North Korea Says It Doesn't Need Nuclear Weapons if Not Threatened by U.S.

[NNN0LHI]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBC05VS0BE.html

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea said Monday it does not need nuclear weapons if it is not threatened by the United States, another sign of progress following Pyongyang's agreement over the weekend to return to disarmament talks.

South Korea said Monday its proposal on boosting aid for the impoverished North, to be unveiled when the international nuclear talks resume later this month, will be a cornerstone of efforts to persuade North Korea to disarm. Negotiators from both sides of the divided peninsula met Monday in Seoul for talks on economic cooperation and aid for the North.

North Korea agreed Saturday to return to six-nation nuclear talks the week of July 25 after refusing to attend for more than a year, citing "hostile" U.S. policies. American officials have repeatedly denied any intention to attack the North, and recently said they recognized it as a sovereign nation.

"We do not intend to possess nuclear weapons forever," the North's main state-run Rodong Sinmun daily wrote in a commentary. "If the U.S. nuclear threat to (North Korea) is removed and its hostile policy to 'bring down the system' of the latter is withdrawn, not a single nuclear weapon will be needed."

When N. Korea starts making more sense than our own government it is a sign we are in big trouble.

[Red Fox]

1. More like PR red herring

As if they would ever trust the US.

[mr_hat]

2. But they're threatened everytime we say >

America, fuck yeah!

[acmejack]

4. Dunno about the red herring

How would we feel if China stationed 80,000 troops on our border with Mexico?

[mr_hat]

9. After about 50 years gettiing used to it? >

Probably still be a little edgy, yeah.

But that's no offensive force. They're a speed bump and everyone knows that.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NNN0LHI]

5. Go get 'em Rambo. I'll be right behind you

Way far behind you.

Don

[Toots]

6. And you are on your way to the enlistment office right now, right???

Did you learn that in school or did Rush tell you that?

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. The North Koreans

invaded the South Koreans two generations ago. They threatened to break the Clinton brokered treaty when Bush ordered the oil shipments to North Korea to be stopped -- without that oil, they'd freeze, and they would therefore need to restart their nuclear power program. When Bush replied like a blustering pseudo-cowboy to the North Korean ultimatum the North Koreans, not unexpectedly, did exactly what they said. Bush broke contacts with the North Koreans and the North Koreans kicked out the nuclear monitors. They might believe they have cause to think a US invasion is imminent -- since the Korean war we have been involved in three major wars (VietNam, Gulf I, Gulf II) and round about 20 brushfire wars. The war-mongering North Korean fanatics have been involved in 0 wars.

Grow up.

[mom cat]

22. That is what I remember. The US broke the agreement to send aid

and NK went into an oil deprivation generated famine,along with people freezing to death in the bitter cold. NK had to develop their nuclear energy for sheer survival purposes. Also, the breaking of the agreement sent the message: "we don't care if you all freeze in the dark". If someone did that to me. I would feel like I was being attacked. The US belligerence has exacerbated the situation. If I were NK, I would be plenty worried, The US has a penchant for going after weaker countries...Note how we invaded Iraq after weakening them with brutal sanctions.

[Zorra]

8. Um, the US is a fanatical fascist state that recently invaded Iraq,

a sovereign nation that was no threat to the US whatsoever, because our un-democratically selected "leader" lied about Iraq possessing WMD in order to carry out a long term plan devised by the PNAC, a violence obsessed fascist imperialist group partly comprised of convicted criminals. And the US really IS constantly threatening N. Korea.

After the US already pre-emptively, and without legitimate reason, invaded a sovereign nation, I'd be worried too if I lived in N. Korea. But of course....

[jobycom]

11. Didn't Bush break the treaty first?

Clinton was in negotiations with NK. When Bush took over, he snubbed them, claiming he had no plans to talk to them, right after Colin Powell said they were working out plans. NK's rhetoric and nuclear program got a bit more livid, then.

Interestingly, some insiders don't think Bush meant to break off relations. When he was asked about plans to "talk" with NK back in 2001, he was too ignorant to understand that meant diplomatic relations. he just said "We have no plans to talk with NK," meaning that nobody had scheduled a dinner and beer party yet, so he had no plans. Of course, in diplomatic language, he basically broke off relations, and they responded as though he had threatened them. He had, technically, but some insiders claim Bush was just too stupid to know the difference. BushCo decided to go with it, because it fit Bush's John Wayne image.

As for NK invading SK, and that meaning anything, we lost the right to judge other nations when we invaded Iraq. We have nukes, we invade nations for no reason, we have appointed madmen as leaders, and we are the only nation that has ever used nukes. Our "leader," in fact, claimed at the beginning of his administration that we could nuke NK as a first strike, without provocation.

So we have no right to self-righteousness, and NK has every reason to fear what our madman will do. Ours is no crazy than theirs, and he has bigger pop guns.

[Ironcandle]

16. Maybe a little refresher course is due

to remind people of what we (Dems & Repubs) are dealing with here.

Hoping to unify the Koreas under a single Communist government, the North launched a surprise invasion of South Korea on June 25, 1950. In the following days, the UN Security Council condemned the attack and demanded an immediate withdrawal.

President Harry S. Truman ordered U.S. air and naval units into action to enforce the UN order. The British government followed suit, and soon a UN multinational command was set up to aid the South Koreans.

The North Korean invaders swiftly seized Seoul and surrounded the allied forces in the peninsula's southeast corner near Pusan. In a desperate bid to reverse the military situation, UN Commander Gen. Douglas MacArthur ordered an amphibious landing at Inchon on Sept. 15 and routed the North Korean army. MacArthur's forces pushed north across the 38th parallel, approaching the Yalu River.

After all that, they pull this stunt right in the middle of negotiations:

In Sept. 1998, North Korea launched a test missile over Japan, claiming it was simply a scientific satellite. This launch alarmed Japan, and much of the rest of the world, about North Korea's intentions regarding reentry into the nuclear arms race. In 1999, North Korea agreed to allow the United States to conduct ongoing inspections of a suspected nuclear development site, Kumchangri, which North Korea admitted had been devised for “a sensitive military purpose.” In exchange, the U.S. would increase food aid and initiate a program for bringing potato production to the country.

After all was said and done, we find out that this is what they were doing all along:

The reclusive and secretive North Korea stunned the world in late 2002 with two shocking admissions. In September, the government acknowledged that it had kidnapped about a dozen Japanese in the 1970s and 1980s for the purposes of training North Korean spies. In October, confronted with U.S. intelligence, North Korea admitted that it had violated a 1994 agreement freezing its nuclear-weapons program and had in fact been developing nuclear bombs.

This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is an issue about the security of the Far East, which we have been charged with protecting.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107686.html

[Toots]

17. So a country that wanted to unite it's people is suddenly a world threat

What nation other than a divided Korea has North Korea EVER threatened? We should be terrified of North Korea because???????? Mexico once attacked the USA should we cower in fear of them also?????

[geek tragedy]

40. Ever heard of this small island nation--goes by the name of JAPAN?

Ask people in Los Angeles how safe they'd feel if Lil' Kim gets a missile that can reach it.

North Korea conquering the south would mean a human tragedy of gigantic proportions.

People here like to bash Bush, but he's nowhere near as insane or evil as the North Korean regime.

[Toots]

43. Propagand completely

North Korea has never been a threat to any other country other than South Korea and only then because they wish for reunification. Tell me one country in their entire history they have attacked. I say you are a dangerous bank robber. Just because I say it does it make it true? There is every bit as much evidence to support my claim as there is to support yours.

[jobycom]

19. Yeah, but

What does that have to do with what I said? Are you trying to prove NK has its own interests at heart? Are you trying to claim that they secretely violate weapons treaties? Are you trying to claim that they are human rights abusers who violate international conventions for the sake of national security?

I'm still looking for some significant way that they are more scary to the rest of the world than we are.

Too many Americans have homer-itis. We pretend that what we fear in other nations is not the same as what we do to other nations. Too many people watch their home team struggle and blame the refs, rather than admitting their team has no more right to win than the other guys.

The last nation we convinced to completely disarm its conventional and nuclear military capabilities, we invaded after they complied. No nation in its right mind, or even in a half-cracked paranoid-delusional mind, is ever going to trust us again, after Iraq.

And for a quick refresher course, for both Dem and Republicans: since the Korean war we have overthrown governments, including Democratically elected governments, in Iran, Chile, Panama, Grenada, Haiti, Afghanistan and Iraq; we have tried to overthrow governments in Honduras, El Salvador, Venezuela and Cuba; we have invaded Viet Nam, Grenada, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq (twice); we have fired missiles or bombs into Lebanon, Afghanistan, the Sudan, Libya, and Iraq; we have propped up bloody dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Chile, Panama, in many ways in the Soviet Union, and some in the world would say in Israel; we have without explanation abandoned hard-won treaties on nuclear weapons and environmental issues; we have been caught violating the human rights of our own people (segregation, Tuskegee Airmen, the death penalty in Texas) and of others (Somalia, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib and Gauntanamo); and we have knowingly violated the Geneva Conventions, claiming that they don't apply to us whenever we don't want them to.

In all of that, we have killed tens of millions of people, and caused literally immeasurable suffering. And we have nukes, and a president who has claimed he has the right to fire missiles into seven countries (North Korea included) as a first strike, without provocation.

If you were in North Korea, would you trust us?

Our record isn't very pretty, either. And Bush has proven that he will violate any treaty or agreement without a second thought, and that no death toll is too high. NK would be committing suicide by trusting Bush.

[Ironcandle]

23. Well, maybe we should surrender

and let the Chinese call the shots unopposed.
Do we play hardball? Absolutely. That is the same thing JFK did when he told the Soviets to get those missiles out of Cuba or we will consider their actions war.
Hardball.
Your problem, and apparently the problem with this whole site, is the fact that you equate a country like N. Korea with countries like the US or the UK. We were willing to annihilate the entire USSR and the Eastern Bloc with nuclear weapons during the height of the Cold War. The N. Koreans were part of that alliance and are a threat to a stable Asia. I would have thought I would have found some Democrats that cared about Human Rights and the fight to spread them in this site. Seems that there are only people who see the bad side of the US here. Too bad.

[jobycom]

38. Simplistic to the point of ignorance

You're still cheering for your home team, not able to see any flaws in it, and sure the world owes it a victory. Successful foreign policy creates a situation where both sides can coexist, it does not create a one-sided world based on the victor having the craziest leader and the biggest guns. JFK's policy towards the Soviet Union and Cuba involved a lot of negotiation, and the Cuban Missile Crisis was one aspect of that policy, not its entirety. Bush has no policy towards North Korea except waiting until he can find a good excuse to blow them up. That's not hardball, that's failure. And ultimately, it ensures that sometime someone will make our worst nightmares come true, before we can destroy them instead. It's what was meant by "you live by the sword you die by the sword."

I won't even comment on your Orwellian/Rovean doublespeak use of "human rights," since I don't for a moment think you believe what you said.

[Frederik]

47. Scoop Jackson, is that you?

Onward, Christian soldiers! We owe it to John Birch.

"you equate a country like N. Korea with countries like the US or the UK. We were willing to annihilate the entire USSR and the Eastern Bloc with nuclear weapons during the height of the Cold War."

And that makes us different from North Korea how?

Bush tried the "hardball" approach. It was a complete fuck-up. Let's try something else.

[sadiesworld]

26. Bush plan:

Withhold info from Congress about NK's (possible) secret uranium enrichment program until after the vote on the IWR. Check.

Blame Clinton for appeasement. Check.

Get the IAEA inspectors out of NK long enough for multiple plutonium-based weapons to be built. Check.

Blame Clinton for appeasement. Check.

Try appeasement. Check.

--This has been one royal Bushco fuck-up. Of course, the NK almost certainly has nuclear weapons now so that missile defense shield Bush and his butt-boys in the defense industry are salivating over seems almost necessary, heh?

[4MoreYearsOfHell]

13. Pretty hard to break a treaty that Clinton and Carter set up

when the republican-led Congress would not ratify it, don't you think?

[uppityperson]

14. here's a webpage which should be of interest to you

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/enlistment.pdf

[TahitiNut]

18. "these war-mongering little fanatics" ... you mean Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld??

Out of curiosity, why "little"?? Would that be a racial stereotype? Hmmmm???

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NNN0LHI]

35. See ya n/t

[TahitiNut]

39. 'Ironcandle' sleeps with the fishes

... catfishes and other bottom-feeders, of course.



Yay, mods! :thumbsup:

[AndyTiedye]

20. I See You Live on the EAST Coast - NK's Nukes Can't Hit You

Those of us on the WEST Coast are a bit more concerned about them.

You can be all macho (and so can our pResident), confident in the
knowledge that it would be Seoul, Tokyo, Los Angeles, and San Francisco
that would pay the price.

What you think North Korea would do if we tried to "get rid of" them?
:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

[Ironcandle]

24. Fight, of course

but that is what haas been going on for over 50 years. I didn't mean "get rid of them" as in all the Koreans in the North. I meant get rid of their paranoid communist leadership. That is where the problems lie. Sorry I wasn't so clear.

[TahitiNut]

30. So, would that be called "regime change"?? Preemptively?

Should we just attack? Or should we provoke them into giving us a reason to attack??

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Frederik]

48. Like in "get rid of Saddam"?

That was going to be a cakewalk, right? It was going to make the world so much safer, right? It was going to make Iraq a free-market Utopia along the ideological lines of the Chicago Boys, aligned with the United States and Israel and not on friendly terms with Iran. We just had to get rid of that evil Saddam, and everything would sort itself out.

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. They don't have anything that can hit the west coast yet either.

They were doing well to shoot one across Japan a few years ago.

There's still plenty of time to deal with them once we get the chimp out of office and a grown up back in charge.

[Ironcandle]

33. He's right,

they can't hit the west coast of the US, but they can hit Japan. Japan has no real military to speak of, since we rewrote their Constitutution, so we are responsible, legally and morally, for protecting them as best we are able.

[NickB79]

46. Japan has a very advanced defensive force

Complete with a navy, air force and ground troops. They are barred from using them in an offensive nature by their Constitution, not from possessing them entirely. You are wrong in saying they have no military; they devoted equipment to Gulf War 1 and troops to the current Gulf War (which actually seems to run against their own constitutional provisions).

They also have enough high-level nuclear waste from their nuclear reactors to produce at least a few crude nuclear warheads if they ever felt threatened enough to do so.

[wallwriter]

10. To anyone with a thread of diplomatic fiber in their body,

such a statement made publically is a hugely important overture.

Even Reagan said "Trust but verify."

Too bad this administration doesn't know how to do anything but threaten and attack.

[jobycom]

12. Exactly. They have given a "one condition" capitulation, basically

They have given one condition to giving up nukes. That's a great concession, and it narrows negotiations down to one set of grievances. Any intelligent, peace-loving administration would jump at that. Bush wants war, even a cold war--he thinks it's good for the economy, and for his political standing. So he won't take advantage.

[renaissanceguy]

21. threaten and attack

without any damn reason.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/472476

[Ernesto]

15. Thanks for creating the "axis of evil" chimp

This has got to be thee text book example of history's stupidest diplomatic (?) speeches. (It's done wonders in Iran, too)

[BattyDem]

25. This is what Bill Clinton said a couple of years ago ...

I remember seeing an interview with Clinton and he was asked about the situation. He said that North Korea wanted the US to sign an agreement saying that we wouldn't attack them and they'd give up their nuclear program. He said we should give them what they wanted because if they were sincere, then they would no longer be a nuclear threat - but if they weren't sincere and they continued to build nuclear facilities, the agreement would be null and void anyway. In other words, we had nothing to lose by such an agreement and everything to gain.

Once again, Big Dog proves to be the real leader while Chimpy proves to be the schoolyard bully. :eyes:

[Ironcandle]

27. BUT, what if

they break the agreement from the very beginning? (Which they did) Do we go in and hit their nuclear facilities?

[BattyDem]

31. "But what if?"

So, in other words, because we don't know for sure if they will hold up their end of the bargain, we shouldn't even negotiate or broker an agreement? The "but what if" question can be asked in every diplomatic situation in the world, but if we allow it to deter negotiations, there will NEVER be any diplomatic progress. Besides, I've lost count of how many agreements, deals and treaties Bush has broken ... so maybe North Korea is the country that should be asking "but what if".

[Ironcandle]

34. But what if,

they really wanted peace and the best future for their people, they will make an agreement and stick to what they said they would do. They have chosen not to do this, AND they are unwilling to give inspectors access to their nuclear facilities for verification. This was a sticking point since the beginning. Negotiations mean nothing if you can't verify the negotiation points.

[wuushew]

36. No they did not break it from the beginning

The Agreed Framework dealt with Plutonium based nuclear weapons which are much easier and quicker to weaponize. The plutonium that had been produced up until the Agreed Framework was verifyably entombed and did not see the light of day until Bush went on his pygmy tirade which saw that plutonium removed and the subsequent North Korean withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The ban against Uranium enrichment was never concretely spelled out in the agreement. The North Koreans were guilty of violating the spirit but not the letter of the agreement. In any case it takes years upon years to enrich enough uranium for a bomb, all the while our olive branch should have been very visible.

[Ironcandle]

37. Didn't see this, did ya?

Here is the times that everything happened.

Hoping to unify the Koreas under a single Communist government, the North launched a surprise invasion of South Korea on June 25, 1950. In the following days, the UN Security Council condemned the attack and demanded an immediate withdrawal. President Harry S. Truman ordered U.S. air and naval units into action to enforce the UN order. The British government followed suit, and soon a UN multinational command was set up to aid the South Koreans.

The North Korean invaders swiftly seized Seoul and surrounded the allied forces in the peninsula's southeast corner near Pusan. In a desperate bid to reverse the military situation, UN Commander Gen. Douglas MacArthur ordered an amphibious landing at Inchon on Sept. 15 and routed the North Korean army. MacArthur's forces pushed north across the 38th parallel, approaching the Yalu River.

After all that, they pull this stunt right in the middle of negotiations:

In Sept. 1998, North Korea launched a test missile over Japan, claiming it was simply a scientific satellite. This launch alarmed Japan, and much of the rest of the world, about North Korea's intentions regarding reentry into the nuclear arms race. In 1999, North Korea agreed to allow the United States to conduct ongoing inspections of a suspected nuclear development site, Kumchangri, which North Korea admitted had been devised for “a sensitive military purpose.” In exchange, the U.S. would increase food aid and initiate a program for bringing potato production to the country.

After all was said and done, we find out that this is what they were doing all along:

The reclusive and secretive North Korea stunned the world in late 2002 with two shocking admissions. In September, the government acknowledged that it had kidnapped about a dozen Japanese in the 1970s and 1980s for the purposes of training North Korean spies. In October, confronted with U.S. intelligence, North Korea admitted that it had violated a 1994 agreement freezing its nuclear-weapons program and had in fact been developing nuclear bombs.

This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is an issue about the security of the Far East, which we have been charged with protecting.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107686.html

[wuushew]

41. Hey Mr. Tombstone, I can read too

The North Koreans by and large kept there half of the argreement, read it for yourself.





AGREED FRAMEWORK BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Geneva, October 21, 1994

Delegations of the governments of the United States of America (U.S.) and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) held talks in Geneva from September 23 to October 21, 1994, to negotiate an overall resolution of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.

Both sides reaffirmed the importance of attaining the objectives contained in the August 12, 1994 Agreed Statement between the U.S. and the DPRK and upholding the principles of the June 11, 1993 Joint Statement of the U.S. and the DPRK to achieve peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. The U.S. and the DPRK decided to take the following actions for the resolution of the nuclear issue:

I. Both sides will cooperate to replace the DPRK’s graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities with light-water reactor (LWR) power plants.

1) In accordance with the October 20, 1994 letter of assurance from the U.S. President, the U.S. will undertake to make arrangements for the provision to the DPRK of a LWR project with a total generating capacity of approximately 2,000 MW(e) by a target date of 2003.

The U.S. will organize under its leadership an international consortium to finance and supply the LWR project to be provided to the DPRK. The U.S., representing the international consortium, will serve as the principal point of contact with the DPRK for the LWR project.
The U.S., representing the consortium, will make best efforts to secure the conclusion of a supply contract with the DPRK within six months of the date of this Document for the provision of the LWR project. Contract talks will begin as soon as possible after the date of this Document.
As necessary, the U.S. and the DPRK will conclude a bilateral agreement for cooperation in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
2) In accordance with the October 20, 1994 letter of assurance from the U.S. President, the U.S., representing the consortium, will make arrangements to offset the energy foregone due to the freeze of the DPRK’s graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities, pending completion of the first LWR unit.

Alternative energy will be provided in the form of heavy oil for heating and electricity production.
Deliveries of heavy oil will begin within three months of the date of this Document and will reach a rate of 500,000 tons annually, in accordance with an agreed schedule of deliveries.
3) Upon receipt of U.S. assurances for the provision of LWR’s and for arrangements for interim energy alternatives, the DPRK will freeze its graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities and will eventually dismantle these reactors and related facilities.

The freeze on the DPRK’s graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities will be fully implemented within one month of the date of this Document. During this one-month period, and throughout the freeze, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be allowed to monitor this freeze, and the DPRK will provide full cooperation to the IAEA for this purpose.
Dismantlement of the DPRK’s graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities will be completed when the LWR project is completed.
The U.S. and the DPRK will cooperate in finding a method to store safely the spent fuel from the 5 MW(e) experimental reactor during the construction of the LWR project, and to dispose of the fuel in a safe manner that does not involve reprocessing in the DPRK.
4) As soon as possible after the date of this document U.S. and DPRK experts will hold two sets of experts talks.

At one set of talks, experts will discuss issues related to alternative energy and the replacement of the graphite-moderated reactor program with the LWR project.
At the other set of talks, experts will discuss specific arrangements for spent fuel storage and ultimate disposition.
II. The two sides will move toward full normalization of political and economic relations.

1) Within three months of the date of this Document, both sides will reduce barriers to trade and investment, including restrictions on telecommunications services and financial transactions.

2) Each side will open a liaison office in the other’s capital following resolution of consular and
other technical issues through expert level discussions.

3) As progress is made on issues of concern to each side, the U.S. and the DPRK will upgrade bilateral relations to the Ambassadorial level.


III. Both sides will work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean peninsula.

1) The U.S. will provide formal assurances to the DPRK, against the threat or use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.

2) The DPRK will consistently take steps to implement the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

3) The DPRK will engage in North-South dialogue, as this Agreed Framework will help create an atmosphere that promotes such dialogue.


IV. Both sides will work together to strengthen the international nuclear non proliferation regime.

1) The DPRK will remain a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and will allow implementation of its safeguards agreement under the Treaty.

2) Upon conclusion of the supply contract for the provision of the LWR project, ad hoc and routine inspections will resume under the DPRK’s safeguards agreement with the IAEA with respect to the facilities not subject to the freeze. Pending conclusion of the supply contract, inspections required by the IAEA for the continuity of safeguards will continue at the facilities not subject to the freeze.

3) When a significant portion of the LWR project is completed, but before delivery of key nuclear components, the DPRK will come into full compliance with its safeguards agreement with the IAEA (INFCIRC/403), including taking all steps that may be deemed necessary by the IAEA, following consultations with the Agency with regard to verifying the accuracy and completeness of the DPRK’s initial report on all nuclear material in the DPRK.

Robert L. Gallucci

Head of Delegation of the
United States of America,
Ambassador at Large
of the United States of America
Kang Sok Ju

Head of the Delegation of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
First Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of
the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea

[mike923]

42. Here's how i would respond...

You can keep all the weapons you have, you just have to have periodic national elections. With weapons of this nature, you should have to have some sort of check on the powers of the leaders of not only North Korea, but any country.

[Tempest]

44. So you believe we should dictate their politics?

Isn't that being, well, DICTATORS?


I'd tell you to stick it up your ass and develop the weapons anyway.

It's not like the U.S. can do anything about it in the first place.

[bribri16]

45. No country would need nukes if not threatened by US/UK/IS/Russia

Everybody else needs them to defend against the unholy alliance of the US/UK/Israel/Russia. Only ones to attack unprovoked since WWII.

[Disturbed]

49. If you were in North Korea, would you trust us?

Uh.... No. I live in CA and don't trust the Bush Regime. btw Shrub isn't the real problem because he is a sock puppet. It's his bosses that are the real problem. It seems to me that the Bush Regime policy is to starve the people of NK in order for their Regime to implode. If they played ball with the U.S. Capitalist Multi-Corps like China is doing would there be a problem?