N. Korea wants an apology from the U.N.

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.

• N. Korea wants an apology from the U.N. - Backwards typist
  • An apology for what? - Zville MT
    • Here's why. - Trigger Happy
      • You've got to be kidding! - Zville MT
  • What is wrong with you people?.....(sm) - Just the big bad
    • see message - me
      • Obama did say he would send more troops to Afghanistan while he was campaigning - nm - Amanda
    • We shouldn't nuke them. - Trigger Happy
      • You almost got one right...LOL - Just the big bad
        • Whoa there partner - Trigger Happy
          • Noone said the UN should apologize...nm - Just the big bad
            • Oh yes they do want UN to apologize. - Trigger Happy
              • I meant noone on this board...(sm) - Just the big bad
            • There was an apology request. - sm
    • So, wait, you're ANTI nukes but PRO North Korea. - ctmt
      • Pro North Korea? (sm) - Just the big bad
        • First of all...who taught you how to - Trigger Happy
          • Answers...(sm) - Just the big bad
            • I do believe he spelled it - Trigger Happy
        • You see, JTBB? Just one more case of . . . . - sm
          • Yeah. Their **big tent* is now about the size - and smell of a **porta-potty**.
            • Come on JTBB, don't show everyone - MTfromLA
              • Sorry to disappoint but that - wasn't a JTBB post
            • 'and a very apt description of where they are heading! LOL nm - sm
              • If that is the case, why does someone like FOX - news have more and more viewers?nm
                • First of all, I was referring to the GOP going . . . . - sm
          • I see it the opposite. You and JTBB, MSNBC,etc - twisting everything to suit you..total bias.nm
          • I know....(sm) - Just the big bad
            • Olbermann? -the mentally deranged commentator? - Yeah, figures you guys like him.nm
              • Nope...the mentally deranged comentator is - Rush Limbaugh
            • Thanks for that JTBB, I missed that one . . . . - sm

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

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

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

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

...BTW nobody has apologized for calling me a liar....not that I expected it....grow some skin.

When I engage in political discussions, I try my best to keep things in the 3^rd person as much as possible, especially since I try to promote mutual respect and tolerance.   I find that even in the most oppositional debates, it helps keeps things more civil.  I do not always succeed, and at times have been known to abadon that principal, especially when facing someone bent on personal attack or who is presenting ill-informed arguments.  I have followed some of your other posts and know that you certainly do not fit that category.  On close review, I notice I got a bit sloppy with the 3^rd person thing.  I apologize if I came across as too presumptive, particularly since I cannot assume anything about your (or you family) in terms of being conservative or bigoted.

The 59 flea market is alive and well, although it is a bit of an anachronism by now.  Don’t know about the crime, except to say that there is usually a patrol car within sight cruising that vicinity on the weekends.  I used to go there all the time back in the day, but it is too hot and I am too old for that now.  That’s why I frequent those modern day flea markets along Harwin which can be found in air-conditioned buildings.

Bellaire was relatively middle class when we moved there.  It is its own city, so they have actually gone in the opposite direction and have gentrified the joint. over the last 10 years, give or take.  Unfortunately, our post-war bungalows are rapidly disappearing and those obnoxious, abrasive McMansions are popping up everywhere.  I suppose that’s progress to some, sad for me.  We moved there after my parents divorced from Highland Park in Dallas, which is an elite place to be sure.  The journey from “privileged” status to champion of the underdog makes for some interesting conversation…perhaps another day.

We are also bound to revisit the legal vs illegal immigration thing…it is not likely to go away anytime soon.  I am more intrigued by your issues post above and hope to respond to it in a day or so,    Dem turned independent, are you?  Even though I stay pretty much left of center, and have been more radicalized further in that direction after 8 years of Bush, I hear ya.  My issues with the party are not based so much on the candidate but rather lay with the party itself and the need to broaden our two-part system.  Whether or not I like Obama (and I do), I would still be voting along party lines in spite of that, because I see McCain as an instant replay in many respects, particularly where the war is concerned.  The "economy is not my strong suit" confession makes me rea nevous.  I do respect your decision to pull out, though. 

I listen to CNN and Fox, mostly with my teeth clenched.  I think Lou Dobbs' obsession with the immigration is a bit inflammatory and counterproductive (no suprise there) in terms of reaching a viable bipartisan consensus, but I will say this much for him.  For the most part, he presents himself in a respectable and respectful manner.  He raises some interesting points that have made me question some of my more radical views on other issues.  I do think he is the type of person that could engage and promote bipartisan cooperation, so in that respect, when I watch his show, my jaw is more relaxed!  Anyway, I think that a write-in vote is a great way to resolve any disenchantment you may have for the other 2 candidates. 

as we're likely to get an apology from PK and the other trolls.  Let it go.  The thread has been hijacked, so we'll slip away and let them have their temper tantrums.  When they find out no one is listening they'll crawl back under their bridge and/or troll their other haunts.  The other solution is that is adults here could just ignore them and continue on with our conversation.  It's your call 

One great thing about this country is our freedom of speech.  A good thing for me too as in another country I might be beheaded or something as I'm pretty outspoken about things I believe in strongly.  Also, anyone has the right to agree or disagree with either of us and that is partly what makes this country great, I think.

I would love to hear of your life's journey.  I came from near poverty....my dad was a farmer, both parents uneducated....their goal was to make a better life for their children through education.  I made it all the way to upper middle class which is good enough for me.  I traveled many a rocky road though during my life.

I used to love going to the 59 flea market but like you, I now prefer my comfort over flea marketing outdoors.  One thing I can say is since I left Houston in 1990, it sure has changed.  My husband, a Chicago native, and I were visiting the kids once and we were going to drive back to my daughter's house in Tomball to spend the night from my son's house in Magnolia.  Well, not being so familiar with the Magnolia/Tomball area from living there....except for the famous chicken fried steak place in Tomball...forget the name right now, we missed a turn.  I'm about half night blind and after we drove around for quite awhile looking for something I recognized, finally saw the street sign for Gesner so I knew exactly where I was, right?  Wrong.  Didn't realize they'd opened up Gesner half way to Conroe. LOL  We finally got to my daughter's house after a couple of hours, she and my son were about to send out a search party.  We didn't have a cell then.

Have a good day and I do enjoy your posts.

Sorry for involving everyone in what turned into a personal confrontation.  In stepping back as some of you have suggested, I examined my feelings and I do feel badly.  I took it too personally and I should not have, though when someone says "you this" and "you that" it is hard not to take it personally.  It is hard not to take it personally when someone calls you a bigot, ignorant...and many other not-so-nice names.  I got my back up...but that is a human reaction in my opinion.  I jus should have shut it down sooner, I agree.

In GW's defense, I think she is very frustrated with the immigration situation because of incidents close to her, understandable, and I became the personification of all she hates about Republicans, conservatives etc., in effect, the object of venting.  Again, I should not have taken it so personally and tried to understand more where that hatred was coming from.

So, I apologize to GW, I apologize to all of you, that I let it get out of hand.  Hard as it may be for some of you to believe, I am not a confrontational person.  Every one of us, at some point, gets all we can stand and feel like we have to stand up.  I just should not have kept it going so long.  We were beating a dead horse and we should have stopped...both of us.

So...sorry, GW.  I know we do not agree on many things and never will.  However, I am as responsible as you for it going on for so long.  And for that I apologize, to you and to others on the board.

And I appreciate the wise moderator who just let it play out.    Cooling myself off.  :)

The Security Council must apologize for infringing on the North's sovereignty and "withdraw all its unreasonable and discriminative resolutions and decisions" against the North, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

Otherwise, the regime "will be compelled to take additional self-defensive measures," including "nuclear tests and test-firings of intercontinental ballistic missiles," the ministry said.

I know it's hard for you, but try to pay attention.  Sheesh!

It would be so nice if you weren't here. SM

[Post a Reply] [View Follow Ups] [Politics] --> [Conservatives]

Posted By: Brunson on 2005-09-03,
In Reply to: They will never stop. Look at the post below where Brunson hopes that somebody is *hounded* off - Libby

In fact, I DEMAND an apology for falsely accusing any of us, after the moderator already told you, that we did not contact her.  An article about Presidente Bush being clinically insane would definitely appear to violate the rules of the board, as posted REPEATEDLY.  How dare you, sir!  To quote your hero, Olberman.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Sharpton_Post_editor_insulting_public_with_0219.html

Ironically (LOL), when I read some posts on this board denying this is blatant racism by the Post, the mental image I get is this (hoping it prints):