Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I think he means business this time!!!

(yeah, I know it's being discussed in another thread...but the title was misleading)

Pentagon: No decision yet on North Korean ship

By PAULINE JELINEK – 5 hours ago

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9917BTO0

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. and its allies have not decided whether to contact and request inspection of a suspected North Korean arms ship that the U.S. is tracking, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Wednesday.

"That's a decision that will have to be made at some point, and not necessarily just by us or this government," he said at a news conference. "I think we will likely take (the decision) collectively with our allies and partners."

He said he didn't believe a decision would come soon...

...It is the first ship to be monitored under a U.N. resolution that bans North Korea from selling a range of arms and weapons-related material. The resolution allows other countries to request boarding and inspection of such ships, but the ships don't have to give permission.

In fact, North Korea has said it would consider interception of its ships a declaration of war, and on Wednesday accused the U.S. of seeking to start another war.

"If the U.S. imperiarists start another war, the army and peopre of Korea wirr ... wipe out the aggressors on the grobe once and for arr," a dispatch from the official Korean Central News Agency said.

Holy crap...I think the little chimp means it this time...









(...don't tell me there's no similarity...)

The chimp is more attractive.

dbackjon wrote:The chimp is more attractive.

The chimp is probably more fit to govern as well.

Are we the only country in the UN? It seems like any time something like this goes down we're in the middle of it. Why can't a French or British ship be in the area and stop this ship? I know we have a much larger military prescence in the area, but Kim Jung Irr wouldn't be as upset if the Chinese or anyone else stopped this ship. My suspicion is that we'll let it go in spite of what we may know it's carrying to avoid getting Seoul bombed.

"Don't you folks realize how fokking busy I am?"

ASUGTO wrote:Are we the only country in the UN? It seems like any time something like this goes down we're in the middle of it. Why can't a French or British ship be in the area and stop this ship? I know we have a much larger military prescence in the area, but Kim Jung Irr wouldn't be as upset if the Chinese or anyone else stopped this ship. My suspicion is that we'll let it go in spite of what we may know it's carrying to avoid getting Seoul bombed.

If we didn't stop the ships that A.Q. Khan used to transfer nuclear technology to NK, why expect that we'd stop this one?

houndawg wrote:

ASUGTO wrote:Are we the only country in the UN? It seems like any time something like this goes down we're in the middle of it. Why can't a French or British ship be in the area and stop this ship? I know we have a much larger military prescence in the area, but Kim Jung Irr wouldn't be as upset if the Chinese or anyone else stopped this ship. My suspicion is that we'll let it go in spite of what we may know it's carrying to avoid getting Seoul bombed.

If we didn't stop the ships that A.Q. Khan used to transfer nuclear technology to NK, why expect that we'd stop this one?

I don't expect us to stop it - my question was more along the lines of why does the US seem to be the sole enforcer of UN policy most of the time?

ASUGTO wrote:

houndawg wrote:
If we didn't stop the ships that A.Q. Khan used to transfer nuclear technology to NK, why expect that we'd stop this one?

I don't expect us to stop it - my question was more along the lines of why does the US seem to be the sole enforcer of UN policy most of the time?

Because the rest of the UN has a different policy?

houndawg wrote:

ASUGTO wrote:Are we the only country in the UN? It seems like any time something like this goes down we're in the middle of it. Why can't a French or British ship be in the area and stop this ship? I know we have a much larger military prescence in the area, but Kim Jung Irr wouldn't be as upset if the Chinese or anyone else stopped this ship. My suspicion is that we'll let it go in spite of what we may know it's carrying to avoid getting Seoul bombed.

If we didn't stop the ships that A.Q. Khan used to transfer nuclear technology to NK, why expect that we'd stop this one?

I believe the UN sanctions against North Korea apply to North Korean arms exports and went into effect as a result of North Korea's May 25 nuclear test.

houndawg wrote:

ASUGTO wrote:
I don't expect us to stop it - my question was more along the lines of why does the US seem to be the sole enforcer of UN policy most of the time?

Because the rest of the UN has a different policy?

If the UN (Key word UNITED) is intended to be a consortium of countries allied with a similar interest, my question still stands on why we're the world's bouncer.

ASUGTO wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Because the rest of the UN has a different policy?

If the UN (Key word UNITED) is intended to be a consortium of countries allied with a similar interest, my question still stands on why we're the world's bouncer.

Because we can be. It's also the best way to protect our national interest - keep our military all over the world and monitor every one elses business. I also think we use the UN as a tool to justify our actions - we want to invade Iraq, we'll say it's because Iraq is violating UN sanctions.

Haraii and Serattle could be gone in a frash.

Wedgebuster wrote:Haraii and Serattle could be gone in a frash.

Donn foget Araska

Wedgebuster wrote:Haraii and Serattle could be gone in a frash.

Our next warning could come in the form of mushroom croud.

ASUGTO wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Haraii and Serattle could be gone in a frash.

Donn foget Araska

Can Parin see Korea from her house in Wasirra?

dbackjon wrote:

ASUGTO wrote:
Donn foget Araska

Can Parin see Korea from her house in Wasirra?

If'n she squints her eyes.

dbackjon wrote:

ASUGTO wrote:
Donn foget Araska

Can Parin see Korea from her house in Wasirra?

You Betcha!!

houndawg wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Haraii and Serattle could be gone in a frash.

Our next warning could come in the form of mushroom croud.

They'll never get a nuke loaded into a missile, much less launch it. Chimp Jung Il know this...he's just testing where we'll draw the line.

I'd wager our intelligence knows how many TP squares he uses to wipe his ass with...

...and whether he does a good job or not...

Anti-American, simpering, global "civil libertarians" have deluded themselves into thinking our country's intelligence services have been neutered through Democrat promoted acts designed to shackle the CIA and NSA. Hughes-Ryan and the 2005 "Gang of Eight" intelligence requirements only stipulate that the information be passed to the legislative branch under strict timeline protocols. There is NO restrictions on sharing that intelligence with our allies.

At face value, it would seem that a destabilized NK peninsula would ultimately benefit China's interests, however, the outcome of an international conflict in the region would undoubtedly attract U.N. involvement, which in the end, (both short and long term) can only be detrimental to China's interests (militarily and in re: their pursuit of unification with Taiwan).

Hence...

...our intelligence will be passed to nations who DO NOT HAVE covert operatioin restrictions imposed by thoughtless liberals.

...i.e...

...missile go "Boom!".

BlueHen86 wrote:

ASUGTO wrote:
If the UN (Key word UNITED) is intended to be a consortium of countries allied with a similar interest, my question still stands on why we're the world's bouncer.

Because we can be. It's also the best way to protect our national interest - keep our military all over the world and monitor every one elses business. I also think we use the UN as a tool to justify our actions - we want to invade Iraq, we'll say it's because Iraq is violating UN sanctions.

That's the beauty of it: We didn't just SAY they were violating UN sanctions. They WERE violating UN sanctions.

AZGrizFan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Because we can be. It's also the best way to protect our national interest - keep our military all over the world and monitor every one elses business. I also think we use the UN as a tool to justify our actions - we want to invade Iraq, we'll say it's because Iraq is violating UN sanctions.

That's the beauty of it: We didn't just SAY they were violating UN sanctions. They WERE violating UN sanctions.

But the UN told us not to invade. The UN wanted more inspections. We invaded anyway, and used the UN as an excuse to justify it. It was disingenuous to do so, but like I said, we use the UN as a tool to justify our actions.

Kim showing his new "mushroom" do.

Wedgebuster wrote:

Kim showing his new "mushroom" do.

Reppies!!

[youtube][/youtube]

The first hole at the Pyongyang Golf Club is a 340-meter (370-yard) dogleg par four, a severe test of skill even for a Greg Norman or a Jack Nicklaus. It was a cakewalk for North Korea's "Dear Leader," Kim Jong Il, when he gave "on the spot guidance" not long ago at the country's only golf club.

"Dear Leader Comrade General Kim Jong Il, whom I respect from the bottom of my heart, scored two on this hole," said the course professional, Park Young Man.

Clearly, the mysterious 52- year-old son of the late "Great Leader" Kim Il Sung is a hero of the golf course as well as of the nation.

Mr. Park, who confessed to having never heard of Arnold Palmer, explained that the Dear Leader shot a 34 over 18 holes, including five holes-in- one, and did no worse than a birdie on any hole.

"He is an excellent golfer,"

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/19/opini ... deric.html

"If North Korea is in the dire economic straits that the world suspects it to be in, one possible solution might be this: Launch the Dear Leader on the professional golf tour."