Thursday, March 22, 2007

North Korea leaves table

Story: "Talks on North Korea's nuclear program ended abruptly with no progress on Thursday after four days of negotiations derailed by the issue of funds frozen in a Macau bank.

Throughout the session, which began on Monday, North Korea avoided discussing a February deal to shut its main nuclear reactor by mid-April, demanding that $25 million at Macau's Banco Delta Asia first be transferred to a bank in Beijing.

North Korean envoy Kim Kye-gwan left for home suddenly on Thursday without talking to reporters, but a North Korean government source in Beijing said: "Our delegation went home because there was no progress on the promised transfer of the funds.""

Well, China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea, ya'll have a problem on your hands. North Korea is not going to give up their nuclear weapons for any amount of money or aide. Clinton's negotiations failed miserably, so why are we continuing on this course?

I say we withdraw all of our Forign aide to North Korea, and see how long they last.

6 comments:

under_the_mercy said...

I say we withdraw (slowly of course) our aid to ALL countries.

On a different note, I am quite cusious, palm boy, what you would consider the purpose of government should be in a republic/democracy.

SolaMeanie said...

This will probably sound odd, but think about it for a minute.

Of course, no one wants a nuclear bomb shot at them...even one. However, any nation who fired a nuclear weapon at the United States would have to know that our response would be devastating. For all the probability that Kim Jong-il's brain has probably been affected by the weight of his bouffant hairdo, North Korea would be rather easily incinerated by a few Polaris launches off of one of our Trident subs. We wouldn't even need to use one ICBM.

Same thing for Iran, although one must allow for the chance of insanity provoked by demon possession i.e. the "mad mullahs." Do the Iranians really want a devastating U.S. nuclear response?

The real danger is if OUR leadership is weak and vascillating in their response to threats. If we are perceived as weak and gutless, then rogue nations will be much more likely to try an attack.

Palm boy said...

Under, I think aide to our allies is tolerable. I do not think aide to our enemies is even remotely tolerable.

Purpose of government? Defense of her citizens, protection of property rights, enforcing the rule of law, and providing a safe and open economy.

Sola, I don't think we would retaliate to a nuclear strike in kind, our leadership is far to weak to react appropriately.
I'm not particuarly worried about a missle from either Iran or NK, but the possibilty of a nuke terrorist is frightening.

under_the_mercy said...

"Purpose of government? Defense of her citizens, protection of property rights, enforcing the rule of law, and providing a safe and open economy."

Where does foriegn aid fit in there? Is not government created by a group of poeple for THEIR benefit? They give up some rights to make more sure others.

Palm boy said...

Forign aide to our allies fits in under 'the defense of the nation category'. Money goes a long way twoards keeping friends.

under_the_mercy said...

Such as Stalin and Saddam? can you give me some examples where we have actually got benifit to compensate for the billians we have spent?