I'll throw something out there... North Korea is not run amok with religious extremists or anything like that, and I think they'd recover relatively quickly under decent leadership. So I'll say it. I think they are a good candidate for a CIA-assisted coup d'etat.

 

Thoughts?

 

But you know what? In this case, I'm not the one obsessing over the fact that what we're currently doing isn't working perfectly.

Neither am I?

 

I'll throw something out there... North Korea is not run amok with religious extremists or anything like that, and I think they'd recover relatively quickly under decent leadership. So I'll say it. I think they are a good candidate for a CIA-assisted coup d'etat.

 

Thoughts?

I think if we could've done that we already would have.

Neither am I?

 

Giving in to them has worked so well! So, that's obviously our only option.

 

Well, hell, then, let's just throw our hands up and bend over! There's nothing else to do!

 

I don't know what you call it, but you certainly seem a lot more unhappy with the current policy than I am.

I don't know what you call it, but you certainly seem a lot more unhappy with the current policy than I am.

Are you happy with it?

 

I don't know what you call it, but you certainly seem a lot more unhappy with the current policy than I am.

I don't like it, I think they need to do some surgical air strikes at the right time... but then the Chinese wouldn't take that, now would they?

 

They (China) should like it. If Korea were united and trade were to flourish, China would make the most out of anyone.

 

Anyway, I think giving in and then letting him throw his fit and then giving in and then letting him throw his fit... over and over again, is quite counterproductive. This all started with Mr. Clinton, and the whole thing has taught Mr. Nutsack over there that if he keeps doing this, he'll always get what he wants.

Further thought: the reason China doesn't want them "free" is there's another poopload of untapped labor there and they'd lose out. Right, or wrong?

 

Are you happy with it?

I think it's the best we can do. We have to be realistic with our goals in this case, given the weakness of our hand. The 2 priorities I have are keeping North Korea's nuclear program shut down and saving as many lives as possible. We've proven repeatedly we can accomplish those goals through long-term, determined negotiation, and I can live with that as a containment policy.

Further thought: the reason China doesn't want them "free" is there's another poopload of untapped labor there and they'd lose out. Right, or wrong?

I think it's because China doesn't want to have to absorb the refugees.

No big surprise. NK is testing the US for weakness with the new administration. They know the UN won't do s*** about it, they want to see if they can extract further concessions out of the world, like usual. I am not quite sure why we always knuckle under to them.

Yeah, North Korea is testing a country who can eradicate their entire regular army in about 9 hours. Also, what do you expect the UN to do? Come with their big bad UN army (which doesn't exist) and solve everything?

 

NK is just being it's usual unreasonable self, if it ever starts to legitimately threaten SK or Japan then the hammer will come down but until then let them be. Bigger things to worry about in the international scene.

Edited April 14, 200917 yr by DukeNukeEm

Yeah, North Korea is testing a country who can eradicate their entire regular army in about 9 hours. Also, what do you expect the UN to do? Come with their big bad UN army (which doesn't exist) and solve everything?

 

NK is just being it's usual unreasonable self, if it ever starts to legitimately threaten SK or Japan then the hammer will come down but until then let them be. Bigger things to worry about in the international scene.

So, are you just ignoring the nuclear issue, or do you not think they are capable of building more?

 

So, are you just ignoring the nuclear issue, or do you not think they are capable of building more?

They aren't a nuclear power the same way India or Pakistan are nuclear powers.

 

It wont be too long until we see a unified Korea, and we cant just let NK turn into E. Germany circa. 1989.

I'll throw something out there... North Korea is not run amok with religious extremists or anything like that, and I think they'd recover relatively quickly under decent leadership. So I'll say it. I think they are a good candidate for a CIA-assisted coup d'etat.

 

Thoughts?

 

I think China likes the current leadership of NKorea, could cause a major international crisis.

I think China likes the current leadership of NKorea, could cause a major international crisis.

How could NK cause a major international crisis and why would China benefit?

How could NK cause a major international crisis and why would China benefit?

 

 

N Korea wouldn't cause it, China would. They would be super pissed if the US killed good old Kim Jong. They like having a completely subservient distraction in the area to mess with Japan. N Korea doesn't sneeze without China's approval; if China wanted a regime change they would have killed the N Korean dictator long ago.

 

And as Balta mentioned, China does not want a major refugee thrust into their country.

I read your sentence wrong. I have the flu and am not functioning very well.

So how do you define stop supporting them? Should we cut off food and fuel aid, and allow the people to starve? Haven't we tried that and wound up killing enormous numbers of people in famines before?

 

Millions have people have already died of starvation, despite all of the aid, they are still going after nuclear weapons, and they are firing missiles through their neighbors, what exactly are we going to make worse? All of the things they aren't supposed to be doing with our bribes, they are still doing anyway. The "worst case scenario" is that they go to war with someone around them, which I truly believe wouldn't be so bad. Once the NK military saw how fat and happy their neighbors were, they would desert quicker than Saddam's army's did. Without the military to back Il, NK would collapse instantly.

 

But I would love to hear how we what we are doing is achieving anything. What exactly are we preventing here?

I think it's the best we can do. We have to be realistic with our goals in this case, given the weakness of our hand. The 2 priorities I have are keeping North Korea's nuclear program shut down and saving as many lives as possible. We've proven repeatedly we can accomplish those goals through long-term, determined negotiation, and I can live with that as a containment policy.

 

Except NK has never quit working on their nuclear program, even when have had deals, and millions of people have still died of starvation. Our "policy" hasn't changed anything.

Millions have people have already died of starvation, despite all of the aid, they are still going after nuclear weapons, and they are firing missiles through their neighbors, what exactly are we going to make worse? All of the things they aren't supposed to be doing with our bribes, they are still doing anyway. The "worst case scenario" is that they go to war with someone around them, which I truly believe wouldn't be so bad. Once the NK military saw how fat and happy their neighbors were, they would desert quicker than Saddam's army's did. Without the military to back Il, NK would collapse instantly.

So your response is that you'd prefer a war. Thank you. At least that's an answer to my repeated query.

Except NK has never quit working on their nuclear program, even when have had deals, and millions of people have still died of starvation. Our "policy" hasn't changed anything.

Except in 2007, when they shuttered their programs, turned over a lot of their equipment, and let the U.N. waltz right in. It was pretty effective then.

Except in 2007, when they shuttered their programs, turned over a lot of their equipment, and let the U.N. waltz right in. It was pretty effective then.

 

And they still operated underground the whole time, just like they did through every single agreement we have ever had.

And they still operated underground the whole time, just like they did through every single agreement we have ever had.

Can you offer up a source on that?

So your response is that you'd prefer a war. Thank you. At least that's an answer to my repeated query.

 

Where did I say "prefer war"? I would prefer that Il go away and the military government fail and the country transition back to free. At worst it would be nice if an agreement actually meant that NK lived up to their end of the bargain. Past that, I would prefer we not keep enabling a madman to keep his military machine running.

Can you offer up a source on that?

 

Google it, its not hard to find. Not to mention their history has always had them working underground on these things when they had agreements in place. Why would 2007 be any different than any other time?

 

 

Where did I say "prefer war"? I would prefer that Il go away and the military government fail and the country transition back to free. At worst it would be nice if an agreement actually meant that NK lived up to their end of the bargain. Past that, I would prefer we not keep enabling a madman to keep his military machine running.

Because the only coherent interpretation of that statement or this one, frankly, is that you think war would be a better option. Do you think I'd prefer the Kims stay and the government keep its power? Do you think that I like the situation we're in, where they constantly make small military gains to extort concessions from the west, is a good one? Clearly a better option would be to have the North Korean people rise up and cast him out tomorrow, but we don't have the ability to magically make that happen.

 

So, I'm left with your statement that we'd be better off not enabling him. This is not a solution, it's a cop-out, a catch-22...because if we stop negotiating with them, we're enabling them by allowing them to continue demonizing the west while at the same time working on their weapons programs and even selling them off to other countries, or if we do continue negotiating with them, we're enabling them by negotiating with them and providing them supplies that allow them to stay in power.

 

The whole point I'm trying to make here is that yes, it would be nice if things were better, if we didn't have to keep stringing along this madman. But simply imagining that things were better isn't going to make it so.