The containment strategy that I referred to is what we did to the Soviet Union. Basically, just contain them and let them collapse from within.
I don't believe that's the right answer any more than I would have believe that letting Europe collapse from within during WWII would have been the right answer.
I would agree with you about the talking if by talk you meant that we were trying to come to some sort of amicable situation where we would simply give them such and such if they did not blow up Tokyo . . .except that what I meant by talk is simply constant discussions where we hail them . . as in star trek . . . and talk to them about what we want
coupled with possible containment strategy (that's what we have anyway . . . and put in place by a Democratic president!)
I would agree with you about the talking if by talk you meant that we were trying to come to some sort of amicable situation where we would simply give them such and such if they did not blow up Tokyo . . .except that what I meant by talk is simply constant discussions where we hail them . . as in star trek . . . and talk to them about what we want
coupled with possible containment strategy (that's what we have anyway . . . and put in place by a Democratic president!)
Star Trek?
My take on the NKG (North Korean Government) is that they are not going down without a fight. If you think that US casualties from Iraq (500+) are horrendous, that would be nothing compared to the blood bath that would ensue for our forces if we invaded North Korea. History would finally get to see what would have happened if Allied Forces in WW2 had invaded Japan. From what I've heard, there are parallels between conditions in 1945 Japan and 2004 NK (not to insult either side).
The story that was posted in the first post of this thread was indeed horrific; as horrible as anything done by Saddam, Uday, and Qusay. Iraq we could win (i.e., we could take Bagdad) with relatively little bloodshed (compared to an invasion of Korea). The possibility of *maybe* stabilizing the region within a generation \ was another reason to attack Saddam's regime.
North Korea? I say contain them. Let the Worker's Paradise work its miracles.
If they use a WMD on us (successful or not), I'm sure that we will respond in kind. There's a new AO thread in that last sentence if anyone wants to start it.
The problem with talking now is that the situation is worse than ever. The thiings cited in the article are more grevious than simple starvation because of a moronic empire. Were the situation similar to Cuba, Lybia, Iraq and others, I wouldn't advocate for immediate action. But I don't know how to justify a multi-year solution with thing things that are happening now.
More gas chambers? That's beyond anything I'm willing to accept. It's something worth dying for to end. Set a clear goal to end it and let history be our judge.
The problem with talking now is that the situation is worse than ever. The thiings cited in the article are more grevious than simple starvation because of a moronic empire. Were the situation similar to Cuba, Lybia, Iraq and others, I wouldn't advocate for immediate action. But I don't know how to justify a multi-year solution with thing things that are happening now.
More gas chambers? That's beyond anything I'm willing to accept. It's something worth dying for to end. Set a clear goal to end it and let history be our judge.
Bunge:
I am pleased to report that communication is now possible between us.
With the problem we're facing, I'm not against that risk. Powerdoc is right though, that an opportunity might arise that gives us an out. Unfortunately no one knows when that might happen.
Iraq wasn't an emergency by any stretch of the imagination while I consider what's happening in North Korea to be an emergency. I don't like the thought of attacking, but I like the thought of doing not enough even less.
I think any diplomatic solution would have to be from China. If they threaten military action North Korea might listen.
The situation in North Korea is very frustrating (and this is a lesser word, for the unnaceptable).
I agree that a diplomatic solution will come only from China. China will never allow that the occident will attack NK. Even if China do not give a shit about NK, she won't be happy to benefit of the radioactive cloud of NK nukes (radioactive cloud do not have any frontier).China consider this part of the world as a critical aera either : they don't want an occident presence in NK. China is not certainly happy either with the insane NK leader who give a terrible image of the communism (not that the one of china is outstanding, but much better in comparison).
Chineses leaders tend to be very patient : they have the older civilisation for them, and waiting some decades in order ot achieve their goals is not a problem for them.
The NK leader must die, and an internal revolution should take place. At this point we must help.
One can only hope that what happened in Iraq will happen in NK.
The story is now that Saddam was detached from reality, and seemed keen on approving WMD programs. Those around him fed his fantasies and then did something entirely different with the money.
Kim-whats-his-name seems far more deluded than Hussein ever was.
The only hope is that those around him see the futility of his regime, and establish a secret dialogue with the U.S. leading to the eventual overthrow of the present regime.
The complicating factor in all this is the geo-politics.
South Korea doesn't want to pay the economic price of reunification, China doesn't want a stable US friendly power to emerge in the region, and the US wants to ensure that they have a reason to keep a fleet in the Pacific to watch over China.
It will be hard to counter all that, but without the support of North Korea's military, it's all irrelevant anyway.
Comments
Originally posted by Aries 1B
The containment strategy that I referred to is what we did to the Soviet Union. Basically, just contain them and let them collapse from within.
I don't believe that's the right answer any more than I would have believe that letting Europe collapse from within during WWII would have been the right answer.
coupled with possible containment strategy (that's what we have anyway . . . and put in place by a Democratic president!)
Originally posted by pfflam
I would agree with you about the talking if by talk you meant that we were trying to come to some sort of amicable situation where we would simply give them such and such if they did not blow up Tokyo . . .except that what I meant by talk is simply constant discussions where we hail them . . as in star trek . . . and talk to them about what we want
coupled with possible containment strategy (that's what we have anyway . . . and put in place by a Democratic president!)
Star Trek?
My take on the NKG (North Korean Government) is that they are not going down without a fight. If you think that US casualties from Iraq (500+) are horrendous, that would be nothing compared to the blood bath that would ensue for our forces if we invaded North Korea. History would finally get to see what would have happened if Allied Forces in WW2 had invaded Japan. From what I've heard, there are parallels between conditions in 1945 Japan and 2004 NK (not to insult either side).
The story that was posted in the first post of this thread was indeed horrific; as horrible as anything done by Saddam, Uday, and Qusay. Iraq we could win (i.e., we could take Bagdad) with relatively little bloodshed (compared to an invasion of Korea). The possibility of *maybe* stabilizing the region within a generation
North Korea? I say contain them. Let the Worker's Paradise work its miracles.
If they use a WMD on us (successful or not), I'm sure that we will respond in kind. There's a new AO thread in that last sentence if anyone wants to start it.
Regretfully,
Aries 1B
The problem with talking now is that the situation is worse than ever. The thiings cited in the article are more grevious than simple starvation because of a moronic empire. Were the situation similar to Cuba, Lybia, Iraq and others, I wouldn't advocate for immediate action. But I don't know how to justify a multi-year solution with thing things that are happening now.
More gas chambers? That's beyond anything I'm willing to accept. It's something worth dying for to end. Set a clear goal to end it and let history be our judge.
Originally posted by bunge
Oh my [url=http://216.26.163.62/2004/ea_skorea_02_03.html]goodness[/url are we moronic. Maybe we shouldn't rely on the military for anything in Korea?
The problem with talking now is that the situation is worse than ever. The thiings cited in the article are more grevious than simple starvation because of a moronic empire. Were the situation similar to Cuba, Lybia, Iraq and others, I wouldn't advocate for immediate action. But I don't know how to justify a multi-year solution with thing things that are happening now.
More gas chambers? That's beyond anything I'm willing to accept. It's something worth dying for to end. Set a clear goal to end it and let history be our judge.
Bunge:
I am pleased to report that communication is now possible between us.
Have a pleasant evening.
Aries 1B
Originally posted by bunge
With the problem we're facing, I'm not against that risk. Powerdoc is right though, that an opportunity might arise that gives us an out. Unfortunately no one knows when that might happen.
Iraq wasn't an emergency by any stretch of the imagination while I consider what's happening in North Korea to be an emergency. I don't like the thought of attacking, but I like the thought of doing not enough even less.
I think any diplomatic solution would have to be from China. If they threaten military action North Korea might listen.
The situation in North Korea is very frustrating (and this is a lesser word, for the unnaceptable).
I agree that a diplomatic solution will come only from China. China will never allow that the occident will attack NK. Even if China do not give a shit about NK, she won't be happy to benefit of the radioactive cloud of NK nukes (radioactive cloud do not have any frontier).China consider this part of the world as a critical aera either : they don't want an occident presence in NK. China is not certainly happy either with the insane NK leader who give a terrible image of the communism (not that the one of china is outstanding, but much better in comparison).
Chineses leaders tend to be very patient : they have the older civilisation for them, and waiting some decades in order ot achieve their goals is not a problem for them.
The NK leader must die, and an internal revolution should take place. At this point we must help.
The story is now that Saddam was detached from reality, and seemed keen on approving WMD programs. Those around him fed his fantasies and then did something entirely different with the money.
Kim-whats-his-name seems far more deluded than Hussein ever was.
The only hope is that those around him see the futility of his regime, and establish a secret dialogue with the U.S. leading to the eventual overthrow of the present regime.
The complicating factor in all this is the geo-politics.
South Korea doesn't want to pay the economic price of reunification, China doesn't want a stable US friendly power to emerge in the region, and the US wants to ensure that they have a reason to keep a fleet in the Pacific to watch over China.
It will be hard to counter all that, but without the support of North Korea's military, it's all irrelevant anyway.