RE: Pugsly of North Korea (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Kirata -> RE: Pugsly of North Korea (4/1/2013 3:15:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

Just drop a small nuke on Pyongyang. Then everyone can just go home. Have pizza or whatever. End of story.

I don't think North Korea's leadership and military give much of a damn about the populace. A few million dead would probably be viewed as a good thing. More food for everybody, and lots of martyrs to exploit. Nor should we be too cavalier in dismissing the North's ability to take out U.S. assets. While their threats and posturings look unusually foolhardy (even for them), they are not a tiger with no teeth.

North Korea’s mini-submarines and Soviet-era artillery may pose a greater threat to Asia than its nuclear program... North Korea is estimated to have 1.2 million troops and another 7.7 million in reserve, according South Korea’s 2010 Defense White Paper. It also has 70 submarines, including an undetermined number of Yeono-class midget subs. ~BloombergBusinessweek (December 2011)

The North's long-range artillery can reach Seoul, and its subs could deliver multiple nuclear devices to the South's underbelly.

South Korea is a peninsula, and uniquely vulnerable to threats from the sea... North Korean subs have proven themselves capable of penetrating South Korean territory – far into South Korean territory... This is why any hint of association of North Korea’s submarine force with nuclear weaponry needs to be taken very seriously. ~Nextnavy.com (December 2010)

Not only is there a serious potential threat here, there is also potential for a rapidly widening crisis. Because neither Russian nor China are likely to sit back and reach for the popcorn if a nuclear exchange breaks out in their back yard.

K.




Yachtie -> RE: Pugsly of North Korea (4/1/2013 3:29:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And if they get in a war with us, we will send them aid.  Win-win for NK.  



Deja-vu. Someone at coffee mentioned The Mouse That Roared just this morning.




thompsonx -> RE: Pugsly of North Korea (4/2/2013 8:22:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MorningStar01

Well...yes...er...their was a war in the 50's ??? So technically yes.


That was not the first time the u.s. has invaded korea.

quote:

What a stupid question.


The question was valid it was the answer that was not only ignorant but also stupid.

quote:

The U.S. and UK invaded Europe in the 2nd WW to liberate it from Nazis.


Europe is a continent and not a sovrign nation.

quote:

Invasion does not mean an unprovoked attack....As the saying goes here "You can't educate pork". There are these really bizarre things made from wood Tomson...they are called "Books" why not try one out :)

Should you choose to take your own advice you might disabuse yourself of your ignorance.




thompsonx -> RE: Pugsly of North Korea (4/2/2013 8:32:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

So much for national soverignity.
Why are you in favor of international thugery?

There is no national sovereignty when one nation proudly announces its rockets are aimed at another.

But, I doubt this bombast will amount to much. Kim is just establishing his creds with his own Generals.

Has the u.s. ever threatened n.korea? Has the u.s.ever invaded n.korea?

On 25 June 1950 North Korean military attacked South Korea.


I think that a quick check of google might indicate that in 1950 there were no such countries as north or south korea,only one country with a military demarkation line.

quote:

Under United Nations mandate the United States and other nations came to the aid of South Korea. What is your point? I am confused by your post.

A cusory study of the facts will show that you perception is less than accurate. Truman had made his decission to invade before he consultd the u.n..
The russians were not present when the u.s. had the security council agree to the invsion.




vincentML -> RE: Pugsly of North Korea (4/2/2013 9:27:34 AM)

quote:

I think that a quick check of google might indicate that in 1950 there were no such countries as north or south korea,only one country with a military demarkation line.

Right. Sort of. Japan occupied Korea until the Empire fell. Afterwhich Soviet troops occupied the North and American troops occupied the South. Like Vietnam there were to be elections to reunite the two portions. As in Vietnam those elections never took place. You may disagree with me (that's what makes any discussion of history interesting :) but I lay the blame to Stalin's empire ambitions to which the West was slow to respond. Well, Europe could hardly respond. Stalin had snookered Roosevelt and Churchill at Tehran, Yalta, etc. The result on the Korean Peninsula was a communist dictatorship in the North and a "democratic" dictatorship in the South. All the ingredients needed for a good Cold War clash between defacto, sovereign "nations."

Given that, it is hard to understand your claim that the US "threatened" North Korea.

Truman may very well have made a decision to counter the North Korean invasion. The Allied troops (88% American) were driven south to the Pusan Perimeter.

The Soviets were not present at the Security Council meeting because they objected to the seating of the Nationalist Chinese as representatives of the mainland.

So, again. What's your point? What are you trying to say about the role of the US in the Pacific?




thompsonx -> RE: Pugsly of North Korea (4/2/2013 10:55:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I think that a quick check of google might indicate that in 1950 there were no such countries as north or south korea,only one country with a military demarkation line.

Right. Sort of. Japan occupied Korea until the Empire fell.


Not sorta...korea was a soverign nation that was attacked and occupird by japan. Japan was conqured and korea is again one country.
The record shows that there was pretty much constant strife between two rival factions. The u.s. stuck it's military nose into a domestic civil war...any other interpretation is nothing more than cold war rhetoric.




quote:

Afterwhich Soviet troops occupied the North


Was there no battle or did the commies just do a walk on?


quote:

and American troops occupied the South.


Yes I remember reading that part.

quote:

Like Vietnam there were to be elections to reunite the two portions. As in Vietnam those elections never took place. You may disagree with me (that's what makes any discussion of history interesting :) but I lay the blame to Stalin's empire ambitions to which the West was slow to respond.


Which empire ae you speaing of?


quote:

Well, Europe could hardly respond. Stalin had snookered Roosevelt and Churchill at Tehran, Yalta, etc.


Snookered???how so???

quote:

The result on the Korean Peninsula was a communist dictatorship in the North and a "democratic" dictatorship in the South. All the ingredients needed for a good Cold War clash between defacto, sovereign "nations."


This seems to agree with my premis that korea is one nation involved in a civil war. Thus any troops,armamaments etc. present in southern korea supplied by the u.s. would be prima facia evidence of the u.s. is threatning nothern korea. Likewise the pressense of russian of chinese troops, armaments etc present in northern korea would be prima facia evidence of russia or china threatning southern korea.

quote:

Given that, it is hard to understand your claim that the US "threatened" North Korea.

Not so very difficult at all

quote:

Truman may very well have made a decision to counter the North Korean invasion. The Allied troops (88% American) were driven south to the Pusan Perimeter.

The Soviets were not present at the Security Council meeting because they objected to the seating of the Nationalist Chinese as representatives of the mainland.

So, again. What's your point? What are you trying to say about the role of the US in the Pacific?


My point was and is that the amerika involved itself uninvited in korea for korporate financial gain.




vincentML -> RE: Pugsly of North Korea (4/2/2013 11:45:06 AM)

quote:

Not sorta...korea was a soverign nation that was attacked and occupird by japan. Japan was conqured and korea is again one country.

Not exactly. Korea was not a sovereign nation at the end of WW2. It had no governement. It was occupied by American troops to the south and Soviet troops to the north who entered the Pacific War by agreement with the Western Allies.

quote:

The record shows that there was pretty much constant strife between two rival factions. The u.s. stuck it's military nose into a domestic civil war...any other interpretation is nothing more than cold war rhetoric.

The rival factions were established and supported by the Soviets and Western Alliance respectively. The American troops were already on the ground since 1945. It was pretty much a prequel of what happened to the French in Vietnam. Yes, Cold War begats Cold War rhetoric. The rhetoric does not negate the reality of the CW.

quote:

Was there no battle or did the commies just do a walk on?

It was by negotiation at Yalta or Potsdam, I can't remember which. The Soviets also obtained control of Manchuria and some islands they lost to the Japanese in 1905.

quote:

Which empire ae you speaing of?

The post WW2 Soviet Empire. Stalin began planning his expansion early on in the war. I suggest Stalin's Curse by Robert Gellately as an excellent source

quote:

Snookered???how so???

According to Gellately Stalin was an accomplished negotiator with a specific agenda.
Roosevelt at first thought he could charm Stalin. He was wrong. FDR and Winston were sorely lacking in negotiating skills, their advisors were divided, and their agenda was ad hoc. Churchill pretty much gave away Eastern Europe. Again according to Gellately.

quote:

My point was and is that the amerika involved itself uninvited in korea for korporate financial gain.

Not even close. The battle over the Korean Peninsula was a proxy fight in the greater Cold War that was then just developing. The people and the land had no riches to tempt a Capitalist nation. America had nothing to gain materially from that land. It was the playing out of a new geopolitical strategy on both sides which did not end until 1991. American troops on the ground in Korea were a consequence of the defeat of the Japanese Empire in 1945. To make anything more of it than that is a misreading of the events of the times.




papassion -> RE: Pugsly of North Korea (4/2/2013 12:04:43 PM)


Don't be surprised if the young new Leader in North Korea has an "accident." I think there are more than a few General grade officers who want to be the "main man" and are sick and tired of kissing this young kids' ass.




thompsonx -> RE: Pugsly of North Korea (4/2/2013 12:38:39 PM)

quote:

quote:

Was there no battle or did the commies just do a walk on?
It was by negotiation at Yalta or Potsdam, I can't remember which. The Soviets also obtained control of Manchuria and some islands they lost to the Japanese in 1905.


If I remember my history correctly the russians had to fight some quarter of a million japs for korea and the americans had a walk on.
Do you think that that loss of blood might have given the russians the feeling that they had a stake in korea?




thompsonx -> RE: Pugsly of North Korea (4/2/2013 12:41:38 PM)

quote:

Not exactly. Korea was not a sovereign nation at the end of WW2. It had no governement. It was occupied by American troops to the south and Soviet troops to the north who entered the Pacific War by agreement with the Western Allies.


By that line of reasoning france,holland,netherlands,italy etc had no government????puullleeezzzzee




thompsonx -> RE: Pugsly of North Korea (4/2/2013 12:46:29 PM)

quote:

quote:

Which empire ae you speaing of?
The post WW2 Soviet Empire. Stalin began planning his expansion early on in the war. I suggest Stalin's Curse by Robert Gellately as an excellent source


My question remains unanswered.

quote:

Snookered???how so???
According to Gellately Stalin was an accomplished negotiator with a specific agenda.


omfg a politician with an agenda somehow I do not find this to be particularly startling.
quote:


Roosevelt at first thought he could charm Stalin. He was wrong. FDR and Winston were sorely lacking in negotiating skills, their advisors were divided, and their agenda was ad hoc. Churchill pretty much gave away Eastern Europe. Again according to Gellately.


Perhaps you should read churchill's own words in his tome on ww2 he is quite clear how he traded austria for greece and then tried to renig on the deal and how eisenhower told him to go fuck himself.




thompsonx -> RE: Pugsly of North Korea (4/2/2013 12:54:23 PM)

quote:

quote:

My point was and is that the amerika involved itself uninvited in korea for korporate financial gain.

quote:


Not even close. The battle over the Korean Peninsula was a proxy fight in the greater Cold War that was then just developing. The people and the land had no riches to tempt a Capitalist nation.


A close analysis of the line that seperates n. and s.will show a distinct pimple jutting into the north...that pimple is where the u.s. gets a significant portion of it's tungstin.

quote:

America had nothing to gain materially from that land. It was the playing out of a new geopolitical strategy on both sides which did not end until 1991. American troops on the ground in Korea were a consequence of the defeat of the Japanese Empire in 1945. To make anything more of it than that is a misreading of the events of the times.


The justification for u.s. boots on the ground is from ww2 then by that logic the russians should have troops there also.




YN -> RE: Pugsly of North Korea (4/2/2013 1:29:23 PM)

The Russians and the Chinese had their reasons for being militant about any perceived Anglo-American or European adventurism in the Koreas.

To set the stage correctly, recall that shortly before this time the English cast down the leftist national government of Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, and with force restored the hated French colonial rule, using their massive army, augmented by rearmed Japanese Imperial troops.

These troops under English command, then crossed to Indonesia and restored the Dutch imperial rule to the islands killing 60,000 Indonesians or more with many atrocities.

In addition there were significant communist and nationalist revolutionary movements in Burma, Malaysia, and India and so on that were being brutally repressed by the colonial authorities.

The Soviet Union and Mao's communist China saw this above set of actions a open acts of European colonial imperialism as well as reactionary and counterrevolutionary attacks on their communist and socialistic allies.

While they could not militarily hope to prevent these hateful actions by the "West" in other parts of Asia, they could both ensure that they did not occur in Korea, as both Russian and Chinese could march to Korea, and both had military power to act.





vincentML -> RE: Pugsly of North Korea (4/2/2013 1:56:06 PM)

quote:

A close analysis of the line that seperates n. and s.will show a distinct pimple jutting into the north...that pimple is where the u.s. gets a significant portion of it's tungstin.

I was not aware of the tungsten. Thank you. Canada and the United States have significant tunsten resources. For me to believe we went to war in Korea over tungsten I would have to see data of imports from that era. Tungsten was mined in Korea as early as 1916. The mining was hardly limited to a small portion of one provence. I would be interested in what info you have.

quote:

The justification for u.s. boots on the ground is from ww2 then by that logic the russians should have troops there also.

Right! They did. I SNIPED a few places in the SOURCE but the basic information is the same.

The Soviet 25th Army took part in the Soviet advance into northern Korea immediately after World War II had ended, and was headquartered at Pyongyang for a period. Like the American forces in the south, Soviet troops remained in Korea after the end of the war to rebuild the country.[1]

SNIP

Owing to the nature of the conflict, it was necessary to hide (at least officially) Soviet participation so it could not be seen to be contravening the UN declaration in against North Korean aggression.

SNIP

Both the Chinese and North Korean air forces were structured and equipped along Soviet lines because of the help that the Soviet Union had given them in their first years. In October 1950, the Chinese air force comprised only two fighter divisions, one bomber regiment, and one attack aircraft regiment (a total of two hundred combat planes)[9] and was very much in its infancy. The Chinese committed several Air Regiments to Korea, and these were equipped with the Soviet-supplied MiG 15 fighters, however lack of training meant that the Chinese high command was anxious for Soviet pilots, some of whom were already in China tasked with training the pilots for the Chinese air force.[9] Frustrated by the quality and shortage of Chinese pilots, in April 1951, Stalin took the decision to involve Soviet airforce pilots in the war, flying under the markings of the Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) or North Korean Peoples' Army Air Force (KPAAF).

In addition to the widely known MiG-15 force of 64th Fighter Corps, there were also significant anti-aircraft gun, searchlight and technical units despatched to Korea as part of the same unit.[7]

Soviet pilots were active in Korea from April 1951. In order to hide this direct Soviet intervention, precautions were taken to disguise their involvement, open knowledge of which would have been a major diplomatic embarrassment for the USSR.

Soviet pilots wore Chinese uniforms when flying, whilst rules were prescribed to stop Sovet pilots flying near the coast or front lines (where they might be captured if shot down) and from speaking Russian on the aircraft radio. All aircraft flown carried Chinese or North Korean markings.[10] When not flying, for reasons of ethnicity, on the ground Soviet pilots 'played' the roles of Soviet commercial travellers rather than Chinese or North Korean soldiers.

Soviet pilots flying MiG 15 jets participated in battles around the Yalu River Valley on the Chinese-Korean border in the area known as "Mig Alley" and in operations against UN "trainbusting" attacks in Northern Korea, with considerable success.

The lack of a shared language between Soviet, Chinese and North Korean pilots frequently led to incidences of friendly fire as other MiG fighters were mistaken for American F-86 Sabre jets and shot down.[11]




vincentML -> RE: Pugsly of North Korea (4/2/2013 2:00:11 PM)

quote:

The Soviet Union and Mao's communist China saw this above set of actions a open acts of European colonial imperialism as well as reactionary and counterrevolutionary attacks on their communist and socialistic allies.

Wow! Right out of Stalin's handbook. Puhleez! You neglected to say anything about Soviet imperialism. But then that would have taken quite a bit longer to write up.[8|]




YN -> RE: Pugsly of North Korea (4/2/2013 2:13:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The Soviet Union and Mao's communist China saw this above set of actions a open acts of European colonial imperialism as well as reactionary and counterrevolutionary attacks on their communist and socialistic allies.

Wow! Right out of Stalin's handbook. Puhleez! You neglected to say anything about Soviet imperialism. But then that would have taken quite a bit longer to write up.[8|]


The Soviets were conducting much of their imperialism in Europe and on the surrounding Muslim lands at the time, and the Chinese were still securing China.

But you are assuming that I buy your premise that two wrongs make a right.

The Communists and many of the Europeans had been at a cold war since the 1917 revolution, and we could proceed to swap torts back through the 1920's if you like.

However in prior times, the Soviets did not have the military that they ended WW2 with. Unfortunately for them the United States also was far more powerful that it would have been without this war, and took up the challenge, since Europe was too devastated.




thompsonx -> RE: Pugsly of North Korea (4/2/2013 3:36:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The Soviet Union and Mao's communist China saw this above set of actions a open acts of European colonial imperialism as well as reactionary and counterrevolutionary attacks on their communist and socialistic allies.

Wow! Right out of Stalin's handbook. Puhleez! You neglected to say anything about Soviet imperialism. But then that would have taken quite a bit longer to write up.[8|]


Which impearlism are you speaking of?




thompsonx -> RE: Pugsly of North Korea (4/2/2013 3:40:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

The Russians and the Chinese had their reasons for being militant about any perceived Anglo-American or European adventurism in the Koreas.

To set the stage correctly, recall that shortly before this time the English cast down the leftist national government of Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, and with force restored the hated French colonial rule, using their massive army, augmented by rearmed Japanese Imperial troops.

These troops under English command, then crossed to Indonesia and restored the Dutch imperial rule to the islands killing 60,000 Indonesians or more with many atrocities.

In addition there were significant communist and nationalist revolutionary movements in Burma, Malaysia, and India and so on that were being brutally repressed by the colonial authorities.

The Soviet Union and Mao's communist China saw this above set of actions a open acts of European colonial imperialism as well as reactionary and counterrevolutionary attacks on their communist and socialistic allies.

While they could not militarily hope to prevent these hateful actions by the "West" in other parts of Asia, they could both ensure that they did not occur in Korea, as both Russian and Chinese could march to Korea, and both had military power to act.





That is pretty close to what I have read and had first hand expeerience with.




thompsonx -> RE: Pugsly of North Korea (4/2/2013 3:46:42 PM)

quote:

quote:

The justification for u.s. boots on the ground is from ww2 then by that logic the russians should have troops there also.

quote:


Right! They did. I SNIPED a few places in the SOURCE but the basic information is the same.


Your cite is quite clear that the russian pressence in korea durring the conflict was both minimal and surreptitious...yet you fail to mention any russian pressence before or after the conflict where as our physical pressence has been pretty much coninuous since what 45?




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Pugsly of North Korea (4/2/2013 5:06:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MorningStar01

I am usually against America and it's excuses for war. We all know that Iraq and Afghanistan were about oil not liberation. However North Korea and it's Pugsley look alike leader do so piss me off. The ruling class enjoy champagne and caviar while the people starve and then make threats to the U.S.A and the South mainly to get free money and a lift of sanctions. Who thinks that the U.S. should say "Fuck it" and wipe out Pugsley and his cronies once and for all and free it's people from these greedy fat arrogant fucks ? I know I do.


I'd actually like to back away from your (secondary) premise and focus on your primary one.

I'm locked away in my world, you have a world of your own (no doubt equally as predetermined), but you have a different perspective.

I'm of the viewpoint that someone has to protect the world, and it probably should be "us" only insomuch as, few others have the financial capacity to do so, and yet, I'm also clear...we ain't "the shit". (I suspect Bush 1 and 2 proved that without any debate...as have other Prez's along the way).

I've never understood the whole concept of the U.S. telling the world how they should be/react/move forward...it actually amazes me that we even comment on others political and other...life.

I really don't understand why Israel needs to confer with us before they light off anything....

So....from (any) outsiders viewpoints....can someone please tell me what the world thinks of the U.S., is it good, bad....something in between....is our time up?

It's fairly evident that China is on the rise, LOTS of countries have (new) oil or oil derivatives....I'm wondering if those of you in foreign countries wonder why we're sticking our nose in to your shit,or...on some level, do you prefer it? Do you welcome it? Hate it?

Why?

With reservations?

None?

To me it seems like....we (the U.S.) should just do our own shit...stay the fuck out (of everyone else's shit), other times I think if we stepped back, the world would cave....

Any thoughts on Ron Paul saying "the reason they're in our shit is because we're in theirs" ?

Anybody?

(Prefer to hear from those outside of the U.S.).




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625