It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

North Korea says "Sanctions = war"

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I do not think that some people get that little kimmy does not actually want a solution to this. He wants ATTENTION from the U.S., and he wants to make the U.S. look bad. He will never, NEVER follow through with anything agreed to in direct talks between him and the U.S. If he even romotely wanted to resolve this situation and improve the prospects of his people, he would rejoin the six party talks; China and (sunshine policy) SK would ensure a way sweeter deal then little kimmy deserves. If we sit down one-on-one with him, we will ensure his people get fed so he is free to rid himself (wink, wink) of his nuclear weapons.
Little kimmy has the U.S. in a pickle and he knows it. The fact is with flagging opinions on the middle east war on terror and little kimmy's ability to level SK on a moments notice, the military option is all but off the table unless he goes and does something drastic. Little kimmy may be crazy, but he is crazy like a fox. He will push the U.S., Japan, and SK just as far as he can, then (like the spoiled little kid he is) run back into the arms of mommy'n daddy (china and russia) to protect him from the big bad countries out to get him. If the world would just get a freaking backbone, this situation could be brought to a swift ending by ignoring and embargoing little kimmy right out of there. Because of russia and china, the U.N. (useless nations) is only going to embolden Little Kimmy , terrorists, and Iran.




posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanstheman
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.


Doesn't matter. One of the key points of the agreement was not met. You can rationalise it any way you like but it won't change the facts.



HDon't you think he's a bad guy? Do you trust him? (insert America bashing reply here)


I'll ignore the usual US paranoia at the end of that.

Yes, of course I think he's a bad guy and if someone were to put a bullet in his head I wouldn't mind at all. I'm not on Kim's side here, I just think that we need to truly exhaust all diplomatic options before risking the lives of many thousands of people. If that means containing NK so be it but a war is and should be the final option.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AHCivilE
. If the world would just get a freaking backbone, this situation could be brought to a swift ending by ignoring and embargoing little kimmy right out of there.



Ding, ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee

Doesn't matter. One of the key points of the agreement was not met. You can rationalise it any way you like but it won't change the facts.


I'm tired, what point wasn't met?


Yes, of course I think he's a bad guy and if someone were to put a bullet in his head I wouldn't mind at all. I'm not on Kim's side here, I just think that we need to truly exhaust all diplomatic options before risking the lives of many thousands of people. If that means containing NK so be it but a war is and should be the final option.


I'm not rushing to war, frankly I would love to see video tape of one of his generals say "when will you shut up little man/" and plug him, really it would be a "you tube" moment. But I want to know, what diplomatic steps would you take, where do we go from here and what about the countries that surround NK? Don't they have a place in diplomacy?



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I agree,
why is it we can create enough of a threat out of an enemy that isnt a threat.
Yet when someone brasonly defies us, and tests these weapons.. we are tied up?

Lil Kim doesnt seem like he's bluffing any more.
He knows sanctions are coming.. and he's said it will mean war?

What are we going to do?
Sit around, place sanctions.. then wait to see if kim will just pipe down and crawl under a rock?

The soilders on the DMZ line seem very agit8d
There pulling finger signs, tauning, slitting throat gestures..

This is a lot of chest puffing only to stand down in the last second and look like a whimp.

Unlike Iraq, I think if we decaptitae the head of this beast.. the rest will die..
he's had them under such horendous conditions, the public will swarm to remove him
the army will be dismayed at the loss of there ' dear leader '
I say hit kim now.
Flatten his lil hair doo into the ground while we still can.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
You might as well have been answering a different topic for all the relevance that has.

"Relevance" is umm, relative, and I answered your question with a like comparative response.



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

Yes. Your rebuttal?




You didn't answer the question.

And your planning on answering mine when, exactly? When is enough enough? How long and through how many administrations have the US been engaged in talks with North Korea?





No they aren't willing to offer talks.

Contrary to your liking, the Bush administration is indeed offering to talk just not in the fashion you desire. There will be no further one-on-one talks, as stated by the administration. What is being offered is 6-way party talks, thus your proclamation and assertion that the administration "aren't willing to offer talks" is a blatant inaccuracy.





The Nks aren't threatening war.

TV work in your household?
Internet down?
No newspapers?
Might want to recheck your assertion.
I will give you a hint: Sanctions will mean war.
Apparently, your definition of a "threat" or 'to threaten' is different from mine or the universally accepted definition.




6 party talks have been offered and, as we knew would happen, have been rejected.

But the offer was and has continually been made, correct? Again, your claim that talks have not been offered is rejected and rejected by your admittance and acknowledgment that 6-way talks were offered.




Why offer something you know will be rejected unless you are looking to either provoke a perceived enemy or for posturing.

I am not seeing an alleged provoking or posturing by the US. I do see North Korea doing those though.





6 party talks have been rejected so go for one on one talks.

Heads up: the US rejects one-on-one, and as well they should.
You do understand why, from a foreign policy standpoint, correct?






The alternative is a lot of dead people.

Fine positive thinking on your part, huh?
Let me get this straight:
North Korea will not enter 6-way party talks.
The US will not enter one-on-one.
Therefore, 2+2=4, meaning "a lot of dead people"?
Well, I will give you partial credit. Indeed "a lot of dead people" will be produced, because at the rate that lil' Kim is dumping national resources into his pursuit of nukes, millions of people continue to starve and die. Lil Kim's own mismanagement issues that undoubtedly you, as with others, will place at the feet of Bush while proclaiming "See!! Bush's fault!" Opps, was that political bias?




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?

Hold on a sec. You just pointed out above that I did not answer one of your questions and lo' and behold, here you are evading answering my questions?

Give me examples of "conducted in a different way" before I give response.

The diplomatic asset of "talking," as long as diplomacy remains apart of international relations, will always be given primary selection, but allow me to set the record straight on something here: Yes, "talking" can indeed make a difference, but "talking" can also be a hinderance, especially when action would have been more prudent if committed earlier, instead of continued "talking." Case in point: How many lives could have been saved if England and France had acted sooner against Hitler instead of following a policy of "appeasement=talking"?




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

History does not repeat itself. Historians repeat one another.
There are only coincidences and similarities.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
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.


Casualty estimates go with many different scenarios. There are best case, and worst case scenarios. You are only citing what to me seems to be a worst case sceanario. Though I do concede we should be prepared for the worst, you dont think the US and SK have plans of thier own for dealing with an NK invasion? For dealing with the artillery and special forces NK has(which are one of the largest by the way).



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Those casualty estimates show us that if we can avoid a conflict we should.

Tell that to the Truman administration.




I would quite happily accept talking forever at the moment because it means that close to one million people will not die.

The whole time, more nukes are being built and tested, the chance of regional dis-stabilization increases, the increased chances of a very minor incident blowing into a war or limited conflict, and the more desperate Lil Kim becomes, maybe to the point one day that he launches a nuke-tipped missile(s) towards the US or a US Pacific base to test our resolve.

"Forever," huh?
The loss of "close to one million" lives may alternatively save the lives of tens of millions of lives. Difference between action and talking.

"Forever" is "appeasement," plain and simple.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   

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



Yes. Your rebuttal?



Contrary to your liking, the Bush administration is indeed offering to talk just not in the fashion you desire. There will be no further one-on-one talks, as stated by the administration. What is being offered is 6-way party talks, thus your proclamation and assertion that the administration "aren't willing to offer talks" is a blatant inaccuracy.


I've got to go to bed (it's 3:30am here) so i'll just leave you with your rebuttal, helpfully provided by, er, you.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Nice avoidance move.
Simple common courtesy would suffice.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   
OK, Seekerof, one more for the road.


Originally posted by Seekerof"Relevance" is umm, relative, and I answered your question with a like comparative response.


No, relevance is not relative. You did not answer my question with a comaprative response, you ducked it.



And your planning on answering mine when, exactly? When is enough enough? How long and through how many administrations have the US been engaged in talks with North Korea?


The US has been engaged in talks with NK since the Korean War as far as I know (not far). There was a deal in the 90s which was not fulfilled.



Contrary to your liking, the Bush administration is indeed offering to talk just not in the fashion you desire. There will be no further one-on-one talks, as stated by the administration. What is being offered is 6-way party talks, thus your proclamation and assertion that the administration "aren't willing to offer talks" is a blatant inaccuracy.


Yes, the Bush administration is offering to return to six party talks which they know will be rejected. Do you ever ask yourself why they are offering something they know will be rejected?



TV work in your household?
Internet down?
No newspapers?
Might want to recheck your assertion.
I will give you a hint: Sanctions will mean war.
Apparently, your definition of a "threat" or 'to threaten' is different from mine or the universally accepted definition.


Thank you for your concern but my TV is fine, an intelligent person would realise that if my internet was down they wouldn't be debating with me on an online forum and I have all the newspapers I need.

Nope, still not threatening war. They're laying out their response to the possible
actions of foreign governments.


I am not seeing an alleged provoking or posturing by the US. I do see North Korea doing those though.


Perhaps you need to check your TV. Does it say 'Fox' in the top corner? That's a sign it's not working properly.

Axis of *s'n-word'* evil



Heads up: the US rejects one-on-one, and as well they should.
You do understand why, from a foreign policy standpoint, correct?



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



Yes. Your rebuttal?



Fine positive thinking on your part, huh?
Let me get this straight:
North Korea will not enter 6-way party talks.
The US will not enter one-on-one.
Therefore, 2+2=4, meaning "a lot of dead people"?
propaganda snipped

Do you see another way this will go?


Hold on a sec. You just pointed out above that I did not answer one of your questions and lo' and behold, here you are evading answering my questions?

Give me examples of "conducted in a different way" before I give response.


Your question was:


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.


As far as curtailing NK in their pursuit of nukes, I can't say, I don't have the information and I will not try to guess.

Did the talking do any good in the past? When did NK become a threat? Breaking the deal that was made with them probably pushed them into the posturing stance they occupy (Clinton?) but naming them in the 'Axis of Evil' pushed them into full blown resistance. Both generations are equally at fault for allowing this situation to get to the stage it has today. The talking did some good back in the 90s, who knows what might have happened if we'd stuck to the deal we promised. To the present, none of this talking is doing any good, you don't pacify a bear by prodding him.




The diplomatic asset of "talking," as long as diplomacy remains apart of international relations, will always be given primary selection, but allow me to set the record straight on something here: Yes, "talking" can indeed make a difference, but "talking" can also be a hinderance, especially when action would have been more prudent if committed earlier, instead of continued "talking." Case in point: How many lives could have been saved if England and France had acted sooner against Hitler instead of following a policy of "appeasement=talking"?


The difference is that Kim hasn't actually attacked anyone yet. Hitler was invading other countries when Chamberlain came back with his peace declaration. If and when the Nks attack someone I will be right behind showing them what's what but right now they aren't a threat and i'm not willing to throw away so many lives just because we 'think' they might do something.



History does not repeat itself. Historians repeat one another.
There are only coincidences and similarities.


The similarities are what we are supposed to learn from.

And if we don't learn from those similarities the



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee

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]


Aint that the truth


N.K's propaganda untill this time just seems to be bluster. I doubt N.K ability or motive for launching any kind of attack on Alaska, Hawaii or S.K. Especially after the last "pre-emptive" incursion into Iraq, i believe this is definatly a situation where we need to swallow our prides, and talk.

By all means show me some conclusive evidence of a North Korean Attack (rather than bluster) and I'll be the first one rooting for an International coalition to take down lil kim..



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

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]


I think you are missing my point.
I thought the initial remark was pretty rash and stupid - if someone held a knife to my throat in the street I would try to acess the situation a little and not make any rash move that would endanger my life.
If the guy wanted money - I might give him some rather than end my life and deprive my kids of their dad. This to me would be the safe option.
If however things did look as if the chap might kill me I would do everything I could to kill the fella myself.

This whole situation is not comparable to the situation in North Korea though !
I don't even think that thay have a knife !
It requires careful thought.... not apeasment.
The last thing we need is you lot going in all guns blazing and starting WWIII.

And by the way I am not Anti-American - I love the place and generally the people.
I do however find the poeple who make military desicions for you to be complete trigger happy morons.
Remember during the Kosovo war when the Russians capture the airport as a rather pathetic way of looking good ?
Your boys wanted to attack them.

And the quote was "I'm not going to start WWIII for you." The British General was General Sir Michael Jackson and he was in the right. The Russian column was already at Pristina Airport. Jackson was ordered to evict them and then to block any attempt at Russian re-enforcement (an Air Assualt Brigade of 2000 troops were being assembled in Russia) by air by sitting a Canadian Battle Group on the runways. That is an Act of War.

Luckily this didnt happen as there was someone sensible in charge.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Just reading up on the UN approved resolution to sanction the DPRK, you can read a .PDF version of UNSC Resolution 1718 here at this link below provided by news.bbc.co.uk.

news.bbc.co.uk...

From reading the sanctions listed and now agreed to by the council it does appear to go further than i expected which i for one feel much better about.

It, IMHO has a clear aim of eroding the military power of NK by banning the further sale of mechanised 'heavy weapons' such as tanks or artillery and crucially the further sale of spare parts for such weapons. It goes further with a secondary aim at stopping the proliferation of not only nuclear weapons but also chemical and biological weapons too. And the final sting in the tail - a ban on luxury goods! Guess that means no PS3 for you kimmy!


Now im sure this resolution will be helpful, but can Russia, China and the current South Korean governments be trusted to abide by it?



[edit on 15-10-2006 by freeradical]



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 06:21 AM
link   
No PS3 for Kimmy?! That's a big rough


I doubt his country's economy will even be able to afford one of the things in a few years. That's if it still exists.

[edit on 15/10/2006 by doctorfungi]



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   
send in the manchurian candidate lol.....



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Why can't another super power nation do the dirty work for a change?

Let Russia or China step up with their money and army to police NK and make sure they don't blow up the world. Are we the only nation that can do something??



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   


By all means show me some conclusive evidence of a North Korean Attack (rather than bluster) and I'll be the first one rooting for an International coalition to take down lil kim..


Did you ever think that maybe that is the plan?

Of course you will support a world coalition against North Korea if they attack someone else. Most of the world would too.

You would also probably be more inclined to support war with Iran if they show the same signs North Korea did.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   
The international community has called N.K's bluff..

Will the North Koreans respond with an attack?

Surely they will back down in the face of such U.N solidarity? But then this is lil Kim



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
According to prophesy,
, our big problem is going to come from the North Koreans and not from the middle east as we are led to believe.

I am trying to remember who made this claim on the Coast to Coast show.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join