• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

North Korea vowed today to attack the United States if it imposed a blockade

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

KenGr

Senior member
Aug 22, 2002
725
0
0
Originally posted by: HJD1<br
You look but do you see?
The nukes are the stick to make him less a push over if push comes to shove. His people starve but, the cost of the nukes would feed but a day... while threaten for years... the solution to the squeeky wheel is food and lots of it, from all the folks who want him to do away with the squeaky and pesky nukes.
It is estimated that North Korea spends at least 25% of it's GNP on the military - perhaps more. All male citizens are required to serve between 5 and 10 years in the military. It's not just the nukes. The whole country is being slowly starved and destroyed to keep a small group of elite military commanders in power.

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
The nukes are not related to the food issue. IMO

The food is a carrot that does not give NK the issue they seek. I think they want to reunify with the south. The humanitarian issue is not part of that.

We, according to Clinton on CNN, are able to invoke a 'no brainer' by insuring that the only way we'll invade is if they violate the nuke issue and the only way they will invoke the nuke issue is if we invade..

To tie food to nukes is not good diplomacy.

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
They recently announced increases in their miliatry spending which will take it well beyond 25%.

but we need nukes, because we are next on the US list of pre-emptive regime change.... and for leverage when we beg them for food....

After making that claim, we should have told them, not this time, we will sit by and watch while your people eat every blade of grass and still starve to death......
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: KenGr
Originally posted by: HJD1<br
You look but do you see?
The nukes are the stick to make him less a push over if push comes to shove. His people starve but, the cost of the nukes would feed but a day... while threaten for years... the solution to the squeeky wheel is food and lots of it, from all the folks who want him to do away with the squeaky and pesky nukes.
It is estimated that North Korea spends at least 25% of it's GNP on the military - perhaps more. All male citizens are required to serve between 5 and 10 years in the military. It's not just the nukes. The whole country is being slowly starved and destroyed to keep a small group of elite military commanders in power.
All the folks who want him to dump the nukes think it is food that will cause this to happen... I don't. I think an assurance that we'll not invade and will work with them in the event NK and SK may seek reunification...

Sure they spend $ on arms... they feel they need to. US troops on the border and all. They also read the papers and feel mighty insecure at the technology we can bring to the party..

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: KenGr
Originally posted by: HJD1<br
You look but do you see?
The nukes are the stick to make him less a push over if push comes to shove. His people starve but, the cost of the nukes would feed but a day... while threaten for years... the solution to the squeeky wheel is food and lots of it, from all the folks who want him to do away with the squeaky and pesky nukes.
It is estimated that North Korea spends at least 25% of it's GNP on the military - perhaps more. All male citizens are required to serve between 5 and 10 years in the military. It's not just the nukes. The whole country is being slowly starved and destroyed to keep a small group of elite military commanders in power.
All the folks who want him to dump the nukes think it is food that will cause this to happen... I don't. I think an assurance that we'll not invade and will work with them in the event NK and SK may seek reunification...

Sure they spend $ on arms... they feel they need to. US troops on the border and all. They also read the papers and feel mighty insecure at the technology we can bring to the party..

So now you are saying that Nukes and Food aren't related? :confused:

The nukes are the stick to make him less a push over if push comes to shove. His people starve but, the cost of the nukes would feed but a day... while threaten for years... the solution to the squeeky wheel is food and lots of it, from all the folks who want him to do away with the squeaky and pesky nukes.
Now you got me confused HJD1, you had me believing you earlier but now I should change my story too? ;)

You were right the first time, but IMO it should be KJI who must show a good faith effort first. We shouldn't feed his million man army only to have to destroy it if he throws a tantrum and launches a few missles.

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
CAD
the solution to the squeeky wheel is food and lots of it, from all the folks who want him to do away with the squeaky and pesky nukes.

From all the folks.... not me... them...:)

Sorry... I always not always write what exactly what it is that I always mean to.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
N Korea is why small countries need and will acquire nuclear weapons.

Exactly, nukes can easily make up for the lack of leadership by a crazy, unstable leader who has raped NK.
Uncle England, Aunt Spain and Us the master Parent of the world should all sit down at the UN Security Counsel and hash this out. Grounding NK is not a good idea. They are likely to act out of their Child Ego State To our Critical Parent Ego State and become a delinquent that no reformitory can house... We all need to live in our Adult Ego State and rationally discuss the notion of soverein and human rights and all those Adult issues... we, as Kennedy said, have the means to feed the world or destroy it... why not feed it...
Beacuse the EU has a ban on GM foods to protect their domestic farming industry which spills into African economies who export there. They suffer financially and starve because they cannot grow these superior crops...
 

AnImuS

Senior member
Sep 28, 2001
939
0
0
Originally posted by: HJD1
CAD
the solution to the squeeky wheel is food and lots of it, from all the folks who want him to do away with the squeaky and pesky nukes.

From all the folks.... not me... them...:)

Sorry... I always not always write what exactly what it is that I always mean to.
spin-a-roooooooooooooooney(sp)?


:D
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,469
1
76
Originally posted by: tweakmm
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
They need reminding they're part of the axis of evil. Let Bush, our nationn's greatest diplomat and strategerist handle it.
Works for me. after we get through with them all these other POS countries with Hussein and Jong type rulers might rethink their ways..
Yep, they could determine you are a credible threat and act pre-emptively.
Don't confuse people here anymore than necessary, a lot have trouble enough understanding how the idea of a preemptive strike is wrong, let alone that the idea is a two-way street.
If a burglar breaks into your apartment and points a gun at you, are you going to wait until he shoots first?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: tweakmm
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
They need reminding they're part of the axis of evil. Let Bush, our nationn's greatest diplomat and strategerist handle it.
Works for me. after we get through with them all these other POS countries with Hussein and Jong type rulers might rethink their ways..
Yep, they could determine you are a credible threat and act pre-emptively.
Don't confuse people here anymore than necessary, a lot have trouble enough understanding how the idea of a preemptive strike is wrong, let alone that the idea is a two-way street.
If a burglar breaks into your apartment and points a gun at you, are you going to wait until he shoots first?
Your analogy is backwards. What I do not do is break into some elses apartment and shoot them because they might be a burglar.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,970
3,758
126
Hay, Nitemare sees himself as victim and is scared. When you're really scared you shoot, anybody will do.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hay, Nitemare sees himself as victim and is scared. When you're really scared you shoot, anybody will do.
I forget that some have not just failed to master their fear, but that many are afraid to. Their fear is their comfort.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: AnImuS
Originally posted by: HJD1
CAD
the solution to the squeeky wheel is food and lots of it, from all the folks who want him to do away with the squeaky and pesky nukes.

From all the folks.... not me... them...:)

Sorry... I always not always write what exactly what it is that I always mean to.
spin-a-roooooooooooooooney(sp)?


:D
It sure does read that way... don't it.:)
Bad use of words and analogy...

Kennedy did say we have the power to destroy or to feed, as if it were a choice... We can feed and destroy or be fed and be destroyed. Some folks say that to rid Korea of nukes we should feed them.. OK.. we should feed them too but, that has not done much to rid NK of the notion they need nukes. We say we'll feed you if you drop the nuke issue or whatever other demands we add. I think the real issue is one of fear. Fear that the US will invade them because of nukes... This paradigm it seems, is easily solved. Clinton said the other day it was a 'no brainer' but, Bush is not going that route (according to him)... the route is to provide assurance that no attack would occur if no nukes were developed or housed in NK. But, I also fear the chance of NK wanting to reup either peacefully or otherwise is a very real possibility. NK can use the food issue (everyone says NK needs food) as a means to gain support of the masses... (keep them hungry) to invade and live the life of plenty.
Korea like Viet Nam and Iraq and Afghanistan all seem to have similar threads... some kind of lie preceeds action, action prooves the lie and everyone scratches their head in wonderment. (I'm not sure what part of the Afghaistan issue was a lie, but something was... 9/11 issues or Taliban or Pakistan I don't know)
I think I've said what I've tried to say last nite more better... I hope I did.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: AnImuS
Originally posted by: HJD1
CAD
the solution to the squeeky wheel is food and lots of it, from all the folks who want him to do away with the squeaky and pesky nukes.

From all the folks.... not me... them...:)

Sorry... I always not always write what exactly what it is that I always mean to.
spin-a-roooooooooooooooney(sp)?


:D
It sure does read that way... don't it.:)
Bad use of words and analogy...

Kennedy did say we have the power to destroy or to feed, as if it were a choice... We can feed and destroy or be fed and be destroyed. Some folks say that to rid Korea of nukes we should feed them.. OK.. we should feed them too but, that has not done much to rid NK of the notion they need nukes. We say we'll feed you if you drop the nuke issue or whatever other demands we add. I think the real issue is one of fear. Fear that the US will invade them because of nukes... This paradigm it seems, is easily solved. Clinton said the other day it was a 'no brainer' but, Bush is not going that route (according to him)... the route is to provide assurance that no attack would occur if no nukes were developed or housed in NK. But, I also fear the chance of NK wanting to reup either peacefully or otherwise is a very real possibility. NK can use the food issue (everyone says NK needs food) as a means to gain support of the masses... (keep them hungry) to invade and live the life of plenty.
Korea like Viet Nam and Iraq and Afghanistan all seem to have similar threads... some kind of lie preceeds action, action prooves the lie and everyone scratches their head in wonderment. (I'm not sure what part of the Afghaistan issue was a lie, but something was... 9/11 issues or Taliban or Pakistan I don't know)
I think I've said what I've tried to say last nite more better... I hope I did.
The "no- brainer" is for KJI to give up his nuke program.
Why is it that the US always has to keep giving and giving but can't hold the reciever accountable? There would be NO reason for the US to attack NK if they didn't have nukes or weren't threatening peace in it's region.;)

CkG
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: AnImuS
Originally posted by: HJD1
CAD
the solution to the squeeky wheel is food and lots of it, from all the folks who want him to do away with the squeaky and pesky nukes.

From all the folks.... not me... them...:)

Sorry... I always not always write what exactly what it is that I always mean to.
spin-a-roooooooooooooooney(sp)?


:D

It sure does read that way... don't it.:)
Bad use of words and analogy...

Kennedy did say we have the power to destroy or to feed, as if it were a choice... We can feed and destroy or be fed and be destroyed. Some folks say that to rid Korea of nukes we should feed them.. OK.. we should feed them too but, that has not done much to rid NK of the notion they need nukes. We say we'll feed you if you drop the nuke issue or whatever other demands we add. I think the real issue is one of fear. Fear that the US will invade them because of nukes... This paradigm it seems, is easily solved. Clinton said the other day it was a 'no brainer' but, Bush is not going that route (according to him)... the route is to provide assurance that no attack would occur if no nukes were developed or housed in NK. But, I also fear the chance of NK wanting to reup either peacefully or otherwise is a very real possibility. NK can use the food issue (everyone says NK needs food) as a means to gain support of the masses... (keep them hungry) to invade and live the life of plenty.
Korea like Viet Nam and Iraq and Afghanistan all seem to have similar threads... some kind of lie preceeds action, action prooves the lie and everyone scratches their head in wonderment. (I'm not sure what part of the Afghaistan issue was a lie, but something was... 9/11 issues or Taliban or Pakistan I don't know)
I think I've said what I've tried to say last nite more better... I hope I did.
The "no- brainer" is for KJI to give up his nuke program.
Why is it that the US always has to keep giving and giving but can't hold the reciever accountable? There would be NO reason for the US to attack NK if they didn't have nukes or weren't threatening peace in it's region.;)

CkG
That assumes they trust us. We certainly do not trust them. KJ is probably assuming this disarming is a way to eliminate his defenses, to make invasion easier. After Iraq, it is not an unreasonable fear.



Edit- Hate when I screw up by responding in the wrong place :D
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Hay,

I forget that some have not just failed to master their fear, but that many are afraid to. Their fear is their comfort.

The irrational fear of the neurotic looks at the cure (confrontation) as more of what he fears. It is their comfort to not confront the fear which then becomes deeper and manifests itself in all sorts of behaviour oddities... (I think)
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
CAD,

The "no- brainer" is for KJI to give up his nuke program.
Why is it that the US always has to keep giving and giving but can't hold the reciever accountable? There would be NO reason for the US to attack NK if they didn't have nukes or weren't threatening peace in it's region.

**********

Why can't we give him assurance that we won't attack if he does... let the UN in and insure from time to time... or however it is done.. Just seems a healthier enviornment that way... But, if our agenda is something else or their's is we are not going to get anywhere... so It may not be a bad idea to stuff the NK's with pizza to show them they have no reason to look elsewhere for food if that is what Kim is using as the motivator... (I think of Hitler and the german povety and the blame was focused on someone they all could hate)... I just think something else is afoot... As an accountant I always get twitchy when I see an entry that goes off on a tangent.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: HJD1
CAD,

The "no- brainer" is for KJI to give up his nuke program.
Why is it that the US always has to keep giving and giving but can't hold the reciever accountable? There would be NO reason for the US to attack NK if they didn't have nukes or weren't threatening peace in it's region.

**********

Why can't we give him assurance that we won't attack if he does... let the UN in and insure from time to time... or however it is done.. Just seems a healthier enviornment that way... But, if our agenda is something else or their's is we are not going to get anywhere... so It may not be a bad idea to stuff the NK's with pizza to show them they have no reason to look elsewhere for food if that is what Kim is using as the motivator... (I think of Hitler and the german povety and the blame was focused on someone they all could hate)... I just think something else is afoot... As an accountant I always get twitchy when I see an entry that goes off on a tangent.

They don't want the UN - they want us. I'll conceed the point about giving assurances - but with stipulations - like: we won't attack you because of Nukes if you give them up ;)

You see if we say we won't attack if they give up their nukes but they do something else to invite action -then the whiners would bitch about us going back on our word. We always need to reserve the right to protect our interests, by making blanket "assurances" we may give that up.

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Well that diplomat who stole my name I ain't.

This international mumbo jumbo seems so complicated and should be so simple. I just don't understand all this national interest right to invade. Since when don't we promise this or that and break the promise for our national interest like 1441 and Iraq. Now NK... Why can't we and everyone else play in their own yards? What we need is that robot Gort to run the show.
 

hagbard

Banned
Nov 30, 2000
2,775
0
0
Good. Hope their nukes where better than the rest of their country and they know how to aim.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,970
3,758
126
For crap sakes, hagbard, get real. Figure out the difference between frustrated and stupid.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: hagbard
Good. Hope their nukes where better than the rest of their country and they know how to aim.

What do you mean? Aim at who?
 

hagbard

Banned
Nov 30, 2000
2,775
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
For crap sakes, hagbard, get real. Figure out the difference between frustrated and stupid.

The only thing that's going to stop the threat that the US poses is to take a hunk of it out. Go for it NK. Might I suggest DC and NYC. I'll build my fallout shelter.



 

ASK THE COMMUNITY