not as peaceful as usa, but still... :-)

No, not as peaceful as anybody. There's nothing good to say about North Korea.

Sometimes there are problems in the world that the US didn't create. The irrational actions of the North Korean leadership is one of them.

North Korea is like an incorrigible child. Any punishment on the child ends up being a punishment on the parent. If you ground the child, you have to deal with the whining and bitching, etc. Eventually, parents end up giving in to incorrigible children, simply to get them to shut up for a time. It is the same with NK.

The reason the US would not invade NK isn't a strictly military one. Although the US is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, we could probably muster 150k troops to fight and along with the SK contribution and the massive air superiority and the fact that China would rather the peninsula be dominated by SK than lose the US a trading partner...the US would win. The question is one of cost. Does a third Japanese city need to be destroyed by an atom bomb?

then we have to agree to disagree. i think they're peaceful because they haven't waged a war since 1953. i don't think their actions are irrational since there are threats of invasion by foreign powers

Exactly. Let's all hope that there isn't a Second Korean War. It would be terrible for everyone involved.

The sad truth is that actions like this make it more and more of a possibility all the time.

alamothe, not being involved in a war doesn't necessarily mean peaceful. Nazi Germany didn't have a war for the first 6 years Hitler was in power, and they were anything but peaceful. The Soviet Union didn't fight a war between WWII and Afghanistan, but they weren't peaceful. Saying "peaceful" means the absence of war is a very subjective criteria.

There has never been a threat of aggressive invasion by foreign powers of the North. All the treaties with the South are defensive to protect them from aggression.

North Korea is very much in the wrong here. You can think what you like, of course, but realize that you are very much in the minority.

Waging wars is more to do with capability than peacefulness. The larger the gap between one nation and others in terms of military power the more likely it is to use it. History shows us this. North Korea hasn't attacked anyone since 1953, but then, has it realistically been able to attack? Not just in military terms either. How many times do you think the Russians/Chinese influenced them not to act aggressively?

Snap Invictus.

The USA is a mostly peaceful country, its just that its a superpower and is called upon to wage war more often. The world WANTED the US to intervene in Kuwait in 1991, in Kosovo in 1997, etc. It also has more threats directed at it due to its power, so things like Afghanistan in 2002 also have to happen. Iraq, I'm not really sure what went on there, but if I had to guess I'd say that after the wildly successful initial stage in Afghanistan, they probably thought that a world tour of dictatorship removal was in order. Fucking Neocons.

Are you saying North Korea is peaceful the day that they detonate a nuclear bomb in direct defiance of UN resolutions? Are you saying that just because North Korea never had the military power of the Soviet Union or China that means it's peaceful?

They have an ideology there called Songun. It's why the North Korean military get priority over civilians in the country, why they build nukes and missiles while the people starve, why the communist elite build up military strength to prop up their rule from both inside their country and abroad.

They aren't peaceful. They're reckless and they're creating what could be a terrifying crisis where nuclear weapons are actually used. You call that peaceful?

Snap Hereward.

And I feel sorry for any soul cursed enough to be born into that shithole. This is why, in the end, I decided to totally reject Marxism. Any ideology that believes that the system that runs NK is superior to the system that runs the US is fundamentally flawed.

so... do we agree to give them food and electricity and not start a nuclear war?

If there is a war, it will be the North that starts it.

Invictus is right. In this circumstance, if war occurs, it will be because NK troops are in the DMZ.

The US already sends food and SK and China do as well. It is wasted.

how is it wasted? people don't eat it?

i'm sure the ppl eat it, i think Hamilton is just saying that we shouldn't be sending food over seas to SK and China, and that we should keep it here for Americans.
I'm not so sure that i agree with you on that, Hamilton. China and SK are valuable allies to USA, and i don't see anything wrong with giving supplies that they need to them.

That isn't what he's saying at all. He's saying, rightly, that sending aid to North Korea and expecting them to cooperate on disarmament isn't working. The question is what to do now.

We might still send aid to South Korea and China, but that's a completely separate issue.

I am saying that we send food and supplies to NK but it never reaches the people who need it.

Peaceful? They haven't had a war since 1953? You don't get it. For them, they are still at war and have been non stop SINCE 1953. They are institutionalized from birth to think that they are about to be invaded . Their news in the evening and any history to do with the US invasion (as they are told it was) is read out in a voice tinged with hysteria. And in terms of insurgencies... During the 1950s war, every single building in the country was destroyed... They simply lived in caves and underground holes unti the Chinese came. That's why Kim Il Sumg is such a hero to them because he saved them and then rebuilt be nation. Until 1980 the North was more developed than the South.

The big issues in weighing up war against the Nkrth are 1) does that fanaticism truly live on in a physically and psychogically exhausted and terrorized populace. 2) which Japanese city will NK throw an atomic weapon at?

KingTigerTank is hilarious. Clearly he knows something we don't. o.O

"There are no Muslim extremists in North Korea so I don't think it would be as problematic with regards to insurgencies. The new government might be weak or something but at least there would be no violence once formal hositilities ceased."

I think you find that once your country is invaded, your home destroyed, and your family and friends killed, you have plenty of reason to become an "insurgent". Combined with the fact the North Koreans are highly nationalistic and convinced that the world is out to get them, as they've been convinced by mass propaganda, an invasion will be extremely costly in "civilian" deaths.

"This is why, in the end, I decided to totally reject Marxism. Any ideology that believes that the system that runs NK is superior to the system that runs the US is fundamentally flawed."

I would not call NK Marxist... I would say it tinges more of authoritarian/dicatorship, more in the style of Stalin than the ideology described by Marx. I'm the opposite of a communist, but it would be a folly to say that NK's problems are simply the result of a flawed economic policy.

Honestly, I'm not sure what will happen. America has certainly gone to war with countries for less noble reasons than it would be by attacking NK... I'd say that we should leave this mostly to China, and to a lesser extent, Russia. It's so hard to say because NK is such a reckless mess (much more so than Iraq)... and SK is in a vulnerable position if NK decides to go berserk.

If North Korea attacks the South we have no choice. We legally have to defend South Korea due to treaty obligations.

China won't do anything because they're afraid that any instability in Korea will send thousands of refugees across the border into Manchuria. Russia could have the same sort of problem I guess but mostly I would guess they just want stability too. Everyone pretty much would just really like the problem to go away and for stuff to be quiet again. I hope that happens again this time, but, ultimately, with a divided Korea with a loony rogue state occupying half of it and threatening the world with nuclear weapons, the situation looks pretty untenable.

We'll see how this current crisis plays out, but I doubt North Korea will end in the sort of way East Germany did.

I hope KingTigerTank talks more.

Stalin considered himself a marxist as well. Marxism is simply the belief that the rich or economic oppressor class must be overcome and subjugated in order to achieve utopia. As the United States is the most capitalist nation in the world, many Marxists will jump to defend any nation that is diametrically opposed to US interests.

and Invictus is right, despite the pipe dreams of the SK left, their nation is not headed for a German style reunification, not until Kim dies at least. The North is simply too poor and oppressed for that to be a reality.

North Korea definitely uses a Marxist economic ideology, albeit an exceptionally authoritarian one. As for the US being the most capitalistic nation in the world, I doubt that will last much longer if it isn't gone already, unfortunately.

Any Marxists with sense wouldn't defend North Korea. If you seek an example of state socialism run amok, look no further than the North.

This is just bad news all around. Let's hope these world leaders involved are responsible and handle it right.

No one wants war, but how can this state of affairs go on? I sure hope something gets worked out, but who knows?

Marxism is more specific than that, and I would say that NK doesn't even fit the model you've given. Stalin was different enough from Marxism to have earned a new name of Stalinism. While he might have espoused himself a Marxist, he wasn't even close.

"United States is the most capitalist nation"

As a capitalist, I disagree. Hong Kong and Singapore are most certainly more capitalist. The Index of Economic Freedom 2009 also lists Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand as higher than the United States in terms of Economic Freedom. So does the Economic Freedom Of The World report of 2008 with the addition of the UK, Chile, Switzerland, and Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom

But that's not really on topic. =)

Its not really the specifics as must as the perception that I'm referring to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8067711.stm