Political Yard
  • Homepage
  • Political Forums News Articles News User Blogs Links RSS
    Home Latest News War News World News Headlines Community Opinion Articles Blogs RSS Feed
    My Yard
    Username
    Password
    Register
    Bottom Menu
    spacer
    Latest Posts
    - Inspiring Song-"We're
    Not Going Down"

    - Forum Upgrade
    - Political Yard - v2.0
    Launched!

    - Re: Is It Just Me?
    - Re: Republican Front
    runner

    Bottom Menu
    spacer
    spacer
    Forums
    Will the Bailout plan work?

    Absolutely, I have confidence in Paulson
    Pfff, who cares?
    Not sure
    No way, but I sure wish it would
    Results


    Affiliates:
    Amber Heard Online
    Realm of Gaming
    Political Bill
    XBOX 360 News
    Gaming Evolution
    The Daily Internet
    Hilarious Videos
    Free Myspace Stuff
    Classic Sega
    Video Game Cheats

    [ Apply for Affiliation ]

    Go to electionprojection.com

    Your Ad Here


    Links Page

    Top Political Sites

    Top Politics blogs
    Diplomacy is necessary, but why should we trust N. Korea? Article - Political Yard
    Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Furl Post to Netscape Post to Newsvine Post to Reddit Post to Simpy Post to Spurl Post to StumbleUpon
    Diplomacy is necessary, but why should we trust N. Korea?

    Posted Jul 05, 2006 - 8:27 pm by charliepage 1,095 views
    North Korea is one of those tough cases where even though Diplomacy is necessary and key to getting them to stop there rampant activities, does anyone honestly think we should trust them-or even make any deals with them?In the 90s we contributed hundreds of millions of dollars (well I should say the international community did) for aid to North Korea, look at the amazing success of it:
    In August 1997, she (Jane Harman) made a trip to North Korea to examine the progress of the international aid program. Stopping in Seoul on her return she told a news conference of her concern that "some food aid has probably ended up in the hands of the [North Korean] military and the other elite."
    But it ended up that actually most, if not almost all food to the military and government rather than the 1/3rd of the population that was starving. Let's just get one more quote, for those that think the seriousness of the situation was (and is) not bad:
    Was there a famine in North Korea from 1995-1998? Yes, although some observers, including the CIA, doubted it at the time. There is now enough physical evidence of malnourished children to confirm the reports from refugees. The best estimate is that two to three million people died of starvation and diseases related to malnutrition.
    Were the reports of people resorting to cannibalism credible? Yes. Refugees streaming into Manchuria reported this. Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz obtained a confirmatory Top Secret American intelligence document, which he included in an appendix to his book Betrayal.
    Next we have up is the long-range missile test on August 31, 1998 which followed next year by a ban on long-range missile tests as well as it is considered "self-imposed". Forward 7 years to yesterday and they completely ignore the test ban and says that the ban is no longer void because of no talks between Korea and Washington.

    So why in the world, of anyone should we trust North Korea? They have taken food aid and instead of saving possibly thousands-hundreds of thousands (if not more) of starving lives, they give it to government officials and the military. They sign a test ban and then years later say that they have the right. So say we somehow sign some sort of treaty where we give them food (lets just say) and other resources, in return they give up there nukes and agree to not test long-range missiles and not to conduct any military activities against allies. If they have blatantly ignored the current test ban what would stop them from ignoring any type of treaty, peace agreement or anything else we sign with them?

    I'm not saying we should do anything militarily (although I think we should add troops to Korea rather than subtract and send more navy to the area if needed) but I am just saying although Diplomacy is necessary and has to be our first priority, will signing any sort of an agreement just be buying time until they decide to break it? I think it will be, I don't want to believe it but it is hard for me to believe that they did use food aid for horrible use and violated a test ban, BUT will abide by the next agreement. We've been fooled twice, we can't be for a third time.

    I say - Beef up defenses until we are certainly sure that a North Korean invasion would be repelled, open talks and if they do agree to some sort of an agreement put in severe consequences if they violate the treaty/agreement such as total economic sanctions and numerous things that way it doesn't happen a third time or at least minimizes the risk, if they don't like the consequences then that's our problem not ours, it's called insurance.

    • Vote: 0
    Comments





    Post a Comment

     email

     website





        join staff  |  bookmark us  |  privacy policy  |  about us  |  contact us  |  advertise  -  Copyright © 2006-2008 Political Yard
    Powered by AdaptCMS Pro
    MPAA | Credit Card | Debt Consolidation | Loans | Web Advertising