Originally posted by StellarX

You have India, Japan, Australia and not to mention the US that would gladly participate in NKs demise!

Glady? Fight in sprawling bombed out build up areas against a enemy that literally has nothing left to lose after you forced him to yet again fight a war for his very survival? Don't people learn anything from history?

Stellar

To Stellar X's point, I honestly believe that MOST (if not all, pardon the ambiguity) these countries would much rather see a stable, calm, prosperous, self sufficient and peaceful North Korea, rather than a war mongering suicidal nation. But then again, seeing the situation the country is in today, and the high stakes geopolitical cards it plays, that kind of North Korea can only exist with the 'demise' of the character it currently portrays.

Originally posted by plumranch
The whole world would like to see a stable NK, with the exception of the current NK leaders, probably China and a few mid eastern countries like Iran that want NK supplied weapons.

Why wouldn't China want a stable Korean peninsula under the rule of all Koreans? What has China done so far beside making sure that the entire Korea didn't fall to a new set of imperialist after the Japanese and all those before?

It can be argued that Kim holds his power because of the top heavy, old soviet style government he maintains that provides only for the needs of Kim and his cronies and forcing the NK citizens into despiration.

It can't be argued as we have no idea what Kim would have done if the US signed a true peace treaty. As i stands there is a only a ceasefire agreement which in fact means that the Korean war has no ended. Would it have made sense if the horribly outgunned and outnumbered North Koreans sat back and hoped that the US backed dictators ( and that is what they have been until very recently) in the South didn't start another Korean war to cling onto some semblance of popular power as it happened the first time round?

Because of Kim's military paranoia he maintains a huge military force of men and equipment while his country literally starves for those resources.

He isn't paranoid as the US attacked both Iraq and Afghanistan in just the last decade neither having WOMD or overtly proven links to the terrorist acts that destroyed the WTC. There are plenty of people in the US that is malnourished or starving as well ( despite all the riches and no wars on enemies that chose to be enemies) so why shouldn't there serious problems in North Korea? I mean what were they supposed to do the stave off the possibility of another invasion short of doing everything they could to prepare? Why did the starvation only happen in the 90's when we know that they had alternate draughts and flood years that resulted in their stockpiles of food becoming exhausted?

China meanwhile props up the Kim regime both psycologically and with resources.

And? The US props up Israel who have killed far more in many more countries than the North Koreans have since the Korean war. Why not start with those who are committing terrorist acts against the Palestinian people right this moment?

It's a house of cards that many have predicted would soon fall but somehow continues to exist precariously.

It continues to exist because the North Korean people are actually not so different from the rest of us and enjoyed modest but secure lifestyles until relatively recently. In fact the North were economically better off than the South right up to the eighties which speaks volumes as to how much US aid really helps.

North and South Korea historically were somewhat equal in their production capabilities but the disparity between the two now is incredible. North Korea can't even feed itself.

Actually the Northern part were the industrialized wealthier part and maintained the lead for a very long time indeed. As for North Korea not being able to feed itself that happens when you are embargoed despite draughts and floods that devastates the agricultural system that worked just fine for decades before.

Stellar

Originally posted by plumranch
I could go on for quite a while about why and how the US goes about being the world's superpower while it's people deny, don't believe or are kept from knowing it is doing so.

Hi again plumranch,

I could go for a while about how a significant section of the US public in fact thinks , and often vote that way, that the US rules the world and that everyone either wants to be like them or wants to kill them. I have great sympathy with the majority who don't want to be involved in these wars, but still seem to think it's OK to invade other countries in retribution, but obviously i have even more sympathy with the millions of victims who had it hard enough under local tyrants.

Americans think we are not having much impact on the world, generally.

Just because we know that Americans are largely ignorant of the world outside of the US does not mean that we will believe that Americans don't ( as other older imperial nations) believe that they know enough to want to bomb all the 'evildoers' and 'terrorist' they have for decades been propagandized to believe in. Arrogance does not and isn't often based on a great understanding of the world around you.

But America is America and will go on doing what it is doing for the next century, probably, with lots of bumps along the way.

The American century is pretty much over and from here on out it will be downhill until significant, and thus very unlikely, reforms takes place in the US.

And there is a laundry list of reasons why it will "keep on doing" in spite of or because of rather disgusting liberal politicians like the little narcicist we now see too much of.

Rather disgusting liberal politicians? So you wish to discuss a serious issue such as North Korean nuclear policies and yet you still seem to believe that liberals are vastly different from republicans? That the two grand old parties are in fact different enough to make the distinctions both obvious and logical in terms of their historic actions in the senate and house?

Geography and economy are probably the top 2.

Geography is important in the same away it allowed Britain to build a empire with the same fleet that made it's self defense against much larger European powers possible. As for the US economy it is actually not very significant given the size of the land, the number of people and it's geographical isolation. If we could give North Americans to the Japanese , or a few others, the current US experiment would look embarrassingly childish. So much wealth and so much land and yet all we get is more imperialism.

I agree that the US will remain a very significant world player but the unipolar power is on the way out and it's only a question of whether it's exit will go along with a world war or not.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
I am not blaming everyone else as i made it quite clear that i am holding the US national security state ( i suppose we can discuss who might be behind them) responsible for state of North Korea.

I'm not necessarily on the side of the US in all things but I think blaming the US for the current state of North Korea is rather silly. North Korea is how it is because (a) it is led by a lunatic (b) it is led by a lunatic. This conspiratorial "US national security state" is plain bo**ocks and has clearly blinded you to the obvious.

Originally posted by StellarX
The agreement also eases food and medicine sanctions against North Korea, Sudan, Libya and Iran...

If the US does not want to trade with these failed and unfriendly states then so-be-it. The United Nations have imposed sanctions against North Korea, so has the EU. Humanitarian food-aid has been supplied to the tin-pot dictatorship of North Korea since c.1998 when they first asked for help. North Korean policies and politics have resulted in hundreds of thousands of their population starving and c. 60% of North Korean children are malnourished. The regime still thinks it right to invest in a nuclear weapons programme... For crying out loud, stop blaming the US for this megalomaniac regime which has no regard for their citizens.

Originally posted by StellarX
It continues to exist because the North Korean people are actually not so different from the rest of us and enjoyed modest but secure lifestyles until relatively recently. In fact the North were economically better off than the South right up to the eighties which speaks volumes as to how much US aid really helps.

That’s absolute rubbish. Your average North Korean had NO security, if you consider the threat of summary execution by the secret police “security”. The South Korean economy developed because it has not been styled on the failed communist model... Furthermore, what’s wrong with the US providing a friendly state (i.e. South Korea) with aid to pump prime their economy?

Originally posted by StellarX
When the terrorist/imperialist states of the world go home...

Ah ha – your true colours. Of course if you were a woman in Afghanistan or a Kurd, or one of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims butchered by Saddam Hussein, or a child looking for a future with a degree hope (etc) then you may well take a contrary view.

I could go on, but now I know you are motivated by a problem with the US I will stop...

Regards

I think all of the signs are here guys, and I doubt sanctions will cut it, I fear only military action, will take care of this nuclear threat. This cat and mouse game has been going on for too long and now look...NK a nuclear weaponized country just like I said early on in this very thread, I fear we'll all see just how crazy 'ol Kim Jong bonga longa dig dong really is.

Originally posted by paraphi
I'm not necessarily on the side of the US in all things but I think blaming the US for the current state of North Korea is rather silly.

Hi paraphi,

Well who could be on the side of the US? I would consider that as least as silly as you believe my stance on North Korea to be!

North Korea is how it is because (a) it is led by a lunatic (b) it is led by a lunatic. This conspiratorial "US national security state" is plain bo**ocks and has clearly blinded you to the obvious.

Lunatics start wars they could not possibly win and do all kinds of other silly things North Korea clearly didn't do. Fact is North Koreans were fed, if not to the point of obesity or very good health, up until the late 90's and had economic conditions and stability that many, many, many countries of the world aspires to. As for their economic system who's pointing fingers in a time when financial capitalism is shown to be based on mostly creative book keeping and trading agreements?

As for the US national security state how else would you explain the invasion of two countries that never directly threatened the USA or could be shown to be involved with terror attacks against the US at home?

If the US does not want to trade with these failed and unfriendly states then so-be-it.

They are hardly failed states. To see a failed state you have to look at the dozen of third world capitalist states, not the few that manages some form of collectivism. While we are at this why should they try to be 'friendly' when their peace overtures have been systematically rejected for decades? Didn't they cancel the inspector programs they allowed in 2003 AFTER the USA invaded Iraq as well? I mean would you allow the Russians to look at your nuclear research facilities when they move on to their second victim in as many years? Aren't you making a value judgement based on the fact that North Korea deserves no rights under international law and have legal claim to self defense? Why?

The United Nations have imposed sanctions against North Korea, so has the EU.

And we all know those agencies are so very independent and that the US does not have a veto power in at least one of them.

Humanitarian food-aid has been supplied to the tin-pot dictatorship of North Korea since c.1998 when they first asked for help. North Korean policies and politics have resulted in hundreds of thousands of their population starving and c. 60% of North Korean children are malnourished.

Severe episodes of draught and floods created the famine as proven by the fact that the country was largely self sufficient in food before those incidents. North Korean policies and politics have created many problems and played a part in the virtual famines but it certainly wasn't the causative factor as proved by their decades of self reliance. As for the claim that 60% of Children are malnourished i have seen no reason to believe that when the same type of accusations have been made against Cuba and every other country that doesn't follow the capitalist mantra of only letting those without money starve.

The regime still thinks it right to invest in a nuclear weapons programme... For crying out loud, stop blaming the US for this megalomaniac regime which has no regard for their citizens.

Well how do you propose it defends itself against the very real possibility of a US attack? Didn't the US invade Iraq which also had significant armed forces as well as those claimed WOMD? I mean what can these dissident regimes do other than arming themselves in self defense? Why shouldn't i blame the only country ( beside Israel and Georgia as i recall) that started wars of aggression against internal population groups of foreign countries? Is it not a fact that the US have bombed and invaded a dozen countries in the same half century where North Korea didn't attack a sole? Who's the lunatic regime?

That’s absolute rubbish. Your average North Korean had NO security, if you consider the threat of summary execution by the secret police “security”.

You shouldn't believe everything you read. I will restate , as it is a fact, that North Koreans had modest but secure lifestyles for most of the last half century. The summary executions mostly happened in the us backed or sponsored dictatorial client states such as those in South America, Africa and much of South East Asia. It was in South Korea that summary executions and mass arrests were normal before the Koran war started as South Koreans did not want to be part of the capitalist rampart in South east Asia. They didn't get much of a choice and there is quite a large volume of work documenting the crimes the Southern ( Consisting of Japanese collaborators and some of the old Japanese managers) regime against it's citizens to maintain the artificial separation. Not something you heard about but yes, that's no surprise.

The South Korean economy developed because it has not been styled on the failed communist model...

The south Korean economy developed because it was in the interest of the US to provide a stable military platform in that country. Even then South Korea lagged behind North Korea for the first two decades showing that central planning is not the sole reason why centrally planned economies fail. Any economy that is burdened by massive self defensive spending can run into severe problems and if the US on it's side and Russia and China on 'their' side didn't pick up some of the economic cost both economies would have been in far worse shape. Having said that the central reason is still mostly related to the constant threat of NATO violence.

Furthermore, what’s wrong with the US providing a friendly state (i.e. South Korea) with aid to pump prime their economy?

Because South Korea were a dictatorship up until very recently, not as bad as in the North but no democracy by any stretch of the imagination. The pretense that South Korea is a model society and North Korea the anti-model is the same old cold war propaganda you should by know have stopped trusting.

Ah ha – your true colours.

Yes, i don't like imperial nations. What a revelation!

Of course if you were a woman in Afghanistan

They had plenty of rights in Afghanistan under the pro soviet government back in 70's before the US government started funding the medieval age warlords ( some religious, some not so much) who refuses to do away with the peasant and crop sharing system that made them rich in the first place. With the US funding, and some mismanagement by the progressive government, these warlords were succeeding in destabilising the government which then asked the USSR for assistance in putting down the rebellion. As the USSR understood who were funding it and didn't care for the failed efforts of client government they moved in. So yes, Afghan women, like Russian women, had more rights and freedoms back in 1975 than they did under the Taliban or have now.

The idea that the US intervention is always, or often, progressive is one of those mythologies that is so entrenched in the mind of Americans ( and many, many others) that i don't have much of a idea as to how to start undoing it. I suppose i will just have to keep posting.

or a Kurd,

The worse atrocities were committed against the Kurds while the US were selling weapons and intelligence to Iraq as to how best to fight Iran. The Kurds didn't matter then or mattered much when the US allowed Iraqi planes and army units to put down the rebellion ( that the CIA instigated) towards the end of the first gulf war. The Kurds didn't matter then and still don't matter when they get in the way of the current US foreign policy aims. The US national security doctrine is NOT progressive and does not seek to create democracy anywhere.

or one of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims butchered by Saddam Hussein, or a child looking for a future with a degree hope (etc) then you may well take a contrary view.

Hundreds of thousands? You mean Iranians? Well the US supplied him with satellite intelligence thus being able to shift sufficient manpower to block Iranian operations. That killed more Muslims than SH ever did kill in Iraq. Why didn't the US protest the tyranny of SH back in the late 60's and 70's when he killed off or ousted the reformist and truly progressive elements of the Baath party? Please go read some REAL history and stop wasting our time with this old cold war , now clear cut imperialist, propaganda.

I could go on, but now I know you are motivated by a problem with the US I will stop...

Regards

You could go on telling me the same old rehashed lies and misrepresentations but that would just result in my digging up similar documents to the pentagon papers and proving each and every one of your 'defenses' ( That the US had 'good' or 'progressive' intentions) of imperialism inaccurate or misrepresentations and lies.

But do go ahead if you wish to have the misrepresentations you share with most of the rest of the world exposed as the blatant propaganda it is.

In fact i have some time over the next few days, to dig up and revisit some of that source material, so if you wish to gain some insight into the recent modern history this would be a good opportunity.

Stellar

Originally posted by plumranch
Time permitting I may start a thread on this subject. Ie. world power structure and the US's place.

Hi plumranch,

Yes, time permitting i may join it and share my strange seeming ideas with all of you.

But, I see no reason why the US will not hold it's position as the world's sole superpower through the next century.

Do you mean superpower in terms of military muscle or economic dominance, or some combination of the two? China will economically surpass the US within the next few decades and as for military/strategic potential the Russian federation has a comparable self defense potential. If Japan manages to finally shed it's US shackles that too will be a player or note. As for the EU it might see it's relative dominance even before the US does.

The US will be challenged, it's politics and political leaders will change, other nations like the EU, Turkey, Russia, China, and Japan will at times provide a challenge to local or regional power but will be unable to prevail. A lot of people in the world think the US will topple for one reason or another but that's just wishful thinking IMHO.

Thanks for sharing these opinions with us. Since i know they are not based on anything more than usual presumptions and assumptions i will disagree and leave it at that.

I think the age of the terrorist will pass in the next decade or 2.

We are not in a age of terrorist, unless you mean US state sponsored terrorism, so it's not a age that could end.

Japan will be a more powerful world power than will China.

It isn't currently and it's chance went and gone some years ago. China will very likely take the world reigns in the next decade ( as it has for most of the last few thousand years of history) and maintain it despite the military protestations of a US national security state that refuses to reform and becomes ever more belligerent and imperialistic.

Russia will try again to regain it's power but will fail.

It never lost much of it's military strategic potential or really it's control over large tracts of resources. Russia can do nothing but rise again and there is simply no rival on the world scene that can intervene military without destroying themselves in the process. Russia is powerful today and i can't imagine why that would change or be reversed.

Eastern Europe will always be a disputed area and be a region of power plays on the part of EU, Turkey, Russia and the US with Poland perhaps the most important.

Eastern Europe will be kept the basket case that it is by the actions of the same European countries that made it a third world region before the idea of third world countries even came into being. Eastern Europe was pretty much the first victims of modern imperialism and it think that it's likely to stay that way.

North Korea will remain a marginalized nation at the bottom of the economic scale till one day there will be a united Korea.

And they will be united in one way or another and we can all hope that it's settled peaceably. This could best be facilitated if the US stopped threatening North Korea with violence so that the South Koreans could go on breaking down the economic barriers between the countries.

Generally, the US doesn't have to win anything to remain on top, it just has to keep the various other nations fighting between themselves at various levels and avoid major regional hegamonies that challenge the balance of power.

And in that it is clearly failing even when it attempts to occupy two relatively small nations in the middle and near east regions.... Sure it has destabilized the area but not nearly as much as it has further destabilized the ailing US economy that has been in a slow death spiral ever since the late 70's. Unless drastic steps are taken , meaning changes in policy, the US will soon run itself into armed conflict with a first world power that could escalate with terrible consequences for Americans and dire consequences for many other countries.

The American century has probably come and gone and while it isn't final Obama ( and the same old handlers) seem hell bent on following the same old path to collective national suicide. The Germans, Japanese, French, Chinese, British and Russians have all experienced this but clearly the lesson has not been learnt back Americans.

Stellar

I really do not think the North has much of a chance against South Korea let alone the US. Its all good to have alot of artillery but it wont do you alot of good if you cant defend it from Air Strikes. The South and obviously the USA could sit back and air strike them for as long as they liked.
Also, the North has no money. The people there are short on food and they haven't got enough electricity to power their homes. Alot of them secretly want a united Korea and I'm sure they would prefer the lifestyle of the South.
It is debatable if the North have nukes. There is very little evidence of it and their one so called test was tiny not known if it was infact a nuke or just a dirty bomb. The USA are safe either way as their rocket technology has not good and proned to failure.
No way on earth that North Korea would be controlled by an invading army but who needs to go in...
Kim Jong IL, (my favourite dictator after watching Team America) is clearly not all there.

We all know the USA's record on WMD's that supposedly exist in various countries and it isn't a good one..

I can't see the USA remaining the worlds superpower. With their 14 trillion dollar debt it is not possible. I believe their armed forces cost way to much to maintain, not to mention that missile technology has overtaken the power of Carrier Groups.
Japan won't overtake China again. China will never allow it and has the economy and resouses to make that happen and it owned alot of the US debt.
I fear Americans have been fed alot of BS over the years by their Media and believe their own hype a bit much.

The US doesn't just start wars willy-nilly - there has to be something in it for them. In Iraq it's oil and and a former "asset" dictator who didn't want to play by the rules. In Afghanistan it's al-quida, ostensibly, but in reality an excuse to have a military presence in the area, just-in-case. In Iran, BTW it's also oil, but Iran trades with the west merrily, so for now we're not touching them.

I don't believe DPRK poses any immediate threat to the US. Yes they have some nukes. Not many and not very powerful. Their army is large but poorly-equipped. The rest of the population is on the brink of famine, their food is taken away from them and given to the army, so that the army keeps them down. DPRK will not be able to attack the US. The farthest they'll get is NOK and NOK will be more than capable of repelling them. The reason the US would not want to get involved is because of what China might or might not do, should an incident occur. But that policy seems to be reversing now. The diplomatic cables leak had something on that. DPRK's connections to organised crime in the area (I believe this topic comes under the "Cabinet 39" title, I'm not sure atm) are an embarrassment to China and it looks like China might be thinking that maybe the Kims need to go.

So yeah, DPRK are a menace, but not because they have nukes. A more immediate threat that they pose is that being so marginalised they are not averse to trading in arms or counterfeit cigarettes to procure cash for the Kim dynasty, so that they can live in luxury and eat lobster and caviar, whilst their people starve.