to process uranium," Leonard S. Specter, the deputy director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute in California, told the Times. "And it raises the disturbing prospect that they\'ve now made enough of it to feel comfortable selling some."
Nuclear intelligence experts said they compared samples of the Libyan uranium with samples from other countries by matching uranium isotopes.
They concluded that the uranium had to have come from North Korea.
So, I guess North Korea might still be bluffing. I say let\'s continue to ignore these countries and keep focusing on Iraq, that is where the entire terrorist faction was at and where the threats and security risks were located. It was also supported by hard core evidence, plus some people got freedom. That should really keep this country safe.
How about those accusations that Bush might be planning to attack Lybia next? Those accusations seem very probable and noting that this report received response from the White House, I think they are beginning to build up the threat in order to sell an invasion like they did with Iraq. Except this time, they might actually be right.
-
Did North Korea admit to selling it?
-
Originally posted by Halberto
Did North Korea admit to selling it?
I don\'t know. I haven\'t looked into it that deep. I doubt they would say anything though. But if they do, it will be to threaten and make their case stronger to America.
Like:
"See suckas, we weren\'t trippin\' yo. We got this shit to blow yo\' ass up playas!"
Or something like that :)
-
I thought the rumours were that we were hot on Iran, not Lybia.
-
Originally posted by videoholic
I thought the rumours were that we were hot on Iran, not Lybia.
I stand corrected.
Lybia is said to be one of those government he plans to bring down:
"To promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder. Syria still allows its territory, and parts of Lebanon, to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace in the region. You have passed, and we are applying, the Syrian Accountability Act -- and we expect the Syrian government to end all support for terror and open the door to freedom.
Today, Iran remains the world\'s primary state sponsor of terror -- pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium re-processing, and end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."
Bush, State of the Union
Seems to me like if GWB is already starting to build his case against Iran.
-
Good.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
Seems to me like if GWB is already starting to build his case against Iran.
Good luck with that.
I talked to a guy from Iran (calm down, he\'s not a dirty Muslim anymore, he has converted) who served in the Iranian military, he said they are crazy enough to bring everyone down with them if they know they are going down.
Bye bye Israel, probably bye bye to South East-Europe also, if they have nukes that is. The development has been put on hold IIRC, thanks to EU negotiations, if you can trust them that is.
-
Originally posted by fastson
The development has been put on hold IIRC, thanks to EU negotiations, if you can trust them that is.
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
You really believe that don\'t you? Iran hasn\'t put anything on hold. Once again diplomacy is ineffective with these people. Didn\'t you all learn anything from pre-WW2? Another word to describe Europe could be naive.
The thing is Bush saw all of this coming when he was elected in 2000. North Korea and Iran - luckily he preempted Iraq.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
You really believe that don\'t you? Iran hasn\'t put anything on hold. Once again diplomacy is ineffective with these people. Didn\'t you all learn anything from pre-WW2? Another word to describe Europe could be naive.
Like I said, if you can trust them.
If Iran wants to stay out of trouble they better try the diplomatic route. Then again I can see it from their POV.
Do what EU/UN tells you, get screwed over anyways and be bombed. Basically nuclear weapons could be their only trumph card.
So yes, I can see what you are saying, we should be very skeptical.
-
They really have to be dealt with and unfortunately I don\'t think diplomacy is going to work. If Saddam hadn\'t been screwing around with the inspections for all those years and actually cooperated with the UN, I really doubt we would be there right now. Iran should have learned a lesson from that.
-
So what has North Korea got that seams to make it immune to threats and possible attack.
Why has it suddenly dropped of the "axis of Evil" ?
They are still making WMD\'s and selling them to the highest bidder.
-
It hasn\'t dropped off the "Axis of Evil". Don\'t know where you got that one from - there are a number of countries involved in the discussions with them - the US, China, S. Korea and Japan.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
It hasn\'t dropped off the "Axis of Evil". Don\'t know where you got that one from - there are a number of countries involved in the discussions with them - the US, China, S. Korea and Japan.
So were really trusting Kim Jong Il to play by the rules, when hes a bigger threat that saddam ever was (even in his prime).
The way things are going with North Korea, is that sooner or later they will have noting left to lose due to their fuel sotrage, the might decide to take more resources by force.
And
Seeing that they are stocked to the gills with all manner of weapons it won\'t be another Desert Storm in fighting them back off.
So we had better hope that diplomacy works with this one.
-
... what is so hard to understand here? The North Koreans have nuclear weapons - Iraq didn\'t, but would acquire them in the future. Preemptive strike on Iraq was the logical choice - otherwise we would dealing with 3 countries Iraq, Iran and N. Korea that would possess nuclear weapons in the next couple of years.
Also if N. Korea was an isolated country geographically, it would be much easier to deal with them. If bombs start going off - countries like China, Japan, South Korea and Russia will be effected. It is hypocritical for you to scream for us to invade N. Korea, yet cry foul when we pre emptively strike Iraq and possibly Iran. Of course this is the mode of thinking by liberals here in the US. Don\'t do anything until the enemy has weapons to inflict major casualities on us and/or endanger surrounding countries if a conflict did break out.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
[B It is hypocritical for you to scream for us to invade N. Korea, yet cry foul when we pre emptively strike Iraq and possibly Iran. [/B]
I am just pointing out that it is hypocritical to invade Iraq while turning a blind eye to N korea and warning Iran.
Look if we ARE faceing as big a threat as the NEO CONS say we are then why delay with 2 out of the 3 rouge states ?
The lack of any kind constancy and forward planning makes us look foolish.
-
It is called responsibility ooseven. Invading N. Korea would trigger them to use nuclear weapons, contaminating most of the surrounding countries. That is reckless. By invading Iraq - which was the weakest of the 3 and the standout when it came to thumbing its nose at UN resolutions, the US sent a message to the other 2 countries. If you pursue the course you are on - you will be dealt with by force.
Thank God, people like you don\'t make decisions of this nature. I can only imagine what you would be saying if we had invaded N. Korea first and a huge radioactive cloud was hanging over S. Korea, Southern China and Japan.
-
I don\'t think it\'s being hypocritical to not attack N. Korea. I think they are two very very different situations. Iraq did not posses nuclear weapons which meant there was no chance of a nuclear attack from them. If someone were to attack N. Korea, Kim Jong is crazy enough to order a nuclear attack and it could start a nuclear war, something I\'m sure nobdy wants on their hands.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
It is called responsibility ooseven. Invading N. Korea would trigger them to use nuclear weapons, contaminating most of the surrounding countries. That is reckless. By invading Iraq - which was the weakest of the 3 and the standout when it came to thumbing its nose at UN resolutions, the US sent a message to the other 2 countries. If you pursue the course you are on - you will be dealt with by force.
Thank God, people like you don\'t make decisions of this nature. I can only imagine what you would be saying if we had invaded N. Korea first and a huge radioactive cloud was hanging over S. Korea, Southern China and Japan.
Yeah, the message definately got there. That\'s why their trying to pump each other up with more WMD.
How do you intend the military to deal with this situations with "force" How far can you stretch the military, noting that they will be there for probably a long time and that Iraq is FAR from safe?
If anything, diplomacy wasn\'t given a chance this time around and now we have two more terrorist harbors to worry about. I doubt the war in Iraq helped any. It\'s also very sad that after all the talk about the danger of Iraq, according to you, it was only a message.
Sad, thousands of Americans died just to send a message. Hasn\'t Bush ever heard of e-mail, you know the ones you send through the "internets"?