Should Germany support operation N. Korean freedom?

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Cruddy

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

Who cares about a treaty made during the age of imperialism, especially if you no longer have the ability to enforce it?

[Cruddy]

Final post until these questions are answered - I'm beginning to repeat myself

1) Do the S Koreans trust the Chinese GOVERNMENT not to invade a Korea unified by force, contrary to UN law?

2) What business is it of the US for a sovereign, recognized GOVERNMENT to develop a nuclear arsenal FOR ITS OWN DEFENSE.

I have the feeling, Lord Merciless, we are very close on outlook (thumbs up for your choice in women and my utmost respect to your wife... no bull. May you have a fruitful, loving, and lifelong relationship). We differ widely on our choice of methods.

[Lord Merciless]

My answer:

1. Koreans do not trust Chinese, but that doesn't mean they want us to be there either.

2. It actually doesn't matter whether NK develops nuclear weapons or not. This regime must go. Its intention to get nukes only makes the case more compelling.

[Cruddy]

Lord Merciless, I agree with you on point 1. I even agree with on point 2, up to the point that military intervention is not the way go (which is, after all, what this thread is about).

They already have a couple of bombs. Invading them now is just not an option. Even with a proxy force. As for US fire support only to back them up...

I wouldn't like to US aircrew downed over NK. After all, they haven't seen a lot of meat in decades... they'd be very tempted, and after all, it disposes of the evidence...

Yum yum. Would you send a fellow American to face that fate? Please don't feel compelled to answer, just think about it for a few minutes.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Cruddy
Lord Merciless, I agree with you on point 1. I even agree with on point 2, up to the point that military intervention is not the way go (which is, after all, what this thread is about).

They already have a couple of bombs. Invading them now is just not an option. Even with a proxy force. As for US fire support only to back them up...

I wouldn't like to US aircrew downed over NK. After all, they haven't seen a lot of meat in decades... they'd be very tempted, and after all, it disposes of the evidence...

Yum yum. Would you send a fellow American to face that fate? Please don't feel compelled to answer, just think about it for a few minutes.

The alternative is containment. Allow the NKs to have nukes, give in to their demands, and hope the regime follows the example of China and Vietnam. It can work, but a major drawback of this approach is that every lunatics on this planet recognizes the need for nukes, and will try to blackmail the civilized world in a similar fashion.

[Cruddy]

Well yes. It's a much longer, slower process. NK is backed up so far into its hole it will take them a long time to unwind and relax. S Korea has, I think, the best attitude - reconcilliation, demining the border, gradual trust and respect.

As for other countries getting nukes, it should be decided on a case by case basis. Many countries (even Libya! Wow) have publicly backed away from them.

It's a heavy responsibility to own them. People that do not have that responsibility must be opposed, with violence if there is no alternative. As you have now just observed there is USUALLY an alternative.

We musn't drop our guard. We must try and lead the 2 Koreas to reunite. HOW, I don't know. But if both of them want it, and don't see any danger, it will happen.

Forcing them together in an arranged marriage will just breed more problems.

Thanks for the chat, I've really got to go. Ta ta, Lord Merciless. See, you did have some humanity under that brutal name. I'm glad you let it bubble to the surface.

[Q Classic]

3) As for North Koreans resisting, don't give me laughs. It's true that these people were being taught how evil and murderous Americans and their Southern brothers are, but a simple direct contact between the sides will quickly dispel the lies of the North Korean regime. As far as the loyalty of a starving people goes, a few sacks of grains and some chocolates for children will sway their loyalties completely.

kotchebi
if they're that strongly indoctrinated, and even in skorea, where the prevailing attitude is that of americans being goodguys, these nkoreans not believing it...
simple direct contact won't change anything. it has to be sustained, direct contact over a long period of time.
the nkorean army, i'm afraid, won't roll over like the iraqi army.

SK is much stronger than NK.

And what? How did you counted it?

economically, yes. technologically, yes. politically, yes. ally-wise, yes. populationwise, yes. spends less than 3% of its GDP on defense while nkorea spends close to half, while still outspending it by several billion...
skorea has a weakness, though. it put a good bunch of its eggs in seoul, less than 50 miles from the dmz. that, and its active forces are about 400k short of the nkorean total.
interestingly enough, they rank consecutively in the top ten largest militaries in the world.

Your first point is totally unacceptable to the S Koreans. You think they want a common border with China? They'd last a fast five minutes. The Chinese leadership would not hesitate to gain more territory - such a useful, industrialised, productive country to add to their list of acquisitions. I'm not saying the Chinese PEOPLE would want this - but since when did the leadership care what the people wanted?

and how would you know this?
china is currently one of the largest trading partners with skorea. if anything, nkorea is a hinderance on such trade.
aren't you the one who brought up guerilla tactics? in the event of an invasion and subsequent occupation by china, a unified korea would resist and fight as harshly as possible--perhaps even more so than it did under the japanese during the occupation of 1905-1945.

Your second point; a recipe for another civil war. Could the US and China stay out of it? I think not, maybe not directly - but supplying arms and munitions to another bloody war zone.

civil war? in some ways, perhaps. but highly unlikely. neither side seems that keen on fratricide, not since they were nearly exterminated by the japanese and then duped into it by geopolitics.

Even S Korea favours the peace and reconcilliation approach.

btw: most skoreans, during the time of ex-president KIM daejung (who, mind you, won the nobel peace prize), didn't like the sunshine policy because a) they wanted more focus on the domestic economy, which was recovering from the 1997 asian financial crisis; b) didn't like it because it didn't ask for any accountability, or c) flat out didn't like KIM daejung.
indeed, the recent elections showed a huge dichotomy. the younger generation wants to maintain the status quo--which is less "peace and reconciliation" and more a "buy them off until they collapse" move, whereas the older generation takes the more hardline "*** for tat" philosophy.
the reason why they disagreed so sharply with the us was mostly because they felt that the actions that bush took early in his presidency would upset the status quo to an extreme degree, and violate the balance that they so desperately seek.

2) There are many nations, many places, with practices as abhorrent or more abhorrent than N Korea. Why this sudden media focus... unless there's a "softening up" of the American psyche going on.
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?

china? brazil? saudi arabia?
last i checked, neither country was starving over half of its citizens. nor do any of those violate fundamental human rights such as providing food, shelter, and freedom from being brutally murdered simply because your second cousin thinks that kim jong il has a small pr1ck.
sierra leone isn't engaged in developing nuclear weapons that can reach mainland america (the taepo-dong III icbm is considered to have a range that could include seattle. while the loss of redmond might not bother most americans, the loss of seattle's best and starbucks would.)
columbia, sudan, zimbabwe... the latter one you could conceivably make an argument against, what with the entire ethnic thing. the former one, about the drugs. the middle one, about being muslim.
but i don't see how they could be more abhorrent.

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?

china didn't invade korea in the 50s.
cuz, ya see, whut had happend wuz dis: dose nkorean army dudes were so totally getting their as$es kicked by the un dudes, and so they rang up their commie peeps and said that they needed some help and some sh!t to beat back dem un thugs.
mao wanted to drive back the americans. he didn't want korea--he only wanted korea to be communist.
btw, the chinese didn't particularly want to stay. note that there is a smaller chinese minority in nkorea (even dating back into the 50s) than there is in skorea.

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

actually, the koreans don't really trust anyone anymore. they have ill will to the japanese, and were allies of convenience. they barely trust china, considering them a sleeping dragon and someone to be kept watch over. they don't really trust the us, less so since the unfortunate incidents of last year. they don't trust the nkoreans all too much, either.

[GePap]

Given the fact that SK and China are extremely unlikely to ever back an "NKorean freedom operation", I think the Germans have little to worry about. And NO, they don't have to back anything at all.

[Lord Merciless]

Q^3, what do you think the US and SK should do?

[faded glory]

I think the world should get together and demand this man leave. He is way worse than Saddam or even the taliban on the Evilness scale.

North Korea's population is actually shrinking since the 70's cause of Starvation.

[Q Classic]

the starvation's actually only hit hard in the 90s. before then, there really wasn't much starvation. just lean years.

as for what the us and sk should do:
they should realise that they're actually friends and on the same goddamn side on this issue, only with different ideas.
the us should stop thinking that it knows best, and the skoreans should stop being so damned sensitive about silly issues.

[Ned]

To suggest that all this will go away if North Korea does not back off but is a fantasy. Kim has guaranteed that he will sell nuclear weapons, enriched petroleum and nuclear know-how to others. Given this kind of threat we have no choice but to end this standoff, one way or the other.

To suggest that the Chinese will protect Kim solely because Kim is a Communist ignores the fact that the brand communism practiced by North Korea is entirely different from the brand of communism practiced by China. China now is a mixed economy, part communist and part capitalist. China actually seems to be moving quickly in the capitalist direction. I believe that China would actually prefer a capitalist neighbor over a brutal Big Brother-type dictatorship.

Undoubtedly the problem remains that China does not want a(nother?) superpower on its borders. This is not an issue of communism versus capitalism.

[BeBMan]

I can´t believe I missed all the fun here

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned
... This is not an issue of communism versus capitalism.

From this side of 38th parellell, you are right. From the N Korean side of the ceasefire line, that is the main part of every issue of foreign interaction - the continued existence of their hateful state.

If you want to trust the Chinese leadership's word, that is up to you. All I can say is they have a strange attitude to truth and tend to violate the spirit of treaties while sticking to the written word. I have a couple of friends who spent a lot of their Army time chasing 14K heroin runners on the HK border - the Chinese Government always said the 14K didn't exist. They did and their MUST have been some collusion with the Chinse CP, at least at the local Canton level.

The matter is out of the hands of the Europeans and even out of the reach of the UN. All we can do is argue and hope that another blood bath does not happen.

BeBro, I wouldn't call a serious debate about a VERY heavy topic fun.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
The truth is that China's priority is to build up the country economically and to reunify with Taiwan. Having good relationship with SK and US is far more important than NK. Chinese, however, will play the game to extract concessions from us, and if our government plays the game right. NK regime will be destroyed.

Unlike the US, the PRC has never used another country to acheive its own ends, and that's a very important reputation to keep. While economic development is important, the US has more to lose than the PRC. Sure, the US is a big market, the US has far more vested interest in the PRC than the other way around.

Neither China nor RoK wants to see DPRK implode, so that's why they are helping out. In addition, RoK truly doesn't want to provoke the DPRK in any way, because it will suffer the most in the eventuality of a DPRK attack. So anything like a blockade is completely out of the question.