North Korea - how serious should we take them?

[skyrover]

Technically it was not the US, but the UN.

S/RES/82 Held that North Korea's invasion of South Korea in the Korean War constituted a "breach of peace" and demanded immediate cessation of hostilities. 25 June 1950

S/RES/83 Recommended UN member states to provide assistance to South Korea in the Korean War to repel the attack by North Korea and restore peace and security. 27 June 1950

S/RES/84 Established a unified command led by the United States to coordinate the war effort of allies of South Korea in the Korean War. 7 July 1950

S/RES/85 Coordinated relief for victims of the Korean War. Held that North Korea's invasion of South Korea in the war constituted an "unlawful attack". 31 July 1950

The UK contributed approx 90,000 troops to the fighting and countries such as France, Cuba, South Africa, Ethiopia, Belgium Thailand, Australia, Turkey, Canada and Bolivia also contributed men and materials.

The US provided the bulk of the operation though.

Edited by skyrover on Friday 14th July 16:52

[Cobnapint]

gadgetmac said:

Everybody who has an opinion on the USA's stance on NK should read that.

They certainly should, and they'd quickly realise what a simplistic and biased point of view the article has, and that the USA was right all along.

We are talking about the early 50's here where a Chinese backed (don't you just love 'em) communist state invaded a democratic westward leaning state. The USA, with UN authority, responded as it should.

As for the bombing of Pyongyang - it was just after WWII when civilians weren't so protected by international law as they are today, and if some people think NK is justified in still being pissed off about it, why aren't Germany, Britain, Japan, Vietnam, France etc still acting the over what happened in WWII...?

[Efbe]

Cobnapint said:

They certainly should, and they'd quickly realise what a simplistic and biased point of view the article has, and that the USA was right all along.

We are talking about the early 50's here where a Chinese backed (don't you just love 'em) communist state invaded a democratic westward leaning state. The USA, with UN authority, responded as it should.

As for the bombing of Pyongyang - it was just after WWII when civilians weren't so protected by international law as they are today, and if some people think NK is justified in still being pissed off about it, why aren't Germany, Britain, Japan, Vietnam, France etc still acting the over what happened in WWII...?

so you can't reply to my post with the alternatives then?
what a shock

[gadgetmac]

Cobnapint said:

We are talking about the early 50's here where a Chinese backed (don't you just love 'em) communist state invaded a democratic westward leaning state.

Your grasp of history is betrayed by your pro US bias.

"DEMOCRATIC westward leaning state". First time I've ever heard the autocratic US puppet regime of Syngman Rhee called that.

Regardless. The war was about fighting communism wherever it reared its head as Truman later said.

Wiki:

On Saturday, 24 June 1950, U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson informed President Truman that the North Koreans had invaded South Korea. Truman and Acheson discussed a U.S. invasion response and agreed that the United States was obligated to act, paralleling the North Korean invasion with Adolf Hitler's aggressions in the 1930s, with the conclusion being that the mistake of appeasement must not be repeated. Several U.S. industries were mobilized to supply materials, labor, capital, production facilities, and other services necessary to support the military objectives of the Korean War. However, President Truman later acknowledged that he believed fighting the invasion was essential to the American goal of the global containment of communism as outlined in the National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68) (declassified in 1975):

Truman said:

Communism was acting in Korea, just as Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese had ten, fifteen, and twenty years earlier. I felt certain that if South Korea was allowed to fall, Communist leaders would be emboldened to override nations closer to our own shores. If the Communists were permitted to force their way into the Republic of Korea without opposition from the free world, no small nation would have the courage to resist threat and aggression by stronger Communist neighbors

[Evangelion]

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

"The mistake of appeasement must not be repeated."

[gadgetmac]

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?

[Cobnapint]

Efbe said:

Cobnapint said:

They certainly should, and they'd quickly realise what a simplistic and biased point of view the article has, and that the USA was right all along.

We are talking about the early 50's here where a Chinese backed (don't you just love 'em) communist state invaded a democratic westward leaning state. The USA, with UN authority, responded as it should.

As for the bombing of Pyongyang - it was just after WWII when civilians weren't so protected by international law as they are today, and if some people think NK is justified in still being pissed off about it, why aren't Germany, Britain, Japan, Vietnam, France etc still acting the over what happened in WWII...?

so you can't reply to my post with the alternatives then?
what a shock

Don't recall you asking for any.

[Cobnapint]

gadgetmac said:

Your grasp of history is betrayed by your pro US bias.

"DEMOCRATIC westward leaning state". First time I've ever heard the autocratic US puppet regime of Syngman Rhee called that.

Regardless. The war was about fighting communism wherever it reared its head as Truman later said.

I'm not biased towards the US at all, they've made some right cock ups.

As for your Truman quote, you're right - it was all about defeating communism.

[FN2TypeR]

Cobnapint said:

I'm not biased towards the US at all, they've made some right cock ups.

As for your Truman quote, you're right - it was all about defeating communism.

True, and that meant propping up some fairly totalitarian and nationalistic Governments along the way, like in South Korea and South Vietnam

[skyrover]

FN2TypeR said:

Cobnapint said:

I'm not biased towards the US at all, they've made some right cock ups.

As for your Truman quote, you're right - it was all about defeating communism.

True, and that meant propping up some fairly totalitarian and nationalistic Governments along the way, like in South Korea and South Vietnam

Don't forget Taiwan.

The point is though, those countries are better today, unlike North Korea.

Even China has moved on.

[Efbe]

Cobnapint said:

Efbe said:

Cobnapint said:

They certainly should, and they'd quickly realise what a simplistic and biased point of view the article has, and that the USA was right all along.

We are talking about the early 50's here where a Chinese backed (don't you just love 'em) communist state invaded a democratic westward leaning state. The USA, with UN authority, responded as it should.

As for the bombing of Pyongyang - it was just after WWII when civilians weren't so protected by international law as they are today, and if some people think NK is justified in still being pissed off about it, why aren't Germany, Britain, Japan, Vietnam, France etc still acting the over what happened in WWII...?

so you can't reply to my post with the alternatives then?
what a shock

Don't recall you asking for any.

ok then, try answering them.

You seem to have a blinkered view that persisting with sanctions and threats is the only way forward. you have said there are no alternatives. I have shown them. so why not try them?

[Evangelion]

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.

[Cobnapint]

Efbe said:

Cobnapint said:

Efbe said:

Cobnapint said:

They certainly should, and they'd quickly realise what a simplistic and biased point of view the article has, and that the USA was right all along.

We are talking about the early 50's here where a Chinese backed (don't you just love 'em) communist state invaded a democratic westward leaning state. The USA, with UN authority, responded as it should.

As for the bombing of Pyongyang - it was just after WWII when civilians weren't so protected by international law as they are today, and if some people think NK is justified in still being pissed off about it, why aren't Germany, Britain, Japan, Vietnam, France etc still acting the over what happened in WWII...?

so you can't reply to my post with the alternatives then?
what a shock

Don't recall you asking for any.

ok then, try answering them.

You seem to have a blinkered view that persisting with sanctions and threats is the only way forward. you have said there are no alternatives. I have shown them. so why not try them?

Oh, you mean YOUR post with the alternatives back on Tuesday......got ya.

Well...... 1) Diplomacy, negotiation and reconciliation etc.

I think that has been tried to a point, and they do have a jointly run industrial zone in the North but ultimately the North wants to see the Korean Peninsula reunited - under it's terms. And call the South Koreans fickle, but I don't think they like that idea much. And I, nor anybody else, blames them.

2) The next route is to slowly help NK to build itself from within, building a middle class, a technical basis so the population can learn about the world, communicate etc.

NK 'is' building itself from within - but only for the benefit of the Kims, and there's no way he wants the population learning about or communicating with the RoW, they'd want to get the hell out even more, let alone allowing a middle class to develop who might get ideas above their station.

3) Non-provocation. It is incredibly clear that NK is running these tests every time the US shouts loudly etc.

He'd be running those tests anyway.

4) If you try one tactic of sanctions for 50 years continuously, maybe, just maybe it's not working!

Well it has worked to a point, he's only recently managed to get nukes instead of probably 20 years ago. The sanctions are part of the international diplomatic process that you say isn't happening (even though China is still piling stuff over the border to help him out).

How did I do....?

[jmorgan]

scherzkeks said:

Great article on US imperialism and North Korea. Perhaps some food for thought to the history-challenged here.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/17/the-proble...

Reads like an opinion piece with a few facts thrown in.

Here is another opinion with the same merit, NK could be reigned in by themselves, say they went cheap labour and quality manufacturing to compete with SK and tried to become a local manufacturing power house like... nah, China would not like that. And Kim would divert the funds. However, if they did, they would get a hold on US markets in a generation. Far better than trying to take over SK, which seems to be their only goal at the moment.

[Efbe]

Cobnapint said:

Oh, you mean YOUR post with the alternatives back on Tuesday......got ya.

Well...... 1) Diplomacy, negotiation and reconciliation etc.

I think that has been tried to a point, and they do have a jointly run industrial zone in the North but ultimately the North wants to see the Korean Peninsula reunited - under it's terms. And call the South Koreans fickle, but I don't think they like that idea much. And I, nor anybody else, blames them.

2) The next route is to slowly help NK to build itself from within, building a middle class, a technical basis so the population can learn about the world, communicate etc.

NK 'is' building itself from within - but only for the benefit of the Kims, and there's no way he wants the population learning about or communicating with the RoW, they'd want to get the hell out even more, let alone allowing a middle class to develop who might get ideas above their station.

3) Non-provocation. It is incredibly clear that NK is running these tests every time the US shouts loudly etc.

He'd be running those tests anyway.

4) If you try one tactic of sanctions for 50 years continuously, maybe, just maybe it's not working!

Well it has worked to a point, he's only recently managed to get nukes instead of probably 20 years ago. The sanctions are part of the international diplomatic process that you say isn't happening (even though China is still piling stuff over the border to help him out).

How did I do....?

It's good, a decent discussion now

1) diplomacy hasn't been tried for many decades. Each time it has been tried it has been completely derailed by something quite unrelated to the negotiations. It has not been tried properly, which is completely against everything the UN should stand for.
2) a middle class is growing, mobile phones are becoming more common. It is not Kim tat is able to do this, it has to be an external government willing to push this technology onto NK. This is happening now, it should have happened long ago, more and more videos are coming out of NK, more blogs, communictions etc, showing that this is starting to work.
3) how do you know he would be doing thees tests? you are putting the cart before the horse. They are actively looking for a nuclear treaty at the moment, this shows that the nukes are just a bargaining tool for them.
4) The sanctions have not worked at all. he has nukes. We have not put sanctions like this on any other country in the world. Lets put this into numbers...
There are 189 cases of countries we have NOT put sanctions on and who have also NOT developed nuclear weapons.
So thats 189 cases that have worked without sanctions.

The US put heavy sanctions onto Pakistan, they still have nukes. and onto NK, they have nukes, The US has had sanctions against russia for decades, they have nukes.

Sanctions just don't work.

[scherzkeks]

jmorgan said:

scherzkeks said:

Great article on US imperialism and North Korea. Perhaps some food for thought to the history-challenged here.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/17/the-proble...

Reads like an opinion piece with a few facts thrown in.

Here is another opinion with the same merit, NK could be reigned in by themselves, say they went cheap labour and quality manufacturing to compete with SK and tried to become a local manufacturing power house like... nah, China would not like that. And Kim would divert the funds. However, if they did, they would get a hold on US markets in a generation. Far better than trying to take over SK, which seems to be their only goal at the moment.

Less merit, facts missing.
2/10

[jmorgan]

scherzkeks said:

Less merit, facts missing.
2/10

Wait what? That was down to a scholarly review from that well know Another, Kellogs. It was on the back page.

[anonymous-user]

scherzkeks said:

Great article on US imperialism and North Korea. Perhaps some food for thought to the history-challenged here.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/17/the-proble...

couple of points cant be arsed to go through all. north korea does have oil reserves they have not been fully developed.

http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/north-ko...

'An article from GeoExPro, a petroleum geoscience magazine, says that North Korea has “excellent” oil and gas exploration potential, both onshore and offshore.

The assessment was made by Michael Rego, an exploration consultant with access to North Korean geophysical data that has so far received little international attention.'

surprised a news article that purports facts wrote that it doesn't

if NK focused on eliminating poverty when they are spending a third of there budget on militarization, instead of developing an infrastructure for the people for self reliance and growth.

NK can not be communicated with directly by the usa due to the overbearing hand of china, which is involved and invested in NK.

If NK focused on it people instead of ICM it might reduce the ''half of North Korea's population of 24 million lives in "extreme poverty," according to the KUNI report.'' 18 times higher than South korea, 33% are classed as malnourished. This is all not down to sanctions, NK never want to deal with anyone besides Russia and china who use there cheap labour and coal for there own means.

[bristolracer]

Have a look on google maps at the amount of roads in South Korea,and then look at the North

i suspect any roads NK has are only for the army to get about,it really is at 3rd world level.

[Cobnapint]

Here's a fascinating write up from some guys tour from Pyongyang down the main highway to the DMZ.

It's long, but intensely interesting.

http://www.earthnutshell.com/the-worlds-most-dange...