Should Germany support operation N. Korean freedom?

[Dinner]

Hmmm, I remember reading the Chinese set up a observation post and a small tent city on the Spratley's and the Japanese Navy kicked them off since Japan also claims the Islands. As I recall the PRC, the ROC, Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam and Brunei all claim the Spratleys though no one cared about them until they thought there might be oil there.

[raghar]

Terrorists are everwhere. ~_^ It would divide forces more effectively than a largely harmless threat.
I talked about bang per well ... money. US had jus pack of B-2 old and less effective planes, few problems with developing new (do you remmember JSF cause? Goverment was forced to pay, but to different company. Talk about destruction of concurrency.)
Bigger problem with US is they will occupate and if successfull then what? Rebelion in few years, or big problems with food and people saing nice Kim.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Cruddy

Some examples; Saudi Arabia, SIerra Leone, Brazil, Columbia, Sudan, China, Zimbabwe... why isn't the media having much to report from those countries? Is it because the US has no plans to invade them at the moment?

What the hell are you talking about? Did you do any research before making that statement?

This statement alone undermines your entire credibility.

[Dinner]

Naw, you just turn the master over to South Korea when the war is over. After all they'll want to be reunified with their poor oppressed brothers from the north.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Cruddy
Don't get me wrong here, Lord Merciless. I am not condoning or approving in any way, shape or form, the behaviour of the Kim Il Sung regime.

So why ask people to articulate how screwed that regime is?

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Hmmm, I remember reading the Chinese set up a observation post and a small tent city on the Spratley's and the Japanese Navy kicked them off since Japan also claims the Islands. As I recall the PRC, the ROC, Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam and Brunei all claim the Spratleys though no one cared about them until they thought there might be oil there.

It was the Philippine Navy who burnt down that encampment.

This incident also illustrates how weak China really is on the sea.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


...

1) Hong Kong was leased to UK for 99 years in 1898. In 1997, the lease ran out and Hong Kong was legally handed over to China by the UK. The history behind Tibet is a bit more complicated:

2) .. Almost every Chinese I know never consider Tibet as a foreign nation.

3) Basically Chinese Communists are compelled to take Hong Kong, Tibet, Taiwan, and maybe Outer Mongolia. BTW regarding the Outer Mongolia, it's still part of China on Taiwanese maps.

Korea had a very different relationship with China. For almost 1700 years (except Mongol era), China has never directly ruled over the peninsular. During the last dynasty, Korea stayed pretty much independent except for paying yearly tributes. Chinese never considered Korea as their land. Chinese leaders are not compelled to annex Korea, unlike in the cases you mentioned above, and they are fully aware of the dire consequences if they resort to outright aggression.

1) Hong Kong island was GIVEN to the UK for eternity. When Mrs T (now there's a despicable...nevermind) went over in the mid 80s to renegotiate, she was given a simple ultimatum.

"Either get out... or we'll invade". You can add TOTALLY RUTHLESS to that list of honourifics.

The best she could do (there's no way we are in a rush to take on China!) was to quickly set up a few democratic insitutions as a "poison chalice" to hand back.

2) OF COURSE all the Chinese think of Tibet as part of China - it's been that way for 50 years! What do the TIBETANS think????

3) So China's not keen to acquire Korea, huh? Why'd they invade it back in the 50s when the UN forces where ramming up the peninsular? Maybe they're troops couldn't read maps? Or just to "prop up" the N K forces? If that's the case, why didn't they try for a ceasefire for another 2 years?

This is kind of irrelevent - do the S Koreans trust the Chinese? OF COURSE NOT, for the above reason.

[TCO]

Brazil!? A comparison to NK? Are you high? REad some traveler's accounts of the two nations.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


What the hell are you talking about? Did you do any research before making that statement?

This statement alone undermines your entire credibility.

Saudi Arabia - public executions, corrruption, suppression of free thought, suppression of peaceful anti US demonstrations. Then you wonder why people blow themselves and others up to make a point.

Sierra Leone - widespread corruption, dismemberment of opposition forces, total lack of order outside the city.

Brazil - widespread corruption, systematic execution of homeless children, drug lords having the real power.

Columbia - torture, paramilitary activities, corruption, kidnapping. Murder capital of the world.

Sudan - forced mutiliation of females ("pharonic circumcision"), child soldiers, hunger and aid used as weapons of war.

Zimbabwe - widespread torture and intimidation of opposition party in a so called 2 party state. Also sends forces to the Congo for a little extra cash.

How much of that do you read in your papers and watch on your TV? Not a lot, I suspect.

[TCO]

I think Indonesia also wants the Spratleys. Maybe we should make a claim. Silly Euros always forget that the PAC is more our focus than the LANT.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Cruddy

1) Hong Kong island was GIVEN to the UK for eternity. When Mrs T (now there's a despicable...nevermind) went over in the mid 80s to renegotiate, she was given a simple ultimatum.

"Either get out... or we'll invade". You can add TOTALLY RUTHLESS to that list of honourifics.

The best she could do (there's no way we are in a rush to take on China!) was to quickly set up a few democratic insitutions as a "poison chalice" to hand back.

I see you are completely ignorant in this matter. Hong Kong was not given to UK, but was occupied by UK. The British Empire wanted to shove opium up China's ass, when China resisted, the Brits simply attacked and took Hong Kong first. Then 1898, the Brits acquired more territories around Hong Kong and leased those for 99 years. Talking about shameful history here.

2) OF COURSE all the Chinese think of Tibet as part of China - it's been that way for 50 years! What do the TIBETANS think????

Tibetans get screwed. But that's not the point. The point is that Communists are compelled to take Tibet, while they have no compelling reasons to take Korea.

3) So China's not keen to acquire Korea, huh? Why'd they invade it back in the 50s when the UN forces where ramming up the peninsular? Maybe they're troops couldn't read maps? Or just to "prop up" the N K forces? If that's the case, why didn't they try for a ceasefire for another 2 years?

Because North Koreans asked them for a bailout, just like the South Koreans asked the Americans for a bailout 6 months earlier.

This is kind of irrelevent - do the S Koreans trust the Chinese? OF COURSE NOT, for the above reason.

They don't, but on the otherhand, they don't want us to stay either. Being pawns of big powers is never pleasant.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


1) I see you are completely ignorant in this matter. Hong Kong was not given to UK, but was occupied by UK. The British Empire wanted to shove opium up China's ass, when China resisted, the Brits simply attacked and took Hong Kong first. Then 1898, the Brits acquired more territories around Hong Kong and leased those for 99 years. Talking about shameful history here.



2) Tibetans get screwed. But that's not the point. The point is that Communists are compelled to take Tibet, while they have no compelling reasons to take Korea.



3) Because North Koreans asked them for a bailout, just like the South Koreans asked the Americans for a bailout 6 months earlier.



4) They don't, but on the otherhand, they don't want us to stay either. Being pawns of big powers is never pleasant.

1) NO - that treaty war forcibly extracted from the emperor but it was quite clear as to Hong Kong island's status. "Eternity" was the word used.
As for the motivation of the British, you are quite correct.

2) I'd say a war of occupation was the whole point we're talking about here. They've done it before... why not do it again? There compelling reason to take Korea is to secure their own "security". Like I said it's a moot point - maybe YOU trust them, do the S Koreans?

3) And so they did come down and kick some ass. Doesn't look good on their record, does it?

4) Ach, tell me about it... The only thing more dangerous than being America's ally is being America's enemy.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Cruddy

Saudi Arabia - public executions, corrruption, suppression of free thought, suppression of peaceful anti US demonstrations. Then you wonder why people blow themselves and others up to make a point.

Don't you realize that by taking Iraq, we have started putting pressure on Saudis?

Sierra Leone - widespread corruption, dismemberment of opposition forces, total lack of order outside the city.

Brazil - widespread corruption, systematic execution of homeless children, drug lords having the real power.

Columbia - torture, paramilitary activities, corruption, kidnapping. Murder capital of the world.

Sudan - forced mutiliation of females ("pharonic circumcision"), child soldiers, hunger and aid used as weapons of war.

Zimbabwe - widespread torture and intimidation of opposition party in a so called 2 party state. Also sends forces to the Congo for a little extra cash.

None of these countries's government ever come close to the brutality and depravity of the North Korean regime. The difference is that these countries are actually open enough so you can see what bad things are going on there. I highly recommend you to get your sources other than your every day mass media.

In addition, none of the above countries are developing nukes and threatening to sell them to terrorists.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


1) Don't you realize that by taking Iraq, we have started putting pressure on Saudis?

...
2) In addition, none of the above countries are developing nukes and threatening to sell them to terrorists.

1) The only reason I supported coalition action is reported on the "What your politics" thread. No point repeating them here.

2) N Korea has made no such threat. N Korea is not so stupid.

3) Checked out that treaty on Google yet? (smug).

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Cruddy

2) I'd say a war of occupation was the whole point we're talking about here. They've done it before... why not do it again? There compelling reason to take Korea is to secure their own "security". Like I said it's a moot point - maybe YOU trust them, do the S Koreans?

You are basically making the assertion that if the US leaves an unified Korea, Chinese would attack and occupy the whole country. Then you invoke the Tibetan case to support your argument. Do you realize things have changed a lot in 50 years?

3) And so they did come down and kick some ass. Doesn't look d on their record, does it?

Why? They fought the US to a standstill with vastly inferior weapons in conventional warfare. Even the vaunted NVA didn't achieve that. How many times were the US stopped cold in a conventional war?

4) Ach, tell me about it... The only thing more dangerous than
being America's ally is being America's enemy.

It's even more dangeous to be China or Russia's allies.