[QUOTE=shian;40079947]So they bombed some Island.
[img]http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/nk032713/s_n28_RTR3EYVC.jpg[/img]
[img]http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/nk032713/s_n29_RTR3EYVD.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Wow those are really accurate. I mean yeah most of them are hitting the water but still, 1 in 5 ain't bad
*child shakes fist*
[QUOTE=Virtanen;40081304]If this is how they fight on land the war will be terribly easy :v:
[img]http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/nk032713/s_n02_RTR3EUA6.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Hip firing an AK47. Are you serious.
Also, an AK47? They were making it seem like they had some kind of rail gun they were gonna use against us.
Someone should make a LoTR parody using north korea as mordor.
I'm pretty sure they get their stance from those plastic army men
funny how we consider nk mad for trying to make a working icbm when we have an entire fleet of them on standby ready to lay waste to civilization
[QUOTE=butt2089;40080585]snip[/QUOTE]
[B]TL;DR I put way to much time into the following post, it has come to the point where I don't want to spend anymore time working on it but I already put enough time in to feel like I wasted time if I just don't post it... So read at your own risk?
[/B]
This is for botth butt and dogmachines
North Korea and Afghanistan may have both committed human rights violations, and be very poor but they are two very different countries, the human rights violations committed against Afghan people were acts of terror, while the human rights violations currently being committed in North Korea are not to incite terror in people, they stare people and make them work. Secondly, starting a war with Afghanistan as it was, and starting a war with North Korea now are fundamentally two different wars.
Almost all of the Taliban attacks focused on inciting terror in people, when they shelled Kabul in 1995, they purposefully targeted civilians and aimed for residential areas. By September 11 2001 over 400,000 Afghan civilians had died in war, and the Taliban was recognized by some warlords and ethnic groups as the official government. But the war was still being fought, the Northern Alliance still had a grasp on a lot of land. When the UN rushed to over throw the Taliban they rushed into the middle of a state that was on the verge of collapse, one side had guns and extremist backing and the other side had less guns, their leader had just been assassinated in a suicide bomb attack and NOW the international community decides to help them, after they already pleaded for help earlier.
The Human Rights violations committed on the people were acts of terror to say “WE have power, we are in control, if your government was with us this would not have happened”, the human rights violations in North Korea involve slave labour and beginning unable (or unwilling) to supply resources, this largely shouts “We are not in control, we do not have the resources we need”. After they instated rule, the Taliban was good at enforcing the law and keeping people in line, while people may have been beaten and killed, those who were left weren't about to question their power and while the population is poor, they were not starving and were not forced into even worse slave labour camp conditions. So what happens when the UN and North Alliance comes back in? The Taliban lose some of their power, and they go back to terrorizing the people who are now pissed because the NA came to 'save them' but they can't even keep them protected from a guy with bomb strapped to his fucking chest. So what does this mean for North Korea? The best way we could gain the trust of the citizens would be to show we clearly have more resources and the ability to hold power. I'm not saying that would actually happen, but that is what should happen.
So, a big problem with Afghanistan is when the UN (Yes, it is more then just America) decided to start this war their was a lot of discussion about how the state was going to be collapsed and get rid of the government at the time, but their was not talk about how they were going to rebuild the country and bring everyone together. I'm taking a class in Comparative Politics and our professor just lectured us on Afghanistan. The reasons he gave for a failure in state building was because:
Inadequate resources and commitment
As you mentioned, supporting that many people would be expensive, but this isn't about just giving them food. State building in itself is a very expensive process, developing a country and its political institutions is really hard and extraordinaire expensive, my professor suggested trillions of dollars should have been put towards state building in Afghanistan.
Failure to include all parties
With the ethnic diversity that Afghanistan has, all parties must be including. Yes that includes those who are marginalize and still have the weapons (See: The Taliban). This is cited as a very large mistake, and only now has the current government started with talking with them.
Emphasis on process, not institutions
What this means is that their was a large emphasis on things like elections, but not on institutions needed to create a stable society. When they had their first democratic election, 40% of Afghans did not have ID, they are completely out of reach of the state. The only thing that linked them with the state was their voter card.
No-enforceable disarmament
When they should have been talking with the Taliban, they should have agreed to enforceable disarmament, so the state can slowly gain the monopoly on the use of force again. He referenced that this was how it worked in Europe, but he never gave a specific case.
This is of course a very limited scope of why Afghanistan is having such a bad time, geographic politics and other things play into its problems but anyways.
So, Butts is correct in saying that going to take a lot of money to fix North Korea, but the money will be necessary and it will be the only solution, you can't simply over throw the government and then leave, that wouldn't do shit. We should take what we learned from Afghanistan and other countries and apply it to North Korea.
Hey guys, what if when NK finally hits the nuke button, the entire planet is blown to shit, because theyve spent 40 years to fill the ground beneath them with nukes!
Why is NK making so much noise you ask? Probably because the final leap towards the NWO is at our doorstep.
Shit is about to get real.
[QUOTE=Adelle Zhu;40084980]Hip firing an AK47. Are you serious.
Also, an AK47? They were making it seem like they had some kind of rail gun they were gonna use against us.[/QUOTE]
An AKM actually, which is newer than an AK-47. 47's are mostly used just by their reserve forces now, and probably for some training purposes. Still not exactly top of the line by any stretch of imagination, but there is a difference of more than 10 years between the two, and they do use some that are even newer.
[QUOTE=Megafan;40086937]An AKM actually, which is newer than an AK-47. 47's are mostly used just by their reserve forces now, and probably for some training purposes. Still not exactly top of the line by any stretch of imagination, but there is a difference of more than 10 years between the two, and they do use some that are even newer.[/QUOTE]Those are 74s, note the rather large flash suppressor and not-as-bent magazine. It was basically the Warsaw Pact's answer to the M-16.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;40086958]Those are 74s, note the rather large flash suppressor and not-as-bent magazine. It was basically the Warsaw Pact's answer to the M-16.[/QUOTE]
Well right, I'm not referring to those in the picture specifically. I mean that the AKM is their standard service rifle at the moment, in the process of being replaced by the AK-74.
[QUOTE=VOSK;40075844]Why would North Korea tell everyone what they are doing? At this point we don't even need intelligence on North Korea, they will just tell us everything.[/QUOTE]
It's because they're full of shit. Do you really think anything is going to come from all this? They're just dickwaving, just like they have been in the past.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.