2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Perhaps regime should have been pursued back in 1993 when NK announced they were backing out of the NPT?  We wouldn't be where we are now....probably. LOL

 

Too bad people have suffer under a brutal dictator like Kim.  But as you say, no easy answers.

 

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron

 

 

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

Or perhaps George Bush and Dick Cheney shouldn't have walked away from the agreement formulated by Bill Clinton et alii?

 

The main point is unanimity in the security council. It doesn't matter a damn what the resolution states. NK are now on notice that they're in bad books and better behave or else.

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

The main point is unanimity in the security council. It doesn't matter a damn what the resolution states. NK are now on notice that they're in bad books and better behave or else.

 

Or else what?

22 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Or perhaps George Bush and Dick Cheney shouldn't have walked away from the agreement formulated by Bill Clinton et alii?

Dick Cheney was in power back in 1993?

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Or else what?

That's the point right there.  This has been going on for ages.  NK backs out of agreements, continues illegal activities around the globe, human rights violations, etc, etc, etc.  With very limited repercussions.  At least repercussions that hurt Kim and the previous dictators.  The people have suffered all along.

3 hours ago, vandv said:

 

so now you are an expert on the inner workings of the NK gov......where did you gain this knowledge from watching Team America?

And your info is.........?

Talk about backing out:

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron

Quote

December 31, 1991: The two Koreas sign the South-North Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Under the declaration, both countries agree not to “test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy or use nuclear weapons” or to “possess nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities.” They also agree to mutual inspections for verification.

 

But yes, it was probably Bush or Cheney's fault NK backed out of this Joint Declaration signed in 1991. LOL

33 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Or else what?

Limited conventional strike on ICBM and/or nuclear weapons centers.

8 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

That's the point right there.  This has been going on for ages.  NK backs out of agreements, continues illegal activities around the globe, human rights violations, etc, etc, etc.  With very limited repercussions.  At least repercussions that hurt Kim and the previous dictators.  The people have suffered all along.

 

The point is that there is no point. They're doing the same old song and dance. More sanctions, more bold words, more posturing. And it's almost assured that the response will be along familiar lines as well.

 

Them sanctions aren't going to bring down Kim. They aren't likely to make him more "reasonable" (read amenable for international pressure). They do not necessarily target him specifically. Not saying cancel all sanctions, give Kim whatever he wants. Just that it's hard to see where, realistically,  this is supposed to be heading. More like going through the motions.

 

On the other hand military options are dismal, considering assured retribution and chances of decisive achievement of all goals. So most threats are seem either hollow, or irresponsible. What's an acceptable price (in casualties and destruction) to (possibly) oust Kim? Guess it depends who's asked and who's paying.

14 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Talk about backing out:

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron

 

But yes, it was probably Bush or Cheney's fault NK backed out of this Joint Declaration signed in 1991. LOL

Once again the laugh is on you

http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/may-2004/rolling-blunder-2/

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Limited conventional strike on ICBM and/or nuclear weapons centers.

 

Which will have to be 100% successful. Which will result, almost certainly, in a massive retaliation against South Korea, and possibly Japan. It will not destroy know how. It will not necessarily bring about Kim's demise.

 

39 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Once again the laugh is on you

http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/may-2004/rolling-blunder-2/

That was 2002.  NK first walked out of the agreements in 1993, as I pointed out.  You said it was Bush and Cheney's fault.  They weren't around then.  Not sure why you are laughing.

The UN is nowadays just a political talking shop.  Has no use, no power, and if you choose so to do, maybe be totally ignored.

 

As a prime example Israel has been ignoring UN resolutions for decades regarding getting their backsides out of Palestine.  Therefore I suspect, by example, North Korea will not give two jots ,  in fact it may well provoke them to making an even bigger statement. 

 

US beware.

1 hour ago, gummy said:

The UN is nowadays just a political talking shop.  Has no use, no power, and if you choose so to do, maybe be totally ignored.

 

As a prime example Israel has been ignoring UN resolutions for decades regarding getting their backsides out of Palestine.  Therefore I suspect, by example, North Korea will not give two jots ,  in fact it may well provoke them to making an even bigger statement. 

 

US beware.

well.... what about that both Bushes needed a UNSC resolution before invading Iraq?

both times. why?

and world opinion (i.e. the talking stuff) is very important anyways. it's the only reason we were confidant enough to call the Russian leaders bluff in the Cuban Missile Crisis [talk at the UN in New York]....

and this is not just a normal resolution on top of all of that.

N.B.

2371..... is special. it includes naming individual people who are very important money movers for the DPRK..... and it's why so far the resolution is unavailable to the public. and probably will continue so.

it names 9 individuals.

before..... if they passed a law or resolution.. not just the UN.... it cannot target specific people. it would be the same here. the elites don't want to have THEIR individual rights trampled on... so we all get a Bill of Rights.

need to nail a person.... you have to go to court.

sound familiar?

not now anymore. not with the UNSC.

the DPRK was using ****individuals**** to do it's fx stuff and banking.... yeah you can go after them... I guess... RICO type thing? like that?..... but if you could *****name***** them and go after them.... as individual people.... as if the UNSC was a court of law issuing a writ.... and not a resolution.... only in name.....

then Trump nails the regime.. by  pulling a dirty truck... that western elites will cringe at but they were already cringing......

could this be right? I ain't no poly sci person... just need to know certain things to keep my defined contribution plans in the green... yeah? esp anything at all fx related..... cause my other pensions are locked in dollahs. thus I love this geo political stuff. 

 

      

Edited August 6, 20178 yr by maewang99

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Which will have to be 100% successful. Which will result, almost certainly, in a massive retaliation against South Korea, and possibly Japan. It will not destroy know how. It will not necessarily bring about Kim's demise.

 

Yes, but the counter strike by SK, Japan and USA would and Kim knows that. Nobody is going for regime change; it's a limited strike.

 

It's like saying to Kim, you've crossed us so we're going to cut one of your limbs off. Your family get to choose and also hold you down. Or else.

stop talking about the North Korean regime as if it were one little fat guy.

in fact... 2371 names 9 individuals... none of them end in "Un".

 

Edited August 6, 20178 yr by maewang99

actually we don't know if any of the 9 end in "Un", do we?

unlike every other UNSC resolution.... 2371 isn't available to the public.

because it has 9 individual persons names in it.

as if it were a writ... and not a resolution.

 

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

 

So, no one should be held to account for their bad decisions? You're confusing "should have" with "shouldn't have". The former refers to inaction the latter to actions taken.

Edited August 6, 20178 yr by ilostmypassword

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

So, no one should be held to account for their bad decisions? You're confusing "should have" with "shouldn't have". The former refers to inaction the latter to action.

As usual, you are nitpicking.

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Yes, but the counter strike by SK, Japan and USA would and Kim knows that. Nobody is going for regime change; it's a limited strike.

 

It's like saying to Kim, you've crossed us so we're going to cut one of your limbs off. Your family get to choose and also hold you down. Or else.

 

The US carries out a limited series of conventional against NK's ballistic and nuclear installations. Hopefully, 100% successful, or some people in Japan (and possibly, the US) will have a bad day.

 

NK retaliates by inflicting a massive artillery/rocket barrage on SK. Somewhat less scruples when it comes to civilian casualties. 

 

SK may, or may not "counter strike" in a similar fashion, the US and Japan will probably not.

 

Whether or not this implies Kim's demise, is unclear.

 

Quite a gamble.

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

As usual, you are nitpicking.

No, what he posted did not apply. Let me explain it to you. When you say someone should have  done something, it refers to something that he or she didn't do. When you say that someone shouldn't have done something it refers to something he or she actually did.  I referred to Bush and Cheney walking away from an agreement. They took initiative. They made a choice. They did something. They should be held responsible for it. Understand now?

 

 

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

So, no one should be held to account for their bad decisions? You're confusing "should have" with "shouldn't have". The former refers to inaction the latter to actions taken.

 

It was more of a comment about the above exchange, and it's actual relevance to the situation as it is.

There's enough bad decisions to go around, and then some, without either side being left empty handed.

 

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

No, what he posted did not apply. Let me explain it to you. When you say someone should have  done something, it refers to something that he or she didn't do. When you say that someone shouldn't have done something it refers to something he or she actually did.  I referred to Bush and Cheney walking away from an agreement. They took initiative. They made a choice. They did something. They should be held responsible for it. Understand now?

 

 

 

I understand that you're nitpicking.

And barking up the wrong tree to boot.

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I understand that you're nitpicking.

And barking up the wrong tree to boot.

Very cogent lack of analysis.

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

No, what he posted did not apply. Let me explain it to you. When you say someone should have  done something, it refers to something that he or she didn't do. When you say that someone shouldn't have done something it refers to something he or she actually did.  I referred to Bush and Cheney walking away from an agreement. They took initiative. They made a choice. They did something. They should be held responsible for it. Understand now?

 I don't understand at all...LOL

Just now, craigt3365 said:

 I don't understand at all...LOL

When I can put it all into words of one syllable, I'll try again.

He ran North Korea’s secret moneymaking operation. Now he lives in Virginia.

 

Efforts to sanction North Korea into submission won’t work because there are too many ways around them, Ri Jong Ho says.  

He should know.

For about three decades, Ri was a top moneymaker for the Kim regime, sending millions of dollars a year back to Pyongyang even as round after round of sanctions was imposed to try to punish North Korea for its nuclear defiance. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/he-ran-north-koreas-secret-money-making-operation-now-he-lives-in-virginia/2017/07/12/4cb9a590-6584-11e7-94ab-5b1f0ff459df_story.html?utm_term=.49c7274912ee

 

 

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

When I can put it all into words of one syllable, I'll try again.

That would be preferable.

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The US carries out a limited series of conventional against NK's ballistic and nuclear installations. Hopefully, 100% successful, or some people in Japan (and possibly, the US) will have a bad day.

 

NK retaliates by inflicting a massive artillery/rocket barrage on SK. Somewhat less scruples when it comes to civilian casualties. 

 

SK may, or may not "counter strike" in a similar fashion, the US and Japan will probably not.

 

Whether or not this implies Kim's demise, is unclear.

 

Quite a gamble.

Do you play poker? No.

 

The point is that we know what Un wants; to remain in power

 

But, he is threatening the West; huge loss of face

 

So he has to take his punishment but gets to keep his kingdom

 

Why would he want to risk all?

 

Basta!

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Do you play poker? No.

 

The point is that we know what Un wants; to remain in power

 

But, he is threatening the West; huge loss of face

 

So he has to take his punishment but gets to keep his kingdom

 

Why would he want to risk all?

 

Basta!

Remember when the West promised Qaddafi that if he gave up his nuclear program all would be forgiven? How did that work out for him? I think the Kims look at instances like that as object lessons. There but for the grace of Satan...