Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

General North Korea discussion

180 replies to this topic
GTA36362355
  • GTA36362355

    moving before it's dead

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2011
  • None

#31

Posted 11 January 2016 - 08:26 AM Edited by Mister Kay, 11 January 2016 - 09:26 AM.

Is anything big going on, or is this just business as usual?




North Korea's H-bomb testing got J.Kerry to call the Chinese to make them end 'business as usual' with NK Supreme LEDA Kim Jong-un.

Today in my conversation with the Chinese I made it very clear that has not worked and we cannot continue business as usual.


Stephan90
  • Stephan90

    proud "conspiracy theorist"

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2008
  • Germany

#32

Posted 11 January 2016 - 09:26 AM Edited by Stephan90, 11 January 2016 - 09:32 AM.

China to end business with North Korea? lol...

 

North Korea is the buffer between China and South Korea where American military is stationed. That's the only reason why China doesn't let North Korea fall. Why would China allow that US forces are stationed closer to its border, if North Korea collapses and is unified with the South? What would the United States do if China set up a military base in Mexico?!

 

I also read that the explosion was too weak to be from an H bomb and that it was a regular atomic bomb, which North Korea has tested before already.


CBH
  • CBH

    Snitch

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2015
  • North-Korea

#33

Posted 12 January 2016 - 10:13 AM

Congratulations to the DPRK on their successful bomb test.

make total destroy
  • make total destroy

    love or a garbage disposal unit

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Not Very Punk 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#34

Posted 12 January 2016 - 10:34 AM

eeOAcKr.jpg

  • Tchuck, Failure, Irviding and 8 others like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#35

Posted 12 January 2016 - 11:02 AM

Congratulations to the DPRK on their successful bomb test.

Only a M-L lackey would congratulate a Stalinist state on something they never actually achieved.
  • Failure and Irviding like this

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#36

Posted 12 January 2016 - 11:12 AM

Congratulations to the DPRK on their successful bomb test.

Only a M-L lackey would congratulate a Stalinist state on something they never actually achieved.


What are you talking about? It was a massive success! Look, people are talking about North Korea again!
  • Street Mix likes this

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    DILF in waiting

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#37

Posted 12 January 2016 - 03:03 PM

It probably was a success for them though, even if it didn't go perfectly. They still made progress with their programme. 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#38

Posted 12 January 2016 - 03:30 PM

In a thermonuclear weapon test, anything less than a thermonuclear yield is pretty much a failure. Most experts seem to think this test was another unboosted fission bomb given the size of the seismic activity created- and we've got pretty good at estimating yields this way over the years.

CBH
  • CBH

    Snitch

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2015
  • North-Korea

#39

Posted 14 January 2016 - 11:00 PM Edited by CBH, 14 January 2016 - 11:04 PM.

eeOAcKr.jpg


I'm not even American.

Real talk: No country has the right to declare what another country can or can't do. If you do not accept this, you are an imperialist.

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#40

Posted 14 January 2016 - 11:04 PM

Why hasn't the US orchestrated a regime change in North Korea before now then?

 

I honestly don't think it's nuclear weapons stopping them.


CBH
  • CBH

    Snitch

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2015
  • North-Korea

#41

Posted 14 January 2016 - 11:35 PM

I could be very crude and say "there isn't any oil there" - the DPRK doesn't have any resources that I'm aware of which would make it a desirable target. The other reason is China is like, right there.

At any rate, the US has come like the grim reaper for quite a few states it doesn't like in the past few years. If I were the DPRK getting tooled up would seem like a pretty good idea.

universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM, WILLY!

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States
  • Best Conversion 2016 [GTA: Underground] [Contribution]
    Best Workshop 2014
    Most Improved 2014
    Funniest Member 2014
    April Fools Winner 2015

#42

Posted 14 January 2016 - 11:49 PM Edited by universetwisters, 14 January 2016 - 11:50 PM.

I could be very crude and say "there isn't any oil there" - the DPRK doesn't have any resources that I'm aware of which would make it a desirable target. The other reason is China is like, right there.

 

Oh no, Oil's there, according to Kim. There's also Unicorns there, too.

 

Spoiler


CBH
  • CBH

    Snitch

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2015
  • North-Korea

#43

Posted 15 January 2016 - 12:29 AM

Oh no, Oil's there, according to Kim. There's also Unicorns there, too.


No.
 

Real talk though, Nazi Germany didn't have any resources and we still stepped in when they started throwing sh*t around in Europe.


That's a very strange comparison to make; Germany was a fairly large threat (and opportunity) to American interests what with that trying to conquer Eurasia thing. Now, what's the weird Orientalist slur used to describe the DPRK again? Oh yeah, it's "Hermit kingdom".

universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM, WILLY!

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States
  • Best Conversion 2016 [GTA: Underground] [Contribution]
    Best Workshop 2014
    Most Improved 2014
    Funniest Member 2014
    April Fools Winner 2015

#44

Posted 15 January 2016 - 04:27 AM

 

Oh no, Oil's there, according to Kim. There's also Unicorns there, too.


No.
 

Real talk though, Nazi Germany didn't have any resources and we still stepped in when they started throwing sh*t around in Europe.


That's a very strange comparison to make; Germany was a fairly large threat (and opportunity) to American interests what with that trying to conquer Eurasia thing. Now, what's the weird Orientalist slur used to describe the DPRK again? Oh yeah, it's "Hermit kingdom".

 

 

We have interests in South Korea. North Korea doesn't like South Korea. Surely you can put two and two together, unlike all the people who believed North Korea actually had unicorns a few years ago. Seriously, that sh*t was crazy.


Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#45

Posted 15 January 2016 - 05:56 AM

 

\


Real talk: No country has the right to declare what another country can or can't do. If you do not accept this, you are an imperialist.

 

Why?

  • Failure likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#46

Posted 15 January 2016 - 07:24 AM

Real talk: No country has the right to declare what another country can or can't do. If you do not accept this, you are an imperialist.

So does that mean it would be logical to conclude you support the "right" of states to commit genocide against their people, because interfering to prevent it would be imperialist, which is somehow worse?

You do say some f*cking weird things, but given you're f*cking weird I suppose that's not surprising.
  • Failure and Zook like this

Stephan90
  • Stephan90

    proud "conspiracy theorist"

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2008
  • Germany

#47

Posted 15 January 2016 - 04:23 PM Edited by Stephan90, 15 January 2016 - 04:23 PM.

Who in here really believes that an American invasion in North Korea wouldn't trigger a war between China and the United states / nuclear war?!


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#48

Posted 15 January 2016 - 04:44 PM

Anyone with the vaguest understanding of international relations, because whilst North Korea is occasionally useful to China as a counterbalance to US interests in the region, a direct military confrontation with the US over the issue simply wouldn't benefit them. Not that it's going to happen anyway, because the US isn't going to invade North Korea.

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    DILF in waiting

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#49

Posted 15 January 2016 - 04:45 PM

There's no way the U.S. would invade North Korea in any case. They were too scared to even bomb them before/whilst they were developing nuclear weapons, there's sure as sh*t no way they'd bomb them now, let alone a full scale invasion. I imagine any action the U.S. takes against North Korea would only be taken with China's agreement. They wouldn't take drastic unilateral action because the risks far outweigh the potential rewards. 


Stephan90
  • Stephan90

    proud "conspiracy theorist"

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2008
  • Germany

#50

Posted 15 January 2016 - 05:00 PM Edited by Stephan90, 15 January 2016 - 05:13 PM.

KIm sh*ts on human rights and still China don't has an agreement with the United States to stop him, because it's almost or maybe always never about human rights. That means that China views the role of North Korea as a buffer between China and South Korea (with US military presence) as very important. So why would China in the case of an American invasion (I know that won't happen as long as North Korea doesn't attack the south, which will also not happen) not protect the buffer (North Korea) with military force? Why would they allow that after an invasion American troops would be stationed near the Chinese borders?!

 

Of course the world's powers try eveything to expand their power and weaken the other world powers directly or indirectly, as long as it doesn't cause a war between the world's powers. But there are limits. And any military intervention against North Korea is beyond that limit. China knows exactly what happened after our own unification (NATO east expansion), which was an historical luck for us. As for Korea the consequences are even more simple to foresee (American military base(s) in North Korea. So as long as the North Korean dictatorship can maintain power and does nothing more than threatening others, the situation in Korea will never change. I know it is unjust but justice obviously doesn't count much in international politics.


Fonz
  • Fonz

    Passarim quis pousar, não deu, voou

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2014
  • None

#51

Posted 15 January 2016 - 05:16 PM

So does that mean it would be logical to conclude you support the "right" of states to commit genocide against their people, because interfering to prevent it would be imperialist, which is somehow worse?

I'm also opposed to military intervention for the most part, but an intervention like Vietnam's in Cambodia in 1978 was perfectly justified since it put a stop to a genocide and rebuilt the country, pretty much. It's a rare case, though. To be fair, I assume CBH meant something like that.


make total destroy
  • make total destroy

    love or a garbage disposal unit

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Not Very Punk 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#52

Posted 15 January 2016 - 05:18 PM

 

I'm not even American.


 

I know, but it's still relevant. Aren't you in like, CPGB-ML or some other live-action roleplay troupe?

 

If you are in CPGB-ML, which one of these very bored looking people is you? Everyone looks like they're engaged in a struggle alright.

maxresdefault.jpg

I got $20 on the longhair in the keffiyeh

 

 


Real talk: No country has the right to declare what another country can or can't do. If you do not accept this, you are an imperialist.

 

 

Anyone that lauds a racist, ethnic-nationalist, aesthetically Stalinist hereditary dictatorship for supposedly developing a f*cking hydrogen bomb is doing 'anti-imperialism' wrong.

  • El Diablo, Tchuck, Failure and 4 others like this

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#53

Posted 15 January 2016 - 06:37 PM

KIm sh*ts on human rights and still China don't has an agreement with the United States to stop him, because it's almost or maybe always never about human rights.


There is also the fact that a war with North Korea would be incredibly consuming for the United States. I remember reading somewhere that the Pentagon reckon they would need at least 200,000 troops for a war with North Korea to ensure victory.

Add to that, that it is generally accepted that North Korea would retaliate by launching nuclear missiles on Seoul, which would be a devasting number in human loses. Indeed, this fear is basically what keeps the United States at the DMZ.

And that's just the war part. Then there is maintaining the peace. The South Korean Ministry of Reunification has a detailed list of all potential problems they would have to deal with in a reunification scenario.

That means that China views the role of North Korea as a buffer between China and South Korea (with US military presence) as very important.


It's a nice buffer sure, and China prefers not bothering an actual US ally. But it's not that important and moreover, China isn't really benefitting from North Korea as much anymore as they used to.

Indeed, China is not the reason the US has not declared war on North Korea. North Korea is.

So why would China in the case of an American invasion (I know that won't happen as long as North Korea doesn't attack the south, which will also not happen) not protect the buffer (North Korea) with military force?


Beyond the fact that it would never happen, it would not be in China's interest. China benefits hugely from overly peaceful relations with the United States, compared to be direct enemies at war. North Korea is not that important. More to the point, in the case of an American invasion, something significant must have been triggered that most likely would cause China and the US to join forces.

Why would they allow that after an invasion Americn troops would be stationed near the Chinese borders?!


Again, they would just have to accept that unless they want to see everyone's downfall.

Remember, that everyone involved in this prefers the status quo, because it is at the very least predictable. A potential war with North Korea and what follows is so unpredictable that it might be a world war the likes of which we've never seen. Human rights be damned, that's simply not worth the risk.

Of course the world's powers try eveything to expand their power and weaken the other world powers directly or indirectly, as long as it doesn't cause a war between the world's powers. But there are limits. And any military intervention against North Korea is beyond that limit. China knows exactly what happened after our own unification (NATO east expansion), which was an historical luck for us. As for Korea the consequences are even more simple to foresee (American military base(s) in North Korea. So as long as the North Korean dictatorship can maintain power and does nothing more than threatening others, the situation in Korea will never change. I know it is unjust but justice obviously doesn't count much in international politics.


I know I too like fighting the good fight, but I don't really see it necessary to potentially ruin the lives of millions more people than the people that actually live in North Korea. No matter which way you bend it, war is not the answer in this case.

CBH
  • CBH

    Snitch

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2015
  • North-Korea

#54

Posted 18 January 2016 - 03:37 AM Edited by CBH, 18 January 2016 - 04:04 AM.

We have interests in South Korea. North Korea doesn't like South Korea. Surely you can put two and two together, unlike all the people who believed North Korea actually had unicorns a few years ago. Seriously, that sh*t was crazy.

DPRK: We figured out where a fairy tale we have about unicorns is supposed to be set.

Idiots: OMG! NORTH COREA SEZ UNICORNS ARE REEL!!
 

So does that mean it would be logical to conclude you support the "right" of states to commit genocide against their people, because interfering to prevent it would be imperialist, which is somehow worse?

I'm also opposed to military intervention for the most part, but an intervention like Vietnam's in Cambodia in 1978 was perfectly justified since it put a stop to a genocide and rebuilt the country, pretty much. It's a rare case, though. To be fair, I assume CBH meant something like that.


Bonus: The Khmer Rouge was much like the Taliban in that it was nurtured by US imperialists. It was created entirely to screw with Vietnam; actual Communists who observed Pol Pot's weird primitivism thing went "uh what the hell is this" and crossed the border to get help. So the character of that war was a) self defence on the part of Vietnam, and b) Internationalist.

I do think Sivispam's argument here is worth less than you gave it by answering, though. Imperialists always be like "But what if a country is selling it's people to aliens as livestock? Is it okay to do something then?"

"Something" always turns into the complete destruction of basic infrastructure including power, sanitation and water, the collapse of law and order, the looting of natural resources by huge international corporations, and the installation of puppet governments that do precisely nothing. This isn't even going into all the war crimes...

Imperialists are a lot like pro-life people, really. If you're an unborn baby, or someone living under a dictator, they swear they'll move heaven and earth for you. Once you're born, or that mean oppressive regime is gone? They don't give a damn. You should be grateful that mean man is gone, and stop complaining that you can't find clean drinking water or that your house got hit by their bombs.

universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM, WILLY!

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States
  • Best Conversion 2016 [GTA: Underground] [Contribution]
    Best Workshop 2014
    Most Improved 2014
    Funniest Member 2014
    April Fools Winner 2015

#55

Posted 18 January 2016 - 04:01 AM

DPRK: We figured out where a fairy tale we have about unicorns is supposed to be set.

Idiots: OMG! NORTH COREA SEZ UNICORNS ARE REEL!!


How would a fairy tale be set in a real place? I don't even know how real that sh*t is but even then, the fact that North Koreans believe that Kim Jong-Il created hamburgers (among other things) and the fact there's even a TV show dedicated to shaming those who have long hair, I wouldn't be surprised if people there actually took that stuff seriously.

 

One thing that does in all honesty surprise me, though, is how North Korea got a sh*tton of Lincolns for Kim Jong Il-s funeral, or even why they would have Lincolns in the first place if they didn't like the West at all. That's gotta be ironic.

 

north-korea.jpg


Fonz
  • Fonz

    Passarim quis pousar, não deu, voou

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2014
  • None

#56

Posted 18 January 2016 - 04:17 AM Edited by Black_MiD, 18 January 2016 - 04:17 AM.

Bonus: The Khmer Rouge was much like the Taliban in that it was nurtured by US imperialists. It was created entirely to screw with Vietnam; actual Communists who observed Pol Pot's weird primitivism thing went "uh what the hell is this" and crossed the border to get help. So the character of that war was a) self defence on the part of Vietnam, and b) Internationalist

 

Well, yeah, I don't anyone genuinely thinks Pol Pot was a communist. Ieng Sary explicitly said they weren't, so even if a liberal were to argue that position, it'd be extra ridiculous. The Vietnamese didn't build socialism either, but their effort was crucial in deposing the KR.

 

To be honest, my comment was just in order to see where you stood on that. Interventions that actually want to end a genocide and rebuild a country (so no US interventions) are pretty reasonable. I think the Vietnamese intervention was very honorable and the Khmer people seem grateful for it. There's even a Vietnamese-Cambodian friendship monument.


CBH
  • CBH

    Snitch

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2015
  • North-Korea

#57

Posted 18 January 2016 - 05:59 AM

How would a fairy tale be set in a real place? I don't even know how real that sh*t is but even then


You seriously don't understand the concept of fiction using a real setting?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#58

Posted 18 January 2016 - 07:19 AM

I do think Sivispam's argument here is worth less than you gave it by answering, though. Imperialists always be like "But what if a country is selling it's people to aliens as livestock? Is it okay to do something then?"


Nice straw man there. I thought it was a fairly simple question- after all, you made the fairly absolute statement "No country has the right to declare what another country can or can't do. If you do not accept this, you are an imperialist." Is it imperialist to state in principal that there are situations where interfering in the affairs of foreign states was justifable? And what about the stateless society that you aspire towards; surely they're simply constructs of a system you're fundamentally opposed to anyway so why do you care?
  • Failure likes this

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    DILF in waiting

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#59

Posted 18 January 2016 - 12:51 PM

 

Bonus: The Khmer Rouge was much like the Taliban in that it was nurtured by US imperialists. It was created entirely to screw with Vietnam; actual Communists who observed Pol Pot's weird primitivism thing went "uh what the hell is this" and crossed the border to get help. So the character of that war was a) self defence on the part of Vietnam, and b) Internationalist

 

Well, yeah, I don't anyone genuinely thinks Pol Pot was a communist. Ieng Sary explicitly said they weren't, so even if a liberal were to argue that position, it'd be extra ridiculous.

 

What was he then? He and the Khmer Rouge committed genocide in order to wipe out entire classes, so that he could transition the country into a classless agrarian society with common ownership. Even if it wasn't the "ideal" communist society, communism was still clearly the driving motivation and foundation of his ideals and that of the Khmer Rouge. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on what one guy said at one moment in time.


Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#60

Posted 18 January 2016 - 01:17 PM

Isn't it more plausible that Communism was just the excuse for the genocide? And that the real motivations were something else entirely? It wouldn't be the first time a trick like that had been used.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users