Article

2003-08-28 Korea

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-08-28 12:22:12 AM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "Someone explain to me why a ânon-aggression treatyâ is so important to these goofs."
Perhaps it's edible? Or maybe it's a translation problem: what's being translated as "non-aggression" is actually meant to be "not so much salt" and the sections promising a 20 year cessation of their nuke development program is really about serving dinner for 10 million for the next 20 years. Y'know, language can be tricky - and doubly so when it's formally diplomatic or prosaic with religious significance. We've seen this sort of thing before, if you recall...
72 Roentgens = 72 Radishes = 72 Virgins = 72 Raisins.
Yep. Language translation can be tricky stuff.

And there's another Stephen over at VodkaPundit, but he spells his name phunny. ;-)

Posted by .com 2003-8-28 12:49:02 AM|| 2003-8-28 12:49:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 It's important because Kimmie does not want to be separated from his 72 virgins.

Posted by Dishman 2003-8-28 3:09:51 AM|| 2003-8-28 3:09:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 You just gave me a mental image of 13-14 yr old virgins on Pyongyang street corners holding up signs that say, "Will Deflower For Food"... I don't wanna go where that leads... 8^{

Posted by .com 2003-8-28 4:40:12 AM|| 2003-8-28 4:40:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 CNN puts it a little differently:
U.S. rules out one-on-one talks; U.S., North Korean delegates have 'informal exchange'

"Someone explain to me why a ânon-aggression treatyâ is so important to these goofs."

Simple. Can anyone guarantee that a war with NKorea is out of the question in the future? No. Can anyone guarantee that Kimmi or his family won't pursue WMD as well? Double no. A non-agression treaty would allow NKorea to place blame squarely on Washington, in the event a conflict is initiated by the United States. They might come out losing, but they could always claim the US violated the treaty. And along with that goes world opinion, UN vetos, etc etc. It's like an insurance policy that provides with the peace of mind to pursue whatever weapons program they want (secretly of course).

Posted by Raphael 2003-8-28 5:04:46 AM|| 2003-8-28 5:04:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 ...provides them with the peace of mind...

Posted by Raphael 2003-8-28 5:06:23 AM|| 2003-8-28 5:06:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Someone explain to me why a ânon-aggression treatyâ is so important to these goofs.

They want one between them and the US that doesn't include an exception in case they attack South Korea.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-8-28 8:24:38 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-8-28 8:24:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Someone explain to me why a ânon-aggression treatyâ is so important to these goofs.

Simple enough - they want us to pay for that treaty, like we always have. Peaceful talks dont start with rants about a sea of fire - blackmail talks do.

Posted by flash91 2003-8-28 10:17:00 AM|| 2003-8-28 10:17:00 AM|| Front Page Top

15:43 Flaming Sword
20:38 Super Hose
13:24 Aris Katsaris
11:39 Aris Katsaris
10:09 Highlander
02:20 R. McLeod
01:55 R. McLeod
01:32 R. McLeod
23:54 GregJ
23:33 Raphael
23:27 Raphael
22:58 tu3031
22:54 Fred
22:49 BigFire
22:47 BigFire
22:23 tu3031
22:16 Alaska Paul
22:16 g wiz
22:09 Super Hose
22:01 Aris Katsaris
21:59 Super Hose
21:55 snellenr
21:50 Super Hose
21:44 Super Hose