North Korea Attacks South Korea - Latest Update

[maxx]

Understood...But then why does this make it a moral and economic burden for the rest of the world to feed NKR?

What rest of the world? It's the North Korean government's obligation to feed its people or give its people the ability to feed themselves, they failed to some (great) extent.

A weak enough of a puppet not to challenge its master but powerful enough to annoy the region. Best way to do that is to starve the population but feed the regime. But oh-boo-hoo-fecking-hooo...The US is so evil in sanctions to starve all those North Korean children.

I don't get it. Is China or someone blaming the US for famine? And if China is feeding the regime, then so is South Korea, Japan and the US since they also provide food aid.

 

[gambit]

On the contrary, I have made clear who is responsible for the poverty of North Koreans and what I think should be done about it. The person tap dancing is you. I asked you what should be done to solve the North Korean issue and you never answered except to say regime change and occupation. Is that what you want?

As if I ever deviated from what I believe should be done to North Korea. The country does not have a right to any aid from US or from SKR and we do not have a moral burden to give such aid. By calling US an unreliable aid donor, you made a tacit charge that it was US who caused the famines. No, pal, the one who has been tap-dancing is YOU.

The US is for regime change in NKR. It will not be US who will occupy Korea but the Koreans will. Why is that so difficult to understand? Or is 'North Korea' so ingrained in the Chinese psyche that it is inconceivable that there was once a whole Korea? Drop North Korea and see what a prosperous Korea will be.

Say what? Is that jealousy I hear that Korea could be wealthy...???

 

[Tigershark]

As if I ever deviated from what I believe should be done to North Korea. The country does not have a right to any aid from US or from SKR and we do not have a moral burden to give such aid. By calling US an unreliable aid donor, you made a tacit charge that it was US who caused the famines. No, pal, the one who has been tap-dancing is YOU.

The US is for regime change in NKR. It will not be US who will occupy Korea but the Koreans will. Why is that so difficult to understand? Or is 'North Korea' so ingrained in the Chinese psyche that it is inconceivable that there was once a whole Korea? Drop North Korea and see what a prosperous Korea will be.

Say what? Is that jealousy I hear that Korea could be wealthy...???

I'm a new member, remember? I haven't talked you enough to know your opinion about the North Koreans. Now I understand your position, though. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

 

[CardSharp]

lol again I know a lot of you guys are new but there really is no use.

 

[gambit]

What rest of the world? It's the North Korean government's obligation to feed its people or give its people the ability to feed themselves, they failed to some (great) extent.

You certainly have more courage than the other guy who are too scared to answer the same question. Bravo.

I don't get it. Is China or someone blaming the US for famine?

Yeah...The other guy did in an oblique manner. Too scared to come out and say it straight...

That's right. Children are already dying and the Western media wants to "punish" North Korea by slapping on more sanctions and killing more children. I recently read a western article lambasting the UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon for requesting more international aid for the poor people of North Korea.

The US sanction on Iraq was especially instructive--we saw americans were willing to murder millions of Iraqi children to achieve their aim of world dominance. Their North Korean strategy is no different: isolate, sanction, invade.

The Chinese are absolutely right in expressing our censure of the North Korean government while continuing to extend aid to the people of North Korea.

And if China is feeding the regime, then so is South Korea, Japan and the US since they also provide food aid.

But is it a moral and economic burden of outsiders to do so?

 

[Tigershark]

lol again I know a lot of you guys are new but there really is no use.

no use convincing gambit of our point of view? I guess so, but it's still fun to debate him. That's what I like about online forums. You can really lay everything bare and not worry about offending anyone. If I get this political in real life, I won't have many friends left.

 

[Vassnti]

If you've served in the Victor Alert air base then I tip my hat to a brave veteran. I feel we've come to the heart of the matter. What do we do about the crazy North Korean leadership?

Vassnti suggests the CCP kidnap them and shoot them in the back of the head. I have a feeling that's illegal under international law and the law of morality.

Kidnapping possibly but you would be supprised what isnt covered under international law.

Colonel Daniel Reisner, the head of the International Law Section of the Israeli Army Legal Division has stated, “Assassination is not a legal term, at least not in international law.”11 This seems accurate as the word assassination does not appear in the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, Hague Conventions, international case law or the Statute of the International Criminal Court.

http://world-ice.com/Articles/Assassinations.pdf

Moraly sorry a leader who allows millions to starve to maintain a strangle hold on power has forfeited a right to such a claim.

The second possibility of using lethal force (as assassination) is under the “self defence” provision in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.27 Under Article 51, a state enjoys an inherent right of individual or collective self -defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the U.N.
By this reasoning ‘lethal force’ is a response to “war” and not a “mere crime”. The labeling of the assassination target as being involved in “armed conflict” raises the issue of humanitarian law protecting the right to life.
The state sponsoring the assassination is also required to comply with the “Caroline Incident” rules as the use of force must be “necessary”, it must comply with notions of “proportionality”, and it must minimise civilian casualties.

Seeing a state of war still exists in Korea article 51 could be argued to apply, especially when attacks by the north contine to kill civilians.

Note i am not suggesting this is the only or best solution.

 

[CardSharp]

no use convincing gambit of our point of view? I guess so, but it's still fun to debate him. That's what I like about online forums. You can really lay everything bare and not worry about offending anyone.

Hey it was just a disclaimer, making sure you know that going in, but if it tickles your fancy. Have at it.

 

[DesiGuy]

It's also a great way to increase # of posts! (jk)

 

[CardSharp]

It's also a great way to increase # of posts! (jk)

I still can't believe that I've racked up as many posts as I have. One liners ftw.

no use convincing gambit of our point of view? I guess so, but it's still fun to debate him. That's what I like about online forums. You can really lay everything bare and not worry about offending anyone. If I get this political in real life, I won't have many friends left.

Oh ain't that the truth brother. Politics of any sort is a chick repellent, politics of far away places doubly so.

 

[Nan Yang]

Yes. You do want a whole Korea, no? And if you do not want China to feed the starving North Koreans, why not let them go? What do you care? Spare everyone your crocodile tears for those people.


No...As Korea once again, there will be plenty of South Korean, US and Japanese relief agencies ready to feed those starved by Kim Junk-ill and China. We do not need China in this regard.


That is a good thing. It is no good anyway.


Wrong...All wrong. As Korea again, the US and Japan will stand ready to assist the country in rebuilding. No invasion necessary. You do want a whole Korea, no?


And plenty of lucrative oil contracts for China.

But US policy on N Korea has always been regime change by sanction and force.

In reality "China type" opening up and reform policy on North Korea is the best and only option. Let them open up and reform by themselves.
But the North Koreans have to decide themselves.

 

[CardSharp]

I found a fitting picture for the current situation on the Asian games megathread in China Defence.

Credit goes to Bigtree.cn for posting the picture.

 

[Nomenclature]

Honestly I don't care if the U.S. and S.Korea stop giving aids to the North. However I do have a problem if the U.S keeps suggesting China should use our food aids as a leverage in negotiations with the North.

If America chose the strategy of starving NK to submission, fine, just don't expect us be a part of that.

 

[DesiGuy]

I still can't believe that I've racked up as many posts as I have. One liners ftw.

and i wonder, why i was thinking of complaining to Mod!! you along with other guys such as gambit are just debating to increase # of posts.

 

[gambit]

But US policy on N Korea has always been regime change by sanction and force.

In reality "China type" opening up and reform policy on North Korea is the best and only option. Let them open up and reform by themselves.
But the North Koreans have to decide themselves.

No...Sanctions OR force. The former is coercive diplomacy, which can be useless if there is a sponsor for the target of the sanctions. China is that sponsor for North Korea. This means the sanctions and their effects are usually grossly overblown for propaganda effects.