N. Korea Threatens to Attack S. Korea over Leaflets

[Blue Meanie]

Despite whatever rhetoric comes out of N Korea, it suits em to be insular, and they will gain nothing from any real threats, or moves towards the south. They do need aid, and without they would frankly be goofed, but all the bluster is simply to garner this aid. I'd rather just give them the aid to shut them up, and let them do whatever they wish. The danger, I think, is that the leaders of N Korea, whichever one, are seen as a bit of an emporer, and like Japan, they could fight until the bitter end. It's hard to tell.

[Blue Meanie]

TVR Moneypit said:

Blue Meanie said:

Despite whatever rhetoric comes out of N Korea, it suits em to be insular, and they will gain nothing from any real threats, or moves towards the south. They do need aid, and without they would frankly be goofed, but all the bluster is simply to garner this aid. I'd rather just give them the aid to shut them up, and let them do whatever they wish. The danger, I think, is that the leaders of N Korea, whichever one, are seen as a bit of an emporer, and like Japan, they could fight until the bitter end. It's hard to tell.

So, what happens if all aid, (perhaps except that from China), is stopped?

Then they stave to death... Not the leaders, but the somewhat innocent citizens, who haven't actually harmed anyone. It all depends on how you view it. The expense of another war, on another front, with potentially wide spreading consequences in rather powerful countries, and the expense that that entails, or giving them a backhanded. What is the best way forward?

[Mojocvh]

Jimbeaux said:

Blue Meanie said:

What do you mean when you say "supported by Iran"? The government, or private citizens?

Iranian government; the citizens of Iran, in my opinion, like their government less than we do.

Hmm about to kick off?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...

[AJI]

Jimbeaux said:

AJI said:

The west [south korea = american puppets] does like to play games with these type of leaders, and they forget that one push of a button will wipe out a lot of innocent people.
But I'm guessing the good old U.S of A. is not too bothered about S.Korea future as long as the retaliatory strikes wipe out the north.

I'm being very cynical here but it could be their line of thinking.


In reality I do think that the new leader, as has been mentioned, is chosen for a specific reason. He will, no doubt, have the most anti-american tendency of the sons. He may even have displayed the willingness to use the nukes given half a chance.

I just wish the american influence on the south would dissapear and that the country N & S can find their own way.

What? If the U.S. "influence" dissapears, then they would be alone. Remember, the war there is at a truce, not really at an end. Why give any encouragement to NK to think about heading south?

Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 18th October 14:24

The war there is purely because the Americans went in to Korea in the first place to oust the Japanese....but they made the mistake of wanting to take 'ownership' of Korea and have their military presence in that part of Asia for a strategic position against the Chinese and Russia.

If the Americans gave back full control to Korea at the time then the North-South divide would not have happened in the first place.

The whole 'reactive aggression' that comes from the north is down to the games that the west plays with communism and dictatorships.

I just think it would be interesting to see the 'position' of the north if the american 'influence' of the south disappeared. In effect they would have no excuse for 'aggression', or 'reactive aggression'.

Just my opinion by the way. I'm not sure I know enough of the politics on this to have any conviction that this is viable. But from reading and watching TV on the history on Korea it would be 'interesting' for use of a better word.

[tinman0]

AJI said:

The whole 'reactive aggression' that comes from the north is down to the games that the west plays with communism and dictatorships.

I think the policy of containment has repeatedly been shown as the right thing to do.

BTW, how is the Nobel committee doing delivering their prize to that Chinaman? Has the wife been released from home arrest yet? Or is this more bs PH double standards?

[Jimbeaux]

AJI said:

Jimbeaux said:

AJI said:

The west [south korea = american puppets] does like to play games with these type of leaders, and they forget that one push of a button will wipe out a lot of innocent people.
But I'm guessing the good old U.S of A. is not too bothered about S.Korea future as long as the retaliatory strikes wipe out the north.

I'm being very cynical here but it could be their line of thinking.


In reality I do think that the new leader, as has been mentioned, is chosen for a specific reason. He will, no doubt, have the most anti-american tendency of the sons. He may even have displayed the willingness to use the nukes given half a chance.

I just wish the american influence on the south would dissapear and that the country N & S can find their own way.

What? If the U.S. "influence" dissapears, then they would be alone. Remember, the war there is at a truce, not really at an end. Why give any encouragement to NK to think about heading south?

Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 18th October 14:24

The war there is purely because the Americans went in to Korea in the first place to oust the Japanese....but they made the mistake of wanting to take 'ownership' of Korea and have their military presence in that part of Asia for a strategic position against the Chinese and Russia.

If the Americans gave back full control to Korea at the time then the North-South divide would not have happened in the first place.

The whole 'reactive aggression' that comes from the north is down to the games that the west plays with communism and dictatorships.

I just think it would be interesting to see the 'position' of the north if the american 'influence' of the south disappeared. In effect they would have no excuse for 'aggression', or 'reactive aggression'.

Just my opinion by the way. I'm not sure I know enough of the politics on this to have any conviction that this is viable. But from reading and watching TV on the history on Korea it would be 'interesting' for use of a better word.

You cannot be serious. The North would feel no need to be agressive if the Yanks left? As to your "history" lesson, it was not the Koreans but the influence of Communist Russia that proxied that action. Communist doctrine was "expand or die".

[AJI]

Jimbeaux said:

You cannot be serious. The North would feel no need to be agressive if the Yanks left? As to your "history" lesson, it was not the Koreans but the influence of Communist Russia that proxied that action. Communist doctrine was "expand or die".

I suppose history on the matter can be viewed from different angles.
'If' for this, then 'if' for that etc. etc.

[tinman0]

AJI said:

Jimbeaux said:

You cannot be serious. The North would feel no need to be agressive if the Yanks left? As to your "history" lesson, it was not the Koreans but the influence of Communist Russia that proxied that action. Communist doctrine was "expand or die".

I suppose history on the matter can be viewed from different angles.
'If' for this, then 'if' for that etc. etc.

So the Soviets were on holiday in Afghanistan I suppose?

As for viewing history from different angles, it does help if you open the history books in the first place

[Blue Meanie]

The soviets were actually invited by the authority at the time to help battle the warlords. The warlords took over, and ended up fighting the Russians.

[tinman0]

Blue Meanie said:

The soviets were actually invited by the authority at the time to help battle the warlords. The warlords took over, and ended up fighting the Russians.

And I'm sure the idea of spreading Communism never crossed their minds.

Bit like rolling tanks into Prague to help flatten the cobble stones.

Edited by tinman0 on Tuesday 19th October 14:39

[Blue Meanie]

tinman0 said:

Blue Meanie said:

The soviets were actually invited by the authority at the time to help battle the warlords. The warlords took over, and ended up fighting the Russians.

And I'm sure the idea of spreading Communism never crossed their minds.

Bit like rolling tanks into Prague to help flatten the cobble stones.

Edited by tinman0 on Tuesday 19th October 14:39

The authority in Afghanistan was already communist.

[tinman0]

Blue Meanie said:

tinman0 said:

Blue Meanie said:

The soviets were actually invited by the authority at the time to help battle the warlords. The warlords took over, and ended up fighting the Russians.

And I'm sure the idea of spreading Communism never crossed their minds.

Bit like rolling tanks into Prague to help flatten the cobble stones.

The authority in Afghanistan was already communist.

Well, there you go then, Communist expansion had already taken place.

[Blue Meanie]

tinman0 said:

Blue Meanie said:

tinman0 said:

Blue Meanie said:

The soviets were actually invited by the authority at the time to help battle the warlords. The warlords took over, and ended up fighting the Russians.

And I'm sure the idea of spreading Communism never crossed their minds.

Bit like rolling tanks into Prague to help flatten the cobble stones.

The authority in Afghanistan was already communist.

Well, there you go then, Communist expansion had already taken place.

So they never went in to spread it, did they? It was already there. Also funnily enough, the Russians were fighting the same folks we are, and yet they are seen as evil, and we the good guys. I wonder if the spread of capitalism will be looked on favourably in the future?

[AJI]

tinman0 said:

As for viewing history from different angles, it does help if you open the history books in the first place

Thanks for the suggestion. But I think the fact that the western version of history and the rest of the world has always had differences of opinion.
If you think this to be false then maybe you too should get those books opened.

I'm no way an expert on history, in fact I used to hate the subject at school. Its just my take on it thats all....be it right or wrong....accurate or total bolllox...etc. etc.

[Jimbeaux]

AJI said:

Jimbeaux said:

You cannot be serious. The North would feel no need to be agressive if the Yanks left? As to your "history" lesson, it was not the Koreans but the influence of Communist Russia that proxied that action. Communist doctrine was "expand or die".

I suppose history on the matter can be viewed from different angles.
'If' for this, then 'if' for that etc. etc.

You can view it from any angle you wish.

[Jimbeaux]

Blue Meanie said:

The soviets were actually invited by the authority at the time to help battle the warlords. The warlords took over, and ended up fighting the Russians.

I think I smell a new hit video game in there somewhere.

[Jimbeaux]

tinman0 said:

Blue Meanie said:

The soviets were actually invited by the authority at the time to help battle the warlords. The warlords took over, and ended up fighting the Russians.

And I'm sure the idea of spreading Communism never crossed their minds.

Bit like rolling tanks into Prague to help flatten the cobble stones.

Edited by tinman0 on Tuesday 19th October 14:39

You are on a roll today.

[Jimbeaux]

Blue Meanie said:

tinman0 said:

Blue Meanie said:

The soviets were actually invited by the authority at the time to help battle the warlords. The warlords took over, and ended up fighting the Russians.

And I'm sure the idea of spreading Communism never crossed their minds.

Bit like rolling tanks into Prague to help flatten the cobble stones.

Edited by tinman0 on Tuesday 19th October 14:39

The authority in Afghanistan was already communist.

So, the authority put itself in charge, as Communist are rarely elected except (ironically) in Democratic nations.

[Jimbeaux]

Blue Meanie said:

tinman0 said:

Blue Meanie said:

tinman0 said:

Blue Meanie said:

The soviets were actually invited by the authority at the time to help battle the warlords. The warlords took over, and ended up fighting the Russians.

And I'm sure the idea of spreading Communism never crossed their minds.

Bit like rolling tanks into Prague to help flatten the cobble stones.

The authority in Afghanistan was already communist.

Well, there you go then, Communist expansion had already taken place.

So they never went in to spread it, did they? It was already there. Also funnily enough, the Russians were fighting the same folks we are, and yet they are seen as evil, and we the good guys. I wonder if the spread of capitalism will be looked on favourably in the future?

You'd best hope it is.

[Blue Meanie]

Jimbeaux said:

Blue Meanie said:

tinman0 said:

Blue Meanie said:

The soviets were actually invited by the authority at the time to help battle the warlords. The warlords took over, and ended up fighting the Russians.

And I'm sure the idea of spreading Communism never crossed their minds.

Bit like rolling tanks into Prague to help flatten the cobble stones.

Edited by tinman0 on Tuesday 19th October 14:39

The authority in Afghanistan was already communist.

So, the authority put itself in charge, as Communist are rarely elected except (ironically) in Democratic nations.

You mean like the Shah in Iran? I wasn't making that point, however the vast number of people who think the Russians invaded Afghanistan is absurd. I'm not saying it is right, but the fact remains that they did not invade, and were invited by the authority at the time. Like it or loath it, that's how it was. Another point of interest was that the Russians never had anything to do with the insertion of the government at the time.

Edited by Blue Meanie on Tuesday 19th October 15:37