|
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 |
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Clutch Cargo wrote: |
Seems like a real dumb move with harsh sanctions and cuts in aid likely and winter just around the corner. Good job KJI!
 |
Sanctions? It didn't work with Pakistan or India, sure as heck didn't work with Iraq. You want to bet Kim Jong Il and his family will still be fat in 6 months? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| Quote: |
U.S. intelligence agencies say, based on preliminary indications, that North Korea did not produce its first nuclear blast yesterday, WASHINGTON TIMES star reporter Bill Gertz is set to report in Tuesday editions.
U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that seismic readings show that the conventional high explosives used to create a chain reaction in a plutonium-based device went off, but that the blast's readings were shy of a typical nuclear detonation.
'There was a seismic event that registered about 4 on the Richter scale, but it still isn't clear if it was a nuclear test. You can get that kind of seismic reading from high explosives.'
The underground explosion, which Pyongyang dubbed a historic nuclear test, is thought to have been the equivalent of several hundred tons of TNT, far short of the several thousand tons of TNT, or kilotons, that are signs of a nuclear blast, the official said. Developing... |
http://www.drudgereport.com/ |
Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if this is as fake as their satellite launch.
Last edited by Hollywoodaction on Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:38 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If this wasnt a nuke and just conventional detonation of TNT, then whats the game KJI is playing? Testing the waters before a real nuke test? Seeing what the likely oucome could be of an actual test? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| If this wasnt a nuke and just conventional detonation of TNT, then whats the game KJI is playing? Testing the waters before a real nuke test? Seeing what the likely oucome could be of an actual test? |
Could this be a plot to sell a bunch of nukes to Iran, Syria, etc... pocket the money, and never deliver the goods? North Korea rarely upholds its end of a bargain, after all.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| North Korea did not produce its first nuclear blast yesterday |
They don't yet have a nuclear capability??
Surely then now is the time to hit them hard, before they get one? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Sorry, blackbird, but you cant fight a million+ troops solely with air power. That has been shown every time it's been tried. |
Worked quite well against Japan.
All the US would have to do is send in a dozen or so bombers carrying nukes with a escort of fighters. Goodbye North Korea.
You can succesfully fight any number of troops with solely air power. It all depends on how ruthless you want to be. North Korea has been a thorn in America's side for more than half a century. An invasion would be the last straw. |
Winning a groun war only through air superiority = dropping atomic bombs.
This is why you are largely irrelevant here, urby. Like Bush, you deliberately twist what people say to pleasure yourself.
Foolish. |
And you have the blatent hypocrisy to complain about another poster flaming YOU.
Ever wonder why you are not taken seriously? You post garbage and when flamed for it (as when comparing Bush to Hitler) by numberous posters, complain. And then when someone corrects you without the personal attacks, that's what you resort to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dude, go easy on him. I don't think he is well. (I'm being serious) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nambucaveman
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just another warning to all who are posting in this thread, keep the comments civil. If you can't don't reply.
NC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| North Korea did not produce its first nuclear blast yesterday |
They don't yet have a nuclear capability??
Surely then now is the time to hit them hard, before they get one? |
I think China would take over North Korea before that would ever happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clutch Cargo
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Location: Sim City 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Clutch Cargo wrote:
Seems like a real dumb move with harsh sanctions and cuts in aid likely and winter just around the corner. Good job KJI!
Sanctions? It didn't work with Pakistan or India, sure as heck didn't work with Iraq. You want to bet Kim Jong Il and his family will still be fat in 6 months? |
I was thinking about the general population and how KJI uses them to obtain aid funds which are then used to pay for other non-food things. Unfortunately I think you're right about the Glorious Leader and his family. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Sorry, blackbird, but you cant fight a million+ troops solely with air power. That has been shown every time it's been tried. |
Worked quite well against Japan.
All the US would have to do is send in a dozen or so bombers carrying nukes with a escort of fighters. Goodbye North Korea.
You can succesfully fight any number of troops with solely air power. It all depends on how ruthless you want to be. North Korea has been a thorn in America's side for more than half a century. An invasion would be the last straw. |
Winning a groun war only through air superiority = dropping atomic bombs.
This is why you are largely irrelevant here, urby. Like Bush, you deliberately twist what people say to pleasure yourself.
Foolish. |
And you have the blatent hypocrisy to complain about another poster flaming YOU.
Ever wonder why you are not taken seriously? You post garbage and when flamed for it (as when comparing Bush to Hitler) by numberous posters, complain. And then when someone corrects you without the personal attacks, that's what you resort to. |
Again, urby, lying and twisting. Get it right, tell the truth, or don't bother. The "numerous posters" are always you neo-cons, not the others who post here with some relevance.
We're done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Which posters are neo-cons? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| ChimpumCallao wrote: |
| well, roh's myopic political views and the idiots who bought them are pretty much to blame. |
How ironically myopic. No time now, but will elaborate later. |
While there is some relevance to your post in that the Sunshine policy, and other issues, have affected events, to portray current events as solely stemming from that is to ignore 50 years of history, the pattern of behavior of the NK regime, the history in other areas of the world where openess certainly was a factor in change, Bush's belligerence, etc. It's akin to saying the last swing of the axe is what cut down the tree.
In fact, the Sunshine Policy is valid. Implementation? I'm sure there are things that could have and should have been done differently. But disengagement does not solve crises. We have seen engagement work in Germany and the rest of the Iron Curtain, so why not Korea? True, the NK regime is hardly a model of rationality and stability, but they are also not stupid. (Read the article in the Korea times about the timing of the blast, for instance.) Look at what he's done: He chose what is probably the only time he could possibly do this and not immediately get bombed into the Stone Age: Iraq's claims help support their claims; Japan is rattling the sabre; the US is tied down in two quagmires; Bush has been belligerent from the beginning, which could be claimed as justification - particularly with Iraq and Afghanistan as "proof" of Bush's intentions towards NK, etc...
The 1994 agreement remained largely in place until Bush's Axis of Evil comments. Yes, NK was circumventing it, but, that's what countries do. They lie to gain advantage. (Not a justification.) Does that mean the Clinton policy and the subsequent agreement were not valid? Of course not. KJI just outsmarted them. After decades of watching NK wriggle in and out of loopholes and bizarre justifications, the agreement should have been more specifically written. But it was the right approach at the time, especially considering the alternative was military conflict.
That brings us to Bush. The belligerence of the Bush regime - across the board - and their refusal to engage in true diplomacy, but, rather, simply cajole, threaten and/or attack (under false premises) has created a situation where nothing has happened with NK since Bush took office. He has allowed, as another writer put it, the situation to fester like an open sore.
And what of China, the enabler? China has done virtually nothing to control NK, even when they were the only party that had any hope of doing so. One must ask why. China, it seems, has designs on NK. Again I refer you to the work of the Northeast Project undertaken by the CASS in which it states that the history on the Korean peninsula is really Chinese history. Not related, not influenced by, but actually is a claim on the Northern portion of the peninsula. No, China wants NK to crumble, but in such a way that China can move in with historical claims to back it up. But a war would make the clean up far too difficult and expensive. I believe their arrogance in their power and supposed control over NK led them to believe NK would not go nuclear without their approval. So, they have acted as protector and enabler while paying lip service to resolution of the issues on the peninsula. Of course, China also does not want the US to have any more grip on the peninsula than it does now and certainly is not willing to have the US at its doorstep in the form of a unified Korea.
Yes, NK is responsible for its own actions and choices. No, they cannot be trusted. But to characterize this solely as a failure of the Sunshine Policy is short-sighted, at best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
While there is some relevance to your post in that the Sunshine policy, and other issues, have affected events, to portray current events as solely stemming from that is to ignore 50 years of history, the pattern of behavior of the NK regime, the history in other areas of the world where openess certainly was a factor in change, Bush's belligerence, etc. It's akin to saying the last swing of the axe is what cut down the tree.
In fact, the Sunshine Policy is valid. Implementation? I'm sure there are things that could have and should have been done differently. But disengagement does not solve crises. (1) We have seen engagement work in Germany and the rest of the Iron Curtain, so why not Korea? True, the NK regime is hardly a model of rationality and stability, but they are also not stupid. (Read the article in the Korea times about the timing of the blast, for instance.) Look at what he's done: He chose what is probably the only time he could possibly do this and not immediately get bombed into the Stone Age: Iraq's claims help support their claims; Japan is rattling the sabre; the US is tied down in two quagmires; Bush has been belligerent from the beginning, which could be claimed as justification - particularly with Iraq and Afghanistan as "proof" of Bush's intentions towards NK, etc...
The 1994 agreement remained largely in place until Bush's Axis of Evil comments.(2) Yes, NK was circumventing it, but, that's what countries do. They lie to gain advantage. (Not a justification.) Does that mean the Clinton policy and the subsequent agreement were not valid? Of course not. KJI just outsmarted them. After decades of watching NK wriggle in and out of loopholes and bizarre justifications, the agreement should have been more specifically written. But it was the right approach at the time, especially considering the alternative was military conflict.
(3) That brings us to Bush. The belligerence of the Bush regime - across the board - and their refusal to engage in true diplomacy, but, rather, simply cajole, threaten and/or attack (under false premises) has created a situation where nothing has happened with NK since Bush took office. He has allowed, as another writer put it, the situation to fester like an open sore.
(4) And what of China, the enabler? China has done virtually nothing to control NK, even when they were the only party that had any hope of doing so. One must ask why. China, it seems, has designs on NK. Again I refer you to the work of the Northeast Project undertaken by the CASS in which it states that the history on the Korean peninsula is really Chinese history. Not related, not influenced by, but actually is a claim on the Northern portion of the peninsula. No, China wants NK to crumble, but in such a way that China can move in with historical claims to back it up. But a war would make the clean up far too difficult and expensive. I believe their arrogance in their power and supposed control over NK led them to believe NK would not go nuclear without their approval. So, they have acted as protector and enabler while paying lip service to resolution of the issues on the peninsula. Of course, China also does not want the US to have any more grip on the peninsula than it does now and certainly is not willing to have the US at its doorstep in the form of a unified Korea.
(5) Yes, NK is responsible for its own actions and choices. No, they cannot be trusted. But to characterize this solely as a failure of the Sunshine Policy is short-sighted, at best.[/quote]
(numbers are mine)
1. Engagement ONLY worked AFTER the U.S.S.R crumbled and the dictators were disposed. This is not the case in North Korea and will likely not be the case for a long time. And engagement with the regime in N.K always led to being stabbed in the back. Bush simply said enough is enough. Until N.K learns to grow up (honour its agreements) he was not going to deal with it. How many times does one have to get slapped in the face before the hand of peace is withdrawn?
2. Yes N.K was circumventing it...which pretty much meant the treaty was dead in the water. If one side is NOT honouring the treaty how can you possibly say "it remained largely in place."? That doesn't make any sense. It wasn't being upheld in the first place...as even you admit.
3. It got N.K. to the six party talks...for a while anyways which is more that most have done.
4. Well one out of five isn't bad.
5. Make that two out of five.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Atassi
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Location: 평택
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not to get involved in the fight you guys were having, but this would be an air war if it happened. The North Korean soldiers (and many civilians) would be slaughtered along with Seoul. The weapons on both sides would ensure that. Nukes aren't even the main issue.
Take the Persian Gulf War. The air campaign by US forces in 36 hours killed maybe 250,000 people (according to CIA estimates). Multiples more died afterwards. This air campaign went against a nation without even close to the military power of North Korea (in many respects). A campaign against North Korea would be significantly worse.
This would not initially be a ground war, and the amount of troops bears no significance to the initial outcome. NK would exhaust their weapons, and SK would bear the consequences.
I've never heard anyone state that the US and SK would be capable of disabling NK's weaponry before Seoul is rubble. It would take only four minutes for that to happen. We aren't talking rifles here. |
|
| 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
