U.S. May Make N. Korea Nonagression Vow

1) Ok, so we pre-emptively invaded Iraq because it was years away from getting nuclear arms and had a really bad guy dictator.

2) We are willing to promise a country that is processing plutonium as we speak for nuclear arms and has a really bad guy dictator that we WON'T pre-emptively invade them.

Am I missing something? Some key piece of logic that would make this a rational foreign policy?

Why didn't we just say this along time ago before they threw out the weapons inspectors and they began building nukes? That is all they were asking for then.

Don

OIL

It well may be that some of these potential North Korean oil/gas fields might already belong to the Cheney Cartel.

http://www.rmfdevelopment.com/political/NorthKoreaOil.htm

An interesting link from North Korean Oil Reserves to the current American Presidential Administration is Andrew D. Lundquist. SOCO International PLC is a British Oil Company that was spun off from Snyder Oil Corporation of Texas according to Asian energy expert Dr. Keun-Wook Paik < lxmi.mi.infn.it/~landnet/corea/proc/033.pdf > Former Snyder Oil execs John Snyder and Roger Cagle are part of the board of directors of SOCO International PLC. They were part of Snyder Oil as was Andrew D. Lundquist. Andrew Lundquist was part of senior management for SOCO Gas Systems Inc . Andrew Lundquist was most famously the "director of the National Energy Policy Development Group and senior advisor to President Bus and Vice President Cheney on energy issues". This was the Cheney task force that the GAO sued in a failed attempt to retrieve Energy records. SOCO International PLC has a 9600 square kilometer offshore oil lease concession in North Korea ("PSC") that it picked up 1998. They will probably need a downstream South Korean or American partner to make money if oil is found. SOCO International PLC is also highly involved in Vietnam and was highly involved in Russia.

The author asks some questions ...
http://www.rmfdevelopment.com/political/SOCO_SICO_NCB_BCCI_TCB1_TCB2.htm

SOCO Inernational PLC holds a 9600 square kilometer oil lease concession in North Korea they have owned since 1998. SOCO International PLC is also highly involved in Vietnam and was highly involved in Russia. They seem to have a penchant for exploring for oil in countries America for which America was once at war.

Questions:

· Did Lundquist help Bush and Cheney decide policy on North Korea while he owned an interest in 9600 square kilometers of Korean offshore oil?

· Are Bush and Cheney buddies with Snyder and Cagle?

· Are American oil industrialists deciding Foreign Policy for North Korea?

What else is there in the disclosed Cheney Energy Papers?

Firstly, Iraq DIDN'T have nuclear weapons and therefore was low risk, whereas North Korea DOES have nuclear weapons and therefore would garauntee massive US casualties.

Second, Iraq has billions and billions of barrels of oil, whereas North Korea does not.

So the equation is simple: Huge profit for very little cost VS very little profit for huge costs. The answer is obvious. At least to a facist dictator like Bush that is...

not turning out to be that cheap, so far.

Where exactly do you think that 4 billion a month is going? It is going straight into the pockets of Bush's cronies, that's where!

So in answer to your statement, no it is not cheap for the American people, nor the American treasury, but it is a DAMNED GOOD DEAL for the likes of Halliburton, Carlyle etc etc etc!

Call it corporate welfare on a scale and at a depth of depravity never seen before.

Are you saying that, for the sake of consistency, you would like to see the US pre-emptively strike N Korea, withou even TRYING to make diplomacy work?? Granted, you would probably survive such an attack (since claims that N Korean missiles can strike the US are hype), but millions of Koreans might not be so lucky. That's OK with you? You aren't the least bit skeptical about WH claims about the danger N Korea presents?

But of course I'd like to see nuclear war, wouldn't we all?

/sarcasm off

Actually I was pointing out the weakness of Bush's logic for invading Iraq, dear. Take a damper.

Why aren't they making such an effort with Iran then? Why wouldn't they want to work it out with Iran?

"The Bush administration might be willing to give North Korea a written guarantee that the United States has no intention of attacking without provocation"

The implication being that it is currently the policy of the Bush admin to leave open the option of attacking without provocation. And people wonder why the NKs are developing nukes.

But if its legit it would be a very positive development. Just like the way the Missile Crisis was defused: by promising not to attack or invade Cuba. Of course that may not stop the US imposing embargoes and trying to strangle NK into surrender, but at least we could be sure there wouldnt be a war.

Our leaders thought this was smart diplomacy.

Seriously....if the US has to actually sign official documents promising not to attack North Korea without provocation, that implies that the US feels free to attack other countries which it hasn't given such written assurances to.

Unbelievable.

If I was the French PM, I would be asking for one of those letters, just to be on the safe side.

However....if you are genuinely worried about US aggression against your country, are you really going to believe the US government when it gives you a note promising it won't attack? Didn't Hitler give Chamberlain a note promising "not to try anything dodgy" and then promptly invade Poland?

Are the North Koreans going to stand at the DMZ as the US tanks roll over from the South, waving pieces of paper and going "Oh you swine, you promised you wouldn't attack!"

And anyway, what constitutes "provocation"? If a North Korean farts in Bush's general direction, is that sufficient for the US to break the treaty?

The mind boggles.

A piece of paper from the * regime is worthless.

The real issue here is whether the American regime is going to make good on its promises on the agreed framework which it breached. Apparently not because nitwit says he won't provide any inducements for the N.Koreans to give up their nuclear reactors. This means we are back at square one. If the Americans won't perform their obligations under the agreed framework there is no reason for the N.Koreans to shut down their reactors. They do need energy badly just like everyone else. Their agricultural crisis is compounded by the loss of electricity for irrigation and production of spare parts. The energy deficit caused by the reactor shut downs were supposed to compensated for by the completion of light water reactors of western design completed by the US in 2003 and in the interim an annual supply of 500,000 tons of fuel oil. Our breach of both commitments led to the current crisis.