"The North Korean Nuclear Crisis What You Aren't being Told"

Another insight into the recent fallout between N Korea and America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qpmI7ECNfRk

Given America's track record of "diplomacy" towards an ends of gaining control over foreign countries, and their aggressive sanctions towards N Korea being parallel to that of countries they've invaded in the past it looks to me that we might see another war within our lifetime. Just with a country... that has possession of nukes!

Opinions and discussion appreciated etc.

(and yes I know the video I linked above has annoying music)

I thought that was obvious years ago with GW Bush's rhetoric. It's always been in the war plans. The American regime can't stand anything less than a reminder that it is anything less than the most supreme military force in the world. Remember we lost a war to these guys before and had to settle for division of the Korean peninsula.

There's no doubt that they (NK) are absolutely crazy, but, there's no doubt that the US government is as well, by provoking a nuclear nation into war. They are risking the lives of hundreds of millions of people, including most of the nation of Japan, and all of South Korea for sure, all over their dick size comparison games, and the insatiable lust of globalistic fascist capitalism for new slave labor markets.

That had some of the hallmarks of a gggmork post, but the words were in the right order. Bravo.

The dprk has no icbm and no capacity for miniaturization of any nuclear weaponry. The best they could possibly do is to put one on a truck and drive across the dmz...

As far as the video insinuation that the US is intentionally starving nk out... bollocks. Anything resembling a north korean economy has been in tatters for over 30 years at this point. Juche policy does a damn fine job enough of keeping their people far hungrier than 3 years of sanctions.

Don't forget, they chose of their own accord to withdraw from the world economy and be completely self reliant.

Quasar said:

Remember we lost a war to these guys before and had to settle for division of the Korean peninsula.

No, we lost a war to those guys with China on the ropes as a tag team partner. I don't think even China would support them these days with how obnoxious NK's government has been. We'd crush them.

Nomad said:

I don't think even China would support them these days with how obnoxious NK's government has been./B]

So far, so good

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised that if NK actually DID try anything if China smacked them down themselves. They're more at risk of fallback than anyone else (aside from SK).

Quast said:

As far as the video insinuation that the US is intentionally starving nk out... bollocks. Anything resembling a north korean economy has been in tatters for over 30 years at this point.

Pretty much ever since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, at any rate.

I'm curious what Daiyu has to say about the Chinese view on North Korea.

As far as starving them out, again North Korea has been fucking their own people for a long time, our sanctions definitely don't help, but we can't keep letting North Korea get their way.

North Korea would be wiped off the face of the planet if they went through with an attack on the USA. Not only would the United States retaliate, but most of the rest of the world as well. Even China, N. Korea's ally, has condemned their actions, and endorsed the crippling sanctions on their country. I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually lay waste to their infrastructure, and we should!

I think what we SHOULD do is stop the madness of trying to rule the world and tell everyone else how to think/how to live/how to organize government and society. Where do you think all this is leading, in the end? To some awesome future, or to more brutality and oppression?

Honestly, if the US blew the hell out of that little shit hole known as North Korea, I would be well pleased. That county has been a world nuisance for decades and it would be good to have it gone.

Quasar said:

I think what we SHOULD do is stop the madness of trying to rule the world and tell everyone else how to think/how to live/how to organize government and society. Where do you think all this is leading, in the end? To some awesome future, or to more brutality and oppression?

No.

Quasar said:

I think what we SHOULD do is stop the madness of trying to rule the world and tell everyone else how to think/how to live/how to organize government and society. Where do you think all this is leading, in the end? To some awesome future, or to more brutality and oppression?

You couldn't get much more brutal or oppressive than the DPRK. At least we have pretend democracy.

Quasar said:

I think what we SHOULD do is stop the madness of trying to rule the world and tell everyone else how to think/how to live/how to organize government and society. Where do you think all this is leading, in the end? To some awesome future, or to more brutality and oppression?

The U.S. should the main super-power and world leader IMHO.

Kontra Kommando said:

The U.S. should the main super-power and world leader IMHO.

Pragmatically, I would prefer a balance of three superpowers. That way if one gets out of line, the other two can gang up to take it back down a peg. Similar to what you get within a state operating under the political philosophy of Separation of Powers (wikipedia). If power concentrates into one place, history shows that abuses of that power are virtually inevitable. That is, they cannot be evitted. ;)

Unless the U.S. became a kind of Leviathan (SparkNotes summary), similar to what the U.N. was supposed to be. Although I'm skeptical of a Leviathan's actual effectiveness in the real world. What's to keep the U.S. from acting solely in its own best interest?

North Korea is best Korea.

schwerpunk said:

Pragmatically, I would prefer a balance of three superpowers. That way if one gets out of line, the other two can gang up to take it back down a peg. Similar to what you get within a state operating under the political philosophy of Separations of Powers (wikipedia). If power concentrates into one place, history shows that abuses of that power are virtually inevitable. That is, they cannot be evitted. ;)

I'm totally for national sovereignty; each nation has a right to pursue it's own interests for the good of their own citizens. When it comes to foreign affairs, I believe in realism, or "real politik" as the french call it. Nevertheless, war should always be the last measure taken for conflict resolution. However, with N. Korea threatening nuclear war, I would have already attacked if I were president. However, i wouldn't embark in occupation or nation-building, I'd cripple their infrastructure, try to eliminate their leadership. Then I would just back pro-U.S. forces to stage a coup d'etat in the aftermath. Perhaps even back S. Korea in reuniting the peninsula.

Hah, nice troll. I'll admit, I didn't even get it until you attributed "realpolitik" to the French.

EDIT: War, eh? How fun.

schwerpunk said:

Hah, nice troll. I'll admit, I didn't even get it until you attributed "realpolitik" to the French.

I not being a troll, i really think this.

Well, I take a realpolitik (which I'm pretty sure is a German idea) stance as well, but I fail to see how a single superpower is in the world's best interests unless it were somehow disassembled shortly after pacifying major human rights abusers around the world.

Do you also believe that absolute power should be concentrated in the executive branch of the U.S. government? That is, the ability of the U.S. president to declare wars, laws, budgets without the approval of the electorate or the legislature? That's pretty much what a single superpower does for you, except on a global scale.

Checks and balances, dude. They're deadly necessary.

P.S. Sorry I called you a troll.
P.P.S. Maybe this should be a new thread...

schwerpunk said:

EDIT: War, eh? How fun.

I think war should be the last ditch effort; economic isolation is effective. However, since N. Korea has been threatening nuclear genocide, I think it would be a good idea to strike preemptively.

Kontra Kommando said:

The U.S. should the main super-power and world leader IMHO.

Fuck yeah!

But really, when has a single dominating superpower ever been a universally good thing? In what circumstances would it ever be a good thing?

schwerpunk said:

Well, I take a realpolitik (which I'm pretty sure is a German idea) stance as well, but I fail to see how a single superpower is in the world's best interests unless it were somehow disassembled shortly after pacifying human rights abusers around the world.

Do you also believe that absolute power should be concentrated in the executive branch of the U.S. government? That is, the ability of the U.S. president to declare wars, laws, budgets without the approval of the electorate or the legislature? That's pretty much what a single superpower does for you, except on a global scale.

Check and balances, dude. They're deadly necessary.

P.S. Sorry I called you a troll.
P.P.S. Maybe this should be a new thread...

I agree that there should be checks and balances. I believe through economic inter-dependency, we can achieve a more peaceful world. As a U.S. citizen, I think the U.S. should be the most successful country in the global community. Moreover, that we should have the military might to protect our interests, and be used in a responsible way.

P.S. it's all good, and maybe you're right about that other thread.

DoomUK said:

Fuck yeah!

But really, when has a single dominating superpower ever been a universally good thing? In what circumstances would it ever be a good thing?

One thing that realism, and liberal institutionalism have in common is that they're both just theories. It basically the same discussion of individualism verses collectivism. We can come up with thousands of points, and counter-points in support of both. But personally, I feel that my opinion, realism, for me, seems to be the most genuine and applicable in my world view.

Kontra Kommando said:

One thing that realism, and liberal institutionalism have in common is that they're both just theories. It basically the same discussion of individualism verses collectivism. We can come up with thousands of points, and counter-points in support of both. But personally, I feel that my opinion, realism, for me, seems to be the most genuine and applicable in my world view.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong (Wikipedia), but point #1 seems to contradict you. For what is a sole superpower, other than an actor above [all other] states?

Kontra Kommando said:

But personally, I feel that my opinion, realism, for me, seems to be the most genuine and applicable in my world view.

If "realism" means the United States - or any other nation - bullying everyone else into submission, then I'm out. Whenever total monopoly has been attempted throughout history, it's always come with nasty consequences. In today's world, I don't have enough confidence in any given institution to pull it off so successfully that everyone would benefit, despite what its goals might be.

schwerpunk said:

Maybe I'm reading this wrong (Wikipedia), but point #1 seems to contradict you. For what is a sole superpower, other than an actor above [all other] states?

That would an institution like the UN, or the ICJ. Super-states are a natural development in an anarchic world like ours, sorta like monopolies in an unregulated free-market.

Okay, so why is one super-state preferable to a more balanced triumvirate (three roughly equal states)? Do you think you'd feel the same way if you lived in another state? Say, China, or Holland?

DoomUK said:

If "realism" means the United States - or any other nation - bullying everyone else into submission, then I'm out. Whenever total monopoly has been attempted throughout history, it's always come with nasty consequences. In today's world, I don't have enough confidence in any given institution to pull it off so successfully that everyone would benefit, despite what its goals might be.

Well, it's not so much bullying, as it is the protection, or expansion of interests. Since we live in a world of scares resources, war is inevitable unfortunately. Hopefully in the future we will be able to find solutions to this problem, like investing in renewable energy, or mine moons, planets, and asteroid fields for material.

I'm not saying I like realism; I just think it's a necessary path to take.