Tensions on the peninsula have risen to the point where it is considered 'likely' that something is going to snap. What and how is another question.
What's you take on the current situation?
If it comes to blows, do you support a war against (...or for? To be fair.) North Korea? In what form? Is it Team America and buddy South Korea? America + SK + Japan? Or some form of UN intervention?
What of the role of China?
Any other comments, whateverIcan'tbebothereddirecting.
=====
My initial take on this is that Kim Jong-un was facing some kind of internal leadership crisis. And because the DPRK is a clear Orwellian case study lifted from the pages of 1984, he is playing up the role of the US and SK as aggressors, when they're not, in order to get some kind of domestic unity against an external threat---a threat that doesn't really exist (at least in an aggressive form).
But now it's only escalated, he's either facing a really bad internal party crisis following his father's death, or he hasn't yet got the reaction he wants. Perhaps it's not an internal crisis of the party, but one of the proletariat. They must be starving. They must have heard about the outside world. TVs must have been smuggled in from China. They must be able to pick up South Korean radio or TV signals. They must know everything is not as they are being told. Perhaps the workers are restless, and Kim Jong-un is searching for more aid. I think he's going about it the wrong way, but if it comes to whether the South gives him food or bombs, I imagine they'd prefer to give food.
Despite all that, In really would like the walls of that giant prison busted open. But I'm weary of the role of China. China would not look favourably upon any nation that attacks the North. China is busy image-building across the world (particularly in Africa and the Pacific, regions really without much of a stake in the present world order)---it's image as a good global citizen would be much enhanced if it managed to diffuse the situation. And that's a position it finds itself in. The North won't listen to the United States or the United Nations unless they are offering bribes. China has a lot more leverage, particularly as another socialist-autocratic nation.
But then I'm further worried about China-Japan relations. They're fraying. If it only took the bullet of one man to tip the world into WWI, what would one stray North Korean missile do?
It's pretty scary.
I think I would support any war reacting to North Korean aggression. I'd support it more if it was through the United Nations, though it's clear that that would be very unlikely to be the eventuality given the pace of reaction that would need to be done in response to an attack from the North. I don't think I'd support New Zealand involvement under any umbrella apart from the UN's.
Send forces in and free the people of North Korea. I believe their 'love' for their leader is an excuse to express their feelings that are suppressed by their government rule. Watch a documentary called 'comedy and red tape in north Korea' , it will open your eyes.
I'm wholly unsure, to be honest. I had previously believed that North Korea's missile threats were another ploy to get some more resources out of Japan again, but now it's not looking like that is the case at all. However, it doesn't seem likely that China would support N. Korea in any attacks or aggression, since like Alpha said, they're trying to maintain an image, and being aggressive would shatter that rather quickly. Not to mention if N. Korea bombs the United States, they are then putting one of China's largest investments under danger.
But, as time has shown in countless instances, war is an excellent business strategy. While the losers will inevitably be impoverished, dissolved, or even physically expunged from the terrain via atom bomb, the winners always enter a golden decade of economic growth and general happiness among the people. It's a risk a bunch of nearly bankrupt nations might be willing to take, and to be fair, North Korea is playing the perfect scape goat.
I would support a war if I felt the outcome would be to prevent nations from ever utlizing the threats of atomic warfare again. That won't ever truly happen, but if there is an effort, I will participate. I've mentioned before that since turning eighteen, I've been terrified of the Draft, but perhaps it won't be so bad if I wind up fighting for a cause that I can actually sympathize with. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the United States plans to do, plans to fight for, or even what the current relation with the UN is. Guess I just have to wait it out.
CPC8- 'fo bros, 'fo life, 'fo shizzle
SPOILER!!:
The draft? Does Montrealhalla not mean Montreal, Canada?
I'm fully in support of military intervention against an aggressor who initiates conflict with other nations with an ally, and it looks like that most certainly be a possibility with the North and South.
As alpha stated, while the North and China may be allying nations, China has far too much to risk and far too little to gain by providing any sort of force support to the North. They've already shuffled troops to the border, likely to halt an influx of refugees looking to escape conflict. I have a feeling if this goes to blows, it will be bloody but quick relative to conflicts of late.
No, Montrealhalla is just a reference to Scott Pilgrim;
"Scott, you've lived in Canada your whole life. Don't you know the name of the capital?"
"... Montrealhalla?"
Anyway, I live in North Carolina in good ol' Murica, to clear any discrepancies up.
CPC8- 'fo bros, 'fo life, 'fo shizzle
SPOILER!!:
North Korea isn't a threat. They're a third-world country that cut themselves off from the rest of the world. When they did that, they denied themselves from advancing as a civilization. This includes gaining adequate technology, such as the ability to build nuclear weaponry and advanced rocket technology.
They have nothing but an enslaved people and empty words. The people of North Korea need to be liberated, so to answer the topic of this thread, yes, I do support going to war against North Korea. It's the right thing to do for the human race. If we don't work together as a unified society and fight bullies, then leaders will continue to take advantage of their citizens. People will continue living in fear, and that's simply no way to live.
I don't believe in pacifism. Creating a demilitarized zone was not the solution to peace with North Korea. Getting the citizens out, and bombing the piss out of the North Korean government is. In order to stop it, you have to destroy it.
How do you feel about the US shuffling troops around in South Korea, Germany, Australia (just to name a few of them)? Would you support a war against the US as you support a war against North Korea for shuffling it's troops around in "what it looks like"?Originally Posted by OnOneRyder
My point isn't exactly that OnOneRyder is wrong. It's more of...just because someone is holding a gun doesn't mean they are going to shoot it. Just because someone says "I'm going to shoot you" doesn't mean they are. They might very well be able to and want to pull that trigger, but there are other factors.
And if you support going to war over North Korea because, well, it's North Korea, consider the fact that the military is made up of it's citizens, most of whom I don't believe are bad people. Just the same as any country. It's governments that dictate these type of things. Why the **** would I want to kill a North Korean citizen? I want to save them from their dictator government and feed them and hang out with them and acknowledge them as my friends. So no, I don't support any war with North Korea. I think there is always a better solution than death.
Also, there was an article recently showing that Kim Jong Un didn't actually have control over his army, and that the high ranking generals of North Korea did. This is basically just hearsay as I can't provide a link right now, but it's something to think about.
edit: and if you just wan't to get rid of "evil" people, there are "evil" people that live in every country and/or are employed by every government army. There is no way as many people in the US want a war on North Korea much as they just want a war on the tyranny of evil men. (woo, pulp fiction reference!)
Last edited by che; 04-11-2013 at 12:19 AM.
I have substantially less fear of the US initiating a conquest-type conflict with a neighboring country compared to NK. Not saying they don't behave questionably, but the recent behavior combined with threats the North has been making has every government who may be involved preparing, for damn good reason. This ties directly into holding a gun to your head.
Do you wait until the trigger is pulled and respond to the aftermath? Aggressors do not deserve the same leniency, nor should those in the cross-hairs show as much restraint in responding to those threats. Yes there will be deaths if the fire is lit, what is the best way to limit the number? Do we allow a rather barbaric, technologically lacking aggressor to initiate or do we as the superior nations with vastly more precise capabilities cripple them before they can get off the first shot? I for one fear for the South and Japan, I also have faith in the abilities of NATO nations to get the job done with a lot less bloodshed than would occur if an initial attack by the North was required to intervene. I'll also take some heat here and admit that in my view, the lives of citizens in the South hold more weight than those in the North with regards to justification of military action.
Last edited by OnOneRyder; 04-11-2013 at 07:10 AM.
In my opinion, I'd support war against North Korea if/when their threats become more than that. Once you've pulled the trigger and intended harm against someone else, then you're dedicated to that role and will suffer the consequences - when it's a threat, and the finger is ready to pull, there's still time to reason. Maybe it's just a personal thing, but I wait for the other person to throw the first punch, and weigh them and my options up in the process. I just don't think there are many options this time in fear of screwing with global relations.
Being unable to see reason is the biggest threat of all. I don't think it hurts to be prepared, just so long as it doesn't provoke an early reaction. I don't want there to be a war, but if it's the only way for me to protect and defend me, my family, friends, - everything - then I can support it. I think an intervention needs to ready any moment, but I'd like to think it's still too early. The North Korean's aren't my enemy, and I don't want them to get hurt - they're not the ones with their hands hovering over the launch buttons and making rash decisions. Many I'm sure don't agree with Kim Jong-un's policies, but are forced to be fiercely loyal under his dictatorship. The citizens aren't at fault.
There's part of me that believes Kim Jong-un isn't very well. It's a very complicated situation to be in, and I think the whole world is waiting to see who's going to throw that first punch. His father died, and I think that's left more than a few measures of madness in him. I don't want to see this turn into the war that finishes everyone off, just because some mad man can't handle the power left to him from his father. It's like he's acting on a grudge, and because he has the power now, he feels nothing can stop him.
I might not be the most knowledgeable in politics and worldly matters, but I know the difference between right and wrong. Just in case I've missed something out, or if anyone was expecting a more technical reply.
"I used to be active here like you, then I took an arrow in the knee."
>>>------------->
Suddenly... clutter.:
Warning free for over eight years. Feels good.
The problem is a "first punch" on this scale could mean thousands, if not tens of thousands of lives.
While I believe a lot of which has transpired as of late has been posturing, and that currently no the North has not done anything to warrant an attack, they are pushing their luck. A responsible government does not allow their citizens to pay the price of allowing an enemy to throw the first punch, and if the North does initiate it's going to be substantial. Why allow innocent SK's to be the victims when the North chose to put their people at risk? The Norths targets will be SK, Japanese and American civilians with attempts at strategic attacks on the military as well, they've stated this. NATO will only target military objectives.
If it happens, it happens. I'm not going to be very happy about it, simply because my dad & grandfather were in Vietnam & WWII respectively and my boyfriend is a Combat Medic. He's been given un-deployable status (after a round in Afghanistan), but what if that changes later on 'cuz they really need him again?
As far as another Draft.. I should think that they'd call back former soldiers before they'd bring in a bunch of new people..
Either way, I think that the stuff going on with NK -will- eventually cause something to happen. I think that Kim Jong-un (or whoever's really in control) will lose their heads and fire a missile at someone.. Probably the U.S.
Do I want people to die? No. Dying sucks. But, at the same time, look at the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan - Sadam Hussein & Osama Bin-Laden planned 9-11 & boom. 'Nother war. Many Afghani & Iraqi people were killed by our soldiers, but had they not killed them, they could've potentially gone down themselves. While NK's army may be made up of its citizens, guess what? So is our's. Each and every person in our military is a citizen - they just no longer have the "civilian" status (and even after going back to "civilian" status, say they get into a bar fight & lay someone out.. They're still considered a deadly weapon in most cases, even if the other person started the fight.). It's either kill or be killed. It sucks, but that's the way it is in war.
Patriot and other missile defences are only 15% effective. Iron Dome, thought to have an impenetrable defence is only that much effective. This means going to any war with any nation capable of raining alot of missiles on them is generally a very bad idea. Especially if they could attach a few nukes and add them to the mix. Noone's gonna risk a war like that with North Korea. The only way is diffusing the conflict peacefully, not provoking any further reactions. Link to the source of info on 15% stats:
BBC News - Israel's Iron Dome: Doubts over success rate
roflmao...
I read somewhere that "North Korea won't tell/warn SK before they attack"..
No. Effing. Shiz.
That'd be like Dubya having a cup of tea with Bin Laden in the oval office as they discuss the tactics and details of 9/11
.... Oh wait. I forgot.. He used to be BFFs with those people..
But that is exactly what George Bush Jr. did with the war in Iraq. Hussein was given an ultimatum and time; the point was breached, and the US-led coalition invaded. This may have given Iraqi forces time to prepare defenses and so on, but it also allowed civilians to get out of the way. I think, but I'm not sure, that the North Korean leadership has beefs about South Korean and American military presence and 'provocations', but not the civilians. If they were to attack, I wouldn't put it past them to give some kind of warning.
Also this isn't GC, add a bit more to your posts. There's about one sentence in there once you scrape out the "shiz".
What does this have to do with Middle East? We have a country right next to another country with thousands of missiles aimed right at it, while waiting for confirmation to fire. Should US or S Korea make one small move, those missiles launch all at once, causing alot of things exploding. Iraq didn't have anything to aim at. US was abit far away. Different story there.
It was a headline on CNN (the quote).
but yes. Different stories entirely. And I was referring to way before 9/11 when Bush Sr. was selling ammo/weapons to Bin Laden.
war isn't about who's right, but who's left.
Touche, Rowan. Touche.
I think we don't need to worry too much about China backing up North Korea. I picture China like their older brother -- sure, the older brother sticks up for his little bro, backs him up, even beats people up for him ... but eventually, the older brother is going to say, "I'm tired of you doing stupid things and getting into fights expecting me to bail you out. I told you to keep your mouth shut. You're on your own." That's what's been happening over the last decade or so -- China has been distancing itself from North Korea, making it so that, when North Korea picks their next fight, the rest of the world isn't looking at China anymore.
But right now, the President of the United States will do absolutely nothing. He will wait until the UN or NATO tells him what to do -- whether North Korea pulls anything stupid or not -- and then send American lives under foreign command. Then, of course, take credit for it.
If somebody is holding a gun against me, I'm not going to wait until they shoot me to do something about it, I'm going to make sure they are unable to do so. Pointing a gun at me is a hostile act -- I don't need to wait for a trigger pull to figure out that they might want to hurt me, I'm going to make myself safer by stopping the hostile action.
True, but its military represents and acts for its government. I'm sure that most Nazis, or Soviets, or Iraqis, or whoever else might have been decent people, too, but when they pick up arms for the sake of their government, they become agents and representatives of said government.And if you support going to war over North Korea because, well, it's North Korea, consider the fact that the military is made up of it's citizens, most of whom I don't believe are bad people. Just the same as any country. It's governments that dictate these type of things.
This actually happened more than once. Not just the initial invasion into the country, but also with specific areas. We did the same thing with Fallujah during the second push into there -- we tried going in and got lit up, and didn't want to just bomb the hell out of the place because of civilian considerations. So we broadcasted, basically, "we're coming in on this date, so if you don't want to be around fighting, get out." For the most part, the only ones that stayed were the ones that were there to fight us, and they were dealt with.
It also allowed for Iraq to move and hide even more from us (which is why Syria is using chemical weapons now), but you're right in that the United States has a history of going out of their way, even making our military less effective and our objectives less attainable, to avoid civilian casualties.This may have given Iraqi forces time to prepare defenses and so on, but it also allowed civilians to get out of the way.
Do you mean North Korea gives warning before they attack, or U.S./ROK gives warning before they attack? I don't think North Korea would give any warning -- they have a proven history of complete disregard for civilian life, and they would want the biggest numbers they could get.I think, but I'm not sure, that the North Korean leadership has beefs about South Korean and American military presence and 'provocations', but not the civilians. If they were to attack, I wouldn't put it past them to give some kind of warning.
That was not bin Laden. While the mujaheddin received training and equipment from the United States so that they could better defend against communism, Osama bin Laden was not involved. He never received any funding, weapons, training, or any other type of support from the United States.
I see your boyfriend has been telling you stories. That kind of stuff happens in movies, not in real life. In real life, any judge who handed out a harsher sentence, especially in a case of self-defense, because the subject was a veteran would first have their decision appealed and overturned, and then be disbarred. Besides, basic training teaches Soldiers just enough hand-to-hand combat to get their asses kicked.
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
Actually, no, my boyfriend didn't tell me that. lol . .... Someone else did after an incident happened back when I was in Texarkana... Jay had nothing to do with that statement.
Holy flaming rice crispies!! Sassy is STILL ****ing posting in ID!!! Oh man. *wipes away tear* I love this place. <3
Would I support going to war against NK? Hah... Well... No. >>; I don't support beating the shit out of the obnoxious kid in class either. Or throwing a punch just cause someone smack talks you or threatens you. But then, there are probably strong reasons why I have no say in foreign policy. Ironically, there aren't many people who are good at both peace AND war. I don't claim to be good at either. All these hefty decisions really aren't up to Americans. The North Koreans are, tragically, the ones with the starter pistol. The only decision politicians have to decide is how much they're willing to put up with. I think the answers in, though. We wait until the first sign of actual aggression. Til then, we have to keep our John Waynes on a leash.
Our international image is being scrutinized. If we appear war-happy, manipulative or even impatient...people will be waiting in line to abandon America. As for China...China does not give one shit about NK, I promise. They're eyes are on us.
-Sin
Fear not, this is not...the end of this world.
"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good..."
China said if US attacks they will defend and if North Korea attacks first, they are on their own.
Sarkari Result Pnr Status 192.168.1.1
Last edited by elioty; 11-24-2019 at 01:29 AM.
I don't think that it would be a great idea, I personally won't.
_____________________________
TweakBox word counter Tutuapp
Last edited by burbigo; 03-17-2020 at 11:57 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks