N. Korea: Blockade means war

[Dillinger4]

I say lets go for it. Looks Kim Jong II dosent understand that fighting the US will get you nowhere. If we dropped two H-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killed thousands of people took on Hitler took on the Koreans, took on the Vietnamese and are now in the process of cleaning up the crap in the middle east what makes him think that we won't come after him? This guy either has balls of iron or is just plain crazy. My vote is for the latter.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapc...rea/index.html

[Memnoch1207]

I agree he's crazy...The only thing he is going to accomplish is bringing us to the brink of yet another war...and more casualties.

[Maven]

That'll be a bad war if it happens =/

[BodwadUK]

He is trying to find an excuse that will start a war and look as though it is America's fault. Has he not noticed America does not care about the rest of the world when a target is in its eyes. (No Offense)

He is a man who is big on words but has so far done nothing. He is always making threats because it makes him look big.

[OrdinaryGuy]

me think its fun watching this on TV with my beer mug next to me

[Shaggy Hiker]

Korea has always been bordered by countries that were larger and stronger. For them, facing America is something like business as usual. From everything I have heard, the Koreans have learned from this experience how to play in the game of brinksmanship. I doubt Kim Jong Il is actually crazy. He may be misinformed, but he is probably playing the cards he thinks he has, as carefully as he can. A few examples I heard of the extent to which N. Korea will go to gain marginal edges in negotiations: I heard an interview with an American diplomat who was negotiating with the N. Koreans a few years back. Every day, when he sat down, the chair seemed a little different. Eventually it was revealed that each evening, the N. Koreans were small amounts off of the legs of the diplomats chair, such that he would feel like he was shrinking relative to the Koreans. Now that's attention to detail. Now where did I leave my saw?

Another fun one, which may still be going on, is that the border gaurds strike poses whenever visitors approach. This may only be for S. Koreans, or S. Koreans and Americans, but the intent is to gain a slight psychological edge by subtly intimidating their foes. I think it would work, as I would be hard pressed to keep a straight face, based on the descriptions I have heard. That would be very distracting.

[OrdinaryGuy]

interesting, where did you read this from?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Ddin't read it, unfortunately, I heard an interview with the diplomat. Since it was first person, and strangely confucian, I assume it was true. In any country where "face" is a cultural issue, something like the chair leg thing might come to mind. I like that idea myself. I'd certainly try it on some co-workers if they had chairs made of wood.

My sister did something like that to a guy at Microsoft, but it was the guys screen size she was changing. Every so often, she'd sneak into the guys office and reduce the screen size (using the monitor controls, not physically sawing the thing) by one unit (percent, unit, mm, whatever that monitor used). Eventually the guy was working away on a monitor with a couple of inches of black border around the image. Never noticed a thing.

The guards posturing is nothing particularly new. Something like that occurs in one form or another wherever you get armed borders. Sebastian Junger (in his book Fire) reported on the Monument to the Moon in Cypress, where a Greek soldier got up and mooned the turkish guards across the no-man's land. The Turks shot him dead. It's just a different form of posturing.

[BodwadUK]

He is very self obsessed and this could become a problem if he suddenly believes he is an alpowerful man.

In north korea it is believed the people in south Korea are prisoners to America and beleive that every attack they make is for the Freedom of south Korea

What a joke

[kleinma]

at least if war were to happen... we would have direct support from China, Japan, and S Korea.... we aren't the only ones who see this threat... versus the critisism that USA and UK faced over Iraq

[WiKiDJeFF]

I am an American and I can tell you that we won't go to war with Korea. He knows this and is playing his cards very well IMO. More importantly he has taken action such as forcing the inspectors out of Korea and resuming his nuclear program. His complaints aren't erroneous either, as this Administration has not treated Korea with respect.

Korea has the 4th largest army in the world and a war with them cannot be compared to a war with Iraq.

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by WiKiDJeFF
.....as this Administration has not treated Korea with respect.

OGG!

As Droopy would say,

Boo Hoo Hoo

-Lou

[nishantp]

Originally posted by WiKiDJeFF
Korea has the 4th largest army in the world and a war with them cannot be compared to a war with Iraq.

Not that its all that important, but they have the 5th largest army. India is 4th.

[WiKiDJeFF]

Thank you for correcting me.

[WiKiDJeFF]

Originally posted by NotLKH
OGG!

As Droopy would say,

Boo Hoo Hoo

-Lou

When you are the leader of the free world you set standards for everyone else in it. You can not simply bribe a country not to develop nuclear capabilities and at the same time add them to the axis of evil. North Koreas only complaint against the U.S. is the way this Administration has treated them.

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by WiKiDJeFF
When you are the leader of the free world you set standards for everyone else in it. You can not simply bribe a country not to develop nuclear capabilities and at the same time add them to the axis of evil. North Koreas only complaint against the U.S. is the way this Administration has treated them.

The article points out that the blockade is due to illegal smuggling.

If you want, go ahead, respect a bunch of Drugs and Arms smugglers.

Nice standards to set for the rest of us!


-Lou

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by WiKiDJeFF
When you are the leader of the free world you set standards for everyone else in it. You can not simply bribe a country not to develop nuclear capabilities and at the same time add them to the axis of evil. North Koreas only complaint against the U.S. is the way this Administration has treated them.

Yes, when there is a leader of the free world let me know would you.

Thanks!



Oh, sorry, is Bush such a megalomaniac now that he believs he is the leader of the free world????? Funny, I don't remember their being any election.

[WiKiDJeFF]

America is the only true super power left in the world making it the leader of it, regardless of whether we were elected or not.

You need to respect those who have commited crimes, especially when they hold significant power.

The point is we have reached a time when the price of war is paid in civilian lives. North Korea is not Iraq, it can not be invaded. Therefore, this war will be fought with words and the media.

[BodwadUK]

North Korea has had a grudge against America because the help defend south Korea. This war will be fought with words (Heres hoping) but you must prepare for the worst when you run a country.

Ps its not how big it is its how well equiped it is and how you use it that counts

[chenko]

WiKiDJeFF,
Of course it is

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
I agree he's crazy...The only thing he is going to accomplish is bringing us to the brink of yet another war...and more casualties.

The US could get war anywhere, tis a bully nation.

One day the US goverment will do something stupid (well more stupid than usual) and it will turn alot more nations against them and then the US will be peeing their pants.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by chenko2
The US could get war anywhere, tis a bully nation.

One day the US goverment will do something stupid (well more stupid than usual) and it will turn alot more nations against them and then the US will be peeing their pants.

In your rather simplistic way you have summarized the rise and fall of all empires. This has been the case throughout history and I see no reason this trend will stop with the United States of America. What you should really be concerned with is the next nation that rises to the top. Instead of wanting you to buy McDonalds and Starbucks coffee they might be in the business of suppressing your freedoms by force and controlling your life. Be careful of what you wish for…. it just might come true.

X

[Maven]

I honestly think we have the last empire.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'm inclined to agree with Maven. Society is pretty global now, when this empire falls, what will replace it? We already consume a disproportianate amount of global resources, and many of them are effectively destroyed by our use. The next empire will be built on the remains, unless a new source is found, which changes this. Without a new source of resources, any future empire will probably have a reduced standard of living, rather a change from the past trends.

[WiKiDJeFF]

I do not for see America falling and being replaced by a new empire in which freedoms are not taken for granted. In fact America has already started to take away our freedoms. This of course is our punishment for our own lack of education and diminishing interest in politics (Ironically more then half of my country feels strongly about going to war with Iraq, yet less then half of it votes.) More importantly, America itself cannot fall foreign powers. Science made sure of this when it invented the Atomic Bomb. If America falls it will have to be from the inside, similiar to what happened in the cold war.

The Bush Administration, together with Ashcroft and Rumsfeld have taken over our country. And I for one would like my country back.

The ideal leader not only knows what is right, but is willing to do it. Bush meets neither of these requirements.

[BodwadUK]

Where the hell do you live????

[WiKiDJeFF]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
Where the hell do you live????

The United States of America.

[BodwadUK]

The ideal leader not only knows what is right, but is willing to do it. Bush meets neither of these requirements.

What is one persons right is another persons wrong!!!!

[WiKiDJeFF]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
What is one persons right is another persons wrong!!!!

The majority of the world has similiar beliefs in terms of what is right and what is wrong. People just have different ideas for how to achieve these goals.

[BodwadUK]

Ahh but not always. Look at Iraq

[WiKiDJeFF]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
Ahh but not always. Look at Iraq

Well if you look at the bigger picture everyone wants peace in Iraq, people just have different opinions on how to achieve this.

For example, I feel that Saddam did need to be removed from power. I just disagree with the way it was done.

[BodwadUK]

Some people say Saddam should have been left alone. I dont see that as a 'peaceful' solution. Their goals where not peace but just because they didnt want to care!!!

I agree that many want the same thing but certainly not all. Terrorism is never a peaceful solution and only brings war and death. If a terrorist ever claims they want peace then they are talking a load of c**p. Terrorists attack civilians and start wars they never ever end them or prevent them.

[WiKiDJeFF]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
Some people say Saddam should have been left alone. I dont see that as a 'peaceful' solution. Their goals where not peace but just because they didnt want to care!!!

I agree that many want the same thing but certainly not all. Terrorism is never a peaceful solution and only brings war and death. If a terrorist ever claims they want peace then they are talking a load of c**p. Terrorists attack civilians and start wars they never ever end them or prevent them.

Many people were against invading Iraq for a number of reasons. Very few people felt that he should simply be left alone, and most of those who did probably cared about the region.

The idea that terrorism is not an attempt to make the world a better and more peaceful place is interesting to me. Especially since this is pretty much exactly what they are trying to accomplish. Terrorists don't always attack civilians nor do they start most wars.

The majority of the problems in this world are not caused by terrorism, in fact it is not even close to the leading cause of death.

In Israel about 240+ people have been killed in the last two years due to terrorism. 2700+ died in the WTC.

Yet millions of Americans are on drugs, tens of thousands die every year due to gun related deaths, and the leading cause of death are Car Accidents.

I am by no means supporting terrorism. I'm simply saying that its important to look at the big picture.

[Xanith]

Many people were against invading Iraq for a number of reasons. Very few people felt that he should simply be left alone, and most of those who did probably cared about the region.

The idea that terrorism is not an attempt to make the world a better and more peaceful place is interesting to me. Especially since this is pretty much exactly what they are trying to accomplish. Terrorists don't always attack civilians nor do they start most wars.

Which terrorists are you talking about? I hope I am misunderstanding what you are saying here. Please tell me you are not advocating or even condoning terrorism or their methods? And tell me you are not saying that you somehow feel that terrorism makes the world a better place because all they are doing is striving for peace. Please clarify.

The majority of the problems in this world are not caused by terrorism, in fact it is not even close to the leading cause of death.

Does that mean we should totally ignore terrorism or the effect it has on people? We have to wait till terrorists get the body count up high enough before we do anything?

In Israel about 240+ people have been killed in the last two years due to terrorism. 2700+ died in the WTC.

If you take the population differences between the two countries with the US being around 290 million and Israel at 6.5 million this give a difference in population of the US being 45 times more populous. So the small number of 240 dead suddenly turns into 10,800 dead here in the US over the last 2 years. I don’t know about you but that sounds like a lot to me.

Yet millions of Americans are on drugs, tens of thousands die every year due to gun related deaths, and the leading cause of death are Car Accidents.

I am by no means supporting terrorism. I'm simply saying that its important to look at the big picture.

Drugs. We spend millions fighting the drug trade every year. There has been a war going on against drugs far longer than the war on terrorism has been going on.

Gun deaths have been in decline since the early 90’s when they reached their high of almost 40,000 a year. Gun deaths currently stand around 28,000 a year. Of these 28,000 approximately 60% of these are suicides which leaves around 11,500 deaths a year due to homicide and accidents. One can assume that if we didn’t have guns around the suicides would probably still be the same. I doubt this would change due to lack of guns. While the accidents could be 100% prevented if there were no guns they only make up about 2% of the yearly total of gun deaths. One could also argue that a good percentage of the homicides that take place would still take place even if guns were not readily available. I mean look at the murder rates in the UK where guns are illegal they far surpass those here in the US. I don’t think that guns are the problem. While I am for stricter regulation I am still a strong supporter of the right to keep and bare arms that the US Constitution affords Americans.

As for car accidents, I never heard a movement for the banning of cars. While they are the biggest killer of people in the US every year a car itself is not a threat to anyone. Unless of course you feel that cars are a huge threat that should be banned?

X

[WiKiDJeFF]

Originally posted by Xanith
Which terrorists are you talking about? I hope I am misunderstanding what you are saying here. Please tell me you are not advocating or even condoning terrorism or their methods? And tell me you are not saying that you somehow feel that terrorism makes the world a better place because all they are doing is striving for peace. Please clarify.



Does that mean we should totally ignore terrorism or the effect it has on people? We have to wait till terrorists get the body count up high enough before we do anything?


If you take the population differences between the two countries with the US being around 290 million and Israel at 6.5 million this give a difference in population of the US being 45 times more populous. So the small number of 240 dead suddenly turns into 10,800 dead here in the US over the last 2 years. I don’t know about you but that sounds like a lot to me.


Drugs. We spend millions fighting the drug trade every year. There has been a war going on against drugs far longer than the war on terrorism has been going on.

Gun deaths have been in decline since the early 90’s when they reached their high of almost 40,000 a year. Gun deaths currently stand around 28,000 a year. Of these 28,000 approximately 60% of these are suicides which leaves around 11,500 deaths a year due to homicide and accidents. One can assume that if we didn’t have guns around the suicides would probably still be the same. I doubt this would change due to lack of guns. While the accidents could be 100% prevented if there were no guns they only make up about 2% of the yearly total of gun deaths. One could also argue that a good percentage of the homicides that take place would still take place even if guns were not readily available. I mean look at the murder rates in the UK where guns are illegal they far surpass those here in the US. I don’t think that guns are the problem. While I am for stricter regulation I am still a strong supporter of the right to keep and bare arms that the US Constitution affords Americans.

As for car accidents, I never heard a movement for the banning of cars. While they are the biggest killer of people in the US every year a car itself is not a threat to anyone. Unless of course you feel that cars are a huge threat that should be banned?

X

Of course I do not condone terrorism or feel that it is just or reasonable. I was simply replying to the post that I quoted. In fact I even stated this later on in my post.

I am not saying that terrorism should be ignored I was simply posting some information.

The difference in population between Israel and the US is a very good point. I agree that terrorism is an extremely large problem in Israel. In fact the other part of the statistic is that 1,400 people have been wounded in Israel during the past two years due to terrorist attacks. However, terrorism in the US is a relatively complex issue as I see it.

Can you post the source to those statistics on gun related deaths in the US and the UK? I am not saying they are wrong, I would just like to see where you got them from.

Obviously I am not in favor in banning cars nor did I suggest this in my post. I was simply posting some information.

Thank you for responding to my post, I would appreciate you posting the sources for those stats.

[BodwadUK]

I think you are forgetting the middle east crisis, The war in Afganistan and the war in Iraq (Sparked by fear of terrorism). All caused by terrorism. True in the past wars werent caused by terrorism but today they are.

I think the fact that terrorists go out to kill as many as possible and people in cars dont just ruins your idea. The fact that there are alot more cars than terrorists (A hell of a lot more) means that more will die in accidents.

Guns are only as dangerous as their users. Here in Nottingham (UK) we have a lot of gun crime. Mainly from young kids in their 'Gangs'. They are all a bunch of snotty gits who need to be sent to prison and our government doesnt allow our police to do anything about them. And dont even get me started on the EU!!!!!!

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by Xanith
As for car accidents, I never heard a movement for the banning of cars. While they are the biggest killer of people in the US every year a car itself is not a threat to anyone. Unless of course you feel that cars are a huge threat that should be banned?

If you've heard Rush, I'm sure you've heard how most accounts of accidents involving SUV's hardly even mention the drivers. Mostly, they report how the SUV seemingly has a mind of its own, and mows down people, crashes into cars, drives into buildings, etc...

Combined with their sturdiness, giving them an unfair "advantage" in collisions, and how they guzzle fuel, and you'll understand how many liberals are out to get those SUV's off the streets.

-Lou

[Shaggy Hiker]

If you've listened to Rush? The guy has problems with facts...or maybe he doesn't, they cook well for him.

Most studies of any accident don't mention the driver. That is assumed to be a constant, but it has been shown to be false in the case of SUVs. SUV drivers are less likely than the average population to care about the drivers of other vehicles (in other words, they are more self-centered). The statistics that are of interest with SUVs is not necessarily the death rate to people struck, but the fact that SUV death rates are higher than for passenger cars. Despite the greater mass, most SUVs are more dangerous than cars. That has nothing to do with the drivers, and everything to do with physics. If you drive an SUV thinking that it'll keep you safe, the current NHTSA studies must be somewhat alarming...oops, my 'safe' vehicle is more dangerous to me than a good sedan.

[BodwadUK]

What does SUV stand for???

[Xanith]

Originally posted by BodwadUK
What does SUV stand for???

Sports Utility Vehicle

X

[WiKiDJeFF]

It seems that we have gotten off topic.

Besides I don't recall anyone suggesting that we elliminate SUV's or any other type of vehicle.

Whether or not the wars terrorism, Iraq, and Afghanistan are conventional wars is debatable.