PDA

View Full Version : UN delays N Korea sanctions vote



Ryan_ZOOM_Turner
07-10-2006, 02:12 PM
from www.bbc.co.uk
UN delays N Korea sanctions vote



US envoy Christopher Hill has been holding talks around the region
A United Nations Security Council vote threatening economic sanctions over North Korea's missile tests has been postponed to give diplomacy more time.

The move came after a Japanese proposal to delay its punitive resolution, for test-firing seven missiles last week.

China, Russia and South Korea have already voiced opposition to sanctions.

China has sent officials to Pyongyang to try to ease tensions. It is North Korea's traditional ally and is seen to have most leverage over its leaders.

'Need one voice'

Earlier, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said Japan would not insist on a vote on the draft resolution on Monday.

2002 picture of Taepodong-type missile
Pyongyang warns UN sanctions would be strongly opposed

But he added that Japan wanted to send the clearest possible message to Pyongyang, and would continue to push for a vote as soon as possible.

"The vice minister of China is going to North Korea to persuade them," Reuters news agency quoted Mr Koizumi as saying. "Under such circumstances, there is no need to insist on a vote on the 10th."

The US has repeatedly urged China to increase the pressure on Pyongyang, and persuade it to return to six-party talks on its nuclear programme, which have been deadlocked since November.

But China has not confirmed it will raise the issue of the talks and after a meeting in Tokyo with the Japanese foreign minister, US nuclear negotiator Christopher Hill expressed doubts about the extent of Beijing's influence over Pyongyang.

The US envoy has been visiting many countries in the region as part of diplomatic moves to decide how to respond to last week's tests.

He said Washington and Tokyo were working together closely on the issue, and called for a united stand. "We need to speak with one voice," he said.

"North Korea has a choice of whether to go for continued isolation or to join the international community," he said. "I hope they will make the right choice."

North Korea raised tensions last week when it test-fired seven missiles - including a long-range Taepodong-2, a weapon which is believed to be capable of reaching Alaska.

Neighbours divided

While Japan is in favour of sanctions against Pyongyang, analysts say it is becoming increasingly apparent that other Asian nations are not in agreement.


There is no reason to fuss over this from the break of dawn like Japan
Roh Moo-hyun's office
South Korean president

Soon after Mr Hill left South Korea, Seoul criticised Tokyo over its draft resolution urging economic sanctions against the North.

"There is no reason to fuss over this from the break of dawn like Japan, but every reason to do the opposite," said a statement from South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun's office.

China and Russia, the North's traditional allies, have also voiced opposition to the UN resolution.

Both China and Russia have the power of veto in the Security Council and, according to Chinese diplomatic sources quoted by Kyodo news agency, Beijing may well chose to use this power.

Meanwhile North Korea's state media has kept up its hostile rhetoric. A commentary quoted the leader Kim Jong-il as saying no ground would be given to US aggressors.

North Korean diplomats have been warning of strong counter-measures if sanctions are imposed.

Ray G.
07-10-2006, 02:13 PM
Because when we think "decisive action", you think UN. :roll:

The only thing the UN's ever been able to act decisively and quickly on is tarring Zionism is racism.

Ryan_ZOOM_Turner
07-10-2006, 02:15 PM
Because when we think "decisive action", you think UN. :roll:

The only thing the UN's ever been able to act decisively and quickly on is tarring Zionism is racism.
What do you think we should do Ray?

Ray G.
07-10-2006, 02:17 PM
What do you think we should do Ray?

We're a few years too late. The only solution to this, and the Iranian crisis, is to pound their reactors and missle sites into the ground with the full force and fury of the US Air Force. And then do it as many times as we have to. No negotiations, no ground force commitments, just bombs at targeted locations.

Because we waited too long, it'll be harder.

Ben
07-10-2006, 02:18 PM
What do you think we should do Ray?Grow thicker mustaches.

Ryan_ZOOM_Turner
07-10-2006, 02:20 PM
Grow thicker mustaches.
:rofl:

Bill?
07-10-2006, 02:22 PM
We're a few years too late. The only solution to this, and the Iranian crisis, is to pound their reactors and missle sites into the ground with the full force and fury of the US Air Force. And then do it as many times as we have to. No negotiations, no ground force commitments, just bombs at targeted locations.

Because we waited too long, it'll be harder.

Yup. Korean War #2! it's a good thing our military isn't tied up anywhere else right now and our nation's reputation is so good that we could easily get world support for something like that.

Oh, wait!

Ryan_ZOOM_Turner
07-10-2006, 02:22 PM
We're a few years too late. The only solution to this, and the Iranian crisis, is to pound their reactors and missle sites into the ground with the full force and fury of the US Air Force. And then do it as many times as we have to. No negotiations, no ground force commitments, just bombs at targeted locations.

Because we waited too long, it'll be harder.
So what you are saying is that we should just bomb the shit out of Iran, and N. Korea, while we are still dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq? Wouldn't that be a trigger for WWIII?

Ray G.
07-10-2006, 02:24 PM
So what you are saying is that we should just bomb the shit out of Iran, and N. Korea, while we are still dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq? Wouldn't that be a trigger for WWIII?

You know what would be a trigger for WWIII?

A mushroom cloud over LA, courtesey of Kim Jong-Il.

Ryan_ZOOM_Turner
07-10-2006, 02:26 PM
You know what would be a trigger for WWIII?

A mushroom cloud over LA, courtesey of Kim Jong-Il.
Also us attacking them.

Bill?
07-10-2006, 02:32 PM
You know what would be a trigger for WWIII?

A mushroom cloud over LA, courtesey of Kim Jong-Il.

don't be crazy. Kim Jong-Il loves movies too much to blow up Hollywood.
he'd probably aim for the naval fleet in San Diego or the bases in San Francisco first. luckly we supposedly have this great missile defense shield that would stop the Korean missles before they ever got there. supposedly. so maybe just this once we could actually pursue a diplomatic solution instead of starting another war we can't afford.

Ben
07-10-2006, 02:41 PM
don't be crazy. Kim Jong-Il loves movies too much to blow up Hollywood.
he'd probably aim for the naval fleet in San Diego or the bases in San Francisco first. luckly we supposedly have this great missile defense shield that would stop the Korean missles before they ever got there. supposedly. so maybe just this once we could actually pursue a diplomatic solution instead of starting another war we can't afford.
If he did attack those cities and they sunk into the oceans, do you think we'd call them Sub Diego and Sub Francisco like in Aquaman?

Ryan_ZOOM_Turner
07-10-2006, 02:43 PM
If he did attack those cities and they sunk into the oceans, do you think we'd call them Sub Diego and Sub Francisco like in Aquaman?
All the people could ride sea horses also. I have always wanted to ride a sea horse.

Blandy vs Terrorism
07-10-2006, 02:46 PM
All the people could ride sea horses also. I have always wanted to ride a sea horse.
Do you think I'll get to meet Lori Lemaris? She's so dreamy....

Blandy vs Terrorism
07-10-2006, 02:47 PM
Oh, and Ray? You're fucking insane. Just wanted to throw that out there.

Ryan_ZOOM_Turner
07-10-2006, 02:49 PM
Do you think I'll get to meet Lori Lemaris? She's so dreamy....
As Sebastian the Crab said "anything can happen under the sea".

Bill!
07-10-2006, 02:49 PM
We're a few years too late. The only solution to this, and the Iranian crisis, is to pound their reactors and missle sites into the ground with the full force and fury of the US Air Force. And then do it as many times as we have to. No negotiations, no ground force commitments, just bombs at targeted locations.

Because we waited too long, it'll be harder.
I really think thats a horrible idea. N. Korea launched more missles than we though they were going to in their test fire, and even launched some from places we were unaware of I believe. If we missed any sites, and they happened to have a long range missle site there, we'd be fucked. And if we missed any sites at all, our friend and responsibility, Japan, would be fucked. That plan is just not a good idea at all.

Blandy vs Terrorism
07-10-2006, 02:50 PM
As Sebastian the Crab said "anything can happen under the sea".
Everythings better, down where it's wetter, take it from me!

Ray G.
07-10-2006, 02:50 PM
Oh, and Ray? You're fucking insane. Just wanted to throw that out there.

:grope:

Kim Jong-Il doesn't care if his people suffer because of his nuclear ambitions. Sanctions would have as much effect as they did on Saddam.

Personally, I wish we hadn't gone into Iraq so we wouldn't have an overextended military that would have a hard time dealing with Jong-Il and Ahmenijad. They're the real threats.

Ryan_ZOOM_Turner
07-10-2006, 02:52 PM
:grope:

Kim Jong-Il doesn't care if his people suffer because of his nuclear ambitions. Sanctions would have as much effect as they did on Saddam.

Personally, I wish we hadn't gone into Iraq so we wouldn't have an overextended military that would have a hard time dealing with Jong-Il and Ahmenijad. They're the real threats.
So you think we should be taking care of N. Korea,Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan all at once? Don't you think that might just upset some of the world?

Bill!
07-10-2006, 02:53 PM
:grope:

Kim Jong-Il doesn't care if his people suffer because of his nuclear ambitions. Sanctions would have as much effect as they did on Saddam.

Personally, I wish we hadn't gone into Iraq so we wouldn't have an overextended military that would have a hard time dealing with Jong-Il and Ahmenijad. They're the real threats.
You know what the best part is? As soon as we leave Iraq, Iran will take it over. Then we're really fucked. That's what people should truly be worried about.

Ray G.
07-10-2006, 03:00 PM
So you think we should be taking care of N. Korea,Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan all at once? Don't you think that might just upset some of the world?

It would, definitely.

In all honesty, though, what are they going to do with us? No country is strong enough to take us on without being annihalated themselves. They can't cut off trade with us, because that would devastate their economy. Not to say we should throw our weight around just because we can, but we have to look out for our own interests.

Ryan_ZOOM_Turner
07-10-2006, 03:05 PM
It would, definitely.

In all honesty, though, what are they going to do with us? No country is strong enough to take us on without being annihalated themselves. They can't cut off trade with us, because that would devastate their economy. Not to say we should throw our weight around just because we can, but we have to look out for our own interests.
Wow, just wow. You actually think that with the way our military is spread out so thin that we can take on all of these countries at once? You actually think we would get support to do this. I know you probably think that we don't need support from other countries but us just going out and attacking countries to "protect our interests" is just plain crazy when our military is spread so thin. That being said, can I have whatever it is you are smoking?

Blandy vs Terrorism
07-10-2006, 03:49 PM
That being said, can I have whatever it is you are smoking?
I'll take two!

jordan michael
07-10-2006, 04:12 PM
Democrats need to understand that there are certain people you can't negotiate and reason with, and will attack the moment you show weakness.

Republicans need to understand that we are in no position to attack anyone because we're so spread out right now, and that you can't respond to everything with "BOMB THEM!", because attacking another country also involves the dead of American soldiers who are just trying to protect you. Don't dig their graves so quickly.

jordan michael
07-10-2006, 04:13 PM
It would, definitely.

In all honesty, though, what are they going to do with us? No country is strong enough to take us on without being annihalated themselves. They can't cut off trade with us, because that would devastate their economy. Not to say we should throw our weight around just because we can, but we have to look out for our own interests.

Yes, but their are some countries that can afford to be annihalated due to their size. I.E. China.

Ray G.
07-10-2006, 04:14 PM
Democrats need to understand that there are certain people you can't negotiate and reason with, and will attack the moment you show weakness.

Republicans need to understand that we are in no position to attack anyone because we're so spread out right now, and that you can't respond to everything with "BOMB THEM!", because attacking another country also involves the dead of American soldiers who are just trying to protect you. Don't dig their graves so quickly.
The vast majority of casualties in war come from lengthy ground assaults. I don't believe that's necessary. Unless you have a specific ground objective, the ideal is simply to remove what you want to remove - in this case, the nuclear weapons bases. It'll take good intelligence and precision, but Israel proved it could be done.

Ben
07-10-2006, 04:15 PM
Wow, just wow. You actually think that with the way our military is spread out so thin that we can take on all of these countries at once? You actually think we would get support to do this. I know you probably think that we don't need support from other countries but us just going out and attacking countries to "protect our interests" is just plain crazy when our military is spread so thin. That being said, can I have whatever it is you are smoking?
No, he doesn't. He thinks we won't get support and that we don't need it. Because "what are they going to do about it?"

Great thinking! The "what are they going to do about it" approach to foreign policy.

DaveCummings
07-10-2006, 04:17 PM
Any military action against N. Korea would be an immensely BAD idea. First off, no one really knows what the fuck is going through thier heads, plus I really wouldn't want to commit military actions against a country that's allied closely with China.

I support sanctions though. As for the UN, am I the only one who really thinks it's a bad idea to give certain countries veto power in the security council? 13 out of 15 countries support sanctions, however, Russia and China who everyone knows supports N. Korea has veto power, so if there is a vote, shit isn't going to get done. That's why I think a massive overhaul of how the UN is run should be in order. You know, make it make a little more sense, have countries that aren't the worst human rights violators run the human rights councils and for god sakes get rid of veto power from any country, it keeps any majority from getting anything done.

Just saying.

Ray G.
07-10-2006, 04:19 PM
I support sanctions though. As for the UN, am I the only one who really thinks it's a bad idea to give certain countries veto power in the security council? 13 out of 15 countries support sanctions, however, Russia and China who everyone knows supports N. Korea has veto power, so if there is a vote, shit isn't going to get done. That's why I think a massive overhaul of how the UN is run should be in order. You know, make it make a little more sense, have countries that aren't the worst human rights violators run the human rights councils and for god sakes get rid of veto power from any country, it keeps any majority from getting anything done.

Just saying.

This will never happen.

The countries that don't want things to change will veto it. :lol:

jordan michael
07-10-2006, 04:19 PM
The vast majority of casualties in war come from lengthy ground assaults. I don't believe that's necessary. Unless you have a specific ground objective, the ideal is simply to remove what you want to remove - in this case, the nuclear weapons bases. It'll take good intelligence and precision, but Israel proved it could be done.


But we don't have good intelligence. We haven't found a man over 6 feet tall on a kidney dialysis machine, and it's been years! Also, do you really think ground troops won't go into North Korea? I don't know a lot about politics at all. I'm not saying I do, but this is just common sense.

No offense, but you're not a soldier, and you're not going to be the one going to another country.

Also, don't take it that I'm saying we shouldn't do something, because I don't agree with you, but I also think that ther are certain people like the ones ruling North Korea that will have no hesitations to attack us, and they will if we show weakness.

Angel of Distraction
07-12-2006, 05:07 PM
We're a few years too late. The only solution to this, and the Iranian crisis, is to pound their reactors and missle sites into the ground with the full force and fury of the US Air Force. And then do it as many times as we have to. No negotiations, no ground force commitments, just bombs at targeted locations.

Because we waited too long, it'll be harder.

You have the intelligence in world affairs of a fried bean. You make yourself sound more clueless every time you post about them. As someone who can actually stand you, my advice is to keep it to yourself before you put your foot so far down your throat it takes the jaws of life to pry it from your ass.

Ray G.
07-12-2006, 05:18 PM
As it turns out, Japan is making moves towards dealing with this themselves. I can't blame them, seeing as they would be target #1. I sincerely hope they have better intelligence than us.