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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

---

Okay, gonna give it a shot. He's predictable because he hits us where it hurts. If he was unpredictable, he'd be hitting crap we don't care about, and that would be why weren't predicting it.

:wall:

Anyway, I don't see what's so damn predictable about Bin Laden. No one saw the WTC being destroyed by planes in a million years, this line of thinking is crazy. What in the name of God was predictable about 9/11? You're gonna tell me that on 9/11 you thought to yourself, 'well, was a matter of time..'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

---

So we should have subsidized the CCCP to keep us "snug" in our nice predictable Cold War framework?

Pan-man, I understand your point, but it is, ultimately, paralyzing in its application, so I vote no. Yes smashing one enemy clears the stage for the next (or a coterie of them), but that's life. You move on and knock down the next set of pins. On the whole, I'll take the scattering of semi-capable inheritors over the organized AQ team any time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Okay, gonna give it a shot. He's predictable because he hits us where it hurts. If he was unpredictable, he'd be hitting crap we don't care about, and that would be why weren't predicting it.

:wall:

Anyway, I don't see what's so damn predictable about Bin Laden. No one saw the WTC being destroyed by planes in a million years, this line of thinking is crazy. What in the name of God was predictable about 9/11? You're gonna tell me that on 9/11 you thought to yourself, 'well, was a matter of time..'?

---

Clinton could have told you Bin Laden was going to continue targeting the WTC, having tried it in the mid-90s. How he was going to do it wasn't predictable, but the target itself certainly was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

So we should have subsidized the CCCP to keep us "snug" in our nice predictable Cold War framework?

Pan-man, I understand your point, but it is, ultimately, paralyzing in its application, so I vote no. Yes smashing one enemy clears the stage for the next (or a coterie of them), but that's life. You move on and knock down the next set of pins. On the whole, I'll take the scattering of semi-capable inheritors over the organized AQ team any time.

---

Al-Qaeda is hardly on the same scale of threat as the USSR was. A better comparison might be the difference between a hostile but stable Iraq and the anarchy it has now become. As long as the enemy cannot actually threaten the integrity of your state, it is better to have a single enemy whose behaviour you can predict than many smaller enemies about whom you know nothing. At least with the former you will know which areas are likely to be at risk, while the latter leaves you with nowhere that is definitively safe.

To apply the above to North Korea, I suppose the question should be asked if NK poses a significant risk to any other country. If so, it might be worth taking action. If not, it might be better to stick with the devil you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Clinton could have told you Bin Laden was going to continue targeting the WTC, having tried it in the mid-90s. How he was going to do it wasn't predictable, but the target itself certainly was.

---

Haha, what a great reason. I've been converted, I now agree we should strengthen Bin Laden. Because he's so predictable. So predictable Clinton predicted it, just didn't predict how, that's all. The 'how' is just a minor detail, so yes, Bin Laden is still predictable.

:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Al-Qaeda is hardly on the same scale of threat as the USSR was.

---

Kills by the USSR on US Soil: 0
Kills by AQ on US Soil: 3,000

But yeah, AQ isn't much of a threat. Just those stupid cowboy Americans over reacting again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Haha, what a great reason. I've been converted, I now agree we should strengthen Bin Laden. Because he's so predictable. So predictable Clinton predicted it, just didn't predict how, that's all. The 'how' is just a minor detail, so yes, Bin Laden is still predictable.

:dizzy2:

---

Sarcasm, used when you can't put your opinion in plain words. Let me ask you this question: are there certain areas which are particularly at risk from Bin Laden? If so, does it not follow that other areas are less at risk? Now compare with the situation in London and other areas where al-Qaeda affiliates have struck. Here we know the targets were picked specifically for the concentration of people, and not for any symbolic value. So anywhere where people gather is at risk, and there is nowhere which is out of bounds to these terrorists.

Quote:

---

Kills by the USSR on US Soil: 0
Kills by AQ on US Soil: 3,000

But yeah, AQ isn't much of a threat. Just those stupid cowboy Americans over reacting again.

---

How much damage is al-Qaeda capable of doing to the US? How much damage was the USSR capable of doing to the US?

Can I get an Amen? I was going to revisit this, but with Sister Prole and Brother Seamus up at the pulpit, what would be the point? Preach on, preach on...

All kidding aside, it was very predictable that the Japanese would attempt to overrun the entire Pacific rim in the 1930s. That didn't make them any easier to stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Can I get an Amen? I was going to revisit this, but with Sister Prole and Brother Seamus up at the pulpit, what would be the point? Preach on, preach on...

All kidding aside, it was very predictable that the Japanese would attempt to overrun the entire Pacific rim in the 1930s. That didn't make them any easier to stop.

---

Ignoring the point I made about threatening the integrity of your state. Japan was threatening your overseas holdings, system of alliances and all the rest that makes up statesmanship, not to mention launching a sustained attack on your territory and being capable of following it up with actual occupation at some point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

How much damage is al-Qaeda capable of doing to the US?

---

We don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

How much damage was the USSR capable of doing to the US?

---

None. Mutually Assured Destruction

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

All kidding aside, it was very predictable that the Japanese would attempt to overrun the entire Pacific rim in the 1930s. That didn't make them any easier to stop.

---

Touche!

So what exactly are Bin Laden's "predictable" targets? Pretty much any place that can inflict large casualties with maximum visibility. How is that any different from what targets any terrorist would choose? It's not.

Quote:

---

Let me ask you this question: are there certain areas which are particularly at risk from Bin Laden? If so, does it not follow that other areas are less at risk? Now compare with the situation in London and other areas where al-Qaeda affiliates have struck. Here we know the targets were picked specifically for the concentration of people, and not for any symbolic value. So anywhere where people gather is at risk, and there is nowhere which is out of bounds to these terrorists.

---

The London bombings? It's the same motivations- casualties and visibility. It's all about trying to maximize the "terror" effect- probably why they're called terrorists. :idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

How much damage was the USSR capable of doing to the US?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

None. Mutually Assured Destruction

---

Yeah, eveeryone knows that the Cold War was just about some stupid cowboy Americans over reacting again :inquisitive:

Forget it, I just need to stay away from the 9/11 threads back here. Even though I guess this wasn't even supposed to be one.

Quote:

---

All kidding aside, it was very predictable that the Japanese would attempt to overrun the entire Pacific rim in the 1930s. That didn't make them any easier to stop.

---

Was that because the restructuring and reinforcements that were under way to counter the predictable threat were not complete ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Was that because the restructuring and reinforcements that were under way to counter the predictable threat were not complete ?

---

Let's not kid ourselves, Japan had one hell of a war machine in the 1930's. The USA was in the throes of the depression... we were actually losing manufacturing capability. The Japanese on the other hand were clicking along like a well oiled machine... boom, another carrier, boom, another 3 destroyers... boom another squadron of zeroes, courtesy of Mitsubishi.... I mean they were out producing us significantly. Even after they went medieval on Manchuria, our ABCD embargo was a bit of joke, we couldn't really enforce it. The real impact of it was that our own merchant fleets weren't trading with them anymore.

You add to that an entire civilizaiton mobilized for war, something the US didn't really achieve until 1943, when it looked like we might actually lose, and never got to the degree that the Japanese did, and you have one very formidable enemy. Yes, sure, we could have made more preparations and taken more precautions, but they were a steamroller and we had a sawhorse in their way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Touche!

So what exactly are Bin Laden's "predictable" targets? Pretty much any place that can inflict large casualties with maximum visibility. How is that any different from what targets any terrorist would choose? It's not.

---

WTC (twice), Pentagon, possibly White House, US embassy in Kenya, USS Cole. Possibly British embassy in Turkey. They seem picked for their symbolic and political value to me.

Quote:

---

The London bombings? It's the same motivations- casualties and visibility. It's all about trying to maximize the "terror" effect- probably why they're called terrorists. :idea2:

---

AFAICS, Bin Laden coordinates his attacks with his message that western states should withdraw from the middle east, hence his targeting of state institutions (the WTC also qualifying due to the sheer power they represent). The London, Madrid, Bali and other affiliate attacks in contrast seem chosen simply for the great concentration of people (and hence potential casualties). The former is terrorism targeted at the state, while the latter is terrorism for the sake of terrorism. People die in both instances, but there are patterns in the former, and none in the latter. Our state-centric institutions are inherently better suited to dealing with the former.

Judging by their actions in the last few years, I'm wondering if the US and UK authorities have come to the same conclusion - as long as Bin Laden isn't capable of carrying out any more spectaculars, it might be better to keep the al-Qaeda leadership intact (but weak), lest it should splinter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

WTC (twice), Pentagon, possibly White House, US embassy in Kenya, USS Cole. Possibly British embassy in Turkey. They seem picked for their symbolic and political value to me.
...
The London, Madrid, Bali and other affiliate attacks in contrast seem chosen simply for the great concentration of people (and hence potential casualties).

---

I'm nearly speechless.... Even the Embassy bombing killed more people than any of the attacks that you're claiming were designed for "great concentration(s) of people". Further, you're completely ignoring the fact that the Spanish and London attacks were against transportation infrastructure which would be totally in keeping with the sorts of targets chosen by Al Qaeda.

If killing/capturing Bin Laden means we'll get less attacks on "symbolic" targets (which totally inadvertently kill many times the people and cause many times the damage) and more on "civillian" targets (which somehow manages to kill less people and do less damage than "symbolic" targets) then Im all for it. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I'm nearly speechless.... Even the Embassy bombing killed more people than any of the attacks that you're claiming were designed for "great concentration(s) of people".

---

How much resources did the respective bombers have? If you have sufficient explosives, you can kill a huge number of people without even trying to.

Quote:

---

Further, you're completely ignoring the fact that the Spanish and London attacks were against transportation infrastructure which would be totally in keeping with the sorts of targets chosen by Al Qaeda.

---

Were they targeting transport infrastructure, or were they targeting the mass of commuters who were known to be concentrated in those areas at those times? If you want to kill as many people as possible but you only have a limited amount of explosives to do it with, what would you target?

Quote:

---

If killing/capturing Bin Laden means we'll get less attacks on "symbolic" targets (which totally inadvertently kill many times the people and cause many times the damage) and more on "civillian" targets (which somehow manages to kill less people and do less damage than "symbolic" targets) then Im all for it. :wall:

---

I never said Bin Laden doesn't kill people, or that he tries not to kill people. I'm saying that Bin Laden's targets are predictable - things that have direct significance for western governments. The targets of his followers are less predictable to the point of near randomness, with the only common thread seemingly the highest body count for the lowest resources committed. Our state-based institutions like the police and intelligence services are better suited to dealing with the former threat than the latter.

And before you point to the box cutters used by the 9/11 hijackers, ask how much money and time Bin Laden spent on training them, and compare with the resources his network committed to the affiliate bombings.

To be honest Pannonian I really don't think your argument as a leg to stand on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

To be honest Pannonian I really don't think your argument as a leg to stand on.

---

Then why aren't we looking for Bin Laden? If he is such a threat, why aren't we spending more effort looking for him? Instead, we're weakening his operational strength by cutting his finances, while leaving him in Afghanistan/Pakistan to stew. The evidence of the US and UK government's actions indicate that they don't regard him as much of a threat any more, to the extent that the Pakistani and British armies have even formally or informally allowed him a recognised safe haven to say in.

If you look closer to home, Adams and McGuinness spent a lot of effort on ensuring the IRA did not fragment when they eventually laid down their arms, while the British government was willing to give small concessions here and there to help them do this.

Quote:

---

Let's not kid ourselves, Japan had one hell of a war machine in the 1930's. The USA was in the throes of the depression... we were actually losing manufacturing capability. The Japanese on the other hand were clicking along like a well oiled machine... boom, another carrier, boom, another 3 destroyers... boom another squadron of zeroes, courtesy of Mitsubishi.... I mean they were out producing us significantly. Even after they went medieval on Manchuria, our ABCD embargo was a bit of joke, we couldn't really enforce it. The real impact of it was that our own merchant fleets weren't trading with them anymore

---

Hold on there Don , its more of a monastary topic , but how exactly were the US losing manufacturing capability in the pre war years ? Its capability was increasing , but was under utilised, and as for Japan out producing you significantly , in what years exactly would those be as US aviation , shipping and munitions production consistantly was higher than Japans .
Oh and the embargo wasn't a joke , not for Japan anyway , thats why they chose to risk everything to sieze those raw materials that people wouldn't trade with them .

But back to the point I was aiming at .......Was that because the restructuring and reinforcements that were under way to counter the predictable threat were not complete ?
The economic and diplomatic actions were going to lead to two possible outcomes , preparations were being taken to counter the most likely outcome of those actions , but were not completed in time leading to some rather nasty setbacks .
So now, what are the likely outcomes of actions against little Kim and are the preparations in place to deal with those outcomes ?
yep I know they have plans for the past 50 years and they have moved a lot of troops further south away from the DMZ , but at the same time they are embroiled in two other major commitments , and as well as stripping military assets from the theatre they have had to move some of the ready reserves in Japan a lot further away and are in the process shifting some of the remaining bases within Japan .
It appears that everyones favourite Elvis loving mad midget has timed his brinkmanship very well .

And importantly , China of course has the nice option of slaughtering any influx of refugees from the North , but what is to be done with those that try to flee the South ? There will be a hell of a lot of them .

Pannonian, are you still going on about this?

You're saying we should help someone who orchestrated the greatest attack on American soil? Who wants us dead? Who would destroy our entire country if he could? Do you know what you're saying? Do you realize just what you are proposing?

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Pannonian, are you still going on about this?

You're saying we should help someone who orchestrated the greatest attack on American soil? Who wants us dead? Who would destroy our entire country if he could? Do you know what you're saying? Do you realize just what you are proposing?

Crazed Rabbit

---

Have you missed what I said? Keep the al-Qaeda leadership weak, but intact. Looking at your own government's actions, it looks like they've come to a similar conclusion - better to have a powerless but existent Bin Laden than to kill him and have the network split up into goodness knows how many different groups. If Bin Laden is still such a threat, why are you not actively looking for him? Why has Bush dismissed him as a threat?

Wow, I certainly opened a can of worms here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Have you missed what I said? Keep the al-Qaeda leadership weak, but intact. Looking at your own government's actions, it looks like they've come to a similar conclusion - better to have a powerless but existent Bin Laden than to kill him and have the network split up into goodness knows how many different groups. If Bin Laden is still such a threat, why are you not actively looking for him? Why has Bush dismissed him as a threat?

---

Actually, you kept arguing for a "better the enemy you know" until one of the more recent posts. Known but still potent is NOT a good option.

"Weak but intact" (and hence predictable/counterable) is a MUCH better argument position. Perhaps you meant that from the first, but it did not become clear until post #46. Your position becomes much more interesting is this is the tenor of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Actually, you kept arguing for a "better the enemy you know" until one of the more recent posts. Known but still potent is NOT a good option.

"Weak but intact" (and hence predictable/counterable) is a MUCH better argument position. Perhaps you meant that from the first, but it did not become clear until post #46. Your position becomes much more interesting is this is the tenor of it.

---

Having a strong enemy is never a good idea. Weakening Bin Laden goes without saying. The point I'm making, which I've made in relation to other areas as well, is that it's easier for our state-based thinking to deal with enemies that are similarly unified. It's quite possible to take advantage of an enemy that has fragmented, but our governments aren't capable of doing so. Hence the importance of keeping the enemy unified, so they can eventually be brought to the table, and to keep the deal once made. Someone (I can't remember where) made the parallel with the Confederate general Robert Lee, who ordered his troops to lay down their arms rather than keep fighting a guerrilla war.

If Crazed Rabbit and others still want to be outraged by my suggestion of giving Bin Laden a break, perhaps they should note that this is exactly what the US and UK authorities have done. The US government has called off the search for Bin Laden, while the British have recently changed tack and offered to do a deal with a Taliban, thus giving them (and him) a safe haven. So they're already doing this. I'm only suggesting that this might actually be a smart move.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

It doesn't matter if it was failed or not. The point is, they are comfortable enough in their flouting of UN and US authority to actually try.

---

heh :wall:

What US authority? Its America trying to enforce this fool notion of their authority over the world thats starting all these wars in the first place. Why does America expect the whole of Asia to cower when it flexes its muscles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Time to pull Kim up by his stupid hair, and toss him to the sharks, uniting Korea and ending this whole business.

---

I can see it now:
Nukes are fired back and forth until NK has none left resulting in a massive civilian death toll
America invade with ideas of glory and liberation
3 years later when theyre still cleaning up the mess they look back and go "We messed that up again didnt we?"

Not to mention that any war against NK serves to annoy of the Russians and Chineese
Language.

-Mithrandir

sorry bout that, too used to forums that dont censor + didnt know there was a language policy here. i'll go read the rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satchef1

heh :wall:

What US authority? Its America trying to enforce this fool notion of their authority over the world thats starting all these wars in the first place. Why does America expect the whole of Asia to cower when it flexes its muscles?

---

Now this is really humorous in a very sad way, considering for years its been the world that has been asking the United States to play the world policeman and fireman.....

Care to argue your position with more clarity. There happens to be a whole host of situations where the UN - ie the world has asked the United States to step into - some the United States has, many others that it has not. Then there is the numerous nations that happened to directly ask for the assistance of the United States.

Now review some wars?

In Bosnia did the United States start that war?
In Kosovo did the United States Start that war?
How about Somilia?
How about Kuwait?
How about the recent one in Lebanon - not exactly a war but a conflict?
How about Dafur?
How about Cheneya? (SP?)

Hell their is a whole list of wars that has little to no influence from the United States?

Then I must ask - have you ever studied the Korean Pennisula politics and the conflicts of the past concerning the two Koreas? I wonder if you have ever sat on the DMZ and watch the two Korean armies have a shooting inicident between both sides. (Care to guess how many times on average this happens every year?) How about the tunnels that have been found?

I think the lack of perceived success in Iraq has empowered NK. They see how hard a time the US had there and then don't feel that scared of them so they will go down there path of nuclear bomb building feeling fairly safe. NK looks at that and thinks, similar population, harder terrain to invade, backing of China and possibly Russia... so, no worries.

Now if China had turned around and said 'Give it up or we will invade with the Russians no matter what the UN says.' NK might have given pause to the scenario and backed down.

"
Hell their is a whole list of wars that has little to no influence from the United States?"

The US and other Western countries actually had a major influence on the wars in Yugoslavia. US foreign policy regarding Yugoslavia in the 1980's was calculated to precipitating the break up of the country. That policy bore fruit when the constituent republics decided they were going to go their own separate ways, and the West then further influenced the course of events by violating arms embargoes and giving weapons to Bosnia and Croatia. In the case of Kosovo this influence went as far as training and arming the Kosovo Liberation Army.

"Now if China had turned around and said 'Give it up or we will invade with the Russians no matter what the UN says.' NK might have given pause to the scenario and backed down."

Not going to happen. Because
- It being there makes things difficult for the US and its allies, which benefits China.
- China doesn't want millions of refugees flooding across its border. It also doesn't want to have to deal with nation building.
- Invading North Korea over nuclear weapons antagonises China's major oil supplier, Iran. Doing anything which coincides with Western aspirations for "regime change" also sends completely the wrong message to China's many dictator friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

"
Hell their is a whole list of wars that has little to no influence from the United States?"

The US and other Western countries actually had a major influence on the wars in Yugoslavia. US foreign policy regarding Yugoslavia in the 1980's was calculated to precipitating the break up of the country. That policy bore fruit when the constituent republics decided they were going to go their own separate ways, and the West then further influenced the course of events by violating arms embargoes and giving weapons to Bosnia and Croatia. In the case of Kosovo this influence went as far as training and arming the Kosovo Liberation Army.

---

Here you are only speaking of "little" influence. And your lumping the "West" together under the United States. Now Kosovo the United States did have a some influence - but I see you avoided answering the question of who started the war.