Is it better to stop Kim and wipe out N Korea when he only has one nuke or wait till he has a couple of hundred?  In terms of collateral damage that is.

1 hour ago, amvet said:

Is it better to stop Kim and wipe out N Korea when he only has one nuke or wait till he has a couple of hundred?  In terms of collateral damage that is.

Collateral damage. Or 'Genocide' in the context of this post.

49 minutes ago, baboon said:

Collateral damage. Or 'Genocide' in the context of this post.

Now collateral damage if one lets Kim progress and get a few hundred nukes it might be a human genocide.  People will soon realize we can live without N Korea but not without humanity as a whole.

4 minutes ago, amvet said:

Now collateral damage if one lets Kim progress and get a few hundred nukes it might be a human genocide.  People will soon realize we can live without N Korea but not without humanity as a whole.

How casually you dismiss the potentially huge numbers of innocent people who would be killed en masse at the outbreak of hostilities as "collateral damage". Their lives are just as important as ours.

2 minutes ago, baboon said:

How casually you dismiss the potentially huge numbers of innocent people who would be killed en masse at the outbreak of hostilities as "collateral damage". Their lives are just as important as ours.

 

They are held hostage by Kim. Nothing he does is really "for the people".

3 minutes ago, baboon said:

How casually you dismiss the potentially huge numbers of innocent people who would be killed en masse at the outbreak of hostilities as "collateral damage". Their lives are just as important as ours.

North Korea vs Humanity?  Oh come on?

Just now, amvet said:

North Korea vs Humanity?  Oh come on?

False dilemma. It is nothing of the kind.

2 hours ago, amvet said:

Is it better to stop Kim and wipe out N Korea when he only has one nuke or wait till he has a couple of hundred? 

In terms of collateral damage that is.

 

23 minutes ago, amvet said:

Now collateral damage if one lets Kim progress and get a few hundred nukes it might be a human genocide. 

People will soon realize we can live without N Korea but not without humanity as a whole.

 

9 minutes ago, amvet said:

North Korea vs Humanity?  Oh come on?

 

Glaring examples of the Lunatic fringe.

 

Or, just Trolling...

12 minutes ago, baboon said:

False dilemma. It is nothing of the kind.

"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."   

1 minute ago, amvet said:

"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."   

There is no comparison between Nazi Germany and the DPRK in this respect.

1 minute ago, baboon said:

There is no comparison between Nazi Germany and the DPRK in this respect.

1.  Both felt wronged by opposing powers.

2.  Economies of both down the tubes.

3.  Irrational dictatorial leaders.

4.  Leaders that maintain control by barbaric force.

5.  The rest of the world aligned against both powers.

6.  Everyone afraid of military action not wanting to start another World War.

7.  North Korea Regime Compared To Nazis By UN.(https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asia/north-koreas-horrors-strikingly-similar-nazi-acts-n32121)

8.  Systemic, widespread and gross human rights violations have been and are being committed by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, its institutions and officials.

2 minutes ago, amvet said:

1.  Both felt wronged by opposing powers.

2.  Economies of both down the tubes.

3.  Irrational dictatorial leaders.

4.  Leaders that maintain control by barbaric force.

5.  The rest of the world aligned against both powers.

6.  Everyone afraid of military action not wanting to start another World War.

7.  North Korea Regime Compared To Nazis By UN.(https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asia/north-koreas-horrors-strikingly-similar-nazi-acts-n32121)

8.  Systemic, widespread and gross human rights violations have been and are being committed by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, its institutions and officials.

You miss my point. Nazi Germany was an expansionist state. The DPRK is not. They have never in their history attacked a foreign country. 

2 minutes ago, baboon said:

You miss my point. Nazi Germany was an expansionist state. The DPRK is not. They have never in their history attacked a foreign country. 

You miss the point.  It is the leaders and government I was comparing.  North Korea is also a state sponsor of terrorism. It blows up airliners and kidnaps people just to name a few.  South Korea is a foreign country BTW. 

5 minutes ago, amvet said:

You miss the point.  It is the leaders and government I was comparing.  North Korea is also a state sponsor of terrorism. It blows up airliners and kidnaps people just to name a few.  South Korea is a foreign country BTW. 

The two Korean states are an artificial construct. The Korean people did not ask for their country to be split in two. How can a state called Korea fighting a state called Korea, both populated by Koreans, be a foreign war?

1 hour ago, baboon said:

How casually you dismiss the potentially huge numbers of innocent people who would be killed en masse at the outbreak of hostilities as "collateral damage". Their lives are just as important as ours.

I sense your solution is to do nothing and hope ( After 14 years of talks; talks are the same as doing nothing). Would you prefer to wait until he has perfected his nuclear warheads at which point he might say " By the way I don't want to see American or Allied ships in the South China Seas ; if I do I will destroy them and nuke you if you react unfavourably. Do you want to carry appeasement to the point where N Korea is a major controlling force in that part of the world and possibly, eventually the world. Your so called "huge numbers of innocent people" might eventually become "squillions of innocent people" if we don't take positive action.

The two major centers of world banking are London and New York. My positive action would be to deny China and Russia access to world banking until they sort N Korea out. What's yours?

5 minutes ago, aright said:

I sense your solution is to do nothing and hope ( After 14 years of talks; talks are the same as doing nothing). Would you prefer to wait until he has perfected his nuclear warheads at which point he might say " By the way I don't want to see American or Allied ships in the South China Seas ; if I do I will destroy them and nuke you if you react unfavourably. Do you want to carry appeasement to the point where N Korea is a major controlling force in that part of the world and possibly, eventually the world. Your so called "huge numbers of innocent people" might eventually become "squillions of innocent people" if we don't take positive action.

The two major centers of world banking are London and New York. My positive action would be to deny China and Russia access to world banking until they sort N Korea out. What's yours?

Aye, solutions are pretty thin on the ground. Hoping for the best when in their history they have never attacked a foreign country and realise that striking its enemies would seal their doom, seems to me the best of lousy options. Hoping for the best does not guarantee that armed conflict will never again flare up on the peninsula, but attacking them ensures war.

It simply is not acceptable to attack a sovereign nation based on what they may or may not do at some unspecified point in the future. Go down that road then why shouldn't governments grant themselves the power to start locking people up indefinitely until they can prove they do not intend to commit a crime at some point in their life?

1 hour ago, baboon said:

The two Korean states are an artificial construct. The Korean people did not ask for their country to be split in two. How can a state called Korea fighting a state called Korea, both populated by Koreans, be a foreign war?

 

Acrobatic semantics for the win.

Doubt Kim asks the Korean people (as in North Koreans), how they feel about things or what they want.

 

 

7 minutes ago, baboon said:

Aye, solutions are pretty thin on the ground. Hoping for the best when in their history they have never attacked a foreign country and realise that striking its enemies would seal their doom, seems to me the best of lousy options. Hoping for the best does not guarantee that armed conflict will never again flare up on the peninsula, but attacking them ensures war.

It simply is not acceptable to attack a sovereign nation based on what they may or may not do at some unspecified point in the future. Go down that road then why shouldn't governments grant themselves the power to start locking people up indefinitely until they can prove they do not intend to commit a crime at some point in their life?

 

Hyperbole.

 

I get it some think that countries are obligated to wait until attacked, or patiently bear aggression and provocations without response. That's almost always a one sided view, though, applied to one of the parties. Not that much criticism aired with regard to NK's actions over the years directed at SK and others. Not much criticism as to its conduct now.

 

To say that there are never instances in which preemptive actions is reasonable or justified is an extreme position. Pretty much like putting up bogus examples like " locking people up indefinitely until they can prove they do not intend to commit a crime at some point in their life".

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Acrobatic semantics for the win.

Doubt Kim asks the Korean people (as in North Koreans), how they feel about things or what they want.

 

 

Historical fact.

The partition of Korea was nothing to do with the Kim family.

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

To say that there are never instances in which preemptive actions is reasonable or justified is an extreme position. 

Agreed. Who said that?

1 minute ago, baboon said:

The partition of Korea was nothing to do with the Kim family.

 

Which wasn't even remotely the point made.

If you wish to talk about what the Korean people want - why avoid addressing that for decades now, those living in NK have no say at all?

Just now, baboon said:

Agreed. Who said that?

 

Read your own hyperbolic post above. Apply.

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Which wasn't even remotely the point made.

If you wish to talk about what the Korean people want - why avoid addressing that for decades now, those living in NK have no say at all?

I have no idea what you are on about.

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Read your own hyperbolic post above. Apply.

Who said that there are never instances in which preemptive actions is reasonable or justified?

38 minutes ago, baboon said:

Aye, solutions are pretty thin on the ground. Hoping for the best when in their history they have never attacked a foreign country and realise that striking its enemies would seal their doom, seems to me the best of lousy options. Hoping for the best does not guarantee that armed conflict will never again flare up on the peninsula, but attacking them ensures war.

It simply is not acceptable to attack a sovereign nation based on what they may or may not do at some unspecified point in the future. Go down that road then why shouldn't governments grant themselves the power to start locking people up indefinitely until they can prove they do not intend to commit a crime at some point in their life?

 

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Hyperbole.

 

I get it some think that countries are obligated to wait until attacked, or patiently bear aggression and provocations without response. That's almost always a one sided view, though, applied to one of the parties. Not that much criticism aired with regard to NK's actions over the years directed at SK and others. Not much criticism as to its conduct now.

 

To say that there are never instances in which preemptive actions is reasonable or justified is an extreme position. Pretty much like putting up bogus examples like " locking people up indefinitely until they can prove they do not intend to commit a crime at some point in their life".

Mere words designed only to tell us what you don't want I would much prefer to hear what you do want.

I have given you my perceived solution, tell me what your's is. At the moment it seems to me doing nothing is your preferred option.

47 minutes ago, baboon said:

I have no idea what you are on about.

 

Doubt it very much.

North Korea is not about what's good for North Koreans, but about what's good for Kim. So most of the appeals bringing up North Korean lives are perhaps better addressed elsewhere. And the same goes when bringing up the supposed wishes of the Korean people.

50 minutes ago, baboon said:

Who said that there are never instances in which preemptive actions is reasonable or justified?

 

From your own post:

 

Quote

... It simply is not acceptable to attack a sovereign nation based on what they may or may not do at some unspecified point in the future. Go down that road then why shouldn't governments grant themselves the power to start locking people up indefinitely until they can prove they do not intend to commit a crime at some point in their life?

 

Someday China and Russia will realize missiles can go all directions. They are just a vulnerable.

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Doubt it very much.

North Korea is not about what's good for North Koreans, but about what's good for Kim. So most of the appeals bringing up North Korean lives are perhaps better addressed elsewhere. And the same goes when bringing up the supposed wishes of the Korean people.

"North Korea is not about what's good for North Koreans, but about what's good for Kim."

I don't dispute that.

The rest of your post was your usual impudent misrepresentations of what I actually said, which I shall not give consideration to. 

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

From your own post:

 

 

So I did not say that there are never instances in which preemptive actions is reasonable or justified.