well we have another dick-tater challenging the UN

[7 of 11]

Will the UN rise to the occasion or will they sit on the side lines while this bully thumbs his nose at it like Hussien did?


Let us see wht the UN is really made of?


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/world/main560322.shtml


the story:

N. Korea Warns Of War 'Prelude'
SEOUL, South Korea, June 28, 2003


North Korea warned on Saturday that it would regard a move by Washington to bring a standoff over the North's nuclear program to the United Nations as a "prelude to war," and said it would respond with a "corresponding measure."

North Korea's official KCNA news agency did not say what the corresponding measure would be.

The communist country has been sharpening its anti-U.S. rhetoric amid tensions over its suspected nuclear weapons development.

The United States has proposed that the Security Council issue a statement denouncing North Korea's nuclear program. Washington and its allies have been pressuring the North to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

The North said it would consider the introduction of the nuclear issue at the U.N. Security Council "as a prelude to a war and take a corresponding measure."

The U.S. "intention to refer the issue to the U.N. can never be tolerated as it seeks to use the U.N. in achieving its criminal aim to isolate and stifle" North Korea, KCNA said.

Also Saturday, KCNA released a copy of a letter by North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun sent to the Security Council, harshly criticizing the United States and urging the Council to take a neutral stance on the nuclear dispute.

"It can be said that now, the United Nations is at the crossroads of whether it will maintain the international order led by the United Nations or give way to the establishment of a dangerous world order led by an individual country," the letter said.

The Associated Press had obtained a copy of the letter Friday, submitted by North Korean Ambassador Pak Gil Yon.

North Korea accuses the United States of setting off the nuclear dispute to create an excuse to invade the communist country.

The nuclear standoff flared in October when U.S. officials said North Korea admitted having a secret nuclear program.

North Korea acknowledged for the first time on June 18 that it has a nuclear weapons program and warned it will strengthen it as a deterrent against being attacked. U.S. officials say North Korea has told them it already possesses nuclear bombs and plans to build more, but is willing to give them up in return for security guarantees and aid.

U.S. officials have said North Korea is believed to have at least one or two nuclear weapons. Since April, North Korea has claimed that it had all but completed reprocessing 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods — a process that could yield several more bombs within months.

The United States and its allies suspended fuel shipments promised under the 1994 deal, and Pyongyang retaliated by expelling U.N. monitors, restarting frozen facilities capable of making nuclear bombs and withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

North Korea claims its moves are aimed at self-defense, prompted by the Bush administration listing it as part of an "axis of evil," erecting a missile defense aimed at stopping North Korean launched, and adopting a policy of preemptive war.

According to published reports, the North also wants nuclear weapons so it can whittle down its large and very expensive conventional force.

But many observers believe the economically isolated North, where famine is a perennial risk, is merely trying to squeeze more aid out of Western donors.


©MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[paraducks]

Originally posted by 7 of 11
Willk the UN rise to the occasion or will they sit on the side lines while this bully thumbs his nose at it like Hussien did?


Let us see wht the UN is really made of?


hahahah... we already know what the UN is made of: A bunch of yellow bellies who make "sanctions" and don't enforce them.


Every dictator who has ever opposed to UN has gotten away with it, why would things change now?

[paraducks]

i think the fact that the US showed a complete disregard for the Un kidn of shows that they DON'T have much a hand in it. They don't have a vetoe vote either.

I'm not saying I agree with what America did, because I'm honestly not sure.

But America and Iraq both proved that if you disobey the U.N., nothing happens, so why listen to them at all?

[FrozenInferno]

The UN sort of stood up to North Korea in the 50s, not so much as to invade it and set up a puppet regime but to send troops to fight and keep the south non communist.

[paraducks]

well something must have gone wrong then.

in north korea they are forced to hate america

in south korea they hate america of their own free will.

something went awry.

[PeaceFroggy]

Originally posted by AntgemUSA
i think the fact that the US showed a complete disregard for the Un kidn of shows that they DON'T have much a hand in it. They don't have a vetoe vote either.

Yes they do...

[paraducks]

they do?

[paraducks]

i dont think there should be vetoe. it just doesn't make sense to me.

[Crazy_Don]

I belive the UN is pointless. They werent going to allow the us to fight in iraq but we went in there and did it despite the UN's approval. Then the UN did nothing to punish us (the USA). this just shows they can be bullied around and have no power to stop any nation from doing what they want. The UN will not rise to the occasion b/c they no longer have any idea on how to deal with crisis situations. All they wanna do is compromise and i do not belive that is gonna stop north korea from making nukes. i think the USA will rise up to put in end to the nuclear weapons program in north korea b/c we are a direct target for a nuclear attack from a north korean terrorist or military attack. I belive we ( the USA ) will try and negotiate and get them to end the program or take them out by force. thats my opinion. I hope i didnt sound dumb seeing that this is my first big post in here. but this is my view!

[paraducks]

Originally posted by Crazy_Don
I belive the UN is pointless. They werent going to allow the us to fight in iraq but we went in there and did it despite the UN's approval. Then the UN did nothing to punish us (the USA). this just shows they can be bullied around and have no power to stop any nation from doing what they want. The UN will not rise to the occasion b/c they no longer have any idea on how to deal with crisis situations. All they wanna do is compromise and i do not belive that is gonna stop north korea from making nukes. i think the USA will rise up to put in end to the nuclear weapons program in north korea b/c we are a direct target for a nuclear attack from a north korean terrorist or military attack. I belive we ( the USA ) will try and negotiate and get them to end the program or take them out by force. thats my opinion. I hope i didnt sound dumb seeing that this is my first big post in here. but this is my view!

i agree with you on the most part. but the US put an end to ANY type of nuclear weaponry? hahaha. yeah right. AGAIN AND AGAIN the US has rejected and pulled out of treaties that call for nuclear and germ disarmament.

[Keith]

Well, I don't think either the UN or the US wants to intentionally anger North Korea. Afterall, they have the means and ability to launch weapons which could kill millions of people. The whole situation does need to be handled but very carefully.

[paraducks]

Originally posted by Charles
That proves that the US is a bully.

:rotflmao:


... well done on THAT discovery.

[paraducks]

i was just joking. sorry you took offense. no harm meant. ;)

[007]

If the UN is still useful in any sense, it should create a complete economic embargo against North Korea. Unlike Iraq, I don't think North Korea would survive for too long with such an emargo, considering it can't feed itself even without one.

[ourmodernred]

I propose the united states gets rid of its nuclear program, and that the same institution which was made completley irrelevant to world issues is dismissed.

[007]

If everyone else got rid of it's nuclear program, then I don't see why the US shouldn't, but that is not the case.

Furthermore, the US uses it's nuclear weapons for deterrence. It is clear the North Korea is an aggressor and would use them for such purposes.

[paraducks]

the united states has ACTIVELY stood against banning nuclear weapons.

[Crazy_Don]

Well im glad to be an american an all. but we will never give up nuclear weapons. this is what gives us an advantage over so many nations. we have the power to destroy the world. sometimes i think we use that power to our advantage. but i also think we are bullying around some of these nations too. i just hope we dont go to far or it could end up nations allying themselves to take us out.

[7 of 11]

Originally posted by AntgemUSA
the united states has ACTIVELY stood against banning nuclear weapons.


And rightly so.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox the 0th]

On a related note, I find it funny that people dismiss the UN as irrelevant simply because the security council did not toe the Americo-British line on Iraq. Sorry, but irrelevance =/= disagreeing with us.

It's also quite funny that the same people call the UN "yellow-bellied" and other such foolish things, never stopping to consider, of course, that the USA is a member (and an influential one at that) of the UN and is therefore hardly exempt from any criticism along these lines that may be laid against the organisation.


If the UN is still useful in any sense, it should create a complete economic embargo against North Korea. Unlike Iraq, I don't think North Korea would survive for too long with such an emargo, considering it can't feed itself even without one.
"Useful"? Oh for fuck's sake. Again, useful =/= doing exactly what Leo Zhadanovsky wants it to do.

But ignoring that, what exactly makes you think that an embargo is going to do anything? Let's face it, embargoes generally affect the (innocent) people of the land more than the supposéd tyrants we're trying to get rid of. The sanctions against Iraq were hideous, and as we saw, did not help matters in the least. In fact they were made worse. Although you say N Korea would be a different kettle of fish, what makes you think Iraq was "feeding itself" in the first place? It wasn't, as demonstrated by the fact that sanctions were seen to cost many lives. Saddam didn't give a shit, did he? So why would it be any difference here?

If everyone else got rid of it's nuclear program, then I don't see why the US shouldn't, but that is not the case.
Why should it be everyone else and then the US, instead of the US taking the lead, for example? I mean, it wouldn't have to be done all in one go would it.

Well im glad to be an american an all. but we will never give up nuclear weapons. this is what gives us an advantage over so many nations. we have the power to destroy the world. sometimes i think we use that power to our advantage. but i also think we are bullying around some of these nations too. i just hope we dont go to far or it could end up nations allying themselves to take us out.
As the country has shown nicely, it does not need to possess or use nuclear weapons to be able to bully other countries around. It can do so nicely through other, more subtle and more devious means. Perhaps this is worse, as it is less outright than nuclear weapons, generates less antipathy and it is therefore harder to take people to task over it.

And rightly so.
Ban the Bomb.

[7 of 11]

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox the 0th

And rightly so.
Ban the Bomb.

banning only works against honest people, but what about the cheaters?

[Zaphod Beeblebrox the 0th]

Ensure they comply, what else?

[7 of 11]

How would we force them if they have the bomb(s)?

[007]

But ignoring that, what exactly makes you think that an embargo is going to do anything? Let's face it, embargoes generally affect the (innocent) people of the land more than the supposéd tyrants we're trying to get rid of. The sanctions against Iraq were hideous, and as we saw, did not help matters in the least. In fact they were made worse. Although you say N Korea would be a different kettle of fish, what makes you think Iraq was "feeding itself" in the first place? It wasn't, as demonstrated by the fact that sanctions were seen to cost many lives. Saddam didn't give a shit, did he? So why would it be any difference here?Iraqis starved partly because of Saddam's regime, which had billions of dollars in assets and yet didn't use them to feed it's own people. However, North Korea simply cannot, even if it wanted to, sustain itself. It is a different situation. The whole reason they are using nuclear blackmail right now is to get some sort of aid from the US and UN. However, giving them the aid would be crazy, as it would prolong the life of the regime. The best thing you can do is to embargo them. It will cause the regime to collapse without a war.
Why should it be everyone else and then the US, instead of the US taking the lead, for example? I mean, it wouldn't have to be done all in one go would it.Because if the US took the lead, there would be no promise that others would follow, and if they didn't, the US's national security would be at risk. The only way to nuclear disarmament is a multilateral way.
I mean, it wouldn't have to be done all in one go would it.In that context, the US and Russia have already reduced their nuclear stockpiles and continue to do so.

[Crazy_Don]

Everbody is gonna have the bomb. its just a matter of time.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox the 0th]

Originally posted by Leo
[B]Because if the US took the lead, there would be no promise that others would follow, and if they didn't, the US's national security would be at risk. The only way to nuclear disarmament is a multilateral way.
Yes, I agree with that (multilateralism). But what you seemed to originally suggest was that everyone else should do it first, then America would follow.

[b]In that context, the US and Russia have already reduced their nuclear stockpiles and continue to do so.
But not with a view to complete disarmament, eh.

[007]

Yes, I agree with that (multilateralism). But what you seemed to originally suggest was that everyone else should do it first, then America would follow.With countries like North Korea, I doubt there will be multilateral nuclear disarmament any time soon.