North Korea and Kim Jong Il - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-19-2005, 04:35 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 02:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
North Koreans are also EXTREMELY loyal to their country. We would never be able to accomplish what we did in Iraq without the help of the rest of the world. When Kim Il Sung died (who was equally as ruthless), people literally died from excessive mourning.
yeah, that could be a bit of a problem. we're obviously not going in there anytime soon.
__________________

__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 04-19-2005, 04:53 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klink
Oh goodness! People want to go after a nuclear armed, heavily nationalist enemy in China's sphere of influence. This is even more insane than invading Iraq, killing 100,000 civlians and proclaiming it a success after puppet elections and with terrorism and coalition army violence as the norm.
100,000?

You may want to check your facts again.

www.iraqbodycount.net
www.massgraves.info
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_...11133930628B262
http://www.kurdishmedia.com/news.asp?id=6596
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/


Quote:
Originally posted by Klink
2)NO OIL IN NORTH KOREA (or is there?). With the same intelligence people working on WMD in Iraq, maybe Sat photos have found tanker trucks running about the country that contain oil supplies for the chinese.
Nonsense. You obviously aren't reading a thing on this entire thread. Military action will most likely refrain because (a) North Koreans are extremely loyal to their country, and it would be hell in itself to attempt to cause a rebellion, (b) North Korea hasn't invaded another country in over 50 years, (c) Kim Jong Il is so militant as to starve his own people to strengthen his military. Going for the "oil" argument is nothing but a mere cheapshot that has no basis of reason.
__________________

__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-19-2005, 05:14 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:05 PM
No War on N-Korea because any action would have an extremely high probability of making the region go to hell and would almost certainly claim millions of lives. There is a cost to benefit ratio that must always be considered and in the case of N-Korea it is a no win situation. The only plausible way to deal with the threat is to engage with the leadership nd attempt to liberalise it with incentives. The next least worst option is for China to exert more pressure on North Korea to move in the right direction.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-19-2005, 06:48 PM   #19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 370
Local Time: 02:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
100,000?

You may want to check your facts again.

www.iraqbodycount.net
www.massgraves.info
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_...11133930628B262
http://www.kurdishmedia.com/news.asp?id=6596
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/


Nonsense. You obviously aren't reading a thing on this entire thread. Military action will most likely refrain because (a) North Koreans are extremely loyal to their country, and it would be hell in itself to attempt to cause a rebellion, (b) North Korea hasn't invaded another country in over 50 years, (c) Kim Jong Il is so militant as to starve his own people to strengthen his military. Going for the "oil" argument is nothing but a mere cheapshot that has no basis of reason.

http://www.yuricareport.com/Iraq/Ira...nXsHigher.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3962969.stm


I've checked the sources before and, not surprisingly, all of your sources deal with very limited types information/reports and ths severely underestimate the number of civilian casualties. The Lancet Medical Journal published a study in October of last year. They used random sampling and determined that the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the US invasion has passed 100,000. Official statistics miss many forms of civilian casualities - the ones where bodies aren't found/identified/ reported - which has been determined to be a high percentage by this study. Your websites post numbers based on very very very limited data, so much so it puts their motives into question.

Thanks, but I've read the thread and I am contending that you are mistaken. Those things don't necessarily stop an invasion. North Korea will not be invaded, despite mass human rights abuses because they are (a) armed, (b) they are in China's sphere of influence and (c) most importantly because there is no economic benefit to an invasion. All US interventions (almost) have had economic motivations. It's naive to suggest otherwise. They were all attempts to thwart communism and keep markets open to capitalism. I'm not a communist but I don't agree with capitalism at any price - and a high price it's been.

The oil argument is no cheapshot. It's as clear as daylight that the US invasion of Iraq is meant to control China's oil supply and and subsequently their massive economic growth, which threatens to compete with the US. It's politcal-economic chess and it's not all that secret anymore. What is completely groundless to me is the whole war in Iraq, which now lacks justification on its original fundamental presence - WMD.

Jon
__________________
Klink is offline  
Old 04-19-2005, 06:57 PM   #20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 370
Local Time: 02:05 AM
I should add that you may be right that NK hasn't invaded another country for 50 years. On the other hand, the US has invaded dozens - even ones that have not invaded others - so do you seriously think that's a criteria for US invasion? That would be kind of hypocritical, wouldn't it?

Jon
__________________
Klink is offline  
Old 04-19-2005, 09:15 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klink
Those things don't necessarily stop an invasion. North Korea will not be invaded, despite mass human rights abuses because they are (a) armed, (b) they are in China's sphere of influence and (c) most importantly because there is no economic benefit to an invasion. All US interventions (almost) have had economic motivations. It's naive to suggest otherwise. They were all attempts to thwart communism and keep markets open to capitalism. I'm not a communist but I don't agree with capitalism at any price - and a high price it's been.

The oil argument is no cheapshot. It's as clear as daylight that the US invasion of Iraq is meant to control China's oil supply and and subsequently their massive economic growth, which threatens to compete with the US. It's politcal-economic chess and it's not all that secret anymore. What is completely groundless to me is the whole war in Iraq, which now lacks justification on its original fundamental presence - WMD.
*Further Iraq discussion belongs on another thread. As mentioned at the very beginning, this thread is about North Korea and Kim Jong Il*

I don't buy into the oil argument at ALL. There are a million other reasons why it would be catastrophic to take on North Korea. The main reason - they have the nukes that could kill millions of people in a matter of minutes. Your take is that the US is in it for the money. I don't buy it. Did you ever get to think that we were in it to diminish global threats? We'd be going to war against Congo like France did if that were the case.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-20-2005, 07:13 AM   #22
War Child
 
NYRangers78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: THE BRONX NEW YORK GOD BLESS AMERICA
Posts: 540
Local Time: 02:05 AM
funny....were invading iraq...but other countries BEG us to help them by going in and fixing their problems....cant have it both ways...we went into iraq too quickly, but we didnt go into haiti quick enough....was it wrong of america to go into bosnia and somalia??? i guess not to people because clinton ordered it. id love to see proof how were invading peoples countries... without our aid and military protection that we afford to hundreds of countries, the world would be really up shits creek....meanwhile countries like afghanistan are begging us to keep our military base there.

you should be thanking god theres a country like america out there because without it, another country with all that power might be abusing it.
__________________
NYRangers78 is offline  
Old 04-20-2005, 09:41 AM   #23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 370
Local Time: 02:05 AM
1) I don't believe in God.

2)Yes, the US went into Iraq and not Haiti. I'll give you 2 guesses as to why, but you should only need one. One of the same reasons North Korea will not be invaded. No economic benefit. In terms of their arms, absolutely right. No wonder Iran wants a nuclear program...so that they don't end up like Iraq.

3) You're either not looking at your aid/military critically enough, or you haven't reviewed America's foreign interventions. The only reason much of the world is up shit creek today is because of US and European colonialism and imperialism. Africa, the Caribbean, the poorest parts of the world are getting poorer and they are going further up shit creek because of the dictators often installed by the US, and who were subsequently lent and forced to repay billions of $$$ in debt. US foreign policy post 1950s is perhaps the greatest disaster of the last 50 years. Just do a google search (or search academic journals if you really want good sources), and you will see how American military aid, economic aid and food aid, for example, has been handed out in order to further economic interest. This MO has been detrimental to the third world and is one of the key reasons behind the impoverishment in many parts of the globe. It's military aid has been largely ineffective and has put in as many dictators as its removed democratic gov'ts. It's financial "aid" usually comes in the form of loans from the IMF and World Bank. The debts incurred here are the most crippling financial stumbling blocks for developing economies. Aid is good, but aid comes in many forms, lots of which are detrimental more than they are productive (the food aid, for example).


4)Every US/western war has had political or economic motivations, but they have, naturally, always had to produce a benefit for the invader. America's deeds are not selfless protection. If America were in it to diminish global threats, why did they support Saddam when he gassed the Kurds? Why did the CIA help to overthrow a democratically elected Gov't in Chile and subsequently install a dictator, Augusta Pinochet on September 11, 1973? With all due respect, these are all well documented economic/political moves (and these are bedfollows). If America invaded Iraq to diminish a global threat, where is the threat? Saddam Hussein has no WMD. There's NO evidence that he's had any since the Gulf War. What threat was the war trying to diminish? (Clearly not Saddam the dictator because American foreign intervention installs dictators when it suits the purpose). France for its part in Congo, is no better.


Jon
__________________
Klink is offline  
Old 04-20-2005, 02:10 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klink
I don't believe in God.
Fair enough, not everybody does.

Quote:
Yes, the US went into Iraq and not Haiti. I'll give you 2 guesses as to why, but you should only need one. One of the same reasons North Korea will not be invaded. No economic benefit. In terms of their arms, absolutely right. No wonder Iran wants a nuclear program...so that they don't end up like Iraq.[/B]
The whole talk about economic benefit as a primer for a motivation is nothing more than a myth. This link isn't even that balanced to begin with, and it doesn't agree with you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...879652,00.html

If you look at the facts with Iraq, Hussein revealed that he had plans to compete with Iran on nukes after he was captured and brought under questioning. If Iran didn't want to end up like Iraq, they can prevent military intervention by ending their sponsorship of terrorism to such places as Lebanon, which helped identify them as the world's most leading terrorist sponsor in the State Department annual report. However in recent years, they have attempted to shed their radical image by arresting Al Qaeda operatives from Afghanistan, discontinuing attacks on US targets, and erased the name of the man who assassinated Egypt's president in 1981. Still, it doesn't help that 15,000 people have completed a suicide bomber form entitled, "Preliminary Registration for Martyrdom Operations." Many have found their way into Israel and Iraq.

Quote:
Africa, the Caribbean, the poorest parts of the world are getting poorer and they are going further up shit creek because of the dictators often installed by the US, and who were subsequently lent and forced to repay billions of $$$ in debt.[/B]
Often... care to share how often?

Quote:
Every US/western war has had political or economic motivations, but they have, naturally, always had to produce a benefit for the invader. America's deeds are not selfless protection. If America were in it to diminish global threats, why did they support Saddam when he gassed the Kurds? Why did the CIA help to overthrow a democratically elected Gov't in Chile and subsequently install a dictator, Augusta Pinochet on September 11, 1973? With all due respect, these are all well documented economic/political moves (and these are bedfollows). If America invaded Iraq to diminish a global threat, where is the threat? Saddam Hussein has no WMD. There's NO evidence that he's had any since the Gulf War. What threat was the war trying to diminish? (Clearly not Saddam the dictator because American foreign intervention installs dictators when it suits the purpose). France for its part in Congo, is no better.[/B]
We didn't "support" Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. That wouldn't be far off from saying that Canada "supported" Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. Allende was a marxist. It was widely believed that Allende's "The Chilean Way to Socialism" would have put Chile on the same path as Cuba. However, claims for direct involvement of the actual coup are unproven. Hussein was a global threat, there is no disputing that. He used violence in and out of Iraq. He was more than happy to invade Kuwait and Iran, and if he had WMDs, it is very possible that he would end up using them. Either way, should we care less about the mass murders that were committed without the use of WMDs?

Your argument on resisting North Korea on the grounds of "oil" remains unfounded.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-21-2005, 11:10 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 02:05 AM
Re: North Korea and Kim Jong Il

Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

This thread will discuss further the realities of this strict communist nation, which has been struck with extreme poverty at the government's expense.
n. korea isn't communist. but i will not derail your thread.

the u.s. won't take military action against the dprk for several reasons, namely:
dprk's bloated military capability - an invasion of n. korea would not be a walk in the park like the initial invasion of iraq was. kim jong il would most likely use whatever nuclear arms he has; he would probably fire missiles into japan and the western united states (though, i'm not 100% sure if his ability to reach u.s. soil has ever been verified); and soeul would most likely be devistated. the toll of human life on all sides would be well beyond what we've seen in iraq. i don't think there are enough strategic and economic gains available in n. korea to warrant the sort of nightmare an invasion would bring.
__________________

__________________
Se7en is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com