- @
- Followers:
No Tweets Found
CNN POLITICS ON FACEBOOK » | CNN POLITICS ON TWITTER »
April 15th, 2013
04:39 AM ET
Kerry stands firm on North Korea
As North Koreans celebrated the birthday on Monday of their country's late founder, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry urged the regime in Pyongyang to ditch its nuclear program and put a lid on its fiery threats if it wants to hold talks.
"The United States has made clear many times what the conditions are for our entering talks and they haven't changed," Kerry said during an interview with CNN's Jill Dougherty in Tokyo.
"The conditions have to be met where the North has to move towards denuclearization, indicate a seriousness in doing so by reducing these threats, stop the testing, and indicate it's actually prepared to negotiate," he said.
FULL STORY
Ok cnn he stands firm,and......?
Pre conditions = no talks.
great way to resolve a potentially disastrous issue.
Its foolish to assume that the North would scrap its nuclear program to talk with us. Who does the thinking (or does anyone?)
@saywhat,hate to tell yah but N Koreas nuclear program had been in mothballs for years and just recently UN against his governments advise decided to start it up again!!Where have you been!!
The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency was conceived to prevent nuclear proliferation. In that, they have miserably failed. Instead, the UN redistributes wealth from developed countries to the third world. But the third world keeps governing stupidly, which is why they're poor in the first place. And the uS, one of 193 countries, still pays twenty-five percent of the UN budget. Kerry is weak and impotent. The UN is weak and impotent. North Korea is irrational and nucleqar armed. This is a train wreck predictable from a mile out.
Yup @ Raul, train wreck is the perfect way to describe it. And yes @ saywhat, our country needs to shut up and stop provoking him!
They are not weak & impotent@ Raul
UN is ruled by the 5 permanent members and each looks out for its own interest & Kerry is a functionary of one of these members.
UN would serve the purpose it was supposedly created for only if the permanent membership is widened & the dictatorial veto is abolished.
As for our funding UN, we shorted on dues for years but in 2009 Congress allowed US to pay in full. I have no idea if arrears were paid too.
And then we have been getting significant return on our 'investment' as its our interests that UN advances the most.