Slashdot Mirror
South Korea To Restart Propaganda Loudspeakers Along Border
jones_supa writes: South Korea has said that it will resume anti-Pyongyang loudspeaker broadcasts this week along the heavily fortified border with North Korea in retaliation of Pyongyang's claimed hydrogen bomb test. The broadcasts will resume at noon on Friday, told Cho Tae-yong, deputy chief of the presidential office of national security. Cho added that South Korean troops maintain combat readiness and will sternly retaliate against North Korea if Pyongyang follows with a provocation. In August, South resumed the broadcasts for the first time in 11 years in retaliation for the North's land-mine attack that maimed two South Korean soldiers. The two sides later held days of intensive high-level talks and produced a deal in which South agreed to stop propaganda broadcasts unless an abnormal situation occurs. Which now did.
south korea: things have been peaceful lately, lets turn off those loudspeakers. im sure the residents near the border would like a good nights sleep and the electric bill is getting a little out of hand... ...Get Psy on the phone. Ask his producer what its going to cost to get a chipmunk christmas remix of Gangnam Style at every border outpost by tomorrow morning.
DPRK: AT LAST! we have, under our glorious leaders infallable guidance, finally created and detonated a HYDROGEN BOMB. cower before the might of our glorious nuclear harbinger of the wests final demise!
south korea:
DPRK: the glory of allmighty leader cannot be denied! his wisdom and purity will cleanse the west in a fiery blaze of enlightenment and retribution for the...
south korea: pick up a copy of whatever Biebers got out this year while you're at it...
Good people go to bed earlier.
How effective are these propaganda broadcasts, really?
If you grew up thinking the sky way red, nothing coming out of a loudspeaker (run by the enemy, no less) will convince you otherwise.
Seriously, this nut job needs to fall down some stairs.
What they really need is to shake Kim's hands, send him their congrats and push more trade with NK to help them get out of poverty.
Kim is not being invasive, but desperate and delusional. He needs friends and NK people need trading partners and investment to fix their shit country and become economically independent from Kim's regime - which the current foreign aid actually consolidates since Kim is the one who ultimately distributes everything.
South Korea has asked the US to deploy strategic weapons in South Korea
http://www.theglobeandmail.com...
So it will be nukes AND propaganda
south korea: a chipmunk christmas remix of Gangnam Style at every border outpost by tomorrow morning.
Might constitute a war crime (torture, superfluous injury, unnecessary suffering), as technically they're still at war.
south korea: pick up a copy of whatever Biebers got out this year while you're at it...
Yeah, definitely a war crime...
This is why aliens won't visit us!
If they use that nuke Pyongyang will be gone in hours.
South Korea has no interest in wasting its time or resources on the production of nuclear weapons, they have the US for that.
Instead they put it into industrial and technological effort that is valuable for their own interests in a more direct way.
These speakers? Are just a way to tweak the noses of certain leaders in North Korea, a comparable minor investment that nonetheless has a sufficient impact since it shows they're not really cowed by North Korean actions. It helps the people of South Korea think something is being done, without costing much.
Obama is the same way with certain of our enemies, he knows there is no need to worry about a lot of them, they're not threats. Unfortunately the American people, being prone to fear, need something done, so he has to come up with a way to assuage them. Unfortunately, we're a little more demanding, so we need somewhat more expensive actions.
But when it comes right down to it, neither the people of South Korea, or the United States, would pay the real price for fixing things the way they demand.
It would be far too high a price. Yet that doesn't stop anybody from demanding a fix.
No, it's exactly the correct response. This is a classic pattern of saber-rattling and threatening by North Korea. It's not about an actual threat to use nukes - which, by the way, they already had. South Korea can't afford to not respond in some way, so what do they do? Something that really pisses the North Koreans off, but without risking pushing things into actual shooting - which happens very often along the border between the two. Yes, it's entirely about saving face. No, nobody expects it will actually change anything. Obama is pretty much doing what every president has done, which is maintaining US military forces in Japan and South Korea, and promising to defend them against any aggression from North Korea.
But perhaps you think an active military response would be better? George W. Bush didn't seem to think so, even after North Korea blew past his "red line" on uranium enrichment and actually built the first of those bombs. Bottom line is, even the Bush administration didn't want a war in Korea, because it would be insanely bloody - and that's a best case scenario, nevermind that it was that way BEFORE North Korea had nukes. There just happens to be a major city of about 10 million South Koreans lying within artillery range of the border (where there just happens to be lots of artillery for that very reason).
next up: lining up south korean women on the dmz to moon the north with those flat asses. why am i smelling kimchi?
"Cho added that South Korean troops maintain combat readiness and will sternly retaliate against North Korea if Pyongyang follows with a provocation."
So SK gonna retaliate for NK's provocation of SK's provocation of NK's retaliation?
Comrades of the Soviet Union, there is no need for this senseless bloodshed between our nations.
The German people are not your enemy.
If you surrender, you will be treated well.
You will be given plenty of good, hot food and warm clothing, and if wounded, proper medical treatment.
The German army is your friend.
The shelling will resume at 10 past noon on Friday.
... south korea: pick up a copy of whatever Biebers got out this year while you're at it...
Look, let's not go overboard, OK? I know, the set off a H-bomb, but we should be proportionate in our response.
For those wondering, South Korea accused Best Korea of sneaking across the border and planting land mines next to a South Korean guard tower. Two South Korean soldiers were maimed when it went off.
Kim is not being invasive, but desperate and delusional. He needs friends and NK people need trading partners and investment to fix their shit country and become economically independent from Kim's regime - which the current foreign aid actually consolidates since Kim is the one who ultimately distributes everything.
Actually, he's doing what worked for decades for his father and grandfather: Do or say something crazy to get everyone's attention then get the world to offer concessions for them to stop said crazy activity. Sanctions really don't hurt regimes that have the "us against the world mentality" like the DPRK, Cuba, and to a lesser extent Iran (they do tend to hurt the populations of those countries, but the regimes truly don't really care about that). In fact generally those sanctions are used to bolster the domestic support for the regime, especially when access to information is so tightly controlled like in the DPRK. The population notices there is a shortage of bread (as a basic example), the government says the world has stopped trading with us because they are jealous of our socialist/Islamic/Pastafarian/etc Paradise, or some similar excuse. Then they strike a deal, get the sanctions lifted and some bonus concessions, and internally trumpet how they forced the Capitalist/infidel/Glutenfree(or would that be Atkins dieting?)/etc world to bow down before them. It's all one big game that is designed to keep the Kims in power and the lifelines of supplies and goods flowing to North Korea.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
... south korea: pick up a copy of whatever Biebers got out this year while you're at it...
Look, let's not go overboard, OK? I know, the set off a H-bomb, but we should be proportionate in our response.
What do you mean it's too late to say sorry?
The Onion got it right
... south korea: pick up a copy of whatever Biebers got out this year while you're at it...
Look, let's not go overboard, OK? I know, the set off a H-bomb, but we should be proportionate in our response.
Well, we already sent Rodman, we have to escalate.
Just another day in Paradise
The North Korean border is so close to Seoul that the North wouldn't even need to actually directly nuke Seoul; they could line up the nukes on THEIR OWN side of the border and let them off and Seoul would be totally fucked.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
the American people, being prone to fear,
No. You're only prone to fear because Bush and Obama told you to Be Afraid. You're an idiot who does exactly what you're told.
A few tracks on Biebers album that I've heard are actually good, get over yourself.
If they use that nuke Pyongyang will be gone in hours.
So many of you idiots make claims like this, but you're talking out of your ass. Nobody is going to bomb the hell out of a city full of civilians. We won't be having another Hiroshima, at least from this side. And, for those who believe we'd just steamroll over the country like it was Iraq, you don't know NK.
Just another day in Paradise
If you're going to do that, just play the Nokia Ringtone over and over again. That will be enough to drive anyone up a wall.
A few tracks on Biebers album that I've heard are actually good
The infection has spread. We must amputate the head.
....That's very disconcerting.
Nuclear Lunch Detected
It's an election year after all.
So many of you idiots make claims like this, but you're talking out of your ass. Nobody is going to bomb the hell out of a city full of civilians. We won't be having another Hiroshima, at least from this side.
But we really should be having. You know, nukes are meant to solve hard geopolitical problems. We know they solve problems, because we ended a war with them. Open the silos NOW!
Back under W, the South was going to use Celine Dion, but Dick Cheney told them even he couldn't support such a flagrant violation of the Conventions on Torture..
NK doesn't have an Air Force or whatever they do have would be shot down in minutes. Yes, with uncontested air superiority it would be a steamroll.
They could bombard Seoul with conventional artillery too. But they know it'd be an utterly suicidal course of action.
The chances of the bomb they set off being a fusion bomb are vanishingly slim. The one they set off was probably another one of their fission bombs or possibly even a huge amount of conventional explosives. An underground test is ideal for hiding the source of the explosion, while if they actually had a fusion bomb, an above-ground explosion would prove it to the world beyond any doubt. So they want the rest of the world to think they have a fusion bomb when they clearly don't.
So it seems that escalating tensions is their intent, and the rest of the world is playing into their hands...didn't any world leaders consider this?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
But perhaps you think an active military response would be better? George W. Bush didn't seem to think so, even after North Korea blew past his "red line" on uranium enrichment and actually built the first of those bombs. Bottom line is, even the Bush administration didn't want a war in Korea, because it would be insanely bloody
I think the most compelling reason against was that it could become a proxy war with China based on the "he might be a bastard, but he's our bastard" doctrine.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Or you could know your history and remember why the Korean war ended the way it did. The reality really hasn't changed all that much.
They have lots of such lined up and ready to go; any saber rattling is protected by this instant event. Yes they know it will be the end of them, but they would plan the south (and the US) would be more interested in grain shipments.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Yes, with uncontested air superiority it would be a steamroll.
We had uncontested air superiority in Iraq, and we still lost the war.
Nope, we've been prone to fear far longer than that, see also FDR, JD, AJ, and even JA.
Think they'll play Firework by Katy Perry? I hear it's Kim Jong Un's favorite song.
Not only would it be insanely bloody, but regardless of the outcome China would somehow win.
Woohooo!
I look forward to the feel of tension and terror it creates on the border the next time I visit South Korea!
They didn't have any oil. For a Texan who couldn't find oil in Texas, there was no financial upshot for his best pals.
AC
Apparently Pyongyang has tunnel complexes that make Tora Bora look like dilettante work. Would a nuke eradicate the leaders?
New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
I am actually surprised that there weren't already nukes in SK. I just always assumed we had some sitting on our bases there and that was the reason for Kim Jong Un's temper tantrums all the time.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
But when the US HAD a military presence there, South Korea HATED it. So why should US deploy strategic weapons there? Trump is right - have them finance their own defense. And if they want us to support them, PAY us!
The Korean war had North Korea AND China fighting the US and South Korea. Question is - will the Chinese want to be militarily involved THIS time around?
Is NK used a nuke, China would no longer support them, in which case it would be another Iraq. They don't have the weapons or military strength to actually resist the US without China's help.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Have you seen his face? He is obese. He'll pop just like Daddy & Grandpa before him. Wonder what the Norks think about having women leaders? If they are okay w/ it, wonder whether his 2 year old daughter Kim Ju-ae will succeed him?
A few tracks on Biebers album that I've heard are actually good, get over yourself.
I'm willing to say it logged-in. There are a couple of mediocre tracks now that aren't embarrassing to listen to. To borrow a line from Penny Arcade "the new one is not all shit gravy".
Still, I find him weirdly grating on the ears - even the OK tracks got old fast when repeated on the radio.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I agree nuking capitals is not a very bright idea or something to look forward to. However, I don't share your optimism about how far the Nato would be willing to go, if it came to a serious war. According to this article, well after Hiroshima, serious plans were made to nuke Moscow and Leningrad.
"Money is a sign of poverty." - Iain Banks
"... unless an abnormal situation occurs. Which now did."
North Korea's fiery rhetoric may project some laughably inaccurate claims, but at least the grammar is better than that of a Slashdot editor.
I knew I needed to stop reading Slashdot and finish my PhD when I started to miss articles by Bennett Haselton.
" a chipmunk christmas remix of Gangnam Style at every border outpost by tomorrow morning."
You jest, but if all South Korea dod was set up one of those huge arrays of bigscreens at some border point where it was visible to the North, and play the Gangnam video, and the Norks would lose faith in their society.
that really all depends on what china decides to do.
Even china is a bit sick of N. Korea. however they probably still wouldn't view an US invasion favorably.
And, for those who believe we'd just steamroll over the country like it was Iraq, you don't know NK.
Invasion would solve nothing - even Bush didn't suggest it. All that it will take to end NK as a separate entity is to make it easy for people to cross the border. That's not an easy task (minefields especially are hard to clear: more work than removing the military leadership), but it is possible as a military action. It's not about nukes or taking over; a very different sort of military action would be needed.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
We won the war at the point that President Bush stood on the ship w/ the 'Mission Accomplished' banner. We only started 'losing the war' once we decided to stay on and try transforming Iraq into Switzerland. We should have pulled out at that point, and let Iraq descend into civil war.
Why would Beijing not support them? That's the one puppet state that Beijing has left.
They could bombard Seoul with conventional artillery too. But they know it'd be an utterly suicidal course of action.
Sure but nuking their *own* territory? "oops sorry about that, totally accidental."
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
China doesn't care about Kim and his goons, they just don't want a massive stream of refugees
.... south korea: pick up a copy of whatever Biebers got out this year while you're at it...
south korea: And if you happen to stumble across the Yoko Ono Box set, pick that up as well.
Is NK used a nuke, China would no longer support them, in which case it would be another Iraq. They don't have the weapons or military strength to actually resist the US without China's help.
Having spent six years in Korea as a defense contractor, I'll tell you that you're full of shit. NK is not Iraq. And, with the mountains and tunnels they have, unless we went into a full scorched earth campaign, not caring about collateral damage, it would be ugly.
Just another day in Paradise
Ok, that was funny as hell (mod up parent please). But in all reality, the fact that DPRK launches a supposed Hydrodgen Bomb and we're talking loud speakers seems that the "oppressive thieves" rhetoric seems a bit misplaced. Just saying.
Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
Well, that was part of the whole Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) policy. Sure, we'd do it if we thought they were about to do it to us.
Just another day in Paradise
Two of my favorite artists did an album together. It was so horrible that I've only listened to it twice. It truly has absolutely no redeeming qualities - none. Dylan and the Dead. They might want to toss that up on the playlist. It is absolutely horrific and shouldn't ever have been released. I love 'em all but they are absolutely horrific when combined.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
http://theweek.com/articles/57...
That article seems to go through it. China told Kim Jong Un to chill out after the last bomb was detonated, they are starting to tire with the hostility coming out of NK.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You really think they have the supplies stockpiled for more than a week of war?
I just don't see it, but I will concede that you likely know more about it than I do.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
when your puppet has a bad case of Black Mold then you either
1 roast said puppet (china deals with NK)
2 hand the puppet to somebody with a can of Gas and a lighter (china tells the US Have Fun and Watch Your Splash Damage)
pick up a copy of whatever Biebers got out this year while you're at it...
Yeah, definitely a war crime...
get the RIAA involved and someone is going to be bankrupted via lawyer fees.
mfwright@batnet.com
and the Local Corps of Engineers just struck a pose and Yelled CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!
You just have to either run over the areas with heavy enough armour or drop enough explosives to gravel your pathways.
its not hard to do unless you have problems with getting "messy"
You have a strange definition of lost. We tore apart the military, got their citizens to hang Saddam, and still have their oil. We enriched a whole ton of American businesses and advanced our Brown People Killing Technology. I'd say we won! Then again, I also like to argue that we won Vietnam and that people are just looking at it wrong. I might not be a good judge. I am, however, pragmatic.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Or you could know your history and remember why the Korean war ended the way it did. The reality really hasn't changed all that much.
I don't think the USSR's air force will be helping the North this time. China might fill that role. South Korea would be wise to cut them some sort of deal where they agree that no US troops stay above the 38th parallel when Korea re-unifies.
You really think they have the supplies stockpiled for more than a week of war?
I just don't see it, but I will concede that you likely know more about it than I do.
Even if they don't, they do have enough artillery that's within range of Seoul to do major damage. If we didn't do a first strike on all of it, we'd see thousands of innocent civilians killed, and the damage to structures would likely be in the billions.
Just another day in Paradise
One of those old WW2 engineer's tanks with chain flails on the front would do just fine.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney explains why, after kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, it would be fucking stupid to invade Iraq:
Lets not forget that Iran is a theocracy due directly to the US of A overthrowing the elected government. They all knew exactly what would happen in Iraq back in the 90s, and they knew again in the 2000s. Only this time, they also ready to make it profitable.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Or you could know your history and remember why the Korean war ended the way it did.
Ah right, you mean how MacArthur advanced further into North Korea than Truman authorized which prompted a Chinese counterattack turning what was a victory into a retreat that lead to the eventual borders between North and South Korea.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
You really think they have the supplies stockpiled for more than a week of war?
I just don't see it, but I will concede that you likely know more about it than I do.
Even if they don't, they do have enough artillery that's within range of Seoul to do major damage. If we didn't do a first strike on all of it, we'd see thousands of innocent civilians killed, and the damage to structures would likely be in the billions.
Innocent civilians killed? Yeah, Koreans, but it's not like we'd see thousands of actual people killed.
That's only one part of the problem, though. Making a thousand-yard-wide "highway" for people to flee the country is a start (or more than one), but the troops who will be sent to stop people leaving are also people you want to leave, so you don't want to just shoot them all. It's a hard problem, but we've seen large troop formations surrender to us in the past, and we just need to trigger that.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
If they use that nuke Pyongyang will be gone in hours.
So many of you idiots make claims like this, but you're talking out of your ass. Nobody is going to bomb the hell out of a city full of civilians. We won't be having another Hiroshima, at least from this side. And, for those who believe we'd just steamroll over the country like it was Iraq, you don't know NK.
The reason no one will use nukes is because of the fear of retaliation from the other nuclear powers. The thing is that obligates those nuclear powers to follow through on the threat if anyone small tests it.
Otherwise, if NK nukes someone, and doesn't immediately get nuked back by one or more of the major powers everyone's going to start wondering if the major pawers are actually capable of a MAD second strike or juts bluffing. And if you think your opponent doesn't have second strike capability, a first strike starts looking like a good idea.
I'm sure Japan has no desire to resurrect its war crimes on the Korean Peninsula. You're flirting with a diplomatic disaster, Friend.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Why would we need nukes in Korea? We've got plenty of boomers sitting safely at the bottom of the ocean, and our land-based missiles can reach anywhere in the world in minutes. Putting nukes in S Korea would be a propaganda / political move, nothing more.
The US is already incredibly unpopular among the S Korea populous from anecdotes I've heard, although I don't believe they hold animosity towards the citizens themselves. Not that I'm uncaring about their situation (I liked the S Koreans I've met and worked with), but I say it's high time for them to take full responsibility for their own protection. The time when we should be footing *any* of the bill for their defense is long past. They're a big-boy country now, with a healthy economy that can support their own military.
Kim Jong Un's temper tantrums are because he's a paranoid nutcase and an evil fuck who starves his own people at the expense of his nuclear bomb and missile project. Not every problem around the world is the fault of the US.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Shhh, you're disturbing the liberal idea that Bush is baaad, the evil one, the devil incarnate. It'll make them afraid.
After all, does ANYONE believe they have a frigging hydrogen bomb? All this really does is make out that SK, their enemy, believes it, therefore the claim MUST be true.
But they aren't sucking US cock so THEY are to be ridiculed and painted bad. Because reasons.
And they are still REALLY pissed off at the way you defended the colonial French rather than helped them gain independence (as France helped the US get theirs), but not just keeping out, BACKING FRANCE. Given the only option giving some parity was the USSR, they HAD to go to Russia for help. The current leader of the DPRK is almost entirely the fault of the USA.
I'm disturbing the Conservative idea that somehow Obama is the new and totally different boss, unlike all the others before.
Nope, nobody ever considered secession before that Obama was elected. Nobody.
> Nobody is going to bomb the hell out of a city full of civilians.
No, none of the sane nations are going to start a war with such an action. China would never do something like that. America, Russia, etc. No way. But if the Kims nuked Seoul? The response might well be nuclear, and if it wasn't, it would be a three sided superpower pincer.
That is the deadly weapon N Korea fears mosts. Drop a million solar powered MP3 players on K Korea. Load them up not with propoganda or an in depth analysis, but instead load them up with South Korean soap operas.
It is ironic to note that Bush is responsible for all of this. Everyone has forgotten that under Clinton N Korea had nuclear inspectors and no bomb. But after 9/11 they were ignored.
This could still go very wrong. I am amazed at S Korea and Japan's tolerance of N Korea.
Love the Dick Cheney quote. He was spot on. But 9/11 made them angry so they followed their guts rather then their brains.
China wouldn't want a bar of that war. Their econmy relies too heaviy on the US to defend a state run by a spoilt brat.
Their response will be, "have at it", the North would run out of resources and China could then take over the North (if the South didn't attain control) once the regime was destroyed.
the Norks would lose faith in Humanity.
FTFY
South Korean attitudes towards the US military vary based largely on age-group. The elder population who remembers the Korean war are largely supportive of the US military presence, the younger generations, not so much. Koreans who live near military bases generally tend to at least tolerate the US due to the large amount of money soldiers spend on the local economy.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
It is the equivalent of petting a cat the wrong way. We know it's annoying, so why do it? The only possible outcome from it is provocation.
Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney explains why, after kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, it would be fucking stupid to invade Iraq:
Lets not forget that Iran is a theocracy due directly to the US of A overthrowing the elected government. They all knew exactly what would happen in Iraq back in the 90s, and they knew again in the 2000s. Only this time, they also ready to make it profitable.
Wrong war. You are talking about what Cheney said in 1991. I'm talking about what Bush said in 2003.
I'm pointing out that SecDef Cheney knew that going into Iraq would never have a positive outfcome, and that 10 or 12 years later, VP Cheney advocated invading Iraq.
Nothing in the geopolitical landscape, human psychology, or any thing else changed. What he said in 91 was still completely accurate and valid, and his prediction about what WOULD happen, should the US invade and occupy Iraq, came about. Sure, instead of Iraq disintegrating, instead we had ISIS fill a power vacuum, but while he got some of the specific details wrong, he got the overall picture exactly right.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Did you just call Arabs 'brown' people? That'd be news to them: they think of themselves as white.
I'd consider the war a loss not when we captured and turned over Saddam, but when we started getting involved in setting up a civilian government in Iraq. (Same argument in Afghanistan). We won the war when we bombed the Republican guards and Saddam disappeared, and Iraqi citizens tore down his statue. After that point, our sole goal being there should have been in looking for WMDs, and when we didn't find them, we should have completely pulled out.
Instead, we spent years, blood & treasure (that we didn't have) in trying to build a democracy there, force Shias, Sunnis & Kurds to live together, keep Shia and Sunni militias from killing people all over the place and taking abuse from Democrats over Abu Ghraib. THAT was the Bush idiocy, not the going-in in the first place. Like Sherlock Holmes once paraphrased, the supreme gift of an artist is knowing when to stop. When to stop was when Bush stood on that ship w/ the 'Mission Accomplished' banner. At THAT point, he was right. The US should have pulled out, and asked the Arab League or OIC to send in peacekeeping forces to Iraq so that it didn't get a regime like either the current one in Baghdad, nor ISIS.
The 2 issues in 2003 that caused Cheney and others to reconsider were - the potential of Iraq giving Jihadis WMDs (later, it was proven that the intelligence on that one was bad) and the fact that Iraq was supporting Jihad groups like Hamas and even hosting Abu Nidal, who was killed weeks before the invasion.
The mistake US made - in addition to the EXTENDED OCCUPATION - was trying to preserve Iraq as a single country. There was no good historic reason to have tried to force that. Historically, Iraq had never been an entity before WWI, and always had shifting borders. Also, the only way Shias, Sunnis and Kurds were together were as parts of extended empires - from Abbasid to Ottoman. So after the war, the US should have just gone ahead and recognized Kurdistan: it would have been a lot more legit than Kosovo. Also let the Shia Southern Iraq be its own country, maybe centered around Najaf, Basra or even Baghdad, and give Sunnis their own country - maybe around Tiqrit or Ramadi. And have arrangements w/ the Kurds that the Christians and Yazidis would have a safe haven there, and not be made refugees.
That way, the Arab Spring would have had separate outcomes in each place. Kurdistan would have remained stable, Sunni Iraq would probably have been a back-up ground for ISIS, while Shia Iraq would have joined Iran in backing Assad. Which is fine - THEIR fight. Only thing that both the US and Europe would have had to do is close borders to any refugees coming out of there. Beyond that, that region has always been at war since the advent of Islam, so nothing new to see there, just move along...
I don't care what they call themselves. They're brown to me. I'm brown too, it's okay to be brown. (You'd probably call me red/black/white but I actually look more Asian than anything, maybe Hispanic except I'm not Hispanic at all. I'm not even Asian.)
So yes, we won the war. I'm glad you agree. We then went full retard but we still won the war. Why we went full retard is beyond me, nobody ever listens to me but, if they had, I'd have suggested we not do that. Why we kept going, after winning the war, is something I'll never truly comprehend. No, I understand that they tell me were the reasons, I'll just never understand how the hell people were convinced that was a good idea.
If nothing else, we killed far more brown people than they killed of our people - some of our people are also brown. You probably think of yourself as white. I think of you as being kind of pinkish. Some of our pink people died too but not near as many as their brown people. There were probably a few olive looking people in the mix - on either side. I don't think anyone kept track of how many of them died. I suspect it was more of theirs than it was of ours. We're pretty good at bombing brown people - we'd probably bomb fewer pink and olive people if they'd segregate but that's probably a poor reason for segregation. Then again, it might actually be perfectly valid reason - if you're olive or pink.
We even made some people extraordinarily wealthy and improved our ability to target brown people.
Oh, it gets worse. Wait until you see me argue with someone that we won the Vietnam War. We were not on the winning side - but we won our part of the war. I'm sure I'll be bored enough to post it some day - I probably already have.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I'm a true conservative - I think that for the most part people should be left alone and free to live their lives in peace by the state and by business - but I don't see a lot of talk in right wing circles that Obama is like nobody before - he's often compared to Jimmy Carter, for example.
Not a bad suggestion; quite a few war-torn regions would be somewhat fixed through the simple expedient of removing lines on a map that various colonial powers placed, generally arbitrarily, in the last few hundred years.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
China wouldn't get involved. They don't care, beyond propping up DPRK to keep them from failing so China isn't flooded with refugees from DPRK. The ideology is unimportant these days.
Learn to love Alaska
"easy" fix for that
at Point A post a BIG SIGN (in english/korean)
"Troops wishing to surrender please place your weapons/muntions on the trucks on either side of the road ALL ARMED PERSONS PAST THIS POINT WILL BE SHOT ON SIGHT
--------
mugileul baechi hasibsio hangbog eul huimanghaneun budae neun / doloui yangjjog-eissneun teuleog e muntions i sijeom gwageo modeun mujang mich sinche neun silyeog gihoega doel geos-ibnida"
No, that sort of thing wont work, because the NK officers can just march their troops past the sign. The troops won't surrender until (a) they're convinced life will be better, and (b) superior force arrives on the scene (so they know they won't be shot for surrendering). Ultimatums won't work, but still it could be done.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
You really think they have the supplies stockpiled for more than a week of war?
I just don't see it, but I will concede that you likely know more about it than I do.
Even if they don't, they do have enough artillery that's within range of Seoul to do major damage. If we didn't do a first strike on all of it, we'd see thousands of innocent civilians killed, and the damage to structures would likely be in the billions.
Arab/African civilians? Because we're totally OK with that, every month, if not every week, or even day. If civilian casualties are under a million, it's not really that biog a deal in terms of war. Sure, it's awful for THOSE people, but in military, cold financial terms? That's still a solid win to take out a country with more than an hour's drive between borders.
NK isn't like Iraq. Those people had food, water, tv and internet, even women that could drive and vote - something to lose and hold a grudge over.
NK? You can bribe them with a bag of rice and a chocolate bar a month if you get them out of that hell hole:
"NK SOF are the Korean People’s Army elite who are the most highly-trained, best-equipped, best-fed (which is actually one of the bigger perks when considering the rest of the population) and highest motivated forces in the country. They’re designed for rapid offensive operations, internal defense against foreign attacks and limited attacks against vulnerable targets in the ROK as part of their asymmetric coercion plan. Their numbers (reported to be over 200,000-strong) are what seem to get people’s attention the most. The thing to keep in mind about NK SOF is just because they’re the “best-fed” troops in the KPA doesn’t mean they’re getting all the nutrients required for the rigors of their occupation. And despite their ability to launder money and smuggle drugs, NK SOF and the NK intelligence apparatus both lack the ability to project themselves beyond Asia.
"
Let's pretend that 200k is a real, fighting force figure. Let's offer them $100k each to defect - a princely sum enough to retire in relative comfort in SK (really, new SK, aka where they live now, but with rice and "luxury" goods like milk, eggs, electricity and tv). That's between a million and ten mil in the USA in relative terms.
Total cost: $20 billion.
That's a month's MidEast military spending. And would not just "defeat" our "foe", but straight up buy their love and loyalty. NK isn't some bullshit "bad guy" who is bad because they where different hats (religion) and disagree with our goals (cheap oil). They're genuine bad guys where starvation is an actual thing, not just what whiners say when the fridge is out of "good" snacks and you don't want to drive to the store or cook.