Kamala Harris: Balancing Loyalty and Change in Her Bid for the Presidency

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, baboon said:

"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. 

 

And yet you harp on and on about NK's rights, North Koreans being treated as collateral damage etc. Very little by way of addressing Kim's responsibility for the current state of things, or South Koreans being held at gunpoint (or rather, cannonpoint) and threatened with similar consequences. By Kim.

 

Haven't misrepresented any of your propaganda posts.

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, baboon said:

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

 

I rather think that's the bottom line of what you posted. As pointed out above, you do like them acrobatic semantics.

 

[baboon]

37 minutes ago, aright said:

 

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.

I am honestly doing my best to respond as best as I can to you.

Doing nothing is pretty much my preferred option. They have their bomb and it is highly doubtful they will give it up unless they don't feel threatened. 

Working towards a formal treaty ending the Korean War would be a start, as would the cancellation of the Team Spirit exercises. If this can be achieved, then work towards the opening of a US mission in Pyongyang and vice versa, where the two countries can speak face to face. Cultural exchanges would be of benefit too.

I am not saying it wouldn't be enormously difficult, but all sides should keep trying to plug away at it.

[baboon]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I rather think that's the bottom line of what you posted. As pointed out above, you do like them acrobatic semantics.

 

Your (deliberate) lack of reading comprehension is not my problem.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, baboon said:

Your (deliberate) lack of reading comprehension is not my problem.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, baboon said:

I am honestly doing my best to respond as best as I can to you.

Doing nothing is pretty much my preferred option. They have their bomb and it is highly doubtful they will give it up unless they don't feel threatened. 

Working towards a formal treaty ending the Korean War would be a start, as would the cancellation of the Team Spirit exercises. If this can be achieved, then work towards the opening of a US mission in Pyongyang and vice versa, where the two countries can speak face to face. Cultural exchanges would be of benefit too.

I am not saying it wouldn't be enormously difficult, but all sides should keep trying to plug away at it.

 

The bomb is Kim's, not NK's.

 

Kim keeps his bomb.

Kim gets SK/US military exercises discontinued.

 

Both sides get a treaty ending the war.

Both sides get diplomatic missions.

 

Seems like most concessions are one sided.

[aright]

21 minutes ago, baboon said:

I am honestly doing my best to respond as best as I can to you.

Doing nothing is pretty much my preferred option. They have their bomb and it is highly doubtful they will give it up unless they don't feel threatened. 

Working towards a formal treaty ending the Korean War would be a start, as would the cancellation of the Team Spirit exercises. If this can be achieved, then work towards the opening of a US mission in Pyongyang and vice versa, where the two countries can speak face to face. Cultural exchanges would be of benefit too.

I am not saying it wouldn't be enormously difficult, but all sides should keep trying to plug away at it.

Thanks for that. I do appreciate your honesty and recognise if it were easy greater minds than ours would have solved the problem by now.

Do you not see any mileage in the lets make China and Russia responsible  for the solution by at least saying they might be denied access to world banking if they don't sort it. That's bomb minimal.

[baboon]

18 minutes ago, aright said:

Thanks for that. I do appreciate your honesty and recognise if it were easy greater minds than ours would have solved the problem by now.

Do you not see any mileage in the lets make China and Russia responsible  for the solution by at least saying they might be denied access to world banking if they don't sort it. That's bomb minimal.

In  answer to your question  - I really don't know. Won't it cause yet more alienation between countries? What if the Russians and Chinese pool together to create an alternative currency to the Dollar? Also who would implement banking sanctions: The UN security council who have Russia and China as permanent veto members?

Edited September 10, 2017 by baboon

[stevenl]

46 minutes ago, baboon said:

Your (deliberate) lack of reading comprehension is not my problem.

Agreed, he does that continuously.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Agreed, he does that continuously.

 

Thanks for your off mark personal comment. Guess that's the extent of your contribution to the discussion.

[aright]

12 minutes ago, baboon said:

In  answer to your question  - I really don't know. Won't it cause yet more alienation between countries? What if the Russians and Chinese pool together to create an alternative currency to the Dollar? Also who would implement banking sanctions: The UN security council who have Russia and China as permanent veto members?

Alienation is a lot less drastic than nuclear warfare. The vast majority of financial transactions go through London and New York so it doesn't need some outside source to implement it; it just needs London and NY to say we will not process any transactions in or out of China and Russia. Yes China and Russia can create another currency but it only has value to them because London and NY wont process it and if that's the case the rest of the world won't be interested in paying or receiving payment in Chinese Wangs. The one thing the Chinese can't do is replace their biggest market...USA and Europe.

As I said earlier bomb minimal  

[craigt3365]

5 hours ago, baboon said:

They have never in their history attacked a foreign country. 

Stop with the lies. They attacked South Korea and were the cause of the deaths of millions.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, baboon said:

I am not saying it wouldn't be enormously difficult, but all sides should keep trying to plug away at it.

Plugging away for the last 50 years is what got us here.

[baboon]

56 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Stop with the lies. They attacked South Korea and were the cause of the deaths of millions.

They have never in their history attacked a foreign country. 

[Morch]

22 minutes ago, baboon said:

They have never in their history attacked a foreign country. 

 

Yeah, we get it. South Korea doesn't count because everyone is Korean.

[baboon]

Just now, Morch said:

 

Yeah, we get it. South Korea doesn't count because everyone is Korean.

Correct: A distinction without a difference. 

[Morch]

Just now, baboon said:

Correct: A distinction without a difference. 

 

Smells like BS.

 

[baboon]

2 hours ago, aright said:

Alienation is a lot less drastic than nuclear warfare. The vast majority of financial transactions go through London and New York so it doesn't need some outside source to implement it; it just needs London and NY to say we will not process any transactions in or out of China and Russia. Yes China and Russia can create another currency but it only has value to them because London and NY wont process it and if that's the case the rest of the world won't be interested in paying or receiving payment in Chinese Wangs. The one thing the Chinese can't do is replace their biggest market...USA and Europe.

As I said earlier bomb minimal  

As I say, I really don't know. I certainly wouldn't rubbish it and it is a hell of a lot better an idea than most of the knee-jerk flapdoodle one has the misfortune of reading on here.

[Scott]

Troll post reported and removed.  

[Dumbastheycome]

9 hours ago, amvet said:

North Korea vs Humanity?  Oh come on?

The  onset  of   any nuclear  war   would  indeed  be extended  to   humanity  at  large in one  way or  other. The   concept  of   " limited  nuclear  war"  is  propaganda  at its  worst!

 

[Credo]

The only one threatening anyone with nuclear weapons is Kim.   The US would have no need to use nuclear weapons on NK.   The conventional arsenal is sufficient to neutralize his military capability and it would be much more effective.   You can't really do a surgical strike with a nuclear weapon.

 

Nuclear weapons would only be used when a very large war got very, very serious.  There is reasonably good intelligence and satellites that can pinpoint where military and missile installations are.   

 

As far as the US and Trump's bluster.   You can bet he has a fair amount of support from the population on that one -- even his distractors.   Kim is like a person with a loaded gun taking shot near you.   He has nuclear weapons and he has missiles.   He has been shooting them both of them off and making  direct threats against the US.   

 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

6 minutes ago, Credo said:

The only one threatening anyone with nuclear weapons is Kim.   The US would have no need to use nuclear weapons on NK.   The conventional arsenal is sufficient to neutralize his military capability and it would be much more effective.   You can't really do a surgical strike with a nuclear weapon.

 

Nuclear weapons would only be used when a very large war got very, very serious.  There is reasonably good intelligence and satellites that can pinpoint where military and missile installations are.   

 

As far as the US and Trump's bluster.   You can bet he has a fair amount of support from the population on that one -- even his distractors.   Kim is like a person with a loaded gun taking shot near you.   He has nuclear weapons and he has missiles.   He has been shooting them both of them off and making  direct threats against the US.   

 

 

And  arguebaly in  retaliative  defence. Fact.

[ExpatOilWorker]

6 hours ago, Mrjlh said:

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

Moscow is far away, but Putin can hurt NK very easily. China have everything to lose as Beijing is just an 800 km stone throw away.

[aright]

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, baboon said:

They have never in their history attacked a foreign country. 

Semantics.  But they have initiated warfare.  Accept it. They aren't innocent like you try to portray them. LOL

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

Quote

On 27 June, the United Nations Security Council authorized the formation and dispatch of UN forces to Korea to repel what was recognized as a North Korean invasion.

 

[baboon]

9 hours ago, Credo said:

The only one threatening anyone with nuclear weapons is Kim.   The US would have no need to use nuclear weapons on NK.   The conventional arsenal is sufficient to neutralize his military capability and it would be much more effective.   You can't really do a surgical strike with a nuclear weapon.

 

Nuclear weapons would only be used when a very large war got very, very serious.  There is reasonably good intelligence and satellites that can pinpoint where military and missile installations are.   

 

As far as the US and Trump's bluster.   You can bet he has a fair amount of support from the population on that one -- even his distractors.   Kim is like a person with a loaded gun taking shot near you.   He has nuclear weapons and he has missiles.   He has been shooting them both of them off and making  direct threats against the US.   

 

 

Threats of retaliation not preemption. The neofascists always leave that part out or mask it with their rhetoric. 

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, baboon said:

Threats of retaliation not preemption. The neofascists always leave that part out or mask it with their rhetoric. 

What constitutes a threat?  I their mind, it might be something like deploying THAAD.  Or, as they say, even if the dignity of the DPRK is threatened.  What does that mean? LOL

 

The supporters of North Korea always leave that part out or mask it with rhetoric.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/25/politics/north-korea-threatens-nuclear-strike-us/index.html

Quote

KCNA reported that a spokesman from the North Korean Foreign Ministry said, "The DPRK legally stipulates that if the supreme dignity of the DPRK is threatened, it must preemptively annihilate those countries and entities that are directly or indirectly involved in it, by mobilizing all kinds of strike means including the nuclear ones."

 

[Scott]

Troll post and reply removed.   If it continues, suspensions will be given.