Putin Urged to Deploy Nuclear Weapons to Expedite War and Sever NATO Supply Routes

[rooster59]

Tillerson urges long halt to North Korea weapons tests before any talks

By Michelle Nichols

 

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson speaks during the United Nations Security Council meeting on North Korea's nuclear program at U.N. headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., December 15, 2017. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

 

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Friday urged North Korea to carry out a "sustained cessation" of weapons testing to allow the two countries to hold talks about Pyongyang's nuclear and missile programs.

 

"North Korea must earn its way back to the table. The pressure campaign must and will continue until denuclearisation is achieved," Tillerson told a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on North Korea's weapons programs. He did not specify how long the lull should last.

 

He told reporters after the meeting that the United States would not accept any preconditions for talks with North Korea.

 

Tillerson had raised hopes this week that the United States and North Korea could negotiate to resolve their standoff when he said that the United States was “ready to talk any time North Korea would like to talk."

 

But the White House distanced itself from those remarks by Tillerson and said that now is not the time for negotiations.

 

North Korea's ambassador to the United Nations on Friday made no mention of Tillerson's call for a halt to testing when he addressed the same U.N. meeting.

 

Ambassador Ja Song Nam said his country would not pose a threat to any state, as long as its interests were not infringed upon.

 

He described the Security Council session as "a desperate measure plotted by the U.S. being terrified by the incredible might of our Republic that has successfully achieved the great historic cause of completing the state nuclear force."

 

LITTLE INTEREST

 

North Korea has made clear it has little interest in negotiations with the United States until it has developed the ability to hit the U.S. mainland with a nuclear-tipped missile, something most experts say it has yet to prove.

 

North Korea conducted missile tests at a steady pace since April, then paused in September after firing a rocket that passed over Japan's Hokkaido island.

 

But it renewed tests in November when it fired a new type of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), the Hwasong-15, which flew higher and further than previous tests.

 

Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono told the Security Council that North Korea was "nowhere near ready" to abandon its nuclear and missile programs and was not interested in a meaningful dialogue. He said any lull in missile tests did not mean that North Korea was sitting idly.

 

“The latest launch was conducted 75 days after North Korea’s provocations in September. Some optimistic views labelled 75 days of silence as a positive signal. However, the missile launch in November made it clear that North Korea was continuing to relentlessly develop its nuclear and missile programs even while they were seemingly silent," Kono said.

 

Tillerson also urged China and Russia on Friday to increase pressure on North Korea by going beyond the implementation of U.N. sanctions but the two countries were wary of the idea.

 

China’s Deputy U.N. Ambassador Wu Haitao said all parties must implement U.N. sanctions, but added that unilateral sanctions undermine the unity of the Security Council and “hurt the legitimate right and interests of other countries and should therefore be abandoned."

 

Russian U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said Moscow was committed to implementing U.N. sanctions on North Korea and echoed China's concerns about unilateral sanctions.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump wants China, North Korea's main ally and trading partner, to impose an oil embargo on Pyongyang, over and above Beijing's adherence to U.N. sanctions.

 

The Security Council has ratcheted up sanctions on North Korea over its weapons programs since 2006.

 

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told the Security Council on Friday it was time to immediately re-establish and strengthen communication channels with North Korea, including inter-Korean and military-to-military channels, to reduce the risk of a misunderstanding escalating into conflict.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-12-16

[retarius]

Tillerson originally said there would be no preconditions for talks....my understanding of the English language, tells me that Tillerson is now setting a precondition....ie a condition set prior to talks beginning.

How can anyone conduct negotiations with people whose word means absolutely nothing at all?

The Russian/Chinese idea of stopping NK tests of rockets/nukes, while the US stops its invasion drills 12 miles off the NK coast.

[craigt3365]

Just now, retarius said:

Tillerson originally said there would be no preconditions for talks....my understanding of the English language, tells me that Tillerson is now setting a precondition....ie a condition set prior to talks beginning.

How can anyone conduct negotiations with people whose word means absolutely nothing at all?

The Russian/Chinese idea of stopping NK tests of rockets/nukes, while the US stops its invasion drills 12 miles off the NK coast.

I believe Tillerson got taken down by the White House.  Trump apparently didn't like his approach.  Sadly.

 

But, talks have been going on for decades.  It's always been up to North Korea to come to the table.  But as we know, the Kim family has no desire.

 

Perhaps it's time to get more aggressive with them.  Talks have gotten us nowhere.  As officials have said, North Korea knows where the door is to start negotiations.  It's up to them to walk through it.  It's been there for decades.

[Srikcir]

7 hours ago, rooster59 said:

now is not the time for negotiations.

"the North would first have to change its behavior, including but not limited to halting nuclear and missile tests."

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/12/13/north-korea-had-spurned-talks-with-u-s-due-to-trumps-latest-sanctions/

Trump not only wants preconditions to start talks but in effect a virtual surrender of North Korean sovereignty. When the North Korean dictator holds power through military might, such an approach is Dead On Arrival

Meanwhile, while Tillerson was offering to talk about anything - "Let's just meet, and we can talk about the weather if you want" - Trump imposes US sanctions.

Trump is severely limiting Jung-On's nonmilitary options, perhaps intentionally.

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, Srikcir said:

"the North would first have to change its behavior, including but not limited to halting nuclear and missile tests."

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/12/13/north-korea-had-spurned-talks-with-u-s-due-to-trumps-latest-sanctions/

Trump not only wants preconditions to start talks but in effect a virtual surrender of North Korean sovereignty. When the North Korean dictator holds power through military might, such an approach is Dead On Arrival

Meanwhile, while Tillerson was offering to talk about anything - "Let's just meet, and we can talk about the weather if you want" - Trump imposes US sanctions.

Trump is severely limiting Jung-On's nonmilitary options, perhaps intentionally.

Here's the precondition.  Not a bad request.  And I see nowhere anybody has ever said they need to surrender their sovereignty.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/15/politics/tillerson-un-north-korea/index.html

Quote

Tillerson clarified that "a sustained cessation of North Korea's threatening behavior must occur before talks can begin. North Korea must earn its way back to the table."

 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Here's the precondition.  Not a bad request.  And I see nowhere anybody has ever said they need to surrender their sovereignty.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/15/politics/tillerson-un-north-korea/index.html

 

Again, one-sided view.

 

Following the Russian/Chinese proposal where both sides make concessions and come back to the negotiating table would be much more productive.

[craigt3365]

16 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Again, one-sided view.

 

Following the Russian/Chinese proposal where both sides make concessions and come back to the negotiating table would be much more productive.

Depends on your perspective.  I don't see the West as the aggressor here.  Remember, it's not just the US.  It's the entire UNSC and about 50 nations joining together. 

 

Easy for NK to back down, but we know why Kim won't.  He's a dictator.

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

And I see nowhere anybody has ever said they need to surrender their sovereignty.

Sovereignty: a country's independent authority and right of self-control. M-W Dictionary

It is my interpretation and could quite possibly be Jung-On's interpretation as well.

Words do matter.

When you have a dictator who demands virtual god status in his country, complying with a demand from a foreign power for unilateral "change in behavior" does impinge on North Korea's sovereignty. Meanwhile, the US refuses any pre-condition for itself.

A very poor and ignorant approach to negotiation.

[punchjudy]

when you have a global bully like the USA roaming around, who can blame them for wanting nukes.

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Depends on your perspective.  I don't see the West as the aggressor here.  Remember, it's not just the US.  It's the entire UNSC and about 50 nations joining together. 

 

Easy for NK to back down, but we know why Kim won't.  He's a dictator.

Doesn't matter who you see as the aggressor, it is one sided when there is a dispute between 2 countries, and the strongest one requires from the weaker one to back down before it will get hurt, at the same time refusing to back down even a little bit itself.

 

 

[craigt3365]

10 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Sovereignty: a country's independent authority and right of self-control. M-W Dictionary

It is my interpretation and could quite possibly be Jung-On's interpretation as well.

Words do matter.

When you have a dictator who demands virtual god status in his country, complying with a demand from a foreign power for unilateral "change in behavior" does impinge on North Korea's sovereignty. Meanwhile, the US refuses any pre-condition for itself.

A very poor and ignorant approach to negotiation.

A very poor and ignorant approach to negotiation is to threaten your neighbors with annihilation.  I don't believe Japan nor SK has ever done that.  Nor tried to assassinate their leaders.  Only NK.

 

Sovereignty is fine until it impacts others.  Especially with violent means.  Which has been what NK has been doing for years.

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Doesn't matter who you see as the aggressor, it is one sided when there is a dispute between 2 countries, and the strongest one requires from the weaker one to back down before it will get hurt, at the same time refusing to back down even a little bit itself.

 

 

Good point.  The 50 countries asking NK to stop their nuclear program are much more powerful then they are. 

 

Amazing some actually stand up for NK.  Boggles my mind.

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, punchjudy said:

when you have a global bully like the USA roaming around, who can blame them for wanting nukes.

Especially when you are a dictator who's abused his people and now threatens neighboring countries.  His only way out.  Sadly. I'm sure pictures of Saddam Hussein coming out of a hole in the ground haunts him every day. LOL

 

Luckily, the world knows his game and has called him on it.

[Srikcir]

20 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Following the Russian/Chinese proposal where both sides make concessions and come back to the negotiating table would be much more productive.

Which actually takes us back to Tillerson's offer to talk about anything like the weather wherein neither side makes a pre-condition.

 

Easy for Russia and China to tell North Korea and US to make concessions while they both distance themselves from the talks with no concessions. Both have the potential to benefit more from US concessions than North Korea concessions if offered. Proposal is a nonstarter.

 

The most meaningful dialog with North Korea recently was with the UN Envoy. Perhaps the UN can offer a talks moderator or facilitator who is not a stakeholder in the region's security and trusted by Russia, China, the US and other affected nations to lead the talks. But I fear that Trump's ego is too fragile not to control the process.

 

 

[khunken]

26 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

A very poor and ignorant approach to negotiation is to threaten your neighbors with annihilation.  I don't believe Japan nor SK has ever done that.  Nor tried to assassinate their leaders.  Only NK.

 

Sovereignty is fine until it impacts others.  Especially with violent means.  Which has been what NK has been doing for years.

Rubbish. NK supposed threats are not negotiation but a counter to the US-SK wargames which they perceive, rightly or wrongly, as a threat to their sovereignty.

 

BTW ask all Koreans and Chinese about Japanese invasions and slaughter - they still haven't forgotten.

 

Also you need to get it into your biased head that defending NK's sovereighty is not 'supporting NK or Kim' but having a more balanced opinion than you seem to possess.

 

[craigt3365]

13 minutes ago, khunken said:

Rubbish. NK supposed threats are not negotiation but a counter to the US-SK wargames which they perceive, rightly or wrongly, as a threat to their sovereignty.

 

BTW ask all Koreans and Chinese about Japanese invasions and slaughter - they still haven't forgotten.

 

Also you need to get it into your biased head that defending NK's sovereighty is not 'supporting NK or Kim' but having a more balanced opinion than you seem to possess.

 

Rubbish.  US-SK war games are due to NK invading the south and causing massive casualties.  Place the blame properly.  It started with NK.  They fired first.  And without help from a coalition of forces from 21 nations, NK would have wiped SK out.  Probably your nation was included in that coalition.

 

Japanese invasions is off topic.

 

I'm all for NK's sovereignty.  Along with the leaders of 50 nations, yours included, I'm against their current nuclear weapons program.  It's hardly peaceful.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Good point.  The 50 countries asking NK to stop their nuclear program are much more powerful then they are. 

 

Amazing some actually stand up for NK.  Boggles my mind.

 

Most of this is anti-US rather than pro-NK.

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Rubbish.  US-SK war games are due to NK invading the south and causing massive casualties.  Place the blame properly.  It started with NK.  They fired first.  And without help from a coalition of forces from 21 nations, NK would have wiped SK out.  Probably your nation was included in that coalition.

 

Japanese invasions is off topic.

 

I'm all for NK's sovereignty.  Along with the leaders of 50 nations, yours included, I'm against their current nuclear weapons program.  It's hardly peaceful.

Please stop pretending you have a balanced view on this.

[Morch]

Negotiations, in general, are not about "fair", but about sides applying leverage and power. The effective balance in this situation could be argued this way or that.  Concessions being tit-for-tat is no scripture.

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Please stop pretending you have a balanced view on this.

So you are saying what I posted is wrong?

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Please stop pretending you have a balanced view on this.

 

Is that a general comment? Seems it would apply to many of the regular participants arguing either way.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Morch

[smutcakes]

15 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Rubbish.  US-SK war games are due to NK invading the south and causing massive casualties.  Place the blame properly.  It started with NK.  They fired first.  And without help from a coalition of forces from 21 nations, NK would have wiped SK out.  Probably your nation was included in that coalition.

 

Japanese invasions is off topic.

 

I'm all for NK's sovereignty.  Along with the leaders of 50 nations, yours included, I'm against their current nuclear weapons program.  It's hardly peaceful.

Christ, again, coming from someone from country who are the only ones to ever use nuclear weapons in world history!!!!!

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Most of this is anti-US rather than pro-NK.

The same anti-US crew come out on most of these threads. 

[craigt3365]

Just now, smutcakes said:

Christ, again, coming from someone from country who are the only ones to ever use nuclear weapons in world history!!!!!

What's that got to do with this topic?  Another anti-US rant? LOL

[khunken]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

Rubbish.  US-SK war games are due to NK invading the south and causing massive casualties.  Place the blame properly.  It started with NK.  They fired first.  And without help from a coalition of forces from 21 nations, NK would have wiped SK out.  Probably your nation was included in that coalition.

 

Japanese invasions is off topic.

 

I'm all for NK's sovereignty.  Along with the leaders of 50 nations, yours included, I'm against their current nuclear weapons program.  It's hardly peaceful.

More rubbish. Korea up to WWII was under Japanese rule and afterwards, following the defeat of Japan, attempted to unite the country with the help of China against the US which has no business being there. All about those awful commies. No, as I said before, my nation does not participate in invading other countries based on lies.

 

If the Japanese invasions are off topic - which they're not - why make the following stupid observation: ' I don't believe Japan nor SK has ever done that.'.

 

No, you're not just against NK's nuclear program, you continually blame them for every problem while absolving the US when the current NK problem started with Bush not fulfilling US promises to provide NK with nuclear power generators and fuel and NK walking away from the agreement. Both sides are culpable.

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, khunken said:

More rubbish. Korea up to WWII was under Japanese rule and afterwards, following the defeat of Japan, attempted to unite the country with the help of China against the US which has no business being there. All about those awful commies. No, as I said before, my nation does not participate in invading other countries based on lies.

 

If the Japanese invasions are off topic - which they're not - why make the following stupid observation: ' I don't believe Japan nor SK has ever done that.'.

 

No, you're not just against NK's nuclear program, you continually blame them for every problem while absolving the US when the current NK problem started with Bush not fulfilling US promises to provide NK with nuclear power generators and fuel and NK walking away from the agreement. Both sides are culpable.

Who fired the first shot?  Most of us know fully well Korea was under Japanese rule up to WWII.

 

Attempted to unite the country?  You do that by killing innocent civilians?

 

RUBBISH!

 

But at least you agree that NK is partially to blame.  We're making progress!

[khunken]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

Who fired the first shot?  Most of us know fully well Korea was under Japanese rule up to WWII.

 

Attempted to unite the country?  You do that by killing innocent civilians?

 

RUBBISH!

 

But at least you agree that NK is partially to blame.  We're making progress!

I've never said they weren't to blame - partially. Real progress will be made if and when you admit that the US is partially to blame.

 

'You do that by killing innocent civilians?' Both sides did - yet again you point the finger. I suppose the Viet Cong were to blame in a later escapade?

[ubonjoe]

A personal attack on a member has been removed. A repeat will result in formal warning.

[craigt3365]

14 minutes ago, khunken said:

I've never said they weren't to blame - partially. Real progress will be made if and when you admit that the US is partially to blame.

 

'You do that by killing innocent civilians?' Both sides did - yet again you point the finger. I suppose the Viet Cong were to blame in a later escapade?

50 countries are asking NK to stop.  I'm siding with the leaders of these nations.  They didn't blame the US, though they could have.  Like they have done in the past, and rightfully so in the case of Iraq II.

 

In this case, blame rests with the dictator Kim. 

 

Let's not stray off topic....

[khunken]

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

50 countries are asking NK to stop.  I'm siding with the leaders of these nations.  They didn't blame the US, though they could have.  Like they have done in the past, and rightfully so in the case of Iraq II.

 

In this case, blame rests with the dictator Kim. 

 

Let's not stray off topic....

Wrong again. Quite a few countries agreed with the UN sanctions but a number of them certainly aren't happy with the way both sides are refusing to talk without preconditions. So, no, the blame doesn't only rest with NK.

As I suspected you're so hung up with US support that you can't admit that it was partially to blame in the root cause of the crisis. Arrogance personified.