North Korea

[leicsmac]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/22/world/asia/south-korea-propaganda-loudspeakers-north-korea.html

 

Bad news for all the North Korean 2NE1 fans out there

[Guest]

So it appears that there is a discrepancy between what North Korea and the US understand by the term 'denuclearisation'.

 

N. Korea sees this as ending further testing (as their defences are complete) and talking as equals with the US.

 

The US believes it means N.Korea unilaterally giving up their arms.

 

Expect Trump to either not meet Kim or to row back on what counts as success.

 

US and North Korea expectations over denuclearization appear to collide

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/us-and-north-korea-expectations-over-denuclearization-appear-to-collide?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[whoareyaaa]

I'm not political by any stretch however it does seem that Kim has announced this denuclearisation in spate of the attacks on Syria.

[Guest MattP]

Get the feeling he's having us on here, probably realises if he can just drag this out until 2020 he'll have another Democrat in the Whitehouse and then he can carry on in making sure he's armed with nuclear weapons. 

 

Anyone who believes the word of man who has fed his relatives to animals is probably going to be disappointed. 

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, MattP said:

Get the feeling he's having us on here, probably realises if he can just drag this out until 2020 he'll have another Democrat in the Whitehouse and then he can carry on in making sure he's armed with nuclear weapons. 

 

Anyone who believes the word of man who has fed his relatives to animals is probably going to be disappointed. 

Pinochet lobbed his former friends out of helicopters when they were thinking of being commie and the UK were reasonably buddy-buddy with him, so...

 

In any case, I hope this potential difference in meaning can be sorted out and the meetings can go ahead. If the US and SK are smart about this, while they're doing that they might consider offering a trade deal or two, as well. Trying to starve the NK populace into insurrection from the inside seems a reasonable alternative to all-out war but it's reasonably clear that it hasn't worked before and definitely can't work now that the NK's have a big bargaining chip, either - except in (perhaps) going as far as bringing the NK's to the negotiating table which is where we seem to be now.

 

The best way (that is to say, with the least blood on the floor long-term) to free the NK people is to get them to follow the same pathway the SK's did about thirty years ago, gradually open them up to trade and then let the people within the country do the rest. Of course, the element of control the leadership have might be too strong, but then that was said of such regimes before they collapsed through similar means in the past (SK's previous military dictatorship being one) and the only alternative that could potentially work as well is full-scale military intervention - which would cost much much more in terms of time, money and lives.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Pinochet lobbed his former friends out of helicopters when they were thinking of being commie and the UK were reasonably buddy-buddy with him, so...

 

In any case, I hope this potential difference in meaning can be sorted out and the meetings can go ahead. If the US and SK are smart about this, while they're doing that they might consider offering a trade deal or two, as well. Trying to starve the NK populace into insurrection from the inside seems a reasonable alternative to all-out war but it's reasonably clear that it hasn't worked before and definitely can't work now that the NK's have a big bargaining chip, either - except in (perhaps) going as far as bringing the NK's to the negotiating table which is where we seem to be now.

 

The best way (that is to say, with the least blood on the floor long-term) to free the NK people is to get them to follow the same pathway the SK's did about thirty years ago, gradually open them up to trade and then let the people within the country do the rest. Of course, the element of control the leadership have might be too strong, but then that was said of such regimes before they collapsed through similar means in the past (SK's previous military dictatorship being one) and the only alternative that could potentially work as well is full-scale military intervention - which would cost much much more in terms of time, money and lives.

Whataboutery!

 

Seriously though, it's 2018, what happened 40 years ago isn't really relevant. (Although as it turns out we could trust Pincohet, didn't let us down, not sure if that's comparable to Kim) I can't really see any correlation with the South unfortunately, it did take our intervention to free those people after a conflict. Had we left the Soviets to it the people of the South would now be suffering in exactly the same way that they are in the North. We should be very proud we did as well given how far that country and developed.

 

As I say, I'll go on record, Kim is playing for time, just get through the next few years and then pray for a Democrat victory in 2020 so he can then arm himself to the highest possible security and secure the family dynasty can't be touched.

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, MattP said:

Whataboutery!

 

Seriously though, it's 2018, what happened 40 years ago isn't really relevant. (Although as it turns out we could trust Pincohet, didn't let us down, not sure if that's comparable to Kim) I can't really see any correlation with the South unfortunately, it did take our intervention to free those people after a conflict. Had we left the Soviets to it the people of the South would now be suffering in exactly the same way that they are in the North. We should be very proud we did as well given how far that country and developed.

 

As I say, I'll go on record, Kim is playing for time, just get through the next few years and then pray for a Democrat victory in 2020 so he can then arm himself to the highest possible security and secure the family dynasty can't be touched.

What, so the UK is alright with regimes that kill their subjects in cruel and unusual ways as long as they're politically aligned with the UK? (For a more contemporary example, for Chile before, read Saudi now, if you will.) That may be whataboutery but I think the hypocrisy should be highlighted.

 

Regarding SK, I was referring largely to the post war era where the SK leadership was almost as repressive as the NK one at the time (numerous  massacres like in Jeju and Gwangju either approved of or at least accepted by NATO). It took a lot of time and various diplomatic and trade gestures before SK became truly democratic in the way we know it now - military intervention had zero part in that beyond making sure it survived as a state in the first few years, nothing to do with how it actually became a functional republic.

Perhaps the same can happen with NK in the future.

 

I've got to ask, though - with all of this in mind, what would your favoured solution the freeing up the NK people be and why?

[Guest MattP]

42 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

What, so the UK is alright with regimes that kill their subjects in cruel and unusual ways as long as they're politically aligned with the UK? (For a more contemporary example, for Chile before, read Saudi now, if you will.) That may be whataboutery but I think the hypocrisy should be highlighted.

 

Regarding SK, I was referring largely to the post war era where the SK leadership was almost as repressive as the NK one at the time (numerous  massacres like in Jeju and Gwangju either approved of or at least accepted by NATO). It took a lot of time and various diplomatic and trade gestures before SK became truly democratic in the way we know it now - military intervention had zero part in that beyond making sure it survived as a state in the first few years, nothing to do with how it actually became a functional republic.

Perhaps the same can happen with NK in the future.

 

I've got to ask, though - with all of this in mind, what would your favoured solution the freeing up the NK people be and why?

I mentioned nothing of the sort, I said I wouldn't trust a man who fed his uncle to animals and I stand by that, the real reason I wouldn't trust him though is because we are a threat to him and he quite frankly would never be a ally of a liberal, Western Democracy - we've taken the words of anti-Western tyrants before and look at the problems it caused, the greatest war with the biggest loss of life ever seen for a start

 

Jaw-Jaw is obviously better than War-War - but even Churchill realised eventually he was out of options. What simply cannot be allowed to happen is for them to develop weapons capable of huge destruction across the World, he already has shown he has no care for the loss of his own people so imagine what he thinks of others.

[Countryfox]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

 

As I say, I'll go on record, Kim is playing for time, just get through the next few years and then pray for a Democrat victory in 2020 so he can then arm himself to the highest possible security and secure the family dynasty can't be touched.

 

Good point ... never thought of that one ....  and very likely correct.

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

 What simply cannot be allowed to happen is for them to develop weapons capable of huge destruction across the World, he already has shown he has no care for the loss of his own people so imagine what he thinks of others.

 

Spot on.  

[Rogstanley]

9 hours ago, MattP said:

Get the feeling he's having us on here, probably realises if he can just drag this out until 2020 he'll have another Democrat in the Whitehouse and then he can carry on in making sure he's armed with nuclear weapons. 

 

Anyone who believes the word of man who has fed his relatives to animals is probably going to be disappointed. 

Why did he escalate so much while trump was in power and call him fatty dotard if that was his plan? Could easily have just stayed quiet.

[Countryfox]

2 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Why did he escalate so much while trump was in power and call him fatty dotard if that was his plan? Could easily have just stayed quiet.

 

Cus he’s a cocky tw@t ...  

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

Cus he’s a cocky tw@t ...  

A very successful one tbf. He's made NK a nuclear power that can bring the US to the table at the same time as having the world falling over itself to accept it back into the fold (see the IOC) for simply talking to its neighbour. 

[Strokes]

32 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Why did he escalate so much while trump was in power and call him fatty dotard if that was his plan? Could easily have just stayed quiet.

He perhaps felt Trump was weak at that point but has since revised his opinion.

[Countryfox]

20 minutes ago, toddybad said:

A very successful one tbf. He's made NK a nuclear power that can bring the US to the table at the same time as having the world falling over itself to accept it back into the fold (see the IOC) for simply talking to its neighbour. 

 

I thought he just inherited it ......     and was just a bit more cocky and twaty than his father.   The fact he’s a vicious evil b@stard probably helped a bit too.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

I thought he just inherited it ......     and was just a bit more cocky and twaty than his father.   The fact he’s a vicious evil b@stard probably helped a bit too.

He has upgraded the missus to first lady though so, you know, girl power and all that.

I don't know enough about any specific things he's done to discuss whether he's vicious or evil though. Trump said today he's "very open and honourable" so I don't know what to think any more.

[Rogstanley]

23 minutes ago, Strokes said:

He perhaps felt Trump was weak at that point but has since revised his opinion.

Which presumably is based on nothing but pure guesswork?

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Strokes said:

He perhaps felt Trump was weak at that point but has since revised his opinion.

He's had Trump's pants down imo

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Which presumably is based on nothing but pure guesswork?

Well yes, that is what we are doing obviously. 

[Webbo]

48 minutes ago, toddybad said:

He's had Trump's pants down imo

You're just saying that because you don't like Trump. In what way has he bettered Trump?What has America given up? He made the threats and now he's backing down and so some how he's won? 

[Countryfox]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

 

I don't know enough about any specific things he's done to discuss whether he's vicious or evil though. 

You're probably right ...  

 

* Reportedly had his girlfriend executed along with her band's backup singers, all in front of their families. 

* He also had his uncle killed and fed to hungry dogs just for "clapping half-heartedly". He then proceeded to have his uncle's side of the family killed.

* Recently, it's been revealed he poisoned his aunt for complaining too much.

 

A modern day saint ...    

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

You're probably right ...  

 

* Reportedly had his girlfriend executed along with her band's backup singers, all in front of their families. 

* He also had his uncle killed and fed to hungry dogs just for "clapping half-heartedly". He then proceeded to have his uncle's side of the family killed.

* Recently, it's been revealed he poisoned his aunt for complaining too much.

 

A modern day saint ...    

Where exactly did this information come from? I mean, if he's so mean presumably he doesn't send videos to the west? Could it be slightly wrong do you think? What about more than slightly? 

 

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

You're just saying that because you don't like Trump. In what way has he bettered Trump?What has America given up? He made the threats and now he's backing down and so some how he's won? 

Both made threats. One has gained nuclear arms 

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

I mentioned nothing of the sort, I said I wouldn't trust a man who fed his uncle to animals and I stand by that, the real reason I wouldn't trust him though is because we are a threat to him and he quite frankly would never be a ally of a liberal, Western Democracy - we've taken the words of anti-Western tyrants before and look at the problems it caused, the greatest war with the biggest loss of life ever seen for a start

 

Jaw-Jaw is obviously better than War-War - but even Churchill realised eventually he was out of options. What simply cannot be allowed to happen is for them to develop weapons capable of huge destruction across the World, he already has shown he has no care for the loss of his own people so imagine what he thinks of others.

Pro-Western tyrants are still tyrants and shouldn't be propped up IMO lest those propping them up be hypocrites of the highest order, but I guess others have a more cynical viewpoint of the world than I in that regard. (BTW Hitler admired the British Empire - or so it's been told anyway - and wanted to model his greater Reich on it; his real beef was with the "inferior" Jews, Bolsheviks and Slavs.) I've said it all along - self-preservation is his guiding star like any good tyrant, and as such he won't risk all he has for the sake of a war he know he'll lose, unless he feels he has no choice, viz. others start on NK first.

 

I guess we'll see how things turn out in any case, but I would appreciate a straight and candid answer to the question I asked above, if you would be so good.

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Where exactly did this information come from? I mean, if he's so mean presumably he doesn't send videos to the west? Could it be slightly wrong do you think? What about more than slightly? 

 

Both made threats. One has gained nuclear arms 

He already had them.

 

I'm disappointed but not surprised that so many on here would take the side of a murderous dictator of an oppressive police state against an elected president of a democracy, under the rule of law. The same people who like to tell us of their moral superiority to the rest of us.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Webbo said:

He already had them.

 

I'm disappointed but not surprised that so many on here would take the side of a murderous dictator of an oppressive police state against an elected president of a democracy, under the rule of law. The same people who like to tell us of their moral superiority to the rest of us.

 

Good grief, and I thought I laid on the sanctimony at times.

 

I would hope, at least, that the vast majority of contributors on here would like to see NK freed up and become more open, democratic and free. I am however yet to hear a solution that guarantees this from those who "take the side of an elected president of a democracy, under the rule of law against murderous dictator of an oppressive police state" that doesn't involve war as a spectator sport and costing many, many more lives than it saves.

 

If folks have a sanction-based solution that works, then say why.

If folks have a war-based solution that they think works (eg. saving more lives in the long run than it takes) then say why.

 

Until then, people can bleat about the inhumanity (and yes, blowing one of your party to smithereens with an AA gun is inhuman) all they like but they're doing nothing more morally for the people of NK than anyone else.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

He already had them.

 

I'm disappointed but not surprised that so many on here would take the side of a murderous dictator of an oppressive police state against an elected president of a democracy, under the rule of law. The same people who like to tell us of their moral superiority to the rest of us.

Lmao. "Take the side". Those three words are everything that's wrong with American foreign policy, and by extension uk foreign policy. This isn't a school playground. We have more than our fair share of blood on our hands and happily side with horrific regimes across the globe.