Thread: North Korea Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026612
Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on
:
The leader of North Korea has just purged his own uncle for inter Alia not clapping enthusiastically at political gatherings.
The leader is the youngest head of state in the world, at 32.
This regime is bizarre and unpredictable. Can we tolerate such a dangerous and out of control regime in the 21st century?
Has the time come for the US and allies to topple this so-called government? Has the regime any legitimacy?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
The leader of North Korea has just purged his own uncle for inter Alia not clapping enthusiastically at political gatherings.
The leader is the youngest head of state in the world, at 32.
This regime is bizarre and unpredictable. Can we tolerate such a dangerous and out of control regime in the 21st century?
Has the time come for the US and allies to topple this so-called government? Has the regime any legitimacy?
Ho! Ho! Ho! Regime change again, and what sort of a name has that got at the moment?
A. How are you suggesting doing this?
B. Do you really think the Chinese, who are a great power and next door, would be happy to let this happen?
If this were feasible, the Chinese would have done it long ago.
[ 13. December 2013, 12:41: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
China doesn't want to deal with the refugee crisis regime change would cause. Neither does South Korea for that matter. What kind of hell must millions of people be living in when they actually try to escape to China?
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
The USA should consider cleaning up the mess they created in Afghanistan and Iraq before embarking on another foreign adventure.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
This regime is bizarre and unpredictable. Can we tolerate such a dangerous and out of control regime in the 21st century?
That question is asked about virtually every government. May I assume you will lead the charge across the DMZ?
Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick: quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
This regime is bizarre and unpredictable. Can we tolerate such a dangerous and out of control regime in the 21st century?
That question is asked about virtually every government. May I assume you will lead the charge across the DMZ?
What do you mean "virtually every government"? I take it you wouldn't describe the regime in Sweden as dangeous and out of control? Or is it bizarre or unpredictable? Lots of governments may be disliked, but are not a threat to world stability.
[code]
[ 13. December 2013, 15:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
I think the Chinese would tend to look with disfavour on such an adventure, much as I imagine the US would be unamused if the Chinese invaded Mexico. If the conflict escalated it could involve an exchange of nuclear weapons between China and the US. This, obviously, would be bad.
I think even Sarah Palin would respond to the suggestion with sentiments along the lines of: "Whoa, too rich for my blood!"
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
That's right. The trouble is, well there are lots of troubles with it, but one of them is that it's available to everyone. I mean that any country can decide that another country is a mess, or undesirable or whatever. Anarchy looms. Unless you want to say that only the West should have this authority!
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
No.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
I'm not sure that China might not one day orchestrate a coup in DPRK that would maintain an authoritarian, pro-Beijing status-quo there but would tone down the infantile madness of the Kim dynasty. It would be hard, though, if NK developed a political and economic system like China's, to prevent nationalism from straining its loyalty to China. It's easier to deal with a despot and a country forced and brainwashed to worship him and his family than it is to deal with a Communist oligarchy that has broader interests than the whims of a supreme ruler.
I still think that some day the situation in NK might become so destabilizing to the region that China might find a new status quo for the country (even with the risk that it might collapse and give rise to the worst of all possible situations for China) to be a lesser evil than the current one.
Finally, Kim Jong Un's uncle was arrested and executed for being a real and/or potential rival for power, not for failing to applaud the wrong way (although such arrests did happen in the Stalinist USSR and could very well happen in the DPRK).
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
The leader of North Korea has just purged his own uncle for inter Alia not clapping enthusiastically at political gatherings.
Clapping has always been a delicate challenge under communist dictatorships.
Stalin used to carefully observe who stopped clapping first during the thunderous and prolonged ovations which he received from his minions.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Has the time come for the US and allies to topple this so-called government? Has the regime any legitimacy?
Call me a cynic, but as Korea doesn't produce oil i can't see the US and allies being interested.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Has the time come for the US and allies to topple this so-called government? Has the regime any legitimacy?
Call me a cynic, but as Korea doesn't produce oil i can't see the US and allies being interested.
What it does produce is enriched uranium and long-range missiles. The North Korean government has no respect for its own people, let alone those outside. Apart from a certain fear of the Chinese government, I don't think anything restrains the North Korean government so that of all the nuclear nations it has the itchiest fingers on the trigger.
Intervening looks a damnfool idea. Careful influence, through China looks realistic; otherwise there's a strong possibility of nobody waking up one morning.
Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on
:
I know it's not likely to happen, but would a US/UK intervention to topple the regime be contrary to international law? I doubt that the regime has any legitimacy but that presumably would not justify intervention. What about WMD? Any international law experts?
At the risk of being accused of flippancy, I think we'd be wise not to rely on any dossiers. Maybe a case file, but not a dossier.
[ 13. December 2013, 21:01: Message edited by: Francophile ]
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Even China is exasperated with North Korea. You can negotiate a deal with the Chinese, you can't with the North Koreans. The Chinese think the North Korean leaders are wild and crazy men.
It's just there are no good options to deal with North Korea, not even for the Chinese.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
I know it's not likely to happen, but would a US/UK intervention to topple the regime be contrary to international law? I doubt that the regime has any legitimacy but that presumably would not justify intervention. What about WMD? Any international law experts?
At the risk of being accused of flippancy, I think we'd be wise not to rely on any dossiers. Maybe a case file, but not a dossier.
Possession of WMD does not, in itself, constitute a reason to deem a regime illegitimate. WMDs are currently in the possession of the US, the UK, France, Israel, Russia, Pakistan, India and China. None of which are currently regarded as rogue states.
The case for invading North Korea is that the regime is unutterably ghastly, which it is. The case for not invading North Korea is that the consequences would most likely be unutterably ghastly, which they would.
The late Isaiah Berlin pointed out that as well as clashes between good and evil we have clashes between incommensurable goods. It seems to me that this is one of those instances. I have no brief for the North Korean regime but I prefer it's continued existence to the consequences of a western attempt to overthrow it.
Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on
:
Good post Gildas.
You are right, of course.
Brits are haunted by the words of Neville Chamberlain, in seeking to justify appeasement policy following the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia, that this was a far-away land about whose people we knew little.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Good post Gildas.
You are right, of course.
Brits are haunted by the words of Neville Chamberlain, in seeking to justify appeasement policy following the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia, that this was a far-away land about whose people we knew little.
Actually, I'm haunted by Christopher Hitchens announcement that, wrt the Iraq War we should 'Bring It On'. Which we all know ended so well. The North Koreans would resist, as would most likely the Chinese. Ergo, a bad plan. Like the US invasion of Iraq
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
I know it's not likely to happen, but would a US/UK intervention to topple the regime be contrary to international law? ...
Yes.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
The US should not spend a second worrying about North Korea. An ocean separates the US from North Korea. North Korea poses no threat to the US at all. Well, the US has 28,000 troops in South Korea. I can't imagine Washington would be very happy if 28,000 North Korean troops were in Mexico. Bring them home. Mind our own business. Japan and South Korea can fight their own battles.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Whoa! What century are we in again? An ocean or two are no defense, not with the tech everybody's got now--not to mention the fashion for acts of terrorism as opposed to open war. And you might look at how the last two world wars started, and how local incidents turned into global ones.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Why would North Korean want to attack the US? A nuclear attack would be suicide. Terrorist attacks would accomplish little. I'm in favor of removing US troops from South Korea which is one of the main problems North Korea has with the US.
World War I became World War I because the European powers allowed alliances draw them into wars that really weren't in their interest. The US has 50 plus year old defense treaties with South Korea and Japan that don't benefit the US in the least. The US should disentangle itself from such obligations that no longer make sense.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
I don't care how corrupt and horrible the North Korean government is, it's not worth a single drop of American (or any other nationality's) blood to change it.
It's not our fucking problem, and it's definitely not something we should be fighting and dying for.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
The analysts' reports I have seen say that the guy just executed was in fact the main link the regime had with China, and was in favour of trying to nudge N. Korea - however slowly - towards a form of transition similar to that followed by China.
China has a nuclear rogue state on its borders. It has tried managing the situation, but presumably that's all up in the air now. There is also a strong whiff of instability coming off the N. Korean regime. Yes, I'm sure the Chinese regime regards them as bonkers. Numerous Chinese academics have said so.
So, if you seriously think that any project involving the invasion of N. Korea by any other power is ever going to fly with China then I suggest you think again. But there again, if you want to look for a stable solution in the longer term, it's almost certainly going to involve China itself. What it might look like I don't know - I haven't even thought about it. I'll bet Beijing has though.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I don't think we should invade, but I do think it is our problem. We should seek to support long term change through peaceful means. That may well mean letting China take the lead and not whinging when they do so.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The US has 50 plus year old defense treaties with South Korea and Japan that don't benefit the US in the least. The US should disentangle itself from such obligations that no longer make sense.
Is it not in US interests to have strong democracies in the Far East?
Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
The analysts' reports I have seen say that the guy just executed was in fact the main link the regime had with China, and was in favour of trying to nudge N. Korea - however slowly - towards a form of transition similar to that followed by China.
China has a nuclear rogue state on its borders. It has tried managing the situation, but presumably that's all up in the air now. There is also a strong whiff of instability coming off the N. Korean regime. Yes, I'm sure the Chinese regime regards them as bonkers. Numerous Chinese academics have said so.
So, if you seriously think that any project involving the invasion of N. Korea by any other power is ever going to fly with China then I suggest you think again. But there again, if you want to look for a stable solution in the longer term, it's almost certainly going to involve China itself. What it might look like I don't know - I haven't even thought about it. I'll bet Beijing has though.
I am probably being as simplistically bonkers as the North Korean regime is, but if China has a bonkers and unpredictable nuclear power on its doorstep, that cannot be good for the stability of the region, and for the economic progress of China. Would the Chinese not welcome a US intervention in North Korea with the sole aim of cleanly and humanely getting rid of the Kim dynasty and replacing it with a regime which, if not democratic, is at least more in tune with China?
[ 14. December 2013, 10:15: Message edited by: Francophile ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Well, how would they have any assurance that's what would result? Current evidence isn't exactly good. What is more likely to emerge is a divided, factional situation, some of which factions possess nuclear weapons.
And this completely overlooks the way people see their neighbours - as somebody else said earlier, the analogy would be for (say) China or Russia to invade Mexico.
Then there is the business of being the world's policeman. Would China be happy with that? Would Americans buy it right now?
I could go on, but surely all the pointers are towards a long-term solution involving China in some way.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
While they clearly don't trust North Korea, I can't imagine the Chinese being too happy about the prospect of having either a more US-friendly North Korea or a united Korea on their border - unless it was united on their terms only.
Likewise, I can't imagine the US being too happy about the massive high-tech industrial capacity of South Korea being united with the North and sharing a border with Chinese influences.
Having a wacky isolationist regime in North Korea serving as a buffer zone suits everybody else (China, USA, Japan, South Korea) and bribing them with aid shipments every few years when they arc up and fire a few rockets is a cheap price to maintain that buffer.
Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on
:
Honest Ron and Cheeseburger
Yes, I see your points. You are both right. My concern is for the North Korean people. They seem to have millions dying in famine because food production and/or distribution are in a medieval state of development, which pains me. It is the North Korean people who are suffering under this crackpot regime. But, yes, the West ca not intervene without risking complete destabilisation.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The US has 50 plus year old defense treaties with South Korea and Japan that don't benefit the US in the least. The US should disentangle itself from such obligations that no longer make sense.
Is it not in US interests to have strong democracies in the Far East?
What do you mean by strong? Japan is a wealthy nation of 220 million people with only a self defense force. History suggests the Japanese could easily build a large formidable military (with nuclear weapons) capable of providing a counterbalance to the Chinese let alone the North Koreans. The choose not to do so. The South Koreans choose to abide by the nuclear non-proliferation agreement even though China and North Korea already have nuclear weapons. So, yes, strong democracies in the far east would be in the best interest of the US. However, having democracies in the far east as trading partners who refuse to accept full responsibility for their own defense and rely on the US running huge deficits to finance a military capable of defending them is not.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Honest Ron and Cheeseburger
Yes, I see your points. You are both right. My concern is for the North Korean people. They seem to have millions dying in famine because food production and/or distribution are in a medieval state of development, which pains me. It is the North Korean people who are suffering under this crackpot regime. But, yes, the West ca not intervene without risking complete destabilisation.
I see where you're coming from with your idealistic concern for the people on the ground.
A realistic look at things needs to be considered as well. Starting the Second Korean War wouldn't be like the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq against relatively weak opposition where things would be mostly contained within the established borders and the risk to civilians in other nations minimised.
Afghanistan and Iraq also show that a regime change invasion has at best a 50-50 chance of making actual improvements for real people on the ground, and to put tens of millions of South Korean, Japanese and Chinese civilians at a high risk of losing all their human rights in nuclear fireballs for that low chance is not acceptable.
This isn't like Europe in 1938 where appeasement was a short-term strategy to buy time for bulding armaments, appeasement is a feasible long-term strategy for North Korea.
[ 14. December 2013, 13:11: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
However, having democracies in the far east as trading partners who refuse to accept full responsibility for their own defense and rely on the US running huge deficits to finance a military capable of defending them is not.
That's the price of the American Hegemony - you get the rewards but you have to pay for them.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Why would North Korean want to attack the US? A nuclear attack would be suicide. Terrorist attacks would accomplish little.
You have a much higher opinion of human reason than I have.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Well, I think we ought to invade them.
I propose sending the hierarchy of the NRA to lead the charge.* Surely they are exquisitely well armed. Isn't it time we unleashed such a potent force?
________
* And be the only members of the charge for that matter.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The US has 50 plus year old defense treaties with South Korea and Japan that don't benefit the US in the least. The US should disentangle itself from such obligations that no longer make sense.
Is it not in US interests to have strong democracies in the Far East?
ISTR that the treaty with Japan was part of the 1945 "bargain" that allowed Japan to retain the emperor, if not the empire. Japan was never to be allowed to raise armed forces for any purpose other than defending the homeland.
As for it being in the US interests to have strong democracies in the Far East, some of the most reliable allies of the US (and the UK) have been a long way from being democracies.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What kind of hell must millions of people be living in when they actually try to escape to China?
In terms of availability of food and basic consumer items, China is a paradise compared to NK.
While it is true that the idea of a Western invasion of NK is totally impracticable, there are signs of increasing awareness, corruption and discontent within NK.
A relatively recent (2010) book, Demick's Nothing To Envy, describes a growing system of small-time entrepreneurs and bribed officials which facilitates the movement of goods such as radios from China into NK.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
North Korea raises the whole issue of Jacques Ellul’s distinction between the “interesting poor”, whose plight arouses Western passion, indignation, activism, petitions, demonstrations, boycotts and demands for global interventon, and the “uninteresting poor”, who are allegedly none of our business.
South Africa’s former apartheid system has been in the news recently with the death of Nelson Mandela, and I can remember here in Australia demonstrations against South African rugby tours, with high-profile media coverage, back in the early seventies, at the same time as Australian swimmers were competing, without criticism or disruption, against competitors from Mao’s China – a far worse human rights offender than even the repulsive Pretoria regime.
North Korea’s plight (including the mass malnutrition of its children, with all the long-term physical and psychological effects which that entails) cannot be blamed on America (or Israel) or even the West in general, so there’s no political mileage in getting exhibitionistically upset about it.
But then, even North Koreans get more sympathy and interest than the poor buggers who live in post-colonial hellholes in Africa, such as Eritrea, Guinea, Somalia or Central African Republic, which have received their independence from European imperialists, and are subsequently immune from criticism.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Amnesia's great isn't it?
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
The leader of North Korea has just purged his own uncle for inter Alia not clapping enthusiastically at political gatherings.
The leader is the youngest head of state in the world, at 32.
This regime is bizarre and unpredictable. Can we tolerate such a dangerous and out of control regime in the 21st century?
Has the time come for the US and allies to topple this so-called government? Has the regime any legitimacy?
The world is full of evil people. We're not Superman, and I'd prefer not to pay for another pointless decade-long occupation.
Besides, we never do the lesser evil and just take out the capo. We instead spend weeks and months indiscriminately wreaking untold suffering upon some of the already-unluckiest people on the planet. Then when we find the leader, we have to afford him a trial because Geneva Conventions or some crap before we harm a hair on his head.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I've been thinking North Korea will implode for years now. The levels of state lying and doublethink are surreal, reminiscent of 1984. The government is insane and studiedly paranoid, most of its people are terrified into submission, or finding ways of avoiding trouble as best they can.
The problem is that, in common with a lot of dreadful governments, there is what Sir Humphrey might call a stable kind of instability.
The other problem is that both overt regime change and clandestine subversion from without have proved to be pretty counter-productive means of attempting to better things.
There's a line in one of Ursula le Guin's fantasies about the kingdom of Karhide on the planet Winter, which comes to mind. "All the kings of Karhide are mad". The Kims have all been mad, but crafty with it. The current one seems to be stupid as well. But in realpolitik terms, until China calls "enough", it is very difficult to see how government action is going to make a lot of difference, and aid agencies can't get in. After all, the public assertions in NK are about successes. There is no poverty, no disease, no hunger. Even when there is.
My opinion of Dennis Rodman's involvement is more suitably expressed in Hell.
[ 16. December 2013, 08:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
North Korea’s plight (including the mass malnutrition of its children, with all the long-term physical and psychological effects which that entails) cannot be blamed on America (or Israel) or even the West in general, so there’s no political mileage in getting exhibitionistically upset about it.
Yes, there is. We can exploit it to accuse the left of hypocrisy. There's nothing practical we can do about North Korea - any description we give of their malnutrition is merely exhibitionistic.
The point is to weep crocodile tears over malnutrition in North Korea, about which we can do nothing and which is not our responsibility. We can therefore accuse the left of hypocrisy when they point to areas for which we do have responsibility and where we can do something.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
But then, even North Koreans get more sympathy and interest than the poor buggers who live in post-colonial hellholes in Africa, such as Eritrea, Guinea, Somalia or Central African Republic, which have received their independence from European imperialists, and are subsequently immune from criticism.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
In what sense is the CAR immune from criticism? It's got the French army fighting in Bangui and François Hollande asking the EU for more troops!
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
I distinctly recall the Yanks trying to sort out Somalia in the 1990s and getting their asses whooped. Black Hawk down, and all that jazz.
This isn't a debate about foreign policy, its a debate about theodicy. The west is not an omnicompetent agent of divine justice. It is an alliance of more or less reputable liberal democracies with some dubious outriders which occasionally gets the opportunity to make a difference.
When such opportunities present themselves (The Falklands, Kuwait, Bosnia, Sierra Leone) we should get in there and sort out the bad guys. But, by and large, the idea that we can invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert their populations to liberal democracy is a bad one and we ought to stay well away.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
There are some serious obstacles to overcome in invading North Korea from the DMZ. The terrain is mountainous so the tank warfare that was so successful in the gulf wars is not viable. It will be boots on the ground with air support and that is a hard slog.
If it came to fighting then the US will win. They have superior fighting skills and technology to overcome the sheer numbers that the North Korean’s rely on. The US has a “force multiplier” in the vast array of technical weaponry they can deploy. But is won’t be quick and there will be serious numbers of US casualties.
The other issue I have read about – and I can’t remember where at the moment - is that South Korea is wary of reunification with the North after a successful war. North Koreans are poorly educated and subject to massive amounts of propaganda. They are also poorly fed and have physical health issues arising from that. South Korea doesn’t want “a million idiot dwarves with military training” heading south in search of a better life. It will be a massive drain on South Korea’s economy. They would rather have a managed transition over a number of years in co-operation with the regime in the North. They are prepared to wait for a suitable regime to arise.
So given that, would the South Korean’s want to fight? I suspect they would if it came to it for the sake of shear national pride, but I’m not sure they would help with the necessary build up beforehand which would probably stall any attack before it even started.
The best option is to work with China to stabilise the North and persuade the regime there to begin a rapprochement with the South, with a view to reunification over a number of years. After reunification the US presence in South Korea would no longer be required, meaning that a unified Korea would fall into the Chinese sphere of influence. Do the South Korean’s want that?
Given the reunification of Korea would lead to the US losing a major base of operations in Korea and giving China greater dominion over the region, one has to question whether the US actually wants a unified Korea, whether it would be strategic mistake and reduce their presence in the region.
At the moment a divided Korea with a US defensive force present gives the US a strategic presence in the region to counterbalance any Chinese hegemony. There is a bigger picture at work.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
We didn't pull our troops out of Germany the second the East and West reunited. Granted, the USSR collapsed soon after, but we didn't know in advance that that would happen. Also, Russia today is far from our ally.
China does not want North Korea to reunite with the South. It won't let it happen.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
At the moment a divided Korea with a US defensive force present gives the US a strategic presence in the region to counterbalance any Chinese hegemony. There is a bigger picture at work.
An interesting analysis. Which might point to a reason for a change in Chinese foreign policy, on the basis that a unified Korea helped to get that way by China would reduce US influence in the area. Or reduce the strategic risk for both China and the US. Makes a policy change look like a win-win.
Unfortunately, Chinese foreign policy seems more inscrutable, more intractable than that. Wonder why?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
There cannot be a successful war in Korea. It would go nuclear. No American troops will ever set foot there. No American aircraft will ever overfly it. Not without Chinese agreement, even if Seoul is razed by artillery fire. In 50 years time there might be a fully demilitarized or at least non-nuclear (soon the South will go nuclear) peninsular, with no US military presence. That would be the best outcome for China which is playing the long game. Until then, maintain the status quo.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick: quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
This regime is bizarre and unpredictable. Can we tolerate such a dangerous and out of control regime in the 21st century?
That question is asked about virtually every government. May I assume you will lead the charge across the DMZ?
What do you mean "virtually every government"? I take it you wouldn't describe the regime in Sweden as dangeous and out of control? Or is it bizarre or unpredictable? Lots of governments may be disliked, but are not a threat to world stability.
[code]
Given the location of Seoul and the many millions of people living there, as well as the massive amount of North Korean artillery within range of it all, I'm all for kicking the can down the road if we can . In any case, it seems the South Koreans should take the lead on this and not start shooting until they, the ones who will be eating the hot lead, are hip to the idea.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Yes, there is. We can exploit it to accuse the left of hypocrisy.
Not true, and verging on the paranoid.
There are innumerable critics of North Korea on the left.
Here in Australia, one of the highest-profile is Michael Danby, the federal Labor member for Melbourne Ports.
Possibly, from your point of view, he is wasting his time, but he is most definitely on the left.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
I distinctly recall the Yanks trying to sort out Somalia in the 1990s and getting their asses whooped. Black Hawk down, and all that jazz.
I fear that this comment pretty well sums up popular knowledge of Somalia - which in many cases probably doesn't run to knowing where the place is.
The pertinent facts about Somalia is that it is a Hobbesian region where life is "nasty, brutish and short"; that just about any change in its "administration" would have to be an improvement; and that the 1993 attempted US intervention was carried out in co-operation with the UN.
The intervention might well have been ill-conceived, ill-executed, and unrealistic from the start, but reducing it to "Ha, ha, the Americans got their asses whooped [sic]" is mere trivialisation in the interests of sounding fashionable.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
In what sense is the CAR immune from criticism? It's got the French army fighting in Bangui and François Hollande asking the EU for more troops!
OK, fair comment.
Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, too, cops a fair bit of stick from the global media.
I suppose what I am getting at is that governments, UN bodies, and advocacy groups, display some interest in places such as CAR, but there is little popular, grass-roots knowledge of, or activist passion over, such crises in the West.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
For obvious reasons, the iniquities of the CAR are bound to have a higher profile in the Francophone world and of Zimbabwe in the Anglophone.
If you are a poor person being oppressed and exploited in a country that was never a colony of a European or North American state, people are less likely to take an interest in you.
[ 17. December 2013, 10:37: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Didn't anyone pay attention to Iraq, or Vietnam?
And the issue of nukes is largely irrelevant. The enrichment of uranium to make bombs simply requires running the stuff used for power generation through the centrifuges a few more times, and putting that enriched stuff in the appropriate configuration to make a bomb. The IAEA (international atomic energy agency) rules do not prohibit doing low grade enrichment, nor background research to making bombs, only the specific activities related to their inspection that the nuke stuff is not going beyond power generation in actually fact. If we run through a list of countries generating nuke power we have a list of countries which could do exactly what North Korea has done. I would suggest that the fact that NK has the bomb is one reason that they haven't been invaded. Iraq's lack of nukes is a reason why it was invaded.
And further, there is no guarantee that the overthrow of a gov't and installing some pretence at democracy equates with approval for western economic and political policies. In fact, it might be significant worse if a gov't was installed in NK that was connected regionally and got organized economically, and continued to be anti-USA, even if in a watered down version, because getting organized and regionally connected might mean they could do something really tangible about it. --We have yet to see in Iraq how they combine their pretend democracy with the anti-USA sentiment they must cater to when the yankees go home, so as to hang on to power and not become worse than the bad they will become.
Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on
:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25398936
Interesting link to keep readers up-to-date with recent personnel changes in North Korea.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0