Should 'we' strike N. Korea first?

User avatar
redunderthebed
Commie Bastard
Posts: 6556
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:13 pm
About me: "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate and wine in each hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
Location: Port Lincoln Australia
Contact:

Re: Should 'we' strike N. Korea first?

Post by redunderthebed » Thu May 28, 2009 9:42 am

Yes and invading countries and overthrowing governments really does help just ask the Iraqis who just want to GTFO of their country if they have the money/education to do so.

You have a bunch of miserable starving sods the last and i mean the last they need is the US and their korean puppets marching over the border and bombing the living shite out of their country.It will make people hate the US and their supposed cousins more than they ever hated kimmy and ignores something....its a sovereign country it might not be nice nor acceptable but if you respect their sovereignty and start treating it with respect it you might get somewhere.

Since 1953 all we have done is threaten and aggress against the north hence any attempts almost without fail to resolve things with the DPRK have failed because we have got an attitude of a school yard bully.

KJI has alot to fear a country who has no qualms about marching into a sovereign country and bombing the crap out of it and has already done it once and has consistently threatened it since 1953.

The thing is that DPRK is a threat to noone its merely properganda to de-humanize and discredit them because the USA and the west dont like them and consider them a pain in the arse someone they cant overthrow and cant go in their and bomb the crap out of them. it just wants to be left alone in its little fucked up country. The nukes are their for a rainy day (i.e South Korea and USA invade) and they arent going to use them because that would give the SK and USA pretext to just go in there and level it. There would be no way in hell then Russia and China would come in to save them then.

The official nuclear powers have more nukes than kimmy could ever dream of i mean the stuff they have now make hiroshima and nagasaki look like a firecracker. So why are we looking at DPRK singularly and not just looking at the general idea of nuclear disarmament rather than a hypocritical policy of just keeping them off people we dont like. It would definitely gives us more traction in negotiations and stop us looking like fucking hypocrites as usual. :tea:

/rant over
Trolldor wrote:Ahh cardinal Pell. He's like a monkey after a lobotomy and three lines of cocaine.
The Pope was today knocked down at the start of Christmas mass by a woman who hopped over the barriers. The woman was said to be, "Mentally unstable."

Which is probably why she went unnoticed among a crowd of Christians.
Cormac wrote: One thing of which I am certain. The world is a better place with you in it. Stick around please. The universe will eventually get around to offing all of us. No need to help it in its efforts...

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Should 'we' strike N. Korea first?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Thu May 28, 2009 10:38 am

redunderthebed wrote:Since 1953 all we have done is threaten and aggress against the north hence any attempts almost without fail to resolve things with the DPRK have failed because we have got an attitude of a school yard bully.
Um, do you remember who started the Korean War by any chance? Do you know which side chopped a few soldiers up with axes while they were clearing trees in the DMZ? Which side tunnels under said DMZ to send infiltrators to the other side? Which side uses small submarines to send saboteurs to the other side, several times?

It's not as one sided as you make out. Sorry.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Clinton Huxley
19th century monkeybitch.
Posts: 23739
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Should 'we' strike N. Korea first?

Post by Clinton Huxley » Thu May 28, 2009 10:43 am

This is all just NK bluster, if you ask me. Expensive, explosive bluster but bluster nonetheless. Military action neither required nor advisable.
"I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"

AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!

Imagehttp://25kv.co.uk/date_counter.php?date ... 20counting!!![/img-sig]

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Should 'we' strike N. Korea first?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Thu May 28, 2009 10:44 am

Clinton Huxley wrote:This is all just NK bluster, if you ask me. Expensive, explosive bluster but bluster nonetheless. Military action neither required nor advisable.
Ah, but you are trying to fit rationality on an irrational system. Don't work.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Clinton Huxley
19th century monkeybitch.
Posts: 23739
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Should 'we' strike N. Korea first?

Post by Clinton Huxley » Thu May 28, 2009 10:48 am

Gawdzilla wrote:
Clinton Huxley wrote:This is all just NK bluster, if you ask me. Expensive, explosive bluster but bluster nonetheless. Military action neither required nor advisable.
Ah, but you are trying to fit rationality on an irrational system. Don't work.
I'd love to see what a rational system of Govt looked like........
"I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"

AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!

Imagehttp://25kv.co.uk/date_counter.php?date ... 20counting!!![/img-sig]

User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Posts: 56488
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
Contact:

Re: Should 'we' strike N. Korea first?

Post by Pappa » Thu May 28, 2009 10:52 am

Clinton Huxley wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:
Clinton Huxley wrote:This is all just NK bluster, if you ask me. Expensive, explosive bluster but bluster nonetheless. Military action neither required nor advisable.
Ah, but you are trying to fit rationality on an irrational system. Don't work.
I'd love to see what a rational system of Govt looked like........
Or even a hint of a good idea of what one might look like.
For information on ways to help support Rationalia financially, see our funding page.


When the aliens do come, everything we once thought was cool will then make us ashamed.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Should 'we' strike N. Korea first?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Thu May 28, 2009 10:53 am

Clinton Huxley wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:
Clinton Huxley wrote:This is all just NK bluster, if you ask me. Expensive, explosive bluster but bluster nonetheless. Military action neither required nor advisable.
Ah, but you are trying to fit rationality on an irrational system. Don't work.
I'd love to see what a rational system of Govt looked like........
It's not the government, it's the people in the government. The System is always irrational, because it's a living beast. The individual "parts", however, may have a tinge of rationality to them that raises them above the average madness of the System. The reverse is also true. It's when the truly irrational get control that things get really frisky.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Should 'we' strike N. Korea first?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Thu May 28, 2009 10:53 am

Pappa wrote:
Clinton Huxley wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:
Clinton Huxley wrote:This is all just NK bluster, if you ask me. Expensive, explosive bluster but bluster nonetheless. Military action neither required nor advisable.
Ah, but you are trying to fit rationality on an irrational system. Don't work.
I'd love to see what a rational system of Govt looked like........
Or even a hint of a good idea of what one might look like.
As I say, "Civilization is a great idea! I can't wait until we get one."
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Should 'we' strike N. Korea first?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Thu May 28, 2009 10:59 am

some damn looney wrote:posted on 28-5-2009 @ 05:45 AM
"North Korea is a threat to the world" = Propaganda!

Watching the massive amount of news coverage surrounding North Korea here in Europe at the moment and listening to the threats that have been emanating from the US towards NK for the past few months..

I just wanted to point out to people that this is very likely to be propaganda emanating from the US/EU led westernized countries.. who as we all know, at the moment, run the world. This could be for a number of reasons.. the most likely in my book is to create a tighter Global network or allies and economic partners and create another war in order to continue westernizing the world... Killing two birds with one stone by forging stronger alliances and wiping out opposition.

We are all being lied to again in order to convince us to support a possible new war against N Korea This is Iraq and Afghanistan AGAIN!

North Korea would easily be wiped out by China or Russia should they ACTUALLY become volatile enough to be a destabilizing force in the region.. the main reason for all their posturing is because of the US sanctions, condemnation and threats for things that any sovereign country has the right to do.

I don't agree with the North Korean regime or their Human rights issues or anything to do with their country in fact.. but it looks obvious to me what is going on here... A non democratic, weak rogue state is being roughed up yet again by the usual powers that be and consequences will be absolutely terrible for the civilians of that country but we will all be convinced that we are doing the right thing "For the safety of the world" when in fact.. us westerners are the ones to blame.. especially the US government..

If North Korea deserves to be destroyed because of the way it acts and the instability it is bringing to the region.. especially the threat to Japan and South Korea.. How come Israel doesn't deserve to be invaded for the exact same reasons? Simple.. because the west backs Israel..
That makes us all hypocrites.
Obama’s notion that it takes the entire world to stand up to N. Korea is mind-boggling, but this mind-boggling idea pales in comparison to Obama’s guarantee that America will protect “the peace and security of the world.”

Is this the same America that bombed Serbia... and pried Kosovo loose from Serbia and gave it to a gang of Muslin drug lords, lending them NATO troops to protect their operation?

Is this the same America that is responsible for approximately one million dead Iraqis...

Is this the same America that blocked the rest of the world from condemning Israel for its murderous attack on Lebanese civilians in 2006 and on Gazans most recently ... has covered up for Israel’s theft of Palestine over the past 60 years, a theft that has produced four million Palestinian refugees driven by Israeli violence and terror from their homes and villages?

Is this the same America that is conducting military exercises in former constituent parts of Russia and ringing Russia with missile bases?

Is this the same America that has bombed Afghanistan into rubble with massive civilian casualties?

Is this the same America that has started a horrific new war in Pakistan, a war that in its first few days has produced one million refugees?

“The peace and security of the world”? Whose world?
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Should 'we' strike N. Korea first?

Post by FBM » Thu May 28, 2009 11:04 am

redunderthebed wrote:Yes and invading countries and overthrowing governments really does help just ask the Iraqis...It would definitely gives us more traction in negotiations and stop us looking like fucking hypocrites as usual. :tea:

/rant over
I agree with the majority of what you said, and I should have taken several of your points into account. I will do so from here on out. Particularly, the point about invading a soverign country, and making another Iraq/Vietnam. War sucks and should only be considered in the extreme event that it's obviously the lesser of 2 evils.

But there are a few critical errors in your reasoning, or perhaps, gaps in your knowledge of the situation. The North doesn't want to just be left alone in their own country. They will never be satisfied until the whole peninsuala is united under their Stalinist flag, where fanatical hero-worship of the Dear Leader, gulags, work camps, cannibalism, forced abortions, starvation, public mass executions and torture are the norm. They proved that in 1950 and have been hammering that point home practically on a daily basis since. They don't even pretend to be otherwise. They broadcast it through huge speakers at the DMZ 24/7.

I arrived in country on 6June96. In September of that year, a North Korean submarine with 28 highly-trained commandos ran aground off the east coast. http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/17/world ... hopes.html They were chased through the mountains for about 2 months, living off berries, roots and the like. Most of them knelt and accepted a bullet through the head from their CO, who subsequently put one through his own, rather than surrender. One was wounded and captured, and one was never found. I gotta admire their balls, committment and survival skills. Their motive? Not so much.

There was a similar submarine incident just a few years after: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-653624.html. There have been assassination attempts on the S. Korean president by N. Korean commandos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung ... n_attempts. They killed his wife instead.

There are naval incidents almost every year in which N. Korean ships cross over the Northern Limit Line and exchange fire with S. Korean patrol boats. N. Korean ships and subs are spotted in Japanese waters almost routinely, often drawing fire from the Japanese patrols.

I won't go into how the regime has let 3 million of its own people starve while the Dear Leader lounges around in his 18 bulletproof, fully computerized Mercedes', sipping on a bottle of $630/bottle Hennessey. "He is the largest customer over the last 10 years, averaging between $650,000 and $720,000 a year in purchases -- while the average [North] Korean earns only about $900 a year." http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/01/08/wbr.kim.jong.il/ Because those are internal matters, and you could easily say it's none of our business. Or is it, 'Fuck 'em, that their problem.'? But if you're curious about what defectors describe life in the Fatherland is like, see: http://nkfreedom.org

But then there are kidnappings of Japanese and S. Korean citizens to train their spy network, or even more telling, this story of how a S. Korean director/actress couple were kidnapped and held for 8 years before they escaped: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2821221.stm. For what? To make movies for the Dear Leader. Seems he fancied the actress and admired the director's work.

A benign, peaceful little country that just wants to be left alone? Hardly. An aggressive, murderous tyrant squeezing the life out of his own people and constantly seeking new ways to bully, threaten, weaken and eventually overthrow the South is more like it. A supplier of weapons and technology to terrorists around the world who has made no secret of the fact that it's busting its balls to develop the capacity to deliver a nuclear warhead to the White House.

Another Iraq? No. The case for war in Iraq was made on trumped-up, erroneous claims for political reasons. There were no WMDs. KJI is jumping up and down trying to get the US to acknowledge that they actually DO have WMDs and constantly, loudly, daily use them to threaten the South and the US. There are no similarities. The only reasons the US/UN hasn't already wiped out that regime is a) China, b) Russia and c) there ain't no oil there.

The question I'm pondering is when do we reach the tipping point at which military invasion becomes the lesser of two evils. Another 3, 4, 10 million starvations? Or wait until KJI actually does have ICBMs and just hope that he doesn't decide to launch them? Or cross our fingers and hope that Japan's, S. Korea's and the US missile defence systems are 100% effective?

OK, my rant's over. ;) :cheers:
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Should 'we' strike N. Korea first?

Post by Feck » Thu May 28, 2009 11:21 am

I would have thought that China should sort out NK ,hopefully without large scale military intervention ?
Sanctions by the west won't make a blind bit of difference (just starve a few more people) Will the NK regime survive KJI 's death?
Is he actually mad enough to start a war he knows will destroy his country ? I don't see how the US can do much about this lunatic without
setting him off big style ,or taking his country over with a MASSIVE invasion, would China let this happen?
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Should 'we' strike N. Korea first?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Thu May 28, 2009 11:26 am

mrenutt4 wrote:I would have thought that China should sort out NK ,hopefully without large scale military intervention ?
Sanctions by the west won't make a blind bit of difference (just starve a few more people) Will the NK regime survive KJI 's death?
Is he actually mad enough to start a war he knows will destroy his country ? I don't see how the US can do much about this lunatic without
setting him off big style ,or taking his country over with a MASSIVE invasion, would China let this happen?
China knows it will be in the fall-out pattern sooner or later if anybody starts busting caps over there. How important this is to Beijing I don't know.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
redunderthebed
Commie Bastard
Posts: 6556
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:13 pm
About me: "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate and wine in each hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
Location: Port Lincoln Australia
Contact:

Re: Should 'we' strike N. Korea first?

Post by redunderthebed » Thu May 28, 2009 11:36 pm

Gawdzilla wrote:
redunderthebed wrote:Since 1953 all we have done is threaten and aggress against the north hence any attempts almost without fail to resolve things with the DPRK have failed because we have got an attitude of a school yard bully.
Um, do you remember who started the Korean War by any chance? Do you know which side chopped a few soldiers up with axes while they were clearing trees in the DMZ? Which side tunnels under said DMZ to send infiltrators to the other side? Which side uses small submarines to send saboteurs to the other side, several times?

It's not as one sided as you make out. Sorry.
I'm sorry if i seemed one sided but its no worse than the western media and anything i'm putting a POV that doesnt see the light of day in the western media they are too busy spewing american properganda.

Of course they started it but both sides had ambitions of doing the same. Both Kim's Daddy and Syngman Rhee wanted to reunify Korea by force its just that DPRK beat South Korea to the punch (and probably had more of an ability to do so). I wasn't saying that the North Korea where innocent i was merely commenting on the attitude by the west towards DPRK and how its counterproductive and doesn't work.
Trolldor wrote:Ahh cardinal Pell. He's like a monkey after a lobotomy and three lines of cocaine.
The Pope was today knocked down at the start of Christmas mass by a woman who hopped over the barriers. The woman was said to be, "Mentally unstable."

Which is probably why she went unnoticed among a crowd of Christians.
Cormac wrote: One thing of which I am certain. The world is a better place with you in it. Stick around please. The universe will eventually get around to offing all of us. No need to help it in its efforts...

User avatar
redunderthebed
Commie Bastard
Posts: 6556
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:13 pm
About me: "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate and wine in each hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
Location: Port Lincoln Australia
Contact:

Re: Should 'we' strike N. Korea first?

Post by redunderthebed » Thu May 28, 2009 11:54 pm

FBM wrote:
redunderthebed wrote:Yes and invading countries and overthrowing governments really does help just ask the Iraqis...It would definitely gives us more traction in negotiations and stop us looking like fucking hypocrites as usual. :tea:

/rant over

A benign, peaceful little country that just wants to be left alone? Hardly. An aggressive, murderous tyrant squeezing the life out of his own people and constantly seeking new ways to bully, threaten, weaken and eventually overthrow the South is more like it. A supplier of weapons and technology to terrorists around the world who has made no secret of the fact that it's busting its balls to develop the capacity to deliver a nuclear warhead to the White House.

Another Iraq? No. The case for war in Iraq was made on trumped-up, erroneous claims for political reasons. There were no WMDs. KJI is jumping up and down trying to get the US to acknowledge that they actually DO have WMDs and constantly, loudly, daily use them to threaten the South and the US. There are no similarities. The only reasons the US/UN hasn't already wiped out that regime is a) China, b) Russia and c) there ain't no oil there.

The question I'm pondering is when do we reach the tipping point at which military invasion becomes the lesser of two evils. Another 3, 4, 10 million starvations? Or wait until KJI actually does have ICBMs and just hope that he doesn't decide to launch them? Or cross our fingers and hope that Japan's, S. Korea's and the US missile defence systems are 100% effective?

OK, my rant's over. ;) :cheers:
I didn't say that DPRK was benign you are putting words in my mouth.Both South and North Korea want to reunify korea by force but neither have the capacity to do it for good reason.What I'm saying is that yes they aren't nice people but going there and bombing the crap out of their country isn't going to work.

I personally think they are just arming themselves to the teeth because China and Russia ain't going to bail them out and they need to defend themselves.North Korea is too absorbed in itself and its survival to be going around arming terrorists and how the fuck could a bunch of terrorists successfully operate a ICBM it counters to the tactics of successful terrorism and needs infrastructure which will lead to them sticking out like dogs balls.

North Korea is a slowly dying regime that is desperately trying to hang onto power.They might in the past have the ability to invade but they dont now.
Trolldor wrote:Ahh cardinal Pell. He's like a monkey after a lobotomy and three lines of cocaine.
The Pope was today knocked down at the start of Christmas mass by a woman who hopped over the barriers. The woman was said to be, "Mentally unstable."

Which is probably why she went unnoticed among a crowd of Christians.
Cormac wrote: One thing of which I am certain. The world is a better place with you in it. Stick around please. The universe will eventually get around to offing all of us. No need to help it in its efforts...

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Should 'we' strike N. Korea first?

Post by FBM » Fri May 29, 2009 2:06 am

redunderthebed wrote:I didn't say that DPRK was benign you are putting words in my mouth.
Well, when you make comments such as, "it just wants to be left alone in its little fucked up country", it would lead one to believe that you do consider them to be benign, wouldn't it? That's what I was keying on. But you're right, I should be careful about paraphrasing. There's the danger of distorting your position.
Both South and North Korea want to reunify korea by force but neither have the capacity to do it for good reason.
The current S. Korean president (I can say that because we have elections down here. Y'know, the 'will of the people' kinda thing) is definitely a hardliner. If he thought he could, yes, I'm pretty sure he would use force to reunify. But consider the ever-rising number of defections (those that don't get caught and thrown into "re-education" camps, that is) and the consistent stories the defectors tell of rape, torture, public mass executions, starvation and even cannibalism. Do you really think the people of N. Korea want to keep living like that? Hell, even high-ranking gov't and military personnel defect. And they're the elite!
What I'm saying is that yes they aren't nice people but going there and bombing the crap out of their country isn't going to work.
And the current strategies that have been going on for the past few decades are productive?
I personally think they are just arming themselves to the teeth because China and Russia ain't going to bail them out and they need to defend themselves.North Korea is too absorbed in itself and its survival to be going around arming terrorists and how the fuck could a bunch of terrorists successfully operate a ICBM it counters to the tactics of successful terrorism and needs infrastructure which will lead to them sticking out like dogs balls.
Now you're mixing my statements. I didn't say that N.K. was supplying ICBMs to terrorists. I said they're selling missiles and missle technology to them. They're hot on the trail of ICBMs for their own purposes.
North Korea is a slowly dying regime that is desperately trying to hang onto power.They might in the past have the ability to invade but they dont now.
Agreed. And in the almost inevitable event of a revolution or internal collapse, who would wind up with a finger on the nuclear button? Intelligence reports from Hwang Jang Yop, the highest ranking defector to date, say that KJI actually has to restrain his military leadership. They want more military incursions, according to Hwang's testimony, and there's always the danger that they will overthrow Kim if he doesn't behave aggressively enough. Now throw a couple of ICBMs into that scenario. "They might in the past have ability to invade but they dont now" doesn't match the reality on the ground. They're not firing off those missles only for saber-rattling; they're testing them for a reason.

We agree on most things, such as the idiotic, hegemonic bullying that the US has adopted as Middle Eastern foreign policy in the past decade or so, the sovereign rights of nations, the best interests of the citizenry, the tragedy of war, etc. We seem to disagree on the best description of what real conditions on the peninsula are right now and throughout the past 5 decades, and what they are most likely to be in the next year or so. The last part is what gave rise to my question in the OP. At some point, doing nothing (militarily) may become worse than doing something. Economic sanctions haven't done squat but entrench the regime and force them to greater extremes of humanitarian atrocity.

http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2002 ... 00166.html

http://www.dailynk.com/english/sub_list ... Id=nk01300
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests