|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chris_J2
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: From Brisbane, Au.
|
 Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 1:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Thanks CC
July 2005, is more like 4 years ago. 2 of those articles are well before the October 2006 nuclear test by North Korea. The response by China in 2006, was to cut the oil pipeline to DPRK. I hear winters in Nth Korea are brutally cold, & those teeth sure would have been chattering!
It will be interesting to see if China invites DPRK in July, & September, this year, to birthday celebrations for Kim, & treaty/foundation commemorations.
Somehow, I think not. Time will tell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chris_J2 wrote: |
Thanks CC
July 2005, is more like 4 years ago. 2 of those articles are well before the October 2006 nuclear test by North Korea. The response by China in 2006, was to cut the oil pipeline to DPRK. I hear winters in Nth Korea are brutally cold, & those teeth sure would have been chattering!
It will be interesting to see if China invites DPRK in July, & September, this year, to birthday celebrations for Kim, & treaty/foundation commemorations.
Somehow, I think not. Time will tell. |
I agree. I'm very curious to see whatwill unfold at the Security Council this week, and your point about other key events this year is also noteworthy. Now if only KJI would get on facebook so i could easily keep tabs on his calendar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Otus
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just finished reading a generously leftist western historical interpretation of the Korean war last night (perhaps just a little short of Bruce Cummings - but well in that direction).
Even on that account, the Chinese would not support Kim Il Sung unless the Russians would also back the invasion. Kim actually first went to Stalin, who would only support it if the Chinese did. He then went to the Chinese, who would only support it if the Russians also did, and then told the Chinese that the Russians had already given approval. At that point, the Chinese were in full support - although didn't come in until later. The Russians were more interested in eyeing up Japan.
Very different picture we see today - but the Chinese would not have committed last time if they didn't think the Russians had approved it ... And Mao didn't have a problem being overtly vocal about that support. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris_J2
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: From Brisbane, Au.
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 1:24 am Post subject: DPRK |
|
|
| Otus: The Great Leader Kim Il Sung, sounds like an errant child, running from parent to parent. "Mum, I want ...." Mums response? > ''Go see your Dad'. Dads response? 'Go see your Mother'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Passions
Joined: 31 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
China can blast NK all they want, behind the scenes they will always support them no matter what.
China support UN sanctions? Yeah right, when pigs fly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
michaelambling
Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Location: Paradise
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| b-class rambler wrote: |
Captain Corea, the negative argumentative style that you so often employ of continuously prodding the ball in the other person's court, keeping the onus on them to prove something about their point without actually saying so much yourself, is one which I'll admit is very effective on internet forums, such as this one. Obviously, the other party invariably gets tired and will often just give up. (I'm less convinced of its merits in a real life face to face situation, but that's neither here nor there.)
Above you've repeatedly asked chris to support what he was saying with something from a Chinese source. He's done that several times and all you've done in response is to sit back and effectively say, 'sorry, not what I was looking for, try again'. Some would describe that as just conveniently moving the goalposts.
Of course, it's perfectly valid not to accept what he offers in support of his case. But, you were the one who made the "like lips and teeth" remark above. So why not say clearly whether YOU believe that's still as true as when Mao originally said it, and come up with something to back up what you say, preferably from a Chinese source? |
Incredibly eloquent and accurate observation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| michaelambling wrote: |
| b-class rambler wrote: |
Captain Corea, the negative argumentative style that you so often employ of continuously prodding the ball in the other person's court, keeping the onus on them to prove something about their point without actually saying so much yourself, is one which I'll admit is very effective on internet forums, such as this one. Obviously, the other party invariably gets tired and will often just give up. (I'm less convinced of its merits in a real life face to face situation, but that's neither here nor there.)
Above you've repeatedly asked chris to support what he was saying with something from a Chinese source. He's done that several times and all you've done in response is to sit back and effectively say, 'sorry, not what I was looking for, try again'. Some would describe that as just conveniently moving the goalposts.
Of course, it's perfectly valid not to accept what he offers in support of his case. But, you were the one who made the "like lips and teeth" remark above. So why not say clearly whether YOU believe that's still as true as when Mao originally said it, and come up with something to back up what you say, preferably from a Chinese source? |
Incredibly eloquent and accurate observation. |
You've obviously missed the posts that followed that - or simply chose to ignore them. No worries though, they're only a page back - why not swing by and get the whole picture? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ukon
Joined: 29 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chris_J2 wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I haven't been moving any goal posts - I've been asking for an official Chinese source - one that shows clearly whether the relationship is strong or not. |
Xinhua & Peoples Daily ARE official Chinese sources. The article clearly shows the relationship between China & DPRK has been damaged in the past few weeks.
| Quote: |
| Posting what a few professors say is NOT what I am asking for. |
China is not the US, with an open & accountable free press. All of those academic professors, have very close links to the Chinese Government. They would quickly be muzzled, if they started spouting anything that didn't toe the Party line. Or am I missing something here? |
According to a professor I had who was from China...not really...it was a film class on Chinese films, so naturally we talked about China quite a bit.
She didn't feel repressed in China...she mentioned an attempt to ban the film "Lust Caution" which ended making the film watched even more...anything they attempt to ban quickly gets popular and spread by bootleggers anyway. She told us the government forced the professors to ask they're students if they wanted to join the communist party....they all laughed and the prof. was like "They said I had to do this once...". She was pretty positive about China I'd say(we did sorta grill her).
As long as your not talking about tibet, downfall of communist rule, picking on powerful people, or starting some new religion, I get the impression the government isn't going to send you to be "re-educated".
It's worth noting, that despite China's aid, North Korea is losing out....N.K. has a huge trade imbalance with China....100 million dollars of aid or some low grade fuel supplements pales in comparison to profitable trade of being the only trade partnet N.K. has. China has little reason to not prop up the regime... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
michaelambling
Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Location: Paradise
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| michaelambling wrote: |
| b-class rambler wrote: |
Captain Corea, the negative argumentative style that you so often employ of continuously prodding the ball in the other person's court, keeping the onus on them to prove something about their point without actually saying so much yourself, is one which I'll admit is very effective on internet forums, such as this one. Obviously, the other party invariably gets tired and will often just give up. (I'm less convinced of its merits in a real life face to face situation, but that's neither here nor there.)
Above you've repeatedly asked chris to support what he was saying with something from a Chinese source. He's done that several times and all you've done in response is to sit back and effectively say, 'sorry, not what I was looking for, try again'. Some would describe that as just conveniently moving the goalposts.
Of course, it's perfectly valid not to accept what he offers in support of his case. But, you were the one who made the "like lips and teeth" remark above. So why not say clearly whether YOU believe that's still as true as when Mao originally said it, and come up with something to back up what you say, preferably from a Chinese source? |
Incredibly eloquent and accurate observation. |
You've obviously missed the posts that followed that - or simply chose to ignore them. No worries though, they're only a page back - why not swing by and get the whole picture? |
You're right, I posted too soon. My apologies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris_J2
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: From Brisbane, Au.
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 3:51 am Post subject: DPRK |
|
|
Thanks for posting Ukon. China has certainly changed from the hardcore Communist days of Mao Zedong. Part of the problem is that whilst China has moved forward in the past 30 years, DPRK has stayed still in a Stalinist timewarp, back in the 50's. The 2 formerly close communist allies have less & less in common, with each passing year.
I'm hoping China bites the bullet & puts its money where its mouth is, by imposing harsh sanctions, particularly those that will cripple the military aspirations of North Korea. But the reality is more likely to be that some watered down version of sanctions, will transpire at the upcoming UN resolutions. The truth often lies between 2 extremes. I doubt that the outcome will be either no sanctions, or harsh sanctions/invasion, (as in 1979, when China went to war against Vietnam, after that country overthrew the Pol Pot regime, without Chinas backing).
In conclusion, there are 2 opposing sides in this dichotomy. Even within China itself, the split is 50 / 50 for and against sanctions, & outside of China (& even on these forums), the ratio seems about the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nuthatch wrote: |
bassexpander wrote:
| Quote: |
| What the US needs to do, if NK attacks, is drop a few pinpoint nukes in exact locations. The US needs to make it VERY clear that if a nation threatens it with nukes, then it nukes WILL be on the table in a battle. |
hello...Korea is a small place...I don't think South Korea or Japan would appreciate that
visitorq:
military numbers chart:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8071175.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8074527.stm
N Korea 'planning more missiles' |
So? America's military is probably dozens of times more powerful than both combined... Actually it's fairly pointless since there is no comparison. NK has basically no way of touching (or in most cases even detecting) American bombers/aircraft...
As for Vietnam, occupying a country is always difficult. Basically the only way to do so indefinitely against a foreign populace that despises you is genocide/colonization (not recommended)... But just blowing it the f-k up is is a cake walk for the US military...
| cangel wrote: |
| Why does everyone bring up Vietnam? America lost that war, yeah, yeah, yeah... That was a political war and the US military wasn't allowed to win it. The US could have turned Vietnam into a parking lot. |
Exactly. We didn't "lose" the war, we just walked away from it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Iamronin11 wrote: |
We need to get the Japanese involved big time. China doesnt want to stop North Korea and use it as a proxy? Its about time we let the Japanese rebuild their army and build their own nuclear arsenal as "Self defense measures" . Nothing will have the Chinese trembling more than a fully armed Japanese army with nukes.
If China wants to keep using North Korea as a proxy to terrorize the West we need to return it the favor. Get the Japanese nukes. Get the South Korean nukes. Get Taiwan Nukes. Time to give China a taste of its own medicine. Lets see how tough the Chinese really are when its surrounded by nuclear armed US allies. |
I kinda like this idea. 
But in that case the US needs to get cracking on missile defense again, and make something that really works...
Last edited by visitorq on Sun May 31, 2009 11:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Passions
Joined: 31 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| cangel wrote: |
| Why does everyone bring up Vietnam? America lost that war, yeah, yeah, yeah... That was a political war and the US military wasn't allowed to win it. The US could have turned Vietnam into a parking lot. |
Exactly. We didn't "lose" the war, we just walked away from it. |
58,000 deaths and 350,000 casualties. Vietnam turns Communist after US leaves. Yup, you're right, we didn't loose anything, we just walked away.  You must be a Cheney/Rumsfeld fan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Passions wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| cangel wrote: |
| Why does everyone bring up Vietnam? America lost that war, yeah, yeah, yeah... That was a political war and the US military wasn't allowed to win it. The US could have turned Vietnam into a parking lot. |
Exactly. We didn't "lose" the war, we just walked away from it. |
58,000 deaths and 350,000 casualties. Vietnam turns Communist after US leaves. Yup, you're right, we didn't loose anything, we just walked away. You must be a Cheney/Rumsfeld fan. |
The key word is "choice". I mean we could've just dropped a few dozen neutron bombs and waited for the dust to settle. We chose not to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Passions
Joined: 31 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Passions wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| cangel wrote: |
| Why does everyone bring up Vietnam? America lost that war, yeah, yeah, yeah... That was a political war and the US military wasn't allowed to win it. The US could have turned Vietnam into a parking lot. |
Exactly. We didn't "lose" the war, we just walked away from it. |
58,000 deaths and 350,000 casualties. Vietnam turns Communist after US leaves. Yup, you're right, we didn't loose anything, we just walked away. You must be a Cheney/Rumsfeld fan. |
The key word is "choice". I mean we could've just dropped a few dozen neutron bombs and waited for the dust to settle. We chose not to. |
Like I said, you must be a Cheney/Rumsfeld fan. "Winning" wars is all about flattening and turning other countries into glass, huh. As long as we drop hundreds of nukes, we'll "win." YEEEHAW! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
