How not to Diplomacy: North Korean state media say China 'dancing to U.S. tune' - Polidicks

[QUOTE] Last week, China announced a ban on coal imports during 2017, in response to North Korea's continuing ballistic missile tests. The statement did not name China, but referred to a "neighbouring country" which "often claims" to be friendly. "This country, styling itself a big power, is dancing to the tune of the US," the state-run news agency said. In a direct reference to the ban on imports, the statement said China had "taken inhumane steps such as totally blocking foreign trade", which would help its enemies "to bring down the social system" in North Korea. The words "dancing to the tune of the US" may refer to President Donald Trump's remarks, before taking office, that China should bring North Korea "under control". "China has… total control over North Korea," he said in an interview with Fox and Friends on 4 January. "And China should solve that problem. And if they don't solve the problem, we should make trade very difficult for China." [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39067908[/url] [del]I know Military times is a gawker tier gosip rag but I'll try to replace it with a better source later.[/del]

i have a feeling that we're going to see the north korea situation become much worse coming soon

Makes me wonder how much influence China has left in North Korea. NK is inexorably tied economically to China, but the new guard doesn't seem to have the same ideological fondness that Sung's era had for them. Would China punishing them further get them to behave, or just piss them off more at this point? [editline]edit[/editline] BBC's got an article on it now if you're worried bout your current source: [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39067908[/url]

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;51865843] BBC's got an article on it now if you're worried bout your current source: [URL]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39067908[/URL][/QUOTE] Thank you, the only other sources I could find at the time was USAToday. To clarify, Military Times websites are privately owned by Sightline Media Group and basically is a rumor mill for military branch news. Anything not directly related to a military branch is basically copy and pasted from AP so there was nothing wrong with that particular article, but I still wasn't comfortable with using it as a primary source if it's international news where a much better source probably exists.

Biting the hand that stopped feeding you and hoping that will make it start feeding you again. [I]Genius[/I]

China is the lifeblood that keeps this country going since the soviets collapsed, do they think it's a good idea to piss off the people who are funding your life support? If China fucks off, NK will collapse

[QUOTE=Ta16;51866119]Thank you, the only other sources I could find at the time was USAToday. To clarify, Military Times websites are privately owned by Sightline Media Group and basically is a rumor mill for military branch news. Anything not directly related to a military branch is basically copy and pasted from AP so there was nothing wrong with that particular article, but I still wasn't comfortable with using it as a primary source if it's international news where a much better source probably exists.[/QUOTE] Does that mean I should stop reading Army Times, or is it good-to-go?

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51866711]Does that mean I should stop reading Army Times, or is it good-to-go?[/QUOTE] Well I mean, I'm not going to tell you what to read and what not to read just take everything you see from them military related with a lot of skepticism. You've seen it with their hard copy papers at the exchange 'GENERAL HERPDERP PISSED: 5 NEW CHANGES COMING TO ARMY' 70% of the time it's just out of context quotes or hearsay to make the MOST BAIT headlines possible to sell papers, that's why that shit comes sealed in a fucking plasic bag. I admit I read the Navy times website from time to time (It's how I found out about this actually), but I'm generally really careful believing anything Navy related by them unless I've personally seen something in message traffic or high side to back it up.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;51866701]China is the lifeblood that keeps this country going since the soviets collapsed, do they think it's a good idea to piss off the people who are funding your life support? If China fucks off, NK will collapse[/QUOTE] Probably better if it happens sooner rather than later.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;51866701]China is the lifeblood that keeps this country going since the soviets collapsed, do they think it's a good idea to piss off the people who are funding your life support? If China fucks off, NK will collapse[/QUOTE] it won't north korea went through crushing famines, survived invasion, the collapse of the USSR and communism, and many other issues it's not collapsing anytime soon - especially given that its economy is slowly improving and most people generally support kim

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51868786]it won't north korea went through crushing famines, survived invasion, the collapse of the USSR and communism, and many other issues it's not collapsing anytime soon - especially given that its economy is slowly improving and most people generally support kim[/QUOTE] It has a growing middle class who are becoming accustomed to luxuries and comfort. They will mind if shit goes bad and I'm certain there are people in the regime who want more power than they currently have, all it'd take is them to gain traction cause a civil war and the whole thing goes to poop

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51868874]It has a growing middle class who are becoming accustomed to luxuries and comfort. They will mind if shit goes bad and I'm certain there are people in the regime who want more power than they currently have, all it'd take is them to gain traction cause a civil war and the whole thing goes to poop[/QUOTE] there's that but the growing class of wealthy people are being co-opted into the regime as well p much i don't see them formenting rebellion soon

A united Korea might be better for China in the long run. China is already surrounded by US allies, what is one more?

[QUOTE=Meester;51876979]A united Korea might be better for China in the long run. China is already surrounded by US allies, what is one more?[/QUOTE] That's only like 2 militarily impotent countries to their northeast I don't see that's remotely 'surrounded'. Did we jump timelines again without me knowing? Russia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Indian and almost all of southeast Asia may have differences with China but they aren't remotely close to being US allies. China exerts considerable influence over many South East Asian countries. I could imagine they wouldn't mind reunification so the US would possibly leave, it's highly unlikely there would be much if any public support in Korea for a US military presence once the threat of DPRK and it's nuclear weapons no longer exists.