Obama has other things to worry about: North Korea! Israel:Palestine etc...
Posted By: () on 2009-06-16
In Reply to: Since when...........sm - m
Why are you so interested to know WHO visits the White House in top secret meetings?
This is not what Obama meant when he said...'I will open the White House...!
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Actually North Korea HAS WMD
Bush had no reason to send troops to Iraq.
North Korea, on the other hand, is already in possession of nuclear arms and is ready to strike a pre-emptive strike towards America.
Would you suggest we do nothing?
This has nothing to do with whatever side of the aisle you are on, it is about saving humanity from a mad man with nuclear arms.
Pro North Korea? (sm)
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.
North Korea: This is not good news
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
Russia against sanctions for Iran and North Korea. Therefore:
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
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
North Korea: Engage, Appease, Oppose
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
EVERYBODY laughs at the Useless Nations, not just North Korea. nm
nm
So, wait, you're ANTI nukes but PRO North Korea.
Uhhhh...do you see the flaw in your logic?
I didn't think so.
Hindsight is 20/20. The same argument could be made of North Korea if they decide to attack...sm
after Bush's 2nd term has ended.
Clinton and Bush definitely were opposites on foreign policy, but I think he did try - probably didn't do as much as he could. What Bush is doing with the war in Iraq though, I think is irresponsible as well.
North Korea threaten to fire missile towards Hawaii on 4th of July
On the 4th of July. How should the US respond?
If I were Catholic, think I would have more things to worry about.
First, I find it hard to believe that any religious group would want to run such a slanted story. A prolife group could turn around with abortion films to say some of these would have turned out to be priests. With all the abuse going on in the Catholic church, I think some of their energy would be better spent in cleaning their own home first.
You are wrong: Obama is not against Israel,
he is for a 2-state solution: The Westbank and Gaza for the Palestinians, ALL the rest for Israel. I think that the Palestinians have a right to a 'small' part of Palestine, as they were the first to be in the Holy Land and there were several agreements under previous US administrations, also Bush's, that implemented this right.
Why should Israel have it all and the Palestinians nothing? Where should the Palestinians go who live in the by Isreal occupied territories that were promised to them? This constant back and forth struggle between Israel and the Palestinians, especially the Israeli attacks on Gaza, have the goal to make whole Palestine an Israeli state.
Even on the Israeli side there are a lot of voices who think that the Palestinians have a right to their own state and admit that bringing this problem to a solution (2-state) will solve a lot of problems, as it constitutes the root problem in the Middle East.
It is all about justice and fairness!
You are wrong: Obama is not against Israel,
he is for a 2-state solution: The Westbank and Gaza for the Palestinians, ALL the rest for Israel. I think that the Palestinians have a right to a 'small' part of Palestine, as they were the first to be in the Holy Land and there were several agreements under previous US administrations, also Bush's, that implemented this right.
Why should Israel have it all and the Palestinians nothing? Where should the Palestinians go who live in the by Isreal occupied territories that were promised to them? This constant back and forth struggle between Israel and the Palestinians, especially the Israeli attacks on Gaza, have the goal to make whole Palestine an Israeli state.
Even on the Israeli side there are a lot of voices who think that the Palestinians have a right to their own state and admit that bringing this problem to a solution (2-state) will solve a lot of problems, as it constitutes the root problem in the Middle East.
It is all about justice and fairness!
You are wrong: Obama is not against Israel,
he is for a 2-state solution: The Westbank and Gaza for the Palestinians, ALL the rest for Israel. I think that the Palestinians have a right to a 'small' part of Palestine, as they were the first to be in the Holy Land and there were several agreements under previous US administrations, also Bush's, that implemented this right.
Why should Israel have it all and the Palestinians nothing? Where should the Palestinians go who live in the by Isreal occupied territories that were promised to them? This constant back and forth struggle between Israel and the Palestinians, especially the Israeli attacks on Gaza, have the goal to make whole Palestine an Israeli state.
Even on the Israeli side there are a lot of voices who think that the Palestinians have a right to their own state and admit that bringing this problem to a solution (2-state) will solve a lot of problems, as it constitutes the root problem in the Middle East.
It is all about justice and fairness!
Not to worry. Obama is ahead
The sky will not be falling on December 15th.
Dont worry. When Obama is done, there will be no
nm
I am beginning to worry about Obama's judgment
nm
Dont worry. Obama is going to make this a welfare
nm
Dont worry about Bush. OBAMA is ruining
NM
Agree! Obama is too busy screwing us to worry bout
xx
Who were the 'original' inhabitants of Palestine
and who took the land away from whom?'
If I follow HISTORY, it was the Jews who took the land away from the Palestilnians in 1948 and made a further attack on Arab land in 1967.
What you call 'stirring up this conflict' is the constant attempt of the Palestinians wanting their land back.
Historical documentation:
Gaza, a tiny landstrip along the Mediterranean sea, was 'given' to the Palestinians.
Last year Israel attacked Gaza, making it a massacre, killing and injuring thousands and thousands of Palestinians.
This all History, not Propaganda.
My hand's up. I've lived in Palestine.
Not Israel, Palestine. I first arrived in the region September 29, 1982 in Madaya, a village near the border of Syria and Lebanon. You may recall that was 16 days after the Sabra and Shatila Massacre. My husband was involved in the humanitarian aid efforts there.
In case you do not recall, let me remind you. In accordance with an internationally brokered peace deal, Palestinians had surrendered their weapons and were deported from Beirut, leaving their families under the protection of a peace keeping force. The Israeli army invaded Beirut, violating the peace treaty, and some 3000 defenseless Palestinian women and children were rounded up in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila and were systematically murdered in cold blood. Israel killed more than 30,000 civilians in Beirut in the 1982 invasion and a half million people were driven from their homes.
Tens of thousands of them landed in Madaya. I was there with my husband for 19 months and watched as they administered the programs to relocate those refugees. During that time, we traveled to Nablus, Ramallah and Rafah and spent about 3 months in each place.
So, no, this is not about being PC. Bleeding heart? YOU BET. FYI, I still lose sleep over what I saw there.
You must be very proud to have roots in the land where the rivers run red with the blood of Palestine.
If you are looking to point fingers --- Palestine was under the control
of the United Kingdom in the early 20th century who made conflicting promises to both sides of the dispute and then turned the whole mess over to the U.N. in 1947. Then the U.N. then put their stamp of approval on a two-state resolution to the conflict which the palestinians rejected and then attacked the Israelis. They lost. It is as simple as that. They lost and then when other Arab nations decided to invade Israel (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon) they lost too.
Even under occupation, Palestine hold democratic elections,
as do Turkey and Lebanon, and those countries do not occupy any other populations.
50 Things about Obama
and I only new a couple, enjoy
From the UK Telegraph:
He collects Spider-Man and Conan the Barbarian comics
He was known as "O'Bomber" at high school for his skill at basketball
His name means "one who is blessed" in Swahili
His favourite meal is wife Michelle's shrimp linguini
He won a Grammy in 2006 for the audio version of his memoir, Dreams From My Father
He is left-handed the sixth post-war president to be left-handed
He has read every Harry Potter book
He owns a set of red boxing gloves autographed by Muhammad Ali
He worked in a Baskin-Robbins ice cream shop as a teenager and now can't stand ice cream
His favourite snacks are chocolate-peanut protein bars
He ate dog meat, snake meat, and roasted grasshopper while living in Indonesia
He can speak Spanish
While on the campaign trail he refused to watch CNN and had sports channels on instead
His favourite drink is black forest berry iced tea
He promised Michelle he would quit smoking before running for president he didn't
He kept a pet ape called Tata while in Indonesia
He can bench press an impressive 200lbs
He was known as Barry until university when he asked to be addressed by his full name
His favourite book is Moby-Dick by Herman Melville
He visited Wokingham, Berks, in 1996 for the stag party of his half-sister's fiancι, but left when a stripper arrived
His desk in his Senate office once belonged to Robert Kennedy
He and Michelle made $4.2 million (£2.7 million) last year, with much coming from sales of his books
His favourite films are Casablanca and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
He carries a tiny Madonna and child statue and a bracelet belonging to a soldier in Iraq for good luck
He applied to appear in a black pin-up calendar while at Harvard but was rejected by the all-female committee.
His favourite music includes Miles Davis, Bob Dylan, Bach and The Fugees
He took Michelle to see the Spike Lee film Do The Right Thing on their first date
He enjoys playing Scrabble and poker
He doesn't drink coffee and rarely drinks alcohol
He would have liked to have been an architect if he were not a politician
As a teenager he took drugs including marijuana and cocaine
His daughters' ambitions are to go to Yale before becoming an actress (Malia, 10) and to sing and dance (Sasha, 7)
He hates the youth trend for trousers which sag beneath the backside
He repaid his student loan only four years ago after signing his book deal
His house in Chicago has four fire places
Daughter Malia's godmother is Jesse Jackson's daughter Santita
He says his worst habit is constantly checking his BlackBerry
He uses an Apple Mac laptop
He drives a Ford Escape Hybrid, having ditched his gas-guzzling Chrysler 300
He wears $1,500 (£952) Hart Schaffner Marx suits
He owns four identical pairs of black size 11 shoes
He has his hair cut once a week by his Chicago barber, Zariff, who charges $21 (£13)
His favourite fictional television programmes are Mash and The Wire
He was given the code name "Renegade" by his Secret Service handlers
He was nicknamed "Bar" by his late grandmother
He plans to install a basketball court in the White House grounds
His favourite artist is Pablo Picasso
His speciality as a cook is chilli
He has said many of his friends in Indonesia were "street urchins"
He keeps on his desk a carving of a wooden hand holding an egg, a Kenyan symbol of the fragility of life
His late father was a senior economist for the Kenyan government
Things that go against Obama being involved..(sm)
I think they nipped it in the bud this early so they could hold a state senate hearing to see if they can put the senate seat up for a vote instead of allowing him to make that decision.
Also, in the transcripts there was a part where the Gov said that Obama, that &*(@#$!, was not working with him.
Okay....what things do you agree with Obama that...
trump all the things I mentioned? Just trying to understand.
Things could get worse with Obama..
nm
Yeah, think things are bad with Obama? Imagine
nm
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.
typo - meant cite things as hoax, not "site" things
Just thought I'd correct that before I get pummeled by the people who want to believe snopes is a truthful organization.
UN hits N. Korea with sanctions...(sm)
Yeah!!!. Now I just worry about the 2 girls they are trying over there.
![](http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/Art/APTRANS.gif")
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.
Click for related content
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.
and N. Korea is laughing at the useless UN
nm
NK wants to take back South Korea
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."
Ollie North
Ollie North - that man should have been court martialed and jailed for what he did regarding the Iran Contra horror. I know more veterans and active military persons who are far more deserving of any accolades than he could ever be.
Oliver North......................................sm
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
Oliver North took the fall for his country and his president. Ask any veteran, like my husband, who knows what he did and what he gave for his country.
An true honorable American hero.
http://www.heroism.org/class/1980/north.htm
ollie north
YOU said it much better than I....Oliver North indeed...enough to make anyone gag..and yes, John McCain got his hands dirty and lined his pockets too during the Iran-Contra debacle....at that time many of our young American soldiers died because of Iran-Contra
north to home, are you seeing this
somebody else is using the E word!
N. KOREA THREATENS UNITED STATES
N. Korea Threatens Military Action if U.S. Imposes Blockade
Saturday, June 13, 2009
June 10: South Korean soldiers use binoculars to look at the North side from Imjingak, north of Seoul, South Korea.
June 10: South Korean soldiers use binoculars to look at the North side from Imjingak, north of Seoul, South Korea.
SEOUL, South Korea North Korea vowed on Saturday to embark on a uranium enrichment program and "weaponize" all the plutonium in its possession as it rejected the new U.N. sanctions meant to punish the communist nation for its recent nuclear test.
North Korea also said it would not abandon its nuclear programs, saying it was an inevitable decision to defend itself from what it says is a hostile U.S. policy and its nuclear threat against the North.
The North will take "resolute military action" if the United States or its allies try to impose any "blockade" on it, the ministry said in a statement carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency.
The ministry did not elaborate if the blockade refers to an attempt to stop its ships or impose sanctions.
North Korea describes its nuclear program as a deterrent against possible U.S. attacks. Washington says it has no intention of attacking and has expressed fear that North Korea is trying to sell its nuclear technology to other nations.
The statement came hours after the U.N. Security Council approved tough new sanctions on North Korea to punish it for its latest nuclear test on May 25.
The U.N. resolution imposes new sanctions on the reclusive communist nation's weapons exports and financial dealings, and allows inspections of suspect cargo in ports and on the high seas.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526090,00.html
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
Very well stated. LOL. I have always like Ollie North. nm
nm
I don't mind you asking. I grew up north of ...
Sallisaw, Oklahoma. About 23-24 miles from Fort Smith down Interstate 40. Arkansas border to the north at Siloam Springs...to the east Fort Smith. Beautiful part of the country. I hope to go back some day.
Never been to the casino at Siloam, but I have been gone from that area quite awhile. There was an antique/flea market kind of place there in Siloam I used to like to go to...browse for hours. lol.
As to Buy American...yep, and they tried to keep it that way for a long time. And I know you don't want to hear this...but every time Democrats got control of congress taxes went up, especially on corporations...and you have to do something to compete.
And you have to face it...there would be millions of Americans without jobs if it weren't for Wal-Mart. They are a huge part of the American economy. :)
Who would ever guess North Dakota would be #1?
xx
NORTH AMERICAN UNION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA
Former US Diplomat Raps Bush N. Korea Policy
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.
Ollie North, the 'true hero' - whatever....
Yep, sure am old enough to remember. My husband is a veteran, and he met Col. North...
...a few months back, in an airport, and was coming off a flight and had to rush to a connecting one, and who was sitting there in the lobby typing on a laptop, was Col. North.
My husband saw him, stopped abruptly, walked up to him and said, "Col. North?" To which, Col. North stood up immediately.
My husband held his hand out and introduced himself. They shook hands. My husband only had time to thank him for his service to our country. Then my husband had to run to his connecting flight.
Col. North is a real American hero, in every sense of the word.
The retired military hold Col. North in high esteem, to this day. They know what he did, and how he stood up to congress and took the fall for the good of the country, way back then, for the Iran mess.
Israel
There are many jews who do not like Sharon, many. I could post what they say about him but I wont. However, posting about great leaders, I grew up loving absolutely loving Golda Meir..The situation in Israel is not ours to decide or get heated about..the situation we need to get heated about is America. To try to tie jews and christians together happily cannot happen. For many many years christians did not even acknowledge jews or their beliefs, now all of a sudden lets get together as we believe as one, however, we do not believe as one, not at all. I have watched this over a few years, the christians are trying to hook onto jews as they think well, we both believe in the Bible so we believe the same. We do not believe the same. First of all, we do not believe in the new testament, we do not believe in hell, many of us do not even believe in a heaven and we do not believe in jesus as a savior. He was a jewish man who taught peace and love and tolerance but nothing more. Our savior has not come yet. I think you truly pray and feel for Israel, however, maybe you can take a few courses of Judaism at a local synagogue and understand us more. I know my local synagogue has courses for non jews to learn more about us.
Oil from Israel
Has anyone researched that? In the coming future, Russia will attack Israel. Those who have researched prophecies of the future of the world believe a gusher of this oil wealth is soon coming from Israel, and Russia (amazingly not called Soviet Union in these prophecies of 1100+ years ago) will form an Islamic alliance (they really don't want to) and will come down from the north and attack unwalled villages, supposedly for this sudden great wealth of oil. However, Israel has built walls all over the place. So, this attack will probably happen after the one world leader soon to appear on the world scene offers a convincing (but false) peace and Israel tears the walls down. I have been to Russia, and it is so different from what was promised to the Russian people back when my parents were very young. Then, it was a revolution similar to what Castro was supposed to have done, and now what Chavez is supposedly doing. I saw the apartments, hospitals, schools, etc., in Russia. Yes, Kruschev said there were no homeless people. I only saw people who had to live in apartments where the government dictated that they live and no freedom to express their opinion. Their cost to live in these apartments - free. Our cost to have the freedom in America to say what we want to - priceless. Anyone remember that guy that wrote, The Late Great Planet Earth, back in the 1970's. He now has a program called International Intelligence Briefing. Check your local/cable listings. If you know of any others like him who have researched this other side of the (global) story, please let me know. Thanks.
Israel was willing........... sm
to give the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians in 2005 and allow them to govern it on their own, but that wasn't good enough for the Palestinians.
China has given us untold amounts of money. Does that mean that China has a say in how our country should be run?
I stand on my previous statements that any country that does not support Israel (and I don't mean just monetarily)is barking up the wrong olive tree.
do you really think it is just to let Israel
take the whole of Palestine? Does not matter what the Bible says!
US, Israel planned ME war
Why does none of this surprise me?
'US, Israel planned ME war'
13/08/2006 11:06 - (SA) |
 |
|
|
New York - The US government was closely involved in the planning of Israel's military operations against Islamic militant group Hezbollah even before the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue.
The kidnapping triggered a month-long Israeli operation in South Lebanon that is expected to come to an end on Monday.
But Pulitzer Prize-winning US journalist Seymour Hersh writes that President George W Bush and vice president Dick Cheney were convinced that a successful Israeli bombing campaign against Hezbollah could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential US pre-emptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations.
Citing an unnamed Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of the Israeli and US governments, Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah - and shared it with Bush administration officials - well before the July 12 kidnappings.
The expert added that the White House had several reasons for supporting a bombing campaign, the report said.
If there was to be a military option against Iran, it had to get rid of the weapons Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation against Israel, Hersh writes.
Citing a US government consultant with close ties to Israel, Hersh also reports that earlier this summer, before the Hezbollah kidnappings, several Israeli officials visited Washington to get a green light for a bombing operation following a Hezbollah provocation, and to find out how much the United States would bear.
The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits, the magazine quotes the consultant as saying. Why oppose it? We'll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran.
US government officials have denied the charges.
Nonetheless, Hersh writes, a former senior intelligence official says some officers serving with the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain deeply concerned that the administration will have a far more positive assessment of the air campaign than they should.
There is no way that (defence secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and Cheney will draw the right conclusion about this, the report quotes the former official as saying. When the smoke clears, they'll say it was a success, and they'll draw reinforcement for their plan to attack Iran.
|
|
