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.

 

How to reunite Korea

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 





South Korea has about twice as many people and about a 15x stronger currency than the North. The South Korean government structure has a separation of powers between the President, Legislator and Courts with the DRPK party the socialist ruling party in the North. I do find it in the interests of all involved that the DRPK does become one of the electable parties in a Korean National Legislator. From news reports it does look like NK is satisfied with this position, is the US?

I really do not know how US will react in this scenario, but it will not happen.
Try to imagine what will happen to those who are in power in North Korea.
Political leadership will loose all authority because juche and undead president cannot coexist with normal life in state where South Korean lifestyle and law system are the dominant ones. And even if they will be granted immunity from legal persecutions due to the oppresive nature of the rule - they will be hated not only by hundreds thousands who went through camps and gentle treatment of North Korea security forces.
but also by disillusioned general North Korean public.
Military leadership will have to integrate into South Korean military doctrine that is not based on throwing millions of cannon folder soldiers at the enemy. So lots of generals/lower officer positions will be cut.
Who in current North Korean elite is going to be interested in that? Who will be strong enough to push it through without some silent coup?
The system has to rot first.




posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 



Meetings Held to Elect Delegates to WPK Conference

Pyongyang, April 2 (KCNA) -- Meetings of the party committees of the Korean People's Army, all the provinces (political bureau), cities (district) and counties were successfully held to elect delegates to the Fourth Conference of the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK). The meetings elected Kim Jong Un, the supreme leader of the WPK, state and army, as a delegate to the Fourth WPK Conference, reflecting the unanimous will and desire of all the party members, service personnel and people. The meetings also elected officials and other working people who performed merits in strengthening the party and accomplishing the cause of the Juche revolution, the cause of Songun revolution, as delegates to the WPK Conference.

www.kcna.kp...

North Korea is moving towards a South Korean style of governance and party structures are developing to put forth in a national Korean assembly with the WKP and DPRK the two main parties in the North. There have been long running indications that this will be the case, but done slowly and surly to reduce some of the culture shock that has developed between the two. The separation of powers within the South Korean governance structure is one worth standing for, time and again too much power consolidation leads to effective decision making.

From what I can see, North Korea is moving into position to enter a national assembly with the South. What happens with Kim Jong Un is an important piece and he appears to be in a similar position as Aung San Suu Kyi at the moment, do I take a government or legislator position? I do see a lot of pressure from the South if Kim Jong Un does take too much power, but there is some freedom for how he fits into the system. I acknowledge that there are big issues with a president and emperor both at head of state as it can divide the nation when they disagree. Some clarity is needed for how a Korean Assembly / Parliament / Government will operate, but some important parts are already moving into position.

How the military unites will be an important one indeed. They have had a lot of practice against each other lately and bound to be a few minor incidents along the way. I would expect the more elite units of each side to be disciplined enough to put any personal issues aside in mutual defence of a National Korean House. This will be neutral ground, another DMZ but also the starting point of a untied army and nation. If trust is really that bad, then a UN force is an option to help secure and guide the way out until a national trust is established.

There will not be the need for such a big army once peace is secured, so job losses here is to be expected. Reunification will take a lot of work and much reorganisation is needed. Cultural changes have been a constant throughout human society with wars and trade affecting this world for thousands of years. Korea will eventually sort out its differences one way or another.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by frazzle
 


The game 'Civilisation' helped a lot for me in understanding some of what goes on.

This money one is tough, on one side numbers so big it is hard to make any sense of it and the other side numbers so insignificant it is hard to determine any meaning. I very much understand the positions of wealth and poverty with the options, resources and capabilities offered by the value of money. It is also clear that quite strong conflicts of interest can develop as a result of this and other power. This has been the situation to get us to this stage so some Kudos for that.

I do like Ron Paul, but there is some hesitation in what uncertainty it presents with this economic can of worms. If the Fed is to go down, then what other currency options are there? What change management will there be or is it just another feeding frenzy? At the moment I am supporting the G20 for final control of the global economy and one place to keep an eye on for options and possibilities. My reasoning for this is recent control of the IMF and the combined strength and force it can muster under START.

The topic of "how wealth is introduced into an economy" is immensely political and influential. With America releasing a large flow of currency based on debts it has helped established international trading through the world with a common value. There was just not enough gold around at the time to help facilitate all of what America was getting involved in so it was linked to other things. As strongest stander of WWII and the Cold War it is also an expression of Earth's culture.

There are many different currency systems around the world with a lot of common standards introduced to help with its security and integrity. With the issues going on with the Euro I am not sure the world is ready for one single currency unit. Clearer standards, accounting and oversight is needed globally so important macroeconomic factors can be accurately measured and trust established. There is much contention with loan policy, corporate taxation and many other financial issues. Language barriers can also compound difficulties with misunderstandings, it is a huge job.
edit on 2-4-2012 by kwakakev because: spelling 'so'


I’ve never played that game so who knows if it would help me understand the world better, but I will say that from everything I’ve learned about human history so far, I’m not all that impressed with civilization.

After I found an article saying the World Bank IS involved in the BRICS planning I was going to respond to your last post with a mea culpa on my earlier comment that they probably wouldn’t be interested in working with the World Bank. But then to my major relief, it went on to explain that its more a matter of the WB WANTING to be involved, which is no big surprise. I sincerely hope BRICS (as well as N. Korea and others) will take time to compare Iceland’s solution to the experiences of Argentina:

PressTV - Obama suspends trade benefits for Argentina Mar 27, 2012 ... That leaves Argentina in the company of Syria, Belarus and the rest of ... said it would oppose any loans to Argentina through the World Bank ...www.presstv.ir/usdetail/233415.html

Hopefully BRICS will also take note of the central bank’s handling of Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal etc. and go tell the loans-for-austerity gang to take a long walk off a short pier. But as far as I can see there’s not all that much more to know about the direction they’ll take until they decide to tell us and there’s still a lot of dickering to do among the participants before that happens.

Yes, of course there are many currencies in the world, one of which is the North Korean won, and despite incredible manipulation and pressure from the WB and Federal Reserve to KEEP those currencies insignificant, the irony of it is that the countries that will probably fall the hardest are those whose economies are dependent on, or wedded to the IMF, BIS, WB and WTO.

As I said earlier, the preferred method monopolists use to maintain their power is to stifle the competition until it can be taken over and crushed. Even violent regime change is used, as we’ve seen, particularly when there are valuable resources involved. The way I see it, the money monopoly cabal created the “monopolice”, from diplomats and ambassadors to armies, to prevent belligerents from gaining a market toehold by limiting or outlawing member nation’s from trading with them (see link above) Of course the US plays a major role in those efforts but just how major is the question. That said, a one world currency would be even worse than the dollar as the reserve currency in that regard. Sadly, it looks as though we might have to learn that lesson the hard way (again) because so many of us can’t see any alternative to the status quo.

edit on 3-4-2012 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Through civilisation we are having this conservation, the electricity, water, shops, roads, cars, cities. It is keeping the population on this world alive and growing in most parts. Without it, the current population is unsustainable and things go back to caveman days.

The history of conflict is as long as life on this planet, it is how the strong are defined so the next generation can grow even stronger. With the war situation a lot of common ground is building under the UN but there is still a lot to do as discussions and resolutions are still ongoing. The status quo is important because it works, but as all things do change in their own due course a clear and stable direction is also needed.

With all the G20 nations now getting involved with the inner workings of the global economy it is providing a lot more discussion, resources and alternatives to the problems. Having all international currencies backed by a single global currency like the SDR can help take the conflict out of the international currency markets. While market forces helped establish a global trading system, more regulation and accounting of all the resources behind an economy can also help secure it.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by frazzle
 



Its apparent that you and I will never see eye to eye on any of this although its nice that we've managed to remain civil about it. I can't speak for you, but its a no brainer that no one cares what I think, anyway. Well, besides me.

While the status quo may sound good and works well if you happen to be one of the strong ones, the status quo of perpetual bombing and death for those who are under attack for their resources isn't sustainable at all. What you seem to be saying is that as long as the global controllers agree to it, the strong are justified in taking whatever they may want or need from weaker peoples so their own offspring can maintain a good lifestyle. But it seems to me that those subsequent generations ultimately become weak, both morally and spiritually, simply because everything comes too easy.

I'm beginning to see why Ron Paul’s ideas of what constitutes a good economic system might be disconcerting to you because while he promotes competing currencies (no more monopolies), he means only nationally and strictly within constitutional limits. One assumes he probably also thinks other nations should be equally free to create their own economic systems and conduct mutually beneficial trade negotiations with other nations without interference from some unelected global council. Now THAT would be free trade.

My own position on Paul's stand on restoring the gold standard is simply this: when the US was operating under the GS it became the most prosperous nation on earth and when they eliminated gold and silver and signed on to defer much of their authority to an international board, it began a long, slow slide into the ditch, which is the most notable function of debt and lost autonomy. And truthfully the collapse of this failed system has taken a lot longer than I thought it would. But you really do have to hand it to the money managers, they are some of the most cunning, manipulative and amoral people on the planet and they have stretched the dollar system beyond what seemed possible without getting themselves hanged by a very angry populace. And these are the very people who are pushing for a world economy which would, of course, be directed by themselves. FAIL

Granted, this is terribly simplistic and ignores the intricacies of their plans but they could add as many new nations to the debates as exist (which is almost impossible to imagine), the fact is that those who currently have veto power would retain ultimate control and any currencies they devised would simply be another bigger version of the current ponzi scheme. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. One question, would removing the potential for conflict come with or without chains?

BTW, those cavemen had access to an abundance of fresh, pure water and they freely congregated in areas that weren't already occupied (or fought for them). Today we have centrally controlled chemicalized water from a tap that we must purchase from the central controllers and which may be turned off without notice or explanation, but we are prohibited from accessing lakes, rivers and streams without permission or paying fees, and then only for limited use. Also the bodies of water under their control, including the oceans, are increasingly contaminated by the very people who say they are protecting the enviroment for future generations. And yes, we do have roads these days, which control where we go,and more importantly, where we may not go. As for the rest, yes, its very nice to have all these amenities although rather than strengthening us, as I said, they weaken us.
edit on 4-4-2012 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


How money works is a huge problem globally with much debate, discussion and work going on. Finding the international consensus on its basic guidelines is no easy task with so much complexity, power and interests. Without a common rule book, we have one side playing soccer while the other is playing basketball, what results is a mess.

I very much share your disdain for war and I had big trust issues after reviewing 9/11, but acknowledge these realities, abilities and motivations. I can only see two solutions to your desires, massively depopulate the planet with its contradictions, or work better with each other. To be realistic about the situation there have been parts of both going on. Mutually assured destruction has only been a couple of hours away for the last 50 years and is one card still on the table. At the UN and IAEA, the really big guns are getting better secured.

As for who I trust these days, the UN General Assembly makes the strongest bond when in agreement. This is due in part to the amount of discussion, research, common understanding and shared interest in humanity. Unfortunately not all issues are clear enough to reach an agreement at this level, but as work continues and progress is made I do have hope that the answers will come in time. If you have a better way to get out of this mess I would like to hear it.

Humans like all mammals are very social creatures and establish hierarchies with their social interactions. Small communities and groups are very open to group discussions and united decisions. But as larger groups form, group communication takes longer and can break down when getting to united decisions. It is take a lot of time and resources to work through conflicts and establish a resolution, implementation also brings with it many challenges at times.

The issues of prosperity are global in nature and there will need to be some international framework to promote win-win situations over win-lose ones. The idea of opening up more currency competition is one floating around, I first heard about it through Jared Loughner
. The work that has been going on with Bitcoin in securing account transactions for public privacy and official oversight can provide some of what is needed. Establishing trust is vital for all currencies as well as some way they can interact on the international currency exchange. Making sure the resources are actually their, proper accounting all takes time. If some currency does not want to work with the global guidelines that is fine, but it limits their capacity to interact and exchange with the global community.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
It has to be done via subversion. The next North Korean leader needs to be a South Korean agent. If the international communists could implant a foreign agent like Obama as president of the US, surely someone could get their act together and return the favor to the North Koreans.

Heck our intelligence agencies were behind the Arab spring movement, so it must be possible.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


It has already been kinda done. Kim Jong Un went to school in Switzerland and learnt German. Hopefully he picked up a few tips of what to expect when a wall comes down.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


Well, we’ve kind of gone off course from North Korea, but as with every country, currency and trade are big issues, and in response to your comments about needing international consensus, I disagree that there should be, only one “rule book”. I’m against only one of anything like that since the potential for abuse is always found in the definitions and “between the lines” exceptions. That is certainly true of the very clearly written US constitution/BoR, and btw, I’ve also read the preamble to the UN constitution, which frankly scared the bajeezus out of me.

There are currently 190 plus countries in the world and obviously they each do not trade with every other country in the world. But what is wrong with each country creating its own currency and setting up exchange rates with those countries that they DO trade with based on a mutually agreed upon currency value vs. the products being purchased/sold? Or even blocks of nations, like BRICS, collaborating and creating currencies that are open to voluntary participants? Its already basically done that way, although the fluctuating (plummeting) value of the US reserve dollar and mandates sent down from the WTO complicate every transaction for every country. Having a strong national STABLE currency is vital to a country’s autonomy and without that in place a nation isn’t a nation at all, it’s a subject and a supplicant to a higher authority not even of their own choice. I have no desire for my country to be subjected to outside rule. Yes, we already are ordered around by international rules to a large extent but we have enough to worry about with the lack of representation from our own government without adding more. And you probably have similar problems. Why make it worse?

Anyway, from what I can gather, its money, not nukes, that makes North Korea a pariah in the eyes of the international “community”. They won’t play monopoly on the central bank’s terms. The N. Koreans may be doing everything wrong (from our point of view) but they ARE doing it their way and I won’t fault them for it. We don’t own them. The Arabs with their gold Dinar are also pariah nations according to those who want to round us all up into a single debt corral, so they are demonized by media for stoning women etc. etc, but really, which part of Sharia law is it that really upsets the status quoers?

WHAT IS SHARIA LAW? « Lincoln D. Gomez Under Sharia Islamic law, making money from money, such as charging interest, is usury and therefore not permitted. lincolngomez.com...

And you must know that the UN is doing its fair share to force Muslims to give up their beliefs about money and join the united debtor nations, all the while trying to appear neutral. Well, at least some of us aren’t buying it anymore.

So I’ve gotta say, your “really big guns” scare me more than N. Korea’s nukes ever have (or the Soviet’s) and that’s a fact!!! They scare me even more when they’re in agreement. MAD was never anything more than a bogey man in the closet to keep us scared and in line while a whole lot of bad rules and regulations were being dumped on the world while we were all hiding under our desks. If there had been a genuine threat, both sides would have wanted to conquer developed and undamaged enemy territory, not charred cinders that couldn’t be occupied for decades or centuries. It seemed like a huge hoax to me even as a kid when my family was recruited to call a special number and report any scary looking planes in the sky (they gave us a plastic diagram of the bad guys). I figured, okay, they nuke us and we nuke them, so who wins? Meh.

To be continued later



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


Continued as threatened


l also have to disagree with you on humans being gregarious and socially integrated like other animals. First of all, about the only cultures that ever spent much time learning from the animals were the indigenous peoples and no people have ever held the natural world in higher regard than they did/do. And although the newcomers learned a lot from the native's experiences on which wild plants are safe to eat or use for medicinal purposes, etc., our next step was to drive those tribes into open air prison camps called reservations because they were terrorists (who were going to kill us all in our beds) who were illegally occupying our land. Yes, we are gregarious and socially integrated animals. Unless someone has something we think should belong to us.

But I’ve never been involved in a bear clan meet-up to know what kinds of things they discuss, I’ve only ever run into individual bears (on three separate occasions) and none of them seemed interested in sharing their wisdom with me. Not that I was thinking about asking right about then. And the lone wolf syndrome isn’t just for killers of presidents, you know. Wolves may hunt in packs, but they don’t build den cities and they don’t need rule books to tell them to stay out of a den or territory that belongs to another wolf (or bear). Animals don’t set up councils to draw arbitrary boundaries and borders and rules to hem themselves in. That’s why they’re free. Of course the animals that do tend to run in big groups are generally called herds and in that regard I’ll have to admit that yes, there is some similarity.

As for depopulation, some of the biggest global government supporters have publicly stated that up to 80 percent of the world’s population needs to die to make their plans work. Many people claim this is already being done, right under our noses. They call it “soft kill” and when you read the warnings and death stats, its hard to argue with them. War is the most notable method, but contaminated food, water and medications alone quietly slow-kill millions of people every year. Example:
shine.yahoo.com...

But going back to the animals, in lean times when prey and other sources of food will be scant, many species of animals simply do not reproduce. How they know bad times are coming is probably pure instinct. And as much as I dislike the favored human method of population control, the growing rate of abortion makes me think that our natural instincts may also still be operating to some extent.

I think the problem with the bitcoin was that it was “off the official books” and therefore transactions between people couldn’t be tracked or controlled by those who just have to control everything or they’re not happy. So bitcoin was declared illegal.

Here’s how I see the big picture: when the currency belongs to the people, the sky’s the limit on what they can do and be, together or individually, but when a cabal controls the currency, only the cabalists are unlimited in what they can do. Don’t fall for it.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


If the UN constitution is anything like the EU constitution I understand your concern. The one reassuring thing is that no one can operate in isolation. As for the rule book, there are some I like so far:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Banning atmospheric nuclear testing and CFC's

There are others, any you like? I know it can quickly turn in to a massive library maze.

These are global issues that affect everyone and global action is needed to address these problems in an effective and realistic way. Some global guidance and standardisation of practice is required if the world is to operate more effectively. Corporate law, trade and the economy are just some complex issues still getting worked through with many people still chipping away. This world is too complicated for just one rule book, but there are issues and standards that needs to be addressed on the global, national and other local stages.

There is some supporting evidence for your 'soft kill' policy, watching infertility rates rise is one indication. On the issue of euthanasia, if the family, doctors and all involved can talk and come to a common decision I support it. I do respect how China was able to be open about such a policy with its 'one child'. It did lead to many painful situations as such a topic does. In travelling around Australia, land is not a problem here. But then what would happen if we had 200 million or a billion people living here instead of our 30 million? It can be a harsh and unforgiving place with infrastructure very much a problem.



But what is wrong with each country creating its own currency and setting up exchange rates with those countries that they DO trade with based on a mutually agreed upon currency value vs. the products being purchased/sold? Or even blocks of nations, like BRICS, collaborating and creating currencies that are open to voluntary participants?


A problem is how are those exchange rates decided, at the moment it is mainly market driven as accounting of trade balances takes place. Here in Australia we went through an economic process called 'floating the dollar'. It resulted in a recession at the time but now the Australia dollar exchange rate is determined by the international market. There are now many other nations who also have their currency exchange rates determined by the international market. As a consequence, there are now many robots and financial institutions trying to find cracks and manipulate the system while it continues to grow as more checks and balances gradually gets introduced. Bankers may be bastards, but they really hate losing money with security a big issue for them.

One problem with a mutually agreed currency value is how it responds to fluctuations in both supply and demand. With such a value being set by a bureaucrat instead of the market, responses do take take time and establishing a complete overview for a fair and accurate evaluation is not easy. I do acknowledge that such an approach does create stability in the market, but at the cost of overall equity for global trade.

I have heard of BRICS thinking about creating a bank, but not yet creating a currency. Would this be something like the Euro and how would issues of voluntary participation work when locked in, like Greece for example. If BRICS can raise enough capital to compete with the central bank it will provide one way to introduce Sharia practices into macroeconomic policy, I like it. The terms with the IMF have been very hostile in the past under the CFR, but it is coming under greater oversight with more capability now that the G20 is in control.

As for choice of currency, BitCoin, Linden and others are rising in the online environment with exchanges established between major currencies. These digital currencies have had times of instability, crashes and uncertainty, but have continued working at the problems and are establishing some market penetration. It has taken years to establish some trust, stability and community but it is continuing to grow. Bitcoin was confronted with the issues of trade regulation when a potential for money laundering and black market trading was identified. It worked with the system to allow for continued monitoring of the cash flow while preserving much of its anonymity and security.

I can fully appreciate the economic factors in the challenges for Korea reunification as it is a very important source of power. The North and South Korean teams do need to get on side with the economy, sort through the mess to pick out the best accounting and financial practices, dump the worst and put more resources into what is left in the too hard basket at the end.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
This is pretty hard, even the're government officials can't settle the fire against this to nations. And also there are lots of people died in this war even civilian's the more people killed more revenge they want, They did not imagine that because of them why the peoples of the're nations got killed.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


Global issues affect people differently in different locations and solutions to those issues should be made by local officials as they understand the culture and needs far better than an outsider could. Any country helping another with internal problems should come in by invitation only and without expectations or demands, pure and simple. Isolationism is a buzz word used to convince people that they (or at least everybody else) cannot be trusted to do the right thing and therefore must be herded around (guided) by so called experts. The irony is that those experts are people who have no idea how to fix their own country’s ills, much less the world’s. The word they won’t use, however, is “INTERVENTIONISM”, IOW, that they get together IN SECRET to plan how to intervene in everyone else’s business. And isn’t it strange how their plans usually end up benefitting only the major corporations, foundations and NGOs of the G20 nations rather than the people back home or of the other 170 or so countries of the world.

Think about those three “rule books” you like and tell me why we need all these arbitrary rules? If trade and humanitarian relations were based on the standard of “do unto others” instead of throwing multi-million dollar vacations for leaders of the top 20 powerhouses to hobnob in some of the world’s most opulent venues, maybe less of the world’s population would be living in cars or on the streets or in desperate poverty. www.thesun.co.uk...

If a country or corporation’s practices are unacceptable to another country or corporation they should have the absolute right to refuse to trade with them. End of story. But when those decisions are made by international bureaucrats using bullying tactics to force the less powerful into compliance, impotence for everyone is the result. And if some won’t knuckle under, there are always those disabling sanctions. Or military force.

Exchange rate decisions between trading partners don’t require a committee from the outside; and how fluctuations in markets and currency values impact each one specifically is no business of foreigners. Let those trading partners negotiate their own deals rather than allowing outside parties to dicker around for months on end and then issue an edict. By then the earlier fluctuations will have changed anyway and it will be back to the interventionist’s drawing board. Nothing ever gets done.

In 2010, the G20 met in Toronto and they decided to increase capital funding to the Multilateral Development banks by 350 billion dollars, which they said would allow those banks to double their lending. And um, what happened to the money that was given to the banks? Does anyone know? At that same meeting, the members said they “stood united with the people of Haiti (following that January’s earthquake) to provide reconstruction assistance" and they welcomed the launching of "the Haiti Reconstruction Fund.”

Six months later, more than 1½ million Haitians were still homeless. Only a portion had tents and almost no temporary shelters had been built. In addition to the promises of the G20, millions of people worldwide had donated, but survivors said that almost none of the promised funds had reached them. So what happened to all the money? I’m sure you’ll agree that staying alive without shelter, food or potable water for six months might present a problem. Cholera was rampant. It still is. Matter of fact, the whole history of Haiti is a case in point on how interventionists and colonialists manage to destroy whatever they touch. The linked site below is a scathing indictment on foreign intervention and it serves as fair warning to anyone who might ever require aid.

www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org... ion.html

About the nightmare that is Greece and the EU, I would simply say that the words “locked in” and “voluntary” are mutually exclusive. And incidentally, withdrawal from the United Nations by member states is not provided for in the United Nations Charter, either. Doesn that kind of sound like the mob? You’re free to join but the rules can change at the whim of the godfather who issues all the "contracts" so you'll probably have to die to get out. Its only a guess, but perhaps no one is more cognizant of that little rule than the North Koreans. Well, and maybe a few other countries that have tried to withdraw from the UN. That's what happens when you don't read the fine print before you sign on the dotted line.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by HurtMeNot
 


War is a very personal matter and it is a big issue you raise, are the people ready for unification? One advantage Korea has over other long running conflicts is the the land boarders have been stable for a long time, reducing the tension from ongoing resettlements with other conflicts. If revenge is the only motivation, then conflict will never end until everyone is dead as there are many reasons for this body count.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


I can understand that the rule book is a mess, as it is a reflection of humanity in these growing times. But there are always rules, legal, cultural, social, biological or physical to name a few. The legal system is also having a hard time confronting some of the problems going on, but to throw it out altogether will take us back to even harder times. As for the ones that I liked, they help to preserve self determination and diversity while recognising the realities of this world. I am not aware of any nations that does live up to all these standards, but it is something worth considering when defining the national interest.

A problem with 'do unto others', 'do no harm' and such is human nature, not everyone plays by these rules with our freedom of choice and complexity of environment. You have raised just some examples of corruption, there are many at all levels of society with some rules furthering these problems. The corporate entity is one that does need to be used with caution with its profit driven decision making process, but they do regulate their unique rules and processes of their influences. With international corporate power now rivalling that of many nations in terms of power and resources, only an international approach will help keep things in check.



Exchange rate decisions between trading partners don’t require a committee from the outside; and how fluctuations in markets and currency values impact each one specifically is no business of foreigners.


It is the business of foreigners when these goods or currency are part of the global trade. There is a lot of pressure to get things as cheep as possible and if some countries are not on guard or up to speed with their exchange rates, exploitations will follow. But even on the global market the problems of exploitation still exist in other areas as the system continues to build and evolve. There has been a long term trend of more oversight and accountability in the management of the global economy, but it is a massive machine that moves slowly. It is good to see the BRICS throwing around a few ideas now that it is opening up to them.

As for who do I trust to set the exchange rate, I prefer many people working on this rather than a few but it is getting outside my area to comment on specifics. From what I can see about macroeconomic policy, to do it right it needs to account for everything to match supply with demand in the most economical way. As war and walls exist, what trade means to some is in conflict with what trade means to others.



withdrawal from the United Nations by member states is not provided for in the United Nations Charter, either. Doesn that kind of sound like the mob?


Unless a nation gets fully taken out by some disaster it is part of Earth and as such has some responsibility. A small nation might not have much weight when it comes to the global direction by itself, but is part of the global community that needs to learn how to work together if it is to continue to survive and grow.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


Maybe I’m not expressing myself very well, but I see the problems of these “growing times” as an outgrowth of earlier growing times. Modern history is replete with invasions, occupations and the colonization of foreign lands by European countries via colonists who were driven from their own homelands by the stupidity of their kings and churches. So being incapable of fixing the problems at home, people ran, impacting the invaded peoples with variations of the same stupid belief systems and rules that drove them to emigrate in the first place. Yes, those were hard times, but more so for those who were being overrun than the invaders, and the long range results of those earlier growth spurts are now impacting everyone on earth. And there’s nowhere left to run. Progress.

Until these earlier invasions, most of the world’s populations lived and traded as they had done for centuries without any need for written laws. What changed that? No it wasn't a growing population, it was men with pens and an unnatural urge to RUN things.

You originally asked us to envision a peacefully united Korea and while I don’t know all that much about their history, until the early 1900s they were more or less ruled by Japan. Then for some inexplicable reason, in 1907 the US selected a Korean man, who had some time earlier been exiled to the US, as Korea’s new ruler which caused a great deal of turmoil there, but he was ultimately (s)elected to lead the country. Whatever occurred over the next decades is, for the most part, unknown to me and probably most other outsiders, as well, but I would think the Korean people on both sides of the DMZ are fully aware of how their country was altered by interference from outside forces and that those alterations ultimately led to a “police action” which keeps the north and south at odds still today. Its just getting hard to ignore the fact that what US policy has always done best is create divisiveness. And of course US policymaking drives international policy to a large extent. so what have we created other than an overarching entity that preaches peace and unity while causing increasing discord between nations and even domestically. (rhetorical question)

Of course you’re right in saying that some people don’t play nice without written rules, but those same people tend to ignore rules of any kind and the worst offenders are those who have put themselves above the law because they write the law and have quite deliberately created strong ties with those who enforce the law. And please keep in mind that I am aware that there are well intentioned people involved in the international apparatus who are trying to make sense of the senselessness, but unless they keep their mouths shut about any “anomalies” they may observe, they will soon find themselves in trouble because whistleblowers are anathema to movers and shakers at any level of authority. Blind trust does not make them trustworthy.

I do hope the BRICS members will take these concerns into account in laying out their plans because there needs to be transparency and accountability to the people of their respective countries while applying the brakes on the current out-of-control economic and lawmaking powers. And let’s just say I will be pleasantly surprised if it works out that way because central planners and social engineers of any stripe are seldom interested in promoting anything beyond creating centrally controlled tractable masses. I sometimes wonder how they can claim to respect diversity while doing everything humanly possible to stamp it out.

And then there are the flies in the ointment ~ those of every nationality and ethnicity who will always rebel against being engineered and co-opted, like North Korea. Then look further, just based on the growing scale of injustices being committed throughout the world, both of omission and commission by the UN, US and the NATO allies and tell me that we shouldn't expect to see some violent blowback from the flies in the very near future. Believe me, the "authorities" are gearing up for it and it’ll probably only end up being successful for the population reduction the central planners have long been hoping for, and that's just plain sad.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
i've spent some time in s. korea, and i can certainly understand your views. your physical placement being australia gives you a different perspective than most of us in the states. many in s. korea go on vacations to australia. there are many replies regarding the monetary situation, one thinks about west and east germany.
my issue has to do with the state of mind of most of the n. korean populace. the culture, the language, and the education level is so different. there's a reason the internet is illegal in n. korea. they know so little of the outside world. unification idea is noble, but both sides are not ready on so many levels. s. korea does not have a state sponsored unemployment or social welfare program.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


I know the world is a mess, the pain, hurt and despair is clear in your posts and common from so many other sources that I just want to cry, if I was not so comfortably numb or dissociated to it. It does hurt my head thinking about, why, where to start, how to get out of this mess. The first step in problem solving is to identify the problem, the world is a mess as economic incentives and self interest are guiding the geopolitical agenda, instead of humanitarian and global interests. It is a big problem, so try starting on just a small piece of this problem. This has lead me to Korea and its ongoing battle between capitalism and socialism. If these two can make up and find a better balance between the government structures then maybe it can provide some options further up the chains of power. At a minimum, reunification will give Korea a stronger voice at the UN as all of its constant divisions are swept aside.

The issues of control is also a big problem, I prefer to see it as a responsibility. The approach from the courts at times makes it hard to get to the truth and find a reasonable answer to some conflicts at times with competition, revenge, deterrent, rehabilitation, the scales and the sword, along with all the complex motivations and stupid reasons we do what we do. The legal system does have a long history with many hard lessons along the way and is an important part with the separation of powers. The capabilities of justice are also getting bogged down with the large corporate resources and is ineffective at the highest levels of power without military backing.

As for what I know about the history of Korea, it has been caught between Japan and China for many 1000's of years. China and Japan do have some rivalry with Korea caught in some conflict over time, Mongolia might have swept through a thousand or so years ago as well. Sounds like Siberia has had some connections for a while as well. I did not previously know when the US first got there, interesting that you say 1907 as it looks like those connections helped the US as they established a democracy. Russia was first to sweep through Korea in the 1950 as the cold war was setting in. America then jumped in and got pushed back to their last Korean port near Japan. With some time to set up defences and good supply routes they held ground and then pushed back. Once the Russian retreated and America retook Korea, then the Chinese stepped in. China sent a lot of men, as the US artillery done a lot of damage. China still pushed hard with the the conflict finally settling on the wall we have today.

The international issues are long, deep and many. With the initial problems between Russia and US now at better relation and some of the ones between China and the US are sorted out.

On the bigger picture of if it is all worth it, this world could fall apart in many different ways. So far it has not yet for the most part. Until it happens, I am tired of being sad, depressed and disappointed with this world. For whatever reasons of how or why we are here, we are here. Understanding the situation is important if any progress is to be made. The US has been a bully pushing corporate law around the world, they have also introduced a lot of improvements to technology and social infrastructure. Convergence is also a big one with heaps of complex threats, risks and capabilities.

As for what has been holding up this peace treaty, if it continues to fall apart on the first disagreement progress will never be made as there are just too many problems and organisation that needs to be done. The North is looking keen to get things sorted out, I could appreciate some resistance by the South due to all the added problems it will need to take on in the short term. Sooner or later these two sides will need to stop playing silly buggers and find some better agreement for coexistence.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Lawgiver
 


Looking at the NK news sites, the issue of reunification is big. They still give the US a hard time, but considering some of the US responses on the boards it is good to see that they can hold their ground. The disparities between the North and South Korean Won is a lot greater than what was with East and West Germany Mark, it is a big problem with how the markets and trade will operate. A single Korean currency is a big part unification, it is likely that the South will take an economic hit and might want to consider at least providing somewhere to sleep and something to eat depending on job levels.

North Korea is opening up to the internet, but it is highly regulated and slowly growing. There is a strong public desire to seek reunification from the North, they can see the differences in how the people are living and probably just as sick and tired of the wall as everyone else. It is going to take a lot planning and discussion to help limit some of the culture shocks, but it looks like Korea has seen worst.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Not sure if it has been mentioned, but earlier this year South Korea's government was in the process of preparing for the eventual reunification, I will edit in the link to the story (if I can find it), but it shows that reunification is a real possibility IMO.. and the efforts of the South showed that they know that it will be difficult.

here's the article from Jan...

www.bloomberg.com...


I certainly hope that a reunification can happen sooner than later, as family's have been separated far too long in the interest of outside forces and ideologies.. Call me a dreamer




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join