PDA

View Full Version : North Korea


Frenzy
06-08-2009, 11:27 AM
This will not end well
N. Korea sentences US reporters to 12 years labor (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_nkorea_journalists_held;_ylt=Ag0e8H0sbk4oGWuGhX tBPLKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJydDBnNGRhBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMD kwNjA4L2FzX25rb3JlYV9qb3VybmFsaXN0c19oZWxkBGNwb3MD MQRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNua29yZWFzZW 50ZW4-)
To be honest, i'm not sure what to think about this. The journalists are obviously being used, and the world has put up with this kind of crap from NK for years if not decades. So what's new?

Davian93
06-08-2009, 11:30 AM
This will not end well
N. Korea sentences US reporters to 12 years labor (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_nkorea_journalists_held;_ylt=Ag0e8H0sbk4oGWuGhX tBPLKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJydDBnNGRhBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMD kwNjA4L2FzX25rb3JlYV9qb3VybmFsaXN0c19oZWxkBGNwb3MD MQRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNua29yZWFzZW 50ZW4-)
To be honest, i'm not sure what to think about this. The journalists are obviously being used, and the world has put up with this kind of crap from NK for years if not decades. So what's new?

Kim Jong Il is ronly...so ronly...

http://www.therightperspective.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/kim-jong-il-puppet-team-america.jpg

JSUCamel
06-08-2009, 11:33 AM
Clinton was interviewed today or yesterday or something, and she basically said that the reporters being jailed was a humanitarian issue ("they should be let go"), but not a political one.

Not sure what the ramifications of that statement are, though.

Sinistrum
06-08-2009, 12:06 PM
And here's Clinton back to receive the snap. She catches the ball and ohhhhh she punts it!

Basically Camel, the lives of those reporters are too politically "inconvenient" to make an issue of it given the current tensions between us and them. Actually acknowledging that North Korea is kidnapping U.S. citizens, putting on show trials for them, and essentially enslaving them would put a huge hamper in Jim Carter's next PR appearance. After all it would be really difficult to hammer out an agreement with North Korea on nukes that they can subsequently disregard and ignore if the U.S. public is actually paying attention to what they're doing.

Ozymandias
06-08-2009, 01:26 PM
And here's Clinton back to receive the snap. She catches the ball and ohhhhh she punts it!

Basically Camel, the lives of those reporters are too politically "inconvenient" to make an issue of it given the current tensions between us and them. Actually acknowledging that North Korea is kidnapping U.S. citizens, putting on show trials for them, and essentially enslaving them would put a huge hamper in Jim Carter's next PR appearance. After all it would be really difficult to hammer out an agreement with North Korea on nukes that they can subsequently disregard and ignore if the U.S. public is actually paying attention to what they're doing.

Hey... when the most hawkish executives ever to hold the office refuse to address the problem, how can you expect the current administration to fare? Besideswhich they have other problems.

And what do you suggest we do?

Davian93
06-08-2009, 02:09 PM
How do you suggest bullying a nuclear armed state that has the willingness to use said nukes?

Seriously, anyone have any ideas that don't involve Team America?

Gilshalos Sedai
06-08-2009, 02:18 PM
I'd like to point out we're still the only country on the planet that's used nukes.


That being said, I'd like to keep it that way.

Davian93
06-08-2009, 02:25 PM
I'd like to point out we're still the only country on the planet that's used nukes.


That being said, I'd like to keep it that way.

Well, in our defense, they started it.

JSUCamel
06-08-2009, 02:28 PM
Well, in our defense, they started it.

Kim Jong II: Well, in our defense, they started it.

Davian93
06-08-2009, 02:30 PM
Kim Jong II: Well, in our defense, they started it.

Kim Jong Il /= Harry S Truman.

The key lesson behind our use was "Don't Piss Off Harry Truman".

we should just turn the entire country into a parking lot. China and S. Korea would thank us in the end.

Brita
06-08-2009, 02:41 PM
Well- the US invaded Iraq without worries of Saddam actually using his "weapons of mass destruction". However, Kim Jong Il seems even more aggressively inclined than Suddam. I would say there is a high probability he would use his mass destruction capabilities. In fact, I would wager he is gleefully rubbing his hands, just waiting for an excuse. Just a hunch.

Team America! F*(k Ya!

Davian93
06-08-2009, 02:44 PM
Well- the US invaded Iraq without worries of Saddam actually using his "weapons of mass destruction". However, Kim Jong Il seems even more aggressively inclined than Suddam. I would say there is a high probability he would use his mass destruction capabilities. In fact, I would wager he is gleefully rubbing his hands, just waiting for an excuse. Just a hunch.

Team America! F*(k Ya!

Probably because Saddam didn't actually have any weapons left to use...just a guess though.

Kim Jong Il is a different kind of cat though...a ronly cat...so ronly.

Jonai
06-08-2009, 02:46 PM
Should have finished this job during the Korean War. MacArthur wasn't the brightest cabbage in the patch but he had the right idea with 'total war.'

Ozymandias
06-08-2009, 02:48 PM
Should have finished this job during the Korean War. MacArthur wasn't the brightest cabbage in the patch but he had the right idea with 'total war.'

You realize it wasn't that simple? Once the Chinese jumped in it wasn't so clear cut we'd win... hence the ceasefire.

Davian93
06-08-2009, 02:49 PM
Should have finished this job during the Korean War. MacArthur wasn't the brightest cabbage in the patch but he had the right idea with 'total war.'

China & Russia would not have been cool with that. We made that mistake when we pushed too far north. Had we used nukes against them and in S. China (like Mac wanted), we almost certainly would have started a wider war. I believe the USSR said they would take out Berlin if we even thought about it.

Though it should be mentioned that Eisenhower essentially said "I'm not Truman, don't fvck with me" when he was elected to get them to the bargaining table...it was all part of his popular election campaign slogan "Don't Fvck With Ike"

John Snow
06-08-2009, 03:17 PM
we should just turn the entire country into a parking lot. China and S. Korea would thank us in the end.

The hell we would (speaking for Korea).
......you aren't serious are you?

GonzoTheGreat
06-08-2009, 03:18 PM
Actually acknowledging that North Korea is kidnapping U.S. citizens, putting on show trials for them, and essentially enslaving them would put a huge hamper in Jim Carter's next PR appearance. After all it would be really difficult to hammer out an agreement with North Korea on nukes that they can subsequently disregard and ignore if the U.S. public is actually paying attention to what they're doing.Perhaps Obama could offer to rent out part of Guantanamo Bay?
Of course, we have to admit that NK is a lot speedier with its show trials, but then, they do have more practice at that sort of thing.

Davian93
06-08-2009, 03:20 PM
The hell we would (speaking for Korea).
......you aren't serious are you?

Oh God no...definitely not serious, Prof.

John Snow
06-08-2009, 03:20 PM
Kim's perception of the new president of the south being a US puppet, because he's a conservative, pro-business pro-US type. So he's leaning on the US so that the US will lean on Lee and both will back off, give the north some concessions. Subtle indeed is the oriental mind. Especially the delusional oriental mind.

Davian93
06-08-2009, 03:21 PM
We could always cut back on our wheat shipments again...though we'd be smarter to work with China to lean on them. N. Korea is far more of a problem for China than us anyway. Japan could be an issue if they eventually feel threatened...there's a lot of bad blood there.

Sinistrum
06-08-2009, 03:34 PM
And what do you suggest we do?

Oh I don't know, maybe live up to the obligations the government has to protect its citizens, both here and abroad instead of just abandoning them to their fate because it might hurt poll numbers. But that might actually entail leaving all options on the table for their retrieval aside from just a sharp scolding and more economic sanctions that in the end just amount to a slap on the wrist.

Davian93
06-08-2009, 03:37 PM
Oh I don't know, maybe live up to the obligations the government has to protect its citizens, both here and abroad instead of just abandoning them to their fate because it might hurt poll numbers. But that might actually entail leaving all options on the table for their retrieval aside from just a sharp scolding and more economic sanctions that in the end just amount to a slap on the wrist.

I agree but what options are there? They don't have an economy for us to threaten. Most military options are pretty much out due to them having nukes...not much we can do.

Sinistrum
06-08-2009, 03:53 PM
Most military options are pretty much out due to them having nukes...not much we can do.

Ok, let me ask this question. When is enough enough? When does a country cross the line to where that is no longer a relevant concern? This is the second country this year who has kidnapped our citizens on bogus charges for a show trial. The precedent being set here is clear and it is one that makes any pretense that the U.S. will protect its citizens abroad a farce.

It furthermore sends the message that the U.S. will not honor its fundamental obligation as a government to protect its own and views its citizens not as such, but as bargaining chips in the Game of Houses. As such, leaving these people to their fate is essentially declaring open season on any U.S. citizens abroad. This completely undermines the legitimacy of not only U.S. foreign policy but also the U.S. as a nation. If the U.S. can't or won't meet the entire reason nations exist to begin with (mutual protection) then what is the point?

Davian93
06-08-2009, 03:56 PM
So, you think we should invade? How do we go about doing that with 2 wars already ongoing and our economy sucking?

Not to mention, they will use their nukes on us. And if they don't tens of thousands will die on our side and probably millions on their side.

There is no clean option here.

Davian93
06-08-2009, 04:00 PM
American citizens that are messing around on the Chinese/N. Korean border doing investigative reporting are on their own. I wouldn't offer any concessions to help free them. We should never negotiate from such a weak stance.

GonzoTheGreat
06-08-2009, 04:01 PM
The precedent being set here is clear and it is one that makes any pretense that the U.S. will protect its citizens abroad a farse.That idea is a farce. So that's solved, then, isn't it?

PS Thanks for giving me the idea of looking up farse (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/farse). I still do not really understand how to properly use that word, but now I do know that it is a real one.

Sinistrum
06-08-2009, 04:10 PM
There is no clean option here.

Never said there was, I was merely asking when the price for taking this approach:

American citizens that are messing around on the Chinese/N. Korean border doing investigative reporting are on their own.

becomes higher than this

Not to mention, they will use their nukes on us.

In terms of the over all well being of the U.S. I guess another way of putting it is what good is blinking in the face of a nuclear threat when your citizens are going to end up dead or worse through other means that are facilitated by said blinking?

PS Thanks for giving me the idea of looking up farse. I still do not really understand how to properly use that word, but now I do know that it is a real one.

http://themissamandamae.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/grammar_nazi.jpg

Jonai
06-08-2009, 04:19 PM
Maybe we could make Terry Goodkind the official Unites States consul in N. Korea. He could preach the glories of objectivism. NK would probably use their nukes on themselves at that point.

Uno
06-08-2009, 04:20 PM
American citizens that are messing around on the Chinese/N. Korean border doing investigative reporting are on their own. I wouldn't offer any concessions to help free them. We should never negotiate from such a weak stance.

North Korea does have a disturbing penchant for abducting people, but one of the legacies of the last presidency was to show the world that the US can barely handle two relatively small wars against poorly organized and ill-supplied adversaries. It would perhaps have been better not to make that so blatantly obvious to anyone that might want to challenge American power. Otto von Bismarck suggested that when challenging small states, large powers must have resounding and convincing victories, for if such wars are only won with great difficulty, even if won in the end, they make the weaknesses of the great power apparent. It's important to maintain the illusion of might, in other words.

Besides, does anyone know what China would do in case of an assault on North Korea? Bit of a complicating factor, that.

GonzoTheGreat
06-08-2009, 04:23 PM
Sinistrum, I notice that you're ignoring my actual points.

Such as the fact that you're indignant over other nations (North Korea, in this case) doing exactly the same to citizens of your country that your country does to others. With the differences that they didn't pick up their captives in their own country, gave them a trial that is probably entirely up to their usual standards (which is not impressive, of course) and lock them up in their own country too, instead of in a carefully selected "outlaw zone".

Or the point that your country, like all others, cuts its spies loose when they're caught. They took a chance and it did not work out. Would you really want Putin to threaten with his nukes if the USA captures a couple of Russian spies? If that happened, would you want Obama to blink, or would you prefer 200 million dead US citizens?

Let's suppose that the USA delivers an ultimatum, and both China and Russia say they'll back North Korea up to and including a nuclear war. Then what do you suggest the US government do?
Something very similar to that started WWI, a little less than a century ago.

John Snow
06-08-2009, 04:27 PM
Not that I'm agreeing with Sini - my own firm opinion is for the US to keep as far out of Korea as possible - but if the US were to execute a military option, a swift, efficient Delta-force type rescue would be the best option in my huble and reaonably uninformed opinion. Might be best to have a third nation - like South Korea - actually do it.

GonzoTheGreat
06-08-2009, 04:28 PM
Something like Carter tried in Iran?

JSUCamel
06-08-2009, 04:31 PM
Sounds like a Bay of Pigs waiting to happen.

Uno
06-08-2009, 04:32 PM
Well, it's probably a relatively safe bet that the regime doesn't actually want a military confrontation with the US, although it no doubt wants its populace to think that the country is being threatened with just that, as there's nothing quite as useful as an external threat. Of course, a small military operation that failed would be a a great propaganda victory.

JSUCamel
06-08-2009, 04:34 PM
I think the solution is to lift sanctions and get some cooks over to North Korea and have them make ol' Kim a good old fashioned grilled cheese sandwich. That should.. erm.. ease the situation.

DahLliA
06-08-2009, 04:40 PM
I think the solution is to lift sanctions and get some cooks over to North Korea and have them make ol' Kim a good old fashioned grilled cheese sandwich. That should.. erm.. ease the situation.

I think more good grilled cheese sandwiches all over would make the world a better place...

OT though. if you're doing "investigative journalism" in a country that pretty much hates your homecountry, while said countries are in a political headbutting match you really should accept the consequences of being caught IMO

Ishara
06-08-2009, 04:41 PM
American citizens that are messing around on the Chinese/N. Korean border doing investigative reporting are on their own. Exactly. Not abducted. Trespassing, no? Not that I agree with the sentence...

Sinistrum
06-08-2009, 04:43 PM
Sinistrum, I notice that you're ignoring my actual points.

You're right, I am. Part of that is your insisting upon doing things that distract from them such as being a grammar nazi. Part of it is that your points aren't worth addressing because you're doing things like drawing false moral equivalencies between what the U.S. has done in Gitmo and what Iran and North Korea have done here or between how countries treat their spies (who, yanno go into a situation like that willfully and with prior knowledge of the consequences if they are caught) and what is happening here.

And no, that was not an invitation to discuss the merits of said false moral equivalancies. I'm happy being flippantly dismissive of them and me continuing to discuss this issue with people like Davian and Snow, who are actually raising legitimate concerns. Basically what I'm saying is make a point with some substance and I'll address it. But as of right now all you've done is continue onward with your usual games that amount to nothing more than (master)baiting.

Uno
06-08-2009, 04:51 PM
Exactly. Not abducted. Trespassing, no? Not that I agree with the sentence...

Well, normally one might agree with that, but North Korean agents are actually known for abducting people from inside of other states, usually South Korea, but in a number of cases even Japan. So you can't really trust Pyongyang when they claim that these journalists (if that's what they are) were lolling about inside of North Korea.

Crispin's Crispian
06-08-2009, 04:57 PM
A few things come to mind.

1) WOULD YOU PEOPLE PLEASE REPLY TO THE RIGHT POST? Gah, it's so hard to follow this discussion with one post not having any relevance to the posts above it.

~deep breath~

2) Is it possible that these really were spies, which is why the US Gubmint is essentially washing its hands?

3) It's more than likely that Pyongyang is ramping up aggression to test the Obama Administration and try to see if it can gain leverage and or economic strength with threats.

4) China would have a lot to lose of NK decided to nuke the US. I strongly believe they would not let that happen. Maybe the best course of action is to lean on China, but I don't know how much influence China actually has over NK.

Sei'taer
06-08-2009, 05:05 PM
Japan...the New Isreal!

Except they are in Asia and have a defense army only.

Sinistrum
06-08-2009, 05:07 PM
WOULD YOU PEOPLE PLEASE REPLY TO THE RIGHT POST?

I don't wanna and you can't make me. :p Are you not using the linear format for viewing posts Sdog?

2) Is it possible that these really were spies, which is why the US Gubmint is essentially washing its hands?

I find this to be unlikely because if that were the case, N. Korea would be trumpeting that fact to anyone that would listen instead of keeping the charges hush hush. Nothing creates a bigger PR black eye and a little bit of negotiating leverage than being the aggrieved party in a spying incident.

It's more than likely that Pyongyang is ramping up aggression to test the Obama Administration and try to see if it can gain leverage and or economic strength with threats.

Yeah pretty much, and unfortunately I have zero faith in Obama being up to the task.

China would have a lot to lose of NK decided to nuke the US.

Considering they own a good portion of our economy and we're their biggeset market for exports, yup. Does anyone actually know what China gets out of its alliance with North Korea aside from a perpetual diplomatic headache? Perhaps any efforts we make toward China in this matter should be couched in those terms.

Jonai
06-08-2009, 05:08 PM
Just make up some story about N Korea sabotaging the next Dragon Quest release. The mob will rise up.

Sinistrum
06-08-2009, 05:10 PM
Just make up some story about N Korea sabotaging the next Dragon Quest release. The mob will rise up.

No no no, not Dragon Quest. It should be the next movie in the Twilight series. North Korea would then tremble at the rage of the teenage hormonal atomic bomb that is the Edward Cullen fan girl.

Ozymandias
06-08-2009, 05:15 PM
Yeah pretty much, and unfortunately I have zero faith in Obama being up to the task.


Out of sheer curiosity, who do you think IS up to the task? Bush wasn't; his North Korea policy was about as spectacular a failure as any he had.

Even guys like Reagan never lanced that particular sore when they had the chance. If you are going yto stand there and say that these guys failed at the task, how can you expect the strikingly more dove-ish Obama to fare? If anything, his softer policy with the same results can be considered a relative success (assuming he achieves the same non-results).

Mind you this wasn't meant to be a bash-Bush post, merely one in which I'm pointing out that to date; NO ONE has been up to the task, so its not quite fair to criticize Obama for something half a century of executives have been unable to resolve. Especially this early in to his term. Listen, if he patches ties with the Muslim world and makes any headway on the Palestine problem, his foreign policy will have been a resounding success. The mere fact of his election has probably already given him more success than Bush did in both terms combined.

Sinistrum
06-08-2009, 05:24 PM
NO ONE has been up to the task, so its not quite fair to criticize Obama for something half a century of executives have been unable to resolve.

Its completely fair when, yanno, its his job to solve things like the situation with North Korea. Just because the other guys, such as Bush, completely failed at it doesn't get the FNG off the hook either so pointing that out doesn't really help Obama.

If anything, his softer policy with the same results can be considered a relative success (assuming he achieves the same non-results).

How do you figure that? If my goal is to achieve a non-nuclear and non-threatening North Korea and somewhat aggressive and passive aggressive methods have both ended in the same kind of failure, how are the passive aggressive methods any more of a success?

Davian93
06-08-2009, 05:28 PM
Bush Jr is the one that allowed them to go nuclear...though Clinton was the one dumb enough to trade "peaceful uranium" for concessions.


FWIW, I seriously doubt either "journalist" was trespassing on the NK border...I'm willing to bet that they simply got too close to the border and the NK border guards grabbed them.

Having been to the DMZ (different border of course) one should know better than to come anywhere close to it other than their own risk.

Ishara
06-08-2009, 05:31 PM
It should be the next movie in the Twilight series. North Korea would then tremble at the rage of the teenage hormonal atomic bomb that is the Edward Cullen fan girl. FYI, I tried to rep you for that. I wasn't allowed to...:(

Sinistrum
06-08-2009, 05:33 PM
Its ok Ishy. It is enough that it was appreciated. :D

Crispin's Crispian
06-08-2009, 05:34 PM
I don't wanna and you can't make me. :p Are you not using the linear format for viewing posts Sdog?

I'm using the hybrid format, but it doesn't matter. In linear format, it's even worse.

Ivhon
06-08-2009, 05:37 PM
I love Sini's approach to international affairs.

Bomb everybody and let God sort it out. Invade invade invade...pretty soon we will have one platoon raising hell in every country that insults one of our citizens.

Sinistrum
06-08-2009, 05:56 PM
I love Sini's approach to international affairs.

Bomb everybody and let God sort it out. Invade invade invade...pretty soon we will have one platoon raising hell in every country that insults one of our citizens.

When, precisely, did I articulate this? In point of fact I agree with Snow on the nature of any potential military option against North Korea. Notice there wasn't any "bombing" or "invading" involved. Furthermore, kidnapping and throwing someone in a gulag to work themselves to death is a tad more than an "insult." If you're going to attempt to use hyberbole to degrade my points at least make it rationally related and relevant to what I'm actually saying.

Furthermore, as Ozy so kindly pointed out, decades of treating North Korea like a dog who just peed on the rug and scolding them accordingly (all the while being passive aggressive and avoiding true confrontation) hasn't seemed to work against them yet. All its gotten us is them with an atom bomb, surlier than ever, convinced of our weakness, and threatening to destablize the whole region. Score one for diplomacy without military force being there to back it up. Remind me, what was that definition regarding insanity and repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Ozymandias
06-08-2009, 06:49 PM
and threatening to destablize the whole region. ?

Threatening? If this isn't destabilzing, they never will get there short of outright war.

As for the previous point, I agree that past failure does not excuse Obama from making progress. I just think that a problem this intractable, which has stymied some of our most hawkish Presidents, some of our most capable military-executives (like Eisenhower), and even some of the guys so incompetent at foreign policy, like Bush, who you would think would at least be dumb enough to come up with something radically new because it had never been considered, is a tall order for one President.

To be honest, Obama's goal has to be bringing US foreign relations back to pre-2002 levels. Bush did so much harm and so little good for this country abroad that to even step back from the precipice in 4 years will be an achievement to brag about.

That said, the only way North Korea ever resolves is when Kim Jong Il dies.

Davian93
06-08-2009, 06:55 PM
Jong Il's death merely means another demagogue will take over. There is no reason to think his death would change a damn thing...other than a power struggle in a country with nukes and a huge standing army.

As it stands, his youngest son Kim Jong-un is the designated successor.

GonzoTheGreat
06-09-2009, 03:08 AM
All right, Sinistrum, I'll bite. What kind of solution do you think Obama could (should) try that actually has a chance of success?

Invasion won't work. You've admitted that.
Economic sanctions don't work, since NK does not have an economy. You've admitted that.
Being polite doesn't work.
Being impolite doesn't work.
Getting a UN Security Council resolution on this topic is hopeless, and even if it happened, it still would not work.
Putting pressure on China won't work, as China can push back just as hard. Just about all Obama could do is threaten to stop borrowing money, and I don't think that would help in this situation.

So what kind of action do you think has any chance of what you would consider success?

Ozymandias
06-09-2009, 07:05 AM
This has some bearing on the situation:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/06/09/nkorea.succession/index.html

His son wants no part of politics. Now, in my opinion, a large part of the problem is that Kim Jong Il is insane and refuses to make concessions or even be rational, and that there is a cult of personality built around him. Any kind of struggle for a successor would be hugely beneficial to the US, who could do some Cold War-era stuff in that they might support a candidate who would turn out to be pro-US, or some such (as if I know how these things work).

The point being, short of nuclear war, which would sort the whole thing out quickly enough, the situation can't get worse. Putting a rational human being in power might be enough to seriously get the ball rolling.

GonzoTheGreat
06-09-2009, 07:15 AM
That's what they tried in the Soviet Union, with Gorbachov, and the ruling elite in North Korea is not at all impressed with where that ball rolled. So they may not use that option.

Ozymandias
06-09-2009, 07:23 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525501,00.html

and in an immediate contradiction of my earlier statement, things get a little worse

Brita
06-09-2009, 08:31 AM
This guy is scary. Seriously scary.

John Snow
06-09-2009, 09:53 AM
Something like Carter tried in Iran?
You never hear about the ones that work and never stop hearing about the failures.

John Snow
06-09-2009, 09:56 AM
A few things come to mind.

1) WOULD YOU PEOPLE PLEASE REPLY TO THE RIGHT POST? Gah, it's so hard to follow this discussion with one post not having any relevance to the posts above it.

~deep breath~

2) Is it possible that these really were spies, which is why the US Gubmint is essentially washing its hands?

3) It's more than likely that Pyongyang is ramping up aggression to test the Obama Administration and try to see if it can gain leverage and or economic strength with threats.

4) China would have a lot to lose of NK decided to nuke the US. I strongly believe they would not let that happen. Maybe the best course of action is to lean on China, but I don't know how much influence China actually has over NK.

absolutissimo!

John Snow
06-09-2009, 10:00 AM
Does anyone actually know what China gets out of its alliance with North Korea aside from a perpetual diplomatic headache? Perhaps any efforts we make toward China in this matter should be couched in those terms.

It's like your disgraceful drunken uncle - he's family; what can you do? The suzerain relationship of Korea and China goes back many centuries - ok, a couple of eons - and on either side there's been a lot of patience with shenanigans and idiots. Asians have a much longer view of history than we typically do. Koreans still hold a bit of a grudge about losing the Liaoshung Peninsula....that was like, yesterday.

Sinistrum
06-09-2009, 11:49 AM
You never hear about the ones that work and never stop hearing about the failures.

Rep.

Jonai
06-10-2009, 02:23 AM
No no no, not Dragon Quest. It should be the next movie in the Twilight series. North Korea would then tremble at the rage of the teenage hormonal atomic bomb that is the Edward Cullen fan girl.

Oh god. lmao ok, you win. *grin*