Furious over sanctions, NKorea vows to nuke US

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Associated Press

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- North Korea on Thursday vowed to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the United States, amplifying its threatening rhetoric hours ahead of a vote by U.N. diplomats on whether to level new sanctions against Pyongyang for its recent nuclear test.

An unidentified spokesman for Pyongyang's Foreign Ministry said the North will exercise its right for "a preemptive nuclear attack to destroy the strongholds of the aggressors" because Washington is pushing to start a nuclear war against the North.

Although North Korea boasts of nuclear bombs and pre-emptive strikes, it is not thought to have mastered the ability to produce a warhead small enough to put on a missile capable of reaching the U.S. It is believed to have enough nuclear fuel, however, for several crude nuclear devices.

Such inflammatory rhetoric is common from North Korea, and especially so in recent days. North Korea is angry over the possible sanctions and over upcoming U.S.-South Korean military drills. At a mass rally in Pyongyang on Thursday, tens of thousands of North Koreans protested the U.S.-South Korean war drills and sanctions.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_UN_NORTH_KOREA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-03-07-06-01-16

[Xipe Totec]

1. So here are these two countries:

One is developing the capability to enrich uranium which they claim to want for peaceful purposes. They could conceivably develop the technology to build a nuclear bomb some years down the road.

The other has demonstrated they have nuclear bombs, has detonated such bombs, has built intercontinental missiles, and is threatening to nuke the US.

Which of these two countries is the greater threat?

Which of these two countries are we ready to invade in the name of maintaining our security?

Hint: It's not the one that has no oil.

[newfie11]

2. +1

[Scootaloo]

5. Oil? Nope.

It's about busting down countries in the middle east so our "strategic ally in the region" - and thus US dominance - goes unchallenged.

This is also why we're devoting sixty million in aid to the "rebel factions" in Syria, knowing full damn well that "rebel factions" get us Afghanistans and Somalias.

Smashing open the market for oil companies is a nice bonus, don't mistake; but it's mostly about killing any potential challenger to our proxy states in the region - Saudi Arabia and Israel.

[Xipe Totec]

7. Think deeper. Why would we have an interest in the Middle East anyway?

We know why Saudi Arabia is important to us - Oil.

And would we even care about Israel if it wasn't a fortress surrounded by a sea of oil?

Busting down countries? To what purpose?

[Scootaloo]

10. Well, here's a question.

Does throwing a nation into chaos help or hinder the production and export of oil (or other resources?) By any strain of logic, it's a negative impact on the export economy of a nation. Tearing Afghanistan up didn't really help us get their minerals, and fucking up Iraq severely lowered oil production there.

The point is control. Thus our alliance with Saudi Arabia; if their oil wells dried up tomorrow, we'd start buying their sand instead. Their primary export to us isn't crude; it's influence, control. Similarly Israel; it's the stick to Saudi Arabia's carrot.

Why? Well, this is the painful part - no reason, really. That is, no specific, tangible reason. Most of the Middle East isn't soaked in crude - Syria certainly isn't. However useless the region is to us though, it's better that we control this useless region, than some other empire control it and potentially find use.

We cooked up our sweetheart deals with Israel not because Israel was particularly useful for anything, but becuase we were basically buying them away from the Soviets. we helped overthrow Mossadegh for BP, but we supported the Shah and his murder-parties for decades after because he was aligned against the Russians and Chinese, a staunch anti-communist. The Saudis similarly fund and influence powerful anti-left movements through the Muslim and Arab worlds (both religious and secular) as a bugger against - again - soviet / chinese influence (nevermind that both nations are now as hyper-capitalist as we are, the principle remains)

It's not for barrels of this resource or boxes of that one. it's imperial brinksmanship. we seek to rule just to keep others from doing so - and strong independent states (or worse, strong states aligned with competing empires, like Iran or Syria) are utterly intolerable

[bananas]

23. The Carter Doctrine: it's all about the oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the U.S. would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the U.S.' Cold War adversary—from seeking hegemony in the Gulf. After stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed "a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil," Carter proclaimed:

The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.

This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all those who rely on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close cooperation with countries in the area which might be threatened.

Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region.

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

This last, key sentence of the doctrine, was written by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Adviser. Brzezinski modeled the wording of the doctrine on the Truman Doctrine,[1] and insisted that the sentence be included in the speech "to make it very clear that the Soviets should stay away from the Persian Gulf."[2]

In The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power, author Daniel Yergin notes that the Carter Doctrine "bore striking similarities" to a 1903 British declaration, in which British Foreign Secretary Lord Landsdowne warned Russia and Germany that the British would "regard the establishment of a naval base or of a fortified port in the Persian Gulf by any other power as a very grave menace to British interests, and we should certainly resist it with all the means at our disposal."[3]

[nolabels]

24. Is it possible it could be all of that and a few other things also to some degree?

Like the state dept, defense dept and few hundred agencies help corporate America feed the line to the public that it's all about making peace but mostly behind the scenes it's all about power and projecting it anyway necessary. Put your self in their shoes (if you could get past the moral implications, of course), what do you think you would be doing if you where power hungry and wanted to keep what you already had. Sounds to me like any means available to me

Besides all those people who have a job to make trouble for other people, what do you think they are doing there?

[magical thyme]

25. just because you fail to implement a plan, does not mean that was not the plan

"Tearing Afghanistan up didn't really help us get their minerals, and fucking up Iraq severely lowered oil production there. "

The PNAC neocon pipedream outlined on their website was to take over the oil rich nations for the purpose of controlling the oil and establishing the US military dominance of the world.

That their plan was a dismal failure was due to it's being dreamed up and executed by a bunch of chickenhawk, armchair warriors with zero real world experience in actually doing anything that involves actual work.

They really, truly did believe their own bs that the oil would pay for the war and then some.

Afghanistan was wanted for the pipeline that runs from an oil or energy-rich country to its north (I think Uzbekistan) through Afghanistan, to get its oil to the sea. Same reason the Soviets invaded back in the 80s.

[Ian David]

13. The important thing is he's found a way to blame it on "Teh Joos."

What makes it obvious is that he's willing to claim that the oil isn't important.

Derp!

[cpwm17]

39. Scootaloo is correct

The push for sanctions against Iran comes from the Israel lobby. They're the ones lobbying against the phony threat from Iran.

It's not about what benefits the US, it's about who has the best lobbyists in Washington DC. That is the natures of our corrupt system.

[Bohemianwriter]

19. The only difference is...

That USA is the only country that has ever used the A bomb on real people... TWICE!

Not to mention the fact that Obama is still covering up for war criminals in the GOP while he persecutes the TRUE heroes, the whistle blowers.
Another thing: Neither Iran nor North Korea has invaded other countries for having WMDs before. Again, something that USA did! It seems to me that Americans are the only ones thinking they have a god given right to be armed and nuke other countries for not following US dictations!

I suggest you listen to Howard Zimm and his take on American "exceptional ism" which is nothing more than a code word for "MAnifest Destiny" which is again another word for imperialism.

None of the countries you mention is any threat whatsoever. Though USA has been the best country in the world in creating it's own enemies with the bully tactics since 1948!

[tazzersgoldenangel]

30. His name is Zinn not Zimm

Not trying to be the spelling 'police' but his name is Howard Zinn not Zimm..

[Bohemianwriter]

41. Noticed that...

AFTER I posted it.

Will give an intro about myself soon.

[TwilightGardener]

22. Location, location, location.

It's not always about resources.

[Poll_Blind]

36. ^ This. nt

PB

[LeftofObama]

3. So, a couple of days ago little Un says he wants

President Obama to call him. Today he wants to nuke the U.S.

[another_liberal]

16. The Generals . . .

The Generals are the one's really in charge. That's why they picked the youngest son to be the new figurehead.

[Submariner]

4. It's time to send in SEAL Team 6 and take out

the entire North Korean leadership including the new Kim Jon Dork. The people of North Korea have been f*cked over enough and need a break from these buffoons.

[magellan]

8. Not our job. n/t

[Posteritatis]

37. Because it's that simple, right?

The armed forces are one in four of that country's population and entirely aware for the most part they they're the top of the pecking order. When something like that's in place for seven decades you can't just knock a couple people out of the way to bring it around.

[davidpdx]

6. They are delusional idiots

I think they have been snorting the drugs with the counterfeit bills they make.

[Snake Plissken]

9. Kim Jong Boo Boo throwing another tantrum ... and in other news ... water is still wet

http://www.rockandrollconfidential.com/hall/hall_detail.php?dd_keyid=660

[RevStPatrick]

11. You know, for a few minutes there when Un first came to power...

...it looked like there was a small chance that he was going to be rational, and not act all crazy like Dear Daddy and Dearest Grand-daddy.

Oh well... that ain't gonna happen!

[Andy Stanton]

12. The Day North Korea Launches a Nuclear Strike Against the US

Will be the day N. Korea is destroyed.
No matter how crazy the N. Korea leadership sounds they know this to be true.
And so do the Chinese.

[closeupready]

34. They may not care. I think THAT prospect is most frightening.

The 9/11 hijackers didn't care that they were going to die; they cared only about sending a message, even at the cost of their own lives.

[OldRedneck]

14. Well, I gotta tell you . . .

. . . I'm just terrified.

[another_liberal]

15. They can't very likely hit us . . .

They can't very likely hit us. They could, though, turn South Korea's capital city into a smoking ruin, and without even using their pop-gun nukes. The DPRK's whole vast military apparatus is designed to accomplish just that, with thousands of carefully protected artillery pieces and short range rocket launchers ranged in on Seoul. It would be horrifying.

[Volaris]

18. It would be...

and then in rather short order, Pyongyang would be the new capitol of SOUTH Korea.
Kid Lunatic knows that, too.

[another_liberal]

33. I doubt that . . .

I doubt that "Kid Lunatic" is really in charge of anything much at all in the DPRK. He was picked by the Generals, and they tell him exactly what he should say and do concerning everything that matters.

[DinahMoeHum]

17. North Korea: "This is a recording. Thank you for waiting"

[Dustlawyer]

20. Envoy Dennis Rodman didn't get it done, huh?

[slackmaster]

21. It would go something like this...

[peace13]

26. After the nuclear nightmare in Japan this threat is very yesterday .

We are being bombarded by radiation from a still uncontrolled nuclear disaster on a daily basis. With the exception of some fire and a small portion of the population dying immediately there is little new threat here.

Americans have sat on their heels while the US has bombed, burned and killed across the globe. It is time that we realize that our actions do not work in our best interest.

[jsr]

27. U.N. Security Council approves new sanctions against North Korea

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/north-korea-threatens-nuclear-strike-against-aggressors/2013/03/07/1a1e1ada-8726-11e2-999e-5f8e0410cb9d_story.html

SEOUL — The U.N. Security Council approved tough new sanctions Thursday against North Korea over its latest nuclear test, brushing aside Pyongyang’s threat of nuclear retaliation against the United States and other purported aggressors.

The unanimous vote by the 15-member council imposed sanctions aimed at making it more difficult for North Korea to finance its weapons programs and obtain materials for them. The sanctions resolution was drafted by the United States and China — long the chief ally and benefactor of the North.

[Pararescue]

28. Even China is growing tired of the NK's temper tantrums.

Last edited Thu Mar 7, 2013, 02:09 PM - Edit history (1)

I guess I should make my way to my bomb shelter and await NK's promised nuke strike on the U.S., even though they don't have any ICBM's in their inventory.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

29. AP sucks. It's become a "Sensational Headline" contest.

[BigDemVoter]

31. It's so entertaining

to imagine that little idiot, Kim Jong Il, throwing a temper tantrum like a 2-year-old, beating his arms & kicking his legs while lying on the ground. . . . .

[pampango]

35. NK's dictator is going to be even madder now. Don't you just hate it when

they call your bluff.

UN adopts tough new North Korea sanctions after nuclear test

The UN Security Council has unanimously approved fresh sanctions against North Korea in response to Pyongyang's nuclear test last month. In a 15-0 vote, the council on Thursday backed Resolution 2094, imposing the fourth set of sanctions against the North.

The resolution is targeting North Korean diplomats, cash transfers and access to luxury goods.

It imposes asset freezes and travel bans on three individuals and two firms linked to North Korea's military.

Pyongyang earlier vowed to use its right to a pre-emptive nuclear attack against its "aggressors".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21704862

I assume the timing for the recent blast of bluster from the NK regime was timed to influence the vote in the UN. Did not work very well.

[Throd]

38. They're going to burn popcorn in the break room microwave and stink up the hall?

[ronnie624]

40. I wonder how rational the political leadership of the US would be

after experiencing a history similar to that of North Korea.

The author of this article must think world history started last week:

The North Korean statement appeared to be the most specific open threat of a nuclear strike by any country against another.