North Korea - how serious should we take them?

[gadgetmac]

Evangelion said:

gadgetmac said:

Evangelion said:

There's a phrase that may come back to haunt us in future years:

"The mistake of appeasement must not be repeated."

How's "Lets roll up our sleeves and go wading in" been working out for us?

A lot better than appeasement, which at best only delays the start of the war ... and gives the enemy more time to prepare for it.

Yes, of course getting involved has created ISIS (and armed other militias) and led to Libya being the country of choice for millions of refugees to come to europe. It bolstered Al Queda By giving bin laden legitimacy (and arms) only for him to mastermind 9/11. Its also led to thousands dying in afghanistan (some being Brits but the majority being afghans) to remove the taliban only for them to be surging back in most parts of the country with total re-control only being a short time away. In vietnam it acheived what?

You wouldn't mind but by advocating non-appeasement your talking about interferring in other peoples countries here, not your own. What arrogance.

[Evangelion]

gadgetmac said:

... by advocating non-appeasement your talking about interferring in other peoples countries here, not your own. What arrogance.

And where do you think we'd all be now had we thought to ourselves 'we won't interfere, it's someone else's country' in 1939?

[gadgetmac]

Evangelion said:

gadgetmac said:

... by advocating non-appeasement your talking about interferring in other peoples countries here, not your own. What arrogance.

And where do you think we'd all be now had we thought to ourselves 'we won't interfere, it's someone else's country' in 1939?

Yes because pre WW2 Germany is directly equivalent to todays North Korea with its population of 25m half way around the globe from us and the USA.

[skyrover]

Well you could probably argue it's far far worse.

[gadgetmac]

skyrover said:

Well you could probably argue it's far far worse.

Go on then, tell me how. The Germans thought they could win a European war if it came to it and so were not deterred in their quest to expand their borders and flex a little muscle.

Do you think little NK has the same ambitions or indeed any ambitions outside of its own borders?

Yes it would like to unite Korea but then so would SK and the UN.

[Efbe]

Evangelion said:

gadgetmac said:

... by advocating non-appeasement your talking about interferring in other peoples countries here, not your own. What arrogance.

And where do you think we'd all be now had we thought to ourselves 'we won't interfere, it's someone else's country' in 1939?

Evangelion, 1939 is not an equivalent situation. The division of germany into east and west is comparable. This was resolved not by war, sanctions and military muscle, but talking and change from within.

[anonymous-user]

Efbe said:

Evangelion, 1939 is not an equivalent situation. The division of germany into east and west is comparable. This was resolved not by war, sanctions and military muscle, but talking and change from within.

Worse days work ever when the wall came down, we've had nothing but trouble since.

[V8 Fettler]

Efbe said:

Evangelion said:

gadgetmac said:

... by advocating non-appeasement your talking about interferring in other peoples countries here, not your own. What arrogance.

And where do you think we'd all be now had we thought to ourselves 'we won't interfere, it's someone else's country' in 1939?

Evangelion, 1939 is not an equivalent situation. The division of germany into east and west is comparable. This was resolved not by war, sanctions and military muscle, but talking and change from within.

The reunification of Germany was achieved primarily because the Cold War arms race bankrupted the USSR.

[jmorgan]

^^^
Coupled with which you had a nation that had a pretty good idea what was going on and not as oppressed as North Korea and wanted to get across. There was a tipping point where the authorities could not or would not do anything. I imagine that Kim would do one if his population got that antsy.

[Efbe]

jmorgan said:

^^^
Coupled with which you had a nation that had a pretty good idea what was going on and not as oppressed as North Korea and wanted to get across. There was a tipping point where the authorities could not or would not do anything. I imagine that Kim would do one if his population got that antsy.

exactly, which is why as I have been saying you need to promote the change from within, assist in China's attempts to get more mobile technology into the country for dirt cheap and give them a chance to develop.

The berlin wall came down peacefully. The fall out was minimal. There was no war, mass killings/migration etc. It worked well. What do you think would have happened if the US had acted against east germany the way is does against NK?

Show me another situation in which a split country/similar situation turned out well following military intervention.

[jmorgan]

I don’t know the best way to deal with him. The big stick needs to be on show, but the people are suffering here and no doubt weaponised. Probably why he is ruthless with those that speak out internally.

I would not want to be around if a coup happens.

[scherzkeks]

gadgetmac said:

skyrover said:

Well you could probably argue it's far far worse.

Do you think little NK has the same ambitions or indeed any ambitions outside of its own borders?

Heh. Indeed. Where are they going to go anyways? A desire to unite the peninsula is understandable, particularly since it would eliminate a beligerent, foreign military force on their doorstep.

As things currently stand, they are literally surrounded; they would appear more concerned with their existence.

[jmorgan]

Fatty is only concerned with his survival. If he wanted to change it, he could. If he started to change, it would pull the rug from your U.S. aggressors......

I doubt very much the south wants the north in any form at the moment and I doubt China want a financial competitor. All the Chinese have to do is keep the right amount of loon on show to keep the US there.

Edited by jmorgan on Monday 17th July 15:01

[scherzkeks]

jmorgan said:

Fatty is only concerned with his survival. If he wanted to change it, he could.

Same story for nearly any government that does not play ball with the neocolonialists.

He could change it by opening his country to predatory capitalism and turning NK into a vassal state, but why should he have to?

I tried to follow the rest of your post, but every other word appeared to be missing.

[jmorgan]

scherzkeks said:

I tried to follow the rest of your post, but every other word appeared to be missing.

Internet tax on certain words, I was trying to save money.

Fixed now.

[Cobnapint]

scherzkeks said:

...... neocolonialists.

Love it. LOVE IT.

Keep it coming Keks.

[anonymous-user]

I just don't understand the whole brutal dictator thing. I really don't.

When I heard Kim Jong-un had taken over NK, I really thought it was going to be a big step in the right direction. Educated and lived in the West for a number of years and clearly quite worldly.

It looked like an opportunity for the country to move forward in a modern direction.

But no, he goes completely the opposite way in an utterly mental fashion. Beyond anything that was expected. He becomes an absolutely first class, barking mad brutal dictator.

What would be the downside for him if he suddenly scrapped the whole dictator thing, shut down all his weapons programs, let his people have any technology and internet access they wanted, opened up relationships with as many western countries as possible, tried to get a bit of trade and industry going, and just tried to push everything towards an open and pleasant society for his citizens.

Surely it would be better for him to be remembered as the one who turned NK around and made his people like him for the right reasons, rather than be remembered as a total mentalist.

Am I missing something?

[stevesuk]

Lord Marylebone said:

I just don't understand the whole brutal dictator thing. I really don't.

When I heard Kim Jong-un had taken over NK, I really thought it was going to be a big step in the right direction. Educated and lived in the West for a number of years and clearly quite worldly.

It looked like an opportunity for the country to move forward in a modern direction.

But no, he goes completely the opposite way in an utterly mental fashion. Beyond anything that was expected. He becomes an absolutely first class, barking mad brutal dictator.

Could it be that things aren't quite what they seem and he's simply a figure head for the state - told by the leading elite to keep things sweet for them, and in return he can have plenty of burgers and a cushy life? Threatened that if he rocks the boat, he'll end up being tied to a missile?

But that seems improbable too doesn't it?

[Efbe]

stevesuk said:

Lord Marylebone said:

I just don't understand the whole brutal dictator thing. I really don't.

When I heard Kim Jong-un had taken over NK, I really thought it was going to be a big step in the right direction. Educated and lived in the West for a number of years and clearly quite worldly.

It looked like an opportunity for the country to move forward in a modern direction.

But no, he goes completely the opposite way in an utterly mental fashion. Beyond anything that was expected. He becomes an absolutely first class, barking mad brutal dictator.

Could it be that things aren't quite what they seem and he's simply a figure head for the state - told by the leading elite to keep things sweet for them, and in return he can have plenty of burgers and a cushy life? Threatened that if he rocks the boat, he'll end up being tied to a missile?

But that seems improbable too doesn't it?

Actually, why not go back to the main point of this, how bad actually is he compared to his father/grandfather?

Pyongyang seems to be doing well, developing quite well. He has liberalised economics, increasing foreign trade ten fold. He has built many hospitals, schools and gyms apparently. Roads look to be doing better, and communications across the country are improving.

Potentially he is stricter, but how do we know this? It is more common now than 30 years for a NKean to hold an opinion, to talk a bit more openly about NK life etc.

[Cobnapint]

Lord Marylebone said:

I just don't understand the whole brutal dictator thing. I really don't.

When I heard Kim Jong-un had taken over NK, I really thought it was going to be a big step in the right direction. Educated and lived in the West for a number of years and clearly quite worldly.

It looked like an opportunity for the country to move forward in a modern direction.

But no, he goes completely the opposite way in an utterly mental fashion. Beyond anything that was expected. He becomes an absolutely first class, barking mad brutal dictator.

What would be the downside for him if he suddenly scrapped the whole dictator thing, shut down all his weapons programs, let his people have any technology and internet access they wanted, opened up relationships with as many western countries as possible, tried to get a bit of trade and industry going, and just tried to push everything towards an open and pleasant society for his citizens.

Surely it would be better for him to be remembered as the one who turned NK around and made his people like him for the right reasons, rather than be remembered as a total mentalist.

Am I missing something?

You're missing nothing, except if he stopped acting the dick and went down this route of normalisation, free speech and internet access - the Kim's would lose control. And that would never do.