North Korea

[Mace]

Please keep things in their perspective.

- Swiss the scariest at someday, so where the hungarians, and they were still riding horseback as the germans rolled in on tanks.

- Swedes? What good would a bunch of berzerkers on a dragonship do these days?

- South Africa? Ever worked there? that is a warzone of poor people robbing each other.

- The eastern-european nations are more concerned with feeding themselves then with going to war, ever travelled there? With communism and western liberties taking over their daily lives, some of them were better off staying that way, not unlike NK. Saddam was not bad for the iraqy people in all, everyone had shelter, education and food. before he came along it was chaos.

If you consider the swedes a threat, you could consider my country a threat also, when we would blow your nuclear forces out of the sky with broadside shots from our wooden ships, and unite with the brits to attack spain and france, and then we would re-colonise you, mr. USA?

NK is like a child playing with fire, it'll get burned when it goes astray. they need to defend themselves, against what? marsians? Kilrathi?

 

[ELTEE]

Saddam was not bad for the iraqy people in all

As for the strip malls and destination weddings, obviously we'll have to execute some reconstruction. We want bad-ass theme park malls anyway, not old structures doing their best to impersonate good 1970's indoor fleamarket complexes. We need to eradicate, reconstruct, and then sell sell sell!

 

[Madman]

The other question is, are the North Koreans simply trying to push the western world into making the mistake of hitting a facility and thus making the first strike - If North Korea are looking for an excuse for war, then the US bombing ANY facilities would be a perfect excuse for a "retaliatory" strike, which potentially could be nuclear or at least biological or chemical - both of which I have no doubt that the regime has significant investment in.

 

[Quarto]

Again, you list only countries that did start back up again because when someone starts up again, it makes the news. Countries throughout history that disarmed and didn't start back up again:
-Switzerland (the Swiss used to be the most feared army in Europe)
-Sweden (the Swedes dominated northern Europe for hundreds of years)
-South Africa
-Ukraine
-Kazakstan
-Belarus
-Post WWII Japan

Ok, I'm going to get sidetracked here - I don't really want to discuss the main point that you're making, but I guess I need to. Overall, I think you're right in practice, but wrong in theory - since diplomacy simply means talking, it works great when the two sides have anything to talk about, either because they have common interests, or one can threaten the other. This means that very frequently, diplomacy does work in practice - but it's very wrong to argue that diplomacy is a solution, because when you say this, you put it into the field of theory. And as a theory, diplomacy is exactly as stupid as war - for the same reasons that it's stupid to punch someone in the nose purely on the theory that a punch in the nose is persuasive, it's equally stupid to talk to someone purely on the theory that talking is persuasive. Talking just means communicating - and that depends entirely on whether there's anything to communicate. In the case of North Korea and the US, diplomacy is ridiculous - North Korea is making empty threats, to which the US responds with a completely fake show of concern... and makes empty threats. The two sides could talk for years, and they'll never achieve any kind of lasting agreement, because they don't gain anything from a lasting agreement. The US finds it useful to sidetrack its citizens from domestic issues every once in a while with an international "crisis" in North Korea, while Korea finds it useful to make some noise in exchange for an increase in aid. This is, essentially, a completely commercial transaction - North Korea buys aid from other countries by selling them a catchy media story that can be used to distract the public from other issues.

But, see, now I'm really getting sidetracked . My main point in this post is going to be about something else entirely. Before I get on with it, though, I want to to write a sentence or two about each of the examples you posted above. They're all completely wrong - it may be that there are better examples out there to prove your point, but certainly these ones do you a terrible disservice . So...
- Switzerland never had the most feared army in Europe, it's just the Swiss themselves that worked privately as mercenaries in other countries. Also, while Switzerland in medieval times hardly had an army to speak of, it certainly has a very fearsome one today - every male Swiss citizen is conscripted for military service, their standing army is 220,000 (used to be 400,000 until recently), and their air force is one of the most modern in the world.
- Sweden did not disarm, they pretty much wiped themselves out. After participating in several exhausting wars, they basically lost their ability to fight. Getting crushed by Russia and losing half the country's territory (Finland!) in a single war was the final straw.
- South Africa didn't disarm through diplomacy, but rather through total disintegration. Their army was obviously mostly white - so it's hard to retain an effective fighting force when a large portion of your army is forced to emigrate. And yeah, they gave up nuclear weapons research, but that was an economic decision.
- Ukraine... what? When did Ukraine disarm? They simply agreed to get paid for getting rid of an arsenal that they had no money to maintain.
- Kazakhstan - see above.
- Belarus never disarmed either - after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they simply had to give the Russians back what belonged to the Russians in the first place.
- Post-WWII Japan... you are kidding, right? This country was crushed in war and forced to give up their military as part of the surrender agreement. That's your definition of disarming willingly through diplomacy? Next you'll be telling us Saddam Hussein willingly resigned his post as Iraq's president . Besides, Japan now has a bigger and more modern army than it did when it invaded Manchuria in 1931, starting off its long series of non-stop conflicts leading into WWII. In other words, even in spite of their unconditional surrender and their treaty obligations, Japan has remilitarised as quickly and efficiently (and queitly) as possible, making it possibly the single worst example you could have ever listed.

Your earlier list (Libya, Pakistan, Fatah, and so on) is also mostly wrong. Libya is the odd man out, proving that yes, exerting non-military pressure can work - but it's also another crown argument in proving that diplomacy as a solution is a total failure. Libya disarmed not because people kept telling it to, but because everyone ignored it for 30 years, refusing to trade. It was economy, not diplomacy, that brought them to their knees.


But... this is all besides the point. I mentioned above that I think the US government benefits from tensions with North Korea as much as North Korea does. It is convenient for your government (note - this is not about Barrack Obama, George Bush did the exact same thing) to blow this issue out of proportion because it distracts the public from other, more important matters. You know, never mind the economic crisis, let's discuss what we're gonna do about North Korea, and all that. And that leads to a particular question that both you and Jason need to give some serious thought to. Why do you care about North Korea? They are no threat to you. They do no business with you. As far as the average American citizen is concerned, North Korea does not exist outside of the news reports - the country could literally disappear tomorrow, and it would only change what you watch on TV.

This is important, because it is your motives that dictate what actions make sense. If you actually wanted to do something to help North Koreans out of altruist motives, this would be an entirely different discussion. Your motive, however, seems to be that you feel threatened by them. Therefore, the best thing for you to do would be to take a long, cold shower, and for your country to do nothing. You'll be better off for it - you'll save money on a pointless intervention, you'll avoid a pointless and harmful conflict with China, and you'll save your key allies from losing thousands of people in an entirely avoidable conflict. Heck, better still, you should give North Korea everything it wants and more - if this is only about threats, then North Korea's unspoken threat of disintegrating and flooding South Korea with refugees is certainly the big one you need to worry about.

It may be that after giving it some thought, you'll decide that the solution I'm suggesting is completely wrong. But there is one thing that I am 100% correct about, and that's the fact that before you start discussing what your country needs to do, you need to first decide what your motives are. Why do you, as American citizens, feel that America has an interest in doing anything at all in North Korea?

 

[Jason_Ryock]

Why do you, as American citizens, feel that America has an interest in doing anything at all in North Korea?

1) Because the North Korean government is an oppressive totalitarian government.
2) Because the North Korean citizens deserve a better life.
3) Because South Korea doesn't deserve to live in fear.
4) Because the aforementioned country Japan is our ally and eliminating a threat to them NOW rather then eliminating a threat to them LATER is a good idea.
5) Because China is just north of North Korea, and I don't favor them getting involved in any sort of military capacity.
6) Failure to get involved will destabilize and endanger the Eastern Asian countries and create a new 'super power' that's already shown itself to be a capable liar to the rest of the country.
7) North Korea violated it's agreement to disarm it's nuclear program.
8) Russia needs to be taught a lesson about selling it's crap to the rest of the world for them to play god with.

 

[Tigerhawk]

I'll hit on a few points here:

- About the only million man army would be refugees statement: Combine that with NKs civilians being dirt poor and unable to feed themselves. I've heard stories of them having to eat tree bark for literal lack of anything else to eat. Where do you think most of their food goes? To the military. Where do you think most of their money goes? To the military. So who's going to be the favored class in that country? The military. NK might have a lot of outdated weapons, they might have a few modern ones. But their main weapon is going to be the million man army with all the food stocks. Superior numbers are just as effective as superior technology, and when you're faced with 33 to 1 odds (assuming a million man NK army and only counting the 30,000 US troops stationed there), that's pretty ominous. Also considering that there are roughly 10,000 artillery pieces which would likely be aimed at Seoul and other strategic places...who needs a nuke?

At some point, it's entirely possible for NK to realize that is has NOTHING TO LOSE and say, screw it, let's charge our buddies in the South. Plus they're very likely to realize that forces that would be arrayed against them aren't quite up to par in terms of military strength as NK would be. If I were a nutjob North Korean who's made up his mind that he's going to war, I'd attack NOW before reinforcements arrive.

I have a high school friend who's a Navy lieutenant commander in the intelligence trade. He works at the Pentagon...and they're worried. This is something he makes no attempt to hide. That, in turn, would allay laughter from me.

NeverNeverNever underestimate your enemy, either real or potential. To do so likely hands them a victory and ends in your very bloody defeat.

- Quarto: It certainly might not be necessary to do anything at all in NK, especially if this turns into saber rattling and rhetoric. However, with Kim Jong-Il's apparent declining health, his subordinates are going to be jockying for power and there's a lot of analysis that suggests that these people are trying to prove just how hard-line they are in order to win favor in the next regime, whoever ends up controlling that regime. Jockeying for power ultimately makes people enormously stupid. And when people in power, be it civilian or military, do stupid things, the world ends up getting dragged into it in whatever form it ends up being.

IF NK ends up doing something stupid, we're going to end up dragged into it anyway as we have security pacts with most of the democratic (or some forms of said system) nations in that part of the world, most definitely including SK. The fact that we may be facing yet another war where family and friends may likely die because of such pacts is scary enough. And that affects a very large web of people on all sides.

The fact that the neighborhood kid who wants attention ends up punching the other kids in the neighborhood in the nuts just to get their attention instead of just politely asking, "Can I have food aid?" certainly makes me sit up and take notice.

 

[Quarto]

Tigerhawk, you are right - it's always a terrible idea to underestimate your enemy. So why do you do it? The notion that North Korea could decide it has nothing to lose implies that it's not just the people of North Korea that live in abject poverty, but its entire leadership does, too. North Korea's government has everything to lose in a confrontation. Right now, Kim Jong-Il lives a comfortable life, eating caviar, drinking champagne, and receiving basketballs autographed by Michael Jordan from visiting US secretaries of state. In any kind of instability, he risks losing all this, and more - he risks losing his life.

I think one of America's (and the West's in general) problems in the past decades has been the government's need to demonise its enemies in order to get the public to support war... and then the government falling victim to its own rhethoric when it comes to believe the lies it was propagating. It's inevitable - a democratic government is constantly replacing its members, so if you persuade the public that the Earth is flat, in five years time you'll wind up with a government that believes the Earth is flat. You need to seriously consider everything you've heard about North Korea's craziness and unpredictability. Yes, they are run by an evil and oppressive regime - but why would that regime have to be stupid? If anything, Kim Jong-Il and his cronies are far, far, far more politically savvy and clever than any United States government - they have the luxury of being able to devote their entire lives to running the country, while your president always leaves office just when he's almost experienced enough to actually do his job.

Also, just for the record - we're not talking about North Korea going up against 35,000 American troopers. You're not alone out there, defending South Korea. The South Koreans are there too. Here's some food for thought - South Korea's defence budget is an estimated $29.5 billion, compared to North Korea's estimated $5 billion. Your other "defenceless" ally, Japan, spends about $41 billion on their military (which, officially, doesn't even exist ). To put that into further perspective, China and Russia spend about $70 billion each on the military, which means that the two tiny, defenceless countries you want to protect from North Korea have a combined defence budget equal to China. Those 35,000 Americans are stationed in South Korea for publicity's sake - they haven't played a real role in the defence of that country for decades now.

1) Because the North Korean government is an oppressive totalitarian government.
2) Because the North Korean citizens deserve a better life.
3) Because South Korea doesn't deserve to live in fear.

See, now, this is lovely stuff... but it's not true. I really, really, wish I could believe that you think this way. But you don't. You don't care in the slightest about North Korea, its people, or anything like that.

How do I know this? It's simple. North Korea has existed since before you or I were born. It has always been oppressive and totalitarian. It has been a virtual disaster zone longer than either of us have been alive. But it's only now that you want to do something about them.

No, Jason. It's just not true. You are concerned about North Korea's nuclear weapons, nothing else. Don't get me wrong - I'm sure you're as sorry to hear about the plight of the North Koreans as anyone else. I'm sure you do genuinely believe they deserve better lives. But that's not why you want your country to act.

Let's go through the other reasons you list, though.

4) Because the aforementioned country Japan is our ally and eliminating a threat to them NOW rather then eliminating a threat to them LATER is a good idea.
5) Because China is just north of North Korea, and I don't favor them getting involved in any sort of military capacity.
6) Failure to get involved will destabilize and endanger the Eastern Asian countries and create a new 'super power' that's already shown itself to be a capable liar to the rest of the country.
7) North Korea violated it's agreement to disarm it's nuclear program.
8) Russia needs to be taught a lesson about selling it's crap to the rest of the world for them to play god with.

4. In spite of all the rhethoric, North Korea has no quarrel with Japan. Their only potential point of conflict is a barren, unihabited rock in the Sea of Japan. South Korea actually has more points of conflict with Japan than North Korea does - and a re-united Korea would almost certainly have worse relations with Japan than South Korea does right now. If this is your motive, you need to seriously consider whether taking action won't have the exact opposite result.
5. So, your solution to this is to do something that forces China to get involved? Man, I lived in China - I was actually there during Kosovo, when the US bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, I remember the reactions from the people there. And that was about Europe... China will never, ever tolerate America encroaching on North Korea. They consider that to be their sphere of influence. Even if the Chinese government wanted to keep quiet, the people would force them to react. China would actually face mass protests (real ones! Not the phony, government-organised type you usually see in China) demanding immediate military reaction against the United States.
6. North Korea a superpower? Uhuh, ok . Also, what are these "East Asian countries" you refer to? Last I checked, there were only four - China, Japan, and the two Koreas. You already mentioned each one of these countries in your other points, so I don't see what you're getting at here...
7. This is a good, and very solid motive. I agree, people should be held accountable for their obligations (...even if the US has violated their own obligations more times than North Korea ever could). But I don't think it quite justifies kick-starting a regional war...
8. I really don't like to say things that might invite the anti-American crowd to start spamming about how evil America is, but... this kind of line, coming from an American, is high, high stupidity. Have you learned nothing in the past decade? You went into Iraq and Afghanistan to teach them a lesson. How's that working out for you?

 

[Madman]

Another note of interest is that invading North Korea will prove nothing to Russia - who stand to gain or lose nothing by a war in asia. The chinese could gain immensely, I doubt they would miss the opportunity to get a foothold in Korean territory (think the USSR in germany post WW2).

Perhaps more importantly though, is where did any weaponry in Korea come from, certainly following the Nuclear smuggling of the mid 90's I'm sceptical that any technology to develop weapons may have come from russia - it is far more likely that it came from india or pakistan (and thus indirectly from the chinese!). That said, it is certainly true that a signficant amount of the russian arsenal is pathetically protected (the classic comment about nukes in barns) and it is highly likely that several (or even many, though i dont mean to suggest that even a tiny fraction of russias arsenal has gone by the wayside) have "dissapeared" and russian officers have retired smugly.

In short, while Korea may have some russian weapons, they are very unlikely to have been SOLD to them by the russian government, and whilst information may have come from the USSR it is infinitely more likely that the information came from the nuclear smuggling ring broken in the 90's or similar routes (note that evidence was found during the raids on that ring linking it to Iraq, Korea, Libya, Iran and various other countries - and even linking Israel as a possible source for some of the components)

Actually, on a sideline that is another case where neither military threats NOR diplomacy have made any head-way - in forcing Israel to abandon it's own nuclear programme. Despite not officially existing, Israel's nuclear arsenal is now estimated to be bigger than that of either Great Britain or France.

 

[ELTEE]

How do I know this? It's simple. North Korea has existed since before you or I were born. It has always been oppressive and totalitarian. It has been a virtual disaster zone longer than either of us have been alive. But it's only now that you want to do something about them.

Quarto, I agree with many of your arguments. However, I do take exception to being told what I do or do not think. If you're referring specifically to Jason here, that's fine - but this smells distinctly like you're telling Americans as a whole what they do or do not think, and I definitely take issue to this.

8. I really don't like to say things that might invite the anti-American crowd to start spamming about how evil America is, but... this kind of line, coming from an American, is high, high stupidity. Have you learned nothing in the past decade? You went into Iraq and Afghanistan to teach them a lesson. How's that working out for you?

Why is this *exceptionally* stupid just because it is coming from an American? I think this line of thinking is flawed regardless of the thinker's nationality.

I really don't want to hijack this threat, but this comment bothers me - we didn't go into Iraq or Afghanistan to "teach them a lesson." We went thinking that they posed real threats to our security. Our intelligence was the key variable that distinguished the nature of each invasion - it was mostly correct concerning Afghanistan, largely incorrect regarding the disposition of weapons in Iraq.

How's it working out for us? Not half bad, I'd hazard to say - in fact, better than anyone looking in from the outside could have predicted three years ago.

I'm not sure what you are exactly driving at with this comparison - the North Korea scenario is really nothing like either of these two nations, diplomatically or otherwise, and no one in the United States government is presently even advocating for a military response. The only reason that this round of saber rattling warrants any additional attention is the fact that there is the question of succession involved. As Tigerhawk correctly points out, things have a penchant for becoming a bit more out of hand when loyalty and support for the leader in consideration are potential question marks. (Think Cuban Missile Crisis, though it sort of backfired internally in the end for Kruschev.)

BTW, as another aside - speaking as an American, we really don't need anything to distract us from the economy. I love conspiracy theories and the like, but no one here is actually using North Korea as an escape from the 'unbearable,' 'oppressive,' and seamingly 'shattered' American economy which has already begun to recover.

EDIT: Oh, but seriously - we should just nuke 'em all!

 

[frostytheplebe]

Here's a few recent examples of disarmament/conflict avoidance that have been accomplished through diplomacy:

-South Africa (among other nations) voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons program after successfully detonating nuclear warheads, due to international pressure.
-Libya has recently abandoned its terrorist ways and joined the ranks of non-adversary nations, because of diplomatic pressure
-The Palestinian Fatah faction controlling the West Bank has avoided the conflicts that Hamas in Gaza has had, through diplomacy
-Pakistan and India have been avoiding another war for decades, despite horrible tensions, through diplomacy
-Almost all of the former Soviet republics (practically the definition of falling apart quasi-terrorist communist extremist states) gave up their WMD capabilities due to diplomatic pressures, without NATO firing a single cruise missile.

In fact, North Korea seems to be more the exception than the rule if you consider the last sixty years of history or so.

Ok, now here's a list of times where dialogue DIDN'T WORK:

-Treaty of Paris,30th of November 1782: Did it grant the 13 colonies their Freedom? Sure, for about 30 years during which time Britain put embargos on American goods, raided their shipping and pressed their sailors to serve in His Majesty's Navy. After which, if not for Europe trying to deal with Napoleon, we'd all be singing God Save the Queen, instead of God bless America over here.

-Treaty of Fontainebleau: Did it end Napoleon's campaign? No. Did it stop the wars? No. Did it stop Napoleon from trying again almost immediately after? Hahaha... no.

-Treaty of Frankfurt: A major embarrassment to the French causing further hostility between them and the newly unified Germany, which would later result in Germany being forced to sign a similar treaty after The Great War.

-Treaty of Versailles: France's "Screw You" to Germany. Put the country so far in to Economic turmoil that its people were so desperate for change, that a wack job like Adolf Hitler was able to legally take power with his promises of change.

-Talks with Russia before and after 1991: I'm sorry, but even now that the Soviet Union is gone, the Russians are as much an ally to the Western Powers as Hitler was to Stalin during WW2. They screw with us, fail, collapse, we help them rebuild, and now that they are finally starting to stand on their own two feet again, they're screwing with us again.

-Almost all, that doesn't mean anything was truly resolved. Look at Chechnya, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Dagestan, there are still documented acts of violence in these countries which have included military conflict and genocide.

-As stated before, the talks with Iraq, Iran, and all talks so far with North Korea.

These are just, in my opinion the biggest failures of the bunch, but there are many others...

North Korea is like a spoiled brat right now. "Give me what I want or I'll throw a temper tantrum." Well maybe it's time we gave that child a good metaphorical spanking?

Dialogue, no that won't work. Military action, possibly a little extreme at this point?
To quote Captain Kirk, "Let them die."
Or perhaps Admiral Carthwright based on General Patton's belief, "The opportunity here is to bring them to their knees. Then we'll be in a far better position to dictate terms."

Perhaps a slightly less painful solution would be to cut North Korea off completely. No aid going in to the country at all. Also not allow people out of the country. The 38th Parallel remains the most heavily guarded border on Earth. It is possible to make sure no one gets out from there... the worry is whether or not China would cooperate. If not, then background checks may be necessary on everyone coming out of that region... which may also be a messy afair, but so far I think its a tad better then the argument, "Talks, they didn't work last time, the time before that, or the time before that, but they are bound to work at some point."

Why do you, as American citizens, feel that America has an interest in doing anything at all in North Korea?

Okay, this sort of makes me mad. I can't count how many times when America refused to do anything about the Genocide in this Country, the starving Children in that country, or the oppression of women, and/or ethnic groups in that country over there, that we had a million bleeding hearts saying that "We or (in many cases) you lavishly rich bastards, are the last world superpower, you have a responsibility to the rest of the world."

A perfect example is Afghanistan and their treatment of women. For years I read newspaper articles, TV reports and protests in the street. Then the next thing you know HEY, look, we did it we released the women from oppression! Those same people who should be happy now, go out and protest America's involvement in Afghanistan, inaccurately calling us the "World's Policeman." So it really looks like we can't win either way.

If we do nothing and let North Korea crumble to the point where its citizens and Government begin using dirty bombs, etc. Who do you think the world is going to point the finger at for "letting it happen?"

So really, America has two choices... 1. Ignore the World's problems and deal with strictly internal matters, and get called snobs and uncaring jerks. Or we could do option 2, get involved in World Politics and problems and get labeled the "World's policeman."

Not saying you personally have said or done anything like the Quarto, from what I've seen you've been pretty unbiased in your remarks and I respect you for it, but this is what I as an American citizen have seen going on over the passed 15 years or so, before and after the invasion.

EDIT: Oh, but seriously - we should just nuke 'em all!

Yeah and let God sort it out!

 

[Jason_Ryock]

See, now, this is lovely stuff... but it's not true. I really, really, wish I could believe that you think this way. But you don't. You don't care in the slightest about North Korea, its people, or anything like that.

You're making assumptions based on assumptions now. I've been aware of Korea for most of my life, the military situation, the political situation, the historical situation.

And it's not now that I want to do something, it's now that anyone is considering doing anything. If, five years ago, there had been a thread here, my position would have been exactly the same regarding the state of the country and the actions that I would recomend taking, but there wasn't (at least not one that I was aware of).

Please don't presume to tell me what my position is on a related matter and how it's changed suddenly unless you've actually taken the time to ask me - everyday since I was born - how I was feeling about something and can provide records that prove it's suddenly changed.

No, Jason. It's just not true. You are concerned about North Korea's nuclear weapons, nothing else. Don't get me wrong - I'm sure you're as sorry to hear about the plight of the North Koreans as anyone else. I'm sure you do genuinely believe they deserve better lives. But that's not why you want your country to act.

This is also not true, so let me go on to further explain. There is a group of nations on this planet that has laughed off diplomacy. They have laughed off UN sanctions. They have laughed off military build up on their borders. A whole group of nations - nations that seize embassies and hold foreign citizens hostage against the rules of diplomacy, or murder foreign citizens on foreign soil.

A whole group. Not just North Korea, or Iran.

These nations believe that they have a God-given right to do whatever they damn well feel like, with blatant disregard for the rest of the worlds populations. Given that they have shoved everyones nose in the fact that they are going to ignore the rules, ignore the talks, ignore the diplomacy, and do what they like regardless, while suckering the rest of the world into providing them with what they want, the only option I see to address this situation is to slap them down - and slap them down hard.

Hopefully, you can do that by destroying one nations Nuclear Reactor and pointing out to all the rest that you aren't afraid to do it to the rest of them. Unfortunately, our President is to weak to do anything that strong. He's a people pleaser, and you can't please people when you're slapping them across the face - but for some people, nations, and governments, that's the only kind of 'diplomacy' they're going to respect. And it's high time we stopped pretending otherwise.

4. In spite of all the rhethoric, North Korea has no quarrel with Japan. Their only potential point of conflict is a barren, unihabited rock in the Sea of Japan. South Korea actually has more points of conflict with Japan than North Korea does - and a re-united Korea would almost certainly have worse relations with Japan than South Korea does right now. If this is your motive, you need to seriously consider whether taking action won't have the exact opposite result.

EXCEPT that for thirty years Korea was an occupied territory of Japan, BEFORE World War II during which time the Korean Language was outlawed and they basically set up a dummy government with which to rule over the land.

Given the Japanese treatment of a certain other Asian Nations citizens during World War II, you don't think Korea, after 30 years of occupation that only ended with the destruction of the Japanese Empire after World War II is going to be a little angry?

5. So, your solution to this is to do something that forces China to get involved? Man, I lived in China - I was actually there during Kosovo, when the US bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, I remember the reactions from the people there. And that was about Europe... China will never, ever tolerate America encroaching on North Korea. They consider that to be their sphere of influence. Even if the Chinese government wanted to keep quiet, the people would force them to react. China would actually face mass protests (real ones! Not the phony, government-organised type you usually see in China) demanding immediate military reaction against the United States.

I fail to see how a US led - or even supported, since you're so fond of pointing out that the North Koreans or Japan could handle it just as well with their expensive military forces - could give China justification to get involved. Once the issue is settled they will have no reason to get involved, but I'm sure they'll bluster and object. But that's all their doing now.

6. North Korea a superpower? Uhuh, ok . Also, what are these "East Asian countries" you refer to? Last I checked, there were only four - China, Japan, and the two Koreas. You already mentioned each one of these countries in your other points, so I don't see what you're getting at here...

I'm narrow minded because I'm American, but you're not because...there are only four East Asian countries?

Frankly, I don't see "East Asia" as being limited to the countries that North Korea borders, but as a much larger sphere of influence extending south to the Philippines and as far inland as Mongolia.

You want to dismiss North Korea as being in an irrelevant position to affect the political climate of the region - but let's go back to the above where we talk about them acting like frightened angry little children...now looking at the political map we see they are frightened angry little children...who are bitter, and backed up against a wall. They have no where to expand to, no where to go to draw additional resources from, no natural routes to take to increase their power, prosperity or territory.

And they're developing Nuclear Weapons.

7. This is a good, and very solid motive. I agree, people should be held accountable for their obligations (...even if the US has violated their own obligations more times than North Korea ever could). But I don't think it quite justifies kick-starting a regional war...

Well I'll clarify a little bit here. I'm not really interested in starting a regional war - but that seems to be the context of this discussion: military action or no military action.

I'm actually much more in favor of a subtle approach: Ideally, I'd like to drop a ton of bricks (literally, a ton of bricks) on the street right in front of whatever passes for the North Korean capital building with a nice note attached to it that says "The next one won't miss" and then politely ask them to disarm.

But in the context of this discussion, as it has been from the beginning - military action, or diplomacy? I support Military Action, a surgical strike. Against not just the reactor but the heads of government and the likely runners up.

8. I really don't like to say things that might invite the anti-American crowd to start spamming about how evil America is, but... this kind of line, coming from an American, is high, high stupidity. Have you learned nothing in the past decade? You went into Iraq and Afghanistan to teach them a lesson. How's that working out for you?

I would disagree on both those points and say instead that the United States entered both Afghanistan and Iraq to clean up messes it created for itself...by entering into those affairs of state in the first place, in Afghanistan by training and equipping a resistance movement to the soviets, and in Iraq by meddling in the Iran/Iraq war to influence the outcome.

I find it very interesting that you use the term 'teach them a lesson' in reference to both worlds, and now I hope you can answer a question for me - is that what the world opinion is about the American actions there? As an American, you can understand that my access to world opinions is somewhat limited (though I have a few overseas friend, so I think I'm in a better position then most).

I'm not quite sure why you think it didn't work though - certainly we're still there, certainly we're still fighting an insurgency that will probably never die, but at some level we have to accept that. Even here, in the United States, there are dissenting members of society who oppose the United States government, and all that it entails, and are armed and ready to do something about...the difference is, our government inherently recognizes their right to disagree and allows them to do so peaceably.

I'm sure you're as well aware as I am that the idea of a Perfect Society with everyone acting in harmony and unity is impossible - which means in places like Pakistan, Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, and Gaza there will also be an armed group of citizens ready to blow anyone and everyone they can access to kingdom come, simply for the purpose of achieving their goals.

Expecting otherwise is to ignore history, again. The more oppressive the government, the more oppressive the resistance. When you don't oppress them, like we don't do to our homegrown groups here, they are largely irrelevant and you can have some semblance of peace without fighting a war in your own back yard.

Meanwhile, has Iraq learned that it has to cooperate with UN Weapons Inspectors? Well yes, I don't think they will make that mistake again. Has Afghanistan learned that it can't harbor terrorists in the hills? Yes, I think they've learned that lesson too. Has Al Queda learned that they can't focus all their efforts in one place least the United States hamper operations by invading their country? Well yes, somewhat unfortunately, they've learned this lesson to. But I would say that the lessons we went into those countries to teach have been learned by those who needed to learn them - including the United States.

Because the idea that we could ever DEFEAT an insurgency group like Al Queda is ridiculous. As is the idea that we could ever 'win' a war on Terror. Because, as I think someone else posted in the thread above, as long as there are guns, and someone who wants something someone else has, there's going to be terror and violence in the world.

 

[Mace]

Also please quote the rest as well, there was no normal rule in that nation, and at least saddam gave his people food, shelter and an education, if he had not been those people would have been robbing, raping and killing each other out of desperation. That's what starvin' people want, food on the table, and willing to fight for another plate of food the next day.

I could make some bold statements on how WWI left germany in pure crisis, that led to rightwinger agression over the years, but you guys can read up on your own history for that. A strong leader and an arms-race can resolve an economic crisis, simply by giving everyone a job in a weapon factory(oh yes, and germans, ich will immer noch mein opi's fahrrad zuruck!).

And US being the police officer of the world? US can't do it alone, since we are sending people and forces supporting you as well in Iran and Afghanistan as well, and that is not about you holding our hand to show we too are involved.

North Korea has no real enemies, they pretend them, why hurt north korea? it's thesame as Africa wanting money from the united nations for a space program(yes, one month ago they demanded to set foot on the surface of the moon!, because they were(according to them) the only continent that had not(yeah right!). It's hard for people to fall from a dictatorship/socialistic enviroment, since everyone got something even if they did not have to work hard for it. Grass is always greener on the other side.

Kim Yong Il strikes me as a dictator, they want power and influence? I think the people only want food, education, clothes to wear and a nice house to live in, not conquer the world.

 

[Mace]

Meanwhile, has Iraq learned that it has to cooperate with UN Weapons Inspectors? Well yes, I don't think they will make that mistake again. Has Afghanistan learned that it can't harbor terrorists in the hills? Yes, I think they've learned that lesson too. Has Al Queda learned that they can't focus all their efforts in one place least the United States hamper operations by invading their country? Well yes, somewhat unfortunately, they've learned this lesson to. But I would say that the lessons we went into those countries to teach have been learned by those who needed to learn them - including the United States.

No they didn't, what color is the sky in your reality?

 

[ELTEE]

Mace, I was just surprised at your support of Saddam. I see your point, of course, but the fact that he routinely murdured his own people just makes that support seem absurd.

No hard feelings!

 

[Jason_Ryock]

No they didn't, what color is the sky in your reality?

You don't think the United States has learned that it can't front a two front war against insurgent forces?

You don't think the United States has learned that it can't mount international military operations without the support of the rest of the world?

You don't think the United States has learned that it can't fight a war that it's citizens don't support?

I think it has. The extent of the lessons being learned might not be concluded yet. Nor have we seen the full result of those lessons - but there have been some hard lessons learned here, most notably that a traditional invasion and take over of a foreign nation isn't the way to win the war on terror.

 

[Tigerhawk]

Tigerhawk, you are right - it's always a terrible idea to underestimate your enemy. So why do you do it? The notion that North Korea could decide it has nothing to lose implies that it's not just the people of North Korea that live in abject poverty, but its entire leadership does, too. North Korea's government has everything to lose in a confrontation. Right now, Kim Jong-Il lives a comfortable life, eating caviar, drinking champagne, and receiving basketballs autographed by Michael Jordan from visiting US secretaries of state. In any kind of instability, he risks losing all this, and more - he risks losing his life.

True, an counter-push into NK would certainly be a threat to Jong-Il's life. But at the same time, as he's getting closer to death, is he really going to care? He had a stroke last year. Reports come out that his health is declining. Simply put, if you're dead, you can't take power with you.

So, if I'm underestimating NK's willingness to go to war, if they end up not going to war, then wouldn't I be overestimating that willingness?

 

[Dyret]

I'm no expert but as far as i can tell it's just some angry asian country lobbing crappy nukes around to seem scary and significant. It's not like they'd be stupid enough to actually use them or anything.

 

[frostytheplebe]

I'm no expert but as far as i can tell it's just some angry asian country lobbing crappy nukes around to seem scary and significant. It's not like they'd be stupid enough to actually use them or anything.

Really? You don't think a piss ass country that can't stand on its own two feet and makes threats against the countries that could squash em into oblivion isn't dumb enough to use those weapons?

 

[Jason_Ryock]

For Anyone Foolish Enough To Believe the UN Still Has Power

In the meantime, what people are missing her is that this isn't just about Nuke's anymore. It's not just about their violation of their agreement with the US about when where and how to disarm, or about the goods they accepted to do so - and then didn't give back when they violated the agreement.

What hasn't even been touched on here is that they've violated the TRUCE that has kept Peace in North and South Korea for the last fifty some odd years AT THE SAME TIME as they've restarted their nuclear program and listed all kinds of things that the world can do to make them push they button and start a war.

Now, I'll let all you folks draw your own conclusions about that that might mean, a revocation of a fifty year true with re-arming and a wide variety of warnings against 'threatening gestures'. Me? I know what it means.

In the words of the Esteemed LT. Roy Zimmer, from Crimson Tide
"Why? Because you don't put on a con*** until you're gonna f***!"

EDIT:

It looks like Gates agrees with me, the article about his statement is here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090530/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/as_gates_asia_security_summit

He basically says
1) It's not a threat to the US
2) It's a threat to Asian countries.
3) Past efforts to talk them down have failed.
4) The six party talks were obviously not a success.
5) It's time to look for new options.
6) These events are in danger of spiraling out of control and into war.
7) China and Russia have compounded the problem.
8) There are ways 'other then negotiating' to get back to the Status Quo.

I think I like Gates. I think I like Gates very much.

 

[Tigerhawk]

For Anyone Foolish Enough To Believe the UN Still Has Power

In the meantime, what people are missing her is that this isn't just about Nuke's anymore. It's not just about their violation of their agreement with the US about when where and how to disarm, or about the goods they accepted to do so - and then didn't give back when they violated the agreement.

What hasn't even been touched on here is that they've violated the TRUCE that has kept Peace in North and South Korea for the last fifty some odd years AT THE SAME TIME as they've restarted their nuclear program and listed all kinds of things that the world can do to make them push they button and start a war.

Now, I'll let all you folks draw your own conclusions about that that might mean, a revocation of a fifty year true with re-arming and a wide variety of warnings against 'threatening gestures'. Me? I know what it means.

In the words of the Esteemed LT. Roy Zimmer, from Crimson Tide
"Why? Because you don't put on a con*** until you're gonna f***!"

EDIT:

It looks like Gates agrees with me, the article about his statement is here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090530/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/as_gates_asia_security_summit

He basically says
1) It's not a threat to the US
2) It's a threat to Asian countries.
3) Past efforts to talk them down have failed.
4) The six party talks were obviously not a success.
5) It's time to look for new options.
6) These events are in danger of spiraling out of control and into war.
7) China and Russia have compounded the problem.
8) There are ways 'other then negotiating' to get back to the Status Quo.

I think I like Gates. I think I like Gates very much.

That's funny...I was thinking that same Crimson Tide line yesterday. I love that movie.

Gates is one of the more no-nonsense types I've seen in quite some time where a Cabinet-level member is concerned, and he's never been afraid to speak his mind. Which still puzzles me in how he ever made it into Bush's cabinet in the first place...he's a holdover.

Yeah, when you're saying things like, "We can no longer guarantee the safety of civilian (!!!!!) or military vessels", that's some pretty serious threatening going on.

And when China, of all nations, is pretty much all but disavowing support of NK, you know something serious is going on. I'm not sure that's ever happened before.