North Korea does not want war, world does not want regime change: U.N.

[LannaGuy]

8 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

I agree with the assessment.  But the world wants a denuclearized Korean peninsula. Something Kim is against.  Therein lies the rub.

 

Just read an interesting report saying this gives other rogue nations the go ahead to pursue their own nuclear strategy, as nothing will be done about it anyway.  Letting North Korea go ahead sets a dangers precedent.

 

Agreed. I suspect we will wake up one morning and it's news of an extensive bombing run over NK taking out all their nuke facilities. Can't see any alternative.  

[sweatalot]

2 hours ago, Media1 said:

He not want war yet. His bombs are not ready 

When they are he will launch because his mentally gone. Nth Korea must accept a removal plan of nuclear weapons or be wiped out. There to big a risk

I don't think he is mentally ill. Just outright evil.

2 hours ago, Media1 said:

 

[Krataiboy]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Few here are saying the world wants regime change except you.  It's not a lie, you seem to like to go against the grain with stuff like this. LOL

 

The CIA?  Jeez....and how did we get to the Arab Spring from here?  A bit off topic.  Again.

I'm sure Kim Jong Un will be thrilled to hear that a few expat Westerners on ThaiVisa Forum are rooting for him. Who knows? Maybe he'll decide to take Thailand off his list of US client states to nuke if and when the balloon goes up.

 

The lads at Langley, Virginia might find it  hard to believe there are still a few innocents abroad blissfully unaware of their lengthy and  impressive record when it comes to helping topple unpopular (with the US administration) regimes. 

 

Assuming you enjoy a good book, I can recommend Ahmed Bensada's The Arab Spring: Made in America.  Best have a stiff drink handy. You're going to need it.

[ELVIS123456]

The UN again speaks for the world, and in doing so has solved yet another conflict.

I can see now how all those billions of dollars per year they cost are worth it.

Where would we be without the UN.

 

[tifino]

ummm... UNhappy?

[ray23]

Reminds me of the movie the mouse who roared. More then likely the world will cave and give him more money

[Morch]

11 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

We've seen how well waging war in the name of regime change has worked in recent past.

 

Full scale war is not a necessary ingredient when it comes to regime change.

 

[Morch]

13 hours ago, retarius said:

Kim like the rest of us just wants security, security against regime change. The world may not want regime change as the UN say, but no one does anything about it when the US decides to execute a regime change....except the Russians in Syria.

 

So in essence, this isn't about North Korea, but about Kim. One man (if not counting family and cronies). Regardless of what a UN official may say publicly, doubt anyone (other than family and cronies) would mind a replacement. Including the PRC.

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Full scale war is not a necessary ingredient when it comes to regime change.

 

And we've seen how well non full scale war works also.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Srikcir said:

 

If somehow North Korea could become a semi-autonomous state of China, regime change might work. Neither China nor Russia will agree to a unified democratic Korean Republic.

 

Doubt South Korea and the US will go along with such a plan. Or, for that matter, that the PRC is eager accepting the responsibility of managing post-Kim North Korea. And, of course, no one asks the North Koreans what they want..

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And we've seen how well non full scale war works also.

 

Moving them goal posts.

 

That successful (or rather, relatively "painless") regime change is difficult to affect is a given. That it may all go pear shaped is there too. But it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be contemplated, as not all of the failed past instances are applicable.

 

Considering even a less than optimal regime change effort vs. Kim's political survival, with all the belligerence it implies, and the danger of things getting out of hand. Could be that the former might actually be an improvement on things.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Doubt South Korea and the US will go along with such a plan. Or, for that matter, that the PRC is eager accepting the responsibility of managing post-Kim North Korea. And, of course, no one asks the North Koreans what they want..

Still, if China decided to do it, who could stop them? Certainly the North Koreans would be far better off. Anything has to better than what they are experiencing now. And as for managing post-Kim North Korea, I don't think South Korea much relishes the prospect either. It would place a much huger burden on the Korean economies in relative terms than the merger of West and East Germany did on the Germany economy. Far easier for China to sustain it. I suppose China would prefer a far more tractable neighbor as the ideal solution, but if North Korea were to collapse internallly would China rather have anarchy on its border, south korea on its border, or a new province?

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Moving them goal posts.

 

That successful (or rather, relatively "painless") regime change is difficult to affect is a given. That it may all go pear shaped is there too. But it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be contemplated, as not all of the failed past instances are applicable.

 

Considering even a less than optimal regime change effort vs. Kim's political survival, with all the belligerence it implies, and the danger of things getting out of hand. Could be that the former might actually be an improvement on things.

Could be, might be, may be better. Could be, might be, may be worse.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Could be, might be, may be better. Could be, might be, may be worse.

 

Worse how?

 

We already have a dictator making threats, holding both his people and neighbors hostage. The North Koreans are already oppressed. So what then? Someone getting their hands on unconventional weapons? More freedom to act against them than against Kim. North Korea's arsenal making it to world markets? Easier to implement a maritime blockade. Religious nutters....ah, none of that. Weak neighboring countries in danger of being seriously destabilized?

Russia, the PRC, and South Korea do not match.

 

As no side will be willing to let another take charge, perhaps a good opportunity to practice international cooperation, even.

 

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Still, if China decided to do it, who could stop them? Certainly the North Koreans would be far better off. Anything has to better than what they are experiencing now. And as for managing post-Kim North Korea, I don't think South Korea much relishes the prospect either. It would place a much huger burden on the Korean economies in relative terms than the merger of West and East Germany did on the Germany economy. Far easier for China to sustain it. I suppose China would prefer a far more tractable neighbor as the ideal solution, but if North Korea were to collapse internallly would China rather have anarchy on its border, south korea on its border, or a new province?

 

There was an article posted on one of the many topics, detailing the PRC's reservations. Like the US (if less so and less accurately) they could go charging in and eventually win. But there will be casualties, whether the PRC will be seen as aggressor or liberator is an open question, and for a country valuing social balance, a war and it's aftermath may be... troublesome.

 

I don't know that South Korea sees things the way to describe, or that the situation is quite similar to Germany's case. If some posters versions are to be believed, North Korea comes with a nice dowry of potential natural resources. It may be "easier" for the PRC to sustain the burden, but could South Koreans and South Korean leadership accept it? 

 

What may emerge (if Kim is out of the equation) is a situation in which North Korea will be administered by more than one involved party. Probably easier (but not easy, though) to work out then coming to an understanding about one of them taking complete control.

[ilostmypassword]

29 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Worse how?

 

We already have a dictator making threats, holding both his people and neighbors hostage. The North Koreans are already oppressed. So what then? Someone getting their hands on unconventional weapons? More freedom to act against them than against Kim. North Korea's arsenal making it to world markets? Easier to implement a maritime blockade. Religious nutters....ah, none of that. Weak neighboring countries in danger of being seriously destabilized?

Russia, the PRC, and South Korea do not match.

 

As no side will be willing to let another take charge, perhaps a good opportunity to practice international cooperation, even.

 

Biological weapons being deployed. Chemical weapons being deployed. Dirty nuclear weapons being deployed. Clean and shiny nuclear weapons being deployed.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

Biological weapons being deployed. Chemical weapons being deployed. Dirty nuclear weapons being deployed. Clean and shiny nuclear weapons being deployed.

 

You'll have to do better than that. Deployed by whom? against which targets? Without context this is just more of the same scaremongering.

 

There are already such weapons deployed or on alert to be deployed. One difference is that with Kim in place, taking them out may result in retaliation. If the country goes to the dogs (which, honestly, I don't think it will anyway), coordination and cooperation would be a lesser worry when taking action.

 

I think something along the lines of the USSR's collapse, post Ceausescu Romania, may be more realistic scenarios (compared with ME versions, for example).

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Morch said:

 

You'll have to do better than that. Deployed by whom? against which targets? Without context this is just more of the same scaremongering.

 

There are already such weapons deployed or on alert to be deployed. One difference is that with Kim in place, taking them out may result in retaliation. If the country goes to the dogs (which, honestly, I don't think it will anyway), coordination and cooperation would be a lesser worry when taking action.

 

I think something along the lines of the USSR's collapse, post Ceausescu Romania, may be more realistic scenarios (compared with ME versions, for example).

You know, contrary to what you might believe, it's not guaranteed that such a not-full-scale-war or any other attempt would actually be a success. And in the chaos that might follow, who knows what desperate weaponry would be unleased?

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

You know, contrary to what you might believe, it's not guaranteed that such a not-full-scale-war or any other attempt would actually be a success. And in the chaos that might follow, who knows what desperate weaponry would be unleased?

 

You know, I've actually addressed that it is not guaranteed. Just a few posts ago. Even referred to less then optimal outcome regime change effort.

 

If "desperate" was a reference to Kim or some Kim loyalist cronies, then thanks. I've been making a similar argument over many a topic, but was told that it wouldn't be rational, it would be pointless etc etc. If this wasn't a reference to some sort of Samson option, then please clarify. If it was a reference for someone-might-launch/fire-something-for-some-obscure-reason, that's not much of a motivation.

[Morch]

Guess South Korea didn't get the UN memo....

 

 

South Korea is building an elite military unit with one mission: kill Kim Jong Un

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/9/12/16296758/south-korea-north-korea-military-spartan-3000

 

South Korea Plans ‘Decapitation Unit’ to Try to Scare North’s Leaders

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/world/asia/north-south-korea-decapitation-.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[ilostmypassword]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You know, I've actually addressed that it is not guaranteed. Just a few posts ago. Even referred to less then optimal outcome regime change effort.

 

If "desperate" was a reference to Kim or some Kim loyalist cronies, then thanks. I've been making a similar argument over many a topic, but was told that it wouldn't be rational, it would be pointless etc etc. If this wasn't a reference to some sort of Samson option, then please clarify. If it was a reference for someone-might-launch/fire-something-for-some-obscure-reason, that's not much of a motivation.

Let me remind you of your question

"Worse how?"

I answered it.

[baboon]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You know, I've actually addressed that it is not guaranteed. Just a few posts ago. Even referred to less then optimal outcome regime change effort.

 

If "desperate" was a reference to Kim or some Kim loyalist cronies, then thanks. I've been making a similar argument over many a topic, but was told that it wouldn't be rational, it would be pointless etc etc. If this wasn't a reference to some sort of Samson option, then please clarify. If it was a reference for someone-might-launch/fire-something-for-some-obscure-reason, that's not much of a motivation.

In fact you aren't actually saying anything at all, nor do you ever on this subject. Just arguing with allcomers.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Let me remind you of your question

"Worse how?"

I answered it.

 

Let me remind you, that the first part of your "reply" was off mark, and if the rest is an "answer" guess it is the along the lines of someone-might-launch/fire-something-for-some-obscure-reason . Oh well...

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, baboon said:

In fact you aren't actually saying anything at all, nor do you ever on this subject.

 

in fact, you're trolling.

[baboon]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

in fact, you're trolling.

Case in point. Regular readers of these threads know exactly what my position is. 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, baboon said:

Case in point. Regular readers of these threads know exactly what my position is. 

 

Yawn.

If I'm not a zealot (one way or the other), it means that I have no position?

Other than affirming that you troll, you have no point.

[hawker9000]

"North Korea does not want war, world does not want regime change: U.N."

Thanks, UN.   I'm SO reassured...

 

What a bunch of fumbling, stumbling bozos tripping over their own clown shoes.   Psychoboy has maneuvered himself into a position of almost needing war just to keep on keeping on, and the world - aside from the usual thug sympathizers, the UN obviously, and that dim bulb Merkel - is pretty much finally getting this.

 

[craigt3365]

6 hours ago, baboon said:

Case in point. Regular readers of these threads know exactly what my position is. 

Pro North Korea at all costs, and anti-US at all costs.  A small deviation would increase your credibility substantially.  That avatar doesn't help. LOL

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

I'm sure Kim Jong Un will be thrilled to hear that a few expat Westerners on ThaiVisa Forum are rooting for him. Who knows? Maybe he'll decide to take Thailand off his list of US client states to nuke if and when the balloon goes up.

 

The lads at Langley, Virginia might find it  hard to believe there are still a few innocents abroad blissfully unaware of their lengthy and  impressive record when it comes to helping topple unpopular (with the US administration) regimes. 

 

Assuming you enjoy a good book, I can recommend Ahmed Bensada's The Arab Spring: Made in America.  Best have a stiff drink handy. You're going to need it.

Thailand a US client state?  Seriously? LOL  Too funny.

 

Most of us are fully aware of the CIA and it's attempts to topple regimes.  Mostly during the cold war and on the other side was Russia trying to do the same.

 

Bensada's book is in French and is reviewed by globalresearch.ca.  A fake news website.  Hardly worth a read.  Plus, this is all off topic.  We're suppose to be talking about North Korea.

[baboon]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Pro North Korea at all costs, and anti-US at all costs.  A small deviation would increase your credibility substantially.  That avatar doesn't help. LOL

Pro peace, anti neofascist/imperialist scum. Nothing wrong with most Americans.