Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
N. Korea's Way Of Life  
User currently offlineKYIPpilot From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1383 posts, RR: 6
Posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1378 times:

As of right now, I am watching a show on the History channel about Kim Il Sung and Kim Jung Il. They are/were both murderous dictators. They had thousands and thousands of monuments made for them. The citizens of North Korea were told that Sung was god, and they had to live where they were told, work were they were told, and could not travel. You could be kicked out of the city you lived in for just the smallest of mistakes. The show was showing old footage of N Korean propaganda that was shown to very young schoolchildren, which included calling the yankees evil enemies, and they must be destroyed. They showed these young children footage of shooting ranges, showing how to kill Americans. 27% of NK is off limits to outsiders, including the UN.

In 1988, Jung Il ordered KAL 858 bombed, because Seoul was awarded the Olympics, and no games were allowed to be held in the North. The North still runs terrible gulags and political prisoner camps, where people live worse than animals.

So my question to you Bush supporters; how come we are not invading N Korea? They have a murderous dictator, people have no freedom, and NK ACTUALLY HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS! So how come you don't support invading NK? It all about freedom, right? Or are you going to flip flop on this? Please explain.

This is all from the History channel, so that is your source.


"It starts when you're always afraid; You step out of line, the man come and take you away" -Buffalo Springfield
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1339 times:

Um, probably because we don't want most of South Korea and thousands of US troops to get nuked. It is no longer possible to deal with North Korea militarily. If the US had not been so accommodative over the past decade, to the point of giving North Korea fully functional nuclear reactors, we might not be in this position.

The central purpose of the war in Iraq was to stop the Hussein regime before it could develop nuclear weapons, because at that point, we have to rely on MAD alone to keep the peace. MAD is a lot less of a deterrent to crackpot monomaniacal dictators with a martyrdom complex and shadowy terrorist groups than it was to the USSR.

The Bush administration, fully aware of what had happened with North Korea, made the decision that Iraq could not be allowed to go down the same road. In their view, the UN inspections process was not a sufficient check on Hussein's ability to develop WMDs. The UN and IAEA's inability to stop nuclear proliferation in North Korea was no doubt a major component of that conclusion.

--B2707SST

[Edited 2004-08-25 03:05:07]


Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineL.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1340 times:

Please...you actually think you can catch a Bush supporter being anti-war? LET'S KICK SOME COMMIE BUTT!

User currently offlineNorth County From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 712 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1331 times:



Because their neighbor to the north would not like it.....

We would have to deal with China, are major military rival at this point.


User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2732 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1293 times:

" ... how come we are not invading N Korea? "

Simple really. They can shoot back.



" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1275 times:


how come we are not invading N Korea?

First get any ideas of the Iraq war being about "removing a murderous dictator" out of your pimply, teenaged brain. The very same "murderous dictator" GWB went in to remove was being toasted by Bush Sr a decade before he invaded Kuwait. If it was about democracy then America would not be supporting every murderous dictator from Pervez Musharraf to Ayub Khan to the Saudis.

LIke the imperial campaigns waged by the British 4 centuries ago and like Americas own brutal campaigns in Central America a century ago, Every imperial conquest and colonialism must make sound economic sense. "New Imperialism", despite its packaging is essentially the same and would also have to be based on economic rationale. Iraq has oil resources which America now controls through the puppets it has installed in Iraq. Since America already has access to Saudi oil (control gained through equally murderous and dictatorial puppet regime there, albeit one that dances to the American tune), it means that America controls access to a huige portion of the worlds oil resources. THAT is what this war was all about.

North Korea has little to offer to GWB and his cronies.


User currently offlineJamesag96 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2095 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1266 times:

Watching the same show right now...all I can say is "Damn."

Yip...seeing this show...are you suggesting we invade North Korea?



[Edited 2004-08-25 07:16:41]


Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1266 times:

Roy,

Every imperial conquest and colonialism must make sound economic sense. "New Imperialism", despite its packaging is essentially the same and would also have to be based on economic rationale.

Thank you for clearing that up. So by your own admission and logic, the war in Iraq was not about colonialism or imperialism, because it clearly has cost the US a thousand times what it could ever make out of it financially. Finally you've figured it out. Good job.


User currently offlineQIguy24 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1252 times:

Ohhh!!! Invading N. Korea could be one of the stupidest things in the US history. It would be devistating. So let's hope that they will stay out of
N. Korea and let Kim Jung Il die of a heart attack or killed by his own people.


User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1240 times:

Now just wait a second here folks.

North Korea as we know is a isolated junta state and has a dangerous reputation to the world. But I have been hearing news that this country is just beginning to change.

US should avoid any military acts towards this country, well firstly they got nukes and can launch them.. Even if they miss their target they can hit Canada or other allies including neigboring South Korea.
North Korea still has artillery positions around the DMZ and they are well within range of hitting Seoul even today..

I too also recently saw a documentary about North Korea and Kim Jong Ill, and really I agree it is sad and the people are brainwashed like a cult such as Quixtar.. Their way of life was at best, sordid..

However in the past recent times (last year or so), this country has begun to spring out of its box of isolation. I have been hearing news that this country wants to implement some Capitalist measures like a test to see how it works out. They include ONE privately owned food market in Pyongyang, Schools with english teaching and some limited computer access.. And Hell, I heard rumours that Hyundai or Samsung wants to build a large commercial center near the S.Korean border and create as much as 250,000 new jobs.. Internet and modern technology included. The possibility of this actualy being in N.Korea would revolutionize the nation as a whole.

They are also allowing some more foreigners to visit and are opening up some restrictive barriers. When that train accident happened lots of help was allowed into the country to deliver medicine and such. PRK was really happy and opened up some barriers. Maybe Kim Jong is starting to realize he can actually make some friends from the outside world.
Russia and China(for most parts) switched and it is working, so why not N.KOrea..

I see in the next decade or so PRK can actually change into a good guy.



Chance favors the prepared mind.
User currently offlineJamesag96 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2095 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1200 times:

But I got the feeling KYIP would rather us invade.


Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6792 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1191 times:

I for one am glad we're pulling our troops out of there. The only purpose we serve is a border tripwire, and any conflagration between N and S Korea would just draw us into the conflict.

South Korea needs to deal with it, as does Japan. China needs to be careful what kind of saber rattling it does as well, since Taiwan is getting chippy. The region's alliances are indeed a curious hodge-podge.

B207SST summed it up very succinctly I believe. North Korea--while a rogue state--is in check to a degree and already had nuclear capability. Iraq did not yet. I won't even mention Iran, that's a separate can of worms.

But in terms of North Korea, the difference between North and South are even more stark than old East/West Germany. Last time I was in Seoul, the signs are in English, the city is vibrant, Westernized, modern, and literate (although it smelled pretty bad, offtopic). It's difficult to imagine what kind of byzantine state exists just up the road.

I'm against direct military involvement in N Korea. Sepaking as an American, we lost enough lives in the 1950s during the Korean War, and, once again, stopped short of victory. MacArthur had the right idea.


User currently offlineKYIPpilot From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1383 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1163 times:

James, I am in no way saying I want to invade NK. Bush everything Bush told us about why we are invading Iraq applies for NK, too. So why aren't you die hard Bushies supporting removing a dictator? Its the same, isn't it? You guys are flip flopping.


"It starts when you're always afraid; You step out of line, the man come and take you away" -Buffalo Springfield
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5693 posts, RR: 18
Reply 13, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1155 times:

However in the past recent times (last year or so), this country has begun to spring out of its box of isolation. I have been hearing news that this country wants to implement some Capitalist measures like a test to see how it works out. They include ONE privately owned food market in Pyongyang, Schools with english teaching and some limited computer access.. And Hell, I heard rumours that Hyundai or Samsung wants to build a large commercial center near the S.Korean border and create as much as 250,000 new jobs.. Internet and modern technology included. The possibility of this actualy being in N.Korea would revolutionize the nation as a whole.

They are also allowing some more foreigners to visit and are opening up some restrictive barriers. When that train accident happened lots of help was allowed into the country to deliver medicine and such. PRK was really happy and opened up some barriers. Maybe Kim Jong is starting to realize he can actually make some friends from the outside world.


I think you are waay too optimistic, BO_einG. Kim will keep his country in the darkness at least as long he will be alive. Incidents like letting help in after the train crash or permitting one food market to open up are just ad hoc cases when he can't control the situation completely. They are definitely not "happy", well maybe they are in some sense, because I'm sure a lot from the foreign aid ended up in army warehouses - just like during the famine couple years ago. Ordinary Koreans eating grass and food supplies heading for the army messhalls.

MacArthur had the right idea.
Says trigger-happy Dumbya fan, who completely misses the idea behind possesion of nukes, which is nukes being D-E-T-E-R-R-E-N-T not offensive weapon...  Nuts Scary, really scary...




User currently offlineJamesag96 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2095 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1143 times:

"James, I am in no way saying I want to invade NK. Bush everything Bush told us about why we are invading Iraq applies for NK, too. So why aren't you die hard Bushies supporting removing a dictator? Its the same, isn't it? You guys are flip flopping."

Oh..OK. So you are saying that being aware of what is happening in North Korea and seeing as how Sung and Jung "...are/were both murderous dictators..." you are fine with the status quo?

Interesting.



Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
User currently offlineJasepl From India, joined Jul 2004, 3582 posts, RR: 39
Reply 15, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1140 times:

They have a murderous dictator, people have no freedom, and NK ACTUALLY HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

There's other countries besides Korea that are led by moronic murderous authoritarians, where freedom is more and more restricted and where said moronic leader has nuclear weapons at his disposal.

Maybe said country should try healing itself first?

[Edited 2004-08-25 20:53:25]

User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1138 times:

and NK ACTUALLY HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS! So how come you don't support invading NK?

As my mother says:engage brain before mouth.NK has already tested ballistic missiles over Japan and Seoul is very much in the range of NK's artillery.NK may be a basket case but defence spending accounts for around 35% of GDP!


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3509 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (9 years 12 months 23 hours ago) and read 1107 times:

" ... how come we are not invading N Korea? "

There is no oil that Bush family's companies could go after.


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (9 years 12 months 19 hours ago) and read 1086 times:

The only way to deal with N. Korea is with an international coalition. Here's how I see it.

First start with economic sanctions with the ultimatum and goal of removing the leadership. This has to be supported by the major powers: United States, Russia, China, France, England, Japan, Europe, etc. etc.

If it resorts to military to remove him, it has to be an international coalition, this is not just the United States' responsibility. This includes military contributions from all nations willing to do so.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't China also unhappy with N. Korea?



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 12 months 19 hours ago) and read 1082 times:


because it clearly has cost the US a thousand times what it could ever make out of it financially. Finally you've figured it out.

Any links to prove that it is American money that is paying for the occupation, eh Rev.Charles? Thought not!

Whose money is paying for the occupation of Iraq again? Its Iraqi money that is paying for American occupation and also for the so-called "reconstruction projects" which are being funded with Iraqi money, NOT AMERICAN. And companies of which country have benefitted the most from these "reconstruction projects"? ANd do you know that the Iraq's puppet administration, filled with US puppets, must pay the Americans "security charges" over and above the cost of maintaining American troops in Iraq? Its like making the Iraqis pay for their own occupation!

This, Rev.charles, IS Imperialism!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37822-2004Aug3.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0625-02.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26310-2004Jul3.html

-Roy


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (9 years 12 months 19 hours ago) and read 1078 times:

First start with economic sanctions with the ultimatum and goal of removing the leadership. This has to be supported by the major powers: United States, Russia, China, France, England, Japan, Europe, etc. etc.

If it resorts to military to remove him, it has to be an international coalition, this is not just the United States' responsibility. This includes military contributions from all nations willing to do so.


I don't see it this way. How can you put economic sanctions on a country that almost literally has no economy? What little trade North Korea engages in is really foreign aid to keep its people from complete starvation.

When most of the North Korean public begins to starve, whatever support the current regime has will probably crumble. This is not a good thing, as it means Kim Jong Il will have nothing to lose by launching a war, perhaps a nuclear war, against his neighbors. Faced between going out in a domestic coup and going out in a blaze of glory, I bet he'd pick the latter. The North Koreans are not rational in the sense that the Soviets were rational. The USSR may have been the "evil empire," but at least it recognized that a nuclear exchange was not a viable option, no matter how bad things got for the government. I do not think North Korea is that stable. It has proven that it places virtually no value on the lives of its citizens.

In the same vein, it doesn't matter how many nations we put together. A megaton bomb is an equal-opportunity WMD: it kills Americans, Brits, South Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, etc. without the slightest misgiving. When Seoul and its 10 million inhabitants, Pyongyang and millions of North Koreans, and hundreds of thousands of allied troops have been converted into elementary particles, will it matter that North Korea is no longer a communist dictatorship?

As I said in my first post, it is too late to stop North Korea militarily. The supposed cure-all for international crises -- multilateral, internationalist diplomacy -- has been an utter failure in the past, and I see no reason to be optimistic in the future. Economic sanctions are almost always counterproductive, in that they impinge on civilians and not the government, and are a moot point anyway, as North Korea has no economy to speak of and cessation of aid could cause enough instability to start a war.

We've landed ourselves in a lovely pickle, all right. If the US and its allies, and above all the UN and the IAEA, had been a bit more assertive in the 1990s, we might have forestalled this situation. Now we have to deal with it, and I see no obvious way out, other than trying to maintain the status quo and hoping North Korean Stalinism dies with Kim Jong Il.

--B2707SST

[Edited 2004-08-26 06:46:02]


Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13184 posts, RR: 77
Reply 21, posted (9 years 12 months 6 hours ago) and read 1037 times:

Firstly, most US troops are staying in S.Korea, but the logic of withdrawing those that are going seems illogical, not in military sense really, but politically.

DPRK may have one or two nukes, and a limited delivery system, but though they might be like something out of a book by George Orwell, the DPRK leadership live too well (unlike most of their people), to risk everything on a confrontation with the US, which they'd lose, they could well draw a lot of US blood, devastate the South (which DPRK probably gets a lot of food aid from), but they'd lose.
So why the sabre rattling? The most logical explanation is that the whole nuke brinkmanship is all about getting more much needed aid, to stop Kim's 'workers paradise' from implosion.

Also, a nuke capability, as it evolves, may release some of the crushing arms burden on DPRK, allowing some of the massive, if largely obsolete, conventional forces to be reduced.
However, this of course will not play well in Japan, South Korea and others, who wants Kim with nukes next door?

However, DPRK are masters at brinkmanship, they could have kept quiet about breaking previous agreements, until at least they had more nukes and better delivery systems, yet they chose not to.
Perhaps Kim calculated he needed to try to blackmail for more aid sooner rather than later, as conditions in DPRK worsened.
He must be desperate, after all, what a time to reveal all just months after GWB's 'Axis Of Evil' speech.

What's the answer? Who knows for sure, even without nukes a new Korean war would be devastating, for the whole Asian economy, which is vital to the US economy too, Kim knows this.






User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 12 months 6 hours ago) and read 1033 times:

"So my question to you Bush supporters; how come we are not invading N Korea?"

Because there is no oil sitting below their monuments.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13985 posts, RR: 62
Reply 23, posted (9 years 12 months 6 hours ago) and read 1033 times:

Another thought:

As unhappy as China might be concerning the DPRK (becoming more and more unreliable, esp. with China becoming capitalistic), one thing they don´t want is US troops right at their border.

Jan


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6792 posts, RR: 34
Reply 24, posted (9 years 12 months 1 hour ago) and read 1009 times:

Jaysit- the answer to your question is quite simple:

It's already too late to do something substantive about K Korea to stop their obtaining nuclear weapons. Makes you wonder why the US sat on it's hands prior to N Korea's nuke program doesn't it? Care to answer THAT one Jaysit?

Secondly, we dont HAVE to do anything. Unlike Iraq, in which NO ONE was willing to ante up, the region, notably S.Korea, Japan, etc, have a very real and very direct reason to act as they see fit.

I still advocate our pulling troops out of there. We shouldn't be that tripwire.

And L410- you missed my point entirely....it was that North Korea wouldn't exist today as a Communist rogue state had we not finished the job during the Korean War. Just as Patton foresaw the Cold War, didn't trust the Russians, and just as the Allies appeased Stalin at Yalta. Chamberlain and the Sudentenland being the biggest example of appeasement gone awry. And Kuwait in 1991....we didn't finish the job the first time. (Sidenote: the UN resolution didn't stipulate for regime change, but for ending hostilities against Kuwait. We did that. We played the international game, and it failed too!)


User currently offlineWhitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 25, posted (9 years 12 months 1 hour ago) and read 1009 times:

North Korea will eventually go the way of Romania, East Germany and the rest.

Rather than risk hundreds of millions dying under a nuclear cloud, the numbers game alone dictates that containment is the best option until the inevitable revolution happens. Nuclear conflict doesn't just kill those people under the bomb, it kills those who breathe the polluted air for thousands of years afterwards.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Decadent Western Way Of Life posted Sat Mar 29 2003 18:04:48 by Docpepz
The Ultimate Walk Of Life (other Way Round)... posted Fri Mar 14 2003 23:03:30 by Klm-md11
What Is The Price Of A Life? posted Mon Oct 23 2006 17:53:19 by PlymSpotter
9 Rules Of Life... posted Wed Oct 18 2006 01:52:46 by Kaddyuk
One Of Life's F.O.'s (Sheriff Dies At Charity..) posted Sun Oct 15 2006 12:29:23 by TedTAce
Rugrat On The Way...is Life Over For Me? posted Mon May 29 2006 06:01:19 by DeltaGator
A Good Way Of Getting Over Your Ex posted Sun Mar 12 2006 03:07:16 by JetsGo
Of Life, Death, Violence, And Other Issues... posted Sun Jan 15 2006 00:57:34 by Carmenlu15
The Dark Side Of Life In DXB posted Sun Nov 27 2005 04:03:04 by PROSA
Getting A Tick In Your Book Of Life posted Fri Nov 4 2005 09:12:36 by Saintsman