Off Topic Messages

For RJM

Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:25 pm

RJM, on the North Korea thread you asked a question. I posted a lengthy response yesterday, but apparently the thread was deleted, so my response never went through. But because I feel your question was a good one and deserved an answer I decided to start another thread answering your question.

You had asked why the world community didn't do something about Lil Kim. If by "world community" you meant the UN, then any action - particularly military action - would require a vote by the UN Security Council. If memory serves, China and Russia are permanent SC member nations, and they both almost always vote opposite to the U.S. With North Korea being China's bastard child, so to speak, it's highly unlikely that the Chinese will vote in favor of any action.

Given the rather pricarious economic situation in western Europe it's unlikely that the European countries will vote for a multi-national military response. With the exception of the Germans they simply can't afford it. Even the normally supportive Brits will likely have to sit this one out. Granted there will probably be a vote for some sort of sanctions, but when it comes to North Korea sanctions are little more than a symbolic gesture.

So it looks like any potential military response will have to be by the U.S. acting unilaterally. This doesn't bode well, as our military is already stretched thin from Iraq and Afghanistan. And such an action might very well be the straw that breaks the camel's back economically speaking. Which may be what the North Koreans and the Chinese are counting on.

Kim is looking to get something out of his sabre rattling. More food, some previous sanctions lifted. It's a win-win for him as we either give him what he wants, or we get into a war that we simply can't afford.

Re: For RJM

Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:02 am

Pete Dube wrote:RJM, on the North Korea thread you asked a question. I posted a lengthy response yesterday, but apparently the thread was deleted, so my response never went through. But because I feel your question was a good one and deserved an answer I decided to start another thread answering your question.

You had asked why the world community didn't do something about Lil Kim. If by "world community" you meant the UN, then any action - particularly military action - would require a vote by the UN Security Council. If memory serves, China and Russia are permanent SC member nations, and they both almost always vote opposite to the U.S. With North Korea being China's bastard child, so to speak, it's highly unlikely that the Chinese will vote in favor of any action.

Given the rather pricarious economic situation in western Europe it's unlikely that the European countries will vote for a multi-national military response. With the exception of the Germans they simply can't afford it. Even the normally supportive Brits will likely have to sit this one out. Granted there will probably be a vote for some sort of sanctions, but when it comes to North Korea sanctions are little more than a symbolic gesture.

So it looks like any potential military response will have to be by the U.S. acting unilaterally. This doesn't bode well, as our military is already stretched thin from Iraq and Afghanistan. And such an action might very well be the straw that breaks the camel's back economically speaking. Which may be what the North Koreans and the Chinese are counting on.

Kim is looking to get something out of his sabre rattling. More food, some previous sanctions lifted. It's a win-win for him as we either give him what he wants, or we get into a war that we simply can't afford.


Thanks, Pete.

Interesting view. I wasn't advocating going to war, because, well, he WANTS to go to war, or so he says. I was thinking more of an international law enforcement type approach. I have to look up how the World Court works, because these threats and actions are extremely dangerous, and it seems impossible to have any kind of rational discussion with this person.

Yes, from back in the day, China backed them up, but this kid is a real wild card. Nobody wants "fallout" - of any kind, falling all over the area if he really loses it. I think there's an element of insanity there, and he's got that bomb.

On a local level, you could stop someone like that: remember the recent Christopher Dorner case? Guy goes insane, and issues a "manifesto" promising to wipe out certain people AND their families. Well, this is on a global scale, and I don't see that much difference. He's nuts!

Found this. It's not the World Court, it's the "International Criminal Court" and applies to very serious violations, which are listed. One of these things must apply to seriously threatening thermonuclear war, and actually saying he's "at war" with no provocation at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court


International Criminal Court
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
International Criminal Court
Cour pénale internationale (French)


States Parties (dark green), light green denotes states where Rome Statute is ratified but not yet in force, and states that have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute (orange).
Seat The Hague, Netherlands
Working languages
English French
Official languages[1]
6 languages[show]
Statute in force for 121 states
Leaders
- President Song Sang-Hyun
- Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda
Establishment
- Rome Statute adopted 17 July 1998
- Entered into force 1 July 2002
Website
http://www.icc-cpi.int


The main ICC building in The Hague.
The International Criminal Court (commonly referred to as the ICC or ICCt)[2] is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression (although it cannot, until at least 2017,[3] exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression).[4][5]
It came into being on 1 July 2002—the date its founding treaty, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, came into force[6]—and it can prosecute only crimes committed on or after that date.[7] The Court's official seat is in The Hague, Netherlands, but its proceedings may take place anywhere.[8]
As of February 2013, 122 states[9] are states parties to the Statute of the Court, including all of South America, all of Australia, nearly all of Europe and roughly half the countries in Africa.[10] The Statute will enter into force for its 122nd state party, Ivory Coast, on 1 May 2013.[11] A further 31 countries,[9] including Russia, have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute;[10] one of them, Ivory Coast, had already accepted the Court's jurisdiction before it ratified the Statute.[12] The law of treaties obliges these states to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty until they declare they do not intend to become a party to the treaty.[13] Three of these states—Israel, Sudan and the United States—have informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, have no legal obligations arising from their former representatives' signature of the Statute.[10][14] 41 United Nations member states[9] have neither signed nor ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute; some of them, including China and India, are critical of the Court.[15][16] On 21 January 2009, the Palestinian National Authority formally accepted the jurisdiction of the Court.[17] On 3 April 2012, the ICC Prosecutor declared himself unable to determine that Palestine is a "state" for the purposes of the Rome Statute.[18] On 29 November 2012, the United Nations General Assembly voted in favour of recognising Palestine as a non-member observer state which might let the Prosecutor reconsider her predecessor's point of view.[19]
In June 2010, two amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court were adopted by the Review Conference in Kampala, Uganda. The first amendment criminalizes the use of certain kinds of weapons in non-international conflicts whose use was already forbidden in international conflicts.[20] It is in force in one state party (San Marino); it will enter into force for its second ratifying state, Liechtenstein, on 8 May 2013, its third ratifying state, Samoa, on 25 September 2013, its fourth ratifying state, Trinidad and Tobago, on 13 November 2013, its fifth ratifying state, Luxembourg, on 15 January 2014, and its sixth ratifying state, Estonia, on 27 March 2014.[21] The second amendment specifies the crime of aggression.[3] It is in force in no state party but will enter into force for its first ratifying state, Liechtenstein, on 8 May 2013, its second ratifying state, Samoa, on 25 September 2013, its third ratifying state, Trinidad and Tobago, on 13 November 2013, its fourth ratifying state, Luxembourg, on 15 January 2014, and its fifth ratifying state, Estonia, on 27 March 2014.[22] However, the Court will only have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression after it enters into force for 30 states parties and after the Assembly of States Parties has voted in favour of allowing the Court to have jurisdiction after 1 January 2017.
The Court can generally exercise jurisdiction only in three cases, viz. if the accused is a national of a state party, if the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party or if a situation is referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council.[23] It is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes.[24][25] Primary responsibility to investigate and punish crimes is therefore left to individual states.[26]
To date, the Court has opened investigations into eight situations in Africa: the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Uganda; the Central African Republic; Darfur, Sudan; the Republic of Kenya; the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire and Mali.[27] Of these eight, four were referred to the Court by the concerned states parties themselves (Uganda, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic and Mali), two were referred by the United Nations Security Council (Darfur and Libya) and two were begun proprio motu by the Prosecutor (Kenya and Côte d'Ivoire[28]).
It has publicly indicted 30 people, proceedings against 23 of whom are ongoing. The ICC has issued arrest warrants for 21 individuals and summonses to nine others. Five individuals are in custody; one of them has been found guilty and sentenced (with an appeal lodged), three are being tried and one's confirmation of charges hearing has yet to begin. One individual has been acquitted and released (with an appeal lodged). Nine individuals remain at large as fugitives (although one is reported to have died). Additionally, three individuals have been arrested by national authorities, but have not yet been transferred to the Court. Proceedings against seven individuals have finished following the death of two, the dismissal of charges against another four and the withdrawal of charges against one.
As of March 2013, the Court's first trial, the Lubanga trial in the situation of the DR Congo, is in the appeals phase after the accused was found guilty and sentenced to 14 years in prison and a reparations regime was established. The Katanga-Chui trial regarding the DR Congo was concluded in May 2012; Mr Ngudjolo Chui was acquitted and released. The Prosecutor has appealed the acquittal. The decision regarding Mr Katanga is pending. The Bemba trial regarding the Central African Republic is ongoing with the defence presenting its evidence. A fourth trial chamber, for the Banda-Jerbo trial in the situation of Darfur, Sudan, has been established. There are a fifth and a sixth trial both scheduled to begin in May and July 2013 respectively in the Kenya situation, namely the Ruto-Sang and the Kenyatta trials for which a single Trial Chamber is responsible. The decision on the confirmation of charges in the Laurent Gbagbo case in the Côte d'Ivoire situation is pending after hearings took place between 19 and 28 February 2013. The confirmation of charges hearing in the Ntaganda case in the DR Congo situation is scheduled to begin on 23 September 2013.


rjm (Uh, Pete: that title is sticking out like a sore thumb. :oops: LOL! There's always the tagging function . . . ;) )
Last edited by rjm on Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: For RJM

Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:19 am

Thanks for such a good well written answer Pete

Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk 2

Re: For RJM

Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:05 am

Thanks for that, Pete.

When it comes to war, it seems to me that countries don't stop to think whether they can afford it;

they just fight it & worry about the financial side afterwards.

The UK made the final payment to the US [for their WWII 'lease-lend' help] in 2002 !

Re: For RJM

Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:36 pm

rjm wrote:
Interesting view. I wasn't advocating going to war, because, well, he WANTS to go to war, or so he says. I was thinking more of an international law enforcement type approach. I have to look up how the World Court works, because these threats and actions are extremely dangerous, and it seems impossible to have any kind of rational discussion with this person.


But how do you put Kim on trial without first capturing him and extracting him from the country? Some type of military action would be necessary to accomplish this, even if covert (which is the option I favor). But would a covert operation have a realistic chance of succeeding? North Korea is not Pakistan.

rjm wrote:rjm (Uh, Pete: that title is sticking out like a sore thumb. :oops: LOL! There's always the tagging function . . . ;) )


?

Re: For RJM

Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:57 pm

Pete Dube wrote:
rjm wrote:
Interesting view. I wasn't advocating going to war, because, well, he WANTS to go to war, or so he says. I was thinking more of an international law enforcement type approach. I have to look up how the World Court works, because these threats and actions are extremely dangerous, and it seems impossible to have any kind of rational discussion with this person.


But how do you put Kim on trial without first capturing him and extracting him from the country? Some type of military action would be necessary to accomplish this, even if covert (which is the option I favor). But would a covert operation have a realistic chance of succeeding? North Korea is not Pakistan.

rjm wrote:rjm (Uh, Pete: that title is sticking out like a sore thumb. :oops: LOL! There's always the tagging function . . . ;) )


?




I'm wondering the same thing, Pete. I'm confused. :?

Re: For RJM

Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:41 pm

Tony Trout wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:
rjm wrote:
Interesting view. I wasn't advocating going to war, because, well, he WANTS to go to war, or so he says. I was thinking more of an international law enforcement type approach. I have to look up how the World Court works, because these threats and actions are extremely dangerous, and it seems impossible to have any kind of rational discussion with this person.


But how do you put Kim on trial without first capturing him and extracting him from the country? Some type of military action would be necessary to accomplish this, even if covert (which is the option I favor). But would a covert operation have a realistic chance of succeeding? North Korea is not Pakistan.

rjm wrote:rjm (Uh, Pete: that title is sticking out like a sore thumb. :oops: LOL! There's always the tagging function . . . ;) )


?




I'm wondering the same thing, Pete. I'm confused. :?

It's easy you just put on one of these and go in and nab the fat bastard!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: For RJM

Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:57 pm

promiseland wrote:
Tony Trout wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:
rjm wrote:
Interesting view. I wasn't advocating going to war, because, well, he WANTS to go to war, or so he says. I was thinking more of an international law enforcement type approach. I have to look up how the World Court works, because these threats and actions are extremely dangerous, and it seems impossible to have any kind of rational discussion with this person.


But how do you put Kim on trial without first capturing him and extracting him from the country? Some type of military action would be necessary to accomplish this, even if covert (which is the option I favor). But would a covert operation have a realistic chance of succeeding? North Korea is not Pakistan.

rjm wrote:rjm (Uh, Pete: that title is sticking out like a sore thumb. :oops: LOL! There's always the tagging function . . . ;) )


?




I'm wondering the same thing, Pete. I'm confused. :?

It's easy you just put on one of these and go in and nab the fat bastard!



Promisedland: I was actually referring to RJM's comment about the title sticking out like a sore thumb and Pete saying that he's confused - like I am. I wasn't referring to the subject at hand.

Re: For RJM

Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:20 pm

Tony Trout wrote:Promisedland: I was actually referring to RJM's comment about the title sticking out like a sore thumb and Pete saying that he's confused - like I am.
I wasn't referring to the subject at hand.


Surely all Robin meant was that, as it uses her username, for her at least, the header 'sticks out like a sore thumb' ....

Re: For RJM

Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:02 pm

rjm wrote:Thanks, Pete.

Interesting view. I wasn't advocating going to war, because, well, he WANTS to go to war, or so he says. I was thinking more of an international law enforcement type approach. I have to look up how the World Court works, because these threats and actions are extremely dangerous, and it seems impossible to have any kind of rational discussion with this person.

Yes, from back in the day, China backed them up, but this kid is a real wild card. Nobody wants "fallout" - of any kind, falling all over the area if he really loses it. I think there's an element of insanity there, and he's got that bomb.

On a local level, you could stop someone like that: remember the recent Christopher Dorner case? Guy goes insane, and issues a "manifesto" promising to wipe out certain people AND their families. Well, this is on a global scale, and I don't see that much difference. He's nuts!

Found this. It's not the World Court, it's the "International Criminal Court" and applies to very serious violations, which are listed. One of these things must apply to seriously threatening thermonuclear war, and actually saying he's "at war" with no provocation at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court


If i am not mistaken the USA does not recognize the ICC. So that is a bit of a problem.