Log in  
Sign up

Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4
From	Message
jaymar 12-Oct-06, 00:07	Ignorance.. ..is bliss. As bobby kindly pointed out, the process of discussions with NK is known as the "six nation" talks. NK,SK, USA,China,Japan and Russia. These have been ongoing for about five years. The last round broke down when NK walked away. That was in 2005. The reason? Here's a little clip: "Two weeks ago, Michael Green, President Bush’s personal envoy, visited Beijing and Seoul, as well as Tokyo, to inform the respective governments that North Korea had enriched uranium in addition to plutonium. In light of this, the US wanted to coordinate its actions with those of the Asian members of the six-nation conference in view of reconvening the six-nation talks. Realising that they were going to have to decide whether to terminate their nuclear programme or not, North Korean leaders opted instead for threats and playing for time, a game they have played before". In fact every time the talks have broken down it's because NK have walked. The US is pursuing a sensible policy, involving all the big players in the region. Talking unilaterally with NK would be pointless. It's not working because NK is a rogue state and doesn't want to talk. Mr Kim wants t keep his regime just the way it is except give me more aid please. The general naivety in this thread about NK is worrying. It does not want peace with anyone. As for International law. Well the lawyers make a lot of money on having different interpretations. US and UK would argue they invaded Iraq under UN resolutions. I think this argument was done to death in TLSF and the sides still differed. I said already in another thread that I don't recognise this "moral high ground" that we are supposed to occupy and neither do our leaders. If we don't adapt to our enemies tactics then we will lose. What I do know is that only complacent liberals would claim that they were living in authoritarian regimes in the US/UK and that sort of indulgence will get us all killed.
echo3 12-Oct-06, 00:39	Deleted by echo3 on 12-Oct-06, 00:39.
echo3 12-Oct-06, 00:39	Don't do sanctions. ..... NK's people can't afford sanctions and their leader won't give a stuff how much his people suffer. It's clear now that China is V unhappy with NK. They are between a rock and a hard place. They will green light a tomahawk strike on NK's nuclear plants. We should do it. It's the lowest casualty option.
soulcrates 12-Oct-06, 00:45	Sadly, I agree that sanctions is not the best option. Those people are already suffering beyond belief, with famine reported, but no access to validate. It would seem that if sanctions are fully imposed there will be a large amount of people wishing to leave, but not being allowed, and thus dying. Although striking their nuclear targets would cause war, perhaps doing it after they don't have any more want for war is best. If they don't have food, and starve, they most likely wouldn't have it in them to fight a war, but how much damage could they do with the nukes by the time that happened? Tokyo is within striking distance, let alone the rest of southeast asia. Millions could potentially be killed at once with these weapons. Especially in this area of the world where the people tend to have large numbers.
tugger 12-Oct-06, 04:31	tomahawk nuclear sites? you think china, a border country of nk, will green light that? "i know how to get rid of their nukes... turn them into radioactive clouds"... brilliant. just brilliant. jay, as for international law, north korea and iraq would argue that america and uk didn't have un backing, and were acting on an outdated un resolution... we can twist the facts as much as we like to suit our particular opinions, but we cannot keep blindly saying that they are the bad guys and we are the good guys... our unjust war in iraq has killed 600,000+, remember... <<<The general naivety in this thread about NK is worrying. It does not want peace with anyone.>>> naivety? since all we're doing is sharing opinions, no-one here is in any position to say who is naive and who isn't... as far as i'm concerned, you're naive if you believe america are a peace seeking country...
jaymar 12-Oct-06, 04:56	tugger.. .. you are right. We all have an opinion. I'll tell you where I stand. I'm just suspicious of yours where the US is concerned ever since your " I hate the USA" rant in TLSF. In fact I don't think i've ever seen you post a positive comment about the US. Now you are defending poor little NK. Who was firing missiles into the sea of Japan earlier this year? Like you say, everyone has an opinion. I'm not a big fan of biased and ill informed one's however.
echo3 12-Oct-06, 06:08	... China will ok it, they have little choice if diplomacy fails. Why? because China needs access to western consumer markets more than it needs NK as a bosom pal. The tomahawk strikes will be aimed at mainly infrastructure, research facilities, potential missile sites, command centres, fuel lines, power grids, radar installations etc and restricting access through demolition of tunnels and plant. I don't see them dropping a missile directly into a uranium mine!
tugger 12-Oct-06, 06:40	jay... i understand why you consider my views ill informed... but i honestly think the reason nk are so eager to become nuclear capable is simply because of the extreme pressure america are exerting on them... mr bush has the tact and diplomacy of saddam... as far as mr bush is concerned, no country that doesn't dance to his tune deserves diplomatic treatment... by branding north korea evil and demanding they obey his orders, he's pushed them into a corner where they either obey or disobey... and i can't blame them for disobeying... the fact that he is a fruitcake is secondry... personally, i think bush is as much a loose cannon as king jimbo... and you raise a valid point... i do have nothing good to say about the current american administration... maybe that will change when their foreign policy changes...
jaymar 12-Oct-06, 07:02	I don't.. ..understand why this has turned into another attack on the US tugger. NK has been condemned by just about every free nation on the planet. Even their closest ally China, is against them and is calling for sanctions. China also exerted pressure on them, along with all the other nations in the region, not to develop or test nukes. Thats why they are so upset. They thought they had more pull and have now realised that NK doesn't listen to anyone. It's NK who walked out of the six nation talks, who are testing nukes and ballistic missiles and have threatened to declare war on anyone who imposes sanctions on them. Russia, Japan, SK etc. are all calling for sanctions and the security council is discussing it as we speak. How is this US aggression? I cannot imagine that any US president, of whatever party, would be prepared to let NK carry on down this path. The Japanese are more hawkish than the yanks on this one. Maybe it's because they are directly in the firing line. I enjoy exchanging opinions with anyone but please, lets try and be objective.
echo3 12-Oct-06, 07:13	I think Tuggs.... ... that you need to look at why the US takes the stance it does. It's not because of the american personality or aggressive tendency. It's because it takes a true world power to take these actions. No one said the idea was to be popular, that's one of the side effects of being in charge. As always, the US is prepared to stand up and be counted. Hoenstly, everytime you bend over, it's the US that is helping to cover your.... er..... well you know what i mean mate!
zorroloco 12-Oct-06, 07:13	jay nk is certainly largely at fault here...but it is important to remember that nk asked for bilateral talks with the us. bush and friends said no....that they would only talk if japan, russian s. korea, and china were involved. now, granted that would have been better...but to prefer no talks to bilateral ones displays a remarkable blitheness and ineptitude for such an important issue. they should have agreed to the bilateral talks, and then exerted pressure to bring in the other countries. this administration is unbelievably incompetent, myopic, ignorant, and arrogant. it is easy to pick on them...kinda like picking on the fat stupid kid at school...not really fair because they are such easy game, but almost too easy to pass up.
tugger 12-Oct-06, 09:02	i never intended this to become a bash usa thread, but that's the direction it's taken... no-one here can try to pretend that mr bush is competent when it comes to diplomacy... bush is acting like the hardest kid in school, who's rules you must obey or you get a kicking... all bush had to do was back down, but he couldn't... just so he didn't look weak... and now here we are with north korea testing their nukes... as a result, bush looks even weaker... he's faced with a massive problem now... the longer this goes on, the more face he will lose when he is finally forced to back down... or if we go down the other route, he keeps talking of sanctions and possible military action, north korea continue to disobey, and we have a standoff which can only result in war... it's all very well hoping china sort it out, but what people seem to be oblivious to is america expect china to clean up america's mess... i don't intend to give you all the impression i'm on north korea's side here, either... don't anybody jump to that conclusion... my point is i can understand why north korea are continuing to stand up to america... in fact, i'm glad to see someone finally is standing up to them... echo says... <<<No one said the idea was to be popular, that's one of the side effects of being in charge.>>> who the hell put america in charge of the world? they bullied their way to this status, and it's about time they were stood up to... i will be glad when they are forced to back down... then we can see things settle down and north korea begin the process of denuclearisation... which they have stated is their intention...
echo3 12-Oct-06, 09:08	Christ..... Jeff...."picking on the fat stupid kid at school...not really fair because they are such easy game, but almost too easy to pass up". And you're a teacher???????????????
jaymar 12-Oct-06, 11:42	wow.. ..boys, I didn't realise how much you both dislike real politik. Jeff, NK is an impoverished dictatorship that has no standing on the world stage. There were even reports of cannibalism (from Amnesty) because the food shortages were so bad. But they can prance around the world stage because they have built a bomb. No one gets fed but they have a bomb. Why should the US talk to these clowns bilaterally? At the last six nations meeting the Koreans stormed out because the US would not listen to their rhetoric. Do you seriously suggest that your government, who protect your freedom to make crass statements about fat stupid kids in school, should sit down and talk, one on one, with these people? What do you suggest they talk about? NK; We are a stalinist state that does not question the leadership, does not care about our citizens and wants to elevate our leader to sublime status. However we are impoverished and can you help feed us? If you don't we will attempt to build weapons of mass destruction and then find ways of dropping them on you. USA: We are an elected democracy that believes in freedom for all our people and all nations. We send you aid and you, in turn, are using that to build wmd. Who are the mugs here? Hey but Kofi says that the US should talk to NK. The US are showing (as usual) remarkable restraint because they don't want to start WW3. The Chinese and the Russians are aware of this. No one put the US in charge of the world. They operate through acceptance. If they did anything that the Chinese or Russians really objected to, well they would not do it in the first place. Maybe we should give NK or Iran the chance to run things.
zorroloco 12-Oct-06, 12:14	echo it was just a manner of speaking! jeez...take it easy. i take care of my students!
soulcrates 12-Oct-06, 13:20	I feel that this is China's problem. I hope they take care of this, because it's not like they don't have the resources. Givng the Japanese the ability to have a nuclear bomb is too sketchy. With their robots, and computers, and technology, it scares me to think of the new generation weapons they could create. The potential for a new power in that area is too great to allow. North Korea has broken the trust of all U.N. nations, and since it's more or less a little brother of China, I feel that the duty to neutralize this situation lies in their hands. Of course the U.S. fought against China in North Korea, and called it the North Korean war, so who knows if they're actually upsetting the Chinese at all, or if they're being backed by them. With the standing army at China's disposal, the jets, missles, ships, subs, tanks, and nukes that they have ready, it's a wonder they haven't done anything already. Unless they're not really scrared of an attack, because they're in bed with N.Korea. Showing this potential of a relationship between the two should make China just angry enough to do something about it, so they don't lose respect in the U.N.
tugger 12-Oct-06, 14:49	hey everyone... look at my nice big shiny gun... it fires 2,000 rounds a second... neat, eh? but steve can't have one, though... he's got funny eyes... and his eyebrows meet in the middle... and you, freddy, didn't agree with me when i tried to take that pocket knife of little jimmy, so you can't have a big gun either... but you, anthony, can have one, you're nice to me... you egg me on when i beat up the kids for their pocket money... ok, enough of the silliness... north korea want a nuclear weapon as a bargaining tool... i don't care how funny his eyes are, he's not going to drop one on the south, that'd just be suicide... and dropping one on the states wouldn't be too clever, either... sure, it'd annoy bush... but i don't think it would take long before they were wiped out... the only countries with any moral high ground here are japan and south korea, since they don't have nuclear weapons themselves... when all the hypocrisy stops, then maybe the world will be a safer place...
softaire 12-Oct-06, 15:12	Jeff It seems to me that the "Left" was critical of the administration not too long ago for a "go it alone attitude" and not including multi-nationals in everything. Now you are criticising the administration for wanting multi-lateral talks. "this administration is unbelievably incompetent, myopic, ignorant, and arrogant". What is it in your particular history... education, experience etc. that makes you such an expert that you can criticise someone like that? What are your particular qualifications to determine that? You teach math to high school students? Is that it? What other acomplishments can you mention that would give that credibility? Besides having those attributes yourself, I'd imaging you have quite an ego too.
tugger 12-Oct-06, 15:18	softaire... you're losing credibility with that... you know full well jeff is merely stating his opinion... exactly the same as you... what credentials do you have that should make me or jeff take notice of what you say? the fact jeff is a teacher should suggest to you and the rest of us he is an intelligent man... do you expect him to watch the news and say to himself "oh, i'm only a teacher, i can't debate this..."? i sense no ego trip on jeffs part, and as such, your comments to me are misguided at best, and spiteful at worst...
softaire 12-Oct-06, 15:27	Of Course it is only opinion. I doubt that any of us in here have any expertise, or expertise enough, to really comment on anything we talk about with an level of authoritative knowledge. My comments are really only opinion, no facts, and so are yours, Jeff's and anybody elses. I was expressing my opinion about Jeffs comments there... didn't really expect a reply to that, especially from someone else to stand-up for him. I image he can stand up for himself. My point of that post (so that you know) was in the first section... I consider it queer that you criticise the administration for doing things one way and then criticise them for doing things the way you had earlier demanded. Have an explanation for that?
jaymar 12-Oct-06, 15:29	Anyone.. ..who has studied the history of this situation would realise that bi-lateral talks between the US and NK would be pointless. The US cannot make agreements for the main players in the region and it would be nothing more than an ego boost and a recognition for NK. That, of course, is what this is all about. NK wants to sit at the top table. The fact that it is a failed state with millions starving doesn't matter to them. As long as they have a bomb and can parade and preen as the centre of world attention, even for a short while. The NK regime will fall and it wont be by US military action.
tugger 12-Oct-06, 15:37	softaire... i'll let jeff explain his comments... and i'm sure he can stand up for himself, but when have i ever not taken the oppurtunity to speak my mind when someone steps out of line? you got personal... you should expect some stick for it... and of course you are right, we have very little expertise in the subjects we discuss... it just seemed a little hypocitical to knock someone for it, since we're all in the same boat there...
tugger 12-Oct-06, 16:02	jaymar... i hope you are right... that nk will fail all by itself... that would solve this problem... but i don't see it happening... the leaders are too rich and the citizens are behind them (for whatever reason?)... but even if they do fail, all we can do until then is acknowledge the fact they are now a nuclear state and take measures to ensure there is no reason for them to go to war... they see a nuclear bomb as a bargaining tool... we should let them have their seat at the table... they've as much right to sit there as any other nation...
jaymar 13-Oct-06, 00:05	I think.. ..you have read more into my comments than intended. I doubt that NK will fail all by itself although it could be a possibility. I just said that it won't be by US military action. They have a seat at the table both in the UN and at the six nations talks. It's just that they keep walking away from it because they can't have their own way. The UN security council will report, possibly today, hopefully by early next week, on the sanctions to be imposed on NK. I understand that progress was made last night and an agreement is close. The sanctions are going to be pretty tough. Then we'll see how they react and where we go from here.
Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4

GameKnot: play chess online, free online chess games database, online chess puzzles, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess teams, chess clubs and more.