NK Trains Syrians in Nukes

Stunning.

The United States has accused North Korea of helping Syria build a nuclear reactor that “was not intended for peaceful purposes”.

The site, said to be like one in North Korea, was bombed by Israel in 2007.

Syria must “come clean” about its secret nuclear programme, the White House said in a statement after CIA officials briefed members of Congress.

Syria has repeated denials that it has any nuclear weapons programme, or any such agreement with North Korea.

But the White House said the “cover-up” operation that Syria carried out after the Israeli air strike reinforced the belief that the reactor “was not intended for peaceful activities”.

[...]

One of the images, which shows two men standing side by side, was said by the CIA to be of the head of the North Korean nuclear plant and the head of the Syrian atomic energy commission together in Syria.

The images - said to have been obtained by Israel - showed striking similarities between the Syrian facility and the North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, the US said.

Maybe Obama can go offer them a cup of tea and clear all this up. 

1. Funny I remember a bunch of guys in the deserts of the southwest building weapons for a non-peaceful purposes as well, and we have buildings named after them. As long as we have nuclear materials, as well as Russia, China, UK and France, we have no moral ground to argue that other nations don’t have a right to arm themselves. Are you saying that the American Nuclear Arsenal is for a peaceful purpose? What would that be exactly? Let’s also remember that if North Korea is so bad, why is Bush negotiating with them, and Secretary Rice visiting Syria to have diplomatic talks? Should we not use the big stick approach with these nations as well? If NK poses a threat to Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, and Syria to Israel, should we treat the same way we treat Iraq and Iran? The right never answers these questions about differing views of American influence and power.

   Posted by on April 24, 2008 at 2007 hrs




2. Hmm, The USA used nuclear weapons to stop a war.  I wonder what Syria plans to do with the technology North Korea provided., The technology provided to NK by the Clintons.

   Still haven’t heard why Sandy Burger stole those secret documents for the National Archives.  Have you?

   Posted by on April 24, 2008 at 2237 hrs




3. Wait a second. I though everybody was all upset at Obama because he was willing to attack the terrorists in Pakistan without “asking permission of our good friend Musharraf.” Now he’s going to offer the Syrians tea?

   Posted by on April 25, 2008 at 0926 hrs




4. TheIdealVoice - I am gonna type slow so you can understand.  There is a fundamental difference between NK and Iraq.  See NK already has nukes so we can’t not negotiate.  That is why they are treated different from Iraq; if NK did not already have nukes we would not be bargaining with them.  The reason we work so hard to keep nukes from the hands of folks like Iraq and Iran is so we don’t have to negotiate with them from a position of equality.  See we are more likely to get what we want if we are the only ones who have nukes.  And there is nothing wrong with that position.  Its okay to be stronger than other countries.

   Posted by on April 25, 2008 at 1311 hrs




5. The reason we work so hard to keep nukes from the hands of folks like Iraq and Iran is so we don’t have to negotiate with them from a position of equality.  See we are more likely to get what we want if we are the only ones who have nukes

   This is exactly the same principle behind missle “defense”.  It is really an offensive strategy to give us the upper hand.

   The technology provided to NK by the Clintons.

   You can’t honestly believe that… Why would you bother typing it?

   Posted by on April 25, 2008 at 1417 hrs




6. Joe-Another poor American who does not read enough or fails to understand the holes in Bush foreign policy. The Six party talks (NK,US,Russia,China, South Korea,EU) have been going on for half of the Bush years in office, before the explosion of a nuclear device last year. Thats right! Please tell me you remember the axis of evil speech from 2002! They may have had nuclear material, but no bombs had been produced. You could assume then, that military action would be justified on a self-defense basis. However, talks were pursued. Iraq on the other hand, was said to have nuclear weapons already, yet we invaded their nation. See how this foreign policy is working? Backwards from what you said. More importantly, every nation, technically, has a “right” to be stronger than others. This is why so many pursue nuclear weapons in the first place; because the U.S, U.K, France, Russia and China have them. A nation could argue that they have just as much of right to be powerful as any of those nations.

   Posted by on April 25, 2008 at 2048 hrs