• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

UN solution for the North Korea problem

That will make them nice! They surely will not cause any more trouble after we given them free food, fuel and medicine so they can free up more resources for their military.

Blow up a civilian airliner, give them free handouts to be nice.
Kidnap innocent Japanese civilians, give them free handouts to be nice.
Sink a submarine unprovoked, give them free handouts to be nice.
Shell civilian homes, give them free handouts to be nice.
Detonate a nuclear weapon, give them free handouts to be nice.

The report about the failure of the "Sunshine Policy" is just neocon propaganda.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2121216

Maybe we should allow donations to NK here on AT?
 
lol, isn't Ban Ki-moon from South Korea himself? This guy sounds even worse than Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
 
yllus said:
lol, isn't Ban Ki-moon from South Korea himself? This guy sounds even worse than Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
Click to expand...

There are many Koreans that were born after the Korean conflict that feel that they are one family and should treat each side as their own.

They will not open their eyes to the fact that NK does not want to share; it is their way no matter what.

The reason that there are so few cross border family visits are to control the distribution of information on how the SK population lives.

NK is just East Germany without the civilian unrest. Est Germany was able to develop technology such that they knew something of what was happening across the border.
In NK, the ability of the people to obtain such inforamtion is greatly reduced/controlled.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Schadenfroh said:
That will make them nice! They surely will not cause any more trouble after we given them free food, fuel and medicine so they can free up more resources for their military.

Blow up a civilian airliner, give them free handouts to be nice.
Kidnap innocent Japanese civilians, give them free handouts to be nice.
Sink a submarine unprovoked, give them free handouts to be nice.
Shell civilian homes, give them free handouts to be nice.
Detonate a nuclear weapon, give them free handouts to be nice.

The report about the failure of the "Sunshine Policy" is just neocon propaganda.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2121216

Maybe we should allow donations to NK here on AT?
Click to expand...

Still haven't learned that we don't give them money to be nice yet, huh.

Color me shocked.
 
IndyColtsFan said:
Why do we give them money?
Click to expand...

This was really gone over in another thread, we give them money in order to buy policy.

And before anyone says anything, no that doesn't mean that they always do what we want.

If you look at US aid policies you will see that we give 'aid' in vastly larger quantities to some countries than others. You'll also notice that this number has very little to do with how 'needy' the recipient of our aid actually is. It's because we're doing it out of strategic interest as opposed to actually attempting to aid the population.
 
eskimospy said:
This was really gone over in another thread, we give them money in order to buy policy.

And before anyone says anything, no that doesn't mean that they always do what we want.

If you look at US aid policies you will see that we give 'aid' in vastly larger quantities to some countries than others. You'll also notice that this number has very little to do with how 'needy' the recipient of our aid actually is. It's because we're doing it out of strategic interest as opposed to actually attempting to aid the population.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know this, but you're not answering my question. Why do we give them money? What specific policy objective or strategic interest are we hoping to accomplish?

 
IndyColtsFan said:
Yes, I know this, but you're not answering my question. Why do we give them money? What specific policy objective or strategic interest are we hoping to accomplish?
Click to expand...

We are trying to ensure stability in Southeast Asia. For us the best case scenario is that the regime goes away, but the next best scenario is that they sit there and don't do anything too crazy.

Sure shelling an island is crappy, but in the larger scheme of things it doesn't matter much. We are trying to prevent them from taking actions that would require a US response. Kim Jong Il is only concerned with keeping himself in power, everything else is secondary. If his country starts to become unstable because people are starving/whatever, he's likely to resort to more extreme measures in order to secure what he needs to stay in power. Nobody wants that, and so throwing them some rice and fuel oil is a much cheaper way for us to keep things stable.
 
nick1985 said:
Do you believe they should be getting any money?
Click to expand...

'Should' in what way?

Morally? No, of course not. Kim Jong Il is an awful person, and a brutal dictator. The country is a blight on humanity.

From a policy standpoint? Definitely. It helps to secure US interests in the region at a very low cost.
 
eskimospy said:
We are trying to ensure stability in Southeast Asia. For us the best case scenario is that the regime goes away, but the next best scenario is that they sit there and don't do anything too crazy.
Click to expand...

So in other words, North Korea throws one of their little fits to gain attention, we offer up a new aid package, they're quiet for awhile and as a result, we have a tenuous stability. Is that correct?
 
eskimospy said:
We are trying to ensure stability in Southeast Asia. For us the best case scenario is that the regime goes away, but the next best scenario is that they sit there and don't do anything too crazy.
Click to expand...


So we are leasing instead of buying.

How long should it go on before the overall cost is greating that the original purchase price.
You also have the equivlent that you may not be able to lease peace when the lease expires.
 
Common Courtesy said:
So we are leasing instead of buying.

How long should it go on before the overall cost is greating that the original purchase price.
You also have the equivlent that you may not be able to lease peace when the lease expires.
Click to expand...

It would probably take a few centuries before the lease would be more expensive than buying. That's a really difficult estimate though, because a war with North Korea could take many forms with a huge array of different outcomes.

It's possible that we might end up having to fight them anyway, yes. I find that highly unlikely though, as they would be going it alone in that case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top