North Korea says "Sanctions = war"

Originally posted by NeoSocialist
Yes and you'd prabably end up dead.

And if you opted to "talk it out," like good appeasers do, and the guy who is holding the knife in your face definately intends to kill you, you are doing nothing but only extending the time in which the guy holding the knife in your face does kills ya, so whats the difference?

Opps, thats right, the guy holding the knife in your face might spare your life if your cry and plead for your life...

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Seekerof]

Well, for once i agree- I'm on the warmongering side when it comes to a "legitimate" threat!

So why the hell are we not going for NK's throat and still all focus is on the non-threatening types, like Iran, Iraq???

What the @##$ is wrong with this nation?

Originally posted by Seekerof
And if you opted to "talk it out," like good appeasers do, and the guy who is holding the knife in your face definately intends to kill you, you are doing nothing but only extending the time in which the guy holding the knife in your face does kills ya, so whats the difference?

Talikng it out doesn't make someone an appeaser.

No-one has yet determined what the guy 'holding the knife to your face' intends.

The cry of appeasement goes up whenever someone suggests an option which doesn't end in the deaths of thousands of people, none of whom will be you coincidentally. Diplomacy enables nations to solve their differences in a civilised manner without recourse to barbarism.

The deaths of thousands of people should not be our first and chosen tactic.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Chris McGee]

We are trying to be PC 'peaceful,' especially considering the heat that the Bush Administration recieved and is still recieving for going at the throat of Saddam and removing him from power in Iraq. It is a US public and international community perception gambit. In other words, the administration is having to go at this in a sensitive and non-deliberate way so as to not be seen as it was in regards to Saddam/Iraq.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Talikng it out doesn't make someone an appeaser.

You want direct historical examples to refute that which you have just said?
Let me give you a #1 pick: Neville Chamberlain and be assured, many, many more examples can be given.

No-one has yet determined what the guy 'holding the knife to your face' intends.

Would that be like suggesting that it has not been determined whether Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, or is that a given?

The cry of appeasement goes up whenever someone suggests an option which doesn't end in the deaths of thousands of people, none of whom will be you coincidentally.

Really? I think you are very mistaken considering that the US has been talking with North Korea for how long and through how many administrations? Yeah, okie dokie.

Diplomacy enables nations to solve their differences without recourse to barbarism in a civilised manner.

Dude, in the first year my Doctorate in Conflict Analysis and Resolution. I know full well what diplomacy is intended for, as such, I also know full well its limitations and when diplomacy has failed. Do you?

The deaths of thousands of people should not be our first and chosen tactic.

Documented thousands of years of history and centuries of diplomatic history would say and prove otherwise.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Seekerof]

Regarding damage to Seoul...

I would imagine IF the NK army has "dug in artillery" we know where 90% of it is and it will get waxed VERY quickly.

The 10% we do not know where it is, as soon as they fire a SINGLE shell, they will be located via FLIR and destroied.

Chem attacks would be the main concern for Seoul I believe but if KIM does that, no more NK. ALL GONE... sorry to the civilians that will take the heat, but if he indiscriminantly gasses Seoul, the people of NK will be getting what their leader has damned them to.

I trust their souls will be judged correctly.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by Seekerof
You want direct historical examples to refute that which you have just said?
Let me give you a #1 pick: Neville Chamberlain and be assured, many, many more examples can be given.

Yes, please give many other examples.

Would that be like suggesting that it has not been determined whether Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, or is that a given?

I don't know, no-one mentioned Iran and that really doesn't have anything to do with this situation. Oops, watch out, your propaganda is showing.

Really? I think you are very mistaken considering that the US has been talking with North Korea for how long and through how many administrations? Yeah, okie dokie.

I am mistaken? Read the quote.

When did they become a threat? Was labelling them within the axis of evil a productive move? Was refusing one to one talks a productive move? Can you honestly say that our governments have done everything possible to avoid this situation?

Don't get me wrong, this needs to be stopped but I would prefer a diplomatic solution, which I believe we are fully capable of achieving if we have the will.

Dude, in the first year my Doctorate in Conflict Analysis and Resolution. I know full well what diplomacy is intended for, as such, I also know full well its limitations and when diplomacy has failed. Do you?

Congratulations on getting into a research programme (not sure if it's the same there as it is here but it's quite difficult to get into here).

There are times when war is a necessity, WWII being an example, but these things have two sides. Was WWII necessary from a German point of view? No it wasn't, it was necessary from the allies point of view because we were being attacked. Was the Iraq war a necessity from anyones point of view? No it wasn't. Is a war on the Korean peninsula necessary? No, at the present time it isn't.

Don't be so quick to declare diplomacy has failed.

Documented thousands of years of history and centuries of diplomatic history would say and prove otherwise.

History shows our first and chosen tactic should be the deaths of thousands of people?

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Regarding damage to Seoul...

I would imagine IF the NK army has "dug in artillery" we know where 90% of it is and it will get waxed VERY quickly.

The 10% we do not know where it is, as soon as they fire a SINGLE shell, they will be located via FLIR and destroied.

Ah, that's ok then. You might want to mention that to the people at the CNS because they disagree.

CNS

Originally posted by Chris McGee

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Regarding damage to Seoul...

I would imagine IF the NK army has "dug in artillery" we know where 90% of it is and it will get waxed VERY quickly.

The 10% we do not know where it is, as soon as they fire a SINGLE shell, they will be located via FLIR and destroied.

Ah, that's ok then. You might want to mention that to the people at the CNS because they disagree.

CNS

I am missing the part where they mention the offensive capabilities against seoul.

Are you talking about them nuking Seoul? Short range, small numbers of missiles should be defeatable via the PAC-3 system.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
I am missing the part where they mention the offensive capabilities against seoul.

Are you talking about them nuking Seoul? Short range, small numbers of missiles should be defeatable via the PAC-3 system.

One U.S. military estimate suggested that U.S. and South Korean military forces might suffer 300,000-500,000 casualties within the first 90 days of fighting, in addition to hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

The biggest military concern in striking North Korean nuclear facilities is the threat of North Korean counter-attacks. Seoul, the South Korean capitol, lies within range of North Korean long-range artillery. Five hundred 170mm Koksan guns and 200 multiple-launch rocket systems could hit Seoul with artillery shells and chemical weapons, causing panic and massive civilian casualties. North Korea has between 500 and 600 Scud missiles that could strike targets throughout South Korea with conventional warheads or chemical weapons.

CNS

You could just read it.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Chris McGee]

Originally posted by Chris McGee

Talikng it out doesn't make someone an appeaser.

We had one on one talks with NK and gave them technology for nuclear power and they promised not to make weapons. Continuing to talk at this point is ridiculous because they do not deal in good faith. I do not however condone an attack at this point. I just think we should step aside and let China and Japan handle this hot potato since they're in striking distance.

No-one has yet determined what the guy 'holding the knife to your face' intends.

If a guy leaves his house with a knife I assume he's going to kill someone or clean a fish. If he doesn't have a fish, I have my answer. Hey I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the guy with the umbrella, the walking stick, or even a registered handgun (if he has a carry permit) but I don't think the guy with the knife gets it!

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Yes, please give many other examples.

What difference will it make if I list them or not, you will simply profess otherwise, correct?
Arthur Vandenberg
Lord Halifax
Hans Blix
Jacques Chirac
John Kerry
Al Gore
Bill Clinton
Jimmy Carter
Lord Lothian
Kofi Annan
William Borah
The Geddes Committee
Eamon de Valera
Mackenzie King
Half the Democrat Party
Cindy Sheehan
Amnesty International
Dick Durbin
Charles Lindbergh
Gerald R. Ford
Paleoconservatives
etc.

anything to do with this situation. Oops, watch out, your propaganda is showing.

It was a comparative example and one you failed to answer though you acknowledged it....oops....

I am mistaken? Read the quote.

And am I mistaken? Answer the question.

Was labelling them within the axis of evil a productive move?

You a political correct advocate or does the truth offend you?

Was refusing one to one talks a productive move?

Yes! A very prudent move, for many reasons that you have not grasped or admitted yet.

Can you honestly say that our governments have done everything possible to avoid this situation?

How many years and how many administrations have continued to "talk" with North Korea? When is enough is enough?

Don't get me wrong, this needs to be stopped but I would prefer a diplomatic solution, which I believe we are fully capable of achieving if we have the will.

Is not the Bush administration continuing to offer to "talk" with North Korea? Apparently, the "will" is still active.

Was the Iraq war a necessity from anyones point of view? No it wasn't.

Umm, thats your perspective/opinion, is it not? Obviously, there are those who would differ, correct?

Is a war on the Korean peninsula necessary? No, at the present time it isn't.

Who, other than the North Koreans, are threatening war? Again, apparently, the Bush admnistration seems to agree with your conclusion, thus their long suggesting a resumption of 6-way/party talks.

Don't be so quick to declare diplomacy has failed.

I am calling it as I see it.
North Korea has been in bilateral and multilateral talks.
Question: has any of this "talking" done any good, made a difference, prevented or curtailed North Korea in their pursuit of nukes, and once acquired, more nukes? Hardly, thus my conclusion that diplomacy has indeed failed.

History shows our first and chosen tactic should be the deaths of thousands of people?

Does not history speak for itself?

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by stanstheman
We had one on one talks with NK and gave them technology for nuclear power and they promised not to make weapons.

The key points of this agreement were that economic sanctions would be lifted and diplomatic relations would be established.

If a guy leaves his house with a knife I assume he's going to kill someone or clean a fish. If he doesn't have a fish, I have my answer. Hey I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the guy with the umbrella, the walking stick, or even a registered handgun (if he has a carry permit) but I don't think the guy with the knife gets it!

Think about this from the point of view of the Koreans. The guy with the knife has left his house and said there's three troublemakers on the block. He's murdered one of them and is heading towards the other's house with a glint in his eye. What would you do as the third guy?

When did they become a threat?

When they lobbed a misslie over Japan, that was pretty provacative. All we did was call them a name.

Don't get me wrong, this needs to be stopped but I would prefer a diplomatic solution, which I believe we are fully capable of achieving if we have the will.

I'd agree if we weren't dealing with a maniacal, paranoid midget with delusions of granduer.

Was the Iraq war a necessity from anyones point of view?

Wellll, I'm pretty sure the Kurds are with us. And despite the MSM, I would say that most Iraqis' are too-or don't they get a vote?

Don't be so quick to declare diplomacy has failed.

Again and again and again. We are at war with NK. There is a cease fire which NK violated when they shot a missle over Japan, and again when they tested the nuke. How would you like to deal with a country like NK? You keep saying diplomacy, okay, say I'm with you-where do we start? Give me steps 1-3 that you think will result in a peaceful ending to all of this. I am not being sarcastic, really, what's your plan? Because apparently the professional diplomats could use some new tactics.

Originally posted by Chris McGee

One U.S. military estimate suggested that U.S. and South Korean military forces might suffer 300,000-500,000 casualties within the first 90 days of fighting, in addition to hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

CNS

You could just read it.

Perhaps, in rebuttal, you should read these:
www.google.com...

Using casualty estimates to justify your position in this particular case is what, exactly? To prove that "talking" should continue on forever in the case of North Korea without proper and due reprisals for their blatant contrary actions and threats?

Casualty estimates are not only motivators for that continued "talking," as you see it, but are also motivators for making adjustments to military planning and reprisals. I would be cautious in using casualty estimates to justify your position, because such estimates can also be used to justify other means of military action, as linked.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Yes, please give many other examples.

What difference will it make if I list them or not, you will simply profess otherwise, correct?
Arthur Vandenberg
Lord Halifax
Hans Blix
Jacques Chirac
John Kerry
Al Gore
Bill Clinton
Jimmy Carter
Lord Lothian
Kofi Annan
William Borah
The Geddes Committee
Eamon de Valera
Mackenzie King
Half the Democrat Party
Cindy Sheehan
Amnesty International
Dick Durbin
Charles Lindbergh
Gerald R. Ford
Paleoconservatives
etc.

Jimmy Carter should be in "bold" and in a huge font. He's their king!

We wont do anything. Once again that useless group called the UN is hamstringing any type of sanctions with teeth. And who is standing in the way? The same freakin culprits as every other time: Russia and China. I say we need to bypass the UN from here on out and just round up whoever agrees and go with that. Russia and China are always going to oppose us no matter what.

Seekerof, it's far too late here for me to quote your post point by point so here goes.

OK, first up is your list. This just shows that you will always let political bias cloud your judgement,

My original post:

The cry of appeasement goes up whenever someone suggests an option which doesn't end in the deaths of thousands of people, none of whom will be you coincidentally.

your reply:

Really? I think you are very mistaken considering that the US has been talking with North Korea for how long and through how many administrations?

You might as well have been answering a different topic for all the relevance that has.

Can you honestly say that our governments have done everything possible to avoid this situation?

How many years and how many administrations have continued to "talk" with North Korea? When is enough is enough?

You didn't answer the question.

Is not the Bush administration continuing to offer to "talk" with North Korea? Apparently, the "will" is still active.

No they aren't willing to offer talks.

Who, other than the North Koreans, are threatening war? Again, apparently, the Bush admnistration seems to agree with your conclusion, thus there long suggesting 6-way/party talks to resume.

The Nks aren't threatening war. 6 party talks have been offered and, as we knew would happen, have been rejected. Why offer something you know will be rejected unless you are looking to either provoke a perceived enemy or for posturing. 6 party talks have been rejected so go for one on one talks. The alternative is a lot of dead people.

Question: has any of this "talking" done any good, made a difference, prevented or curtailed North Korea in their pursuit of nukes, and once acquired, more nukes? Hardly, thus my conclusion that diplomacy has indeed failed.

Ah, but as a student of these matters you will appreciate the question 'Could this talking have made a difference if it had been conducted in a different manner?'. A more pertinent question would be can talking make a difference in the future?

Does not history speak for itself?

Those who do not learn from the past are destined to repeat it.

Originally posted by Chris McGee

The key points of this agreement were that economic sanctions would be lifted and diplomatic relations would be established.

NK is the world's largest producer of conterfeit $1500. dollar (US) bills. Our sanctions were put in place to stop them from doing that. Futhermore they receive food aid from the WFP which they promptly sell to the highest bidder or use to feed their army. Economic sanctions have no effect what so ever on the NK people because they had nothing before the sanctions, saw zero aid, and have nothing now. Lifting sanctions at this point will make it easier for NK to fund their war machine. Kim doesn't give a s@#$ about his people! We have been waiting for NK to return to the 6 party talks for over a year-talks they walked out of. Do you think that countries such as China, SK, and Japan should have no place in talks that directly effect them? Are their opinions in all of this somehow less important than those of NK?

Think about this from the point of view of the Koreans. The guy with the knife has left his house and said there's three troublemakers on the block. He's murdered one of them and is heading towards the other's house with a glint in his eye. What would you do as the third guy?

Hmmm so the guy in the second house is Iran? (All these metaphors are making my head hurt:lol Okay, here's the thing. NK didn't pull a nuke out of it's a$$ since 2003. And unless Kim is clairvoyant then he would not have seen any kind of move towards Iran, because there hasn't been one yet. Now Kim is crazy but he is shrewd, this has been a long time coming and our possible (but in my opinion not likely) attack on Iran is just an excuse. He would have found another reason to cause trouble even if Iraq and the axis of evil thing never happened! Don't you think he's a bad guy? Do you trust him? (insert America bashing reply here)

Originally posted by Seekerof
Using casualty estimates to justify your position in this particular case is what, exactly? To prove that "talking" should continue on forever in the case of North Korea without proper and due reprisals for their blatant contrary actions and threats?

Casualty estimates are not only motivators for that continued "talking," as you see it, but are also motivators for making adjustments to military planning and reprisals. I would be cautious in using casualty estimates to justify your position, because such estimates can also be used to justify other means of military action, as linked.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Seekerof]

Those casualty estimates show us that if we can avoid a conflict we should. I would quite happily accept talking forever at the moment because it means that close to one million people will not die.