U.S. Ambassador to U.N. says time for China to act, Japan PM Abe speaks with Trump

[craigt3365]

10 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You keep on getting it wrong. Yes, these are bad things. But are they a serious threat to the world? 

And you keep missing the point....if one person dies from these illegal activities, then yes, it's a threat.

[hawker9000]

On ‎7‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 0:48 AM, Golgota said:

The problem here is shared by both sides : North Korea is a crazy dictatorship for sure...however the US and mostly the US is pressuring Little Kim...but they won't go at war (for now) because Seoul is close from the border, the Japan is not so far, China will be super uspet, South Korea economy would fall if there was some kind of reunification...

The ONLY reason why North Korea was not attacked so far is because of the damage it can do...

In a way you may understand the Kim as you witmess how US tend to represent itself as the  World police..even if we witness that this world police creates much more mess after its wars...
Look at Syria, Libya, Irak...and tell me it is safer now than when it was under Saddam for exemple...Saddam and Ghaddaffi were dictators for sure...but the life of the majority of the population was much safer than it is now...byou can also ask yourself why the US and friends only bring wars in countries with Oil....why the oil companies are already in those countries...

So if I were Kim I would do the same cause the only thing which prevent a US intervention so far is the threat that South Korea and Japan, and now the US may be targetted...

"however the US and mostly the US is pressuring Little Kim"

 

Oh stop.  Other than lip service over his human rights abuses, the only real pressure the US is placing upon fatboy, or has EVER placed on fatboy or his degenerate lineage, is to stop building & testing nukes.  And the US definitely ISN'T alone in objecting to them (in contrast to the narrative his sympathizers incessantly feed us here...).   Fatboy is a paranoid, self-indulgent, psychotic who's deluded himself into believing N. Korea is about to be invaded.  His strategy has always been, and will obviously continue to be, to use the threat of nukes to extort aid out of other countries.  If it WEREN'T for the fact that sending him aid only serves to fuel his military build-up and nuclear ambitions, he and his starving population would probably have much much more of it!  Fatboy, and his thug sympathizers here on TVF, believe  use of intimidation, denial of human rights, and beligerance somehow entitle him and dictators like him to the world's respect, forbearance, and material tribute.  Mindlessly feeding the ego of this brutal dynasty until now is how we GOT to where we are today.  Long past time for it to stop!

 

 

 

.

 

[craigt3365]

5 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

"however the US and mostly the US is pressuring Little Kim"

 

Oh stop.  Other than lip service over his human rights abuses, the only real pressure the US is placing upon fatboy, or has EVER placed on fatboy or his degenerate lineage, is to stop building & testing nukes.  And the US definitely ISN'T alone in objecting to them (in contrast to the narrative his sympathizers incessantly feed us here...).   Fatboy is a paranoid, self-indulgent, psychotic who's deluded himself into believing N. Korea is about to be invaded.  His strategy has always been, and will obviously continue to be, to use the threat of nukes to extort aid out of other countries.  If it WEREN'T for the fact that sending him aid only serves to fuel his military build-up and nuclear ambitions, he and his starving population would probably have much much more of it!  Fatboy, and his thug sympathizers here on TVF, believe  use of intimidation, denial of human rights, and beligerance somehow entitle him and dictators like him to the world's respect, forbearance, and material tribute.  Mindlessly feeding the ego of this brutal dynasty until now is how we GOT to where we are today.  Long past time for it to stop!

Agreed.  But the US is also pressuring NK to stop it's illegal activities.  Counterfeiting, illegal ivory trade, selling weapons in violation of UN rules, etc, etc, etc.

 

But you are spot on with your post.  NK desperately needs a new, and better, leader.

[Rancid]

That Nikki Haley is a raging neocon that never saw a conflict she didn't want to help start. You really have to wonder what traumas such people went through early in life to twist them into what they are. Bizarre they are let on the world stage without a proper psyche evaluation.

[craigt3365]

56 minutes ago, Rancid said:

That Nikki Haley is a raging neocon that never saw a conflict she didn't want to help start. You really have to wonder what traumas such people went through early in life to twist them into what they are. Bizarre they are let on the world stage without a proper psyche evaluation.

Nice rant.  Bizarre.

[Grouse]

On 31/07/2017 at 2:41 PM, baboon said:

Fair question... Because I think they are frequently misrepresented and have a point at times.

I have sympathy with your point of view. I think it was correct for USA to state they have no desire for regime change. 

 

The rest of the world does not wish to have proliferation. I do not want Japan or Germany going that route. So I want NK to desist

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

[baboon]

10 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I have sympathy with your point of view. I think it was correct for USA to state they have no desire for regime change. 

 

The rest of the world does not wish to have proliferation. I do not want Japan or Germany going that route. So I want NK to desist

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

More nukes is certainly not a desirable thing, no doubt about it. But it is a bit rich when signatories to the NPT who have no intention of complying with article VI start pontificating on other countries arming themselves. 

[craigt3365]

33 minutes ago, baboon said:

More nukes is certainly not a desirable thing, no doubt about it. But it is a bit rich when signatories to the NPT who have no intention of complying with article VI start pontificating on other countries arming themselves. 

Best thing you've said.  More nukes is certainly not a desirable thing.  So why won't NK stop?  Non-proliferation is the key.  Not proliferation.

[baboon]

8 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Best thing you've said.  More nukes is certainly not a desirable thing.  So why won't NK stop?  Non-proliferation is the key.  Not proliferation.

Why do you feel the need to ask the same questions over and over again? I have already given my opinion on why they won't stop.

[CaptHaddock]

Some relevant facts:  the US has been responsible for most of the nuclear weapons proliferation in the world.  The UK participated in the Manhattan Project and shared in the technology.  The US secretly funded the development of French nuclear weapons during the 50's, which both the American and French governments lied about.  The US turned a blind eye to Israel's development of nukes and may even have permitted the Israelis to steal about 200 pounds of fissionable material from Pennsyvania in the 1960's.  The Pakistanis mysteriously had access to nuclear weapons technology after permitting the Reagan administration to support the Taliban and Al Qaeda via Pakistani territory.  Many have supposed nuclear technology for the Pakis was a quid pro quo.  The Soviets and Chinese developed nukes on their own, maybe India, too.  Neither the Russians nor the Chinese allowed any other nation access to their nuke technology.

 

So, the historically irresponsible player in nuke proliferation on a grand scale has been the USA.

 

In addition, the US by pursuing constant, aggressive war throughout the world especially the essential (and pointless) destruction of civil society in Iraq and Afghanistan, has created a situation where it is only rational for a country like North Korea to attempt to protect itself from the American juggernaut.  You don't have to admire any aspect of North Korean governance to recognize that developing their own nukes is a realistic way to avoid ending up like the Afghanis.  If I were Kim Jong-un I would be developing the missiles and weapons as fast as I could.

 

But, of course, you can hardly expect Americans to make the least effort to see the point of view of the other side.

[ilostmypassword]

On 8/1/2017 at 10:57 AM, craigt3365 said:

And you keep missing the point....if one person dies from these illegal activities, then yes, it's a threat.

By that criterion, one person dying,  there are an awful lot of countries that are threats. By that criterion, a low level drug deal standing on some corner is also the kind of threat that demands to be dealt with via massive and costly action.  And once again you miss the point. I keep on saying existential threat and you keep replying with threat.  

[craigt3365]

15 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

Some relevant facts:  the US has been responsible for most of the nuclear weapons proliferation in the world.  The UK participated in the Manhattan Project and shared in the technology.  The US secretly funded the development of French nuclear weapons during the 50's, which both the American and French governments lied about.  The US turned a blind eye to Israel's development of nukes and may even have permitted the Israelis to steal about 200 pounds of fissionable material from Pennsyvania in the 1960's.  The Pakistanis mysteriously had access to nuclear weapons technology after permitting the Reagan administration to support the Taliban and Al Qaeda via Pakistani territory.  Many have supposed nuclear technology for the Pakis was a quid pro quo.  The Soviets and Chinese developed nukes on their own, maybe India, too.  Neither the Russians nor the Chinese allowed any other nation access to their nuke technology.

 

So, the historically irresponsible player in nuke proliferation on a grand scale has been the USA.

 

In addition, the US by pursuing constant, aggressive war throughout the world especially the essential (and pointless) destruction of civil society in Iraq and Afghanistan, has created a situation where it is only rational for a country like North Korea to attempt to protect itself from the American juggernaut.  You don't have to admire any aspect of North Korean governance to recognize that developing their own nukes is a realistic way to avoid ending up like the Afghanis.  If I were Kim Jong-un I would be developing the missiles and weapons as fast as I could.

 

But, of course, you can hardly expect Americans to make the least effort to see the point of view of the other side.

Most of us Americans know this well.  Sadly, the genie is out of the bottle.  Trying to keep these weapons out of rogue nations hands is a good thing.

 

I think your argument about Iraq and Afghanistan are not appropriate.  That would mean any brutal dictator who's committing atrocities on a grand scale should just get the nuke so nobody can mess with them and they can continue on with their affairs? 

 

If this was, say, Spain, instead of NK.  I don't think you'd see such a united international front against it.  But we're talking NK.  Apples and oranges.

[craigt3365]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

By that criterion, one person dying,  there are an awful lot of countries that are threats. By that criterion, a low level drug deal standing on some corner is also the kind of threat that demands to be dealt with via massive and costly action.  And once again you miss the point. I keep on saying existential threat and you keep replying with threat.  

But that's not what this thread is about.  It's about NK.  Not any ol' drug dealer! LOL

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

But that's not what this thread is about.  It's about NK.  Not any ol' drug dealer! LOL

The point is that calling a country a threat big enough to demand action at an international level if one person dies from said country's actions is ridiculous. 

[iReason]

China rebukes Trump: 'Emotional venting' is not policy

 

"Xinhua New Agency responded critically following repeated statements by Trump on China's unwillingness

to help fix the current standoff with North Korea."

 

"Trump is quite a personality, and he likes to tweet,” Xinhua said in an editorial, as reported by The New York Times."

 

“But emotional venting cannot become a guiding policy for solving the nuclear issue on the peninsula.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/01/china-criticize-trump-tweets-north-korea-241199

 

China 1

The buffoon 0

[Morch]

On 8/1/2017 at 10:32 AM, baboon said:

No it isn't. It's a nuisance. 

 

On 8/1/2017 at 10:46 AM, ilostmypassword said:

You keep on getting it wrong. Yes, these are bad things. But are they a serious threat to the world? 

 

It stopped being a nuisance and became a serious threat when it went down the military nuclear capability path.

Having a whole lot of conventional weapons aimed at across the border Seoul, and capable of inflicting an enormous amount of damage might be deemed serious as well.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

It stopped being a nuisance and became a serious threat when it went down the military nuclear capability path.

Having a whole lot of conventional weapons aimed at across the border Seoul, and capable of inflicting an enormous amount of damage might be deemed serious as well.

I guess that depends on how you interpret their actions. I think Lankov's analysis offers the most convincing explanation.

[Briggsy]

South Korea and Japan are threatened, possibly existentially threatened by North Korea.

 

South Korea and Japan host American military bases, are allies of the U.S. and could be referred to as client states of the U.S. at least in terms of security.

 

North Korea is a client state of China (not a puppet state).

 

China and the U.S. are engaged in a battle for influence throughout the Asia Pacific. Influence brings power and resources. This battle is a long term battle with no end in sight. Neither side can give an inch.

 

The U.S. must keep up the pressure on North Korea as it is an Achilles heel for China.

 

The U.S. has to frame this pressure in simplistic and hyperbolic terms, particularly for the American public. So, they talk about nuclear missiles hitting Los Angeles. This, of course, is pie in the sky stuff. The likelihood of the destruction of Seoul is 100 times more likely. And even the likelihood of this is low.

 

The big picture is to keep the pressure on its strategic rival, China.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I guess that depends on how you interpret their actions. I think Lankov's analysis offers the most convincing explanation.

 

Lankov's views relate to assessments of motivation and probabilities. That's all very fine. Then there's a simple truth - a country expressing hostile positions combined with military nuclear capability is a serious threat. If it wasn't a serious threat it wouldn't have been much of a deterrent.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

South Korea and Japan are threatened, possibly existentially threatened by North Korea.

 

South Korea and Japan host American military bases, are allies of the U.S. and could be referred to as client states of the U.S. at least in terms of security.

 

North Korea is a client state of China (not a puppet state).

 

China and the U.S. are engaged in a battle for influence throughout the Asia Pacific. Influence brings power and resources. This battle is a long term battle with no end in sight. Neither side can give an inch.

 

The U.S. must keep up the pressure on North Korea as it is an Achilles heel for China.

 

The U.S. has to frame this pressure in simplistic and hyperbolic terms, particularly for the American public. So, they talk about nuclear missiles hitting Los Angeles. This, of course, is pie in the sky stuff. The likelihood of the destruction of Seoul is 100 times more likely. And even the likelihood of this is low.

 

The big picture is to keep the pressure on its strategic rival, China.

 

Neither Japan nor South Korea routinely threat North Korea or the PRC.

[baboon]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Right...so developing nuclear weapons that can hit the US, in violation of UN sanctions.  Issuing threats about this.  Including videos of NYC being nuked.  Are all just propaganda?

 

As Tillerson said, it's a threat and we have to respond.

 

They are legally entitled to possess nuclear weapons. They are legally entitled to possess missiles. No amount of innuendo or skirting around the fact by the warmongers will change that.

[Morch]

20 minutes ago, baboon said:

They are legally entitled to possess nuclear weapons. They are legally entitled to possess missiles. No amount of innuendo or skirting around the fact by the warmongers will change that.

 

Doesn't make it any less of a threat, legal interpretations aside. No amount of innuendo or skirting around the fact will change that. Going on about "warmongers", while advocating a dodgy regime's supposed "right" to military nuclear capability is a nice touch.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Morch

[baboon]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Doesn't make it any less of a threat, legal interpretations aside. No amount of innuendo or skirting around the fact will change that. Going on about "warmongers", while advocating a dodgy regime's supposed "right" to military nuclear capability is a nice touch.

What part of what I wrote do you dispute?

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, baboon said:

What part of what I wrote do you dispute?

 

What part of my post wasn't clear enough?

 

North Korea's military nuclear capability is a threat. Whether or not you wish to apply supposed legal interpretations and decree NK's actions and stance "legal" or within their right, does not have any bearing on it being a threat. Going on about "warmongering" while making the case for NK's "right" to act belligerently is amusing.

 

 

[baboon]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What part of my post wasn't clear enough?

 

North Korea's military nuclear capability is a threat. Whether or not you wish to apply supposed legal interpretations and decree NK's actions and stance "legal" or within their right, does not have any bearing on it being a threat. Going on about "warmongering" while making the case for NK's "right" to act belligerently is amusing.

 

 

So then you agree they are legally entitled to a nuclear deterrent. 

All military nuclear capabilities are a threat. That is the point of having them. 'We can have them but we say you can't' just doesn't wash.

[Morch]

Just now, baboon said:

So then you agree they are legally entitled to a nuclear deterrent. 

All military nuclear capabilities are a threat. That is the point of having them. 'We can have them but we say you can't' just doesn't wash.

 

Why put words in my mouth? I didn't agree or disagree with that point, it is irrelevant as far as defining threats.

 

Military nuclear capability in the hands of an ally or a non-hostile country is something to keep an eye on, but not a direct threat. NK is a hostile country with regard to it's neighbors and the US, and therefore a threat.

 

My take on these things isn't idealistic, but realistic. You seem to be more focused on the former.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Lankov's views relate to assessments of motivation and probabilities. That's all very fine. Then there's a simple truth - a country expressing hostile positions combined with military nuclear capability is a serious threat. If it wasn't a serious threat it wouldn't have been much of a deterrent.

According to Lankov it's a serious threat if... not an unqualified serious threat.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

According to Lankov it's a serious threat if... not an unqualified serious threat.

He's welcome to his opinion. Guess it's a question of how far one trust's his assessment, and how far one trusts Kim.

[Briggsy]

1 hour ago, CaptHaddock said:

The US is the only country in the world that claims the right to attack other countries merely because they have weapons that could be used against us.  That's a remarkably extreme position. 

 

It might be remembered that Bill Clinton paid the North Koreans to stop developing nukes and they did.  That deal held until George "Permanent War" Bush decided it offended American dignity.

I don't disagree with that.

 

'Might is right' as they say.

 

It is all about exerting power and influence and reducing China's influence in this case.

[craigt3365]

3 hours ago, baboon said:

They are legally entitled to possess nuclear weapons. They are legally entitled to possess missiles. No amount of innuendo or skirting around the fact by the warmongers will change that.

And the US was legally entitled to invade Iraq.  And Russia was legally entitled to invade Ukraine.  Right....