Jump to content

The korean war is over.


mitchhamilton

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Erogamer said:

 I am from the USA and I do not appreciate those bashing my country.  If this is how it is going to be, then I think political discussions should be banned from the forums.

Could you please reread what you just said and think about it for a short while? Ban political discussions? My American friend, free discussion is the cornerstone of your very own Bill of Rights.

I live in the United States myself, and I don't have a problem with anything said here.  "Bashing" is nothing more than opinionated criticism. If we don't voice our opinions or criticise those others put forward, how do we have a discussion about anything at all? 

I can understand you feeling slighted, but just as you said about NK, nobody is criticising Americans but their government. Their statements may be correct or incorrect, they may be grounded in facts or based on suspicion and personal bias, so just take it with a grain of salt and not personally. Also, always remember that the majority of people here are braindead memers and not political analysts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Erogamer said:

Can we please stop stop bashing other member's countries and presidents. Just because you have an opinion of a country does not mean that is actually what is going on.

I was about to agree with you, but apparently a mod has hidden a number of posts since I last read this thread. Since the bashing is mostly gone, I wonder what you are actually complaining about. You will see a greater anti-Trump attitude by reading say NY Times than there is in this thread right now.

26 minutes ago, Erogamer said:

Besides that, it is not North Korea's citizens itself that is the problem, but their tyrannical ruler.

While I agree with that statement, you completely missed my point. Karl Marx wrote one thing, which is actually true. He wrote that people can't go from a feudal system to a socialistic system. It would have to go through multiple gradually changes because people can't just fit into a new system overnight. In the case of reunification of Germany, that is precisely what happened. People grew up with communism and was told a bunch of lies about the west. Eventually they suddenly became the capitalistic west themselves overnight and they can't just change their upbringing and world views equally fast. Going to work in DDR and going to work in Germany has turned out to be two completely different things and if you use the work ethics of DDR, you get fired in Germany for slacking off.

I predict the same will happen in Korea if they reunite within the near future. You can't ignore the conditions people grew up under. I'm not saying people in NK are bad people as such, just that they aren't used to capitalism and freedom and forcing it on them overnight will not be in their best interest. They should get it eventually, but it will take time.

There is actually an example of this from the US as well. In 1865 the slaves were all given free. This meant they suddenly became responsible for themselves. Suddenly nobody would be responsible for providing housing or food for them and a number of them ended up on the streets and starved to death. George Washington's will is interesting in this context. He wrote that he made one big mistake in life, which was to own slaves. People should not own other people. He would give all his slaves to Martha (his wife) and when she died, the slaves would be given free. Because they would have to take care of themselves as free people, they would have to be schooled while still being owned by Martha and he wrote what they should learn. I can't remember the list, but it was reading and writing and stuff like that. He knew it would be disastrous for them to be free and not skilled enough to get a proper job. In other words while it was wrong to keep them as slaves, they would have to stay as slaves while being prepared to be given free.

57 minutes ago, Erogamer said:

If this is how it is going to be, then I think political discussions should be banned from the forums.

So now that you have been working on removing 2nd for a while, you go after 1st too, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently Kim Jong-un says he’ll give up nukes if U.S. promises not to attack. I still don't trust him, but if we can get rid of the nukes in a way where we can verify that they are gone, then it can't be a bad thing. Considering what Trump has said about Iran, I don't think he will make a deal with NK without any kind of verification that NK actually do what they are supposed to do according to the agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, tymmur said:

Apparently Kim Jong-un says he’ll give up nukes if U.S. promises not to attack. I still don't trust him, but if we can get rid of the nukes in a way where we can verify that they are gone, then it can't be a bad thing. Considering what Trump has said about Iran, I don't think he will make a deal with NK without any kind of verification that NK actually do what they are supposed to do according to the agreement.

Heard on the radio on the way to work that Kim Jong Un plans to disarm the Nuclear Base and the US and SK are welcome to come watch as it happens.

I think something substantially good will happen this time around as what Kim Jong Un is currently doing is unprecedented in his reign (perhaps something really happened to their Nuclear Base). Anyway, if Kim doesn't follow through with it disarming this time around, it's gonna backfire on him as it will give Trump convincing reasons to clamp down (or even wage war on) on NK. 

I'm pretty hopeful to say the least ^_^

Edited by phantomJS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2018 at 5:50 PM, Funyarinpa said:

I don't trust NK and honestly I don't see how anything could be improving geopolitically in this hellscape that is our current situation.

(Living in Turkey, I've seen our president claim the economy's glorious while our currency's plummeting in value while we took in 3 million Syrian refugees (a good thing!) and then see our government try to use the very same refugees as bartering chips for visas with the EU, an occupation in Syria that I'm not sure if is perpetuating or eradicating terrorism, while Trump and Putin still do their well-known shit.)

But I hope this is just me being edgy

 

Wow, you're in Turkey? (sorry, a little OT, forgive me) One of my husband's teaching friends is teaching in Istanbul and ever since Erdogan banned teaching evolution in school (which I view as a misstep in the wrong direction), I've told my husband "No way in hell are we going to Turkey, regardless of how delicious I find their cuisine." Not to mention, there was that debacle last fall (I think?) where a bunch of teachers got either deported/or forbidden to leave the country, and there were a # of American teachers who got swept up into that particular fiasco. 

Might I ask you what the current political situation is like there? Seen from the perspective of a regular person, of course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2018 at 7:11 AM, Erogamer said:

Can we please stop stop bashing other member's countries and presidents. Just because you have an opinion of a country does not mean that is actually what is going on. Even more so if you do not live in said country. Discussing the end of the Korean war is fine, but please stop the bashing of countries besides this one. Besides that, it is not North Korea's citizens itself that is the problem, but their tyrannical ruler. If this is how it is going to be, then I think political discussions should be banned from the forums. I am from the USA and I do not appreciate those bashing my country.

I'm American, but I'll freely bash America and our President and if other people want to bash America, go right ahead, I am literally from the country where something like that is totally cool (despite Trump and his rages regarding the "free" press). 

The day political discussions are banned from this forum, I'm saying goodbye. (not that I contribute much, but it's still worth it to reach other people's opinions and thoughts on certain world issues) 

That being said, so I don't completely take this thread off the rails, I guess the main concern now in Korean news and what I'm reading on Naver News, is how Trump and KJU will react to each other when they meet in person soon. 

Trump can be wildly unpredictable, but it's that unpredictability that can be predicted...if that even makes sense? 

But in some strange way, KJU and Trump are not so dissimilar. KJU considers Dennis Rodman to be a friend, so really, when you compare Rodman and Trump...they're both bombastic individuals with larger than life personalities. 

It's not so strange to think that, maybe, just maybe, KJU and Trump will click on some weird, terrifying level. 

So fingers crossed that Trump and Little Kimmy suddenly realize they're brothers from a different mother. Or whatever the terminology goes for best dude friends. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, milkteebaby said:

I'm American, but I'll freely bash America and our President and if other people want to bash America, go right ahead, I am literally from the country where something like that is totally cool

I bash multiple countries once in a while, sometimes countries I have never been to. However it has to be based on facts and be justified. For instance Russia traffic laws are crazy and allows maniacs. You have to exceed 80 km/h (50 mph) in residential areas before you can get a speeding ticket. I consider that to be horrible from a safety point of view. I don't fear upsetting Russians with this bashing though because they generally agree and hate the laws regarding speed limits. If we truly live in "the free world", we should be free to speak up about stuff like this.

37 minutes ago, milkteebaby said:

I guess the main concern now in Korean news and what I'm reading on Naver News, is how Trump and KJU will react to each other when they meet in person soon. 

Trump can be wildly unpredictable, but it's that unpredictability that can be predicted...if that even makes sense?

According to The art of the deal, you have to be unpredictable or the opponent will predict your next move and counter it before you make the move. Trump is intentionally unpredictable in order to get a better position in negotiations. Trump is well prepared. He has armed forces in the area, lots of allies, UN support and trade embargo. He has said he is communicating with Russia and China about the issue in order to gain their support as well. Some democrats have stated that NK tricks the US each time they make a deal. Trump has stated this time will be different. Either it's a good deal for America or no deal.

NK is in another position. All countries seems to have sided with America. They lack oil, weapons, food.... well basically everything. Failing to reach an agreement can be the reason America needs to justify an attack (NK refuse to stop being a threat). Trump can afford to not get an agreement, KJU can't and it would appear that Trump has planned that setup and possibly worked on it ever since he was elected. Considering how well Trump seems to have planned this, odds are that he will not screw up now that he succeeded and he knows he succeeded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, milkteebaby said:

Wow, you're in Turkey? (sorry, a little OT, forgive me) One of my husband's teaching friends is teaching in Istanbul and ever since Erdogan banned teaching evolution in school (which I view as a misstep in the wrong direction), I've told my husband "No way in hell are we going to Turkey, regardless of how delicious I find their cuisine." Not to mention, there was that debacle last fall (I think?) where a bunch of teachers got either deported/or forbidden to leave the country, and there were a # of American teachers who got swept up into that particular fiasco. 

Might I ask you what the current political situation is like there? Seen from the perspective of a regular person, of course. 

Erdogan just called snap elections for the next president. It coincided with the day the university entrance exams were supposed to be held, so the exams got postponed. The Turkish Lira is in an absolutely pitiable state (its value dropped like 5% in two days a few weeks ago), press freedom's nigh-nonexistent (everyone that hates Erdogan's a terrorist in his eyes), and Erdogan took Afrin to boost nationalism (to eradicate the PYD fighters there, which, in all of Turkey's opinion, are covert supporters of the PKK terrorist faction), so there's no way he won't win. Today's a national holiday and they'll block off access to Taksim Square, one of the city's most historic landmarks and the site of the Gezi protests that were sparked in 2013, to prevent any protest from organizing. On the up(?)side, we got a new right-wing opposition party that's more nationalist (rather than Islamist, I guess). They called themselves The Good Party (lmao) but I think I'll vote for them (my first vote, hah...) because the left-wing opposition (CHP) is completely full of inept fools who have no presence or stance except calling out Erdogan.

It's shit. And it won't get any fucking better.

I almost wish the coup had succeeded so that we'd have a new Islamist to violate our rights and freedoms.

Also, I'm probably in the 1% of Turkish society because anyone with the time to learn comprehensive English here (and then discover VNs) is bound to be a member of a well-off family that can afford private education. The upper class here is overwhelmingly left-wing, primarily because we have access to better education and are subject to less backwards-ass religious tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/04/2018 at 2:03 AM, tymmur said:

Apparently Kim Jong-un says he’ll give up nukes if U.S. promises not to attack. I still don't trust him, but if we can get rid of the nukes in a way where we can verify that they are gone, then it can't be a bad thing. Considering what Trump has said about Iran, I don't think he will make a deal with NK without any kind of verification that NK actually do what they are supposed to do according to the agreement.

If Kim smart he wont give up nukes, without nukes its only matter of time before NK invaded by USA.

Also giving up nukes worked out great for Ukraine(Budapest Memorandum), right? 

Another example is Libya, Kadafi gave up WMD's for USA's favour, few years later he was killed by rebels backed by the West and USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like I once again has to write a long post. I feel like I have to reply to a post, which is full of false assumptions and even questionable facts. I will explain each statement and it will hopefully be clear why they can't be compared to NK. It might feel like this is an off topic post, but remember it is a reply to different conflicts being compared to NK and as a result the entire post is about comparison to the situation in NK, or more likely explanations to why the situations are so different that comparisons makes no sense in regard to predicting the risk of a future conflict.

13 minutes ago, Swim Swim said:

If Kim smart he wont give up nukes, without nukes its only matter of time before NK invaded by USA.

Why would the US gain from an attack? Considering the location of NK, there is no strategic benefit from attacking. Right now there is one reason to attack and that is to prevent an attack, which will kill American civilians. Remove that threat and the reason for attacking is gone. What America will benefit the most from would be to get NK to open up to America and allow American companies to enter NK and gather natural resources, such as mining. America has no strategic or financial reasons to attack if NK isn't a threat and particularly not if NK starts to open up.

15 minutes ago, Swim Swim said:

Also giving up nukes worked out great for Ukraine(Budapest Memorandum), right?

In 1991 USSR was breaking up. Crimea had a referendum and the outcome was that it declared Crimea independent as a country. Moscow accepted. Two months later Ukraine did the same and Moscow accepted. Ukraine then wrote a constitution, which included the then independent country of Crimea. Crimea objected and wanted a referendum asking if Crimea should be independent or part of Ukraine. Ukraine supreme court ruled this unconstitutional. The people on Crimea were furious and to calm them down a compromise was made in 1992. Anybody could get dual citizenship, making them both Ukrainian and Russian citizens. Russia accepted and almost everybody on Crimea gained dual citizenship and calmed down.

Years pass. Ukraine tries to keep domestic peace, but Russians and Ukrainians aren't good friends and the murder rate is high. Ukraine tries to balance their trade between Russia and the west.

2014 revolution. People are demonstrating. Somebody got shot and the president had to flee. A new government was formed based on 3 minority parties, most noteworthy the Ukrainian nationalist party. This party has a written agenda of an ethnic clean Ukraine and several members have been in jail for murdering Russian speaking Ukrainians. Sweden has labeled this party as a violent organization, which tries to achieve their political goals through violence and is blacklisted. No party member is allowed to enter Sweden due to security concerns. (I don't know about other countries, but I read Sweden rejects them as a public policy. The difference might be due to not being a NATO country). This government is pro EU and pro NATO. They pass a law stating that the unknown shooter was working for the former government (now called pro Russian) and if you question this, then you go to jail.

Some sources say the new government sent armed forces to the east to get rid of Russian speaking people, other sources says the east made a spontaneous rebellion. Either way a small rebellion started. Kiev sent the army. A lot of the army deflected, switched side and the more troops Kiev sent, the larger the rebellion. The police also aided the rebellion, either by joining or just ignore rebels taking all the guns from the police stations. A lot of the military, which did not hand over weapons ended up just camping somewhere and waiting because they refused to enter combat.

Kiev forms new military units consisting of Ukrainian nationalists (party members/supporters) and then the fighting starts. An election is held, the east (the part, which was Russian prior to USSR) didn't really vote due to polling stations being fired upon. The government was reelected. Russia eventually turns up. Their argument for taking interest is the heavy civilian losses and a lot of those losses are Russian citizens (seel 1992 at the top). Turkey contacts Russia and ask them to protect the Tatars (Muslim people, who lived there since the Ottoman empire, hence connected to Turkey). Russia promise to protect those and states they will protect all civilians regardless of ethnicity.

Crimea holds a referendum about independence and close to 100% votes in favor, which makes Crimea declare independence. This creates an interesting situation in the Ukrainian navy. If ships are in harbor in Crimea, the ship and crew will become Crimean. Quite literally half the Ukrainian navy went at full speed towards Crimea, leaving Ukraine with a heavily reduced fleet after having lost ships of all sizes and not having any submarines left at all. Crimea holds a new referendum where nearly 100% wants to join Russia. Russia accepts, but not instantly. It went through examinations and it had to be passed as law. You can't put the acceptance on a single person.

Fighting continues north of Crimea.

 

It is also important to know that the Russian Black Sea navy (which is really big) is stationed at Crimea. Russia paid Ukraine some sort of rent to do so. The agreement was really cheap gas and in reality it partly became free because Russia didn't cut the gas when Ukraine failed to pay. With such an agreement, the talk of Ukraine joining NATO made this agreement questionable. I read statements going as far as people thinking any navy in a NATO country should belong to NATO, meaning the Russian fleet would be taken away from Russia (can't say if this was any official plan though). It would be very surprising if Russia did not do anything regarding the risk of losing the navy.

 

This is a ultra short summary of a very complex story and situation. You can't say "Budapest Memorandum had the power to avoid all this" because that is simply not true. In fact if Ukraine had nukes, it's more likely they would have been fired into Russia than they would have avoided conflict.

2 hours ago, Swim Swim said:

Another example is Libya, Kadafi gave up WMD's for USA's favour, few years later he was killed by rebels backed by the West and USA.

Gaddafi didn't like some people in Benghazi and to get rid of them, he decided to just kill everybody. He sent in planes and troops and a large convey of tanks was in route to finish the job and apparently remove the city from the map. The UN called a crisis meeting and decided all countries would be free to attack Libya as mass killing of civilians is unacceptable. The convey was bombed shortly after by America France, ensuring it never reached Benghazi. Calling it an American operation is farfetched as 6 countries decided to attack and 4 dispatched planes and two of those also used subs to fire missiles at anti aircraft guns/missile launchers. All this happened on the same day, making it a truly historical day.

 

What you are saying is basically that the rest of the world should just do nothing while a dictator is murdering 600k+ civilians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, tymmur said:

This is a ultra short summary of a very complex story and situation. You can't say "Budapest Memorandum had the power to avoid all this" because that is simply not true. In fact if Ukraine had nukes, it's more likely they would have been fired into Russia than they would have avoided conflict.

Really? You skip the part where "undercover" Russian troops invaded Crimea in mass? Also I like how snipers gunning people on the streets during the protests is "someone got shot". The uprising was, to a degree, the fault of Ukrainian politicians who miguidedly pushed nationalistic agenda, but it would possibly not even happen in a scale comparable to what actually happened without the (extremely thinly disguised) Russian military intervention. And Svoboda doesn't rule Ukraine, no one would blindly launch nukes against Russia, unless maybe when responding to a direct agression - but that's the point, Russia wouldn't dare to do the thing it did if Ukraine had those. 

7 hours ago, tymmur said:

Gaddafi didn't like some people in Benghazi and to get rid of them, he decided to just kill everybody. He sent in planes and troops and a large convey of tanks was in route to finish the job and apparently remove the city from the map. The UN called a crisis meeting and decided all countries would be free to attack Libya as mass killing of civilians is unacceptable. The convey was bombed shortly after by America France, ensuring it never reached Benghazi. Calling it an American operation is farfetched as 6 countries decided to attack and 4 dispatched planes and two of those also used subs to fire missiles at anti aircraft guns/missile launchers. All this happened on the same day, making it a truly historical day.

Lol, whut? Gaddafi was responding to a mass revolt - obviously he was a particularly brutal dictator, but I really like the notion that he arbitraly decided to raze a city on a whim (and the fact he sent troops means he wanted to kill everyone in Bengazi? How does that work?). And I agree with France and other European countries spearheading the effort to topple him - it's unclear whether they would intervene without American support though and the fact that the current leader of Libyan secularists, general Haftar lived for 20+ years in US and everyone pretty much considers him a CIA agent is not a coincidence. Libya is an American mess too and even if you argue that intervention against Gaddafi was necessary, you can't possibly say it was well-executed (or that it would happen if the regime had means to defend itself from foreign invasion). During Gaddafis rule the country had one of the highest living standards in all Africa, now it's a jihadist-ridden ruin. 

Edited by Plk_Lesiak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, tymmur said:

Why would the US gain from an attack? Considering the location of NK, there is no strategic benefit from attacking. Right now there is one reason to attack and that is to prevent an attack, which will kill American civilians. Remove that threat and the reason for attacking is gone. What America will benefit the most from would be to get NK to open up to America and allow American companies to enter NK and gather natural resources, such as mining. America has no strategic or financial reasons to attack if NK isn't a threat and particularly not if NK starts to open up.

The American government has something to gain from attacking NK actually, that is funding from the weapons manufactoring leaders. If they need more weapons they can force tax payers to pay for these weapons and making these weapons make the military complex richer. The military complex then uses some of their extra money to buy politicians and to buy the media, to ensure that they get all the wars they want. The US as a whole has nothing to gain, but politicians in the US has a lot of money on the line, every war for them is profitable, this is why the US is trying to make a war out of every suituation that they can.

Edited by bakauchuujin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US won't be the first to strike in the Korean peninsula for the simple reason that NK has 15000 pieces of artillery (rocket launchers, cannons) aimed right at Seoul (not all of which can reach but significant damage will still be sustained). Seoul is the hostage and the US can't make a move. It's a stalemate that has existed for a long time now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2018 at 7:29 PM, Zander said:

Could you please reread what you just said and think about it for a short while? Ban political discussions? My American friend, free discussion is the cornerstone of your very own Bill of Rights.

I live in the United States myself, and I don't have a problem with anything said here.  "Bashing" is nothing more than opinionated criticism. If we don't voice our opinions or criticise those others put forward, how do we have a discussion about anything at all? 

I can understand you feeling slighted, but just as you said about NK, nobody is criticising Americans but their government. Their statements may be correct or incorrect, they may be grounded in facts or based on suspicion and personal bias, so just take it with a grain of salt and not personally. Also, always remember that the majority of people here are braindead memers and not political analysts. 

Well, this is a moderated forum that has the right to ban any content or discussions they wish to. They also includes silencing and banning users. That is a right they also have. Facebook is doing the same to some of it's users for a different opinion. While I  do not agree with it, they have that right as a private company. There are many sites and forums out there that ban political and religious discussions because of all the trolling and hate speech which gets out of hand. I think it is a good idea on a forum like this that has nothing to do with politics or religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Erogamer said:

Well, this is a moderated forum that has the right to ban any content or discussions they wish to. They also includes silencing and banning users. That is a right they also have. Facebook is doing the same to some of it's users for a different opinion. While I  do not agree with it, they have that right as a private company. There are many sites and forums out there that ban political and religious discussions because of all the trolling and hate speech which gets out of hand. I think it is a good idea on a forum like this that has nothing to do with politics or religion.

I suppose that's true. I just don't think "criticising the United States" should equate to "getting out of hand". Nonetheless, I respect your opinion. Perhaps it is a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Erogamer said:

There are many sites and forums out there that ban political and religious discussions because of all the trolling and hate speech which gets out of hand. I think it is a good idea on a forum like this that has nothing to do with politics or religion.

That seems like a horrible idea. There is politics in everything. Being upset with pixel blur in Japanese media is politics because it's a statement about political decided laws. There is one famous person who succeeded in banning talk about religion and he introduced the term "political correctness", which is evaluation if political statements are of the right kind and as such should be allowed or not. That guy was named Josef Stalin. Is that a person we should use as a template for policy making?

The current rules are ok. What is important to remember is to be nice and as I mentioned earlier, try to get support for your statements, meaning they are justified. Just bashing somebody or some country or whoever for no reason shouldn't be allowed and I don't think it is.

Now take this thread. I have quite a number of objections to the first two replies to my last post. They make it sound like I'm mistaken, which made me start to plan replies with facts to back up what I wrote. However I never actually wrote it because I realized that instead of just putting up some facts to resolve the disagreement, it started to take shape of country bashing and possibly even personal attacks, or at least it's possible that the reader would view it as such. Rather than resolving anything, it would trigger an ugly fight and nobody wants that. My alternative option was to just ignore it. It's not nice to be called out as wrong without the ability to reply, but I decided to make that sacrifice in order to preserve Fuwa peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...