obama should just declare jong-un an american citizen and then drone strike that motherfucker, am i right?
North Korea is at it again
- Thread starter Billtrumpet25
- Start date
... and since he's rich, that'd also allow taxes to be collected at the increased rate
I tend to agree with you there.
In 2008, for example, "the interanational community" managed to intercept the shipping of three second-hand Mercedez Benz cars to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, as well as 12 bottles of sake, thirty-four second-hand pianos and 673 cosmetic items of 21 different kinds.
Wheew. I feel so much safer now, what with all these loose items out of the North Korean markets.
The rationale for pro-sanctionists seems to be similar to the pro-strikes logic: that the additional hardship will turn the citizens en masse against those in power and put mass pressure on them. Trouble is, strikes, if and when prolonged, seem to have the opposite effect. Just as thirty-plus years of sanctions seem to have enforced both victimhood and national pride in the Iranians and if anything, have consolidated people's support to their nation and their president. I doubt North Koreans would be much different. I believe they genuinely believe it is "us the wronged vs. the rest of the world out to get us".
Now that both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are drying out, the defense industry needs new big business to replace those, certainly. But I wonder, would rat-poor North Korea be more like Afghanistan, with no good targets and shiny cities to bomb.
But unlike the real rogue nuclear states India, Israel, and Pakistan, North Korea has ratified the NPT and has let inspectors in, so their capabilities and challenges and bluffs are well even if not entirely fully known.
If North Korea seem to a act like a schizophrenic, little wonder, as "the international community's" relations and reactions to NK has been equally schizophrenic.
Take for example the late Bush Administration and its make-believe hawk and career politico Donald "shaking hands with Saddam Hussein" Rumsfelf: when the right hand pretends it does not know what the left hand is doing. In 2000 Rumsfeld ruled the roost in Swiss-Swedish ABB when ABB sold North Korea two nuclear power plants. In 2002, the White House admin granted a record sum of energy assistance to NK, $90,5 million, up from $9,5 million in 1995, in exchange of... seemingly nothing (Incidentally, though, in early-2002, ABB was in all time low but miraculously recovered in record time). A couple of months later, the same WH admin declared NK as part of the "axis of evil" -- yet later went ahead and scratched North Korea's name off of its "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list.
And this is a mere slice of example of one country's one admininstration's flip-flopping with Pyongyang. Rinse and repeat this pattern 50x and I think it's pretty clear just how and who gives Pyongyang the idea they can threaten and bluff and get what they want.
The same way the US threatens other countries and say they're gonna bomb peoples in foreign places, quote, "back to the stone age" I imagine.
There is no precedent for this. Quite the contrary in fact. In the World War Two, the Soviet Union, Communist China and the United States of America fought side by side as allies, against a neighbor that gave them trouble. Vladivostok, the HQ for Russia's Pacific Fleet and Russia's main Pacific port is mere 100 miles from the North Korean border. I don't expect Moscow to take any crap from Pyongyang that threatens the status quo of this strategic SE region. Given the increasing military cooperation between Moscow and Beijing, I also don't foresee China's and Russia's going against each other. Whereas Russia's and China's sheer size and nuclear arsenal ensure that the US will never take a war against those two, and vice versa. Only in a Hollywood version.
... the USA doesn't threaten, it acts -- and only when called upon, e.g. after the attack on Pearl Harbor. NK might want to take note.
---
I'm just going to focus on the "rogue states" bit you replied to. While it is true Israel hasn't ratified the NPT, neither have they gone out of their way to threaten a "rain of nuclear fire and death" and other hyperbolic terms when attacked by other countries. They have said they'd reply by conventional means, and even though they probably have a shitload of atomic weapons, they haven't acted in a bellicose manner the same way N. Korea has acted. Their circumstances are entirely different.
Pakistan and India's situation is also different from N.Korea's, as neither country is isolated internationally. Condemned for their actions at times, yes, but not isolated in the same way that (Young) L'il Kim's regime is.
I'd also point out that North Korea has managed to fool the nuclear inspectors for years, has built a number of conventional missile silos under the noses of UN inspectors, and has tested no less than three atomic bombs in total disregard of international rulings. India and Pakistan have also conducted tests, but again, they have not demonstrated the blatant lying and disregard for human safety Un and his now-dead daddy did.
As for the flip-flops, yes, I'll agree that the US among other countries has done a carrot-and-stick approach with little to show for it. Personally, I think it's the wrong approach, but with a regime acting as irrationally as the North Koreans have done over the years, there is not much else to do.
Thing is, while we, as Westerners, think that they're acting irrationally, by their standards, they're acting in a perfectly sane manner. Overly defensive and paranoid to our way of thinking, yes, but to them, it's justifiable.
Right now, sanctions just ain't working, and neither are the various aid programs. I don't have any definitive answers, to be honest. It would be very easy to bomb the living hell out of them, but that would draw China and perhaps Russia in, and WWIII is not high on my to-do list.
After the September 2001 terrorists attacks, the United States of America acted much like Pyongyang does, i.e. like a wounded and cornered animal looking to slash out and someone to hurt. As far as those "called upon acts" go, it is certainly much more convenient to bomb places like the tribal areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan (and rat-poor NK for that matter) "back to the stone age," as they have never really even left the stones ages.
The dwindling 9/11 posse has been bombing those tribal areas for 11 and ½ years now and will be doing their best to get their troops and as much equipment as possible out unharmed by 2014. Tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars later, they will leave behind the very same stone age that they went to punish and Afghanistan will continue to be a terrorist breeding & training ground. The only winners are the narco & human traffickers and the makers of bombs.
As a revenge, it failed: bombing a stone age place back to the stone age -- where's the victory in that? The Bush admin at least understood this, which is why they started looking new and better targets in Iraq. At least there they had a secular, advanced modern society and infrastructure to tear down.
A little perspective on the dangerous threat of North Korea:
It reminds me somewhat of a time when we were terrified of a massive country that proved in the long run to be a hollow shell that probably would have collapsed much sooner if not for our own politicians' "humanitarian" aid at the same time they were apparently ready to obliterate us from the face of the earth.
Or maybe the time when the loss of a little country in the far east was going to mean the ascendency of communism to the title of one-world government.
Or maybe I'm thinking of the time when weapons of mass destruction were set to be unleashed on the world at a moment's notice if we didn't do something immediately.
Eventually people realize the silly little boy crying "Wolf" is doing it for attention and power.
It reminds me somewhat of a time when we were terrified of a massive country that proved in the long run to be a hollow shell that probably would have collapsed much sooner if not for our own politicians' "humanitarian" aid at the same time they were apparently ready to obliterate us from the face of the earth.
Or maybe the time when the loss of a little country in the far east was going to mean the ascendency of communism to the title of one-world government.
Or maybe I'm thinking of the time when weapons of mass destruction were set to be unleashed on the world at a moment's notice if we didn't do something immediately.
Eventually people realize the silly little boy crying "Wolf" is doing it for attention and power.
China has too much interest in striking a West that can
A. strike back.
B. Seriously effect their own economy
If there is a shooting war, it will be over before we can invest another 100,000 soldiers. Do you remember what cruise missles did in Iran, and do you believe we don't have even more tricks that don't require boots on the ground than we did then?
Troops currently there and the civilian population, mainly in the south, are at risk from bombs and missiles, though I suspect we are pretty well set up to protect against an invasion. Within 48 hours of starting something NK would have no air force, no navy, no missle sites, and very little modern communication infrastructure. About the only think left would be a leadership base because somebody has to be left alive to surrender or do so defacto by cutting and running or committing suicide. Their military knows it. Without the desert wars, they might not believe it, but it is clear to them now.
Are they crazy enough to start something while knowing that? Maybe.
Then again this whole round of noise may be because they are running out of all the goodies in the last appeasment package.
A. strike back.
B. Seriously effect their own economy
If there is a shooting war, it will be over before we can invest another 100,000 soldiers. Do you remember what cruise missles did in Iran, and do you believe we don't have even more tricks that don't require boots on the ground than we did then?
Troops currently there and the civilian population, mainly in the south, are at risk from bombs and missiles, though I suspect we are pretty well set up to protect against an invasion. Within 48 hours of starting something NK would have no air force, no navy, no missle sites, and very little modern communication infrastructure. About the only think left would be a leadership base because somebody has to be left alive to surrender or do so defacto by cutting and running or committing suicide. Their military knows it. Without the desert wars, they might not believe it, but it is clear to them now.
Are they crazy enough to start something while knowing that? Maybe.
Then again this whole round of noise may be because they are running out of all the goodies in the last appeasment package.
Last edited:
Nukes breed nukes. Israel's nuclear weapons are the only ME nuclear weapons that stand in the way of nuclear weapon free Middle East. The very existence of Israeli nukes fuel other régimes in the region to acquire nuclear weapons of their own to deter Israeli nukes.
Pakistan and India are a hot zone and the most likelier place for a nuclear war to break out. A fourth "preventative" India-Pakistan War, with nukes. Pakistan would bomb India, but whom would North Korea bomb and to what end?
Pakistan is also far from a stable state as well as being the #1 nuclear weapon technology import-export business in the world. Indian nukes breed Pakistani nukes, and Pakistani nukes are a big proliferation concern. One coup d'état in a country that loves coups and we'll have, say, a nuclear-armed Taliban-run state among us.
Unless actual proliferation of nuclear weapon technology counts, of course.
Sure, bombing the living hell out of alien places must be easy. It's the part that comes after the bombing that I worry about. Bombs alone do not bring peace and stability, and peace and stability and human development is what we would like to see, right?
----
See above, please. Unfortunately, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and has been for over sixty years. Regional disarmament is a failure, simply due to the trust issue. If it ain't a nuke, it'll be something else, like bio-chemical weapons.
I'll agree that bombs alone don't bring peace or stability necessarily, but this is what we have to work with, and the leaders in those countries--and others--feel it's better to have them than finding themselves at risk of being outgunned by a country which doesn't care what happens to other countries.
Don, the problem is...that picture shows the relative poverty of the North Korean CITIZEN. The government is well known for hoarding the good toys for themselves and pumping what meager funds they have into their military.
Doesn't mean that it's actually a threat, but it also doesn't mean it's actually not a threat. I mean, they'd lose, but they'd still smash up South Korea pretty good what with all the artillery aimed at Sol and the possible nuclear weapons which couldn't hit US, but they could hit South Korea...
Those are good reasons to be a bit cautious, I think.
... almost 3000 innocent people died in that attack.
And you have the gall to trivialize that?
You're either a troll or a --
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 17,873
- Reaction score
- 4,664
- Location
- dunking doughnuts at Dunkin' Donuts
don't feed the troll
don't feed the troll
don't feed the troll
don't feed the troll
don't feed the troll
don't feed the troll
don't feed the troll
don't feed the troll
don't feed the troll
don't feed the troll
don't feed the troll
Last edited:
Hmm ..
I just appreciated the content that so clearly killed the credibilty of the posting. I wouldn't have used the term 'troll' any more than I would have use the word 'genius'. I definitely wouldn't have used the word 'genius'
I just appreciated the content that so clearly killed the credibilty of the posting. I wouldn't have used the term 'troll' any more than I would have use the word 'genius'. I definitely wouldn't have used the word 'genius'
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 11,047
- Reaction score
- 2,632
I think Xalarik has a point, honestly. I don't agree with everything stated, but part of the reason the US agreed to war with Afghanistan was fear and anger and a need for justice/revenge. I wrote an editorial letter to the papers right after the attacks when I started hearing the rhetoric on TV, warning that if it didn't change we'd be at war soon. It didn't and we were.
Now, I think there were ulterior motives at play there, and I honestly think a lot of that fear was propaganda used to push the citizens of the US to accept a war, but that fear was there. Raw and unhidden and everywhere. There was immediately talk of retribution and taking down those responsible. Maybe it was just where I live, but I heard everyday citizens talking about how we should just "nuke those bastards" to stop them. I heard politicians make similar comments.
I think what a lot of people don't consider is that the average North Korean citizen is brainwashed and afraid and victimized. They're taught that their leadership is to be followed at all cost--that they're superhuman, godlike. Infallible. They're indoctrinated from the time they can talk, and those who pose a threat and don't walk the walk often end up in prisons (along with three generations of family members). They can't speak out.
If they're taught that the US is the reason for any hardships they face, many of them would believe it. If they're told to fight at all costs, many of them will. They are so sheltered that they often know little beyond what they've been taught, and that is tightly controlled by the government.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I think that sanctions make it a harder fight to win (in terms of the people not rising up) because it gives the government a scapegoat. People are starving in the streets? Blame the US. They have no electricity? Blame the US. They have no resources? Blame the US. In some ways, I think the sanctions have allowed them a tighter hold. The more isolated they become, the stronger their hold on the people becomes.
I'm not sure what would happen even if we managed to take down the government. I don't think North Koreans are sitting there secretly wishing for a savior to come and topple their government and set them free. Maybe they are, but I've seen so many documentaries that seem to show otherwise that it's hard to know.
They also don't know what it's like in the rest of the world. They're isolated and told this is how it is everywhere. They're told that they are stronger and better fed, etc., than other areas nearby. Think of the bubble you would live in if the only knowledge you had of the outside world was from government broadcasts showing you what they wanted you to see. Now, videos are sneaking across from China and the south that might challenge that, but they are still constantly shown the lies.
I'm not sure there is much we could do to really topple the government there in the short term short of actually going in and doing it by force, and I think that would be more disastrous than people imagine. I think propaganda campaigns could have a chance. Smuggling in information, for instance, to try to make people question, but even then the government has such a strong hold on people that I'm not sure how effective that would be. The prison camps there are one of the worst things I've heard of in terms of inhumane treatment.
The thing is, what do you do? It's possible that sanctions have helped slow down their nuclear programs. It's possible that, as time goes on and information becomes more pervasive and harder to control, that the people will rise up and say enough is enough. It's even possible that the government will start to recognize that it can't feed it's people and the only way to survive, literally, is going to be to open themselves more and give in on certain issues.
I guess I'm mostly just rambling here. I think this is a complex, sad issue, an experiment in many ways, and I think there have been a lot of negative consequences. Do I think an armed military offensive would be the way to handle it? Not really.
Now, I think there were ulterior motives at play there, and I honestly think a lot of that fear was propaganda used to push the citizens of the US to accept a war, but that fear was there. Raw and unhidden and everywhere. There was immediately talk of retribution and taking down those responsible. Maybe it was just where I live, but I heard everyday citizens talking about how we should just "nuke those bastards" to stop them. I heard politicians make similar comments.
I think what a lot of people don't consider is that the average North Korean citizen is brainwashed and afraid and victimized. They're taught that their leadership is to be followed at all cost--that they're superhuman, godlike. Infallible. They're indoctrinated from the time they can talk, and those who pose a threat and don't walk the walk often end up in prisons (along with three generations of family members). They can't speak out.
If they're taught that the US is the reason for any hardships they face, many of them would believe it. If they're told to fight at all costs, many of them will. They are so sheltered that they often know little beyond what they've been taught, and that is tightly controlled by the government.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I think that sanctions make it a harder fight to win (in terms of the people not rising up) because it gives the government a scapegoat. People are starving in the streets? Blame the US. They have no electricity? Blame the US. They have no resources? Blame the US. In some ways, I think the sanctions have allowed them a tighter hold. The more isolated they become, the stronger their hold on the people becomes.
I'm not sure what would happen even if we managed to take down the government. I don't think North Koreans are sitting there secretly wishing for a savior to come and topple their government and set them free. Maybe they are, but I've seen so many documentaries that seem to show otherwise that it's hard to know.
They also don't know what it's like in the rest of the world. They're isolated and told this is how it is everywhere. They're told that they are stronger and better fed, etc., than other areas nearby. Think of the bubble you would live in if the only knowledge you had of the outside world was from government broadcasts showing you what they wanted you to see. Now, videos are sneaking across from China and the south that might challenge that, but they are still constantly shown the lies.
I'm not sure there is much we could do to really topple the government there in the short term short of actually going in and doing it by force, and I think that would be more disastrous than people imagine. I think propaganda campaigns could have a chance. Smuggling in information, for instance, to try to make people question, but even then the government has such a strong hold on people that I'm not sure how effective that would be. The prison camps there are one of the worst things I've heard of in terms of inhumane treatment.
The thing is, what do you do? It's possible that sanctions have helped slow down their nuclear programs. It's possible that, as time goes on and information becomes more pervasive and harder to control, that the people will rise up and say enough is enough. It's even possible that the government will start to recognize that it can't feed it's people and the only way to survive, literally, is going to be to open themselves more and give in on certain issues.
I guess I'm mostly just rambling here. I think this is a complex, sad issue, an experiment in many ways, and I think there have been a lot of negative consequences. Do I think an armed military offensive would be the way to handle it? Not really.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2009
- Messages
- 4,484
- Reaction score
- 437
- Location
- Atlanta, Georgia
- Website
- donnetowntoday.blogspot.com
That's a long, strange story. Here's a good article about it by Nate Thayer: 25 Years of Slam Dunk Diplomacy.
I disagree. "Israel standing alone in the ME" is a myth. Israel, being 1/6th Muslim and 1/5th Arab country itself, has perfectly working bilateral trade, scientific, and academic ties with its Muslim neighbors in the ME: Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, the Gulf States and the Maghreb countries. Although diplomatic relations at times have cooled of, the trade goes on and water, oil and gas flows to Israel through its neighboring Arab countries.
Disagree again. The 8,000+ NATO nukes are deterrance enough -- otherwise, what is the point of having that "free world" arsenal at all? Israel really does not need those rogue nukes of its own, especially when those very rogue nukes fuel Iran to acquire rogue nukes of its own, which in turn fuel Saudi Arabia's desire for rogue nukes -- and just so happens rogue nuclear state Pakistan is there to help the Saudis.
Then there must be relative and "relative" stability. Pakistan, however, is on the red alert, ranking as the 13th (of 177) failed state in the world, not far behind Afghanistan (6th) and Iraq (9th) and well ahead of North Korea (22nd). Pakistan is also a nuclear weapon state. And Pakistan's "shoot & scoot" arsenal is scattered all over the the country and under Taliban militant attacks. Worse, Pakistan's nuclear doctrine seems to include "pre-emptive" first strike, and, as noted, they are not very picky as to whom they sell their nuclear secrets.
"If" they did go to war? Pakistan and India have gone to war against each other several times. As we speak, Pakistan and India are engaged in an ongoing low intensity warfare.
The Taliban are ultra-religious, not unlike the Iranian ayatollahs. Nuclear weapons are against their religion and the Taliban claim they don't want those nukes. There are, however, a good number of Islamist insurgent and terrorist groups seeking dirty bombs, and Pakistan and Iraq are the top destinations for that.
I fail to see the logic there. Has not happened yet, therefore cannot happen?
Disagree. Bombs do not work, do not get the work done, so why insist that bombs are still the way to go? "Let's go and bomb them" is not the only option available.
In response to the 9,000 victims of the September 2001 terrorist attacks, a hundred thousand more innocent people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as in Pakistan, hundreds of thousands have been wounded and traumatized for life, and millions of innocent people have had their homes and lives destroyed and have become refugees.
Between 2006-2011, the pro-gov coalition forces have killed 3,120 innocent Afghan civilians, more than were killed in the September 2001 attacks. Rinse & repeat that number in Iraq and Pakistan, and add the most violent years between 2001-2006 to it.
Are we trolls enough to trivialize those unnecessary deaths and lives destroyed in the distand lands? Or is it a taboo to mention all those deaths that followed the 2001 terrorist attacks and the violence that is still going on lest we somehow disrespect those lives lost and destroyed in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania?
... America cares about people in other lands.
And that's one reason why we get involved.
NK's threats aside, it's troubling to witness a populace being treated so atrociously by it's elitist leaders. Same with Middle Eastern countries. America has it's faults. It's no Shangri La. But it is fine in many ways, giving everybody freedom and liberty and a say in how things are done. All people throughout the world should enjoy those rights. Not just a select few.
And that's one reason why we get involved.
NK's threats aside, it's troubling to witness a populace being treated so atrociously by it's elitist leaders. Same with Middle Eastern countries. America has it's faults. It's no Shangri La. But it is fine in many ways, giving everybody freedom and liberty and a say in how things are done. All people throughout the world should enjoy those rights. Not just a select few.
Cutting US military aid to the world's worst torture régimes would seem like a win-win, kind of like putting the money where the mouth is reversed.
Were it not for those natural resources.
And the big defense business.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 11,047
- Reaction score
- 2,632
I think this is completely false. I remember back in college I had to take a class on world relations, and one of the first things we learned was that foreign policy seemed to depend mostly on what was convenient and helped us the most. Which countries in Africa received aid? The ones who needed it the most, or the ones who had a resource we needed? Which countries were we getting militarily involved in? Oil rich (this was even before Iraq).
I think the US foreign policy is built on the facade of helping others because the average US citizen just doesn't know enough about what's we're involved in to know better. The war in Iraq is an easy example. If you look at the documentaries, listen to the people involved, read the books, there is a lot of evidence that there were plans to push for an invasion there for a long time. I remember how the excuse for our being there changed every three or four months when we first went in. It used to blow my mind that others didn't see that.
But for a more recent example, look at Syria. Sure, the US helped in Libya, but the death toll in Syria is much higher than and the government has done worse against its people than in Libya.
Hell, if we cared more about people, we'd be standing up more against a lot of the atrocities Israel has done in places like the Gaza Strip over the years.
North Korea is another situation. I remember saying a decade ago when the Iraq war was starting that if we were really concerned about stopping someone dangerous, we'd be in North Korea instead. Saddam Hussein was a terrible person who did terrible things, yes, but have you seen what goes on in North Korea?
The people are starving and have been for years. They're horribly mistreated. The prison camps look an awful lot like concentration camps. If you've never seen a report on a person who grew up in a labor camp because he was born there, you should watch some documentaries on the topic because they're horrific. Not to mention the nuclear ambitions that they have and flaunt.
As someone mentioned up thread, if North Korea had oil they would have been dealt with years ago.
I'm glad you think the US is altruistic in these things, but I used to think the same thing, and it didn't take much research to show the true colors behind foreign policy.
CNN reports:
The article has a timeline that NK has done this before, although I think it's the first time it's been this explicit. Time will tell.
The article has a timeline that NK has done this before, although I think it's the first time it's been this explicit. Time will tell.
Not to my recollection. I was stationed there in the 90s. The tension would go from 0 - 60 in a nanosecond. I just hope this is more sabre rattling.