Tension Between North Korea and South Korea

[GuineaPig]

wut

[Perpetual Change]

Also, why does the US always sends aid to NK? They are the enemy of your ally, right? PC, the US has only proven that they feed their enemies so one day they can confront them. We have a saying here: ustedes cazan peleas.

That's just ignorant twisting of the facts. South Korea sends plenty of aid to North Korean too. It has nothing to do with, uh, "feeding our enemies so we can one day confront them."

Also, your post outlines another serious misunderstanding on your part about this:

You idiots! Communist nations are proven to fail like a charm if you don't mess with them and let them do their mistakes over and over.

You're basically saying, "You idiots! The people of Communist nations are proven to starve like a charm if you don't mess with them and let them do their mistakes over and over!"

I really don't see how letting that happen is better than going in and solving the problem yourself. Especially when the country is question is, you know, bombing your friends.

Oh wait, I forgot. For libertarians international relations only exist when you're looking to steal trade for another nation's labor and resources. 

[El Barto]

North Korea isn't Iraq, I agree.  They've got a slightly superior air force (although probably not any better trained), but inferior equipment for the army (somehow).  The major difference would be will to fight I suppose, but that's an unknown.  Also, at least some of Saddam's forces were combat veterans, whereas none of NK's would be.  In a conventional war, I don't believe U.S. forces would take a high rate of casualties past the first week or so.  The air power factor is simply too massively on the U.S./South Korean side.

And manpower doesn't really matter in a modern war.  Aircraft are too powerful, satellites are too pervasive, and weaponry is too accurate for a nation like NK to overwhelm the U.S. through numbers.

In the grand scheme of things, I mostly agree with you.  However, a helluva lot can happen in that first week (and I'd bet on more than a week).  A war against China is exactly the sort of war that the US military was built to fight, and I suspect it'd go very well.  However, that war was also planned around the prospect of lots of casualties, not just the dozen or so a day that Americans have gotten used to.  They'll tolerate that.  When you start having incidents where 300 sailors get blown to bits by a Chinese silkworm, then people start to look at the war differently.

I'm not saying that America wouldn't win a war in Asia.  I'm saying that the probable downside is far more than enough to prevent it from even being a consideration.  It's just not worth the fall out.   

[AwakeFromOctavarium]

I can only label NK government as nothing more than ungrateful bastards. SK has sent plenty of rice and aids to North Korea just because we are both "Korea", and we were always hoping to peacefully reunite again. Well that was a year ago and now it's as if NK is actually "Threatening" SK to give more aids by using military forces that they think would scare us. Maybe they succeeded a bit. I have no idea if this is all because of their leader and at this point I don't really care, but I do think the Win-Win option is out among the choices.

IMO, this won't grow as big as America fighting China or WWIII or whatever. But my family is there you know.

[Adami]

To be fair, if South Korea gave me aids, I'd be pretty pissed too.

[Perpetual Change]

In the grand scheme of things, I mostly agree with you.  However, a helluva lot can happen in that first week (and I'd bet on more than a week).  A war against China is exactly the sort of war that the US military was built to fight, and I suspect it'd go very well. 

So not to blow this off topic, but being a student in Hong Kong and all, what would be your guy's first suggestion in the event of a war? I'd think I'd probably want to get the hell home as quickly as possible, for several reasons.

[ack44]

inb4 palin

[juice]

So not to blow this off topic, but being a student in Hong Kong and all, what would be your guy's first suggestion in the event of a war? I'd think I'd probably want to get the hell home as quickly as possible, for several reasons.

Go home as soon as possible.

[William Wallace]

Anyone think that the US should stay out of this? Maybe it's time to stop governing the world and trying to be in every single war.

You'll get no argument from me. Doesn't the rest of the world think this of us?

I'd say it's the general opinion over here.

Obviously, people over there were happy when America helped them with their dictator problems.

That doesn't mean it's the correct thing to do.

Why not? A weak and ridiculous nation is showing signs of aggression against your allies. A nation where they're building a fence between themselves and their closest allies-- China-- because people actually flee North Korea to go to China and China perceives this as a problem.  A nation where people starve every time the government's "food distribution program" fails. My god, I feel bad for the people who've got the unlucky lot of being born in that country.

You sound like a Republican pundit circa 2002.

[ack44]

What's the point? The US help to start this war when it didn't have to. WWII was over... "we must prevent the Communism expansion". You idiots! Communist nations are proven to fail like a charm if you don't mess with them and let them do their mistakes over and over.

North Korea attacked South Korea right after the U.S. left, dude.

[TheVoxyn]

The thing with the US interfering everywhere is that it sends a signal of: 'we know what is best for the world'. They should stop imposing their view of the world on every single country that disagrees with them.

[ack44]

The thing with the US interfering everywhere is that it sends a signal of: 'we know what is best for the world'. They should stop imposing their view of the world on every single country that disagrees with them.

A deep thought provoking post right here. I'll jump right back into this mode of thinking right after North Korea is history.

[Perpetual Change]

You sound like a Republican pundit circa 2002.

The difference here being we're not the aggressor.

[hefdaddy42]

The thing with the US interfering everywhere is that it sends a signal of: 'we know what is best for the world'. They should stop imposing their view of the world on every single country that disagrees with them.

I agree with you, but that doesn't have anything to do with this situation as we find it today.  We have been allies with South Korea for decades.  North Korea is being an asshole, and the rest of the world doesn't do anything about it.

[Perpetual Change]

The thing with the US interfering everywhere is that it sends a signal of: 'we know what is best for the world'. They should stop imposing their view of the world on every single country that disagrees with them.

A deep thought provoking post right here. I'll jump right back into this mode of thinking right after North Korea is history.

The US: Friend of those with shitty neighbors everywhere.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

The thing with the US interfering everywhere is that it sends a signal of: 'we know what is best for the world'. They should stop imposing their view of the world on every single country that disagrees with them.

A deep thought provoking post right here. I'll jump right back into this mode of thinking right after North Korea is history.

The US: Friend of those with shitty neighbors everywhere.

This should be our motto

[El Barto]

A very good friend of mine is a gun owner.  If I had a neighbor that was increasingly belligerent towards me,  I'd ask him to loan me some home defense and he'd be more than willing to do so.  I would never ask him to come and stay at my place until the neighbor moves.  He'd hand me a weapon, make sure that I'm fully checked out on it, and tell me to call if I need anything.  If the neighbor called and said he'd be here at midnight, my friend would show up and look menacing with me, like Enzo from the Godfather.  

This seems like a pretty good approach to South Korea.  Give them some quality hardware and teach them to fend for themselves.  Occasionally when need be, show up in the South China Sea to remind people who your friends are.  Moving in and sleeping on their couch is a lousy way of handling the situation.  

So not to blow this off topic, but being a student in Hong Kong and all, what would be your guy's first suggestion in the event of a war? I'd think I'd probably want to get the hell home as quickly as possible, for several reasons.

I suspect the chances of that happening are about 0%.  However, being in the thick of it and all, I suppose it never hurts to be prepared.  Find the website for the State Department's presence in Hong Kong and find the page for "apocalypse: what now?"  Actually, this would be a good idea under any circumstances.  Living abroad,  I'd definitely want to know where the Consulate was.  Those are the guys who are going to look out for you after one of those annoying nights when you wake up in an unknown bedroom with a splitting headache and a dead girl in bed next to you.  

[AndyDT]

The thing with the US interfering everywhere is that it sends a signal of: 'we know what is best for the world'. They should stop imposing their view of the world on every single country that disagrees with them.

They do have a constitution that is older than most on the planet, to be fair. Unlike most of Europe for example.

[emindead]

Also, why does the US always sends aid to NK? They are the enemy of your ally, right? PC, the US has only proven that they feed their enemies so one day they can confront them. We have a saying here: ustedes cazan peleas.

That's just ignorant twisting of the facts. South Korea sends plenty of aid to North Korean too. It has nothing to do with, uh, "feeding our enemies so we can one day confront them."

Also, your post outlines another serious misunderstanding on your part about this:

You idiots! Communist nations are proven to fail like a charm if you don't mess with them and let them do their mistakes over and over.

You're basically saying, "You idiots! The people of Communist nations are proven to starve like a charm if you don't mess with them and let them do their mistakes over and over!"

I really don't see how letting that happen is better than going in and solving the problem yourself. Especially when the country is question is, you know, bombing your friends.

Oh wait, I forgot. For libertarians international relations only exist when you're looking to steal trade for another nation's labor and resources. 

Lol, trade = steal. That's a great one, PC.

Oh, don't think I ignore SK sending food to NK as well. They are equally stupid for doing it (IMHO).

Well, you know, I go by the opinion that if not at war I don't see the reason to have allies in an International level. Be friendly to the most countries you can and trade with them? Sure, but being allies? I see why would you say it's important, although I don't agree; it's just bringing the whole "his problems are my problems" mentality. Stupid IMHO.

And if your enemy dies starving because of his own incompetence it's much better than killing your own people in the process. People like to blatantly ignore how Soviet Russia collapsed!

[GuineaPig]

Comparing the situation of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev to North Korea under Kim-Jong Il is pretty disingenuous.

[emindead]

o_O ? Wat?

[TheVoxyn]

The thing with the US interfering everywhere is that it sends a signal of: 'we know what is best for the world'. They should stop imposing their view of the world on every single country that disagrees with them.

They do have a constitution that is older than most on the planet, to be fair. Unlike most of Europe for example.

And the older a constitution is, the more 'correct' it is right?

[Perpetual Change]

Lol, trade = steal. That's a great one, PC.

Yes, LOL at the notion that most "interntional trade" is actually fair in some kind of way. Anyway...

Oh, don't think I ignore SK sending food to NK as well. They are equally stupid for doing it (IMHO).

Whether you think it's OK to starve people to make an asinine point about communism doesn't have anything to do with your original point: that the US was just "fattening our enemies to take them out later" or some bullshit like that.

Well, you know, I go by the opinion that if not at war I don't see the reason to have allies in an International level. Be friendly to the most countries you can and trade with them?

So, wait, what are we supposed to do to nations that refuse to trade with anyone and just bomb their neighbors periodically (because their neighbors haven't been sending them "enough" aid)? Oh, yea, wait for their people to starve or something. Gotcha  

Sure, but being allies? I see why would you say it's important, although I don't agree; it's just bringing the whole "his problems are my problems" mentality. Stupid IMHO.

So when someone regularly threatens those people your trading with, it's not your problem? OK. You can also just find another nation backwards at least 30 years to "trade" with, right?

And if your enemy dies starving because of his own incompetence it's much better than killing your own people in the process. People like to blatantly ignore how Soviet Russia collapsed!

No one's ignoring that, it's just not especially relevant. I'm sure if Russia had decided to start regularly threatening/bombing/killing people in Japan or another neighboring nation we're friendly with, things would have happened MUCH differently there, too.

[MetalMike06]

Be friendly to the most countries you can and trade with them? Sure, but being allies? I see why would you say it's important, although I don't agree; it's just bringing the whole "his problems are my problems" mentality.

Gotta side with this one. I think it's BS. If another area of the world is having problems, it negatively affecting mere commercial interests isn't reason enough to go to war, IMHO. Claiming the need for military intervention in Korea to "defend our friends/democracy/trade routes/whatever" is simply nothing short of promoting American exceptionalism. Just my opinion. It's like saying we need to stay in the middle east to preserve cheaper oil/spread democracy. I won't claim a moral high ground and say that that's wrong, since a lot of people probably happen to support exceptionalism, and that's fine. Just be up front about it.

The only thing I can think of in support of being involved somewhat in Korea is that the US was so directly involved in how the current day division was formed. So it is sort of our problem to a degree. But I'd still just like to get out as smoothly as possible, however remote of a possibility it may be.

[Perpetual Change]

Since you agree with Emindead, I'll pose the same question to you:

So, wait, what are we supposed to do to nations that refuse to trade with anyone and just bomb their neighbors periodically (because their neighbors haven't been sending them "enough" aid)?

Sorry. I just think it's completely unrealistic to assume every nation "just wants to trade" and that's going to solve all future conflicts. Especially when most of those nations have a vastly poorer quality of life standard than the nations who "just want to trade" with them.

[MetalMike06]

Since you agree with Emindead, I'll pose the same question to you:

So, wait, what are we supposed to do to nations that refuse to trade with anyone and just bomb their neighbors periodically (because their neighbors haven't been sending them "enough" aid)?

My personal opinion: Nothing. Let them handle it, so long as it doesn't threaten us and the safety of our country. But as I said, in this case I can understand how it'd be different, since we've already claimed such a role in the region and have a degree of responsibility for what's going on. But claiming the general position is just another way of saying we need to bomb bad guys wherever they are.

[Perpetual Change]

I agree with you as far as saying, "yeah, it shouldn't have be just us, but a coalition of nations."　But as with Iraq, it seems like every time that happens the US winds up being the main player anyway, out of sheer competence if nothing else.

It seems to me that when issues like this become apparent-- Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Korea, etc-- most nations (including the US) are sensible enough to agree that something should be done, but the burden of responsibility somehow always ends up in the lap of the United States, simply due to unwillingness on everyone else's part to make the necessary investments (which, I do agree, the US maybe has also overestimated its ability to handle). Even when European nations join in coalitions, they don't stay around long enough to do any real fighting or to help rebuild. Still, it always seem odd to me, ( that is, the general European sentiment of, "do nothing now, bitch about your country's relative unimportance in national affairs later"). I'm not saying that's definitely how it really works, but that's at least the impression I get.

That said, while I don't think the North Korea government would be as easy to eliminate as Iraq's, I also think rebuilding would be quite a bit easier. But then again I'm not really sure just how brainwashed the North Korean people are. I've heard good theories that if the US ever went to war with China or North Korea, there'd be somewhat of a chance that their armies would actually turn on the government.

[TheVoxyn]

Uhm, I'm pretty sure most nations were against invading Iraq. It's not like everyone said: 'Let's invade Iraq!11!' and only the US pulled through with it. It was more that the US decided to invade yet another country and the allies of the US felt obligated to help once it actually happened, just because they are allies.

[Perpetual Change]

Uhm, I'm pretty sure most nations were against invading Iraq. It's not like everyone said: 'Let's invade Iraq!11!' and only the US pulled through with it. It was more that the US decided to invade yet another country and the allies of the US felt obligated to help once it actually happened, just because they are allies.

Support for the war surely hasn't been fantastic, but to say that nations were just there because they felt obliged to help the US simply isn't true. I think almost 30 nations including the US fought in Iraq, at least 20 of which where still there 3 or 4 years later.

[AndyDT]

The thing with the US interfering everywhere is that it sends a signal of: 'we know what is best for the world'. They should stop imposing their view of the world on every single country that disagrees with them.

They do have a constitution that is older than most on the planet, to be fair. Unlike most of Europe for example.

And the older a constitution is, the more 'correct' it is right?

Not directly related but I think it suggests something.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

The thing with the US interfering everywhere is that it sends a signal of: 'we know what is best for the world'. They should stop imposing their view of the world on every single country that disagrees with them.

They do have a constitution that is older than most on the planet, to be fair. Unlike most of Europe for example.

And the older a constitution is, the more 'correct' it is right?

Not directly related but I think it suggests something.

How do you figure that?

[juice]

The thing with the US interfering everywhere is that it sends a signal of: 'we know what is best for the world'. They should stop imposing their view of the world on every single country that disagrees with them.

They do have a constitution that is older than most on the planet, to be fair. Unlike most of Europe for example.

And the older a constitution is, the more 'correct' it is right?

Not directly related but I think it suggests something.

How do you figure that?

Because people haven't gotten all riled up and wanting to change it yet.

[emindead]

[emindead]

World War III

The Third World War, predicted by Baba Vanga to happen in November of the year 2010 ! WWIII will start without the use of nuclear weapons, after a few months nukes will be used, followed by chemical warfare.

There will be nuclear fallout in the Northern Hemisphere, then Muslim countries will wage war against the surviving European nations. According to Baba Vanga in 2014/2016 Europe will be empty.

Untill 2046/2070 Muslims will rule Rome and Europe (See the Prophecies of Nostradamus) when US troops use a new, instant freezing weapon.

Nostradamus prophecy : The "Third big war" starts after the comet runs and Mabus dies, these are signs it has begun. On Jan 5th 2010 the comet Nostradamus predicted was swallowed by the sun

The Hopi Prophecy : The Ninth and Last sign of the prophecies is the coming of Blue Star, this happened on Dec 11th 2009 when a bright blue light was seen over Norway, when more then 100 heads of state where talking about the climate in Copenhagen ! Hopi Indian predicted that world war 3 would start soon after the fulfillment of this prophecy.

So there is about a 80% chance the third world war starts in the year 2010 if ancient prophecies are correct, think about the current economy, oil and oilprices, India and Pakistan, Israel and Iran, N-Korea and S-Korea, India and China, The US in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen, Turkey wants to join the EU but is taking the side of Iran at the moment (Predicted by Nostradamus !) Also look at the weather at the moment, worldwide record lows in US, Europe and China, heavy rains in Brasil and Australia ...

The Climate Talks in Copenhagen where humans last chance to make the right choice, they got the sign, all 100+ heads of state could see the sign, last warning, they did nothing ... the book of life will be empty soon and humankind has to start allover again.



https://www.alamongordo.com/baba_vanga_prophecies.html

 

[TheVoxyn]

They should make a movie out of that.