What Next With NK?

It's right here in this thread.

Again, it isn't me who is whining.

I am just asking what the self proclaimed leader of the fight against the 'axis of evil' is going to do about NK and whether he has the ability to do anything.

You are whining that other nations aren't taking the lead from Bush, who I reiterate claimed the title for himself and declared that it is his way or the high way, despite that other nations are pressuring the Chinese on the issue.

You are whining in a combination of self pity (everyone's agin us) and self adulation (Only the US will prevail)....
 
AnyOldIron said:
It's right here in this thread.

Again, it isn't me who is whining.

I am just asking what the self proclaimed leader of the fight against the 'axis of evil' is going to do about NK and whether he has the ability to do anything.

You are whining that other nations aren't taking the lead from Bush, who I reiterate claimed the title for himself and declared that it is his way or the high way, despite that other nations are pressuring the Chinese on the issue.

You are whining in a combination of self pity (everyone's agin us) and self adulation (Only the US will prevail)....
Click to expand...
No, I am asking why, instead of calling on Superman to save them those other nations aren't asking what they are going to do. We already know that Bush will use leverage on China, as he has been attempting from the beginning, rather than deal directly with NK. We know that other nations are following that lead.

Instead of talking about how Bush should do something why aren't they talking about how they should? Saying they are pressuring China is admitting all they will do is follow the lead and later whine that it didn't work. If you believe you have a better solution, rather than call for Superman to do something, do it yourself.

Basically, I am giving advise. Just as I would with an Intern, in order to be a leader you must take the lead yourself.
 
NK was planning to go Nuke all through the 90's ... they gave the faux apparence of stopping when Clinton sent Albright ove with an open checkbook ... sure they said ...we'll stop ... until .. Bush the worst President in US histroy when it comes to Foriegn Relations...opened up the can of worms ... bingo ....give an excuse and they jumped all over it.

But Anyol ....it is disingenuous for you to be on one hand in constant criticism of the United States for getting too involved in Soveriegn Policy decision making and then on the other hand .. utter those words..."what are you gunna do about It"? Typical ... bash America all day long and then expect America to run to your defense.. because it is our responsibility.

If Im President ...I would have to take a real close look ... and ask ...well...what have you guys done about it? Where is your responsibility in all of this? And.... so since the EU is this big bad wanna be world power..... what are you guys going to do about it now?
 
No, I am asking why, instead of calling on Superman to save them those other nations aren't asking what they are going to do.

Why are you throwing up strawmen?

No-one is calling for 'superman'. All major powers are now pressuring China.

The question is, when someone (ie your leader) declares himself leader, what is he doing to lead and does he have the ability to do so?

Its rather pathetic to claim leadership and then look around for others to lead.

We already know that Bush will use leverage on China, as he has been attempting from the beginning, rather than deal directly with NK. We know that other nations are following that lead.

My question is ...what leverage? The EU imports more from China than the US and that doesn't give the EU special authority with China.

So, what mechanisms does the self proclaimed leader have?
 
AnyOldIron said:
No, I am asking why, instead of calling on Superman to save them those other nations aren't asking what they are going to do.

Why are you throwing up strawmen?

No-one is calling for 'superman'. All major powers are now pressuring China.

The question is, when someone (ie your leader) declares himself leader, what is he doing to lead and does he have the ability to do so?

Its rather pathetic to claim leadership and then look around for others to lead.

We already know that Bush will use leverage on China, as he has been attempting from the beginning, rather than deal directly with NK. We know that other nations are following that lead.

My question is ...what leverage? The EU imports more from China than the US and that doesn't give the EU special authority with China.

So, what mechanisms does the self proclaimed leader have?
Click to expand...
A question is not a strawman. I haven't stated that you argued any point then pretended to argue that. I simply asked a question. And trade is leverage. Pretending that it isn't is silliness just to be contrary. If the EU and the US were all pressuring China with a willingness to effect that trade that would be far more than enough leverage. And still you attempt to pretend that as one nation the US doesn't import more from China than any other single nation. This is leverage.

And now that I have answered your question again, then asked you a question (that's called conversation) simply repeating that the EU trades more and is following the US lead to pressure China isn't answering my question.

Conversation takes some give and take. I answered your question, now answer mine. What are you doing other than following the lead and pressuring China? What innovation do you as a nation intend to add to this? So far all it's been is "What is the US going to do to save us all?" or, as in my analogy, "Superman! Where are you?"
 
But Anyol ....it is disingenuous for you to be on one hand in constant criticism of the United States for getting too involved in Soveriegn Policy decision making and then on the other hand .. utter those words..."what are you gunna do about It"?

It is disingenuous to claim that is what I am doing.

Bush declared himself leader of the fight against his 'axis of evil'. All I am asking is what he is doing to lead. If he didn't want the lead, if the US didn't want the lead, why say it did?

That isn't looking to the US to deal with it, it is looking to Bush to live up to his word.
 
AnyOldIron said:
But Anyol ....it is disingenuous for you to be on one hand in constant criticism of the United States for getting too involved in Soveriegn Policy decision making and then on the other hand .. utter those words..."what are you gunna do about It"?

It is disingenuous to claim that is what I am doing.

Bush declared himself leader of the fight against his 'axis of evil'. All I am asking is what he is doing to lead. If he didn't want the lead, if the US didn't want the lead, why say it did?

That isn't looking to the US to deal with it, it is looking to Bush to live up to his word.
Click to expand...
Once again, I have already stated what he is doing right at this moment, and pointed out how stating other nations are pressuring China too is just following that lead. So, basically we have answered your question in the affirmative. Yes, Bush has the leverage and can do something positive about this. Then we continued the conversation by asking a question of you.

"What innovation are you adding?"
 
I haven't stated that you argued any point then pretended to argue that.

You have. I have asked what the self proclaimed leader of the 'battle against the axis f evil' is doing to lead, you are arguing against a belief that I am stating that the US should deal entirely with the problem.

If Bush declares that he intends to lead, should the question of what he is doing to lead not be asked?

And still you attempt to pretend that as one nation the US doesn't import more from China than any other single nation.

The EU is the equivilent of the US, seperate states under a federal-style union. The EU imports more from China, yet that doesn't give Europe any more leverage.

Leverage is better done through persuasion, through offering solutions to China for the repercussions of it pulling the plug on NK rather than acting like a bully and threatening to pull trade. Threatening this would simply put China on the defensive.
 
Last edited:
AnyOldIron said:
I haven't stated that you argued any point then pretended to argue that.

You have. I have asked what the self proclaimed leader of the 'battle against the axis f evil' is doing to lead, you are arguing against a belief that I am stating that the US should deal entirely with the problem.

If Bush declares that he intends to lead, should the question of what he is doing to lead not be asked?

And still you attempt to pretend that as one nation the US doesn't import more from China than any other single nation.

The EU is the equivilent of the US, seperate states under a federal-style union. The EU imports more from China, yet that doesn't give Europe any more leverage.

Leverage is better done through persuasion, through offering solutions to China for the repercussions of it pulling the plug on NK rather than acting like a bully and threatening to pull trade. Threatening this would simply put China on the defensive.
Click to expand...
It does give leverage, if one is willing to use it. That was the basic question. However, everybody is already using the persuasion tactic and following the US lead.

What do I think the US should do?

1. Speed up deployment of the missile defense systems. It is imperfect, but likely more than enough to make any aggression by NK very difficult. The deployment would also be useful in other areas, indirectly making it more difficult for China to intimidate Taiwan.

2. End Humanitarian Aid to NK from the US and S. Korea. Many believe that it will create better relations between the US and NK to continue the aid, but continuing it also gives the impression that they have acheived, through their intransigence, immunity and can now act with total impunity. This would also put the cost on China to avoid the surge of hungry to the north...

And:

3. Invite Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore to join NATO — and even invite Taiwan to send observers to NATO meetings.

This would show China and NK that the nuclear test has not tilted the strategic balance in the Pacific in their favor. The NATO allies have agreed to expand the organization well beyond Western Europe; now we need to persuade them to make it global.
 
Damocles said:
The larger question is why doesn't anybody else even attempt to step up to the plate? The EU was formed to create a strong power, they have no credibility? What about Russia? France? Other permanent members of the SC?

No, everybody stares at the us and in their whiniest voice, "What are you going to dooooooo?"

Yes, Bush does have enough "credibility" with China. We, by far, trade more with them than anybody else. To say that doesn't give us some power? Rubbish.
Click to expand...

They want us to take action and do something so they can blame us when anything goes wrong. Makes them look good to their population and gives them a whipping boy.

I'm sure china is going along with us right now cause Bush probably used some economic threat on them. That and the threat of Japan getting the nuke as well.

This is also a test to see how far nk can go and gives iran lots of info about are far they can push things. Its probably part of a strategy that was put together during the despot meetings in venezuela. I think its a lot bigger than lil kim just going over the line.
 
3. Invite Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore to join NATO — and even invite Taiwan to send observers to NATO meetings.
//

Ummm, Damo, they are not in the North Atlantic region....
 
1. Speed up deployment of the missile defense systems. It is imperfect, but likely more than enough to make any aggression by NK very difficult. The deployment would also be useful in other areas, indirectly making it more difficult for China to intimidate Taiwan.

NK are decades from developing a missile system or shrinking enough to use missiles to deliver, nor do they have aircraft sufficient to use nukes.

At the minute they are restricted to trucks and ships. The nuclear threat from NK is currently more symbolic than a realistic threat.

I agree that it would make Taiwan sleep easier, but China is more then solution than the problem in this case.

2. End Humanitarian Aid to NK from the US and S. Korea. Many believe that it will create better relations between the US and NK to continue the aid, but continuing it also gives the impression that they have acheived, through their intransigence, immunity and can now act with total impunity. This would also put the cost on China to avoid the surge of hungry to the north...

I'd go further and persuade China to pull the plug on NK. 70% of NK's fuel comes from China and China upholds the NK government financially, far more than we in the west do with our aid. We would need to compensate China for the inevitable repercussions of this, refugee help, financial sweetners etc.

3. Invite Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore to join NATO — and even invite Taiwan to send observers to NATO meetings.

Nice idea, but I'm not sure how this will help. NK, if it attacks anyone, won't care if the nation is a member of NATO, and China isn't the problem.

This would show China and NK that the nuclear test has not tilted the strategic balance in the Pacific in their favor.

China is no more keen for NK to get nukes than we are.

NK believes that the acquisition of nukes is defensive, it believes that it protects the future of the regime from attack by being a member of the club. We need to show that having nukes doesn't protect the regime, that we are cunning and know there are many ways to skin a cat. Getting China to collapse NK will do that, and send a message to any other potential members of the club.
 
uscitizen said:
3. Invite Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore to join NATO — and even invite Taiwan to send observers to NATO meetings.
//

Ummm, Damo, they are not in the North Atlantic region....
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. An old name can be expanded.
 
China is no more keen for NK to get nukes than we are.

NK believes that the acquisition of nukes is defensive, it believes that it protects the future of the regime from attack by being a member of the club. We need to show that having nukes doesn't protect the regime, that we are cunning and know there are many ways to skin a cat. Getting China to collapse NK will do that, and send a message to any other potential members of the club.
Click to expand...

If that were true NK would not have nukes. China believes this will benefit them somehow and directly showing the balance of power is still against them would be beneficial.

It would be even more so if Japan decided to arm themselves as well. Using such leverage to get China to react positively would most definitely be beneficial.
 
I'm sure china is going along with us right now cause Bush probably used some economic threat on them.

What economic threats? China won't be bullied, it must be persuaded.
 
If that were true NK would not have nukes.

How do you mean? You think NK's nuke ambitions are offensive? It is entirely to protect the regime.

China believes this will benefit them somehow and directly showing the balance of power is still against them would be beneficial.

How? China isn't the problem here, they aren't happy about NK getting this nuke, it makes their nuke dominance in Asia weaker.

Snubbing China's nose isn't the way forward here. This is the scenerio when we can bring China into the fold (a common problem does that).
 
How do I mean? I mean that if China really cared as much as the US about NK getting nukes they would have stopped it if they have the influence we both believe that they have.

Believing in China not being the problem is foolish if you truly believe that China props up their government and that government makes nukes. It is basically believing in fairies to suggest they have that much weight with them and that NK made nukes without their approval. One of those cannot be true if the other is.
 
How do I mean? I mean that if China really cared as much as the US about NK getting nukes they would have stopped it if they have the influence we both believe that they have.

Stopping it would involve cutting off NK and collapsing the state. Imagine the repercussions of that, massive refugee problems pouring over the Chinese border etc and massively destabilising the region.

If China were to do it, it would require huge amounts of support (something the UN could provide). If the world community got behind China, the political will would improve there.

Believing in China not being the problem is foolish if you truly believe that China props up their government and that government makes nukes.

The US props up Israel and they make nukes. Is the US the problem there?

One of those cannot be true if the other is.

Only if you ignore the numerous other variables that contribute to the decision, the destabilisation, refugee problems etc.
 
AnyOldIron said:
How do I mean? I mean that if China really cared as much as the US about NK getting nukes they would have stopped it if they have the influence we both believe that they have.

Stopping it would involve cutting off NK and collapsing the state. Imagine the repercussions of that, massive refugee problems pouring over the Chinese border etc and massively destabilising the region.

If China were to do it, it would require huge amounts of support (something the UN could provide). If the world community got behind China, the political will would improve there.

Believing in China not being the problem is foolish if you truly believe that China props up their government and that government makes nukes.

The US props up Israel and they make nukes. Is the US the problem there?

One of those cannot be true if the other is.

Only if you ignore the numerous other variables that contribute to the decision, the destabilisation, refugee problems etc.
Click to expand...
The US helped them acheive that goal. If you believe it to be a problem that Israel has nukes then you would have to believe that the US is part of the problem.

If China truly had the ability to propel NK to do what they wish as we believe that they do, they could and would have stopped them if they didn't believe that NK's nukes wouldn't be beneficial to them.
 
Your argument is circular. China could stop them before but didn't even though they really wanted to, and now has the power to collapse them but didn't before to stop them, has incentive to end this because they didn't want them to have nukes but can still collapse them without war even but we have to "pressure" them into it even though they care as much as we do about NK having nukes....... Can you feel the circular logic? I certainly can.

It would not have taken China collapsing their government to end this.

Once and for all, if China has the power to influence them this way they wouldn't have nukes if China truly didn't want them to. (of course this ignores the many reports that the test was fake or failed)...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top