Japan wants quick U.N. vote on N. Korea |
| Posted by: HECK! | | Japan wants quick U.N. vote on N. Korea
Thu Jul 13, 11:00 AM ET
TOKYO - Japan on Thursday urged a prompt U.N. Security Council vote on sanctions against North Korea, rebuffing a milder Chinese- and Russian-sponsored resolution on the North's missile tests.
"There is no change to our view that the resolution incorporating sanctions should be voted on promptly," top government spokesman Shinzo Abe told reporters.
"I will not give a deadline now, but there should be a vote as early as possible," Abe said. "We cannot be pushed around by intentions to diminish or delay" action against North Korea, he said.
Backers of Japan's proposed resolution have postponed a vote as China, North Korea's main ally and aid donor, tries to use its influence to stop the North from more tests and to draw the isolated regime back to six-nation talks on its nuclear program.
However, China and Russia have introduced a rival resolution that cuts mandatory sanctions, along with language in the Japanese measure that some believe could lead to possible military action against North Korea.
Later Thursday, though, an unidentified senior Foreign Ministry official said Japan planned to adjust the wording of its resolution based on the counterproposal, suggesting that Tokyo may be mulling a compromise, a news report said.
"What is important is to adopt a binding resolution," the official said anonymously, Kyodo reported. Negotiations on the text's wording were to begin Thursday New York time, it quoted the official as saying.
The comments followed news reports that two of the seven missiles the North fired last week may have been newly developed long-range Scuds that could reach Japan.
Joint analysis by Washington and Tokyo suggests the new missiles have a range of 600-1,000 kilometers (370-620 miles), said Japan's largest newspaper, the Yomiuri.
Japan is about 600 kilometers (370 miles) from the missile launch site in southeast North Korea.
The missiles tested on July 5 all apparently landed between the two countries in the Sea of Japan.
Signals thought to come from the missiles differed from those of conventional Scuds — tactical ballistic missiles first developed by the Soviet Union — which only have a range of 300-500 kilometers (185-310 miles), the Yomiuri said.
It said the new missiles had transmitters that sent base data such as flight distance and how much fuel remained.
The newspaper cited an unidentified Japanese defense official as saying the new missiles could reach Japanese territory and presented a direct threat to the country.
Meanwhile, Libya's National Oil Corp. chief Shukri Ghanem — a former prime minister — has urged North Korea to give up its program of developing weapons of mass destruction, Japanese public broadcaster NHK reported Thursday.
"The development of weapons of mass destruction would squander money and only result in causing external problems. In effect, there is nothing to gain," Ghanem said in an interview taped the previous day.
Ghanem was Libya's prime minister in 2003, when the country's leader, Moammar Gadhafi, swore off terrorism and announced plans to dismantle programs for weapons of mass destruction.
Ghanem was in Tokyo on a weeklong visit, hoping to garner more Japanese investment in Libya's oil industry.
-----------
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Heavens11 said this in post #2 :
The United Nations Security Council votes unanimously to demand North Korea suspend its ballistic missile program. -- CNN |
North Korea has tested the missiles. Job done.
Clearly the problem is if you've got nukes then other countries have to take you seriously and treat you with some kind of respect, ie countries will negotiate with you.
On the other hand if you haven't got nukes - the US invades 
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: zero22forty | | HAHAHAH 
| quote: |
Heavens11 said this in post #6 :
... and the English complain |
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Dreamzwalker | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #5 :
North Korea has tested the missiles. Job done.
Clearly the problem is if you've got nukes then other countries have to take you seriously and treat you with some kind of respect, ie countries will negotiate with you.
On the other hand if you haven't got nukes - the US invades |
Well... we did learn all abou invading and taking over other countries from the brits.  go english!
They did it for a few hundred years so we should too - have to rack up the brownie points :P
i think japan should just go nanking on n.k.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Dreamzwalker said this in post #8 :
Well... we did learn all abou invading and taking over other countries from the brits. go english!
|
We did indeed do our fair share of invading, quelling, bombing, "freeing", "liberating", plundering and exploiting. Such is the fate of the white man and his burden to civilise the entire world into understanding that WE are superior and THEY should do what WE tell them to do. Still we did it with more finesse and style than you Yanks, but surely with equal barbarity. Hitler was a big fan and very much admired the British way.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Dreamzwalker | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #9 :
. Still we did it with more finesse and style than you Yanks, but surely with equal barbarity. Hitler was a big fan and very much admired the British way. |
hahahah of course he admired the British way - the way the brits nearly murdered all of south africa and other countries -
that's because he was attempting to perform the same British duties towards jews.
by the way - white, black, arab - all have and are committing genocide. its worse in Africa then any other part of the world.
your statement points to only whites - so either you are racist or you believe that no one but whites have committed atrocities or you just want to bash white people - i'm going to assume the latter - since your basically comparing us with germany. we have yet to perform anything as bad as brits have in the past so... lol
other colors has taken over a country. The only people that were put through any kind of near genocide by white americans was the poor indians, and i think it was horrible.
Turkey killed millions just to genocide a race they thought shouldn't be alive and it was their own people, as did india, germany, italy, and china.
the two worst atrocities in any wartime was what japan did to china, and what germany did to jews.
By the way - yanks refers to only a small section of the united states so i guess your talking about new york - i'm not from new york, so i'm not sure who your refering too.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Dreamzwalker said this in post #10 :
hahahah of course he admired the British way - the way the brits nearly murdered all of south africa and other countries -
that's because he was attempting to perform the same British duties towards jews. |
Jews were not exactly top of anyone's list of people to help durig the early part of the last century, that includes America.
| quote: |
| your statement points to only whites - so either you are racist or you believe that no one but whites have committed atrocities or you just want to bash white people - i'm going to assume the latter |
I'm lazy but can't take all the blame for my ignorance. The broadcast media must take some of it's share.
In the 90's, nine African nations were involved in a war which cost almost 4 million lives, and either I wasn't watching the news at the time or it wasn't of much interest to most of the world. Did you know it was called Africa's world war, because I didn't?
The Hutus massacred almost a million Tutsis in Rwanda, and that did become newsworthy, but only after the event.
Barbarity's neither a white or black or any other colour or race thing. But I live in Britain and the person elected to represent me is starting wars that I don't agree with. I have a right and maybe even a duty to object.
| quote: |
| - since your basically comparing us with germany. |
I didn't compare the US to Nazi Germany. It the kind of argument that goes nowhere.
| quote: |
| we have yet to perform anything as bad as brits have in the past so... lol |
We have attacked Iraq or occupied the place on a regular basis. You are just catching up.
| quote: |
| By the way - yanks refers to only a small section of the united states so i guess your talking about new york - i'm not from new york, so i'm not sure who your refering too. [/B] |
In Britain Yanks is just another term for any American.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Dreamzwalker | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #11 :
In Britain Yanks is just another term for any American. |
and i shall call you my Brat. sup brat?
sounds good
i do not yank off so therefore i cannot be a yank or yankin.
I'll let you know when i come a yankin though 
[QUOTE]h@ts said
Such is the fate of the white man and his burden to civilise the entire world into understanding that WE are superior and THEY should do what WE tell them to do
[B]
This was a german belief.
You compared both of us to it - i do not believe WE are superior and THEY should do what WE want
but i do believe that mass murder by terrorists should stop - and white people are not the only ones who believe THEY should do what WE tell them to do when dealing with terrorists.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Dreamzwalker | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #11 :
In the 90's, nine African nations were involved in a war which cost almost 4 million lives, and either I wasn't watching the news at the time or it wasn't of much interest to most of the world. Did you know it was called Africa's world war, because I didn't?. |
No i didn't know it was called that. Thanks for the info.
I did not pay attention to the news at that point in my life , less it was dumb arab terrorists bombing Israel.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Dreamzwalker said this in post #12 :
but i do believe that mass murder by terrorists should stop - and white people are not the only ones who believe THEY should do what WE tell them to do when dealing with terrorists. |
How do you think Bush is doing, considering facts such as:
More and more British born Muslims are now turning to violence and extremisim - success for Bush's aggressive policy Y/N?
There are now three wars raging in the Middle East, fueling the fires of extremism - success Y/N?
The truth is Bush's policy is a total failure because the only people to benefit from it are militant organisations who are finding easy converts to their cause. And Bush cynically uses the threat - that his policy is making worse - to ramp up the fear when he needs to, to scare people into a hopeless feeling that there is no alternative way except his aggressive foreign policy.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Dreamzwalker | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #14 :
How do you think Bush is doing, considering facts such as:
More and more British born Muslims are now turning to violence and extremisim - success for Bush's aggressive policy Y/N?
There are now three wars raging in the Middle East, fueling the fires of extremism - success Y/N?
|
Muslims have always been easy to convert to violence and extremisim - ever since they started with the book mohammad wrote in the late 500s. He was able to build an army that he didn't have to pay because he was able to get them to believe that dying during the slaughter of arabs in mecca would give them virgins and all sins forgiven.
Since that time, all a person of non-muslim faith has to do to be hated is fart while sitting or standing next to a fanatic.
I will give you the fact that Bush/blair aggressive policy is causing fuel but the extremism is bred into the religion and claiming this is a holy war, muslim vs christian states, makes it more easy to recruit. (Not to mention that jihad and other passages in the book is easy to interpret into something it isn't)
Just like warriors against mecca was easy to recruit. Mecca had cast mahamad out due to his fanatical terrorist beliefs and ways, he wanted genocide of all non-arab men, women, and children - mahamad converted those who worshipped ba'aal and other gods (ba'aal = satan), and promised them eternal bliss if they followed him back to mecca. After he declared allah had given him the power to slaughter mecca, the muslim belief truly began.
They destroyed and declared war on all non-muslim and murdered, slaughtered and raped children, men, women, and the elderly and its still the same belief today - nearly 1600 years later. All religions have performed what can be considered cultist and extremist activities in the past but they moved past this - most anyhow.. Even the wikkan. Muslim fanatics are making it difficult for muslims that are not fanatical.
This is getting bad - BECAUSE of the fact that so many that say they don't support terrorist cheer at every terrorist act. If you don't support it, don't cheer baka. They think supporting means being a part of, or financing the group. this is not the case.
They do not understand that they are getting racially profiled by supporting terrorists. If they stopped supporting terrorists, this would change to pit it against just the groups of terrorists rather then the people as a whole.
At least Bush/blair are standing up against terrorists. The methodology may be incorrect, so if you something better a side from negotiating with terrorists go for it. Once you start giving in to demands, they expect it each and every time they do something - and it escalates when they do not get it.
| | Reply To this Message
|
North Korea Forum: Japan wants quick U.N. vote on N. Korea
|
