Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
What does DiS make of that.
apparently I wasn't thorough enough.
very strong posting :D
best reaction so far
completely fascinating. The last thing I'd do if I had any power in Seoul would be to start lobbing shells into Northern territories. But at the same time, there's something about North Korea that I can't really put my finger on that is simply enormously compelling.
Does North Korea make you do this:
I couldn't possibly.
There's something about totalitarian wankerdom states that fascinates me.
both of them need to chill the fuck out : (
I'm a Norther, anyone else?
That's a lot of identical political reaction quotes, similar musing about what the reasons might have been and people in comments boxes blaming America to be operating for a whole working day.
By Charles/the Queen to stop William marrying Kate.
dressing up in her garb and covering himself in green paint, while declaring he's liberated the monkey people from both the evil witch, and the monster from another world, the talking lion, the robot, and the other guy. he begins an even more brutal reign of terror to ensure his rule.
bet he'd start the flying monkey take over of midget village even, to secure a resource base before the invasion of emerald city
arnt many countries left to use to make people afraid.
In which case I was including Bay Of Pigs etc.
When in recent history has anyone assassinated a leader of a country and consequently changed that country? I can't think of any.
Even if you were able to assassinate him how would that change the running of the country? Plus there's no way it could be done unilaterally and a general U.N/NATO Meeting to decide it may tip them off slightly.
Whatever reasons for the assassination were they didn't succeed in altering the direction of the country.
"so because its difficult they don't even attempt to do it, instead they go for the much easier option of letting things escalate to having to have a war with a whole country and then turn public opinion against them when they have to occupy to try to ensure that the change is 'fixed'"?
The alternative does not seem more attractive, it seems a lot uglier and it appears that the overall outcome is not necessarily 'better' or more certain.
If rogue leaders were bopped off regularly then the incentive would be 'dont step up to take the rogue leaders place in roguishness'
But as I say forgive me, this was just a childish dream I had as a child....that instead of whole populations having to suffer, couldnt there be a better way?
I am not convinced that 'considered military intervention' is always the best route towards taking out rogue leaders......dismantling/crippling the rogue leaders power base is not necessarily the easiest or best route.
I suspect that the west will be far more hated in Iraq when the US/UK troops finally pull out than prior to the 'iraqui interventions'
especially as Anwar Sadat got bumped off on my 21st bithday, which put a downer on things as he was probably assasinated because of his change of policy whereby eygpt accepted the existance of israel and his softening of relations towards israel......so basically a man who aims for more peace gets killed............
the only assasinations seem to happen to the doves (or hawks starting to act like doves)
The theories going around at the moment seem to be as follows:
1) Kim Jong-Il has died, and it is intended as a way for the regime to prove it still has control, and is still a powerful, unified country capable of punching about if needed. This is unlikely, but not beyond the realm of possibility.
2) It is part of an escalation of tensions designed to make the South, China, the US, etc., think that the regime is so insane and liable to invade at any moment that they are scared into going back into negotiations with the desire to make them calm down. It would increase the North's bargaining position. The North needs food desperately and is probably in a state where it will do anything to get some, so this is quite probable, but I doubt anyone will bite.
3) With the promotion of Kim Jong-Eun to the higher echelons, and with the general reshuffling of family members and close associates of the Kim family to give him strong support in the most powerful organisations, it was an act by the new elites designed to signal that the new Kim is the same as the old Kim - strong. Possible. Although unlikely Kim Jong-Eun would have had anything to do with the decision to fire considering the power of his advisers right now.
4) Similar to 3), but it is the actions of some rogue generals who are acting on their own to see what the reaction will be from the new power elite. A sort of coup, to test the ability of the new regime to cope. Massively unlikely, for various reasons.
It's not like they'll get anything out of it, and unless the North actually sends battalions of tanks rolling over the DMZ to the charred, artillery-barraged ruins of Seoul then the South has absolutely no recourse except to beat its chest and talk, like Lee Myung-Bak has today:
"Given that North Korea maintains an offensive posture, I think the Army, the Navy and the Air Force should unite and retaliate against this provocation with multiple-fold firepower. I think enormous retaliation is going to be necessary to make North Korea incapable of provoking us again."
This will not actually signal very much. Nobody wants a war. Especially not the Kims, because they know that they'll lose. They surely must know that.
If you talk to North Koreans there like I did then it's clear that nobody actually wants to fight against people they consider their brothers - often because they actually are - and that the overwhelming desire in the North is for a federation of the two countries. The party faithful, the men and women in the stores and in the schools, the privileged and the destitute.
The strength of the army, the regime's songun policy, is designed purely as a propaganda exercise to compensate for the extreme economic poverty the North has experience since the fall of the Soviet bloc. "Look, we know things are hard right now," they say, "but that's because the Americans are shit scared of us and are building up force across the border. They sabotage our crops. They poison our wells, and our children. Kim Jong-Il, the Dear Leader, is busy protecting us from the waves crashing against our shores, and we must give our food to the thing that can defend us - the army. And it is working! Look, these food sacks with the stars and stripes on them are tribute from the terrified Yankees!"
Then you see how skinny the soldiers patrolling the streets actually are, how they haven't got any socks because they can't spare the material, how they struggle to lift their rifles because they are built like children, not men. The problem will be if these starving people decide to lash out as they fall down, and that's when the shit will hit the fan.
need I say more?
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN THE POCKETS OF THE KIMS PROSLO?
Just tears and despair.
ffs there must be some half assed motive to send the US military in.
Products based on puns are good.
It was on BBC 4 in February and was brilliant. Not available on iplayer but easily found via other means.