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

North Korea does not want war, world does not want regime change: U.N.

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

I agree with the assessment.  But the world wants a denuclearized Korean peninsula. Something Kim is against.  Therein lies the rub.

 

Just read an interesting report saying this gives other rogue nations the go ahead to pursue their own nuclear strategy, as nothing will be done about it anyway.  Letting North Korea go ahead sets a dangers precedent.

 

Agreed. I suspect we will wake up one morning and it's news of an extensive bombing run over NK taking out all their nuke facilities. Can't see any alternative.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Media1 said:

He not want war yet. His bombs are not ready 

When they are he will launch because his mentally gone. Nth Korea must accept a removal plan of nuclear weapons or be wiped out. There to big a risk

I don't think he is mentally ill. Just outright evil.

2 hours ago, Media1 said:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Few here are saying the world wants regime change except you.  It's not a lie, you seem to like to go against the grain with stuff like this. LOL

 

The CIA?  Jeez....and how did we get to the Arab Spring from here?  A bit off topic.  Again.

I'm sure Kim Jong Un will be thrilled to hear that a few expat Westerners on ThaiVisa Forum are rooting for him. Who knows? Maybe he'll decide to take Thailand off his list of US client states to nuke if and when the balloon goes up.

 

The lads at Langley, Virginia might find it  hard to believe there are still a few innocents abroad blissfully unaware of their lengthy and  impressive record when it comes to helping topple unpopular (with the US administration) regimes. 

 

Assuming you enjoy a good book, I can recommend Ahmed Bensada's The Arab Spring: Made in America.  Best have a stiff drink handy. You're going to need it.

Edited by Krataiboy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UN again speaks for the world, and in doing so has solved yet another conflict.

I can see now how all those billions of dollars per year they cost are worth it.

Where would we be without the UN.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of the movie the mouse who roared. More then likely the world will cave and give him more money

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

We've seen how well waging war in the name of regime change has worked in recent past.

 

Full scale war is not a necessary ingredient when it comes to regime change.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, retarius said:

Kim like the rest of us just wants security, security against regime change. The world may not want regime change as the UN say, but no one does anything about it when the US decides to execute a regime change....except the Russians in Syria.

 

So in essence, this isn't about North Korea, but about Kim. One man (if not counting family and cronies). Regardless of what a UN official may say publicly, doubt anyone (other than family and cronies) would mind a replacement. Including the PRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Full scale war is not a necessary ingredient when it comes to regime change.

 

And we've seen how well non full scale war works also.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Srikcir said:

 

If somehow North Korea could become a semi-autonomous state of China, regime change might work. Neither China nor Russia will agree to a unified democratic Korean Republic.

 

Doubt South Korea and the US will go along with such a plan. Or, for that matter, that the PRC is eager accepting the responsibility of managing post-Kim North Korea. And, of course, no one asks the North Koreans what they want..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And we've seen how well non full scale war works also.

 

Moving them goal posts.

 

That successful (or rather, relatively "painless") regime change is difficult to affect is a given. That it may all go pear shaped is there too. But it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be contemplated, as not all of the failed past instances are applicable.

 

Considering even a less than optimal regime change effort vs. Kim's political survival, with all the belligerence it implies, and the danger of things getting out of hand. Could be that the former might actually be an improvement on things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Doubt South Korea and the US will go along with such a plan. Or, for that matter, that the PRC is eager accepting the responsibility of managing post-Kim North Korea. And, of course, no one asks the North Koreans what they want..

Still, if China decided to do it, who could stop them? Certainly the North Koreans would be far better off. Anything has to better than what they are experiencing now. And as for managing post-Kim North Korea, I don't think South Korea much relishes the prospect either. It would place a much huger burden on the Korean economies in relative terms than the merger of West and East Germany did on the Germany economy. Far easier for China to sustain it. I suppose China would prefer a far more tractable neighbor as the ideal solution, but if North Korea were to collapse internallly would China rather have anarchy on its border, south korea on its border, or a new province?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Moving them goal posts.

 

That successful (or rather, relatively "painless") regime change is difficult to affect is a given. That it may all go pear shaped is there too. But it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be contemplated, as not all of the failed past instances are applicable.

 

Considering even a less than optimal regime change effort vs. Kim's political survival, with all the belligerence it implies, and the danger of things getting out of hand. Could be that the former might actually be an improvement on things.

Could be, might be, may be better. Could be, might be, may be worse.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Could be, might be, may be better. Could be, might be, may be worse.

 

Worse how?

 

We already have a dictator making threats, holding both his people and neighbors hostage. The North Koreans are already oppressed. So what then? Someone getting their hands on unconventional weapons? More freedom to act against them than against Kim. North Korea's arsenal making it to world markets? Easier to implement a maritime blockade. Religious nutters....ah, none of that. Weak neighboring countries in danger of being seriously destabilized?

Russia, the PRC, and South Korea do not match.

 

As no side will be willing to let another take charge, perhaps a good opportunity to practice international cooperation, even.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Still, if China decided to do it, who could stop them? Certainly the North Koreans would be far better off. Anything has to better than what they are experiencing now. And as for managing post-Kim North Korea, I don't think South Korea much relishes the prospect either. It would place a much huger burden on the Korean economies in relative terms than the merger of West and East Germany did on the Germany economy. Far easier for China to sustain it. I suppose China would prefer a far more tractable neighbor as the ideal solution, but if North Korea were to collapse internallly would China rather have anarchy on its border, south korea on its border, or a new province?

 

There was an article posted on one of the many topics, detailing the PRC's reservations. Like the US (if less so and less accurately) they could go charging in and eventually win. But there will be casualties, whether the PRC will be seen as aggressor or liberator is an open question, and for a country valuing social balance, a war and it's aftermath may be... troublesome.

 

I don't know that South Korea sees things the way to describe, or that the situation is quite similar to Germany's case. If some posters versions are to be believed, North Korea comes with a nice dowry of potential natural resources. It may be "easier" for the PRC to sustain the burden, but could South Koreans and South Korean leadership accept it? 

 

What may emerge (if Kim is out of the equation) is a situation in which North Korea will be administered by more than one involved party. Probably easier (but not easy, though) to work out then coming to an understanding about one of them taking complete control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 21 November 2017 19:19
Sponsors
×