Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Krusher on March 11, 2003, 07:20:12 AM
-
On Iraq everyone wants the US to act with the UN's approval. On NK everyone wants the US to go it alone. Russian and China should be major players in NK talks (after all they built NK), but they both dont want anything to do with it.
Anyone want to guess why?
-
North Korea has nothing to offer and doesn't owe European countries (read France and Germany) large sums of money? Just a guess, honestly don't know.
-
Let's strap Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to a nuke and send them over to negotiate.
ra
-
'Everyone this...' and 'Everyone that...'.
Is the world really that black and white in your eyes?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
'Everyone this...' and 'Everyone that...'.
Is the world really that black and white in your eyes?
everyone was referring to the current members of the security council. Some like Russia and China should have vested stakes in the current problem. Besides being neighbors they helped build and prop up NK for decades. Now it seems they want little to do with their old friend.
but thanks for your insightful answer.
-
Then it's not really quite 'everyone' is it?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Is the world really that black and white in your eyes?
Is this your response to everything?
-
Why does it have to be about color? Can't we all just get along?
-
Is this your response to everything?
'Everything'?
Is the world really that black and white in your eyes?
-
I feel all dizzy now :confused:
-
Simple.
With Iraq, we're going to war so we HAVE to have the approval of the UN Security Council.
With NK, it looks like the NK's are going to great lengths to start a war, so the UN SC doesn't want to have anything to do with it.
See?
;)
-
Question:
Korea looks to be a much bigger threat than Iraq could ever be.
You're going into Korea next (that is not a question :))
Why in that order?
-
I think you are VERY wrong.
We're NOT going into Korea next, in fact I expect a withdrawal from the DMZ and a departure of at least some of our troops in this calendar year.
The IAEA has turned the matter of NK's withdrawal from the NPT over to the UN SC to deal with. That makes me smile.
It's clear that the SC wants the US to be stuck to this tarbaby and doesn't want to get involved.
For the first time in a long time though, the US is staying one step ahead. If ANYTHING is going to get done, the UN SC is actually going to have to take a leadership role in this one.
Won't happen.
So, from my point of view (isolationist) things are working perfectly.
The US will be bringing its troops home out of Korea. That's pretty much what Rumsfeld just said at the Pentagon "town meeting".
The South Koreans that have been demonstrating to get US troops out will get their wish.
The NK's won't be blackmailing us for any more food or treasure.
All sounds pretty good to me.
And if the NK's start selling nuke technology and weapons around the world...well, that's not bad and it's their right to do so, correct? Because if it were bad, the UN SC would do something, correct? That's what they're there for. :D
After all, we'll have Blitz to remind us that
"North Korea is in no way a threat to the world, it's simply ridiculous."
-
Originally posted by Dowding
'Everyone this...' and 'Everyone that...'.
Is the world really that black and white in your eyes?
All your bases are belong to us.
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
North Korea has nothing to offer and doesn't owe European countries (read France and Germany) large sums of money?
Don't forget Russia :)
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Dowding
'Everything'?
Is the world really that black and white in your eyes?
Strike 3 you are out.
If you can contribute nothing to the discussion then please shut up.
-
Oh, I'm sorry... in what way was Saudaukar contributing to the discussion, master of the O'club?
Now post some more anti-French trash. We haven't had one of your gems for at least 48 hours, and we know how much of a 'discussion' they inspire. Please.
-
i agree with mr toad
-
I'll light the fire Dowding ;)
Originally posted by Habu
Strike 3 you are out.
If you can contribute nothing to the discussion then please shut up.
sounds to me like a gigantic "Ooops ... " for me :)
btw my post is a gigantic "Ooops ... " too :D
-
My current elected office of "Anti-American Moderator" charges me with the task of seeking out those who detract from conversation, as opposed to add to it.
It is my priviledge and responsibility to flame those who attempt to cause trouble by means of confusion and open ended questioning.
Such behavior will not be tolerated on these forums.
That is all.
-
French unilateralism in Africa:
West Africa (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/01/28/ivory.unrest.reut/)
More west Africa (http://www.sabcnews.com/africa/west_africa/0,1009,52338,00.html)
And some more (http://news.findlaw.com/international/s/20030218/ivorycoastdc.html)
-
it's hardly french bashing, you can do better.
try again.
-
Originally posted by straffo
it's hardly french bashing, you can do better.
try again.
Maybe he can, but you sure couldnt act more retarded even if you tried.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
'Everyone this...' and 'Everyone that...'.
Is the world really that black and white in your eyes?
That's what "they" say.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Maybe he can, but you sure couldnt act more retarded even if you tried.
I suppose it's an exemple of a "non-personnal" attack ?
-
not really no
-
you are acting like a retard.
I guess it's now personnal ,because I posted it.
-
Habu:
French unilateralism in Africa:
West Africa (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/01/28/ivory.unrest.reut/)
More west Africa (http://www.sabcnews.com/africa/west_africa/0,1009,52338,00.html)
And some more (http://news.findlaw.com/international/s/20030218/ivorycoastdc.html)
Haby, all those examples are french cooperating with the Ivory Coast legally recognised government on their request, not invading it.
Krusher: Russian and China should be major players in NK talks (after all they built NK), but they both dont want anything to do with it.
Anyone want to guess why?
They did not agree to diplomatically recognise the legitimacy of NK government in 1994 in return for NK not aquiring nuclear weapons only to renege on that promise? And we see what eventually happens to the governments US urges to disarm but does not recognise as legitimate - or rather we will soon.
miko
-
It's funny < sic > how the topic of the evening on the news/talk/entertainment shows suddenly becomes the topic of the day in this forum. For some, this topic isn't new but when Hanity/O'Reilly or now even Savage gets hold of it becomes a hot topic.
Just an observation from a lemming who refuses to run with the pack ;)
-
Toad, I might be wrong on the issue of you moving into NK, but am I wrong too assuming they are a bigger threat than Sadam?
Call me selfish, but I have family in Japan...
-
Originally posted by straffo
you are acting like a retard.
I guess it's now personnal ,because I posted it.
I doesnt really bother me if you call me a retard or something like that. I would mind if you called me a nazi, just as I'm sure you would mind if I called you a pedophile or something like that.
But when you call my dead relatives cowards because they were raped and butchered by Soviets in 1945 I do mind. They were kids.
-
And when mine are killed by some nazi butcher it's just a non-allied war crime.
I've no word to define how abject you are.
-
Originally posted by MrLars
It's funny < sic > how the topic of the evening on the news/talk/entertainment shows suddenly becomes the topic of the day in this forum. For some, this topic isn't new but when Hanity/O'Reilly or now even Savage gets hold of it becomes a hot topic.
Just an observation from a lemming who refuses to run with the pack ;)
I dont watch any of those shows. I dont listen to Rush or Savage and I get almost all of my news from the 5:00 pm news, local paper, internet and sunday talk shows.. working 10 to 12 hours a day dosnt leave much time for TV. I actualy fly Aces High when I am home and have the time.
But thanks for assuming I get my opinion the california way :)
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Habu:
French unilateralism in Africa:
West Africa (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/01/28/ivory.unrest.reut/)
More west Africa (http://www.sabcnews.com/africa/west_africa/0,1009,52338,00.html)
And some more (http://news.findlaw.com/international/s/20030218/ivorycoastdc.html)
Haby, all those examples are french cooperating with the Ivory Coast legally recognised government on their request, not invading it.
Krusher: Russian and China should be major players in NK talks (after all they built NK), but they both dont want anything to do with it.
Anyone want to guess why?
They did not agree to diplomatically recognise the legitimacy of NK government in 1994 in return for NK not aquiring nuclear weapons only to renege on that promise? And we see what eventually happens to the governments US urges to disarm but does not recognise as legitimate - or rather we will soon.
miko
I have a problem with it being ok for France to support a corrupt government without UN approval while it is not ok for the US to attack a corrupt government without UN approval.
In fact France seems to love supporting corrupt governments aka Zimbabwe and Iraq.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I've no word to define how abject you are.
I dont even think that is a word.
-
Its a word Hortlund, grab your dictionary. :)
-
'Abject' is a word, Hortlund.
My current elected office of "Anti-American Moderator" charges me with the task of seeking out those who detract from conversation, as opposed to add to it.
It is my priviledge and responsibility to flame those who attempt to cause trouble by means of confusion and open ended questioning.
Such behavior will not be tolerated on these forums.
That is all.
Your definition of 'Anti-American' is about as broad and generalised as your delusions of grandeur.
-
Well...dont hold back..what does it mean?
-
Habu: I have a problem with it being ok for France to support a corrupt government without UN approval while it is not ok for the US to attack a corrupt government without UN approval.
Tough luck - the international laws and customs of the last few centuries were adopted to minimise international conflicts rather than facilitate them.
Nobody expects you to love the other country's government, but once it is recognised as legitimate, there are rules you must follow.
Plenty of Ivorians(?) do not believe that their government is corrupt while plenty of americans believe theirs is. That does not give any other countries a right to go knocking other governments down whenever they feel like it.
US supported and still supports way many more corrupt oppressive regimes than France ever did. In fact, World Trade Center in my city got destroyed on 9/11/2001 by our former allies exactly because US government supported evil corrupt feudal Saudi regime against it's population and kept troops there.
That does not make Al-Qaeda act legal.
Anyway, you are just being ridiculous. According to your logic, if you can invite a plumber or a pest exterminator into your house to help with a problem without clearing it with police, that means you can break in into other people's houses and kill them and redecorate their home whenever you wish - if you do not like what they do with their place. Doesn't work like that.
miko
-
The US is smart to ignore NK right now.
NK is on the verge of collapse. They are doing all of this now to try to blackmail the West for money like they did back in the early 90's.
They did not live up to that agreement and there is no reason to expect they would live up to a new agreement.
South Korea elected a leader who campaigned on the platform of changing (i.e. distancing) the relationship SK has with the US. There were massive anti US protests in SK over the past year by students too young to know the horror of the last war.
Now the US has said that it may pull its troops back from the DMZ and redeploy them farther south, (out of the range of NK artillery).
That is a brilliant move. What that does is tell SK that if you want to go it alone feel free. The US will not sacrifice 35,000 lives to protect you if you do not support them 100%. If the south wants the US out then the US should leave and let China and Japan worry about NK. It is a problem on their doorstep and it is irresponsible that they are not taking a more active role in dealing with Mr Kim Jong II.
What that tells NK is that there is a now a possibility that the US could retaliate militarily as they have means to protect those troops now that they are out of range of the North's fixed guns.
But the best strategy is to play the waiting game. NK is devoting huge resources to its military and it cannot sustain the budget. At night by satellite the whole country is dark. There is not electricity to light even the cities contrasted to the bright lights of the south. Once the country starts to starve and the economy collapses then they will have to change their policies. Total isolation works is the whole world is on board. If any countries try to bypass the isolation then the US should go after them, either economically or politically.
(edit to fix the repeated paragraphs)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Your definition of 'Anti-American' is about as broad and generalised as your delusions of grandeur.
This is your final warning.
Cease all "grey" activities...
...or I will taunt you a second time-ah!
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Call me selfish, but I have family in Japan...
I wouldn't call you selfish, I'd call you concerned.
But tell me, why do you think it is solely the responsibility of the United States to deal with this problem?
NK, by self admission violated the terms of the "Agreed Framework" almost immediately after it was signed with their uranium enrichment program.
The IAEA, the same outfit working in Iraq to disarm them and watchdog of the NPT, has put the case before the UN SC due to the serious nature of the issue.
You are aware that US troops serve in South Korea under the United Nations Command, right? It's the Blue Flag that flies over the SK side of the DMZ.
I would think you'd be pressing for the UN SC to discuss this problem and find a peaceful solution.
You might start with petitioning France, Russia and China, the most non-interventionist permanent members of the SC. I'm sure if they put forth a meaningful resolution, both the UK and the US would support it.
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
North Korea has nothing to offer and doesn't owe European countries (read France and Germany) large sums of money? Just a guess, honestly don't know.
You're close. Its because NK has no diamonds, no oil, and no white slavery rings!
Nixon started it with his oil embargos to drive up the price of domestic oil. Ford was an idiot and sat on his hands too long and OPEC pulled back on their production so that their prices would match the rates the US suppliers were charging - hey the sheiks were getting screwed out of revenue per barrel and wanted their piece of the action! To keep the sheiks at bay, Carter went to Egypt back in the '70s to broker a deal for Russian white slave prostitutes being ferried inside empty missile tubes (the whole "peace with Israel" thing was just a cover to set up a diamond cartel). Kissinger went along with it because he was part of the secret diamond cartels in West Germany selling stones shipped through Tel Aviv and his NY connections completed the precious gemstone triad between Moscow and South Africa, so he knew he could get diamonds across borders if he kept mum on the prostitute thing. Those diamonds were being mined by al Queda cells who used the funds to purchase US Sidewinders - the same missiles bringing down Soviet MiL helicopters in Afghanistan in the '80s! Reagan was in on it, which is why the Iranian Muslim fundamentalists held the US hostages in '79 until after the US presidential election was over - Carter could get off scot-free since he was no longer in office but was still entitled to immunity from prosecution overseas! Khomeini was all about the oil but he bartered in diamonds to keep the market up. He knew he could only keep power so long as he had the diamond merchants backing him up. Bush learned all about this during Reagan's turn in the White House and used those connections to expand the white slave prostitution ring and diamond brokering operation into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm so that he could get friendly oil rates in exchange for white slaves. Clinton risked blowing the whole thing apart. Clinton "got high on his own supply" which is where Lewinsky fit into the picture. When that white prostitution scandal hit the papers, Clinton had to back off on the oil and diamond operations. You ever wonder why Clinton remained in office? Because he had the oil and diamond guys backing him up! They knew where Clinton stood and they wanted to keep him in office rather than risk some loose cannon blowing the lid off the whole thing. So along comes Bush Part Two and he's back after Iraq. Coincidence? I think not! He's pushing his dad's agenda - OIL!
-
Habu: NK is on the verge of collapse. They are doing all of this now to try to blackmail the West for money like they did back in the early 90's.
They did not live up to that agreement and there is no reason to expect they would live up to a new agreement.
They agreed to not aquire nukes in return for US recongising them. Of course they are lying communist bastartd but it does not change the fact that this particular agreement was broken by US. Which would not be a big deal if US government and media was not trying to decevie our own people about what really happened.
At night by satellite the whole country is dark. There is not electricity to light even the cities contrasted to the bright lights of the south.
That's why they are building all those nuclear stations.
Once the country starts to starve and the economy collapses
Done already.
then they will have to change their policies.
Not realy. They can always make a bundle of money selling nukes, more missles and submarines to countries not as technologically developed.
Total isolation works is the whole world is on board.
If they are really crumbling and Kim faces the same fate as Chaushesky, what's to stop him from nuking Japain and invading SK? Nothing. They realise that and will come up with any help necessary. China as well. It does not need all that fallout from the US nukes dropped on NK in retaliation.
If any countries try to bypass the isolation then the US should go after them, either economically or politically.
Oh, yeah - I imagine that Japanese, South Koreans and Chinese will be very unhappy with US forcing them to get nuked by North Koreans...
This whole thing is one huge Catch-22. The 37,000 US troops there serve no purpose other than diplomatic and being a tripwire. With NK posessing exellent long-range missles and nukes there is no place in the hemisphere you could withdraw them to spare them from NK strike, if they decide to go with it. May as well withdraw them to US to save some cash.
miko
-
Krusher, to answer your question (and apply some form of spin control to a wildly hijacked thread)
you asked:
On Iraq everyone wants the US to act with the UN's approval. On NK everyone wants the US to go it alone. Russian and China should be major players in NK talks (after all they built NK), but they both dont want anything to do with it.
I think the reason is simple: NK will actually put up a fight (and probably a half-way decent one at that) and a war with them is not a foregone conclusion of victory. Or a victory would/will come at a very heavy price. I think the NK leader is a nutcase, (even more than SH) and would drop his A bombs on an advancing army or navy. so why would China or Russia want to get a million troops melted when the US can?
whereas Iraq is essentially the world's squeak. They will (and have) surrenedered to people holding video recorders. They are a military joke and the world knows it. hell, I'll bet the National Guard from ANY one of the 50 states could prolly take the whole damn country.
-
'Everyone this...' and 'Everyone that...'.
Thats Dowding's attempt at evading the question.
Wab
-
From the "Agreed Framework"
II. The two sides will move toward full normalization of political and economic relations.
1) Within three months of the date of this Document, both sides will reduce barriers to trade and investment, including restrictions on telecommunications services and financial transactions.
2) Each side will open a liaison office in the other's capital following resolution of consular and other technical issues through expert level discussions.
3) As progress is made on issues of concern to each side, the U.S. and DPRK will upgrade bilateral relations to the Ambassadorial level.
Did I miss the part where "They agreed to not aquire nukes in return for US recongising them." ?
And what about "As progress is made on issues of concern to each side"?
I'm thinking running a clandesting uranium enrichment program is an issue of concern showing no progress.
-
Toad: I'm thinking running a clandesting uranium enrichment program is an issue of concern showing no progress.
How long did they have to wait since 1994 to establish those Ambassadorial level relations?
The terms were clearly non-symmetrical. They were agreeing on non-proliferation in return for basically our promise of non-aggression.
If they break their promise - we are no worse off that if we never made that agreement in the first place.
If we break our promise, it means they are defenseless before us because they wasted time they could have used to develop the weapons.
They can get our non-aggression through our agreement or through their deterrent. Not much difference in the end.
We can only get their non-proliferation from the agreement.
Clearly, we got most benefits while they got most risks plus some scraps off our table.
We should probably have abided by the agreement. Or not - there may have been good reasons not to continue with it. Anyway, the US public should not have been lied about the agreement.
They did not trade their weapons for some rice and oil but for recognition. Period.
miko
-
To answer your question Toad... if it were Belgium who'd have to send troops out there, we will be victorious capturing a small village in the forest somewhere... but my guess is, that's about it :D
And well... you already know/are on the spot, right ? :)
-
There's no timeframe in the Agreed Framework. If they wanted a specific timeline, why did they not negotiate for that in '94?
When exactly did they start the uranium enrichment program? My recollection is that is was very soon after the AF was signed.
Their real problem now is that their "deterrent" has no logical adversary to deter.
Only the loonies in the world think the US is a threat to NK. As Bush withdraws US forces from Korea it should become obvious even to the less mentally infirm loonies that the US is no threat.
Their recent saber rattling that intimates war is imminent unless we talk to them directly without other parties present clarifies who the real threat is.
Again, they've put themselves in the corner they are in.
It is absolutely not our problem
We have the IAEA looking out for the world and they have alerted the UN Security Council to the dangers.
We can all rest easy now. France, Russian and China are on the job. Perhaps NK should talk to them, eh?
-
i say National Geographic should rename NK as "Manchukuo" in their next set of special features...