SalMUN 2009
Welcome to SalMUN 2009 Forum!
First time on the forum? please read the instructions!
In order to post, please login =)
If you already saw this message, you may cancel it.
SalMUN 2009

This forum is a lobbying place for MUN delegates to get prepared for the actual SalMUN 2009 Conference in Bahia!


You are not connected. Please login or register

North Korean missiles

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 4]

51 Re: North Korean missiles on October 31st 2009, 17:50

I find it hurtful the way you undermine my comprehension about some of your undocumented opinion-statements. Since when does testing a weapon of mass destruction a procedure that doesn’t frighten or alert a neighboring nation? Yes, my country is still technically at war with North Korea because our 1953 Armistice Agreement was never replaced with a peace treaty which is WHY South Korea wants to first dismantle NK (in exchange for our disarmament in the DMZ) and have them return to multilateral talks with us so we can discuss the possibility of reunification… if this can be accomplished then there wouldn’t be any bad relations
P.S My nation is not jealous

View user profile

52 Wow on November 2nd 2009, 17:11

The delegate of North Korea is amazed at how well the delegate of South Korea has adapted to the "American ways", you even speak like the USA! Delegate, you seem to select information in a way to please only your nation! Why don't we have a peace agreement? Simple, your nation refused to sign one prefering to remain US's puppet!

The delegate of North Korea would be very interested in seeing a viable argument for the dismanteling of its nuclear program before any other action is done! How can we destroy the only protection our nation has built without previous concrete actions regarding my state's safety? The logical order for any debate would be removal of troops and engagement in talks then possibility of dismanteling our nuclear program!

Now delegates, our nation has already declared to be willing to hault its existing program in exchange of some fair items detailed in its resolution; with that in mind why does this cyclic debate continue?

View user profile

53 Re: North Korean missiles on November 7th 2009, 18:06

Delegate I meant my country wants to first engage in talks about disarmament (along with the discussion of removal of troops) and after these proposals are achieved then the talks can be held about reunification… ( I understand my statement was a little unclear) However, steps such as the removal of troops will NOT be brought around BEFORE your disarmament … this is a compromise delegate; it requires simultaneous agreements and actions. especially because of the speculation on weather or not your nation will actually follow through with these agreements because of resolutions in the past that your nation did not put into action..like when your nation was removed from the United State's list of states that sponsor terrorism in October 2008, it requested that in return... you fully complying with the dismantlement of NK's nuclear program and this step was obviously never taken

View user profile

54 I refuse!!! on November 10th 2009, 13:20

The delegate of North Korea refuses to explain again why we have disagreed with such treaty.

Furthermore, delegate, if we have not obeyed "any previous resolution" what makes your nation ponder about our agreement with any further accord which we do not agree with? Wouldn't that render your resolution useless?

View user profile

55 Re: North Korean missiles on November 10th 2009, 13:39

Hello, delegates!
First of all, I would like to say that it is very interesting that North Korea and South Korea have opened fire at sea. According to BBC News, a North Korean ship crossed the "line" and was shot at by South Korea.
This is not the first time such an event has occured. However, it is important to note that these such disputes and "bullet trade" makes this conflict alarming to the extreme. Beyond that, the delegate of the United States wants to emphasize the necessity of a resolution NOW, trying to solve the problems between both nations and furthermore dismantling North Korea's nuclear weapons program. If South Korea and North Korea go to war, there is a risk of a nuclear weapon being launched by North Korea. The United States and the world cannot bear that threat.

Now, if I'm not mistaken, North Korea's resolution involves the establishment of a nuclear energy program in North Korea, financed and supported by the United States. Now, the delegate is willing to agree with that, but ONLY in the case of a dismantling of North Korea's nuclear program. And furthermore, it has to be monitored (or done) by the United States. We cannot bear taking risks.

Now, delegate of North Korea: such a non-compliance to a resolution passed by the Security Council will motivate nations to effectuate disciplinary action from the United Nations. Best case scenario, sanctions.
The delegate of the United States agrees with the delegate of South Korea, removal of troops cannot be given before the dismantling of the nuclear program. Only after, or at the same time.
Lastly, the delegate would like to remind the delegates of what happened during World War I - the entirety of the European continent was at the brink of war. The alliances, the militarism, the colonialism, among others, was dividing Europe and tensions were escalating. All World War I needed to happen was something such as an assassination in Bosnia to eclode. Similarly, today tensions between N. Korea and S. Korea are heightened enough that one day something (such as the clash of two vessels, maybe) might clause these tensions to eclode into war. This is what makes the need of a resolution NOW so great - there should NOT be ANOTHER war in the Korean peninsula.

View user profile

56 Hun! on November 10th 2009, 13:46

The delegate of North Korea is interested to know why the nation of USA considers it possible for us (NK) to use our nukes for primary attack if your nation has engaged in over 250 conflicts since WWII without ever using them...

View user profile

57 Re: North Korean missiles on November 10th 2009, 13:51

The United States is just considering a possibility. However, the real issue now is that we cannot bear to have yet ANOTHER war in the world, especially not in the Korean peninsula, where there has already been a war.

View user profile

58 Again?! on November 10th 2009, 13:58

Again the delegate of USA uses of its unlimited "dogmations" and hegemonical dominance to consider itself, among many gizmos, the only country allowed to engage in war! Delegate, it is of the right of every country to engage in war! And as Mao Zedong once said: "War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun"

View user profile

59 Re: North Korean missiles on November 10th 2009, 14:07

Oh, interesting. So the delegate of North Korea wishes to engage in war with South Korea? Do you have any idea what you are saying, delegate? Do you have any idea of where that type of argument will get you? North Korea will be bombarded and ravaged by sanctions and embargoes.
Besides that, good idea, quoting Mao Zedong. It's always excellent to quote a man who retrograded his country, left many people homeless, oppressed some people for simple "crimes," and even completely changed the moral values of people (not to the better).
Besides that, no, delegate - we do not wish to be the only country capable of going to war. We actually do NOT intend to go to war any more. The United States is now avoiding wars, and the best way to do such a thing is to have other nations not go to war so that we do not have to intervene.

View user profile

60 LOL! on November 10th 2009, 14:12

Delegate,

Just as your nation has continuously discussed upon "dogmations" my country is asserting its rights! We do not plan on going in war with South Korea as shown in this previous incident in which they made the first strike. Furthermore, it is not the orator that determines the quality or essence of a speech but the speech itself; this quote is that by which your nation has basically worked uopn in the past years so be carefull with any falacies you must interpret!

Different from your president I cannot predict the future, so I will take your word that you will not engage in any conflict until a further clue can be produced...

View user profile

61 Re: North Korean missiles on November 10th 2009, 14:18

If you do not intend to go to war with South Korea, then there is no more reason to discuss. But that is not what the tensions in the Korean peninsula, the speeches made by Korean (South and North) leaders, and the repeated "small" clashes say.
And we are not trying to predict the future. We are vouching that we do not intend to go to war.

View user profile

62 Re: North Korean missiles on November 10th 2009, 20:13

NKorea_PauloC wrote:
Furthermore, delegate, if we have not obeyed "any previous resolution" what makes your nation ponder about our agreement with any further accord which we do not agree with? Wouldn't that render your resolution useless?
Just because your nation has been incompliant with these past resolution's requests and Six-Party talks doesn not mean in any way that South Korea will give up in trying to achieving this concession, I guarantee you my nation will never stop struggling for a safe-nuclear free peninsula. And delegate... what may differinciate my resolution to previous ones is the many things your nation has requested combined among those are the installation of LWR facilities provided by part of the $5 billion aid requested in my reso
please do not disregard it before reading and considering it!

View user profile

63 Re: North Korean missiles on November 11th 2009, 20:32

The delegate of the United States has not yet seen South Korea's resolution, but hopes to do so soon.

But, for the while, the United States will say this: this struggle for a nuclear-free Korean peninsula will not succeed unless North Korea vouches to comply with agreements, treaties, talks, and whatnot.

View user profile

64 ... on November 12th 2009, 06:15

Delegate of USA, this is the reason why my nation has proposed a resolution which will hopefully be suported by your state...

View user profile

65 Re: North Korean missiles on November 12th 2009, 08:28

As the delegate of North Korea should know, Russia will be at its side if this resolution states what Russia thinks it states... Basically Russia does not find North Korea as a threat, but if NK finds that this resolution is better for it, and for all fellow nations, then it should follow through, think wisely, how much does one life cost, and how much will USA pay, to keep NK out of power... basically, this is what Russia sees as USA's attempt to keep NK out of nuclear power...

View user profile

66 Thankyou on November 12th 2009, 22:30

Delegate, my resolution basically guarantees the safety of our population and of the world as a whole. In exchange of some aid from the USA we will be willing to shut down our nuclear program...

View user profile

67 Re: North Korean missiles on November 12th 2009, 22:35

The Russian delegation is in favor, but again reinforces that without any form of nuclear power, USA will have no reason left to think of NK as a threat, this could lead to two outcomes

1) USA takes advantage of the situation and tries to finally construct a 'brotherhood' with NK, leading to a very peaceful fairy-tail ending.

2) more likely, USA sees this as the best opportunity to try and act against the nation that was threatening them before, knowing USA's background, this could end very badly...

View user profile

68 Re: North Korean missiles on November 15th 2009, 19:20

Trust me, delegate, if a peace agreement is achieved with North Korea, including the full dismantling of its nuclear weapons, the United States will not see them as enemies.

Even though for many years North Korea expressed itself against the United States, especially with anti-american propaganda, the United States is willing to move on and create a sort of neutral relationship with North Korea.

However, this is regarding DPRK's nuclear weapons. Officialy, North Korea and South Korea are still at war, and that is an issue which we also MUST solve immediately. The Korean peninsula cannot bear another war.

View user profile

69 Re: North Korean missiles on November 16th 2009, 09:07

Delegate of USA... correct me if I am wrong...

But the policy of USA is to rid the world of Communist Nations, what is North Korea to you? and how would your post be valid? if NK is a communist Nation, then the USA would never even think of creating a relationship with them...

View user profile

70 Re: North Korean missiles on November 16th 2009, 09:28

Delegate if North Korea agreed to these peace binding requests then different ideologies would not get in the way of an allied relationship. take into account China for example a communist nation that reformed its self-reliant economy and now has the 3rd largest economy in the world, China has been long advising of North Korea to remove its statist policies and policy of Juche (self reliance) so it can prosper aswell. the point it that some type of change will have to happen sooner or later in North Korea and changing a countries whole regime isnt always the most advantageble outcome instead small reforms as suggested by several nations not just the U.S...

View user profile

71 Imperialism on November 16th 2009, 18:17

The delegate of South Korea is blindedly asking for our nation to forget with all its communist ideals and engage in capitalism! Delegate, though China might call itself a communist it is nothing less than a masked capitalist!

View user profile

72 Re: North Korean missiles on November 16th 2009, 19:39

blindly no delegate completely wide eyedly opened :this suggestion is not comming out of nowhere, its comming out of the FACT that your country is internally collapsing due to your nation's refusal for an economic reform- simply attaining more trade partners would already make a difference. its not an opinion but a visible fact that your country's communist ideals have failed to provide your citizens with the basic necessities of life - like food. I hope your country sets aside any resentment against capitalism ideals just because it is the system aquired by the nation you strongly opose-the U.S

View user profile

73 Re: North Korean missiles on November 17th 2009, 08:21

My question to USA still stands... and another...
Why are we talking about china? this is acting like little children, "I did it because he did it!!!" Try to reframe from talking about other nations, NK already has enough problems(SK, USA... etc)

View user profile

74 Re: North Korean missiles on November 17th 2009, 16:45

I mentioned another nation to show a successful example... yes delegate it is necessary to talk about other nations to determine weather their actions from the past should be repeated if they had a positive outcome....

View user profile

75 Resolution... on November 18th 2009, 18:40

Unfortunetely the resolution submitted by the nation of North Korea in the security council did not pass because of a veto in the part of the delegation of France, the only nation againt our amended resolution...

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 4]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum