North Korea

[Glasgia]

If we can convince China to step out of the way, I'm all for a liberation of DPRK. Otherwise, too many lives will be lost and there is the possibility of nuclear war.

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

If we can convince China to step out of the way, I'm all for a liberation of DPRK. Otherwise, too many lives will be lost and there is the possibility of nuclear war.

Take up the White (business)Man's burden.

[Risottia]

If we can convince China to step out of the way, I'm all for a liberation of DPRK. Otherwise, too many lives will be lost and there is the possibility of nuclear war.

Take up the White (business)Man's burden.

Fuck no. We've done it too many times and now we're too tired for it. Let some other carry it now. Let's say... India!

[Prussia-Steinbach]

And meanwhile...
...

Which , unless I'm much mistaken, means that in the US, the number of people needing food stamps (aka, not earning enough to survive) is on the rise.
Was that the point you were making?

My point is that the federal government has been "taking care of" their citizens, whether I like it or not. North Korea is letting it's citizens starve, while building a larger military than the United States.

[Great Nepal]

'Cause the US totally hasn't made/used nukes, right?

Yes, however it isn't ruled by insane leader whose monthly schedule includes giving out nuclear threats.

That's a rather childish argument. It's effectively impossible to know who fired the first shot in that particular skirmish; militias affiliated with both nations had been engaging in combat with one another for several years at that point, so it was essentially inevitable to happen.

No, KPA's soldiers first crossed 38th parallel behind artillery fire at dawn on Sunday 25 June 1950. Before that, nothing but minor skirmish by both sides actually happened.

Not even getting into how the very existence of the ROK's government was a gross violation of agreements that the US had made with the Korean Provisional Government (ie. allowing for elections throughout the whole of the Korean Peninsula), and, thus, legally speaking, its government was illegitimate. It could be argued that the DPRK was per se not legitimate either, but they formed as a separate nation only in reaction to the US's decisions to only allow elections in the South, and - at least initially, the position of the KWP was to push for universal elections, seeing the US (rightly so) as an impediment to that.

Because it is very easy for two rival superpowers to agree on terms set on piece of paper. Initially, elections of South Korean Constitutional Assembly election, 1948 was supposed to be throughout peninsula but Soviets pulled out: so US fulfilled its half of bargain in area it could.

But honestly, all that was over 60 years ago, with entirely different leadership in all involved parties, so I don't particularly see its bearing on the present in any case.
How many sovereign nations has the US interfered militarily with since 1953? How many has the DPRK? I think it's rather self-evident.

Sure, if DPRK stopped issuing military and nuclear threats as well as shelling South Korea: we would have more trust that DPRK wont be trying it again.

Because it's entirely one's fault for having the shitty luck to be born into the cycle of poverty in a nation ruled by corporate fucks who don't give a shit about their own disadvantaged citizens.

Because it is entirely a random guys fault for another random guy not being successful as s/he is.

No, because there are facts to show NK has actually got famine situation with 15% of its populace dying due to famine.

So your earlier statement was anecdotical and an appeal to emotions.[/quote]
No, it was easy way to demonstrate statistics.

While I assume you could source this later claim with some sound statistics. Then why didn't you do it?

Because, it is obvious and quick search in Google will reveal the answer?
(First link on search)

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

My point is that the federal government has been "taking care of" their citizens,

Which is why there are millions of homeless, millions without basic health insurance, post-secondary education is prohibitively expensive. All in a nation with one of the higher GDP-per-capitas (and thus the means to actually solve these problems if they actually gave a shit about their own citizens).

Whereas the DPRK, despite its limited resources, strives to guarantee housing, healthcare, and education to all its citizens. Imagine if they had the resources of the US to work with how utopian it would be.

whether I like it or not. North Korea is letting it's citizens starve,

That's your "humanitarian" sanctions, buddy.

while building a larger military than the United States.

Err...?

[EnragedMaldivians]

That's your "humanitarian" sanctions, buddy.

I don't like sanctions. But doesn't Juche stress the need for complete self-sufficience?

So, why should this be a factor?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

My point is that the federal government has been "taking care of" their citizens,

Which is why there are millions of homeless, millions without basic health insurance, post-secondary education is prohibitively expensive. All in a nation with one of the higher GDP-per-capitas (and thus the means to actually solve these problems if they actually gave a shit about their own citizens).

Whereas the DPRK, despite its limited resources, strives to guarantee housing, healthcare, and education to all its citizens. Imagine if they had the resources of the US to work with how utopian it would be.

whether I like it or not. North Korea is letting it's citizens starve,

That's your "humanitarian" sanctions, buddy.

while building a larger military than the United States.

Err...?

And remember, I said building.

The sanctions are on that nation because the government is evil, plain and simple. Why, when any nations or humanitarian groups attempt to give them food, they are either not let in or the food is given to the military?

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

Yes, however it isn't ruled by insane leader whose monthly schedule includes giving out nuclear threats.

I somehow wonder if those in Nagasaki and Hiroshima in '45 would agree.

This is patently absurd. The US not only has nukes, it's actually used them. The most you can accuse the DPRK of is heated rhetoric regarding them (that goes both ways on the peninsula).

Hell, if I were the leader of a nation (legally) at war with the largest-funded military on the planet, possessing a nuclear arsenal, I'd sure as hell want nukes myself. If anything, the insane thing in the DPRK's position would be disarmament.

No, KPA's soldiers first crossed 38th parallel behind artillery fire at dawn on Sunday 25 June 1950. Before that, nothing but minor skirmish by both sides actually happened.

I'm well aware that the DPRK advanced southward on that date. The issue at question really is who precipitated that particular military exchange - ie. both militaries claim the other fired first and their own actions were retaliatory. Kind of a controversy akin to Lexington, that I don't think we'll ever really know. Obviously the DPRK was successful in that particular round of combat and started advancing southward (without authorization from either Stalin or Kim, by the way - as Stalin at the time was wary of a proxy war in Korea leading to an actual war between the USSR and US; and Kim was still negotiating with Stalin for further reinforcements - thus even if Kim HAD wanted to invade the South, it wouldn't have been the tactically ideal time to do so), and from there we get the war. Trying to pin blame on one particular military though is really hazy.

Because it is very easy for two rival superpowers to agree on terms set on piece of paper. Initially, elections of South Korean Constitutional Assembly election, 1948 was supposed to be throughout peninsula but Soviets pulled out: so US fulfilled its half of bargain in area it could.

The US excluded all even vaguely leftist candidates (even the equivalent of social democrats) from the election and refused to count votes in the Soviet administrated North. Unsurprisingly, the UN ratified it. Probably part of why the DPRK doesn't have the greatest of respect for its authority today.

Sure, if DPRK stopped issuing military and nuclear threats as well as shelling South Korea: we would have more trust that DPRK wont be trying it again.

Again, which nation has the greater historical precedent for interfering military with other sovereign nations - the US or DPRK?

And once more, the DPRK is still, legally speaking, at war with the US and ROK. Something the US's own exorbitant military posturing, economic strangleholds and drills simulating an invasion of the DPRK certainly aren't helping.

Because it is entirely a random guys fault for another random guy not being successful as s/he is.

Unless there's equal access to the means of production, any idea of meritocracy is simply facetious.

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

That's your "humanitarian" sanctions, buddy.

I don't like sanctions. But doesn't Juche stress the need for complete self-sufficience?

So, why should this be a factor?

Political self-reliance doesn't preclude foreign trade.

Nor does economic self-reliance per se, so long as the DPRK would be able to trade the resources it produces internally for an equal value of other resources from other nations.

[EnragedMaldivians]

The sanctions are against the government because the government is evil, plain and simple.

I disagree with sanctions actually. The sanctions on Iraq hurt ordinary citizens far more than they "hurt" Saddam Hussein.

Though, I don't think one should advocate Juche (which emphasizes complete self-reliance) and lament international sanctions simultaneously.

I don't like sanctions. But doesn't Juche stress the need for complete self-sufficience?

So, why should this be a factor?

Political self-reliance doesn't preclude foreign trade.

Nor does economic self-reliance per se, so long as the DPRK would be able to trade the resources it produces internally for an equal value of other resources from other nations.

Hmmm. Alright, but given the extant conditions of geopolitics (within the framework of your philosophy) I think economic self reliance not excluding foreign trade is self defeating really. If you truly advocate freedom from imperialist designs, that is.

[Pingxiang]

For those supporting the invasion of NK. there is a problem. NK. signed a defense treaty with China in the early 60's. If eithier one is attacked the other would automatically get involved. However, NK. wanted to change a part of the treaty in 2010. Seems they want to get rid of the "automatic" part and make it a "request". Seems NK. leadership thinks China could use the automatic part to occupy them if there is a problem.

The Soviets also had a sort of defense pact with NK. but that was changed by the Russian federation.

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

(Image)
And remember, I said building.

Well, if we're talking numbers rather than military expenditure, then yes, demographically, the DPRK does have one of the larger militaries on the planet. Again, considering the position they find themselves in, it'd be irrational not to.

Where those numbers are coming from, primarily, is that, with the way DPRK society works, at least in cities (farmers in rural areas are exempt), in most cases, citizens are required to spend time in the military after high school. Kind of akin to the systems that Israel and... surprise surprise, SOUTH Korea have in place.

The US, not having a draft in place, has a much lower active military per capita. If we ever mobilized fully for war and re-enacted a draft, we'd have significantly higher numbers. That's all that means.

The sanctions are on that nation because the government is evil, plain and simple.

"Evil" in this case meaning "not ruled by corporate fucks and not wanting their nation to be exploited by western corporations"?

Why, when any nations or humanitarian groups attempt to give them food, they are either not let in or the food is given to the military?

Err?

Depends which groups you're referring to. Some such "humanitarian" (and "missionary" too, by the way) groups have long histories of working on the behest of the CIA, so the DPRK is rightfully wary of them.

Others that actually are legit, they do, and have, accepted.

But ultimately, this could all be precluded by simply allowing the DPRK to freely trade with other nations for food.

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

Hmmm. Alright, but given the extant conditions as per your philosophy, I think economic self reliance not excluding foreign trade is self defeating really. If you truly advocate freedom from imperialist designs.

Well, I'll give an analogy I suppose.

Suppose I'm a really good fisherman. I go out to sea every day, catch a ton of fish. So much so that I have more fish than I could possibly eat myself. Whereas, because my time is taken up in fishing, and my skill lies therein, I might not be able to personally build myself a house, prescribe medicine for myself, get vegetables/fruit/etc.

So I trade the extra fish (still the product of my own labor) that I don't need to an architect to build me a house, a doctor for the medicine I need, a farmer for other forms of food, etc. I'm still receiving the value of my labor, it's just changing products.

In my terms, such an individual would be self-sufficient.

Returning to the topic at hand, put simply, geographically, the DPRK doesn't have sufficient arable land to feed its population. It wouldn't matter if the government is capitalist, communist, corporatist, fascist, whatever. It's simple not possible with its present population for them to grow enough food to feed everyone. They do, however, have an abundance of minerals/metals (owing to the rather mountainous terrain).

In the past, the DPRK used to trade nickel to Japan, who in turn used the said nickel to produce electronics. When the US discovered this, the Japanese goods using North Korean materials were in turn boycotted, to the extent that it was no longer profitable for them to continue buying from the DPRK.

This sort of thing, really, is why they are in such a mess today; if they could simply trade their surplus resources (produced by their own labor) for food, the country's people would be much, much better off.

[Great Nepal]

I somehow wonder if those in Nagasaki and Hiroshima in '45 would agree.
This is patently absurd. The US not only has nukes, it's actually used them.[/quote[
Which was the best given the alternatives: unless you have suggestions.

The most you can accuse the DPRK of is heated rhetoric regarding them (that goes both ways on the peninsula).

Nope, I still haven't heard South Korea threatening North with nuclear attacks or shelling its cities.

Hell, if I were the leader of a nation (legally) at war with the largest-funded military on the planet, possessing a nuclear arsenal, I'd sure as hell want nukes myself. If anything, the insane thing in the DPRK's position would be disarmament.

Again, the "war" is because of DPRK not opposite.

I'm well aware that the DPRK advanced southward on that date. The issue at question really is who precipitated that particular military exchange - ie. both militaries claim the other fired first and their own actions were retaliatory. Kind of a controversy akin to Lexington, that I don't think we'll ever really know. Obviously the DPRK was successful in that particular round of combat and started advancing southward (without authorization from either Stalin or Kim, by the way - as Stalin at the time was wary of a proxy war in Korea leading to an actual war between the USSR and US; and Kim was still negotiating with Stalin for further reinforcements - thus even if Kim HAD wanted to invade the South, it wouldn't have been the tactically ideal time to do so), and from there we get the war. Trying to pin blame on one particular military though is really hazy.

No, it isn't.
Unless there is evidence that South Korean troops marched North before North counter attacked and marched south: North still started the war.

The US excluded all even vaguely leftist candidates (even the equivalent of social democrats) from the election

USSR refused elections... and US stopped possible USSR supporters from winning. Surprise?

and refused to count votes in the Soviet administrated North. Unsurprisingly, the UN ratified it. Probably part of why the DPRK doesn't have the greatest of respect for its authority today.

Did Soviet recognise votes from American controlled side?

Again, which nation has the greater historical precedent for interfering military with other sovereign nations - the US or DPRK?

Not relevant.
Who started the war, threatening nuclear holocaust and shelling other side?
Which makes positioning of US troops there necessary.

And once more, the DPRK is still, legally speaking, at war with the US and ROK.

Technical point: They are at ceasefire not war. There is a difference.

Something the US's own exorbitant military posturing, economic strangleholds and drills simulating an invasion of the DPRK certainly aren't helping.

Which is being done for precaution.

Unless there's equal access to the means of production, any idea of meritocracy is simply facetious.

Never claimed that.
Try again.

[The IASM]

North Korea should change there government and make similar to china's government because the USA says that they are the land of freedom they are not they have one of the highest capital punishment rates along with prison rate they are the land of the oppressed.

[Great Nepal]

The sanctions are against the government because the government is evil, plain and simple.

I disagree with sanctions actually. The sanctions on Iraq hurt ordinary citizens far more than they "hurt" Saddam Hussein.

Yes, but lifting sanctions means:-
1. Loosing only bargaining chip.
2. Funding DPRK to build better army which it has intention of using against South Korea.

[The Rich Port]

"Escalation" = more mounds of flesh to use as bullet shields in this case.

But I guess that HAS won wars before... I think...

[Rio Cana]

Well, if we're talking numbers rather than military expenditure, then yes, demographically, the DPRK does have one of the larger militaries on the planet. Again, considering the position they find themselves in, it'd be irrational not to.

While doing some reading I foound out why NK. military has traditionally been large. It seems it all goes back to Cuban Missile Crisis. When they saw that the Soviets took those missiles out of Cuba they knew they could not really rely on the Soviets to come to there defense. So they knew they had to keep there military large. Even before this in 1958, NK. went into nuke research since they believed the Soviets and to some extent China could not be relied on when truly needed. If you think about it, it generally is bad policy to rely on some other nation for your defense. However, some nations have no choice.

Jump to modern times. The Soviets no longer exists and China is not has hardline has they use to be. Also, no more good quality weapons from these natons. So NK. has decided it really cannot rely on them for its defense. So they have been trying to get a non-agression pact signed with the US.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Well, if we're talking numbers rather than military expenditure, then yes, demographically, the DPRK does have one of the larger militaries on the planet. Again, considering the position they find themselves in, it'd be irrational not to.

While doing some reading I foound out why NK. military has traditionally been large. It seems it all goes back to Cuban Missile Crisis. When they saw that the Soviets took those missiles out of Cuba they knew they could not really rely on the Soviets to come to there defense. So they knew they had to keep there military large. Even before this in 1958, NK. went into nuke research since they believed the Soviets and to some extent China could not be relied on when truly needed. If you think about it, it generally is bad policy to rely on some other nation for your defense. However, some nations have no choice.

Jump to modern times. The Soviets no longer exists and China is not has hardline has they use to be. Also, no more good quality weapons from these natons. So NK. has decided it really cannot rely on them for its defense. So they have been trying to get a non-agression pact signed with the US.

They wouldn't need to worry so much about their defense if they didn't have a psychotic, evil, militaristic Communist dictatorship in place.

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

I somehow wonder if those in Nagasaki and Hiroshima in '45 would agree.
This is patently absurd. The US not only has nukes, it's actually used them.

Which was the best given the alternatives: unless you have suggestions.

Well, short of not be so damn imperialist in the Far East in the 20s and 30s (and thus precluding the Pacific Front of WWII)...

The Japanese were already preparing to surrender when the bombs were dropped (as the USSR had troops in Manchuria and likely would be able to reach Japan itself), so the generally given "justification" about it being "necessary" for bringing about Japan's surrender is simply false. The Allies had already effectively won at that point.

Nope, I still haven't heard South Korea threatening North with nuclear attacks

Considering they don't possess them, that would be a bit silly, wouldn't it?

The US, though, did just that, back in 1950.

or shelling its cities.

Since when does "returning artillery fire on a small island" = "shelling cities"?

Again, the "war" is because of DPRK not opposite.

You do realize that the KWP's position circa 1950 was desiring a Korea-wide election, right?

No, it isn't.
Unless there is evidence that South Korean troops marched North before North counter attacked and marched south: North still started the war.

We have no effective way of knowing which party engaged in hostilities first - much akin to Lexington. Both militaries had already undergone several years of raids back and forth, so something of the sort was basically inevitable. All that's readily apparent is that the North's military happened to win that particular fight and continued marching South. Both say the other fired first. Both definitely had motive. Short of a time machine, I don't think it's possible to know.

And, in any case, neither Stalin nor Kim would have supported such action per se then and there, as, for a variety of reasons, at least in that moment, neither of them actually wanted to commit to full war. So the most you could make a case for would be the North military acting independently of governmental orders, sparking a war, and going for there. And even there, it could just as easily have been the South who shot first (it's rather presumptuous to claim either, as there's no real way of knowing).

USSR refused elections... and US stopped possible USSR supporters from winning. Surprise?

The USSR supported the KPG's successor organization in its territory, the US made it illegal.

Did Soviet recognise votes from American controlled side?

The authorities in the North, at the time, wanted a universal election, so if the US would have been willing to count theirs as well, yes.

Not relevant.
Who started the war,

Unknowable.

threatening nuclear holocaust

In 1950? The US.

and shelling other side?

Err, both. A lot of times.

Which makes positioning of US troops there necessary.

So let me get this straight: US troops in the ROK = Purely defensive
DPRK troops in the DPRK = Pure evil hellbent on invading the world and destroying all that is good?

Nice double standard.

Technical point: They are at ceasefire not war. There is a difference.

As there was no declaration of peace (despite the DPRK, and depending who's running it, sometimes the ROK too calling for it), legally speaking, the US is still at war with the DPRK.

Which is being done for precaution.

Again, "US military buildup good, DPRK military buildup bad", right?

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

While doing some reading I foound out why NK. military has traditionally been large. It seems it all goes back to Cuban Missile Crisis. When they saw that the Soviets took those missiles out of Cuba they knew they could not really rely on the Soviets to come to there defense. So they knew they had to keep there military large. Even before this in 1958, NK. went into nuke research since they believed the Soviets and to some extent China could not be relied on when truly needed. If you think about it, it generally is bad policy to rely on some other nation for your defense. However, some nations have no choice.

Jump to modern times. The Soviets no longer exists and China is not has hardline has they use to be. Also, no more good quality weapons from these natons. So NK. has decided it really cannot rely on them for its defense. So they have been trying to get a non-agression pact signed with the US.

They wouldn't need to worry so much about their defense if they didn't have a psychotic, evil, militaristic Communist dictatorship in place.

Right, right.

If they just kissed NATO's ass, got rid of worker ownership of the means of production and let western corporations come in and exploit the @$@#$@#$^@#$@ out of their people and resources, removed guarantees to healthcare, housing, and education to their people, then all would be well in the world, right?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

They wouldn't need to worry so much about their defense if they didn't have a psychotic, evil, militaristic Communist dictatorship in place.

Right, right.

If they just kissed NATO's ass, got rid of worker ownership of the means of production and let western corporations come in and exploit the @$@#$@#$^@#$@ out of their people and resources, removed guarantees to healthcare, housing, and education to their people, then all would be well in the world, right?

The idea that the workers control the means of production is absolutely ridiculous, it has been proved time and time again that competition improves the economy because it gives people incentive, competitive healthcare and education opportunities make both of those things cheaper and higher quality. You have no point.

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

The idea that the workers control the means of production is absolutely ridiculous, it has been proved time and time again that competition improves the economy because it gives people incentive, competitive healthcare and education opportunities make both of those things cheaper and higher quality. You have no point.

Don't really follow how workers controlling the means of production and competition are, in themselves, mutually exclusive. If anything, profits going to the bloated heads of organizations reduce efficiency (ie. the corporate bailouts).

[Naval Guns]

you see if we invade north korea it will further strengthen the north koreans ideology or what ever you call it. to prevent a future all out war we could instead use special forces like delta force, rangers, Navy seals etc to cripple even further their crippled nation. they have a mind set that their still in the 50's were the north was actually stronger then the south. they rfuse to beleive that the cannot lose against "tratiors" in the south.


and reunification of the north and south wont ever happen unless the north changes drastically to get up to speed and throw its title as the hermit kingdom. they need years of training in humanitarian, economic, and political feilds before reunification is even talked about. plus if reunification happens the north koreans would want the unified korea to fly the communist flag and the north would put its people into the new government and most likley not allow any south koreans to be involved with the government. so you see the problems with the north and south now.