So, wait, you're ANTI nukes but PRO North Korea.

• 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. 

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

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

Below is a Jewish editorial.  One of the comments made by a reader of the editorial, also a Jew, was that Israel ITSELF felt the Gaza pull-out might help abate some level of terrorism.  So, you're saying that Israel itself is anti-Semitic?  Could you PLEASE stop with your lying and constant twisting of the truth?

Cindy Sheehan is purported to have said that if Israel pulls out of Palestine it will contribute to a reduction in terror. That sounds like a pretty reasonable statement to me. If I hear another white, right-wing, Christian pundit speak for the Jewish community again and call Cindy Sheehan an anti-Semite for that statement, I think I am going to explode. The same goes for the Jewish pundits who are part of a radical minority of Jews in they way they come down on this issue. It is obscene and wrong to call her anti-Semitic, and all Jews in the country should pay close attention to and not forget the arguments that the GOP and its mouthpieces are trying to make on this occasion.

As a member of the Jewish community I can say that it is likely that the vast majority of Jews in this country (76% of whom voted for John Kerry) realize that the separation between George Bush and Cindy Sheehan on the Israel issue is minimal at best. Bush did better with Jews than his predecessors, but to come away in 2004 with just 24% of the Jewish vote, and then to try to play the “religion-card” in this circumstance leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. There is an underlying feeling of anti-Semitism emanating from the person playing the “religion-card”.

A small minority of Jews believe in a manner similar to Republicans and the George Bush administration. They believe that anything goes; the ends justifies the means; ethics is not important as long as you win; caring for the poor, sick, and helpless in the community take a back seat to capitalism, and it is better to get a tax cut during war than to shoulder a heavier weight to prepare our government (and its budget deficit) for our children. Most Jews do not subscribe to this philosophy.

We are by and large Democrats and we by and large share the values of Cindy Sheehan, and to tarnish her as an anti-Semite and associate her with the likes of racist-Republican David Duke, as some have done, is obscene. Some Jews in this small minority may speak out against Cindy Sheehan. While they are entitled to their opinions, they are not entitled to speak for the vast majority of Jews. The voices of this radical minority are much louder right now, and in fact this is a direct result of the Republican Party having a superior message machine and media infrastructure than the Democrats.

A brief history lesson might be instructive as to why the political party in America with a “religion problem” and a “race problem” is the Republican Party. Howard Dean called the Republican Party mainly a "white-Christian party". One can argue about whether he was tactful or not when he said it, but what he said was essentially true. One of the ONLY demographics Republicans win consistently is white, Christian men. Lucky for them it is a large demographic. Democrats, on the other hand, win with Latinos, blacks, immigrants, gays, and Jews (pretty much everyone else).

These voters are not stupid. They vote the way they do for reasons. Most Jews support Democrats for the very reason that there is no component of racism or religious persecution in that party. Moreover the Democrats by and large believe in peace, social justice, social tolerance, religious tolerance, minimum wages and standards that can improve the lives for the weakest among us, cheaper health care for the sick, dying, and mentally ill, and an education system that works in a manner that is equal for all, and without any external religions pushed on the students.

Most Jews support Cindy Sheehan because she is acting in a manner that is consistent with (and even required by) the bible. She is speaking out for peace in a non-violent manner, and almost shaming the President to finally devise a plan for Iraq. Anyone who would attack her for that is suspect at best. From a Christian perspective you should ask yourself “what would Jesus be doing?” Would he be protesting the war right now or flying a fighter jet to carpet-bomb Fallujah?

The "white-Christian" Republican Party is supported mainly by the “white-Christian” Southerners--the same descendants of former slaveholders, with an only partially changed mentality. Abraham Lincoln called himself a Republican, but everyone knows that the Republican Party of Lincoln is now the Democratic Party, and the descendants of the Democratic Party of the segregated-South, make up the current Republican base.

The anti-Semitic, anti-black Southerners, from Zell Miller, to David Duke, to Tony Perkins, to Trent Lott, to Jesse Helms, to Strom Thurmond, are all remnants of the racist past of the Democratic Party, who are now firmly implanted at the highest levels of the Republican Party. Some of these Republicans have even switched parties in our lifetime from Democrat to Republican, ala Strom Thurmond and David Duke, or switched this millenium ala Zell Miller, providing even further proof that if Abraham Lincoln were alive today he would be called a “liberal” by James Dobson and would be a key component of the Democratic Party.

This shift is not unnoticed to Jews, and apparently other minorities see it as well (88% of African-Americans voted for Kerry). The base of the segregated South is now the Republican base. The family-values, anti-gay, Christian prayer in school crowd, who are a danger to Jewish culture and an overt threat to the African-American descendants of the freed slaves, are the people that should be worried about the label of anti-Semite, not Cindy Sheehan.

Cindy Sheehan's statement on Israel, if she even made them at all, sounds exactly like Bush's public position. She wants Israel to leave Palestine and she thinks that will contribute to peace in the Middle East. Guess what, big shocker, SHE IS RIGHT. Israel pulling back will not be an end all to terror, nothing will, but certainly it will help. If Cindy Sheehan understands this fundamental concept, why doesn’t George Bush?

This post is also available at RAFC.org and

I wanted to address an exchange below that occurred between myself and a couple of others on the board (just the big bad and another poster who did not use anything to identify herself) last night.  In response to my post about the righteous prevailing meaning the Israeli's would prevail because they are the "righteous", just the big bad responded "So was Hitler righteous?"  She was likening the Israeli's treatment of the Palestinians as being akin to Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews.  I then pointed out her anti-Semitic rhetoric.  To which I was blasted for accusing an anti-Zionist as being an anti-Semitic.

I want to point out to many of you who hold strong opinions regarding the Israel/Palestinian conflict, there is a very fine line between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, a line that was very clearly crossed when just the big bag posted her Hitler remark, a line many have crossed in this discussion by likening the Gaza Strip to a concentration camp.  When you say these things you have become an anti-Semitic.  Below is an excerpt from an article written by Ami Isseroff:

If you judge a Jewish state by standards that you apply to no one else; if your neck veins bulge when you denounce Zionists but you've done no more than cluck "well, yes, very bad about Darfur";

if there is nothing Hamas can do that you won't blame 'in the final analysis' on Israelis;

if your sneer at the Zionists doesn't sound a whole lot different from American neoconservative sneers at leftists;

then you should not be surprised if you are criticized, fiercely so, by people who are serious about a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians and who won't let you get away with a self-exonerating formula "I am anti-Zionist, but not anti-Semitic" to prevent scrutiniy.  If you are anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic, then don't use the categories, allusions, and smug hiss that are all too familiar to any student of prejudice.   

I think that sums it up.

over the treaty with Taiwan?  This was reported on Fox News this week.

Anyone been following this?

I'm someone who believes in minding my own business.  What others do in their family lives is none of my business.  There hasn't been one single (or married) gay person who has ever hurt me.

On the other hand, the policies of the last eight years have hurt me a great deal.  I don't have health insurance, so McCain can't tax mine, but he will tax everyone else's.

I want a President who can speak English (for a change), one who is intelligent and even tempered, and one who not only acknowledges that there is a huge problem with the middle class but whose entire platform has been devoted to solving that problem.

One day, McCain says the "fundamentals of the economy are strong."  The next day, he's canceling a debate to rush back to Washington to fix the "crisis," except that he doesn't really "rush," and he didn't cancel the debate.  He's running around like a chicken with its head cut off.

Obama's slogan has always been change, from the very beginning, and McCain has stolen that slogan.

I'm just personally sick and tired of politicians who are pro-corporations and anti-Americans.

Corporate tax breaks simply don't work.  The beneficiaries of these breaks pocket the money.  They don't create jobs; they outsource them.  As MTs, we should know that more than anyone.

Obama wants to reward businesses who KEEP jobs in America.  That's why I voted for him, along with the other reasons above, and that's why my daughter and son-in-law also voted for him, so he has received three votes from this household alone.

The "trickle-down" theory doesn't work and depends on the non-existent benevolence of greedy executives.  It's time to try the "trickle-up" theory, IMHO.

Everyone is so upset at the thought of rising taxes.  I wish someone would tell me just HOW we expect to pay for all Bush's wars, as this will fall to the next President, along with the present financial fiasco.

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.

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."

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

xx

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.

President Obama knows all too well how difficult it is to quit smoking, and today he addressed his struggle to kick the habit just before signing a law he hopes will help other people put out their cigarettes too.

"Each day, 1,000 young people under the age of 18 become new, regular, daily smokers, and almost 90 percent of all smokers began at or before their 18th birthday," Obama said today. "I know. I was one of these teenagers. And so I know how difficult it can be to break this habit when it's been with you for a long time."

The new tobacco law gives the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco in the same way the government regulates breakfast cereals and pharmaceuticals.

"This legislation is a victory for bipartisanship, and it was passed overwhelmingly in both houses of Congress," Obama said today. "It's a victory for health care reform, as it will reduce some of the billions we spend on tobacco-related health care costs in this country."

Public health organizations and many lawmakers, several of whom joined Obama today for the signing, have been fighting for regulation for nearly a decade in hopes of helping an estimated 45 million adult smokers in the United States to kick their habit.

The law means the government will have the power to decide how cigarettes are advertised and monitor how they're promoted to young people. It means cigarette makers will be required to include new, larger warning graphics with more health information on their products and will be prohibited from using words like "light" and "low tar" in their marketing.

While the law does not have the power to ban cigarettes and nicotine outright, it does allow the FDA to reduce nicotine levels and harmful chemicals in tobacco products.

"Forty-five years after the first U.S. surgeon general's report linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer, the most deadly product sold in America will no longer be the least-regulated product sold in America," said Matthew Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, in a statement earlier this month when Congress passed the bill.

Within the year, a rule will also be reinstated that prohibits outdoor tobacco ads within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds, and bans tobacco brands from sponsoring sports and entertainment events, according to the law.

At the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, CEO John R. Seffrin said the changes "will finally put an end to Big Tobacco's despicable marketing practices that are designed to addict children to its deadly products."

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also pinned high hopes on the effort.

"This legislation is a key part of our plans to cut health care costs and reduce the number of Americans who smoke," Sebelius said in a June 11 statement.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 440,000 people die prematurely from smoking each year, with an estimated 49,000 of those deaths due to secondhand smoke exposure.

"This legislation provides a tremendous opportunity to finally hold tobacco companies accountable and restrict efforts to addict more children and adults," American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown said in a June 11 statement. "It has been a long and challenging process to move the bill through Congress but the determination of many concerned parents and supporters has never wavered."

*Sorry arses*   You compare the Revolutionary War to World War II.  You call names and label. You are violently nearly out of control with your anger and your very wording borders on horrendously out of control.  Do people really take you seriously in discussion. If so, why?