Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

"And Atrocities, NK is rattling it's sabre in order to LIVE, not get love and attention from CNN. The NK demands Food and Oil shipments for it to abandon it's nuclear program entirely."

And this gets laughed at because that's the exact same thing it had before. It just wants more to not break its agreements now.

The way I see it, it worked like so:
US: quit your nuke program, we'll send X amount of food and fuel oil.
NK: OK
NK 1 year later (resumes nuke program)
NK years later: we're starting again. Nyaa.
US: OK. No food for you.
NK: WHAT?
US: you heard me.
NK: Give us 2X food and fuel oil and we'll stop..

Phoenix-D

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well I was going to say the reason is that everyone here is pretty mature but since someone seems to have rated you a one I'll rephrase that to most people here are pretty mature so it makes for a good discussion. I know other forms (such as any forum on F1 racing) are so full of imature people name calling they are not much fun. (PS If you know a good F1 forum e-mail me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

TC, are you sure on the not signing, From the books I've read, I've been under the impression that we (UN) only have an armistice with them, and yes, the war could start again at any time because there really was no signed agreement to end the war. I'll have to do some research, I could have sworn we have an armistice..

Neomax, The members of this forum discuss a lot of topics on SE4 and game related items. However, Off Topic discussions do appear once in awhile by the members, and its enjoyable to discuss these OT subjects with the friends you've made here at the forum. That's what is enchanting with the members here, you can discuss the game and sometimes other OT subjects. I think that after you've been here awhile you'll see that for yourself.

If you think this topic is OT, I can see you've never been to the cantina http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

just some ideas mac

[ March 23, 2003, 04:00: Message edited by: mac5732 ]

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

I agree, tangling with NK, brings up a whole new set of diplomatic and potential excalation problems. China is NK's big brother and so any war with them must take into account the possibility of involving China, more so then the Soviets. I don't believe China approves of a lot of things NK does, but they are close allies, so therefore, one must tread warily in this area and obtain a commitment from China of non interferance if the balloon goes up.

just some ideas mac

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

TC,

Military History, April, 2003, page 73

"With the final signing of the armistice agreement at Panmunjom on July 27th, 1953, Pork Chop hill became part of the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea..."

If that is the case then maybe the UN signed but SK didn't?

just some ideas Mac

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

The NK leaders are power mad control freaks. There is nothing they would enjoy more than extending that control beyond the present boundries.
They rattle their sabers because they do not know how to bargin or show gratitude (it is a weakness to them).
Their control at home has destroyed the economy, food production and the peoples hope. Let us pray they collapse from internal rot before they cause more trouble.

NK - Bush, Do Not go there.
I hope and pray Bush can be stalled until the next election.

MAC is right, we have no pretext to intervene.

NK may be a potential threat. It is a matter of perception.
A USA that is aggressive, beligerant, and militeristic will be seen as a threat by most nations. Should we teach the world that pre-emption is acceptable behavior? What would become of us when we are in decline?

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree, but they should go about it a in a better fashion than they have wouldn't you agree?

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree, but they should go about it a in a better fashion than they have wouldn't you agree?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, but fidelity isn't in their vocabulary.

Mac, Go here. Look at the Last entry.

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

TC

July 27
The United States, North Korea and China sign an armistice, which ends the war but fails to bring about a permanent peace. To date, the Republic of Korea (South) and Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (North) have not signed a peace treaty. North and South Korea did sign a non-aggression treaty in 1991

Therefore, there is an armistice, however, no peace treaty was ever signed by either side, except for the non-aggression treaty in 91

So we have an armistice, but no peace treaty, a non aggression treaty means zippo.

NK is more dangerous to world peace then any other nation (IMHO) In fact, I believe they would instigate it just so they can once again invade So. Korea. Why? Look at the economy for both countries, who has the most to lose and who has the most to gain? The question is, would they take the chance of a major war again with the US or UN. I would not count on the UN as they can't even enforce their own resolutions and IMHO are not even paper tigers but paper pussy kats, therefore it would be the US and its supporting allies, other fair weather allies would probably back out with one excuse or another, in fact some of our allies are in name only, all they want is our money and techonlogy, not our friendship.. but this is only my opinion.

just some idea mac

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, the NK leaders are control freaks, and they would go beyond enjoying themselves once they have control of the whole Korean Peninsula, and the Japanese Archipelago, as they see those areas of land as their rightful domain.

But Wardad, What does NK have to bargain with? The Nuke card is only usable once in a trading table in this game of Geopolitics. But it can be used every turn as an effective tool of extortion. And show their gratitude for what? The US not having bomb their A**es off?

It'd be hard for a brainwashed populace to rise up against their leader. 40 years of "love the leader" propaganda have serted itself firmly into the minds of North Koreans, except the few.

The US have lots of reasons to intervene, should it choose to.

Edit: and NK is a threat only by a person's perception? Well, then it must be a global threat, since 6 billion people knows that NK has nukes and is ready to sell it to the highest bidder.

[ March 24, 2003, 04:23: Message edited by: TerranC ]