<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Sep 2 2003, 10:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Sep 2 2003, 10:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thats true, I am centered on America. This is primarily because I am (a) American and (b) this discussion is about America. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> "North Korea" How does that make this discussion about USA? It's about N-Korea, South Korea, countries around korea <b>and</b> USA. Not only about USA.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Sep 2 2003, 08:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Sep 2 2003, 08:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not talking about the current legal definition of a government. I'm talking about the philosophical idea of a government. Why do men choose to organize themselves into governments? Do they do it to allow themselves to be exploited by others? No. Men choose to create governments out of a need for protection from other men. While we are born into society, the origins of government lie in mankinds inherent need to protect natural rights from those who would take them away. Philosophically, a government which does not preserve natural rights is not a true government. As such, it does not hold the right to use force against a true government, where individual is protected. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We create governments because they don't want to be responsible for anything /themselves/. That's why communism, anarchy, and pure democracy don't work.
A government <i>should</i> protect rights. But not protecting rights doesn't make it not a government. That's like saying a vegetarian dog isn't a dog because dogs <i>should</i> eat meat.
Protecting rights is inherent in the philosphical idea of a government. You can't seperate it.Thats a government's job: to protect national rights, much like its a dog's job to eat sleep and crap. If a dog didn't eat sleep and crap, it wouldn't be a dog. It'd be dead.
:-) This is really a seperate topic though. lets get back to N. Korea.
I read and edited through the last three pages. You all can read where you stepped over the line, aside from that, great topic.
Personally, I'm rather surprised about both sides stances; this is very close to the immediate pre-Iraq-war threads where the last troops were moved into the area and the resolution was declared "failed". Back then, it made sense to discuss the justification of a strike against the country, because such a strike was clearly announced. In the case of North Korea, we have an US government emphasizing its will to go the "diplomatic way", and yet, I see Jammer defend the US' right to attack and Ryo defend Kim-Yong-Ills right for self defense with a fereocity that might lead one to believe that the U.S.S. Washington already anchored in front of Koreas coast.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Sep 4 2003, 07:50 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Sep 4 2003, 07:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In the case of North Korea, we have an US government emphasizing its will to go the "diplomatic way", and yet, I see Jammer defend the US' right to attack and Ryo defend Kim-Yong-Ills right for self defense with a fereocity that might lead one to believe that the U.S.S. Washington already anchored in front of Koreas coast. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think thats because there seems little chance for a diplomatic settlement. The North refuses to give up its weapons unless the US says they won't attack. That would work, except there is also the added problem of 'Last Time he promised to give up his Nukes...'. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. If we let you fool us a third time, you'll be having an unexpected increase in temperature.
I guess me and Ryo are just having next year's hot topic this year. :-P
And sorry for the blanket statements, I'll try to be more careful. I just want everyone to be warm and snuggly with blankets. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Little Kim is insane....yes, but I am glad he is sorta fulfilling the communist charter by looking after his people. Remember the 50-60's cold-war, anti-communist, white long sleeved shirts June Cleever ideals? Now we force democracy down peoples throats. You see a majority of russians, and chinese who can tell you where to stick democracy. Depotisms are NOT BAD IT IS THE PEOPLE WHO GET IN POWER. And isn't that how it is anyway? "Haha Russia is poor because commies are poor" <===Most uneducated thought. EVER. They're poor because of capitalism. It all depends on who gets power sadly. I read <a href='http://www.msnbc.com/news/956870.asp' target='_blank'>this</a> and I am glad to see he is at least brave enough to stand up and say no. Flame me at will but inside you know its true.
Some Fun Facts About North Korea's People: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "North Korea, one of the world's most centrally planned and isolated economies, faces desperate economic conditions. Industrial capital stock is nearly beyond repair as a result of years of underinvestment and spare parts shortages. Industrial and power output have declined in parallel. Despite a good harvest in 2001, the nation faces its ninth year of food shortages because of a lack of arable land; collective farming; weather-related problems, including major drought in 2000; and chronic shortages of fertilizer and fuel. Massive international food aid deliveries have allowed the regime to escape mass starvation since 1995-96, but the population remains vulnerable to prolonged malnutrition and deteriorating living conditions. Large-scale military spending eats up resources needed for investment and civilian consumption. Recently, the regime has placed emphasis on earning hard currency, developing information technology, addressing power shortages, and attracting foreign aid, but in no way at the expense of relinquishing central control over key national assets or undergoing widespread market-oriented reforms. In 2002, heightened political tensions with key donor countries and general donor fatigue have held down the flow of desperately needed food aid and threaten fuel aid as well. "<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Source: CIA Factbook
Also: <a href='http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/13/110824.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...13/110824.shtml</a> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Women undergo forced abortions, newborn babies are beaten to death, children are used for slave labor, and thousands every year are brutally murdered or worked to death. ... In an extraordinary exercise of investigative journalism, NBC News exposed the horrors of these torture and slaughter pens, interviewing former prisoners, guards and U.S. and South Korean officials. The network revealed “the horrifying conditions these people must endure — conditions that shock even those North Koreans accustomed to the near-famine conditions of Kim Jong-il’s realm.” ... According to NBC News:
At one camp, Camp 22 in Haengyong, 50,000 prisoners toil each day in conditions that U.S. officials and former prisoners say result in the death of 20 percent to 25 percent of the prison population every year.
Shockingly, products made by prison laborers may wind up on U.S. store shelves, having been “washed” first through Chinese companies that serve as intermediaries.
Entire families, including grandchildren, are incarcerated for even the most bland political statements.
Forced abortions are carried out on pregnant women so that another generation of political dissidents will be “eradicated.”
Inmates are used as human guinea pigs for testing biological and chemical agents, according to former prisoners and U.S. officials. “All of North Korea is a gulag,” one senior U.S. official told NBC News, noting that as many as 2 million people have died of starvation while Kim has amassed the world’s largest collection of Daffy Duck cartoons.
“It’s just that these people [in the camps] are treated the worst. No one knows for sure how many people are in the camps, but 200,000 is consistent with our best guess. We don’t have a breakdown, but there are large numbers of both women and children.” ... Soon told NBC News about one instance when about 50 prisoners were taken to an auditorium and given a piece of boiled cabbage to eat. Within a half hour, they began vomiting blood and quickly died. “I saw that in 20 or 30 minutes they died like this in that place. Looking at that scene, I lost my mind. Was this reality or a nightmare? And then I screamed and was sent out of the auditorium.” ... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The article has more. Its from NewsMax (conservative), but its sourcing from NBC.
<a href='http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/16/60minutes/main563623.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/16/...ain563623.shtml</a> This article just gives more of the same information. Famines, torture, arrests.
I ask you communist: Is THIS 'looking out for his people'? I've noticed there is the sense of idealism that communism isn't as evil as its portrayed to be. I don't understand why that exsists. Sure, Kim Jong is building defense, and that defense will stop an army that might kill some people while aiming for the army. But will anymore people die if the US liberates Korea? I think a few less might.
Russia is poor because it has a mismanaged economy and rampant corruption. Capitalism did not CAUSE poverty; rather, it inherited it. Only when capitalism arrived life expetency and povertly decline. Russia is poor because for a number of factors.
First, Lenin's economy was horribly managed. He actually needed to instate a free market (temporarily) to get things back on track. "1 step back to make 2 steps forward". It helped, but the state still had troubles. Next, Stalin forced the peasants into near slavery during his rush to modernization. Abusing his populace he propelled his country forward on unstable economic ground. Both the German and Russian economies NEEDED a war to avoid catastrophe. During the cold war, the economic problems Russia had were not solved and only got worse. Russia spent trillions trying to keep up with the US (who thought they were trying to keep up with Russia.) When Reagan bust onto the scene, he strained the Soviet Economy in a new arms race that it had no choice to collapse.
And THAT is why Russia has a bad economy. Its no one's fault but there own. Its a seperate topic, but here's the deal with Capitalism in Poverty: <a href='http://www.capitalism.org/faq/poverty.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.capitalism.org/faq/poverty.htm</a>
And yes, Despotism IS that bad. You want to talk about a system where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Thats despotism. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutly. Look at any political system: good people will become bad. The triumphof democracy is that the people can remove bad people from office. If a despot becomes bad, what recourse to the people have? A bloody revolution?
Also, China still has a strong democratic movement, espcially among students. Individualism has been growing in China. Economic problems are forced itself to open its markets up. You can't have a free market without free people. I suspect that these reforms will eventually snowball into democracy.
You also mention how "Communists are poor" is an uneducated idea. I disagree. I think that supporting communism is an uneducated idea. Its killed hundreds of millions of people (Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, Ho Chi Minh- N. Vietnam recently admitted to loosing 1.4 MILLION soldiers in the war with US. The US lost about 60,000). Capitalism killed its fair share, but very few people are willing to defend imperialism's slavery or colonialism. The beauty of modern democracy is that it recognizes that its past actions were evil and seeks a world in which all people are equal and soveirgn.
I'm not flaming you, but on the inside I know that any system of right which robs a person of their own life is not 'true'. A country which sees its citizens as collateral to be spent is not 'true'. North Korea is nothing but an abomination of evil on its people and the world.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And yes, Despotism IS that bad. You want to talk about a system where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Thats despotism. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutly. Look at any political system: good people will become bad. The triumphof democracy is that the people can remove bad people from office. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Capitalism leads to much the same thing. Large corperations and the people who are already rich keep on getting richer. Capitalism and despotism can co-exist though; capitalism is not glued to democracy. Socialism SEEKS to equally distribute wealth, but I do not believe that it can ever succeed in doing that. Capitalism does not seek to equally distribute wealth, and in capitalist systems
No-one's here to say that the North Korean leadership are contenders for the International Upholders of Human Rights award. If Kim and his buddies tommorow said "Well we've had enough, we're stepping down from power and giving the people free elections" I wouldn't shed a tear. But I cannot support military offensives against any nation. A new Korean War would raise the horrifying specture of nuclear war on the Korean peninsula and seeing as Seoul is only 40km from the DMZ it would be a prime target for North Korean retaliation. Even if it didn't go nuclear, thousands would die in a conventional war. The North would stand no chance, but it would do what any nation does when it's being attacked and invaded: it would fight back with every weapon in it's arsonal. Such a conflict would make Iraq look like a children's picnic.
It is not our job to go in and "save" the North Korean people. It wasn't our job to go in and "save" the people of Iraq either. If we're truely interested in "saving" people from despotic regimes, why isn't the US invading Saudi Arabia? Or China? Or Cuba? Because the world recognises that these nations have a right to exist. "Oppression" is a term that can be applied anywhere, and many people in despotic countries would claim that the US oppresses it's citizens by not providing public health care, forcing them to all learn the same things in underfunded public schools, sing the same patriotic songs and recite oaths of allegiance. Saying a people are "oppressed" is not a reason for a war. The US praises individualism and the power of people to overcome obstecles. Then let the people in these countries you consider "oppressed" decide for themselves. Revolutions are the ultimate expression of democracy: the people, en masse, deciding with their words and actions if a government should stay in power. If one does not occur, by default the government is considered fine by the people.
Now if Kim having nukes prevents a conflict I am 150% behind him having them. Most of the arguements that exist for Kim not having them focus on the belief that he will use them. China and the former USSR have had nukes for ages and they've been lead by leaders equally as despotic as Kim has ever been. Nuclear war has never eventuated. Nuclear weapons are not like missiles, planes or tanks: nukes are political weapons. No nation makes nuclear weapons with the intent of using them offensively. Look at India and Pakistan: those guys don't need any excuse to go to war. But nukes have done something most would believe impossible: they have prevented war on the Indian subcontinent. Nukes prevented war between the USSR and the USA. And nukes have the potential now to ensure that the Korean peninsula will not face the prospect of war.
This could even be good for the North Korean people. With a few nukes, Kim doesn't need a huge army anymore for defense. He could scale it down, divert money to helping his people. The guy is paranoid, no question there, but it's hard to be paranoid when you've got nukes. Safe behind a nuclear sheild, North Korea could become a more tolerant and prosperous nation. Am I being optimistic? Most defenitly. But I believe it is possible.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Capitalism leads to much the same thing. Large corperations and the people who are already rich keep on getting richer. Capitalism and despotism can co-exist though; capitalism is not glued to democracy. Socialism SEEKS to equally distribute wealth, but I do not believe that it can ever succeed in doing that. Capitalism does not seek to equally distribute wealth, and in capitalist systems <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Corporations only hold power because the people give them power. If you don't buy something, corporations can do nothing. Also, wealth is NOT a communal assest. Wealth is a personal assest; wealth is created. 1 Person is wealthy because they created it, NOT because they took it from someone else. This is a totally different topic though. Despotism cannot exsist under capitalism because capitalism is a system of government, not just an economic system. It requires free men with rights- capitalism is an extension of personal freedom into the economy.
I hate to say it, but the rest of your post is pretty much dead on. We should seek to avert war. There were many reasons to invade Iraq for instance. The primary reason was that it posed a (suspected... I'll edit this out once the kay report comes out) a threat to the US. Same thing with N. Korea. there are MANY reasons to attack them, but the primary motivation should be US interest. Saudia Arabia has and kuwait are despotic, yes. They are (on the surface) friends of the US. A general rule of thumb for US interests at this point: Protecting US > Liberating Enemies > Liberating Friends
That pattern seems to fit the administrations actions thus far.
1 other thing. You mention that if people don't like their government, they should just revolt. It isn't that easy. Revolutions are bloody. Spys infilitrate groups, governments arrest organizers, and disappear members. Also, revolutions are dangerous in that they will many times install more oppressive governments than before (French Rev, Iran, Russia). In order to revolt you must be organized and assembled. Assembly is actually a crime in many oppressive states.
You have good analysis of India and Pakistan, but that example is between equals. If there was a war, its mutually assured destruction. N. Korea realizes it will die either way and the US will live. That makes them much more likely to use nukes.
WIll N. korea become a nice place with Nukes? Well, if a despot has no need to fear other nations, he need only fear his people. I imagine that money will be going into the secret police and military so he can maintain control of his country from within. You example is possible. I think mine is more probable though. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
The main purpose of my previous post was to show communist that Kim Jong is NOT this amazing Communist leader who is looking out for his people.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Sep 5 2003, 07:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Sep 5 2003, 07:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Capitalism leads to much the same thing. Large corperations and the people who are already rich keep on getting richer. Capitalism and despotism can co-exist though; capitalism is not glued to democracy. Socialism SEEKS to equally distribute wealth, but I do not believe that it can ever succeed in doing that. Capitalism does not seek to equally distribute wealth, and in capitalist systems <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Corporations only hold power because the people give them power. If you don't buy something, corporations can do nothing. Also, wealth is NOT a communal assest. Wealth is a personal assest; wealth is created. 1 Person is wealthy because they created it, NOT because they took it from someone else. This is a totally different topic though. Despotism cannot exsist under capitalism because capitalism is a system of government, not just an economic system. It requires free men with rights- capitalism is an extension of personal freedom into the economy.
I hate to say it, but the rest of your post is pretty much dead on. We should seek to avert war. There were many reasons to invade Iraq for instance. The primary reason was that it posed a (suspected... I'll edit this out once the kay report comes out) a threat to the US. Same thing with N. Korea. there are MANY reasons to attack them, but the primary motivation should be US interest. Saudia Arabia has and kuwait are despotic, yes. They are (on the surface) friends of the US. A general rule of thumb for US interests at this point: Protecting US > Liberating Enemies > Liberating Friends
That pattern seems to fit the administrations actions thus far.
1 other thing. You mention that if people don't like their government, they should just revolt. It isn't that easy. Revolutions are bloody. Spys infilitrate groups, governments arrest organizers, and disappear members. Also, revolutions are dangerous in that they will many times install more oppressive governments than before (French Rev, Iran, Russia). In order to revolt you must be organized and assembled. Assembly is actually a crime in many oppressive states.
You have good analysis of India and Pakistan, but that example is between equals. If there was a war, its mutually assured destruction. N. Korea realizes it will die either way and the US will live. That makes them much more likely to use nukes.
WIll N. korea become a nice place with Nukes? Well, if a despot has no need to fear other nations, he need only fear his people. I imagine that money will be going into the secret police and military so he can maintain control of his country from within. You example is possible. I think mine is more probable though. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
The main purpose of my previous post was to show communist that Kim Jong is NOT this amazing Communist leader who is looking out for his people. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I know he isn't. But I also feel that if the people needed saving they would save themselves.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If there was a war, its mutually assured destruction. N. Korea realizes it will die either way and the US will live. That makes them much more likely to use nukes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But there's option 2. North Korea doesn't use nukes. No-one invades them and eventually the government will die from within. No government can exist in isolation forever, and as the former USSR demonstrated, eventually even the most tightly controlled system can and will fall apart. China is creaking at the seams and slowly giving way to western ideas and capitalism. North Korea will eventually have to do the same. When it becomes clear that aid money and grain shipments have stopped, the North Korean government will have to start making concessions. Kim doesn't care much about his people, but when the country can't feed it's military things start getting very hairy. I believe that North Korea will give ground way before they'd consider a hopeless war. Any war North Korea starts will end in it's destruction. Kim knows that; if he didn't he would have attacked the south ages ago. Despotic? Yes. Slightly nuts? Yes. Suicidal? No.
I agree that revolutions are dangerous affairs that often don't work. But no system, no matter how despotic, can resist a true uprising of the people. When vast amounts of the populace are dissatisfied with the government the forces in power cannot hope to resist, because the very means they use to oppress the people, such as the military, will not fight for them. (I sound like Lenin here. Not the best person in the world to sound like <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). I believe that eventually the North Korean government will either reform or fall. The process of democracy is best undertaken when the people themselves decide to embrace it, not when it is forced upon them by war.
People will die in the meantime from oppression and starvation, but such numbers are small next to the slaughter that a war would bring (soldiers are people too. With a military the size of Kim's hundreds of thousands would be killed). I know the US wouldn't intentionally bomb civilian targets but now that North Korea has nukes Seoul could be turned from a bustling metropolis to a slag pile of charred corpses and ruined buildings. US troops could be caught by nuclear artillery barrages that kill thousands of them. I believe such nightmarish scenarios could only occur if the North is attacked. Hence why I will always oppose it. Nothing about North Korea suggests that they will ever invade. There is no reason for them to ever attack. I believe that Kim is not suicidal. I will support the North having nukes as I believe it will bring stability and peace.
EDIT: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know he isn't. But I also feel that if the people needed saving they would save themselves. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that the most sensible course of action would be to let N. Korea fizzle on its own. THe problem with that is that, now that N. Korea has nukes, they've keep upping the ante with the US. They want money, a non-agression treaty, and nuclear power. They're also refusing to give up their weapons. They are, in short, blackmailing the US. The message that sends is "Hey, get some nukes and get what you want!" While N. Korea may not use them, what if another crackpot dictator sees this and says "thats a damn good idea!". If every country in the world had nukes, the world would be on the brink of disaster every second. World War I is a good example of this. Everyone just built up and built up. Tensions grew hot and the tiniest incident set off a huge country destroying war. History shows us that peace weapons (or peace armies, in WWI's case) only increase tension. Tension was very high when Regean upped the ante with the Soviets. War was a possibility if not for his keen analysis of the soviet union's failings which he used to break it down. Mini History: Russia fell because Regan forced the soviet union to try to compete with the US' massive economy.
Anyway... the moral is that if we let the North blackmail the US, it will only spread nukes which will make the world a more dangerous place. :-/
As for the revolutions aspect... I don't know much about NK's military. Its big. Its nasty. Its no match for the US though. It IS match for the Korean People though. the US should have never allowed the North to get nukes. But we can't do that. Most estimate that N. Korea has 1 or 2 missles. A lightning strike could neutralize the threat <i>when it still can be</i> to prevent any problems down the road. Removing the North's nukes is a prerequisite to a war. I'm hoping Mossad can help us out in that department. (Israel's Pro-Israel Terrorist group/CIA. They are NASTY good.)
I'd like to know how to overthrow the government of N. Korea, since Ryo and CWAG think its possible.
The common people don't have guns. The government has lots of guns. -Something Happens- Korea is free.
What if N. Koreans decided not to work? BAM! Most people would choose life over death. If the whole country stopped, I'm sure that a high enough body count could eventually convince them to get back to work. Kim would also probably siphon the little output of the peasants into the government, leaving even less for the little guys.
Also, 33% of their economy is agriculture. Stopping that would only lead to starvation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd like to know how to overthrow the government of N. Korea, since Ryo and CWAG think its possible.
The common people don't have guns. The government has lots of guns. -Something Happens- Korea is free. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How did it happen in Russia? The people with the guns, the military, decided they weren't going to fight against the people. That's a true revolution. Without foreign aid North Korea isn't going to be able to feed all of their military. Not all revolutions are bloody uprisings; indeed many of the most successful ones have been peaceful. I believe that will be the eventual outcome in North Korea: the military refusing to put down a revolt by the people and a popular uprising sweaping the current administration from power. What will replace it? Well I don't know. I would imagine by this stage that whoever was elevated to power would realise that the only way for the North to survive would be to embrace democracy and join with the South. A united Korea has been the dream of many and I think, left alone, that will eventually happen.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They want money, a non-agression treaty, and nuclear power. They're also refusing to give up their weapons. They are, in short, blackmailing the US. The message that sends is "Hey, get some nukes and get what you want!"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The message currently being sent is: "Try and blackmail the US and you'll be lucky if you get off with a warning". The US isn't going to bow to North Korean demands because they know all of North Korea's "threats" are just bluffs. North Korea isn't going to attack the US or the South because they're very much aware that it would be suicide. Other dictators are more inclined to look towards Iraq and think either "Hmm, I'd better not get WMD" or "Hmm, I should get WMD because I might be next". The US hopes that these dictators are getting the first message. Given the reaction of Iran, I'm more inclined to think that dictators are recieveing the second message.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Sep 6 2003, 01:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Sep 6 2003, 01:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The common people don't have guns. The government has lots of guns. -Something Happens- Korea is free.
What if N. Koreans decided not to work? BAM! Most people would choose life over death. If the whole country stopped, I'm sure that a high enough body count could eventually convince them to get back to work. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Think this from the N-Korean soldiers point of view. No matter how much anti-us or anti-south korea propaganda has been fed to them, they would be asked to slaughter thousands of their own people. Maybe their neighbours and friends. Soldiers are still humans. They have a conscience.
Good point about Russia. The problem is the military really. Its a million strong and devoted to Kim. It depends how ruthless people are willing to be. If all soldiers had morals and refused to kill their countrymen, why was it that Stalin, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh were able to consolidate power? It takes time and extreme conditions before the military will remove their power base, the government. How many will die before that happens? Will it be more or less? Thats the real issue.
Iraq is very different than N. Korea. Iraq was an example of the Bush Doctrine- remove threats before they get too big. N. Korea is different. The threat is already too big. So what do we do? There isn't a really clear answer.
This topic has really been great in the sense that there are so many plausible optiions. Even though I disagree, you're still forcing me to think about it a lot. :-) Yay for Cwag and Ryo!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Its a million strong and devoted to Kim.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And if it starts starving, Kim will find out just how loyal they are. Armies often baulk at mass-murdering civilians. Maybe they will shoot, maybe they won't. I do know that if Kim ends up unable to feed his army the country will be a few days away from a revolution.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If all soldiers had morals and refused to kill their countrymen, why was it that Stalin, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh were able to consolidate power?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mao lead a popular uprising of the chinese people that had enormous support. He was elevated to power because most of the country supported the Communists. The PLA didn't massacure civilians: on the contrary, they were a lot better behaved towards civilans than the Nationalists were. That was how they managed to win over so much of the country. Ho Chi Min was in a similar situation: he was leading a general uprising with massive popular support. Stalin is an interesting case, but his assension to power occured mainly through political manuvering at high levels. He didn't really use the military to gain control of the country. That said, when the Germans invaded in 1941 not all of Stalins' forces fought because they had to. There was a lot of geniune support for him and a belief that he alone could hold back Hitler. Dictators arn't always wildly unpopular.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This topic has really been great in the sense that there are so many plausible optiions. Even though I disagree, you're still forcing me to think about it a lot. :-) Yay for Cwag and Ryo! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Praise from Caesar <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Thankyou Jammer for a very intense and informative debate; it has certainly been a pleasurable experiance for me. Your points are making me think very hard about the whole North Korean question.
Comments
"North Korea" How does that make this discussion about USA? It's about N-Korea, South Korea, countries around korea <b>and</b> USA. Not only about USA.
We create governments because they don't want to be responsible for anything /themselves/. That's why communism, anarchy, and pure democracy don't work.
A government <i>should</i> protect rights. But not protecting rights doesn't make it not a government. That's like saying a vegetarian dog isn't a dog because dogs <i>should</i> eat meat.
:-)
This is really a seperate topic though. lets get back to N. Korea.
carry on
Personally, I'm rather surprised about both sides stances; this is very close to the immediate pre-Iraq-war threads where the last troops were moved into the area and the resolution was declared "failed". Back then, it made sense to discuss the justification of a strike against the country, because such a strike was clearly announced.
In the case of North Korea, we have an US government emphasizing its will to go the "diplomatic way", and yet, I see Jammer defend the US' right to attack and Ryo defend Kim-Yong-Ills right for self defense with a fereocity that might lead one to believe that the U.S.S. Washington already anchored in front of Koreas coast.
I think thats because there seems little chance for a diplomatic settlement. The North refuses to give up its weapons unless the US says they won't attack. That would work, except there is also the added problem of 'Last Time he promised to give up his Nukes...'. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. If we let you fool us a third time, you'll be having an unexpected increase in temperature.
I guess me and Ryo are just having next year's hot topic this year. :-P
And sorry for the blanket statements, I'll try to be more careful. I just want everyone to be warm and snuggly with blankets. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"North Korea, one of the world's most centrally planned and isolated economies, faces desperate economic conditions. Industrial capital stock is nearly beyond repair as a result of years of underinvestment and spare parts shortages. Industrial and power output have declined in parallel. Despite a good harvest in 2001, the nation faces its ninth year of food shortages because of a lack of arable land; collective farming; weather-related problems, including major drought in 2000; and chronic shortages of fertilizer and fuel. Massive international food aid deliveries have allowed the regime to escape mass starvation since 1995-96, but the population remains vulnerable to prolonged malnutrition and deteriorating living conditions. Large-scale military spending eats up resources needed for investment and civilian consumption. Recently, the regime has placed emphasis on earning hard currency, developing information technology, addressing power shortages, and attracting foreign aid, but in no way at the expense of relinquishing central control over key national assets or undergoing widespread market-oriented reforms. In 2002, heightened political tensions with key donor countries and general donor fatigue have held down the flow of desperately needed food aid and threaten fuel aid as well. "<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Source: CIA Factbook
Also: <a href='http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/13/110824.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...13/110824.shtml</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Women undergo forced abortions, newborn babies are beaten to death, children are used for slave labor, and thousands every year are brutally murdered or worked to death.
...
In an extraordinary exercise of investigative journalism, NBC News exposed the horrors of these torture and slaughter pens, interviewing former prisoners, guards and U.S. and South Korean officials. The network revealed “the horrifying conditions these people must endure — conditions that shock even those North Koreans accustomed to the near-famine conditions of Kim Jong-il’s realm.”
...
According to NBC News:
At one camp, Camp 22 in Haengyong, 50,000 prisoners toil each day in conditions that U.S. officials and former prisoners say result in the death of 20 percent to 25 percent of the prison population every year.
Shockingly, products made by prison laborers may wind up on U.S. store shelves, having been “washed” first through Chinese companies that serve as intermediaries.
Entire families, including grandchildren, are incarcerated for even the most bland political statements.
Forced abortions are carried out on pregnant women so that another generation of political dissidents will be “eradicated.”
Inmates are used as human guinea pigs for testing biological and chemical agents, according to former prisoners and U.S. officials.
“All of North Korea is a gulag,” one senior U.S. official told NBC News, noting that as many as 2 million people have died of starvation while Kim has amassed the world’s largest collection of Daffy Duck cartoons.
“It’s just that these people [in the camps] are treated the worst. No one knows for sure how many people are in the camps, but 200,000 is consistent with our best guess. We don’t have a breakdown, but there are large numbers of both women and children.”
...
Soon told NBC News about one instance when about 50 prisoners were taken to an auditorium and given a piece of boiled cabbage to eat. Within a half hour, they began vomiting blood and quickly died. “I saw that in 20 or 30 minutes they died like this in that place. Looking at that scene, I lost my mind. Was this reality or a nightmare? And then I screamed and was sent out of the auditorium.”
...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The article has more. Its from NewsMax (conservative), but its sourcing from NBC.
<a href='http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/16/60minutes/main563623.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/16/...ain563623.shtml</a>
This article just gives more of the same information. Famines, torture, arrests.
I ask you communist: Is THIS 'looking out for his people'? I've noticed there is the sense of idealism that communism isn't as evil as its portrayed to be. I don't understand why that exsists. Sure, Kim Jong is building defense, and that defense will stop an army that might kill some people while aiming for the army. But will anymore people die if the US liberates Korea? I think a few less might.
Russia is poor because it has a mismanaged economy and rampant corruption. Capitalism did not CAUSE poverty; rather, it inherited it. Only when capitalism arrived life expetency and povertly decline. Russia is poor because for a number of factors.
First, Lenin's economy was horribly managed. He actually needed to instate a free market (temporarily) to get things back on track. "1 step back to make 2 steps forward". It helped, but the state still had troubles. Next, Stalin forced the peasants into near slavery during his rush to modernization. Abusing his populace he propelled his country forward on unstable economic ground. Both the German and Russian economies NEEDED a war to avoid catastrophe. During the cold war, the economic problems Russia had were not solved and only got worse. Russia spent trillions trying to keep up with the US (who thought they were trying to keep up with Russia.) When Reagan bust onto the scene, he strained the Soviet Economy in a new arms race that it had no choice to collapse.
And THAT is why Russia has a bad economy. Its no one's fault but there own.
Its a seperate topic, but here's the deal with Capitalism in Poverty:
<a href='http://www.capitalism.org/faq/poverty.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.capitalism.org/faq/poverty.htm</a>
And yes, Despotism IS that bad. You want to talk about a system where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Thats despotism. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutly. Look at any political system: good people will become bad. The triumphof democracy is that the people can remove bad people from office. If a despot becomes bad, what recourse to the people have? A bloody revolution?
Also, China still has a strong democratic movement, espcially among students. Individualism has been growing in China. Economic problems are forced itself to open its markets up. You can't have a free market without free people. I suspect that these reforms will eventually snowball into democracy.
You also mention how "Communists are poor" is an uneducated idea. I disagree. I think that supporting communism is an uneducated idea. Its killed hundreds of millions of people (Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, Ho Chi Minh- N. Vietnam recently admitted to loosing 1.4 MILLION soldiers in the war with US. The US lost about 60,000). Capitalism killed its fair share, but very few people are willing to defend imperialism's slavery or colonialism. The beauty of modern democracy is that it recognizes that its past actions were evil and seeks a world in which all people are equal and soveirgn.
I'm not flaming you, but on the inside I know that any system of right which robs a person of their own life is not 'true'. A country which sees its citizens as collateral to be spent is not 'true'. North Korea is nothing but an abomination of evil on its people and the world.
Capitalism leads to much the same thing. Large corperations and the people who are already rich keep on getting richer. Capitalism and despotism can co-exist though; capitalism is not glued to democracy. Socialism SEEKS to equally distribute wealth, but I do not believe that it can ever succeed in doing that. Capitalism does not seek to equally distribute wealth, and in capitalist systems
No-one's here to say that the North Korean leadership are contenders for the International Upholders of Human Rights award. If Kim and his buddies tommorow said "Well we've had enough, we're stepping down from power and giving the people free elections" I wouldn't shed a tear. But I cannot support military offensives against any nation. A new Korean War would raise the horrifying specture of nuclear war on the Korean peninsula and seeing as Seoul is only 40km from the DMZ it would be a prime target for North Korean retaliation. Even if it didn't go nuclear, thousands would die in a conventional war. The North would stand no chance, but it would do what any nation does when it's being attacked and invaded: it would fight back with every weapon in it's arsonal. Such a conflict would make Iraq look like a children's picnic.
It is not our job to go in and "save" the North Korean people. It wasn't our job to go in and "save" the people of Iraq either. If we're truely interested in "saving" people from despotic regimes, why isn't the US invading Saudi Arabia? Or China? Or Cuba? Because the world recognises that these nations have a right to exist. "Oppression" is a term that can be applied anywhere, and many people in despotic countries would claim that the US oppresses it's citizens by not providing public health care, forcing them to all learn the same things in underfunded public schools, sing the same patriotic songs and recite oaths of allegiance. Saying a people are "oppressed" is not a reason for a war. The US praises individualism and the power of people to overcome obstecles. Then let the people in these countries you consider "oppressed" decide for themselves. Revolutions are the ultimate expression of democracy: the people, en masse, deciding with their words and actions if a government should stay in power. If one does not occur, by default the government is considered fine by the people.
Now if Kim having nukes prevents a conflict I am 150% behind him having them. Most of the arguements that exist for Kim not having them focus on the belief that he will use them. China and the former USSR have had nukes for ages and they've been lead by leaders equally as despotic as Kim has ever been. Nuclear war has never eventuated. Nuclear weapons are not like missiles, planes or tanks: nukes are political weapons. No nation makes nuclear weapons with the intent of using them offensively. Look at India and Pakistan: those guys don't need any excuse to go to war. But nukes have done something most would believe impossible: they have prevented war on the Indian subcontinent. Nukes prevented war between the USSR and the USA. And nukes have the potential now to ensure that the Korean peninsula will not face the prospect of war.
This could even be good for the North Korean people. With a few nukes, Kim doesn't need a huge army anymore for defense. He could scale it down, divert money to helping his people. The guy is paranoid, no question there, but it's hard to be paranoid when you've got nukes. Safe behind a nuclear sheild, North Korea could become a more tolerant and prosperous nation. Am I being optimistic? Most defenitly. But I believe it is possible.
Corporations only hold power because the people give them power. If you don't buy something, corporations can do nothing. Also, wealth is NOT a communal assest. Wealth is a personal assest; wealth is created. 1 Person is wealthy because they created it, NOT because they took it from someone else. This is a totally different topic though. Despotism cannot exsist under capitalism because capitalism is a system of government, not just an economic system. It requires free men with rights- capitalism is an extension of personal freedom into the economy.
I hate to say it, but the rest of your post is pretty much dead on. We should seek to avert war. There were many reasons to invade Iraq for instance. The primary reason was that it posed a (suspected... I'll edit this out once the kay report comes out) a threat to the US. Same thing with N. Korea. there are MANY reasons to attack them, but the primary motivation should be US interest. Saudia Arabia has and kuwait are despotic, yes. They are (on the surface) friends of the US.
A general rule of thumb for US interests at this point:
Protecting US > Liberating Enemies > Liberating Friends
That pattern seems to fit the administrations actions thus far.
1 other thing. You mention that if people don't like their government, they should just revolt. It isn't that easy. Revolutions are bloody. Spys infilitrate groups, governments arrest organizers, and disappear members. Also, revolutions are dangerous in that they will many times install more oppressive governments than before (French Rev, Iran, Russia). In order to revolt you must be organized and assembled. Assembly is actually a crime in many oppressive states.
You have good analysis of India and Pakistan, but that example is between equals. If there was a war, its mutually assured destruction. N. Korea realizes it will die either way and the US will live. That makes them much more likely to use nukes.
WIll N. korea become a nice place with Nukes? Well, if a despot has no need to fear other nations, he need only fear his people. I imagine that money will be going into the secret police and military so he can maintain control of his country from within. You example is possible. I think mine is more probable though. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
The main purpose of my previous post was to show communist that Kim Jong is NOT this amazing Communist leader who is looking out for his people.
Corporations only hold power because the people give them power. If you don't buy something, corporations can do nothing. Also, wealth is NOT a communal assest. Wealth is a personal assest; wealth is created. 1 Person is wealthy because they created it, NOT because they took it from someone else. This is a totally different topic though. Despotism cannot exsist under capitalism because capitalism is a system of government, not just an economic system. It requires free men with rights- capitalism is an extension of personal freedom into the economy.
I hate to say it, but the rest of your post is pretty much dead on. We should seek to avert war. There were many reasons to invade Iraq for instance. The primary reason was that it posed a (suspected... I'll edit this out once the kay report comes out) a threat to the US. Same thing with N. Korea. there are MANY reasons to attack them, but the primary motivation should be US interest. Saudia Arabia has and kuwait are despotic, yes. They are (on the surface) friends of the US.
A general rule of thumb for US interests at this point:
Protecting US > Liberating Enemies > Liberating Friends
That pattern seems to fit the administrations actions thus far.
1 other thing. You mention that if people don't like their government, they should just revolt. It isn't that easy. Revolutions are bloody. Spys infilitrate groups, governments arrest organizers, and disappear members. Also, revolutions are dangerous in that they will many times install more oppressive governments than before (French Rev, Iran, Russia). In order to revolt you must be organized and assembled. Assembly is actually a crime in many oppressive states.
You have good analysis of India and Pakistan, but that example is between equals. If there was a war, its mutually assured destruction. N. Korea realizes it will die either way and the US will live. That makes them much more likely to use nukes.
WIll N. korea become a nice place with Nukes? Well, if a despot has no need to fear other nations, he need only fear his people. I imagine that money will be going into the secret police and military so he can maintain control of his country from within. You example is possible. I think mine is more probable though. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
The main purpose of my previous post was to show communist that Kim Jong is NOT this amazing Communist leader who is looking out for his people. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know he isn't. But I also feel that if the people needed saving they would save themselves.
But there's option 2. North Korea doesn't use nukes. No-one invades them and eventually the government will die from within. No government can exist in isolation forever, and as the former USSR demonstrated, eventually even the most tightly controlled system can and will fall apart. China is creaking at the seams and slowly giving way to western ideas and capitalism. North Korea will eventually have to do the same. When it becomes clear that aid money and grain shipments have stopped, the North Korean government will have to start making concessions. Kim doesn't care much about his people, but when the country can't feed it's military things start getting very hairy. I believe that North Korea will give ground way before they'd consider a hopeless war. Any war North Korea starts will end in it's destruction. Kim knows that; if he didn't he would have attacked the south ages ago. Despotic? Yes. Slightly nuts? Yes. Suicidal? No.
I agree that revolutions are dangerous affairs that often don't work. But no system, no matter how despotic, can resist a true uprising of the people. When vast amounts of the populace are dissatisfied with the government the forces in power cannot hope to resist, because the very means they use to oppress the people, such as the military, will not fight for them. (I sound like Lenin here. Not the best person in the world to sound like <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). I believe that eventually the North Korean government will either reform or fall. The process of democracy is best undertaken when the people themselves decide to embrace it, not when it is forced upon them by war.
People will die in the meantime from oppression and starvation, but such numbers are small next to the slaughter that a war would bring (soldiers are people too. With a military the size of Kim's hundreds of thousands would be killed). I know the US wouldn't intentionally bomb civilian targets but now that North Korea has nukes Seoul could be turned from a bustling metropolis to a slag pile of charred corpses and ruined buildings. US troops could be caught by nuclear artillery barrages that kill thousands of them. I believe such nightmarish scenarios could only occur if the North is attacked. Hence why I will always oppose it. Nothing about North Korea suggests that they will ever invade. There is no reason for them to ever attack. I believe that Kim is not suicidal. I will support the North having nukes as I believe it will bring stability and peace.
EDIT: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know he isn't. But I also feel that if the people needed saving they would save themselves. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree.
Mini History: Russia fell because Regan forced the soviet union to try to compete with the US' massive economy.
Anyway... the moral is that if we let the North blackmail the US, it will only spread nukes which will make the world a more dangerous place. :-/
As for the revolutions aspect...
I don't know much about NK's military. Its big. Its nasty. Its no match for the US though. It IS match for the Korean People though.
the US should have never allowed the North to get nukes. But we can't do that. Most estimate that N. Korea has 1 or 2 missles. A lightning strike could neutralize the threat <i>when it still can be</i> to prevent any problems down the road. Removing the North's nukes is a prerequisite to a war. I'm hoping Mossad can help us out in that department. (Israel's Pro-Israel Terrorist group/CIA. They are NASTY good.)
I'd like to know how to overthrow the government of N. Korea, since Ryo and CWAG think its possible.
The common people don't have guns.
The government has lots of guns.
-Something Happens-
Korea is free.
What if N. Koreans decided not to work?
BAM! Most people would choose life over death. If the whole country stopped, I'm sure that a high enough body count could eventually convince them to get back to work. Kim would also probably siphon the little output of the peasants into the government, leaving even less for the little guys.
Also, 33% of their economy is agriculture. Stopping that would only lead to starvation.
The common people don't have guns.
The government has lots of guns.
-Something Happens-
Korea is free.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How did it happen in Russia? The people with the guns, the military, decided they weren't going to fight against the people. That's a true revolution. Without foreign aid North Korea isn't going to be able to feed all of their military. Not all revolutions are bloody uprisings; indeed many of the most successful ones have been peaceful. I believe that will be the eventual outcome in North Korea: the military refusing to put down a revolt by the people and a popular uprising sweaping the current administration from power. What will replace it? Well I don't know. I would imagine by this stage that whoever was elevated to power would realise that the only way for the North to survive would be to embrace democracy and join with the South. A united Korea has been the dream of many and I think, left alone, that will eventually happen.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They want money, a non-agression treaty, and nuclear power. They're also refusing to give up their weapons. They are, in short, blackmailing the US. The message that sends is "Hey, get some nukes and get what you want!"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The message currently being sent is: "Try and blackmail the US and you'll be lucky if you get off with a warning". The US isn't going to bow to North Korean demands because they know all of North Korea's "threats" are just bluffs. North Korea isn't going to attack the US or the South because they're very much aware that it would be suicide. Other dictators are more inclined to look towards Iraq and think either "Hmm, I'd better not get WMD" or "Hmm, I should get WMD because I might be next". The US hopes that these dictators are getting the first message. Given the reaction of Iran, I'm more inclined to think that dictators are recieveing the second message.
The government has lots of guns.
-Something Happens-
Korea is free.
What if N. Koreans decided not to work?
BAM! Most people would choose life over death. If the whole country stopped, I'm sure that a high enough body count could eventually convince them to get back to work. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Think this from the N-Korean soldiers point of view. No matter how much anti-us or anti-south korea propaganda has been fed to them, they would be asked to slaughter thousands of their own people. Maybe their neighbours and friends. Soldiers are still humans. They have a conscience.
Iraq is very different than N. Korea. Iraq was an example of the Bush Doctrine- remove threats before they get too big. N. Korea is different. The threat is already too big. So what do we do? There isn't a really clear answer.
This topic has really been great in the sense that there are so many plausible optiions. Even though I disagree, you're still forcing me to think about it a lot. :-)
Yay for Cwag and Ryo!
And if it starts starving, Kim will find out just how loyal they are. Armies often baulk at mass-murdering civilians. Maybe they will shoot, maybe they won't. I do know that if Kim ends up unable to feed his army the country will be a few days away from a revolution.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If all soldiers had morals and refused to kill their countrymen, why was it that Stalin, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh were able to consolidate power?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mao lead a popular uprising of the chinese people that had enormous support. He was elevated to power because most of the country supported the Communists. The PLA didn't massacure civilians: on the contrary, they were a lot better behaved towards civilans than the Nationalists were. That was how they managed to win over so much of the country. Ho Chi Min was in a similar situation: he was leading a general uprising with massive popular support. Stalin is an interesting case, but his assension to power occured mainly through political manuvering at high levels. He didn't really use the military to gain control of the country. That said, when the Germans invaded in 1941 not all of Stalins' forces fought because they had to. There was a lot of geniune support for him and a belief that he alone could hold back Hitler. Dictators arn't always wildly unpopular.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This topic has really been great in the sense that there are so many plausible optiions. Even though I disagree, you're still forcing me to think about it a lot. :-)
Yay for Cwag and Ryo! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Praise from Caesar <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Thankyou Jammer for a very intense and informative debate; it has certainly been a pleasurable experiance for me. Your points are making me think very hard about the whole North Korean question.