Jump to content
Login with your Gmail HERE and start posting in seconds! ×

Hillary Clinton says U.S. threats of war with N.Korea 'dangerous, short-sighted'

webfact

By webfact
in World News

 Share

Recommended Posts

webfact Grand Master Member

webfact

Posted
Posted

Hillary Clinton says U.S. threats of war with N.Korea 'dangerous, short-sighted'

By Christine Kim

 

tag-reuters.jpg

Former U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton speaks during an interview with Mariella Frostrup at the Cheltenham Literature Festival in Cheltenham, Britain October 15, 2017. REUTERS/Rebecca Naden

     

    SEOUL (Reuters) - Former U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that "cavalier" threats to start war on the Korean peninsula are "dangerous and short-sighted", urging the United States to get all parties to the negotiating table.

     

    Clinton also called on China to take a "more outfront role" in enforcing sanctions against North Korea aimed at curbing its missile and nuclear development.

     

    "There is no need for us to be bellicose and aggressive (over North Korea)," said Clinton at a forum in the South Korean capital Seoul, stressing the need for greater pressure on North Korea and diplomacy to bring Pyongyang to talks.

     

    Tensions between Pyongyang and Washington have soared following a series of weapons tests by North Korea and a string of increasingly bellicose exchanges between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

     

    "Picking fights with Kim Jong Un puts a smile on his face," Clinton said, without mentioning Trump by name.

     

    Clinton also indirectly referred to Trump's comments towards North Korea on social media, saying "the insults on Twitter have benefited North Korea, I don't think they've benefited the United States".

     

    The war of words has seen Trump call the North Korean leader "little rocket man" on a suicide mission, and vowed to destroy North Korea if it threatens the United States or its allies. North Korea has in turn called Trump "mentally deranged" and a "mad dog".

     

    Talks between the adversaries have long been urged by China in particular, but Washington and its ally Japan have been reluctant to sit down at the table while Pyongyang continues to pursue a goal of developing a nuclear-tipped missile capable of hitting the United States.

     

    On Tuesday, Deputy Secretary of State John J. Sullivan said the United States didn't rule out the eventual possibility of direct talks with North Korea.

     

    North Korea’s Deputy U.N. Ambassador Kim In Ryong told a U.N. General Assembly committee on Monday that the situation on the Korean peninsula was now touch-and-go point "and a nuclear war may break out any moment".

     

    CHINA PRESSURE

     

    Clinton, a former U.S. secretary of state, said Washington's allies have increasingly been expressing concerns over the reliability of the United States, advising Washington to avoid becoming distracted with North Korean threats and be "as forcefully patient" as possible.

     

    Regarding China's role in reining in North Korea, Clinton said Beijing would be better off trying to "tighten and absolutely enforce sanctions" against North Korea.

     

    North Korea's relationship with its main ally and trading partner China have been strained by the rapid pursuit of its weapons programmes, with many of Pyongyang's recent tests coinciding with major Chinese events.

     

    There had been fears that North Korea would conduct another test to coincide with the start of China's five-yearly party congress on Wednesday. Instead, Pyongyang sent Beijing a congratulatory message.

     

    The central committee of the North's ruling Workers' Party of Korea said China had made "great progress in accomplishing the cause of building socialism with Chinese characteristics" under the guidance of the Communist Party of China.

     

    "We are greatly pleased over this," the party central committee said in the message carried by the official KCNA news agency, adding that it "sincerely wished" the China congress "satisfactory success."

     

    CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS

     

    Clinton said China's retaliatory actions against South Korean companies doing business in China following the deployment of a U.S. anti-missile system in South Korea would be unnecessary had Beijing done a better job containing and deterring North Korea.

     

    China has been curbing South Korean businesses there since Seoul decided to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) system, saying its powerful radar could be used to pierce its territory. South Korea and the United States have repeatedly told China that THAAD aims only to defend against North Korea's missile threats.

     

    "The Chinese can't have it both ways. They can't do less than they could to tighten economic pressures on North Korea and same time discount the real threat South Korea and its citizens face," she said.

     

    (Reporting by Christine Kim; Additional reporting by Soyoung Kim; Editing by Lincoln Feast and Michael Perry)

     
    reuters_logo.jpg
    -- © Copyright Reuters 2017-10-18
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Jingthing Legendary Member

    Jingthing

    Posted
    Posted
    7 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

    Didn't she threaten to bomb Iran at one time?

    I don't know. 

    Instead of throwing such a bomb on this thread totally out of context, why don't you research it and provide the information about that in the historical context that it happened, IF it happened.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Jingthing Legendary Member

    Jingthing

    Posted
    Posted (edited)
    9 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

     

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/23/hillaryclinton.iran

    Thanks for finding that.

    Yes, that's in a similar neighborhood of bellicose but note some major differences.

    But I think it has value that you brought this up. Here we can the difference between a professional (Clinton) and an off the rails unqualified hot head (trump). 

     

    She was in campaign mode. Understood to be a time of overblown rhetoric for all.

     

    She didn't use juvenile personal insults.

     

    The actual "threat" was much more nuanced and somewhat INDIRECT within the actual sentence. In other words, more diplomatic, which you would expect from an experienced Secretary of State.

     

    "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.

    Edited by Jingthing
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Khun Han Senior Member

    Khun Han

    Posted
    Posted
    22 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

    Thanks for finding that.

    Yes, that's in a similar neighborhood of bellicose but note some major differences.

    But I think it has value that you brought this up. Here we can the difference between a professional (Clinton) and an off the rails unqualified hot head (trump). 

     

    She was in campaign mode. Understood to be a time of overblown rhetoric for all.

     

    She didn't use juvenile personal insults.

     

    The actual "threat" was much more nuanced and somewhat INDIRECT within the actual sentence. In other words, more diplomatic, which you would expect from an experienced Secretary of State.

     

    "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.

     

    There's a video on youtube of the interview in question. It's worth watching. She appears to get quite excited (almost evangelical) about it!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Jingthing Legendary Member

    Jingthing

    Posted
    Posted (edited)
    2 minutes ago, Just1Voice said:

    Can't the lying, cheating, murdering, ignorant old hag just DIE and do the world a favor?

     

    You sound like a real sweetheart.

    More evidence (as if we needed it) that MISOGYNY was an important factor in her loss.

    A remarkably qualified reasonable woman vs. a dangerous incompetent unqualified clown.

    Edited by Jingthing
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Khun Han Senior Member

    Khun Han

    Posted
    Posted
    2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

    You sound like a real sweetheart.

    More evidence (as if we needed it) that MISOGYNY was an important factor in her loss.

    A remarkably qualified reasonable woman vs. a dangerous incompetent unqualified clown.

     

    They're both bare faced liars who would sell their own mother if it suited their interests. What a choice you Americans had last year! And we think our politics in the UK is a mess!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Jingthing Legendary Member

    Jingthing

    Posted
    Posted (edited)
    6 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

     

    They're both bare faced liars who would sell their own mother if it suited their interests. What a choice you Americans had last year! And we think our politics in the UK is a mess!

    No, you are totally wrong.

    They are not equivalently evil in any way.

    All politicians lie. Yes.

    This has been objectively studied.

    Hillary Clinton lies at a totally normal level for a politician. 

    trump lies much more than any politician in American history.

    If you're suggesting that the choice should have been based only based on LYING, Hillary Clinton was a vastly superior choice than the clown potus. 

     

    https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015-12-21/fact-checking-website-donald-trump-lies-76-percent-of-the-time

     

    "Most of What Donald Trump Says is B.S., Fact-Checking Website Says"

     

     

     

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/opinion/sunday/clintons-fibs-vs-trumps-huge-lies.html

    "Clinton’s Fibs vs. Trump’s Huge Lies

    ...
    One metric comes from independent fact-checking websites. As of Friday, PolitiFact had found 27 percent of Clinton’s statements that it had looked into were mostly false or worse, compared with 70 percent of Trump’s. It said 2 percent of Clinton’s statements it had reviewed were egregious “pants on fire” lies, compared with 19 percent of Trump’s. So Trump has nine times the share of flat-out lies as Clinton."

     

    Edited by Jingthing
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    riclag Platinum Member

    riclag

    Posted
    Posted (edited)
    4 hours ago, rgraham said:

    The liberals are sure having a hard time accepting the fact that they put Donald Trump in the White House.

    Let's one up you. The liberals are surly having a hard time figuring who will be qualified to oppose Twitterman in 2020

    Edited by riclag
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now
     Share
    Go to topic listing

    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      • No registered users viewing this page.










    ×
    ×
    • Create New...