|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JeJuJitsu

Joined: 11 Sep 2005 Location: McDonald's
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:21 pm Post subject: New Sanctions "Act of War"--Kim Jong Il, Bush Resp |
|
|
1. North Korea, in its first formal statement since Monday's test announcement, warned that new sanctions would be considered an act of war that would bring unspecified "physical corresponding measures."
2. Bush, several hours ago: "I believe the commander in chief must try all diplomatic measures before we commit our military."
3. Chapter 7. The United States and Japan want the Security Council to impose a partial trade embargo, including strict limits on Korea's weapons exports, a freeze of related financial assets and inspections of cargo to and from North Korea. They prefer that the sanctions fall under the portion of the U.N. Charter that gives the council the authority to back up its resolutions with a range of measures that include military action.
As of today, I think, for the first time since 1953, war is more than 50% likely. Even last night, before watching Bush speak, I was half-joking about all this. Not any more. I'm not leaving yet, but am stockpiling.
It's really a cultural divide. It's the Korean way to posture and threaten. However, US military, and in general, the West, tend not to make empty threats, nor understand being played "a fool" with agreements, then broken ones, we JUST DON'T PLAY nor UNDERSTAND that game. If the US, as a policy statement are asking the UN for permission to use force, and state that "military action is on the table," you better believe that Rumsfeld, Bush, and Co., are ITCHING to take it to the Norks.
Factor in that the Norks say "any new sanction is an act of outright war" --it's just a question of who shoots first.
This is getting real, folks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bush and Japan wanted Chapter 7 on the last round of sanctions after the missile tests. They didnt get it because China, and partly Russia wouldnt let them. Theres very little chance China will agree to Chapter 7 in this case either.
As far as "sanctions being an act of war", thats old rhetoric. I recall other things that were supposed to be acts of war acording to NK. Things like taking them to the Security Council, which has been done. Sanctions which have already been applied. All those were "acts of war".
Bush has ALWAYS said military force was on the table. he would be stupid to say it was off. And a liar. Military force is always on the table, always has been and always will be in any situation really.
Do you NOT pay attention to things? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JeJuJitsu

Joined: 11 Sep 2005 Location: McDonald's
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
Bush and Japan wanted Chapter 7 on the last round of sanctions after the missile tests. They didnt get it because China, and partly Russia wouldnt let them. Theres very little chance China will agree to Chapter 7 in this case either.
As far as "sanctions being an act of war", thats old rhetoric. I recall other things that were supposed to be acts of war acording to NK. Things like taking them to the Security Council, which has been done. Sanctions which have already been applied. All those were "acts of war".
Bush has ALWAYS said military force was on the table. he would be stupid to say it was off. And a liar. Military force is always on the table, always has been and always will be in any situation really.
Do you NOT pay attention to things? |
Yes. Do you not pay attention to suble shifts in rhetoric? KJI always says, "act of war" yes, but never has he stated that any sanction would be met with "physical retaliation." If he has, find a link and post it, and I'll admit I missed it.
Plus, in case you missed the news this week, NK tested a nuke.
Do you not think this changes the rhetoric, oh...a little?
And yeah, military action is of course always on the table, but find a link to the last time Bush reminded anyone of it, in a press conference, regarding the Norks, and regarding a specific event.
Open your eyes, dude. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seriously? I mean if "turning Seoul into a SEA OF FIRE" doesnt constitute a threat of physical retaliation, I really dont know what does.
The North threatens physical retaliatoion or use of force or turning things inot sea of fire over everything. Remember what they said a win by the GNP in the local elections would lead to? Incase you dont, it would lead to Seoul becoming a "sea of fire" or other such nonsense.
Physical retaliation can mean many things. He will probably either test a missile or another dud of a nuke. Theres enough firepower around here to turn his little shithole into a parking lot. He knows it too. He knows that the US wont attack forst but that the US is just itching to destroy NK if NK gives them a real reason to do so: i.e. an attack on SK or Japan. And he also knows that his sub kiloton piece of shit that he cant even deliver is no match to the dozens of megaton warhead tipped missiles on subs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Boodleheimer

Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Location: working undercover for the Man
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i'm glad i'm not in Seoul |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Moldy Rutabaga

Joined: 01 Jul 2003 Location: Ansan, Korea
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
>if "turning Seoul into a SEA OF FIRE" doesnt constitute a threat of physical retaliation, I really dont know what does.
Absolutely. The problem with calling everything from war games to playing cards on Sunday an act of war and making hyperbolic threats is that eventually such statements lose their meaning. "What's not an act of war for those jerks?"
North Korea has played this game of being noisy and aggressive, but not pushing their luck too far, for many years. The truth, to me, of the situation is that everybody openly wants change but secretly wants stasis; China wants stability, North Korea wants to maintain the regime, South Korea and the US don't want the chaos of sudden collapse. I don't expect a huge shift in these priorities.
Nevertheless, I'll be watching the news carefully. If Kim JI continues to seek attention with even more brazen acts, there is a breaking point somewhere where even sanctions won't be enough to satisfy nations.
Ken:>
Last edited by Moldy Rutabaga on Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Taking us to the UNSC is an act of war"
"Sanctions are an act of war"
"GNP winning the local elections will lead to war"
"Serving us cold coffee is an act of war"
*beep* them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JeJuJitsu

Joined: 11 Sep 2005 Location: McDonald's
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
Seriously? I mean if "turning Seoul into a SEA OF FIRE" doesnt constitute a threat of physical retaliation, I really dont know what does.
The North threatens physical retaliatoion or use of force or turning things inot sea of fire over everything. Remember what they said a win by the GNP in the local elections would lead to? Incase you dont, it would lead to Seoul becoming a "sea of fire" or other such nonsense.
Physical retaliation can mean many things. He will probably either test a missile or another dud of a nuke. Theres enough firepower around here to turn his little *beep* into a parking lot. He knows it too. He knows that the US wont attack forst but that the US is just itching to destroy NK if NK gives them a real reason to do so: i.e. an attack on SK or Japan. And he also knows that his sub kiloton piece of *beep* that he cant even deliver is no match to the dozens of megaton warhead tipped missiles on subs. |
Fair enough, never heard the "sea of fire" comment, would be curious when/what that referred to.
However, why do you think self-preservation is the Norks' goal? I mean, often Communists manifest into "being true to the cause" as the end-all, be-all, example, Pol Pot, Cambodia. How do you know KJI wouldn't prefer death to selling out? He sees that he's at the end of the rope, if aid stops, he stops. Think he'll go quietly? I mean, we're at the point, China might cut them off, because you better believe behind the scenes, the US is threatening China with import duties if they don't get NK on a leash. Think China wants to be restricted in the US market? All these could lead to a swift domino, whereas none of these dynamics were present until Monday. NK were always assured of food, energy, hidden aid. That might all have sincerely, stopped, or will soon.
I'm just not that confident nor trusting of hard-line Communists, as I have family history dealing with Soviet-Communism--grandfather was in a WWII work camp in Siberia until 1955(!) after being captured in eastern Europe...being held as labor to help start the great revolution...and my grandfather was a Communist believer (and the reason he got early(!) release), most of the POW's captured by Russia in that sector weren't released til the 60's! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Moldy Rutabaga

Joined: 01 Jul 2003 Location: Ansan, Korea
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| However, why do you think self-preservation is the Norks' goal? I mean, often Communists manifest into "being true to the cause" as the end-all, be-all, example, Pol Pot, Cambodia. How do you know KJI wouldn't prefer death to selling out? He sees that he's at the end of the rope, if aid stops, he stops. Think he'll go quietly? |
I dunno. I can only think of Castro as being proud enough for such a situation. Most communist regimes I've seen tend to go the 'Animal Farm' route, where the ideology turns into a means of preserving power. China is no longer really communist although the terminology lingers on, and I expect that Kim JI would also choose maintaining his power over dying in flames. At times North Korea has toyed with having markets; accepting aid itself is a contradiction of its 'juche' ideology. As long as foreign powers are smart enough not to push North Korea into a no way out corner, I think they would choose a way to stay in power even if some form of reform were imposed. But this is only my assumption.
| Quote: |
| I'm just not that confident nor trusting of hard-line Communists, as I have family history dealing with Soviet-Communism--grandfather was in a WWII work camp in Siberia until 1955(!) |
Sorry to hear about it. Rough deal. My uncle was in a German POW camp, but being a Canadian German-speaker, he wasn't treated so harshly.
Ken:> |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|