Kim Jong Il died

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Re: Kim Jong Il died

Unread postby agga » Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:52 am

Shikanosuke wrote:
agga wrote:
i don't agree that our posture or the way we negotiate with the DPRK has any likelihood of changing the situation.


No, it doesn't. No posture does if they are unwilling to make substantial concessions. They are a hard negotiator with little to bargain with.

I fail to see how how we've forced them to become more militarized.


i think they have a legitimate fear of invasion by the US and the ROK, and this fear is neutralized by allowing the military to completely dominate every aspect of the state. we always hear about these threatening moves by the DPRK, but much less about our responses - or instigation, sometimes - either alone or in concert with the ROK. when the DPRK has been quiet for a few months, we stage 'exercises' off their coast, testing artillery right up to and over contested sea boundaries. we do our part to keep tensions high, and to ensure that they are always working to formulate some response. the US is not a completely beneficent partner in this situation. just because the DPRK government is evil does not mean that everything we are doing is right.

Shikanosuke wrote:Unlike the DPRK, we are free to conduct independent research. And many have. And they come to the same conclusions. Sure, the actions of the DPRK leadership may make sense to a brainwashed or terrified leadership member or citizen...but thats like saying if crazy sounds sane to crazies.


i never said anything in our press re the DPRK was false. just that the supposed analysis of the situation is completely empty. there's absolutely no criticism of the part the US plays, none at all. you think this is a good use of a free press? it's not surprising to me, i think it's the same in a lot of areas of US policy, but with the korea situation its amazingly flat. maybe there are good reasons: it's been ongoing for 60 years and there's a sort of learned helplessness; the DPRK is so horrid that it's hard not to attend to the lurid details of the freakshow; and it's so impossible to criticize US military-based policy. the US is the stronger player and should guide and supervise sustained engagement between ROK and DPRK. this is what was happening until 2002, and while it didn't turn the DPRK into a great place, it was better than the succeeding 10 years.
造反有理!
User avatar
agga
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:45 pm

Re: Kim Jong Il died

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:06 am

agga wrote:
i think they have a legitimate fear of invasion by the US and the ROK, and this fear is neutralized by allowing the military to completely dominate every aspect of the state. we always hear about these threatening moves by the DPRK,


I disagree. Their military didn't save them the first time around either, it wouldn't this time. China, however, did and would. Nor again do we have the military might nor political will to do so. They should know this, unless they are too cut off from the world to put that together.


but much less about our responses - or instigation, sometimes - either alone or in concert with the ROK. when the DPRK has been quiet for a few months, we stage 'exercises' off their coast, testing artillery right up to and over contested sea boundaries. we do our part to keep tensions high, and to ensure that they are always working to formulate some response. the US is not a completely beneficent partner in this situation. just because the DPRK government is evil does not mean that everything we are doing is right.


And I don't believe we are instigating at all. I think we aid the ROK in staying constantly prepared against a completely militarized state (which they are currently still at war with) who has a stated intention of unifying the two Koreas, and has all their short-range missiles and men stationed to push across the border at a command. And I love how you try to erect defenses for the DPRK like we are just rampaging through their territory and ignore how often the DPRK does exactly that to South Korean territory.

Are there any other ways we are instigating other than maintaining a valid military presence in the demilitarized zone?

i never said anything in our press re the DPRK was false. just that the supposed analysis of the situation is completely empty.


And I disagree. There is tons of insight into why the DPRK operates it does. The problem with it is doesn't provide any answers or help their/your case in the slightest.

there's absolutely no criticism of the part the US plays, none at all. you think this is a good use of a free press? it's not surprising to me, i think it's the same in a lot of areas of US policy, but with the korea situation its amazingly flat. maybe there are good reasons: it's been ongoing for 60 years and there's a sort of learned helplessness; the DPRK is so horrid that it's hard not to attend to the lurid details of the freakshow; and it's so impossible to criticize US military-based policy. the US is the stronger player and should guide and supervise sustained engagement between ROK and DPRK. this is what was happening until 2002, and while it didn't turn the DPRK into a great place, it was better than the succeeding 10 years.


The US need do nothing, the DPRK has a larger degree of responsibility in caring for itself, its people, and how it conducts itself with the outside world. Even if, for argument's sake, I concede America has fault in this..it doesn't change that the DPRK has to...or should..adapt in a way which can actually better its situation. They do not. Even China recognizes this.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4388
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Kim Jong Il died

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:30 am

Zyzyfer wrote:
Dong Zhou wrote:I think we are all missing the important question: Why do the Times photo's of soldiers in the centenary celebrations all happen to be female soldiers?


:?:

Haven't noticed that? You mean NYT?


English Times

I meant the question as a joke
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 17055
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Kim Jong Il died

Unread postby Zyzyfer » Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:16 pm

Dong Zhou wrote:
Zyzyfer wrote:
Dong Zhou wrote:I think we are all missing the important question: Why do the Times photo's of soldiers in the centenary celebrations all happen to be female soldiers?


:?:

Haven't noticed that? You mean NYT?


English Times

I meant the question as a joke


I just got trolled lol :lol:
Gamefaqs: KongZhou
Steam: heinous_won
User avatar
Zyzyfer
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 3434
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 1:17 pm
Location: South Korea

Re: Kim Jong Il died

Unread postby agga » Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:23 am

Shikanosuke wrote:Nor again do we have the military might nor political will to do so. They should know this, unless they are too cut off from the world to put that together.


i agree.

Shikanosuke wrote:I think we aid the ROK in staying constantly prepared against a completely militarized state (which they are currently still at war with) who has a stated intention of unifying the two Koreas


there is no dichotomy there. the US supports korean reunification under a democratic - i.e. ROK - government. the ROK also has a stated intention of reunification, but they clearly can't really want it, at least not the way things are now. it would take generations for the people of the DPRK to recover from what they've been through; but every korean I've ever talked to believes that one day korea will be reunified under something like the ROK government - it's what i want, too.

Shikanosuke wrote:, and has all their short-range missiles and men stationed to push across the border at a command. And I love how you try to erect defenses for the DPRK like we are just rampaging through their territory and ignore how often the DPRK does exactly that to South Korean territory.


as long as you acknowledge the basic equivalence of the situation...

Shikanosuke wrote:Are there any other ways we are instigating other than maintaining a valid military presence in the demilitarized zone?


not really, but 'valid' is kind of tricky. the north koreans (and a lot of south koreans) don't believe our presence is valid.

Shikanosuke wrote:The US need do nothing, the DPRK has a larger degree of responsibility in caring for itself, its people, and how it conducts itself with the outside world. Even if, for argument's sake, I concede America has fault in this..it doesn't change that the DPRK has to...or should..adapt in a way which can actually better its situation. They do not. Even China recognizes this.


i agree; except that i think the US should do a lot less than what it does - it does a lot more than nothing. i'm not trying to "make a case" for the DPRK; i'm trying to make a case for letting koreans run the show in korea. this is what was happening under kim dae-jung, and what would probably have continued in some form under noh mu-hyun, but i think the US - i.e. the Bush presidency - got severely in the way, allowed his opposition to destroy his presidency, and brought in lee myung-bak, who is totally in agreement with the hard-case-on-korea that you (and many others) see as necessary, but only with active US encouragement and backing.

my position, basically, is that the US should get out of the way and sit in the shadows, and only come out when the situation demands it. the ROK hardliners have been using us (especially our hardliners) as a crutch against the DPRK.
造反有理!
User avatar
agga
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:45 pm

Re: Kim Jong Il died

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:06 pm

agga wrote:there is no dichotomy there. the US supports korean reunification under a democratic - i.e. ROK - government. the ROK also has a stated intention of reunification, but they clearly can't really want it, at least not the way things are now. it would take generations for the people of the DPRK to recover from what they've been through; but every korean I've ever talked to believes that one day korea will be reunified under something like the ROK government - it's what i want, too.


Sounds like a shard delusion amongst the two people's then.

as long as you acknowledge the basic equivalence of the situation...


Well, I don't. Largely just because I haven't done enough searching to confirm that the US willynilly goes running amock in DPRK territory as you say.

not really, but 'valid' is kind of tricky. the north koreans (and a lot of south koreans) don't believe our presence is valid.


I don't expect the North Koreans to find 99% of anything the U.S. does to be valid.

i agree; except that i think the US should do a lot less than what it does - it does a lot more than nothing.


I just have to disagree. I find the negotiations with the DPRK completely stalled. I find the efforts to engage in a responsible negotiated framework consistently betrayed by the DPRK. While you can argue we don't understand the DPRK, they make no attempt to explain (or initiate).

i'm not trying to "make a case" for the DPRK; i'm trying to make a case for letting koreans run the show in korea. this is what was happening under kim dae-jung, and what would probably have continued in some form under noh mu-hyun, but i think the US - i.e. the Bush presidency - got severely in the way, allowed his opposition to destroy his presidency, and brought in lee myung-bak, who is totally in agreement with the hard-case-on-korea that you (and many others) see as necessary, but only with active US encouragement and backing.

my position, basically, is that the US should get out of the way and sit in the shadows, and only come out when the situation demands it. the ROK hardliners have been using us (especially our hardliners) as a crutch against the DPRK.


I guess I find myself in the hardliners camp.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4388
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Kim Jong Il died

Unread postby Crazedmongoose » Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:06 am

I think it should really be up to the South Koreans how much or how little we intervene. This isn't the 1950's now. South Korea has twice the population of North Korea and IIRC more advanced and a better equipped army. If they think they can defend themselves (and a fair number of them do) then the US should withdraw.

Also strategically speaking, a withdrawal by the US would make China a lot less default pro-DPRK. China's great strategic fear isn't a unified Korea, it's gonna be US army bases as far up as the Yalu river.



On the other hand, huzzah! DPRK's missile failed to reach Australia. (Seriously, I live smack bang in the middle of Sydney, this would be the first target in Australia...though I'm tempted to think that if worst case ever comes the DPRK will attack Japan first).
User avatar
Crazedmongoose
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:10 am
Location: Sydney, Aus

Re: Kim Jong Il died

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:21 am

I have no problem with US troops being removed from the demilitarized zone. I agree the DPRK poses little military threat to ROK (outside of maybe killing Seoul and a nuclear threat). That said, outside of the demilitarized zone I have also have no problem keeping the troops there so long as the ROK wants to lease bases to the US. As a staging ground it isn't a bad deal.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4388
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Kim Jong Il died

Unread postby Crazedmongoose » Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:02 am

As I said, South Korean self determination. Whatever they think is best for them should be the solution.

It's the reason I get annoyed when certain people in the west de-facto support Taiwan separatism. That's not even the majority opinion in Taiwan, so it just feels like we're jumping the gun.
User avatar
Crazedmongoose
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:10 am
Location: Sydney, Aus

Re: Kim Jong Il died

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:54 am

Crazedmongoose wrote:As I said, South Korean self determination. Whatever they think is best for them should be the solution.


It would seem that is the South Korean's will then. Seems to be in their interest (and maybe not ours) as well.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4388
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved