It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: North Korea Willing To Resolve Nuclear Crisis

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Chinese media has claimed that NK are willing to resolve the ongoing nuclear crisis ahead of next weeks 6 party talks. It is also believed that NK want to 'normailize' relations with the US.
 



news.yahoo.com
The comments were a positive signal ahead of the negotiations set to begin Tuesday that the United States has said should make progress, rather than being "talks for talks' sake" after three previous rounds yielded no agreement.

"Not a single nuclear weapon will be needed for us if the U.S. nuclear threat is removed and its hostile policy of 'bringing down the DPRK's system' is withdrawn," the official Xinhua news agency quoted an unnamed North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman as saying.

North Korea has called for normalizing ties with the United States before, but has not recently linked it as a condition that could lead to a negotiated settlement at the six-party talks. In Washington the White House said if North Korea made the strategic decision to abandon its nuclear ambitions, it could be rewarded with better relations and other benefits



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Are we supposed to believe that if things go well next week NK will simply scrap their nuclear weapons program?

They also stated that if the US didnt have nukes then they wouldnt need them!
Why on Earth would the US disarm just because some mad old North Korean (Kim) says they should?

Pfft.....




posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Hey! Let's just be hopeful/prayerful/whatever that this world gets just a little bit better! I sure am. Thx for the info!



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
The only resolution to the nuclear 'crisis' which is entirely the manufactur of the NK government, is for NK to completely abandon any attempts at nuke weapons and restricted nuke tech and permit full and complete access to UN and other global nuke inspectors.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   

They also stated that if the US didnt have nukes then they wouldnt need them!
Why on Earth would the US disarm just because some mad old North Korean (Kim) says they should?

How does the NPT strike you? I suggest you read it, its not very long.

Also the North Koreans have wanted to normalize relations with Washington since 1994. The process of normalizing relations was in motion through the Agreed Framework signed by the Clinton Administration. It should of been normalized but was stymied in congress.

This is positive news but you apparent anger and mistrust is not founded.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Dunno about the rest of You, but I'm sick of hearing about NK through China. I was disgusted when President Bush mentioned NK's top dog by status and name.

But perhap's it's all necessary in the prevention of NK selling more aggressive things to sheltered parties?

I wonder just where is the United Nations in all this? Actions speak louder than words - they used to..

Dallas



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   


Also the North Koreans have wanted to normalize relations with Washington since 1994. The process of normalizing relations was in motion through the Agreed Framework signed by the Clinton Administration. It should of been normalized but was stymied in congress.


Why on Earth would we want normalized relations with a regime that would rather see its people dig open graves and eat corpses than spend less on its military? I'm not even going to risk the carpel tunnel that would come from listing all of the reasons why they don't deserve normalized relations! Relations shouldn't have been normalized in 1994- the very same year Clinton stuck it to us by coming to a nuclear agreement with the DPRK. An agreement which was likely to have been immediately violated, and has directly led to our present predicament.

But I'm willing to bet you're the type that's for normalized relations with Iran and Syria, pre-invasion Iraq and more!



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Didn't they say this before? Didn't Iran say this to the EU before?

Stalling tactic, folks. Or they've hit a serious developement snag, and cannot continue forward so want to try to recover some international prestige.

Methinks those test blasts were very disappointing to those in the NK nuclear program, and may have highlighted serious flaws in their technology or designs.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
The normalization was part of the agreement for the North Korean's to forgo their sovereign right to withdraw from the NPT.

You forget that just because the United States of America says something or wants something, it doesnt mean countries have to do it. You can demand until you're blue in the face that North Korea refrains from developing nuclear weapons. They do not have to.

What Clinton did was to recognize this fact and to give the North Koreans incentives to cooperate. He offered them normalized relations as well as access to fuel and nuclear powered electrity. In return the North Koreans gave up their access to nuclear weapons capability. The Yongbyon reprocessing plant was sealed by the IAEA and was completely out of action. With this out of action the North Korean's nuclear ambitions, too, were out of action.

When the normalizations and other agreements made by the Clinton administration were blocked, the North Koreans resumed their sovereign right to pursue nuclear weapons. Great move.

How do you prevent nuclear proliferation? By threatening and creating a reason for a country to defend itself with nuclear weapons? Congratulations on a self-fulfilling scenario.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
The normalization was part of the agreement for the North Korean's to forgo their sovereign right to withdraw from the NPT.

You forget that just because the United States of America says something or wants something, it doesnt mean countries have to do it. You can demand until you're blue in the face that North Korea refrains from developing nuclear weapons. They do not have to.

What Clinton did was to recognize this fact and to give the North Koreans incentives to cooperate. He offered them normalized relations as well as access to fuel and nuclear powered electrity. In return the North Koreans gave up their access to nuclear weapons capability. The Yongbyon reprocessing plant was sealed by the IAEA and was completely out of action. With this out of action the North Korean's nuclear ambitions, too, were out of action.

When the normalizations and other agreements made by the Clinton administration were blocked, the North Koreans resumed their sovereign right to pursue nuclear weapons. Great move.

How do you prevent nuclear proliferation? By threatening and creating a reason for a country to defend itself with nuclear weapons? Congratulations on a self-fulfilling scenario.


Actually, I'd say the fuel to the fire of nuclear proliferation is the policies of bribes and appeasement, which you support. The fact of the matter is that people like Kim Jong Il, Saddam Huessein, and countless other dictators only respect strength. When we start offering them things and allow their stalling tactics we only end up shooting ourselves in the collective foot. Once again, this is a case of liberals refusing to recognize EVIL where EVIL exists. We can only spend so much time negotiating with Mad Men to please you leftists before action MUST be taken. Now before you get your panties in a bunch, by action I do not necessarily mean an overt military campaign. Action can come in the form of blockades, or "quarantenes" as your pal JFK called it.

With the North willing to return to the table and come to some sort of agreement, it further validates Bush's DPRK policy.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
Actually, I'd say the fuel to the fire of nuclear proliferation is the policies of bribes and appeasement, which you support.

Well thats your opinion, which you are entitled to. You dont need to resort to belittling language to get that across mate


Nuclear proliferation is not a black and white issue. You are correct that some countries might use their sovereign right to secede from the NPT as a bargaining chip. There is really nothing we can do about that, short of military intervention. But that brings us to the other reason why nuclear proliferation occurs: defence.

Countries, that either rightly or wrongly, find themselves in the sights of a powerful nation such as the United States will obviously want to gain a nuclear deterent. There is not other weapon in a military arsenal that will deter attacks than nuclear weapons. No nation has ever come to blows against another nuclear armed nation.

Now both options have their strengths and weaknesses. One costs money and the other costs lives. Now no one ever said winning the peace will be free, its just that I choose to let it cost us financially rather than with the lives of my countrymen.

You may disagree and thats fine with me, just dont resort to cheap shots and partisanship.


Originally posted by Rasputin13
The fact of the matter is that people like Kim Jong Il, Saddam Huessein, and countless other dictators only respect strength. When we start offering them things and allow their stalling tactics we only end up shooting ourselves in the collective foot.

Then why are North Korea coming back to the negotiating table? What makes you 100% sure they will give up all their nuclear weapons? Will the USA ever be satisfied that the North Koreans have given them all up and not stashed a couple away?

Answer? They wont be satisfied and they cant be sure. Now if the policy of "appeasement" had continued we could of been sure whether or not they were adhering to their bargain. The seals on the Yongbyon reprocessing plant cannot be broken without the IAEA knowing. Now then we could of resorted militarily but that was never given a chance. It was never given a chance too get that far, congress balked at the normalizations and the North Koreans just went ahead with their plans.

Short of military intervention there is nothing you can do to stop countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. Sanctions dont work (oil for food) and blockades wont work on non-island nations. But like I said earlier, military action gives more reasons for countries to go for the nuclear option. You might get away with intimidating some countries but if you tried it with Iran it will not work, they will go nuclear. Then what have you acheived? Nothing.


Originally posted by Rasputin13
I do not necessarily mean an overt military campaign. Action can come in the form of blockades, or "quarantenes"

See above


Originally posted by Rasputin13
With the North willing to return to the table and come to some sort of agreement, it further validates Bush's DPRK policy.

They've been to talks before. If the Bush administration does not make it worth their while to give their nuclear weapons up you will not see them do so. The North Koreans have nuclear weapons, military intervention will result in a nuclear war, is that an option?

Put up the cash for peace or prepare to see lots of people get killed. How much is a life really worth?

[edit on 22/7/05 by subz]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   
If my history is correct, then it was North Korea that invaded South Korea first, getting us involved and making them an enemy of ours.
And hey this is the same form of government, same regime and everything that originally invaded so to say that we have made them build nukes as a defence is as absurd as saying a kidnapper kidnapped someones family member for protection against them.

Put up the cash for peace or prepare to see lots of people get killed. How much is a life really worth?

I believe thats what France and Britain did with germany. That did a lot ofgood now didn't it?



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swivel53
If my history is correct, then it was North Korea that invaded South Korea first, getting us involved and making them an enemy of ours.
And hey this is the same form of government, same regime and everything that originally invaded so to say that we have made them build nukes as a defence is as absurd as saying a kidnapper kidnapped someones family member for protection against them.

And that changes the fact that the North Koreans would go for nuclear weapons asa detterent how? It doesnt, regardless of what the history was or whether they are an aggressive or peaceful nation: they all require defence and nukes are the best detterent devised.


Originally posted by Swivel53
Put up the cash for peace or prepare to see lots of people get killed. How much is a life really worth?

I believe thats what France and Britain did with germany. That did a lot ofgood now didn't it?

So we should invade nuclear armed countries eh? Yeah thats an awesome idea. Instead of spending money to avoid millions of deaths we should institigate it ourselves from fear of another Hitler. Thats not really sound logic.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by Swivel53
If my history is correct, then it was North Korea that invaded South Korea first, getting us involved and making them an enemy of ours.
And hey this is the same form of government, same regime and everything that originally invaded so to say that we have made them build nukes as a defence is as absurd as saying a kidnapper kidnapped someones family member for protection against them.

And that changes the fact that the North Koreans would go for nuclear weapons asa detterent how? It doesnt, regardless of what the history was or whether they are an aggressive or peaceful nation: they all require defence and nukes are the best detterent devised.

And saying that they need it as a defence against us is a moot argument when considering they are the ones who started hostilities. I'm not arguing its a great deterrent, i'm arguing they don't NEED it as a defence against us. It's as simple as don't start # with us, and you won't the target of our agressions. Having Nukes as a pretext for defence against someone u already started # with is pretty much saying "Hey I'm gonna keep doing what pisses you off so much, and I'm building nukes so you won't stop me this time!"




Originally posted by Swivel53
Put up the cash for peace or prepare to see lots of people get killed. How much is a life really worth?

I believe thats what France and Britain did with germany. That did a lot ofgood now didn't it?

So we should invade nuclear armed countries eh? Yeah thats an awesome idea. Instead of spending money to avoid millions of deaths we should institigate it ourselves from fear of another Hitler. Thats not really sound logic.


I haven't said that we should invade them right now. All i said is that i'm against appeasement, and you are for it. And as we all know history is on my side. Now if it comes down to a war with North Korea, yes i sure as hell say we'd better take them out rather than buy them off.
That's what the romans began to do near the end of their civilization, right
before they were wiped out by the numerous northern barbarians they had bought off for so many years.
The day any nation stops making sacrifices to defend it's future and begins to buy off their enemies, is the day they nation begins to decline. History also supports me on that.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join