mham001 wrote:

[

And yet, the US did far more for the Philippines in 40 years than European colonial subjugation did in 300 - including giving them freedom.

You might want to read up on the history of the Philippines. While not in the same league as the Belgians in the Congo it was not all smiles and sunshine.

anrec80 wrote:

Libya, Syria and Ukraine was even worse

Libya was a European initiated action, the US role was secondary; the US took no military action against Assad in Syria until last week, and that was in response to a sarin attack on civilians. The US has taken no military action in Ukraine either.

You're imagining things, I'm done with you.

US should use china to curb NK

HAWK21M wrote:

US should use china to curb NK

And if China won't do the curbing?

LMP737 wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

The "North Korean regime" is doing its best in what it needs to do - protect its country and its citizens, .

If you read the accounts of people who have escaped North Korea concern for it's citizens is way down on the list for Kim and his band of merry men. If it were they wouldn't have a nuclear program to begin with.

Nothing exceptional compared to the range of "leaders" the US was and/or is best friends with.
So that can't be the reason.

The current downturn in relations started when the US denied negotiations for a final peace treaty with NK.
current status quo is an armistice.
( and the original Korea conflict was more or less US driven too later propping up a military dictator.
My guess would be that NK still has the absolutely kindest memories of getting decked out in 450,000t bombs. )

The US will not ever attack NK because there is no profit for them. No oil and no opium. Plain and simple.

Second of all, NK is a poor country and there military is weak.

Third, NK has never been a threat. They just want to test these missiles for their own defense just like the US with its defense systems

1. It is a typical liberal/neocon argument. They know and they can judge which societal composition is good for people and which is horrible and deserves to be eliminated. How do you know that North Koreans are unhappy? Just because they live different lives?
This argument is a complete nonsense. I don't know. But I can assume that people in society with GINI coefficient "0" - a truly egalitarian society - may be happy.
2. Whatever weapons the U.S. military, in their wisdom, apply, it will not stop North Koreans from the attack on Seoul. All those hundreds of thousands of chemical and conventional shells will be devastating for South Korea.
3. North Korea has no history of aggression. Assumption that possession of nuclear technology and missile technology makes this country dangerous for the U.S. in the future is just an assumption.
If you look at trajectory of any missile launched in the direction of the U.S. West Coast, it will go via Russian or Chinese airspace. As far as those ICBM would be at initial acceleration stage, they could be "taken care of".
4. If North Korea becomes the real danger for the world community, the UN SC will not have a problem to vote for an international and legal action.
5. The U.S. doesn't have "stellar" record of successful military operations. Which makes me think that another "Shock and Awe" will be just another failure.

pylon101 wrote:

3. North Korea has no history of aggression. Assumption that possession of nuclear technology and missile technology makes this country dangerous for the U.S. in the future is just an assumption.
If you look at trajectory of any missile launched in the direction of the U.S. West Coast, it will go via Russian or Chinese airspace. As far as those ICBM would be at initial acceleration stage, they could be "taken care of".
4. If North Korea becomes the real danger for the world community, the UN SC will not have a problem to vote for an international and legal action.

All it takes is one history book, is that too much to ask? NK started the Korean War. Hundreds of thousands died and millions starved to death. You don't find that at least somewhat indicative of "aggression"? Second, NK has built at least four known invasion tunnels in the past 50 years, all of which were discovered by SK and at least two of which are now on display at the DMZ along the southern side. Not aggressive enough for you? Then let's try this one on for size, NK is in violation of umpteen UN SEC Council resolutions regarding its nuclear weapons program and like I said below routinely lobs test missiles towards SK, Japan and the US. We know it's not capable yet of hitting the continental US but the fact that it causally fires off nuclear capable missiles towards two of our staunchest allies in the world..you wouldn't characterize that as even mildly aggressive? It's really this last bit that needs to stop because it would be akin to the US or Russia testing SLBMs by parking subs of the coast and just casually "testing" new missile by pointing them at DC or Moscow. Perhaps that doesn't fit your definition of aggression either. Do you see Pakistan and India testing missiles by launching them on capital city trajectories, does Iran fire them off towards Tel Aviv? The truth is, NK's behavior is so outrageously aggressive it's near suicidal. Even the Chinese are on board, so if that doesn't cement my argument then you must not be receptive to rational and logical argumentation. You strike me as someone that would throw a toddler birthday party in the backyard while the neighbor does shooting practice against targets lined up along the fence.

Any reference to 1950 is completely irrelevant. It was a different epoch when the alternative socio-economic system was attractive for Asian societies. It was basically Trotskyism in the form of Maoism. Trotsky re-worked Marxism for agrarian societies.

UN SC resolutions are legally not binding for NK. They left NPT in full compliance with the Treaty.
I am not saying that I support the NK regime. However, the unilateral use of force in Korea will be another aggression.

pylon101 wrote:

Any reference to 1950 is completely irrelevant.

The 1950 (completely unnecessary) invasion is the defining event for the "Korean crisis" and the Kim dynasty has continued to be the aggressor ever since. The Kim dynasty crimes of axe murders, infiltrating murderers to the south, sinking ships, launching rockets, firing artillery and their constant chorus of threats have been public events for all to see over the whole period.

pylon101 wrote:

It was a different epoch when the alternative socio-economic system was attractive for Asian societies. It was basically Trotskyism in the form of Maoism. Trotsky re-worked Marxism for agrarian societies.

Is this the kind of gibberish Stalinists parrot back and forth to each other to try and make yourselves sound like intellectuals to each other?

pylon101 wrote:

I am not saying that I support the NK regime. However, the unilateral use of force in Korea will be another aggression.

You obviously do support North Korea, your country has always supported them materially and has always been their cheerleader. But you want to try to slip out of any responsibility for their threats or actions against the Seoul metropolitan area. You and your type of Russian own responsibility for all the Kim dynasty's crimes.

wardialer wrote:

The US will not ever attack NK because there is no profit for them. No oil and no opium. Plain and simple.

With the current cheeto-in-chief it would not surprise me if DPRK is attacked by the United States. But, then, he also said he was sending a carrier strike group to the region. Apparently going the long way around

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-04-18/ ... -direction

Second of all, NK is a poor country and there military is weak.

THEIR military is being supplied by Iran, China, and Russia as well as the black market from the west.

Third, NK has never been a threat. They just want to test these missiles for their own defense just like the US with its defense systems

The leader of the country executes people with anti aircraft guns, demands work from all the citizens at all times, demands that no citizen can have his hair style, is capable of nukes... DPRK IS a threat. What we pretty much have is two children with hammers in a china shop.

seb146 wrote:

What we pretty much have is two children with hammers in a china shop.

What's your solution Seb? What do you think should be done?

Go ahead and let him develop ICBMs and miniaturized nukes?

salttee wrote:

anrec80 wrote:

Libya, Syria and Ukraine was even worse

Libya was a European initiated action, the US role was secondary; the US took no military action against Assad in Syria until last week, and that was in response to a sarin attack on civilians. The US has taken no military action in Ukraine either.

You're imagining things, I'm done with you.

Let's not talk about Europe initiative. EU on its own isn't capable of much? Yes, Libya was French president's Sarkozy's little war - why did the US stick in there and took leading role nonetheless? What's their problem in little financial thingies between Sarkozy and Gaddafi, and alliances (and military power) aren't for that. And now you are pushing away the responsibility.

The stories of Syria and Ukraine are alike - in both of those cases US supported, funded and armed some groups they didn't know much about themselves, which were some radical Muslim ones in Sirya, outright gangs with "patriotic" mottos in Ukraine. Or - perhaps knew, but hoped to use them for their purpose instead of mimilary power. What Senator McCain was doing in Sirya with some ISIS dudes? Couple of iconic pictures from Ukraine 2013/2014 - infamous Victoria Nuland with her cookies and "f@ck the EU!". Weeks later US was the first to acknowledge the armed coup (despite own legislature prohibiting such actions), then supported ignition of a bloody civil war and were covering up outright war crimes. And one more - don't start about some "Russian aggression", as for 3 years now nobody has seen even one "aggressor", dead or alive. So - no responsibility there, really?

salttee wrote:

seb146 wrote:

What we pretty much have is two children with hammers in a china shop.

What's your solution Seb? What do you think should be done?

Go ahead and let him develop ICBMs and miniaturized nukes?

DPRK has been developing them for years. We can't threaten China because they own us. We can't threaten DPRK because China. We need to get out from China's thumb. Making China irrelevant again will make DPRK irrelevant.

seb146 wrote:

salttee wrote:

seb146 wrote:

What we pretty much have is two children with hammers in a china shop.

What's your solution Seb? What do you think should be done?

Go ahead and let him develop ICBMs and miniaturized nukes?

DPRK has been developing them for years. We can't threaten China because they own us. We can't threaten DPRK because China. We need to get out from China's thumb. Making China irrelevant again will make DPRK irrelevant.

Funny you say that, China now is being threatened by DPRK with "catastrophic consequences" for dancing to the tune of the USA.

seb146 wrote:

salttee wrote:

seb146 wrote:

What we pretty much have is two children with hammers in a china shop.

What's your solution Seb? What do you think should be done?

Go ahead and let him develop ICBMs and miniaturized nukes?

DPRK has been developing them for years. We can't threaten China because they own us. We can't threaten DPRK because China. We need to get out from China's thumb. Making China irrelevant again will make DPRK irrelevant.

I what world will China ever be irrelevant?

seb146 wrote:

The leader of the country executes people with anti aircraft guns, demands work from all the citizens at all times, demands that no citizen can have his hair style, is capable of nukes... DPRK IS a threat. What we pretty much have is two children with hammers in a china shop.

The leader of another country has people killed not under his jurisdiction on / over foreign ground ...

What is Trumps position on his (?trademarked | copyrighted | patented?) haircut ?

NK is a local problem. The US is a global problem, under Trump more so than ever before.

seb146 wrote:

salttee wrote:

seb146 wrote:

What we pretty much have is two children with hammers in a china shop.

What's your solution Seb? What do you think should be done?

Go ahead and let him develop ICBMs and miniaturized nukes?

DPRK has been developing them for years. We can't threaten China because they own us. We can't threaten DPRK because China. We need to get out from China's thumb. Making China irrelevant again will make DPRK irrelevant.

Ok, so we should just let them go ahead with their development of ICBMs while we work on making China irrelevant.

Sounds like a plan.

pylon101 wrote:

3. North Korea has no history of aggression. Assumption that possession of nuclear technology and missile technology makes this country dangerous for the U.S. .

They actually do have a history of aggression towards their southern neighbor. Does it mean they will use nukes? No it does not. They know what they can get way with. They also know to use a nuclear weapon would mean the end for them.

WIederling wrote:

and the original Korea conflict was more or less US driven too later propping up a military dictator.
)

And are the people of South Korea better off under their current government or would they be better off under the Kim's rule?

So at this point, who has NK not threatened? Obviously something must be done. There is no debate about that. However, it can't be the U.S. acting alone. It must be a multinational force led by Nations from the region, including China.

par13del wrote:

Like India, Pakistan and others who attempted, if you start a nuclear program the west will pay you to not develop the capability while you develop it and when you are complete it they will not welcome you into the club but will tolerate you, in the meantime, the millions that they gave you will allow you to feed your people while you divert your funds to the nuclear program.

Spot on. It might take you a little longer to develop your nuclear warheads, but you'll essentially get paid for it.

The invasion that started the Korean war is mentioned a lot, but this only happened because Korea was cut in half in the first place, by the USSR and the US.

As for a dictator starting the invasion, the south was also under a dictator and he killed hundred of thousands of his own citizens too. But it was "our dictator" so it was fine I guess.

South Korea has evolved fortunately, North Korea hasn't, but in 1950 things were not the same as today.

Aesma wrote:

The invasion that started the Korean war is mentioned a lot, but this only happened because Korea was cut in half in the first place, by the USSR and the US.

No, the Peninsula was not cut in half by the actions of the US, that's all on Russia. Russia never declared war on Japan during WW2 until after the US dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. Yet Stalin moved to occupy a part of Korea while the US was filling the void left behind by the departing Japanese. Russia divided Korea, not the US.

Aesma wrote:

As for a dictator starting the invasion, the south was also under a dictator and he killed hundred of thousands of his own citizens too. But it was "our dictator" so it was fine I guess.

After the Japanese surrender, the US found itself responsible for providing order for the territories which had been conquered by Japan and for seeing to it that the Japanese army was removed. The US forces were stretched thin, as a major disbandment of the US military was in progress. When it came to Korea, the US had no desire to occupy the country but it was necessary to get the Japanese out asap because of the bad blood between the Japanese and the Koreans. So the US managed the situation as best as it could and sought Korean partners, as any Korean was better than the Japanese for the administration of the country; an English speaking Korean was much to be preferred; so the US gave support to Syngman Rhee. It should be remembered that Syngman Rhee also won over his countrymen for leadership of the country. Syngman Rhee may not have turned out to be the perfect leader, but compared to Kim Il Sung he was an angel.

And as you say, the south was able to evolve, unlike the north.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngman_Rhee