View Poll Results: What is the near-term future of the DPRK

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • It will fall into chaos as a result of renewed famine and poverty, resulting in military crackdowns.

    3 15.79%
  • There will be a military coup that displaces the current leadership, hopefully soon.

    4 21.05%
  • It will continue to remain a closed society, technologically dormant and otherwise insignificant.

    12 63.16%
  • The leadership will eventually make a misstep, forcing military action from the United States.

    0 0%
Page 10 of 28 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 551

Thread: North Korea: 2012-2016

  1. #181
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Backwards Observer View Post
    Perhaps you are aware that Imperial Japan is generally considered the "more successful" aggressor in the Second Sino-Japanese War, perhaps not. An estimated 17 million Chinese civilians were killed. It is not inconceivable that a goodly percentage of these were "victims" of a "foreign invader", regardless of your worthy opinion of the chicoms and the central government.
    I agree. I was only implying, and perhaps it should have been explicit, that China's self-image as a "victim" isn't just about Japan but also covers "Western" imperialism but Japan's status, as the most recent agressor, along with its alliance with the U.S. would hinder the formation of a regional security architecture in which all participants stand on an equal footing. I think maybe there was some misunderstand but I hope I've cleared it up.

  2. #182
    Council Member Backwards Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    511

    Default

    Tukhachevskii, thanks for your reply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
    self-image as a "victim"
    I guess what I'm trying to say is that a society that experiences massive trauma is not just dealing with questions of self-image, but processing a profound spiritual and humanly physical dislocation. I would imagine that in what style a given society processes mass trauma may be related to self-image. I dunno, it's just an inexpert opinion.

    As far as China's "victim" issue you mention. You know China is a big place, right? With many many peoples. Having grown up around Chinese peoples, my impression is that the default response to any observable feelings of self-pity is ridicule, for a start. Maybe you mean Chinese Communist government, I dunno, perhaps my understanding of these things lacks "sophistication".

  3. #183
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default Japan backs down

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Now look towards a flex of Chinese muscle over this incident with Japan supposedly over fishing rights but really over their respective East China Sea exclusive economic zones. Any guess who is going to back down?
    Sad but pretty predictable.

    Japan backs down, will release Chinese fisherman

    I just hope that the people who laughed when I predicted this are not in any significant decision making positions... anywhere.

  4. #184
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Thumbs up Well, I laughed..

    Because it was totally predictable; stating the obvious, so to speak...

    What else were they going to do to him in this day and age? It's diplomatic pushing and shoving; goes on constantly all over the world.

    Fortunately, I am NOT in a decision making position, significant or otherwise.

  5. #185
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Because it was totally predictable; stating the obvious, so to speak...

    What else were they going to do to him in this day and age? It's diplomatic pushing and shoving; goes on constantly all over the world.

    Fortunately, I am NOT in a decision making position, significant or otherwise.
    I see a lot of Chinese pushing but not a lot of return shoving...

  6. #186
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17 5' 11N, Longitude 120 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Sad but pretty predictable.

    Japan backs down, will release Chinese fisherman

    I just hope that the people who laughed when I predicted this are not in any significant decision making positions... anywhere.
    Predictable of course, I don't see how it's particularly sad. These fishing boat incidents happen all the time in East Asia, not only with Chinese boats, and they always end the same way. It's really not a big deal, never has been.

    All I laughed at was the idea that the S would or should get involved, which is of course absurd.

  7. #187
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Predictable of course, I don't see how it's particularly sad. These fishing boat incidents happen all the time in East Asia, not only with Chinese boats, and they always end the same way. It's really not a big deal, never has been.

    All I laughed at was the idea that the S would or should get involved, which is of course absurd.
    You did?

  8. #188
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17 5' 11N, Longitude 120 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    You did?
    Yes, actually. When you wrote this:

    China clearly feels it is strong enough to take on Japan over what was probably a contrived incident. Asia is watching this one very carefully. Will the US show some leadership or just sit on its hands?
    All I wrote was this:

    Why would the US need to show leadership in a dispute between Japan and China?
    But I laughed a bit while writing it. Maybe I should have added a "LOL", though it wasn't that loud.

  9. #189
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    [QUOTE=Dayuhan;107041]All I wrote was this:

    Why would the US need to show leadership in a dispute between Japan and China?
    The first would be this: U.S. and Japan Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement

    And then this: China Japan strife spotlights a strategic U.S. vulnerability

  10. #190
    Council Member Backwards Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    511

    Default in the tradition of dodgy local intel

    There was a crusty old Chinese cab driver in Penang who would shake his fist and shout, "You! Japanese! Very bad!", and then cackle loudly if he happened to drive by a group of Japanese tourists, especially outside nightclubs. Apparently, most of his family had been killed during the war or whatever. The decorously behaved non-Bushido, post-Atomic tourists would ignore him or smile inscrutably.

    His explanation of history was that the Japanese were originally a very stodgy mainland Chinese tribe who were perpetually made fun of by other Chinese, which probably means they were cheated and killed if the opportunity presented itself. So, this stick-up-the butt tribe eventually resettled en masse in the now Japanese islands and have hated China and its people ever since. So goeth the wisdom of cab drivers.

  11. #191
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Erm -- I'm old and confuse easily...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Why would the US need to show leadership in a dispute between Japan and China?
    Straightforward. Operative word is 'leadership' to which JMA responded
    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Also straightforward. Operative word is "mutual."

    If someone leads, someone else follows. Is it just me or does that not imply a potential override of the mutual aspect. It would seem that with an agreement of mutuality, neither the US or Japan should try any leading...

    Further, does that agreement include response of any type in minor diplomatic quibbles with centuries old less than friends? I don't know but I suspect not...

    Dayuhan asks a legitimate question which you did not answer but fobbed off with a not germane comment. You're quite good at that.

  12. #192
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Straightforward. Operative word is 'leadership' to which JMA respondedAlso straightforward. Operative word is "mutual."

    If someone leads, someone else follows. Is it just me or does that not imply a potential override of the mutual aspect. It would seem that with an agreement of mutuality, neither the US or Japan should try any leading...

    Further, does that agreement include response of any type in minor diplomatic quibbles with centuries old less than friends? I don't know but I suspect not...

    Dayuhan asks a legitimate question which you did not answer but fobbed off with a not germane comment. You're quite good at that.
    As much as some around here would like to deny it the US does have commitments and interests in NE Asia and indeed right across the world.

    It seems obvious that individually both the US and now Japan have been humiliated internationally by China so it seems logical that only together (and then only a maybe) if the US and Japan stand together do they stand a chance of seeing the bully off.

    It is fun to exchange posts with someone so woefully ignorant of even the most basic issues relating to the area... I had thought you would know more though.

    Maybe you would like to take a stab at explaining why it is in the US best interest that it shows some leadership to prevent the current tensions between China and Japan to escalate?
    Last edited by JMA; 09-25-2010 at 09:39 PM.

  13. #193
    Council Member Backwards Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    511

    Default The Charles Atlas Method of International Relations

    Dang! Its seems so innocent nowadays, having since been superseded by the Smith and Wesson Method.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  14. #194
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17 5' 11N, Longitude 120 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Backwards Observer View Post
    Dang! Its seems so innocent nowadays, having since been superseded by the Smith and Wesson Method.
    Amusing... though of course Japan is historically no skinny 98 lb weakling, and if Japan shows any sign of pumping iron the rest of East Asia goes into immediate anxiety attacks. IMO it's time to let that go, but that's not the way it is.

    [QUOTE=JMA;107045]The mutual defense assistance agreement is irrelevant, because Japan isn't under attack and requires no defense assistance. It would only be appropriate for the US to get involved if Japan were to request it: for the US to barge in and try to assume a "leadership role" without a Japanese request would be far more humiliating to Japan than anything China could do.

    Talking about "strife" is hugely overblown verbiage. There isn't any strife. A wee bit of tension, of a sort that's been going on periodically for decades. It's not a big deal and it would be a huge mistake to try and make a big deal of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    As much as some around here would like to deny it the US does have commitments and interests in NE Asia and indeed right across the world.

    It seems obvious that individually both the US and now Japan have been humiliated internationally by China so it seems logical that only together (and then only a maybe) if the US and Japan stand together do they stand a chance of seeing the bully off.

    It is fun to exchange posts with someone so woefully ignorant of even the most basic issues relating to the area... I had thought you would know more though.
    US commitments and interests in NE Asia have not been at all compromised, and there's no indication that they're likely to be, unless of course the US gets stupid and starts doing a bull-in-the-China-shop act.

    Nobody's been humiliated, unless you take the schoolyard perspective and assume anything that isn't confrontation is humiliation.

    I wouldn't want to start with accusations of woeful ignorance, which seem to be pushing to the edge of the TOU, but if you're going to lay the expression on Ken I suppose I can use it too: I've lived 30+ years in East Asia, and I pay attention... and as far as I can see the "woefully ignorant" shoes are sitting on your feet.

    PS: This seems to be getting off the North Korea subject, possibly a new "China and East Asis" thread is appropriate. Might already be one; I haven't looked.
    Last edited by Dayuhan; 09-26-2010 at 12:38 AM.

  15. #195
    Council Member Backwards Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    511

    Default smell the glove

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Amusing...
    You, Sir, have cut me to the quick. Need I remind you that satisfaction is but a stamp away?
    Attached Images Attached Images

  16. #196
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Misallocation of concern, it seems...

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    As much as some around here would like to deny it the US does have commitments and interests in NE Asia and indeed right across the world.
    Really? Who knew. I thought all those trips I took to exotic places on five continents for forty plus years were just for fun, had no idea I was defending or furthering 'interests.'...
    It seems obvious that individually both the US and now Japan have been humiliated internationally by China so it seems logical that only together (and then only a maybe) if the US and Japan stand together do they stand a chance of seeing the bully off.
    "Obvious" to you -- no one else seems to be terribly concerned.
    It is fun to exchange posts with someone so woefully ignorant of even the most basic issues relating to the area... I had thought you would know more though.
    If you had directed that ''against the rules" personal attack at anyone else, I'd send you to the Penalty Box; since it's directed at me, this time I'll just consider the source and suggest the ignorance apparent here is not mine.
    Maybe you would like to take a stab at explaining why it is in the US best interest that it shows some leadership to prevent the current tensions between China and Japan to escalate?
    Uh, no I would not -- you are the one who holds the position that we should do that, I agree with Dayuhan; no need for it -- so if anyone should do that, you'd seem to be just the lad who should take on the chore. Asking me to take your position is sort of a misallocation. Yet another simple oversight on your part, I'm sure, no worries.

    We've been playing these games in northeast Asia since 1949 and with four tours in Korea, two war and two post war, I pay attention to what goes on there and have for years.

    P.S.

    Watch the personal stuff. That's a serious statement, generic and has nothing to do with this thread. This is the second time I've passed that suggestion to you.

  17. #197
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    The mutual defense assistance agreement is irrelevant, ...
    Oh boy...

    Talking about "strife" is hugely overblown verbiage.
    Someone used the word "strife"?

    US commitments and interests in NE Asia have not been at all compromised, and there's no indication that they're likely to be, unless of course the US gets stupid and starts doing a bull-in-the-China-shop act.
    "Compromised"? Did someone use that word? More like... challenged... and in both cases the US and then Japan collapsed like a wet paper bag in the face of a Chinese challenge.

    Nobody's been humiliated, unless you take the schoolyard perspective and assume anything that isn't confrontation is humiliation.
    Denial works for some. It is obvious that if the new bully says "don't do that" or "give that back" and the two being addressed snap to attention and comply that there has been a brace of humiliating back-downs.

    This is germane to North Korea because it clearly indicates that the US and ROK are merely posturing while Uncle Hong is really running the show.
    Last edited by JMA; 09-26-2010 at 06:58 AM.

  18. #198
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Uh, no I would not -- you are the one who holds the position that we should do that, I agree with Dayuhan; no need for it -- so if anyone should do that, you'd seem to be just the lad who should take on the chore. Asking me to take your position is sort of a misallocation. Yet another simple oversight on your part, I'm sure, no worries.
    The inability to articulate the US interests in the region could be construed that certain positions taken by some are not based on any credible intellectual basis, yes?

    Do the Senkaku Islands mean anything to you by any chance?

  19. #199
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17 5' 11N, Longitude 120 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Oh boy...
    The mutual defense assistance agreement would be relevant if either party was under attack or otherwise required defense. No attack, no need for defense, no relevance to the treaty.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Someone used the word "strife"?
    The blog post you cited used the word "strife".

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    "Compromised"? Did someone use that word? More like... challenged... and in both cases the US and then Japan collapsed like a wet paper bag in the face of a Chinese challenge.
    US commitments and interests were neither challenged nor compromised. The US, as I said above, would not get involved in a Japan/China issue without a Japanese request, which did not happen. You're making Himalayas of molehills; nothing of any lasting (or even transient) significance happened and there's nothing to get all puffed up and blustery about, unless of course puffed up bluster is your preferred state.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Denial works for some. It is obvious that if the new bully says "don't do that" or "give that back" and the two being addressed snap to attention and comply that there has been a brace of humiliating back-downs.... This is germane to North Korea because it clearly indicates that the US and ROK are merely posturing while Uncle Hong is really running the show.
    Fantasy, but if fear is your default state and you really need someone to be afraid of, I suppose China fills the need as well as anyone. The US really has no need indulge in chest-puffing confrontations over nothing; we know (and the Chinese know) exactly how vulnerable China is and what we could do in a real confrontation and there's no need whatsoever to play games over the meaningless. Posturing is for children.

  20. #200
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    The mutual defense assistance agreement would be relevant if either party was under attack or otherwise required defense. No attack, no need for defense, no relevance to the treaty.

    The blog post you cited used the word "strife".

    US commitments and interests were neither challenged nor compromised. The US, as I said above, would not get involved in a Japan/China issue without a Japanese request, which did not happen. You're making Himalayas of molehills; nothing of any lasting (or even transient) significance happened and there's nothing to get all puffed up and blustery about, unless of course puffed up bluster is your preferred state.

    Fantasy, but if fear is your default state and you really need someone to be afraid of, I suppose China fills the need as well as anyone. The US really has no need indulge in chest-puffing confrontations over nothing; we know (and the Chinese know) exactly how vulnerable China is and what we could do in a real confrontation and there's no need whatsoever to play games over the meaningless. Posturing is for children.
    Pass on this (see my separate post)

Similar Threads

  1. North Korea 2017 onwards
    By AdamG in forum Asia-Pacific
    Replies: 158
    Last Post: 07-08-2019, 01:56 PM
  2. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-11-2018, 07:25 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •