UN Sactions against NK? Not gonna work (again)...

[SUBMAN1]

Give it 6 months and you'll have France, Russia, and China sneaking weapons sales and other trade sold after the sanctions started.

To this day, most of what kills US troops in Iraq is French made weapons sold under secrecy for the Food for Oil program during the sanctions (even as late as 2000 and 2001). Nice.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/10/16/national/w115405D95.DTL&type=politics

[Coda]

Sanctions = blowing smoke up peoples butts.

They can just get them elsewhere.

Old weapon path:

Country A - Country B - North korea

New weapon path:

Country A - Country X - North Korea


Without a blockade, it's meaningless. You need to fight fire with fire.





Saw a bumper sticker yesterday:

(Picture of nuke mushroom cloud)
Made in America
Tested in Japan
Stop the Enrichment
Or we'll test in Iran

[Konovalov]

To this day, most of what kills US troops in Iraq is French made weapons sold under secrecy for the Food for Oil program during the sanctions (even as late as 2000 and 2001). Nice.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/10/16/national/w115405D95.DTL&type=politics

What is your evidence to back up this claim of yours that most US troop deaths in Iraq are attributable to "French made weapons"?

[SUBMAN1]

To this day, most of what kills US troops in Iraq is French made weapons sold under secrecy for the Food for Oil program during the sanctions (even as late as 2000 and 2001). Nice.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/10/16/national/w115405D95.DTL&type=politics

What is your evidence to back up this claim of yours that most US troop deaths in Iraq are attributable to "French made weapons"?

It only takes about two seconds on Google to find your answers:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040908-123000-1796r.htm

Here is an excerpt from that article. Let me know how many articles you want to read on the subject since Google is reporting tons and tons of them:

Made in France
The war in Iraq, which began March 19, 2003, provided disturbing evidence that France's treacherous dealings come at a steep cost to the United States.

On April 8 came the downing of Air Force Maj. Jim Ewald's A-10 Thunderbolt fighter over Baghdad and the discovery that it was a French-made Roland missile that brought down the American pilot and destroyed a $13 million aircraft. Ewald, one of the first U.S. pilots shot down in the war, was rescued by members of the Army's 54th Engineer Battalion who saw him parachute to earth not far from the wreckage.

Army intelligence concluded that the French had sold the missile to the Iraqis within the past year, despite French denials.

A week after Ewald's A-10 was downed, an Army team searching Iraqi weapons depots at the Baghdad airport discovered caches of French-made missiles. One anti-aircraft missile, among a cache of 51 Roland-2s from a French-German manufacturing partnership, bore a label indicating that the batch was produced just months earlier.

In May, Army intelligence found a stack of blank French passports in an Iraqi ministry, confirming what U.S. intelligence already had determined: The French had helped Iraqi war criminals escape from coalition forces -- and therefore justice.
Then, there were French-made trucks and radios and the deadly grenade launchers, known as RPGs, with French-made night sights. Saddam loyalists used them to kill American soldiers long after the toppling of the dictator's regime.

The intelligence team sent to find Iraqi weapons also discovered documents outlining covert Iraqi weapons procurement leading up to the war. The CIA, however, refused to make public the documents on assistance provided by France or by other so-called allies of the United States.

The clandestine arms-procurement network, disclosed late last year by the Los Angeles Times, put a Syrian trading company in a pivotal role. Documents showed the company, SES International Corp., was the conduit for millions of dollars' worth of weapons purchased internationally, including from France. Al Bashair Trading Co. in Baghdad was the major front used by Saddam to buy arms abroad.

A Defense Department-sponsored report produced in February identified France as one of the top three suppliers of Iraq's conventional arms, after Russia and China. The report revealed that France supplied 12 types of armaments and a total of 115,005 pieces.

A major reason Iraqi militants posed a threat to U.S. forces for so many months was that they had access to weapons that Saddam stockpiled in violation of U.N. resolutions.

[ASWnut101]

And the US did nothing about it....."Aiding and abedding the enemy" is something pointed out in the U.S.'s Terrorist crackdown bill. I see no difference in what the french did to the Iraqis with what Iran did to Hezbollah. is it just me, or do i smell the stinch of a terrorist?:hmm: :nope: :down:

[Coda]

is it just me, or do i smell the stinch of a terrorist?:hmm: :nope: :down:


I smell freedom fries.

[ASWnut101]

and they are smelling really good right now.......

[TteFAboB]

Won't work.

Why don't we read the Versailles treaty again? Hitler could've easily been toppled for disobeying article after article if instead of appeasement and optimism he was faced by an ultimatum.

Now it's just hopeless. There is no alliance. A naval blockade can only take place if the Chinese government agrees with it and they don't.

Let North Koreans continue to starve to death by the millions. Eventually there will be nobody left for Kim to rule.

[ASWnut101]

except his 40 hookers and prostitutes

[SUBMAN1]

Won't work.

Why don't we read the Versailles treaty again? Hitler could've easily been toppled for disobeying article after article if instead of appeasement and optimism he was faced by an ultimatum.

Now it's just hopeless. There is no alliance. A naval blockade can only take place if the Chinese government agrees with it and they don't.

Let North Koreans continue to starve to death by the millions. Eventually there will be nobody left for Kim to rule.

N Korea suffers greatly from Malnorishment. So much so, that it has stunted the growth of the population. A N Korean male that is over 5 feet tall is considered a tall man in their country.

-S

PS. Even Wikipedia reports that they are less than 5' 4":

In contrast, average male height in impoverished Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam) and North Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#_note-1) remains comparatively small at 5 ft 4 in (1.63 m) and 5 ft 5 in (1.65 m) respectively. Currently, young North Korean males are actually significantly shorter.

[Hylander_1314]

Sounds like N. Korea needs Krelm Toothpaste.

[Nightmare]

There was a 9-page article posted up on MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15265432/site/newsweek/) this morning going over the history of the current situation. Here’s some tid bits that I found disturbing:


Under that 1994 pact, Clinton obtained a commitment to freeze plutonium reprocessing in exchange for aid and a civilian nuclear plant. When American experts were finally allowed in to inspect Yongbyon, the center of North Korea's nuclear programs, that year, they could hardly believe their eyes. Inside, the cooling pond looked like an abandoned swimming pool. Above it, a window was broken; a bird's carcass floated on the water. Below a film of algae, underwater cameras revealed metal receptacles—they looked like milk-bottle baskets—at the bottom of the pool containing spent nuclear fuel rods that could be reprocessed to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Some rods were broken, many mired in sludge. Tree leaves and twigs littered the place. Staring at the debris, inspectors suddenly realized that frogs were living in the water.

I’m sure that’s sooo safe. If that’s the situation in their cooling pools, I’d hate see what the rest of their nuclear facilities are like.


The human costs of North Korea's nuclear ambitions on the nation's best and brightest were terrible. Few paid a higher price than Kimchaek University's class of '62, according to a grad who defected from North Korea several years ago and told NEWSWEEK his story. As graduation at the elite college neared more than 40 years ago, the buzz on campus was that Kim Il Sung had ordered construction of an advanced research facility to study atomic energy, and that patriotic young scientists soon would be mobilized to work there. "Our professors really pushed the need for nuclear development," he recalls. "The rumor circulating among students was that those of us sent there wouldn't have long to live."

The defector, spared the fate of those assigned to nuclear labs, spent his adult life watching unlucky classmates grow sick, weak and despondent. On leave, one confided a Confucian desperation to marry and sire children before radiation rendered him sterile. "It was exactly what we feared," the defector says, still saddened by their sacrifice. "These guys went bald. Many of them lost their eyebrows. Some of them had constant nosebleeds. They looked so weak it was hard to even face them. The thinking was, 'If one scientist falls there will always be others to take his place'." That logic not only ravaged a generation of scientists sent like worker bees into toxic nuclear labs. It cost billions in hard currency that might have fed starving people and hobbled the national economy by imposing perpetual austerity under slogans like "Military first."

Not only do they starve their own people, but also subject the “brains” of their country to near lethal dose of radiation developing the one thing they want. I don’t know about anyone else but that sounds insane to me.

[Ducimus]

I like to think of the sanctions as a token gesture.

edit:
Just my opinion, all told, Bush really F**ked up by the numbers when it comes to North Korea.

[Konovalov]

To this day, most of what kills US troops in Iraq is French made weapons sold under secrecy for the Food for Oil program during the sanctions (even as late as 2000 and 2001). Nice.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/10/16/national/w115405D95.DTL&type=politics

What is your evidence to back up this claim of yours that most US troop deaths in Iraq are attributable to "French made weapons"?

It only takes about two seconds on Google to find your answers:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040908-123000-1796r.htm

Here is an excerpt from that article. Let me know how many articles you want to read on the subject since Google is reporting tons and tons of them:

Made in France
The war in Iraq, which began March 19, 2003, provided disturbing evidence that France's treacherous dealings come at a steep cost to the United States.

On April 8 came the downing of Air Force Maj. Jim Ewald's A-10 Thunderbolt fighter over Baghdad and the discovery that it was a French-made Roland missile that brought down the American pilot and destroyed a $13 million aircraft. Ewald, one of the first U.S. pilots shot down in the war, was rescued by members of the Army's 54th Engineer Battalion who saw him parachute to earth not far from the wreckage.

Army intelligence concluded that the French had sold the missile to the Iraqis within the past year, despite French denials.

A week after Ewald's A-10 was downed, an Army team searching Iraqi weapons depots at the Baghdad airport discovered caches of French-made missiles. One anti-aircraft missile, among a cache of 51 Roland-2s from a French-German manufacturing partnership, bore a label indicating that the batch was produced just months earlier.

In May, Army intelligence found a stack of blank French passports in an Iraqi ministry, confirming what U.S. intelligence already had determined: The French had helped Iraqi war criminals escape from coalition forces -- and therefore justice.
Then, there were French-made trucks and radios and the deadly grenade launchers, known as RPGs, with French-made night sights. Saddam loyalists used them to kill American soldiers long after the toppling of the dictator's regime.

The intelligence team sent to find Iraqi weapons also discovered documents outlining covert Iraqi weapons procurement leading up to the war. The CIA, however, refused to make public the documents on assistance provided by France or by other so-called allies of the United States.

The clandestine arms-procurement network, disclosed late last year by the Los Angeles Times, put a Syrian trading company in a pivotal role. Documents showed the company, SES International Corp., was the conduit for millions of dollars' worth of weapons purchased internationally, including from France. Al Bashair Trading Co. in Baghdad was the major front used by Saddam to buy arms abroad.

A Defense Department-sponsored report produced in February identified France as one of the top three suppliers of Iraq's conventional arms, after Russia and China. The report revealed that France supplied 12 types of armaments and a total of 115,005 pieces.

A major reason Iraqi militants posed a threat to U.S. forces for so many months was that they had access to weapons that Saddam stockpiled in violation of U.N. resolutions.

Firstly your statement said that "most of what kills US troops in Iraq" is as a result of French made weapons. By saying most, you imply that over half or a majority of all US deaths in Iraq are due to French supplied arms. I have looked at this article and others linking French weapons to Iraq and I fail to see how you can extrapolate from these links your claim that "most of what kills US troops in Iraq is French made weapons."

The Pentagon has admitted that over half of US combat casualties in Iraq are attributable to IED's otherwise known as roadside bombs. This is well documented and accepted as fact. However I haven't seen anything to suggest be it from newspapers or from official Governement channels such as the US DOD that "most" US soldiers killed in Iraq are courtesy of French made weapons. Even in the article that you have cited here the US Defence Department revealed in a report "France as one of the top three suppliers of Iraq's conventional arms, after Russia and China." The report put France at number three on the list behind Russia and China in terms of arms providers to Iraq.

I can only conclude that your principal assertion that "most of what kills US troops in Iraq is French made weapons" is at best misleading if not false and untrue. I would accept that some US soldiers have probably been killed by Iraqi insurgents with French made weapons but for you to claim that "most" US soldiers are killed by French weapons is nothing but a gross exageration on your part. Can you please either amend your claim or provide some hard data to back up your assertion?

[SUBMAN1]

To this day, most of what kills US troops in Iraq is French made weapons sold under secrecy for the Food for Oil program during the sanctions (even as late as 2000 and 2001). Nice.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/10/16/national/w115405D95.DTL&type=politics

What is your evidence to back up this claim of yours that most US troop deaths in Iraq are attributable to "French made weapons"?

It only takes about two seconds on Google to find your answers:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040908-123000-1796r.htm

Here is an excerpt from that article. Let me know how many articles you want to read on the subject since Google is reporting tons and tons of them:

Made in France
The war in Iraq, which began March 19, 2003, provided disturbing evidence that France's treacherous dealings come at a steep cost to the United States.

On April 8 came the downing of Air Force Maj. Jim Ewald's A-10 Thunderbolt fighter over Baghdad and the discovery that it was a French-made Roland missile that brought down the American pilot and destroyed a $13 million aircraft. Ewald, one of the first U.S. pilots shot down in the war, was rescued by members of the Army's 54th Engineer Battalion who saw him parachute to earth not far from the wreckage.

Army intelligence concluded that the French had sold the missile to the Iraqis within the past year, despite French denials.

A week after Ewald's A-10 was downed, an Army team searching Iraqi weapons depots at the Baghdad airport discovered caches of French-made missiles. One anti-aircraft missile, among a cache of 51 Roland-2s from a French-German manufacturing partnership, bore a label indicating that the batch was produced just months earlier.

In May, Army intelligence found a stack of blank French passports in an Iraqi ministry, confirming what U.S. intelligence already had determined: The French had helped Iraqi war criminals escape from coalition forces -- and therefore justice.
Then, there were French-made trucks and radios and the deadly grenade launchers, known as RPGs, with French-made night sights. Saddam loyalists used them to kill American soldiers long after the toppling of the dictator's regime.

The intelligence team sent to find Iraqi weapons also discovered documents outlining covert Iraqi weapons procurement leading up to the war. The CIA, however, refused to make public the documents on assistance provided by France or by other so-called allies of the United States.

The clandestine arms-procurement network, disclosed late last year by the Los Angeles Times, put a Syrian trading company in a pivotal role. Documents showed the company, SES International Corp., was the conduit for millions of dollars' worth of weapons purchased internationally, including from France. Al Bashair Trading Co. in Baghdad was the major front used by Saddam to buy arms abroad.

A Defense Department-sponsored report produced in February identified France as one of the top three suppliers of Iraq's conventional arms, after Russia and China. The report revealed that France supplied 12 types of armaments and a total of 115,005 pieces.

A major reason Iraqi militants posed a threat to U.S. forces for so many months was that they had access to weapons that Saddam stockpiled in violation of U.N. resolutions.

Firstly your statement said that "most of what kills US troops in Iraq" is as a result of French made weapons. By saying most, you imply that over half or a majority of all US deaths in Iraq are due to French supplied arms. I have looked at this article and others linking French weapons to Iraq and I fail to see how you can extrapolate from these links your claim that "most of what kills US troops in Iraq is French made weapons."

The Pentagon has admitted that over half of US combat casualties in Iraq are attributable to IED's otherwise known as roadside bombs. This is well documented and accepted as fact. However I haven't seen anything to suggest be it from newspapers or from official Governement channels such as the US DOD that "most" US soldiers killed in Iraq are courtesy of French made weapons. Even in the article that you have cited here the US Defence Department revealed in a report "France as one of the top three suppliers of Iraq's conventional arms, after Russia and China." The report put France at number three on the list behind Russia and China in terms of arms providers to Iraq.

I can only conclude that your principal assertion that "most of what kills US troops in Iraq is French made weapons" is at best misleading if not false and untrue. I would accept that some US soldiers have probably been killed by Iraqi insurgents with French made weapons but for you to claim that "most" US soldiers are killed by French weapons is nothing but a gross exageration on your part. Can you please either amend your claim or provide some hard data to back up your assertion?

Have you looked at what thos IED's are made out of? French made weapons dismanteled. Go look at some of the video on the net and see for yourself.

-S

[Konovalov]

Have you looked at what thos IED's are made out of? French made weapons dismanteled. Go look at some of the video on the net and see for yourself.

-S

I am aware that IED's are made from artillery shells and other explosive components. After all it was the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets who used this tactic to such devastating effect which resulted in the Soviets changing tactics and being "base-bound."

But let's no get side-tracked. Back to the issue at hand.

Are you now going to tell me that all the IED attacks are courtesy of french weapons? You are really starting to stretch things here. Again I ask the simple question, where is your evidence to support your central claim? Why can't you just answer the question and back up your claim?

[tycho102]

is it just me, or do i smell the stinch of a terrorist?:hmm: :nope: :down:

I smell freedom fries.
Would you like some tater tots to go with that order of freedom fries, sir?


This one will be like the Iran-Contra affair, except it'll be Iran-NK-France. France will ship ballistic guidance systems (mainly the star-checks) to NK, NK will ship their outdated ballistic missile designs to Iran, and Iran will ship oil to France and NK, as well as a hefty little multi-million dollar check to politican's Swiss bank accounts.

Dude, the UN is totally awesome. Precision operation.

[The Avon Lady]

Encore! Encore! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061017/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear;_ylt=ApYBERdt2ocmwzrP6ACPPICs0NUE;_ ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

[Ducimus]

Encore! Encore! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061017/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear;_ylt=ApYBERdt2ocmwzrP6ACPPICs0NUE;_ ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

The road to war is being paved. Joy.

[ASWnut101]

time to dust of the old GAU-12! im gunna enjoy being in the US military.....

[SUBMAN1]

Have you looked at what thos IED's are made out of? French made weapons dismanteled. Go look at some of the video on the net and see for yourself.

-S

I am aware that IED's are made from artillery shells and other explosive components. After all it was the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets who used this tactic to such devastating effect which resulted in the Soviets changing tactics and being "base-bound."

But let's no get side-tracked. Back to the issue at hand.

Are you now going to tell me that all the IED attacks are courtesy of french weapons? You are really starting to stretch things here. Again I ask the simple question, where is your evidence to support your central claim? Why can't you just answer the question and back up your claim?

I'm not getting side tracked, but you are by twisting the issue. The issue is the French made weapons - all 115 thousand of them sold after the year 2000 and it doesn't matter since it is not US made weapons blowing up our troops. The Russian and Chineese weapons, though effective, are not doing as good a job - seems the French know what they are doing. Matter fact, I am a bit confused as to what you are getting at since what I think you are trying to say is no US troops are getting killed by French made weapons...??? :down: Welcome to reality. Search google and you will find thousands of pages telling you otherwise. Or you can play osterich and bury your head in the sand and try to continue bringing up baseless points. Choice is yours, but I find your arguments are getting boring.

Can someone pass the ketchup for my Freedom fries???

-S

[Konovalov]

Have you looked at what thos IED's are made out of? French made weapons dismanteled. Go look at some of the video on the net and see for yourself.

-S

I am aware that IED's are made from artillery shells and other explosive components. After all it was the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets who used this tactic to such devastating effect which resulted in the Soviets changing tactics and being "base-bound."

But let's no get side-tracked. Back to the issue at hand.

Are you now going to tell me that all the IED attacks are courtesy of french weapons? You are really starting to stretch things here. Again I ask the simple question, where is your evidence to support your central claim? Why can't you just answer the question and back up your claim?

I'm not getting side tracked, but you are by twisting the issue.

No, not at all. I just asked a very simple question to which you have not even remotely addressed or answered. You are a Subsim member, not a politician. Why can't you just answer my question?

Matter fact, I am a bit confused as to what you are getting at

Please look back at post #3 on this thread for my question. In your first post #1 you made the below highlighted central claim:

To this day, most of what kills US troops in Iraq is French made weapons

In response to your claim I asked the following straight forward question in post #3:

What is your evidence to back up this claim of yours that most US troop deaths in Iraq are attributable to "French made weapons"?

since what I think you are trying to say is no US troops are getting killed by French made weapons...??? :down: Welcome to reality.

I never said nor did I imply any such thing. In fact from post #14 of this thread I said:

I would accept that some US soldiers have probably been killed by Iraqi insurgents with French made weapons

So please, can you answer my very simple question with regards to your central claim? That question was as copied from post #3:

To this day, most of what kills US troops in Iraq is French made weapons sold under secrecy for the Food for Oil program during the sanctions (even as late as 2000 and 2001). Nice.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/10/16/national/w115405D95.DTL&type=politics

What is your evidence to back up this claim of yours that most US troop deaths in Iraq are attributable to "French made weapons"?

I await your answer.

[The Avon Lady]

Subman, Konovalov is simply arguing about your use of the word "most" - not about the fact that large amounts of French weaponry have made it into Iraqi terrorist hands.

EDIT: Konovalov, I feel your pains of frustration. :yep:

[SUBMAN1]

Subman, Konovalov is simply arguing about your use of the word "most" - not about the fact that large amounts of French weaponry have made it into Iraqi terrorist hands.

EDIT: Konovalov, I feel your pains of frustration. :yep:

If this is what we are arguing about, then what the hell are we even having an argument for then? THis is stupid. Sorry, I do not know if a Russian weapon or a French weapon is going to be used today. Maybe I should reword that to say the French weapons seem to be the most effective then and leave it at that.

My whole claim here has nothing to do with what is going to be used today, but the simple fact that France, Russia, and China sold all those damn things into Iraq and how N Korea sanctions won't be effective when you have countries willing to ignore them. THis is an act of terrorism in my mind. THat is the whole point of this thread. This argument about the word 'most' is totally off base and is hijacking the whole thread. It's pointless to argue it as I say above and really don't want to further the conversation on it. So the point of that is, stay on point please.

Thanks,

-S

[Konovalov]

Subman, Konovalov is simply arguing about your use of the word "most" - not about the fact that large amounts of French weaponry have made it into Iraqi terrorist hands.

EDIT: Konovalov, I feel your pains of frustration. :yep:

If this is what we are arguing about, then what the hell are we even having an argument for then? THis is stupid. Sorry, I do not know if a Russian weapon or a French weapon is going to be used today. Maybe I should reword that to say the French weapons seem to be the most effective then and leave it at that.

My whole claim here has nothing to do with what is going to be used today, but the simple fact that France, Russia, and China sold all those damn things into Iraq and how N Korea sanctions won't be effective when you have countries willing to ignore them. THis is an act of terrorism in my mind. THat is the whole point of this thread. This argument about the word 'most' is totally off base and is hijacking the whole thread. It's pointless to argue it as I say above and really don't want to further the conversation on it. So the point of that is, stay on point please.

Thanks,

-S

If you had of simply answered my question then it wouldn't have come to this. Others here have understood exactly what I was asking. My guess is that you became so defensive from my questioning and as a result completely missed the question I was asking you.

As for your claims of "totally off base" and "hijacking the whole thread" claims, well that is just pure BS and sour grapes on your part. I asked a legitimate question to a claim in your post. Next time just answer the question and you will save yourself a lot of grief.

[SUBMAN1]

Subman, Konovalov is simply arguing about your use of the word "most" - not about the fact that large amounts of French weaponry have made it into Iraqi terrorist hands.

EDIT: Konovalov, I feel your pains of frustration. :yep:
If this is what we are arguing about, then what the hell are we even having an argument for then? THis is stupid. Sorry, I do not know if a Russian weapon or a French weapon is going to be used today. Maybe I should reword that to say the French weapons seem to be the most effective then and leave it at that.

My whole claim here has nothing to do with what is going to be used today, but the simple fact that France, Russia, and China sold all those damn things into Iraq and how N Korea sanctions won't be effective when you have countries willing to ignore them. THis is an act of terrorism in my mind. THat is the whole point of this thread. This argument about the word 'most' is totally off base and is hijacking the whole thread. It's pointless to argue it as I say above and really don't want to further the conversation on it. So the point of that is, stay on point please.

Thanks,

-S
If you had of simply answered my question then it wouldn't have come to this. Others here have understood exactly what I was asking. My guess is that you became so defensive from my questioning and as a result completely missed the question I was asking you.

As for your claims of "totally off base" and "hijacking the whole thread" claims, well that is just pure BS and sour grapes on your part. I asked a legitimate question to a claim in your post. Next time just answer the question and you will save yourself a lot of grief.

No, you are wrong, and I apologize for not seeing what you were asking. All I saw was a thread going off subject. Maybe others that read it vs those that are in the conversation see things differently. I quite frankly didn't know what you were getting at or where you were going. THat was the problem.

By the way, you would know if I was being defensive. :)

And yes, this hijacked the whole thread for some minor tidbit.

-S

[The Avon Lady]

And yes, this hijacked the whole thread for some minor tidbit.
Gizzmoe, here's your chance to delete a page and a half of useless posts. :yep:

[Gizzmoe]

Gizzmoe, here's your chance to delete a page and a half of useless posts. :yep:
w0000t!!! Oh my, I´m getting excited! :yep:

Nah, I won´t delete anything, I don´t even know where I should start. :doh:

[fredbass]

Ok, I'll get it back on topic. :roll:

The sanction will work because one of two things are going to happen as a result.

Here's my prediction: Kim isn't afraid to sacrifice his people. He has no intention of abandoning his current policy. The only ones that have enough influence to have him change without violence is China. If they put the pressure on N.K., then the situation will improve. If not, then there will be military action against N.K. in some form.

Either way, North Korea will have to submit because I see no significant benefit for China to back N.K. with their military. At this point in time, China needs us a lot more than they need N.K. (IMO)

[SUBMAN1]

Ok, I'll get it back on topic. :roll:

The sanction will work because one of two things are going to happen as a result.

Here's my prediction: Kim isn't afraid to sacrifice his people. He has no intention of abandoning his current policy. The only ones that have enough influence to have him change without violence is China. If they put the pressure on N.K., then the situation will improve. If not, then there will be military action against N.K. in some form.

Either way, North Korea will have to submit because I see no significant benefit for China to back N.K. with their military. At this point in time, China needs us a lot more than they need N.K. (IMO)

If Kim isn't afraid of sacrificing his people, then how can sanctions work? If China still sells its weapons in their (since I am convinced they think they are above the UN and can do anything they want), then how can it work?

-S

[fredbass]

If Kim isn't afraid of sacrificing his people, then how can sanctions work? If China still sells its weapons in their (since I am convinced they think they are above the UN and can do anything they want), then how can it work?

-S

Look, China has sold them weapons for decades already. Do you think it would be better for China if we attack N.K.? The answer is no. They will only listen to China or destruction. (IMO)

So what I'm saying is that China or N.K. is going to flinch first. The sanctions will eventually begin to hurt N.K. enough that somebody will do something.

[SUBMAN1]

If Kim isn't afraid of sacrificing his people, then how can sanctions work? If China still sells its weapons in their (since I am convinced they think they are above the UN and can do anything they want), then how can it work?

-S
Look, China has sold them weapons for decades already. Do you think it would be better for China if we attack N.K.? The answer is no. They will only listen to China or destruction. (IMO)

Either way, the sanctions are forcing the hand, one way or another.

I don't see sanctions having the slightest affect on them. No one deals much with them already anyway unless they are looking at buying a gun.

-S

[fredbass]

I don't see sanctions having the slightest affect on them. No one deals much with them already anyway unless they are looking at buying a gun.

-SThat's why I only referred to China since they are the only country that helps them enough to make a difference.

[SUBMAN1]

I don't see sanctions having the slightest affect on them. No one deals much with them already anyway unless they are looking at buying a gun.

-SThat's why I only referred to China since they are the only country that helps them enough to make a difference.

China is the main importer, thats for sure:

Exports

$1.044 billion (f.o.b., 2003 est.)
Exports commodities include minerals (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Mineral), metallurgical products, manufactures (including armaments); agricultural and fishery products.
The main export partners are South Korea (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/South_Korea) 28.5%, China (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/China) 28.4%, Japan (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Japan) 24.7%. (2003 est.)
[edit (http://www.subsim.com/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_North_Korea&action=edit&section=16)]
[/URL]
Imports

$2.042 billion (c.i.f., 2002 est.)
The main import commodities include: [URL="http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Petroleum"]petroleum (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/), coking coal (http://www.subsim.com/w/index.php?title=Coking_coal&action=edit), machinery (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Machinery) and equipment; consumer goods and grain (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Cereal).
The main imports partners are: China (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/China) 39.7%, Thailand (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Thailand) 14.6%, Japan (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Japan) 11.2%, Germany (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Germany) 7.6%, South Korea (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/South_Korea) 6.2%, Vietnam (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Vietnam), and Cuba (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Cuba). (2002 est.)