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.
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.
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.
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......
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
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
So now you are saying that Nukes and Food aren't related?
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.
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.
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...
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)?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
Your analogy is backwards. What I do not do is break into some elses apartment and shoot them because they might be a burglar.
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
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
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)?
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
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)?
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
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 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)?
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
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter