| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/22 |
| 2005/9/19-21 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39747 Activity:low |
9/19 Holy crap, NK give up nukes:
http://csua.org/u/dfa (ruters)
\_ Well, they're just lying about it again because they're desperate.
\_ What makes you think NK's commitment to Bush is any more meaningful
than their commitment to Clinton?
\_ So, I don't really. However, in this case pretty much all
the concerned countries are involved, so there should be less
bait-and-switch and divide-and-conquer going on.
\_ see post below about x from Japan, y from China, etc.
\_ LA Times is a bit more complete: http://csua.org/u/dfb
Also, it's true that one of the biggest problems is NK habit of
strongly denying things that we have verified evidence of. For
example, before the 1994 treaty it was shown that NK had already
unloaded fuel rods from Yongbyon. NK denied and there was a big
hubub. Now they're denying that they have a program
based on enriched uranium sheesh.
\- the second plank of the non-proliferation treaty is
the recogized nuke power are supposed to move toward
nuke disarmament ... so there is bogosity on all sides.
BTW, i dont actually think it makes any sense to move
toward zero nukes. if you have 1000 nukes and the enemy
has 1000, it doesnt really matter if they "cheat" and
build 100 more. if you go down to 10 or zero and somebody
does cheat, then the relative gains make a big diff.
you may wish to see adelphi paper #???: the spread of
nuclear weapons: more may be better, by K. Waltz. --psb
\_ I think the issue is that we don't really punish
those who managed to get the nukes, Pakistein, especially.
if anything, we should of invaded Pakistein for
\- is that the jewish
province of pakistan?
1. having nuke, and 2. give nuke technology to
'axis of evils' May be we should of impose
ecnomic sanctions against India. We might save
some American jobs at the same time.
\_ Pakistan doesn't have oil, does it?
\_ didn't we see this before under Bubba?
Light-water reactors funded by Japan and S Korea, oil from China,
a statement of non-aggression from the U.S. -- in exchange for
no-nukes until the UN inspectors get kicked out again?
Wasn't Dubya all about no concessions, no negotiations? Oh yeah,
that's what got the UN inspectors kicked out in the first place!
\_ No he wasn't. Go back and read the back articles.
\_ Revisionist historians is what I call them!
\_ Revisionist historian is what I call you!
Seriously, though, there are some differences: For one,
the U.S. is not promising a light water reactor.
Dubya is not promising a light water reactor.
\_ I'm not sure I understand what you've posted. Bush is
no concessions because he didn't give them light water
reactors?
\_ Bottom line: Dubya was about no negotiations, but he
negotiated. Theoretically freepers should be calling
Dubya an appeaser now -- but as long as their guy does
it, they give him the benefit of the doubt.
"Dubya appeases Kim Jong-il with oil and aid!"
http://slate.msn.com/id/2076697
http://csua.com/?entry=32930
Bottom line 2: I'm glad Dubya negotiated.
\_ From "How To Negotiate the Best Deal on a Car"
(http://www.miata.net/faq/newmx5.html "Learn to
keep a 'poker face' and be prepared to walk away
one or more times until the seller agrees to a
reasonable price."
\_ In the matter of NK, the biggest problem is that US want to have
the regime toppled. The other countries in the region want
to have NK regime evolve. And the shortie in NK wants to
survive. To survive, it needs to evolve, but at the same time
if it doesn't have nukes, US may try to topple it.
\_ Perhaps the China elite convinced Kim Jong-il that he could have
his dictatorship and capitalism at the same time.
\_ they tried. The problem is that N.Korea does not have the
market size to lure investers.
\_ While it's true that the US would probably be fine with NK
crumbling, we haven't been working with that assumption.
That was the assumption Clinton went in with, Bush has
decided that NK is probably gonna be around for a while.
This is mostly because there is not any "safe" way for us to
invade them.
\_ China nor the other Korea want to see N.Korea collapse for
the same reason why you don't want to see Mexico's economy
went tank. After all, it's their backyard and it's China
and S.Korea have to put up with refugees and nuclear
fall outs. |
| 11/22 |
|
| csua.org/u/dfa -> today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-09-19T135100Z_01_YUE579659_RTRUKOC_0_US-KOREA-NORTH.xml By Mark Chisholm and Lindsay Beck BEIJING (Reuters) - North Korea promised to give up its nuclear weapons p rogram on Monday, defusing a high-stakes crisis, but skeptics said the d eal hammered out in Beijing was long on words and short of action. South Korea, the United States, Japan, Russia and China -- the other play ers in the six-party talks -- in exchange expressed a willingness to pro vide oil, energy aid and security guarantees. Washington and Tokyo agreed to normalize ties with the impoverished and d iplomatically isolated North, which pledged to rejoin the nuclear Non-Pr oliferation Treaty (NPT). "The joint statement is the most important achievement in the two years s ince the start of six-party talks," Chinese chief negotiator Wu Dawei sa id. The seven-day session ended with a standing ovation by all delegates . South Korea's unification minister, Chung Dong-young, went further, sayin g the agreement would serve as a first step toward dismantling the Cold War confrontation between the two Koreas. Chief US negotiator Christopher Hill said the proof would be in impleme ntation. "Whether this agreement helps solve this will depend in large measure on what we do in the days and weeks that follow," he told reporters. "We ne ed to take the momentum of this agreement and work to see that it is imp lemented. "We have to see this decision (by North Korea to abandon nuclear weapons) followed up on. Japan's chief delegate, Kenichiro Sasae, agreed, saying: "We must secure specific agreements regarding the implementation of the agreed principle s, particularly the specific sequence toward realization of the abandonm ent of nuclear programs by North Korea and verification measures." The head of the UN nuclear watchdog said he welcomed the deal and hoped it would lead to an early return of UN inspectors to North Korea. |
| csua.org/u/dfb -> www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-091905norkor_lat,0,4285502.story?coll=la-home-headlines L arge Text Size Large Text Size Change text size North Korea Pledges to Drop Nuclear Weapons Program By Mark Magnier and Barbara Demick, Times Staff Writers BEIJING -- North Korea pledged today to end its nuclear weapons program a nd rejoin global treaties aimed at stemming the spread of atomic arms in return for energy aid and diplomatic recognition. During a news conference at the White House today, President Bush called the agreement "a positive step." "It was a step forward in making this world a more secure place," Bush sa id. He added, "The question is, over time, will all parties adhere to th e agreement?" According to a joint statement by the six nations involved in negotiation s for more than two years, Pyongyang "committed to abandon all nuclear w eapons and existing nuclear programs and to return at an early date to t he nonproliferation treaty of nuclear weapons." It also said North Korea would accept International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. In other matters, the US and North Korea agreed to respect each other's sovereignty, a key Pyongyang demand, and to take steps to normalize dip lomatic relations. In return for Pyongyang's accord, the other nations agreed that North Kor ea had the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy and said they wou ld discuss providing it a light-water reactor in the future. Pyongyang's demand for a civilian nuclear energy program has been a major stumbling block in this seven-day round of talks. The United States rem ains fearful that North Korea might divert spent nuclear fuel to weapons a step the communist nation is believed to have taken in the past. Washington affirmed that it had no nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsul a and no intention of attacking North Korea, which the Bush administrati on has in the past characterized as a member of an "axis of evil" and as an "outpost of tyranny." The announcement marked the first time in the lengthy negotiations that a ny agreement had been announced. Details are still to be worked out, and the parties agreed to hold another round of talks in Beijing in Novembe r "This is real progress, and a big achievement," said Zhang Liangui, a Nor th Korea expert at the Central Party School in Beijing. "It's a mileston e" That said, as always with North Korean negotiations, a lot will depend on the details and implementation, a concern Zhang acknowledged. "It's crucial that the wording won't leave much room for different partie s to read different things into it," he said. On the issue of the reactor, the US had argued that Pyongyang did not n eed a civilian light-water reactor, given an offer by South Korea to tra nsmit electricity across its border with the North. It appeared that the six parties i nvolved China, Japan, the two Koreas, Russia and the United States f inessed this issue by agreeing that North Korea has the right to a peace ful nuclear energy program, as long as it does not exercise that right b efore safeguards are in place. At that point, the parties could discuss the light-water reactor. The United States also affirmed in the statement that it has no nuclear w eapons on the Korean peninsula and no intention of attacking or invading North Korea. All six nations agreed to promote cooperation in the fields of energy, tr ade and investment. The fourth round of talks followed what has become a familiar pattern in tortuous negotiations with North Korea, with a breakthrough coming just as it seemed the negotiators were about to throw up their hands and walk away. Earlier in the day, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill , the chief US negotiator, described the talks as at an "endgame," and the parties as ready to go home. The key sticking point had been what type of civilian nuclear program Nor th Korea would be allowed to keep after dismantling its weapon-making fa cilities. The United States readily acceded to Pyongyang's demands to us e a small research reactor to produce radioactive isotopes for medicine and agriculture, but vetoed the idea of a light-water reactor a type l ess easily adapted to weapons production for electricity. The parties got around this hurdle by agreeing to "discuss at an appropri ate time" the building of a light-water reactor for North Korea, accordi ng to the statement. |
| slate.msn.com/id/2076697 Ever since Pyongyang announced that it was resuming its nuclear w eapons program, US officials have insisted that even holding negotiati ons over the issue would amount to "appeasement." Yet such negotiations or, as they prefer to say, "talks"are now getting under way. James A K elly, the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affair s, is in Seoul today to lay out a framework with South Korean officials. "Once we get beyond nuclear weapons," Kelly said at a news conference, "there may be opportunities with the US, with private investors, with other countries, to help North Korea in the energy area." This is precisely the quid pro quo ("we'll reconsider our nuclear program , you give us lightwater reactors for energy") that North Korea has been demanding and that President Bush has, until now, been rejecting out of hand. Also today, Bill Richardson, the New Mexico governor who conducte d informal discussions with North Korean diplomats last week, said low-l evel talks between US and North Korean officials at the United Nations would probably begin soon. The fact that the North Koreans sought out Richardson as an intermediary should have clarified, beyond any doubt, that they'd been waving their u ranium fuel-rods as a bargaining chip and were now eagerly seeking a dea l Few news stories have noted it and fewer still have diagnosed its imp lications, but Richardson is an old hand at dealing with the North Korea ns and a fairly successful one at that. As a US congressman in the 1990s, Richardson went to Pyongyang three ti mes. In 1994, after a US Army helicopter was shot down after accidenta lly crossing the DMZ, he negotiated the release of the pilot's remains. Richardson also used the occasion to inform the North Koreans of President Clinton 's interest in arranging formal bilateral meetings. They had dealt with him, in "productive" settings, as a White House intermediary. And so they th oughtat a moment when they desperately needed contact, and this White H ouse was barring itRichardson might be a resourceful link. They may als o have thought that this was the way Washington liked to deal with them generally. After all, in 1993, during the last crisis over North Korean nuclear weapons (a crisis remarkably similar to this one), it was former president Jimmy Carter who came to Pyongyang to work out a deal with Ki m Il Sung personally. Carter's visit ultimately led to the Agreed Framew ork signed with Clinton. Though Carter made that trip on his own initiat ive, it's a safe bet that North Korean diplomats figured he was acting, sub rosa, at Clinton's behest. Another indication of North Korea's desire to bargain, rather than actual ly go ahead and build nukes, is its official statement over the weekend denying that it had ever admitted restarting its nuclear program. The ac cusation that it had done so, the statement said, was "an invention fabr icated by the US with sinister intentions." James Kelly went to Pyongyang last October precisely to confron t officials with intelligence evidence that they were starting up their reactors, contrary to the accord with Clinton. The officials, so it was widely reported, confessed that indeed they had done so. If these report s were incorrect, they would have been denied long ago. However, this ne w denial can be read as a statement of readiness, on the North Koreans' part, to turn back the clock, to negate the actin short, to negotiate a way out of this mess. When this crisis began to heat up, just before the New Year, Bush officia ls refused to negotiate because, as they put it, they did not want to "r eward" a country for "bad behavior." Now, it seems, they are beginning t o realize that North Korea's jam is our jam, too; that we have at least as much interest in getting out of it as they do. From what the North Ko reans have been saying, it won't take much on our part to get us both ou t: a non-aggression pact and some energy aidin short, the restoration o f the '94 Clinton accord. Maybe, just maybe, Bush will overcome his alle rgy to anything touched by Clinton and give this deal a try. |
| csua.com/?entry=32930 But it is the areas in which Bush's convictions have not changed that are the most troubling, and this includes a religiosity that comforts him in his intellectual inertness and granite-like beliefs that are impervious to logic, such as his tax policy and his relentless march to war in Iraq." Now here's the partisan spin by press secretary McClellan: "... just shows even the most straightforward and plain-spoken people misspeak. But the American people know this president speaks with clarity and conviction, and the terrorists know by his actions he means it." The Bush administration's whole stink was that Clinton negotiated and appeased; Bush would not, and would only expect NK to back down without any guarantee of foreign aid. Bush realized that he couldn't count on South Korea to side with him on an aggressive posture, and in the mean time, NK had probably built one or two nukes. nav=most_emailed Page A19 Franklin Delano Roosevelt campaigned for the White House as a bu dget balancer. John F Kerry now finds himself accused of aggravated flip -flopping in the first degree. The charge comes from various Republican Party front groups, individual GOP fellow travelers and, of course, the president himself. Campaigning hither and yon, George W Bush has had gre at fun mocking Kerry for, among other things, his vote for the war and a subsequent vote not to fund it. Not mentioned is that in between the tw o votes came ample evidence of incompetence on the part of Bush. And so Kerry, as behooves a thinking man, chose to voice a protest. The vote di d not lend itself to sound-bite analysis, but it made a certain amount o f sense: The war in Iraq was a mess; News Alert In supposed contrast to Kerry, Bush presents himself as the immutable politician, a man of fixed , firm beliefs who sticks to them not because they are popular but becau se they are right -- despite all evidence or reason. This is certainly t he case when it comes to his core beliefs. His devotion to minimal taxes on the rich, for instance, is touching, but it has put the government i n such debt that it will take our children's children to pay it off. By then, Bush imagines, his visage will be on Mount Rushmore. But on other matters, Bush has flipped and flopped with the best of them. As a presid ential candidate, he declared himself implacably opposed to nation-build ing. In Iraq, the cost has been not merely a ton of money, as it was in Haiti and other places Bush said he wouldn't go, but nearly a thousand A merican lives lost and countless more ruined. Mind you, with weapons of mass destruction all but declared a mirage in the desert, the new -- and sole -- justification for the war is not anything approaching self-defe nse but getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime. This is nation-rep lacement and nation-building, a total rehab project. Bush also declared himself a determined unilateralist, kissing off treaties and understandi ngs and even spurning NATO's help in Afghanistan. Now, though, the unila teralist of old is sending Colin Powell around the world, seeking alms a nd arms for Iraq. The president opposed creating the Department of Homel and Security. Soon after, his strong opposition apparently slipped his m ind and he flip-flopped his way to an embrace. He did not want his chief aides -- Condoleezza Rice, for instance -- to testify publicly before i t but relented in the face of popular opposition. He himself would not t estify for all sorts of hallowed constitutional reasons and then, of cou rse, did. He insisted, though, on taking Dick Cheney with him, the funct ional equivalent of bringing the textbook to the exam -- not exactly a f lip-flop, I grant you, but such a blatant admission of ineptitude that I am moved to include it nonetheless. Finally, of course, we get Bush's r ecent call for the creation of the post of national intelligence directo r, a position he once opposed. This prompted James P Rubin, a Kerry advi ser, to ask, "Why did President Bush flip-flop?" The answer, of course, is that Bush flip-flops all the time. If he had been in public life as l ong as Kerry has, his flip-flops would be as legion as the fish in the s ea. But it is the areas in which Bush's convictions have not changed tha t are the most troubling, and this includes a religiosity that comforts him in his intellectual inertness and granite-like beliefs that are impe rvious to logic, such as his tax policy and his relentless march to war in Iraq. Flip-flopping, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder. It can be an indicator of an alert mind, one that adjusts to new realities, or it can be evidence of ambition decoupled from principle. With Bush, who changes his positions but never his mind, it is always the latter. |
| www.miata.net/faq/newmx5.html How To Negotiate the Best Deal on a Car By Skip Cannon This is written for the purchase of a car from a dealer. Much of it appli es to purchases of cars from private parties. Knowledge is power, and ne gotiation is a contest of will and power; Know which car you want, what model, color, accessor ies, etc. If you know someo ne who owns one of them, try to get a test drive from him/her. Much bett er than a short drive with the salesman with his snappy chatter to diver t you from getting the feel of the car. Rent one if you can't find a fri end willing to let you drive his/her baby. There are several services which will sell you a rundown of the dealer in voice and dealer cost of the accessories. Know what the dealer pays, and know that there are customer rebates, dealer rebates, holdbacks and volume discounts that re duce the dealer's cost way below invoice. There are road test indices in Road & Track and Car & Driver. These give a few statistics and tell you which issue the road test is located in. Find a friend who keeps back is sues or go to the library and read up on the car you are interested i n Knowledge is power. Watch the newspaper ads, especially the big ones for new cars that come o ut on Friday and Saturday. These are loss leaders and are part of the bait & switch technique. Howe ver, most states require the dealer to identify the specific advertised car by stock number or VIN. They are required to sell these cars at t he advertised price and they are usually below invoice. Bef ore you go shopping, decide if you are ready to buy right now. chances are you will end up with a car you don't want at a price you don't want to pay. At best, you will just waste your time and the dealer's time as well. it is their bus iness to sell you something, even if you are "just looking around". Your mission is to buy the car you want for the best possible price. You are not going to the dealer to make a new frien d The salesperson is not there to be your friend, even if he says he is . He'll be laughing about how bad he screwed you and telling the other s alespeople before you even leave the lot with your new car. Take everyth ing they say with a bucket or more of salt. If a promise is not on the contract, it is meaningless . Your attitude should be that of an informed, ready to buy (right car, right price, right now) customer. After doing your research, you will pr obably know more about the car than he does. It always amazes me how ign orant salespeople are of their own product. What ever you do, DO NOT fal l in love with a particular car. If the dealer senses this, he knows you are hooked and will pay his price for the car. Keep cool, even if it is the 300th car you've looked at and it is the perfect one for you. Learn to keep a "poker face" and be prepared to walk away one or more times u ntil the seller agrees to a reasonable price. If there is a loss l eader advertised of the type you are interested in, ask to see that part icular car. If they say it is sold or not available, ask to see proof of the sale. They will try to switch you to another similar car for "just a little more". remember, you have his ad with the stock number or VIN printed on it . If it is available, and if it is what you want, test drive it and buy it at that price. It is usually below their real cost and they make up f or the loss with a write-off to advertising. You will know if it is a go od deal because you did your research, right? Early on the salesperson will ask you when you are planning to purchase y our new car. They want to know if you are a tire kicker and are going to waste their time. Your answer is "today, as soon as I find the right ca r with the right price". Remember, there are a lot of identical cars, bu t there is only one best deal. Be prepared to walk away if they don't meet what you have determined you are willing to pay. If th ey sense that you are a serious buyer, they will follow you out to your car, enticing you with better and better prices. You may have to do this several times to get the right price--be patient; the money you save ma kes your time very valuable at this point. The best time to go to the dealer is 1 to 2 hours before closing on the l ast few days of the month. The salespeople will be tired and most likely short of their quota for the month and they will be willing to truly de al to get another sale towards their quota. One dealer stayed open until 11:30 PM on New Years Eve to complete the sale before the end of the mo nth and the end of the year. They ended up selling me the truck for $500 less than my opening offer to get the deal. Then they couldn't find one the color I wanted and I cancelled the deal four days later with a full return of the $5,000 deposit. This means that a s alesperson will greet you and try to get you to pick out a car you like and take a test drive. He/she will then promise you a fabulous price if you will take it right now. Tell him your first offer (your first offer should be about $1,0 00 or more below what you expect to pay). He will want to fill out a sim ple offer form which will list the car by VIN and will have the MSRP pri ce and the dealer's add-on price on it. He will then write something lik e: Joe will buy this car today for $XXXX (your offer) plus tax & license (T&L) and document fees (docs). If you sign it and the salesmanager approves it, you are obligated to bu y the car. The salesperson will then offer you coffee or a coke and then take the of fer to his sales manager. It will take him/her less than 30 seconds with the sales manager to get the cou nter offer. Then he/she will go off and have a break, work another custo mer, whatever. The idea is to make you think he/she is really fighting f or your price and to make you tired and impatient. It is not necessary t o give them a deposit check at this time. If you do give them a check, t hey will use it to keep you from leaving. Tell the salesman you are a li ttle short on time and if he leaves you in the office for more than 5 mi nutes, you are leaving. It will usually prevent him from taking his 20 m inute break on your time. The longer they keep you waiting, the weaker y our resistance becomes and the more likely you are to agree to a deal ju st to get out of there. So now s/he finally comes back with a sad story about what a hot seller t he car is that you want. S/he will also have a counter offer at some rid iculous price. Ask the salesperso n to bring in the manager or whoever makes the decision on the deal. You are better off to get face to face with the decision maker. S/he has ot her deals to work and will want to get your deal made quickly. Be prepared to come up a little, but s/he should come down much more than you go up. After you have gotten up to leave several times, they see that a dea l they have invested time in is going out the door. If you don't get your best deal, walk on out and go to ano ther dealer. When you are close to agreement on the price, and the seller makes their final offer that fits your expectations, it is time for the "throw ins". You say "I'll agree to that price if you throw in X, Y, & Z". These throw ins can include: f loor mats if not listed on the window sticker, a factory service manual, car cover, or any other accessory (including air conditioning and stere o) you want. Hit them with your full list and you will be amazed how man y of these you will get. You can also ag ree to the price along with a few of the throw ins and an agreement to p urchase any others you want at a 50% discount or at dealer cost. Get thi s agreement in writing on the contract or the "We Owe" list. If they agr ee to this, make sure you understand if there is a time or dollar limit on these extra purchases. If you finally agree on a price for the car, don't let down your guard. Most people make the mistake of thinking the deal is done and relax their guard at this point. You are very vulnerabl e if you think the danger is over. Your next stop with be with F&I (Fina nce and Insurance). The F&I person will discuss your down payment, financing and insurance . S/he will also try to sell you an alarm, extended warranty, and... |