|
On April 10 2013 16:45 fight_or_flight wrote:![[image loading]](https://image.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/1/1362133411120/Kim-Jong-un-and-Dennis-Ro-010.jpg) "Tell Obama to call me"Maybe we should talk to them instead of sanctioning them for putting up a peaceful satellite.
Did you miss the past decade of perpetual threats to destroy/nuke the USA? What is there to even say, other than to give them the bargaining chip that is our attention? I'm sure Obama would love to talk as soon as NK stops making batshit insane threats of a war they could never hope to win.
|
United States24679 Posts
Last night Jimmy Carter was on the Daily Show, and he said under the Clinton administration he was having frequent effective talks with North Korea to keep them non-nuclear and nonviolent. Then, with the next US administration, all ties were cut off, including the USA backing out of pre-negotiated agreements. While I cannot approve of how the NK goverment and ruling party is handling their country, the fault for this predicament rests in part with the 2001-2008 administration here.
|
On April 10 2013 15:01 fight_or_flight wrote:
Ok, what gives us the right to destroy their economy and starve their people because they launch a satellite? As the article says, it has nothing to do with ballistic missile tests. At the same time we totally ignore countries doing real ballistics missiles tests who didn't sign the non-poliferation treaty such as India, Pakistan, and Israel. North korea on the other hand doesn't bow down to the US or the IMF, however, and therefore they need to be dealt with.
It's just colonialism, the same thing that was done in the middle east. We draw an arbitrary line cutting the country in half, and create the entire situation. 1 in 3 families were split apart because they had members in both countries. Read the above or listen to the interview.
Come on... Do you blame USA for splitting Korea. Really? The insanity....
Soviet Russia and USA saved the koreans from the japanese during WW2. Then they split it into two because Stalin didn't get along with the west. The same thing happened in Germany. Actually, Germany was split in 4, but the british, french and USA were reasonable enough to join their respective parts into one. It's the soviet union that split Germany. It was East Germany who constructed the wall, and it was they who had soldiers everywhere, preventing their own citizens from leaving, and preventing outsiders from visiting.
My dad visited West Berlin in the 70's. For some reason after the war, they decided to split Berlin too, despite the fact that it's in the middle of East Germany. He had to go there by train from West Germany and he would pass through East Germany. According to what he have told me there were east german guards everywhere on the train, and they harassed him and his friends several times to show their passports. They all thought it was so ridiculous that they couldn't do anything but laugh at it. In West Germany noone had any interest in a group of swedish guys in their 20's, but as soon as they entered the east, they got this kind of hospitality. He never saw any west german guards while travelling in Germany, and even in West Berlin, the ppl were living as freely as in Stockholm.
In Korea it's the same thing. North Korean refugees are very welcome in the south, and they can go back if they want, but on the other hand, if you defect to the north, you will not be allowed to get out. And north koreans aren't allowed to leave either. If you want to blame anyone for splitting Germany and Korea, Stalin is the guy you're looking for.
On April 10 2013 15:01 fight_or_flight wrote:
In a March 29 article, Barnes wrote that “Defense officials acknowledged that North Korean military officers are particularly agitated by bomber flights because of memories of the destruction wrought from the air during the Korean War.” [3] During the war, the United States Air Force demolished every target over one story. It also dropped more napalm than it did later in Vietnam. [4]
That's disgusting. The war games going for months with bombers dropping inert bombs across the border has every reason to provoke a response. I think we know exactly what we're doing here. How can you blame USA for anything they did in the war that North Korea started? They bombed the shit out of North Korea because they could. North Koreans are just butt-burt because they didn't have the technology nor the resources to fight back, using the same air-focused strategies that the americans used. Americans are not stupid. Waging war by air costs a lot of resources, but it saves you a lot of casualties on your side. It's smart warfaring, nothing else. In Vietnam they couldn't use this strategy, because the vietnamese way of warfare was more disorganized, with their armies spread out and hidden across all the terrain and the jungle terrain also made it harder to spot targets. This is the main reason why the korean war went so smooth in comparison.
I could agree that USA crossed the line when they nuked Japan, but in Korea, they didn't. There is no such thing as a clean war.
Here's a list of what North Korea has done since the war. They've been acting like bullies since forever, and the south tends to just shrug it off, because they don't want things to escalate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea
|
On April 11 2013 00:57 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 15:01 fight_or_flight wrote:
Ok, what gives us the right to destroy their economy and starve their people because they launch a satellite? As the article says, it has nothing to do with ballistic missile tests. At the same time we totally ignore countries doing real ballistics missiles tests who didn't sign the non-poliferation treaty such as India, Pakistan, and Israel. North korea on the other hand doesn't bow down to the US or the IMF, however, and therefore they need to be dealt with.
It's just colonialism, the same thing that was done in the middle east. We draw an arbitrary line cutting the country in half, and create the entire situation. 1 in 3 families were split apart because they had members in both countries. Read the above or listen to the interview. Here's a list of what North Korea has done since the war. They've been acting like bullies since forever, and the south tends to just shrug it off, because they don't want things to escalate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea
Yup, because that's what you do when someone bullies you, but that time is over, and South Korea has decided that the time to retaliate has come...
Though I agree with your point on Stalin, I wouldn't say that he's the guy to blame. Or rather, I wouldn't phrase it that way. If the US went along with him, there wouldn't have been a split, so we should just say that both parties didn't agree and they decided to split the country.
Imho (in a perfect world) they should have asked the Korean population on what they wanted (independance, US or USSR protection, or whatever) and done just that, instead of acting with no such consideration.
I just hope that when the war actually starts, the nukes all misfire and none actually explodes, then NK loses the war, both Koreas are unified and tadaaa, end of concetration camps, hunger & stuff in NK!
Unfortunately, I doubt that's what's going to happen.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 11 2013 02:30 Adel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 00:57 ninini wrote:On April 10 2013 15:01 fight_or_flight wrote:
Ok, what gives us the right to destroy their economy and starve their people because they launch a satellite? As the article says, it has nothing to do with ballistic missile tests. At the same time we totally ignore countries doing real ballistics missiles tests who didn't sign the non-poliferation treaty such as India, Pakistan, and Israel. North korea on the other hand doesn't bow down to the US or the IMF, however, and therefore they need to be dealt with.
It's just colonialism, the same thing that was done in the middle east. We draw an arbitrary line cutting the country in half, and create the entire situation. 1 in 3 families were split apart because they had members in both countries. Read the above or listen to the interview. Here's a list of what North Korea has done since the war. They've been acting like bullies since forever, and the south tends to just shrug it off, because they don't want things to escalate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea I just hope that when the war actually starts, the nukes all misfire and none actually explodes, then NK loses the war, both Koreas are unified and tadaaa, end of concetration camps, hunger & stuff in NK! Unfortunately, I doubt that's what's going to happen.
North Korea doesn't have nuclear missiles. Not only is it pretty difficult to make a nuclear bomb, but it's also quite the technical challenge to mount a nuclear bomb onto a missile. Especially difficult to deal with is the fact that SK, Japan, and the US use missile defense systems.
Even if they had a working nuclear bomb, they would have to ship it some other, much more conspicuous way.
Conventional war, on the other hand, will be very, very bad for SK.
|
On April 11 2013 02:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 02:30 Adel wrote:On April 11 2013 00:57 ninini wrote:On April 10 2013 15:01 fight_or_flight wrote:
Ok, what gives us the right to destroy their economy and starve their people because they launch a satellite? As the article says, it has nothing to do with ballistic missile tests. At the same time we totally ignore countries doing real ballistics missiles tests who didn't sign the non-poliferation treaty such as India, Pakistan, and Israel. North korea on the other hand doesn't bow down to the US or the IMF, however, and therefore they need to be dealt with.
It's just colonialism, the same thing that was done in the middle east. We draw an arbitrary line cutting the country in half, and create the entire situation. 1 in 3 families were split apart because they had members in both countries. Read the above or listen to the interview. Here's a list of what North Korea has done since the war. They've been acting like bullies since forever, and the south tends to just shrug it off, because they don't want things to escalate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea I just hope that when the war actually starts, the nukes all misfire and none actually explodes, then NK loses the war, both Koreas are unified and tadaaa, end of concetration camps, hunger & stuff in NK! Unfortunately, I doubt that's what's going to happen. North Korea doesn't have nuclear missiles. Not only is it pretty difficult to make a nuclear bomb, but it's also quite the technical challenge to mount a nuclear bomb onto a missile. Especially difficult to deal with is the fact that SK, Japan, and the US use missile defense systems. Even if they had a working nuclear bomb, they would have to ship it some other, much more conspicuous way. Conventional war, on the other hand, will be very, very bad for SK.
missile defence sistem wont work if the bomb will he shoot from an artilery .it would be way too fast .
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 11 2013 02:56 xsnac wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On April 11 2013 02:30 Adel wrote:On April 11 2013 00:57 ninini wrote:On April 10 2013 15:01 fight_or_flight wrote:
Ok, what gives us the right to destroy their economy and starve their people because they launch a satellite? As the article says, it has nothing to do with ballistic missile tests. At the same time we totally ignore countries doing real ballistics missiles tests who didn't sign the non-poliferation treaty such as India, Pakistan, and Israel. North korea on the other hand doesn't bow down to the US or the IMF, however, and therefore they need to be dealt with.
It's just colonialism, the same thing that was done in the middle east. We draw an arbitrary line cutting the country in half, and create the entire situation. 1 in 3 families were split apart because they had members in both countries. Read the above or listen to the interview. Here's a list of what North Korea has done since the war. They've been acting like bullies since forever, and the south tends to just shrug it off, because they don't want things to escalate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea I just hope that when the war actually starts, the nukes all misfire and none actually explodes, then NK loses the war, both Koreas are unified and tadaaa, end of concetration camps, hunger & stuff in NK! Unfortunately, I doubt that's what's going to happen. North Korea doesn't have nuclear missiles. Not only is it pretty difficult to make a nuclear bomb, but it's also quite the technical challenge to mount a nuclear bomb onto a missile. Especially difficult to deal with is the fact that SK, Japan, and the US use missile defense systems. Even if they had a working nuclear bomb, they would have to ship it some other, much more conspicuous way. Conventional war, on the other hand, will be very, very bad for SK. missile defence sistem wont work if the bomb will he shoot from an artilery .it would be way too fast .
I wouldn't say setting up nuclear artillery is particularly inconspicuous.
|
On April 11 2013 02:56 xsnac wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On April 11 2013 02:30 Adel wrote:On April 11 2013 00:57 ninini wrote:On April 10 2013 15:01 fight_or_flight wrote:
Ok, what gives us the right to destroy their economy and starve their people because they launch a satellite? As the article says, it has nothing to do with ballistic missile tests. At the same time we totally ignore countries doing real ballistics missiles tests who didn't sign the non-poliferation treaty such as India, Pakistan, and Israel. North korea on the other hand doesn't bow down to the US or the IMF, however, and therefore they need to be dealt with.
It's just colonialism, the same thing that was done in the middle east. We draw an arbitrary line cutting the country in half, and create the entire situation. 1 in 3 families were split apart because they had members in both countries. Read the above or listen to the interview. Here's a list of what North Korea has done since the war. They've been acting like bullies since forever, and the south tends to just shrug it off, because they don't want things to escalate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea I just hope that when the war actually starts, the nukes all misfire and none actually explodes, then NK loses the war, both Koreas are unified and tadaaa, end of concetration camps, hunger & stuff in NK! Unfortunately, I doubt that's what's going to happen. North Korea doesn't have nuclear missiles. Not only is it pretty difficult to make a nuclear bomb, but it's also quite the technical challenge to mount a nuclear bomb onto a missile. Especially difficult to deal with is the fact that SK, Japan, and the US use missile defense systems. Even if they had a working nuclear bomb, they would have to ship it some other, much more conspicuous way. Conventional war, on the other hand, will be very, very bad for SK. missile defence sistem wont work if the bomb will he shoot from an artilery .it would be way too fast .
"Won't work" is relative to who you are talking about. SK is the only country who is in range of NK artillery. Their longest range artillery piece being the M-1978 Koksan which has a max range of ~40km, deadly to SK but not the US or Japan.
Interesting as well that you think they would use their nuclear material in artillery and not a rocket when they can achieve the same amount of destruction that a nuclear artillery shell can achieve with just their conventional rounds.
I believe any nuclear material would not be wasted on weapons that would be used on SK. This is for two reasons. The first being: NK doesn't want the destruction of SK, they want the reunification of Korea which would improve their own country in just about every way. The second being along the lines of what I have already stated with: There is little reason to use their limited amount of nuclear material on a target that they can already have the same or greater level of destruction achieved with the use of conventional weapons.
edit: In fact the only thing NK would achieve by firing nuclear artillery rounds at SK is "shock value". Which would arguably hurt them more than help them.
|
|
|
Yes, an artillery shell can be intercepted.
However, there is likely to be 100's if not 1000's of shells being fired off the same time, meaning the small number you have the capability to intercept would just be a small portion of the whole.
An artillery shell is free compared to a missile.
|
On April 11 2013 00:14 micronesia wrote:
Last night Jimmy Carter was on the Daily Show, and he said under the Clinton administration he was having frequent effective talks with North Korea to keep them non-nuclear and nonviolent. Then, with the next US administration, all ties were cut off, including the USA backing out of pre-negotiated agreements. While I cannot approve of how the NK goverment and ruling party is handling their country, the fault for this predicament rests in part with the 2001-2008 administration here.
very easy to blame G W but since carter is still working for the US government now, doesnt that imply that obama doesnt listen to him either? either he's over stating his talks in NK, the government of NK is being even less reasonable that it was before, or both sides are guilty of not giving 100% to peace.
im the last person to defend george bush, i just find it odd.
|
On April 11 2013 03:48 dae wrote:Yes, an artillery shell can be intercepted. However, there is likely to be 100's if not 1000's of shells being fired off the same time, meaning the small number you have the capability to intercept would just be a small portion of the whole. An artillery shell is free compared to a missile.
I was referring to the nuclear artillery shell. There won't be 100's of those.
|
On April 11 2013 03:58 Rimstalker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 03:48 dae wrote:Yes, an artillery shell can be intercepted. However, there is likely to be 100's if not 1000's of shells being fired off the same time, meaning the small number you have the capability to intercept would just be a small portion of the whole. An artillery shell is free compared to a missile. I was referring to the nuclear artillery shell. There won't be 100's of those.
No reason you wouldn't be able to combine nuclear with conventional shells... 100 shells, 1 of them is the correct one. What a gamble.
|
1019 Posts
Ok, what gives us the right to destroy their economy and starve their people because they launch a satellite? As the article says, it has nothing to do with ballistic missile tests. At the same time we totally ignore countries doing real ballistics missiles tests who didn't sign the non-poliferation treaty such as India, Pakistan, and Israel. North korea on the other hand doesn't bow down to the US or the IMF, however, and therefore they need to be dealt with.
It's just colonialism, the same thing that was done in the middle east. We draw an arbitrary line cutting the country in half, and create the entire situation. 1 in 3 families were split apart because they had members in both countries. Read the above or listen to the interview.
This is just about the dumbest post that I have read in this 89 page thread. You don't seem to know anything about basic concepts of international relations, basic history of the korean war, or basic history of the cold war.
|
On April 11 2013 02:30 Adel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 00:57 ninini wrote:On April 10 2013 15:01 fight_or_flight wrote:
Ok, what gives us the right to destroy their economy and starve their people because they launch a satellite? As the article says, it has nothing to do with ballistic missile tests. At the same time we totally ignore countries doing real ballistics missiles tests who didn't sign the non-poliferation treaty such as India, Pakistan, and Israel. North korea on the other hand doesn't bow down to the US or the IMF, however, and therefore they need to be dealt with.
It's just colonialism, the same thing that was done in the middle east. We draw an arbitrary line cutting the country in half, and create the entire situation. 1 in 3 families were split apart because they had members in both countries. Read the above or listen to the interview. Here's a list of what North Korea has done since the war. They've been acting like bullies since forever, and the south tends to just shrug it off, because they don't want things to escalate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea Yup, because that's what you do when someone bullies you, but that time is over, and South Korea has decided that the time to retaliate has come... Though I agree with your point on Stalin, I wouldn't say that he's the guy to blame. Or rather, I wouldn't phrase it that way. If the US went along with him, there wouldn't have been a split, so we should just say that both parties didn't agree and they decided to split the country. Imho (in a perfect world) they should have asked the Korean population on what they wanted (independance, US or USSR protection, or whatever) and done just that, instead of acting with no such consideration. I just hope that when the war actually starts, the nukes all misfire and none actually explodes, then NK loses the war, both Koreas are unified and tadaaa, end of concetration camps, hunger & stuff in NK! Unfortunately, I doubt that's what's going to happen.
Stalin indirectly or Kim Il Sung directly split the country. Those two are the only ppl you can put the blame on. It's the north that shut off their country from the world, not the south. Same with Germany. USA is 0% to blame for the split of those countries. The only thing they've done is protect the southern koreans from a communist takeover.
I don't really agree about what you're saying that they should have been asked to pick between independence, USA or USSR. South Korea actually got independence. After a short period of american rule, Rhee Syngman, the first South Korean president was elected in a election observed by the UN. That election was supposed to include the north as well, but the north rejected the idea of an election. That's why Korea remained split in two. In the north, Kim Il Sung was handpicked by Stalin. He had fought in the russian army and also helped Mao and the chinese communists gain power. Kim Il Sung's personality cult was a obvious copy of how Stalin was ruling Soviet Russia, so it's obvious that they "made him" and told him how to rule the country.
The South struggled a lot at first, but they were always independent from outsiders, and they had a lot more freedom, although their freedom of speech was questionable, but in such a poor and broken country, could you really expect everything. Imo, freedom of movement (including freedom to leave the country), and freedom to own your own land or business are the most basic human rights. A country that doesn't give their citizens those rights are not legitimate in my book.
|
On April 11 2013 04:06 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +Ok, what gives us the right to destroy their economy and starve their people because they launch a satellite? As the article says, it has nothing to do with ballistic missile tests. At the same time we totally ignore countries doing real ballistics missiles tests who didn't sign the non-poliferation treaty such as India, Pakistan, and Israel. North korea on the other hand doesn't bow down to the US or the IMF, however, and therefore they need to be dealt with.
It's just colonialism, the same thing that was done in the middle east. We draw an arbitrary line cutting the country in half, and create the entire situation. 1 in 3 families were split apart because they had members in both countries. Read the above or listen to the interview. This is just about the dumbest post that I have read in this 89 page thread. You don't seem to know anything about basic concepts of international relations, basic history of the korean war, or basic history of the cold war.
It's funny cause he is not the first person in this thread that seems to think morality plays a factor in war and politics.
|
On April 11 2013 03:48 dae wrote:Yes, an artillery shell can be intercepted. However, there is likely to be 100's if not 1000's of shells being fired off the same time, meaning the small number you have the capability to intercept would just be a small portion of the whole. An artillery shell is free compared to a missile.
I admit defeat about the 100s, as Korea seems to have thousands of howitzers, however, I would voice doubts if they have the tech down to where they can fit it into such a small space, or that they really have such a plethora of high caliber howitzers.
Having served at an artillery unit however, I can tell you that shells are not 'free'. We were firing 105 mms (which are like 25 lbs, compared to the 100 lbs of the 155s, which is standard nato size) and one round was in the four digits in dollars. The rockets for the iron dome cost 30k-50k according to wikipedia.
|
On April 11 2013 04:14 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 02:30 Adel wrote:On April 11 2013 00:57 ninini wrote:On April 10 2013 15:01 fight_or_flight wrote:
Ok, what gives us the right to destroy their economy and starve their people because they launch a satellite? As the article says, it has nothing to do with ballistic missile tests. At the same time we totally ignore countries doing real ballistics missiles tests who didn't sign the non-poliferation treaty such as India, Pakistan, and Israel. North korea on the other hand doesn't bow down to the US or the IMF, however, and therefore they need to be dealt with.
It's just colonialism, the same thing that was done in the middle east. We draw an arbitrary line cutting the country in half, and create the entire situation. 1 in 3 families were split apart because they had members in both countries. Read the above or listen to the interview. Here's a list of what North Korea has done since the war. They've been acting like bullies since forever, and the south tends to just shrug it off, because they don't want things to escalate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea Yup, because that's what you do when someone bullies you, but that time is over, and South Korea has decided that the time to retaliate has come... Though I agree with your point on Stalin, I wouldn't say that he's the guy to blame. Or rather, I wouldn't phrase it that way. If the US went along with him, there wouldn't have been a split, so we should just say that both parties didn't agree and they decided to split the country. Imho (in a perfect world) they should have asked the Korean population on what they wanted (independance, US or USSR protection, or whatever) and done just that, instead of acting with no such consideration. I just hope that when the war actually starts, the nukes all misfire and none actually explodes, then NK loses the war, both Koreas are unified and tadaaa, end of concetration camps, hunger & stuff in NK! Unfortunately, I doubt that's what's going to happen. Stalin indirectly or Kim Il Sung directly split the country. Those two are the only ppl you can put the blame on. It's the north that shut off their country from the world, not the south. Same with Germany. USA is 0% to blame for the split of those countries. The only thing they've done is protect the southern koreans from a communist takeover. I don't really agree about what you're saying that they should have been asked to pick between independence, USA or USSR. South Korea actually got independence. After a short period of american rule, Rhee Syngman, the first South Korean president was elected in a election observed by the UN. That election was supposed to include the north as well, but the north rejected the idea of an election. That's why Korea remained split in two. In the north, Kim Il Sung was handpicked by Stalin. He had fought in the russian army and also helped Mao and the chinese communists gain power. Kim Il Sung's personality cult was a obvious copy of how Stalin was ruling Soviet Russia, so it's obvious that they "made him" and told him how to rule the country. The South struggled a lot at first, but they were always independent from outsiders, and they had a lot more freedom, although their freedom of speech was questionable, but in such a poor and broken country, could you really expect everything. Imo, freedom of movement (including freedom to leave the country), and freedom to own your own land or business are the most basic human rights. A country that doesn't give their citizens those rights are not legitimate in my book.
And the north had a normal election just with the DPRK winning. Rhee was just a puppet for the US like Kim was for the Soviets. Both claimed their party & Korea was the true Korea with the super power behind them acknowledging said claim.
Also you leave out Rhee's police state like behavior with arresting (killing) a lot of left wing people (later: all his political opponents) Korea under Rhee wasnt a free & happy country.
Also you cannot compare Germany's situation to Korea's. So you should stop mentioning it.
|
On April 11 2013 04:46 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 04:14 ninini wrote:On April 11 2013 02:30 Adel wrote:On April 11 2013 00:57 ninini wrote:On April 10 2013 15:01 fight_or_flight wrote:
Ok, what gives us the right to destroy their economy and starve their people because they launch a satellite? As the article says, it has nothing to do with ballistic missile tests. At the same time we totally ignore countries doing real ballistics missiles tests who didn't sign the non-poliferation treaty such as India, Pakistan, and Israel. North korea on the other hand doesn't bow down to the US or the IMF, however, and therefore they need to be dealt with.
It's just colonialism, the same thing that was done in the middle east. We draw an arbitrary line cutting the country in half, and create the entire situation. 1 in 3 families were split apart because they had members in both countries. Read the above or listen to the interview. Here's a list of what North Korea has done since the war. They've been acting like bullies since forever, and the south tends to just shrug it off, because they don't want things to escalate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea Yup, because that's what you do when someone bullies you, but that time is over, and South Korea has decided that the time to retaliate has come... Though I agree with your point on Stalin, I wouldn't say that he's the guy to blame. Or rather, I wouldn't phrase it that way. If the US went along with him, there wouldn't have been a split, so we should just say that both parties didn't agree and they decided to split the country. Imho (in a perfect world) they should have asked the Korean population on what they wanted (independance, US or USSR protection, or whatever) and done just that, instead of acting with no such consideration. I just hope that when the war actually starts, the nukes all misfire and none actually explodes, then NK loses the war, both Koreas are unified and tadaaa, end of concetration camps, hunger & stuff in NK! Unfortunately, I doubt that's what's going to happen. Stalin indirectly or Kim Il Sung directly split the country. Those two are the only ppl you can put the blame on. It's the north that shut off their country from the world, not the south. Same with Germany. USA is 0% to blame for the split of those countries. The only thing they've done is protect the southern koreans from a communist takeover. I don't really agree about what you're saying that they should have been asked to pick between independence, USA or USSR. South Korea actually got independence. After a short period of american rule, Rhee Syngman, the first South Korean president was elected in a election observed by the UN. That election was supposed to include the north as well, but the north rejected the idea of an election. That's why Korea remained split in two. In the north, Kim Il Sung was handpicked by Stalin. He had fought in the russian army and also helped Mao and the chinese communists gain power. Kim Il Sung's personality cult was a obvious copy of how Stalin was ruling Soviet Russia, so it's obvious that they "made him" and told him how to rule the country. The South struggled a lot at first, but they were always independent from outsiders, and they had a lot more freedom, although their freedom of speech was questionable, but in such a poor and broken country, could you really expect everything. Imo, freedom of movement (including freedom to leave the country), and freedom to own your own land or business are the most basic human rights. A country that doesn't give their citizens those rights are not legitimate in my book. And the north had a normal election just with the DPRK winning. Rhee was just a puppet for the US like Kim was for the Soviets. Both claimed their party & Korea was the true Korea with the super power behind them acknowledging said claim. Also you leave out Rhee's police state like behavior with arresting (killing) a lot of left wing people (later: all his political opponents) Korea under Rhee wasnt a free & happy country. Also you cannot compare Germany's situation to Korea's. So you should stop mentioning it.
Kim Il Sung was not elected democratically by the ppl. The Soviet Union put DPRK in power.
Rhee had the job of trying to fight communism, so you have to put his actions in perspective. If he had been more pacifistic, it's possible that the south would have accepted communism too. It must have been a huge challenge to be the president of South Korea at that time. The north was very organized, and they also had a strong industry thanks to the japanese, who had build a lot of factories close to the mines in the north, so they were doing a lot better economically.
It's well known that DPRK sent over agents who tried to infiltrate the South, and spread communist propaganda to regular citizens and to politicians. Communism is such a radical and oppressive form of government that I think he had every right to fight it. Surely he went overboard, and many innocent ppl were killed, but you have to put his actions in perspective.
Rhee's South Korea was a lot more free than North Korea was. Politically, both countries were harsh, but in everyday life it was a lot different. In communism, the state owns you, so they will tell you what to do, and the only freedoms you have are the freedoms they grant you. Because the state owns you under communism, all your ordinary actions have political consequences. That's what makes communism so harsh. The north korean ppl were slaves of the great leader, and all their personal decisions was made by the great leader, or by representatives of the great leader. How anyone can consider such a government as a valid regime is beyond me.
My point is that it's hardly a coincidence that North Korea have moved backwards, and South Korea have become one of the richest and most free countries outside of Europe. South Korea was allowed to rule independently, while the Soviet Union, by backing the right ppl, forced upon North Korea their crazy Stalinism ideology, which was designed for one purpose only, to keep the ppl in check and to keep the current regime in control. That's the reason why we have this problem today, because of the actions of the Soviet Union and China, and because of the ppl who have ruled DPRK since then, who have perpetuated this toxic form of government.
|
It's probably a bit offtopic, since it's not about current North Korea, so spoilered
+ Show Spoiler +On April 11 2013 08:29 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 04:46 Zocat wrote:On April 11 2013 04:14 ninini wrote:On April 11 2013 02:30 Adel wrote:On April 11 2013 00:57 ninini wrote:On April 10 2013 15:01 fight_or_flight wrote:
Ok, what gives us the right to destroy their economy and starve their people because they launch a satellite? As the article says, it has nothing to do with ballistic missile tests. At the same time we totally ignore countries doing real ballistics missiles tests who didn't sign the non-poliferation treaty such as India, Pakistan, and Israel. North korea on the other hand doesn't bow down to the US or the IMF, however, and therefore they need to be dealt with.
It's just colonialism, the same thing that was done in the middle east. We draw an arbitrary line cutting the country in half, and create the entire situation. 1 in 3 families were split apart because they had members in both countries. Read the above or listen to the interview. Here's a list of what North Korea has done since the war. They've been acting like bullies since forever, and the south tends to just shrug it off, because they don't want things to escalate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea Yup, because that's what you do when someone bullies you, but that time is over, and South Korea has decided that the time to retaliate has come... Though I agree with your point on Stalin, I wouldn't say that he's the guy to blame. Or rather, I wouldn't phrase it that way. If the US went along with him, there wouldn't have been a split, so we should just say that both parties didn't agree and they decided to split the country. Imho (in a perfect world) they should have asked the Korean population on what they wanted (independance, US or USSR protection, or whatever) and done just that, instead of acting with no such consideration. I just hope that when the war actually starts, the nukes all misfire and none actually explodes, then NK loses the war, both Koreas are unified and tadaaa, end of concetration camps, hunger & stuff in NK! Unfortunately, I doubt that's what's going to happen. Stalin indirectly or Kim Il Sung directly split the country. Those two are the only ppl you can put the blame on. It's the north that shut off their country from the world, not the south. Same with Germany. USA is 0% to blame for the split of those countries. The only thing they've done is protect the southern koreans from a communist takeover. I don't really agree about what you're saying that they should have been asked to pick between independence, USA or USSR. South Korea actually got independence. After a short period of american rule, Rhee Syngman, the first South Korean president was elected in a election observed by the UN. That election was supposed to include the north as well, but the north rejected the idea of an election. That's why Korea remained split in two. In the north, Kim Il Sung was handpicked by Stalin. He had fought in the russian army and also helped Mao and the chinese communists gain power. Kim Il Sung's personality cult was a obvious copy of how Stalin was ruling Soviet Russia, so it's obvious that they "made him" and told him how to rule the country. The South struggled a lot at first, but they were always independent from outsiders, and they had a lot more freedom, although their freedom of speech was questionable, but in such a poor and broken country, could you really expect everything. Imo, freedom of movement (including freedom to leave the country), and freedom to own your own land or business are the most basic human rights. A country that doesn't give their citizens those rights are not legitimate in my book. And the north had a normal election just with the DPRK winning. Rhee was just a puppet for the US like Kim was for the Soviets. Both claimed their party & Korea was the true Korea with the super power behind them acknowledging said claim. Also you leave out Rhee's police state like behavior with arresting (killing) a lot of left wing people (later: all his political opponents) Korea under Rhee wasnt a free & happy country. Also you cannot compare Germany's situation to Korea's. So you should stop mentioning it. Kim Il Sung was not elected democratically by the ppl. The Soviet Union put DPRK in power. Rhee had the job of trying to fight communism, so you have to put his actions in perspective. If he had been more pacifistic, it's possible that the south would have accepted communism too. It must have been a huge challenge to be the president of South Korea at that time. The north was very organized, and they also had a strong industry thanks to the japanese, who had build a lot of factories close to the mines in the north, so they were doing a lot better economically. It's well known that DPRK sent over agents who tried to infiltrate the South, and spread communist propaganda to regular citizens and to politicians. Communism is such a radical and oppressive form of government that I think he had every right to fight it. Surely he went overboard, and many innocent ppl were killed, but you have to put his actions in perspective. Rhee's South Korea was a lot more free than North Korea was. Politically, both countries were harsh, but in everyday life it was a lot different. In communism, the state owns you, so they will tell you what to do, and the only freedoms you have are the freedoms they grant you. Because the state owns you under communism, all your ordinary actions have political consequences. That's what makes communism so harsh. The north korean ppl were slaves of the great leader, and all their personal decisions was made by the great leader, or by representatives of the great leader. How anyone can consider such a government as a valid regime is beyond me. My point is that it's hardly a coincidence that North Korea have moved backwards, and South Korea have become one of the richest and most free countries outside of Europe. South Korea was allowed to rule independently, while the Soviet Union, by backing the right ppl, forced upon North Korea their crazy Stalinism ideology, which was designed for one purpose only, to keep the ppl in check and to keep the current regime in control. That's the reason why we have this problem today, because of the actions of the Soviet Union and China, and because of the ppl who have ruled DPRK since then, who have perpetuated this toxic form of government. Rhee as a guy with an Austrian wife, spending half his life in exile (in the US), studying there and being a big anti-communist. Him being supported by the US government when running for government in South Korea is really leaving a bitter taste. He was the ideal counterpart to Kim. Also you mention that the election in NK wasnt democratic. Yes, i agree Kim wasnt elected in a democratic way (but a election nonetheless). But neither was Rhee on the 10th of May. There were strikes, demonstrations and protests against creating a separate South Korea. The repression of this opposition resulted in over 10,000 arrests of left-wing supporters. While North Korean people were slaves to the great leader, communists in South Korea were murdered. Later Rhee declared martial law to force his ongoing rule (though that has nothing to do with the US but more with Rhee and his authoritarian state). Both Rhee & Kim wanted a unified Korea under their own rule. Even if that meant war. Sure, I can chose a lesser evil between Kim's communism and Rhee's authoritarianism. But both are not democratic ways. And both suck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
