North Korea orders missile units to prepare for war

walshb

trancecivic wrote: »

of course it was justified

How so? To remove Saddam or to make the West safer?

dsmythy

Back to basics. Why would North Korea want to attack anyone. Who is actually going to attack them. Nobody is the answer.

Rascasse

dsmythy wrote: »

Back to basics. Why would North Korea want to attack anyone. Who is actually going to attack them. Nobody is the answer.

Providing they don't do something stupid then nobody is going to attack them. But, saying you're going to restart your nuclear plant and moving missiles about is pretty daft.

The Yanks and South Koreans will have excellent intelligence including satellite images and have said that the North aren't doing anything dodgy apart from moving the missile. But should NK start looking like they are preparing for war it would be reason enough for the SK/US to attack.

I'm no military strategist, but I really can't agree with those that say the North has even a chance of making a fight of it.

Jonny7

Rascasse wrote: »

But should NK start looking like they are preparing for war it would be reason enough for the SK/US to attack.

The US and South Korea will not directly attack.

The only way for a war to actually begin is if incidents start to spiral out of control.

This is North Korea's way of communicating with the region and the world. Brinkmanship. Ban Ki Moon has already indicated that he feels it's time to go to the tables with them - so, it's working.

Pyongyang are mainly playing on Chinese fears of a conflict - China is being the strict parent pushing back with sanctions.

If any war did hypothetically break out, the North would be beaten, but the risk of casualties would be massive. Personally I do not believe the leadership and ruling family have a death wish - but as I said earlier - their little war bluffs could spiral out of control

AllthingsCP

At-least we can all agree on the massive death toll military and civilian,

AllthingsCP

theUbiq wrote: »

But why are the North Koreans behaving like this? Because the warmongers from America have an increasingly heavy military presence around the North Korean peninsula. So, if the yanks wanna fix this they simply **** off. They don't need to fly stealth bombers over the country... or practice manouvres with the South Koreans.

spot on

Iwasfrozen

AllthingsCP wrote: »

spot on

You're trolling, right? The USA should fúck off and let NK do what ever it wants to it's own citizens and neighbours?

bmaxi

theUbiq wrote: »

But why are the North Koreans behaving like this? Because the warmongers from America have an increasingly heavy military presence around the North Korean peninsula. So, if the yanks wanna fix this they simply **** off. They don't need to fly stealth bombers over the country... or practice manouvres with the South Koreans.

I'm not usually one to defend U.S. foreign policy but at no time did stealth bombers fly over North Korea. The U.S. is bound by an agreement, which was part of the conditions of the armistice, to defend South Korea from attack by the North. Without this agreement, no armistice would have been signed and the war could still be going on.
The South Koreans can call on the U.S. to honour that agreement at any time they feel under threat and there is no doubting this is the case today.

A Primal Nut

Partizan wrote: »

Peaceful unification on the terms of the Korean people not the US. Have you even read the article?

That's not what the article says it all. Peaceful unification on the terms of the Korean people (i.e. a democratic referendum) would create a capitalist, liberal democracy; assuming most of the people in South Korea would vote for that and most of the people in North Korea would vote for the communist system, South Korea's population is around twice that of the North so capitalist democracy would win. However that is not the article recommends. Instead it recommends unification under the terms of the DPRK leadership:

This means that while both halves unify, the south remains capitalist and the north remains socialist. It will be difficult but not impossible.

Or to put it another way, the South remains democratic while the north remains a dictatorship. That is not unification at all - it's still two separate governments so it's an absolutely ludicrous suggestion. Also does this mean people will be able to leave the DPRK to go to the South without being called traitors and all the consequences that come with that? Unlikely, therefore again, without freedom of movement that's not unification at all. Rather the DPRK wants their government to be validated and recognised on the international stage.

Why not? Washington wants to get rid of the communist regime before allowing peace to prevail on the peninsula. No “one state, two systems” for Uncle Sam, by jingo! He wants one state that pledges allegiance to — guess who?

Totally justified in my opinion; no government should want to ally themselves or endorse the DPRK's brutal regime. Not to mention that one state, two systems is not really unification at all. As I said its unlikely the DPRK will allow freedom of movement for example.

Two Koreas exist as the product of an agreement between the USSR (which borderd Korea and helped to liberate the northern part of country from Japan in World War II) and the U.S., which occupied the southern half.

This made me laugh (USSR's liberation vs US occupation). Yes USSR helped liberate the northern part of the country by killing the actual Communist revolutionaries who fought against Japan and replacing them with Kim Il Sung and giving him all the credit - in return he would be their puppet. Nobody can call Kim Il Sung's government "liberation".

You can call the US occupiers but the legacy of that is that Kim Il Sung is not the leader of a united Korea today and instead South Korea enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world so it all worked out OK. Again, hindsight shows that the US was justified in helping the anti-communist forces.

Lockstep

This sums it up quite well.

Eggy Baby!

murphaph wrote: »

At least someone in North Korea has the Internet.

Didn't you know that Kim Il-Sung Kim Jong-Il Kim Jong-Un invented the internet?

Eggy Baby!

Not really a supporter of the American Empire's foreign policy, as many of the posters here can attest to, but this drastic increase in rhetoric by NK is entirely irrational, paranoid and.... unsurprising. They are like a juvenile delinquent striking out at the society around them.

Honestly, I cannot currently foresee a solution to these problems in Korea. But military intervention by the USA (unless in retaliation for a DPRK attack- this DPRK attack is unlikely) would be incredibly rash and stupid but despite the lack of foreign policy pragmatism on the part of the USA I doubt they would be dumb enough to go through with an attack on NK with prior provocation, what with China supporting them and all.

So I say try and sit this one out and hope that Kim Jong Un doesn't sit on the red button by accident with that big butt of his.

The Pheasant

Is it just me, or has everyone on the news started saying "rhetoric" alot more often?

Conmaicne Mara

The Pheasant wrote: »

Is it just me, or has everyone on the news started saying "rhetoric" alot more often?

Those people are just talking rhetorically.

Seems the most probable thing that will happen is a test, or two, of those medium range mobile missiles.

The question is, will NK fire them over Japan? And if they do, will the Allied side shoot it down, or risk it over flying? Apparently those missiles have to be "aimed" precisely. There is no in flight guidance system, so once launched that's the direction they're going, end of story.

Solair

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Those people are just talking rhetorically.

Seems the most probable thing that will happen is a test, or two, of those medium range mobile missiles.

The question is, will NK fire them over Japan? And if they do, will the Allied side shoot it down, or risk it over flying? Apparently those missiles have to be "aimed" precisely. There is no in flight guidance system, so once launched that's the direction they're going, end of story.

Thankfully, that probably makes them easier to shoot down as they're not going to change course.

Only problem is if they're nuclear / contain nuclear materials or chemical weapons, that will shower down over wherever they're shot down.

Conmaicne Mara

Solair wrote: »

Thankfully, that probably makes them easier to shoot down as they're not going to change course.

Only problem is if they're nuclear / contain nuclear materials or chemical weapons, that will shower down over wherever they're shot down.

They won't have anything in them, as that would lead to war. As time moves on it becomes clear this is an upgraded version of the usual nonsense. But, if a missile or two were to go over Japan, and were to get shot down, not so sure how that would be received. Might be no harm all the same to show NK enough is enough, they never seem to change with their threats, they get some type of pay off usually.

Eggy Baby!

North Korea will not fire its nuclear weapons. If it does, that's its only form of leverage gone out the window. The sole intention of the NK government is to survive. It can step up rhetoric as much as it wants, in order to please its citizens, but it will never fire the nuclear weapons because that would result in their demise as an entity.

It would be totally alone and without any other form of leverage as the counterattack comes in. Its a common belief that these totalitarian countries are somehow stupid. But their governments hold a guiding, selfish desire for their own self-preservation (see Iran) so they will only shake the stick, not throw it.

Jonny7

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

It would be totally alone and without any other form of leverage as the counterattack comes in. Its a common belief that these totalitarian countries are somehow stupid. But their governments hold a guiding, selfish desire for their own self-preservation (see Iran) so they will only shake the stick, not throw it.

Very true, however after the weak response to the 2010 shelling of the South Korean island - Seoul has said it will use disproportionate force next time similar happens. There's much more worry about incidents developing into escalations when tensions are so high. Pyongyangs intentions may not be war and certainly not pre-emptive strikes - but in this atmosphere the sinking of a S Korean ship or cross-border shelling could spiral out of control

Conmaicne Mara

SK can't keep not responding in fairness to them. 46 (I think) died on the Cheonan (spelling), 2 civilians and 2 soldiers died because of the shelling of that island. Sod that. I think SK said the correct thing that they would respond next time without political considerations. Can't keep letting NK kill their soldiers and civilians because 3.0 has a tantrum.

Jonny7

A war would cost thousands of lives at least. It's just not worth it.

NK know this. No other country could get away with it because the populace wouldn't accept - but NK has a firm grip. Quite the unique situation.

Conmaicne Mara

It doesn't have to be war, just strike them back. If they go to war, NK loses, their leadership get their necks stretched. They know that too.

SamHarris

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

North Korea will not fire its nuclear weapons. If it does, that's its only form of leverage gone out the window. The sole intention of the NK government is to survive. It can step up rhetoric as much as it wants, in order to please its citizens, but it will never fire the nuclear weapons because that would result in their demise as an entity.

It would be totally alone and without any other form of leverage as the counterattack comes in. Its a common belief that these totalitarian countries are somehow stupid. But their governments hold a guiding, selfish desire for their own self-preservation (see Iran) so they will only shake the stick, not throw it.

Its very doubtful they have the technology to actually launch a nuclear weapon. I think this is the main reason there is not outright uproar amoungst defense circles in the US for what would be a fully justified first strike to end their capability.

I say fully justified because, when you really forget about how comical N Korea seem and how capable the US is, its leadership have outright stated their intent to NUKE THE US. I mean its such a bizarre, over the top exclamation that I dont think people have really connected with what that means. If they COULD do it, it would be outright negligent of the US military to allow them to 'give it a go' or give them 'the benefit of the doubt' given what a nuke going off over Washington DC or LA would actually mean.

This last paragraph hints at why this last round of sanctions has got such a reaction - it hit them where the only people who matter hurt - in their luxuries.

Eggy Baby!

Jonny7 wrote: »

A war would cost thousands of lives at least. It's just not worth it.

NK know this. No other country could get away with it because the populace wouldn't accept - but NK has a firm grip. Quite the unique situation.

Hundreds of thousands even. I'd imagine that the majority of North Korea would be mobilised in the event of a war- like a kind of Volksgrenadier militia.

In terms of military, the NK army is a pushover. Its technology is stuck in the 50s and so is its military doctrine. It has insulated itself against more recent developments in tactics and weaponry. But if I were a general, I'd be more concerned about the prospect of fighting possibly millions of partisan-types. I'd imagine the North Koreans would use the terrain to their advantage rather than fight in open warfare.

Conmaicne Mara

Bit of an aside here.

I vaguely remember hearing something about citizens or maybe soldiers in NK being given badges of presumably whatever leader was in power at the time. But, that they have to defend and keep that badge at all costs?

Has anyone more information about these badges?

SamHarris

It just occurred to me that too many news scources and individuals are looking at this with far too much emphasis on the US. Obviously you have the CTers who's inferiority complex demands that they see every international action as part of a plot for US domination but more serious people should be able to see past the nearly ubiquitous obsession with America (both positive and negative), especially with regards to SE Asia.

They're are players in the region with far, far more stakes in this that the US. Indeed, if one does not subscribe to CTs about the Zionists drive for control the only real interest the US has in the region beyond the norm of trade etc is its strong and long time allies of S korea and Japan.

With this in mind it peoples perception of this particular incident and its wider context should be formed by taking into account N Korea's, S Korea's, China' and Japan's (in that order) interests and goals, rather than merely watching the US, its reaction or inaction and drawing conclusions or extrapolating scenarios from that myopic perspective.

SamHarris

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Bit of an aside here.

I vaguely remember hearing something about citizens or maybe soldiers in NK being given badges of presumably whatever leader was in power at the time. But, that they have to defend and keep that badge at all costs?

Has anyone more information about these badges?

Wouldnt be surprised if they had to get tattoos

But no, never heard of the practice myself.

SamHarris

walshb wrote: »

That invasion has caused nothing but misery and death and pain. Pointless invasion, and a serious waste of human life.

Not to get into a debate about this but that very much depends on who you ask in Iraq. And before I say this Ill just point out I am and have always been against the invasion, but recognize it as a far more complex issue as most.

Kurds, for example, in polls show that 90%+ of them still see it as positive. Why? Because they were essentially being ethnically cleansed prior to it and their regions mostly escaped the Sunni on Shia violence that consumed the country following the invasion.

Sunni's still have a 50% postiive opinion concerning it, again, why? Because as negative as the aftermath was the ten years prior were hardly 'better' for most of them.

Shi'as (may be confusing the two sects here) almost universally see it as negative. Why? Because Saddam shared their faith and as with many dictatorships there was a preferred group, one showered with money and opportunity taken from elsewhere, in Saddam's Iraq it was the Shi'ite s. Following the invasion (and this is where much of the violence occurred) it was revenge time in many peoples eyes, which obviously spiraled into sectarian conflict.

Jonny7

SamHarris wrote: »

Sunni's still have a 50% postiive opinion concerning it, again, why? Because as negative as the aftermath was the ten years prior were hardly 'better' for most of them.

Shi'as (may be confusing the two sects here) almost universally see it as negative. Why? Because Saddam shared their faith and as with many dictatorships there was a preferred group, one showered with money and opportunity taken from elsewhere, in Saddam's Iraq it was the Shi'ite s. Following the invasion (and this is where much of the violence occurred) it was revenge time in many peoples eyes, which obviously spiraled into sectarian conflict.

Other way round.

SamHarris

Jonny7 wrote: »

Other way round.

Damn it! No matter how many times I check it out, I get it wrong. Thanks

SamHarris

With regards to both Iraq and the N. Korean situation it's important to keep in mind that the fall of a dictator is very,very rarely not a bloodbath.

Beyond the obvious reason that it often requires an invasion or revolution against what is nearly always a militarized state people forget that there is always a surprisingly large percentage of the population that benefit from the status quo. People forget that it takes millions to subjugate tens of millions for any length of time, maybe more comfortable placing the blame on a tiny group of people or even one man for the oppression, rather than recognizing that it requires a great deal of people co-operating directly, not just being passively, to maintain control.

Even in Western States liberation is followed by, and proceeded by, bloodshed. Ill take Vichy France as the closest analogy I can think of with regard to the fall of a dictator in an educated, affluent Western state. An estimated 40,000 people were killed. Thats about 1/3 the death toll of Iraq in a much shorter period of time. The population do not forget those that collaborated or benefited with/from the occupier/dictator and as lovely as it would be to assume that everyone holds hands and begins a new, peaceful, life together, it is rarely the case. Only 6% of the casualties in the Iraq war were caused by coalition action, almost all of it in the beginning when there was outright war with the Iraqi army. The rest was revenge, sectarian violence and outright criminal activity by people who saw opportunity in a country in chaos. The exact same is very likely to occur in the N Korea.

With regard to N. Korea, I wonder what will happen to the enormous amount of people who are party members, camp guards, political police let alone the higher echelons once the autocracy collapses/ is destroyed by outside intervention? Anyone who believes that the eventual Korean liberation will be anything but a slaughter, for many many reasons is living in a fantasy land.

I know it's a little early to be talking about this now given the topic of the thread and the nature of the region right now, but it just occurred to me when the Iraq war was brought up (again).

VinLieger

SamHarris wrote: »

With regards to both Iraq and the N. Korean situation it's important to keep in mind that the fall of a dictator is very,very rarely not a bloodbath.

Beyond the obvious reason that it often requires an invasion or revolution against what is nearly always a militarized state people forget that there is always a surprisingly large percentage of the population that benefit from the status quo. People forget that it takes millions to subjugate tens of millions for any length of time, maybe more comfortable placing the blame on a tiny group of people or even one man for the oppression, rather than recognizing that it requires a great deal of people co-operating directly, not just being passively, to maintain control.

Even in Western States liberation is followed by, and proceeded by, bloodshed. Ill take Vichy France as the closest analogy I can think of with regard to the fall of a dictator in an educated, affluent Western state. An estimated 40,000 people were killed. Thats about 1/3 the death toll of Iraq in a much shorter period of time. The population do not forget those that collaborated or benefited with/from the occupier/dictator and as lovely as it would be to assume that everyone holds hands and begins a new, peaceful, life together, it is rarely the case. Only 6% of the casualties in the Iraq war were caused by coalition action, almost all of it in the beginning when there was outright war with the Iraqi army. The rest was revenge, sectarian violence and outright criminal activity by people who saw opportunity in a country in chaos. The exact same is very likely to occur in the N Korea.

With regard to N. Korea, I wonder what will happen to the enormous amount of people who are party members, camp guards, political police let alone the higher echelons once the autocracy collapses/ is destroyed by outside intervention? Anyone who believes that the eventual Korean liberation will be anything but a slaughter, for many many reasons is living in a fantasy land.

I know it's a little early to be talking about this now given the topic of the thread and the nature of the region right now, but it just occurred to me when the Iraq war was brought up (again).

Its a good point, the other problem is time has effectively stood still for the last 50 years in NK as far as information about the outside world is concerned. They are taught from birth to fear anything foreign so what would a realistic transition from the way the entire country operates now actually look like?

Eggy Baby!

Even in Western States liberation is followed by, and proceeded by, bloodshed. Ill take Vichy France as the closest analogy I can think of with regard to the fall of a dictator in an educated, affluent Western state. An estimated 40,000 people were killed. Thats about 1/3 the death toll of Iraq in a much shorter period of time. The population do not forget those that collaborated or benefited with/from the occupier/dictator and as lovely as it would be to assume that everyone holds hands and begins a new, peaceful, life together, it is rarely the case. Only 6% of the casualties in the Iraq war were caused by coalition action, almost all of it in the beginning when there was outright war with the Iraqi army. The rest was revenge, sectarian violence and outright criminal activity by people who saw opportunity in a country in chaos. The exact same is very likely to occur in the N Korea.

Aside from your bizarre apologetics for the Iraq War, you do make a valid point about a post-autocracy North Korea.

But as we speak, the mighty North Korean nuclear program makes great strides:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWeOIbsus5I

Rezident

Anyone else utterly bemused by the North Korean state broadcaster lady? Every time I see her conveying the latest 'rhetoric' she is comically angry, like a character in a particularly far-fetched sitcom, ranting and raving the latest 'news' at us. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragically dangerous. Presumably she's been ordered to spit the news at us so vehemently to show just how 'serious' they are so hopefully it's mostly guff.

We tend to think them out of touch but apparently Kim Jong 2 spent nights on the Internet learning to understand the 'enemy' and he certainly manipulated his foes with great success. I honestly fear that if Kim 3's generals (and system administrator) don't manage to hide all the Internet jokes about him from him, it could push him over the edge.

SamHarris

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

bizarre apologetics

Really? Where? I can't imagine why 'apologizing' would even come into it. Do you think I was somehow personally involved with the decisions? I'm sorry to say, but people that did probably have far more important things to do than apologizing for their position on an Irish forum site.

Recognizing reality does not mean apologizing for anything, I also made it pretty clear where I stood on that issue. But then, the reason I tried to was because I knew for those of a certain sort, introducing any complexity into what is for them a black and white issue was always going to be 'bizarre' or amoral or whatever else. It's sad, really

SamHarris

VinLieger wrote: »

Its a good point, the other problem is time has effectively stood still for the last 50 years in NK as far as information about the outside world is concerned. They are taught from birth to fear anything foreign so what would a realistic transition from the way the entire country operates now actually look like?

My feeling is it will be a disaster for the South. And neighboring regions of China as refugees stream from the once Socialist paradise.

25 million people (or however many are left after all of this) who make Afghan and Pakistani tribals look like Ivy League graduates in terms of education and KKK members look like Cordoba House members in terms of racial tolerance flooding South is going to create social, criminal and political problems that will last decades.

SamHarris

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Aside from your bizarre apologetics for the Iraq War, you do make a valid point about a post-autocracy North Korea.

But as we speak, the mighty North Korean nuclear program makes great strides:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWeOIbsus5I

Oh I see! Recognizing the statistics for where the death toll mostly came from is somehow claiming the invasion was therefore correct. Ah the warped logic of the ideologically chained...

Well I'll see about talking to the various statistic gathering bodies to see if they can shift more of a percentage of the casualties to direct US troop action for you (I assume you are like many others opposed to the Iraq war who feel that all the other coalition members responsibility can be waived morally speaking).

Don't be so terrified of recognizing that you can condemn a decision by one body (in this case the coalitions decision to invade Iraq) and not then recognize that many others, including those originally wronged, can play a massive part in making the situation a lot worse.

I'm thinking of starting a thread on 'blame' in this forum because its nearly always the case people blame who they WANT to blame for any particular political mess. If you find yourself having to excuse the perpetrators, then jump to those that created the situation, or even jump again to those that created the climate for that situation to arise to reach the group you feel should be responsible, your almost without a doubt doing it for your own political or personal reasons, not for any moral purpose.

A good example would be 9 11. Many on the left feel comfortable 'blaming' US policy for creating the hate which lead to the attacks. I have absolutely no doubt that the same people do not blame al Qaeda for the US invasion of Iraq by creating the climate in which such a decision became possible.

There are any number of examples but the practice is obvious to anyone with a brain. It's so clearly the person trying to protect their own insecure beliefs in a black and white world I almost feel sorry for them.

SamHarris

Just so you know if you reply and I don't bother replying it's not because I cannot think of a rebuttal (I will tell you if your argument is so convincing) it's because I couldn't be bothered getting into a debate, especially about Iraq its been done to death, if I don't feel your reply is worth engaging with at all. Too many people on this thing get confused between me being so bemused and unengaged by a particular argument and me having no good reply to it.

Eggy Baby!

SamHarris wrote: »

Just so you know if you reply and I don't bother replying it's not because I cannot think of a rebuttal (I will tell you if your argument is so convincing) it's because I couldn't be bothered getting into a debate, especially about Iraq its been done to death, if I don't feel your reply is worth engaging with at all. Too many people on this thing get confused between me being so bemused and unengaged by a particular argument and me having no good reply to it.

I didn't intend to get a reply, because I was right.

I simply felt that your attempt to explain how the coalition wasn't responsible for many casualties in Iraq (it was) felt odd in an otherwise inspired post.

A good example would be 9 11. Many on the left feel comfortable 'blaming' US policy for creating the hate which lead to the attacks. I have absolutely no doubt that the same people do not blame al Qaeda for the US invasion of Iraq by creating the climate in which such a decision became possible.

Bold: And they should, because that is exactly what created the hate.

Underlined: America was already dabbling in Iraq before Al Qaeda were regarded as a "serious threat". They invaded Iraq because of their own imperialism, not because Al Qaeda magically made them turn on the Muslim world. This culture of interventionism and screwing-about in the Middle East existed in the US since the Cold War when they were funding and training the very people they would be fighting a couple of decades later.

As an idea, Al Qaeda being somehow responsible to the Iraq War is so illogical I won't honour it any further. Only a person with no concept of causation would make that connection.

Also, what on earth is wrong with some people blaming the omnipresent "left" for holding certain beliefs? I see it a lot on these forums. Do you honestly think that all the "left" believes these things? Or that the "right" doesn't? Its so judgmental and sad.

AND, I am barely addressing your stuff here because this is a thread about NK. Then again, you did bring up points of debate about Iraq.

KimjongunIII

its just crazy kim dont want war just ask dennis rodman.

3ndahalfof6

KimjongunIII wrote: »

its just crazy kim dont want war just ask dennis rodman.

Getting the rod from the man, Kim smiles, put your nukers away.

murphaph

SamHarris wrote: »

With regards to both Iraq and the N. Korean situation it's important to keep in mind that the fall of a dictator is very,very rarely not a bloodbath.

Beyond the obvious reason that it often requires an invasion or revolution against what is nearly always a militarized state people forget that there is always a surprisingly large percentage of the population that benefit from the status quo. People forget that it takes millions to subjugate tens of millions for any length of time, maybe more comfortable placing the blame on a tiny group of people or even one man for the oppression, rather than recognizing that it requires a great deal of people co-operating directly, not just being passively, to maintain control.

Even in Western States liberation is followed by, and proceeded by, bloodshed. Ill take Vichy France as the closest analogy I can think of with regard to the fall of a dictator in an educated, affluent Western state. An estimated 40,000 people were killed. Thats about 1/3 the death toll of Iraq in a much shorter period of time. The population do not forget those that collaborated or benefited with/from the occupier/dictator and as lovely as it would be to assume that everyone holds hands and begins a new, peaceful, life together, it is rarely the case. Only 6% of the casualties in the Iraq war were caused by coalition action, almost all of it in the beginning when there was outright war with the Iraqi army. The rest was revenge, sectarian violence and outright criminal activity by people who saw opportunity in a country in chaos. The exact same is very likely to occur in the N Korea.

With regard to N. Korea, I wonder what will happen to the enormous amount of people who are party members, camp guards, political police let alone the higher echelons once the autocracy collapses/ is destroyed by outside intervention? Anyone who believes that the eventual Korean liberation will be anything but a slaughter, for many many reasons is living in a fantasy land.

I know it's a little early to be talking about this now given the topic of the thread and the nature of the region right now, but it just occurred to me when the Iraq war was brought up (again).

There was little if any bloodshed across most of eastern Europe when the various communist dictatorships fell about 20 years ago. Even in Russia the attempted military coup d'etat was a bit of a washout. Romania and the former Yugoslavia saw violence alright. You could describe Yugoslavia as a bloodbath but Romanian violence was fairly short lived.

North Korea is a different story though but the regime know they'll all end up dead if a war was to really start. Probably at the hands of their own starving people.

SamHarris

murphaph wrote: »

There was little if any bloodshed across most of eastern Europe when the various communist dictatorships fell about 20 years ago. Even in Russia the attempted military coup d'etat was a bit of a washout. Romania and the former Yugoslavia saw violence alright. You could describe Yugoslavia as a bloodbath but Romanian violence was fairly short lived.

North Korea is a different story though but the regime know they'll all end up dead if a war was to really start. Probably at the hands of their own starving people.

I didnt say it was a universal rule I merely said it is incredibly common.

I might try and think of some factors that contribute to it being bloody or bloodless later, but I have a feeling the sheer brutality and the size of the establishment in N Korea almost ensures it in this case.

Manic Moran

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

I didn't intend to get a reply, because I was right.

I simply felt that your attempt to explain how the coalition wasn't responsible for many casualties in Iraq (it was) felt odd in an otherwise inspired post.

I think you leapt to a conclusion, there. All he was doing was pointing out just how badly internal strife can be in a vacuum, by putting into perspective the very small percentage caused by outside actors in a frame of reference reasonably familiar to all of us.

SamHarris

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

I didn't intend to get a reply, because I was right.

I simply felt that your attempt to explain how the coalition wasn't responsible for many casualties in Iraq (it was) felt odd in an otherwise inspired post.



Bold: And they should, because that is exactly what created the hate.

Underlined: America was already dabbling in Iraq before Al Qaeda were regarded as a "serious threat". They invaded Iraq because of their own imperialism, not because Al Qaeda magically made them turn on the Muslim world. This culture of interventionism and screwing-about in the Middle East existed in the US since the Cold War when they were funding and training the very people they would be fighting a couple of decades later.

As an idea, Al Qaeda being somehow responsible to the Iraq War is so illogical I won't honour it any further. Only a person with no concept of causation would make that connection.

Also, what on earth is wrong with some people blaming the omnipresent "left" for holding certain beliefs? I see it a lot on these forums. Do you honestly think that all the "left" believes these things? Or that the "right" doesn't? Its so judgmental and sad.

AND, I am barely addressing your stuff here because this is a thread about NK. Then again, you did bring up points of debate about Iraq.

You honestly cant see how riven with double standards and pure assumption your opinions are based on? Wow.

Israel is supported by the US, they then are responsible for the attack against them. The US is directly attacked and should hold complete responsibility for any actions following. Iraq is attacked, its citizens start slaughtering one another, and its the coalitions fault for directly attacking them. Im not saying whether or not blame should be placed where in each situation, Im merely point out how prettily you shift blame around, from the perpetrator to the 'provocateur', to fit your ideology. Its obvious, to everyone else, just hoping pointing it out to you might help.

It may have 'created the hate' in your eyes but creating hate in the irrational, psychopathic, radical and homicidal is nothing to be condemned, or tip toed around. Given how many have shown a cartoon is enough to 'create the hate' still trying to heap the blame on the victims rather than the perpetrators becomes more and more laughable, if not morally repugnant.

Like I said originally, you want to convince yourself of a situation and everything will be remembered, forgotten, not learned, or bent so as to fit your ideology. Engaging with anything other than an :rolleyes: is about all it deserves and will get.

Red Crow

murphaph wrote: »

There was little if any bloodshed across most of eastern Europe when the various communist dictatorships fell about 20 years ago. Even in Russia the attempted military coup d'etat was a bit of a washout. Romania and the former Yugoslavia saw violence alright. You could describe Yugoslavia as a bloodbath but Romanian violence was fairly short lived.

North Korea is a different story though but the regime know they'll all end up dead if a war was to really start. Probably at the hands of their own starving people.

Is that really the case? What do we know about the North Korean people? Is it plausible that such a controlled state could form any sort of a coup d'etat? My biggest worry about North Korea is that Kim obviously isn't blessed with brains. He's trying to either scare the US/South Korea into signing a "peace" pact for more aid or he's genuinely delusional and thinks that North Korea stands a chance in any war.

I honestly don't know a great deal about North Korea but I am becoming completely fascinated by it. Surely we're on the cusp of an invasion. I don't think China wants to damage its economy just to save it's old pal either.

spank_inferno

Eli Manning wrote: »

Surely we're on the cusp of an invasion. I don't think China wants to damage its economy just to save it's old pal either.

An invasion would be most unlikely.

The border is so heavily fortified, any breach would take too long, be noticed by spy-planes/satellites and in turn eliminated.

I reckon there will be no violence, though missile tests are likely.

Eventually the west will offer N Korea a new aid package, and the status quo will remain.

Red Crow

spank_inferno wrote: »

An invasion would be most unlikely.

The border is so heavily fortified, any breach would take too long, be noticed by spy-planes/satellites and in turn eliminated.

I reckon there will be no violence, though missile tests are likely.

Eventually the west will offer N Korea a new aid package, and the status quo will remain.

Yeah reading up on political relations with the world it appears that they resort to nuclear and military threats when they want to engage in talks or receive aid. It's a sad situation but it will have to come to a head eventually.