North Korea, Sanctions, and Kim Jong-un

[Johnnypenso]

To be fair though, you are the same person who dismissed the opinions of named experts on the basis of them being people. So I'm not sure you are perhaps the person who is most suited to lay criticisms to sources.

To be fair though, people question sources all the time. Sources both named and anonymous have proven to be incorrect, misleading or outright wrong in the past. Your suggesting I'm not the person most suited to lay criticisms to sources sounds an awfully lot like trying to tell me what I can and can't post about.

 

[baldgye]

To be fair though, people question sources all the time. Sources both named and anonymous have proven to be incorrect, misleading or outright wrong in the past. Your suggesting I'm not the person most suited to lay criticisms to sources sounds an awfully lot like trying to tell me what I can and can't post about.

I'm simply suggesting your opinion, as a person, isn't very valid or pertinent in this situation. The same argument you used against Korean experts when talking about Korea.
The problem you seem to have is you make sweeping nonsensical statements about things you don't like, but don't like it when those same arguments are used against points you make.

 

[Imari]

North Korea can take all of that 1950s through 1980s artillery and fire it at once...

For one, they've been building nuclear missiles. I think they're probably capable of doing some minor upgrades to their basic artillery.

For two, I think people tend to underestimate how little warfare is about what you're using and how much it is about how it's used. An F-117 stealth fighter was shot down in 1999 with an SA-3, a missile system that was nearly 40 years old and considered "obsolete" against then current stealth technology.

Obviously this doesn't always apply, but it's dangerous to write a country off as not a threat simply because they only have access to 1980s vintage tech. Military technology moves surprisingly slowly, and 1980s tech is pretty current still. NK is never going to beat the US in a shooting war, but I think people would be surprised at how much of a fight they could put up. Look at how difficult stuff like Iraq and Afghanistan were.

This assumes that they don't get the backing of Russia or China before any such strike and are therefore equipped with modern equipment. But I doubt you'll see NK strike first. There's no advantage in it for them. The US will be the one to start the war, if it happens.

 

[Scaff]

Satellite images are usually bulletproof. Except when they're not.

I'm literally doing exactly that, discussing it. In fact, I'm doing what you usually do, I'm questioning the sources of the information. Odd that you would start to question my desire to diminish the discussion when I'm doing the very thing you do quite often. Perhaps you don't like your completely anonymous, nameless "sources" being questioned?

I'm also getting ahead of the curve. If Trump decides to act in some way on these supposedly incriminating satellite images, this forum will be filled with references to Iraq and the WMD's.

Which is why 38 North use commercial available satellite images, and have a proven track record when it comes to accuracy, but feel free to dismiss it simply because it doesn't fit the narrative you've invested in.

I wholeheartedly agree that all sources should be treated with a degree of caution, but to dismiss them out of had without doing even the most basic of checks on the source goes beyond that and starts to bang on the door of becoming a NK apologist simply because it doesn't support Trumps narrative.

No, it needs to be comparable. You can bring up all the examples that you want of the Soviet/Russian government rolling into weaker areas and punking them and taking whatever they want while the UN and US stand with stern faces but ultimately do nothing even though they pledged they'd help because Russia has nukes and nobody wants to rock the boat. There's probably quite a bit of truth to it behind the scenes; and it probably also applies to the times the US has done the same thing. South Korea is still a significantly more powerful country than even the Ukraine, with significantly closer ties to the United States and significantly more importance on the world's stage; and North Korea is a significantly weaker country than probably even immediate-post-collapse Russia was. Not only is South Korea's humongous and fully modern standing army camped along the DMZ very likely the principle deterrent for North Korea trying to roll in and unite the country again, it would probably even make the Russian boogeyman take a long pause before directly backing an invasion to the end of the peninsula. To act as those things don't matter much compared to the US not having bases in the country sounds more than a bit like the things Bush supporters pushed throughout his presidency to justify spreading freedom, and I wasn't much of a fan of it then.

They are comparable, your arguing that they need to be almost exactly the same to be compared, they don't.

North Korea can take all of that 1950s through 1980s artillery and fire it at once, and hope that a shock and awe Zerg rush surprise attack works to butrress an invasion into a country with its own very large and most-probably-more-powerful military, and that China/Russia directly backs their play without drawing the ire of Russia/China, and the US decides to sit idly by on their aircraft carriers already sitting in that ocean and their numerous bases already on that adjacent island after theoretically leaving the peninsula, and that the countries in the UN that like to meddle around with their militaries also decide to just ignore it; because otherwise (but honestly probably even then) North Korea would not have much more than one chance to do it right before most-to-all of it is destroyed in response. Maybe it will work out a bit better than when the US turned its steely military gaze over the objections of a good chunk of the world onto the handfuls of working Soviet equipment Iraq had which hadn't already been blown up twenty years prior, carpet bombed the hell out of it and then got stuck there for nearly a decade trying to put down a region increasingly incensed to western military presence before giving up and leaving the country to descend into civil war.

Odd that you've missed out the one key factor that changes all of the above. NK has nuclear weaponry that has the capability to reach the US.

Oh and that old school artillery, you do know where the majority of that is pointed?

However the one factor that is a wild card is Trump himself, under whom the Pentagon has changed its (decades old) mission statement away from preventing war, to sustaining American influence abroad.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm simply suggesting your opinion, as a person, isn't very valid or pertinent in this situation. The same argument you used against Korean experts when talking about Korea.
The problem you seem to have is you make sweeping nonsensical statements about things you don't like, but don't like it when those same arguments are used against points you make.

That's a complete fallacy. If you had bothered to follow the conversation instead of just jumping in out of context you'd see that my initial objection taking a single person's post on Twitter and presenting it as representing people who live, work and analyze Korea. Once again, if it were a single person on Twitter agreeing with Trump this forum would be filled with links and quotes and that so called expert's entire political history debunking everything they ever said wrong, on top of numerous condemnations of the notion that a single person could possibly represent the views of an entire group when that person is not an elected or appointed leader of any such group.

So this Twitter user represents people who live, work and analyze in Korea? Bit of a stretch.

It's a single person's opinion that you seem to think represents something more than a single person's opinion. Bit of a stretch like I said. I believe it's called the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Slice it any way you like, characterizing a single opinion as representing " those who live, work and analyis Korea for a living", is a classic example of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

It's easy to see I'm only questioning the posting of a single person's opinion as representing that entire group of people who live, work and analyze Korea.

 

[Scaff]

And now Trumps started to say that it's possible the NK deal may not work out (but of course the one source that was many - you know what I mean, and the 38 North source were all wrong).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/01/trump-north-korea-nuclear-deal-may-not-work-out

 

[baldgye]

It's easy to see I'm only questioning the posting of a single person's opinion as representing that entire group of people who live, work and analyze Korea.

Yeah, the opinion of an expert.

Spoiler

you realise you can have a job description which would be to analyse an entire group of people, how they live and work?

That single expert shared the opinion of many other experts that where posted after your comments. Your stance didn’t change and your point was still invalid.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yeah, the opinion of an expert.

Spoiler

you realise you can have a job description which would be to analyse an entire group of people, how they live and work?

That single expert shared the opinion of many other experts that where posted after your comments. Your stance didn’t change and your point was still invalid.

Why would my stance need to change? My stance was that one "expert" doesn't represent all people who live, work and analyze Korea. Bringing other "expert" opinions into it doesn't change that in any way. The point is entirely valid on it's face.


Second Trump-Kim Summit in the works for NY?

This morning, Axios reports that a second summit with Kim Jong Un may already be in the plan for President Donald Trump, and could happen as early as this September. Citing “administration officials”, the report indicates that the administration is eyeing NYC during the time when the U.N. General Assembly will be underway. The officials tell Axios that Kim would have to show “progress” between now and then for the meeting to occur. Over the weekend, the news broke that North Korea has actually expanded its program since the first summit, with new construction on a key missile-manufacturing site.

 

[Scaff]

Why would my stance need to change? My stance was that one "expert" doesn't represent all people who live, work and analyze Korea. Bringing other "expert" opinions into it doesn't change that in any way. The point is entirely valid on it's face.


Second Trump-Kim Summit in the works for NY?

Hold on a second what happened to your positions of ''you know what I mean" and dismissing unsourced material (“administration officials”)?

Not to mention your now citing articles about NK not scaling back, when you were dismissing them as potentially missleading a few days ago.

Oh and you're yet to discredit the claims made by said expert and the others that supported it. Instead still focusing on a pointless distraction that you discredited yourself with your own cry if "you know what I mean".

Pigeon chess springs to mind.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Hold on a second what happened to your positions of ''you know what I mean" and dismissing unsourced material (“administration officials”)?

Not to mention your now citing articles about NK not scaling back, when you were dismissing them as potentially missleading a few days ago.

Oh and you're yet to discredit the claims made by said expert and the others that supported it. Instead still focusing on a pointless distraction that you discredited yourself with your own cry if "you know what I mean".

Pigeon chess springs to mind.

You're losing the plot. I posted an article and quoted the content, nothing more. I'm not making any claims as to the validity of the article, the information contained in the article, the capability of anyone quoted, saying the person in the article is an expert that represents an entire group of people, saying Axios is a reliable source or anything else. You're looking for something that isn't there.

 

[Scaff]

You're losing the plot. I posted an article and quoted the content, nothing more. I'm not making any claims as to the validity of the article, the information contained in the article, the capability of anyone quoted, saying the person in the article is an expert that represents an entire group of people, saying Axios is a reliable source or anything else. You're looking for something that isn't there.

You mean exactly as I did in regard to the claim by 38 North and administration sources in regard to NK not cutting back on production. Which you then used Colin Powell as an example to try and dismiss?

Oh and in regard to the analyst, to use your own words "you know what I mean", and I repeat the point that you have focused on an absurd literal take on it (a point you complained about when the same standard was applied to yourself), and you have still failed to refute any of the points he made.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You mean exactly as I did in regard to the claim by 38 North and administration sources in regard to NK not cutting back on production. Which you then used Colin Powell as an example to try and dismiss?

Oh and in regard to the analyst, to use your own words "you know what I mean", and I repeat the point that you have focused on an absurd literal take on it (a point you complained about when the same standard was applied to yourself), and you have still failed to refute any of the points he made.

If taking what you wrote in plain English is taking an absurd literal take on it then I guess I'm guilty of that. I will keep in mind then that you are throwing open your posts for others to interpret your words as non-literal.

 

[Scaff]

If taking what you wrote in plain English is taking an absurd literal take on it then I guess I'm guilty of that. I will keep in mind then that you are throwing open your posts for others to interpret your words as non-literal.

I quite clearly clarified my point in a number of following posts, yet you remain absurdly focused on that point. Yet you have still failed to address any of the points the analyst actually raised.

Yet when you do the same it was accepted, yet you still hypocritically return back to a point that has already been clarified.

You expect a consideration to be given to you that you refuse to extend to me.

Don't expect me to ignore that.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I quite clearly clarified my point in a number of following posts, yet you remain absurdly focused on that point. Yet you have still failed to address any of the points the analyst actually raised.

Yet when you do the same it was accepted, yet you still hypocritically return back to a point that has already been clarified.

You expect a consideration to be given to you that you refuse to extend to me.

Don't expect me to ignore that.

We'll have to agree to disagree and move along.

 

[TexRex]

 

[Rallywagon]

It would be really good if we could move past this... please?

 

[Johnnypenso]

It would be really good if we could move past this... please?

Already done mate:tup:👍

 

[Scaff]

Seems NK aren't happy with the US stance.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/395925-north-korea-says-talks-with-pompeo-regrettable-report

 

[Johnnypenso]

Seems NK aren't happy with the US stance.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/395925-north-korea-says-talks-with-pompeo-regrettable-report

Seems we haven't quite learned the value of "unnamed spokesman" yet. Curious that you don't seem to take any issue with these words being contained in the same article:

"North Korea is reportedly criticizing talks...", and:

"An unnamed spokesman for the North Korean Foreign Ministry in a statement accused the U.S...."

As if North Korea and it's political positions are represented by an unnamed spokesman.. I thought I had accidentally wandered into a Breitbart article I guess literally any little tidbit, no matter how tenuous and anonymous, is enough to confirm the sky is falling.

 

[Scaff]

Seems we haven't quite learned the value of "unnamed spokesman" yet. Curious that you don't seem to take any issue with these words being contained in the same article:

"North Korea is reportedly criticizing talks...", and:

"An unnamed spokesman for the North Korean Foreign Ministry in a statement accused the U.S...."

As if North Korea and it's political positions are represented by an unnamed spokesman.. I guess literally any little tidbit, no matter how tenuous and anonymous, is enough to confirm the sky is falling.

I well aware of the meaning of it, did I present it as anything other that what it is ( was the use of the words seems to complex)?

Nope, but keep going, you fan-fictions amusing.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I well aware of the meaning of it, did I present it as anything other that what it is?

Nope, but keep going, you fan-fictions amusing.

Seems NK aren't happy with the US stance.

That's your summation of the article. Even a passing glance at it reveals this is absolutely false. But if you're saying that it's ok to simply throw up the gist of an article verbatim, without actually reading it and figuring out the facts for yourself, and that's an acceptable defense when it turns out to be hocus pocus instead of admitting you didn't do your full research, I'll keep that in mind for future reference.

 

[Scaff]

That's your summation of the article. Even a passing glance at it reveals this is absolutely false.

Really?

Absolutely false is a rather strong term, given your stance of a few minutes ago in another thread I do hope you can support that.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Really?

Absolutely false is a rather strong term, given your stance of a few minutes ago in another thread I do hope you can support that.

An "anonymous" official doesn't represent the offical stance of the government of NK. Representing that he or she does is blatantly false on it's face.

 

[Scaff]

An "anonymous" official doesn't represent the offical stance of the government of NK. Representing that he or she does is blatantly false on it's face.

It wasn't anonymous at all, it was from the NK foreign ministry, the spokesman simply didn't give his name.

Nothing anonymous about it, rather it's from an NK statement.

https://apnews.com/628db42343bf402fa69f0500644a7293

Anonymous is a term you have quite frankly just added inacuratly, multiple sources are saying it's from a NK government statement.

"The statement, issued Saturday by an unnamed spokesman and shared by the state-run Korea Central News Agency,...."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a06324-8175-4589-bf08-def6e56aa962_story.html

So you just falsely accused me of lying, I hope that's something you intend to correct rather quickly.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It wasn't anonymous at all, it was from the NK foreign ministry, the spokesman simply didn't give his name.

Nothing anonymous about it, rather it's from an NK statement.

https://apnews.com/628db42343bf402fa69f0500644a7293

Anonymous is a term you have quite frankly just added inacuratly, multiple sources are saying it's from a NK government statement.

"The statement, issued Saturday by an unnamed spokesman and shared by the state-run Korea Central News Agency,...."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a06324-8175-4589-bf08-def6e56aa962_story.html

So you just falsely accused me of lying, I hope that's something you intend to correct rather quickly.

a·non·y·mous
əˈnänəməs/
adjective

1. (of a person) not identified by name; of unknown name.

An anonymous source, shared by the KCNA, a state run news agency of the most secretive, communist dictatorship on the planet. Sounds perfectly legit, we should just call off the talks now and gas up the navy.

 

[TenEightyOne]

a·non·y·mous
əˈnänəməs/
adjective

1. (of a person) not identified by name; of unknown name.

A statement from the White House Press Office would be anonymous if you were to apply that (utterly erroneous) logic. You don't have to know the name of the staffer - you just have to know the name of the body that released the information. You have a name therefore it literally, etymologically is not anonymous.

 

[Johnnypenso]

A statement from the White House Press Office would be anonymous if you were to apply that (utterly erroneous) logic. You don't have to know the name of the staffer - you just have to know the name of the body that released the information. You have a name therefore it literally, etymologically is not anonymous.

If you don't know someone's name they are anonymous by definition. The body that released the information is the state run news agency of the most secretive communist dictatorship on the planet.

Guaranteed, if the roles were reversed, and I was saying that North Korea was very happy with the negotiations and North Korea were sure to be disarmed by Christmas based on a single statement from an unnamed source in the state run news agency of North Korea, I'd be laughed off the O&CE Forum. The usual suspects would be flooding the thread with memes and jokes. I guess it's different when the anonymous sources working for the communist dictator who shoots people he doesn't like, are against Trump.

 

[TexRex]

Guaranteed, if the roles were reversed, and I was saying that North Korea was very happy with the negotiations and North Korea were sure to be disarmed by Christmas based on a single statement from an unnamed source in the state run news agency of North Korea, I'd be laughed off the O&CE Forum.

That card sure is holding up well given the frequency with which you play it. Are we talking light flocking around the edges or what?

 

[TenEightyOne]

If you don't know someone's name they are anonymous by definition.

Yes. It's the "non" part.

The body that released the information is the state run news agency of the most secretive communist dictatorship on the planet.

And in this case not knowing the staffer who provided the information doesn't matter - it's an official release and therefore we do have a name for the releaser. It just happens that the name is of a body and not of an individual. So not anonymous.

 

[UKMikey]

Guaranteed, if the roles were reversed, and I was saying that North Korea was very happy with the negotiations and North Korea were sure to be disarmed by Christmas based on a single statement from an unnamed source in the state run news agency of North Korea, I'd be laughed off the O&CE Forum. The usual suspects would be flooding the thread with memes and jokes.

Extraordinary claims would require extraordinary proof. In this case, however, we only need to provide evidence that NK aren't happy with the deal.

Referencing multiple news articles with headlines to the effect of "NK aren't happy with the deal" with a supporting quote from their official press office would seem to be reasonable to everyone else in this regard.

I guess it's different when the anonymous sources working for the communist dictator who shoots people he doesn't like, are against Trump Trudeau.

Fixed that for you.