N. Korea vs. The Rest of the World

[LaughAtTheWorld]

I see that South Korea has caved in to demands by Obama to open up the SK market to American cars. I assume this humiliating retreat by SK on the Free Trade Agreement is based on your country's fear of being left all by itself surrounded by China, Japan and the DPRK. It's sad to be dependent isn't it?

What is wrong with you? What makes you think that SK caved in to the demands? What makes my country look weak, when your country is split into two because of partisan politics, has a debt of $18trillion, and is losing a war to an ill-equipped, ragtag army of less than 1000? I see that the US has caved into the demands of terrorists. It's sad to be dependent, isn't it?
You see, my previous idiotic statement about US being weak is the model of what you're saying. Please, for your own good, please study some more.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

A picture is worth a thousand words: http://freekorea.us/2005/08/07/signs-of-the-times-so-this-is-why-i-spent-four-years-in-korea/

You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that these demonstrations were about 5~10 years ago. No sense rehashing history. Also, most of these demonstrations were caused by the Highway 56 incidents, etc... which you seem to be too lazy (or ignorant or both) to read.

 

[ludahai]

Mr. Gray Fox, and those who think SK would lose to NK

In a straight on fight between the ROK and DPRK, the ROK would win, but would sustain a lot of damage. Seoul would be in ruins as would much of the northern part of the ROK because the DPRK would certainly make early advances. However, due to their dire economic straits, they would not be able to sustain the offensive. They would not be able to keep their armies supplied. So, save for the highly unlikely scenario of a quick knock-out punch, yes, the ROK would win a one-on-one fight with the DPRK.

First: China would never go to war. Wikileaks proved that, and China would lose economic power as Western nations would have a boycott, it would lose political power as Chinese people would be outraged at supporting NK, and it would lose face diplomatically. It may provide some private funding, but no not open support.

It didn't prove anything. Those cables were the interpretations of U.S. diplomatic personnel of conversations with and observations of rather low-level Chinese officials who have little or no role in making policy. In fact, China's words and actions are not the same. China talks a good game about reining in the DPRK, but even in the case where the PRC did not veto sanctions against the DPRK, there is more trade going through the Friendship bridge from Dandong than ever before.

Second: SK alone would defeat NK. NK's military is massive, sure, but quality defeats quantity. Did you examine NK's military closely? It has WWII weapons, while we have modern military equipment like the K-9 howitzers, K-2 Black Panthers, and our air force, navy is also much more advanced than them. The nukes can be easily stopped as there are interception missiles stationed in SK

Agree... see above...

So, if you're not an expert, then please be quiet. I will be glad to have a debate, but as I am a native South Korean, and is the forum's expert on Korean topics, so try to accept it. However, I will be glad to have a debate, listen to your thoughts, or to dispute my thoughts.

While my focus on not Korean affairs, I have been published in areas of East and Southeast Asian affairs as a graduate student and teach in these areas today... don't think you are the only one who knows what he is talking about...

 

[ludahai]

South Korean anti-Americanism is well known. We remember the Mad Cow Demonstrations. America would be foolish to help South Korea in any way.

Mad Cow demonstrations does NOT equal anti-American. I live in Taiwan, which also had anti-Mad Cow demonstrations. You would be hard-pressed to find a country ANYWHERE more pro-U.S. than Taiwan is.

Various Korean kingdoms have been forced to accommodate the various Chinese Dynasties in the past as vassals. South Korea has no choice but to accommodate the PRC. It is your karma.

So, the entire region should just surrender to the dictators and tyrants in Beiping?

 

[ludahai]

2: 2002 Winter Olympics. The South Korean skater finished first, but the referee (James Hewish who also caused outrage in the Vancouver Olympics too) ruled that the second skater won the gold because the South Korean skater interfered (various people, including Non-Koreans felt the ruling was unfair). This was also another root of it
There were also many other incidents which may or may not be an excuse for anti-Americanism, but my point is that the US isn't completely innocent

I saw that race. In short track, it is very difficult NOT to foul and many tickey-tack fouls are NOT called. That was a tough call, but there was definate contact and was callable... having said that, in many situations, that would NOT have been called. So, while I can understand Korean frustration, it WAS technically the correct call. BTW, the reaction of a Korean footballer in the World Cup that summer was also uncalled for and a pathetic display after scoring a goal on the U.S.

Furthermore, after what happened to a Taiwanese taekwondo athlete and the comments of the Korean-head of the WTF afterward, you will get NO sympathy from me...

Also, your claim that South Korean kingdoms have accommodate China is completely the worst kind of anti-Koreanism I ever seen. Do you even know our history? Yes, South Korean culture has been influenced by China, but that doesn't mean that we accommodated them.

Sorry, but there were many times in which Korean kingdoms were little more than vassals of Chinese kingdoms. Are you also ignoring rhetoric from hyper-nationalist Koreans who claim Confucius was Korean?

It's like the claim that America is still a British colony. Also, in turn, we influenced Japanese culture. So does that mean that Japanese kingdoms accommodated us? Complete lie. Korea was a very independent nation in the past (although in late Joseon and other periods, we were weak). The Koryeo kingdom withstood Mongol invasion more than 6 times, and only through a treaty that we "surrendered".

The Choeson was little more than a vassel of the Chinese. It is fair to say that not through all times of Korean history, to be sure, but at times when China was strong, Korea was often a vassel of the Chinese state.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Mad Cow demonstrations does NOT equal anti-American. I live in Taiwan, which also had anti-Mad Cow demonstrations. You would be hard-pressed to find a country ANYWHERE more pro-U.S. than Taiwan is.

Why is Taiwan pro-American?

So, the entire region should just surrender to the dictators and tyrants in Beiping?

Anyone can be deterred, including Beijing. Iran and North Korea have shown the way to establish deterrence against a great power. Nuclear weapons.

ten characters

 

[ludahai]

ten characters

Taiwan is pro-American for a number of reasons. Most of all, Taiwanese generally admire American freedom and culture. U.S. music is popular here and the U.S. has provided the model for much of the way government is structured here. Taiwan is a young democracy, and many people here look to the United States as a mature democracy that Taiwanese aspire to.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

....

Sorry, but there were many times in which Korean kingdoms were little more than vassals of Chinese kingdoms. Are you also ignoring rhetoric from hyper-nationalist Koreans who claim Confucius was Korean?



The Choeson was little more than a vassel of the Chinese. It is fair to say that not through all times of Korean history, to be sure, but at times when China was strong, Korea was often a vassel of the Chinese state.

Korea's vassalage to China started with the Tang Dynasty. Check this out if you're interested:
http://www.timemap.net/epublications/2002_animations/2002_shilla_animation.swf

 

[ludahai]

Korea's vassalage to China started with the Tang Dynasty. Check this out if you're interested:
http://www.timemap.net/epublications/2002_animations/2002_shilla_animation.swf

Why are you posting this to me? I already know this... Actually, some would argue that even in the days of the Han Dynasty, areas of Korea were under direct Han control.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Why are you posting this to me? I already know this... Actually, some would argue that even in the days of the Han Dynasty, areas of Korea were under direct Han control.

I don't know much about Chinese dynasties prior to the Tang. Often the Chinese were allied with various Koreans against other Koreans. I wonder why in the past Koreans often preferred Chinese vassalage to domination by fellow Koreans?

 

[SirPwn4lot]

Your assessment of military hardware appears sound. However, I think it very unlikely that our current Administration would authorize massive U.S. military action until the casualty rate was very high.

It really wouldn't matter very much to the dead who got to claim to "win" such a conflict.

The United States has essentially renounced its place as the enforcer of minimal international civility, and the predictable results are beginning to occur.

Well this made me laugh.

What on Earth makes you think the US is any less interventionist that it's been in the past? This administration has increased both troop numbers in Afghanistan, higher military spending, and pushed for tighter sanctions against Iran.

Foreign policy wise Bush's first term was significantly more aggressive than his second. Obama's foreign policy stance hasn't changed a great deal from Bush's 2nd term. The same policies have continued relatively unhindered. Obama's justice department even pushed for an end to the right of Habeas Corpus granted to Guantanamo Bay prisoners.

Would they initiate a first strike against North Korean arms? No, but Bush wouldn't have either. They have to maintain their image in the world, however tarnished. The world still holds a lot against the US for invading the middle east. There would have to be a clear call to arms on North Korea's part before the US did anything, under either president. Besides, if the US attacked, NK would do everything in their power to wipe SK off the map.

It's politically better to let them make the first move, because then then North Korea can't play the victim card.

If North Korea makes a viable batch of nuclear weapons with a high enough reliability and yield to wreck some serious havoc the overwhelming chance is that they'd either give them off to extremist parties, or send in some of their own agents to make it look like a terrorist act. This way they can claim non-involvement and prevent the destruction of their entire nation.

Even madmen want to protect their ass.

As for what the Us should do, if North Korea attacks the South I'd take nuclear weapons off the table. Once they've been used once it gives other nations an excuse. It's well known that China has nuclear weapons. Plus, the US spends as much as the rest of the world combined on their conventional forces, they could annihilate them without the threat of a nuclear chain reaction.

Just my $0.02, if you feel like responding respond to it all, not just one line.

Thanks eace

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

In a straight on fight between the ROK and DPRK, the ROK would win, but would sustain a lot of damage. Seoul would be in ruins as would much of the northern part of the ROK because the DPRK would certainly make early advances. However, due to their dire economic straits, they would not be able to sustain the offensive. They would not be able to keep their armies supplied. So, save for the highly unlikely scenario of a quick knock-out punch, yes, the ROK would win a one-on-one fight with the DPRK.



It didn't prove anything. Those cables were the interpretations of U.S. diplomatic personnel of conversations with and observations of rather low-level Chinese officials who have little or no role in making policy. In fact, China's words and actions are not the same. China talks a good game about reining in the DPRK, but even in the case where the PRC did not veto sanctions against the DPRK, there is more trade going through the Friendship bridge from Dandong than ever before.



Agree... see above...



While my focus on not Korean affairs, I have been published in areas of East and Southeast Asian affairs as a graduate student and teach in these areas today... don't think you are the only one who knows what he is talking about...

Actually, I do think that you're very open-minded, and is practically a god compared to Mr. Albert Di Salvo. Yes, I agree with you, and I don't question you, I was just questioning Mr. Albert Di Salvo who seems to have no idea about Asia-Pacific.
Yes, some Korean kingdoms were vassals of China. Yes, we had been manipulated by foreign countries. That doesn't mean that we're weak now, though Mr. Albert Di Salvo doesn't seem to have any idea about the difference between past and future. I wonder if he continues to wear a wig and traditional European clothes daily? Hmmmm.... Anyway, not all kingdoms were vassals, and even some vassal kingdoms led many successful revolutions. However, the way Mr. Albert Di Salvo says it, it seems that Korea was just a province of China, which is about as factless and ignorant as claiming that Taiwan is also a Chinese province.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Well this made me laugh.

What on Earth makes you think the US is any less interventionist that it's been in the past? This administration has increased both troop numbers in Afghanistan, higher military spending, and pushed for tighter sanctions against Iran.

Foreign policy wise Bush's first term was significantly more aggressive than his second. Obama's foreign policy stance hasn't changed a great deal from Bush's 2nd term. The same policies have continued relatively unhindered. Obama's justice department even pushed for an end to the right of Habeas Corpus granted to Guantanamo Bay prisoners.

Would they initiate a first strike against North Korean arms? No, but Bush wouldn't have either. They have to maintain their image in the world, however tarnished. The world still holds a lot against the US for invading the middle east. There would have to be a clear call to arms on North Korea's part before the US did anything, under either president. Besides, if the US attacked, NK would do everything in their power to wipe SK off the map.

It's politically better to let them make the first move, because then then North Korea can't play the victim card.

If North Korea makes a viable batch of nuclear weapons with a high enough reliability and yield to wreck some serious havoc the overwhelming chance is that they'd either give them off to extremist parties, or send in some of their own agents to make it look like a terrorist act. This way they can claim non-involvement and prevent the destruction of their entire nation.

Even madmen want to protect their ass.

As for what the Us should do, if North Korea attacks the South I'd take nuclear weapons off the table. Once they've been used once it gives other nations an excuse. It's well known that China has nuclear weapons. Plus, the US spends as much as the rest of the world combined on their conventional forces, they could annihilate them without the threat of a nuclear chain reaction.

Just my $0.02, if you feel like responding respond to it all, not just one line.

Thanks eace

You have my admiration, sir

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Actually, I do think that you're very open-minded, and is practically a god compared to Mr. Albert Di Salvo. Yes, I agree with you, and I don't question you, I was just questioning Mr. Albert Di Salvo who seems to have no idea about Asia-Pacific.
Yes, some Korean kingdoms were vassals of China. Yes, we had been manipulated by foreign countries. That doesn't mean that we're weak now, though Mr. Albert Di Salvo doesn't seem to have any idea about the difference between past and future. I wonder if he continues to wear a wig and traditional European clothes daily? Hmmmm.... Anyway, not all kingdoms were vassals, and even some vassal kingdoms led many successful revolutions. However, the way Mr. Albert Di Salvo says it, it seems that Korea was just a province of China, which is about as factless and ignorant as claiming that Taiwan is also a Chinese province.

Butt hurt or what?

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

South Korean Fifth Column:

Picture of the Day: The South Korean Fifth Column | ROK Drop

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Honestly, it seems that every time Albert Di Salvo looks at a picture depicting a small minority of a country, he immediately posts it up and claims that every person from that country is like that minority. It's basically claiming that all Germans are Nazis, all Russians are Communists, or all Americans are drug-addicts. However, I think that will make sense to his mind

 

[SirPwn4lot]

Honestly, it seems that every time Albert Di Salvo looks at a picture depicting a small minority of a country, he immediately posts it up and claims that every person from that country is like that minority. It's basically claiming that all Germans are Nazis, all Russians are Communists, or all Americans are drug-addicts. However, I think that will make sense to his mind

Could you please outline what you think he's saying, and briefly describe your response?

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Honestly, it seems that every time Albert Di Salvo looks at a picture depicting a small minority of a country, he immediately posts it up and claims that every person from that country is like that minority. It's basically claiming that all Germans are Nazis, all Russians are Communists, or all Americans are drug-addicts. However, I think that will make sense to his mind

Koreans are no different than anyone else as individuals. They are fine. That's not the issue.

Korea has a history which has shaped the attitudes of the Korean people. A history of repeated foreign domination. This has made the Koreans extremely suspicious of foreigners. In North Korea this manifests itself in the Juche policy of self-reliance. In South Korea this manifests itself in repeated instances of hostility to American troops. This hostility is reinforced by the public school system in South Korea which serves as the focus of leftist indoctrination.

In other words there is a very large segment of the South Korean population that is so hostile to Americans that South Korea is an unreliable ally. Look at the difficulty and the huge demonstrations over relocation of US forces from downtown Seoul to Camp Humphreys. Most Americans aren't aware of the Anti-Americanism demonstrated by coalition of forces that have come out to protest against Americans.

Considering America's national interests and the unreliability of South Korea as an ally, this isn't America's fight. South Korea needs to make its own way in the world without America.

 

[ricksfolly]

Honestly, it seems that every time Albert Di Salvo looks at a picture depicting a small minority of a country, he immediately posts it up and claims that every person from that country is like that minority. It's basically claiming that all Germans are Nazis, all Russians are Communists, or all Americans are drug-addicts. However, I think that will make sense to his mind

Do or say anything to win the debate, or anything else, seems to be today's mentality, especially if it's controversial or gets them gotcha points.

ricksfolly

 

[Badfish420]

South and North, just fight it out and then kiss and make up already. May the best Korea win. We did it here, without either side receiving any help from any other country.

 

[SirPwn4lot]

South and North, just fight it out and then kiss and make up already. May the best Korea win. We did it here, without either side receiving any help from any other country.

The thinking of the early 1950s was that Korea was within the sphere of influence of the United States, much like South America, and a minimum Communist exclusionary zone should be established in that region. North and South Korea are radically different. South Korea presents itself amongst the most advanced economies in the world, while North Korea comprises a strong-armed dictatorship.

I'd imagine that the people of North Korea (nobody can really know, due to the dictatorship), just want to get on with their lives. It's like most conflicts in the world; the ruling elite force the country into armed conflict when the people have little interest. Anyway, it must be remembered that it's the government, not the people of North Korea, that are the problem.

As someone pointed out, the North Korean military has the ability to inflict severe damage on Seoul (which, because of the US-Soviet division lies close to the demilitarized zone). This is a city of people, larger than New York City. I see no distinction between a city of Americans and a city of South Koreans, or even a city of North Koreans. The people are stuck in the middle of a conflict between governments and militaries, yet they have nothing to gain and all to lose.

As far as what the US should do, letting a war break out between the two governments would be extremely unwise. We're currently uncertain of whether or not North Korea has a usable nuclear weapon. They have over a million soldiers. They successfully tested one last year, so we know it's possible. In addition to this the CIA says they have a "significant" stockpile of chemical weapons. These could wreak absolute havoc in South Korea if war were to break out. The human cost would be incalculable. I don't care whether those 10.2 million people live in Seoul or New York. The United States' estimate for casualties within the first few days of fighting (mostly non-combatants) was 100,000 in the late 80s, I can only imagine that would have increased since.

What's the way forward? Who knows. A war between the two governments is not. It could mean the deaths of millions of people, or possibly even the development of a global nuclear conflict. It's an extremely delicate situation.

eace

 

[Badfish420]

The thinking of the early 1950s was that Korea was within the sphere of influence of the United States, much like South America, and a minimum Communist exclusionary zone should be established in that region. North and South Korea are radically different. South Korea presents itself amongst the most advanced economies in the world, while North Korea comprises a strong-armed dictatorship.

I'd imagine that the people of North Korea (nobody can really know, due to the dictatorship), just want to get on with their lives. It's like most conflicts in the world; the ruling elite force the country into armed conflict when the people have little interest. Anyway, it must be remembered that it's the government, not the people of North Korea, that are the problem.

As someone pointed out, the North Korean military has the ability to inflict severe damage on Seoul (which, because of the US-Soviet division lies close to the demilitarized zone). This is a city of people, larger than New York City. I see no distinction between a city of Americans and a city of South Koreans, or even a city of North Koreans. The people are stuck in the middle of a conflict between governments and militaries, yet they have nothing to gain and all to lose.

As far as what the US should do, letting a war break out between the two governments would be extremely unwise. We're currently uncertain of whether or not North Korea has a usable nuclear weapon. They have over a million soldiers. They successfully tested one last year, so we know it's possible. In addition to this the CIA says they have a "significant" stockpile of chemical weapons. These could wreak absolute havoc in South Korea if war were to break out. The human cost would be incalculable. I don't care whether those 10.2 million people live in Seoul or New York. The United States' estimate for casualties within the first few days of fighting (mostly non-combatants) was 100,000 in the late 80s, I can only imagine that would have increased since.

What's the way forward? Who knows. A war between the two governments is not. It could mean the deaths of millions of people, or possibly even the development of a global nuclear conflict. It's an extremely delicate situation.

eace

well clearly I would adovcate any peaceful method of re-unification available, which both Leaders have said is what they want. but peace is a difficult thing in this situation.

its funny that you bring up the North Korean people, because in fact, they are very ready for war. Not that it is there fault, but the North Korean people have been being brainwashed by the Regime for 60 years, and have been taught that the South and America are imperialist savages, along with countless lies about American brutality and inhumanity. They have been conditioned to pick up the war exactly where it left off. They want closure.

 

[WeAreReborn]

well clearly I would adovcate any peaceful method of re-unification available, which both Leaders have said is what they want. but peace is a difficult thing in this situation.

its funny that you bring up the North Korean people, because in fact, they are very ready for war. Not that it is there fault, but the North Korean people have been being brainwashed by the Regime for 60 years, and have been taught that the South and America are imperialist savages, along with countless lies about American brutality and inhumanity. They have been conditioned to pick up the war exactly where it left off. They want closure.

Well to be technical a peace treaty was never signed so war has never ended. In fact, if America wasn't backing up South Korea, there would be one Korea.. Because statistically North Korea is way more qualified for war. But America being imperialistic isn't a lie. Contras riddle South America, multiple occupations and war in the Middle East. A few decades ago the absolute destruction of indochina. You can say it is all justified but admitting it isn't imperialistic is a harder thing to do..

 

[SirPwn4lot]

well clearly I would adovcate any peaceful method of re-unification available, which both Leaders have said is what they want. but peace is a difficult thing in this situation.

its funny that you bring up the North Korean people, because in fact, they are very ready for war. Not that it is there fault, but the North Korean people have been being brainwashed by the Regime for 60 years, and have been taught that the South and America are imperialist savages, along with countless lies about American brutality and inhumanity. They have been conditioned to pick up the war exactly where it left off. They want closure.

I don't see how we can really know, non-biased polling is probably heavily restricted over there, and people are probably scared out of their minds that the government will find out that they personally don't hate South Koreans.

I'd imagine that, just out of virtue of being human beings, at least a fair amount of them don't want to go to war. Then again, if you have something that contradicts this I'd be very grateful.

 

[ludahai]

I don't know much about Chinese dynasties prior to the Tang. Often the Chinese were allied with various Koreans against other Koreans. I wonder why in the past Koreans often preferred Chinese vassalage to domination by fellow Koreans?

This was especially true during the Tang when Silla in Korea asked for Tang assistance to bring down a much larger one Korean kingdom known as Gogureo, which dominated the northern 2/3 of modern Korea as much as much of what became known as Manchuria...