Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 51 to 57 of 57
  1. #51
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    8,598

    Default Re: Murder /Assassination of Kim Jong Nam

    Compare 'honourable man' to Mrs Thatcher's assessment of Gorbachev-

    John Cole
    Prime Minister, after meeting Mr. Gorbachev, are you more or less optimistic about detente and world peace in 1985?

    Prime Minister
    I am cautiously optimistic. I like Mr. Gorbachev. We can do business together. We both believe in our own political systems. He firmly believes in his; I firmly believe in mine. We are never going to change one another. So that is not in doubt, but we have two great interests in common: that we should both do everything we can to see that war never starts again, and therefore we go into the disarmament talks determined to make them succeed. And secondly, I think we both believe that they are the more likely to succeed if we can build up confidence in one another and trust in one another about each other's approach, and therefore, we believe in cooperating on trade matters, on cultural matters, on quite a lot of contacts between politicians from the two sides of the divide.
    https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/105592


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

  2. #52
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    8,598

    Default Re: Murder /Assassination of Kim Jong Nam

    I don't know if anyone is truly surprised by the decision of the President to call off the meeting in Singapore with Kim Jong Un, but it does expose yet again the incompetence at the heart of US government, and it is the incompetence that doesn't surprise. It is possible that behind all this there is a cunning strategy, to force North Korea into re-thinking its stance by begging the question: how badly do you want American investment in your economy in exchange for 'de-nuclearisation'? on the basis that the North Koreans are actually so desperate they will concede. But what this amounts to, as is evident in the letter the President dictated (mistakes in grammar suggest his aides were too scared to point them out), is that the President thinks threats and confrontation are the means to an end, something John Bolton would approve of, but which may have the opposite effect with North Korea, as is also the case with Iran.

    Behind this incompetence is the glaring fact that the US has built up a deep understanding of Korean history and politics, that it has had experts situated in Korea, China and Japan all of whom are or were in a position to offer advice of the kind previous Presidents have relied on which always urge caution, and the 'long game' with regard to confidence building measures and detailed negotiations. The President has dismissed this as a failed strategy, but as Rex Tillerson shredded the State Department of its expertise and long-established specialists quit anyway, the US has now been placed in the situation where the North Koreans look like the party in control while the Americans are losers with only the threat of nuclear annihilation as their 'Plan B'.

    Kim and his Generals have demolished a missile site that was probably defunct anyway; they released three Korean-American Prisoners; there was an 'historic' meeting with President Moon; Kim, who had never been went to China, twice; they had talks with Mike Pompeo not once but twice, and their version of de-nuclearisation does not mean as John Bolton suggested/demanded, dismantling all the equipment they have and shipping it to the USA -can you imagine Reagan and Gorbachev agreeing to send each other their missiles to prove they were disarming, or the Provisional IRA handing over its weapons to the British government as part of the 'de-commissioning' of weapons included in the Good Friday Agreement? Not only was this typical of John Bolton, by undermining Mike Pompe it exposed the level of incompetence across the US government with 'Dummy' Mike Pence adding his own threats which amounted to a simple proposition, re-iterated in the President's letter: do as we say, or die! These people don't even talk to each other, how can they talk to North Korea?

    If that was not insult enough, the mere fact that the US President made his declaration without bothering to inform President Moon in advance proves that if there is a 'dummy' in all this, he sits in the White House. In theory, Moon and Kim could just ignore the US President and negotiate their own peace treaty and sign it without the presence of the USA, whereas the US commitment to South Korea's security would be required because, in spite of the concessions they have made, North Korea cannot be trusted. The dilemma places the long-term future back where it was before, no advance as long as the parties are lumbered with a quartet of dummies in Washington DC.

    Finally this: the foreign policy position of the USA with regard to North Korea is not based on diplomacy of the kind that takes a year or more of detailed negotiations to prepare for a summit before it happens, so the parties can produce a reasonable document, because other than Pompeo's talks with Kim, there was no diplomacy, because the US President doesn't believe in it. Here he is, explaining how the Foreign Policy of the USA is now formulated:

    “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things,” he told MSNBC, when asked who his foreign policy advisers were. He said he was talking to a lot of people, but they weren’t really important. “My primary consultant is myself and I have a good instinct for this stuff.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...trump-homework

    Current state of play:
    North Korea 1, USA 0.


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.
    Last edited by Stavros; 05-25-2018 at 07:59 AM.

  3. #53
    filghy2 Professional Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,587

    Default Re: Murder /Assassination of Kim Jong Nam

    No summit, but you can buy the coin commemorating it, and it seems to be popular. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44247174


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

  4. #54
    Silver Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,160

    Default Re: Murder /Assassination of Kim Jong Nam

    yesterday's copy of the ny post was a great exercise in what some people like to call "journalism"



    Last edited by bluesoul; 06-01-2018 at 10:24 PM.

  5. #55
    Silver Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,160

    Default Re: Murder /Assassination of Kim Jong Nam



    Last edited by bluesoul; 06-01-2018 at 10:39 PM.

  6. #56
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    8,598

    Default Re: Murder /Assassination of Kim Jong Nam

    The reaction so far to the meeting on Sentosa Island has been to speculate that this is either the beginning of a more meaningful process than has happened in the past, or could just become another agreement with North Korea that does not deliver -here is a summary of the Sentosa Agreement:

    1. The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new U.S.-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.
    2. The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.
    3. Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work towards complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
    4. The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...a-kim-jong-un-

    However, seasoned analysts point out that agreements related to North Korea's nuclear programme have been signed since the 1990s but not delivered. The previous agreements can be found here-
    https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/arch...he-precedents/

    Again:
    The pledges were vaguely-worded and did not represent an advance on similar agreements between their two countries over past decades.
    “President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong-un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”
    Previous agreements in 1994 and 2005 contained very similar promises, but they broke down over difference of interpretation, and spats over verification.
    Moreover, there is a gulf between the two sides idea of what denuclearisation will meet. The US is pushing for complete North Korean nuclear disarmament as quickly as possible. Pyongyang wants an open-ended process of negotiation in which it is treated as an equal. (Julian Borger in the Guardian link above).

    So far the main difference is that the two leaders have met in person, and that's about it. All the talk about change, the positive words, the invitations are really just that, the devil is in the detail and in particular the extent to which North Korea will either halt, or slow down its nuclear programme, whether it will 'surrender' the war-heads and missiles it has, and whether or not it will allow IAEA inspectors into the country to verify any deals that is signed. In other words, the USA has barely inched toward the kind of deal that was signed with Iran, so why is this 'deal' so much better when it contains so little?

    Not up for discussion is the Human Rights of North Koreans, because as we now know, the USA does not believe in Human Rights, least of all for its own citizens.

    I assume now, that Congress will be asked to recognise North Korea as a separate state, but that raises all sorts of questions about the Korean War, what a peace treaty will contain, and if it means that there will not only now be two Koreas, but that neither will lay claim to the other, which in turn suggests that 're-unification' is off the table for another generation.

    This, so far, has been a major victory for North Korea as the broken-backed, craven, duplicitous USA falls to its knees to beg North Korea to give it some boots to lick, preferably boots coated with the blood of murdered Koreans who dared defy dictatorship in the cause of freedom. There is noting in this agreement that gives the USA anything other than the dead bodies of fallen soldiers and promises that can be broken anytime. In fact, the whole momentum of this process is now with Kim Jong-un who is in the driving seat. The financial dimension of any new relationship with North Korea has yet to be exposed to view, as are the so-called 'security guarantees' that are in the 'new relationship', something that will interest China and Russia.

    One hopes that there will be significant moves to reconcile North and South Korea, as that must be the priority in any peace treaty, but so far, this has been a triumph for one of the most violent and brutal dictatorships in the world with little to offer the free world other than nice words.


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

  7. #57
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    8,598

    Default Re: Murder /Assassination of Kim Jong Nam

    An additional thought: in 1961 China and North Korea signed a bi-lateral defence treaty which contains this clause:

    The Contracting Parties undertake jointly to adopt all measures to prevent aggression against either of the Contracting Parties by any state. In the event of one of the Contracting Parties being subjected to the armed attack by any state or several states jointly and thus being involved in a state of war, the other Contracting Party shall immediately render military and other assistance by all means at its disposal.
    https://thediplomat.com/2017/08/chin...ould-it-apply/

    It is not clear at the moment if a 'security guarantee' reached with the USA will be an addition to the one with China or if North Korea will seek to annul the 1961 agreement. An important interpretation of the agreement conceded that it did not mean China would defend North Korea if North Korea was responsible for any 'first strike', but the issue might relate more to the status of nuclear weapons as North Korea and the USA move to the next stage, to put words on paper that mean something. For example, North Korea could 'surrender' all of its nuclear capability, but still rely on China for nuclear defence, to the extent that North Korea could claim it has removed its nuclear weapons but invite China to park its on North Korean soil. In any case, while this might also mean the US military agreeing not to place nuclear missiles on South Korean territory, China, Russia and the USA all have nuclear submarines in the East Asia region that can fire missiles from international waters, so the nuclear threat may be removed from the Peninsula, but remains miles from it.

    Either way, China's reaction to the defence implications will be interesting to read when it is made.





    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

Similar Threads

  1. The Assassination of JFK
    By Ben in forum Politics and Religion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 10-27-2017, 04:58 AM
  2. The Assassination of JFK
    By Ben in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-07-2013, 11:32 AM
  3. Kim Jong Il is dead
    By MdR Dave in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 12-24-2011, 04:48 AM
  4. Is Kim Jong Il's Son's Head Normal???
    By Dino Velvet in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 12-21-2011, 02:50 PM
  5. Kim Jong Il not dead - found living with trannies
    By GroobySteven in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-20-2011, 04:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •