Thread: N. Korea Vs. United Nations

I'm sure this has been posted before, but I'm a sporatic poster and I'm too lazy too read anything else:

Is the U.N. full of morons? Do they honestly not know history?

Before WWII, I remember learning that a certain predecessor to the U.N. (League of Nations), thought that sanctions would stop the Nazi threat. It didn't.

Why are we playing with fire?

North Korea can burn in hell.

Originally Posted by Left

Before WWII, I remember learning that a certain predecessor to the U.N. (League of Nations), thought that sanctions would stop the Nazi threat. It didn't.

Actually, the "sanctions" imposed by the Treaty of Versailles ending WWI were a major cause fo WWII. This was pointed out by various parties at the time, Pres. Wilson for one, Winston Churchill for another.

But those sanctions crippled the nation who had already givern up the government that was blamed for WWI. So these were punishment as opposed to get a desired reaction. And they will not, for as in the case of Iraq, the leadership does not care what happens to the people.

Originally Posted by Left

Before WWII, I remember learning that a certain predecessor to the U.N. (League of Nations), thought that sanctions would stop the Nazi threat. It didn't.

These were a punishment, not sanctions. The Treaty of Versailles was Frances revenge on Germany. It was opposed by Pres. Wilson and Winston Churchill.

Originally Posted by Zaragrunudgeyon

North Korea can burn in hell.

O.k. Z we know where you aren't going on vacation.

I wonder though Z seriously-the people captive under this loony-what would they do if they could find a way to change the status quo...they have done without food for decades. I can't imagine they are the happy robots they are portrayed as. Excuse me but I do not want to write them off because of that lunatic and his military dictators who have them captive.

Besides Korean women are beautiful. You can't kill them.

Originally Posted by ArizonaIrish

Actually, the "sanctions" imposed by the Treaty of Versailles ending WWI were a major cause fo WWII. This was pointed out by various parties at the time, Pres. Wilson for one, Winston Churchill for another.

But those sanctions crippled the nation who had already givern up the government that was blamed for WWI. So these were punishment as opposed to get a desired reaction. And they will not, for as in the case of Iraq, the leadership does not care what happens to the people.

That's exactly what I said. Why the hell are we playing with sanctions again?

Originally Posted by ArizonaIrish

These were a punishment, not sanctions. The Treaty of Versailles was Frances revenge on Germany. It was opposed by Pres. Wilson and Winston Churchill.

No, they threatened sanctions for the annexation of Austria and the engulfing of Czeckoslovakia. I'm not referring to the concessions of WWI, but the threats made leading up to WWII.