DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Kramer on May 29, 2010, 05:00:46 PM

Title: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Kramer on May 29, 2010, 05:00:46 PM
My prediction is NK will start a war.

Too bad we have the worst leader in history with the thinnest resume in charge right now. If anything Barry is paving the way for a war and pushing NK towards starting it. And I bet Barry will be happy for it because he will declare Martial Law and force himself upon us longer than he otherwise would be able to.
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: sirs on May 29, 2010, 05:10:37 PM
Not while we still have a functioning Constitution
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Kramer on May 29, 2010, 05:37:45 PM
Not while we still have a functioning Constitution

him and his judges wipe their asses daily with our constitution
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Plane on May 29, 2010, 05:43:19 PM
What do you mean NK will start a war?


They have already fired on the South Koreans , kidnapped a lot of Japaneese  , violated the border with China.

What is lacking in acts of war?

They have already started , we just are in denyal .
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 29, 2010, 05:58:18 PM
What the media has omitted about North Korea is that the government elected in 2007 is headed by Lee Myung Bak. a former Hyundai CEO. In the Parliamentary elections of 2008, no party has a majority, but the Conservative GNP (Grand National Party) now has more seats than the UDP that ruled for ten years.

North Korean actions have far more to do with South Korea than they do with the USA. Lee ended a deal called the Sunshine Policy, which sought to smooth over problems between the North and the South. The Sunshine Policy was what caused UDP President Kim Dae Jung to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Policy)

Another important matter is that Kim Jong Il wants to put his son in charge, and wants to convince the NK Army and others who might oppose this that he and his son are capable of standing up to the South and its new less-moderate government.

The usual attitude of the US press is that Kim Jong Il is crazy and that nothing he does makes any sense, but this is not accurate. North Korea and Kim feel threatened by all the countries that surround them, and are afraid of being dominated by them. And there is the succession issue as well, which intensifies as Kim Jong Il's health declines.

North Korea will not start a war, because they would lose the country. The only way Kim feels he can maintain the status quo is through belligerence towards the South and its main ally, the US.

China, of course, has more influence over NK than any other nation. Kim knows that he cannot even partly win against the Chinese and they cannot be threatened.

This is a game of chess. It is very unlikely there will actually be a war.
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Kramer on May 29, 2010, 06:53:41 PM
What the media has omitted about North Korea is that the government elected in 2007 is headed by Lee Myung Bak. a former Hyundai CEO. In the Parliamentary elections of 2008, no party has a majority, but the Conservative GNP (Grand National Party) now has more seats than the UDP that ruled for ten years.

North Korean actions have far more to do with South Korea than they do with the USA. Lee ended a deal called the Sunshine Policy, which sought to smooth over problems between the North and the South. The Sunshine Policy was what caused UDP President Kim Dae Jung to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Policy)

Another important matter is that Kim Jong Il wants to put his son in charge, and wants to convince the NK Army and others who might oppose this that he and his son are capable of standing up to the South and its new less-moderate government.

The usual attitude of the US press is that Kim Jong Il is crazy and that nothing he does makes any sense, but this is not accurate. North Korea and Kim feel threatened by all the countries that surround them, and are afraid of being dominated by them. And there is the succession issue as well, which intensifies as Kim Jong Il's health declines.

North Korea will not start a war, because they would lose the country. The only way Kim feels he can maintain the status quo is through belligerence towards the South and its main ally, the US.

China, of course, has more influence over NK than any other nation. Kim knows that he cannot even partly win against the Chinese and they cannot be threatened.

This is a game of chess. It is very unlikely there will actually be a war.

maybe you should massage Hillery's feet and whilst doing so get her up to speed on the ways of the world and while you are at it give your boy Barry a lesson as well.
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 29, 2010, 08:53:26 PM
I am pretty sure that Hillary and Obama are a lot better informed than I am, and about 1000 times better informed than you will ever be.
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Kramer on May 29, 2010, 10:29:14 PM
I am pretty sure that Hillary and Obama are a lot better informed than I am, and about 1000 times better informed than you will ever be.

so what excuses do they have for f#@cking up the the situation?
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Michael Tee on May 29, 2010, 11:35:40 PM
Nobody describing the incident emphasizes that it occurred when a fleet of U.S. and South Korean warships came very close to a North Korean island during "exercises."

In other words, this was a clear-cut provocation.  Only they chose to provoke the wrong people. 

Fuck with the bull and you get the horn.  South Korea got the horn.
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Kramer on May 30, 2010, 02:03:14 AM
Nobody describing the incident emphasizes that it occurred when a fleet of U.S. and South Korean warships came very close to a North Korean island during "exercises."

In other words, this was a clear-cut provocation.  Only they chose to provoke the wrong people. 

Fuck with the bull and you get the horn.  South Korea got the horn.

people are starving in NK and you call them the bull?
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Michael Tee on May 30, 2010, 09:41:01 AM
<<people are starving in NK and you call them the bull?>>

I was referring only to their state of military preparedness.

Really starving or on the edge of starvation or something else entirely?  I don't know for sure and it's a story I sure as hell don't trust the corporate MSM in the US to report on accurately anyway.

It's possible they fucked up badly and can't straighten themselves out - - that's one of the problems with giving absolute power to the rulers, you can't always replace the incompetent or corrupt when they need to be replaced.  A major problem of communism which the communists have yet to resolve.  Still, it does not happen in many communist regimes.  Famine is much more prevalent in the West's puppet states in Africa than it is in North Korea. 

It's also possible the MSM here have exaggerated a problem of what is essentially nothing more than belt-tightening so as to afford the means of self-defence against U.S. imperialism and blown the whole thing into a "famine." 

I exclude neither possibility.  After all, China's right on the border - - how the hell would the Chinese allow mass famine in their neighbouring country?
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: The_Professor on May 30, 2010, 11:54:09 AM
The sinking of one patrol boat hardly seems provocative enough for begin a war and it won't. This is simple sable rattlnig from all parties involved. The government of NK might begin a war by staging "an incident" if The Leader feels his succession is not assured. After all, war against a common foe usually works, at least in the beginning.

The larger question is what will it take to bring NK into being a congenial player on the world scene, if that is either desirable or possible.

For exampl,e is it even possible now to reunify the two nations? Or should anyone bother trying?
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Michael Tee on May 30, 2010, 12:37:20 PM
<<The larger question is what will it take to bring NK into being a congenial player on the world scene, if that is either desirable or possible.>>

I look at this in the larger context of China vs U.S.A.  The Chinese "need" a "mad dog" that only they can "restrain."  It's useful at times for the Chinese to have a card like that in their hand.  It's also of some value in reining in the Japanese.  North and South Koreans hate the Japs for a variety of very good reasons.  A nuclear-armed Korea, even if it's only the North half, has to make a lot of Japanese nervous.  Nobody in North OR South Korea would ever shed a tear if all of Japan were to be suddenly turned into a glass-topped parking lot.  What if they piss off China to the point that China loosens its restraining grip on the North Koreans?  So I don't think anyone is ever going to turn NK into a "congenial player," not as long as the Chinese have an important asset in their "mad dog" client.

<<For exampl,e is it even possible now to reunify the two nations? Or should anyone bother trying?>>

I wouldn't think so in the near future, no.  Long-run, of course, it's inevitable.  But as someone else once pointed out about the long run, "In the long run, we're all dead."
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: kimba1 on May 30, 2010, 12:38:51 PM
start a war?

I was in the impression it nerver really ended. it`s was actually in a state of a prolong seize fire. no peace agreement was ever made.

hmm, is this like a asian version of palistine/isreral?
quite afew parallels
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 30, 2010, 01:48:53 PM
Kimba is right. of course: officially, there is only a truce, the Korean War never actually ended.

Eventually, Korea will be united, but of course, because the North is a poor Third-World country and its people entirely ignorant of the way life in a modern capitalist society works, they would be lowly peons in the new, united Korea. The South is clearly a first-world industrial country, the Northerners would be a supply of not necessarily useful manual labor. So far, the main contribution of North Korea to the World economy is the sale of the human hair of its women, which is sold in bulk to the South, then packaged and marketed by Koreans in Korea and all around the world. No flea market in America does not have dozens of Koreans selling hair to Black women and others.

The leaders of North Korea, not just Kim and his clan, realize that there will be no place for them in the new united Korea. They are entirely unprepared to be united Koreans. At least East Germany had industry, but many of the Osties of the old DDR were impoverished and confused drifters for many years. This is not to say that eventually, all Koreans would benefit from unification. But it will be a process that will take at least twenty years. If one is an old fart in the North Korean politburo, that is beyond their expected lifespan.

The sinking of the South Korean boat was a message that, in the absence of th4e "Sunshine Policy" of the previous Korean government, the North was not going to allow itself to be pushed around.
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Plane on May 30, 2010, 06:59:51 PM
Nobody describing the incident emphasizes that it occurred when a fleet of U.S. and South Korean warships came very close to a North Korean island during "exercises."

In other words, this was a clear-cut provocation.  Only they chose to provoke the wrong people. 

Fuck with the bull and you get the horn.  South Korea got the horn.

So you accept as true that the North Koreans fired a fatal shot?
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Plane on May 30, 2010, 07:15:10 PM
I do not often speak to Korean citizens.

Last time I had a good chance to they realy did not like my National Geographic map of Korea. because it had the border between N and S drawn on it.

The were at pains to make it clear that the seaparation was unloved with them and with the rest of their country.

On another occasion they expressed disgust at finding Japaneese made tools in my rollaway , "in Korea we have Snappone" they said .  I realised about a day later that they had really said Snap On.

Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Michael Tee on May 30, 2010, 09:44:20 PM
<<So you accept as true that the North Koreans fired a fatal shot?>>

Nobody knows what's true.  It's as good a conjecture as any that the North Koreans, responding to South Korean/US provocation, shot first and sunk the South Korean ship.  It's a little less likely that the US faked the whole thing, because whenever the US fakes a casus belli, they usually follow it up by launching a real war.
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: sirs on May 30, 2010, 10:08:34 PM
Tee will now provide the numerous examples of the U.S. faking a military attack upon the U.S. with the subsequent follow-up launching into a real war

And of course, he'll also provide the proof/facts to support said allegation.  Anything less demonstrates......well, we all know what it demonstrates

Let us all stand back now, and be educated
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 30, 2010, 10:24:17 PM
Tee is referring to the bogus nonexistent attack by the North Vietnamese on the Maddox and the Turner Joy in the Gulf of Tonkin.

It is most probable that the Korean ship was fired upon by a North Korean submarine, and that this was a message to the South that North Korea was unhappy with the end of the "sunshine policy" of the previous S. Korean government.

If this has not caused a war yet, I deem it unlikely that one will result. No one can actually win a war. The South would suffer serious damage to Seoul, the North would end up with a deposed government, and the war would trigger financial crashes on the markets. China would be most unhappy, because they do not want N Korean refugees, and there would be unpleasant problems even for the Russians and the Japanese. It would be seriously imbecilic for any of the parties to actually start a war. There might be some more foolish INCIDENTS though.
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: sirs on May 30, 2010, 10:27:30 PM
Naaa, Tee was clearly referencing far more earlier examples of nefarious U.S fakery.  We're all eyes, on seeing these multiple examples that can conclude with the notion that when the U.S. fakes some attack, they follow it with war
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 30, 2010, 10:34:21 PM
When the Americans crossed the recognized boundary between Texas, recently annexed to the US, the Brazos River, this provoked the Mexican American War.

When the Johnson administration accused the North Vietnamese of firing on those ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, that began the bombing of the North.

It seems pretty obvious that this is what Tee was alluding to, and both are actual true incidents. I will let him confirm or deny this, but both are precise examples of typical US behavior.

Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: sirs on May 30, 2010, 10:36:56 PM
I think Tee can allude things himself, specifically what military actions were faked by the U.S., that then led to initiation of war
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Plane on May 31, 2010, 01:46:24 PM
<<So you accept as true that the North Koreans fired a fatal shot?>>

Nobody knows what's true.  It's as good a conjecture as any that the North Koreans, responding to South Korean/US provocation, shot first and sunk the South Korean ship.  It's a little less likely that the US faked the whole thing, because whenever the US fakes a casus belli, they usually follow it up by launching a real war.


I am not happy with North Korea either.


Lets just kill fifty of them , that isn't an act of war is it?
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Michael Tee on May 31, 2010, 01:51:33 PM
Thanks for the help, XO, but I've given up on "debating" - - i.e., exchanging insults with - - certain members of the group, and if they can't figure our my posts for themselves, then that's THEIR problem.
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: sirs on May 31, 2010, 03:02:30 PM
Yep, yet another meritless allegation, with Tee hiding behind some apparent cowardice, to a serious debate question

And for all to see
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on May 31, 2010, 08:03:20 PM
I agree that it is futile to explain anything to sirs or Kramer: neither of them will ever concede a single point on anything. Sirs can look up the Gulf of Tonkin and find out for himself what happened as a result if he wishes, or he can remain triumphantly ignorant.

Which generally seems to please him most.

Kramer just comes up with stupid insults.
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: The_Professor on May 31, 2010, 09:46:50 PM
Thanks for the help, XO, but I've given up on "debating" - - i.e., exchanging insults with - - certain members of the group, and if they can't figure our my posts for themselves, then that's THEIR problem.

Gee, I hope I am not included. I go and come a lot because I get frustrated by the lack of civility.
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Michael Tee on May 31, 2010, 10:37:07 PM
<<Gee, I hope I am not included. I go and come a lot because I get frustrated by the lack of civility.>>

Perish the thought, Professor.  You're a gentleman with whom I agree but rarely, but it's a pleasure to debate with you.  Any time.
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Kramer on May 31, 2010, 10:54:13 PM
I agree that it is futile to explain anything to sirs or Kramer: neither of them will ever concede a single point on anything. Sirs can look up the Gulf of Tonkin and find out for himself what happened as a result if he wishes, or he can remain triumphantly ignorant.

Which generally seems to please him most.

Kramer just comes up with stupid insults.

all one would have to do is look at the order of posts to see that you are the one that starts with insults and mine is only in response to your childish comments sent in my direction.
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Plane on May 31, 2010, 11:28:53 PM
If the insults of either side were to decrease in number I would call it an improvement .

Perhaps even if they were to improve in quality?
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Kramer on May 31, 2010, 11:35:48 PM
If the insults of either side were to decrease in number I would call it an improvement .

Perhaps even if they were to improve in quality?

if you read the posts, and I know you do, then you clearly understand that the only insults in hear come from XO. Sure the occasional visit by BSB conjures up an insult but otherwise XO is the resident mud mudslinger.
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Plane on May 31, 2010, 11:40:12 PM
If the insults of either side were to decrease in number I would call it an improvement .

Perhaps even if they were to improve in quality?

if you read the posts, and I know you do, then you clearly understand that the only insults in hear come from XO. Sure the occasional visit by BSB conjures up an insult but otherwise XO is the resident mud mudslinger.

In the invective game I want to be anti - insult, if you and I are slinging less mud , what is the problem with slinging even less again?
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Kramer on May 31, 2010, 11:57:24 PM
If the insults of either side were to decrease in number I would call it an improvement .

Perhaps even if they were to improve in quality?

if you read the posts, and I know you do, then you clearly understand that the only insults in hear come from XO. Sure the occasional visit by BSB conjures up an insult but otherwise XO is the resident mud mudslinger.

In the invective game I want to be anti - insult, if you and I are slinging less mud , what is the problem with slinging even less again?


well the truth is when XO insults me I feel better when I insult him back. on the other hand he should just keep his smart-ass comments to himself.
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Plane on June 01, 2010, 12:02:34 AM
If the insults of either side were to decrease in number I would call it an improvement .

Perhaps even if they were to improve in quality?

if you read the posts, and I know you do, then you clearly understand that the only insults in hear come from XO. Sure the occasional visit by BSB conjures up an insult but otherwise XO is the resident mud mudslinger.

In the invective game I want to be anti - insult, if you and I are slinging less mud , what is the problem with slinging even less again?


well the truth is when XO insults me I feel better when I insult him back. on the other hand he should just keep his smart-ass comments to himself.

Well if that is how it ought to be , I guess.

I wouldn't want your head to pop.

I want to see how the other half thinks , insults mostly are chaff to this goal.
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Kramer on June 01, 2010, 12:05:00 AM
If the insults of either side were to decrease in number I would call it an improvement .

Perhaps even if they were to improve in quality?

if you read the posts, and I know you do, then you clearly understand that the only insults in hear come from XO. Sure the occasional visit by BSB conjures up an insult but otherwise XO is the resident mud mudslinger.

In the invective game I want to be anti - insult, if you and I are slinging less mud , what is the problem with slinging even less again?


well the truth is when XO insults me I feel better when I insult him back. on the other hand he should just keep his smart-ass comments to himself.

Well if that is how it ought to be , I guess.

I wouldn't want your head to pop.

I want to see how the other half thinks , insults mostly are chaff to this goal.

that wasn't an insult, was it?
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Plane on June 01, 2010, 12:07:33 AM
If the insults of either side were to decrease in number I would call it an improvement .

Perhaps even if they were to improve in quality?

if you read the posts, and I know you do, then you clearly understand that the only insults in hear come from XO. Sure the occasional visit by BSB conjures up an insult but otherwise XO is the resident mud mudslinger.

In the invective game I want to be anti - insult, if you and I are slinging less mud , what is the problem with slinging even less again?


well the truth is when XO insults me I feel better when I insult him back. on the other hand he should just keep his smart-ass comments to himself.

Well if that is how it ought to be , I guess.

I wouldn't want your head to pop.

I want to see how the other half thinks , insults mostly are chaff to this goal.

that wasn't an insult, was it?

NO ...how would it be?

not if you didn't feel it.
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Kramer on June 01, 2010, 12:08:56 AM
If the insults of either side were to decrease in number I would call it an improvement .

Perhaps even if they were to improve in quality?

if you read the posts, and I know you do, then you clearly understand that the only insults in hear come from XO. Sure the occasional visit by BSB conjures up an insult but otherwise XO is the resident mud mudslinger.

In the invective game I want to be anti - insult, if you and I are slinging less mud , what is the problem with slinging even less again?


well the truth is when XO insults me I feel better when I insult him back. on the other hand he should just keep his smart-ass comments to himself.

Well if that is how it ought to be , I guess.

I wouldn't want your head to pop.

I want to see how the other half thinks , insults mostly are chaff to this goal.

that wasn't an insult, was it?

NO ...how would it be?

not if you didn't feel it.


it winded me -- took my breath away. But I'll get over it
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: sirs on June 01, 2010, 01:50:20 AM
I agree that it is futile to explain anything to sirs or Kramer: neither of them will ever concede a single point on anything. Sirs can look up the Gulf of Tonkin and find out for himself what happened as a result if he wishes, or he can remain triumphantly ignorant.  Which generally seems to please him most.

Strange how in a debate forum, when one is supposedly "ignorant", and facilitates questions (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=9742.msg102135#msg102135) to propel debate & "education", the response by messers Tee & Xo is simply more of the above.  And yet it's Xo that so frequently complains about the quality of the debate here.  More of that mirror thing again

And speaking of ignorant, I've conceded multiple points in the past, most notably to Fatman, Ami, and Prince (non-immigration related)

Again, for all to see, including those who merely visit the saloon
Title: Re: Speaking of N. Korea
Post by: Plane on June 02, 2010, 01:27:54 AM
If the insults of either side were to decrease in number I would call it an improvement .

Perhaps even if they were to improve in quality?

if you read the posts, and I know you do, then you clearly understand that the only insults in hear come from XO. Sure the occasional visit by BSB conjures up an insult but otherwise XO is the resident mud mudslinger.

In the invective game I want to be anti - insult, if you and I are slinging less mud , what is the problem with slinging even less again?


well the truth is when XO insults me I feel better when I insult him back. on the other hand he should just keep his smart-ass comments to himself.

Well if that is how it ought to be , I guess.

I wouldn't want your head to pop.

I want to see how the other half thinks , insults mostly are chaff to this goal.

that wasn't an insult, was it?

NO ...how would it be?

not if you didn't feel it.


it winded me -- took my breath away. But I'll get over it

Ahhhh ...

So you are a good sport after all!