tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post1686190262840227941..comments2024-03-26T03:31:06.199-04:00Comments on Ask a Korean!: North Korea's Shelling of Yeonpyeong-do -- What You Need to KnowT.K. (Ask a Korean!)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07663422474464557214noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-66267089969791778182013-10-20T04:21:21.094-04:002013-10-20T04:21:21.094-04:00People downplay this detail:
From the AP - The ski...People downplay this detail:<br />From the AP - The skirmish began when Pyongyang warned the South Korea to halt military drills in the area, according to South Korean officials. When the ROK refused and began firing artillery into disputed waters, the North retaliated by bombarding the small island of Yeonpyeong, which houses South Korean military installations….<br />It doesn't excuse everything but I don't understand why ROK needs to conduct those drills with the U.S. military right by the border? Isn't that a BIT antagonistic? I'd like to know if North Korea conducts those kinds of military drills in view like that, muscling around?<br />How would it look if North Korea AND Chinese troops of 30,000 regularly, yearly conducting military drills in plain view like that to the South Koreans every year.<br />Hm...Samihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04353290819336109528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-38209033647330977792010-11-30T13:38:57.057-05:002010-11-30T13:38:57.057-05:00laopan,
The Korean is afraid that he does not sha...laopan,<br /><br />The Korean is afraid that he does not share that optimism. The fact that KJU's first economic policy was the currency reform speaks volumes -- it shows that: (1) KJU wanted to absorb the black market economy into the state-led communist economy once again; (2) KJU lacks the most basic understanding of how market economy works. (If you print money indiscriminately, of course there will be a runaway infliation.)<br /><br />The Korean does not think KJU would learn much from the currency reform either -- if North Korean regime is capable of learning anything (or at least, learning that their economic system is unsustainable,) it would have learned a great deal from the massive starvation that killed millions during the 1990s. But North Korea is the same as ever.T.K. (Ask a Korean!)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07663422474464557214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-31635900843958645712010-11-29T17:05:56.078-05:002010-11-29T17:05:56.078-05:00Wow.
China ready to abandon North Korea from Wiki...Wow.<br /><br />China ready to abandon North Korea from Wikileaks<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-china-reunified-koreaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-91529492671685264782010-11-29T12:16:55.123-05:002010-11-29T12:16:55.123-05:00Not necessarily through military conquest; I mean ...Not necessarily through military conquest; I mean any reunification in the long term, with the conditions listed above, seems to favor the North. The US might not be there by then; China definitely will be. Military power helps to dictate terms even if there is not an actual war.<br /><br />Of course, you might be right, reunification could happen under the southern flag, but I think (again, with economic reform) time will work for the North, as China's and NK's absolute and relative (to US and South) force in the region will grow.<br /><br />My optimism is for the Kims being sensible and allowing economic reform, which you also called the best case scenario above.laopanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14763916535451023880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-36796345640158458162010-11-29T11:10:51.415-05:002010-11-29T11:10:51.415-05:00@laopan,
What it comes down to is can the Kims re...@laopan,<br /><br />What it comes down to is can the Kims reform or not? People will remember that the currency reform was done in the new Kims name (even if they try to rewrite history to make it otherwise) and the widespread discontentment with him in general, along with the loss of faith by even party cadres, and the current response of using a show of military force (propping up the military first policy - again done in lil Kim's name) at least suggest that they won't.<br /><br />Anyways, even if your unlikely scenario of 1,2,3,4 came true, the end result would more likely be reunification under a unification treaty rather than an invasion of SK. All countries involved would just have too much to lose, in terms of lives lost and damage to their respective economies, whereas a peaceful reunification could be a big win without costing them anything. The PRC would have to worry about international condemnation of the invasion, and the US would feel a lot of domestic and international pressure to send forces and weaponry in to defend a country under the defense umbrella (even if no nukes were used).<br /><br />Finally, I ask why your optimistic scenario is a successful PRC-NK invasion and conquest of SK? You prefer war to peaceful unification?<br /><br />@grimhunter74,<br /><br />I agree with you completely. A peaceful solution would be better, but the actions of the NK regime continue to suggest that no such solution exists.FarFromKoreahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04435256769410051796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-88991791469622073082010-11-29T10:22:33.628-05:002010-11-29T10:22:33.628-05:00correction:
"Especially since not even party...correction:<br /><br />"Especially since not even party cadres seem to have lost faith and be quite cynical about the system."<br /><br />Especially since NOW ...laopanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14763916535451023880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-90295379344483106222010-11-29T09:33:51.083-05:002010-11-29T09:33:51.083-05:00@FarFromKorea
(continued)
„Reunification under a...@FarFromKorea<br /><br />(continued)<br /><br />„Reunification under a pro-China "blood ties" one-Korea might be possible in the long term, if NK did reform and enough decades have past that the economy has improved to the point where the sides are roughly equal. (Over this time scale, reunification under a pro-US democratic one-Korea is probably just as likely, if not more so.)”<br /><br />My comment on the likeliness of Northern reunification was meant as an answer to this paragraph. That is, if we suppose that in the long run, 1, the regime reforms 2, therefore NK doesn’t collapse and 3, its economy will develop under Chinese influence until roughly equal with the South’s 4, China will be stronger than the US in the Far East; than NK might be in a better position to dictate the terms of reunification. (Roughly your No. 6 scenario.)<br /><br />Of course, if the Kims are indeed very stupid, and the North collapses, anything could happen. But I don’t think they are really that stupid. I'm an optimist that way.laopanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14763916535451023880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-83461182880634855722010-11-29T09:32:44.852-05:002010-11-29T09:32:44.852-05:00@FarFromKorea
“But the currency reform was done u...@FarFromKorea<br /><br />“But the currency reform was done under the new Kim's title originally. This won't be easy to dispel. RIght now we have every indication that the Kims will not go down this route.”<br /><br />The guy who was held responsible for the currency reform was executed this spring. That seems to me an unofficial admission of the fact that the reform was wrong, and an attempt to deny the responsibility of the Kim family. From what I hear, the entire country now runs on black market trade. Private savings will thus grow again, and if another currency reform is not an option anymore, the regime will have little choice other than go with the flow. Especially since not even party cadres seem to have lost faith and be quite cynical about the system. Kim Jong Un’s coming to power should be a good excuse. He is probably not an idealistic communist either, to oppose market economy on principle, if he can stay in power this way. So I would still say peaceful transition to a Chinese/Vietnamese style party-guided capitalism is more likely than war with SK or the collapse of the North.<br /><br />„As of today, the US is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons first.”<br /><br />That’s exactly why I think they won’t do it again. It would be to hard on their image. No excuses this time. Besides, the South Koreans wouldn’t be happy either, I guess, to capture a radioactive wasteland. There was talk of using tactical nuclear warheads in Iraq or Afghanistan, but they decided against it after all.<br /><br />„Still, remember that SK has double the population of NK right now, which means that the PRC would need double the troops (2-3 million troops) to occupy and control SK.”<br /><br />True. But that could balance out in a few decades, if the economy starts to grow. Maybe not in the entire population, but at least in the number of military-age men.<br /><br />(cont.)laopanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14763916535451023880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-15779417239542758952010-11-28T23:55:51.217-05:002010-11-28T23:55:51.217-05:00As an incredibly frustrated Korean, I say we go to...As an incredibly frustrated Korean, I say we go to war and get this over and done with. I am tired of seeing my country being pushed around; I am tired of my country continuously being told what it can and cannot do by Washington DC and Beijing. Let's just go in with guns blazing and kill each and every one of those commie dogs. Yes, people will die but this war should have been over a long time ago. And if the Chinese decide to invade, well, we'll just have to kill them too, won't we?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16575386183737175262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-63438560721162257832010-11-28T14:11:46.690-05:002010-11-28T14:11:46.690-05:00(and in no particular order)
1) NK collapses, and...(and in no particular order)<br /><br />1) NK collapses, and SK manages to deftly play the international political and legal system and takes over NK with the blessing of the UN. Reunification happens under the SK system, but significant PRC interests are present and preserved and maintained by the unified country under the agreement that SK and the PRC had in return for the PRC's assent at the UN. (E.g., No refugees, no non-UN approved troops, no US troops stations above the 38th parallel, etc.)<br /><br />2) NK collaspes, and SK takes over NK unilaterally (with or without US help), justifying it under SK's domestic legal system and constitution. The PRC is not able (or is domestically unwilling) to stop this from happening.<br /><br />3) NK collapses, and the PRC sends troops in to maintain stability. Eventually, NK unifies with the PRC to become a new province, a move angering many Koreans and moving SK to be more anti-China than ever.<br /><br />4) NK collapses, and both SK and the PRC send troops in. The resulting clashes firmly push SK back onto an anti-China stance.<br /><br />5) Scenarios 2, 3, or 4 happen, but agreement is reach by the PRC and SK (and US and Russia, etc) to prop up a new regime and leave NK an independent country that reforms. Korean reunification later happens under equal terms by a unification treaty between NK and SK.<br /><br />6) NK doesn't collapse but simply has a regime change. The new government reforms, and later Korean reunification happens under equal terms by a unification treaty between NK and SK.<br /><br />7) NK collapses, the PRC sends troops in and takes over. But they deftly maneuver the international political and legal systems and get permission from the UN to run NK as the UN's "trustee", turning NK into a true puppet state. Later, they convince SK to reunify with NK on terms highly favorable to the PRC's interests, but allow the unified Korea to keep SKs flag to sweeten the deal a little bit.<br /><br />8) NK survives under the new Kim for many decades, and by the time NK collapses, it has been so long that the geopolitical situation of the entire world has changed, such that the PRC and the US and SK are all allied and on the exact same page with identical interests in NK. What happens next is mutally agreed upon by all parties involved, and is implemented rather straightforwardly. Again, SK gets to keep it's flag as a deal sweetener.FarFromKoreahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04435256769410051796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-20894054769991870342010-11-28T14:10:33.320-05:002010-11-28T14:10:33.320-05:00laopan said...
"NK won't reform that...laopan said...<br /><br /> "NK won't reform that way, at least not without a regime change."<br /><br /> I don't see why not. They only need to stay put and let the market evolve, as it is already happening. The failure of the currency reform should be a good enough lesson to learn from. If the Kim kid comes to power, he only needs to officially sanction the practice, and it will give him better legitimation than unbelieveble stories about his heroic feats. I'm thinking of a Chinese or Vietnamese style economy here: socialist in name, but capitalist in practice. This is a good way (maybe the only way) for the regime to stay in power. The military will be happy, as better economy means more money which means more toys for them. And if there is no need for regime change, there is no need for PLA troops either.<br /><br />This is the best case scenario. Especially if the focus on the market economy takes away from the nuclear program and border clashes. If this happened, I think all other parties would be satisfied. (Yes, even the US.)<br /><br />But the currency reform was done under the new Kim's title originally. This won't be easy to dispel. RIght now we have every indication that the Kims will not go down this route. They know their best chance is to get the US and SK back into the aid giving game, to avoid giving the PRC too much influence and forcing them to reform their economy.<br /><br />I'll never say never though.<br /><br />laopan said...<br /><br /> "Military conquest is not an option, as that path leads to retaliation under America's nuclear umbrella."<br /><br /> We are talking conventional warfare here. Nuclear umbrella only comes to play if the Chinese or North Koreans employ the bomb first. I doubt the US would strike first. <br /><br />As of today, the US is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons first. Furthermore, the Obama administration has stated that "all options are on the table" when dealing with rogue states (or states not party/no longer party to the nuclear non-profilieration treaty). I think your assumptions are wrong.<br /><br />Even if the US did refuse a nuclear first strike, they have many other options (such as deep penetration bunker bombs or clusterbombs) that they could use to thwart an invasion.<br /><br />laopan said...<br /><br /> Besides, who knows what will become of the US nuclear umbrella and Far-Eastern alliance system in 60 years. <br /><br />That's a good point.<br /><br />laopan said...<br /><br /> What is likely though is that in six decades China will be stronger in conventional warfare, especially in its own backyard.<br /><br />I agree completely. Still, remember that SK has double the population of NK right now, which means that the PRC would need double the troops (2-3 million troops) to occupy and control SK.<br />The burden would be far more onerous than occupying NK only.<br /><br />laopan said...<br /><br /> Which means reunification under the northern flag is more likely.<br /><br />I disagree completely. A number of scenarios strike me as much more likely:<br />(continued in next comment)FarFromKoreahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04435256769410051796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-34587547015598952302010-11-27T11:00:59.286-05:002010-11-27T11:00:59.286-05:00Hey Chinese Guy.
Don't think so hard.
You...Hey Chinese Guy.<br /><br />Don't think so hard.<br /><br />You'll give yourself an aneuriysm.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-88701119381841394852010-11-27T10:17:37.893-05:002010-11-27T10:17:37.893-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03735859705189664780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-58786660103875530372010-11-27T01:18:51.572-05:002010-11-27T01:18:51.572-05:00It's a sad truth, but the DPRK can't simpl...It's a sad truth, but the DPRK can't simply roll up and die. The world can't afford it.<br /><br />The RoK can't afford to absorb it; look at the struggles Germany had after reunification, but add a factor of 10.<br /><br />China probably doesn't want it as a Hong Kong/Macau style satelite state; it's a financial liability and another cultural-melting-pot problem.<br /><br />If there's a coup, wouldn't we end in a never-ending carousel of six-month dictators, as there's no widely accepted, widely backed alternative leader to promote?<br /><br />There is no way out. In a way, running the DPRK into the dirt is the smartest thing the Kim family ever did.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17835654598042448995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-23309134943830723492010-11-26T17:01:05.694-05:002010-11-26T17:01:05.694-05:00Here is my BIG GIANT WHITE MALE AMERICAN opinion. ...Here is my BIG GIANT WHITE MALE AMERICAN opinion. America owes China so much money that if our relationship is ever strained China's economy would die and so would a billion people from lack of exports. N. Korea is a joke and will be done in the next 30 years an then they will be forced to deal with the realization that there country is full of lemmings and sheeps like the rest of us except they follow dictators while the south follows pop culture and anything made by blizzard. America really doesn't give a rats ass about Korea just the soldiers there that are holding down on of the best tactical military installations in the world. Sucks but really what South Korea needs to do is just send some bombs over to NK and call there bluff. Either way a few strategic missles would kill there already half assed infrastructure. Screw what the chinese dude is saying because he is just jealous his country is bootleg kings and make half ass products. Seriously Chinese guy you have no place to speak because your whole nation just like every other one revolves around what we the sheeps of America buy from you guys. All in all NK is seriously screwed in the long run and South Korea has to live with it because soon or a later you will have tons of immigrants crossing the border in masses because China don't want them.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12015109570868196481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-73248201453745433482010-11-26T13:46:13.555-05:002010-11-26T13:46:13.555-05:00@TheProgressiveAmerican
As I said again both coun...@TheProgressiveAmerican<br /><br />As I said again both countries are the same. This is evidenced clearly by the use of fiat. Demand for fiat is created by taxes. Taxes are backed by laws. Laws are backed by guns. As an American what happens if you don't pay your taxes? You get kidnapped and imprisoned. This is universal in all fiat currencies, the one in NK and the US$ as well as the KRW, RMB etc.<br /><br />Thus most societies are non-consential societies. Everybody is forced to do stuff under threat of bad things happening. <br /><br />Q.E.D gun pointing and forcing of people to do stuff happens in ALL countries.<br /><br />The only difference is efficiency. The UK is uber efficient, force/violence is seldom used. People pay and want to pay because it is normalised.<br /><br />In less efficient societies, the violence has to be more explicit and demonstrated regularly to force compliance. Hence the inefficiencies. If you have to shoot your own people daily you ruin your chattel of labour.<br /><br />Therefore while in NK they have unveiled guns pointed at people's heads. The Chattels (people) of 'freesocieties' have veiled guns pointed at their heads. Thus they are the same, i.e. you have a gun pointed at your head.<br /><br />What do we call gun pointing societies? <br /><br />Despotism! Elections change little, as the gun pointing goes on pre and post election.The Chinese guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02042709338416365751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-82801347609889886672010-11-26T10:58:03.403-05:002010-11-26T10:58:03.403-05:00@John Kim: Well, in the big picture, reunification...@John Kim: Well, in the big picture, reunification under ROK governance would benefit the Korean economy immensely provided we are thoroughly prepared for the event of reunification. Which is what the reunification tax is for, isn't it (if it passes)? Not to mention liberating some 26 million North Koreans.<br /><br />As for who actually wants reunification... it's hard to say.Stewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508169301781696390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-81273750864510400912010-11-26T09:21:40.479-05:002010-11-26T09:21:40.479-05:00i agree it will be business as usual. tension is h...i agree it will be business as usual. tension is high but within a few months the public will have moved on to another story. this will just become another subtext to future skirmishes. <br /><br />humans are generally drawn towards conflicts. we have been glorifying the world wars with movies, video games, etc and will continue to do so. south korea has done similarly with the strife between north and south (not to the extent as world wars) but there are plenty of "ideas" stemming from this conflict.<br /><br />i believe a lot of this stems from a philosophical question of whether humans are inherently evil or good. it is one of those questions that can be argued either way. i myself think it is a question with no answer, and since it has no answer it is one of the reasons we are drawn towards such conflict.<br /><br /><br />food for thought...<br />who really wants reunification to happen? what do the North and South have to gain from it?John Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11682425822522708009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-82731738335516896892010-11-25T21:13:21.353-05:002010-11-25T21:13:21.353-05:00@Chinese guy:
"NK and the USA are IDENTICAL,...@Chinese guy: <br />"NK and the USA are IDENTICAL, SK and NK are also identical. I said the difference is one of efficiency nothing more."<br /><br />You can't be serious about this. Efficiency is far from the only difference. What about the Bill of Rights? Have I been duped into believing that I have had the freedom to say and believe what I want and when i want? Was I dreaming when I protested government actions, solicited signatures in opposition to government policy and freely walked around declaring my disdain for George Bush. No. You can criticize what we have done, but a declaration that Americans and North Koreans have similar rights holds no weight. <br /><br />As far as who fired first goes, you have chosen to focus on a minute detail that supports your claim instead of the whole picture. Doesn't South Korea need to fire at the north in order for it to be considered a legitimate threat? Yes. Let's look at this on a person-to-person scale:<br /><br />Would my shadowboxing next to you be considered an attack and thus justify you assaulting me in "retaliation"? No. Would you warning me before hand change that? No. A free and rational justice system would never accept a defense of "he did something I don't like even though I warned him not to.<br /><br />Shooting first and attacking first are two very different things. The proof that North Korea attacked first and threatens to do it again lies in their statements:<br /><br />Earlier North Korea's KCNA news agency said Pyongyang will launch more attacks if South Korea continues with "reckless provocations".<br /><br />"[North Korea] will wage second and even third rounds of attacks without any hesitation, if warmongers in South Korea make reckless military provocations again," the agency said, quoting from a military statement.<br /><br /> - Al Jazeera (http://tinyurl.com/3xvkdq6)<br /><br />As far as I know, the North has never claimed that the South attacked first. They continuously say "provoked". You cannot retaliate towards a "provocation", only attack.TheProgressiveAmericanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14618413244795755360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-25845013974088496772010-11-25T19:20:52.564-05:002010-11-25T19:20:52.564-05:00@Chinese guy:
"NK and the USA are IDENTICAL,...@Chinese guy: <br />"NK and the USA are IDENTICAL, SK and NK are also identical. I said the difference is one of efficiency nothing more."<br /><br />No, they are not identical. And the only support you seem to have in regard to your assertion that NK = UK is that the UK government has apparently stated that the people's rights "can" be taken away, which is purely hypothetical and doesn't distract from the fact that NK doesn't hesitate to stomp all over the "rights/privileges" of its citizens while maintaining otherwise. <br /><br />I'm not here to say that either the UK, US, or SK are perfect systems, but to counter that none are comparable to the state of basic freedoms in NK. I don't want to talk theory here either. NK citizens are deprived of freedom of speech, movement, religion, etc. which are some of the most basic freedoms democratic nations grant.<br /><br />There is such an obvious distinction between the freedoms of these two countries that it seems nonsensical to compare them.<br /><br />With that out of the way, I still have no idea how the South are supposedly the aggressors (and the Norks are justified?).Stewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508169301781696390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-18031153210080745142010-11-25T18:37:41.136-05:002010-11-25T18:37:41.136-05:00Thanks for the commentary, but for the comment at ...Thanks for the commentary, but for the comment at the end about Palin, dirty pool. She corrected herself, even the story stated that, and these politicians as well as anyone who speaks as much as they do, will end up making gaffes. Google up any one one of her peers liberal or conservative, you can find a nice list. I mean at least bring something a little more substantive, and not dirty up your own good work.J Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09314047527763656528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-51443948821278476072010-11-25T17:55:42.243-05:002010-11-25T17:55:42.243-05:00The thing is, Saddam Hussein did not deny having n...The thing is, Saddam Hussein did not deny having nuclear weapons. He deliberately pretended to have WMD. He even kicked out nuclear inspectors.<br /><br />On top of that, Saddam Hussein did have nuclear weapons programme in the past (and proven) and was already in possession of biological and chemical weapons.<br /><br />On topic, it is somewhat unreasonable to suddenly claim your neighbour's garden and then call the police for tresspassing.SimonSayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05813300648069627721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-54559682230028660632010-11-25T17:55:08.232-05:002010-11-25T17:55:08.232-05:00@Stewart
"Thirdly, comparing a country such ...@Stewart<br /><br />"Thirdly, comparing a country such as the UK (or even China) with NK is unwarranted because of the vast difference in citizens' basic freedoms."<br /><br /><br />Firstly UK citizens don't actually have ANY rights at all. What are commonly considered rights can be revoked at anytime. The UK gov+ police said your rights can be taken away for a short while. Which actually means what many people consider to be rights are not actually rights at all. Instead they are merely priviledges. Only priviledges can be revoked. Rights can never be taken away. Ergo in reality most of us in free societies have no rights we only think we do.<br /><br />NK and the USA are IDENTICAL, SK and NK are also identical. I said the difference is one of efficiency nothing more. The efficiencies are merely cosmetic. As I said again, no matter what country you are in, have a look in your wallet. If the answer isn't obvious now, it is fiat currency. Guess what fiat currency is backed by? Guess what backs the thing which backs fiat currency? An election here and there does not make the backing of fiat vanish. Obama/Bush pre and post election the backing of fiat currency is there before and after the election.The Chinese guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02042709338416365751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-12564251834352325962010-11-25T17:45:10.625-05:002010-11-25T17:45:10.625-05:00My major problem is how whatever WE say is always ...My major problem is how whatever WE say is always regarded with 100% implacable and unassailable truth. While anything the 'enemy' says is automatically 100% a lie and can never ever ever ever^999 to true.<br /><br />I seem to remember in 2005, where Saddam said we ain't got no WMDs. A huge war later costing trillions and many lives. The western governments were wrong. There were no WMDs.<br /><br />But thats ok fine and dandy isn't it? Whatever the western powers and their allies say is never wrong is it?The Chinese guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02042709338416365751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-3318573587954269772010-11-25T16:35:14.470-05:002010-11-25T16:35:14.470-05:00@FarFromKorea:
"NK won't reform that way...@FarFromKorea:<br /><br />"NK won't reform that way, at least not without a regime change."<br /><br />I don't see why not. They only need to stay put and let the market evolve, as it is already happening. The failure of the currency reform should be a good enough lesson to learn from. If the Kim kid comes to power, he only needs to officially sanction the practice, and it will give him better legitimation than unbelieveble stories about his heroic feats. I'm thinking of a Chinese or Vietnamese style economy here: socialist in name, but capitalist in practice. This is a good way (maybe the only way) for the regime to stay in power. The military will be happy, as better economy means more money which means more toys for them. And if there is no need for regime change, there is no need for PLA troops either.<br /><br />"Military conquest is not an option, as that path leads to retaliation under America's nuclear umbrella."<br /><br />We are talking conventional warfare here. Nuclear umbrella only comes to play if the Chinese or North Koreans employ the bomb first. I doubt the US would strike first. Besides, who knows what will become of the US nuclear umbrella and Far-Eastern alliance system in 60 years. What is likely though is that in six decades China will be stronger in conventional warfare, especially in its own backyard. Which means reunification under the northern flag is more likely.laopanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14763916535451023880noreply@blogger.com