It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

North Korea demands peace treaty with US

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 


So...in in other words, You 're saying there is absolutely nothing the have that can be interesting for us?

What about a new open market, all for us. We can stuff them with junk food restaurants and decadent culture, for example.




posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamhobo
Kim Jung IL finally beat Pac-Man. South Korea is now safe.


lmfao!



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Trueman
 


Like I said in my previous post. They may have Natural Resources, but they have little to no interest in capitalism, American products and companies, which is a big turn off to the US. This is why we supported SK in the veiled war against communism.

I think until the dogma which Kim Jong Il's set up around his father and himself ends we should not give that corrupt government any support. We should however give food support to the people of that nation who are being starved by the same people who claim to protect them.

I have hope that there are compassionate people within NK. I have no doubt in my mind that various military figures within NK have attempted to stage coups in the past which have failed. But once the "glorious leader" finally dies, they might very well succeed and establish a union with SK which will be void of the foreign political influences which crippled the region years ago.
edit on 27-7-2011 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by icepack
reply to post by Blaine91555
 

didnt the u.s. demand certain terms or conditions for paying the money you mention ?




NK has never kept it's side of the bargain.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Blaine91555
 

I do think that there is a risk here. This is not even remotely like any other situation on the planet.
IMO if Kim Jong Il would launch a nuclear attack on the US, it would have been immediately after his stroke. He just about died, and if his intentions were really to raise some hell over here in the states, I think he would have done it then.


I think that you cannot apply logic to a clinically insane person. Nor can we predict the actions of his replacement. He thinks himself a God. Logic is not a factor.
edit on 7/27/2011 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Trueman
 


Ignoring the past actions and the fact this is not a normal situation is not wise. It's just wishful thinking based on a mistaken idea that a madman will ever act rationally.

This dog has bitten us many times after wagging it's tail. Millions of lives sit within easy range of a madman with nuclear weapons, mounted on missiles and ready to fire. Would we give a five year old the keys to the family car?

We need to treat NK like an Asylum and keep it contained. We have already allowed them to supply weapons to dangerous countries and groups which makes us a little insane.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
present day north korea is what you get when truman fired macauthur.

had truman let mac finish the job north korea wouldnt even be an issue the reason is because macauthur was more popular and powerful than truman.

like every other problem facing this country the cause and result was due to politics.

there can and never will be any peace and long as the north stays communistic
edit on 27-7-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Y

Their leader is insane. Clinically insane I mean.



don't mean to sound like a know it all, and sorry if I come off that way, but there's no such thing as "clinically insane."

Insane is usually a legal definition, and far from being clinical. Just in case you were to use the term in front of someone you're trying to impress, or whatever. It's good to know the difference. I agree the man is not very well balanced emotionally, and probably has a mental illness, but ya gotta admit. He's got some balls! (launching ICBMs, attacking the south, sinking a ship, etc.

Most great people in history, good or bad, would have been classified "insane."

Einstein most likely was mentally ill; I'd say besides depression, perhaps aspergers?



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Trueman
 


With a GDP estimated at $1,800 per capita and nearly all of that used for the military meaning it's citizens survive on pennies a day, what would they buy?

They survive by selling weapons to Theocracies, Dictators and Terrorist Groups and none of that goes to the people who's only product is agricultural and not even enough to feed themselves. It is all self-inflicted and nobody else is responsible since they are completely cut off from the world except for weapons sales.

Even if they disarm, their entire population has nearly zero knowledge of the outside world and has been trained since they speak their first words to hate. Only their Godhead and it's favorites have knowledge of how the world is around them.

Any Treaty would demand they disarm first or it would be ridiculous to even consider.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by N34Li3Z
 


You know what I mean and it is a term often used to describe a person a psychiatrist would categorize as insane. You're just being obtuse. Bad day, too much coffee?



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
It would be a really good thing IF they dismantled there nuclear weapons, and let the nato and bric in to inspect yearly then yes it is a good thing. They are starving over there because of their ignorant leaders, but to stop a rogue elephant you hit them where it counts, dead in the eye, as in n.koreas situation their stomaches.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I have to disagree Neo. No one man could have changed the tide in the first "Why are we here?" war.

MacArthur while a great military strategist, was losing his touch. He barely ever went near the front (or even to Korea for that matter), his strategies from the beginning of the war until his relief were flawed resulting in large amounts of Allied and civilian casualties. MacArthur's frustration (with himself it seems) showed itself when he started advocating the use of nuclear weapons on NK and even China, one could argue this was one of the things that made China fight the war with continued zeal. He would not have ended the war, he might have even made the war go on longer and it would have ended in the same way an armistice.

That being said no one could have won the war at the time, because no one knew what they were fighting for. Freedom? Human Rights? No...it was democracy vs communism veiled by the struggle of a sovereign nation which was corrupted by foreign powers.
edit on 27-7-2011 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 


you brought up some valid points there cant argue them.

had china not gotten involved the korean war would have been different i feel and i do agree had he gotten his way and used nukes that would have blown up to something much worse.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


A lot of historians suggest that if the war continued any longer than it did, the Soviets would have entered the war (they were already supplying arms to both China and NK) and we would of had WW3 only 6 years after the end of the second world war. An allied NK, Soviet, and Chinese force would have been almost unstoppable (due to the instability of Europe at the time). Glad that one did not happen we would all be praising the motherland right now lol.




edit on 27-7-2011 by Openeye because: I was wrong to think historians could actually agree on anything lol




posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
In 1953, the two sides signed an armistice, so the war didn't really end. It's the end of hostilities, not the end of the actual dispute that led to the hostilities. The dispute was and remains whether the Republic of Korea (SK) or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (NK) is the legitimate government of the peninsula. Kim Jong-Il is offering America a nice exit, here. If the Americans recognize NK as the legitimate government of the north of the peninsula, then there can be a peace between the two Koreas and the war can finally end. If NK is recognized by the US, then America (and SK) will lose the legal claim that NK is illegitimate and that the Republic of Korea ought to be extended over the entire peninsula. It will actually allow NK to claim victory to its citizens, and begin dismantling their permanent war-economy.


This is a great finale for everybody involved, and we better hope that the GOP does NOT win the 2012 election. The GOP today is absolutely fanatical and would never, ever take the necessary steps towards Detente that Nixon did in the 70s. They would rather renew hostilities than allow communists to exist!



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
it wasn't only the US fighting.

it was a UN action.

we also went all the way to yalu river, the chinese border but the forces were pushed back, when china jumped in, to where the border is now.

besides, the north invaded first.

(in a nutshell)

china doesn't even want NK's, they send them back, where they will probably be shot.

here is something probably not well known about the US and north koreans,

please give it a look,

www.moore-mccormack.com...



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Their leader is insane. Clinically insane I mean. Their people are starving in huge numbers as every dime and most food goes to military and nuclear weapons. Their people have been cut off from outside information for decades and are indoctrinated from youth on. Children start training to kill Westerners at Pre-School age with fully automatic weapons. They know nothing of the real world.


You mean very akin to Uganda*, Congo*, Darfur*, hmm... pre-west Iraq*, Afghanistan**, Iran***.

(*edit) How could I forget about Libya*? Damn 1-week attention span.
(*edit2) Re-reading what you posted... There are way too many countries that share similarities.

Special Cases:
* - actually happened and/or is happening right now.
** - supposedly happened in the past. At least I remember hearing about it.
*** - is supposedly still happening,

Oh, no you didn't... nevermind... sorry:



North Korea is a unique case in this world.

edit on 27-7-2011 by shanerz because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-7-2011 by shanerz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by typwar
 


Yeah this is good news, why wouldn't it be? Maybe if this happens, North Korea will get rid of their "Screw everybody but us" mentality and be more internationally active.


The six-nation talks group the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia. They were initially designed to provide the North with security guarantees and economic assistance in return for its nuclear dismantlement.
Why is it that the United States feels it's the only country that can have nuclear weapons? This website says that we have over 10,000. I don't understand the double standard that we have, we can have tons of nuclear weapons, but if another country that's not our ally has even a couple, they're a huge threat and they need to get rid of them.

Aren't nuclear weapons basically an insurance policy anyway? If the US or any other country for that matter does anything crazy, such as launches a few nukes at North Korea, don't they just have those to fire back and retaliate, as a sort of last ditch mutually assured destruction insurance?

I think either all countries should have nukes, or none should have nukes.
edit on 27-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post


"Why is it that the United States feels it's the only country that can have nuclear weapons? "

Because we used them, realized how deadly both environmentally and destructively they are, and then put them down and never used them again.

If a country like north korea gets em, the idiot over there can go "OMG U stole mai rice bowlz i nuke you NAO!"

Add to that the fukushima disaster and other things, and you can see why it's not safe for such an isolated country to harbor nukes.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
What your seeing is the long arm of China here.
The North Koreans have become a thorn in China's side.
And their use as a pawn has become less as China expands.
This is a ploy to get US troops out of Asia peacefully.
China wants to become South Korea's big brother.
Uhhh.... what a disfunctional Family.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
We could have stopped all this in 1988 by suggesting to South Korea that North Korea might host the olympics. North Korea actually made the offer.

The country would have been united two decades ago but no the Big Gorilla USA has to have all those military bases in south Korea doing nothing but kicking the hornest nest.
edit on 27-7-2011 by VforVendettea because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join