North Korea and War

1235

Comments

  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    dg1979us wrote:
    I agree with you on this. Talking certainly doesnt hurt.

    And I agree too ... Even if I am a bit cynical about anything good happening.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    dg1979us wrote:
    As of 9.29. they were willing to have talks.


    well, today is 10.11....;)
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    truroute wrote:
    Do you buy your child a toy when he pitches a fit in front of everyone in a store?

    do you shoot his friends?
  • truroute
    truroute Posts: 251
    inmytree wrote:
    with all due respect to Polaris, and nothing against you, Polaris...I could care less if Polaris doesn't label kimmy a wackjob....

    hey, if somebody thinks that kimmy is a nut, great....if not, that's fine as well...the bottom line here is: kimmy was called out and he is doing something about it...

    we can sit here all day and label kimmy a crazy little madman, but that does not change the fact he is setting off bombs, prodding the US, and pissing in bushy's cornflakes....oh, yeah, the US won't sit down and talk with him...

    listen, the world is pissed at kimmy, now is the time to take advantage of that...sitting down will cause no harm, and may even garner some much needed support for the US...


    Agreed to a point.

    But should we always honor somone's demands after they threaten war every other second?
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    inmytree wrote:
    well, today is 10.11....;)


    Well yes, I realize this. But the point was, there was a time when talks could have been possible. And based on your article, they made a point that they feel the US being left out, and letting China, Japan, and SK have the talks might make NK respond more, due to the obvious hatred and not trusting of the US. And I can certainly see that as being a valid point.
  • truroute
    truroute Posts: 251
    polaris wrote:
    do you shoot his friends?

    You lost me.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    reborncareerist wrote:
    And I agree too ... Even if I am a bit cynical about anything good happening.

    please note: I'm cynical, too...

    but, if the US goes to the table, in good faith, without demanding and telling and waving pistols...and kim tells us to fuck off...who is going to get the support of the world...?

    whether we like it or not, kimmy ain't going away any time soon...I say we deal with him now rather that later...and I feel the same way about Iran...
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    truroute wrote:
    Agreed to a point.

    But should we always honor somone's demands after they threaten war every other second?

    what is your suggestion...? invade, ignore, or talk...

    I chose talk...how about you...?
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    dg1979us wrote:
    Well yes, I realize this. But the point was, there was a time when talks could have been possible. And based on your article, they made a point that they feel the US being left out, and letting China, Japan, and SK have the talks might make NK respond more, due to the obvious hatred and not trusting of the US. And I can certainly see that as being a valid point.

    I hear ya..and agree this is not easy...but imagine this..if bush stood up today and said: "hey everybody, I want to talk to kimmy about this here nuk-le-ur (:)) thing, let's sit down and have some tea, maybe we can work something out"...I'm pretty sure the world would welcome this, and support it...

    I know it's utopian...but it's just a thought...
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    inmytree wrote:
    what is your suggestion...? invade, ignore, or talk...

    I chose talk...how about you...?

    I'd choose talk ... Invasion is a bad choice because of the damage Kim would do to his neighbors. The fucker has a lot of artillery and missiles.

    If talk fails? I'd probably try ignoring next, coupled with some covert stuff, perhaps. Its not clear if his bombs even really work, in terms of getting off the Asian continent. finding out would be the next step, along with some strategic sabotage.
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    inmytree wrote:
    I hear ya..and agree this is not easy...but imagine this..if bush stood up today and said: "hey everybody, I want to talk to kimmy about this here nuk-le-ur (:)) thing, let's sit down and have some tea, maybe we can work something out"...I'm pretty sure the world would welcome this, and support it...

    I know it's utopian...but it's just a thought...

    We arent really disagreeing here. But at the same time put me in the skeptical group, because as nice as it would be to have these talks, Im not sure the Kim really operates based around what anybody else wants other than himself, and I think he wants a nuke. But at the same time, the world perspective would certainly shift any blame in this situation from us, over to him, which would also be nice. Basically, talks are certainly worth a strong try, but it would be interesting to see if they actually produced anything.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    dg1979us wrote:
    We arent really disagreeing here. But at the same time put me in the skeptical group, because as nice as it would be to have these talks, Im not sure the Kim really operates based around what anybody else wants other than himself, and I think he wants a nuke. But at the same time, the world perspective would certainly shift any blame in this situation from us, over to him, which would also be nice. Basically, talks are certainly worth a strong try, but it would be interesting to see if they actually produced anything.

    I think the apporch will be key...as I've said, if we go in demanding and full of threats, the talks will surely fail...we have to be the better "man" in this...
  • truroute
    truroute Posts: 251
    inmytree wrote:
    what is your suggestion...? invade, ignore, or talk...

    I chose talk...how about you...?


    Of course i agree to talk. But when do you draw the line of being blackmailed into complying w/ a nutjobs demands?
  • dg1979us
    dg1979us Posts: 568
    inmytree wrote:
    I think the apporch will be key...as I've said, if we go in demanding and full of threats, the talks will surely fail...we have to be the better "man" in this...

    I kind of like the idea of letting the asian countries take the lead in this if at all possible. They are at more risk from NK than we are anyway, and with Kims obvious dislike of us I think more would be accomplished if the talks primarily consisted of the asian nations.


    But yes, this is a fragile situation and going in with guns blazing and making threats and demands would not offer up any type of solutions I dont believe.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    dg1979us wrote:
    I kind of like the idea of letting the asian countries take the lead in this if at all possible. They are at more risk from NK than we are anyway

    Very true ...
  • Given to...
    Given to... Wyoming Posts: 5,007
    dg1979us wrote:
    I kind of like the idea of letting the asian countries take the lead in this if at all possible. They are at more risk from NK than we are anyway, and with Kims obvious dislike of us I think more would be accomplished if the talks primarily consisted of the asian nations.


    But yes, this is a fragile situation and going in with guns blazing and making threats and demands would not offer up any type of solutions I dont believe.
    I agree. Let the nieghbors see if they can talk the crazy man from jumping before calling in the so called experts.

    And I refer to experts very loosely...
    "...would you like some forks?" EV 12-02-06
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    truroute wrote:
    Of course i agree to talk. But when do you draw the line of being blackmailed into complying w/ a nutjobs demands?

    good question...

    honestly, I think it's how you frame it..meaning, if you look at is as "blackmail", you already have a bad taste in your mouth going in...or if you look at is a "disagreement", you may be more open...

    note: "you" means the US in this response...:)
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    dg1979us wrote:
    I kind of like the idea of letting the asian countries take the lead in this if at all possible. They are at more risk from NK than we are anyway, and with Kims obvious dislike of us I think more would be accomplished if the talks primarily consisted of the asian nations.


    I agree......I like that idea, I wonder if our current powers that be will allow that to happen...
  • truroute
    truroute Posts: 251
    inmytree wrote:
    good question...

    honestly, I think it's how you frame it..meaning, if you look at is as "blackmail", you already have a bad taste in your mouth going in...or if you look at is a "disagreement", you may be more open...

    note: "you" means the US in this response...:)


    Can you honestly go into a situation like NK/nukes w/ a good taste in your mouth?
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    truroute wrote:
    Can you honestly go into a situation like NK/nukes w/ a good taste in your mouth?

    as I stated...it all depends on how you look at it and how you approch it...so to answer, I say "yes"...

Categories