are we focusing on the wrong country? |
North Korea's dictator seems insane. He wears womens high heels, flys to Russia to buy candy and fashionable clothes. He likes movies so much he had a South Korean director kidnapped, whom after 8 years finally managed to escape. He also is an alcoholic, which is something I wouldn't prefer to have as a president and definitely not as a dictator.
human-rights Freedom House rates every countries political and civil liberties, and North Korea has gotten the worst possible score for 30 years in a row.
He is the first dictator to ever have his power inherited to him. He allows his citizens to starve to death. he has hundreds of thousands working in labor camps. he kidnapped ordinary japanese women and forced them to teach the language to north korean spies.
now he expelled international inspectors, withdrew from the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, and is now developing nuclear weapons.
personally, North Korea scares the fuck out of me. the U.S. doesn't seem to be doing much about it, but rather seems to be letting it fall under the responsibility of the U.N. (which is a good thing). i suppose the next big war after Iraq could be the U.N. vs. North Korea. The United States treatment against the threats from North Korea seems like we've at least learned our lesson we're currently going through with Iraq.
and plus, the man doesnt' seem to have very much to lose. what is going to stop him from getting overwhelmingly drunk one day, and just deciding "fuck it. nuke japan."
What do you guys think of how the U.S. has done so far in this crisis? What good things and bad things have been done?
And another thing i'd like to add. The United States I feel has learned some serious lessons from the Iraq crisis. The main reason we're rushing to war, contrary to the conspiracy theories out there, is that it has been so damn expensive to have a huge military presence in the area.
What that means for the future is that the United States will be far slower to decide to start stationing a large military presence outside of a country. It's costing the U.S. hundreds of billions and so the reluctance to listen to the U.N. is partially due to the economics involved.
But since France, Germany, and Belgium have thrown a wrench into the situation, it is costing the U.S. even more. And with a weak U.S. economy and division in NATO, George Bush is having his worst nightmare. He won't get reelected. Neither will Blair. Future presidents will not wish to get into this situation, and those presidents will be much more aware of the political and economic risks of taking this action alone.
So now i'm under the impression that the U.S. rebellion by France, Germany, and Belgium is a good thing. And I think things will begin to change for the better of America, Europe, U.N., and NATO. I think they'll go through with the war against Iraq, but I think the U.S. has learned a hard-lesson and it'll begin to show after this crisis has lifted. just one mans opinion.
Pageof 24 First / Last
Maybe, but the US isn't setting a very good example pulling out of treaties itself. Sort of a "Do as we say, not as we do" approach.
There was an interesting TV programme on the other day which was continuously interupted by power cuts, North Korea have been saying that they need shitloads of new electricity generation and with no natural resources the only option in Nuclear power. The problem with this of course is that the by products can be used to make nuclear weapons.
I think you guys would be surpised. Perhaps it is just the people I lend myself to hang around with, but there is growing anti-U.S. sentiment within the U.S. and not just by the religous nuts. I'm talking caucasian, born-in-America, fifth generation.
The more NATO "divides", the higher the chances American's will stand up to unite it again. And as long as the European governments make the very-wise move of strongly opposing American actions that should be opposed, the more it becomes a problem the quicker I feel the problems will be fixed.
You know what, if i'm right and things pan out in a positive way, then I believe the Iraq confrontation to be another victory for the human race. Having such strong opposition from the European countries has created this huge "problem", a problem that always existed but is now finally coming to a point where it must be answer-- U.S. unilateralism. Future politicians will fear being in the situation Bush and his cabinent are in (having the view in the American public over the world against Americans), and that "fear" will hopefully make future politicians much less willing to go about it alone. I don't see this division as a major loss for the U.N. and NATO. I see it as a huge victory! A mending of problems.
That's may just my optimism speaking again, but potentially this could all end up being a very good thing for our relationship and will hopefully mean a much more powerful United Nations. again, just being optimistic.
JohnBye 1,127 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 12 years ago
"the next big war after Iraq could be the U.N. vs. North Korea"
Woah, deja vu. Didn't we do this one 50 years ago? And just think, if there's another Korean war we could end up with another eleven seasons of M*A*S*H. Unfortunately I think the North Korean military has come a long way since the days of 5 o'clock Charlie though...
They reckon the N Korea has 1 million regular highly trained and armed soldiers and shedloads more reservists. They have missiles that are supposed to be able to hit the US, chemical and bio weapons etc.
Who the duck is going to take that on? China?
and sam spade, I belive the United States has been taking part in those troop exercises for well, several decades.
The US has had a prescence on in S.Korea since the Korean war - quite a few thousand IIRC.
North Korea has a military almost exactly the same in terms of number of individuals. Something like 1.3 million.
But sadly enough, the United States has something along the lines of 280 million citizens, whereas North Korea has something like 24 million. North Korean spends so much on it's military while it's people are dieing. It's sad really.
I hope the U.N. takes on North Korea and kicks it's governments ass, personally.
It says as much, but there hasn't been a guy saying if you come down here you're going to be eating nuclear missiles for breakfast.
Good program on Iraq and the Gulf War on the History Channel right now. Shows things in its true perspective.
But how, North Korea has been self sufficient for years so sanctions would not work. They just let the people die as they have in the past.
Military action against N Korea would require a lot of nations to pool together and I don't see that happening.
"But how, North Korea has been self sufficient for years so sanctions would not work. They just let the people die as they have in the past."
Well, I personally don't support North Korea letting it's people die and starve and live relatively horrible lives. Is that something you are for, Ssuellid? Certainly not. Then you'd wish for, like me, a UN-led military offensive to oust North Korea?
Kim Jong just seems like a maniac. And his insanity is costing human beings, just as capable as you and me, their lives.
No, I don't support the deaths but I don't see the UN doing anything apart from sanctions.
Judging by the programme the other night NK are quite prepared for a war.
Well, trust me on this. The United States could defeat North Korea. Britain could defeat North Korea. Germany could defeat North Korea. But at high costs, of course.
It would be a difficult battle but nothing on the scale of a World War. If Kim Jong can be believed, and he can't on much of anything, then he'll start the war if we started sanctions.
But the good news is he is 61 years old. He hopefully will die.
This may sound bad, but if I were in a position of power within a NATO country, i'd have him assassinated. Seriously. It'd save the lives of millions. I don't think it's possible to replace him with anyone more insane but if they did I'd have him assassinated as well. Anyone whose actions cost the lives of millions like Kim Jongs should be assassinated, no questions asked. I wouldn't kill Saddam, but I would Kim Jong.
and i'm pretty sure i spelt words wrong in that last message.
NK is a different story, the generations of people were raised and they look to Pres. Kim as a demigod. They have a huge and well prepared army. Itll cost 100000's of lives to "liberate" it. A real bloodbath, it can go into the millions if they launch WMDs against Seoul, Tokyo, Alaska etc.
for the record otto, i agree with your last post 100%. It was a mistake, and I think everyone realizes that. Lesson learned from that? Politicians won't have the balls to do it again. And that is certainly a good thing.
They have left NK too long and let it develop into a formidable military force. Can you really see UN countries commiting to a war that will lead to so many deaths?
Edited by ssuellid at 21:47:16 17-02-2003
andrewfromdoncaster 1,687 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 13 years ago
Bill Gates is Evil wrote:
He also is an alcoholic, which is something I wouldn't prefer to have as a president and definitely not as a dictator.
do you think that affects his style of rule?
I thought one of the reasons they haven't attacked is the whole 'they are in position to attack now so we have to play it diplomatically whereas Iraq isn't so we can stop them before they get any WMD's'. Personally i think this is totally flawed cos basically it's going to spark a massive WMD arms race for all those 'rogue' states, they'll know that as soon as they get WMD's they will be taken seriously.
As for Kim Jong Il's successor, guess who he's training up to succeed him..... you got it.. his son. The difference with NK to Iraq is that the people in NK are so isolated and brainwashed that they really do beleive that he is a demigod, just as someone else mentioned. I saw this amazing program on BBC4 recently called 'Holidays in the axis of evil', i think you guys would have loved it. The bit about NK was facinating. Do you know they've written all their history books completely different to the rest of the world, i can't remember the exact details but it was utter b*llocks, quite funny some of it. When the whole society has been brain washed on this scale i reckon it'd be pretty hard to 'liberate' the general public of that country. They think everyone else is pure evil, or at least that's what it seemed.
Didn't this whole thing really start to kick off when the US stopped giving it free oil? That's when NK kicked out the inspectors,etc. Oh, and that nuclear power center that they're reactivating, it supplies a pitiful amount of power and it's not even connected to their national power grid!
I heard that south korean/ american military display is an annual event, i haven't read that link yet so i oppoligise if this is irelavant, etc. If it is annual then that's what you call bad timing : /
On a side note, being that this is my first post, i'd just like to say that i've spent the last couple of days reading through some of the threads on this forum and it seems really nice. Everyone seems to be respecting each others opinions and is very clued up. Hope you guys don't mind me joining in ;o)
given that the two sides never really "stopped" the war and that apparently North Korea's withdrawal from the Non-proliferation treaty was more of a formality and didn't really mean much cos they had already kicked the inspectors out, how much do you guys think that all this is just a media trick to get attention for their economic struggles? I mean originally i thought the whole thing was but then NK started threatening pre-emptive strikes and the like and so i started to take them more seriously, now though, i'm really not sure......
I'm not too sure about this being a NK sort of 'cry for help' as they have point blank refused aid in the past - aid that was desperately required.
What can you do against a country that is completely independent, sort of self sufficient, well armed and run by someone with a bit of a mad streak?
Ignore its existence?
I tried that with Errol and it did not work, what chance do I have with NK?
Edited by ssuellid at 10:27:34 18-02-2003
Errol 12,483 posts
Seen 27 minutes ago
Registered 13 years ago
I shall not be moved.
You could bomb it but they have sone rather tasty missiles that can reach a long way, a bunch of nasty biochem weapons, and a lunatic wearing ladies clothing with the control pad.
Edited by ssuellid at 10:35:20 18-02-2003
In that case, bomb it first..
Bomb them by surprise you mean? I'd think they would notice - even stealth bombers are detectable and a few cruise carrying ships off the coast would be noticable.