N. Korea Threatens to Hurt US if Attacked

This guy is really nuts! Just because he has 1M foot soldiers, he thinks he can do what he wants.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528057,00.html

• N. Korea Threatens to Hurt US if Attacked - Backwards typist
  • Definitely nuts, but not entirely stupid - C. Mudgeon
    • Your last paragraph is absolutely correct. - Backwards typist

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

GOP campaign chief John Cornyn (R-Texas) vowed Friday that Republicans would block any attempt by Democrats to seat AL Franken when the Senate gavels into order next week.

Franken is leading Republican incumbent Norm Coleman by a slim 49-vote margin, but more than 1,000 votes have yet to be counted and legal challenges remain.

In a conference call with reporters today, Cornyn, the newly selected head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee said: “I think it’s very clear that the people of Minnesota and the courts of Minnesota” should choose between Franken and Coleman, “and not politicians in Washington, D.C.”

“It is the height of arrogance for any leader in Washington, D.C. to tell Minnesota voters whose votes should count and whose votes shouldn’t count,” Cornyn added.

The Texas senator was responding to comments made by Minnesota’s Democratic junior senator, Amy Klobuchar, suggesting Franken should be seated in the upper chamber if he is certified as the winner by the State Canvassing Board. The Board is scheduled to meet Saturday to count at least 1,350 absentee ballots.

"If the Canvassing Board declares a winner, that should be our senator," Klobuchar said last week. Even if a court challenge were to follow, Klobuchar said, "[The Senate] could seat a senator pending the litigation."

But Cornyn said Republicans were prepared to filibuster any attempt to seat Franken.

“There will be no scenario in which Republicans agree” to seat Franken without the complete resolution of legal cases surrounding the election and a certification from the state’s Democratic secretary of state and Republican governor, Cornyn said.

As the recount drags on, legal obstacles await. On Wednesday, Coleman filed a lawsuit alleging that election officials had not adopted uniform vote counting standards across the state. And Cornyn was quick to note that any Minnesota citizens have the right to file legal challenges of their own in the days ahead.

“I really think we need to be patient and allow the process to work its way through,” Cornyn said.

She had every right to stay in the race.  As another poster said, that is what democracy is all about.  Leave it alone and let time take its course. 

and I know this had to be a horrendous Christmas...

However, I just don't share your views about this administration.  I don't think trying to increase this country's intelligence and making the CIA and FBI better networking departments a controversial issue.  When asked the question what American has the Patriot Act violated the dems are strangely quiet.  They just continue to insist that Bush has done something wrong by increasing the intelligence level through wiretaps that every other American president was okayed to do.

I just don't understand congressmen and women standing up there having a hissy over Bush wire taps knowing, KNOWING, that the 4th plane on 9/11 was bound for an in session capital building.  To me the Dems are BLINDED by partisan politcs.  It frankly borders on sociopathic..

Bush has done nothing to to hurt Americans but only to protect them.   Frankly, I'm glad he's got the guts to do what it takes to keep America safe.  I don't know what *9/11 perps* you are talking about, but I don't think anyone has gone free.  I really don't know why in the heck you care about terrorists rotting in jail in the first place.  They are not American citizens and have none of the rights an American has.  If the military was allowed to do what it was supposed to do and try them they would be dispensed with, but throwing them in the American legal system  only condemed them to the piss poor, liberally manged American judicial system---who would much rather have a T.V. celebrity trial with all the trimmings than actually get down to work to putting some of the psychos and thugs behind bars or better yet....executing some the slime who prey on children and the innocent. 

While I will never convince you to support this president you need to see things for what they really are.  What is going to take for some of you to see that the president is not the problem but terrorism and partisan politics is?  I guess it may take a much broader hit than 9/11.  I pray it doesn't happen, but if you and the dems don't wake up and smell the coffee I'm afraid I could happen again.

Repugnants have been in power for the last 8 years and they are still blaming anything and everything on the democrats!!! Let's put in Obama; he will be held accountable for his actions.

Of course, that doesn't stop my governor from taking the temporary money, probably raising our taxes after the states have to fend for themselves. As he said, he doesn't care. Know why? It's his last term. He's going to let the next governor be the bad guy. We've been suffering since he became governor. He juggles the money all the time, yet the people of this state do not see any relief. He promised property tax relief after the casinos were up and running. We have yet to see a dime of it.

"I'm not sure that we can, over the long run, cope with the high unemployment compensation standard that this mandates for states," Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, the head of the National Governor's Association, told "Fox News Sunday."

"But I don't care. My people are suffering," he added. "They need that extra money. And right now that's paramount in my mind."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/22/stimulus.governors/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

He's threatening nuclear missles now if he doesn't get the apology

Instead of all the governments playing patty cake with these radical leaders, we should just take them out once and for all.

While O is trying to reduce our defense abilities, these leaders are building up theirs. When is the world (including our country) going to realize you can't deal with leaders like this in a rational manner? "Speak softly but carry a big stick" is the motto we should be following.

I didn't say I was pro N. Korea.  You obviously need to hone your psychic skills.  What I am saying is that yes, I am anti nukes.  I am also anti "let's jes kill 'em all" mentality that we've had to put up with for the previous 8 years. 

Another thing you might want to consider is that N. Korea is not completely without allies.  Unless we're willing to catch one of those nukes, I would think it best if we didn't start playing hot pototoe with them. 

Yeah!!!.  Now I just worry about the 2 girls they are trying over there.

updated 3:42 p.m. ET, Fri., June 12, 2009

SEOUL, South Korea - The U.N. Security Council on Friday punished North Korea for its second nuclear test, imposing tough new sanctions, expanding an arms embargo and authorizing ship searches on the high seas, with the goal of derailing the isolated nation's nuclear and missile programs.

In a sign of growing global anger at Pyongyang's pursuit of nuclear weapons in defiance of the council, the North's closest allies Russia and China joined Western powers and nations from every region in unanimously approving the sanctions resolution.

The resolution seeks to deprive North Korea of financing and material for its weapons program and bans the country's lucrative arms exports, especially missiles. It does not ban normal trade, but does call on international financial institutions not to provide the North with grants, aid or loans except for humanitarian, development and denuclearization programs. U.S. Deputy Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo said the resolution provides "a strong and united international response" to North Korea's test in defiance of a ban imposed after its first underground atomic blast in October 2006.

"The message of this resolution is clear: North Korea's behavior is unacceptable to the international community and the international community is determined to respond," DiCarlo said. "North Korea should return without conditions to a process of peaceful dialogue."

Push for six-party talks
China's U.N. Ambassador Zhang Yesui said the nuclear test had affected regional peace and security. He strongly urged Pyongyang to promote the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and return quickly to Beijing-hosted six-party talks aimed at dismantling North Korea's nuclear program.

He said the resolution demonstrates the international community's "firm opposition" to the atomic blast, "but also sends a positive signal" by showing the council's determination to resolve the issue "peacefully through dialogue and negotiations."

North Korea signaled strong opposition to new sanctions before the vote, but its diplomats were nowhere to be seen on Friday.

That was in stark contrast to the vote in October 2006 when the North Korean ambassador immediately rejected the first sanctions resolution, accused council members of "gangster-like" action, and walked out of the council chamber.

'Merciless offensive'
North Korea reiterated Monday in its main newspaper that the country will consider any sanctions a declaration of war and will respond with "due corresponding self-defense measures." On Tuesday, the North said it would use nuclear weapons in a "merciless offensive" if provoked.

The provision most likely to anger the North Koreans calls on countries to inspect all suspect cargo heading to or from North Korea — and to stop ships carrying suspect material if the country whose flag the vessel is flying gives approval.

The White House said it was prepared to confront ships believed to be carrying contraband materials to North Korea but will not try to forcibly board them.

If the country refuses to give approval, it must direct the vessel "to an appropriate and convenient port for the required inspection by the local authorities."

Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said U.S. officials would seek permission to board and inspect ships believed to be carrying contraband to North Korea. Such ships would be directed to a nearby port for inspection if they could not be boarded at sea, she told reporters at the White House.

Rice said the U.S. would not be surprised if North Korea reacted to the sanctions with "further provocation."

"There's reason to believe they may respond in an irresponsible fashion to this," she said. But she said she expects the sanctions to have significant impact on North Korea's financing of its weapons and missile systems.

Nuclear tests
The United States and many other nations, including China and Russia, have condemned Pyongyang for its underground nuclear test on May 25 and a series of ground-to-air missile test firings.

The resolution condemns "in the strongest terms" the North's May 25 nuclear test "in violation and flagrant disregard" of the 2006 sanctions resolution.

It demands a halt to any further nuclear tests or missile launches and reiterates the council's demand that the North abandon all nuclear weapons, return to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, allow U.N. nuclear inspections, and rejoin six-party talks.

The 2006 resolution imposed an arms embargo on heavy weapons, a ban on material that could be used in missiles or weapons of mass destruction and a ban on luxury goods favored by North Korea's ruling elite. It also ordered an asset freeze and travel ban on companies and individuals involved in the country's nuclear and weapons programs.

I think that's part of the problem. They have "unification" parties all over the north. The people in the north don't get any outside news except what NK wants them to have. At least that's my take on it.  I hope their missles do fizzle out. I'm sure the nitwit will definitely push it to the brink.

As he states (and did we REALLY start the Korean War?):

"This is another foul product of the U.S.-led international oppression to disarm the DPRK and to suffocate it economically for forcing the Korean people to give up their idea and system.

If the U.S. imperialists start another war, ignorant of the ignominious defeat they had sustained in the past Korean war, the army and people of Korea will determinedly answer "sanctions" with retaliation and "confrontation" with all-out confrontation, the counter-measure based on the Songun idea, wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all and achieve the cause of national reunification without fail."

I was surfing a bit this morning and found this news article from N. Korea. I doubt things will cool off for a long time, if ever. The article headlines state: "Lee Myung-Bak's Group Military Provocations Blasted. From there, it calls him a puppet war monger and states how Myung-Bak outbursts "over the non-existant provocation (my emphasis) by the North."

http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

Here is yet another expert criticizing Bush's policies.  How can ALL of these people be wrong?

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-06-21T064029Z_01_N21187502_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage3

Former US Diplomat Raps Bush N. Korea Policy

June 21, 2006

By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former U.S. diplomat who was deeply involved in North Korea policy said the Bush administration's approach toward the isolated communist state has been a failure that left Pyongyang to pursue its nuclear and missile programs.

In a rare public attack on the administration by a foreign service officer, retired head of the State Department's office of Korean affairs David Straub also questioned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's decision-making on the issue. A spokesman for Rice was not immediately available for comment.

One fundamental failure of Bush's approach was the tendency to raise tensions and make South Korea nervous by stating that all options were the table, a phrase underscoring U.S. intentions to use force against North Korea if necessary, he said.

Of course all options are on the table. No government ever takes any option off the table but you don't have to talk about it all the time, Straub said.

Every time we said 'all options are on the table' gratuitously, we made the situation with our South Korean ally worse and made the prospect of coordination with South Korea to resolve the North Korean problem diplomatically that much more remote, he said.

Straub was head of the Korean office from 2002-2004 and was part of a team that negotiated with the North during former Secretary of State Colin Powell's tenure.

Several former administration political appointees have faulted President George W. Bush's policies after leaving office but it is rare for a foreign service officer to do so.

DIPLOMATIC FAILURE

Straub spoke in Washington at a meeting of the Korea Club, which groups former officials, scholars and journalists interested in the Korean peninsula.

His remarks came as six-country negotiations on ending North Korea's nuclear program are at a stalemate and as Pyongyang fans tensions again with preparations for a possible long-range missile test.

Straub said Washington was not primarily responsible for the failure to stop the North's pursuit of nuclear weapons and expressed skepticism Pyongyang would abandon its growing capability even if the United States made major concessions.

But he said the only viable U.S. approach is serious negotiations, the appointment of a high-level envoy and a willingness to engage in bilateral as well as multilateral talks, something the Bush administration has eschewed.

Straub said North Korea never seemed a priority for Bush and he could not understand why the National Security Council under Rice, who is often credited with energizing diplomacy at the State Department, repeatedly rejected Powell's diplomatic proposals.

Powell was desperate to try to have some real diplomatic effort going (with Pyongyang). Maybe she did something (to assist that) for four years while he was in office, but if she did no one ever told me, Straub said.

As for Bush, Straub wondered how much attention is he able to pay to it (North Korea). How much does he know?

Straub noted that opinion polls show many South Koreans consider America a bigger problem than North Korea. I can't think of a better definition of diplomatic failure, he said

He expressed confidence Powell would have pursued bilateral talks with Pyongyang in 2002-2003 during a crisis created by U.S. discovery of the North's clandestine program for enriching weapons-grade uranium.

But he said the administration did not want real give and take so the stalemate in six-country talks between the United States, the two Koreas, Japan, China and Russia was predictable, he said.

Straub also questioned why, after six-party talks reached an important but preliminary agreement on the nuclear issue last September, Rice would allow release of a statement clarifying U.S. views on issues papered over in the agreement.

The U.S. statement prompted Pyongyang to renege on the agreement.

U.S. and Russia to Enter Civilian Nuclear Pact
Bush Reverses Long-Standing Policy, Allows Agreement That May Provide Leverage on Iran

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 8, 2006; A01

President Bush has decided to permit extensive U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia for the first time, administration officials said yesterday, reversing decades of bipartisan policy in a move that would be worth billions of dollars to Moscow but could provoke an uproar in Congress.

Bush resisted such a move for years, insisting that Russia first stop building a nuclear power station for Iran near the Persian Gulf. But U.S. officials have shifted their view of Russia's collaboration with Iran and concluded that President Vladimir Putin has become a more constructive partner in trying to pressure Tehran to give up any aspirations for nuclear weapons.

The president plans to announce his decision at a meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg next Saturday before the annual summit of leaders from the Group of Eight major industrialized nations, officials said. The statement to be released by the two presidents would agree to start negotiations for the formal agreement required under U.S. law before the United States can engage in civilian nuclear cooperation.

In the administration's view, both sides would benefit. A nuclear cooperation agreement would clear the way for Russia to import and store thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel from U.S.-supplied reactors around the world, a lucrative business so far blocked by Washington. It could be used as an incentive to win more Russian cooperation on Iran. And it would be critical to Bush's plan to spread civilian nuclear energy to power-hungry countries because Russia would provide a place to send the used radioactive material.

At the same time, it could draw significant opposition from across the ideological spectrum, according to analysts who follow the issue. Critics wary of Putin's authoritarian course view it as rewarding Russia even though Moscow refuses to support sanctions against Iran. Others fearful of Russia's record of handling nuclear material see it as a reckless move that endangers the environment.

You will have all the anti-Russian right against it, you will have all the anti-nuclear left against it, and you will have the Russian democracy center concerned about it too, said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear specialist at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Since Russia is already a nuclear state, such an agreement, once drafted, presumably would conform to the Atomic Energy Act and therefore would not require congressional approval. Congress could reject it only with majority votes by both houses within 90 legislative days.

Administration officials confirmed the president's decision yesterday only after it was first learned from outside nuclear experts privy to the situation. The officials insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the agreement before the summit.

The prospect, however, has been hinted at during public speeches in recent days. We certainly will be talking about nuclear energy, Assistant Energy Secretary Karen A. Harbert told a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event Thursday. We need alternatives to hydrocarbons.

Some specialists said Bush's decision marks a milestone in U.S.-Russian relations, despite tension over Moscow's retreat from democracy and pressure on neighbors. It signals that there's a sea change in the attitude toward Russia, that they're someone we can try to work with on Iran, said Rose Gottemoeller, a former Energy Department official in the Clinton administration who now directs the Carnegie Moscow Center. It bespeaks a certain level of confidence in the Russians by this administration that hasn't been there before.

But others said the deal seems one-sided. Just what exactly are we getting? That's the real mystery, said Henry D. Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Until now, he noted, the United States has insisted on specific actions by Russia to prevent Iran from developing bombs. We're not getting any of that. We're getting an opportunity to give them money.

Environmentalists have denounced Russia's plans to transform itself into the world's nuclear dump. The country has a history of nuclear accidents and contamination. Its transportation network is antiquated and inadequate for moving vast quantities of radioactive material, critics say. And the country, they add, has not fully secured the nuclear facilities it already has against theft or accidents.

The United States has civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with the European atomic energy agency, along with China, Japan, Taiwan and 20 other countries. Bush recently sealed an agreement with India, which does require congressional approval because of that nation's unsanctioned weapons program.

Russia has sought such an agreement with the United States since the 1990s, when it began thinking about using its vast land mass to store much of the world's spent nuclear fuel. Estimating that it could make as much as $20 billion, Russia enacted a law in 2001 permitting the import, temporary storage and reprocessing of foreign nuclear fuel, despite 90 percent opposition in public opinion polls.

But the plan went nowhere. The United States controls spent fuel from nuclear material it provides, even in foreign countries, and Bunn estimates that as much as 95 percent of the potential world market for Russia was under U.S. jurisdiction. Without a cooperation agreement, none of the material could be sent to Russia, even though allies such as South Korea and Taiwan are eager to ship spent fuel there.

Like President Bill Clinton before him, Bush refused to consider it as long as Russia was helping Iran with its nuclear program. In the summer of 2002, according to Bunn, Bush sent Putin a letter saying an agreement could be reached only if the central problem of assistance to Iran's missile, nuclear and advanced conventional weapons programs was solved.

The concern over the nuclear reactor under construction at Bushehr, however, has faded. Russia agreed to provide all fuel to the facility and take it back once used, meaning it could not be turned into material for nuclear bombs. U.S. officials who once suspected that Russian scientists were secretly behind Iran's weapons program learned that critical assistance to Tehran came from Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.

The 2002 disclosure that Iran had secret nuclear sites separate from Bushehr shocked both the U.S. and Russian governments and seemed to harden Putin's stance toward Iran. He eventually agreed to refer the issue to the U.N. Security Council and signed on to a package of incentives and penalties recently sent to Tehran. At the same time, he has consistently opposed economic sanctions, military action or even tougher diplomatic language by the council, much to the frustration of U.S. officials.

Opening negotiations for a formal nuclear cooperation agreement could be used as a lever to move Putin further. Talks will inevitably take months, and the review in Congress will extend the process. If during that time Putin resists stronger measures against Iran, analysts said, the deal could unravel or critics on Capitol Hill could try to muster enough opposition to block it. If Putin proves cooperative on Iran, they said, it could ease the way toward final approval.

This was one of the few areas where there was big money involved that you could hold over the Russians, said George Perkovich, an arms-control specialist and vice president of the Carnegie Endowment. It's a handy stick, a handy thing to hold over the Russians.

Bush has an interest in taking the agreement all the way as well. His new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership envisions promoting civilian nuclear power around the world and eventually finding a way to reprocess spent fuel without the danger of leaving behind material that could be used for bombs. Until such technology is developed, Bush needs someplace to store the spent fuel from overseas, and Russia is the only volunteer.

The Russians could make a lot of money importing foreign spent fuel, some of our allies would desperately like to be able to send their fuel to Russia, and maybe we could use the leverage to get other things done, such as getting the Russians to be more forward-leaning on Iran, Bunn said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/07/AR2006070701588.html?sub=new

A little bit of history on North Korea and the dilemma. Read the rest of the article from the link below.

"So it's another step backwards again with North Korea.

In defiance of a Security Council resolution (1718) passed after its first nuclear test in 2006, it has now announced a second. It has also implied that it has solved some at least of the problems it encountered in the first.

The actual technical achievement remains to be examined. But the test itself represents a continued belligerency whose destination is unknown. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8066719.stm

The mean comments I made were how I genuinely felt, though.  I sincerely feel there are mental issues that play into some of the postings I see.  And I did feel as though someone had ------ on me at one point.  That is how it felt, honestly.  And I won't go into it beyond that. 

That said, just because I felt desecrated and that there were mental issues affecting some people's judgment doesn't mean I had to make fun or allude to these conclusions.  That was in poor taste. 

because he said Barbara came up to him when he in fact went up to her.  OMG!  Down with Beck.  He should be hung at high noon. 

Seriously....aren't there more important issues than this crap?

As for his answer when they asked him if he checked his facts out and he said no, he was answering the question of whether he was a journalist and he said no he wasn't....he is a commentator.  All those women talk at once and he was still answering one question when Barbara asked him another. 

That show is so pointless to watch.  It has like one conservative person on the whole thing and the rest of liberal loons who attack all who lean conservative.  I really don't know how Elisabeth Hasselbeck...or whatever her name is.....stands to be on that show. 

I thought Rush might have learned something from his own bad judgments but I guess I was wrong. I actually felt sorry for him for awhile...I would not wish his situation on anyone. But it seems he is back to his Homeless Olympics-type comments - always blame whoever is on the other side of the fence. Now I know where all this rhetoric is coming from...straight from the mouths of the radio right reich.

Right-Wing Attacks American Evacuees: ‘Ingrates,’ ‘Whining,’ ‘Spoiled-Rotten Little Children’

The Bush administration’s evacuation of Americans in Lebanon has been disorganized and lagged behind the efforts of other countries. As of yesterday, only a few thousand had been able to evacuate, and they departed “two days after the first Europeans left on ships.” Denmark, for example, “evacuated more than 4,000 of its citizens” by Thursday.

Conservatives have reacted to this incompetence by attacking the evacuees:

Rush Limbaugh, 7/19:

Even in the eyes of our ingrate, spoiled-rotten little children, brat-type ingrate citizens in Beirut, it’s our fault. (Crying.) “It’s a war zone. It’s a war! How do I get out? (crying) We’re having to shield ourselves from the sun in cardboard.” (sobbing) That’s embarrassing.

Fox anchor Neil Cavuto, 7/20:

The media is playing up a lot of whining, complaining Americans in this country who said there’s been no warning, no communication.

TownHall.com columnist Mike Gallagher, 7/21:

Amazingly, we’re not even going to charge these ungrateful evacuees for the free trip home. … Their sense of outrage and entitlement is slowly but surely becoming the American way. And it’s positively disgusting.

Fox anchor Steve Doocy, 7/19:

Shockingly, after they’ve been plucked out of Beirut, a lot of them are whining and complaining that, you know what, I had to sleep on the concrete and they didn’t have any food for me to eat.

Watch Fox & Friends (a Fox correspondent in Cyprus disputes Doocy’s account, describing the evacuation conditions as “really chaotic”):

She says she was kicked, beaten, punched and then thrown to the ground.  The attacker could have been over her, upside down, when he did the carving.... just a thought to those who doubt the "backwards B."

they attacked her first, and then she tried to explain the first post in simple English.

This is the most I have posted on this board in the last 2 months but I just can't take all attacks against people just because they voted  for the pubs.  I said it yesterday, and I'll say it again today, STOP THE BASHING. IT DOESN'T GET YOU ANYWHERE.  All it causes is hate.

P.S. Mrs. M is the one of the worse on here. I have never seen her post before today or yesterday (didn't look at the dates). I think she's just trying to stir the pot.