Counterglow Forums  

Go Back   Counterglow Forums > Site Issues > Archive > CounterPoint Archive

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 18-04-2003, 11:24:09   #1
maroule
Intermittent du spectacle
 
maroule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
N. Korea attack, read and discuss

Interesting article, that might have won me over
what do you think?


Now North Korea must be invaded and liberated, for the sake of its people
When 200,000 people are released from a single gulag, it will be like the opening of the gates of Auschwitz
Johann Hari
18 April 2003


The novelist Julian Barnes decided to create a little frisson of fear last week. In a newspaper article, he reminded readers that Tony Blair had explained to MPs that North Korea had to be "dealt with" after the Iraq conflict was over. Barnes then jibed, "Are you getting hot for the next one – the humanitarian attack on Pyongyang?" Oh, the very idea! The notion that any decent human being would want to act in North Korea! The subtext was: See, dear reader, how mad these politicians are compared to us sane, decent folk?

So let's look at North Korea. We imagine that the world has shrunk and even the worst places on earth are only a live broadcast away, yet the sole remaining fully Stalinist state is a dark abyss about which we know very little. There has been almost no access to the country for outsiders for 50 years. The juche ('self-reliance') ideology of the ruling ιlite has sealed the country off from the rest of the human race. This one, strange country of 22 million people was set up by Stalin. While the Soviet Union renounced Stalin in the Fifties and collapsed altogether in 1991, this nation persisted with Uncle Joe's policies for decade after decade while the world looked elsewhere.

But a crack in the seal of North Korean tyranny has opened, allowing us a glimpse into a world we had not imagined. Over 300,000 brave North Koreans have risked death and traversed dangerous mountains and jungles to flee to China, and are trying to tell the world about what they have escaped from. Aid agencies too have had a tiny glimpse of the country. Far too few of us have bothered to listen.

Terrified refugees have explained that the country is filled with "detention centres" – or, as they can more properly be described, gulags. Their prisoners are primarily homeless people who have fled their towns and villages in a desperate search for food. Amnesty International has described the conditions in these prisons for the non-criminal: "20 to 50 people are crammed into a small room and given a tiny amount of food each day. Many people are reported to have died of hunger and disease in such places... [There is] a detention place in Chongjin in the east of the country where the detainees were only fed once a day with cakes made out of corn stalks. They were forced to work all day and were held in such cramped conditions that they had to sleep standing up. [One former inmate] said that after one week at least three of his cell-mates had died."

Award-winning journalists at the NBC network have documented the existence of a gulag in the far north of the country which holds 200,000 men, women and children accused of "political crimes". At "Camp 22" in Haengyong, 50,000 prisoners toil every day – and a quarter of them die every year. Whole families are imprisoned for even the most bland political statements. Forced abortions – even in the eighth month of pregnancy – are common, according to Human Rights Without Frontiers, as is infanticide.

Many of the refugees had been so brainwashed by the regime that they believed the entire world looked up to Kim Jong Il as a hero and North Korea as a paradise. The psychosis of the leader cannot be overstated. Japanese film-makers who were kidnapped by Kim's security services and held as his prisoner for years explain that he appears to think that Western action films are an accurate representation of life in America. All baby triplets born in the country are seized from their parents and held in state orphanages because they are considered "lucky".

Starvation is endemic in North Korea because of the government's catastrophic economic system. Amnesty offers the conservative estimate that 10 per cent of the population – 2 million people – have died since 1994 from hunger. Many refugees argue that a quarter of the people they know (which would mean 5 million people) have starved to death. There are widespread reports that people have resorted to eating grass, the bark of trees, rats and even human flesh. (While this was happening, Kim Jong Il has spent over £300m on weaponry.)

It is tempting to argue that the solution to the horrific suffering in this country is to flood it with humanitarian aid – but the people who have tried that very tactic say that it does not work. Medicin Sans Frontiθres withdrew their aid efforts in 1998 when it became clear the regime was using their food supplies to prop up the regime and award its supporters. Most refugees say they never saw a drop of food aid – despite almost one million tonnes flooding into the country every year since 1994.

And aid, of course, cannot deal with the human rights abuses. The Clinton administration – in conjunction with the South Korean government – tried to engage the regime in dialogue in the hope that ending its isolation would cause it to liberalise. But the humanitarian situation deteriorated during engagement, and the North blatantly broke its agreement not to develop nuclear weapons. The diplomatic route – which Colin Powell is trying to relaunch next week when he meets with the North's neighbour, China – might deal with WMD, but would do nothing about the human rights abuses. Does anyone think in all conscience that we should deal only with the bomb factories, and ignore the human rights abuses? No, no, no. America's fear about WMD should be directed to do some wider good.

The nations of the world united through the UN (and we can all surely agree that Kim Jong Il is the last person alive who we'd like to have his finger on a nuclear button) must take out the North's nukes with a targeted use of special forces, intelligence and bombing. This is not as dangerous as it sounds. As Chris Bellamy, The Independent's military expert, explains, "A nuclear weapon won't detonate if bombed. If it goes off accidentally, the worst that will happen is that the conventional explosives will go off. The chances of a nuclear explosion are negligible."

North Korea – if the regime doesn't implode – can then be invaded and liberated. It should be pointed out that the British government is sceptical of this solution. A Downing Street source explains: "It is politically impossible for an American President to sell a military engagement in Asia after Vietnam. It can't be done, and we're not expecting an invasion of the North." But what better option is there for the people of North Korea? Doesn't anybody care about them?

When North Korea is eventually opened up – when 200,000 people are released from a single gulag – the effect on world opinion will be like the opening of the gates of Auschwitz. We will ask in agonised introspection how we could have stood by and done nothing while this level of suffering was inflicted on our fellow human beings. And we will look at articles like Julian Barnes's – which try to claim the moral high ground for smug inaction – with contempt. Any decision today to stand by while the people of North Korea are butchered, battered and starved will be – to coin a phrase – Not in My Name.
maroule is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 11:47:59   #2
Mightytree
Bat
 
Mightytree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cuba
Good article.

In my eyes NK is a whole different matter than the Middle East anyway. If in the future the US and its allies decide to invade and liberate NK, it'd be hard to argue against it. I'd probably support it.
__________________
"OldWarrior, you are a royal bastard. And you suck!"
--Darkstar
Mightytree is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 12:09:49   #3
Scabrous Birdseed
for your usergroup and post count
 
Scabrous Birdseed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Among the clouds
Johann Hari is the token "naive pro-interventionist liberal" at the Independent, he constantly comes up with articles like this, basically stating the belief that: a. the US's main aim in the world is to uphold human rights and liberate people, b. We nice, neo-colonial westerners can help the poor tyrranised people of the third world by carpet-bombing them and c. order, democracy and harmony can be created through an escalating spiral of imperialist aggression. It's a bit like the sweet, innocent little child being lured away by the dirty old man to eventually be raped and killed.
__________________
Birdseed's Tunedown
Scabrous Birdseed is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 12:11:30   #4
Venom
Look out behind you!
 
Venom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rudolph's stable
Surely we can't invade them. We got hell for it this time around, and like that British guy said, people in America would freak about another Vietnam.
__________________
TO MY BALLS!!!!!
or
TO LazyView!!!!

Venom is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 12:20:23   #5
The Mad Monk
The REAL Nick Fury!
 
The Mad Monk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier
http://1stopkorea.com/nk-trip1.htm

A view of the 'good' side of North Korea.
__________________
At least he died doing what he loved. Insulting someone else's mother.

I will crush you. With happy little apples.

I am a happy little sig. virus. Please put me in your happy little sig. so I can continue to happily replicate. A little.

The Mad Monk is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 12:30:38   #6
LoD
The Human Banning Rod.
 
LoD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: No longer Freudtown
First of all, I laughed at "dear reader" (last sentence, first paragraph).
I can't say I have learned anything new from this article, or that it has changed my mind on any issue.
I always supported a potential liberation of North Korea - as opposed to invading Iraq. Generally, for three reasons:
-North Korea has no significant natural resources, AFAIK, so any attacking force wouldn't be accused of waging war to secure its own interests.
-the humanitarian situation in NK is much worse than in Iraq.
-Iraq was lately under total control of the international community, it was not possible, in practical terms, that the regime would utilise any kind of force (including ABC) anywhere. NK is totally out of control in that terms.

However, currently, there is a problem - history has shown that American populace is rather resentful towards waging a series of wars. Currently (ie. in the next decade), if ever, a war against NK involving American forces is impossible, and I think this is a MAJOR fuck-up of the Washington administration.
__________________
Austrian english would be completely different. It sounds like a nasal record player on sedatives.
--Dyl
LoD is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 12:33:49   #7
The Mad Monk
The REAL Nick Fury!
 
The Mad Monk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier
You mean NBC, don't you?

ABC hasn't been good since the late seventies.
__________________
At least he died doing what he loved. Insulting someone else's mother.

I will crush you. With happy little apples.

I am a happy little sig. virus. Please put me in your happy little sig. so I can continue to happily replicate. A little.

The Mad Monk is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 12:35:17   #8
maroule
Intermittent du spectacle
 
maroule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
very good site, MM

Venom
"We got hell for it this time around"
I hadn't noticed you cared, and this time 1) nobody can accuse you of stealing natural resources (there are none) 2) you won't have to look for evidences of WMD, they already admitted on having them 3) human right abuses are evn worse

"America would freak about another Vietnam"
Possibly, and you're better placed than I to judge. However there are already plenty US soldiers active in Asia (notably in the Philipines), and the historical comparison would be with the Korean war, not the Vietnam one.

Scabrous : I hear what you say. However, let's imagine a me too Hitler with only one difference (not external attacks). Isn't there a genuine moral duty to intervene? Arn't our failures to intervene during the Pol Pot genocide, or the Hutu-Tutsi genocide the greatest moral failures of the 20th century (even ahead of the jew genocide, since these times we knew about them and ad seen precedents)? Isn't there a logical point in saying that little Kim is today the closest you could get of Stalin/Hitler?

Anyway, there is one single reason why it won't happen : China won't allow it. (I rank that above the other obvious reason 'the US are not that interested in freeing all the oppressed people on earth, after all')
maroule is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 13:01:46   #9
Venom
Look out behind you!
 
Venom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rudolph's stable
Not so much me, I sure didn't care. But I think a large number of people would be swayed by another round of massive resistance. I believe the American people are closer to an isolationist attitude than you think. I wonder what the S. Korean's would say to all this. A possible re-unification war?

Obviously the parallel is the Korean war, but the uneducated masses in America (led by the seemingly uneducated media) won't bother to make a distinction. Hell if Iraq was supposed to be Vietnam, certainly an honest to god Asian country is an even better comparison to make. Add on to that the fact that the Korean War is called the Forgotten War for a reason and you end up with even more confused people. Then there's the whole China factor. If your making Korean War parallel's you can't leave them out.
__________________
TO MY BALLS!!!!!
or
TO LazyView!!!!

Venom is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 13:09:58   #10
LoD
The Human Banning Rod.
 
LoD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: No longer Freudtown
I second Venom. A potential NK war will be associated with Vietnam, and not the first Korean war (which wasn't a walk in the park either...).
__________________
Austrian english would be completely different. It sounds like a nasal record player on sedatives.
--Dyl
LoD is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 13:54:10   #11
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Difficult to consider without SK onboard.
GP is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 14:26:29   #12
Colon
prima!
 
Colon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Antwerpen
Something I find very interesting is that one big argument for dealing with North Korea diplomatically is that it has too much ability to do damage. (artillery within firing range of Seoul and possibly nuclear armed) That's pretty much the same reasoning France and Britain used when they had to deal with Nazi-Germany. South Korea might not get along with? Well Britain and France also didn't have any support from the US and Russia only as an untrustworthy partner.

It's rather odd that 'Old Europe' is chided for forgetting the lessons of WW2 while Iraq is far less comparable to Nazi-Germany than NK is.
Colon is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 14:32:36   #13
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Oh...geezus. Are you still trying to justify 1930's appeasement? Even maroule agrees that, that was wrong. He just doesn't buy the analogy to Iraq. But you. You keep wanting to justify it as the proper course.

Really, I think you have got your pride hurt.
GP is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 15:12:42   #14
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
GP, honest: are you doing this on purpose, or do you really misunderstand?
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 15:14:52   #15
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
And Maroule: No pasaran? Who? Where to? And how can you reconcile that with Maroulism?
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 16:56:50   #16
Colon
prima!
 
Colon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Antwerpen
Quote:
Originally posted by GP
Oh...geezus. Are you still trying to justify 1930's appeasement? Even maroule agrees that, that was wrong. He just doesn't buy the analogy to Iraq. But you. You keep wanting to justify it as the proper course.

Really, I think you have got your pride hurt.
Come on GP, that's really a cheap troll. Get your act together, would ya?
Colon is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 17:12:26   #17
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
It's not just a troll, Colon. There is a point there. It goes right back to what we talked about in the other thread. When we were talking about the appeasement issue (which you have raised anew). You made comments supporting the appeasement (there wasn't anything they could do, etc. you've repeated them in this thread.) That is a very different argument from saying that you don't find Saddam a threat. It's also interesting to see your logic here. You really do seem interested in defending 1930's appeasement. Even saying that if we (the US) doesn't invade NK, that we are like 1930's appeasers. WTF?
GP is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 17:14:48   #18
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
GP, honest: are you doing this on purpose, or do you really misunderstand?
I have a point here, Roland. Refer back to the other thread to see it.

(FYI: I would respect you a lot more if you just said "I was mistaken" in the Bagdhad thread, instead of "It seemed". I really do like the honesty of the scientist over the sophistry of the lawyer.)
GP is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 17:33:24   #19
Colon
prima!
 
Colon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Antwerpen
Quote:
Originally posted by GP
It's not just a troll, Colon. There is a point there. It goes right back to what we talked about in the other thread. When we were talking about the appeasement issue (which you have raised anew). You made comments supporting the appeasement (there wasn't anything they could do, etc. you've repeated them in this thread.) That is a very different argument from saying that you don't find Saddam a threat. It's also interesting to see your logic here. You really do seem interested in defending 1930's appeasement. Even saying that if we (the US) doesn't invade NK, that we are like 1930's appeasers. WTF?
Ok then, if you're not trolling, then at least try to understand that I did not say I support the appeasement. I said that it's overly simplistic to call them cowards because that ignores the intractable situation they were in. And that same intractable situation is also why any comparison of the appeasers to the opposers of the war against Iraq is nonsense.
Quite frankly, if there's anything that hurts my pride, it's you when you don't want to understand what I'm saying.
Colon is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 17:48:20   #20
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
"I have a point here, Roland. Refer back to the other thread to see it."

That you already misunderstood what Colon said back then.

"I would respect you a lot more if you just said "I was mistaken" in the Bagdhad thread, instead of "It seemed"."

I did not expect the Iraqis to simply fold, so I was mistaken. That's pretty much just rephrasing what I said, but if it makes you happy...

"I really do like the honesty of the scientist over the sophistry of the lawyer."

I'm getting tired of that dead horse, especially as your arguing style is a lot closer to sophistry than mine.
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 19:05:59   #21
RedFred
Living life .05 hours at a time
 
RedFred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Slowly succumbing to a more powerful culture
I don't disagree that NK is a more logical target for 'regime change' than Iraq and one with less downside in the long run. The surrounding countries are politically stable and freeing the world of Kim is unlikely to cause an increase in anti-western terrorism. But what about logistics and cost? Even without the Vietnam experience does the US have the resources to attack Korea?

Not only are US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan there are even some still stationed in the former Yugoslavia. The Iraqi campaign alone is costing big $$$. I bet the US wants to get its troops out of Iraq as soon as it can. But that will take months if not years. Besides the US is already making belligerent noises towards Syria.

Much as I am critical of the US attack on Iraq, there is something to be said for having UN weapons inspectors scour the country to make sure that they didn't have any really powerful weapons to hit back with. Also handy from an intelligence standpoint to know every last possible target beforehand.

This won't be possible in N. Korea. Worse still, a troop build up over several months prior to invading might make Kim's button finger itchy. You'd almost have to operate with a secret lightning quick strike. Just a really dangerous idea in so many ways.

Another thing: the 'Axis of Evil' speech may have been accurate but it was also provocative. Kim junior is even more psycho and paranoid than his father. I am sure when he heard it he thought that he was next on the list.

One of my biggist concerns is that the whole treatment of Iraq will inspire other crackpot dictators to develop their own bomb. Bush's unspoken and unintended message in all this might have been that if you are a nuclear power you will get treated with a whole lot more respect than if you don't have the bomb.
RedFred is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 19:21:15   #22
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
"I have a point here, Roland. Refer back to the other thread to see it."

That you already misunderstood what Colon said back then.
I disagree. I know that maroule said that I was unfairly characterizing Colon's comments. But I saw a difference in the two cases.

1. There were several comments where Colon seemed to be excusing the appeasement. (Similar to the ones in this thread about not having support from the US or Russia.) If you want me to get all Berzie, I can dig them up...

2. He did not directly answer my question about the difference in excusing the appeasement of the 30's and claiming the analogy was not apt, because Saddam is less of a threat.

(But anyway, you've resolved your question of whether I misunderstand him or whether I am being duplicious. )



Quote:
"I would respect you a lot more if you just said "I was mistaken" in the Bagdhad thread, instead of "It seemed"."

I did not expect the Iraqis to simply fold, so I was mistaken. That's pretty much just rephrasing what I said, but if it makes you happy...


Yes. I would also add that in your dillema, you left out other means of combat, raids at specific points to seize command and control. Allowed by our top-down view of the battle-field that in some cases let us know better than them where there troops are and our ability to rapidly concentrate forces without them knowing about it.

Also, I think that there is a gradation of resistance from "fighting to the last man, independantly" to "giving up". And we had tools in the bag to deal with more serious resistance, than what we saw.
GP is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 19:26:08   #23
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
"I would also add that in your dillema, you left out other means of combat, raids at specific points to seize command and control."

We don't know their effectiveness as it did not come to that. I still think that even a third world army like Itaq's could put up an urban fight.

Probably we will have that question answered in Damascus.
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 19:36:57   #24
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
"I would also add that in your dillema, you left out other means of combat, raids at specific points to seize command and control."

We don't know their effectiveness as it did not come to that. I still think that even a third world army like Itaq's could put up an urban fight.

Probably we will have that question answered in Damascus.
1. Agreed. But there are tools in the bag. options, etc. I wouldn't make it a certainty that we will have to refight the Russian/German city battles of WW2, when we have very different forces (air superiority, fast-roping air-mobile troops, etc.) Or that Syria might not have many of the dynamics of Iraq. (I don't really know here, though. How much do they love/hate their dictator in comparison to Iraq? Does he have more support? Does he do a better job of wearing the matle of Islam?)

2. Damascus??? Do you know something I don't? Just got a call from a recruiter to come back to the Navy...
GP is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 19:47:09   #25
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
The US had total air superiority in most of the fights with the germans, and used it. The results were not pretty.

The syrian regime is quite similar. A rival faction of the Baath party, just that in Syria the shiite minority is in control. Assad should be better at playing arab nationalism, as Syria has only small non-arab minorities. The countryside is a bit better suited for defenders, and the military is not starved like Iraq's. Also, Syria could easily drag the Israelis into the war.

Will Syria be next? Who knows. I've given up on predicting the specific ways of the insanity of this administration.
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 20:00:30   #26
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
There is a difference in the nature of the air superiorities though. I think the classical meaning would be, "Our fighters have swept their fighters from the sky, so we can fly at will." The difference is that nowadays, we can do a lot more with that air superiority. We can gather much better intelligence. Can move forces around the map. Can support infantry better.

Basically, the cartoon version is that we have a spotlight on the enemy. But he is in the dark about us. That plus ability to concentrate forces.

You can argue how much of a Rumsfeldian, one should be. But it seems like there are some advantages to this type of war and some efficacy in the vision.

Me--I'm agnostic. If the "transformation" gives advantages use 'em. If you need to use more old-style tactics/strategy use them. The forces actually still retain a lot of flexability.

(I just don't like the idea floating around to have "streetfighter" ships. These would be essentially Perry-class frigates revisited. The advantage of a lower draft or of higher speed are actually pretty minimal. Current cruisers/destroyers can operate quite well within the litoralls...)
GP is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 20:10:56   #27
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
The military toys are impressive. And the US outspends Syria 100:1. The question is how useful is all this under the constraints of taking a city with limited losses of civilians and own soldiers. I have no idea how this would play out.

There are some odd things about Baghdad. Eg it looks like the Iraqis didn't even have simple anti-tank weapons.
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 20:15:16   #28
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Me neither, Roland. But if we have to do it, we will do our best to try to come up with sneaky ways to fight the battle the way we want to. Doesn't mean we will always be successful. But we will try to create internal schisms. To prep the battlefield with leaflets and such. To cloak our movements. To win the battle, the way Alexander the Great preferred to win his (by killing the head general/head of state of the opposing armies) Etc. Etc.
GP is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 20:28:01   #29
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
"by killing the head general/head of state of the opposing armies"

If NK becomes a target, George will better beef up his own security.
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 20:43:11   #30
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Not sure how to take your comment, but anyway...

1. Nobody has laid the groundwork for us to go into NK, right now. It seems to have been pushed by the people who didn't want to go into Iraq. (I.e. say that we ought to attack NK to dissuade the attack on Iraq...not out of really serious desire to go into NK.). Who knows, down the road of course...

2. The idea of taking out a head of state/oppostiing general is a very old one. With a lot behind it.

3. It would have limited effect on the US because of the way that we delegate a lot of decision-making down. And because we have an orderly method of succession. And because it would increase public sympathy towards a war rather than decrease it (as in a dictatorship).

4. Security is tight. I walked by the White House shortly before the war started...
GP is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 21:55:45   #31
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
Just that Kim's regime will seek to play that game, too.
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 22:16:45   #32
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Sure. It's a much more global point though, than the direct threat to the man...and how that will affect actions. The point is that we will do our best to strike the "center of gravity". I.e. we will fight (anywhere) in a method designed to remove the key block supporting the structure. If the grid is the key thing, than that. If the man is the key thing than that. Etc. Etc.

------

And how did we migrate from taking out Assad to taking out Kim...? I thought we were what-iffing Damascus?
GP is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 22:28:32   #33
Koshko
...
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
China would probably go after him before us.
Koshko is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 22:43:27   #34
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
"And how did we migrate from taking out Assad to taking out Kim...?"

By guessing what the Bushies are up to next.
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 18-04-2003, 23:00:05   #35
GP
member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Those evil Bushies...
GP is offline  
Old 19-04-2003, 03:55:18   #36
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
Ahem.

A possible factor? China would not be afraid of a Vietnam, if they could have assurances that nukes could not be used against them. How long do you think the NK could hold out against the PRC?

OTOH, how could they ever be assured, and why would they want to?
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 19-04-2003, 05:59:03   #37
The Mad Monk
The REAL Nick Fury!
 
The Mad Monk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier
Location, location, location.

One major reason Iraq was considered more dangerous than NK. I am not talking about what it could directly attack, though that does have a part. Iraq's central location also permitted our enemies to meet and plan, and move personel and supplies through the mideast virtually risk-free. Doing those things is now significantly more difficult.
__________________
At least he died doing what he loved. Insulting someone else's mother.

I will crush you. With happy little apples.

I am a happy little sig. virus. Please put me in your happy little sig. so I can continue to happily replicate. A little.

The Mad Monk is offline  
Old 19-04-2003, 07:29:47   #38
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
Huh?
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 19-04-2003, 07:31:27   #39
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
Not to mention that the US Army now has heavy ground forces adjacent to Iran, Syria, and SA.

Hmmm, I wonder which was more important, deny terrorists a country to fly around, or put troops on the ground near the sponsers of the terrorists?
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 19-04-2003, 07:37:15   #40
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
"put troops on the ground near the sponsers of the terrorists?"

In that case, the US should have redeployed in Afghanistan and asked India for basing rights.

Maybe it has more to do with putting troops on the ground near the 2/3rds of the world's oil reserves?
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 19-04-2003, 07:38:09   #41
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
And btw, won't we get a happy democratic Iraq with US troops withdrawing as soon as possible?
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 19-04-2003, 07:48:26   #42
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
Errrmmm. I don't think Pakistan borders the country that 99.5% of the hijackers came from. Or was that 100%? I can't remember.

If you didn't like what has come so far, cover your eyes and ears. You sure as hell won't like what's coming.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 19-04-2003, 07:56:40   #43
The Mad Monk
The REAL Nick Fury!
 
The Mad Monk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier
I have always considered our invasion of Iraq to have more to do with Syria, Iran, and, yes, Saudi Arabia, than with Iraq.
__________________
At least he died doing what he loved. Insulting someone else's mother.

I will crush you. With happy little apples.

I am a happy little sig. virus. Please put me in your happy little sig. so I can continue to happily replicate. A little.

The Mad Monk is offline  
Old 19-04-2003, 08:01:48   #44
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
I think it has more to do with the House of Saud than any others, to be honest. They thought they were untouchable. They thought they could give money to the mad men and have no taint on themselves.

What are they thinking now?
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 19-04-2003, 08:03:28   #45
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
"I don't think Pakistan borders the country that 99.5% of the hijackers came from."

I have no idea how this fabrication of Saddam and Osama being one happy couple made it into your heads. Were they using Iraqi air space? Did they have bases in Iraq, apart from one nutty group in the kurd controlled north? Of course not.

"If you didn't like what has come so far, cover your eyes and ears. You sure as hell won't like what's coming."

Oh I'll still watch, I don't have the rightwinger ability to build a fantasy world along ideology. Bush and his ilk have given a huge gift to islamist terror, and I assume they have further donations up their sleeves.

"opening the gates of hell" - flowery, but not that far from the truth...
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 19-04-2003, 08:05:05   #46
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
"What are they thinking now?"

You think the Bushies would invade Saudi Arabia?
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 19-04-2003, 08:12:22   #47
The Mad Monk
The REAL Nick Fury!
 
The Mad Monk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier
You have to pay closer attention.

I've said many times, once we had Iraq, we wouldn't need Saudi.

What do you think I was saying?

No. Not Invasion. Invasion won't be necessary.
__________________
At least he died doing what he loved. Insulting someone else's mother.

I will crush you. With happy little apples.

I am a happy little sig. virus. Please put me in your happy little sig. so I can continue to happily replicate. A little.

The Mad Monk is offline  
Old 19-04-2003, 08:14:34   #48
Dyl Ulenspiegel
voorvechter van modernearchitectuur
 
Dyl Ulenspiegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rotterdam
"once we had Iraq, we wouldn't need Saudi."

Hmm... first, why do you "need" Saudi at all? Do you share the view that this a war about oil?

Second, what are the consequences of you not needing the Sauds? Why would that make them clamp down on Islamism?
__________________
Dyl Ulenspiegel is offline  
Old 19-04-2003, 08:14:43   #49
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
Open the Gates of Hell?

I think that is exactly what the Yanks are after, partially. Bring the enemies out into the open. Drop the bull shit. Drop the pretenses of friendship while the scum who blow up civvies while in civvies are funded by the 'friends'.

I don't think you understand NA, Dyl. Not just the US. The reality of the situation struck home too well on 9/11. Now, maybe some people, somewhere, would have worn it, and tried to get along as if nothing had changed. That is not, however, what the Yanks are going to do when you blow up the biggest buildings in their biggest city.

Islamism wanted a war? OK. The Islamists and any who support them have got one. They sowed the wind. Now they reap the whirlwind.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
Old 19-04-2003, 08:16:58   #50
notyoueither
a loyal subject
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: What was the subject?
Quote:
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
"What are they thinking now?"

You think the Bushies would invade Saudi Arabia?
Who would have imagined Iraq, today, 2 years ago?
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. He owns your soul!
notyoueither is offline  
 
Forum Jump

Thread Tools
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



All times are GMT. The time now is 00:02:42.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© Counterglow 2001-2012. All rights reserved.