• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

North Korea vowed today to attack the United States if it imposed a blockade

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
1
0
Bring it mutha fvckers... Threats like that will turn you into glass.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N. Korea Vows to Fight Any Blockade
China Backs U.S. On 5-Party Talks

By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, June 18, 2003; Page A21


SEOUL, June 17 -- North Korea vowed today to attack the United States if it imposed a blockade on the reclusive communist state over its nuclear program.

North Korea "will take an immediate physical retaliatory step against the United States" if a blockade is mounted, said a commentary carried by the government's official news agency. And war "will immediately spill over to Japan," it warned.

The commentary, carried by the ruling party's Rodong Shinmun daily, was the latest in a string of blustery threats from North Korea as the United States tries to build a unified diplomatic front to force the government into five-party talks.

The Chinese foreign minister, Li Zhaoxing, joined that plan today, saying his country supported a proposal to bring South Korea and Japan to the table with China, North Korea and the United States. The plan was officially endorsed last weekend at meetings in Honolulu among representatives from Washington, Seoul and Tokyo.

So far, the North Koreans have rejected that proposal, insisting they must first negotiate directly with Washington. But U.S. officials have predicted that the talks will be scheduled within a month or two.

The United States is moving carefully, for fear of exposing differences among its allies. "We're not at the point of sanctions yet. At this point, we are talking about getting the five-party talks going," said a Western diplomat, speaking on condition that he not be identified.

But the Bush administration has insisted that North Korea be treated with a combination of diplomacy and pressure and has publicly refused to rule out military action.

Japan has begun discussing the possibility of imposing sanctions or a maritime blockade and has increased inspections of a few of the approximately 1,000 North Korean ships that call in Japan each year as part of trade relations. Japan remains cautious about using force.

South Korea resists talk of economic sanctions against its northern neighbor.

In Seoul on Monday, Kathi Zellweger, an official of the Catholic relief group Caritas, warned that economic restrictions on North Korea could cause a famine similar to one that killed hundreds of thousands in 1994-95. "Confrontation, isolation and sanctions hurt the wrong people most of the time," she said.

North Korea has said that any sanctions would be considered an act of war. Its threats are largely dismissed in Seoul and Washington as propaganda, though today's direct threat to Japan is likely to grate nerves in that country.

Washington and its allies here have repeatedly underestimated the North's willingness to escalate the crisis, which began last October when the United States confronted North Korea with long-held intelligence that it was trying to develop material for a nuclear weapon.

Since then, North Korea has expelled international nuclear weapons inspectors, quit a nuclear treaty, restarted a nuclear reactor and buzzed a U.S. spy plane. It has claimed that it is reprocessing spent atomic fuel into weapons material, privately boasted to the United States that it already has nuclear bombs and publicly asserted its right to become a nuclear power.

The North has generally insisted that the crisis can be solved only by direct talks with the United States, but in April its envoys sat down with U.S. and Chinese representatives. U.S. officials prefer the five-way talks because Japan and South Korea, as close U.S. allies, would bring added pressure on the North to dismantle its nuclear program.

Asian officials, however, hint that such talks might also bring pressure on Washington to bargain with North Korea over its program, which President Bush has said he would not do.

In the Beijing talks, North Korea proposed a deal to give up its nuclear program in exchange for a steady supply of energy. Washington dismissed that plan after North Korea's delegates said they might sell or test nuclear weapons.

"How to read North Korea's proposal?" mused a senior official at the Japanese Foreign Ministry. "It's kind of like an initial bid. It's never going to be satisfactory to the other party. But it shows some intent to keep bargaining."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7656-2003Jun17.html
 

AnImuS

Senior member
Sep 28, 2001
939
0
0
im pretty sure the US agencies are if not already getting intell into were the nukes could be launch inorder to prepare a massive aerial assults. Things could go south very quick. Personally i wouldnt give into the demands of N.K. And i would call their bluff. We got to handle the situation quickly because as time goes by they have the ability to produce more then the reported 2 they have. Speaking militarily they have an army of 1million(IIRC) and have limited supplies to continue a long war.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,969
3,758
126
They need reminding they're part of the axis of evil. Let Bush, our nationn's greatest diplomat and strategerist handle it.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Where are the Bush and US bashers? The ones who cry we never listen to the rest ofthe world, we always just want to act alone? Here is one case in which we have made every effort to make this a multi-lateral solution, while NK has demanded only the US be present. Hold them to the same standard please, and acknowledgethe fact the US is making every effort to make sure others are involved.....


"The Chinese foreign minister, Li Zhaoxing, joined that plan today, saying his country supported a proposal to bring South Korea and Japan to the table with China, North Korea and the United States. The plan was officially endorsed last weekend at meetings in Honolulu among representatives from Washington, Seoul and Tokyo.

So far, the North Koreans have rejected that proposal, insisting they must first negotiate directly with Washington. But U.S. officials have predicted that the talks will be scheduled within a month or two."
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
they need to feed their own people instead of spending money on nukes and then using them as leverage for aid.

It's rather comical to claim they need them to protect themselves from the US and our "imperialistic strike first" policy, then turn around and ask us for aid, which of course we gave.

Cut the food off, tell them to fvck themselves.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
We act unilaterally when it suits us. How we ask is to tell the UN that if they do not approve of our "request" we will label them irrelevant. We will say "We have UN approval" if they agree, and if we can't get the UN aboard we will ignore them and manufacture a "Coalition". We didn't ask. Bush told. I guarantee that if I came to you and "asked" something of you in that way, you would chafe at the bit, and not be defending me. Of course you might if otherwise you had to deal with me physically. That attitude does no good here. These people, unlike Saddam are dangerous. That limits options. The last thing we need is for the shooting to start.

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Hay I would agree with that 100% if not for the motivation behind the opposition Bush faced. It was based purely on financial interests. I am not saying we do not do the same thing, but if the UN is going to allow the US and other members to subvert the will of the majority, they will be sidelined more often than not. I really think they should do away with the veto and establish a UN military force. Bush alluded to this in his speech just beofre the war and committed US troops, which would be a first. The UN should act now to make it happen and make themselves the relevant force for international action.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
N Korea is why small countries need and will acquire nuclear weapons.
:confused:

CkG
I think you understand what Moonbeam means CkG.

You are a small country, and there is a huge power in the world who had demonstrated that it may invade another because of expediency. You cannot prevent them from attacking by conventional means, but you can make the price of victory so hideous, that you have some deterrent. How? Acquire nukes. A form of mutually assured destruction. Perhaps they do not have the means to attack directly, but they can defend against conventional attacks, and in the case of an impending air attack, they may be able to strike countries useful to us. Will they win? No, but it might make countries less likely to launch a first strike. It is working in NK.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
That's fine and dandy, then build your nukes out of fear, but don't come begging to the people you claim are "out to get you" for food like NK has, what's relevant is we helped.

this is not in reaction to US actions in Iraq though, this is a clear pattern for NK, did the same thing with Clinton.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
N Korea is why small countries need and will acquire nuclear weapons.
:confused:

CkG
I think you understand what Moonbeam means CkG.

You are a small country, and there is a huge power in the world who had demonstrated that it may invade another because of expediency. You cannot prevent them from attacking by conventional means, but you can make the price of victory so hideous, that you have some deterrent. How? Acquire nukes. A form of mutually assured destruction. Perhaps they do not have the means to attack directly, but they can defend against conventional attacks, and in the case of an impending air attack, they may be able to strike countries useful to us. Will they win? No, but it might make countries less likely to launch a first strike. It is working in NK.
Exactly why we must be firm with them, if we cave to their demands - we'd be blackmailed by everyone and everyone with nukes. We need to flush that little turd over there in NK.

CkG
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Hay I would agree with that 100% if not for the motivation behind the opposition Bush faced. It was based purely on financial interests. I am not saying we do not do the same thing, but if the UN is going to allow the US and other members to subvert the will of the majority, they will be sidelined more often than not. I really think they should do away with the veto and establish a UN military force. Bush alluded to this in his speech just beofre the war and committed US troops, which would be a first. The UN should act now to make it happen and make themselves the relevant force for international action.
The UN is a mess. I am not sure how it could not be. Lets say the UN is done away with completely, and some other body instituted. How would you set up binding arrangements when countries will not give up sovereignty? I would not feel comfortable with surrendering the Constitution because Africa, lets say, collectively has more votes and says so. Any international body will always have this problem. That is really another topic though.

I think the UN (in this case) ought to be more active. The problem is what do they (or us) do? Let's forget philosophical and political differences for a bit. Practically, how does one deal with this? Let's say that this situation warrants something extreme, which I am always leary of. Suppose there is some way to assassinate the NK leadership. What is the level of support in NK? Now I realize they live in abject misery, worse than Iraq. But what cascade of events would that start? We did this kind of thing in South America and the Middle East and it bit us so hard, we stopped. So how do we fix this problem without them launching? This situation worries me. Not that I feel in personal jeopardy, but I do not want what this could be.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
N Korea is why small countries need and will acquire nuclear weapons.
:confused:

CkG
I think you understand what Moonbeam means CkG.

You are a small country, and there is a huge power in the world who had demonstrated that it may invade another because of expediency. You cannot prevent them from attacking by conventional means, but you can make the price of victory so hideous, that you have some deterrent. How? Acquire nukes. A form of mutually assured destruction. Perhaps they do not have the means to attack directly, but they can defend against conventional attacks, and in the case of an impending air attack, they may be able to strike countries useful to us. Will they win? No, but it might make countries less likely to launch a first strike. It is working in NK.
Exactly why we must be firm with them, if we cave to their demands - we'd be blackmailed by everyone and everyone with nukes. We need to flush that little turd over there in NK.

CkG
How? I assume you do not want people to get nuked. I agree this is a dangerous situation and we cannot afford to be blackmailed. If we start a regional nuclear war out of arrogance, they will not thank us though. Nice to say punch someone in the nose, but if that gets someone innocent killed, swinging might not be the best solution.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
N Korea is why small countries need and will acquire nuclear weapons.
:confused:

CkG
I think you understand what Moonbeam means CkG.

You are a small country, and there is a huge power in the world who had demonstrated that it may invade another because of expediency. You cannot prevent them from attacking by conventional means, but you can make the price of victory so hideous, that you have some deterrent. How? Acquire nukes. A form of mutually assured destruction. Perhaps they do not have the means to attack directly, but they can defend against conventional attacks, and in the case of an impending air attack, they may be able to strike countries useful to us. Will they win? No, but it might make countries less likely to launch a first strike. It is working in NK.
Exactly why we must be firm with them, if we cave to their demands - we'd be blackmailed by everyone and everyone with nukes. We need to flush that little turd over there in NK.

CkG
How? I assume you do not want people to get nuked. I agree this is a dangerous situation and we cannot afford to be blackmailed. If we start a regional nuclear war out of arrogance, they will not thank us though. Nice to say punch someone in the nose, but if that gets someone innocent killed, swinging might not be the best solution.
WTF are you saying - an "arragant war"? The only way I see this going down is that we tell him to get bent, then he throws a tantrum and goes hot with nukes - then we take him out. Notice, he becomes an immediate threat as soon as he goes "hot" with his nukes, or fires other missiles at surrounding countries. The ball is in his court, and any blood will be on his hands. We have helped his country in the past, and will do so in the future but he needs to follow a few "rules". Our money- our rules.

CkG
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
N Korea is why small countries need and will acquire nuclear weapons.
:confused:

CkG
I think you understand what Moonbeam means CkG.

You are a small country, and there is a huge power in the world who had demonstrated that it may invade another because of expediency. You cannot prevent them from attacking by conventional means, but you can make the price of victory so hideous, that you have some deterrent. How? Acquire nukes. A form of mutually assured destruction. Perhaps they do not have the means to attack directly, but they can defend against conventional attacks, and in the case of an impending air attack, they may be able to strike countries useful to us. Will they win? No, but it might make countries less likely to launch a first strike. It is working in NK.
Exactly why we must be firm with them, if we cave to their demands - we'd be blackmailed by everyone and everyone with nukes. We need to flush that little turd over there in NK.

CkG
How? I assume you do not want people to get nuked. I agree this is a dangerous situation and we cannot afford to be blackmailed. If we start a regional nuclear war out of arrogance, they will not thank us though. Nice to say punch someone in the nose, but if that gets someone innocent killed, swinging might not be the best solution.
WTF are you saying - an "arragant war"? The only way I see this going down is that we tell him to get bent, then he throws a tantrum and goes hot with nukes - then we take him out. Notice, he becomes an immediate threat as soon as he goes "hot" with his nukes, or fires other missiles at surrounding countries. The ball is in his court, and any blood will be on his hands. We have helped his country in the past, and will do so in the future but he needs to follow a few "rules". Our money- our rules.

CkG
Don't get your panties in a bunch ;P

There are precisely two ways this plays out.

Either peace or war. If you decide that the latter is the only way, it will be. Maybe it it has to be, but you do not know that.

So your solution is to provoke him to destroy the area, and when he does, we nuke him, because you cannot assume he isnt holding some in reserve for an invasion. You decide, sitting nice and protected, to stop trying, get tens of millions killed and take him out. That seems... arrogant.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
N Korea is why small countries need and will acquire nuclear weapons.
:confused:

CkG
I think you understand what Moonbeam means CkG.

You are a small country, and there is a huge power in the world who had demonstrated that it may invade another because of expediency. You cannot prevent them from attacking by conventional means, but you can make the price of victory so hideous, that you have some deterrent. How? Acquire nukes. A form of mutually assured destruction. Perhaps they do not have the means to attack directly, but they can defend against conventional attacks, and in the case of an impending air attack, they may be able to strike countries useful to us. Will they win? No, but it might make countries less likely to launch a first strike. It is working in NK.
Exactly why we must be firm with them, if we cave to their demands - we'd be blackmailed by everyone and everyone with nukes. We need to flush that little turd over there in NK.

CkG
How? I assume you do not want people to get nuked. I agree this is a dangerous situation and we cannot afford to be blackmailed. If we start a regional nuclear war out of arrogance, they will not thank us though. Nice to say punch someone in the nose, but if that gets someone innocent killed, swinging might not be the best solution.
WTF are you saying - an "arragant war"? The only way I see this going down is that we tell him to get bent, then he throws a tantrum and goes hot with nukes - then we take him out. Notice, he becomes an immediate threat as soon as he goes "hot" with his nukes, or fires other missiles at surrounding countries. The ball is in his court, and any blood will be on his hands. We have helped his country in the past, and will do so in the future but he needs to follow a few "rules". Our money- our rules.

CkG
Don't get your panties in a bunch ;P

There are precisely two ways this plays out.

Either peace or war. If you decide that the latter is the only way, it will be. Maybe it it has to be, but you do not know that.

So your solution is to provoke him to destroy the area, and when he does, we nuke him, because you cannot assume he isnt holding some in reserve for an invasion. You decide, sitting nice and protected, to stop trying, get tens of millions killed and take him out. That seems... arrogant.
Like I said, the ball is in his court. He gets to decide to either play by the rules or he attacks. Either way I doubt we'll attack without the first move coming from KJI. He needs to realize that we are willing to help him and his country but we won't do it unless he gives up his nukes and such.

CkG
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
N Korea is why small countries need and will acquire nuclear weapons.
:confused:

CkG
I think you understand what Moonbeam means CkG.

You are a small country, and there is a huge power in the world who had demonstrated that it may invade another because of expediency. You cannot prevent them from attacking by conventional means, but you can make the price of victory so hideous, that you have some deterrent. How? Acquire nukes. A form of mutually assured destruction. Perhaps they do not have the means to attack directly, but they can defend against conventional attacks, and in the case of an impending air attack, they may be able to strike countries useful to us. Will they win? No, but it might make countries less likely to launch a first strike. It is working in NK.
Exactly why we must be firm with them, if we cave to their demands - we'd be blackmailed by everyone and everyone with nukes. We need to flush that little turd over there in NK.

CkG
How? I assume you do not want people to get nuked. I agree this is a dangerous situation and we cannot afford to be blackmailed. If we start a regional nuclear war out of arrogance, they will not thank us though. Nice to say punch someone in the nose, but if that gets someone innocent killed, swinging might not be the best solution.
WTF are you saying - an "arragant war"? The only way I see this going down is that we tell him to get bent, then he throws a tantrum and goes hot with nukes - then we take him out. Notice, he becomes an immediate threat as soon as he goes "hot" with his nukes, or fires other missiles at surrounding countries. The ball is in his court, and any blood will be on his hands. We have helped his country in the past, and will do so in the future but he needs to follow a few "rules". Our money- our rules.

CkG
Don't get your panties in a bunch ;P

There are precisely two ways this plays out.

Either peace or war. If you decide that the latter is the only way, it will be. Maybe it it has to be, but you do not know that.

So your solution is to provoke him to destroy the area, and when he does, we nuke him, because you cannot assume he isnt holding some in reserve for an invasion. You decide, sitting nice and protected, to stop trying, get tens of millions killed and take him out. That seems... arrogant.
Like I said, the ball is in his court. He gets to decide to either play by the rules or he attacks. Either way I doubt we'll attack without the first move coming from KJI. He needs to realize that we are willing to help him and his country but we won't do it unless he gives up his nukes and such.

CkG
Talking to them, and setting conditions for aid is negotiating. Telling them to get bent is not.



Me- We have a problem here with a situation

You- Ok, lets look at things and see what can be done



This does not equal



Me- We hav a problem here with a situation

You- Get bent.





See?


 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,469
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
They need reminding they're part of the axis of evil. Let Bush, our nationn's greatest diplomat and strategerist handle it.
Works for me. after we get through with them all these other POS countries with Hussein and Jong type rulers might rethink their ways..
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
They need reminding they're part of the axis of evil. Let Bush, our nationn's greatest diplomat and strategerist handle it.
Works for me. after we get through with them all these other POS countries with Hussein and Jong type rulers might rethink their ways..
Yep, they could determine you are a credible threat and act pre-emptively.
 

tweakmm

Lifer
May 28, 2001
18,436
2
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
They need reminding they're part of the axis of evil. Let Bush, our nationn's greatest diplomat and strategerist handle it.
Works for me. after we get through with them all these other POS countries with Hussein and Jong type rulers might rethink their ways..
Yep, they could determine you are a credible threat and act pre-emptively.
Don't confuse people here anymore than necessary, a lot have trouble enough understanding how the idea of a preemptive strike is wrong, let alone that the idea is a two-way street.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
N Korea is why small countries need and will acquire nuclear weapons.
:confused:

CkG
I think you understand what Moonbeam means CkG.

You are a small country, and there is a huge power in the world who had demonstrated that it may invade another because of expediency. You cannot prevent them from attacking by conventional means, but you can make the price of victory so hideous, that you have some deterrent. How? Acquire nukes. A form of mutually assured destruction. Perhaps they do not have the means to attack directly, but they can defend against conventional attacks, and in the case of an impending air attack, they may be able to strike countries useful to us. Will they win? No, but it might make countries less likely to launch a first strike. It is working in NK.
Exactly why we must be firm with them, if we cave to their demands - we'd be blackmailed by everyone and everyone with nukes. We need to flush that little turd over there in NK.

CkG
How? I assume you do not want people to get nuked. I agree this is a dangerous situation and we cannot afford to be blackmailed. If we start a regional nuclear war out of arrogance, they will not thank us though. Nice to say punch someone in the nose, but if that gets someone innocent killed, swinging might not be the best solution.
WTF are you saying - an "arragant war"? The only way I see this going down is that we tell him to get bent, then he throws a tantrum and goes hot with nukes - then we take him out. Notice, he becomes an immediate threat as soon as he goes "hot" with his nukes, or fires other missiles at surrounding countries. The ball is in his court, and any blood will be on his hands. We have helped his country in the past, and will do so in the future but he needs to follow a few "rules". Our money- our rules.

CkG
Don't get your panties in a bunch ;P

There are precisely two ways this plays out.

Either peace or war. If you decide that the latter is the only way, it will be. Maybe it it has to be, but you do not know that.

So your solution is to provoke him to destroy the area, and when he does, we nuke him, because you cannot assume he isnt holding some in reserve for an invasion. You decide, sitting nice and protected, to stop trying, get tens of millions killed and take him out. That seems... arrogant.
Like I said, the ball is in his court. He gets to decide to either play by the rules or he attacks. Either way I doubt we'll attack without the first move coming from KJI. He needs to realize that we are willing to help him and his country but we won't do it unless he gives up his nukes and such.

CkG
Talking to them, and setting conditions for aid is negotiating. Telling them to get bent is not.

Me- We have a problem here with a situation

You- Ok, lets look at things and see what can be done

This does not equal

Me- We hav a problem here with a situation

You- Get bent.

See?
No, They aren't playing by our "negotiated" rules - so they need to be told to get bent. We don't need to compromise our policies just cuz some nut decides to try to blackmail us into giving him more. We've been "negotiating" with this guy for years, and now all a sudden he decides to be an ass. There are consequences for being such. We can't just keep "negotiating" and negotiating, it is time to make a stand. See what happened when we let a nutball screw with us for years and years?;) I don't want this to end up like the current situation on the other side of the globe. This guy needs to be dealt with now - not pandered to. How many more ways do I need to spell it out? How many "time-outs" do we need to keep giving the nutbags?
Hell- my kids only get 10 seconds to choose to obey or face the consequences - why pussy-foot around with "dangerous" people.

CkG

 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Ok, CkG

Let's do this with one caveat. Your children must live in Seoul until this is resolved.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Ok, CkG

Let's do this with one caveat. Your children must live in Seoul until this is resolved.
You pay for it and they are there. ;)

The whole point is that KJI has been "negotiating" for years and we seem to keep backpedaling. Don't kid yourself into thinking that others aren't watching our moves and plotting their own blackmail schemes. If you want US aid then you will get it under our preset conditions - not "on the fly" negotiations.

CkG
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY