<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: U.S. Won&#8217;t Board Suspected N. Korean Arms Ship</title>
	<atom:link href="http://freekorea.us/2009/06/26/us-wont-board-suspected-n-korean-arms-ship/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://freekorea.us/2009/06/26/us-wont-board-suspected-n-korean-arms-ship/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 10:34:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: usinkorea</title>
		<link>http://freekorea.us/2009/06/26/us-wont-board-suspected-n-korean-arms-ship/comment-page-1/#comment-67781</link>
		<dc:creator>usinkorea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:20:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freekorea.us/2009/06/26/us-wont-board-suspected-n-korean-arms-ship/#comment-67781</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;â€œThe whole thing just doesnâ€™t add up,â€ said one senior administration official who has been tracking the cargo shipâ€™s lazy summer journey. â€œMy worry is that we make a big demand about seeing the cargo, and then thereâ€™s a tense standoff, and when itâ€™s all over we discover that old man Kim set us up to look like George Bush searching for nonexistent W.M.D.â€&lt;/blockquote&gt;

That&#039;s largely short-sighted hooey.

A resolution authorizing inspection for possible illegal things does not say something has to be found or else.   What would we do if it did?  Customs checkpoints at airports and other points of entry would become obsolete fast.  

Or, another way to look at it -- we have laws about false arrest but we don&#039;t extend that to &quot;false search warrants&quot; if a search is sanctioned but turns up nothing.

The point of creating the resolutions in the first place is - like with a search warrant - North Korea has already proven itself a criminal/rogue regime by using commercial shipping to ferry drugs, weapons, currency, you name it.  It has already been caught at this before - thus the need to check them out.

Such resolutions (or search warrants) are not a house of cards that falls apart and can&#039;t be used again just because you don&#039;t find something one of the times you look...

And besides, what would we do if we did find something?  Last time we just watched it go back on its merry way...

&lt;blockquote&gt;Pentagon officials are clearly not eager to confront the Kang Nam 1. The intelligence about what is on board is typically murky. Some say they suspect small arms, which are banned by the United Nations resolution but hardly a major threat.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

--Sigh--

There is no hope...

Our military is afraid to search a ship because it might not find anything banned.  Goody for North Korea - rubbing its hands together thinking about all the illegal stuff that will get through.

And the NY Times doesn&#039;t really care about enforcing UN resolutions unless they are really, really important...

--Sigh--

&lt;blockquote&gt;Mr. Obamaâ€™s top aides say they are acutely aware of the dangers if the same happened with the Kang Nam 1. Whatever momentum the administration has created to confront the North Koreans would be lost if the first intercepted ship was carrying sea bass, or Ping-Pong balls.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Only because that is how orgs like you have defined it!!!

Because --

&lt;blockquote&gt;But the Kang Nam 1 is a test of whether United Nations sanctions have some teeth.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

-- if that&#039;s true, the search itself --- boarding the ship on the high seas or forcing it to port to be searched --- is the point.  That is the teeth the UN is showing.  It isn&#039;t dependent on finding something dirty.

It is no wonder Pyongyang so frequently laughs at the world community...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>â€œThe whole thing just doesnâ€™t add up,â€ said one senior administration official who has been tracking the cargo shipâ€™s lazy summer journey. â€œMy worry is that we make a big demand about seeing the cargo, and then thereâ€™s a tense standoff, and when itâ€™s all over we discover that old man Kim set us up to look like George Bush searching for nonexistent W.M.D.â€</p></blockquote>
<p>That&#8217;s largely short-sighted hooey.</p>
<p>A resolution authorizing inspection for possible illegal things does not say something has to be found or else.   What would we do if it did?  Customs checkpoints at airports and other points of entry would become obsolete fast.  </p>
<p>Or, another way to look at it &#8212; we have laws about false arrest but we don&#8217;t extend that to &#8220;false search warrants&#8221; if a search is sanctioned but turns up nothing.</p>
<p>The point of creating the resolutions in the first place is &#8211; like with a search warrant &#8211; North Korea has already proven itself a criminal/rogue regime by using commercial shipping to ferry drugs, weapons, currency, you name it.  It has already been caught at this before &#8211; thus the need to check them out.</p>
<p>Such resolutions (or search warrants) are not a house of cards that falls apart and can&#8217;t be used again just because you don&#8217;t find something one of the times you look&#8230;</p>
<p>And besides, what would we do if we did find something?  Last time we just watched it go back on its merry way&#8230;</p>
<blockquote><p>Pentagon officials are clearly not eager to confront the Kang Nam 1. The intelligence about what is on board is typically murky. Some say they suspect small arms, which are banned by the United Nations resolution but hardly a major threat.</p></blockquote>
<p>&#8211;Sigh&#8211;</p>
<p>There is no hope&#8230;</p>
<p>Our military is afraid to search a ship because it might not find anything banned.  Goody for North Korea &#8211; rubbing its hands together thinking about all the illegal stuff that will get through.</p>
<p>And the NY Times doesn&#8217;t really care about enforcing UN resolutions unless they are really, really important&#8230;</p>
<p>&#8211;Sigh&#8211;</p>
<blockquote><p>Mr. Obamaâ€™s top aides say they are acutely aware of the dangers if the same happened with the Kang Nam 1. Whatever momentum the administration has created to confront the North Koreans would be lost if the first intercepted ship was carrying sea bass, or Ping-Pong balls.</p></blockquote>
<p>Only because that is how orgs like you have defined it!!!</p>
<p>Because &#8211;</p>
<blockquote><p>But the Kang Nam 1 is a test of whether United Nations sanctions have some teeth.</p></blockquote>
<p>&#8211; if that&#8217;s true, the search itself &#8212; boarding the ship on the high seas or forcing it to port to be searched &#8212; is the point.  That is the teeth the UN is showing.  It isn&#8217;t dependent on finding something dirty.</p>
<p>It is no wonder Pyongyang so frequently laughs at the world community&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: james</title>
		<link>http://freekorea.us/2009/06/26/us-wont-board-suspected-n-korean-arms-ship/comment-page-1/#comment-67780</link>
		<dc:creator>james</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freekorea.us/2009/06/26/us-wont-board-suspected-n-korean-arms-ship/#comment-67780</guid>
		<description>also, just wondering, is the captain of USS McCain the 1st Korean-American to ever be a captain of a ship?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>also, just wondering, is the captain of USS McCain the 1st Korean-American to ever be a captain of a ship?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: james</title>
		<link>http://freekorea.us/2009/06/26/us-wont-board-suspected-n-korean-arms-ship/comment-page-1/#comment-67779</link>
		<dc:creator>james</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:20:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freekorea.us/2009/06/26/us-wont-board-suspected-n-korean-arms-ship/#comment-67779</guid>
		<description>maybe it&#039;s a good thing we didn&#039;t board it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/world/asia/01sanger.html?ref=asia</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>maybe it&#8217;s a good thing we didn&#8217;t board it.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/world/asia/01sanger.html?ref=asia" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/world/asia/01sanger.html?ref=asia</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Spelunker</title>
		<link>http://freekorea.us/2009/06/26/us-wont-board-suspected-n-korean-arms-ship/comment-page-1/#comment-67768</link>
		<dc:creator>Spelunker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:12:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freekorea.us/2009/06/26/us-wont-board-suspected-n-korean-arms-ship/#comment-67768</guid>
		<description>The Kang Nam has already passed Hong Kong and is headed south on the South China Sea right now.  The UN General Secretary (Ban Ki-Moon) just announced that he&#039;s going to Burma this week.  Wouldn&#039;t if be funny if both Korean entities arrive in Burma on the same day?
I&#039;m wishfully thinking it&#039;s time for Ban Ki-Moon to say to the world:  &quot;If you want U.N. sanctions done right, you have to do it yourself!&quot; as he struts with swagger across the Burmese dock and boards the North Korean ship.
What?  You think Ki-Moon will stay in his Rangoon hotel and order a movie instead?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Kang Nam has already passed Hong Kong and is headed south on the South China Sea right now.  The UN General Secretary (Ban Ki-Moon) just announced that he&#8217;s going to Burma this week.  Wouldn&#8217;t if be funny if both Korean entities arrive in Burma on the same day?<br />
I&#8217;m wishfully thinking it&#8217;s time for Ban Ki-Moon to say to the world:  &#8220;If you want U.N. sanctions done right, you have to do it yourself!&#8221; as he struts with swagger across the Burmese dock and boards the North Korean ship.<br />
What?  You think Ki-Moon will stay in his Rangoon hotel and order a movie instead?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: james</title>
		<link>http://freekorea.us/2009/06/26/us-wont-board-suspected-n-korean-arms-ship/comment-page-1/#comment-67742</link>
		<dc:creator>james</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:38:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freekorea.us/2009/06/26/us-wont-board-suspected-n-korean-arms-ship/#comment-67742</guid>
		<description>damn.  ok.  my positive thinking didn&#039;t work.  that UN sanction is full of crap.

at least there is more negative press for the NK more than EVER in the past few years.

why am i being so damn glass half full?  it&#039;s freaking me out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>damn.  ok.  my positive thinking didn&#8217;t work.  that UN sanction is full of crap.</p>
<p>at least there is more negative press for the NK more than EVER in the past few years.</p>
<p>why am i being so damn glass half full?  it&#8217;s freaking me out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richardson</title>
		<link>http://freekorea.us/2009/06/26/us-wont-board-suspected-n-korean-arms-ship/comment-page-1/#comment-67730</link>
		<dc:creator>Richardson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 01:55:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freekorea.us/2009/06/26/us-wont-board-suspected-n-korean-arms-ship/#comment-67730</guid>
		<description>Shall we go to Indonesia and try some pirate costumes?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shall we go to Indonesia and try some pirate costumes?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

