Russia and China Neuter the UN: Oppose Sanctions.

Quote:

---

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Russia and China on Thursday opposed tough sanctions the U.S. wants to impose against North Korea this week for its claimed nuclear test, saying they want more time to work out a more moderate response to Pyongyang's nuclear brinkmanship.

---

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061012/D8KNBV980.html


It seems that the only reason we have a UN is to strengthen the oppressive regimes of backwards communist criminal nations. China and Russia specifically. North Korea's actions are embraced by Russia and China because they want to weaken the United States and its European Allies. They will never sanction N. Korea.

Should the world stand by and allow nations like N. Korea and Iran to acquire nuclear weapons? We will see global proliferation and the eventual use of these wepons if this continues.

What issue? Their failed nuke?

Of course the US has never neutered the UN to serve it's own purposes and to protect it's puppets, no matter how wayward. It is unfortunately the way things work (or don't).

Cube you seem excessively eager to go to war. Good luck to you.

Well, so far all the actors are "in character" and nobody has needed any cue cards.

I think NK will be a nuclear power soon. They're not dumb and they will have learned much from this first fizzle.

After that, NK can base its policies on a more secure foundation -- having heightened America's reluctance to attack/effect regime change.

How will they pursue reunification from this new power base?

My bet is that they will arm/equip other thug groups (quietly) in order to goad the USA into further attacks in East/West Asia, with an indirect goal of heightening South Korea's "boot the USA out" sentiment (roughly 39% at last estimate) and eventually pushing for a quiet "anschluss."

Why is anybody surprised? A nuclear armed North Korea plays well to more right-wing elements in the Chinese and Russian government, and more importantly the military. I wouldn't be surprised to discover China and/or Russia has supplied North Korea with key technology, components, and material. Sure, on the surface, they pay lip service to keeping North Korea non-nuclear, but when it comes time do something, even sanctions? ~:no:

As Prole points out, North Korea may not currently be nuclear armed. But that doesn't mean Russia and China will quit trying to arm them.

Well, there's further evidence that China knew well in advance of the planned test. They're playing shock and anger... but when it comes down to it they still wont support anything but more talk.

Name the five top countries that will get hit by nuclear weapons by NK.

This will give you a hint on who will be arming up while negotiating as long as possible.

China, Russia and Japan even if they want to go to war with NK will try and

a) Avoid it by negotiation. Its less expensive in people and money.
b) Get time to mobilise. You don't want to declare war and have all your ships in dock and soliders on holidays.
C) Japans case if push comes to shove it will have to change its consitution to take an aggresive stance. It will at this point up the technology stakes and convert is hundreds of tons of civilian uranium and plutonium feedstock into nuclear missiles with a sticker saying 'Playstation inside'.

Technically the UN never had balls to begin with, so no neutering really took place.

We have sanctions levelled against North Korea. They don't work. The only thing that will work is 1) getting Kim Jong Il to sign a deal to recieve aid in return for dismantling the nuclear weapons (which could work- the more we push him, the worse he acts; if we just give him some food, he will drop the looney-tunes act) or 2) we saturation-bomb Pyongyang. With daisy cutters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Name the five top countries that will get hit by nuclear weapons by NK.

This will give you a hint on who will be arming up while negotiating as long as possible.

China, Russia and Japan even if they want to go to war with NK will try and

a) Avoid it by negotiation. Its less expensive in people and money.
b) Get time to mobilise. You don't want to declare war and have all your ships in dock and soliders on holidays.
C) Japans case if push comes to shove it will have to change its consitution to take an aggresive stance. It will at this point up the technology stakes and convert is hundreds of tons of civilian uranium and plutonium feedstock into nuclear missiles with a sticker saying 'Playstation inside'.

---

Japan has already completely suspended trade relations with DPRK as a result of their nuclear test. There are North Korean ships stuck sitting outside Japanese harbors as they refuse to allow them to dock.

Here's a link.

It's obvious that China won't suddenly cut trade, being Pyongyang's patron and all that, but Russia's (in)action confirms the point that Putin is just a big arse like everybody else in the power politics of the Far East. I guess he just wants to make a separate, permanent identity for his glorious country after the fall of the USSR left it "purposeless" for a while.

Japan's embargo is no surprise, either; the right wing has been on the rise since tensions increase in the area, as right wing opinions tend to.

Mind you, my personal stake in this crisis is quite big. If the country of anime is to face another round of nuclear destruction, I would be pissed enough to kill.

By the way, I think the "Blame the UN!" card in this case isn't such a good one. The UN, as has been said often here, can only be what the countries that make up the organization are. Calling on China and Russia might be accurate (and "deserving" if you'd like), but "the UN" as a scapegoat is, quite frankly, a distracting notion.

From the article Xiahou-san:

Quote:

---

China's reluctance to slap tough sanctions on the North has complicated talks in the United Nations, where what to do is still being mulled in the Security Council. The United States, Japan and their allies are pushing for stern action, but Russia and China have yet to sign on.

South Korea, aware that its capital is well within reach of North Korea's artillery and missile arsenal, has also been very cautious in its response, though criticism is rising that its strategy of engagement the "sunshine policy" has been a failure.

Like China, South Korea's trade with the North has swelled while the nuclear talks have stalled climbing by more than 50 percent last year to just over $1 billion, according to the South's Unification Ministry.

Because Japan's trade with North Korea is limited, Abe faced little domestic opposition to cutting it off.

---

South Korea has the most to lose if NK gets Nukes, yet it is one of the most willing trade partners with NK... in fact only China is a bigger trade partner.

Negotiations will have to take place. If China and South Korea don't won't to slap trade sanctions then the only real way is to get them onside and get the UN Security council to do something... which means dancing to their dance not the US and Japans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Mind you, my personal stake in this crisis is quite big.

---

Tell me about it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

From the article Xiahou-san:



South Korea has the most to lose if NK gets Nukes, yet it is one of the most willing trade partners with NK... in fact only China is a bigger trade partner.

Negotiations will have to take place. If China and South Korea don't won't to slap trade sanctions then the only real way is to get them onside and get the UN Security council to do something... which means dancing to their dance not the US and Japans.

---

Let's not be so hasty about all this rambling... S. Korea itself isn't willing to jump into hasty actions. It, after all, is the closest in the path of destruction, and as thus, cannot do actions that provoke it.

When will those bloody politicians get their heads out of ther arses for once and grab that nuclear bull by the balls.

"I don't know what kind of weapons will be used in the third world war, assuming there will be a third world war. But I can tell you what the fourth world war will be fought with -- stone clubs."
Albert Einstein.

I'm going to get pissed drunk with my mates before the **** hits the fan.
I advice you all to join me.

(Edited by Ser Clegane to remove bad language]

It's a tough call. With sanctions you will get more NK civvies suffering and starving, much of this of course due to NKs own doing and military machine, but NK has shown very clearly in the past who and what has priority in its state. Bad leader, enjoys his own excesses while the country suffers, in the event of sanctions he and his machine arent going to be the ones doing without, insert Saddam similarity here.

China and Russia are a little closer to the humanitarian problem these sanctions would cause. Thought I read somewhere about China even executing illigal NK immigrants to make a point to stop the influx.

With war you get the suffering + the neccesity to rebuild and creat new leadership, which inevitally means lots of ground forces and a temporary occupation. This takes a lot of commitment from all parties invading, and those parties are sometimes going to need a sweetener to the deal to get involved, which further clouds the issue. Russian and China probably dont feel as threatened as other nations, so they would need some sort of guranteed financial and leadership stake in NK before they became invlolved militarily.

Strategic bombings without ground forces offer no long term solution, they only mean you will be doing more strategic bombings again and again in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Upxl

When will those bloody politicians get their heads out of ther arses for once and grab that nuclear bull by the balls.

"I don't know what kind of weapons will be used in the third world war, assuming there will be a third world war. But I can tell you what the fourth world war will be fought with -- stone clubs."
Albert Einstein.

**** it,
I'm going to get pissed drunk with my mates before the **** hits the fan.
I advice you all to join me.

---

Whereas the advice to imbibe is always welcome, I should counsel you young padawan, that things are not as bleak as you think. :smile:

I grew up in a time when very serious numbers of nuclear warheads were pointed at us. Indeed, as a young subaltern, I was told (just after Andropov took over in the crumbling Soviet Union) that we could expect a nuclear attack any day. It all blew over - even the militaristic nutbags of the USSR blanched at the prospect.

World leaders, for all their faults, know the utter futility of nuclear options. President Bush, for all his rhetoric, is advised by both hawkish politicians and military men of great wisdom and experience. There are some posters here that think nuclear war is like a computer game, but thankfully the man who has to give that order does not.

Kim Jung-il however, may well be mad/desperate enough to try to use nuclear force at some point when and if he has that option. This makes keeping him calm a high priority.

Even Osoma Bin Laden stops just short of a nuclear attack. Let's hope Kim Jon Il is at least as sane :inquisitive: :help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Even Osoma Bin Laden stops just short of a nuclear attack. Let's hope Kim Jon Il is at least as sane :inquisitive: :help:

---

It's very tough to tell whether you're joking. Apologies for missing the point, if you were.:embarassed: :smile:

I don't doubt that Mr bin Laden would use a nuclear device if he had the opportunity and technical ability. He and his gang run to a very different order of lunacy, inspired by a belief in the afterlife. Mass murder and self-immolation are goals to be sought, rather than unintended consequences.

Kim, being a good Stalinist, prefers the current world and its 'Pleasure Squads' rather than the less tangible promise of after-world virgins. If he uses the bomb, it will be because he has convinced himself he can 'win' in this world, not be rewarded in the next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

It's very tough to tell whether you're joking. Apologies for missing the point, if you were.:embarassed: :smile:

---

I wasn't, apparently some people within Al Quaida also wanted a nuclear plant as a target for 9/11. Osoma was against it.

I agree he's a different kind of lunatic though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

I wasn't, apparently some people within Al Quaida also wanted a nuclear plant as a target for 9/11. Osoma was against it.

---

If that's true, do we also know whether he was against it because it would have been a nuclear disaster or because it was too difficult to target effectively?

:shrug: I just find it hard to believe that a chap who could plan the attacks on the Twin Towers (bearing in mind those buildings would often have near-on 50,000 people working in them) would get squeamish about making the great Satan glow blue for a few thousand years...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

If that's true, do we also know whether he was against it because it would have been a nuclear disaster or because it was too difficult to target effectively?

:shrug: I just find it hard to believe that a chap who could plan the attacks on the Twin Towers (bearing in mind those buildings would often have near-on 50,000 people working in them) would get squeamish about making the great Satan glow blue for a few thousand years...

---

Bin Laden tends to pick symbolic targets to make a political statement. Hence military bases, embassies, the financial (and hence power) centre, government centres, etc. It's the al-Qaeda offshoots who are more haphazard in their targeting, choosing only to kill as many as possible. In a way, we should really be trying to strengthen Bin Laden's hand so he can keep a stronger hold on the al-Qaeda network, as he is at least relatively predictable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

If that's true, do we also know whether he was against it because it would have been a nuclear disaster or because it was too difficult to target effectively?

:shrug: I just find it hard to believe that a chap who could plan the attacks on the Twin Towers (bearing in mind those buildings would often have near-on 50,000 people working in them) would get squeamish about making the great Satan glow blue for a few thousand years...

---

I agree,
If he were indeed against nuclear options it would surely be out of practical reasons rather the common sense.

Banquo's Ghost, I admire your optimism, this young padawan is ready to gain the knowledge of the elder one. :bow:

Although the only way I can see humanity survive is to find a different “intelligent” life form somewhere in this galaxy and put our warmonging concentration that direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

In a way, we should really be trying to strengthen Bin Laden's hand so he can keep a stronger hold on the al-Qaeda network, as he is at least relatively predictable.

---

I think we should just kill every one of them.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

In a way, we should really be trying to strengthen Bin Laden's hand so he can keep a stronger hold on the al-Qaeda network, as he is at least relatively predictable.

---

~:confused:
Yeah, he's practically on our side- he only engineered 9/11 afterall. Thank God he only picks symbolic targets instead of ones that would result in thousands of deaths.... :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

China and Russia specifically. North Korea's actions are embraced by Russia and China because they want to weaken the United States and its European Allies.

---

You mean P.R. China? Anyway, USA weaken itself by building factories in P.R.C. and exporting techology to them. Your theory is wrong. Every good I see is made in china by American companies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

~:confused:
Yeah, he's practically on our side- he only engineered 9/11 afterall. Thank God he only picks symbolic targets instead of ones that would result in thousands of deaths.... :dizzy2:

---

You can't say you didn't know the WTC was going to be a target for Bin Laden. OTOH, can you tell which targets are at risk from the al-Qaeda derivatives?

It's at least marginally possible to protect against attacks commissioned by Bin Laden, since we know what kind of target he favours (political and military, with the WTC qualifying as the former). But there is no way of protecting against his affiliates, since we have no idea what they are trying to do, except kill as many people as they can.

Yep, that Bin Laden is a swell fella. All we have to do is eliminate any targets of political, military or cultural significance, and he'll leave us alone.

Wait, if we do that, won't be slaves with no identity? :idea2:

LOL, Bin Laden only goes after important stuff, like the World Trade Center!! We're so lucky we don't have those other loose cannon AQ members who might blow up random ATMs or empty cars or trash cans or God knows what else!


:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Yep, that Bin Laden is a swell fella. All we have to do is eliminate any targets of political, military or cultural significance, and he'll leave us alone.

Wait, if we do that, won't be slaves with no identity? :idea2:

---

Everyone seems to be missing the point. Bin Laden is relatively predictable, which makes him a better enemy to have than self-organised cells of which we know nothing. It's possible for a state to defend against enemies who have discernable patterns. It's not possible for a state to defend against enemies who have no discernable patterns.