• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Korean threat?

Joined
7 February 2001
Messages
1,452
So what's up with N. Korea and the missles they fired? How is it that Bush simply thought that Iraq had WMD's and we started a never ending war; N. Korea admits to having nuclear capabilities and intentions, fires 7 test missles toward North America and Bush calls for the UN to meet and discuss it? Bush's true intentions with the war in Iraq become clearer every day, at least to me. :cool:
So how should we respond?
 
Last edited:
Good question. Maybe 'bush can figure out a way to just retract the war and bring back the US dollar from the trash can.:rolleyes:
 
Bush is an IDIOT, most of us know that, and now even some hardcore republicans would tell you that. :wink:

Just look at what has happened to the heads of states that supported him. Including Japanese, British, italian, spanish etc etc... They were all voted out, or on their way out..:rolleyes:
 
I dunno shit about politics, but i do know 2 things:

- When i see Bush, i always think to myself 'The lights are on but nobody is at home'. :biggrin:
- I never ever heard a positive comment about this geezer on this side of the big lake. :biggrin:

North Korea? Is the US the only one allowed to have missiles? Maybe it better is, there are many things to be said about it.
 
SNDSOUL said:
So what's up with Korea and the missles they fired? How is it that Bush simply thought that Iraq had WMD's and we started a never ending war; Korea admits to having nuclear capabilities and intentions, fires 7 test missles toward North America and Bush calls for the UN to meet and discuss it? Bush's true intentions with the war in Iraq become clearer every day, at least to me. :cool:
So how should we respond?

Would you really want to pick a fight with someone who can actually fight back???

Iraq wouldn't have happened either if they didn't have oil... But they were effectively disarmed before the invasion anyway!
 
How about the thousands of US troops in South Korea. That is pretty close to North Korea. Anyway, my opininon is that North Korea is looking for money from the US and other countries. The missles fired failed miserably, they are years away from having technology to have a successful long range missle.

A side note, technically the Korean was is just under a cease fire and not over. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Rob
 
My memory is a little bit rusty on Korea but there are some general things that are important to remember.

Korea used to be a part of Japan (read that: occupied by) in pre-WWII times.
After the Japanese surrender, the south came under US control and the north under Soviet control (that is Communist Soviets).
In the South this lead to a western-oriented society whereas in the North the Soviets installed a Communist government.
After some years, the Communist government of North Korea tried to conquer South Korea to control the whole control. They practically succeeded in this until the US stepped in and drove them back. UN-troops (mostly US-troops) were fighting this war and were winning it and driving the NK forces across their border (and therefore, towards China). China by that time had also become communist. China wanted to keep the buffer between them and SK and intervened, driving the SK and UN-forces back again. Heavy fighting with heavy casualties followed and in 1952 (1953??) a cease fire was agreed upon.
This cease fire is still in existence today and there is a long DMZ along the border where a lot of US troops are stationed.
The influence of the USSR declined as NK-leaders wanted to become self-sufficient. Their internal policy is extremely suppressive, people are not allowed to travel (let alone flee) and everything is under government control into the extreme. Focus was towards industrialization which has had plenty of side-effects (food shortages). There is minimal trade between NK and the rest of the world. Maybe North Korea could be compared to Albania in a way.
Both NK and SK officialy are working towards become once one country again. For NK, SK is a very worthwhle price. Everyone knows how much South Korea has florished and how many richness and products it produces. There is a lot of wealth there.
In comparison, NK has had some severe famines in which millions are said to have died and probably the real economic situation is pretty bad. Foreign countries have given food-aid to NK in the past and probably other aids as well. Don't know it, but my bet is that the local population knows little about this. Yet, maybe out of conviction or just out of self-preservation, the North Korean government will claim everybody there is happy and their system is the best.

NK has has missiles (Scuds mainly) since the 1970's. Have been producing and selling hundreds of them to Iran, Iraq and I believe Egypt as well during that time. Build them locally and then wanted to expand their range and payload and thus starting their own development program. Now, hey have reached the state in which this program is slowly bearing fruit.
It is because of their military threat that NK still plays a role in that areao of the world. China probably want to keep the buffer between them and South Korea. The US and mostly Japan would like to dismantle the nuclear capability of NK but countries like China insist that NK should be allowed to have a civil nuclear capability. Problem is of course, with such a regime one thing will lead to another.
Military power is at the moment the only thing NK has to fence with. So, that is what they will use. The leaders have little to loose and any internal turnover would not be look upon favorably by China and is in any case very unlikely. Simply put, bullying is probably the only way North Korea is able to get what they cannot get locally.

I have no time to get into US/Bush politics right now, but this is a few lines on North Korea.

And as far as what the rest of the world should do, the only REAL thing to do is KEEP TALKING. But, as always with extreme regimes, always talk from a position of strength (actually, that is a quideline for any kind politics).
 
SNDSOUL said:
So what's up with Korea and the missles they fired? How is it that Bush simply thought that Iraq had WMD's and we started a never ending war; Korea admits to having nuclear capabilities and intentions, fires 7 test missles toward North America and Bush calls for the UN to meet and discuss it? Bush's true intentions with the war in Iraq become clearer every day, at least to me. :cool:
So how should we respond?

the answers to your questions (albeit you probably know the answers anyway) are here http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72542
 
A few basic reasons:

1) We're already fighting a war, and it's not going as great as he hoped
2) There's no oil in Korea. (Yes, S.H. was a bad man, but there are bad men all over the world...and we chose Iraq to invade...even tho the 911 terrorists were Saudi)
3) China would not like us invading Korea...I don't think we want to tangle with China right now.
4) The whole world already hates us, I don't think we have any favors left to cash in.

Korea would have to do something first before we'd take any major action...and their missles right now can't even get off the pad, let alone hit a city across the ocean.
Japan is in greater danger right now...they'll have a greater say in this whole thing than we will.
 
1st, please stop refering to North Korea as Korea.:wink:
There is North Korea (democratic people's republic of korea:confused: ), and South Korea (republic of Korea). Two totally different countries. Try calling a Taiwanese person Chinese.... there's hell to pay:biggrin:

2nd. yes both korea's are still techinically at war. There is only a "cease-fire" agreement between N.K and S.K/USA

3rd. If there were to be a war between N. Korea and the USA/S. Korea, the collateral damage/casualties would be horrendous. I believe there was a report that stated: in the event of a all out war between N.K and S.K, the civilian casualties alone in the first month of fight would be close to 10 million dead/wounded/missing. So, the South korean government would never agree to a "first strike" against the North.

4th. North Korea is a bankrupt "attention whore":biggrin:

5th. China doesn't want to lose a "biatch" that they own/control

6th. Is President Bush an idiot? your entitled to believe what you want to.:smile:

IMO, better to whack Iraq and build up experience for your troops than to invade a country like North korea, that could actually take a bite out of you before losing!
 
DrVolkl said:
3) China would not like us invading Korea...I don't think we want to tangle with China right now.
4) The whole world already hates us, I don't think we have any favors left to cash in.
.

Don't want to tangle with China? do you mean military action? If you mean tangle with china as in "armed conflict" In my personal opinion, whe would kick their asses all day/week/month/year long.:wink: they may have a billion man army, but they are as advanced as a rock:biggrin:

DrVolkl said:
4) The whole world already hates us, I don't think we have any favors left to cash in.
.
We don't have any favor's left? how about saving europe's ass twice in the past century? bailing countries out of economic problems?

DrVolkl said:
Korea would have to do something first before we'd take any major action...and their missles right now can't even get off the pad, let alone hit a city across the ocean.
Japan is in greater danger right now...they'll have a greater say in this whole thing than we will.

It's always about the Japanese:rolleyes: Basically South Korea was only supported by the USA to keep Japan safe from the communist threat. Thus ensuring a military foot hold in Asia
 
The only reason I'll comment is because I finished my 2nd International Relations and Economics course last semester and much of it is fresh. Like others on the board, there are better places for discussions of this sort if you want real information, but I'll throw a little out there.

As mentioned [once again by our wise NSX comrads], there is a lot of history and tension in NK/SK/US. The 'why don't we attack NK instead of Iraq at least they taunt us with their weapons' is an extremely poorly thought of idea although albiet popular. If you want to get technical, we've been on NK's ass for decades. We have thousands of troops just WAITING to go in at any notice. I have friends there as we speak in the military.

You can go off and blame Bush as much as you want, but as you TRULY learn about the powers and choices alotted to him, you probably wouldn't give him nearly so much credit, good or bad. 5k+ innocent people died and billions of US dollars were purposely destroyed. Someone had to do something, did you do something better about than Bush did? Heck if I know, but I certainly didn't. I don't care who the president is, and don't care much for similar reasoning as I refered to above. I could and have got into pages of discussion of that, not going through it again. However, for the record, Bush has made many decisions I don't agree with. Then again, until you have as many elements and complications to consider as him, I don't think you have a right to whine about it so indefinitely and close-minded.

Why don't we mess with NK? Because NK can mess with us, and like a wounded animal, it's most dangerous when it has nothing to lose. Iran is still a similar situation. Their gov't was elected by older citizens and their younger, and much more numerous citizens, are on the border of revolting. That's a strong reason why we try to leave them alone as well, we have very little to gain and a lot to lose. We have almost as many targets on us as we have on other people, and even as the world's most powerful country, we are not invincible.

And to the gentleman concerning China, of all the contries in the world, China is by far the last one we would want to go to war with. In fact, it is almost unfathomable because the IMMEDIATE economical reprecussions would send us into a depression and make war time funding already on significant strain almost impossible to produce.

I wish every American, if not every worldwide citizen, could take a few college level International Relations courses every 5 years or so to stay aware/up to date, but that is rediculous unfortunately.
 
sahtt said:
The only reason I'll comment is because I finished my 2nd International Relations and Economics course last semester and much of it is fresh. Like others on the board, there are better places for discussions of this sort if you want real information, but I'll throw a little out there.

As mentioned [once again by our wise NSX comrads], there is a lot of history and tension in NK/SK/US. The 'why don't we attack NK instead of Iraq at least they taunt us with their weapons' is an extremely poorly thought of idea although albiet popular. If you want to get technical, we've been on NK's ass for decades. We have thousands of troops just WAITING to go in at any notice. I have friends there as we speak in the military.

You can go off and blame Bush as much as you want, but as you TRULY learn about the powers and choices alotted to him, you probably wouldn't give him nearly so much credit, good or bad. 5k+ innocent people died and billions of US dollars were purposely destroyed. Someone had to do something, did you do something better about than Bush did? Heck if I know, but I certainly didn't. I don't care who the president is, and don't care much for similar reasoning as I refered to above. I could and have got into pages of discussion of that, not going through it again. However, for the record, Bush has made many decisions I don't agree with. Then again, until you have as many elements and complications to consider as him, I don't think you have a right to whine about it so indefinitely and close-minded.

Why don't we mess with NK? Because NK can mess with us, and like a wounded animal, it's most dangerous when it has nothing to lose. Iran is still a similar situation. Their gov't was elected by older citizens and their younger, and much more numerous citizens, are on the border of revolting. That's a strong reason why we try to leave them alone as well, we have very little to gain and a lot to lose. We have almost as many targets on us as we have on other people, and even as the world's most powerful country, we are not invincible.

And to the gentleman concerning China, of all the contries in the world, China is by far the last one we would want to go to war with. In fact, it is almost unfathomable because the IMMEDIATE economical reprecussions would send us into a depression and make war time funding already on significant strain almost impossible to produce.

I wish every American, if not every worldwide citizen, could take a few college level International Relations courses every 5 years or so to stay aware/up to date, but that is rediculous unfortunately.
I'm so close! I got to go drive my NSX!!
 
'containment'...

NsSeX, right'on man! I am in full agreement w/ you in your comments above... :cool:


Except this one...

"IMO, better to whack Iraq and build up experience for your troops than to invade a country like North korea, that could actually take a bite out of you before losing!"

Being so cavalier & nonchalent about human-life is a no-no!
 
Re: 'containment'...

Osiris_x11 said:
NsSeX, right'on man! I am in full agreement w/ you in your comments above... :cool:


Except this one...

"IMO, better to whack Iraq and build up experience for your troops than to invade a country like North korea, that could actually take a bite out of you before losing!"

Being so cavalier & nonchalent about human-life is a no-no!

I'm sorry it's seems/sounds so cavalier/nonchalant, but imo I think that play's/played heavily in the decision making. Could you imagine the Sh!t storm that would have ensued if america decided to attack N. Korea instead and the body count reached 2500 in the first day?:frown:

Don't get me wrong. Everytime my cousin and friend goes to Iraq(been there twice already), I pay extra attention to the causualties and where they happened, wondering everytime if it's my friend or cousin. It's always a tragedy everytime we lose one of our soldiers, and my heart goes out to the families of these brave souls. It just that when I personally know someone potentialy in harms way, well I start praying extra hard:smile:
 
Re: 'containment'...

From what I gather, the people in charge are just as in the dark as we are right now.

How much is China and Russia going to backup NK? If we attack NK against their wishes, will we have a world war? Iran, NK, Russia, China? Or will China and Russia simply turn their heads?

What's NKs intensions? Do they want to attack us? Do they want to sell weapons to iran? Are they just trying to get attention for a handout?

One thing we do know, is NK is going to keep firing missles until something happens...
 
Re: 'containment'...

jond said:
From what I gather, the people in charge are just as in the dark as we are right now.

How much is China and Russia going to backup NK? If we attack NK against their wishes, will we have a world war? Iran, NK, Russia, China? Or will China and Russia simply turn their heads?

What's NKs intensions? Do they want to attack us? Do they want to sell weapons to iran? Are they just trying to get attention for a handout?

One thing we do know, is NK is going to keep firing missles until something happens...

I do not think NK is going to 'keep firing missiles until something happens."
That is not their intention at all.

NK is a country living on the brink of disaster. Trying to uphold an army of one million men out of a population of something like 20-24 million. And armies are a very inproductive way of using people. At the same time, NK relies heavily on outside aid just to prevent another famine. And the way the NK-leaders conduct their policies, it is not getting any different.

By the political choices they made, the NK-government has 'painted itself in the corner'. And now it is realising that, it has no real way of getting out of it again. It needs outside aid just to survive but it has nothing to offer in return.
The only thing it has is military power so that is what they will use. Probably not by actually starting a war but be using it to threaten. Firing missiles is exactly that.
However, extreme suppressive regimes tend to be very dangerous when they find that they have put themselves in a hopeless situation so they way I think to treat them is by being very cautious and at the same time make it very clear than ANY military action will be met (should be met) with equal force.

At the same time, starting a war ourselves (or yourselves since I'm not in the US) is out of the question.
Wars ALWAYS needs a clear political reason and goal.
There is nothing to gain for the US (or Japan, or South Korea) by going to war with NK, only to loose.

Given enough time and given enough political skills to prevent war, North Korea is a country with a regime that will blow itself up in time. But it will need that time to get there.
 
NsSeX said:
We don't have any favor's left? how about saving europe's ass twice in the past century?
I can see where we should get half the credit for saving them in WW2, what was the other time?
 
bodypainter said:
I can see where we should get half the credit for saving them in WW2, what was the other time?

Just half? lol If it weren't for us, the brit's would of been conquered by the germans:biggrin: The cold war would be the 2nd half.

*corrected!*
 
Last edited:
NsSeX said:
Just half? lol If it weren't for us, the brit's would be german today:biggrin: The cold war.

I think the correct answer is that the Brit's (and the rest of Europe) would have become Russian, not German.
But that is getting off topic of course.
 
Back
Top