PDA

View Full Version : N. Korea says sanctions mean WAR!


peter2002
Jan 7, 2003, 12:50 AM
Y'all listen now. We N. Korearns gots nukes. Can you hear us you imperalists Yankees? Now, if you don't give us some more of that free diesel for our scooters and that tasty genetically modified corn that goes good with goats' milk we'is going to make mushroom clouds over Seoul and Tokio. Y'all hear what we'is sayin'?

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030107_393.html
____________________________________________________

Jeez, those NKs don't have a pot to "wee-in", and they are trying to black mail us like some thugs on the Sopranos. Get real. Our nukes are 1000X bigger than yours. Our MM missle can reach a yield of 30-50 megatons. My buddy in the Air Force says that will blast a crator 30 miles wide, 1 mile deep, and vaporize everything in 50 mile radius, kill everything within 100 miles from radiation poisoning within 7 days. 6 nukes would level N. Korea in 5 minutes from the nuclear sub sitting off your shores right now.

Pete :D

MacBandit
Jan 7, 2003, 01:28 AM
Nuclear war no matter how lite you make of it is very scary business. Is NK buddy buddy with China? If we go to war with NK who else are we facing?

Thanatoast
Jan 7, 2003, 04:41 AM
If we start throwing nukes around, we'll be facing everybody. The question is not if the rest of the world will be pissed, but how pissed. I was discussing this just tonight with some friends. Does anyone here think that the UN would finally stand up and tell us no? Or would they just cave?

peter2002
Jan 7, 2003, 06:27 AM
The US leaders have been saying this is not a crisis and diplomacy will solve the problem.

However, NK has been farting loud and chanting war, war, war, and basically death to America every turn they can. It is the NK crack-pot leaders that are digging they own grave.

Personally, I think Japan should take care of this problem. Former Emperor Hirohito ran sacked Korea from 1910-1945. That is why such a crack pot is running NK. Just read your history book. Unlike Germany, Japan has never paid any war reparations to any one.

Pete

diorio
Jan 7, 2003, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
If we start throwing nukes around, we'll be facing everybody. The question is not if the rest of the world will be pissed, but how pissed. I was discussing this just tonight with some friends. Does anyone here think that the UN would finally stand up and tell us no? Or would they just cave?

The UN is weak. The US can pretty much do whatever, and the UN can say no, but can't really do anything about it.

GeneR
Jan 7, 2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by peter2002
The US leaders have been saying this is not a crisis and diplomacy will solve the problem.

However, NK has been farting loud and chanting war, war, war, and basically death to America every turn they can. It is the NK crack-pot leaders that are digging they own grave.

Personally, I think Japan should take care of this problem. Former Emperor Hirohito ran sacked Korea from 1910-1945. That is why such a crack pot is running NK. Just read your history book. Unlike Germany, Japan has never paid any war reparations to any one.

Pete

True N. Korea has been crying war for quite some time. Try almost fifty years! But I agree with another opinion: It's not about getting the NK's, but rather what the chain reaction of events that will occur around the world. We have the extremists out there are simply want to say the US is evil. Well, my friend, kicking NK's ass is just going to prove that point and validate the terrorists' cause.

And yes, I have read a bit of history on both Korea and Japan.

Additionally, regarding NK's history: Yes, the Japanese occupied Korean for 35+ years. But come on... a great deal of money that NK needs comes from Japan. And even if it is private citizens doing such work or even NK spies (as it is commonly believed in some circles), the fact remains that Japan has traditionally a greater stake in seeing Korea divided.

Korea is very much like the USA in terms of natural resources. Agri is mid to south, with minerals more in the north. Since Japan imports so much of its resources, it would be in a real bind to see a unified Korea as a competitor. Both NK and SK working together would be economically a much stronger country in many respects and more of a competitive threat to Japan. But then again, that's why Japan's always been at odds with the Korean peninsula.

Additionally, like I said before about the flow of money: for Japan to move against NK means it is also risking terror from within its own borders at the hands of NK sympathizers. If money is already coming from Japan to NK, vice versa can also occur regarding weapons of mass destruction. Despite the fifty years, there is still a lot of people in Eastern Asian who "dislike" the Japanese. I think the Japanese understand that fact. I think both SK and NK understand that too.

Honestly, I really don't even know why on a MacRumors board we are having this discussion at all. Isn't this board for simply sharing rumors?

Huh. :confused:

barkmonster
Jan 7, 2003, 06:28 PM
The thing that strikes me about this whole situation is that trade sanctions mean only 2 things to a country.

less export to countries imposing the sanctions and little to no imports from those same countries.

less imports mean less import tax, that's lost money and a large percentage of the world not buying their goods would damage the economy of any country.

It's all about money. If country A needs country B to buy it's products and will lose money if it doesn't then why would country A want to do anything as extreme as trying to destroy country B if it refuses trade?

The same logic is true if country A relies on a resource from country B.

Also, the quote's in the article appear to be from a spokes person from a korean media network. The most obvious interpretation, for me at least is that it's the words of a pundit and not some kind of offical statement from the leader(s) of North Korea.

GeneR
Jan 7, 2003, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by barkmonster
The thing that strikes me about this whole situation is that trade sanctions mean only 2 things to a country.

less export to countries imposing the sanctions and little to no imports from those same countries.

less imports mean less import tax, that's lost money and a large percentage of the world not buying their goods would damage the economy of any country.

It's all about money. If country A needs country B to buy it's products and will lose money if it doesn't then why would country A want to do anything as extreme as trying to destroy country B if it refuses trade?

The same logic is true if country A relies on a resource from country B.

Also, the quote's in the article appear to be from a spokes person from a korean media network. The most obvious interpretation, for me at least is that it's the words of a pundit and not some kind of offical statement from the leader(s) of North Korea.

What really makes me wonder is how China (communist big brother to NK) can be able to advance technologically in such a short time, while allowing its backwards "younger brother" remain as the pittbull to keep capitalistic democracies like the US at bay, AND the NK not seeing how much more than could actually progress if they went the other way with their markets?

Yes, people are starving in NK. What's sad is that it isn't plutonium but people -- the human factor -- which are the assets of any nation. Train the people to think and grow and you have more potential for prosperity than anywhere.

But what about this fact? The intelligencia of any nation are the visionaries that allow a country (hopefully) to come up with a better understanding of their own identities. This occurs through art, political reforms, economic policies. NK would be in a much better spot if they did start following the former Iron Curtain and started opening themselves up to a capitalistic economy. What their people would be able to learn might save them, and forge future cooperation between all nations and NK.

The ties that bind NK seem to be the struggle to hold on to political power from the looks of it. But if there are new factors -- such as economic prosperity -- that become more compelling arguments than leaders like NK's would be able to see these new options, exploit them and take the credit for bringing NK into the next century. We've seen this happen in other countries, why not NK? Hmmm.

Kethoticus
Jan 8, 2003, 10:45 AM
Nuclear war no matter how lite you make of it is very scary business. Is NK buddy buddy with China? If we go to war with NK who else are we facing?
My theory is this: China wants a direct confrontation with the US no more then the US wants a direct confrontation with it. China may be trying to hit us indirectly, through terrorism and such. Quite frankly, I'm surprised China hasn't nuked us through a terrorist yet. But I digress.

China would probably yell and scream and apply all sorts of diplomatic pressure on us if we went to war with NK, but I don't believe they'd get directly involved--in spite of their recent mutual cooperation pact with NK. The same for Russia. They know what would happen if they did--mass destruction for everyone involved.


Someone here somewhere wrote something to the effect that if we attacked NK, we'd just be giving the terrorists fuel for their fire, so to speak. The problem with that argument is that if we defend ourselves against a direct attack, they'll paint it as an offensive, imperialistic operation. If we supply humanitarian aid, they'll paint us as people who don't care because we aren't doing nearly enough and then blame us for every evil in that nation.

You can not make foreign policy decisions based on what your enemies might say about you.

GeneR
Jan 8, 2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Kethoticus

My theory is this: China wants a direct confrontation with the US no more then the US wants a direct confrontation with it. China may be trying to hit us indirectly, through terrorism and such. Quite frankly, I'm surprised China hasn't nuked us through a terrorist yet. But I digress.

China would probably yell and scream and apply all sorts of diplomatic pressure on us if we went to war with NK, but I don't believe they'd get directly involved--in spite of their recent mutual cooperation pact with NK. The same for Russia. They know what would happen if they did--mass destruction for everyone involved.


Someone here somewhere wrote something to the effect that if we attacked NK, we'd just be giving the terrorists fuel for their fire, so to speak. The problem with that argument is that if we defend ourselves against a direct attack, they'll paint it as an offensive, imperialistic operation. If we supply humanitarian aid, they'll paint us as people who don't care because we aren't doing nearly enough and then blame us for every evil in that nation.

You can not make foreign policy decisions based on what your enemies might say about you.

I agree, Kethoticus. It sounds like dealing with a foreign power whether they be N.K. or terrorists from some religious extremist group, that the object of spin/the propaganda wars that they use are always going to be coercive tactics to sway the rest of the world about their image of the U.S. or any other ally. Most probably the U.S.

And yes, I would think that a country shouldn't make foreign policy decisions based on what your enemies might say about you.

Nevertheless, these sort of situations such as the standoff with NK is always seems to be a rather complicated puzzle. And I really do believe that spin is important. I think of it as a tennis game between nations/groups -- each side/country volleying to get points which will sway their own people to get behind their policies.

Q1: Who's telling the truth here? If you don't believe GW, than is the "Axis of Evil" title pinned on NK motivated due to his political need to promote himself as a war president since people are so unhappy with his domestic policies? Is he simply looking for another distraction to keep peoples' minds off the economy?

And if he isn't doing this for that reason, then what is the real threat and how should it be handled? Is the nuclear bomb technology coming from/going to NK? Or is there some other techno threat driving this agenda?

Q2: Are there other issues in play here that have not been publicly discussed or considered -- such as GW's track record with the NK which stopped the goodwill endeavorers begun by the last SK president? This policy might have really opened up NK if more economic exchanges were allowed to grow.

Who knows? Hope this situation doesn't escalate...

:p