Jump to content
Thailand Visa Forum by Thai Visa | The Nation


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6,399 Excellent

About Morch

Previous Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

15,047 profile views
  1. You do that. Better than spouting off ridiculous posts, inaccurate complaints and not owning up to either. Kim (and his predecessors) had two major threats (or, deterrents - depends on perspective): A large standing army which can be mobilized for invasion, and a whole lot of artillery trained on Seoul. On the South Korean side, there's a large army as well, plus USA military presence. It should be noted that most of the border incidents, incursions and directly hostile actions in recent decades were initiated by North Korea, and that the South Korean/USA deterrents are no specifically aimed at civilian targets. By adding nuclear and ballistic capabilities, North Korea now possess an extra deterrent. So if one follows the "logic" of your original post, then the USA removing it's forces from South Korea vs. North Korea putting its nuclear/ballistic program on hold, would still leave North Korea holding a major threat over South Korea - artillery pointed at Seoul.
  2. Both should stop provoking is the go-to cliche. If one was to follow your post, the end result would still leave Kim with a major "provocation" (or, threat) - massive amount of artillery pointed at Seoul. I don't think that there are many posts on these topics which make the removal of these a condition. How come? I wasn't "pretending" anything of the sort. Kinda funny coming from someone whining about "claims not made". As far as I'm aware, the South Korean armed forces do not have a similar standing threat pointed at Pyongyang. Deflect away.
  3. If this could be resolved by Kim peacefully retiring to wherever, security and lavish lifestyle assured, I should think most involved sides would go for it. Better than most alternatives. Just not seeing him taking this path.
  4. North Korea already sold ballistic missile and nuclear related technology and hardware to several ME countries. A tighter sanctions regime, an embargo, a blockade may have an effect on hardware shipment, not so with regard to know how. A similar problem even if the issues are resolved in a peaceful manner.
  5. This what you originally posted: "And I'd pretty much guarantee that if the US stopped with exercises next to North Korea and withdrew its army/airforce/navy, NK would seriously consider stopping with its nuclear weapons programme." https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1003879-survey-is-a-military-strike-against-north-korea-justified/?page=5&tab=comments#comment-12299672 So, withdrawing army, air force and navy is not the same as removal of fire power and removing troops?
  6. How is it not correct? Kim's artillery pointed at Seoul is a major threat aimed at South Korean civilians. It's removal is not mentioned in your post, and doesn't feature all that much on other pro-Kim/anti-USA musings. Rather, the usual equation refers to USA removing troops from South Korea and ceasing joint maneuvers, while with regard to Kim the focal point is the nuclear and ballistic projects. This still leaves them barrels trained on Seoul.
  7. Craig's post - Kim stops nuclear weapons program, loses weapons aimed at Seoul, stops incursions into SK. USA removes forces from SK Your post - Kim stops nuclear weapons program USA removes forces from SK, stops exercises I was just pointing out the often left out bits. If your version is adopted, Kim still holds a gun to SK's head.
  8. Blanket statements notwithstanding, there were Iranian violations of the agreement, as covered in a parallel topic (and past ones). This wasn't unexpected, given the complexity of the agreement and the conditions under which it was signed. The question is, perhaps, more to do with defining when such minor violations become an issue meriting action. So far, at least, most involved parties seem to think there's no call for re-evaluation, re-enacting of sanctions etc. When it is said that Iran is complying with the agreement's terms it does not necessarily imply 100% compliance to a degree where there are not breaches, but rather refers to an acceptable level of compliance. It is also somewhat effected by how effectively the terms are enforced. If there was "no indication" the terms would be breached, then the strict monitoring regime applied wouldn't be in place. It is there, at least in part, due to Iran's previous conduct and to the low level of trust afforded.
  9. Indeed. But at least his nothing guarantee covered major threats emanating from both sides. Yours, on the other hand, failed to acknowledge the standing threat to Seoul. This is something often glossed over. One side is required to take all threats away, the other not.
  10. Russia was notified by Trump's administration before the missile attack on Syria.
  11. Not that I place much trust in your guarantees (or Craig's, that matter). But under your "guarantee", Seoul is still being held hostage by Kim's artillery.
  12. Who claimed Kim is a "CIA plant"? Who claimed he's a "tool of the Chinese?" I mean, other than you.
  13. A country may have a right for self defense on this level. And even then, the acceptability has something to do with the country's conduct and stability. A person is not afforded the same "right", not even if he's the leader of a country. North Korea is one thing, Kim is another. The issue is not the prospects of Kim facing annihilation, but the many other people held hostage to assure his personal survival.
  14. Some confusion in the above between the NPT and the current agreement, may want to get clued in as to what triggered both sanctions and the latter. And, of course, the USA did sign the NPT. The "in the pockets" conspiracy nonsense is just that, thanks for sharing. No "selective memory" at all - the comment was made in reply to a previous post asserting Iran did nothing at all to warrant sanctions other than "opposing Israel in Syria and Lebanon". As even your own account implies, the bad blood between the two countries predates and exceeds the specified premise. USA aiding Iraq is not quite the same thing as "Iranian citizens murdered on behalf of the USA" - but do go on about "distorted world view". Got to love them "new" opinionated posters jumping in topics with fiery views. Welcome back, whomever you were.