This just in: North Korea to End armistice!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


NYE the crass, performing the usual debate fallacies....

Tass. did you just accuss someone of being crass?!

[Japher]

My two cents...

I think that NK is just mad at the last James Bond flick, where they (holywood) made them out to be the bad guys... This is just a backlash at the fantasy world of film... Thus, what's his face is crazy.

Also, keep ripping on Bush, I love to see the stupidity of Democrats. All the while Clinton was turning a blind eye. It takes a real man to actually take a stand and do something about the wrongs that are being done against the US and against the world... and that is exactly what Bush is doing.

Considering the two alternatives are diplomacy and war... I choose diplomacy. Number 1, I could give half a sh1t about NK. Number 2, I don't want to send Americans to die fighting Kim "jag bag" Il. Number 3, the last thing you do to a super-paranoid dictator is provoke him just to show the American people you're a tough guy.

You can only talk for so long. And from the looks of it we have done just that. We have appeased Kim, we have negotiated with Kim, and all he does is pull out of every agreement and treaty he signs when it suits him. I am sure that we would all love for Number 1 to work, and we are continuing to try... No one really wants Number 2, and yes you are right with Number 3. Yet, how do bargain with a mad man? How do you keep the scorpion from bitting the camels back? I will tell you, you can't.

Basically, if Kim wants war, than war is what he will get. I just hope that while S. Korea and the UN, uh I mean US soldiers, are getting killed, that the UN, uh I mean France, doesn't try to stand in the way of what really needs to be done.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Sava
Clinton was a dipsh1t, but at least he was smart enough to know not to open that jar of flies in NK.

He was just smart enough to provide NK with food and energy so that NK could devote its resources to building a bigger army and producing weapons that could hit the US. Thanks Clinton.

[Dinner]

Clinton was trying to do the right thing; negotiate a solution. The problem is you cannot appease some people because they will always come back for more. This was the case with Hitler and Tojo and it is the case now with Saddam and Kim.

Eventually when all other options have been exhausted then you have to draw a line in the sand and do what you promised if he crosses it.

[Robert]

For those who (still) don't get it,
NK has been working on nuclear weapons for YEARS if not DECADES.

The current crisis is not because Bush called NK part of the axis of evil, but because NK appeared to be producing nuclear weapons, and pherhaps even already has two of them.

Since NK had agreed with the UN that it would cease it's nuclear weapon production in exchange for oil, Bush shut down the oil as soon as appeared that NK broke the agreement and wasn't intended to commit to it again.

two questions:

1. What part in this story do you not understand?
2. What part in this story actually makes you still think the US is to blame (not concidering the fact that you want to blame Bush for anything anyway)

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Clinton was trying to do the right thing; negotiate a solution. The problem is you cannot appease some people because they will always come back for more. This was the case with Hitler and Tojo and it is the case now with Saddam and Kim.

Eventually when all other options have been exhausted then you have to draw a line in the sand and do what you promised if he crosses it.

The problem with that is that Kim will expect Bush to appease him to and give him a deal. He could hold out for a long time because his behavior has been reinforced.

[Ned]

Cybershy, You're undoubtedly correct. This is not about Bush, it is about North Korea. This is history repeating itself. Since 1994 and Jimmy Carter appeasement deal, North Korea has come to expect that it's threats to develop nuclear weapons and long-range missiles will gain it concessions from the West.

But let me say in one thing in support of Bill Clinton. It is my understanding when this last happened in 1994, Bill Clinton had adopted a very hard line against North Korea. He was even suggesting the possibility that he might use military force to take out North Korea's nuclear weapons capability and its reactors. Then all of a sudden Jimmy Carter goes to North Korea, uninvited by anyone, and negotiates the deal that became the 1994 accords. I remember the time, Bill Clinton was highly pissed at Jimmy Carter.

So let's not to be too hard on Bill Clinton for being an appeaser. The problem here was Jimmy Carter.

[Wernazuma III]

North Koreans leader is the most mad leader of this millenium until now. There's some time left to beat him, but let's not forget Caligula was the most mad ruler of the 1st millenium also very early.
OK, back from my trip.
I think, this mad attitude is like the final expansion of a star right before it implodes. Malnutrition will soon start even affecting the military now AFAIK. North Korea will soon have a revolution if other powers act wisely, which of course includes mainly China, Japan, South Korea and the USA. I'd say do nothing (in a military way) and hope the system collapses before Jong Il decides to make a nuclear wasteland out of his own country (after having attacked himself).

[Sava]

Bush should learn from his idol, Reagan. I say, contain North Korea until the government collapses. It worked with the Soviets.

[Q Classic]

CyberShy:
you're correct about Kim Jong Il being a lunatic.
but:

Do you know that South Korea wouldn't have existed without America? The communists were on their way taking the entire island.
If it were not for the americans who have protected the borders of South Korea, South Korea wouldn't have been the free country it is right now.

•korea isn't an island.
•the threat of america was what protected skorea, not the americans themselves.
•without america, the entire region of ne asia wouldn't be fvcked up:
-perry helps forces open japan causing it to modernize, and some other dude does it to korea
-a modernized japan gets a "gentleman's agreement" from dear old teddy roosevelt, which results in the annexation of korea
-some dumb american foreign policy fvck decides it's a good idea to split korea with the soviets when japan falls
-another dumb american fvck decides it's a good idea to pull out of korea: and, lo and behold, here come the bastard commies with that godawful war
-macarthur manages to beat them back, for a while, then the damned chinese come in
-a stalemate is formed, and the negotiations for the armistice is spread between four parties: the ussr, red china, nkorea, and the us. skorea isn't at the table at all
-the war stops
-and the rest is history

[Q Classic]

Comrade Tribune

The Korean War itself was the fault of the United States.
What business did they have to meddle in SE Asia?

you're right about the war having roots of its occurance in the us; but the fault actually lies more with nkorea and kim il sung.

the us had no right to meddle in NE asia, let alone SE asia. but it did, and it fighting the korean war was making good on trying to fix the damned mess it made in NE korea.

[Q Classic]

spiffor:

My guess on the future of the situation :
- the diplomatic storm abates, everybody understands the potential losses by talking too loudly.
- the unification of Korea continues
- NK completes its nuclear program
- NK uses its newfound power to force SK into accepting a unification favorable to Kim's regime.
- Unified Korea becomes a capitalist dictatorship under the rule of Kim with a mock parliament, and a recognized nuclear power
(this is the optimist situation)

i have to disagree with the first one. the us might drop it, but japan and skorea sure as hell won't.

the second one is kinda odd. unification of korea continues? there is no unification of korea right now. there is rapproachment, and a thaw in relations, but there's no unification on the table. just plans, which will never get anywhere with the way things stand.

third one, i just don't know.

fourth one, it's doubtful. kim's only threat to bully skorea into reunifying is the nuking of a major city; and any one of the major cities' loss would be devastating to the skorean economy. it would be tantamount to vaporizing the goose with golden eggs. furthermore, such a threat would no doubt cause the hawkish skoreans to rise to power again, interested in a hardline stance with the commies to the north, again, probably causing a hot war. again, which would result in destruction, even if non-nuclear, of seoul, the heart of said golden goose.

the skorea of the 60s, 70s, and 80s was a capitalist dictatorship. this was done under a generation unused to freedom; the newer, younger generation, being more vibrant and netconnected, won't allow itself to be run by an ex-communist; after all, for a country whose population thrives on the internet and technological advancement, anybody wanting to enforce draconian regulatory measures would find himself with protests on an enormous scale.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
Then all of a sudden Jimmy Carter goes to North Korea, uninvited by anyone, and negotiates the deal that became the 1994 accords. I remember the time, Bill Clinton was highly pissed at Jimmy Carter.

So let's not to be too hard on Bill Clinton for being an appeaser. The problem here was Jimmy Carter.

Isn't there a hole big enough for the Queen Elizabeth II to sail through?

If Carter wasn't appointed/authorised by the US administration, why would Kim bothered to talk with him, and why would Clinton accept the deal he brought back?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Stop frothing at the mouth. Try to engage your brain to think about why certain things are done that way.

cool argument!

Apparently you haven't.

Originally posted by CyberShy

Of course I have no idea. I just live in the region. On the other hand, you know a lot more, even your sources of information wrt DPRK are limited and biased.

I'm happy to see that you know that much about my sources while you don't even know my sources.

I am glad you have just that little bit of sense left. Now why don't you apply that to both sides?

Originally posted by CyberShy
That you live in the region doesn't mean anything. The Iranian people live in the regio as well, do you think they're well informed?

My sources are several people who have visited North Korea, and have spoken with people who fled from North Korea.
Other sources are Open Doors (www.opendoors.com) and recently an article in Elsevier, a dutch magazine (www.else4.nl)

Too bad. Same kind of bad form re-emerged.

Originally posted by CyberShy
I'm sure you still think that my sources are biased anyway, because that's always a cool thing to say if you have no counter-arguments!

Why would I need any counter-arguments when you didn't have any in the first place? None of your points could substantiate your conclusion, which is "Kim is a lunatic." How is he a lunatic? Well?

Originally posted by CyberShy
Another cool example of UR who claims that people who have a different opinion than himself got that opinion through propaganda.

instead of making silly remarks like the latter, tell me the real history that I seem to lack.

Another UR post with no content but just insults and full of the usual "I'm better than you" rhetoric.

Seems like Q Cubed have corrected your misconceptions in this part.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Comrade Tribune

you're right about the war having roots of its occurance in the us; but the fault actually lies more with nkorea and kim il sung.

the us had no right to meddle in NE asia, let alone SE asia. but it did, and it fighting the korean war was making good on trying to fix the damned mess it made in NE korea.

Korean War didn't fix a damn thing. DPRK was still communist. RoK was still a dictator proppe up by the US military machine. Exactly the way it had been before the war.