|
Story So North Korea sinks a South Korean vessel and then the government threatens to restart war in the peninsula if any action is taken against them? That sounds like they took a ride on the crazy train.
That sounds like they took a ride on the crazy train.
Sadly, this is par for the course for them, n'est-ce pas?
Still, it would be ironic if for once they were actually telling the truth, especially with this quote from the article: "A serial number on one piece is consistent with markings from a North Korean torpedo that Seoul obtained years earlier." N Korea, if I understand their garbled rantings, is claiming that the S Koreans sank their own ship, using a N Korean torpedo, so that the international community would gang up and destroy N Korea in retaliation. Makes for a great James Bond movie plot.
|
|
That sounds like they took a ride on the crazy train.Sadly, this is par for the course for them, n'est-ce pas?
Still, it would be ironic if for once they were actually telling the truth, especially with this quote from the article: "A serial number on one piece is consistent with markings from a North Korean torpedo that Seoul obtained years earlier." N Korea, if I understand their garbled rantings, is claiming that the S Koreans sank their own ship, using a N Korean torpedo, so that the international community would gang up and destroy N Korea in retaliation. Makes for a great James Bond movie plot.
It would make a great thriller but I find it unlikely to be the case. More likely it was poor wording in the article. Most military materials follow a consistent scheme for identification and I believe that what the article was saying is that the serial number is consistent with the serial numbers on the torpedo the South Koreans had captured.
I keep saying this time and again...north Korea = Radioactive waste disposal sight for the world. Problem solved.
That would certainly give President Ahmadinejad more fuel against us.
Kim Jong Il has been nuts for years and he is also starting to get a bit decrepit. The North Korean military I've heard is a bit less than keen on his choice of successor; don't think the generals are planning a coup yet but might not be out of the realm of possibility either. Of course the North's leadership is probably smart enough (one hopes) to realize declaring nuclear war would get the country flattened and China would not be happy if it did, (possibly cutting off the North's oil supplies to rein in the North before it gets to war) so hopefully this will not escalate too much. Then again no one really wants war: China would get flooded with North Korean refugees; even if the North was crushed, they'd probably destroy Seoul in the opening volley first; and it would increase US China tension considerably.
yeah ol' I'manutjob is probably better off making sure his own people don't assassinate him in his sleep.I keep saying this time and again...north Korea = Radioactive waste disposal sight for the world. Problem solved.That would certainly give President Ahmadinejad more fuel against us.
Even if he was the Ayatollahs could very well appoint a like minded individual to replace him anyway.
|
Even if he was the Ayatollahs could very well appoint a like minded individual to replace him anyway.yeah ol' I'manutjob is probably better off making sure his own people don't assassinate him in his sleep.I keep saying this time and again...north Korea = Radioactive waste disposal sight for the world. Problem solved.That would certainly give President Ahmadinejad more fuel against us.
sad to say but this is all too true.
I'm surprised that the Iranians haven't already jumped on board with this. They have been accused of having some pretty serious ties with North Korea.
Except President Ahmadinejad isn't sending an Ark to Kim Jong Il.
I'm surprised that the Iranians haven't already jumped on board with this. They have been accused of having some pretty serious ties with North Korea.Except President Ahmadinejad isn't sending an Ark to Kim Jong Il.
... hence... why... he is surprised.
YA know I am freakin sick and tired of ol kim jong whats his face.
If he wants to start a actual WAR then so freakin be it. I'll lose some pounds, cut my hair and raise my right hand again just to get back on ship and kick his ass!
I keep saying this time and again...north Korea = Radioactive waste disposal sight for the world. Problem solved.
I'm behind this proposal.
I don't even know why we'd need to send ground troops in, with all the people around North Korea that don't like them we could probably muster enough planes to carpet bomb them into oblivion.
Right, because two fronts is so 20th century Germany. We can do three fronts!
|
North Korea would require lots of bunker busters, they have spent the last 50 years building everything DEEP underground. Remember, Obama has said we won't use nukes. Attacking North Korea would trigger a nasty resurgence of a jungle war. Except North and South Korea both have the ultimate in jungle clearing weapons.
The North Korean populace is innocent it's all the government, I'm sure the populace would love to come into the 21st century, if the head of the serpent were cut off...
Best solution nowadays might be if China conquered N. Korea, course S. Korea wouldn't like that...heh
Right, because two fronts is so 20th century Germany. We can do three fronts!
+1!
Aren't we spending our grand kids money too fast already?
Do we really think that China will loan us the money to make war on a virtual satellite state?
Can we even engage in protracted military action with out China's support any more?
Do we seriously think we have the manpower to honor our commitment to South Korea?
I think the US seriously over committed already. Our blood and treasure is finite!
Right, because two fronts is so 20th century Germany. We can do three fronts!+1!
Aren't we spending our grand kids money too fast already?
Do we really think that China will loan us the money to make war on a virtual satellite state?
Can we even engage in protracted military action with out China's support any more?
Do we seriously think we have the manpower to honor our commitment to South Korea?
I think the US seriously over committed already. Our blood and treasure is finite!
Ladies and gentlemen, mark your calendars! I agree with BT on this.
This will not end well.
North Korea would require lots of bunker busters, they have spent the last 50 years building everything DEEP underground. Remember, Obama has said we won't use nukes. Attacking North Korea would trigger a nasty resurgence of a jungle war. Except North and South Korea both have the ultimate in jungle clearing weapons.
The North Korean populace is innocent it's all the government, I'm sure the populace would love to come into the 21st century, if the head of the serpent were cut off...
Best solution nowadays might be if China conquered N. Korea, course S. Korea wouldn't like that...heh
Actually, the North Korean population is so indoctrinated that they honestly believe that N. Korea is the best and most powerful country in the world and that everything Kim Jong Il says is gospel truth.
I don't know. I would have thought that this would have prompted more of a response than it did.
Ouch. You got me there.
Ladies and gentlemen, mark your calendars! I agree with BT on this.
Yeah, BT hit it right on the head, all the way across the line. "Do we really think that China will loan us the money to make war on a virtual satellite state?" -- possibly the most insightful post ever made in the Paizo political threads. Color me impressed.
I have to agree. If we were capable and willing and had reason to just blow the whole peninsula to Unknown Kadath and beyond and end the whole shebang in one fell swoop that might be different, but A-we're not willing to do that and B-I don't think we have that kind of capability, so the point is moot.
We have enough on our plates at the moment. :/
Unless N. Korea manages to upset China again.
Then that's their problem. We keep our hands clean. :) Well, relatively speaking.
Kim Jong Il (or however his name is) has mastered the art of walking a fine line - he plays the crazy fool, but he knows quite well just how far he can go before either China or the US takes matters into their hands - not necessarily war (I agree with the analysis that the US already fights at enough fronts), but heavy political pressure. War threats can be an instrument of politics, they have been used countless times. Even China is not too keen on having a satellite state making everyone very upset.
Stefan
Kim Jong Il (or however his name is) has mastered the art of walking a fine line - he plays the crazy fool, but he knows quite well just how far he can go before either China or the US takes matters into their hands - not necessarily war (I agree with the analysis that the US already fights at enough fronts), but heavy political pressure. War threats can be an instrument of politics, they have been used countless times. Even China is not too keen on having a satellite state making everyone very upset.
Stefan
+1 for this, which seems to be the case time and again, unless he's finally just lost it.
|
|
Ladies and gentlemen, mark your calendars! I agree with BT on this.Yeah, BT hit it right on the head, all the way across the line. "Do we really think that China will loan us the money to make war on a virtual satellite state?" -- possibly the most insightful post ever made in the Paizo political threads. Color me impressed.
He forgot to mention that most of the world's intelligence community thinks Kim Jung-Il might just be crazy enough to use the nukes he has.
I can't believe that I missed this thread. How did I not know people were talking about me?
I can't believe that I missed this thread. How did I not know people were talking about me?
Lapse in paranoia?
He forgot to mention that most of the world's intelligence community thinks Kim Jung-Il might just be crazy enough to use the nukes he has.Ladies and gentlemen, mark your calendars! I agree with BT on this.Yeah, BT hit it right on the head, all the way across the line. "Do we really think that China will loan us the money to make war on a virtual satellite state?" -- possibly the most insightful post ever made in the Paizo political threads. Color me impressed.
I concur that both Iran and the DPRK are dangerous, but firstly I oppose preemptive war and secondly I believe we must cut back on all long and short term spending and commitments. We are something like 14.4 trillion in the hole by the end of this fiscal year IIRC.
Our budget crisis, like our energy crisis, requires an "all of the above" approach. We simply can not afford to protect as much of the world as we do.
He forgot to mention that most of the world's intelligence community thinks Kim Jung-Il might just be crazy enough to use the nukes he has.Ladies and gentlemen, mark your calendars! I agree with BT on this.Yeah, BT hit it right on the head, all the way across the line. "Do we really think that China will loan us the money to make war on a virtual satellite state?" -- possibly the most insightful post ever made in the Paizo political threads. Color me impressed.
I concur that both Iran and the DPRK are dangerous, but firstly I oppose preemptive war and secondly I believe we must cut back on all long and short term spending and commitments. We are something like 14.4 trillion in the hole by the end of this fiscal year IIRC.
Our budget crisis, like our energy crisis, requires an "all of the above" approach. We simply can not afford to protect as much of the world as we do.
Return to Isolationism!!!
That ain't gonna happen...
He forgot to mention that most of the world's intelligence community thinks Kim Jung-Il might just be crazy enough to use the nukes he has.
Crazy enough? Threatening to use them is the only defense he has. If I were in charge of the PDRK -- my neighbors to the south all want me dead; China wants me as an obediant satellite; and the U.S. calls me part of an "axis of evil" and then threatens to destroy me, right after invading one of the other "axis" countries to prove that they seriously intend to do it, no matter what the international condemnation -- you can be damn sure I'd advertising my possession of nuclear weapons daily, just to try and get some room to breathe. On the whole, their situation is a lot like Isreal's -- except they can't annex the DMZ, and we don't give them money and military support; instead, we threaten to invade them, rather than to protect them from their neighbors.
In that situation, for KJI to NOT threaten to use the nukes is crazy -- it means he's given up his independent country for China, ROK, and the U.S. to assimilate and/or devour at their leisure.
We can condemn him for human rights, or for impoverishing his own country, or for looking like a weird little troll -- all of those are a poor showing on his part -- but criticizing him for self-defense is a bit hypocritical.
He forgot to mention that most of the world's intelligence community thinks Kim Jung-Il might just be crazy enough to use the nukes he has.Crazy enough? Threatening to use them is the only defense he has. If I were in charge of the PDRK -- my neighbors to the south all want me dead; China wants me as an obediant satellite; and the U.S. calls me part of an "axis of evil" and then threatens to destroy me, right after invading one of the other "axis" countries to prove that they seriously intend to do it, no matter what the international condemnation -- you can be damn sure I'd advertising my possession of nuclear weapons daily, just to try and get some room to breathe. On the whole, their situation is a lot like Isreal's -- except they can't annex the DMZ, and we don't give them money and military support; instead, we treaten to invade them.
In his situation, NOT threatening to use the nukes is crazy -- it means he's given up his independent country for China, ROK, and the U.S. to assimilate and/or devour at their leisure. It seems to me that most people calling him crazy are starting from the definition of sane as "wanting to give up any semblance of independence as quickly as possible."
Now it's my turn to be impressed. Good points all around.
Actually, the North Korean population is so indoctrinated that they honestly believe that N. Korea is the best and most powerful country in the world and that everything Kim Jong Il says is gospel truth.
This thread scares me - Betatrack dehumanises North Korean civilians so you can justify killing them. Haven't you learnt from the mess that is Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam.
What If I said all Americans are gung-ho cowboys that will shoot you as soon as look at you, so it is best to massacre them before they can kill you. I am very sure that you would (and so would I) argue that it isn't true.
Its reducing people to monsters so when that starving child that dies in the crossfire or as collateral damage you can assuage the guilt you feel for the little shredded body laying in the dirt of her house because she was a monster. It is racist and You make me sick. These are human beings in a terrible situation do not make it more f&$&ed for them.
Korea is running low on food or oil or some other resource and it is holding the world to ransom. That is true but there are other ways than bombing the s+%@ out of them.
China can be a valuable ally in this - Instead of involving yourselves in another land war in Asia, convince China that she needs replace Kim and that she can make much more money doing so.
I wouldn't put it past China to have a plan to whack the N Korean leaders if they got too dangerous. Make it worth their while.
Beef up the defences in S Korea and if they want to fight fight a defensive war. Do not go in but don't let them out either.
Going to war pre-emptively does not work, fighting wars in Asia just kills millions for ultimately no gain.
North Korea really needs to learn how to work and play well with others.
That sounds suspiciously like what everyone has been saying about the U.S. since 2003.
|
|
We can condemn him for human rights, or for impoverishing his own country, or for looking like a weird little troll -- all of those are a poor showing on his part -- but criticizing him for self-defense is a bit hypocritical.
Actually I was not being critical of him. I was pointing out that as someone who has little to lose he might just use the nuclear weapons that he has been building if he felt threatened. MAD doesn't work with Kim because given the rugged terrain and the general lack of technological advancement in the majority of the country, We could not really impact his nation in any meaningful way without resorting to genocide.
I actually see this turn of events as troubling and sad. This could very well overturn a decades worth of work towards reunification that has resulted in small but promising steps such as the Koreans fielding (technically) unified teams in three of the last five Olympic games. I think that Kim has become unstable and that the more likely scenario than a return to open warfare in the Koreas is a military and governmental coup sometime in the near future. Too many people on both sides of the DMZ have been working for too long to bring the two nations closer for me to believe that they will just stand back and let them go back to war now.
He forgot to mention that most of the world's intelligence community thinks Kim Jung-Il might just be crazy enough to use the nukes he has.Ladies and gentlemen, mark your calendars! I agree with BT on this.Yeah, BT hit it right on the head, all the way across the line. "Do we really think that China will loan us the money to make war on a virtual satellite state?" -- possibly the most insightful post ever made in the Paizo political threads. Color me impressed.
I concur that both Iran and the DPRK are dangerous, but firstly I oppose preemptive war and secondly I believe we must cut back on all long and short term spending and commitments. We are something like 14.4 trillion in the hole by the end of this fiscal year IIRC.
Our budget crisis, like our energy crisis, requires an "all of the above" approach. We simply can not afford to protect as much of the world as we do.
Return to Isolationism!!!
That ain't gonna happen...
I'm not an isolationist any more than I'm an anarchist. I'm all in favor of trade and exchange. I have zero moral issue with using force when some one else initiates violence against us.
Is it your position that we should continue to subsidize the defense of NATO, ROK, Japan, Kuwait and who ever else we're helping out right now?
If it's your position that we need to keep spending trillions of dollars for the foreseeable future to "project power globally", then I must ask you the same question that I ask folks who want to expand the social safety net.
"How are you going to pay for it?"
|
|
Story So North Korea sinks a South Korean vessel and then the government threatens to restart war in the peninsula if any action is taken against them? That sounds like they took a ride on the crazy train.
It wasnt until someone suggested that maybe a faction within the US Military fired a torpedo from a US sub - to make it look like the South korean naval vessel was sunk by a North Korean Patrol Boat that this came up. Considering the questionability of anything coming from the US Military since that WMD fabrication of evidence fiasco, this is a 50% either way.
But considering the USA is looking for an excuse to swat North Korea - it would with absolute certainty go out of its way to perpetrate such a crime.
|
|
He forgot to mention that most of the world's intelligence community thinks Kim Jung-Il might just be crazy enough to use the nukes he has.Ladies and gentlemen, mark your calendars! I agree with BT on this.Yeah, BT hit it right on the head, all the way across the line. "Do we really think that China will loan us the money to make war on a virtual satellite state?" -- possibly the most insightful post ever made in the Paizo political threads. Color me impressed.
I concur that both Iran and the DPRK are dangerous, but firstly I oppose preemptive war and secondly I believe we must cut back on all long and short term spending and commitments. We are something like 14.4 trillion in the hole by the end of this fiscal year IIRC.
Our budget crisis, like our energy crisis, requires an "all of the above" approach. We simply can not afford to protect as much of the world as we do.
Return to Isolationism!!!
That ain't gonna happen...
I'm not an isolationist any more than I'm an anarchist. I'm all in favor of trade and exchange. I have zero moral issue with using force when some one else initiates violence against us.
Is it your position that we should continue to subsidize the defense of NATO, ROK, Japan, Kuwait and who ever else we're helping out right now?
If it's your position that we need to keep spending trillions of dollars for the foreseeable future to "project power globally", then I must ask you the same question that I ask folks who want to expand the social safety net.
"How are you going to pay for it?"
Or maybe that Isolationism is as bad as trying to do it all ourselves.
Actually, the North Korean population is so indoctrinated that they honestly believe that N. Korea is the best and most powerful country in the world and that everything Kim Jong Il says is gospel truth.This thread scares me - Betatrack dehumanises North Korean civilians so you can justify killing them. Haven't you learnt from the mess that is Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam.
What If I said all Americans are gung-ho cowboys that will shoot you as soon as look at you, so it is best to massacre them before they can kill you. I am very sure that you would (and so would I) argue that it isn't true.
Its reducing people to monsters so when that starving child that dies in the crossfire or as collateral damage you can assuage the guilt you feel for the little shredded body laying in the dirt of her house because she was a monster. It is racist and You make me sick. These are human beings in a terrible situation do not make it more f~@%ed for them.
Korea is running low on food or oil or some other resource and it is holding the world to ransom. That is true but there are other ways than bombing the s~#! out of them.
China can be a valuable ally in this - Instead of involving yourselves in another land war in Asia, convince China that she needs replace Kim and that she can make much more money doing so.
I wouldn't put it past China to have a plan to whack the N Korean leaders if they got too dangerous. Make it worth their while.
Beef up the defences in S Korea and if they want to fight fight a defensive war. Do not go in but don't let them out either.
Going to war pre-emptively does not work, fighting wars in Asia just kills millions for ultimately no gain.
Unless there is a cross reference that I am entirely ignorant of, I don't think it's fair to read betatrack's post as racist or dehumanizing.
Waging all out war on DPRK would mean a lot of civilians would die whose biggest "crime" (for want of a more accurate word) was being isolated and brainwashed.
I think it's immensely difficult for us to comprehend the magnitude of isolation and indoctrination that has occurred for decades in the DPRK.
|
|
Ladies and gentlemen, mark your calendars! I agree with BT on this.Right, because two fronts is so 20th century Germany. We can do three fronts!+1!
Aren't we spending our grand kids money too fast already?
Do we really think that China will loan us the money to make war on a virtual satellite state?
Can we even engage in protracted military action with out China's support any more?
Do we seriously think we have the manpower to honor our commitment to South Korea?
I think the US seriously over committed already. Our blood and treasure is finite!
until North Korea discovers oil...invasion will never happen.
Or maybe that Isolationism is as bad as trying to do it all ourselves.He forgot to mention that most of the world's intelligence community thinks Kim Jung-Il might just be crazy enough to use the nukes he has.Ladies and gentlemen, mark your calendars! I agree with BT on this.Yeah, BT hit it right on the head, all the way across the line. "Do we really think that China will loan us the money to make war on a virtual satellite state?" -- possibly the most insightful post ever made in the Paizo political threads. Color me impressed.
I concur that both Iran and the DPRK are dangerous, but firstly I oppose preemptive war and secondly I believe we must cut back on all long and short term spending and commitments. We are something like 14.4 trillion in the hole by the end of this fiscal year IIRC.
Our budget crisis, like our energy crisis, requires an "all of the above" approach. We simply can not afford to protect as much of the world as we do.
Return to Isolationism!!!
That ain't gonna happen...
I'm not an isolationist any more than I'm an anarchist. I'm all in favor of trade and exchange. I have zero moral issue with using force when some one else initiates violence against us.
Is it your position that we should continue to subsidize the defense of NATO, ROK, Japan, Kuwait and who ever else we're helping out right now?
If it's your position that we need to keep spending trillions of dollars for the foreseeable future to "project power globally", then I must ask you the same question that I ask folks who want to expand the social safety net.
"How are you going to pay for it?"
*sigh*
Can we agree that I am not an isolationist?
Can we address the question of "How are we going to pay for it?" regardless of what role we want our military to play in our foreign policy?
Can we agree that a more modest defense posture is more fiscally sustainable and fiscally conservative?
Actually, the North Korean population is so indoctrinated that they honestly believe that N. Korea is the best and most powerful country in the world and that everything Kim Jong Il says is gospel truth.This thread scares me - Betatrack dehumanises North Korean civilians so you can justify killing them. Haven't you learnt from the mess that is Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam.
What If I said all Americans are gung-ho cowboys that will shoot you as soon as look at you, so it is best to massacre them before they can kill you. I am very sure that you would (and so would I) argue that it isn't true.
Its reducing people to monsters so when that starving child that dies in the crossfire or as collateral damage you can assuage the guilt you feel for the little shredded body laying in the dirt of her house because she was a monster. It is racist and You make me sick. These are human beings in a terrible situation do not make it more f~@%ed for them.
Korea is running low on food or oil or some other resource and it is holding the world to ransom. That is true but there are other ways than bombing the s~#! out of them.
China can be a valuable ally in this - Instead of involving yourselves in another land war in Asia, convince China that she needs replace Kim and that she can make much more money doing so.
I wouldn't put it past China to have a plan to whack the N Korean leaders if they got too dangerous. Make it worth their while.
Beef up the defences in S Korea and if they want to fight fight a defensive war. Do not go in but don't let them out either.
Going to war pre-emptively does not work, fighting wars in Asia just kills millions for ultimately no gain.
Unless there is a cross reference that I am entirely ignorant of, I don't think it's fair to read betatrack's post as racist or dehumanizing.
Waging all out war on DPRK would mean a lot of civilians would die whose biggest "crime" (for want of a more accurate word) was being...
This.
Thanks for responding faster than me Bitter Thorn. This is indeed what I intended with my post.
Thanks for responding faster than me Bitter Thorn. This is indeed what I intended with my post.
I'm glad I got it right. Speculating about someones intent can be dicey. ;)