North Korea

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

If we could do that it would be great. They would shoot the planes down though and China would stop us before we even tried. 

Use missiles then... 

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Trav Le Bleu said:

Use missiles then... 

Well if we are going to do that it had better be quick, another 12 months and the Kim dynasty may have secured their future and the imprisonment of the North Korean people for at least our lifetimes.

[Wymsey]

What will North Korea actually achieve economically as a nation if they continue with this, despite ignoring pleas to stop what they're doing?

 

Firing on US land would of course result in mass retaliation (and don't think Trump is just saying it for mind games), which ultimately could cause huge damage to NK's national defence and its long-suffering (though most are forced brain-washed to support this regime) citizens.

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Well if we are going to do that it had better be quick, another 12 months and the Kim dynasty may have secured their future and the imprisonment of the North Korean people for at least our lifetimes.

I actually think this isn't true - even with nuclear warheads on missiles the Norks know they can't use them, as they know what happens if they do. I thinm it actually doesn't change the situation much.

 

Playing K-Pop at the border continuously as the SK's do is brilliant trolling of the highest order btw.

 

1 hour ago, Wymeswold fox said:

What will North Korea actually achieve economically as a nation if they continue with this, despite ignoring pleas to stop what they're doing?

 

Firing on US land would of course result in mass retaliation (and don't think Trump is just saying it for mind games), which ultimately could cause huge damage to NK's national defence and its long-suffering (though most are forced brain-washed to support this regime) citizens.

 

 

 

Not a lot tbh, they think it will secure a decent power base, but it doesn't actually change the game much tbh - they still get curb-stomped if they cross the line.

[Lionator]

9 hours ago, Wymeswold fox said:

What will North Korea actually achieve economically as a nation if they continue with this, despite ignoring pleas to stop what they're doing?

 

Firing on US land would of course result in mass retaliation (and don't think Trump is just saying it for mind games), which ultimately could cause huge damage to NK's national defence and its long-suffering (though most are forced brain-washed to support this regime) citizens.

 

 

 

It seems like it's purely about survial for the Kim dynasty, if he gave a damn about economics then his people wouldn't be starving.

[Jattdogg]

Might be time for china to assassinate this knob end.

 

War is not a good choice but regime change is needed in NK. The only problem is all the people (senior officials) who would fill the void have been brain washed and will most definitely continue the NK way in some form. 

 

Or you could hope they wouldnt be that way. Thats a big gamble.

[Guest MattP]

11 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I actually think this isn't true - even with nuclear warheads on missiles the Norks know they can't use them, as they know what happens if they do. I thinm it actually doesn't change the situation much.

It means we never have a realistic chance of removing the regime, which the World quite frankly has an obligation to do.

[Nick]

23 minutes ago, MattP said:

It means we never have a realistic chance of removing the regime, which the World quite frankly has an obligation to do.

Alright Tony, calm down.

 

Start with war on that basis and where does it stop?

 

We can't put boots on the ground in every Narnia because the Snow Queen's a crazy. 

[Buce]

30 minutes ago, MattP said:

It means we never have a realistic chance of removing the regime, which the World quite frankly has an obligation to do.

 

That went well in Iraq and Syria, didn't it?

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

That went well in Iraq and Syria, didn't it?

Well yes it did in Iraq, we invaded and he was gone within months - the problem was the aftermath, no planning or preparation for that and it created a disaster.

 

No idea why you have mentioned Syria, we didn't at any point try to remove the regime there, we didn't even get a vote past parliament to try.

[leicsmac]

47 minutes ago, MattP said:

It means we never have a realistic chance of removing the regime, which the World quite frankly has an obligation to do.

As others have said, interventions of that type haven't exactly got a good track record in recent times, and with or without nuclear armament any Korean conflict would make Iraq and Afghanistan look like a pleasant memory in terms of body count.

 

Regime change has to come from within there. It may take a damn long time and standing by is going to be pretty terrible to watch, but in the long run it's the option that quite frankly results in the least overall deaths.

[Buce]

32 minutes ago, MattP said:

Well yes it did in Iraq, we invaded and he was gone within months - the problem was the aftermath, no planning or preparation for that and it created a disaster.

 

No idea why you have mentioned Syria, we didn't at any point try to remove the regime there, we didn't even get a vote past parliament to try.

 

My bad, I meant Libya. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

Alright Tony, calm down.

 

Start with war on that basis and where does it stop?

 

We can't put boots on the ground in every Narnia because the Snow Queen's a crazy. 

Calm down Aslan.

[Mike Oxlong]

Would like to see this settled by a dance off 

 

The Donald  v KJU

[Jattdogg]

4 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Would like to see this settled by a dance off 

 

The Donald  v KJU

that would be amazing

[Guest]

On 19/09/2017 at 22:55, MattP said:

Well if we are going to do that it had better be quick, another 12 months and the Kim dynasty may have secured their future and the imprisonment of the North Korean people for at least our lifetimes.

Nothing to do with us. We happily ignore dictatorships around the world. Who, other than you, is even contemplating this being a reason for action? 

 

Simon Jenkins, bang on the money about the futility of acting as a us poodle for the last 20 years:

 

Ignore Trump’s lies. North Korea is no threat to Britain

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/20/trump-lies-north-korea-threat-britain-kim-jong-un-china?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[tom27111]

6 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Would like to see this settled by a dance off 

 

The Donald  v KJU

 

We'd be doomed, he'd just crack out the Gangnam Style moves.

[Lionator]

7 hours ago, toddybad said:

Nothing to do with us. We happily ignore dictatorships around the world. Who, other than you, is even contemplating this being a reason for action? 

 

Simon Jenkins, bang on the money about the futility of acting as a us poodle for the last 20 years:

 

Ignore Trump’s lies. North Korea is no threat to Britain

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/20/trump-lies-north-korea-threat-britain-kim-jong-un-china?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Michael Fallon's speech last week suggests they are as North Korea's ICBM could reach London. Now if there was a conflict and our politicians once again dragged us into it then that would be beyond unforgivable, borderline treason as it'd be so far against national interest.

[Guest MattP]

8 hours ago, toddybad said:

Nothing to do with us. We happily ignore dictatorships around the world. Who, other than you, is even contemplating this being a reason for action? 

 

Simon Jenkins, bang on the money about the futility of acting as a us poodle for the last 20 years:

 

Ignore Trump’s lies. North Korea is no threat to Britain

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/20/trump-lies-north-korea-threat-britain-kim-jong-un-china?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Which other dictator imprisons his own citizens in the way Kim does?

 

Even Cubans can at least apply to go away now.

Edited 21 September 2017 by MattP

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

Michael Fallon's speech last week suggests they are as North Korea's ICBM could reach London. Now if there was a conflict and our politicians once again dragged us into it then that would be beyond unforgivable, borderline treason as it'd be so far against national interest.

Just because an icbm could reach london doesn't mean one would ever be heading that way. Why we feel the need to put ourselves in the firing line when we're not to begin with is beyond me. 

43 minutes ago, MattP said:

Which other dictator imprisons his own citizens in the way Kim does?

 

Even Cubans can at least apply to go away now.

I repeat. What the **** has it got to do with us? I've said before, Russia, China and the US are all involved. We hold no sway whatsoever. 

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I repeat. What the **** has it got to do with us? I've said before, Russia, China and the US are all involved. We hold no sway whatsoever. 

What the **** has it got to do with us? We are a permanent member of the UN security council, are you suggesting we totally shirk our responsibility to the World?

[Finnegan]

15 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Would like to see this settled by a dance off 

 

The Donald  v KJU

 

You've obviously never seen a Korean dance troupe. 

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, MattP said:

What the **** has it got to do with us? We are a permanent member of the UN security council, are you suggesting we totally shirk our responsibility to the World?

Are you suggesting we should intervene in every country whose people aren't free to elect their leaders?

 

I'd love you to try to explain when it became a responsibility of the UN to effect regime change.

 

There is no civil war nor genocide in NK and no UN resolution would ever be passed to seek regime change. No UN resolution will be passed allowing any military action. 

 

If NK was stupid enough to strike first we'd not have the time to get involved. If the US strikes first then it is a war crime that we should absolutely not be involved in.

[Guest MattP]

41 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Are you suggesting we should intervene in every country whose people aren't free to elect their leaders?

 

I'd love you to try to explain when it became a responsibility of the UN to effect regime change.

 

There is no civil war nor genocide in NK and no UN resolution would ever be passed to seek regime change. No UN resolution will be passed allowing any military action. 

 

If NK was stupid enough to strike first we'd not have the time to get involved. If the US strikes first then it is a war crime that we should absolutely not be involved in.

No, I was just making the point that there is no dictator comparable to the current North Korean leader. It isn't the responsibility of the UN to effect regime change, it is however the responsibility of the UN to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, some of these things are certainly happening there.

 

There actually are some reports that people have been genocided in North Korea - http://time.com/2896976/north-korea-genocide/

 

I agree with you on the last point though.

[Buce]

20 minutes ago, MattP said:

No, I was just making the point that there is no dictator comparable to the current North Korean leader. It isn't the responsibility of the UN to effect regime change, it is however the responsibility of the UN to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, some of these things are certainly happening there.

 

There actually are some reports that people have been genocided in North Korea - http://time.com/2896976/north-korea-genocide/

 

I agree with you on the last point though.

 

The irony of the UK standing up against war crimes escapes you then?

 

Remember Iraq?