LTR Health Insurance : Self-insurance with US$100,000 Bank Deposit

[snoop1130]

China hits back at Trump criticism over North Korea

By Ben Blanchard and Elias Glenn

 

 

BEIJING (Reuters) - China hit back on Monday after U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted he was "very disappointed" in China following Pyongyang's latest missile test, saying the problem did not arise in China and that all sides need to work for a solution.

 

China has become increasingly frustrated with American and Japanese criticism that it should do more to rein in Pyongyang. China is North Korea's closest ally, but Beijing is angry with its continued nuclear and missile tests.

 

North Korea said on Saturday it had conducted another successful test of an intercontinental ballistic missile that proved its ability to strike the U.S. mainland, drawing a sharp warning from Trump and a rebuke from China.

 

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe spoke with Trump on Monday and agreed on the need for more action on North Korea just hours after the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations said Washington is "done talking about North Korea".

 

A White House statement after the phone call said the two leaders "agreed that North Korea poses a grave and growing direct threat to the United States, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and other countries near and far".

 

It said Trump "reaffirmed our ironclad commitment" to defend Japan and South Korea from any attack, "using the full range of United States capabilities".

 

Trump wrote on Twitter on Saturday after the missile test that he was "very disappointed" in China and that Beijing profits from U.S. trade but had done "nothing" for the United States with regards to North Korea, something he would not allow to continue.

 

China's Foreign Ministry, in a statement sent to Reuters responding to Trump's tweets, said the North Korean nuclear issue did not arise because of China and that everyone needed to work together to seek a resolution.

 

"All parties should have a correct understanding of this," it said, adding the international community widely recognised China's efforts to seek a resolution.

 

The essence of Sino-U.S. trade is mutual benefit and win-win, with a vast amount of facts proving the healthy development of business and trade ties is good for both countries, the ministry added.

 

Chinese Vice Commerce Minister Qian Keming, weighed in too, telling a news conference there was no link between the North Korea issue and China-U.S. trade.

 

"We think the North Korea nuclear issue and China-US trade are issues that are in two completely different domains. They aren't related. They should not be discussed together," Qian said.

 

China, with which North Korea does the large majority of its trade, has repeatedly said it strictly follows U.N. resolutions on North Korea and has denounced unilateral U.S. sanctions as unhelpful.

 

Nikki Haley, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, said in a statement China must decide if it is willing to back imposing stronger U.N. sanctions on North Korea over Friday night's long-range missile test, the North's second this month.

 

Any new U.N. Security Council resolution "that does not significantly increase the international pressure on North Korea is of no value", Haley said, adding that Japan and South Korea also needed to do more.

 

Abe told reporters after his conversation with Trump that repeated efforts by the international community to find a peaceful solution to the North Korean issue had yet to bear fruit in the face of Pyongyang's unilateral "escalation".

 

"International society, including Russia and China, need to take this seriously and increase pressure," Abe said. He said Japan and the United States would take steps towards concrete action but did not give details.

 

Abe and Trump did not discuss military action against North Korea, nor what would constitute the crossing of a "red line" by Pyongyang, Deputy Chief Cabinet spokesman Koichi Hagiuda told reporters.

 

"Pyongyang is determined to develop its nuclear and missile programme and does not care about military threats from the U.S. and South Korea," state-run Chinese tabloid the Global Times said on Monday.

 

"How could Chinese sanctions change the situation?" said the paper, which is published by the ruling Communist Party's official People's Daily.

 

China wants both balanced trade with the United States and lasting peace on the Korean peninsula, its official Xinhua news agency added in a commentary.

 

"However, to realise these goals, Beijing needs a more cooperative partner in the White House, not one who piles blame on China for the United States' failures," it added.

 

The United States flew two supersonic B-1B bombers over the Korean peninsula in a show of force on Sunday in response to the missile test and the July 3 launch of the "Hwasong-14" rocket, the Pentagon said. The bombers took off from a U.S. air base in Guam and were joined by Japanese and South Korean fighter jets during the exercise.

 

"North Korea remains the most urgent threat to regional stability," Pacific Air Forces commander General Terrence J. O'Shaughnessy said in a statement.

 

"If called upon, we are ready to respond with rapid, lethal, and overwhelming force at a time and place of our choosing."

 

(Additional reporting by Chang-ran Kim in TOKYO, Ben Blanchard and Elias Glenn in BEIJING, Christine Kim in SEOUL and Steve Holland in WASHINGTON; Editing by Lincoln Feast, Paul Tait and Michael Perry)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-7-31

[tonray]

The US should back off and allow South Korea and Japan to develop their nuclear ambitions. The last thing China wants is a nuclear armed Japan/South Korea on their doorstep. Fight fire with fire. 

[YetAnother]

59 minutes ago, tonray said:

The US should back off and allow South Korea and Japan to develop their nuclear ambitions. The last thing China wants is a nuclear armed Japan/South Korea on their doorstep. Fight fire with fire. 

not a bad idea; there have been murmurings in the USA to do this for quite a while; north korea notwithstanding

[dunroaming]

1 hour ago, snoop1130 said:

"We think the North Korea nuclear issue and China-US trade are issues that are in two completely different domains. They aren't related. They should not be discussed together," Qian said.

Trump thinks he can bully China into action over NK with veiled threats over trade agreements.  China will give him a one finger response

[tonray]

1 minute ago, dunroaming said:

Trump thinks he can bully China into action over NK with veiled threats over trade agreements.  China will give him a one finger response

Bill Clinton once said in an interview his first encounter with China made him realize that he was negotiating tactically for the next 2 years while it became apparent quickly that they were negotiating for the next 2 decades. They will not be swayed by "temporary Trump"

[dunroaming]

59 minutes ago, tonray said:

The US should back off and allow South Korea and Japan to develop their nuclear ambitions. The last thing China wants is a nuclear armed Japan/South Korea on their doorstep. Fight fire with fire. 

Yes but where does it stop with the nuclear power.  You end up conceding that just about all countries need nukes and before you know it the threats will be ricocheting around the world.

[tonray]

1 minute ago, dunroaming said:

Yes but where does it stop with the nuclear power.  You end up conceding that just about all countries need nukes and before you know it the threats will be ricocheting around the world.

Proliferation efforts have largely failed because the superpowers want to keep theirs and deny anyone else I think. Not quite a fair deal. So they form alliances that say even though Country X does not have nuclear weapons, if they are attacked we will use ours to defend them. That's hardly a workable plan.

[dunroaming]

1 minute ago, tonray said:

Proliferation efforts have largely failed because the superpowers want to keep theirs and deny anyone else I think. Not quite a fair deal. So they form alliances that say even though Country X does not have nuclear weapons, if they are attacked we will use ours to defend them. That's hardly a workable plan.

I agree totally but there surely has to be checks and balances.  Peoples alliances change, especially  these days.

[tonray]

Just now, dunroaming said:

I agree totally but there surely has to be checks and balances.  Peoples alliances change, especially  these days.

The only thing we have demonstrated (and I am talking about my country, America) has been that might makes right. If we can attack a country under false pretenses it's ok because nobody can do anything about it, but if someone else does, they are outlaws. China is planning a decades long military buildup because they have learned from us an important lesson, you can do anything you want if you are strong enough. We have been a poor example IMHO.

[baboon]

1 hour ago, tonray said:

Proliferation efforts have largely failed because the superpowers want to keep theirs and deny anyone else I think. Not quite a fair deal. So they form alliances that say even though Country X does not have nuclear weapons, if they are attacked we will use ours to defend them. That's hardly a workable plan.

"if they are attacked we will use ours to defend them."

'...Unless it is us who decides to attack them...'

[wwest5829]

1 hour ago, dunroaming said:

Yes but where does it stop with the nuclear power.  You end up conceding that just about all countries need nukes and before you know it the threats will be ricocheting around the world.

Unfortunately, too many Americans think the more guns make them safer, by extension...

[boomerangutang]

The following audio is a BBC special about N.Korea.  The first part is some history. The lion's share is what would ensue if it again became military conflict.  at 23 minutes, it may seem long, but worth a listen.........

 

bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05951pc

[Silurian]

It seems like North Korea will be the first international "test" for the so-called POTUS. It will be interesting to see how the idiot-in-chief will handle the situation. Lucky for the USA, they have good military leaders that will most likely handle most of the issues that happen. I am waiting for a major issue to arise that will really test the current administration and then we shall see how empty the rhetoric really is.

[baboon]

28 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

The following audio is a BBC special about N.Korea.  The first part is some history. The lion's share is what would ensue if it again became military conflict.  at 23 minutes, it may seem long, but worth a listen.........

 

bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05951pc

I'll give it a listen as soon as I get the chance. Thanks for posting.

[tonray]

10 minutes ago, Silurian said:

It seems like North Korea will be the first international "test" for the so-called POTUS. It will be interesting to see how the idiot-in-chief will handle the situation. Lucky for the USA, they have good military leaders that will most likely handle most of the issues that happen. I am waiting for a major issue to arise that will really test the current administration and then we shall see how empty the rhetoric really is.

He;s has already failed. Already claimed they would never get ICBM under is watch, and already tried to play China and they laughed in his face...Bigly

[dunroaming]

36 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

Unfortunately, too many Americans think the more guns make them safer, by extension...

As America isolates itself more and more, having a large arsenal would seem a sensible move.  It doesn't have quite as many friends as it used to have thanks to Mr Trump.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, tonray said:

The US should back off and allow South Korea and Japan to develop their nuclear ambitions. The last thing China wants is a nuclear armed Japan/South Korea on their doorstep. Fight fire with fire. 

 

Having more hostile military nuclear capable countries in the region is hardly an improvement on the current state of things.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, tonray said:

Proliferation efforts have largely failed because the superpowers want to keep theirs and deny anyone else I think. Not quite a fair deal. So they form alliances that say even though Country X does not have nuclear weapons, if they are attacked we will use ours to defend them. That's hardly a workable plan.

 

Proliferation efforts have "largely failed" how? The vast majority of countries, including those who can have military nuclear capability, choose not to go there. Are things perfect? Nope, but way better than without having any agreements in place.

[Andaman Al]

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

The following audio is a BBC special about N.Korea.  The first part is some history. The lion's share is what would ensue if it again became military conflict.  at 23 minutes, it may seem long, but worth a listen.........

 

bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05951pc

Very interesting thanks. If you are short on time skip to minute 8 and that gets past the history of the region. The picture painted is pretty bleak with up to 2 million civilians and military killed in the first 3 weeks and that is before they think about nukes.

[MyFriend You]

12 hours ago, tonray said:

The US should back off and allow South Korea and Japan to develop their nuclear ambitions. The last thing China wants is a nuclear armed Japan/South Korea on their doorstep. Fight fire with fire. 

That's the only thing the Chinese will listen to,  something that might affect their security  - It's crazy, multi-million dollar deals are greed and sealed with a handshake in China,  but asking them to reign in their 'Nephew in the South' is not important - what if their lack of doing anything affects ll these 'deals'.........will that move things along??  The Chinese are all about money, start taking their source of money away and see what happens  -  Sanctions??  How about a total ban of Chinese goods from the US, that might get their attention. 

[tonray]

25 minutes ago, TunnelRat69 said:

That's the only thing the Chinese will listen to,  something that might affect their security  - It's crazy, multi-million dollar deals are greed and sealed with a handshake in China,  but asking them to reign in their 'Nephew in the South' is not important - what if their lack of doing anything affects ll these 'deals'.........will that move things along??  The Chinese are all about money, start taking their source of money away and see what happens  -  Sanctions??  How about a total ban of Chinese goods from the US, that might get their attention. 

Might also get the attention of a very bad recession in the US too....

[tonray]

Yesterday's Trump Quotes: 

 

"

"We will handle North Korea. We are gonna be able to handle them. It will be handled. We handle everything," Trump said after a reporter asked him about his strategy.

Asked if the US would strike first, Trump's press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Monday that "all options are on the table," adding that Trump would not "broadcast" his decisions."

 

He is handling something, that's for sure...as to not broadcasting decisions, perhaps Ms. Huckabee Sanders should check Twitter more often as it's more likely the Pentagon finds out about a declaration of war via that medium than a hotline call.

[craigt3365]

12 hours ago, tonray said:

Proliferation efforts have largely failed because the superpowers want to keep theirs and deny anyone else I think. Not quite a fair deal. So they form alliances that say even though Country X does not have nuclear weapons, if they are attacked we will use ours to defend them. That's hardly a workable plan.

One reason they are trying to limit nuclear proliferation is to keep it out of the hands like ISIS.  Can you imagine what would happen if they had a dirty bomb?  And set it off in, say, London or NYC?  The global impact would be devastating. 

 

IMHO, not worth the risk.  Limit proliferation before something like this happens.

 

Here's but one recent incidence of radioactive material being stolen.  Do a google search on this.  Amazing how many hits come up.  The consequences would be unimaginable.

 

http://time.com/4728293/uranium-underworld-dark-secrets-dirty-bombs/

 

 

Quote

 

Inside the Uranium Underworld: Dark Secrets, Dirty Bombs

From the bridge, he took them to inspect the merchandise at a nearby apartment where his acquaintance had been storing it: a lead box about the size of a smartphone, containing a few pounds of radioactive uranium, including small amounts of the weapons-grade material known as uranium-235. 

 

But if packed together with high explosives, these metallic lumps could produce what's known as a dirty bomb—one that could poison the area around the blast zone with toxic levels of radiation.

 

 

 

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

Unfortunately, too many Americans think the more guns make them safer, by extension...

Fortunately, a majority do not own guns and a minority feel gun laws are too strict.  Right now, a majority want stricter laws.  But yes, there are some crazy NRA members out there!

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

 

[tonray]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

One reason they are trying to limit nuclear proliferation is to keep it out of the hands like ISIS.  Can you imagine what would happen if they had a dirty bomb?  And set it off in, say, London or NYC?  The global impact would be devastating. 

 

IMHO, not worth the risk.  Limit proliferation before something like this happens.

 

Here's but one recent incidence of radioactive material being stolen.  Do a google search on this.  Amazing how many hits come up.  The consequences would be unimaginable.

 

http://time.com/4728293/uranium-underworld-dark-secrets-dirty-bombs/

 

 

 

 

Agree, but nuclear material can be found in any medical imaging facility, dentist office, etc etc. The real damage of course would be from highly radioactive material that also could potentially be used for making a fissionable device. There are no easy answers but at a time when NK wanted a guarantee that we could respect the sovereignty of their state and sign a non-aggression pact, we refused and continued to put "all options on the table". Then we engineered the downfall of Quadafi, and Hussein. We really ffff'd up. 

 

Is he a scumbag....yes but we have no good solutions unless you want to start another war with potentially millions dead. We have to deal with him now.

[craigt3365]

Just now, tonray said:

Agree, but nuclear material can be found in any medical imaging facility, dentist office, etc etc. The real damage of course would be from highly radioactive material that also could potentially be used for making a fissionable device. There are no easy answers but at a time when NK wanted a guarantee that we could respect the sovereignty of their state and sign a non-aggression pact, we refused and continued to put "all options on the table". Then we engineered the downfall of Quadafi, and Hussein. We really ffff'd up. 

 

Is he a scumbag....yes but we have no good solutions unless you want to start another war with potentially millions dead. We have to deal with him now.

I think the reason for the failure of the six party negoiations with NK in 2006 was due to NK.  Not the US.  The US was responsible for the downfall of Hussein, but not for Quadafi.

 

You are right.  No easy answers.  Unless the world unites, which seems China is unwilling to do so.

 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2006/12/26/failure-in-the-six-party-talks-was-inevitable/

Quote

The deal-breaker was North Korea’s demand that U.S. financial restrictions be part of the negotiations on the North’s nuclear weapons. That was met by a stiff refusal by Christopher Hill, the chief negotiator for the United States. The Bush administration says the sanctions are tied to North Korea’s criminal enterprises, not to its nuclear program.

Read the article.  Interesting to see Kim's negotiating tactics.  Sounds like something Trump would do. LOL

[quadperfect]

7 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Very interesting thanks. If you are short on time skip to minute 8 and that gets past the history of the region. The picture painted is pretty bleak with up to 2 million civilians and military killed in the first 3 weeks and that is before they think about nukes.

That was interesting. It confirms how evil the leaders of north korea are .

They need to be removed.  

It also shows that a usa strike would need to be more than just a warning shot fired across the bow.

 

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, quadperfect said:

That was interesting. It confirms how evil the leaders of north korea are .

They need to be removed.  

It also shows that a usa strike would need to be more than just a warning shot fired across the bow.

 

Now, how about getting specific?

[craigt3365]

28 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Now, how about getting specific?

No easy answers.  If there were, we wouldn't be here now! LOL

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, tonray said:

Pentagon finds out about a declaration of war via that medium than a hotline call.

While the POTUS can start a war (usually characterized as something else such as a "police action"), he cannot make a Declaration of War. The latter requires an act of the US Congress. The former has a 90-day limit before congressional approval is required for funding.