North Korea

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

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.

There are people on here who have criticised sanctions too and it's NK who have been threatening to nuke the US and their neighbours.

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

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. 

You are taking sides, we're (the west) not the bad guys here.

[Guest]

Just now, Webbo said:

There are people on here who have criticised sanctions too and it's NK who have been threatening to nuke the US and their neighbours.

You are taking sides, we're (the west) not the bad guys here.

Webbo, I'm just pointing out that kim had outmanouevered Trump. He has. It's not 'taking sides'. That idea is childish rubbish.

 

I'd much rather that the North Koreans were somehow brought into the international arena and it's people were free. 

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

Webbo, I'm just pointing out that kim had outmanouevered Trump. He has. It's not 'taking sides'. That idea is childish rubbish.

 

I'd much rather that the North Koreans were somehow brought into the international arena and it's people were free. 

How has he outmaneuvered anyone? He's had nukes for years, he was developing missiles for long before Trump was elected. Just because you hate Trump and like to think you're cleverer than him you've convinced yourself that everything he does is stupid. Because Trump's stood up to him he's now willing to talk. Will anything come of it? Who knows? But KJU has achieved fvck all yet.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

There are people on here who have criticised sanctions too and it's NK who have been threatening to nuke the US and their neighbours.

 

 

I'm not entirely sold on the sanctions either, as they haven't been effective in their objective (which I would assume would be a governmental change there) up until now; unless what is happening now is a result of them(?)

 

Allow me to be abundantly clear to save any chance of misrepresentation here: the sooner NK becomes a democratic state, the better. That it is done with minimal loss of life is still more important.

 

At this time, the solution I personally think will achieve this with the least loss of life is by rapprochement and opening to trade, resulting in political pressure that results in a regime change from within over time. If someone else has a different solution that they can clearly show would get the job done with less blood on the floor, then I'd be all ears. But I have zero time for those - both here and elsewhere who actually have influence in the situation and should know better - simply telling everyone what everyone already knows on this one and not offering a good way to deal with it - it's arguing in bad faith. 

Edited 24 April 2018 by leicsmac

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

I'm not entirely sold on the sanctions either, as they haven't been effective up until now; unless what is happening now is a result of them(?)

 

Allow me to be abundantly clear to save any chance of misrepresentation here: the sooner NK becomes a democratic state, the better. That it is done with minimal loss of life is still more important.

 

At this time, the solution I personally think will achieve this with the least loss of life is by rapprochement and opening to trade, resulting in political pressure that results in a regime change from within over time. If someone else has a different solution that they can clearly show would get the job done with less blood on the floor, then I'd be all ears. But I have zero time for those - both here and elsewhere who actually have influence in the situation and should know better - simply telling everyone what everyone already knows on this one and not offering a good way to deal with it - it's arguing in bad faith. 

Hasn't that all been tried before? Didn't Clinton give NK aid to give up their nukes? That worked didn't it?The fact is rude, ignorant, stupid Trump has achieved more in relationship to NK than all his sophisticated and intelligent predecessors, and that's what's pissing some people off.

 

Trump is wrong about far more than he's right about but this hysterical, kneejerk rejection of anything he does is insane.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Hasn't that all been tried before? Didn't Clinton give NK aid to give up their nukes? That worked didn't it?The fact is rude, ignorant, stupid Trump has achieved more in relationship to NK than all his sophisticated and intelligent predecessors, and that's what's pissing some people off.

 

Trump is wrong about far more than he's right about but this hysterical, kneejerk rejection of anything he does is insane.

Honestly don't know how it's possible to be wrong about everything political on the planet but you give it a good go don't you webbo old son, fair play.

 

What has he actually 'achieved', in your skewed opinion?

Edited 24 April 2018 by Guest

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Honestly don't know how it's possible to be wrong about everything political on the planet but you give it a good go don't you webbo old son, fair play.

You haven't got an argument have you?

[Guest]

Edited my post. I'm asking the questions now

 

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Honestly don't know how it's possible to be wrong about everything political on the planet but you give it a good go don't you webbo old son, fair play.

 

What has he actually 'achieved', in your skewed opinion?

 

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

You haven't got an argument have you?

 

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Honestly don't know how it's possible to be wrong about everything political on the planet but you give it a good go don't you webbo old son, fair play.

 

What has he actually 'achieved', in your skewed opinion?

He's got KJU to negotiate. Will you accept that that's a fact?

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Hasn't that all been tried before? Didn't Clinton give NK aid to give up their nukes? That worked didn't it?The fact is rude, ignorant, stupid Trump has achieved more in relationship to NK than all his sophisticated and intelligent predecessors, and that's what's pissing some people off.

 

Trump is wrong about far more than he's right about but this hysterical, kneejerk rejection of anything he does is insane.

If what comes out of this is a peaceful solution that opens NK up to the world then Trump should gain some of the credit for it as he was involved - my views on him are pretty clear but (again as I've said before) what's important is the result here.

 

Regarding the first sentence - again I'm repeating myself here, but if someone shows me a solution that saves more lives in the long term than that then I'm happy to consider it, up to and including some kind of military intervention. I'm not interested in ideological BS or picking sides on this one - that NK opens up with minimal loss of life and SK continues to function with minimal loss of life there too is my sole interest, and however and whoever brings that about has done their job in my own opinion.

 

I do wish that folks would quit going on about how terrible the situation is and how terrible *insert party here* is within the matter and instead talk about making it right.

[Guest]

@Webbo

 

Lmfao. Wow. Just wow.

 

Kim has openly said that they no longer need to test as their nuclear programme is complete.

 

Their reward? The American president coming for lunch. 

 

The Iranians will be very interested in the best way to get Trump onside.

 

As I've noted for months, nk has sought nukes to avoid attack - they've got the Americans to the negotiating table only now they have weapons.

 

 

Edited 24 April 2018 by Guest

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If what comes out of this is a peaceful solution that opens NK up to the world then Trump should gain some of the credit for it as he was involved - my views on him are pretty clear but (again as I've said before) what's important is the result here.

 

Regarding the first sentence - again I'm repeating myself here, but if someone shows me a solution that saves more lives in the long term than that then I'm happy to consider it, up to and including some kind of military intervention. I'm not interested in ideological BS or picking sides on this one - that NK opens up with minimal loss of life and SK continues to function with minimal loss of life there too is my sole interest, and however and whoever brings that about has done their job in my own opinion.

 

I do wish that folks would quit going on about how terrible the situation is and how terrible *insert party here* is within the matter and instead talk about making it right.

Sanctions are wrong, trade and aid hasn't worked, standing up to KJU has made him talk, so maybe that is the best solution? Nobody wants a war.

 

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Lmfao. Wow. Just wow.

 

Kim has openly said that they no longer need to test as their nuclear programme is complete.

 

Their reward? The American president coming for lunch. 

 

The Iranians will be very interested in the best way to get Trump onside.

 

As I've noted for months, nk has sought nukes to avoid attack - they've got the Americans to the negotiating table only now they have weapons.

 

 

Since 1953 how many times did America attack NK and how many years have they had nukes? NK doesn't need nuclear weapons because China has always had their back. The idea that NK needed these weapons for defense is ridiculously stupid. A pathetic excuse made by Kims apologists.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Sanctions are wrong, trade and aid hasn't worked, standing up to KJU has made him talk, so maybe that is the best solution? Nobody wants a war.

 

Since 1953 how many times did America attack NK and how many years have they had nukes? NK doesn't need nuclear weapons because China has always had their back. The idea that NK needed these weapons for defense is ridiculously stupid. A pathetic excuse made by Kims apologists.

I think they genuinely felt they needed a deterrent against regime change. That isn't to say I think they're a good regime or that I don't want their people free - my views echo leicsmac there - but I don't understand the need to pretend Trump has caused this. It also isn't to say that I don't welcome a meeting from a western perspective. And to Trump's, well credit of sorts, I think he might accept terms that would be unacceptable to any other American president - I hope so anyway. I don't think the us can reach a real settlement based on the idea that nk give up their nukes but the us continues to wargame with sk. It's a ridiculous position. And the us only tries that sort of thing because of its strength. The fact nk have nukes makes a more realistic negotiation a little more likely. I don't expect the Pentagon or normal presidents would accept the sort of terms nk might want but Trump? Who knows. So to answer your point - no I don't think he's caused this or can claim any sort of victory but the fact he's maverick and, frankly, inept might actually somehow work in the world's favour. Of course, in saying this I'm assuming he gets out of bed on the right side and that the fox news morning broadcast doesn't tell him to make the talks fail....

Edited 24 April 2018 by Guest

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Sanctions are wrong, trade and aid hasn't worked, standing up to KJU has made him talk, so maybe that is the best solution? Nobody wants a war.

 

1

Judging by commentary in various places I'm not entirely sure about that one but yes, he seems to be open to have a talk with now so we'll see what comes about because of it. I would posit however that continuing with the strongarm approach at the negotiating table would be the quickest way to get the NK's to withdraw and so lead nowhere, however.

 

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Since 1953 how many times did America attack NK and how many years have they had nukes? NK doesn't need nuclear weapons because China has always had their back. The idea that NK needed these weapons for defense is ridiculously stupid. A pathetic excuse made by Kims apologists.

1

Sort of see what you mean here but an argument could be made that even though the USSR and China could be relied upon in the past, now that neither Russia nor China could be relied upon to step in if trouble started the NK's would need their own guarantor of reasonably costly defence - and nuclear weaponry is the logical answer to that.

[Guest MattP]

10 hours ago, leicsmac said:

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.

I thought I answered it, we carry on what we are doing at this time and we continue with dialogue, but if the continuation of his weapons program and the supression of his own people continues then we said quite bluntly we will remove you and make it known we are serious - if he wants to continue to do that he can, then we'll remove him, if it takes a bloody war so be it - if has often through history taken that to remove evil from the World. You often talk about the casualties of action but rarely the casualties of inaction, look how many lives would have been saved had we immediately took up arms against Germany as soon as they encroached into Poland rather than listening to those who were so desperate for peace they turned a blind eye.

 

When do you take military action? At what point do you say "enough is enough"? (Baring in mind if you were in charge Kim would know he could pretty much do what he wanted and would)

 

10 hours 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.

It really is strange isn't it?

 

Some of them have gone so insane due to the election of Trump they are now prepared to side and be almost at the point of cheering on murdering anti-democratic dictators because of it, weird doesn't even cover it, could you even begin to see this sort of defence and praise of if a Democrat was in charge?

 

Wouldn't happen in a million years.

 

10 hours ago, toddybad said:

Webbo, I'm just pointing out that kim had outmanouevered Trump. He has. It's not 'taking sides'. That idea is childish rubbish.

 

I'd much rather that the North Koreans were somehow brought into the international arena and it's people were free. 

If you think he's outmanouevered Trump then I dread to think what your assessment would be of what he did to Barack Obama. Don't make out for one minute you care about feeing the people of North Korea, if you did you wouldn't utter a word of praise of mitigation for a person like Kim.

 

If you want to take the side of them then do so, but don't make out it's some sort of moral choice, it's quite teh opposite.

 

9 hours ago, toddybad said:

@Webbo

 

Lmfao. Wow. Just wow.

 

Kim has openly said that they no longer need to test as their nuclear programme is complete.

 

Their reward? The American president coming for lunch. 

 

The Iranians will be very interested in the best way to get Trump onside.

 

As I've noted for months, nk has sought nukes to avoid attack - they've got the Americans to the negotiating table only now they have weapons.

FFS.

 

I suggest you read Kim's comments a bit more closely, at no point at all has he said they no longer need to test as their nuclear programme is complete. Yesterday you were claiming Denis McShane was a "City Expert" and now this, do you use Facebook as your only other news source alongside the Guardian?

 

As for Iran, I don't even know where to start with that - Trump is tearing up Obama's deal and while the Israeli government has the ear of him he won't be making any concessions.

 

9 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Judging by commentary in various places I'm not entirely sure about that one but yes, he seems to be open to have a talk with now so we'll see what comes about because of it. I would posit however that continuing with the strongarm approach at the negotiating table would be the quickest way to get the NK's to withdraw and so lead nowhere, however.

 

Sort of see what you mean here but an argument could be made that even though the USSR and China could be relied upon in the past, now that neither Russia nor China could be relied upon to step in if trouble started the NK's would need their own guarantor of reasonably costly defence - and nuclear weaponry is the logical answer to that.

Interesting, you spent years on here telling me Trident wasn't a deterrant, do you accept it's the ultimate deterrant now for any nation?

[Rogstanley]

The fact is NK has had talks with the wider world before (as recently as 2012 i believe) and they've always broken down. So holding talks is nothing new. 

 

What is new under trump is the fact that NK have increased their nuclear capability to include missles capable of reaching mainland USA for the first time. That's a significant development and they now seem to be prepared to re-enter talks only from a much stronger position.

 

Where "giving credit to Trump" comes into this I really don't know. Credit for what? Allowing NK to become a much more serious threat than they were before? Being called a chubby dotard and responding with 'rocket man' like an actual child in a primary school playground? Being the president when NK decides it might be ready for talks for the nth time?

 

There's nothing to give him credit for. He has achieved nothing.

Edited 25 April 2018 by Rogstanley

[SouthStandUpperTier]

9 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

The fact is NK has had talks with the wider world before (as recently as 2012 i believe) and they've always broken down. So holding talks is nothing new. 

 

What is new under trump is the fact that NK have increased their nuclear capability to include missles capable of reaching mainland USA for the first time. That's a significant development and they now seem to be prepared to re-enter talks only from a much stronger position.

 

Where "giving credit to Trump" comes into this I really don't know. Credit for what? Allowing NK to become a much more serious threat than they were before? Being called a chubby dotard and responding with 'rocket man' like an actual child in a primary school playground? Being the president when NK decides it might be ready for talks for the nth time?

 

There's nothing to give him credit for. He has achieved nothing.

NK's leap in nuclear weapon development happened on Obama's watch.

[Guest MattP]

Just now, SouthStandUpperTier said:

NK's leap in nuclear weapon development happened on Obama's watch.

Let's not get the facts get in the way of some Trump bashing.

[Dr The Singh]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Let's not get the facts get in the way of some Trump bashing.

You trump trump.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

Let's not get the facts get in the way of some Trump bashing.

I'm no fan of the ridiculous orange man. But let's not pretend this whole situation would have turned out any better under Obama, or Hilary for that matter.

[leicsmac]

48 minutes ago, MattP said:

I thought I answered it, we carry on what we are doing at this time and we continue with dialogue, but if the continuation of his weapons program and the supression of his own people continues then we said quite bluntly we will remove you and make it known we are serious - if he wants to continue to do that he can, then we'll remove him, if it takes a bloody war so be it - if has often through history taken that to remove evil from the World. You often talk about the casualties of action but rarely the casualties of inaction, look how many lives would have been saved had we immediately took up arms against Germany as soon as they encroached into Poland rather than listening to those who were so desperate for peace they turned a blind eye.

 

When do you take military action? At what point do you say "enough is enough"? (Baring in mind if you were in charge Kim would know he could pretty much do what he wanted and would)

 

 

 

Interesting, you spent years on here telling me Trident wasn't a deterrant, do you accept it's the ultimate deterrant now for any nation?

Regarding the first question, sorry if I haven't been clear enough on that in the few previous posts here but I'll repeat myself once again here: I would consider military intervention in this case, as in others, when it is clearly and unequivocally shown beforehand that the casualties of action will be lower than that of inaction in the long term (such as with WWII, though some numbers would need to be crunched even in that one). And again, if anyone has such to show me, I would happily consider that argument. So far there has been a lot of talk about pacifism and dialogue not being the right answer ultimately here, but precious little actual evidence to show that military intervention would save more lives than it took, even long term.

 

Going to war on a guess that it won't dissolve into a bloodbath is folly of the highest order. The ends - in terms of human life - have to be shown to justify the means beforehand.

 

Regarding the second paragraph, again I apologise for any lack of clarity but my point was that Trident wasn't useful as a deterrent for the UK as no nation now or in the future would want to launch at the UK alone and launching at the UK would be merely one of the moves in a game that would end with everyone losing. It's not like the UK is isolated in the international security community, is it? States with no dedicated allies among the big boys (whatever alignment) that have the ire of one of those big boys...they have deterrent value for them. Not sure the UK will ever fall into that category, though who knows what the future holds?

[Guest MattP]

32 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Regarding the first question, sorry if I haven't been clear enough on that in the few previous posts here but I'll repeat myself once again here: I would consider military intervention in this case, as in others, when it is clearly and unequivocally shown beforehand that the casualties of action will be lower than that of inaction in the long term (such as with WWII, though some numbers would need to be crunched even in that one). And again, if anyone has such to show me, I would happily consider that argument. So far there has been a lot of talk about pacifism and dialogue not being the right answer ultimately here, but precious little actual evidence to show that military intervention would save more lives than it took, even long term.

 

Going to war on a guess that it won't dissolve into a bloodbath is folly of the highest order. The ends - in terms of human life - have to be shown to justify the means beforehand.

 

Regarding the second paragraph, again I apologise for any lack of clarity but my point was that Trident wasn't useful as a deterrent for the UK as no nation now or in the future would want to launch at the UK alone and launching at the UK would be merely one of the moves in a game that would end with everyone losing. It's not like the UK is isolated in the international security community, is it? States with no dedicated allies among the big boys (whatever alignment) that have the ire of one of those big boys...they have deterrent value for them. Not sure the UK will ever fall into that category, though who knows what the future holds?

You know that can never can proven though, can you give me a single war in history where we knew beforehand the casual of inaction would be lower before it? It's a cop out of an answer. Would you continue to let evil flourish if it saved lives?

 

As for the second point, you never ever know what the future holds - even the Roman empire fell eventually.

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

NK's leap in nuclear weapon development happened on Obama's watch.

 

59 minutes ago, MattP said:

Let's not get the facts get in the way of some Trump bashing.

Simply untrue. NK first tested a nuclear weapon in 2006, three years before Obama came to power, and had admitted having nuclear capabilities years previously. The most significant event that has happened since is the successful testing of a missile that can reach mainland USA which has happened on Trump's watch.

[Rogstanley]

45 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

I'm no fan of the ridiculous orange man. But let's not pretend this whole situation would have turned out any better under Obama, or Hilary for that matter.

Probably not, but equally let's not pretend trump has had any positive influence whatsoever. 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

You know that can never can proven though, can you give me a single war in history where we knew beforehand the casual of inaction would be lower before it? It's a cop out of an answer. Would you continue to let evil flourish if it saved lives?

 

As for the second point, you never ever know what the future holds - even the Roman empire fell eventually.

Yep, that's right, the vast majority of the time it can't be proven. Therefore, if it can't be proven, then perhaps the consequences of war should be more carefully considered by everyone interested in keeping more people alive than not? That's a logical failing on their part, so I'm not sure those pointing that out are at fault here.

 

Of course, your classic murderous dictator probably isn't going to do the maths either but history hasn't tended to be kind to them when they've started wars as they've tended to lose everything in pretty short order as a result. What you describe here is a pretty clear example of valuing emotionalism over logic when it comes to war, which is pretty commonplace tbh.

 

In short, if you go to war based on no more than a guess of how things are going to turn out, expect to get fully and rightfully castigated by history if things go wrong.

 

Evil (and good) for that matter are storybook concepts and quite frankly everyone's definition of them differs, but personally off put choosing a course of action that likely results in more death than would have if you hadn't done it being pretty evil. Though that's just me with my standpoint that there is nothing worse than death and YMMV.

 

Do agree with the last paragraph, though - often the geopolitical situation can change very fast.