Time to Gear Up for a Regime Change - North Korea is Poised

[Ghost Writer]

At the beginning of the week, a Defense Department memo written by Donald Rumsfeld was leaked to the media. This leak was probably deliberate.

Contents of the memo detailed a plan to implement another regime change, this time in North Korea. The memo discussed using weapons inspections that are doomed to fail in one of the most opaque countries in the world. In no way would the North Korea government go for such a inspection plan, and thus we would have much the same argument to move toward military action on the Korean peninsula, just as we did in Iraq.

In addition, the memo states that it would be in our interest to use our clout to direct the Chinese to join us in putting extreme pressure on this backwards regime. Seeing as how the Chinese economy is suffering because of the SARS virus, now would be a very bad time for them to test our resolve when it comes to rouge nations with WMD. The trade imbalance that has driven the economic growth of China for well over a decade is one of the many cards we have to play on the diplomatic stage. Our swift victory in Iraq is just another.

Get ready, we might be gearing up for another build up toward war. We are in for another long argument. Will we or won't we take out another member of the Axis of evil? One thing is for certain, when the Bush administration starts talking about regime change, it is in that regime's interest to listen. I don't think we are interested in bluffing, even if that is the game being played by the North Koreans. Madeline Albright is gone and their is a new sheriff in town, one that is not enamored with brutal dictators. So long Dr. Il.

source: Chicago Sun Times (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-korea22.html)

[lostsoul]

i highly doubt china would betray north korea.

by america attempting to change the goverment of north korea, they're only digging their own graves.

[Ghost Writer]

Really? Read this story from China.org, which spells out the economic advances they have seen since the 1978 market reform; then tell me that they care more about their relations with a starving country that produces nothing, than they do with the economic powerhouse that helped to create that wealth. Who is the one driving blind on this website?

source: China.org (http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Oct/45920.htm)

[Ghost Writer]

"by america attempting to change the goverment of north korea, they're only digging their own graves."

That's what you said about Iraq, too. Remember all your claims that the American forces would get bogged down in urban combat, and suffer massive casualties? Oh yeah, how convenient of your group to forget all the piss poor predictions that they made, which never came to fruition. You were wrong then, just as you are wrong now.

[redstar2000]

One safe prediction is that U.S. imperialism will wage many wars in the coming decades...the rest is speculation.

What is interesting, Ghost, is your evident relish at the prospect. I've seen nothing in your posts to suggest that you are in the military yourself...so I conclude that you must have some direct material interest in future conquests, or at least "think" that you do. And I wonder what it might be?

Are you the son, perhaps, of an executive at a major military-contractor? Bechtel?

Or perhaps you have ties to a major oil company. Though if that were the case, one would think you'd focus on Iran more than North Korea.

You've never sounded particularly religious, so that rules out ties to the Bush regime itself.

Is it possible that you suffer from a deep psychological identification with the empire itself, a sense that America's "greatness" enhances your own?

In any event, if you have any knowledge of history at all, you must be aware of the fact that the short-run gains of empire generally preceed catastrophic long-term losses. It took Rome more than a thousand years to recover from its fall; Constantinople has yet to recover.

An even safer prediction: America will win all its wars of conquest...except the last one.

:cool:

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 11:39 am on April 25, 2003
Really? Read this story from China.org, which spells out the economic advances they have seen since the 1978 market reform; then tell me that they care more about their relations with a starving country that produces nothing, than they do with the economic powerhouse that helped to create that wealth. Who is the one driving blind on this website?

source: China.org (http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Oct/45920.htm)


China is interested in its security however. And there are many nationalist interests in the country.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 11:39 am on April 25, 2003
Really? Read this story from China.org, which spells out the economic advances they have seen since the 1978 market reform; then tell me that they care more about their relations with a starving country that produces nothing, than they do with the economic powerhouse that helped to create that wealth. Who is the one driving blind on this website?

source: China.org (http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Oct/45920.htm)


i couldn't find one sentence that mentioned america even. No where did it say america was responsible for china's growth.

Second, i think chairman mao is correct on this. And to add to that, i think historicial china spilled alot of its blood to protect that area, i am sure they won't be happy if someone tries to reverse everything they did there.


and if you think that i am wrong when i say america will get fucked, you are saying the extact oppisite, which bascically means your just voicing an opinion too. (unless you have proof america can win, and not using small countries like iraq and afganistan that really couldn't defend themselfs as an example).

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

One different from Iraq with N Korea.

N Korea really has nukes, so the moment when "your troops" step inside N Korea, a whole load will be fired of at N Korea. And that all for a country that half of ur smart citizens can't find on a map, and barely can prenouce.

Bless the American educationel system!

And their bureacracy!

[Miguelito]

I wouldn't choose China.org as the best source for such an argument, but either way, if the PRC decided to cease it's backing for the DPRK than I would be extremely disappointed.

And afterall, the DPRK is much different than Iraq. Not only do they possess thermonuclear devices but they also have a population which idolizes it's leader. The fervor they have for re-unification is much greater than the Iraqi troops could ever have had.

[Donut Master]

Kim Jong Il scares me - a lot. This guy is a neo-stalinist, narcissistic, nuke-obssesed Elvis fan. I'm sure the Pentagon is cautious as well, because should we ever go to war with North Korea, Kim Jong Il would not hesitate long to nuke the west coast of the US, or possibly Japan, which has had to begin rebuilding it's military for the first time since WW2 due to the threat of North Korea. Right now, I'm not going to say that North Korea is looking to attack anyone, but if attacked, rest assured that they will fight back with deadly force.

So far, the Bush administration has only gone after impoverished, third world countries with ageing military technology and weakened power. Iraq most likely never had weapons of mass destruction or the capability to deliver them, evident since we still have not found any. Bush probably knew this, he knew it was safe to attack Iraq. Even if they did have some chemical weapons somewhere, they were never used in the fighting.

But back to my point. Syria is next on the list, then possibly Iran, Cuba - but right now, I don't think an attack on North Korea is in the immidiate future.


Would a war with the country be justified? It would certianly have more justification than war with Iraq, since North Korea does actually pose a potential threat to it's neighbors, as does any country with nuclear weapons, United States included. I do not think Kim Jong Il should be allowed to have nuclear weapons - I don't think any country should. However, diplomacy would be the best way to resolve this situation. Unfortunately, Bush is probably the worst canidate for the job. Kim Jong Il is a loose cannon who gets pissed off by almost any threatening move, which Bush is known to make constantly - listing North Korea on the "Axis of Evil" was probably one inspiration for rebooting his nuclear program!

A war with North Korea could potentially involve massive loss of life on both sides, more than anything we have ever faced before, since we have never fought a war with a nuclear-capable country like this.

I dunno... it's a tough situation. It's not one of my main concerns right now, but it remains in the back of my mind, because it will have to be dealt with sooner or later. If Bush does decide to beat the war drums once again at North Korea, we're in trouble.

[Ghost Writer]

Here are two other reports that support my assertion that China will be a useful ally in dealing with the North Koreans.

First, there exists the report that China cut off oil to North Korea for three days and issued a strong warning to Pyongyang, earlier this month (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/03/1048962877002.html).

Secondly, there is the position that China has taken with regard to a nuclear free Korean Peninsula (http://service.china.org.cn/link/wcm/Show_Text?info_id=61840&p_qry=North%20and%20Korea). They wish to apply strong diplomatic pressure, just as the United States does. There interest in maintaining a nuclear free North Korea is probably greater than ours, and is the reason they will make an excellent partner in the diplomatic effort to diffuse the current situation.

Cleary, some of you do not keep up on current events, as both the United States and China's interests coincide to a large degree. Surely, they can be persuaded to take a harder line if we suggest reducing trade with a nation that fought tooth and nail to get into the WTO, and to gain most favored nation trade status among the United States. To say that they do not care about our trade is naive, and inconsistent with the facts.

If it weren' t for market reform, there nation would have collapsed like the Soviet Union. They have been more pragmatic and cautious in there move toward the free-market system. To think that they would set themselves back for a nation that offers them nothing is ridiculous. Who industrialized China? Where Mao failed the United States succeeded, and you could say that they owe us big. It they refuse to share in effort to nuetralize a clear threat to the world, we should move to isolate them, and decrease our current deficit.

[Exploited Class]

They wish to apply strong diplomatic pressure, just as the United States does. There interest in maintaining a nuclear free North Korea is probably greater than ours, and is the reason they will make an excellent partner in the diplomatic effort to diffuse the current situation.

There is no doubt that they wish to use diplomatic means at keeping nukes out of N. Korea, but there is a big difference between diplomatic pressure and allowing a war happen. China was a fence sitter on how to vote on permission for the US to attack Iraq. I would have been intrested in seeing how they would have eventually voted.

Also China's actions since Bush has came into office, signed a friendship pact with Russia, something the two of them could not do during 50 years of cold war with the United States. China lost over 600,000 soldiers pretecting that country. I truly doubt China being so wishy washy on a place like Iraq will allow America who has now attack and taken over two countries near it, take on a third.

I don't blame N. Korea for building its Nuclear weapons. We have said we are going to drop out of the ABM treaty to further escalate our nuclear missle program. They feel threatened, which they should, considering they've been called out as an Axis of Evil, and they have seen what has happened to other countries on that list. They will not allow inspectors inside, it has been proven that the inspectors in Iraq were sending back information directly to the United States about key areas. Korea is not going to open itself up that easily.

Iraq has yet to have any WMDs or components found inside it, even though America and the UK said they had all this information on where Iraq was keeping it. The attack on Iraq has yet to be proven legitament. As far as Iraq doing anything wrong with WMDs it would so far appear that they were playing along and when missles were found to break the sanction agreement, they were being deystroyed.

Now N. Korea has seen what happens when a country follows the rules, they leave themselves defenseless to western aggression.

America has survived with other countries having nukes and neither used them against the other and afforded each a form of peace with mutual destruction. That allowed for diplomatic relations on a different scale not before avaiable to each.

I doubt S. Korea will want a war right there, with a 2 mile wide no man zone.

N. Korea prior to having nukes, was targetted by America, because America lied, when it said it would not target countries that did not nuclear weapon capabilities. Yet America did. A very aggressive and decietful move on America's part.

I'd say China is actually pretty much tired of American aggression in that part of the world, running into one of our spy planes, a move N. Korea did to one of our spy ships, taking it over.

We have made more hostile and aggressive moves over there than they have over to us.

[Liberty Lover]

Bludgerclass,

As far as I am aware America are dropping out of the ABM treaty as it prohibits the construction of anti-ballistic missile shields. It has nothing to do with a desire to construct more nuclear warheads.

The fall of Iraq was what convinced the DPRK to go to the negotiating table with the U.S. They are becoming more, not less, cooperative now that they have seen what America is capable of.

Under no circumstances should the DPRK be allowed to posses nuclear weapons. If they acquire them an arms race will lift off throughout North and South-East Asia. Japan will get them because Korea has them, Malaysia and Indonesia will get them because Japan has them, and Australia will get them because Indonesia has them.

[hazard]

ghost whiter:

boy are u dumb.

quick victory in iraq due to what factors? well, the second war in about a decade with the country. not much time to rebuild the weapons or the population. oh yeah, and then you have the decade of embargo on iraq too. quick victory? come on. there was no viictory that wasn't already wona decade ago. its just america kicking an already downed country. I mean why not kick 'em? they're already down.

north korea HAS THE BOMB. go ahead, usa, go ahead and check it out. I would love to see what happens. and furthur, they haven't just recently been beaten down in the last decade. they haven't had ridiculous, racist embargoes placed upon them. they have a giant behind them two hundred percent. I would really like to see the us give it the old cowboy try. nothing like watching a redneck get bucked off of the bull, then trampled and gored. yeeHAAAW!

[lostsoul]

lets think logically for second. war has no benfit to china, the new chairman jintao hu, from what i read about him, it more concerned about the poverty in china then its outside relations. I don't think he would want a war first of all..second, for communism, the more countries in it the better(for everyone) so i doubt they will let north korea fall.

Any smart leader knows that america is retarded, so i'm sure they wouldn't want thier buffer taken away and allow america to park right on their boarder.

and by the way, if America and china were so friendly, i doubt america would still be protecting taiwan.

actually i have no points on this topic, because its sooo stupid to think china would assiste in any way to bring down its friend.

take care

[ComradeRiley]

does anyone have a list of all the current communist/socialist countries??

[Liberty Lover]

ComradeRiley,

Laos, Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba. China is still ruled by the communist party but has a capitalist economy. Perhaps you could call Alexander Lukeshenko's Bellorussia communist.


(Edited by Liberty Lover at 3:01 am on April 26, 2003)

[hazard]

lover:

china has, at worst, a modified free enterprise economy. that is the next closest thing to communism. I still consider china to be communist, you should too.

[ComradeRiley]

LL why dont yo take you cappie arse and fuck off this website

[Liberty Lover]

Hazard,

"In the early 1980s, attempting an economic modernization of China, Communist leader Deng Xiaoping introduced a program of limited free enterprise and declared that "to get rich is glorious."

Deng's program successfully built light industries in coastal cities such as Shanghai and Guangzhou (Canton). But the rapid economic growth of the coastal cities created a wide disparity in wealth between them and China's rural interior. As a result, an estimated 120 million rural workers migrated to the thriving cities to take advantage of new economic opportunities. The mass migration led to unprecedented overcrowding. Crime has also increased substantially.

Deng's economic reforms also caused divisions within the Chinese Communist Party. Officials disagreed about the direction of China's economic future. Some wanted a return to state control while others favored even greater capitalist economic reform.

In the 1990s, foreign nations and investors became increasingly concerned about the results of the reforms. If China's prosperity were to continue, its economy could soon become the largest in the world. An economically powerful China would significantly alter the world's economic and political landscape."

"China Today," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

ComradeRiley,

I answered for you what was essentially a stupid question, and this is how you respond.

[hazard]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 3:16 pm on April 26, 2003[
"China Today," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.



this by-line translates into only one thing

capitalist propaganda

do me a favour and find out what a modified free enterprize system is. I don't think you know

[Liberty Lover]

The article was a presentation of facts highlighting the changes in China's economy since Deng implemented his capitalist reforms. That you were not aware of this is indicative of your stupidity. Get off the Plane in Shangai and the first think you will see is a Mcdonalds. The social divide in China today is greater than it was before the communist revolution in 1949.

do me a favour and find out what a modified free enterprize system is. I don't think you know

A version of capitalism that as been modified.

[hazard]

oh, well if its a McDonalds...

do you know what assinine is? you should. thats what you are. assinine.

to you, then, any communist reforms makes a former capitlaist nation a communist one. this is because to you, any capitalist reforms makes a communist nation a capitalis one. fine, if thats how you wanna play it. no problem.

by my count, let's see, the whole world is now communist. good way to look at things, isn't it lover? thanks for introducing such a definitive way to determine whether a nation is capitalist or communist. how's that for assinine?

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 1:07 am on April 26, 2003
Bludgerclass,

As far as I am aware America are dropping out of the ABM treaty as it prohibits the construction of anti-ballistic missile shields. It has nothing to do with a desire to construct more nuclear warheads.

The fall of Iraq was what convinced the DPRK to go to the negotiating table with the U.S. They are becoming more, not less, cooperative now that they have seen what America is capable of.

Under no circumstances should the DPRK be allowed to posses nuclear weapons. If they acquire them an arms race will lift off throughout North and South-East Asia. Japan will get them because Korea has them, Malaysia and Indonesia will get them because Japan has them, and Australia will get them because Indonesia has them.


You know what if you don't like my nic, you can just type EC, you don't have to act like a 5 year old on the internet.

The United States dropping out of a major treaty, one the whole world liked including Russia, to create a missle defense is a giant shift in power. America seems it can get out of treaty's when they no longer like being in it. For defense, well that is exactly the same reason N. Korea is no longer going to be held back and tied by its treaty as well. America has made a lot of first moves in this, setting a president by dropping out of a successful treaty, calling out N. Korea first.

As what reported today.
"If the North Koreans thought hard to find an approach most likely to get the administration not to want to come back to the negotiating table, I think they've come up with it," Einhorn said.

North Korea has repeatedly asked the US to sign a non-aggression pact, fearing a US attack.

The US has turned down that offer. The US has made it very clear that it intends to attack N. Korea, even when N. Korea says, "look we feel threatened by you and your actions, we will defend ourselves with nukes or we won't and want you to recognize our soveirnty and sign a non agression pact, then we will feel comfortable."

That could have been handled right there, and was chosen not to. N. Korea feels at this time that its only defense is is to have a nuclear capabilities to ward of an attack on its nation.

An escalation in that region? Fine, it isn't N. Korea's decision, it was the US that called it out at a national address to be a Axis of Evil, not to have a non agression pact signed. The US could have done it better and now this is what it is left with.

And if you don't think getting a missle defense system is a shift in power, you get in a punching match with somebody you can't punch any longer, see how well that works out for you.

The US has spoken a lot about using nukes on the Axis of Evil openly at government channels since 9-11. I think N. Korea has every right to arm itself at this point. China has had them in that region for some time, America has them in that region always, (nuclear capable strike subs).

America has been the bully and bruiser on the global block well before N. Korea.

The United States has done.
1. Troops left in S. Korea
2. Has attacked 2 countries in 2 years and now occupies them.
3. Dropped out the ABM Treaty.
4. Went into Iraq without UN approval.
5. Called Out N. Korea as an Axis of Evil.
6. Lied and Target N. Korea with nukes, although said it would not target countries without nuclear capabilities.
7. Refused to sign a Non Agression Pact.
8. Refused talks with N. Korea over and over.
9. Has occupied Afganistan going on 2 years.
10. Waged diplomatic threats to Syria.
11. Currently seeks to punish France economicaly for not voting for war, one of its allies. (and with friends like the United States, enemies need to really worry)
12. Has instigated a whole new inner defense dept.
13, Increased its military budget to over 400 Billion, the next largest militart budget by any one country is 80 Billion.
14. Has spoken of beginning additional test on Nuclear arsenal through above ground tests, another treaty gone.


It boils down to, if I was in my home and a neighbor down the street from me attacked two countries that he called jerks, and called me one of the jerks like them. He had a gun and I didn't. He was developing a special shield to protect him from bullets, was pointing the gun at me even though he said he wasn't. I asked him to sign a contract promising to not attack me and he wouldn't. He is still using the two other peoples' houses, still threatens me. I am going to go out and get that gun, there is just no ifs ands or buts about it. If it is going to make the neighbors around me get guns, then I guess we have a dangerous neighborhood, I wish that agressive neighbor hadn't taken action, but what am I to do?

The nukes are defense. If you claim they aren't America has had more first strike problems than any other country. I have the videos downloaded off of archive.net of US senators showing a plan for dropping atom bombs on China cities, 7 to be exact, during the Korean War. America dropped the first. It also thougt of them as an option over and over again during the Vietnam war, and came very close to using them prior to being hit by nukes. They were also developing and manufacturing them prior to USSR creating their own. So they were more than defense.

[hazard]

ec:

it reminds me of the scene in "13 days" when the pigs are accusing the commies of lying because they said they were not deploying any offensive weapons in cuba.

obviously nuclear weapons are defensive if a country has been invaded or is in threat of being invadd. like cuba after the bay of pigs. those nukes were defensive in response to a failed american invasion. fucking pigs almost killed everybody because they suck so bad they couldn't even invade a little, tiny country like cuba without failing and then couldn't stand the reasonable soviet response of protecting the peace loving cubans from american slavery and bullying with the only way they could. stupid fucking crazy world destroying pigs.

[Liberty Lover]

Hazard

do you know what assinine is? you should. thats what you are. assinine.

It is spelt asinine, idiot.

to you, then, any communist reforms makes a former capitlaist nation a communist one. this is because to you, any capitalist reforms makes a communist nation a capitalis one. fine, if thats how you wanna play it. no problem.

There is a difference between minor socialist reforms and the complete overhaul of the economy that has happened in China.

it reminds me of the scene in "13 days" when the pigs are accusing the commies of lying because they said they were not deploying any offensive weapons in cuba.

So this is why you are such a simpleton. You get all your information from Hollywood movies.

EC (better?),

“I think the previous administration is largely guilty of setting up a policy of appeasement, and setting a dangerous precedent for the U.S response to nuclear blackmail. As far as the United States being responsible for the break down of diplomacy goes, you are wrong. The North Koreans first made aggressive moves away from the failed 1994 agreement set up by Clinton and Carter. By developing a nuclear program while we abide by our end the agreement to provide oil, food, and Light Water Reactors. Did we make a mistake by signing a pact with the devil? Yes, we did. We never should have agreed to the terms, which were purely one-sided. Instead, our policy should have been tailored in much the same way as the administration's current guidelines. By not taking a tough stance to begin with, we are partly responsible for giving the signal to the North Koreans that these tactics are acceptable. Now we will have to rectify past mistakes. That much I grant you.”

-Stormin’ Norman


(Edited by Liberty Lover at 5:11 am on April 26, 2003)

[hazard]

lover:

knowing how something is spelt need not mean knowing what that thing is. mron.

whats the difference? I'll just downplay china's "overhaul" as minor capitalist reforms. you are way too easy, pal.

yeah, all my info. where do u get yours? propaganda seems to be all you are capable of. and that is not information at all. it is lies.

and simpleton? come on. like your a sophisticaton. all you are is a zombie who is told what to eat and what to buy, and, most importantly, what to think. what do you think about that? I'll tell you what you think about it. you don't like it.

[Liberty Lover]

whats the difference? I'll just downplay china's "overhaul" as minor capitalist reforms. you are way too easy, pal.

As I said previously, China's economic reforms have resulted in greater social divisions than before the 1949 revolution. You can call them minor capitalist reforms if you wish.

yeah, all my info. where do u get yours? propaganda seems to be all you are capable of. and that is not information at all. it is lies.

I get most of my information from balanced history books and middle of the line television networks.

and simpleton? come on. like your a sophisticaton.

I have exposed your ignorance on numerous occasions.

all you are is a zombie who is told what to eat and what to buy, and, most importantly, what to think. what do you think about that? I'll tell you what you think about it. you don't like it.

I generally eat what my Mum puts in front of me. I make a consciousness decision on what I purchase. I think what I think.

[hazard]

lover:

as YOU said before? now this is such a ridiculous circle, now I can use my response to YOUR original statemnt, which is :

"to you, then, any communist reforms makes a former capitlaist nation a communist one. this is because to you, any capitalist reforms makes a communist nation a capitalis one. fine, if thats how you wanna play it. no problem. "

as for balanced history books and middle line Tv reports, care to elaborate? these are freeloading terms: "balanced" and "middle". my response is that there is no such thing in any capitalist country. such books and shows are propaganda, plain and simple. to notch yet another one.

"you think what you think". good for you. that doesn't actually discxredit my idea that you think what others tell you to think now does it?

[Liberty Lover]

You are a paranoid cynic, in dire need of a good root.

[hazard]

paranoid? yes. cycnical? for sure. in need of a good root? what in bloody blue blazes could you possibly be talking about?

lover, don't try me. you'll find that testing my patience can lead to...hazardous...results.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 3:16 am on April 26, 2003
Hazard,

"In the early 1980s, attempting an economic modernization of China, Communist leader Deng Xiaoping introduced a program of limited free enterprise and declared that "to get rich is glorious."



my sources on this are many chinese i have spoken too, they have told me many people like and hate the new leader, jintao hu because of that reason. Deng tried to make small number of people rich in the hopes that they will bring the country up, but people have told me that Jintao hu is supposly the man who is going to reverse that and use that wealth back towards the poor people.

Deng and the last leader i think came from big cities not near poor, Jintao on the other hand has spend many years working with them.

this is just what i heard, there isn't alot of details i could find on him without being able to read chinese.

[Liberty Lover]

It's Hu Jintao, not Jintao Hu.

Deng was on the long march.

The recently resigned president, Xiang Zemin, was the son of a CCP official.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 8:00 am on April 26, 2003
It's Hu Jintao, not Jintao Hu.

Deng was on the long march.

The recently resigned president, Xiang Zemin, was the son of a CCP official.

actually its can be jintao hu. hu is his last name, but in china, they put the last name first and the first name last(confusing). But i'm kind of used to north americian styles so i change it so people can understand it more easily. So actually both are correct, just depends on the format you prefer.

please explain how:
"Deng was on the long march.

The recently resigned president, Xiang Zemin, was the son of a CCP official."

have anything to do with china backing north korea?

[Liberty Lover]

They don't have anything to do with China backing North Korea. I said what I did in response to this, "Deng and the last leader i think came from big cities not near poor, Jintao on the other hand has spend many years working with them."

China will not back the DPRK in any war for the simple reason that they will lose. The USA is the military and economic powerhouse of the world, everything China has achieved these past few decades will be meaningless if they do anything that would anger the US to any significant extent.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 9:25 am on April 26, 2003
They don't have anything to do with China backing North Korea. I said what I did in response to this, "Deng and the last leader i think came from big cities not near poor, Jintao on the other hand has spend many years working with them."

China will not back the DPRK in any war for the simple reason that they will lose. The USA is the military and economic powerhouse of the world, everything China has achieved these past few decades will be meaningless if they do anything that would anger the US to any significant extent.

being on the long march doesn't really do anything to show someone's politic views, except that their decated to the revolution. many people were in the long march and had different views. The reason mentioned Jintao hu, was because he is basically the current leader of china, so he will call the shots. To understand china's reaction you need to understand him.

on your point about china not backing up the DPRK because america's military is too strong. I don't think anyone can really say how strong americia's military really is. When you look at it, they have only attacked small defendless countries, which hardly shows their military strength. I consider many of leaders of china and north korea very smart, i am sure they relized that america is basically an adult that goes to parks and picks on school children.

also by america attacking iraq even after they complied shows that america cannot be trusted, i'm sure china will not big a step simply because america tries to make a deal with it.(who's to say it will be honored?)

China in 1949 finished a bloodly civil war, and then only a few years later, took on america in the korea war. Remember, back then and even til today, china is still considered a developing nation. So if they could do so much damage back then, think of what they can do now.

and please correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems only in the 70's america(under president nixon) became friendly with china. So if china was growing without america's help, i'm sure they won't be so crazy to get it now. Although Americians help may benfit them, its not nessary for their survivial.

take care

[Liberty Lover]

on your point about china not backing up the DPRK because america's military is too strong. I don't think anyone can really say how strong americia's military really is. When you look at it, they have only attacked small defendless countries, which hardly shows their military strength. I consider many of leaders of china and north korea very smart, i am sure they relized that america is basically an adult that goes to parks and picks on school children.

The U.S. annual defence budget of $379 billion would suggest that they have a formidable military.

China in 1949 finished a bloodly civil war, and then only a few years later, took on america in the korea war. Remember, back then and even til today, china is still considered a developing nation. So if they could do so much damage back then, think of what they can do now.

The Chinese forces were driven out of South Korea. They hardly made a 'damaging' contribution.

and please correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems only in the 70's america(under president nixon) became friendly with china. So if china was growing without america's help, i'm sure they won't be so crazy to get it now. Although Americians help may benfit them, its not nessary for their survivial.

The economic boom in China did not begin until 1978, when Deng implented the "four modernisations" of agriculture, industry, military, and science and technology. Before that China was struggling to recover from the devastating cultural revolution.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 9:57 am on April 26, 2003
on your point about china not backing up the DPRK because america's military is too strong. I don't think anyone can really say how strong americia's military really is. When you look at it, they have only attacked small defendless countries, which hardly shows their military strength. I consider many of leaders of china and north korea very smart, i am sure they relized that america is basically an adult that goes to parks and picks on school children.

The U.S. annual defence budget of $379 billion would suggest that they have a formidable military.

China in 1949 finished a bloodly civil war, and then only a few years later, took on america in the korea war. Remember, back then and even til today, china is still considered a developing nation. So if they could do so much damage back then, think of what they can do now.

The Chinese forces were driven out of South Korea. They hardly made a 'damaging' contribution.

and please correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems only in the 70's america(under president nixon) became friendly with china. So if china was growing without america's help, i'm sure they won't be so crazy to get it now. Although Americians help may benfit them, its not nessary for their survivial.

The economic boom in China did not begin until 1978, when Deng implented the "four modernisations" of agriculture, industry, military, and science and technology. Before that China was struggling to recover from the devastating cultural revolution.

althought a big budget is nice, it doesn't nessarary show the power, the vietcong didn't have a huge budget but they took on america. Castro or Mao's army's didn't have the even close to the same budget as the armies they took on. I think when it comes to man power, china and DPRK are stronger then america, but america has more technogoly. But honestly, if anything does happen and america starts bombing DPRK, how long do you think it'll be before they strike back? unlike iraq, DPRK actually has the power to hit america back, wherever they are.

The Chinese forces were driven out of South Korea. They hardly made a 'damaging' contribution.

well the americian forces were driven out of the north.


from my observations, after the revolution in 1949, the nationalist stole alot of money and left to taiwan. So bascialy the communist had very little to start with, and yet they did grow alot, i have no doubt that they would have continued to grow. Deng just seems to wanted to rush it.


take care

[Saint-Just]

In the Korean war China supplied 300,000 to the 95,000 strong North Korean force. Presently the KPA consists of over 1,200,000.

[Capitalist Imperial]

I'M BACK, COMMIE PUKES!!!

2 things:

#1 The liberation of iraq was quick and successful, just as the few enlightened people on this board predicted, and so many pinko fucks predicted and wished would not happen

#2: THe DPRK cannot beat the US, period.

Even if they do have a few nukes, they do not have a launch vehicle capable of hitting continental US soil. Even at that, any attempt by the DPRK to use its 1 or 2 operational nukes (yes, thats all they have) on the korean penninsula will prompt a respone by the US in the form of at least dozens of ICBM's.

The DPRK has 1 or 2 operational nukes. The US has thousands. And we can deliver them from a sub, a ship, a bomber, from space, or directly from US soil

1 U.S. ICBM with a MIRV can render all of North Korea a 7000 degree parking lot.

You leftists that have posted in this thread with comments that in any way suggest that America would be "in trouble" by attacking the DPRK seriously lack analytical ability.

oh, and before you spout off about China, remember, they may have a lot of soldiers, but not the $$$, technology, capability, or firepoewer of the US, conventional or nuclear.

They could not win an conventional confrontation on neutral ground with the US either. Nuke wise, they would be made a wasteland.

The completion of the ballistic missle shield merely further solidifies U.S superiority.

[Umoja]

What does US superiority have to do with anything? I am suprised the war in Baghdad didn't bog down, but that is good in the long run, less people are dead.

Regardless, many of the American leftist want to change things on the inside of the miraculous missle defense system.

[Ghost Writer]

"Regardless, many of the American leftist want to change things on the inside of the miraculous missle defense system."

Precisely the reason I would discriminate against left-wingers in my hiring practices. Sabotage is not something I take lightly.

[CubanFox]

NK is close to perfecting a delivery system that'll be able to send nukes to continental USA. And remember...it only takes one nuke to take out an entire city and render it a radioactive hell for the next century.

[lostsoul]

where there's a will there's a way. i highly doubt it will ever come to this, but if north korea really wanted, they could figure out a way to deploy the weopens in the states.

i don't think america would use nukes on a nuclear nation, unless they totally wipe out the country they use it on, that country will go to any extent to use it back on america.

[Invader Zim]

Not even bush would be stupid enough to start a nuclear war. As we all know the result would be near total destruction of man kind. Incompetant as Bush may be he is not that foolish.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from CubanFox on 11:56 am on April 28, 2003
NK is close to perfecting a delivery system that'll be able to send nukes to continental USA. And remember...it only takes one nuke to take out an entire city and render it a radioactive hell for the next century.


It takes only one nuke to take out an area the size of the Indian subcontinent. GB has only 20 nukes apparantly, that however is also apparantly enough to lay waist to every nation on earth.

PS that was from a science fiction film i saw so it may not be reliable.

(Edited by AK47 at 4:44 pm on April 28, 2003)

[ComradeRiley]

If every yank died, I wouldnt lose a second of sleep. Nuke the lot of them!

[Politrickian]

I think that the US should leave NK alone for the reason that it might happen that NK evolves into a more and more socialist country and it can show a perfect example of the right way to do things.

Or it can prove us wrong. Maybe the next stage of capitalism to communism in NK brings a horrible amount of poverty and instability into the country.

Aren't the Left and Right eager to see what will happen next?

Aren't the Left eager to see NK's socialism evolve into a better form of economy?

Aren't the Right eager to see NK's socialism evolve into a much more instable form of economy that creates a foundation for a counter-revolution?

[lostsoul]

i just hope jintao hu doesn't leave our korean brothers and sisters on their own. As long as they unite together, i don't really care about the outcome because i'm sure if socialist countries join up, there is nothing they can't defeat.

take care

p.s. bush is lower then scum, read his biography, he's nothing but a little rich punk. He only knows the good life, he is imcapable of thinking of the poor and disantage, he only looks after the rich's intrests. the problem with that is, there is more poor then rich.

[Capitalist Imperial]

The bottom line is, the DPRK cannot beat the United States. Even Kim Jong Il knows this. An article in time magazine discloses that one of Jong Il's former personal bodyguards states that Kim Jong Il knows and has admitted that in a true military standoff, the DPRK cannot beat the U.S.aA. This grandstanding and saber-rattling is par for the course in North Korean Diplomatic strategy, They raise hollow stakes until they paint themselves into a corner.

This is why we had to kick their ass in the 1950's

Ask any 20th century historan, and they will tell you that North Korea has a clear history of being particularly adept at letting their mouths write checks that their asses can't cash.

Assuming they did get one nuke to the US, the DPRK would become a 7000 degree wasteland.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 2:52 pm on April 29, 2003
The bottom line is, the DPRK cannot beat the United States. Even Kim Jong Il knows this. An article in time magazine discloses that one of Jong Il's former personal bodyguards states that Kim Jong Il knows and has admitted that in a true military standoff, the DPRK cannot beat the U.S.aA. This grandstanding and saber-rattling is par for the course in North Korean Diplomatic strategy, They raise hollow stakes until they paint themselves into a corner.

This is why we had to kick their ass in the 1950's


i always thought they tied in the war. north koreans got fucked at the beginning by UN forces, and then china came in and fucked up the UN(at the beginning, after that it was back and forth figthing). thats my understanding of it, i never heard from anyone that america won that war.

America seems to have gone all out in that war. korea's forces were obiously smaller, but china's seemed larger(i forgot the numbers). I don't know if goverments post their military records, but from news i read and people i talk to, i have heard north korea's army had grown considerably(Basically it seems they have been preparing for this for 50 years). Americians army doesn't seem to have grown hugely, they just learned to add more technogly in their fighting. Basically it seems china fucked up america, and at this point north korea is like america at those times(maybe a bit better).

this just makes me think that america won't win in korea, and if they do win, it will not be easy.(iraq only lost easly to america because they followed their sanactions, if they didn't i think the war would have lasted alot longer.)

[Ghost Writer]

"It takes only one nuke to take out an area the size of the Indian subcontinent"

Moron!

[Aleksander Nordby]

If USA attack DPRK, the us force will be in big trouble.

[Dan Majerle]

It took one nuke to destroy half the city of Hiroshima. It's damage in terms of area isn't that prodigious.

[lostsoul]

i don't get the point of having a nuclear weopen, their destruction range is pretty big. most smart military commanders keep their units in small groups, so nuking a battle field i don't think is as effective as using other techinques of warfare. In my opinion nukes are basically only made to destory cities(with many civilians).

i don't think north korea's are that stupid. america maybe. i honestly don't think any side would use nuclear weopens, if it even comes down to a battle. I doubt it, america only goes after easy targets, and since north korea isn't easy, i doubt they will try to use force.