[tw]

Thank you for not answering my question whatsoever.

You asked:

why would N. Korea have to kick out the IAEA inspectors and disable their surveillance cameras if their intentions were to generate peaceful electricity

Does the simple phrase "ratchet up the tensions" sound familiar? Need for negotiated settlement. A power struggle between moderates and extremists - and extremists are winning because of this militant American president. Repeated US threats such as 'axis of evil'. How many times need I answer the one question before it is considered answered?

Those inspectors were not thrown out yet - not until they can report to the world that nuclear rods are in the reactor for electricity rather than in reprocessing for bomb material. Throwing them out is just another way to force a negotiated settlement - to answer the same question for a fifth time.

Not only was your question answered more than five times, but administration lies to advocate fear and military action were exposed. Even N Korea's neighbors have more feared US war rhetoric than N Korea. Not one neighbor views N Korea as an 'axis of evil'. Americans who rely on right wing administration press releases would not know that China, S Korea, Japan, and Russia are exasperated by American's constant threats of war.

Your question was repeatedly answered with background that the current administration would have us all not know.

Some readers, at this point, are so misinformed as to even 'know' that N Korea has two nuclear weapons. More rhetoric from an administration that promotes fear and military solutions to all problems. Those who promote peaceful settlements in the American tradition first ask, "Show Me." That evidence does not exist except in an administration that advocates military solutions to all problems. More on this below.

Kindly state where your question was not answered. All I can do is keep knocking down outright lies and myths. If the intended effort was:

to process SPENT nuclear fuel into material for 4 new nuclear bombs.

then why is that material instead put into a reactor to create electricity? Why do you promote lies from an administration whose reputation is to promote fear rather than report facts honestly. To make four new nuclear weapons, all those rods must be put into reprocessing for 6 months - and not into a nuclear reactor where they create electricity AND where they are exposed to military attack. That answered your post but again.

Stated were outright lies from the current militant, right wing, extremist administration. Those lies were exposed.

For those who need answers in the form of sound bytes: the expression "ratchet up the tension" and "force a negotiated settlement" explicitly answers Undertoad's question. His question was answered many more times.

IN the meantime from today's NY Times, what do people on the front line say:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/30/in...0CND-KORE.html

The situation has been complicated by apparent disagreement between Washington and Seoul over how to deal with the North, and complicated still further by rising anti-Americanism in South Korea.

America more fears N Korea than even countries most exposed to attack? America fears more than any other nation? This trend is becoming obvious.

Does N Korea have two nuclear devices? Powell's answer has been distorted here. Powell says it is the administration's opinion that North Korea already has two nuclear weapons. Right wing extremist opinion is that two devices exist - how to promote fear and to advocate a military solution. If Powell stated as Undertoad posted, then the claim would be front page news. It is not because Powell did not say as Undertoad claims. In fact, Powell instead says more in line with what I have posted. Powell advocates talks rather than fear and military confrontation.

I lived through VietNam. I watched people be openly decieved by an administration whose only solution was to promote more war. It is happening again. Most readers here have no experience with such administrations (ie Nixon) where lying is normal and acceptable. Careful what is source for facts when those facts come from an administration that is more insterested in its own political agenda - including promote fear - rather than realities of the world. Powell was careful what he said. It is not his opinion. It is only an opinion in the administration. Powell's statement were misrepresented in The Cellar.