Anyone Else Getting Tired of Hearing About More Sanctions Against North Korea?

[Lewdog]

Sanctions are an act of war.

Sanctions do not hurt the Governments or Rulers of the countries they are sanctioning, they only hurt the citizens.

... and when the people hurt enough, when they get hungry, they remove their leadership.

Pardon the expression, but it ain't rocket science.

Please give me the names of some countries where this theory has worked.

Surely you must have dozens, I'll take just one.

Thanks in advance.

He was probably thinking of the French Revolution.

England's sanctions against the South in the Civil War worked, but only because the North also did a blockade. That wouldn't work with North Korea as China and Russia have land access to them.

 

[Spare_change]

Sanctions are an act of war.

Sanctions do not hurt the Governments or Rulers of the countries they are sanctioning, they only hurt the citizens.

... and when the people hurt enough, when they get hungry, they remove their leadership.

Pardon the expression, but it ain't rocket science.

Please give me the names of some countries where this theory has worked.

Surely you must have dozens, I'll take just one.

Thanks in advance.

He won't give you a straight answer, but I'm sure he will attempt to insult you. Sanctions don't work, especially when the country being sanctioned has 3 countries, two of which have large economies that do not follow the sanctions. As long as Russia and China continue to buy and sell goods with North Korea the sanctions will do absolutely nothing, other than give Fat Boy Kim more motivation to speed up their development of ICBMs and nuclear testing.

Sanctions do, in fact, work ... there is a historical record of the success of financial and economic sanctions. I can't help it if you are so uninformed.

 

[Lewdog]

Sanctions are an act of war.

Sanctions do not hurt the Governments or Rulers of the countries they are sanctioning, they only hurt the citizens.

... and when the people hurt enough, when they get hungry, they remove their leadership.

Pardon the expression, but it ain't rocket science.

Please give me the names of some countries where this theory has worked.

Surely you must have dozens, I'll take just one.

Thanks in advance.

He won't give you a straight answer, but I'm sure he will attempt to insult you. Sanctions don't work, especially when the country being sanctioned has 3 countries, two of which have large economies that do not follow the sanctions. As long as Russia and China continue to buy and sell goods with North Korea the sanctions will do absolutely nothing, other than give Fat Boy Kim more motivation to speed up their development of ICBMs and nuclear testing.

Sanctions do, in fact, work ... there is a historical record of the success of financial and economic sanctions. I can't help it if you are so uninformed.

You've been asked to provide examples and haven't done so. What is relevant here is, sanctions against North Korea have done nothing but motivate Fat Boy Kim to work harder on developing nuclear capable ICBMs. He doesn't care if his citizens starve to death.

 

[Spare_change]

Sanctions are an act of war.

Sanctions do not hurt the Governments or Rulers of the countries they are sanctioning, they only hurt the citizens.

... and when the people hurt enough, when they get hungry, they remove their leadership.

Pardon the expression, but it ain't rocket science.

Please give me the names of some countries where this theory has worked.

Surely you must have dozens, I'll take just one.

Thanks in advance.

Why would I stop at just one? How about a dozen? (plus one)

13 times that economic sanctions really worked

Given that the concept has been around since at least the Greek ages*, it's a little worrying that there is still so much debate about whether economic sanctions actually work or not.

Right now, that problem appears especially acute: Sanctions seem to be the main, if not only, Western weapon for dealing with Russian aggression in Ukraine. Just Monday, the United States announced sanctions on those individuals close to President Vladimir Putin, part of a broader campaign of targeted visa bans and asset freezes on the Russian elite over Russia's actions in Ukraine. However, the success of the sanctions already in place is proving hard to ascertain: As Russia’s deputy prime minister said of the last round of U.S. efforts: "Send me your teeth ground in impotent rage."

So when have economic sanctions actually worked? One of the best known investigations of that question is "Economic Sanctions Reconsidered," first published in 1985, by Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Jeffrey J. Schott, Kimberly Ann Elliott. That book, now on its third edition (from 2009), attempts to access the aims and success of every economic sanction for which it can find data.

According to the latest edition, the sanctions listed below are the only instances from 1914 to 2008 in which not only was the stated goal of the measures reached, but the sanctions themselves were instrumental in achieving that goal – thus receiving a full rating of 16 out of 16.

It isn't a long list, and many of the entries are a little obscure. Where possible, the cost to the nation targeted has been included:

1921: the League of Nations vs. Yugoslavia
In 1921, the League of Nations threatened economic sanctions against Yugoslavia if it attempted to seize land from Albania. Yugoslavia backed down.

1925: the League of Nations vs. Greece
Four years later, the League of Nations threatened sanctions against Greece unless it withdrew from Bulgaria's border territory. Greece withdrew.

1948-1949: the United States vs. Netherlands
As the Dutch East Indies struggled to become an independent Indonesia after World War II, the United States suspended the Marshall Plan aid to authorities in the region after the Dutch arrested Indonesian leaders. After threats of sanctions, the Dutch agreed to Indonesian independence in 1949. The sanctions cost 1.1% of the Dutch gross national product.

1958-1959: the U.S.S.R. vs. Finland
During the "Night Frost Crisis" of 1958 and 1959, Finnish-Soviet relations were fraught after the Communists were excluded from government and Karl-August Fagerholm, viewed as unfavorable to the Soviets, was appointed as prime minister. The U.S.S.R. used economic sanctions to force Fagerholm's resignation. The sanctions cost 1.1.% of the Finnish GNP.

1961-1965: the United States vs. Ceylon (Sri Lanka)
Between 1961 and 1965, the United States applied sanctions against the Dominion of Ceylon (what is now Sri Lanka) after the socialist government of Sirimavo Bandaranaike was accused of expropriating the assets of U.S. and British oil companies. The government fell in 1965, largely because of the economic effects of these sanctions, which cost 0.6% of the the country's GNP.

1965-1967: the United States vs. India
In 1965, the United States canceled food and military aid to India in a bid to force it to change its agricultural policies and to voice displeasure over its war with Pakistan earlier that year. In 1966, Indira Gandhi's government proposed new agricultural policies, and U.S. aid resumed the next year. The economic cost was 0.08% of the Indian GNP.

1975-1976: the United States vs. South Korea
In 1975, the United States used the threat of sanctions to discourage South Korea from buying a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant from France, which the U.S. thought might be secretly used to help make nuclear bombs. South Korea never bought the plant.

1976-1977: the United States vs. Taiwan
In 1976, the United States learned that Taiwan was secretly developing nuclear weapons, so the United States delayed its export of nuclear material to the country. Taiwan later announced that it was abandoning its plans. The estimated economic cost was 0.1% of Taiwan's GNP.

1982-1986: South Africa vs. Lesotho
South Africa applied economic pressure on Lesotho to make it return South African refugees with links to the African National Congress. After a military coup in Lesotho, South Africa lifted a blockade on the landlocked nation, and 60 ANC members were deported back home. The cost was estimated to be 5.1% of Lesotho's GNP.

1987-1988: the United States vs. El Salvador
In 1988, the United States used economic sanctions to block El Salvador from releasing those accused of killing U.S. citizens.

1992-1993: the United States vs. Malawi
The United States (and other nations) significantly cut aid in 1992 in a bid to improve the democratic standards and human rights situation in Malawi. Malawi was largely reliant on aid (the sanctions were estimated to cost 6.6% of its GNP) and swiftly adopted more open policies. After a referendum, multi-party democracy was introduced in 1993, and aid was soon resumed.

1993: the United States vs. Guatemala
In 1993, after President Jorge Serrano dissolved Congress and said he would rule by decree, the United States and European nations threatened sanctions. Business owners, scared of the economic effects, helped force Serrano out of power and installed a new president, Ramiro de Leon Carpio. The economic cost was said to be 1.3% of Guatemala's GDP.

1994-1995: Greece vs. Albania
Greece suspended European Union aid to Albania in 1994 after five members of an ethnic Greek group in the country were given prison terms. After this economic pressure (said to have cost Albania 2.9% of its GNP), Albania reduced the sentences and released two, and Greece resumed aid.

---

Maybe you should do some in-depth research before you embarrass yourself further. You know, like a 30 second Google search ...

Do Sanctions Work?

Do Sanctions Work? | HuffPost

Yes, Sanctions Work - The American Interest

http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2015/Russia/sanctions-after-crimea-have-they-worked/EN/index.htm

Explainer: do sanctions work?

 

[Spare_change]

Sanctions are an act of war.

Sanctions do not hurt the Governments or Rulers of the countries they are sanctioning, they only hurt the citizens.

... and when the people hurt enough, when they get hungry, they remove their leadership.

Pardon the expression, but it ain't rocket science.

Please give me the names of some countries where this theory has worked.

Surely you must have dozens, I'll take just one.

Thanks in advance.

He won't give you a straight answer, but I'm sure he will attempt to insult you. Sanctions don't work, especially when the country being sanctioned has 3 countries, two of which have large economies that do not follow the sanctions. As long as Russia and China continue to buy and sell goods with North Korea the sanctions will do absolutely nothing, other than give Fat Boy Kim more motivation to speed up their development of ICBMs and nuclear testing.

Sanctions do, in fact, work ... there is a historical record of the success of financial and economic sanctions. I can't help it if you are so uninformed.

You've been asked to provide examples and haven't done so. What is relevant here is, sanctions against North Korea have done nothing but motivate Fat Boy Kim to work harder on developing nuclear capable ICBMs. He doesn't care if his citizens starve to death.

Provided ... time for you to shut up and slink away quietly.

 

[Lewdog]

... and when the people hurt enough, when they get hungry, they remove their leadership.

Pardon the expression, but it ain't rocket science.

Please give me the names of some countries where this theory has worked.

Surely you must have dozens, I'll take just one.

Thanks in advance.

He won't give you a straight answer, but I'm sure he will attempt to insult you. Sanctions don't work, especially when the country being sanctioned has 3 countries, two of which have large economies that do not follow the sanctions. As long as Russia and China continue to buy and sell goods with North Korea the sanctions will do absolutely nothing, other than give Fat Boy Kim more motivation to speed up their development of ICBMs and nuclear testing.

Sanctions do, in fact, work ... there is a historical record of the success of financial and economic sanctions. I can't help it if you are so uninformed.

You've been asked to provide examples and haven't done so. What is relevant here is, sanctions against North Korea have done nothing but motivate Fat Boy Kim to work harder on developing nuclear capable ICBMs. He doesn't care if his citizens starve to death.

Provided ... time for you to shut up and slink away quietly.

And of course you ignored what I said. Sanctions have been established against North Korea for years and haven't worked. Current sanctions have been held since 2006, and what has happened during that time? North Korea has gotten closer and closer to a nuclear tipped ICBM that can reach the U.S. Your argument fails.

 

[Spare_change]

Please give me the names of some countries where this theory has worked.

Surely you must have dozens, I'll take just one.

Thanks in advance.

He won't give you a straight answer, but I'm sure he will attempt to insult you. Sanctions don't work, especially when the country being sanctioned has 3 countries, two of which have large economies that do not follow the sanctions. As long as Russia and China continue to buy and sell goods with North Korea the sanctions will do absolutely nothing, other than give Fat Boy Kim more motivation to speed up their development of ICBMs and nuclear testing.

Sanctions do, in fact, work ... there is a historical record of the success of financial and economic sanctions. I can't help it if you are so uninformed.

You've been asked to provide examples and haven't done so. What is relevant here is, sanctions against North Korea have done nothing but motivate Fat Boy Kim to work harder on developing nuclear capable ICBMs. He doesn't care if his citizens starve to death.

Provided ... time for you to shut up and slink away quietly.

And of course you ignored what I said. Sanctions have been established against North Korea for years and haven't worked. Current sanctions have been held since 2006, and what has happened during that time? North Korea has gotten closer and closer to a nuclear tipped ICBM that can reach the U.S. Your argument fails.

That, of course, is not what you said. You attempted to paint all sanctions with the same brush. In fact, your de facto counterpart (Zander) asked for a single time that economic sanctions have ever worked.

Oh, by the way .... that was the "straight answer" you claimed I would never give you.

I suggest you make your argument now about how economic sanctions never work, or else you're going to look pretty silly.

 

[Lewdog]

He won't give you a straight answer, but I'm sure he will attempt to insult you. Sanctions don't work, especially when the country being sanctioned has 3 countries, two of which have large economies that do not follow the sanctions. As long as Russia and China continue to buy and sell goods with North Korea the sanctions will do absolutely nothing, other than give Fat Boy Kim more motivation to speed up their development of ICBMs and nuclear testing.

Sanctions do, in fact, work ... there is a historical record of the success of financial and economic sanctions. I can't help it if you are so uninformed.

You've been asked to provide examples and haven't done so. What is relevant here is, sanctions against North Korea have done nothing but motivate Fat Boy Kim to work harder on developing nuclear capable ICBMs. He doesn't care if his citizens starve to death.

Provided ... time for you to shut up and slink away quietly.

And of course you ignored what I said. Sanctions have been established against North Korea for years and haven't worked. Current sanctions have been held since 2006, and what has happened during that time? North Korea has gotten closer and closer to a nuclear tipped ICBM that can reach the U.S. Your argument fails.

That, of course, is not what you said. You attempted to paint all sanctions with the same brush. In fact, your de facto counterpart (Zander) asked for a single time that economic sanctions have ever worked.

Oh, by the way .... that was the "straight answer" you claimed I would never give you.

I suggest you make your argument now about how economic sanctions never work, or else you're going to look pretty silly.

I didn't? Let me quote myself again in case you missed it the first time.

"Sanctions don't work, especially when the country being sanctioned has 3 countries, two of which have large economies that do not follow the sanctions. As long as Russia and China continue to buy and sell goods with North Korea the sanctions will do absolutely nothing, other than give Fat Boy Kim more motivation to speed up their development of ICBMs and nuclear testing."

Fact is, North Korea has been under sanctions since 2006. They haven't worked. Period.

Now prove that wrong.

 

[Spare_change]

Sanctions do, in fact, work ... there is a historical record of the success of financial and economic sanctions. I can't help it if you are so uninformed.

You've been asked to provide examples and haven't done so. What is relevant here is, sanctions against North Korea have done nothing but motivate Fat Boy Kim to work harder on developing nuclear capable ICBMs. He doesn't care if his citizens starve to death.

Provided ... time for you to shut up and slink away quietly.

And of course you ignored what I said. Sanctions have been established against North Korea for years and haven't worked. Current sanctions have been held since 2006, and what has happened during that time? North Korea has gotten closer and closer to a nuclear tipped ICBM that can reach the U.S. Your argument fails.

That, of course, is not what you said. You attempted to paint all sanctions with the same brush. In fact, your de facto counterpart (Zander) asked for a single time that economic sanctions have ever worked.

Oh, by the way .... that was the "straight answer" you claimed I would never give you.

I suggest you make your argument now about how economic sanctions never work, or else you're going to look pretty silly.

I didn't? Let me quote myself again in case you missed it the first time.

"Sanctions don't work, especially when the country being sanctioned has 3 countries, two of which have large economies that do not follow the sanctions. As long as Russia and China continue to buy and sell goods with North Korea the sanctions will do absolutely nothing, other than give Fat Boy Kim more motivation to speed up their development of ICBMs and nuclear testing."

Fact is, North Korea has been under sanctions since 2006. They haven't worked. Period.

Now prove that wrong.

An opinion - particularly one skewed to prove a preconceived notion - isn't fact. And, if it isn't fact, it doesn't deserve a response.

What makes you think they haven't worked?

"Sanctions don't work" sounds pretty all-inclusive to me. Asking for one - just one - example of sanctions working sounds pretty definitive to me.

 

[Lewdog]

You've been asked to provide examples and haven't done so. What is relevant here is, sanctions against North Korea have done nothing but motivate Fat Boy Kim to work harder on developing nuclear capable ICBMs. He doesn't care if his citizens starve to death.

Provided ... time for you to shut up and slink away quietly.

And of course you ignored what I said. Sanctions have been established against North Korea for years and haven't worked. Current sanctions have been held since 2006, and what has happened during that time? North Korea has gotten closer and closer to a nuclear tipped ICBM that can reach the U.S. Your argument fails.

That, of course, is not what you said. You attempted to paint all sanctions with the same brush. In fact, your de facto counterpart (Zander) asked for a single time that economic sanctions have ever worked.

Oh, by the way .... that was the "straight answer" you claimed I would never give you.

I suggest you make your argument now about how economic sanctions never work, or else you're going to look pretty silly.

I didn't? Let me quote myself again in case you missed it the first time.

"Sanctions don't work, especially when the country being sanctioned has 3 countries, two of which have large economies that do not follow the sanctions. As long as Russia and China continue to buy and sell goods with North Korea the sanctions will do absolutely nothing, other than give Fat Boy Kim more motivation to speed up their development of ICBMs and nuclear testing."

Fact is, North Korea has been under sanctions since 2006. They haven't worked. Period.

Now prove that wrong.

An opinion - particularly one skewed to prove a preconceived notion - isn't fact. And, if it isn't fact, it doesn't deserve a response.

What makes you think they haven't worked?

"Sanctions don't work" sounds pretty all-inclusive to me. Asking for one - just one - example of sanctions working sounds pretty definitive to me.

I'm going to ask you three VERY simple questions to test your intelligence and honesty. I'll ask them one at a time so that there is no confusion.

In 2006 did the UN place sanctions on North Korea to deter them from building a nuclear weapons program? Yes or no?

 

[MarathonMike]

I haven't seen sanctions be effective against North Korea. I think they only hurt the people while Kim Jung and his elites have what they need to stay fat and happy.

 

[Lewdog]

I'm still waiting for a yes or no answer...

 

[Spare_change]

Provided ... time for you to shut up and slink away quietly.

And of course you ignored what I said. Sanctions have been established against North Korea for years and haven't worked. Current sanctions have been held since 2006, and what has happened during that time? North Korea has gotten closer and closer to a nuclear tipped ICBM that can reach the U.S. Your argument fails.

That, of course, is not what you said. You attempted to paint all sanctions with the same brush. In fact, your de facto counterpart (Zander) asked for a single time that economic sanctions have ever worked.

Oh, by the way .... that was the "straight answer" you claimed I would never give you.

I suggest you make your argument now about how economic sanctions never work, or else you're going to look pretty silly.

I didn't? Let me quote myself again in case you missed it the first time.

"Sanctions don't work, especially when the country being sanctioned has 3 countries, two of which have large economies that do not follow the sanctions. As long as Russia and China continue to buy and sell goods with North Korea the sanctions will do absolutely nothing, other than give Fat Boy Kim more motivation to speed up their development of ICBMs and nuclear testing."

Fact is, North Korea has been under sanctions since 2006. They haven't worked. Period.

Now prove that wrong.

An opinion - particularly one skewed to prove a preconceived notion - isn't fact. And, if it isn't fact, it doesn't deserve a response.

What makes you think they haven't worked?

"Sanctions don't work" sounds pretty all-inclusive to me. Asking for one - just one - example of sanctions working sounds pretty definitive to me.

I'm going to ask you three VERY simple questions to test your intelligence and honesty. I'll ask them one at a time so that there is no confusion.

In 2006 did the UN place sanctions on North Korea to deter them from building a nuclear weapons program? Yes or no?

Quit trying to dig yourself out of the hole your overloaded mouth got you in ... just shut up and go away.

 

[Lewdog]

And of course you ignored what I said. Sanctions have been established against North Korea for years and haven't worked. Current sanctions have been held since 2006, and what has happened during that time? North Korea has gotten closer and closer to a nuclear tipped ICBM that can reach the U.S. Your argument fails.

That, of course, is not what you said. You attempted to paint all sanctions with the same brush. In fact, your de facto counterpart (Zander) asked for a single time that economic sanctions have ever worked.

Oh, by the way .... that was the "straight answer" you claimed I would never give you.

I suggest you make your argument now about how economic sanctions never work, or else you're going to look pretty silly.

I didn't? Let me quote myself again in case you missed it the first time.

"Sanctions don't work, especially when the country being sanctioned has 3 countries, two of which have large economies that do not follow the sanctions. As long as Russia and China continue to buy and sell goods with North Korea the sanctions will do absolutely nothing, other than give Fat Boy Kim more motivation to speed up their development of ICBMs and nuclear testing."

Fact is, North Korea has been under sanctions since 2006. They haven't worked. Period.

Now prove that wrong.

An opinion - particularly one skewed to prove a preconceived notion - isn't fact. And, if it isn't fact, it doesn't deserve a response.

What makes you think they haven't worked?

"Sanctions don't work" sounds pretty all-inclusive to me. Asking for one - just one - example of sanctions working sounds pretty definitive to me.

I'm going to ask you three VERY simple questions to test your intelligence and honesty. I'll ask them one at a time so that there is no confusion.

In 2006 did the UN place sanctions on North Korea to deter them from building a nuclear weapons program? Yes or no?

Quit trying to dig yourself out of the hole your overloaded mouth got you in ... just shut up and go away.

So you aren't going to answer? Thought so. Coward you know you are wrong. Now move along little doggy.

 

[Spare_change]

That, of course, is not what you said. You attempted to paint all sanctions with the same brush. In fact, your de facto counterpart (Zander) asked for a single time that economic sanctions have ever worked.

Oh, by the way .... that was the "straight answer" you claimed I would never give you.

I suggest you make your argument now about how economic sanctions never work, or else you're going to look pretty silly.

I didn't? Let me quote myself again in case you missed it the first time.

"Sanctions don't work, especially when the country being sanctioned has 3 countries, two of which have large economies that do not follow the sanctions. As long as Russia and China continue to buy and sell goods with North Korea the sanctions will do absolutely nothing, other than give Fat Boy Kim more motivation to speed up their development of ICBMs and nuclear testing."

Fact is, North Korea has been under sanctions since 2006. They haven't worked. Period.

Now prove that wrong.

An opinion - particularly one skewed to prove a preconceived notion - isn't fact. And, if it isn't fact, it doesn't deserve a response.

What makes you think they haven't worked?

"Sanctions don't work" sounds pretty all-inclusive to me. Asking for one - just one - example of sanctions working sounds pretty definitive to me.

I'm going to ask you three VERY simple questions to test your intelligence and honesty. I'll ask them one at a time so that there is no confusion.

In 2006 did the UN place sanctions on North Korea to deter them from building a nuclear weapons program? Yes or no?

Quit trying to dig yourself out of the hole your overloaded mouth got you in ... just shut up and go away.

So you aren't going to answer? Thought so. Coward you know you are wrong. Now move along little doggy.

LMAO !!!!

 

[Lewdog]

I didn't? Let me quote myself again in case you missed it the first time.

"Sanctions don't work, especially when the country being sanctioned has 3 countries, two of which have large economies that do not follow the sanctions. As long as Russia and China continue to buy and sell goods with North Korea the sanctions will do absolutely nothing, other than give Fat Boy Kim more motivation to speed up their development of ICBMs and nuclear testing."

Fact is, North Korea has been under sanctions since 2006. They haven't worked. Period.

Now prove that wrong.

An opinion - particularly one skewed to prove a preconceived notion - isn't fact. And, if it isn't fact, it doesn't deserve a response.

What makes you think they haven't worked?

"Sanctions don't work" sounds pretty all-inclusive to me. Asking for one - just one - example of sanctions working sounds pretty definitive to me.

I'm going to ask you three VERY simple questions to test your intelligence and honesty. I'll ask them one at a time so that there is no confusion.

In 2006 did the UN place sanctions on North Korea to deter them from building a nuclear weapons program? Yes or no?

Quit trying to dig yourself out of the hole your overloaded mouth got you in ... just shut up and go away.

So you aren't going to answer? Thought so. Coward you know you are wrong. Now move along little doggy.

LMAO !!!!

So you won't answer the questions. Seriously... that's pretty pathetic. Everyone knows you are a blow hard.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

All credit given to President Trump for getting the entire United Nations Security Council china and Russia on board for sanctions against North Korea. This could never have been accomplished by the Obama regime because they wouldn't want to impose sanctions on a communist country. They would much rather have sanctions against the United States.

 

[Lewdog]

All credit given to President Trump for getting the entire United Nations Security Council china and Russia on board for sanctions against North Korea. This could never have been accomplished by the Obama regime because they wouldn't want to impose sanctions on a communist country. They would much rather have sanctions against the United States.

Yeah except that's not true... as Sanctions have been passed against them since 2006.

Here is a list of several sanctions and the years they were imposed.

More North Korea sanctions? They haven't worked so far

 

[Spare_change]

An opinion - particularly one skewed to prove a preconceived notion - isn't fact. And, if it isn't fact, it doesn't deserve a response.

What makes you think they haven't worked?

"Sanctions don't work" sounds pretty all-inclusive to me. Asking for one - just one - example of sanctions working sounds pretty definitive to me.

I'm going to ask you three VERY simple questions to test your intelligence and honesty. I'll ask them one at a time so that there is no confusion.

In 2006 did the UN place sanctions on North Korea to deter them from building a nuclear weapons program? Yes or no?

Quit trying to dig yourself out of the hole your overloaded mouth got you in ... just shut up and go away.

So you aren't going to answer? Thought so. Coward you know you are wrong. Now move along little doggy.

LMAO !!!!

So you won't answer the questions. Seriously... that's pretty pathetic. Everyone knows you are a blow hard.

Actually, everybody knows that you have been schooled, and I'm the one who did it.

Can't you hear them laughing?

 

[Lewdog]

I'm going to ask you three VERY simple questions to test your intelligence and honesty. I'll ask them one at a time so that there is no confusion.

In 2006 did the UN place sanctions on North Korea to deter them from building a nuclear weapons program? Yes or no?

Quit trying to dig yourself out of the hole your overloaded mouth got you in ... just shut up and go away.

So you aren't going to answer? Thought so. Coward you know you are wrong. Now move along little doggy.

LMAO !!!!

So you won't answer the questions. Seriously... that's pretty pathetic. Everyone knows you are a blow hard.

Actually, everybody knows that you have been schooled, and I'm the one who did it.

Can't you hear them laughing?

The only laughing is in your head.

Now are you intelligent and honest enough to answer the three questions? I'll give you one last shot then I'll answer them for you.

In 2006 did the UN place sanctions on North Korea to deter them from building a nuclear weapons program? Yes or no?