North Korea

[SR4]

im not gonna go into detail here,

 

but compson, i and many others understand your moral outrage over the continued existence of the N.Korean gov't as it is. But the North Korean problem does not easily confine to any moral outcome. How would you suggest we go about stopping them? Consider that military intervention will result in the destruction of millions of lives. Are those lives a worthy sacrifice to save the lives of the children in the future? Obviously the U.S./South Korea do not support such an idea because of a Korean sense of ethnic unity as per the homogeneity of culture for thousands of years; they'd be "killing members of their own families", etc.

 

Also consider a hypothetical situation in which the N.Korean government completely collapses, and is absorbed into S. Korea. How do you deal with, quite literally, the influx of a 3rd World agrarian economy into a fully developed industrial powerhouse? The economic and cultural effects will be at the worst massive, at the best, very unpredictable.

 

Basically: It's more complicated than we might, or want to think. It sucks, but we have to be pragmatic and consider that the consequences of action now might irreversibly damage the lives of successive generations after.

[delet...]

 

heh, you disagree with my cult of reality ?!

 

isn't the picture lovely ? hehehe .. ;-]

 

what makes you think that what you believe in is the real reality ? just because it contradicts mainstream conceptions ?

 

the picture and its timing is great, obviously.

 

yes my fabulousness is hard to ignore .. its hardly a cult, but i'm sure you'd be welcome should you choose to determine my amazingness aligned with your sense of personal ethics.

[syd syside]

im not gonna go into detail here,

 

but compson, i and many others understand your moral outrage over the continued existence of the N.Korean gov't as it is. But the North Korean problem does not easily confine to any moral outcome. How would you suggest we go about stopping them? Consider that military intervention will result in the destruction of millions of lives. Are those lives a worthy sacrifice to save the lives of the children in the future? Obviously the U.S./South Korea do not support such an idea because of a Korean sense of ethnic unity as per the homogeneity of culture for thousands of years; they'd be "killing members of their own families", etc.

 

Also consider a hypothetical situation in which the N.Korean government completely collapses, and is absorbed into S. Korea. How do you deal with, quite literally, the influx of a 3rd World agrarian economy into a fully developed industrial powerhouse? The economic and cultural effects will be at the worst massive, at the best, very unpredictable.

 

Basically: It's more complicated than we might, or want to think. It sucks, but we have to be pragmatic and consider that the consequences of action now might irreversibly damage the lives of successive generations after.

 

I think like a cancer, the longer we wait the harder it will be and the more lives that will be affected by a conflict.

 

Stockpiling weapons, improving military technology, weapon dealings with other enemies, all lead me to believe that the idea of waiting and letting the NK people continue to live completely oppressed and starving is potentially more morally objectionable. than say a targeted attack on NK military key points and the assassination of the leaders of the NK Government. There is no perfect solution but if the stance is simply wait and see, there must be some real understanding of what those consequences might be as well.

[J3FF3R00]

I love how NK has been directly threatening the USA for years and no one in our government / military has really done much about it.

 

Meanwhile, we had to make up a bunch of bullshit to create an excuse to go attack Iraq and people don't seem to give a shit.

[SR4]

I love how NK has been directly threatening the USA for years and no one in our government / military has really done much about it.

 

Meanwhile, we had to make up a bunch of bullshit to create an excuse to go attack Iraq and people don't seem to give a shit.

 

 

i wasn't for the attack on Iraq either; im not sure if that comment was intended towards me.

[J3FF3R00]

 

I love how NK has been directly threatening the USA for years and no one in our government / military has really done much about it.

 

Meanwhile, we had to make up a bunch of bullshit to create an excuse to go attack Iraq and people don't seem to give a shit.

 

 

i wasn't for the attack on Iraq either; im not sure if that comment was intended towards me.

No. Not pointed at anyone.

I jumped in the deep end of the thread and just posted what I've been thinking about NK, lately.

[MisterE]

 

heh, you disagree with my cult of reality ?!

 

isn't the picture lovely ? hehehe .. ;-]

 

what makes you think that what you believe in is the real reality ? just because it contradicts mainstream conceptions ?

 

the picture and its timing is great, obviously.

that america is the root of all that is evil IS a mainstream conception.

[marf]

i think NK is just trying to get some good footage for fresh propaganda to pump into NK homes. i dont think for a second the Swiss educated kid is crazy enough to start something intentionally. Im not even sure if he is really making the decisions over there.

[Guest yikes]

I love how NK has been directly threatening the USA for years and no one in our government / military has really done much about it.

 

Meanwhile, we had to make up a bunch of bullshit to create an excuse to go attack Iraq and people don't seem to give a shit.

there are no resources in NK that amoreikkka needs save for eradicating the flow of nuclear/missile technologies proliferation to iran,pakistan,syria,the highest bidder etc.

[SR4]

 

 

heh, you disagree with my cult of reality ?!

 

isn't the picture lovely ? hehehe .. ;-]

 

what makes you think that what you believe in is the real reality ? just because it contradicts mainstream conceptions ?

 

the picture and its timing is great, obviously.

that america is the root of all that is evil IS a mainstream conception.

 

 

America as the root of all evil? Might be generalizing a bit there. But honestly, even though I think the U.S. should shift diplomatic priorities to more African conflict zones and N. Korea for future infrastructural development instead of mineral rich hotspots, for now, the best way to deal with North Korea is very very gradually and carefully.

 

did Chen respond yet? Im still interested in what he has to say.

[Dale]

I'm curious to know whether anyone thinks North Korea's attitudes towards the US and South Korea would improve if the sanctions being imposed on them are lifted? Does anyone think this is the best route to go down and see what happens?

[SR4]

I'm curious to know whether anyone thinks North Korea's attitudes towards the US and South Korea would improve if the sanctions being imposed on them are lifted? Does anyone think this is the best route to go down and see what happens?

 

 

I guess it would be rather hard to tell...I mean, the Kim dynasty is dependent on maintaining, at least in appearance, a virulently anti-American posture....and they constantly need to placate the ever growing military caste in the political system...so....shit LOL thats not a good answer, sorry.

[chenGOD]

i hvent responded yet cause i havent had time (or internet beyond cell phone) will do tomorrow since i seem to be not working...

[SR4]

i hvent responded yet cause i havent had time (or internet beyond cell phone) will do tomorrow since i seem to be not working...

WEL HURY UP!!!1!

[chenGOD]

yessir bossman!!1

[Guest chunky]

the idea that western countriesshould attack north korea because their weapons technology might improve is a silly one!! their army is rusty and hungry. in a one on one state battle they would be thrashed. but war has changed because of nuclear weapons. attack nk and it will break up into ungovernable tribal areas. western countries are terrible at guerrilla warfare.trillions it would cost to wage such a war. where would the money come from ?loans from banks. might as well give 1 billion food aid and invite kimjong whatshisface over to usa to play xbox and eat some kfc??? at least anyone who proposes idiotic wars should read sun tsu first. state must be preserved as you defeat it. btw fu all world withouut borders mass murder lunatic warmongers

[J3FF3R00]

 

 

I love how NK has been directly threatening the USA for years and no one in our government / military has really done much about it.

 

Meanwhile, we had to make up a bunch of bullshit to create an excuse to go attack Iraq and people don't seem to give a shit.

there are no resources in NK that amoreikkka needs save for eradicating the flow of nuclear/missile technologies proliferation to iran,pakistan,syria,the highest bidder etc.

Exactly. We'll let them shoot missiles at us, that land in the sea, for a while. They may even be able to get away with taking out Hawaii before we start talking really tough.

[Dale]

 

 

 

I love how NK has been directly threatening the USA for years and no one in our government / military has really done much about it.

 

Meanwhile, we had to make up a bunch of bullshit to create an excuse to go attack Iraq and people don't seem to give a shit.

there are no resources in NK that amoreikkka needs save for eradicating the flow of nuclear/missile technologies proliferation to iran,pakistan,syria,the highest bidder etc.

Exactly. We'll let them shoot missiles at us, that land in the sea, for a while. They may even be able to get away with taking out Hawaii before we start talking really tough.

It isn't about 'talking tough' though. US, if there is any sanity in the government over there, need to think about trying to communicate with N. Korea in their terms. Though I know this may not ever happen, since the US government's standpoint on things when it comes to geopolitics is completely warped and corrupted. I don't believe there are many in the US government who truly care about human progress and having an overall social concern for people on this planet other than narrow minded, corporate interests (see Adam Curtis' films on the history of this). Simply failing to engage in productive conversation and resorting to sanctions upon sanctions will not do the job in sorting out the issue.

[Lane Visitor]

don't believe there are many in the US government who truly care about human progress and having an overall social concern for people on this planet other than narrow minded, corporate interests

 

i believe this kind of mindset about the intentions of the US government is a bit of an oversimplification and verges on being ignorant and divisive in the same kind of way that all Amerrrican armchair generals like to throw all the axis of evil nations in a pool and label them "freedom-hating". i think people are multi-faceted and dynamic, even government workers (i know that's so hard for conflict theorists to believe). i believe that in addition to actions, that it's a leaderships intent, mission statements, core values and beliefs that also count in international relations. in this case of NK, it is clear from the perspective of almost every other nation, that the NK leadership is hellbent on purposely taking out innocent lives. How is one to sit down and "talk" with a leadership like that on "their terms"? I do believe that dialogue and diplomacy can be constructive in some of the most complicated settings. However, when it comes to a leadership that is clearly set on genocide, it involves a mental (not political issue). I can't ever imagine sitting down and "talking" with David Duke (which is why human progress and social concern-valuing society members rightfully pass him off as irrelevent/unreasonable), or Osama Bin Laden (which is why we rightfully went after him). There comes a point where diplomacy does not work.

 

I'm not sure that a dictator who imprisoned and tortures his people is simply just going to "stop all that nonsense" if we lifted sanctions the same way hamas probably isnt going to stop wanting to push israel into the sea and murdering jews if the israeli govt just handed over land or stopped building settlements... same way an unnamed german dictator wasn't going to just stop committing genocide if his economy had just improved.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Lane Visitor

[chenGOD]

Ok I lied - it's not gonna be lengthy, because I just don't have the time.

 

First - axis of evil. Perhaps it is speculation on my part, but the avoidance of Islam bias seems clear to me. Regardless, use of the term "axis" implies that the nations involved had coordinated foreign policy goals (which they clearly didn't). Use of the term "evil" puts the discourse into a stark black and white, us vs. them context. We are always right, and they are always evil. It's such a simplistic foreign policy.

During the Sunshine Policy - there were not only family and business exchanges, there were also two trips to North Korea by the incumbent president of South Korea. There was a mass crossing of hundreds of South Koreans and the reopening of the border liaison office. It was a period of relatively little conflict between the two nations, (and as an aside, the 2002 naval skirmish that left 4 South Koreans dead also reportedly left 19 North Koreans dead) with fewer incidences than during the previous decade. Dialogue increased and economic progress was achieved which could have provided the North with some much needed upgrades to their infrastructure.

 

Sanctions do not harm the leadership, they harm only the ordinary citizen. They are virtually unenforceable, with China being unwilling to actively pursue sanctions (regardless of their rhetoric in the UN) as they fear the collapse of North Korea. Coupled with famine-like conditions, sanctions are proving deadly to the population. Military intervention will result in the deaths of millions as the NK leadership responds in a panic by launching all the conventional artillery at their disposal toward South Korea and Japan. In addition, the increased US military presence on the Korean peninsula would be met with fierce resistance by many in the South. Finally, recent history shows that military intervention simply does not work (the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan being the two most obvious examples).

Discourse worked remarkably well in comparison to the other alternatives.

 

eugene: in fact the North did trade extensively with the Soviets and Chinese. The North's economy was actually stronger than the South's up until the mid-70s. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the assassination of Ceausescu (NK had strong relations with Romania), their alternative was China, whose economy was not really strong enough to be the sole trading partner until the mid 90s.

[Dale]

 

don't believe there are many in the US government who truly care about human progress and having an overall social concern for people on this planet other than narrow minded, corporate interests

 

i believe this kind of mindset about the intentions of the US government is a bit of an oversimplification and verges on being ignorant and divisive in the same kind of way that all Amerrrican armchair generals like to throw all the axis of evil nations in a pool and label them "freedom-hating". i think people are multi-faceted and dynamic, even government workers (i know that's so hard for conflict theorists to believe). i believe that in addition to actions, that it's a leaderships intent, mission statements, core values and beliefs that also count in international relations. in this case of NK, it is clear from the perspective of almost every other nation, that the NK leadership is hellbent on purposely taking out innocent lives. How is one to sit down and "talk" with a leadership like that on "their terms"? I do believe that dialogue and diplomacy can be constructive in some of the most complicated settings. However, when it comes to a leadership that is clearly set on genocide, it involves a mental (not political issue). I can't ever imagine sitting down and "talking" with David Duke (which is why human progress and social concern-valuing society members rightfully pass him off as irrelevent/unreasonable), or Osama Bin Laden (which is why we rightfully went after him). There comes a point where diplomacy does not work.

 

I'm not sure that a dictator who imprisoned and tortures his people is simply just going to "stop all that nonsense" if we lifted sanctions the same way hamas probably isnt going to stop wanting to push israel into the sea and murdering jews if the israeli govt just handed over land or stopped building settlements... same way an unnamed german dictator wasn't going to just stop committing genocide if his economy had just improved.

I judge the US government's intentions based on historic evidence of their behaviours towards other nations in the past and in the present. I also take note of the highly corrupted governments of many nations across this planet, whereby corporate and profiteering interests are important to take into account when it comes to foreign relations and geopolitics. Take Iraq for example; do you seriously believe the US intervened because they cared, first and foremost above everything else, about the treatment of the Iraqi people under the governance of Hussein? If that is so, why don't the US intervene in countless other places around the world where there are many human rights problems?

 

I admit I am no expert on the Korean issue here, but I think communication is all we have left in order to avoid any kind of conflict or military activity. What I meant by 'their terms' (and I should have qualified this in the first place before mentioning this) is for an attempt to be made to hear them out on what they want exactly, and see if some common ground can be found amongst ongoing communications - without any communication of threat or aversiveness between either side. Have the US tried to mediate something like this to a large extent? Can the US communicate more than they are doing now? It seems to me that these are important questions to be answered.

 

Here's an example of a failure in communication: the US flying bombers nearby to North Korea recently. This is incredibly childish and immature.

[eugene]

 

don't believe there are many in the US government who truly care about human progress and having an overall social concern for people on this planet other than narrow minded, corporate interests

 

i think people are multi-faceted and dynamic, even government workers (i know that's so hard for conflict theorists to believe). i believe that in addition to actions, that it's a leaderships intent, mission statements, core values and beliefs that also count in international relations..

 

it might seem like a cop-out to claim "it's complicated" regarding those issues but there's just no other way and we'll have to deal with it, to lean on uni-dimensional analyses is much worse in the end.

[Lane Visitor]

What I meant by 'their terms' (and I should have qualified this in the first place before mentioning this) is for an attempt to be made to hear them out on what they want exactly, and see if some common ground can be found amongst ongoing communications - without any communication of threat or aversiveness between either side. Have the US tried to mediate something like this to a large extent? Can the US communicate more than they are doing now? It seems to me that these are important questions to be answered.

 

Fair enough.. I would agree that trying to at least find some common ground to avoid any further escalation may be constructive, and I would like to think there could be hope there, but I also can't help but imagine the US gov't would probably hesitate to have any kinds of dealings with a leader who openly declares war upon the United States, and "aiming" their warheads of our civilian populations. I'm also no expert here, and maybe the guy is just throwing fists in the air because he knows everyone's against him. Not sure what the answer is really.. Maybe Dennis Rodman was a co-vert operative (which would have been awesome), and maybe he'll get invited back so he can find out more about Un and his central base, and help take him out and thwart their nuclear development. That would be rad.

 

Here's an example of a failure in communication: the US flying bombers nearby to North Korea recently. This is incredibly childish and immature.

 

I don't know that I'd call it childish.. but rather a testament to the fact that the administration takes other nations' war threats seriously.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Lane Visitor

[syd syside]

wtf damn... my entire post got deleted in an edit

 

 

fuk

Edited April 2, 2013 by compson

[chenGOD]

wtf damn... my entire post got deleted in an edit

 

 

fuk

 

north koreans must have been hacking you.