N.Korea threatens Japan over sanctions

Source



Well, he may not like it, but what is he going to do about it????

Is "litttle Kimmy" crazy enopugh to attack Japan???

Is he crazer and going to attack with nuclar weapons???

What will Japan/US/NATO/China/Russia do about that??????

China reluctant to back Korea sanctions (Gee, what a surprise)

Source



It was always clear that China-no matter what they say., would take no action or support any action against "little Kimmy".

They did, however take some action.
They are byuilding a fence between NK and China as well as increasing the boarder guards.

Originally posted by mrmonsoon

Well, he may not like it, but what is he going to do about it????

Is "litttle Kimmy" crazy enopugh to attack Japan???

Is he crazer and going to attack with nuclar weapons???

What will Japan/US/NATO/China/Russia do about that??????

Well, that's true...what IS he going to do about it...I mean, let's face it...the international community didnt wake up one day and say "hey, North Korea, Ive got an idea, why dont you resolve to create conflict this month"....that was HIS choosing...now they want to decry a stance that they KNEW the international community would have to take based on their actions?

To answer your question though, I doubt there's much he CAN do about it short of ACTUALLY attacking...were he to do that, sheesh, G-d help us all....especially the innocents that will die in the course of it.


AB1

The man is talking rant, the KN regime is having problems, when populations become feed up troubles starts to build within the powers in the country.

The only way the KN regime can keep the population at bait is with the promise of war.

Even when is just that a promise.

China can no agree with sanctions on their part because they are the ones feeding the population in NK, they know that as soon that stops the refugees will start migrating to their borders.

I see all this as a very pathetic attempt from the NK regime to get attention from the rest of the world.

An attack on that nation will make a big mess of starving and death people just like in Africa.

But at least it will not be sectarian violence to make it another Iraqi nightmare.

U.N. close to sanctions for North Korea
Source



We shall see if santions = war as "little Kimmy" says.

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
Is "litttle Kimmy" crazy enopugh to attack Japan???

YES. That's the simple answer. YES. He's a complete whack. He is a whack having temper tantrums and he's close to having nuclear weapons to throw around during his insane rants.

I say close to having them because I don't know if he actually does yet or not. I'm not convinced about the nuke tests that supposedly happened recently.

North Korea always threathens to attack this or that but never delivers. Plus, the only way to attack Japan is through their missile capabilities. They don't have much of a Navy to do damage and right now, their nuclear capability is not very sophiticated.

If North Korea is going to attack anyone it will be South Korea, but right now I don't see that happening.

he said they would test missiles - they did
he said they would test a nuke - looks like they did
strong countermeasures? - third time lucky?

I don't see what he has to gain out of his course of action, but he is acting.

Back any animal into a corner and its going to come out fighting.

Originally posted by ewan
he said they would test missiles - they did
he said they would test a nuke - looks like they did
strong countermeasures? - third time lucky?

I don't see what he has to gain out of his course of action, but he is acting.

Back any animal into a corner and its going to come out fighting.

While you're right (BTW, US now has evidence of radioactivity, so it looks like they did test a bomb), North Korea has threatend to attack the US, South Korea and Japan if we intervene for the past decade, and so far, they have not attacked us. The missile and nuclear test was inevitable, but a war is less likely than you think. Using two examples to prove your point is hardlt convincing. Just this year North Korea has threatened to attack the US about a dozen times.

I really don't think North Korea is ready for a war. North Korea likes to play it tough, but safe.

I agree a war is less than likely, as there are more than enough countries in the world ready to take action to stop N Korea "getting the bomb"

however

The guy is unstable, the real problem is how hard is little kimmy prepeared to stamp his feet to get the worlds attention?

Or if he gets ignored and sidelined, who is he willing to sell weapons grade material too in order to get attention from Bush.

Its funny, team america got this down in 2004. Lets just hope theres no F.A.G conference scheduled.

Originally posted by ewan
I agree a war is less than likely, as there are more than enough countries in the world ready to take action to stop N Korea "getting the bomb"

however

The guy is unstable, the real problem is how hard is little kimmy prepeared to stamp his feet to get the worlds attention?

Or if he gets ignored and sidelined, who is he willing to sell weapons grade material too in order to get attention from Bush.

Its funny, team america got this down in 2004. Lets just hope theres no F.A.G conference scheduled.

Trust me, North Korea has been stomping their feet for quite sometime and the only way to stomp it harder is for more nuclear tests.

Calling Kim Jong Il unstable is irresponsible. While I think he should not be in power, he is a smart man and someone who is politically smart. He plans every move for the greatest impact.

As for the sale of nuclear weapons, we have to wait and see. If North Korea gets caught doing it, the US will not accept it and that is going to put China in a very tough position. It is a good source for cold hard cash, and I'm sure they will be tempted to sell it, but they need to show they can produce a "working" bomb that actually explodes the way it should.

As far as what he can do to counter the japanese sanctions, he could, you now, nuke tokyo.

Calling Kim Jong Il unstable is irresponsible?

Why? he is the leader of a nation (which can't afford to feed itself), but insists in military service.

He is currently threatening any nation which objects to his nuclear testing (if it is that)?

He is isolating his nation and his people from the world, and the support that they need, even China have started building fences.

He is putting his nation on the brink of internal self-destuct.

Perhaps history will prove me wrong, but i don't really see how what he is doing is ever going to benifit the people whos lives he has been entrusted with.

irresponsible? i think thats being very kind, and it comes very close to the dictonary deff.

Originally posted by Nygdan
As far as what he can do to counter the japanese sanctions, he could, you now, nuke tokyo.

North Korea does not have such a capability. They will have to fly the nuke to Tokyo which will likely be unsuccessful.

Originally posted by ewan
Calling Kim Jong Il unstable is irresponsible?

Why? he is the leader of a nation (which can't afford to feed itself), but insists in military service.

He is currently threatening any nation which objects to his nuclear testing (if it is that)?

He is isolating his nation and his people from the world, and the support that they need, even China have started building fences.

He is putting his nation on the brink of internal self-destuct.

Perhaps history will prove me wrong, but i don't really see how what he is doing is ever going to benifit the people whos lives he has been entrusted with.

irresponsible? i think thats being very kind, and it comes very close to the dictonary deff.

There are many definitions of unstable, can you provide which one you use in context before I reply?

ill give you a few -

may be in danger of toppling or falling apart

highly or violently reactive

precarious

Originally posted by ewan
ill give you a few -

may be in danger of toppling or falling apart

highly or violently reactive

precarious

Okay, your first definition, "may be in danger of toppling or falling apart." This is relevant to the government of North Korea itself, not Kim Jong Il. Kim Jong Il is a leader who happens to have kept his country alive for quite some time now. Kim himself is in no way going to fall apart. He is currently well placed in world politics and have the international community where he wants them.

"Highly or violently reactive." Kim Jong Il is a crazy leader in that there are concentration camps in his country and his people are poor and dieing, and he threatens to attacks Japan or the US, but he has made no move to do such things. I'm still not exactly about the context you're using this definition tough.

"Precarious." This is true.

If his country "falls apart" his political life is over, perhaps his physical life also. He has the international stage at the moment, but so did Saddam at one point. He is well is known for his "cruelty and unpredictability"

"Highly or violently reactive." -

South Korea accused Kim of ordering the 1983 bombing in Rangoon, Burma (now Yangon, Myanmar), which killed 17 visiting South Korean officials, including four cabinet members, and another in 1987 which killed all 115 on board Korean Air Flight 858. No direct evidence has emerged to link Kim to the bombings. A North Korean agent, Kim Hyon Hui, confessed to planting a bomb in the case of the second, saying the operation was ordered by Kim Jong-il personally.

link

I think also the threats to the US, Japan etc back this up also