North Korea attacks South Korea

[2LW]

Link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/korea-attack-yeonpyeong-island_n_787294.html). This is plain insane.

Other links:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-21/u-s-envoy-bosworth-visits-asia-amid-signs-north-korea-chases-nuclear-goal.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_north_korea

[JuneJuly]

Saw this on another forum I use. Scary shit.

[KennySims]

Wow.

[mms13]

Start of World War 3?

[Until The Bombs]

Not the first time they've attacked in the last year alone.

[loveisdead]

The supreme military command in Pyongyang threatened more strikes if the South crossed their maritime border by "even 0.001 millimeter," according to the North's official Korean Central News Agency.

[Kozzy333]

Korean War II. I expect an invasion attempt by North Korea on South Korea. This is going to get brutal.

[Nevuk]

Not as serious as the warship being sunk earlier this year. North korea is getting pretty aggressive though.

[2LW]

Start of World War 3?
I won't pretend to know shit about the Korean feud - probably why I made this thread, because I'm not sure what the gravity of this incident is - but I goddamn hope not.

The supreme military command in Pyongyang threatened more strikes if the South crossed their maritime border by "even 0.001 millimeter," according to the North's official Korean Central News Agency.
That is crazy.

[loveisdead]

I won't pretend to know shit about the Korean feud - probably why I made this thread, because I'm not sure what the gravity of this incident is - but I goddamn hope not.


That is crazy.
Yeah I'm worried.

[astretch4glory]

Start of World War 3?

Any one see the preview for the video game Homeland? This is how it starts!

[2LW]

Yeah I'm worried.
Are there other countries involved already? Aside from USA?

[astretch4glory]

Are there other countries involved already? Aside from USA?

Not really. The North and South have been at war since they signed the armistice back in '53 (?) or whenever that was. They have little quarrels here and there kind of often...

[perceptrons]

World War 3? Who would be supporting NK?

[_><_]

And NKorea just bragged about their nuclear power... Shit might end really bad.

[DejaGuy89]

Japan and China will be involved. I assume the US is going to try everything to stay out of it

[Deadbolt23]

I don't think that this will escalate any further.

[yayitsjoe]

shit.

[Mitch]

Hmm..

[StephenYoung]

I don't think that this will escalate any further.

This.
I strongly doubt that it's going to escalate. The sides prod each other every so often. They both know that a full scale conflict is against the interests of either side.

[honkyg88]

Are there other countries involved already? Aside from USA?

Not really. The North and South have been at war since they signed the armistice back in '53 (?) or whenever that was. They have little quarrels here and there kind of often...

Russia and Japan both condemned the attack, China and the US are both favoring diplomatic solutions.

[jwicklun]

This is not looking good. I hope it goes not get any worse.

[COREhorizon]

World's been pretty quiet for a while, I would've expected the Middle East first though.

[secretsociety92]

South Korea doesn't want this to happen, they will win if it goes all out but there will be nothing left of their country.

[Tinnerz]

I hope it doesn't escalate. I have friends in South Korea. One of them teaches English at a school there and one of her students came up to her, told her about the bombings and added, "Leave this country as soon as you can."

[boxingwithstars]

Really scary shit. Whether it escalates or not, it's still not a good situation. Especially with NK bragging about their nuclear capacity lately.

[spunkmastaflex]

Shiiiit. This doesn't look good at all.

[Ian Walker]

It is our military's traditional response to quell provocative actions with a merciless thunderbolt.

Gotta love government owned news organizations.

[Spenny]

Yeah, I don't think will turn into much. Nobody has North Korea's back, except China, but even China is seemingly fed up with all the crap they pull.

[bluecrunchy]

North Korea pulls crap like this all the time. I don't see it escalating any more than it has in the past.

[Jason Tate]

In the movies, wouldn't we have assassinated this douchebag already? Fucking North Korea, you piss me off.

[Simulcast]

This regime needs to go.

[thesollopsist]

This is freaking me out.

[Dustin Harkins]

In the movies, wouldn't we have assassinated this douchebag already? Fucking North Korea, you piss me off.

We need...
http://www.mannygames.com.mx/images/TomClancysSplinterCell.jpg

[anthonydarko]

Oh they're fighting each other again? How surprising.

[saysmydoctor]

Not as serious as the warship being sunk earlier this year. North korea is getting pretty aggressive though.
This.

[PTVsnewO]

I don't really see this escalating much more. As someone else said (I'm too lazy to go back and find the quote), it's against the interests of both North and South Korea.
As belligerent as North Korea appears to be, they know that they're at odds with the world here, and any escalation into war would lead to complete annihilation on their end.

[Jason Tate]

S.Korean Pres. Lee (http://twitter.com/#%21/WestWingReport/status/7130547037929472) calls for an "enormous retaliation."

[Miketheunicycle]

hoping this doesn't get worse, things can turn and become very serious too fast

[TinMan20]

North Korea, what the hell are you thinking?

Its you against the world.

[JordanBuell]

S.Korean Pres. Lee (http://twitter.com/#%21/WestWingReport/status/7130547037929472) calls for an "enormous retaliation."

your link is down but yahoo has the quote as well. "Enormous retaliation should be made to the extent that (North Korea) cannot make provocations again". shits crazy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101123/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_clash

[I am Mick]

I'm not going to pretend I know shit about anything like this and it'll likely sound incredibely dumb, but why has nothing been done to N. Korea yet? It seems like every fucking day they're doing something shitty

[Ian Walker]

N. Korea (their government officials at least) definitely knows the rest of the world is against them. China not coming to their defense in the last two incidents has to be an eye-opener for them. The thing is, I don't think Kim Jong-il gives a fuck. That's what makes him so dangerous.

[dru]

sigh.

[J.C.]

World War 3? Who would be supporting NK?

lol seriously

[loveisdead]

your link is down but yahoo has the quote as well. "Enormous retaliation should be made to the extent that (North Korea) cannot make provocations again". shits crazy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101123/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_clash
Fuck.

[saofan_315]

Jason has a point. I'm fully expecting Kim Jong-il to fall onto some bullets sometime in the foreseeable future.

[Simulcast]

It's a game that North Korea plays. Soon calls for talks will be announced, followed by some sort of deal brokered in which N. Korea receives aide in exchange for promises that will be broken, 1994 style.

[Mitch]

It's a game that North Korea plays. Soon calls for talks will be announced, followed by some sort of deal brokered in which N. Korea receives aide in exchange for promises that will be broken, 1994 style.

I would agree with this if South Korea didn't call for an enormous retaliation. Now I'm just nervous.

[Simulcast]

I would agree with this if South Korea didn't call for an enormous retaliation. Now I'm just nervous.

As someone already mentioned, nothing was done when the North sank a ship with 50 soldiers on it. I'm not holding my breath just yet.

[tizabor]

Ya, I never really understood why we don't send in assassins...We need some Jason Bourne action.

[thebestkylever]

Jason has a point. I'm fully expecting Kim Jong-il to fall onto some bullets sometime in the foreseeable future.

doubt it, he's a pretty sickly dude-- he'll probably be dead in a year or two anyways. however, he already announced his youngest son will be taking over, and he is in his 20's and apparently is even crazier than his old man... so that should be fun.

also, for the people asking why we haven't just scissor kicked this country to the moon already-- it's because it would be one of the biggest bloodbaths in history. the nursery rhymes they teach their children are about killing americans. there are around 25 milion people in north korea, and every one of them is more than willing to kill and die for a leader they see as a god. if you have netflix instant and really feel like being freaked out, watch a documentary national geographic did called 'inside north korea.'

edit: or see the youtube video below.

[Paulie4star]

I was supposed to be stationed in Pohang, South Korea in January. I wonder how much this will effect me and my Korean experience. Not so excited to go anymore, haha.

[Machu505]

World War 3? Who would be supporting NK? Exactly what I'm thinking.

[studskalny]

doubt it, he's a pretty sickly dude-- he'll probably be dead in a year or two anyways. however, he already announced his youngest son will be taking over, and he is in his 20's and apparently is even crazier than his old man... so that should be fun.

also, for the people asking why we haven't just scissor kicked this country to the moon already-- it's because it would be one of the biggest bloodbaths in history. there are around 25 milion people in that country, and every one of them is more than willing to die for a leader they see as a god. if you have netflix instant and really feel like being freaked out, watch a documentary national geographic did called 'inside north korea.'

I dunno if this is the whole thing but I found it on youtube: mxLBywKrTf4

This is pretty freaky but like the previous shit NK has done, I don't think much will come out of it.

[thebestkylever]

I dunno if this is the whole thing but I found it on youtube: mxLBywKrTf4

This is pretty freaky but like the previous shit NK has done, I don't think much will come out of it.

good find! that is exactly it.

[saofan_315]

doubt it, he's a pretty sickly dude-- he'll probably be dead in a year or two anyways. however, he already announced his youngest son will be taking over, and he is in his 20's and apparently is even crazier than his old man... so that should be fun.

also, for the people asking why we haven't just scissor kicked this country to the moon already-- it's because it would be one of the biggest bloodbaths in history. the nursery rhymes they teach their children are about killing americans. there are around 25 milion people in north korea, and every one of them is more than willing to kill and die for a leader they see as a god. if you have netflix instant and really feel like being freaked out, watch a documentary national geographic did called 'inside north korea.'

edit: or see the youtube video below.
Alright, you have a point. I guess what I really meant was that I wouldn't be surprised in the least if/when we get involved somehow in some covert operation.

[thebestkylever]

Alright, you have a point. I guess what I really meant was that I wouldn't be surprised in the least if/when we get involved somehow in some covert operation.

defusing this situtuation would take so much more than that though. first, we'd have to crush the dynasty (metal band name alert). second, if we are able to do that, there would be millions of people left who literally would not know how to function without the guidance of a supreme leader. how would we deal with them? they've been bred and raised to do nothing but serve kim il-sung, kim jong-il, and soon to be kim jong-un. they don't see their leaders like we see ours. north korea is like the most fanatical religion you can think of wrapped in a cult smothered in crazy sauce. there's no telling what these people would do if their beloved leaders were exterminated.

[saofan_315]

defusing this situtuation would take so much more than that though. first, we'd have to crush the dynasty (metal band name alert). second, if we are able to do that, there would be millions of people left who literally would not know how to function without the guidance of a supreme leader. how would we deal with them? they've been bred and raised to do nothing but serve kim il-sung, kim jong-il, and soon to be kim jong-un. they don't see their leaders like we see ours. north korea is like the most fanatical religion you can think of wrapped in a cult smothered in crazy sauce. there's no telling what these people would do if their beloved leaders were exterminated.
Reminds you a little bit of Iraq, doesn't it? I'm not saying it's the same thing, but on paper both situations seem pretty similar.

[thebestkylever]

Reminds you a little bit of Iraq, doesn't it? I'm not saying it's the same thing, but on paper both situations seem pretty similar.

bingo. only this would be much, much worse.

[saysmydoctor]

I really think North Korea is an overexaggerated power. Not to say they aren't a force to be reckoned with but....they have like no air force and piss poor navy.

It's China we need to concern ourselves with.

[Scrandon]

north korea is like the most fanatical religion you can think of wrapped in a cult smothered in crazy sauce. there's no telling what these people would do if their beloved leaders were exterminated.Sounds tasty.

[Jason Tate]

Why should we be concerned about China?

[deFobbed14yrs]

Except Iraq was not as crazy controlled as Korea. Iran might be a better example. Both countries feel slighted by America, want death to America. Iran thankfully has people fighting ofr democracy. North Korea is bat shit CRAZYYY.

[Simulcast]

I really think North Korea is an overexaggerated power. Not to say they aren't a force to be reckoned with but....they have like no air force and piss poor navy.

It's China we need to concern ourselves with.

NK can cause an insane amount of damage in just a short time. I think they have one of the largest artillery arsenals in the world, most of it pointed at the border where millions of people live. Throw in a nuke or two plus their million strong infantry and you have a pretty scary force.

I'm also not sure what they have in the way of air defense, but I'd be willing to bet they've considered the fact that they won't win an air war and therefore would need to defend against air attacks from the ground.

[tkamB]

S.Korean Pres. Lee (http://twitter.com/#%21/WestWingReport/status/7130547037929472) calls for an "enormous retaliation."

..only if North Korea attacks again.

[The Indigo]

The problem with the comparisons to the warship being sunk is that (if I'm not mistaken) it was never confirmed that the ship was suck my the N. Koreans. It's pretty much thought to have gone down like that, but it's never been certain. This attack, in contrast, was bold and direct and included retaliation, back and forth firing for an hour. Coupled with N. Korea's recent bragging about their nuclear capabilities, i'd have to say we've got an issue here.

[tkamB]

Except Iraq was not as crazy controlled as Korea. Iran might be a better example. Both countries feel slighted by America, want death to America. Iran thankfully has people fighting ofr democracy. North Korea is bat shit CRAZYYY.

I love it when people just dismiss countries/peoples actions as crazy just because they refuse to look deeper into why they act the way they do. North Korea has been isolated by the West for their ideology and that has caused the country to become poor, subjecting its people to famines. If it weren't for the fact that China still supports them the country would be starved to death. This is why they act out, to get noticed and to get aid because they desperately need it. This is also why North Korea has begun developing nuclear weapons, not with the intent of using them because obviously if they do they would all be obliterated by the Western nations, they develop them because every country with nuclear weapons has more power and more say in the world. With nuclear weapons North Korea would have to get noticed and they would actually have bargaining chips to bring in more aid or maybe end the boycott the Western nations have placed on them.

[saysmydoctor]

Why should we be concerned about China?
Cause they're the ones with the real leverage over North Korea, more so than anyone else in that region. How they handle the situation is pretty important. All I read was they called for a renewal of the six party talks.

Maybe someone can enlighten me, but why does the US insist on six party talks? Why can't we sit down, one on one with them? I genuinely don't get this position from the US. Makes as little sense as our "we don't talk to terrorists policy." Why don't we?

[Simulcast]

I love it when people just dismiss countries/peoples actions as crazy just because they refuse to look deeper into why they act the way they do. North Korea has been isolated by the West for their ideology and that has caused the country to become poor, subjecting its people to famines. If it weren't for the fact that China still supports them the country would be starved to death. This is why they act out, to get noticed and to get aid because they desperately need it. This is also why North Korea has begun developing nuclear weapons, not with the intent of using them because obviously if they do they would all be obliterated by the Western nations, they develop them because every country with nuclear weapons has more power and more say in the world. With nuclear weapons North Korea would have to get noticed and they would actually have bargaining chips to bring in more aid or maybe end the boycott the Western nations have placed on them.

Are you for real? Do they need the aid to keep up the multiple prison camps that exist in the country?

[Jason Tate]

I love it when people just dismiss countries/peoples actions as crazy just because they refuse to look deeper into why they act the way they do. North Korea has been isolated by the West for their ideology and that has caused the country to become poor, subjecting its people to famines. If it weren't for the fact that China still supports them the country would be starved to death. This is why they act out, to get noticed and to get aid because they desperately need it. This is also why North Korea has begun developing nuclear weapons, not with the intent of using them because obviously if they do they would all be obliterated by the Western nations, they develop them because every country with nuclear weapons has more power and more say in the world. With nuclear weapons North Korea would have to get noticed and they would actually have bargaining chips to bring in more aid or maybe end the boycott the Western nations have placed on them.
... you left out why North Korea was originally "boycotted." It's kind of important.

[deFobbed14yrs]

I love it when people just dismiss countries/peoples actions as crazy just because they refuse to look deeper into why they act the way they do. North Korea has been isolated by the West for their ideology and that has caused the country to become poor, subjecting its people to famines. If it weren't for the fact that China still supports them the country would be starved to death. This is why they act out, to get noticed and to get aid because they desperately need it. This is also why North Korea has begun developing nuclear weapons, not with the intent of using them because obviously if they do they would all be obliterated by the Western nations, they develop them because every country with nuclear weapons has more power and more say in the world. With nuclear weapons North Korea would have to get noticed and they would actually have bargaining chips to bring in more aid or maybe end the boycott the Western nations have placed on them.

Or you know, they could stop teaching their children nursery rhymes about killing Americans. W/e.........

[The Indigo]

I love it when people just dismiss countries/peoples actions as crazy just because they refuse to look deeper into why they act the way they do. North Korea has been isolated by the West for their ideology and that has caused the country to become poor, subjecting its people to famines. If it weren't for the fact that China still supports them the country would be starved to death. This is why they act out, to get noticed and to get aid because they desperately need it. This is also why North Korea has begun developing nuclear weapons, not with the intent of using them because obviously if they do they would all be obliterated by the Western nations, they develop them because every country with nuclear weapons has more power and more say in the world. With nuclear weapons North Korea would have to get noticed and they would actually have bargaining chips to bring in more aid or maybe end the boycott the Western nations have placed on them.
I'm all for blaming Western nations, but the condition of the N. Koreans is solely the fault of Kim Jong Il. His peple are starving because he uses the aid money he receives from China and sme Western countries to advance his countries military aspirations. Kim Jong Il is literally off his rocker. Haven't you heard some of the things he puts in the press about himself. He starves his own people; he doesn't care what would happen to his country if war broke out. Like someone said before (and like every political scientist would agree) that's what makes Kim Jong Il the most dangerous leader in the world.

[saysmydoctor]

NK can cause an insane amount of damage in just a short time. I think they have one of the largest artillery arsenals in the world, most of it pointed at the border where millions of people live. Throw in a nuke or two plus their million strong infantry and you have a pretty scary force.

I'm also not sure what they have in the way of air defense, but I'd be willing to bet they've considered the fact that they won't win an air war and therefore would need to defend against air attacks from the ground.
True, but that's very geographical. Aside from the nuclear capacity, I've never read anywhere about any long-range missile capacity and I'm sure South Korea (with US support) could repel and neutralize those artillery arsenals with ease.

They have very little in the way of air defense, no serious anti-aircraft capacity, and a miniscule air force. Not that I really like to parse military strength. I mean, for instance, Iran technically has the largest military in the world, but it's mostly an untrained militia force. It's all relative. A million strong North Korean force is strictly a numerical advantage. The US has 32,000 stationed in South Korea alone, and other bases in Japan (and the 3rd Marine Division in Okinawa). But they're pretty well-trained. Meanwhile, North Korea's army just does parades. Maybe I'm just being optimistic.

But North Korea won't use those nukes, I imagine. I mean, the guy is crazy but he can't be that crazy. He's surrounded by nuclear powers. That's just dumb. He can get away firing artillery and sinking ships...but nukes? It's a line that if he crosses, it's all fucking over for him. Then again, maybe he is one of those go-down-with-the-ship types.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm all for blaming Western nations, but the condition of the N. Koreans is solely the fault of Kim Jong Il. His peple are starving because he uses the aid money he receives from China and sme Western countries to advance his countries military aspirations. Kim Jong Il is literally off his rocker. Haven't you heard some of the things he puts in the press about himself. He starves his own people; he doesn't care what would happen to his country if war broke out. Like someone said before (and like every political scientist would agree) that's what makes Kim Jong Il the most dangerous leader in the world.
This. I mean, I agree that the conditions in North Korea can be partially blamed on the US and maybe we've even exacerbated the situation with how we approach North Korea ("these people are evil-doers, so we aren't going to talk to them"), but Kim Jong Il is batshit nuts.

[Jaimehere]

NK have done worse to the South years and years ago, was kinda surprised with a report from CNN reporting the other attacks they have done on the south with Assassination attempts, sinking of boats(they love that shit) and using bombs

but i kinda feel the South is now at the very edge of whatever patience or temper they have, kind of feel sad for some of my Korean friends that had to go back to Korea from the Philippines in order to serve their Military(2 years i think?), what a bad time for them now

[caveBEAR]

True, but that's very geographical. Aside from the nuclear capacity, I've never read anywhere about any long-range missile capacity and I'm sure South Korea (with US support) could repel and neutralize those artillery arsenals with ease.

They have very little in the way of air defense, no serious anti-aircraft capacity, and a miniscule air force. Not that I really like to parse military strength. I mean, for instance, Iran technically has the largest military in the world, but it's mostly an untrained militia force. It's all relative. A million strong North Korean force is strictly a numerical advantage. The US has 32,000 stationed in South Korea alone, and other bases in Japan (and the 3rd Marine Division in Okinawa). But they're pretty well-trained. Meanwhile, North Korea's army just does parades. Maybe I'm just being optimistic.

But North Korea won't use those nukes, I imagine. I mean, the guy is crazy but he can't be that crazy. He's surrounded by nuclear powers. That's just dumb. He can get away firing artillery and sinking ships...but nukes? It's a line that if he crosses, it's all fucking over for him. Then again, maybe he is one of those go-down-with-the-ship types.

I'm not really worried about escalation (and definitely not worried about WWIII :rolleyes:), but the bolded does freak me out a little. I don't think he'd do something enormous, but he could do some real damage to South and North Koreans if he wanted to.

[The Indigo]

But North Korea won't use those nukes, I imagine. I mean, the guy is crazy but he can't be that crazy.
Quoting for future lulz.

[Jason Tate]

WestWingReport (http://twitter.com/#%21/WestWingReport)
U.S. official tells WWR this is the gravest crisis w/North Korea since 1994, when President Clinton nearly ordered an attack

[saysmydoctor]

I remember watching somewhere that vendors actually sell human meat, at great risk to themselves and their family, in North Korea--that's how terrible the conditions are there.

I believe the US' refusal to talk one-on-one with North Korea allows such nonsense to carry on. Sometimes, you just gotta play the crazy person's games just so he'll calm down...and that's when you get what you want. It's like someone who is sleepwalking, you're supposed to monitor them but not try to wake them up because they may lash out or something.

Either way, this situation blows.

[The Indigo]

This. I mean, I agree that the conditions in North Korea can be partially blamed on the US and maybe we've even exacerbated the situation with how we approach North Korea ("these people are evil-doers, so we aren't going to talk to them"), but Kim Jong Il is batshit nuts.
Yeah. The lst administration had a habit of talking about some other countries in almost cartoonish villainy, but Christ, if there's one leader on this planet deserving of that kind of nonsense, it's Kim Jong Il.

[Jason Tate]

Its a good thing we have a proactive President when it comes to this sorta stuff....
Is that supposed to be clever or something?

[Jaimehere]

I remember watching somewhere that vendors actually sell human meat, at great risk to themselves and their family, in North Korea--that's how terrible the conditions are there.

I believe the US' refusal to talk one-on-one with North Korea allows such nonsense to carry on. Sometimes, you just gotta play the crazy person's games just so he'll calm down...and that's when you get what you want. It's like someone who is sleepwalking, you're supposed to monitor them but not try to wake them up because they may lash out or something.

Either way, this situation blows.

that is sick X-)

[Simulcast]

I remember watching somewhere that vendors actually sell human meat, at great risk to themselves and their family, in North Korea--that's how terrible the conditions are there.

I believe the US' refusal to talk one-on-one with North Korea allows such nonsense to carry on. Sometimes, you just gotta play the crazy person's games just so he'll calm down...and that's when you get what you want. It's like someone who is sleepwalking, you're supposed to monitor them but not try to wake them up because they may lash out or something.

Either way, this situation blows.

History has proven this to be a poor approach I'm afraid. You could argue that 1994 represented an attempt to do this. Look how shitty that turned out.

[tkamB]

Are you for real? Do they need the aid to keep up the multiple prison camps that exist in the country?

Its hard to feed your prisoners when you can't feed your people,

... you left out why North Korea was originally "boycotted." It's kind of important.

I'm hazy on which one you are referring to.

Or you know, they could stop teaching their children nursery rhymes about killing Americans. W/e.........

Sure.

I'm all for blaming Western nations, but the condition of the N. Koreans is solely the fault of Kim Jong Il. His peple are starving because he uses the aid money he receives from China and sme Western countries to advance his countries military aspirations. Kim Jong Il is literally off his rocker. Haven't you heard some of the things he puts in the press about himself. He starves his own people; he doesn't care what would happen to his country if war broke out. Like someone said before (and like every political scientist would agree) that's what makes Kim Jong Il the most dangerous leader in the world.

Again though, he promises his people change and to do that he feels that he must increase his military capacity. There are two ways to get power in this world, through economic output or military strength, since the country has exhausted the former and can't compete internationally because of the boycotts they must resort to military strength. And its not as if they don't ask for food aid because they do. And I still don't see him as a crazy leader who doesn't care if war broke out, because history seems to point that he doesn't want war and is using these escalations of conflict as bargaining chips for more aid.

[Jason Tate]

I remember watching somewhere that vendors actually sell human meat, at great risk to themselves and their family, in North Korea--that's how terrible the conditions are there.

I believe the US' refusal to talk one-on-one with North Korea allows such nonsense to carry on. Sometimes, you just gotta play the crazy person's games just so he'll calm down...and that's when you get what you want. It's like someone who is sleepwalking, you're supposed to monitor them but not try to wake them up because they may lash out or something.

Either way, this situation blows.
Chamberlin's appeasement comes to mind as a glaring example of how playing the crazy person's game doesn't always lead to him "calming down."

[saysmydoctor]

that is sick X-)
Yeah. It fucking is.
History has proven this to be a poor approach I'm afraid. You could argue that 1994 represented an attempt to do this. Look how shitty that turned out.
Yeah, but since when did entirely ignoring them ever work? Yeah, never. Or economic sanctions? Yeah, never.

[deFobbed14yrs]

Its hard to feed your prisoners when you can't feed your people,



I'm hazy on which one you are referring to.



Sure.




Again though, he promises his people change and to do that he feels that he must increase his military capacity. There are two ways to get power in this world, through economic output or military strength, since the country has exhausted the former and can't compete internationally because of the boycotts they must resort to military strength. And its not as if they don't ask for food aid because they do. And I still don't see him as a crazy leader who doesn't care if war broke out, because history seems to point that he doesn't want war and is using these escalations of conflict as bargaining chips for more aid.

Watch that video posted, you'll see.

[Simulcast]

Its hard to feed your prisoners when you can't feed your people,





The prisoners they work to death? Are you that naive?

Read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_Korea) about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yodok_concentration_camp) it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_22) here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/10/AR2008121003855.html).

[Simulcast]

Yeah, but since when did entirely ignoring them ever work? Yeah, never. Or economic sanctions? Yeah, never.

I agree. I know of one thing that has worked though.

[Jason Tate]

I'm hazy on which one you are referring to.
Could go back a tad further than the Korean War. Do you honestly think the USA just woke up one day and said, "let's boycott North Korea"? That seems to be what you're implying.

[saysmydoctor]

Chamberlin's appeasement comes to mind as a glaring example of how playing the crazy person's game doesn't always lead to him "calming down."
I'm obviously not proposing anything like that but at the same time but I mean, our current approach isn't that effective, which is basically ignoring them until we have all our friends in the room to bully NK to doing what we want. I dunno, I'm no IR expert by any stretch of the imagination or know that much about the history of negotiations but there's gotta to be something better than the staring contest scenario we have in place.

Scratching their back a little and them scratching ours seems like a decent way to approach it.

[raychull]

I hope it doesn't escalate. I have friends in South Korea. One of them teaches English at a school there and one of her students came up to her, told her about the bombings and added, "Leave this country as soon as you can."
I have a friend over there as well, teaching english.
god hope this doesn't get worse.

[Big_Guy]

In the movies, wouldn't we have assassinated this douchebag already? Fucking North Korea, you piss me off.

i truly think this dude should be assassinated. sadly, another one would just pop up in his place. these idiots don't want peace. they aren't happy unless they are creating problems for other people

[saysmydoctor]

I agree. I know of one thing that has worked though.
I'm on the edge of my seat.

[Simulcast]

I'm on the edge of my seat.

A large valentine (http://www.pbfcomics.sciesnet.net/?cid=PBF092-The_Mercy_of_Admiral_Shlork.jpg).

No, really though. Using force to depose him and his entire regime would probably work, considering nothing else has.

[Jason Tate]

I'm obviously not proposing anything like that but at the same time but I mean, our current approach isn't that effective, which is basically ignoring them until we have all our friends in the room to bully NK to doing what we want.
I don't know how a conversation between just us is going to go over any better than that of our allies, us, and them.

I dunno, I'm no IR expert by any stretch of the imagination or know that much about the history of negotiations but there's gotta to be something better than the staring contest scenario we have in place. I'm assuming the next step is military.

Scratching their back a little and them scratching ours seems like a decent way to approach it. I don't think appeasement has a solid historical backing, and I don't think this kind of dictator should have his back scratched. This doesn't appear to be the kind of guy that the world is just going to get along with ... does it? Or that we can trust?

i truly think this dude should be assassinated. sadly, another one would just pop up in his place. these idiots don't want peace. they aren't happy unless they are creating problems for other people
Yeah, his son is just as bat shit.

[anamericangod]

I'm obviously not proposing anything like that but at the same time but I mean, our current approach isn't that effective, which is basically ignoring them until we have all our friends in the room to bully NK to doing what we want. I dunno, I'm no IR expert by any stretch of the imagination or know that much about the history of negotiations but there's gotta to be something better than the staring contest scenario we have in place.

Scratching their back a little and them scratching ours seems like a decent way to approach it.

I am pretty much convinced it is time for military action to be taken against North Korea. There aren't many other alternatives.

[Simulcast]

We should have done it ten, twenty years ago. That bastard has a bomb now.

[tkamB]

The prisoners they work to death? Are you that naive?

Read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_Korea) about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yodok_concentration_camp) it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_22) here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/10/AR2008121003855.html).

Its not that I condone the actions, but its pretty easy to see why an incredibly impoverished country would treat their prisoners harshly.


Could go back a tad further than the Korean War. Do you honestly think the USA just woke up one day and said, "let's boycott North Korea"? That seems to be what you're implying.

I'm more referring to the fact that the Western nations refused to deal with communist countries during the cold war and this is just a lasting effect of that. We can see it today with the United States refusal to negotiate with them until they become a democracy, but the fact is the United States does deal with undemocratic nations(ie: China) when it serves our economic interests. So really when the United States says democracy they mean free market.

[saysmydoctor]

Maybe I just have serious qualms with the US being the moral authority in this debate. Who is the US to say who can and can not have nuclear weapons? So on and so forth.

[Jason Tate]

Maybe I just have serious qualms with the US being the moral authority in this debate. Who is the US to say who can and can not have nuclear weapons? So on and so forth.
Me. North Korea can't have them.

[saysmydoctor]

And why not?

[Jason Tate]

Its not that I condone the actions, but its pretty easy to see why an incredibly impoverished country would treat their prisoners harshly.




I'm more referring to the fact that the Western nations refused to deal with communist countries during the cold war and this is just a lasting effect of that. We can see it today with the United States refusal to negotiate with them until they become a democracy, but the fact is the United States does deal with undemocratic nations(ie: China) when it serves our economic interests. So really when the United States says democracy they mean free market.
And I'm referring to the fact that by starting there - you ignore the history that led to this point. Which is important.

[Jason Tate]

And why not?
Because the man with his finger on the button is out of his mind crazy. Seriously?

[Healthy Scratch]

I'm obviously not proposing anything like that but at the same time but I mean, our current approach isn't that effective, which is basically ignoring them until we have all our friends in the room to bully NK to doing what we want. I dunno, I'm no IR expert by any stretch of the imagination or know that much about the history of negotiations but there's gotta to be something better than the staring contest scenario we have in place.

Scratching their back a little and them scratching ours seems like a decent way to approach it.
i'm pretty sure they aren't interested in scratching our back.

[BornUnderPunches]

Damn

[anamericangod]

And why not?

The leader and future leader are insane? They are completely out of touch with the rest of the world? Proliferation is bad in general?

[saysmydoctor]

Because the man with his finger on the button is out of his mind crazy.
Not arguing that.

However, the US really has no room to make any sort of demands on this issue. We're the only the country where we had a man bold enough to actually push the button.

[saysmydoctor]

The leader and future leader are insane? They are completely out of touch with the rest of the world? Proliferation is bad in general?
Again, not arguing that. Think I've made it pretty clear that I think Kim Jong Il and his regime are batshit nuts.

[J.C.]

i'm pretty sure they aren't interested in scratching our back.

Not healthily, anyway.

[Simulcast]

Not arguing that.

However, the US really has no room to make any sort of demands on this issue. We're the only the country where we had a man bold enough to actually push the button.

Yeah, 60 years ago. The circumstances today are significantly different.

[thebestkylever]

Except Iraq was not as crazy controlled as Korea. Iran might be a better example. Both countries feel slighted by America, want death to America. Iran thankfully has people fighting ofr democracy. North Korea is bat shit CRAZYYY.

the fallacy that comes from comparisons to iraq and iran though, is that the people of those countries were loyal (even if only out of fear) to their leaders because they generally represented their religion. the people of north korea are so fiercely loyal because their leaders are their religion. from what i've read/seen, kim jong-il has a tighter grip on the north koreans than hitler had on the nazis. that, among other things, is what makes this situation all but impossible.

[saysmydoctor]

Yeah, 60 years ago. The circumstances today are significantly different.
Not really, the US still has the largest nuclear stockpile (or is it Russia? I always forget).

[saysmydoctor]

Ultimately, I do agree with you all--but I am just...so against the use of military force until all other options have been explored. And frankly, I don't think they have.

[Jason Tate]

Not arguing that.

However, the US really has no room to make any sort of demands on this issue. We're the only the country where we had a man bold enough to actually push the button.
And we shouldn't have done that, and that man is no longer in any position of power, and it's completely irrelevant to the current situation. Our being stupid in the past doesn't mean we should sit by and be presently stupid out of principle. I've smoked pot, and if I'm ever a parent - I'm going to tell my kid not to smoke pot. And if my kid is a fucking whack-job, I'm gonna go through his room to make sure he's not smoking pot.

[Simulcast]

Not really, the US still has the largest nuclear stockpile (or is it Russia? I always forget).

And the least amount of will to use them. That's why the decisions are not in the hands of one man. Every person in this country is somewhat invested in that decision. It's the advantage a government like ours has over a state like NK.

[saysmydoctor]

What is relevant is that the US has a massive stockpile. If we're so against the weapons, we should eliminate our stockpile. Until such a time, who are we to say they can't have one? We have one. Why can't they? Sure, he's crazy, but that's not a legitimate reason. Not really, anyway. It's not like I want them to possess nuclear weapons. "Do as I say, not as I do?"

Nah.

[anamericangod]

Not really, the US still has the largest nuclear stockpile (or is it Russia? I always forget).

Russia has several thousand more.

[The Indigo]

Its hard to feed your prisoners when you can't feed your people,



I'm hazy on which one you are referring to.



Sure.



Again though, he promises his people change and to do that he feels that he must increase his military capacity. There are two ways to get power in this world, through economic output or military strength, since the country has exhausted the former and can't compete internationally because of the boycotts they must resort to military strength. And its not as if they don't ask for food aid because they do. And I still don't see him as a crazy leader who doesn't care if war broke out, because history seems to point that he doesn't want war and is using these escalations of conflict as bargaining chips for more aid.

The ONLY thing he wants is war with South Korea. Every request for aid he's received has been used to advance his military. What you're saying makes no sense. You're implying he upps his military in order to receive aid to feed his people and then uses the money to upp his military in order to receive aid for his people, which he then uses to upp his military to receive aid for his people. That makes no sense. He's simply building up an army, in preparation for a war he's insane enough to fight. He purposely starves a million of his people every year according to some figures. If he's really doing any of this for his people, why doesn't he feed them? Dude, like I said, I looooove to blame Wwestern powers for the world's problems, but Jong Il has only ever been interested in one thing: war with South Korea.

[caveBEAR]

I agree with saysmydoctor that the U.S. can't be the sole moral authority on the issue, and we must not run into this cowboy style like Iraq...but the 'superpowers' unified and working together through military action may be one of the few options left...unfortunately, I don't see everyone working together on the issue.
:shrug:

[saysmydoctor]

Not to mention, North Korea has every right to defend itself to an aggressor that has missiles trained on it at every second. They deserve a defense umbrella as much as the next. Same way I feel about Iran and Israel.

If anything, NK possessing nuclear weapons levels the playing field more. I'd rather no one fucking had them. That's not the case. But instead "You can't have them at all ever!", I feel a better approach would be "Okay, look, we'll shrink our stockpile if you agree not to develop them."

[Jason Tate]

What is relevant is that the US has a massive stockpile. If we're so against the weapons, we should eliminate our stockpile. Until such a time, who are we to say they can't have one? We have one. Why can't they? Sure, he's crazy, but that's not a legitimate reason. Not really, anyway. It's not like I want them to possess nuclear weapons. "Do as I say, not as I do?"

Nah.
We're not against the weapons, per se - we're against the clinically insane having them. It's a legitimate reason in our society.

[thebestkylever]

What is relevant is that the US has a massive stockpile. If we're so against the weapons, we should eliminate our stockpile. Until such a time, who are we to say they can't have one? We have one. Why can't they? Sure, he's crazy, but that's not a legitimate reason. Not really, anyway. It's not like I want them to possess nuclear weapons. "Do as I say, not as I do?"

Nah.

yes, it absolutely is.

[Jason Tate]

Not to mention, North Korea has every right to defend itself to an aggressor that has missiles trained on it at every second. They deserve a defense umbrella as much as the next. Same way I feel about Iran and Israel.

If anything, NK possessing nuclear weapons levels the playing field more. I'd rather no one fucking had them. That's not the case. But instead "You can't have them at all ever!", I feel a better approach would be "Okay, look, we'll shrink our stockpile if you agree not to develop them."
I am at a loss of words at this post.

[anamericangod]

What is relevant is that the US has a massive stockpile. If we're so against the weapons, we should eliminate our stockpile. Until such a time, who are we to say they can't have one? We have one. Why can't they? Sure, he's crazy, but that's not a legitimate reason. Not really, anyway. It's not like I want them to possess nuclear weapons. "Do as I say, not as I do?"

Nah.

I don't think the US stockpile has much of anything to do with the current situation.

[Simulcast]

Not to mention, North Korea has every right to defend itself to an aggressor that has missiles trained on it at every second. They deserve a defense umbrella as much as the next. Same way I feel about Iran and Israel.

If anything, NK possessing nuclear weapons levels the playing field more. I'd rather no one fucking had them. That's not the case. But instead "You can't have them at all ever!", I feel a better approach would be "Okay, look, we'll shrink our stockpile if you agree not to develop them."

This is totally unreasonable.

[saysmydoctor]

Russia has several thousand more.
I read somewhere this is misleading because the nuclear weapons we keep in planes actually count as a single weapon when in reality, these planes could be carrying more than one. I also could have hugely misunderstood what the article said.

[tkamB]

And I'm referring to the fact that by starting there - you ignore the history that led to this point. Which is important.

I think it lays the foundation for what is occurring now though, in that all that his happening now is based on the United States' and other Nations refusal to hold talks, negotiate with them. By punishing them in the past we have altered their present and we shouldn't continue the first mistake just because it makes a little more sense now than it did then because obviously our refusals to talk with them haven't worked out and just gotten a person in power that shouldn't be there.

[Jason Tate]

I think it lays the foundation for what is occurring now though, in that all that his happening now is based on the United States' and other Nations refusal to hold talks, negotiate with them. By punishing them in the past we have altered their present and we shouldn't continue the first mistake just because it makes a little more sense now than it did then because obviously our refusals to talk with them haven't worked out and just gotten a person in power that shouldn't be there.
You're ignoring the real foundation. You have to go back further than you are to see it.

[anamericangod]

Not to mention, North Korea has every right to defend itself to an aggressor that has missiles trained on it at every second. They deserve a defense umbrella as much as the next. Same way I feel about Iran and Israel.

If anything, NK possessing nuclear weapons levels the playing field more. I'd rather no one fucking had them. That's not the case. But instead "You can't have them at all ever!", I feel a better approach would be "Okay, look, we'll shrink our stockpile if you agree not to develop them."

There are current discussion in regards to SALT that have the stockpile being lowered more. North Korea isn't a country you can deal with based upon a treaty.

I read somewhere this is misleading because the nuclear weapons we keep in planes actually count as a single weapon when in reality, these planes could be carrying more than one. I also could have hugely misunderstood what the article said.

It doesn't even matter, really. Once you get into double digits, the entire world is fucked. Everything else is just posturing and nuclear-penis size comparing.

[The Indigo]

Ultimately, I do agree with you all--but I am just...so against the use of military force until all other options have been explored. And frankly, I don't think they have.
I am 100% anti war in all cases. However, I would understand military intervention here. I get what you mean by not liking the S trying to control who does and doesn't have the bomb, because the concept of mutual assured destruction is one that most world leaders understand, and they'd only use the bomb as a bargaining chip. We both know Kim Jong Il is fucking crazy enough to use it. This is, if I'm not mistaken, the most aggressive action taken since the confirmaton that N. Korea has the bomb. I don't know. It just seems like us sitting on our hands is going to cost a lot of people their lives.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't think the US stockpile has much of anything to do with the current situation.
I think it's very much relevant, considering it's precisely why NK developed its own program. Nukes gave the US leverage in the debates but now they have the same leverage. A very basic security dilemma.
This is totally unreasonable.
I don't think so.

[thebestkylever]

Not to mention, North Korea has every right to defend itself to an aggressor that has missiles trained on it at every second. They deserve a defense umbrella as much as the next. Same way I feel about Iran and Israel.

If anything, NK possessing nuclear weapons levels the playing field more. I'd rather no one fucking had them. That's not the case. But instead "You can't have them at all ever!", I feel a better approach would be "Okay, look, we'll shrink our stockpile if you agree not to develop them."

your logic is fucked beyond belief. that's like saying people convicted of multiple violent crimes have every bit as much of a right to own a gun as a law abiding citizen.

[caveBEAR]

I am 100% anti war in all cases. However, I would understand military intervention here. I get what you mean by not liking the S trying to control who does and doesn't have the bomb, because the concept of mutual assured destruction is one that most world leaders understand, and they'd only use the bomb as a bargaining chip. We both know Kim Jong Il is fucking crazy enough to use it. This is, if I'm not mistaken, the most aggressive action taken since the confirmaton that N. Korea has the bomb. I don't know. It just seems like us sitting on our hands is going to cost a lot of people their lives.

I know it's petty, but you can't say you're 100% against war, then turn around and say you'd understand military intervention here. Maybe you're 95% anti-war.

EDIT: Oooh, 9000 posts.

[anamericangod]

I am 100% anti war in all cases. However, I would understand military intervention here. I get what you mean by not liking the S trying to control who does and doesn't have the bomb, because the concept of mutual assured destruction is one that most world leaders understand, and they'd only use the bomb as a bargaining chip. We both know Kim Jong Il is fucking crazy enough to use it. This is, if I'm not mistaken, the most aggressive action taken since the confirmaton that N. Korea has the bomb. I don't know. It just seems like us sitting on our hands is going to cost a lot of people their lives.

Millions of North Koreans have been dying for decades because of their government. If the humanitarian issue was the most important, something would have already been done.

[Simulcast]

I don't think so.

Then you are naive. You really believe that regime is going to abandon its nuclear pursuits because we'll promise to diminish our stockpile?

[The Indigo]

Not to mention, North Korea has every right to defend itself to an aggressor that has missiles trained on it at every second. They deserve a defense umbrella as much as the next. Same way I feel about Iran and Israel.

If anything, NK possessing nuclear weapons levels the playing field more. I'd rather no one fucking had them. That's not the case. But instead "You can't have them at all ever!", I feel a better approach would be "Okay, look, we'll shrink our stockpile if you agree not to develop them."
And we've don that already. We've signed START (although it hasn't been ratified yet) and we've offered aid in exchange for them ending their nuclear program. It hasn't worked. They've shit on every document they've signed in regards to the issue. I agree that if a country wants the bomb to level the political playing field, the US has no right to hypocritically say they shouldn't have it, but with Jong Il, it's not just a political defense mechanism. He doesn't give a fuck; he'd actually use it.

Also, trying to have political discussions on a Droid is fucking annoying.

[anamericangod]

I think it's very much relevant, considering it's precisely why NK developed its own program. Nukes gave the US leverage in the debates but now they have the same leverage. A very basic security dilemma.

I don't think so.

North Korea developed its program to protect and prolong the current type of government they have. They don't care about sovereignty. They don't care about their citizens. They do not deserve to have nuclear weapons as a deterrent or bargaining chip.

[saysmydoctor]

your logic is fucked beyond belief. that's like saying people convicted of multiple violent crimes have every bit as much of a right to own a gun as a law abiding citizen.
I was under the impression that rights were unalienable. That's my mistake.
Then you are naive. You really believe that regime is going to abandon its nuclear pursuits because we'll promise to diminish our stockpile?
Oh, I am well aware it's naivety.

[The Indigo]

I know it's petty, but you can't say you're 100% against war, then turn around and say you'd understand military intervention here. Maybe you're 95% anti-war.

EDIT: Oooh, 9000 posts.
Fair enough.

[Jason Tate]

Then you are naive. You really believe that regime is going to abandon its nuclear pursuits because we'll promise to diminish our stockpile?
And do we really think either country is going to go through with this? It could come out tomorrow that both parties say "we're destroying all our nukes" and I'd laugh and we'd all know they're all full of shit. I'm as pacifist as they come, but crazy people do irrational things. And he's fucking nuts.

[Simulcast]

Oh, I am well aware it's naivety.

Then why do you persist?

[saysmydoctor]

And we've don that already. We've signed START (although it hasn't been ratified yet) and we've offered aid in exchange for them ending their nuclear program. It hasn't worked. They've shit on every document they've signed in regards to the issue. I agree that if a country wants the bomb to level the political playing field, the US has no right to hypocritically say they shouldn't have it, but with Jong Il, it's not just a political defense mechanism. He doesn't give a fuck; he'd actually use it.

Also, trying to have political discussions on a Droid is fucking annoying.
START is between the US and Russia.
North Korea developed its program to protect and prolong the current type of government they have. They don't care about sovereignty. They don't care about their citizens. They do not deserve to have nuclear weapons as a deterrent or bargaining chip.
The only alternative is military intervention and that essentially pits family against family. I just think that's such an undesirable route to go down. I'm very well aware that this is idealistic, pie-in-the-sky talk, but...hey. :shrug:

[tkamB]

The ONLY thing he wants is war with South Korea. Every request for aid he's received has been used to advance his military. What you're saying makes no sense. You're implying he upps his military in order to receive aid to feed his people and then uses the money to upp his military in order to receive aid for his people, which he then uses to upp his military to receive aid for his people. That makes no sense. He's simply building up an army, in preparation for a war he's insane enough to fight. He purposely starves a million of his people every year according to some figures. If he's really doing any of this for his people, why doesn't he feed them? Dude, like I said, I looooove to blame Wwestern powers for the world's problems, but Jong Il has only ever been interested in one thing: war with South Korea.

Its not that I agree with this methods its just that he thinks its aiding his people not now but in the future. Again the only way to get the world to listen is to gain military strength and with military strength the country gains more power and with the power they can help end the sanctions. I honestly don't think he wants war with South Korea, I just think he wants people to think he wants that and I think history supports me but we could be finding out in the coming months. Again this is not to say that I condone his actions and think he is acting justly, I'm just saying we created the conditions to allow him to operate and by still refusing to talk we are just making sure this dynamic continues and more leaders akin to him will remain in charge.

[YoungTeam]

North Korea developed its program to protect and prolong the current type of government they have. They don't care about sovereignty. They don't care about their citizens. They do not deserve to have nuclear weapons as a deterrent or bargaining chip.

The distinction between sovereignty and its influence in "righteousness" of a given situation and a lack of sovereignty but utilizing the same methods as every super power in the past (Nuclear weapons) is a distinction only made by first world countries as a deterrent to anyone compromising the first worlds economic power. America's position on issues like this are at this point is laughable.

[Jason Tate]

I was under the impression that rights were unalienable. That's my mistake.

Oh, I am well aware it's naivety.
And you lose certain rights when you fuck up ...

[saysmydoctor]

Then why do you persist?
Because the alternative is killing innocent people.

[Jason Tate]

The distinction between sovereignty and its influence in "righteousness" of a given situation and a lack of sovereignty but utilizing the same methods as every super power in the past (Nuclear weapons) is a distinction only made by first world countries as a deterrent to anyone compromising the first worlds economic power. America's position on issues like this are at this point is laughable.
That's one looooong sentence. What?

[thebestkylever]

I was under the impression that rights were unalienable. That's my mistake.


and i'm under the impression that unalienable isn't a word.

[Simulcast]

And do we really think either country is going to go through with this? It could come out tomorrow that both parties say "we're destroying all our nukes" and I'd laugh and we'd all know they're all full of shit. I'm as pacifist as they come, but crazy people do irrational things. And he's fucking nuts.

That's a great quote. I think he's off with his analysis of Athens and Sparta though. Sparta only fell after a long war with Athens and the Boetians. It didn't quite fall apart on it's own.

Edit: ?

[Jason Tate]

Its not that I agree with this methods its just that he thinks its aiding his people not now but in the future. Again the only way to get the world to listen is to gain military strength and with military strength the country gains more power and with the power they can help end the sanctions. I honestly don't think he wants war with South Korea, I just think he wants people to think he wants that and I think history supports me but we could be finding out in the coming months. Again this is not to say that I condone his actions and think he is acting justly, I'm just saying we created the conditions to allow him to operate and by still refusing to talk we are just making sure this dynamic continues and more leaders akin to him will remain in charge.
We're not refusing to talk ... I was under the impression we've been trying to talk.

[saysmydoctor]

And you lose certain rights when you fuck up ...
This is another debate, but I do not agree with this.

[Simulcast]

Because the alternative is killing innocent people.

Naivety has killed millions as well :/.

[Jason Tate]

That's a great quote. I think he's off with his analysis of Athens and Sparta though. Sparta only fell after a long war with Athens and the Boetians. It didn't quite fall apart on it's own.

Edit: ?
Oh, was gonna give it its own post -- then deleted it by accident. Haha, sorry about that.

[The Indigo]

Because the alternative is killing innocent people.
Nail on the head.

[Simulcast]

Oh, was gonna give it its own post -- then deleted it by accident. Haha, sorry about that.

Oh no problem, I just look like an idiot now hahaha.

[Jason Tate]

This is another debate, but I do not agree with this.
Well, thank God the judicial system does. But - put your money where your mouth is: go buy the parolee down the street a gun. Seriously?

[Jason Tate]

Oh no problem, I just look like an idiot now hahaha.
Nah. I knew what you were in reference too.

[Jason Tate]

Because the alternative is killing innocent people.
Eh, I think that's a false choice. That's not necessarily the alternative. It's not A or B.

[The Indigo]

START is between the US and Russia.

The only alternative is military intervention and that essentially pits family against family. I just think that's such an undesirable route to go down. I'm very well aware that this is idealistic, pie-in-the-sky talk, but...hey. :shrug:
I know, but it's a pledge to the rest of the world as well. The two biggest nuclear powers are agreeing to lower their stockpile.

[saysmydoctor]

and i'm under the impression that unalienable isn't a word.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unalienable

[The Indigo]

Its not that I agree with this methods its just that he thinks its aiding his people not now but in the future. Again the only way to get the world to listen is to gain military strength and with military strength the country gains more power and with the power they can help end the sanctions. I honestly don't think he wants war with South Korea, I just think he wants people to think he wants that and I think history supports me but we could be finding out in the coming months. Again this is not to say that I condone his actions and think he is acting justly, I'm just saying we created the conditions to allow him to operate and by still refusing to talk we are just making sure this dynamic continues and more leaders akin to him will remain in charge.
We've talked. We've signed agreements with the guy. We've given him money.

[The Indigo]

I suppose innocent people will die either way.

[thebestkylever]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unalienable

inalienable-- lots of people screwing it up over time doesn't make it right . either way, as was said earlier, when you fuck up those rights can become void.

[Simulcast]

I suppose innocent people will die either way.

The world is imperfect. Best not to ignore that fact.

[Big_Guy]

Not arguing that.

However, the US really has no room to make any sort of demands on this issue. We're the only the country where we had a man bold enough to actually push the button.

had to be done.

[saysmydoctor]

Well, thank God the judicial system does. But - put your money where your mouth is: go buy the parolee down the street a gun.
Sure, there's no guarantee he'll become a repeat offender. Maybe he becomes a reformed citizen. Who the fuck knows? Fact of the matter is rights are rights, there's no "You fucked up" clause in the Constitution that terminates these rights.

If prison is supposed to rehabilitate, what does it say when we release them but add "Yeah, you're free...except for guns. You're rehabilitated, but we just don't trust you." :shrug: You're sending different messages.
Eh, I think that's a false choice. That's not necessarily the alternative. It's not A or B.
Most people have stated that diplomacy has run its course--not something I necessarily prescribe to, but let's say it has: what are the alternatives here? We've got full scale military intervention or we can go more cloak or daggers. What else?

[tkamB]

You're ignoring the real foundation. You have to go back further than you are to see it.

I'm confused about which history you are talking about then, pre Korean War?

We've talked. We've signed agreements with the guy. We've given him money.
We're not refusing to talk ... I was under the impression we've been trying to talk.

We've only talked in the wrong way though, I think ongoing open communication and easing of tensions while trying to get better conditions for the North Koreans is what we need to be focused on, not negotiating how to end their nuclear proliferation while ignoring the other issues.

[saysmydoctor]

had to be done.
Wrong (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html).

[Simulcast]

Oh god, not this again.

[YoungTeam]

That's one looooong sentence. What?

read it a couple of more times.

[Jason Tate]

Sure, there's no guarantee he'll become a repeat offender. Maybe he becomes a reformed citizen. Who the fuck knows? Fact of the matter is rights are rights, there's no "You fucked up" clause in the Constitution that terminates these rights.

If prison is supposed to rehabilitate, what does it say when we release them but add "Yeah, you're free...except for guns. You're rehabilitated, but we just don't trust you." :shrug: You're sending different messages.

Most people have stated that diplomacy has run its course--not something I necessarily prescribe to, but let's say it has: what are the alternatives here? We've got full scale military intervention or we can go more cloak or daggers. What else?
Uh, there's a lot of stuff not in the constitution and that's why we have a judicial system, amendments, laws (Gun Control Act of 1968), etc. Just piss poor reasoning there.

Disagree with the premise that prison is supposed to rehabilitate. It says we don't trust someone who has shown in the past not to be trust worthy. It says we're not naive morons that like making the same mistakes multiple times.

Why does cloak and daggers have to mean the death of innocents? It doesn't. I mean, what I am insinuating is illegal and sets a fucked up precedent; I'm well aware of this. But this guy needs to go. His family needs to go. At this point, I don't see another option.

[Jason Tate]

read it a couple of more times.
Not going to make it comprehensible.

[anamericangod]

START is between the US and Russia.

The only alternative is military intervention and that essentially pits family against family. I just think that's such an undesirable route to go down. I'm very well aware that this is idealistic, pie-in-the-sky talk, but...hey. :shrug:

Innocents are already dying because of inaction.

[saysmydoctor]

Like I said, ultimately, most of you are probably right and that military intervention is necessary. But, fuck.

You know, just fuck.

[Jason Tate]

I'm confused about which history you are talking about then, pre Korean War?
Yes.

We've only talked in the wrong way though, I think ongoing open communication and easing of tensions while trying to get better conditions for the North Koreans is what we need to be focused on, not negotiating how to end their nuclear proliferation while ignoring the other issues.
Seems like we've done just this ... not only recently, but 10 years ago, and 10 years before that.

[The Indigo]

I'm confused about which history you are talking about then, pre Korean War?




We've only talked in the wrong way though, I think ongoing open communication and easing of tensions while trying to get better conditions for the North Koreans is what we need to be focused on, not negotiating how to end their nuclear proliferation while ignoring the other issues.
We were under the impression that money we were giving them would be used to get better conditions for North Koreans.

[The Indigo]

Like I said, ultimately, most of you are probably right and that military intervention is necessary. But, fuck.

You know, just fuck.
I feel ya.

[Simulcast]

Like I said, ultimately, most of you are probably right and that military intervention is necessary. But, fuck.

You know, just fuck.

Read some Thucydides. That might help.

[anamericangod]

The distinction between sovereignty and its influence in "righteousness" of a given situation and a lack of sovereignty but utilizing the same methods as every super power in the past (Nuclear weapons) is a distinction only made by first world countries as a deterrent to anyone compromising the first worlds economic power. America's position on issues like this are at this point is laughable.

No.

The leaders of North Korea do not give a shit about their country. They are willing to do anything to continue to live like kings. The North couldn't care less about civilian casualties in the event of a larger military attack. They would only use it as propaganda to perpetuate their already completely warped world view.

No idea what you are talking about economic power.

[anamericangod]

Read some Thucydides. That might help.

Just curious, what's your academic/professional background?

[Simulcast]

No.

The leaders of North Korea do not give a shit about their country. They are willing to do anything to continue to live like kings. The North couldn't care less about civilian casualties in the event of a larger military attack. They would only use it as propaganda to perpetuate their already completely warped world view.

No idea what you are talking about economic power.

Marxist history. As if all wars have been fought on the basic of economics. Give me a break.

[Jason Tate]

Like I said, ultimately, most of you are probably right and that military intervention is necessary. But, fuck.

You know, just fuck.
I think in this forum most people are against military intervention. Some may even be against it in all cases. I think I land on the extreme of when I think it's possibly needed. Like 1 in 99,999 times. I don't know what the fuck we're supposed to do in this case. I don't think the guy is all there. I don't think he's thinking straight. And I do think he wants to hurt people. This looks to be one of those extremely rare cases. One of those once in a lifetime cases.

[Big_Guy]

Wrong (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html).

yeah, should have been Germany. j/k


it's just the fact that these people thought they could get away with acts like the Holocaust and Pearl Harbor without any repercussions that bugs me.

I'm not one of those "nobody fucks with the U.S.A." people, but c'mon.

[Simulcast]

Just curious, what's your academic/professional background?

Haha, not that impressive. I have a BA in ancient history and I'm planning on getting a Masters in Library and Information and Science. Right now I head a department at a University Library.

I just like to read a lot.

[saysmydoctor]

Uh, there's a lot of stuff not in the constitution and that's why we have a judicial system, amendments, laws (Gun Control Act of 1968), etc. Just piss poor reasoning there.

Disagree with the premise that prison is supposed to rehabilitate. It says we don't trust someone who has shown in the past not to be trust worthy. It says we're not naive morons that like making the same mistakes multiple times.

Why does cloak and daggers have to mean the death of innocents? It doesn't. I mean, what I am insinuating is illegal and sets a fucked up precedent; I'm well aware of this. But this guy needs to go. His family needs to go. At this point, I don't see another option.
Fair enough but I guess when rights become something you can revoke or hinder, they become privileges rather than rights.

Disagree with the premise? We call the bureaucracies that oversee prison operations the Department of Corrections. Or here, from Bureau of Prisons website (http://www.bop.gov/about/index.jsp):

The Federal Bureau of Prisons protects society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens.
The Bureau helps reduce the potential for future criminal activity by encouraging inmates to participate in a range of programs that have been proven to reduce recidivism.

Sounds like rehabilitation to me.

[Jason Tate]

Fair enough but I guess when rights become something you can revoke or hinder, they become privileges rather than rights.

Disagree with the premise? We call the bureaucracies that oversee prison operations the Department of Corrections. Or here, from Bureau of Prisons website (http://www.bop.gov/about/index.jsp):




Sounds like rehabilitation to me.
Reading their propagandist doesn't convince me. Of course they're going to say that. Reality does not mesh with their double-speak claims.

[saysmydoctor]

Read some Thucydides. That might help.
I remember reading portions of his text in my IR class and being bored.

[Simulcast]

I remember reading portions of his text in my IR class and being bored.


He has a lot to say on the nature of war and man. Try looking for a "Landmark Thucydides". That edition helps quite a bit with the dry parts.

[Scrandon]

Most Depressing Thread of the Year Award

[tkamB]

Yes.

I honestly don't see how the pre-Korean War has much to do with the present day events.

Seems like we've done just this ... not only recently, but 10 years ago, and 10 years before that.

We were under the impression that money we were giving them would be used to get better conditions for North Koreans.

Again but those deals and talks have hinged on them decreasing military forces, or stopping the nuclear program which makes it seem that that is the only reason that we are dealing with them, and it makes it seem like without those tools they would just become another Africa.

[saysmydoctor]

Actually one of the most enjoyable conversations I've had on this board in a while. I completely understand the other side.

It's just...fuck. Like I said before, just fuck. :wallbash:

[Jason Tate]

I honestly don't see how the pre-Korean War has much to do with the present day events.





Again but those deals and talks have hinged on them decreasing military forces, or stopping the nuclear program which makes it seem that that is the only reason that we are dealing with them, and it makes it seem like without those tools they would just become another Africa.
Well, I don't know how to show you without you actually knowing about it in the first place.

[saysmydoctor]

He has a lot to say on the nature of war and man. Try looking for a "Landmark Thucydides". That edition helps quite a bit with the dry parts.
Oh we read his History of Pelop. War. Or is that all he did?

[Simulcast]

Oh we read his History of Pelop. War. Or is that all he did?

That's the one.

[caveBEAR]

yeah, should have been Germany. j/k


it's just the fact that these people thought they could get away with acts like the Holocaust and Pearl Harbor without any repercussions that bugs me.

I'm not one of those "nobody fucks with the U.S.A." people, but c'mon.

Pearl Harbor was a military target. Sneak attacks are shitty, but to lump 'the Holocaust and Pearl Harbor' together like they're even near the same level as each other is ridiculous.

[caveBEAR]

I feel like this should be the situation where the rest of the world (that is able to) comes together to stop this shit. This could be the anti-Iraq, sort of a 'this is how we should handle these situations' type deal.

I don't really see any other solution ending well; if we just leave them be, the situation's not going to rectify itself, and if a single country storms in there (no matter how well the intentions may be), we've already seen (a few times recently) how that ends.

[tkamB]

Well, I don't know how to show you without you actually knowing about it in the first place.

I thought I knew the history pretty well, but apparently I don't unless you're talking the history prior to Japanese rule which I admittedly know nothing about.

[The Indigo]

I honestly don't see how the pre-Korean War has much to do with the present day events.





Again but those deals and talks have hinged on them decreasing military forces, or stopping the nuclear program which makes it seem that that is the only reason that we are dealing with them, and it makes it seem like without those tools they would just become another Africa.
Even then the point still stands: if he's doing all this for his people's well being, why does he not use the money he gets in these deal to feed his people? Why does he continually let them starve? Why does he not allow non-governmental aid programs into his country?

But you seem to be impossible to convince.

[Jason Tate]

I feel like this should be the situation where the rest of the world (that is able to) comes together to stop this shit. This could be the anti-Iraq, sort of a 'this is how we should handle these situations' type deal.

I don't really see any other solution ending well; if we just leave them be, the situation's not going to rectify itself, and if a single country storms in there (no matter how well the intentions may be), we've already seen (a few times recently) how that ends.
My current thinking .. .as much as I hate it ... as well.

[Simulcast]

I feel like this should be the situation where the rest of the world (that is able to) comes together to stop this shit. This could be the anti-Iraq, sort of a 'this is how we should handle these situations' type deal.

I don't really see any other solution ending well; if we just leave them be, the situation's not going to rectify itself, and if a single country storms in there (no matter how well the intentions may be), we've already seen (a few times recently) how that ends.

That would be ideal. I think the U.S. is the only country with the will to actually do it though.

[saysmydoctor]

If I had to name my single biggest concern with military intervention, it's our capacity to actually do it right. It's not just an anti-Iraq. It's anti-Afghanistan, it's how we've handled issues in Pakistan, in Israel, and now in Yemen. And years before, in Somalia. We've shown pretty consistently over the last two decades that we suck at intervening in situations and neutralizing them.

[caveBEAR]

My current thinking .. .as much as I hate it ... as well.

Yup. This is one of those rare situations where I don't believe diplomacy will work, and leaving them to their own devices is off the table; however, no cowboy bullshit. It's fucking 2010, it's time we start acting more like humans on the same fucking planet than assholes who don't give a shit beyond their own borders.

[caveBEAR]

That would be ideal. I think the U.S. is the only country with the will to actually do it though.

Even if we were the only (or by far largest) military force, the co-operation of other countries and the U.N. is completely needed, lest we have another clusterfuck on our hands. I trust Obama 10,000 times more to help make this happen than W would have.

[The Indigo]

If I had to name my single biggest concern with military intervention, it's our capacity to actually do it right. It's not just an anti-Iraq. It's anti-Afghanistan, it's how we've handled issues in Pakistan, in Israel, and now in Yemen. And years before, in Somalia. We've shown pretty consistently over the last two decades that we suck at intervening in situations and neutralizing them.
A valid concern.

[Simulcast]

Even if we were the only (or by far largest) military force, the co-operation of other countries and the U.N. is completely needed, lest we have another clusterfuck on our hands. I trust Obama 10,000 times more to help make this happen than W would have.

I don't really trust a guy with zero military experience. I doubt he even studied military history in college.

[saysmydoctor]

That would be ideal. I think the U.S. is the only country with the will to actually do it though.
I imagine South Korea has more. Much more.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't really trust a guy with zero military experience. I doubt he even studied military history in college.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

[caveBEAR]

I don't really trust a guy with zero military experience. I doubt he even studied military history in college.

Who gives a shit? I trust Obama to actually trust and listen to our military leaders, not ride off into the sunset like a retarded cowboy invading countries his Daddy didn't like.

[Simulcast]

I imagine South Korea has more. Much more.


Doh, right. They rely heavily on us though.

[Simulcast]

Who gives a shit? I trust Obama to actually trust and listen to our military leaders, not ride off into the sunset like a retarded cowboy invading countries his Daddy didn't like.


Wow.

[caveBEAR]

Wow.

Aaah, so the military heads of the U.S. were the ones who reccomended the invasion of Iraq?

[saysmydoctor]

I prefer a President without military experience, frankly.

[Simulcast]

Aaah, so the military heads of the U.S. were the ones who reccomended the invasion of Iraq?


It's just such a silly comment.

[EchoPark]

There are over 50,000 US Troops stationed at 8 major bases on the Korean Peninsula. Along with the highly trained ROC Army, who number at over 500,000. There is more than enough firepower and manpower to take down the North comfortably. The North are supported by China, who I'd bet want no part in a war like this.

The ROC have refrained from any aggression to the North as they are a civilized and rational country who see war as a last resort, however President Lee Myung-bak is a fierce opponent to the North regime and given what happened, I'd say armed conflict isn't far away.

[Jason Tate]

I don't really trust a guy with zero military experience. I doubt he even studied military history in college.
I bet he did, or at the very least his education on it now is quite good. Trust his intelligence far more than that of Mr. Experience George.

[saysmydoctor]

Pretty sure US troop numbers are closer to 30,000. Not that it matters, but yeah.

[tkamB]

Even then the point still stands: if he's doing all this for his people's well being, why does he not use the money he gets in these deal to feed his people? Why does he continually let them starve? Why does he not allow non-governmental aid programs into his country?

But you seem to be impossible to convince.

This timeline: http://www.alertnet.org/db/crisisprofiles/KP_FAM.htm?v=timeline seems to show that North Korea has been very willing to bring in food aid and allow aid programs in the country and only very recently has thrown out US aid programs. But again I don't think he is doing the right thing, or holding the people's best interests in mind, I think he is trying to establish North Korean power which makes a whole lot more sense than just saying he is insane. And that is another reason why I don't think an invasion or a war between the South and the North will happen because that would pretty much bring an immediate end to North Koreas power because of the alliances South Korea holds. The best way to combat this isn't to military intervene because if it fails, ahem Iraq, all you're doing is breeding more hate and destabilizing the region even further. The best way is to try to win over the people in the region through untethered aid and communication.

[Simulcast]

I bet he did, or at the very least his education on it now is quite good. Trust his intelligence far more than that of Mr. Experience George.


Oh, no doubt about his intelligence. His familiarity with warfare though, I'm not so sure on.

[caveBEAR]

It's just such a silly comment.

Of course it was, I called him a retarded cowboy. My point still stands; if we do not have the backing/assistance of the international community, we're just going to be entering the same quagmire we've been in. I trust Obama & his cabinet to unite countries much more than I would have trusted Bush and his cabinet, for (at this point) way beyond obvious reasons.

[caveBEAR]

Oh, no doubt about his intelligence. His familiarity with warfare though, I'm not so sure on.

That's why the military has leaders.

[saysmydoctor]

The point of the Presidency isn't necessarily to direct troop movements, but to be a civilian overseer of the nation's military. At least, that's my take.

[Simulcast]

Of course it was, I called him a retarded cowboy. My point still stands; if we do not have the backing/assistance of the international community, we're just going to be entering the same quagmire we've been in. I trust Obama & his cabinet to unite countries much more than I would have trusted Bush and his cabinet, for (at this point) way beyond obvious reasons.


Well that's simply not true. That assumes way too many things that you have no way of knowing. Would we use the same strategy in this conflict? Would a coalition of nations be able to coordinate effectively? Would these countries deliver on promised support?

[The Indigo]

I don't really trust a guy with zero military experience. I doubt he even studied military history in college.
It's not like he'd be the one on the front lines calling all the shots.

[Simulcast]

It's not like he'd be the one on the front lines calling all the shots.


He still has quite a bit of influence. It worries me that he may not have brushed up on his military history. I doubt that was high on his list of priorities as an up and coming politician.

[caveBEAR]

Well that's simply not true. That assumes way too many things that you have no way of knowing. Would we use the same strategy in this conflict? Would a coalition of nations be able to coordinate effectively? Would these countries deliver on promised support?

Right. This argument isn't going to go anywhere. Neither of us know about any of the variables that could come into play.

I trust Obama with this situation more than Bush. That's my opinion, that's where I'm going to leave it.

[caveBEAR]

The point of the Presidency isn't necessarily to direct troop movements, but to be a civilian overseer of the nation's military. At least, that's my take.

Not uh, Bush sat up every night drawing up the plans of the entire Iraq War.

[The Indigo]

He still has quite a bit of influence. It worries me that he may not have brushed up on his military history. I doubt that was high on his list of priorities as an up and coming politician.
People said that about a lot of different aspects of the job of President. So far, he's performed fairly admirably on all fronts. So, yeah.

[Big_Guy]

Pearl Harbor was a military target. Sneak attacks are shitty, but to lump 'the Holocaust and Pearl Harbor' together like they're even near the same level as each other is ridiculous.

don't get me wrong, the holocaust is, off the top of my head, the worst thing to ever happen.

[Jason Tate]

He still has quite a bit of influence. It worries me that he may not have brushed up on his military history. I doubt that was high on his list of priorities as an up and coming politician.
I think that would be pretty high up on the list ... and he's never shown any signs of not understanding military history. It's also why he's surrounded by the best and the brightest. I trust him calling the shots.

[Kozzy333]

I don't think they really would use a nuke. He certainly is crazy but not that kind of crazy. He must know that would bring out an absolute domination and annihilation of Korea.

That said, I really think this is going to become a huge issue in the coming weeks with a declaration of war in early 2011. North Korea would likely respond to a declaration of war by invading South Korea. I have heard that the plan (if open combat were to break out) is to take Seoul within 48 hours (not entirely sure on this one, might be 72 hours). Those first few days would be absolutely horrifying and brutal. I hope a peaceful solution can be found. I agree with saysmydoctor, other options need to be explored.

[Simulcast]

I think that would be pretty high up on the list ... and he's never shown any signs of not understanding military history. It's also why he's surrounded by the best and the brightest. I trust him calling the shots.

I feel like he would be a proponent of appeasement. I hope I'm wrong in thinking that.

[Simulcast]

Right. This argument isn't going to go anywhere. Neither of us know about any of the variables that could come into play.

I trust Obama with this situation more than Bush. That's my opinion, that's where I'm going to leave it.

Fair, though I don't quite understand what Bush has to do with anything.

For my part, I trust our military to get something done over the U.N.

[Jason Tate]

I feel like he would be a proponent of appeasement. I hope I'm wrong in thinking that.
Is that what you meant by "military history"? I think he'd be less trigger happy than some ... but willing if needed.

[Simulcast]

Is that what you meant by "military history"? I think he'd be less trigger happy than some ... but willing if needed.

Not really. I meant the conduct of war itself. I have no way of knowing for sure if he is willing or not. I only know how he's treated other allies of ours, and it doesn't really comfort me.

[caveBEAR]

Fair, though I don't quite understand what Bush has to do with anything.

I feel that international cooperation is the only way that this situation should be handled. 'Cooperative' is not exactly the word the international community would use to describe the lead-up to the Iraq War. Therefore, I'm happy that Bush isn't in office to call the shots in this scenario. Maybe we don't know how Obama will approach this situation, but I'm pretty sure we can guess how it would have went if Bush was in charge, 'Axis of Evil' and all that bullshit.

[saysmydoctor]

How has he treated our allies?

[Simulcast]

How has he treated our allies?

I'm thinking specifically of Poland and the Czech Republic. Kinda threw them under a bus. Russia is not as dormant as it once was.

[thebestkylever]

I don't think they really would use a nuke. He certainly is crazy but not that kind of crazy. He must know that would bring out an absolute domination and annihilation of Korea.

That said, I really think this is going to become a huge issue in the coming weeks with a declaration of war in early 2011. North Korea would likely respond to a declaration of war by invading South Korea. I have heard that the plan (if open combat were to break out) is to take Seoul within 48 hours (not entirely sure on this one, might be 72 hours). Those first few days would be absolutely horrifying and brutal. I hope a peaceful solution can be found. I agree with saysmydoctor, other options need to be explored.

wouldn't even be neccessary. the korean war technically never ended, there's only a cease fire, and that was just broken (again).

[Kozzy333]

wouldn't even be neccessary. the korean war technically never ended, there's only a cease fire, and that was just broken (again).

I meant declaration by countries other than south korea.

[bandnamexmyname]

All I know is I'm really fucking scared.

[troubledbyinsects]

FUCK YOU NORTH KOREA FUCK YOU

x

FUCK

[tkamB]

Fair, though I don't quite understand what Bush has to do with anything.

For my part, I trust our military to get something done over the U.N.

Because our military has a spotless record when intervening in issues such as these :rolleyes:

[Until The Bombs]

He still has quite a bit of influence. It worries me that he may not have brushed up on his military history. I doubt that was high on his list of priorities as an up and coming politician.

Advisors exist for a reason. Under this logic no president should ever make a decision in any area in which he is not an expert.

And read Obama's Wars.

[caveBEAR]

All I know is I'm really fucking scared.

Why?

[Simulcast]

Because our military has a spotless record when intervening in issues such as these :rolleyes:

Oh, good point!

I never said that, I said I trusted it to get the job done over the U.N., whose track record with any conflict is beyond awful.

[Simulcast]

Advisors exist for a reason. Under this logic no president should ever make a decision in any area in which he is not an expert.

And read Obama's Wars.

I really want to.

[Argentine]

This won't end well.

More scary? Me and my friends predicted the night it happened that North Korea would eventually bomb someone.

[tkamB]

Oh, good point!

I never said that, I said I trusted it to get the job done over the U.N., whose track record with any conflict is beyond awful.

"A 2005 RAND Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation) study found the UN to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. It compared UN nation-building efforts to those of the United States, and found that seven out of eight UN cases are at peace, as opposed to four out of eight US cases at peace"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_Nations_Peacekeep ing#Assessment