You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
China-Japan-Koreas
US: No Economic Aid for North Korea
2009-05-01
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told lawmakers Thursday that the Obama administration has "no interest and no willingness" to give North Korea further economic aid.

But Clinton said the administration has requested funds for economic aid to North Korea in case Pyongyang returns to nuclear talks and re-starts disablement measures. She said, in her words, that North Korea is "digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole with the international community."
And we keep filling it in for them, and giving them new shovels when required ...
The United States last December halted fuel oil deliveries that it promised to North Korea under the disarmament talks after Pyongyang refused to agree to measures to verify disablement. Washington had already delivered at least 100,000 tons under the deal.

State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Thursday that North Korea seems very unlikely to return to the six-nation talks soon. But Wood said the United States still believes the aid-for-disarmament talks are the best way to achieve a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.

On Wednesday, North Korea threatened to test nuclear explosives and intercontinental ballistic missiles if the United Nations Security Council does not apologize for condemning Pyongyang's recent rocket launch. The North's Foreign Ministry said it will be forced "to take additional defensive measures" if an apology does not come immediately.
Posted by:Steve White

#10  Ogabe criticized aid to Pakistan before being elected, and went as far as talking about an invasion. Now that he's in the hot seat, he is continuing the payments to Pakistan. Why? Because the alternative is much more expensive.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2009-05-01 17:53  

#9  In essence, you can consider the aid rent for the use of Pakistani land routes and airspace. We've handed to them less than $10b in total aid. An invasion of Pakistan to secure those routes would cost hundreds of billions, not to mention thousands of dead GI's.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2009-05-01 17:51  

#8  i was also gonna ask why we keep giving AID too pakistan.

The bulk of our supplies go through their territory. Besides, we can't launch air strikes against the Pakistani Taliban without the Pakistani government's acquiescence - it's the reason our drones operate with impunity without being shot down in Pakistani airspace.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2009-05-01 17:45  

#7  Let the Chicoms feed them.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2009-05-01 14:21  

#6  i was also gonna ask why we keep giving AID too pakistan. The predato strikes can be carried out from Afghanistan as easy and thet would giveus a chance too drop a few more hellfires along the way
Posted by: rabid whitetail   2009-05-01 14:07  

#5  Gosh, is it a new month already?
Posted by: swksvolFF   2009-05-01 11:58  

#4  A clue!!
Posted by: mojo   2009-05-01 10:36  

#3  They survive on handouts just like Pakistan.Both do not deserve Western aid and blackmail is their negotiation tactic hence more nuclear testing coming up soon!
Posted by: Paul2   2009-05-01 09:18  

#2  Let them eat plutonium.
Posted by: crosspatch   2009-05-01 01:09  

#1  why should we give then AAID
Posted by: rabid whitetail   2009-05-01 00:50  

00:00