North Korea ship being tailed by a US Navy destroyer

[DougTravels]

It is getting quite interesting to say the least.
This ship will be inspected or sank before destination.
I only hope that the UN coalition will not make us do it alone. We need to shed the image of the worlds police. If push comes to shove we will take action alone.
It would not surprise me at all ,if the intel is phony and we end up sinking a ship with nothing to hide. I hope this is not a PR ploy by N. Korea.

Report: NKorea ship suspected of carrying missiles
SEOUL, South Korea — A U.S. Navy destroyer is tailing a North Korean ship suspected of carrying illicit weapons toward Myanmar in what could be the first test of new U.N. sanctions against the North over its recent nuclear test, a leading TV network said Sunday.

The South Korean news network YTN, citing an unidentified intelligence source in the South, said the U.S. suspects the cargo ship Kang Nam is carrying missiles and related parts. Myanmar's military government, which faces an arms embargo from the United States and the European Union, has reportedly bought weapons from North Korea.

YTN said the U.S. has deployed a destroyer and is using satellites to track the ship, which was expected to travel to Myanmar via Singapore.

South Korea's Defense Ministry, Unification Ministry and National Intelligence Service said they could not confirm the report. Calls to the U.S. military command in Seoul were not answered late Sunday.

The ship is reportedly the first North Korean vessel to be tracked under the new U.N. sanctions.

Two U.S. officials said Thursday that the U.S. military had begun tracking the ship, which left a North Korean port Wednesday and was traveling off the coast of China.

One of the officials said it was uncertain what the Kang Nam was carrying, but that it had been involved in weapons proliferation before. Both spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence.

Tensions on the Korean peninsula have spiked since North Korea defiantly conducted its second nuclear explosion on May 25. It later declared it would expand its atomic bomb program and threatened war to protest the U.N. sanctions imposed in response to its nuclear test.

The sanctions toughen an earlier arms embargo against North Korea and authorize ship searches in an attempt to thwart its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

The Security Council resolution calls on all 192 U.N. member states to inspect vessels on the high seas "if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo" contains banned weapons or material to make them, and if approval is given by the country whose flag the ship sails under.

If the country refuses to give approval, it must direct the vessel "to an appropriate and convenient port for the required inspection by the local authorities."

President Barack Obama said the sanctions will be aggressively enforced after talks Tuesday with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak in Washington. Obama also reaffirmed the U.S. security commitment to South Korea, including nuclear protection.

In its first response to the summit, North Korea's government-run weekly Tongil Sinbo said Obama's comments revealed a U.S. plot to invade the North with nuclear weapons.

"It's not a coincidence at all for the U.S. to have brought numerous nuclear weapons into South Korea and other adjacent sites, staging various massive war drills opposing North Korea every day and watching for a chance for an invasion," it said in a commentary published Saturday.

North Korea says its nuclear program is a deterrent against the U.S., which it routinely accuses of plotting to topple its communist regime. The U.S., which has 28,500 troops in South Korea, has repeatedly said it has no such intention and has no nuclear weapons there.

 

[greg334]

I only hope that the UN coalition will not make us do it alone. We need to shed the image of the worlds police. If push comes to shove we will take action alone.

Why?

That's what the UN wants.

It is called Plausible Deniability Doug.

 

[DougTravels]

Why?

That's what the UN wants.

It is called Plausible Deniability Doug.

What the UN wants?
That is a impossibility, The UN is not made up of one. To say what they want is not so easy, it is made up of many varying views.
I would like to see China and Russia involved in the search, sinking or detainment, but I am sure that is just wishful thinking.

 

[greg334]

You live in a fantasy world dude. The UN is ONE, it has been ONE for a long time and it will continue to be ONE.

You need to learn how it really works. You may think it is one giant democracy where they vote on resolutions, discuss things as a group of individual countries and do good but it isn't like that at all. There are internal agendas which guide the organization and these agendas have cost lives more than you could ever dream of with the US.

Plausible Deniability means that they will again allow us, the US to take action and then if things go wrong or out of their control, they will blame us. This happened with the Iraq war, their resolution was clear it allowed us to take action as a group as many did. In an instant they started their blame, saying it was an illegal war and all that even though their resolution and our policy were on the same page. It turns out that there was a Quid Pro Quo going on with Saddam and the UN and they needed to protect their interest. The sad thing about it was the son of the leader of the UN should have been in jail from all of this and the leader should have been force out.

But that is one issue, here is another. When the war in Kosovo was ramping up, the UN stood firm on not protecting some of the Albainian citizens, remember the ethnic cleansing thing? We, the US forced their hand behind the scenes by involving our NATO contingent to act without hessitation because they were out of the reach of the UN blue helmeted thugs. The situation predated the Racak incident by a few months but was documented during the negotiations with Hill and the parties involved to reach a cease fire. The problem was clear, the Serbians were going to execute 350 'prisoners' who were not prisoners at all but non-combatents, Women and Children to be exact. The UN tried so hard to prevent anyone from interfiering with this murder because of the politics involved within the Security Council and their need to be the only control in the conflict. There is even a film about the UN and the problems they have caused, it wasn't made by some right wing US film maker but rather a croat who witness the distruction of his country thanks to the UN.

 

[layoutshooter]

You live in a fantasy world dude. The UN is ONE, it has been ONE for a long time and it will continue to be ONE.

You need to learn how it really works. You may think it is one giant democracy where they vote on resolutions, discuss things as a group of individual countries and do good but it isn't like that at all. There are internal agendas which guide the organization and these agendas have cost lives more than you could ever dream of with the US.

Plausible Deniability means that they will again allow us, the US to take action and then if things go wrong or out of their control, they will blame us. This happened with the Iraq war, their resolution was clear it allowed us to take action as a group as many did. In an instant they started their blame, saying it was an illegal war and all that even though their resolution and our policy were on the same page. It turns out that there was a Quid Pro Quo going on with Saddam and the UN and they needed to protect their interest. The sad thing about it was the son of the leader of the UN should have been in jail from all of this and the leader should have been force out.

But that is one issue, here is another. When the war in Kosovo was ramping up, the UN stood firm on not protecting some of the Albainian citizens, remember the ethnic cleansing thing? We, the US forced their hand behind the scenes by involving our NATO contingent to act without hessitation because they were out of the reach of the UN blue helmeted thugs. The situation predated the Racak incident by a few months but was documented during the negotiations with Hill and the parties involved to reach a cease fire. The problem was clear, the Serbians were going to execute 350 'prisoners' who were not prisoners at all but non-combatents, Women and Children to be exact. The UN tried so hard to prevent anyone from interfiering with this murder because of the politics involved within the Security Council and their need to be the only control in the conflict. There is even a film about the UN and the problems they have caused, it wasn't made by some right wing US film maker but rather a croat who witness the distruction of his country thanks to the UN.

Come on Doug, the UN is as corrupt as a Chicago politition, or worse. They would rather see NK drop one of those nukes rather than stop them. Then they would STILL do nothing. Board it or sink it, or both. Then take out their launch pads and nuke plants. It is not a matter of being the worlds cops, it is protecting our own butts.

As to Kosovo, we have NO National Security issues there. GET OUT!!

 

[Turtle]

Plausible Deniability is exactly right. Just read the resolution. It was very specifically worded in such a way that Russia and China could sign off on it, and still have plausible deniability. Even if the US knows for sure that the ship contains illegal materials or weapons, under the UN Resolution they must first ask the captain of the ship for permission to board it. If he says no, then the US must ask the country under which flag the ship is traveling under. If they say no, then the US is to direct the ship to an appropriate or convenient port so the ship can then be inspected by the local authorities there, wherever that is. If the ship refuses to sail to the port as directed, the US can prevent other ships from providing fuel and other supplies to the detained ship, but the US cannot board the ship at this point. The US must instead file a report with the UN Security Council, so the UN can slap the wrist of the offending ship's flag country with another resolution. If they US boards the ship, they do so on their own and without the UN's backing.

Which is fine by me, since the US needs to worry more about the security of the US than it does about UN sanctions. I doubt that this one will be boarded on the high seas, however, since this ship is suspected of carrying illegal arms to another country, and not carrying stuff back to North Korea. So while this cargo doesn't directly threaten the security of the US, the financial rewards from the sale aids North Korea's nuclear program, which does affect the US. So, I think this one will play by the book, direct them to another port and see what happens at that point.

In any case, whatever the US does, the UN, and especially China and Russia, will say that we acted alone and without the backing of the world community. That's why I think they'll refuse to let the ship refuel and will wait it out.

Incidentally, it's current events like this that make Wiki so entertaining, since anyone in the world can edit it.

It's currently flagged for better attribution, and won't last very long on its current form, but here's an example of "just the facts, ma'me" that Wiki tries so hard to weed out:

The U.S. and Japan, not content with this "resolution", are hatching dirty plots to add their own "sanctions" to the existing ones against the DPRK by framing up the fictional issues of "counterfeit money" and "drug trafficking". The U.S. incited the United Nations Security Council to get more deeply embroiled in its attempt to stifle the DPRK, which resulted in the creation of an unprecedentedly acute tension on the Korean Peninsula.

... Had any other country found itself in the situation of the DPRK, it would have clearly realized that the DPRK has never chosen but was compelled to go nuclear in the face of the U.S. hostile policy and its nuclear threats. It has become an absolutely impossible option for the DPRK to even think about giving up its nuclear weapons. It makes no difference to the DPRK whether its nuclear status is recognized or not.

It's properly listed under "North Korean Reaction", but it's an actual quote from a North Korean press release. It's just rawly dumped in there as to be fact, instead of having that section begin with something like, "The DPRK Foreign Ministry declared..."

It's pretty funny.

 

[layoutshooter]

Plausible Deniability is exactly right. Just read the resolution. It was very specifically worded in such a way that Russia and China could sign off on it, and still have plausible deniability. Even if the US knows for sure that the ship contains illegal materials or weapons, under the UN Resolution they must first ask the captain of the ship for permission to board it. If he says no, then the US must ask the country under which flag the ship is traveling under. If they say no, then the US is to direct the ship to an appropriate or convenient port so the ship can then be inspected by the local authorities there, wherever that is. If the ship refuses to sail to the port as directed, the US can prevent other ships from providing fuel and other supplies to the detained ship, but the US cannot board the ship at this point. The US must instead file a report with the UN Security Council, so the UN can slap the wrist of the offending ship's flag country with another resolution. If they US boards the ship, they do so on their own and without the UN's backing.

Which is fine by me, since the US needs to worry more about the security of the US than it does about UN sanctions. I doubt that this one will be boarded on the high seas, however, since this ship is suspected of carrying illegal arms to another country, and not carrying stuff back to North Korea. So while this cargo doesn't directly threaten the security of the US, the financial rewards from the sale aids North Korea's nuclear program, which does affect the US. So, I think this one will play by the book, direct them to another port and see what happens at that point.

In any case, whatever the US does, the UN, and especially China and Russia, will say that we acted alone and without the backing of the world community. That's why I think they'll refuse to let the ship refuel and will wait it out.

Incidentally, it's current events like this that make Wiki so entertaining, since anyone in the world can edit it.

It's currently flagged for better attribution, and won't last very long on its current form, but here's an example of "just the facts, ma'me" that Wiki tries so hard to weed out:

It's properly listed under "North Korean Reaction", but it's an actual quote from a North Korean press release. It's just rawly dumped in there as to be fact, instead of having that section begin with something like, "The DPRK Foreign Ministry declared..."

It's pretty funny.

The North Korean government is so afraid to come out into the open and join the world. Why? Because they would lose control over their slaves, the people who are trapped in there. Only God knows just how many have been murdered over the years. It is a real black eye on the UN to have allowed this to continue. Of course, the UN is a joke so it is NO surprise.

 

[LDB]

The U.N. would have been a far better 9/11 target. It is worthless and useless and we should drop it and throw every one of them out of the country. That would take care of many many billions of dollars. Then we should do what needs to be done to protect the U.S.. Period.

 

[layoutshooter]

The U.N. would have been a far better 9/11 target. It is worthless and useless and we should drop it and throw every one of them out of the country. That would take care of many many billions of dollars. Then we should do what needs to be done to protect the U.S.. Period.

They did not attack the UN because most animals don't bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[greg334]

Actually Layout the original target for 9.11 was the UN building.

 

[layoutshooter]

Actually Layout the original target for 9.11 was the UN building.

Yeah, but then they relized that they would be making some of their biggest supporters mad!! Too bad they did not hit the UN. I have no use for the bunch.

 

[Turtle]

The Preamble to the United Nations Charter:
"We the peoples of the United Nations determined: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, And for these ends: to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, Have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims: Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]

Sounds good. Looks good on paper. So, let's see how they've done so far...


* [/FONT]to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war
FAILED

* to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small
FAILED

* to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained
FAILED

* to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom
FAILED

* And for these ends: to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours,
FAILED

* and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security,
FAILED

* and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest,
FAILED

* and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
FAILED



From the UN's own UNICEF report Patterns in Conflict

Civilian fatalities in wartime climbed from 5 per cent at the turn of the century, to 15 per cent during World War I, to 65 per cent by the end of World War II, to more than 90 per cent in the wars of the 1990s.

Modern warfare is often less a matter of confrontation between professional armies than one of grinding struggles between military and civilians in the same country, or between hostile groups of armed civilians. More and more wars are essentially low-intensity internal conflicts, and they are lasting longer. The days of set-piece battles between professional soldiers facing off in a field far from town are long gone. Today, wars are fought from apartment windows and in the lanes of villages and suburbs, where distinctions between combatant and non-combatant quickly melt away.


Increasingly, wars are fought in precisely those countries that can least afford them. Of more than 150 major conflicts since the Second World War, 130 have been fought in the developing world. The per capita gross national product (GNP) of war-torn countries in 1994 included: Afghanistan (US$280), Angola ($700), Cambodia ($200), Georgia ($580), Liberia ($450), Mozambique ($80), Somalia ($120), Sri Lanka ($640), the Sudan ($480).

Since the 1950s, more wars have started than have stopped. By the end of 1995, wars had been running in Afghanistan for 17 years, Angola, 30; Liberia, 6; Somalia, 7; Sri Lanka, 11; Sudan, 12.

The global case-load of refugees and displaced persons is growing at alarming speed. The number of refugees from armed conflicts worldwide increased from 2.4 million in 1974 to more than 27.4 million today, with another 30 million people displaced within their own countries. Children and women make up an estimated 80 per cent of displaced populations.

Between 1948 and the end of the current budget year on June 20, 2009, the UN will have spent $61 Billion in armed peacekeeping operations alone, every penny of it spent with nothing to show for it. For example, the UNMOGIP (United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan) which has 40 military observers, 23 international civilian observers, and 43 local civilian observers, has a FY 09 budget of $16,957,100.

That's nearly $17 million for 106 people, $159,972.64 per person, just to observe India and Pakistan pіss on each other. And that's just this year! They've been there to monitor the ceasefire agreement signed between Pakistan and India since 1949. That's money well spent, cause, if war broke out between India and Pakistan, we'd need to know about it, so it's good that they're watching real close.

The United Nations is a tour de force in abject failure. It is astonishing at just how immense this failure is. They have not come close, not even remotely close, to achieving any of their goals. The UN was chartered on June 26, 1945, sixty four years ago this coming Friday. And in those short sixty-four years, all of the things related to their stated goals are now far worse than at any time in history. That's an astonishing failure on a scale heretofore unknown in all of human history. It boggles the mind.

 

[greg334]

And what is the most amazing thing out of all of that Turtle is the unwavering belief that we are wrong and the UN is always right.

 

[Dreammaker]

The Preamble to the United Nations Charter:
"We the peoples of the United Nations determined: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, And for these ends: to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, Have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims: Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]

Sounds good. Looks good on paper. So, let's see how they've done so far...


* [/FONT]to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war
FAILED

* to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small
FAILED

* to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained
FAILED

* to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom
FAILED

* And for these ends: to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours,
FAILED

* and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security,
FAILED

* and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest,
FAILED

* and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
FAILED



From the UN's own UNICEF report Patterns in Conflict

Between 1948 and the end of the current budget year on June 20, 2009, the UN will have spent $61 Billion in armed peacekeeping operations alone, every penny of it spent with nothing to show for it. For example, the UNMOGIP (United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan) which has 40 military observers, 23 international civilian observers, and 43 local civilian observers, has a FY 09 budget of $16,957,100.

That's nearly $17 million for 106 people, $159,972.64 per person, just to observe India and Pakistan pіss on each other. And that's just this year! They've been there to monitor the ceasefire agreement signed between Pakistan and India since 1949. That's money well spent, cause, if war broke out between India and Pakistan, we'd need to know about it, so it's good that they're watching real close.

The United Nations is a tour de force in abject failure. It is astonishing at just how immense this failure is. They have not come close, not even remotely close, to achieving any of their goals. The UN was chartered on June 26, 1945, sixty four years ago this coming Friday. And in those short sixty-four years, all of the things related to their stated goals are now far worse than at any time in history. That's an astonishing failure on a scale heretofore unknown in all of human history. It boggles the mind.

My cryptodiranian friend, that was awesome. Thanks for the U.N. historical background. I agree they have been an abject failure - basically a debating society with too many mixed motives. Strange that the U.S. still harbors any hope of guiding the debate.

 

[LDB]

TAccordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco,

No wonder it's a failure.

 

[DougTravels]

To really determine if the UN is a failure or success you would need a crystal ball. Who among us can state for fact what the world would be without it? Let me answer for you no one. Granted they surely have not acheived their goals.

Then again WW3 is not yet in the history books and the human race is still here to post their respective beliefs. Before you all jump on me and call me names think about 1 not so small thing the UN provides. A vehicle where Countries can engage in negotiations rather than bloodshed. It is place where the US, China, and Russia can talk diplomatically that in itself is a huge positive.

So is the UN worth anything?
None of us can really say.

If you think you can you are fooling yourself.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

written in 2006 and STILL the US has not paid up....


WASHINGTON — The United States is hundreds of millions of dollars behind in dues to international organizations ranging from the United Nations peacekeeping office to the agency that sets and enforces global labor standards.

The arrears have grown as the United States has fallen short on payments for missions it is obligated to support under international agreements. The debt, at $293 million, is projected to hit $478 million by year's end, based on data from the State Department and the Senate appropriations subcommittee that oversees it.

Nearly $160 million is owed for U.N. peacekeeping on obligations dating to 2005, the data show, and that is likely to grow to $266 million this year.

Since early 2007, the United States also has fallen into arrears of $51 million in dues to the regular U.N. budget — the first time it hasn't paid all yearly dues in a decade. The rest of the debt is owed to smaller groups, such as the International Labor Organization.

Since the US is in default they have no right and should not even have a vote....Since it (UN) is a joke anyhow...why even be a member...well the US isn't really a member since it doesn't contribute to any of the UN budget mentioned above by other members.

 

[Dreammaker]

Doug,

In your personal opinion, with today's communications systems, couldn't countries negotiate without bloodshed without the U.N.? Particularly, the U.S., China, and Russia. My guess is that the President can set up a secure virtual private network between his office and the leaders of those countries in minutes. No need for all the paraphanalia of the U.N. As my cryptodiranian friend pointed out, there's a lot of wasted money floating around those halls.

 

[DougTravels]

I would rather work on fixing what is wrong with the UN rather than giving up on the idea. It is the only institution of its kind.

 

[Dreammaker]

If you were given the authority to fix the U.N., what would you do to fix it? First, you would have to define the problem(s). As Turtle pointed out, there are many. What would you do first, second, third?