Here’s how Kansas’ senators reacted to North Korea’s nuclear tantrum:
Sen. Pat Roberts said, “It is clear the North Korean government continues to pursue its provocative and defiant policies. The international community must quickly and firmly respond to this action.”
Sen. Sam Brownback said, “We will fight tyranny with freedom. We call on all freedom-loving nations around the world, especially the United States, to take every North Korean refugee that legally seeks entry into their country. . . . Over a million North Korean refugees have died of starvation, and it will only get worse, as this rogue regime isolates itself further from the world while more and more people flee such a desperate situation.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- george on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/24
- FORD1ST on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
23 Comments
Well goody for them. If they had exercised some oversight, the Bush Administration wouldn’t have lost its game of chicken with North Korea.
Heckler, please read the following article. It lays out the entire saga of U.S. / North Korean relations over the last 14 years.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
Specifically, it shows how Clinton was ready to go to war to stop North Korea from reclaiming its spent fuel rods, and how Bush let the North Koreans do so without suffering any consequences. These were then reprocessed into the material that North Korea appears to have detonated on Sunday/Monday.
An emptier, more catastrophic policy would be difficult to conceive. Bush needs to be removed from office.
We can’t afford another two years of these reactionary morons and their tough-guy posturing. Iran and North Korea have absolutely, positively, irrevocably outwitted us at every strategic turn.
I see that CF, the head clinton jocksniffer and apologist has come to lay some revionist history on us.
I also see that the filthy traitor yellowback is bleating about taking in more racially useless “refugees”! If there are refugees then they should be settled in China or South Korea, not Europe or America! I can’t wait for the day when traitors like yellowback are hanging from trees, they are deserving!
In case GMC70 or anyone else gets wet pants over my comments, read the following:
The remarks above are protected speech pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court as follows: “Brandenburg v. Ohio” 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) as they are uttered in a context which does not lend itself to imminent lawlessness, AND; do not constitute a “true threat” as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case “Virginia v. Black” 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003) as well as U.S. Supreme Court decision of “Watts v. United States” 394 U.S. 705 (1969) Id. at 708 which specifically applies to this type “political hyperbole.”
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Oh pul-lease, Ian: I give GMC more credit than that. Yes, it’s protected speech–but at the discretion of the Eagle editors. . .
“Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.”A.J. Liebling
http://www.ifla.org/faife/litter/subject/press.htm
Had you, however, dared to suggest hanging CF (or anyone in particular) from a tree. .. well, I won’t go there. . .
I find it highly amusing that you seek the protection of a good LIBERAL decision like Brandenburg!!
I don’t know how any lawmaker can look us in the face and say that they vote for freedom when they voted to dismantle our constitutional rights with eliminating habeas corpus. They killed our Bill of Rights.
Don’t forget this flashback from the past (2002):
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/10/10/flashback-bush-grants-north-korea-nuclear-funding-in-2002/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F2%2Fhi%2Fasia-pacific%2F1908571.stm&frame=true
Wednesday, 3 April, 2002, 12:06 GMT 13:06 UKUS grants N Korea nuclear funds
In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework’s requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors.
President Bush argued that the decision was “vital to the national security interests of the United States”.
This is probably a blanket statement, but if they aren’t Americans, Bush isn’t going to like them or want to negotiate with them.
Perhaps if we had offered North Korea some sympathy and support for its people, not in support of their government. Which by the way, is following a similar path that China is. Which by they are introducing capitalistic ideas into their country. Cellular phones are now permitted in some numbers, open air markets are apparently open in a few cities.
Maybe we shouldn’t point right at Kim Il-sung, maybe if we had at least tried to be civil they wouldn’t have allegedly detonated a nuclear device.
Of course there’s always what ifs, but I think Bush is a total loser in this one.
Is there any doubt that such bellicosity is a partial cause of the Korean’s response?
“This is probably a blanket statement, but if they aren’t Americans, Bush isn’t going to like them or want to negotiate with them.”
Nah, one doesn’t have to be non-American to receive the wrath of Oedi-Bush Rex! :)
Considering the North’s stance on freedom of movement of it’s citizens and the size of its army that has been pointed out in other threads to keep them in line, both of those statements are just more politicians running there mouths, trying to score some points in the polls vs. legitimate solutions.
Freedom of movementUsually citizens cannot freely travel the country or go abroad. Only the political elite may own vehicles and the government limits access to fuel and other forms of transportation. (Satellite photos of North Korea show an almost complete lack of vehicles on the roads.) Forced resettlement of citizens and families, especially as punishment for political reasons, is said to be routine. [5]
Only the most politically reliable and healthiest citizens are allowed to live in Pyongyang. Those who are suspected of sedition, or have family members suspected of it, are removed from the city; similar conditions affect those who are physically or mentally disabled in some way. This can be a significant method of coercion as food and housing are said to be much better in the capital city.
Conditions in NKorea are right down there with Darfur, Zimbabwe, Somalia, etc. Problem is, how to deal with them? I’d love to see China find a way to seriously intervene. I think it would be in China’s long-term self-interest to see a unified neutral Korea.
Ian Santiago,
Taking a break from dreaming of black cock, are you? How about a refutation of the narrative and evidence I have presented?
The Republican solution is to wait until there is a problem then kill the people involved in that problem.
Doug – you missed “and smear anyone who warned them about it coming.”
OH GREAT, I suppose we have to “liberate” these poor souls too.I have a real problem with spreading liberation through bomb bay doors.
“Taking a break from dreaming of black cock, are you? How about a refutation of the narrative and evidence I have presented?”
When has Ian ever done that? That is, stop dreaming of black cock?
Come now, I aint interested in bestiality or degradation, so stop projecting.
Cf, I refuted your clinton can do wrong bs on another thread.
V.L.R.B!!
The people of North Korea, the ones who are being starved by their own government, have been brainwashed from birth to believe that the Americans are the Nazis of WWII. They are taught that Americans will throw them in concentration camps, torture them, kill them. That we are evil and only want to harm them. There is no legitimate hope for a successful military campaign under those circumstances when the American people have no will to fight anyone.In war, people die, it is not an undertaking given to clean news bites. American’s have become soft, used to throwing a couple of precision weapons into a country and calling it good. This has accomplished nothing. We have become a target for terrorists and Rogue Nations because we cut and run, we have lost our stomach for anything that takes longer than 6 months.
No one wants American service men and women to be in harms way. I served in the Marine Corps during the first Gulf war and am now serving in the Guard. I have other close family members on Active duty now.
The enemies of this country know that we will lose our will to fight, sooner or later, people begin to believe that what was done to our fellow Americans, on American soil, which is any embassy of the US worldwide, wasn’t worth the hassle of actually responding militarily. They then start throwing money at the problems, building light water reactors for underprivileged 3rd world countries so they won’t build their own nukes. (Hmmmmm)
If we continue the cut and run path, as we have in every conflict we have been involved with since WWII, we might as well disband the military, raise taxes, and start the welfare lines for NK, Iran, and any other country that threatens to do something bad to us.
Welcome to our playground, PJ. Don’t recall seeing you before.
“Cut and run”? PJ, do you really think it’s that simple? Either cower in the closet, or bombs away?
So when should the invasion begin? May I assume you’ll be one of the first volunteers to go?
Thank you, this was my first time posting. I know that it is not that simple. I also believe that the use of a military option should always be an absolute last resort. But, we do not make those decisions, and once the decision has been made it should be used to the fullest extent until the mission has been completed. Whether the decision in the beginning to was right or wrong at this point is moot. We are there, I agree we need an exit strategy, but to date I have not heard a viable option from either camp. History of the last 4 decades alone tell em that when we seem to be involved in a military conflict of any scale, if it is not a slam dunk mission accomplished bad guys gone in a very short time, the American people as a whole lose heart, and the politicians step in and campaign against the action, and they get voted in and we pull out. What does that accomplish?
As to being one of the first volunteers to go, I have volunteered and will continue to do so.
Thanks, PJ. But I thought we were talking about North Korea. . .
lol, you are correct, I got a little off topic with the whole thing. As for NK, I stated in my original post that I do not believe a military option in NK is a viable option, nor do I think we are at a point that is on the table. First, the device they detonated is very small, very rudimentary. They are still 10-20 years in my opinion from weaponizing it. Then the delivery system, right now they could personally transport a “dirty bomb” into SK, or Japan. That is about the extent of the threat they pose at the moment. However, that said, I also do not want our government to wait until they have the tech to deliver one to the US before they deal with NK.I am not opposed to bi-lateral talks, but they would have to have UN or some outside agency oversight to be effective in the least.