Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Topaz

North korea

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Wilber said:

I truly wonder what it would be like to live in your world. Pretty depressing I think.

I'm not the least bit surprised that you would find a world of truth "pretty depressing". 

What is so shocking is the death grip you seem to have on the world of perfidy.

Edited by hot enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet you have the energy to advance myriad falsehoods, you have the energy to advance genocide and murder, terrorism and war crimes. 

I guess that uses up all your energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Kim Jongs defense:

The other nations leader that gave up Nuclear defense strategy at the request of the USA was Khadafi.  Look what happened to him.

I mean seriously, just because the USA says it won't harm North Korea if it gives up its nuclear ambitions doesn't mean that 199 other nations might not want to try and take a stab at North Korea.  The USA is not the only nation on the planet afterall.

Would the US give up its Nuclear weaponry because Burkina Faso asked them to do it, and 100% guaranteed that Burkina Faso would never attack the US and forever be a friend and ally and give them free stuff?  You tell me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ZenOps said:

In Kim Jongs defense:

The other nations leader that gave up Nuclear defense strategy at the request of the USA was Khadafi.  Look what happened to him.

I mean seriously, just because the USA says it won't harm North Korea if it gives up its nuclear ambitions doesn't mean that 199 other nations might not want to try and take a stab at North Korea.  The USA is not the only nation on the planet afterall.

Would the US give up its Nuclear weaponry because Burkina Faso asked them to do it, and 100% guaranteed that Burkina Faso would never attack the US and forever be a friend and ally and give them free stuff?  You tell me.

North Korea doesn't need a nuclear capacity any more than we do. They have China and Russia for that, just as we have the US. North Korea itself invented its need for nukes and may force Japan and South Korea to follow suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No country in its right mind would ever trust the US, especially one that has riches the US wants. That would be like trusting the Mafia to look after your wealth for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Wilber said:

North Korea doesn't need a nuclear capacity any more than we do.

Why don't you consider actually thinking or maybe even doing a bit of research once in a while? 

 

Quote

Initially, reporters from U.S. magazines’ “Look,” “Saturday Evening Post,” “Collier’s,” and “Life,” could report on anything they saw, the historian said. They reported that “the troops are shooting civilians, the South Korean police are awful, they’re opening up pits and putting hundreds of people in them. This is all true.” Within six months, though, U.S. reporters were muzzled by censors, meaning, “you can’t say anything bad about our South Korean ally. Even if you see them blowing an old lady’s head apart, you can’t say that.” 

...

Besides rape, the Pentagon was firebombing North Korean cities more intensively than any of those it firebombed during World War II. Where it was typical for U.S. bombing to destroy between 40 and 50 percent of a city in that war, the destruction rate in North Korea was much higher: Shin Eui Ju, on the Chinese border, 95 percent destroyed; Pyongyang, 85 percent; and Hamhung, an industrial city, 80 percent.”By the end of 1951, there weren’t many bombing targets left in North Korea.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-korean-war-the-unknown-war-the-coverup-of-us-war-crimes/23742

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Wilber said:

North Korea doesn't need a nuclear capacity any more than we do. They have China and Russia for that, just as we have the US. North Korea itself invented its need for nukes and may force Japan and South Korea to follow suit.

Nevertheless, it seems this makes a rational for DRPK having nuclear capability as this will make them deterrent. Iraq and Libya didn't have the capability and look what happened to them.

Edited by kactus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, kactus said:

Nevertheless, it seems this makes a rational for DRPK having nuclear capability as this will make them deterrent. Iraq and Libya didn't have the capability and look what happened to them.

We don't have nukes and look what happened to us. Nothing.

Let's face facts. NK is the world's most miserable shithole. Nobody wants it. Nobody wants anything to do with its impoverished, uneducated people. If the NK government surrendered all its weapons and opened its borders tomorrow South Korea's economy would plummet and it would be in a depression. There is just NOTHING there. It would cost so many hundreds of billions to even build a rudimentary infrastructure it would be a nightmare. There are no resources, and China is right next door. The idea the US would invade NK is preposterous. The only reason it even gets threatened is because it's run by vicious, evil madmen who continue to launch attacks on their neighbors and make bombastic threats on everyone else while developing missiles and nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Argus said:

Let's face facts. NK is the world's most miserable shithole. Nobody wants it. Nobody wants anything to do with its impoverished, uneducated people.

Made so by, coming up on the 75th anniversary, the most powerful nation in the world squeezing the people of the north of Korea with the US's renowned terrorist program. I have explained this to you a number of times but still you pretend you don't get it. 

Facing facts is not your long suit.

Edited by hot enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Argus said:

We don't have nukes and look what happened to us. Nothing.

Let's face facts. NK is the world's most miserable shithole. Nobody wants it. Nobody wants anything to do with its impoverished, uneducated people. If the NK government surrendered all its weapons and opened its borders tomorrow South Korea's economy would plummet and it would be in a depression. There is just NOTHING there. It would cost so many hundreds of billions to even build a rudimentary infrastructure it would be a nightmare. There are no resources, and China is right next door. The idea the US would invade NK is preposterous. The only reason it even gets threatened is because it's run by vicious, evil madmen who continue to launch attacks on their neighbors and make bombastic threats on everyone else while developing missiles and nukes.

True, if you fly into Soeul at night and it looks like a line has been drawn across the country. South of the DMZ is lit up like a Christmas tree and the North is just a black hole with a light here and there.

Edited by Wilber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Argus said:

We don't have nukes and look what happened to us. Nothing.

Let's face facts. NK is the world's most miserable shithole. Nobody wants it. Nobody wants anything to do with its impoverished, uneducated people. If the NK government surrendered all its weapons and opened its borders tomorrow South Korea's economy would plummet and it would be in a depression. There is just NOTHING there. It would cost so many hundreds of billions to even build a rudimentary infrastructure it would be a nightmare. There are no resources, and China is right next door. The idea the US would invade NK is preposterous. The only reason it even gets threatened is because it's run by vicious, evil madmen who continue to launch attacks on their neighbors and make bombastic threats on everyone else while developing missiles and nukes.

Granted. I am not disputing that it is a repressive regime. But it is not the NK's Economy we are questioning here. Military might provides the means for survival. This guy Jon Kim may be crazy but he is not stupid to realise that having a nuclear capability and support from Peking will provide him with a carte blanche to act in a way to show americans don't mess with us. We are not Iraq nor Libya. So far whatever we have seen from this guy is a show of defiance but no direct threats on their neighbours. The Chinese know this and are playing this well against the West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kactus said:

Granted. I am not disputing that it is a repressive regime. But it is not the NK's Economy we are questioning here. Military might provides the means for survival. This guy Jon Kim may be crazy but he is not stupid to realise that having a nuclear capability and support from Peking will provide him with a carte blanche to act in a way to show americans don't mess with us. We are not Iraq nor Libya. So far whatever we have seen from this guy is a show of defiance but no direct threats on their neighbours. The Chinese know this and are playing this well against the West.

On the other hand, if he acted like a human being and put his efforts into improving life for his people, no one would be bothering him other than wanting to do business with his country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kactus said:

Granted. I am not disputing that it is a repressive regime. But it is not the NK's Economy we are questioning here. Military might provides the means for survival. This guy Jon Kim may be crazy but he is not stupid to realise that having a nuclear capability and support from Peking will provide him with a carte blanche to act in a way to show americans don't mess with us. We are not Iraq nor Libya. So far whatever we have seen from this guy is a show of defiance but no direct threats on their neighbours. The Chinese know this and are playing this well against the West.

He has threatened his neighbors many times, sent commandos to the south to attack them, sunk South Korean ships, and even tried to assassinate the SK prime minister. it's known that NK has also kidnapped SK, Japanese and other citizens to take them back to NK, and constantly threatens to launch missiles or artillery barrages against SK and Japan. If your neighbor keeps telling you how he's going to kill you as soon as he can get a gun, and he makes earnest attempts to get a gun, are you going to wait until he gets the gun? Or would you try to take action before then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Argus said:

If your neighbor keeps telling you how he's going to kill you as soon as he can get a gun, and he makes earnest attempts to get a gun, are you going to wait until he gets the gun? Or would you try to take action before then?

The reality is no direct attack had yet been taken place against their neighbour...

Look we can sit here and talk for hours the rational for attacking NK. But the point that you keep making missing here is tge stakeholders involved (i.e. China)

Any unprovoked attack against a sovereign nation like NK by the west will escalate the crisis. On the other hand I can see why US cannot neglect an ally like South Korea or Japan...Us needs them to counter balance the influence of China. Reality is if there is anything we have learned from two world wars is to not let it happen again. And all this sabre rattling is not helpful quite frankly. Diplomacy, dimplomacy, diplomacy.

Edited by kactus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Wilber said:

On the other hand, if he acted like a human being and put his efforts into improving life for his people, no one would be bothering him other than wanting to do business with his country.

Democracies and change din't happen over night. This is the mistake West undertook when trying to install a western style democracy into Iraq that quite frankly took several centuries to develop in Europe....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kactus said:

The reality is no direct attack had yet bern taken place against their neighbour...

Not for at least, oh, five years or so.

What's your point?

1 minute ago, kactus said:

Look we can sit here and talk for hours the rational for attacking NK. But the point that you keep making missing here is tge stakeholders involved (i.e. China)

Any unprovoked attack against a sovereign nation like NK by the west will escalate the crisis. On the other hand I can see why US cannot neglect an ally like South Korea or Japan...Us needs them to counter balance the influence of China. Reality is if there is anything we have learned from two world wars is to not let it happen again. And all this sabre rattling is not helpful quite frankly. Diplomacy, dimplomacy, diplomacy.

I agree that diplomacy is by FAR the best path. There are no good scenarios coming out of a military attack. The problem lies in the fact that NK is every bit as unstable as it was twenty and thirty years ago. It's manchild leader keeps trying to acquire better nukes and delivery mechanisms. Once he does you then have to trust him not to use them. Npbody trusts this lunatic not to do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kactus said:

Democracies and change din't happen over night. This is the mistake West undertook when trying to install a western style democracy into Iraq that quite frankly took several centuries to develop in Europe....

I don't think the West can force anything on NK. All the West can do is react to whatever he does including turning the place into wasteland if he launches a nuke.  China is the regional power there and it is China's problem.

China is upset because SK and Japan are considering anti missile systems and their radars will be able to look into Chinese territory. Tough, those countries have the right to defend themselves. At least they are not looking at nukes to do it. Yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

It's manchild leader keeps trying to acquire better nukes and delivery mechanisms.

Illustrative of the western propaganda you have had drilled into your head. There are many Koreans alive who remember the viciousness of the USA that saw, what was it 20% of their people saturation bombed, napalmed, machine gunned into oblivion and even when descriptions of said war crimes are posted right in front of your eyes, the silly propaganda is all you can see. 

You are really good at that, Argus, mouthing propaganda and avoiding the truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, hot enough said:

Illustrative of the western propaganda you have had drilled into your head. There are many Koreans alive who remember the viciousness of the USA that saw, what was it 20% of their people saturation bombed, napalmed, machine gunned into oblivion and even when descriptions of said war crimes are posted right in front of your eyes, the silly propaganda is all you can see. 

You are really good at that, Argus, mouthing propaganda and avoiding the truth. 

Well, no there are very very few  North Koreans alive who remember the war at all.  It ended 70 years ago, and the average North Korean life span is 70 years-one of the lowest and worst in the world..

 

 By comparison and just a few kilometers away, the lifespan of a South Korean is one of the highest at over 82 years.  All of that is The Truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ZenOps said:

In Kim Jongs defense:

The other nations leader that gave up Nuclear defense strategy at the request of the USA was Khadafi.  Look what happened to him.

I mean seriously, just because the USA says it won't harm North Korea if it gives up its nuclear ambitions doesn't mean that 199 other nations might not want to try and take a stab at North Korea.  The USA is not the only nation on the planet afterall.

Would the US give up its Nuclear weaponry because Burkina Faso asked them to do it, and 100% guaranteed that Burkina Faso would never attack the US and forever be a friend and ally and give them free stuff?  You tell me.

I commend you for trying to make the argument. Not easy was it.

Listen on a purely logical level, if your point is and I think it is, NO ONE should have nuclear weapons, of course you are right. Of course the moment you select what countries should and should not have nuclear weapons, one crosses over into subjective politics which necessarily are partisan and not fair or just or logical.

Right? You and I agree as would I bet almost everyone that a world with no nuclear weapons would be a far safer place.

That said, and I admit it, I play crass subjective partisan bias politics on who should have the nukes.

I will tell you why. I admit my bias. I don't fret over Brazil, France, the UK, or the US next door having nukes. You bet if China was my next door neighbour I would fret. Likewise with Putin of course I do. South Africa? I don't really worry at this point. Pakistan, North Korea, for sure. India, not as much unless they get pushed into a nuke war by Pakistan.

So yah you bet I am selective and subjective. You bet I don't treat North Korea or Iran with nukes the same way I do the U.S. Uh no, I don't think Israel havng nukes is the same as Iran having them. Sorry I don't.

Is that a double standard, you bet.

Is it logical or fair, no. Its about practicality. Now between you and me would you prefer living next door to Israel or Iran, North Korea or France, Russia or Britain, China or the US? See what I mean.

Can't be more honest with you on this argument.

I think that fat boy is a lunatic. I think the leaders in Iran are lunatics. I don't trust China or Russia. Sorry I don't lose sleep over Brazilians, I sraelis, South Africans, French, English or even Trump's U.S. I do worry about the fat boy, Iran, Pakistan, Putin and to a lesser extent China although I think they are to economically powerful to have to use nuke weapons when they can cripple most countries by manipulating currency.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2017 at 3:01 PM, Wilber said:

I don't think the West can force anything on NK.

Oh they can, the question is at what cost........the path of least resistance, and appears to be what is going on, is to further economically isolate and surround the Hermit Kingdom with overwhelming military force......in the hopes that Dear Leader's military says "to hell with this" and replaces him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Oh they can, the question is at what cost........the path of least resistance, and appears to be what is going on, is to further economically isolate and surround the Hermit Kingdom with overwhelming military force......in the hopes that Dear Leader's military says "to hell with this" and replaces him. 

Short of war, they can do nothing as long as China continues to prop up Kim Boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without the Western bogyman to justify it, Kim's military would be out of a job, so I wouldn't hold my breath expecting it to do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Short of war, they can do nothing as long as China continues to prop up Kim Boy.

 

I'd question how much propping China is doing (quid pro quo on trade relations with the Trump administration).....based on the Chinese halting North Korean coal imports (in favor of American coal), amassing several armies along the North Korean border and increasing the readiness of their air force, including their bomber force........

 

24 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Without the Western bogyman to justify it, Kim's military would be out of a job, so I wouldn't hold my breath expecting it to do anything.

 

Kim's military is starving and isn't suicidal.........two things that would need to be rectified if it were to go to war with the United States and its allies........an attempted limited North Korean nuclear strike aside, their conventional forces could cause immense damage on the South in a very short period of time, for a very short period of time......in the end, forgoing a US nuclear response, they would fair much the same as the Iraqis did during both conflicts with the Americans/West when faced with modern technology, munitions and tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...