Putin says tougher North Korea sanctions senseless, warns of global catastrophe

[David Walden]

9 minutes ago, aright said:

You are absolutely right but you haven't told us what we do to get to that position. What's your answer?

Open your eyes and you shall see.  Read my post above.  65 years North Korea has been blockaded from trade, maybe they have had enough.  Tell that to all the slow learners.

[David Walden]

7 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

 

You just solved the puzzle, now go and sell your idea to little baby boy Kimmy.

I'll try

[aright]

8 minutes ago, David Walden said:

Open your eyes and you shall see.  Read my post above.  65 years North Korea has been blockaded from trade, maybe they have had enough.  Tell that to all the slow learners.

After 14 years of talks I think you need to tell that to all the slow thinkers

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, aright said:

They have been talking for 14 years without a solution. Evidence of the value of talk I would have thought.  Do you think a dissatisfied trade union would talk to employers for 14 years before they took their ultimate action.........strike.

US-SK and NK have both been talking with demands. Only way to reach something is by talking without demands.

[aright]

IME the only way to reach an agreement is to talk about demands but refer to them as issues. IME the words you use to describe your demands/issues/requests/claims/behests/desires are of prime importance. 

 

The menu is not the meal...............Alan Watts

[David Walden]

1 hour ago, aright said:

After 14 years of talks I think you need to tell that to all the slow thinkers

14 years no! more like 65 years.

[Morch]

On 9/6/2017 at 9:51 AM, baboon said:

But what other choice is there? We live 'quite happily' with other unpalatable regimes - Hell, look at the way our leaders kowtow to the Saudis - so what is one more, over there on the edge of the world?

 

The Saudis, for all their faults, do not regularly issue threats which could spell world wide disaster.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

US-SK and NK have both been talking with demands. Only way to reach something is by talking without demands.

 

Most negotiations do include demands, or baseline positions, or red lines, or whatever one calls them. By now, most of these are clear to all sides, whether or not spelled out.

[baboon]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The Saudis, for all their faults, do not regularly issue threats which could spell world wide disaster.

No, they just go in and bomb...

[Morch]

On 9/6/2017 at 10:10 AM, baboon said:

There is no comparison with the DPRK and Nazi Germany in that respect: The DPRK is an isolationist, not an expansionist state.

Nor is there any reason to assume Kim Jong Un is mad: The actions he is taking are rational. Coldly rational, yes, but rational nevertheless. 

 

As I said; What choice is there, unless you want to gamble on attacking the country and them standing idly by, because if they don't, millions of innocent people will be wiped out?

 

Would depend how one defines "isolationist" and "expansionist". And I wouldn't know that either are NK's stance. More like Kim's. North Koreans don't get a whole lot of say on these matters. As for him being rational - again, assumptions, and no guarantees his rationality implies anything benign.

 

You seem to be willing to make an opposite gamble then the one you denounce. Funny how that works.

[stevenl]

56 minutes ago, aright said:

IME the only way to reach an agreement is to talk about demands but refer to them as issues. IME the words you use to describe your demands/issues/requests/claims/behests/desires are of prime importance. 

 

The menu is not the meal...............Alan Watts

Agree, but that has not been the case. Both sides have talked with conditions, which were not met, so no worthwhile talks for a long time already.

[Morch]

Just now, baboon said:

No, they just go in and bomb...

 

The Saudis picking a regional, localized, conventional warfare conflict is one thing. Kim playing around with nuclear weapons is another.

 

[stevenl]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Most negotiations do include demands, or baseline positions, or red lines, or whatever one calls them. By now, most of these are clear to all sides, whether or not spelled out.

Demands was not the right word, pretalk conditions would be better. North said: stop exercising, south said: stop nuclear weapon development. none were negotiable, so no meaningful talks..

[Morch]

On 9/6/2017 at 10:34 AM, baboon said:

Then China and Russia clearly aren't all that bothered about this, ahem, 'Global Menace', even though they both share a border with the DPRK. Doesn't that indicate something to you?

 

I doubt that they are not bothered, or that they have a clear notion of how to deal with the situation. Just that Kim refrains from directly threatening either, and keeps the US busy. It doesn't indicate that there's no issue, or no threat.

[baboon]

Just now, Morch said:

 

Would depend how one defines "isolationist" and "expansionist". And I wouldn't know that either are NK's stance. More like Kim's. North Koreans don't get a whole lot of say on these matters. As for him being rational - again, assumptions, and no guarantees his rationality implies anything benign.

 

You seem to be willing to make an opposite gamble then the one you denounce. Funny how that works.

Yep, gamble on no war as opposed to gamble on a war I am not prepared to fight in myself. Guilty as charged.

[Morch]

Just now, stevenl said:

Demands was not the bright word, pretalk conditions would be better. North said: stop exercising, south said: stop nuclear weapon development. none were negotiable, so no meaningful talks..

 

I don't think that talks failed simply due to terminology, but each to his own.

[baboon]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The Saudis picking a regional, localized, conventional warfare conflict is one thing. Kim playing around with nuclear weapons is another.

 

Correct: One country goes in and bombs, the other one doesn't. 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, baboon said:

Yep, gamble on no war as opposed to gamble on a war I am not prepared to fight in myself. Guilty as charged.

 

You're willing to gamble Kim will play nice, without any assurances. That's an easy position, considering you won't suffer the consequences if he doesn't.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, baboon said:

Correct: One country goes in and bombs, the other one doesn't. 

 

Saudi Arabia attacking Yemen will not, potentially or otherwise, raise the danger of a world war, or a nuclear one. Kim's actions...somewhat different.

 

Deflect away.

 

 

[baboon]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I doubt that they are not bothered, or that they have a clear notion of how to deal with the situation. Just that Kim refrains from directly threatening either, and keeps the US busy. It doesn't indicate that there's no issue, or no threat.

I doubt they are not bothered too. That is why I wrote "not all that bothered". Nor am I saying there is no issue or no threat.

[aright]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Agree, but that has not been the case. Both sides have talked with conditions, which were not met, so no worthwhile talks for a long time already.

Conditions are not demands. They are an agreed protocol between both sides designed to take dross out of the negotiation 

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't think that talks failed simply due to terminology, but each to his own.

Again you're claiming words or intentions that were not said or intended. As usual no point in this with you, distorting ...

[baboon]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You're willing to gamble Kim will play nice, without any assurances. That's an easy position, considering you won't suffer the consequences if he doesn't.

How do you work that one out, then? I thought he was a menace to the entire world?

[baboon]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Saudi Arabia attacking Yemen will not, potentially or otherwise, raise the danger of a world war, or a nuclear one.

Kim's actions...somewhat different.

Deflect away.

 

 

No deflection. Just stopping you from trying it on.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Again you're claiming words or intentions that were not said or intended. As usual no point in this with you, distorting ...

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, baboon said:

How do you work that one out, then? I thought he was a menace to the entire world?

 

It war erupts, it could be be a world wide thing, but it would surely be worse up there. Living farther away and having the means to move, well...not quite the same thing as living in ground zero.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, baboon said:

No deflection. Just stopping you from trying it on.

 

I'm not the one who brought up Saudi Arabia as an example, though. I'm not the one trying to draw inane parallels between the two.

[baboon]

Just now, Morch said:

 

It war erupts, it could be be a world wide thing, but it would surely be worse up there. Living farther away and having the means to move, well...not quite the same thing as living in ground zero.

So where's the argument?

[aright]

21 minutes ago, David Walden said:

14 years no! more like 65 years.

According to my history the so called "Six Party Talks" to bring about a peaceful resolution to security concerns, regarding nuclear proliferation, as a result of North Korea withdrawing from the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty,  did not begin until 2003 the year they withdrew.

[baboon]

Just now, Morch said:

 

I'm not the one who brought up Saudi Arabia as an example, though. I'm not the one trying to draw inane parallels between the two.

Neither was I until you raised it.