Published: October 22, 1994
Oct. 21 — After almost four months of difficult negotiations, the United States and North Korea signed an agreement today to end their dispute over North Korea’s nuclear program
After the signing today, North Korea’s chief negotiator, Kang Sok Ju, described it as “a very important milestone document of historic significance” that would resolve his country’s nuclear dispute with the United States “once and for all.”
He said the agreement, once put into effect, would resolve “all questions of the so-called nuclear weapons development by North Korea” that have raised “such unfounded concerns and suspicions.”
“We have neither the intention nor the plan to develop nuclear weapons,” Mr. Kang said.
At a news conference in Washington, President Clinton said the treaty was “a good deal for the United States.”
“The United States and international inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments,” he said. “Only as it does so will North Korea fully join the community of nations.”
U.S. and North Korea Sign Pact to End Nuclear Dispute – NYTimes.com
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
Recent Comments
- czechlist on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Disillusioned on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Billyjack on COP29 Preview
- dm on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- dm on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Tel on COP29 Preview
- Robertvd on Making Themselves Irrelevant
Santayana wrote (in The Life of Reason, 1905): “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Yes, and now that the ASS Kerry sign an agreement the Muslims are announcing it says something entirely different.
Anyone who has ever dealt with Muslims KNOWS they never ever abide by a contract. I have been in business over 20 years and I can not think of one time that a Muslim has kept his word.
Iran Accuses US of Lying About New Nuke Agreement
“Just hours after the announcement of what the United States characterized as a historic agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, the country’s leading negotiator lashed out at the Obama administration for lying about the details of a tentative framework.
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic….”
Iran Brags About Nuke Concessions
Sharia (sp?) law dictates that Allah expects one to lie in any way necessary to accomplish his will.
I never knew Harry Reid and Barack Obama followed Sharia law so closely.
Trouble is, it seems learning Sharia law is becoming a requirement of US politicians.
Unfortunately, those who try not to follow it get slammed in the face. Much of the fault lies with the electorate.
There was an exception on the far left who flew in his own direction regardless of which way the political winds were blowing. He was a Minnesota Senator. His name was Paul Wellstone. Unfortunately, he died in a plane crash. I did not agree with much of his politics, but as my wife and I were foster and adoptive parents of special needs and at risk children, I definitely appreciated some of his work. In particular helping those children. (he was crippled)
Now for a little propaganda, what we chose to do was a choice we made because of our pro life believe. I have difficulty with the nature of the human race when it chooses to kill unborn children. To me it is a new type of slavery. A mother and only the mother is given ownership of the life of a child. She is give the right as to whether the child will live or die. For me it is sad.
To me it is a new type of slavery.
I have compared abortion to slavery for years now. Slavery was also once accepted by society, and legal too. That usually stops the BS.
I proof read my writing after I post and in doing so, I find me to be illiterate or at least lacking in writing ability.
Just too impatient.
gator, I have also long characterized abortion as just another form of slavery. The mother gets to decide whether that new, blossoming life inside her is something sacred and deserving of love and nurturing, or just a random piece of tissue to be done with as she wishes. She has property rights over both her unborn, as well as the biological father. If she decides to cast it aside, the father has no say in the matter. If she decides to allow its natural progression to birth, despite whatever the father says, he is legally bound to provide for its financial support until it is 18 years of age. How is any of this any different from slavery where one human claims property rights over another?
Libertarians, would let the person that has to deal with it personally make the call. Right??? Or is it that you don’t want anyone to infrenge on your rights but have your way with others??? Libertarians!!!!!! If your a libertarian, then don’t get involved in shit that physically doesn’t involve you, I almost get the feeling they are like the vegamaterians.
The unborn?
I consider myself to be a Libertarian. And to me that means that I believe that all humans are entitled to free will, as long as it does not infringe on the inalienable rights of their fellow human beings. And those inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of one’s dreams. As much as I admire George Washington, I think my favorite founding father was Thomas Jefferson, who has two quotes by which I try to live my life.
But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. … Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.
-Thomas Jefferson
Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson
http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs
Question with boldness. In other words, question your own beliefs. That is the only path towards truth, and that is the only possibility for real freedom from, and for men.
Wow, I am surprised that I got a significant response to my thinking and that others think like I do so much.
Until a child is of a certain age, that child obviously must (unfortunately often do not have) have boundaries, ever expanding boundaries, but boundaries given by parents or their caretakers.
But the children have individual rights, and one of them is simply to be born and then have their needs met. That in no way conflicts with being a libertarian.
I am not sure if I am a libertarian, ( like Stossel ?) I really do not care or think about it.
I am profoundly of the belief that people should be responsible for their own actions.
A strange paradox to being pro life , and again this thought is a result of interacting with a part of society which has quite different beliefs is exemplified by the situation where women have five or more children, each with a different man who lives with them for awhile and then the man moves on for another woman to breed and a place to live.
Each child is a source of income for a period of time and obviously the rights of the children are not close to being met. It is a reason why we have in a short time gone from a society where 25% do not pay taxes to 47 to 49% who do not pay taxes.
It is unsustainable.
…and a Presidential candidate offhandedly referred to that figure, got blasted for it, and did not have the where with all to neutralize the comment.
Reblogged this on GUNNY G: NOTHING BY ACCIDENT IN POLITICS…!.
Why the Iran nuclear deal is irrelevant:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/dan-henninger-why-the-iran-deal-is-irrelevant-1427930123
Seventy-seven years ago…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO725Hbzfls
When will the leftists ever learn?
Never. It’s a mental condition.
They base their decsions on what they hope to be true, rather than the truth.
I tell you what, though: we knew how to cheer in those days. None of this poofy/faggy whooping that kidz now do at the mere drop of a hat.
Chamberlain wasn’t a leftist, at least by British standards. However, it’s true (despite later denials) that the British Left mostly approved of the Munich agreement.
Hey Beale! Definitions of Left and Right wing politics differ between the US and the UK. However, both sides are becoming ever more Progressive, at least on this side of the pond. To an American, leftists are totalitarian, Big Brother, individual rights stomping a-holes. Progressivism was started by left wingers here in the US, who cloaked themselves as ‘Liberals’, which they learned from the British ‘Fabian Society’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society
Fabian Society Coat of Arms, a wolf in sheep’s clothing…
http://danielkingma.com/sites/danielkingma.com/files/the_fabian_society_logo.jpg
Both sides of the pond need to agree on calling Nazi style politics Progressive, to avoid confusion. I am constantly reminding my fellow citizens that a real liberal is actually one who believes in individual rights, it is Progressives that are the liberty stealing bastards. And we should both probably drop the use of left and right, in favor of Progressive and Libertarian.
The name Progressive is not about progress per se, it is derived from ‘progressing toward’ a top down government, the opposite of what America’s founders set up.
The opposite of a Progressive is a Libertarian (me), and those are the real adversaries for this fight to retain individual freedoms.
We truly are two nations separated by a common language. 😉
The Fabians regarded themselves as the vanguard of evolutionary progress, the next step in the development of the species, who would eliminate their primitive predecessors. That’s what they meant by “Progress”.
spent the formative first few years of my adult life protecting american soldiers overseas from iran backed muslim turks in germany who were stabbing soldiers.
got permanently injured over there too.
slap in the face to slay the least.
I was in the Navy at the time of that treaty 21 years ago and wrote a letter to my hometown newspaper saying what a cave that was. They published it. (I worked there as a sports writer for 5 years). Not the first time I’ve been right.