how does North Korea 'end'?

[Idris2002]

Its mad . Imagine if every year england and the united states launched massive war games simulating the invasion and destruction of an independent scotland with a Maggie Thatchere type leader spouting about pre emptive strikes and active deterrence.
That bitch in South Korea is portrayed in the west simply as "the first female president" while Kim is referred to as "the son of former dictator" . Shes the daughter of former military dictator Park Chun Hee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee

She heads up the political party the military dictatorship formed to stay in power . She came to power promising dialogue but once in power immediately engaged in sabre rattling against North Korea and joining the media in denouncing the previous government for being weak for not engaging in military confrontation with the north . Ever since she came to power she was seen by the north as someone intent on military confrontation . The north is being portrayed as the aggressor when in fact its been herself whos been sabre rattling repeatedly about taking pre emptive strikes against the north while directly engaged in a joint US SK simulated invasion while the US is buzzing DPRK with nuclear enabled bombers and all sorts of hardware .
At no stage in this confrontation was there any real evidence of a DPRK buildup of military forces in preparation to go anywhere whilst the yanks and their SK puppets were mobilising tens of thousands of troops and talking about premptive strikes and active deterrence . It was Park as well who was announcing SK troops now had the freedom to attack DPRK without recourse to any political considerations as and when they saw fit . In a military context where her regime is talking about pre emptive strikes and mobilising its entire armed forces alongside US military might .

Shes a Korean Maggie Thatcher, the bitch .

Anyways it looks like the DPRK have taken the correct course as it seems like the penny has dropped in Washington their show of strength hasnt worked and DPRK arent going to be cowed . Now theyre worried something serious might actually happen now those long range missiles are on the move and are starting to moderate their stance and ramp down the rhetoric.

C/Red (or "No C/Red" as I like to think of him, ho ho) might have a point here . . . has anyone got any independent confirmation or disconfirmation of this?

 

[Spymaster]

Theyre bricking it

We take those threats seriously,” Hagel told students at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C. "We are doing everything we can, working with the Chinese, others, to defuse that situation."

​

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/defense-chief-chuck-hagel-north-korea-real-danger-article-1.1306691#ixzz2PVOJlCbD​

Eh? How did you get "bricking it" from that?

 

[Roadkill]

Theyre bricking it

We take those threats seriously,” Hagel told students at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C. "We are doing everything we can, working with the Chinese, others, to defuse that situation."

​

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/defense-chief-chuck-hagel-north-korea-real-danger-article-1.1306691#ixzz2PVOJlCbD​

Of course they're trying to defuse the situation - a war isn't in anyone's interests, especially if there's a chance it could go nuclear - but that doesn't imply they're 'bricking it,' and it doesn't mean the Americans have 'blinked.' As Spymaster pointed out, strengthening Guam and last week's B2 sorties (unhelpfully provocative, IMO) imply exactly the opposite. It's a classic show of force.

 

[Roadkill]

dp

 

[Casually Red]

Eh? How did you get there from that?

they send nuclear capable bombers the whole way from the states to south korea to drop bombs in a practice move to simulate incinerating DPRK . DPRK says were not having that , we,re getting the missiles out . Next thing the yanks are going..ooh hold on..this is serious . We#re going to try and calm this all down now .
Thats like you and a gang of your mates hopping on a ryanair flight , standing out in my front garden throwing shapes doing kung fu kicks with a rambo bandana on your head, preening your mullet and me letting a pitbull poke its nose through the door . And you then going..theres no need for all this..lets calm it down..leaaave it leeave it.
And then ringing my mum to ask me to see sense .

 

[Casually Red]

Of course they're trying to defuse the situation - a war isn't in anyone's interests, especially if there's a chance it could go nuclear - but that doesn't imply they're 'bricking it,' and it doesn't mean the Americans have 'blinked.' As Spymaster pointed out, strengthening Guam and last week's B2 sorties (unhelpfully provocative, IMO) imply exactly the opposite. It's a classic show of force.

they fucking started it . The DPRK stood up to them and now theyre trying to defuse a standoff they created in the first place by throwing nuclear shapes .

 

[goldenecitrone]

and me letting a pitbull poke its nose through the door

Except, North Korea don't have a pit bull. They may be pretending to have one, but probably they've only got an asthmatic hamster.

 

[Spymaster]

they send nuclear capable bombers the whole way from the states to south korea to drop bombs in a practice move to simulate incinerating DPRK . DPRK says were not having that , we,re getting the missiles out . Next thing the yanks are going..ooh hold on..this is serious . We#re going to try and calm this all down now .

By loading missiles into Guam!

And the Yellow Sea has likely got more Yank nuclear subs in it than fish at the moment.

That's not bricking it, it's fronting it, which is exactly what makes it all so dangerous.

 

[Spymaster]

Thats like you and a gang of your mates hopping on a ryanair flight , standing out in my front garden throwing shapes doing kung fu kicks with a rambo bandana on your head, preening your mullet and me letting a pitbull poke its nose through the door . And you then going..theres no need for all this..lets calm it down..leaaave it leeave it .......

....... whilst my mates gather round the corner of your house with pickaxe handles and knuckledusters!

 

[Roadkill]

dp again: bloody train wifi connections!

 

[Roadkill]

they fucking started it . The DPRK stood up to them and now theyre trying to defuse a standoff they created in the first place by throwing nuclear shapes .

When did they 'start it'? It was in January that NK began making rumblings about targeting 'the sworn enemy of the Korean people' with its nukes. An empty threat, probably, given that NK is unlikely to have the capability to hit the American mainland, but enough to be a worry to Seoul, and perhaps the Japanese as well.

Point is, you can trace the roots of a lot of this back into the 1950s, but it seems clear enough that the reason it's all flared up again in the last few months lies within North Korea. No-one else has much to gain or lose from it.

 

[Casually Red]

C/Red (or "No C/Red" as I like to think of him, ho ho) might have a point here . . . has anyone got any independent confirmation or disconfirmation of this?

Heres what the south koreans were at, making all sorts of threats amid a military build up of their forces alongside the US with the US throwing provocative military and nuclear shapes

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ri...-heighten-danger-of-military-conflict/5329429

The south koreans are at it with big brother USA while the DPRK dont have a chinese military power to throw shapes on their belhalf . So what else are they going to do in the face of that except either crap themselves or get the missiles out in response

Its worth remembering here that its consistently been the DPRK whove repeatedly asked for an official end to hostilities and a peace treaty from the Korean war which the US refuses to sign or engage with .

 

[Casually Red]

When did they 'start it'? It was in January that NK began making rumblings about targeting 'the sworn enemy of the Korean people' with its nukes. An empty threat, probably, given that NK is unlikely to have the capability to hit the American mainland, but enough to be a worry to Seoul, and perhaps the Japanese as well.

Point is, you can trace the roots of a lot of this back into the 1950s, but it seems clear enough that the reason it's all flared up again in the last few months lies within North Korea. No-one else has much to gain or lose from it.

it seems clear from the western media right enough , but a different story when you read the threats made against DPRK. But thats the line they were pushing about Iraq too . What do you think DPRK has to gain from a war

ETA

And what do you think the United states has to gain from a military build up in south east asia

 

[Gerry1time]

Its worth remembering here that its consistently been the DPRK whove repeatedly asked for an official end to hostilities and a peace treaty from the Korean war which the US refuses to sign or engage with .

I'd be interested to see a link to that.

 

[Spymaster]

I'd be interested to see a link to that.

So would I.

 

[later]

So would I.

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/north-korea-calls-unconditional-peace-treaty-us/


North Korea Calls for Unconditional Peace Treaty With U.S.

Oops, sorry for bold

 

[Idris2002]

The DPRK has also asked China for an envoy - and the PRC has refused them.

http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn....aid=2969614&cloc=joongangdaily|home|newslist1

 

[Spymaster]

What do you think DPRK has to gain from a war

They don't want a war. They'd lose it and they know that. I'm with Roadie insofar as this is mainly about internal politics; seeking to raise the temperature enough to gain some concessions to back down, so KJU can claim a "victory" over the evil USA.

And you mention Park's hard line but she's only been there since December. North Korea have been acting the cunt since they started a war in 1950. They sunk that corvette and attacked the island in 2010.

And what do you think the United states has to gain from a military build up in south east asia

You'll probably say 'contain China' but I just don't think the US want this shit right now. I still see this as a crisis of the making of the DPRK for internal political reasons, and one that could quite easily go tits-up for them.

 

[likesfish]

exactly dprk normal behaviour but it could all go horribly wrong.

 

[Gerry1time]

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/north-korea-calls-unconditional-peace-treaty-us/


North Korea Calls for Unconditional Peace Treaty With U.S.

Oops, sorry for bold

"The U.S. should not just claim that it does not have any hostile intentions to the D.P.R.K. in words but prove it in such practical actions as making a bold decision to replace [the 1953 armistice agreement that ended Korean War hostilities] with a peace agreement without any excuse or precondition"

So what they actually called for then was a peace treaty completely on their own terms, rather than the agreed 1953 terms, removing any conditions that were placed on themselves whatsoever. As an argument, by a state currently committing massive human rights abuses, it's a complete straw man.

I'm genuinely amazed anyone with a care for their fellow man could see refusing to engage with an idea like this as the fault of America and others.

 

[Casually Red]

I'd be interested to see a link to that.

here you go

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/north-korea-calls-unconditional-peace-treaty-us/
North Korea Calls for Unconditional Peace Treaty With U.S.
July 26, 2012
North Korea on Wednesday called for the United States to accept without conditions a treaty that would formally end the 1950-53 Korean War, the Xinhua News Agency reported (see GSN, July 25).
"The U.S. should not just claim that it does not have any hostile intentions to the D.P.R.K. in words but prove it in such practical actions as making a bold decision to replace [the 1953 armistice agreement that ended Korean War hostilities] with a peace agreement without any excuse or precondition," a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said.
Pyongyang frequently demands a peace treaty with Washington and justifies its pursuit of nuclear weapons on the grounds that it is still technically at war with the United States.

STEVE CANNANE: What is the significance of moves like tearing up the 1953 armistice and also the closing down of the military hotline between the two countries?

JOHN DELURY: Yeah, I think, you know, those are a little less unprecedented than it might appear. A standard position that North Korea takes is the 1953 armistice is not really worth the paper it's written on anyway. North Korea consistently demands negotiation of a peace treaty, and in fact that's part of the six-party talks. The deal is before North Korea completely denuclearises, they get a peace treaty, they get a so-called permanent peace regime on the Peninsula. So for them to say, "We're completely discarding the armistice," is actually part of a standard position for them which is to say, "... because we need to replace the armistice with a peace treaty

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3727545.htm
.

http://news.yahoo.com/north-korea-demands-peace-treaty-us-032306308.html

Just out of interest which country do people here think it was who unilaterally scrapped the central provision of the armistice regarding nuclear weapons and unilataerally introduced them to the korean peninsula

and how many nuclear weapons have been pointed at North Korea from south korea for the past decades

cant make feckin q marks work on this piece of shit

 

[Casually Red]

So what they actually called for then was a peace treaty completely on their own terms, rather than the agreed 1953 terms, removing any conditions that were placed on themselves whatsoever. As an argument, by a state currently committing massive human rights abuses, it's a complete straw man.

I'm genuinely amazed anyone with a care for their fellow man could see refusing to engage with an idea like this as the fault of America and others.

the USA unilaterally tore up the terms of the armistice a very long time ago . Your insisting the DPRK abide by conditions neither South Korea or the USA has to . Which is basically the US position . And basically imperialism . DPRK human rights abuses pale in comparison to the murders of the United States accross the globe, whether by its own forces or the proxies it employs and enables to carry them out .

 

[Casually Red]

When did they 'start it'? It was in January that NK began making rumblings about targeting 'the sworn enemy of the Korean people' with its nukes. An empty threat, probably, given that NK is unlikely to have the capability to hit the American mainland, but enough to be a worry to Seoul, and perhaps the Japanese as well.

Point is, you can trace the roots of a lot of this back into the 1950s, but it seems clear enough that the reason it's all flared up again in the last few months lies within North Korea. No-one else has much to gain or lose from it.

how many nuclear weapons are pointed from south korea at the DPRK , and for how long

 

[Spymaster]

the USA unilaterally tore up the terms of the armistice a very long time ago .

Which terms and how?

 

[ViolentPanda]

right, many years ago i worked with an "alternative" newspaper that had reciprocal exchanges with many other "alternative" newspapers including ... the pyongyang times. model propaganda stuff, i'm so happy i kept a few copies. in one issue the great leader was praised for showing how "the party's policy of putting the right cop in the right soil" was producing record yields. it needs the guidance of the party to learn stuff like that i guess.

I totally agree with putting cops in the soil. They don't even have to be "the right cop"!

 

[co-op]

And you mention Park's hard line but she's only been there since December. North Korea have been acting the cunt since 1953. .

Come on you can do better than this idiot-in-the-pub stuff ffs.

South Korea has "acted the cunt" plenty, starting with Syngman Ree (initially elected in elections without any anti-US parties *ahem* and subsequently dictator and torturer in chief) and his policy of "reunification by expanding northwards" - i.e. threatening invasion - since well before 1953, and plenty of times in the intervening decades.

And the corvette sinking has plenty of unanswered questions - not least was it in North Korean waters (the south and the US have a long history of incursions) and also the possibility it was sunk by a US sub by mistake. But idiot-bloke-in-the-pub won't have read that in the papers so he won't be too troubled by it.

 

[Roadkill]

it seems clear from the western media right enough

And from pretty much everywhere else except North Korea's own press agency.

, but a different story when you read the threats made against DPRK.

In terms of recent history, most of those threats have been in response to North Korean activities. If you want to push it much further back, who started the Korean war back in 1950...?

But thats the line they were pushing about Iraq too . What do you think DPRK has to gain from a war


And what do you think the United states has to gain from a military build up in south east asia

Comparisons with Iraq probably aren't helpful. There are pretty clear strategic reasons why the US wants to dominate the Middle East that just don't exist on the Korean peninsula, and besides, it was obvious from the off that Bush wanted to take out Saddam Hussein. I'm broadly in agreement with Spymaster here: I don't think the US is seeking anything in particular apart from for NK to stop threatening its ally in South Korea and by extension to stop posing a threat to 'stability' in Asia.

how many nuclear weapons are pointed from south korea at the DPRK , and for how long

Quite a few I would imagine. But nobody's threatening to use them (B2 flight aside, which might be taken as an implicit threat), whereas NK is threatening to turn Seoul into 'a sea of fire.'

 

[ViolentPanda]

I have this really odd separation of guts and brain when it comes to this stuff. I've been trying to avoid this latest calculated escalation and of course also following it avidly; earlier the "we have ratified a nuclear strike on the US" announcement was to me simultaneously (a) obvious bluster designed to get a "reward" for behaving later through more aid etc and (b) so terrifying I couldn't eat my fucking tea for butterflies in my stomach. Maybe I'm too sensitive, although I don't think growing up in the 80s and being made to read books about nuclear warfare by my parents has helped me be rational about such things. I do know it's not nearly as dangerous a situation as when Russia and the US were genuinely unfriendly towards one another - N. Korea is hardly a bigshot in terms of destructive power compared to the US and even their neighbours to the South. But what does China do if Fat Kim goes too far and actually attacks a US base? Back him up against the US? Give Kim a bollocking and order him to cease and desist?

Probably goes a bit deeper, in terms of what actual action would stir up. Remember that it's not just SK that NK fulminates against, it's the Japanese too, so the Chinese have to balance upsetting primary trading partners with effectively preventing most of the population of NK heading for the Chinese border if Kim 3 decides to act out his issues about having a small dick.

 

[ViolentPanda]

NK has moved a mid range missile to it's East Coast. This is more than mere rhetoric.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22027867

So, they can reach Japan, including Okinawa, and the US fleet in the South China Sea.

 

[Spymaster]

And the corvette sinking has plenty of unanswered questions - not least was it in North Korean waters (the south and the US have a long history of incursions) ....

The location of the sinking is not disputed and there's no way it was in North Korean waters as determined by the United Nations (see map, post #72). You can argue that the Northern Limit Line was unfair if you like but you'd need to take that up with the UN. The fact remains that the ship was sunk in what are internationally recognised as NON-DPRK waters.

Baengyeong Island is part of South Korea.

... and also the possibility it was sunk by a US sub by mistake.

If you read into the sinking in any depth you'll likely come to the conclusion that this is firmly in Jazzz territory.

There is an element of doubt, largely from a Russian study saying it wasn't a North Korean torpedo and the Chinese saying it was likely an American mine. But then they would wouldn't they?