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

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

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.

Considering Kim killed his ex-brother with poison, shot an exec for sleeping during a meeting with an anti-aircraft guy....I'd say it's hard to trust Kim! LOL

[baboon]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

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

 

Are you saying the DPRK are not legally entitled to a nuclear deterrent? 

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

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

It's an opinion piece.  One where he's recommending more negotiations.  After admitting negotiations aren't working!  You like his opinion, some of us don't.

[craigt3365]

Just now, baboon said:

Are you saying the DPRK are not legally entitled to a nuclear deterrent? 

I think that went over your head....

[baboon]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

I think that went over your head....

Yes or no?

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Considering Kim killed his ex-brother with poison, shot an exec for sleeping during a meeting with an anti-aircraft guy....I'd say it's hard to trust Kim! LOL

Yes, thank you for establishing repeatedly that Kim is a vile person. We could probably use you saying it a dozen times more just to make sure we get the point. Still, that's not the issue. The question is whether or not Kim's actions are governed by his desire to go on ruling his vile little paradise or if, in fact, he is a reckless fool courting death. I say he is following the playbook of his grandfather and father. It served them well enough to stay in power.

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, baboon said:

Yes or no?

Who's defining the law?

[baboon]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Who's defining the law?

As I thought. You are a propaganda talking head.

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Yes, thank you for establishing repeatedly that Kim is a vile person. We could probably use you saying it a dozen times more just to make sure we get the point. Still, that's not the issue. The question is whether or not Kim's actions are governed by his desire to go on ruling his vile little paradise or if, in fact, he is a reckless fool courting death. I say he is following the playbook of his grandfather and father. It served them well enough to stay in power.

Sorry, but this is exactly the issue.  He's a nut.  Same with Trump.  I wouldn't trust either one of them.  Not sure why you can't see this. 

 

The argument you are making is that it's OK to be a brutal dictator, kill your own people and relatives, close your county off to the entire world, etc, etc, etc....and that it's OK?  Seriously?

 

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, baboon said:

As I thought. You are a propaganda talking head.

If you are talking NK law, then it's legal.  They make up the laws!  LOL

 

If you are talking international law, and especially international norms, then the answer is it's not legal nor ethical.

[baboon]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

If you are talking NK law, then it's legal.  They make up the laws!  LOL

 

If you are talking international law, and especially international norms, then the answer is it's not legal nor ethical.

Which international law are they violating?

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Sorry, but this is exactly the issue.  He's a nut.  Same with Trump.  I wouldn't trust either one of them.  Not sure why you can't see this. 

 

The argument you are making is that it's OK to be a brutal dictator, kill your own people and relatives, close your county off to the entire world, etc, etc, etc....and that it's OK?  Seriously?

 

[Scott]

Some off-topic posts have been removed along with replies.   Continued nonsensical bickering will earn suspensions.  

 

 

[simple1]

9 hours ago, baboon said:

Which international law are they violating?

First Pillar of Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which N.K. had original declared would comply, then walked away. Quite a lot of shadow games as it is considered PRC (and Russia?) was the enabler for N.K. to develop nuclear weapons capability.

 

Recently it was reported Russia is filling the gap for energy supplies to N.K. Unsure if the US Administration has responded to this matter.

 

http://www.dw.com/en/russia-steps-up-north-korea-support-to-constrain-us/a-38867861

 

 

[baboon]

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

First Pillar of Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which N.K. had original declared would comply, then walked away. Quite a lot of shadow games as it is considered PRC (and Russia?) was the enabler for N.K. to develop nuclear weapons capability.

 

Recently it was reported Russia is filling the gap for energy supplies to N.K. Unsure if the US Administration has responded to this matter.

 

http://www.dw.com/en/russia-steps-up-north-korea-support-to-constrain-us/a-38867861

 

 

Yes, they withdrew from the NPT which is the right of any signatory under Article X of the treaty. No law broken there.

[craigt3365]

28 minutes ago, baboon said:

Yes, they withdrew from the NPT which is the right of any signatory under Article X of the treaty. No law broken there.

It's not all about the law.  It's about being a good citizen in our world community.  They did violate various UN resolutions.  Which some, like the International Court of Justice, consider to be legally binding.  Either way, they are creating their own mess. 

[simple1]

38 minutes ago, baboon said:

Yes, they withdrew from the NPT which is the right of any signatory under Article X of the treaty. No law broken there.

My understanding is North Korea's withdrawal under Article X from the NPT was non compliant and not accepted by the relevant parties in the international community. The various sanctions over time underline the perceived illegality of the North Korean nuclear weapons program.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_North_Korea#United_Nations_sanctions

Edited August 3, 2017 by simple1

[baboon]

4 minutes ago, simple1 said:

My understanding is North Korea's withdrawal under Article X from the NPT was non compliant and not accepted by the relevant parties in the international community. The various sanctions over time underline the perceived illegality of the North Korean nuclear weapons program.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_North_Korea#United_Nations_sanctions

That's one of those we could bounce back and forth all day. The hardliners of the Bush administration scrapped the Agreed Framework on the grounds that the DPRK probably wouldn't in the future abide by it, so how much trust can we place in America's word for what is going on?

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

My understanding is North Korea's withdrawal under Article X from the NPT was non compliant and not accepted by the relevant parties in the international community. The various sanctions over time underline the perceived illegality of the North Korean nuclear weapons program.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_North_Korea#United_Nations_sanctions

Hard to have an intelligent conversation with a member who's avatar is the NK flag. LOL

[craigt3365]

16 minutes ago, baboon said:

That's one of those we could bounce back and forth all day. The hardliners of the Bush administration scrapped the Agreed Framework on the grounds that the DPRK probably wouldn't in the future abide by it, so how much trust can we place in America's word for what is going on?

It's a bit more complicated than that.  So you trust Kim's word for what is going on?  From what I've read, they were a big part of the problem also.  As has been documented by reliable sources.

[baboon]

15 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Hard to have an intelligent conversation with a member who's avatar is the NK flag. LOL

Then feel free not to. You're just tedious now.

[Scott]

I strongly suggest that members stop with the personal and inflammatory remarks.  

[hawker9000]

20 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 U.S. is just as entitled to introduce defensive ABMs, both land and sea-based.  And Japan and S, Korea are just as legally entitled to initiate nuclear programs of THEIR own.   No amount of innuendo or skirting around the fact by the thug sympathizers will change THAT.   So is that what you condone, an all-nuclear Korean peninsula, plus a re-militarized, nuclear Japan?   No - because of course when THEY do that, THAT'll be "warmongering".   When the NORKs do it, why that's just "legal entitlement".

 

Laughable.

 

 

 

 

[baboon]

1 hour ago, hawker9000 said:

And the U.S. is just as entitled to introduce defensive ABMs, both land and sea-based.  And Japan and S, Korea are just as legally entitled to initiate nuclear programs of THEIR own.   No amount of innuendo or skirting around the fact by the thug sympathizers will change THAT.   So is that what you condone, an all-nuclear Korean peninsula, plus a re-militarized, nuclear Japan?   No - because of course when THEY do that, THAT'll be "warmongering".   When the NORKs do it, why that's just "legal entitlement".

 

Laughable.

 

 

 

 

Because the DPRK has never invaded a foreign country for one, unlike their adversery.

[Morch]

17 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Yes, thank you for establishing repeatedly that Kim is a vile person. We could probably use you saying it a dozen times more just to make sure we get the point. Still, that's not the issue. The question is whether or not Kim's actions are governed by his desire to go on ruling his vile little paradise or if, in fact, he is a reckless fool courting death. I say he is following the playbook of his grandfather and father. It served them well enough to stay in power.

 

No, that's how you choose to frame the issue. It is not necessarily a choice between believing the options you offer, but rather how much faith one places in Kim making the right decision under pressure (real or imagined). Some may see it as a gamble to place so much on the assumption that a single person's inner motivations are fully and correctly mapped. 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, baboon said:

Because the DPRK has never invaded a foreign country for one, unlike their adversery.

 

North Korea is a peace loving, amiable neighbor. Right.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, baboon said:

That's one of those we could bounce back and forth all day. The hardliners of the Bush administration scrapped the Agreed Framework on the grounds that the DPRK probably wouldn't in the future abide by it, so how much trust can we place in America's word for what is going on?

 

If we could "bounce back and forth all day", then the decisive position that NK's actions are "legal" (not that it's really the point) taken earlier isn't set in stone.

[ilostmypassword]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, that's how you choose to frame the issue. It is not necessarily a choice between believing the options you offer, but rather how much faith one places in Kim making the right decision under pressure (real or imagined). Some may see it as a gamble to place so much on the assumption that a single person's inner motivations are fully and correctly mapped. 

But the question of Kim's morality is not relevant to the issue of whether or not he's likely to start a nuclear war.

[craigt3365]

27 minutes ago, baboon said:

Because the DPRK has never invaded a foreign country for one, unlike their adversery.

Ummmm....you've forgotten about them invading South Korea?

 

How many millions were killed or wounded?  I've read up to a million civilians.  Lovely country.

[Morch]

20 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

But the question of Kim's morality is not relevant to the issue of whether or not he's likely to start a nuclear war.

 

You say it isn't relevant, others may disagree. Far as I recall, you are not averse to making the opposite argument with regard to other countries, regimes and conflicts. Some may point out that someone apparently less bound by moral constraints (or subscribing to a different set of morals) might be more likely to act dangerously. Another version of the same would raise concerns over incompatibility of moral positions possibly leading to misunderstandings, and them dangerous consequences.