SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea threatened Wednesday to wipe the United States off the map as Washington and its allies watched for signs the regime will launch a series of missiles in the coming days
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090624/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_nuclear_91
Never fear! Im sure BHO will go over there an grovel for our lives.
North Korea is like a little child begging for attention. Now that Iran has been in the spot light for the last few weeks North Korea has had to jump higher and wave their arms more wildly to get attention.
As for how Obama deals with them, how did Bush deal with them? He was scared to talk to talk them alone. We’re the USA; we shouldn’t be scared to talk to anyone. Reagan talk to Gorbachev, Nixon went to China, but Bush as too scared to talk to NK.
When North Korea opened up its sealed reactors and removed plutonium, what did Bush do? When they detonated a nuclear bomb in 2006…what did Bush do? Hell Bush pulled over 12,000 (1/3 of our contingent) men out of South Korea for his Iraqi adventure.
As for how Obama deals with them, how did Bush deal with them?
and one has anything to do with the other in what way?
your first half sentence says "as for how Obama deals with them", then you prattle on for two paragraphs and never mention bHo again.
Just pointing out that you think that Obama is going to kiss their butt but last President did nothing for the last 8 years in regards to North Korea no matter that they did and Republicans didn’t seem to care.
I have no idea how Obama is going to handle this. I do know that the typical Republican response will demand that tough speeches and chest thumping, but offer nothing other than to nuke them.
"last President did nothing for the last 8 years"
if only NKorea has been a problem for only 8 years.
They've been a problem for 50+ years.
This current action has less to do about Bush as it has more to do about Kim Jong-Il.
Kim Jong-Il is on his last leg. He has a communist dictatorship. However, by the party rules in NK he can only pass on the leadership to his son if the country is in peril or a time of war. So, this is more a move to keep his family in power.
It has little to do with the diplomacy of the last 20 years.
MikeyA
You should avoid using flamewar-inducing lines like "Never fear! Im sure BHO will go over there an grovel for our lives."
There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at
observation.
That was my take on it, I hadn't figured on all the babies complaining about me picking on Bush. It’s kind of funny. Didn’t think he’d invoke the emotion response that it did.
and all you said of value was " have no idea how Obama is going to handle this."
Not all of us can be as insightful and knowledgeable as you.
I am with Billy - that was just looked at as a shot at GW. Stop arguing everything with "well what did George Bush do?" It is a stupid argument.
YAWN. We're in about as much danger from this as we are from being invaded by Martians.
How about a nice game of chess?
There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at
You got him, Billy!
If tensions escalate are we going to move to re institute the draft? Because it was SUCH a good idea during the Iraq War. (sarcasm alert)
MikeyA
Nooooo!
Well come on all of you young strong men
Uncle Sam needs your help again
Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack
Lemme get this straight, another country has threatened to wipe us off the map and the top news today was SC Gov. Mark Sanford's Argentina jaunt?
Every news program this morning drove that story into the ground, but didn't mention that I might want to be digging a shelter out back.
Based on how well President Obama defended our country in the Latin American Summit, and how he demonstrated his concern for the Iranian revolutionaries, I predict we won't get a stunning 72-point headline tomorrow that will instill confidence in the American people.
President Obama speaks softly and carries a Bic (drained of ink from signing so much legislation and appointing so many Czars).
Paying this guy an attention is exactly what he wants. He just keeps yelling louder and waving his hands more wildly to get attention.
BTW Obama is handling Iran just fine. Do anything too bold and you play right into Ahmadinejad's hands. If the Iranians want this, then they have to make it happen. Green blog sites that they can’t see or words from American politicians they can’t hear won’t make any difference.
Lastly Sanford who is not a Democrat BTW, though you wouldn’t know it from watching Fox News, is big news. An American Governor disappears with out any sort of communication and with out giving power to the lieutenant governor for 5 days is news.
Forget the whole “family values” hypocrisy and the lying about his location, he put the people of his state at risk, if there had been a major disaster no one had the power to activate the national guard.
I do give his wife kudos for not getting up there with him at press conference like Spitzer’s wife, but at least Spitzer had the sense to resigned.
I agree completely on the Sanford issue--he should resign. And the story in itself, for the reasons you give, IS newsworthy. The type of coverage the story got before Jackson died was just too much.They drug it out into an All-Sanford all the time show, as if no politician has ever strayed and dones something so stupid, or written erotic e-mails. Enough! They intereviewed his friends, aquaintences, etc....why not just give us that facts sans the fluff?
I know that the North Koreans do not have the power to reach the US with a missle, much less wipe us off the face of the earth; However, I do think coverage of what the military is currently doing to curtail N. Korea merits SOME mention on National news. These are interesting times....a lot is happening globally that could and will forever change the landscape (and not just because Michael Jackson is no longer with us)...We should be informed, and we should care more about it.
I do have to respectfully disagree that Obama is handling Iran "just fine," but our difference of opinion is philosophical. I see why you think as you do; I just don't agree. Our president is not only a gifted speaker, but a talented rhetorician. His words can affect and inspire...and could possibily change the course of history, yet makes ineffective statements about his "concern."
let's see, United States decided to remove North Korea from a list of terrorism-sponsoring states and lift sanctions against the communist country in 2007.
http://cbs11tv.com/national/North.Korea.terror.2.288655.html
I know, but won't mention, who was President then, because some on here get all pissy-faced at the reminder of what went on before Jan 20 of this year.
'The move came after the North Korea agreed to take "practical measures to neutralize the existing nuclear facilities in the North" this year, the spokesman said'
'North Korea agreed Sunday to account for and disable its atomic programs by the end of the year, offering its first timeline for a process long sought by nuclear negotiators, the chief U.S. envoy said.'
Oh, wait, that didn't happen??
Obama's the 'ol softie, caves-in-to-our enemies-every-time guy, right? Sounds like a couple years ago, somebody (not him, but I wont mention who) got played.
Well, thankfully, we have a tough new sherriff in town:
http://cbs13.com/national/north.korea.terror.2.1035136.html
'The Bush administration agreed to remove North Korea from the U.S. list of terrorist states after the North said it would dismantle its nuclear weapons facilities. It later refused to go forward with the dismantlement.
'North Korea, she (Secretary of State Clinton) said, was "taken off of the list for a purpose and that purpose is being thwarted by their actions."
Damn conservatives, always soft on our enemies....
Gotta say, that I am right with you on this, McCaskey. The evidence is right there...this may have been averted had the previous administration handled it.
OK, so that solves a lot, no? Well.....no. I can blame Clinton and Carter and, Kennedy, Ford, Nixon, and FDR, for that matter, for a host problems wrought by their decisions, essentially arm-chair quarterbacking while watching games on ESPN Classic, but it does no good.
I'm going to deal in the here and now. Barack Obama is our current president working on the current world's canvas. What is he going to do to make all the wrongs of the past right? (and please, do not include reparations in your answer).
I see such a dichotomy in this man: On one hand he is forceful and motivated to make big changes domestically--he's really fearless when it comes to making his mark. He is a fighter fighting to shape the nation into his vision.
Yet, when the nation is threatened (albeit verbally) he doesn't demonstrate this motivation or aggression. When what he values is threatened elsewhere (Iran's protestors want fairness, freedom, democracy and they are willing to die for it), he is "merely "concerned," and refuses to speak out, lest he offend the very man , and the very government, that these protestors are willing to combat.
"Every news program this morning drove that story into the ground, but didn't mention that I might want to be digging a shelter out back."
Relax Helen, a North Korean missile couldn't even reach Hawaii. Although an underground shelter might come in handy when the machines take over. (which is more likely than NK wiping us off the map)
Pink Slip
The machines...right...I'm well aware that that is all part of Obama's evil plan. While we are all dstracted with the Sanford affair, celebrity deaths, Cap and Trade, and the Kennedy/Dodd Health Care plan, drone workers are busy on underground assembly lines building Obamabots which will soon be dispatched to fulfill his mission to take over the world!
I'll be ready.
In one of his post election campaign speeches, Obama first apologized for America, then he promised a "world without nuclear weapons".
So, in keeping with Obamas promise to the world, what is he doing about N. Korea, it's nuclear program, and it's threat to wipe America off of the map?
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/us_world/NATLObamas-Head-to-France-Germany-Before-NATO.html
"He opened his appearance with a 25-minute prepared speech in which he set a dramatic, long-term goal of "a world without nuclear weapons." He said he would outline details of his nonproliferation proposal in a speech in Prague on Sunday, near the end of a European trip that is spanning five countries in eight days.
"Even with the Cold War now over, the spread of nuclear weapons or the theft of nuclear material could lead to the extermination of any city on the planet," Obama said.
He held the campaign-like event in the midst of his first European trip as president as he sought to strengthen the United States' standing in the world while working with foreign counterparts to right the troubled global economy.
Obama said the United States shares blame for the crisis, but that "every nation bears responsibility for what lies ahead — especially now.""
If ''CON' is the opposite of 'PRO', does that mean Congress is the opposite of Progress?
Complete dishonesty on your part, though in fairness you could be too stupid to know any better.
First - Where in the speech does Obama apologize or say "sorry"?
Second - Where does he "promise" a world with out nuclear weapons?
In the article you quoted, that you were too stupid/dishonest to read - "He opened his appearance with a 25-minute prepared speech in which he set a dramatic, long-term goal of "a world without nuclear weapons."
No promise, just a long term goal.
Funny thing is look at St. Reagan’s 1985 inaugural address – “We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/reagan2.asp
Let’s hope Obama can do actually do the job…
Remove your lips from Obamas a$$ for one second and try to see past his hypnotic talking points. His words without meaning work on you simpletons, but words DO mean something to the rest of the world.
HOW will allowing N Korea to get nukes relate to a "long term goal of a world without nuclear weapons"? Here you mindless a$$-kissing democrap moron. Read what N Korea has done WHILE YOUR HERO OBAMA HAS BEEN IN OFFICE and while you have been sucking his a$$.
http://news.aol.com/article/north-korea-missile-test/497057
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_nuclear
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/5111144/US-condemns-North-Korea-missile-test.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/19/2009-06-19_hawaii_getting_antimissile_defense_system_after_north_korea_test_threat.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/26/AR2009032600414.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/29/nkorea.missile/
By the way, REAGAN IS NOT PRESIDENT and has not been for quite a while. Do you read the papers? Oh, I forgot. No you do not read, you do not watch news, you are told what to think by your puppet masters at MoveOn.org.
If ''CON' is the opposite of 'PRO', does that mean Congress is the opposite of Progress?
I'm sorry - what does any of these links to NK's SCUD missile tests have to do you being a liar. You lied; I called you out and linked to bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with any of it. In fairness I did say that you just might be to stupid to know you’re lying…it’s looking more plausible by the minute.
It looks like the entire world, except SensorG, knows that N Korea is developing Nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them.
Had you bothered to read the links I conveniently posted for you, you would have noticed that they included stories about N Koreas nuclear tests, stories about the United Nations actions against N Korea, Obama's limp wristed response to those tests, N Koreas missile tests, and the deployment of Patriot Missiles to Hawaii to protect against the threat of a N Korea missile attack.
Go ahead and call me a liar. It doesn't change the fact that you are a flaming moron. I've proven time and time again that you are a mindless troll. I, along with the rest of SB readers, are laughing at you.
If ''CON' is the opposite of 'PRO', does that mean Congress is the opposite of Progress?
Too funny...
Well if Obama's sin is that he has "a limp wristed response" , I guess I can take comfort that it's not as limb wristed as Bush response had been.
Your still a liar....Obama neither apologized or promised to eliminate nukes, but don't let fact get in your way now.
He said his long term plan was to have "a world without nuclear weapons." Do we agree on that? If not, here is another link to a quote from a different speech in Prague where he made this quote again:
"Barack Obama drew cheers from an estimated 30,000 Czechs as he declared Sunday that, "I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." " Obama goes on to say in the same speech "As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act".
So how is Obama using this "moral responsibility to act" with N Korea in order to obtain his long term plan of "a world without nuclear weapons:?
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/424493?rel=hp_picks
In other words, please explain to me how letting N Korea obtaining nukes in the short term with Obama doing nothing about it, translates into Obamas "long term" plan of "a world without nuclear weapons."
As far as his apology, here is an article from the Union Telegraph in England where they talk about Obama "expressing regret". They say "The White House is sensitive to accusations that Mr Obama's first overseas trip to Britain, France, the Czech Republic and Turkey was an "apology tour" in which he expressed regret that the United States had "shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" of its European allies"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5430741/Barack-Obama-to-take-pragmatic-approach-to-Middle-East-peace.html
And here is from the White House web site is his exact quote from France.
"I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there's something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-President-Obama-at-Strasbourg-Town-Hall/
I understand the breakdown in communication you and I had. Let's move on from here and have a constructive conversation.
If ''CON' is the opposite of 'PRO', does that mean Congress is the opposite of Progress?
want played here?
We've beefed up security in Hawaii, threatened to put N. Korea back on the terrorist-state watch list the previous administration removed them from...what's the grand state-of-the-art play here now?
Surgical strike on nuke facilities? Mining/blockade of harbors? Full-out invasion? Tie the little munchkin to a chair and force him get a better haircut?
God knows anything U.N.-related is considered weak-kneed, so tougher sanctions by that body is not strong enough.
We could always answer back in 'Operation Paul Bunyan'-style as the Ford administration did 33 years ago;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_Murder_Incident
I honestly don't know what should/could be done to "get tougher."
I suppose that my call for some words or action doing more than condemning N. Korea's dog and pony show stems from the lack of confidence I have in the President.
Historically, those presidents who took the bull by the horns are the ones who are considered effective. President Obama is capable of wrestling bulls--he is charging right through domestic policy and getting things done stateside. An effective president does need to be a leader globally as well. He seems to want to abbrogate that responsibility, and that concerns me.
that this President has been in office all of six months. His foreign policy style is likely still a work in progress.
And, the hard truth is, real options concerning N. Korea are limited...very limited. Just being more aggresive vocally and responding tit-for-tat with whatever nonsense spewed by Kim the midget my guess the administration feels is wasted effort that accomplishes nothing but sound-bites.
I posted the link about the hatchet murders of two Americans in the tree-trimming incident by the North in '76 for a reason. If the exact same scenario happened today, or under ANY Democratic administration, Fox News, Rushbo, and all the other blathering extreme-right-wingers around now would be calling for nuke-this, invasion-that in response.
In general, conservatives were a whole lot smarter back then.
.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ebb9635c-579a-11de-8c47-00144feabdc0.html
"The resolution calls on all states and international financial institutions to suspend aid, loans or export credits to North Korea, except those involving the humanitarian field."
"The resolution bans arms purchases from North Korea, which has financed its weapons’ programmes with the sale of missile technology. It also mandates UN member states to search vessels on the high seas that are suspected of carrying banned items. If the relevant flag-carrier state refused such a search, it would be required to send the vessel for inspection at a nearby port. Any flag-carrier state that refused would be in violation of the resolution and subject to action by the council."
"The resolution came a day after Stephen Bosworth, the US special envoy on North Korea, told a Senate committee that the Obama administration was considering targeting North Korean funds held in overseas banks. He said he believed Pyongyang would eventually return to the negotiating table, but not soon."
"With North Korea so far failing to signal a change in attitude despite the threat of tougher sanctions, Mike Hammer, US national security council spokesman, said: “We have come to expect North Korea to act recklessly and dangerously. But while the world unites to pass a strong new Security Council resolution, it is clear that North Korea’s behavior is succeeding only in further isolating itself.”"
Read UN Security Council Resolution 1874 here >http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/sc9679.doc.htm
If ''CON' is the opposite of 'PRO', does that mean Congress is the opposite of Progress?