They have the Bomb though.
Results 1 to 20 of 41
Saddam and Bin Laden gone...Is Kim Jong Il next?
In recent times, the US-UK axis seems to be doing a whistle stop round up of all the worlds 'bad guys'... Saddam, Gaddafi (still pending) now Osama.
Do you think now they've checked off Bin Laden from their list the US will have the confidence and time to potentially invade North Korea and remove Kim Jong Il?
They have the Bomb though.
They may have weapons grade uranium, however theyre probably a long way from having a launch vehicle that can reliably hit US interests. Besides which the juggernaut that is the US nuclear arsenal should be enough to stop them attempting anything.
I am thinking that Pyongyang will predict that with Al Quaeda decapitated the US/ROK will be able to focus its bullying of the DPRK. I can see that leading to increased militarisation on their part which the US would use as a pretence for war.
Nah, the north coreans have no oil, nor anything usefull for imperialism. If the are going to invade something, thing that I doubt highly right now, it will be Iran, no doubt.
Para los pueblos de todo el mundo, que luchan por la paz, la democracia y el socialismo, el leninismo es como el sol que trae consigo una vida alegre. - Ho Chi Minh
Comunes el sol y el viento, común ha de ser la tierra, que vuelva común al pueblo, lo que del pueblo saliera
Maoism is (...) Marxism Leninism on cocaine - Rafiq
Pas de liberté pour les ennemis de la liberté - Louis Antoine de Saint-Just
El marxismo conlleva muchos principios que en últimas instancias se compendian en una sola frase: “es justo rebelarse contra los reaccionarios" - Mao Tse-Tung
Die Barrikaden schließen der Strasse aber geöffnet der Weg.
Pyongyang has the ability to level Seoul without nukes. That's a pretty good deterrent to the U.S.
Would the retalitory attack by America not be enough to deter Pyongyang in the first place?
I think they'd be willing to call their bluff. I also think Korean reunification on the US/ROK's terms would make good sense to the west. They'd have a straight contiguous railroad that can ferry 1 billion, low paid chinese workers to western owned Korean warehouses and sweatshops.
Unless the US wants to get into a protracted war with a heavily militarised hermit state, threaten nuclear weapons being used on an Ally and really piss off China... I doubt it. Kim will be one of those 'enemies of America' that dies in his own time.
'Detente is peace, love, and more dank ass medals for me' - Brezhnev
The thing is, in recent years China has got bored of its little lapdog. Ideollogically China is now gravitating toward the US anyway. If the US ROK wanted to reunify the peninsula, they would likely wash their hands because they would no longer be a liability in term of aid and the trickling of people trying to escape would be the ROK's problem, not China's anymore.
His son is waiting in the wings who in likliehood is not going to be very different ideollogically.
I think the US is getting impatient waiting for their united neo liberal Korea.
I think it is unlikely that war with North Korea would break out, though one can say that more "saber rattling" will occur.
THE REV-LEFT STUDY GUIDE PROJECT
Contribute today and help facilitate the spread of revolutionary knowledge.
I'd say its inevitable. The global playing field has fewer players now and the USA always needs a 'bad guy'.
Geopolitics make an invasion of North Korea impossible - not to mention the fact it would be bloody (DPRK artillery could level Seoul within a day) and very difficuly (20% of your GDP buys a strong military).
China will never allow an invasion of North Korea. As bad as Kim is and as embrassing for the Chinese leadership he's better than the South Koreans from a Chinese point of view.
So unless the DPRK does something so incredibly stupid that it alienates China it will be safe.
The best hope for the overthrow of the Juche is a palace coup I guess, and I doubt that would be much better. :/
I doubt it, because:
1) The USA doesn't really care about the DPRK, in the final analysis...there's not much for the DPRK to offer in terms of a cost/benefit breakdown;
2) The DPRK has a formidable military apparatus...not as formidable as the USA's, of course, but significant none-the-less;
3) and there's absolutely no political will for a military intervention. Absolutely none. Zero point zero in the way of potential political capital to be gained.
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
Well, an invasion wouldnt necessarilly be the only way to remove him 'by force'. They learned this after the failed attempts to remove Fidel Castro by invasion. If they wanted to badly enough they could use cover means, like plant an undercover team to kill him and his heirs.
Qaddafi is the next one to bite the bullet or bomb, since they've already allegedly killed one of his sons and had a near-miss on him. Unless there's a situation of discontent or uprising in North Korea, like what happened in Libya, then Kim is pretty safe. I would also say that other likely targets such as the Castro brothers and Chavez are relatively safe although I've no doubt that they'll continue sewing the seeds of counter-revolution in their respective nations, along with Morale's situation in Bolivia.
...except for the fact, as ive already said it shares a border with the worlds largest workforce and the US's most powerful economic competitor.
I'd say Iran and the DPRK are looking equal propositions for all of the above reasons.
We all know the US needs a bad guy and they're not going to stop now just cause Bin Laden is dead and Gaddafi is on the run.
The world still has a "bad guy": global terrorism. The extent to which Islamist militant groups are global in character and firmly organized is debatable (one user, with whom I tend to agree, assessed this phenomenon as a loosely knit network of independent groups). I do not think that the State Department and the Pentagon are likely to assume like some people did that the war is over now when Osama is dead.
Other thing: Gaddafi was an eccentric ally in the war on terror, and not an arch villain (the famous "axis of evil). It just happened that his reactions to an emergent rebellion/protest made imperialist interests precarious. Not to mention his nasty habit of gunning unarmed men which would really "embarass" his former allies if they were to sit back and watch this civil war.
Back to DPRK: surely, imperialist warmongering will probably intensify, but I doubt that outright invasion will occur anytime soon since the Korean penninsula is less important with respect to the geopolitical strategic outlook which focuses on Middle East and Central Asia. That coupled with a perceived nuclear threat (and we have to admit that DPRK's militarism is not a phenomenon that should be taken lightly, at least from the perspective of Koreans south of the border). If a political campaing on reunification will be launched, I expect China to act as a dominating force.
So, all in all, I don't agree with the original proposition, not unless a total decomposition of Islamist militant groups takes place.
Morales and the Movimiento are sowing the seeds of reaction as we speak, so I doubt that they'd need outright military aid from the US
FKA LinksRadikal
“The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties – this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here.” Friedrich Engels
"The proletariat is its struggle; and its struggles have to this day not led it beyond class society, but deeper into it." Friends of the Classless Society
"Your life is survived by your deeds" - Steve von Till
They'll just find another Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, or Anwar al-Alakwi, or some other similar individual. There's certainly not going to be an all-out invasion of the DPRK. There wasn't even one in Libya, a nation of six million that the US military could crush overnight if it so desired. That should tell you something about how tepid the Obama administration is on the idea of a full-fledged military invasion. Much better to engage in proxy conflicts and avoid images of dead US soldiers.
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
I'v said it earlier,i am going to say it again,there is no Soviet Union,there is no Red Army,there is no opposition.
Congratulations, you've managed to comprehend that water is wet. Nice contribution. Next!
FKA LinksRadikal
“The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties – this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here.” Friedrich Engels
"The proletariat is its struggle; and its struggles have to this day not led it beyond class society, but deeper into it." Friends of the Classless Society
"Your life is survived by your deeds" - Steve von Till
Any problem?
Most of the people in this thread 'comprehended that water is wet' by saying that the DPRK has nukes,US will not attack them,etc etc.Your post was also,pretty,lets say,a bit of Déjà vu.
But lets not press up on the thread derailing process you tried to start.
I believe that the DPRK will remain in its current state for many decades to come.
(and i see i got negreped by caramelpence for that post,with the comment : "shut up"
Nice work!
