Rice gives N.K. 4 to 5 days b4 we freeze their assets.

news.yahoo.com...;_ylt
=Ai63qCLMfwj.KabwHAkoJQ4Bxg8F;_ylu=X3o'___'BiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Condoleezza Rice stepped up pressure on North Korea to scrap its nuclear arms program, warning that those who spread atomic weapons faced a potential freeze on their assets. Rice's warning came in an interview with the New York Post as negotiators in Beijing struggled to salvage six-party talks aimed at persuading Pyongyang to renounce its nuclear ambitions.
Negotiations were only part of the effort to contain the spread of nuclear weapons, Rice said. "We're not sitting still, you know, we're working on anti-proliferation measures that help to protect us."She cited the US administration's Proliferation Security Initiative aimed at intercepting shipments of potential nuclear bomb-making technology and punishing the transporters.
Bush "signed an executive order, if you remember, that freezes assets some entities that we believe that are engaging in proliferation trade," the chief US diplomat told the Post.
"So we're not wholly dependent on negotiations to get this done."
But Rice made no explicit connection in the interview between a freezing of assets and the eventual outcome of the six-party talks, which are snagged over Pyongyang's demand for a light-water reactor.
"I think in the final analysis, this is a regime where somehow you've got to get some opening up of that regime," she told the Post. "I mean, it makes every other regime in the world seem like an open book."
The United States has refused to entertain the idea of giving the North Koreans civilian nuclear reactors, arguing they have used them in the past to produce weapons-grade fuel.
"The North Koreans have a way of moving the goal posts all the time," Rice said. "And they've apparently come back determined that they have to have a light-water reactor. Well, we're not going there."
She declined to make any predictions on how the Beijing talks would turn out.
"We'll see, I think in the next five or so days, four or five days, whether or not they're prepared to make a strategic choice about their nuclear weapons programs," Rice said.
"And I think that will show us whether we can get a deal."

It looks like the U.S. and the E.U. are alone in the 6 party talks. Russia, China, Japan, and S.K. are all for them having a nuclear program. China even put forth a proposal saying that they could have their light water reactor if they abandoned their weapons program. Surprisingly enough, N.K. (or should I say DPRK) said no way, and we said no way are you going to have a light water reactor.

From what I can tell, the 6 party talks are over and we are putting on our gloves.


news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=
An8ocF5g3r26c4UCwCKK0aUBxg8F;_ylu=X3o'___'BiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

N. Korea Rejects China's Nuclear Proposal
Beijing proposed that North Korea retain the right to a peaceful nuclear program after abandoning its weapons, according to Russia's chief envoy to the six-nation talks. That proposal contains "compromise wording which could satisfy both sides," Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alexeyev said, referring to the United States and North Korea. But Pyongyang vowed anew not to give up its atomic program without getting concessions first.

One thing that scares me about all of this is that our govt. is talking about using nukes for pre-emptive attacks on anyone who threatens us.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


(I have no idea how to shrink the links down, can someone please help me out? thanks)

Well, after their meeting Sat., N.K. is still refusing any offer that requires them to give up their nukes. I think Rice has had it with them. I understand we need to handle things in an certin way, but come on. This is maddness! I cant help but think that most of the other countries in the 6 party talks have some sort of deal going with them. Part of me thinks that we will use force aginst the N.K. but I think that would bring on WWIII.

Good.. finaly there's "action" taken on these "nations" and thier spread and develoment of "Nuclear Tech"

Isnt openly freezing this countries assets a pretty big internatioanl move?

Especially since we ARENT At conflict at them ?

hell If someone got into my bank, froze my whole $32.00 in my savings account id be pretty damn upset..
upset enough to start a conflict.

I figure Nkorea has to have a few billion..... ... thats gotta make some people upset

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Isnt openly freezing this countries assets a pretty big internatioanl move?

Especially since we ARENT At conflict at them ?

hell If someone got into my bank, froze my whole $32.00 in my savings account id be pretty damn upset..
upset enough to start a conflict.

I figure Nkorea has to have a few billion..... ... thats gotta make some people upset

Yep, I think it will tick off the other countries that deal with them (all other parties in the 6 party talks besides U.S, and E.U.)

N.K. needs....well, everything. The other countries want nukes. SO N.K. makes the nukes and ships them to the other countries who in turn protect them from us, and supply them with everything they need. (Putting N.K. back together puts money it their pockets basicly.) That way if the poop hits the fan, N.K. is the only one we are all looking at. By freezing the assets, we bring out all the other countries the N.K. has been dealing with. Rice is a smart woman.


Also, what makes you think we arnt at conflict with them? They have nukes, they hate us, and the leader is a psycho. Sounds like conflict to me.

[edit on 18-9-2005 by mrsdudara]

What suprises me is that NK actually has any assets we can freeze at all.

After all, the relationship between the US and NK has been unremittingly hostile for decades, exactly what assets would they have in the US?

[edit on 9/18/05 by xmotex]

My how people forget.

Right at the start of this NK nukes issue, they offered to give up their nukes if Bush would sign a non-aggression pact with them. He refused point blank - no reason given.

If I were in their position, that outright refusal of the olive branch would have me doing everything I could to discourage them from attacking.

Finally the US is doing something. NK refuses to cooperate with us, they have made fools of us for years and its obvious they simply wont negotiate. I think it's about time we actually did something. As for if this is the right something, or the right time, I have no idea.

News Junkie> any way you can dig up a link about that? If I remember correctly they were offering an olive branch in one hand with a nuke in the other.

N.K. is too cockey for their own good. That is another reason I think there are some big dogs on their side of the fence. I agree that we need to do something about it. They want a war with us. They keep pushing and pushing, trying to make us give them a reason to go to war with us. When we dont give them a reason, they are going to stop waiting and go ahead and hit us with everything they have. I dont want war. I do think at this point it is inevitable though.

Originally posted by mrsdudara
News Junkie> any way you can dig up a link about that? If I remember correctly they were offering an olive branch in one hand with a nuke in the other.

Here's one "If the United States recognizes our sovereignty and assures non-aggression...

I'm sure you could find more yourself if you are willing to look.

Originally posted by mrsdudaraN.K. is too cockey for their own good. That is another reason I think there are some big dogs on their side of the fence. I agree that we need to do something about it. They want a war with us. They keep pushing and pushing, trying to make us give them a reason to go to war with us. When we dont give them a reason, they are going to stop waiting and go ahead and hit us with everything they have. I dont want war. I do think at this point it is inevitable though.

You are basically saying that they are suicidal.

MAD - mutually assured destruction - is what keeps nuclear powers in check. If some have them and some don't then there is an imbalance and the potential for aggression without your own destruction.

Either everyone has them or no-one has them - there is no balance otherwise.

Originally posted by mrsdudara
They have nukes, they hate us, and the leader is a psycho.

[edit on 18-9-2005 by mrsdudara]

Every country in the world with the exception of Britain could say this of the USA.

Originally posted by News Junkie
You are basically saying that they are suicidal.

MAD - mutually assured destruction - is what keeps nuclear powers in check. If some have them and some don't then there is an imbalance and the potential for aggression without your own destruction.

Either everyone has them or no-one has them - there is no balance otherwise.

Yep they are suicidal.

Also, I have to agree with you. The technology is already out there, so I think they should all have nukes. It is the only way to prevent someone from fireing one.

If nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes.

well, at least it is all over now......as long as they follow through. As much as I dont like the leader, I pitty the poor people living there who have been starving to death. I hope that this deal can be an end to their energy crisis and the people of that country can find some peace.