Atttack North Korea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

Yes, that's true. War is not the answer. It causes even worse humanitarian catastrophes, and spreads them to all the nations involved.

---

Tell that to the people of Germany and the territories that they had occupied. Without a military operation to liberate Europe and topple the oppressive regime of the Nazi's the world would be a different place today.

War may cause humanitarian problems, but it can often be the only solution to prevent worse ones. If an invasion and subsequent invasion is handled properly, it needn't be bad for the population of the country in the long term [see Iraq for how not to do this]. The people of North Korea are far less in love with the regime than many were in Iraq. They would be far more willing to embrace western values of freedom than the people of the Middle East.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Yeah and I wonder if that happens to be the dumbest post for at least a week.

North Korea is slowly destablising through images and media being smuggled into the country.

---

ROFL

A destabalised dictatorship with nukes is just a problem that will resolve itself? And your picking out 'dumbest posts of the week'?

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

It's hilarious watching the few Euros here pretending this has nothing to do with them, and also everyone here pretending the nukes are the real problem.

Care to guess where South Korea is ranked as a global economy? Or where all of NK's artillery is aimed? Please, keep refusing to pretend anything America has an interest in matters to you.

Have fun when you can't afford your cheese and wine during the global depression that follows South Korea's ownage.

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

I don't think North Korea will come apart on it's own. It's a strict police state and despite it's crap economy it's gaining conccesions from the great powers each time we need them halt nuclear research.

---

The same could be said of Soviet Russia. Except they were a great power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

The same could be said of Soviet Russia. Except they were a great power.

---

The Soviet Union, afeter realizing that it could not outspend the United States, embraced reform. Ending with Kruschev, the communist party had greater control than one single man. This is not the case in NK, where one man dominates the political environment as a totalitarian dictator. Additionally, NK is not in an arms race with anyone. Kim seeks viability through power and control, at the expense of the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

The same could be said of Soviet Russia. Except they were a great power.

---

The Soviet Union, afeter realizing that it could not outspend the United States, embraced reform. Ending with Kruschev, the communist party had greater control than one single man. This is not the case in NK, where one man dominates the political environment as a totalitarian dictator. Additionally, NK is not in an arms race with anyone. Kim seeks viability through power and control, at the expense of the people.

Many of the structures of the Soviet Union made Gorbachev essentially the dictator of the USSR, where the rules favour the powerful. It was not said that the leader of the USSR was the most powerful man on earth for nothing.

Attack North Korea? Sure.

Its not like their military would stand much of a chance. Basically, think of us fighting Al Qaeda, except, stupider, and wearing uniforms, and no IEDs.

...except they're organised, all working together, have ICBMs and nukes. Of course, that's all irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

...except they're organised, all working together, have ICBMs and nukes. Of course, that's all irrelevant.

---

The maybe massive, but the quality isn't there. Most of their military hardware is aging soviet era equipment which is not a match for the newer technology. The only have a single ICBM which is still in development. Now, I'm not saying they are a walk in the park to fight, just not the military some make them out to be.

North Korea has one of the largest militaries in the world. It is within firing range major population centeres in South Korea and Japan, many of which would recieve immediate bombardment. Anybody that is willing to immediately engage in a war that will automatically cost the lives of thousands of innocent civilians in an allied country without it being the last course of action is preemptive and hawkish. If you lived near the DMZ in South Korea, you would probably be less inclined to go to war with a nation whose status as a threat has not significantly changed. But, then again, it only matters because North Korea "might" be able to reach our(US) population centers. Who cares that they can already reach allied population centers and will do so if we start a war over a "might". Time is our ally and I suggest we continue to allow it to work.

What military are we going to use to smack down the North Koreans? Certainly not the U.S. military. It's already stretched to the breaking point in Iraq hunting for WMDs, or removing that evil dictator Saddam, or bringing stability to the Middle East, or bringing them democracy at the point of a gun or whatever the reason of the week is. So where are we going to get the troops to start a war with a pathetic little blustering toad like Kim Jung-il?

Are we going to drop the Bomb on them and be, once again, the only nation on earth to use the Bomb? Yeah, that'll win a lot of hearts and minds, won't it?

Here's what happened. Two troops of primates are at odds. It's just the way things work, they're separate troops with separate alpha males. Disgusting monkey #1 (Bush), full of the power of his status as the alpha male and flush with recent success, thumps his chest and tosses some branches about in a display of typical primate bluster (Axis of Evil, blah blah blah). So disgusting monkey #2 (Kim Jung-il), in predictable primate fashion, responds to said bluster and implied threat by a little chest thumping and branch tossing of his own. Now, #2 doesn't have an reasonable expectation of beating #1, but that isn't the point. #2 has to chest thump to maintain his status as the alpha male of his own troop. So he does. Whose overblown primate chest-thumping display is the real culprit? Does it matter? It's just overblown primate chest thumping. Each one using the display to maintain alpha male status in his own troop. It really is that simple. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Here's what happened. Two troops of primates are at odds. It's just the way things work, they're separate troops with separate alpha males. Disgusting monkey #1 (Bush), full of the power of his status as the alpha male and flush with recent success, thumps his chest and tosses some branches about in a display of typical primate bluster (Axis of Evil, blah blah blah). So disgusting monkey #2 (Kim Jung-il), in predictable primate fashion, responds to said bluster and implied threat by a little chest thumping and branch tossing of his own. Now, #2 doesn't have an reasonable expectation of beating #1, but that isn't the point. #2 has to chest thump to maintain his status as the alpha male of his own troop. So he does. Whose overblown primate chest-thumping display is the real culprit? Does it matter? It's just overblown primate chest thumping. Each one using the display to maintain alpha male status in his own troop. It really is that simple. :wink:

---

Ha ha. Cute. But what do you really think? If our President were a Democrat, the Crisis would be no less real.

And I belive it would be worse. Kim developed most his technology behind the back of the Clinton administration. I fear that a Democrat would yield further concessions and give in to NK. We really don't have much leeway, and the U.S. is doing everything it can to bring the world to the table with these guys.

Furthermore, if we had a Dem president, all troops would be pulled from Iraq, destabilizing the government and forcing it into failure. Say what you want about getting into Iraq, but we are there and we can either stay or go. Leaving has real consequences detrimental to U.S. Interests.

I'm not just spitting out talking points, these are real concerns of many Americans, myself and family included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah

Tell that to the people of Germany and the territories that they had occupied. Without a military operation to liberate Europe and topple the oppressive regime of the Nazi's the world would be a different place today.

War may cause humanitarian problems, but it can often be the only solution to prevent worse ones. If an invasion and subsequent invasion is handled properly, it needn't be bad for the population of the country in the long term [see Iraq for how not to do this]. The people of North Korea are far less in love with the regime than many were in Iraq. They would be far more willing to embrace western values of freedom than the people of the Middle East.

---

I don't believe our government tries to solve these problems adeptly. They are short on wisdom and long on military solutions.

If we had the right people in government, they would approach matters in a completely different way. The government we have now fights fire with fire, rather than water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Ha ha. Cute. But what do you really think? If our President were a Democrat, the Crisis would be no less real.

And I belive it would be worse. Kim developed most his technology behind the back of the Clinton administration. I fear that a Democrat would yield further concessions and give in to NK. We really don't have much leeway, and the U.S. is doing everything it can to bring the world to the table with these guys.

Furthermore, if we had a Dem president, all troops would be pulled from Iraq, destabilizing the government and forcing it into failure. Say what you want about getting into Iraq, but we are there and we can either stay or go. Leaving has real consequences detrimental to U.S. Interests.

I'm not just spitting out talking points, these are real concerns of many Americans, myself and family included.

---

How many times do I need to explain that I'm not a Democrat before it sinks in? Must I condemn ex-presidents every time I condemn the current one?

Tell you what. Every time I criticize Bush, you can consider that a de facto criticism of all the faults of every president back to Washington. That way I don't have to list them every time, or play the "yes, but, Clinton did ..." game every time I criticize Bush. Fair enough? :grin:

NK wont last, so wait for the regieme to crumble and the people to have their way.

To think that having foresight enough to say that North Korea will collapse soon is rather fool-hardy, yes North Korea will collapse...eventually...maybe 10-20-30-50-100 years down the road. In the 50 years that North Korea has been an independent nation, it has had a severe humanitarian crisis.

Although I don't believe war, unless North Korea strikes first, should be persued. I firmly believe that if some intelligent diplomacy is used, not on north Korea but partners to the regime, we could completely and utterly grind the North Korean economy into a halt, including weapons trades, and when they have no material to build their weapons, nobody to purchase weapons from, nobody to purchase fuel to use those weapons, within 10 years Kim Jong-Il would be overthrown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

You would starve and impoverish a people for 10 years, like some kind of grand siege? A war would be humane by comparison.

---

That would force the people to rebel would it not though? Most likely ending the regieme before the suggested ten years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

You would starve and impoverish a people for 10 years, like some kind of grand siege? A war would be humane by comparison.

---

Crunch numbers, Cube. Americans have an obligation to save its citizens before others, which is why its "okay" that thousands of Iraqi citizens die each day in the pursuit of our national security.

We have an obligation to our allies in South Korea that their security is intact, something that will suffer if we go all Rambo on NK. Hate to sound harsh, but just as we pick U.S. security over other national casualties, S.K. security and casualties take precedent over the suffering in N.K.

This observation tastes so bitter in my tongue, but its how things work.

We've been letting people starve all over Africa for decades, since when did that become the raison d'etre for invading North Korea? We pay farmers each year not to grow certain crops just to keep the price artificially high; the crops not grown would be enough to end starvation worldwide. Do we pay them to grow the crops instead and then ship the food where it's needed? Nope. We pay them to keep the fields fallow so there isn't too much surplus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

We've been letting people starve all over Africa for decades, since when did that become the raison d'etre for invading North Korea? We pay farmers each year not to grow certain crops just to keep the price artificially high; the crops not grown would be enough to end starvation worldwide. Do we pay them to grow the crops instead and then ship the food where it's needed? Nope. We pay them to keep the fields fallow so there isn't too much surplus.

---

That disgusts me!

And that, my friend, is capitalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Wait a minute... Are farmers required to accept this bribe to artificially reduce crop size? If I ran a farm, I'd ignore the offer, grow more, sell for less, and ruin my competition.

---

I'm not up-to-date with US subsidy practice, but I don't beleive it's a requirement to accpet the subsidy. The problem is the artificial rigging of prices across the world market, which would mean your plan would likely fail in a maze of export bureacracy.

The EU is particularly bad at over-subsidising to avoid dumping - some might remember the wine lakes and grain mountains of the 80's (many still exist). There is also an environmental stewardship programme that attempts to reduce over-production in favour of making payments to maintain habitat and landscapes.

Making and exporting agricultural surplus to the developing world won't help. What is needed is an unsubsidised, free market (stripped of government and big agri) where the developing world can compete on something approaching a level playing field. But that's a whole new thread. :smile:

On both sides of the pond, it tends to be giant agri-business that benefits the most, and you won't be surprised to learn that the current EU/US governments have pandered to those interests.

A useful overview site is here.

And now I return everyone to their regularly scheduled war-mongering. :bounce:

The U.S. subsidy isn't mandatory; but only an idiot would refuse it. The price is linked to the current price of crop but lower. However, it is higher than the price would be if the crop were produced. It fluctuates based on the market. The idea is to create a financial incentive not to do the free-market thing as GC suggested, planting anyway to reap the profits. It wouldn't be a financial incentive if it paid less than planting anyway. :grin:

It's self-regulating the other way around as well. If too many farms take the subsidy then the market price goes up because there isn't enough grain being grown. This makes the subsidy to not grow less profitable than growing; so more farmers grow whatever that crop happens to be.

I'm reasonably certain that this is the current system; but every once in a while some Congressman gets an idea to monkey with it and it changes. Not often, though. The agri-business lobby is a particularly powerful one in the USA.

It's a fiendishly clever little subsidy system. Free market? Not even close. But you'll never hear a right-wing corn-belt Congressman, no matter how free-market he claims to be, ever say a word against it. :grin:

[QUOTE=Banquo's Ghost
The EU is particularly bad at over-subsidising to avoid dumping [/QUOTE]

The EU dumps its products on a massive scale in third world countries. Almost always at prices under the local production cost. We've ruined several African nations' growing economy that way (agriculture tends to be the first 'industry' to develop and is generally considered necessary to allow further industrial development).

Several of those countries tried to close their borders to the blatantly false competition. But then WTO decided they don't like them doing that. And Europe and the US decided they wouldn't send aid/money to countries using protectionist measures. And knowing how we threat Africa, there was probably the implicit promise of selling lots of guns to their neighbours/rebels...

I don't believe in a free world market, for several reasons which would take me too long to discuss here. I believe it would be best to 'divide' the world into several big regions which would have an internal free market. Like the EU or the US. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

We've been letting people starve all over Africa for decades, since when did that become the raison d'etre for invading North Korea? We pay farmers each year not to grow certain crops just to keep the price artificially high; the crops not grown would be enough to end starvation worldwide. Do we pay them to grow the crops instead and then ship the food where it's needed? Nope. We pay them to keep the fields fallow so there isn't too much surplus.

---

My grandfather participates, or has participated in the government program to not grow crops for money. I am not sure of the current process but in the past it was kind of a bidding process where the gov would set a secret price for the year and if your bid was below it you would get to put your farmland in “the bank” as my grandfather called it. By offering a very low bid you were almost guaranteed in, but a higher bid was a gamble. I’m not sure if this is a state by state thing or what but I am pretty sure that is how it was.

It is crazy how much the US could produce if it wanted to. If you get the chance to read an issue of “the farm journal” do it sometime, there are often statistics in there that blow my mind. I am curious how the new corn gas will affect the farm industry in the US. There is already a place near my grandfather’s farm that has announced that it will buy (at the standard going rate) and process into corn gas all the corn they can get from a 50 mile radius. I am aware of several other farmers in the area that have their farmland in “the bank”, I wonder if they will start growing crops specifically for the emerging industry.

As to war with NK, I say not until we are asked or they are a direct threat to the US. I am tired of saving ungrateful countries. I do think we should do as much as possible diplomatically to control NK, but I don’t think we should move until someone else makes a serious commitment and asks for our assistance. I wouldn’t be too surprised if China used NK as a training exercise and distraction for their military.

I would take the opposite approach to seige. I think the worst thing the US has done to North Korea (and Cuba) has been opposing them.

I think if we had supported, or at least had good relations with, North Korea at the end of the Korean War, they would not be having a humanitarian crisis, not be poor, not have missiles pointed at us, not have Kim Jong Il as leader, and would by now be a market-driven state, much as China is becoming. Not only that, I believe they would be united with South Korea today.

North Korea has been driven into its present state by its externally-imposed isolation. If they hadn't have been treated as a pariah, they would have little reason to be so antagonistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

It is crazy how much the US could produce if it wanted to.

---

Milk production from the Netherlands and Denmark supplies not only most of Europe but is exported on a massive scale to third world countries, where they teach mothers that breast feeding is unhealthy and they should use powder milk :dizzy2:

If we would allow the same, harmless, hormones as the US does we could QUADRUPLE the production of milk.

Similar things could be said for corn and other agricultural products (where we don't allow genetic manipulation). Some people like to talk about how the earth can't sustain much more people, but that's BS, with modern technology we could support 12 billion people easily...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

I would take the opposite approach to seige. I think the worst thing the US has done to North Korea (and Cuba) has been opposing them.

---

I don't think it's fair to compare Cuba with NK, Castro (and his ilk) have led a rather benevolent dictatorship over the past few decades. Most of the poverty is due to the economic sanctions imposed by the US and not due to the evils of communism. Even so, it's probably still amongst the top of south american countries when it comes to average wealth (or wealth of the average person).

NK on the other hand, fought an insane war back in the day with no regard towards human life, has a dictator whose personal wealth is probably bigger than the country's. The regime seems so focused on advancing their military that they don't care if their people starve to death. They have purposely isolated themselves from the rest of the world (heck, they'll even piss of China).

In short, all communists aren't the same :bow:

mm.. mods, how about a split for the subsidy stuff?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

I don't think it's fair to compare Cuba with NK, Castro (and his ilk) have led a rather benevolent dictatorship over the past few decades. Most of the poverty is due to the economic sanctions imposed by the US and not due to the evils of communism. Even so, it's probably still amongst the top of south american countries when it comes to average wealth (or wealth of the average person).

NK on the other hand, fought an insane war back in the day with no regard towards human life, has a dictator whose personal wealth is probably bigger than the country's. The regime seems so focused on advancing their military that they don't care if their people starve to death. They have purposely isolated themselves from the rest of the world (heck, they'll even piss of China).

In short, all communists aren't the same :bow:

---

NK fought and beat the USA? Don't be silly, it was :china:

By the way, congratulations on being the first person I've seen on the org state that not all communists should be grouped under the stereotype.

:bow: