Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/ratcheting-up-rhetoric-north-koreas-military-threatens-to-reduce-souths-leadership-to-ashes/2012/04/23/gIQAXNDHdT_story.html

PYONGYANG, North Korea — North Korea sharply escalated the rhetoric against its southern rival, claiming it will soon conduct “special actions” that would reduce South Korea’s conservative government to ashes within minutes.

Monday’s threat from the North’s military leadership comes amid concerns that North Korea may be plotting another provocation in the wake of an unsuccessful rocket launch condemned by the U.N. Security Council as a violation of a ban against missile activity.

0

Comments

Weigh In
Corrections?

Personal Post

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged North Korea to refrain from “further provocative measures,” telling reporters in New York late Monday that such actions “will not be desirable for the peace and stability of the Korean peninsula.”

North Korea characterized the April 13 rocket launch as a failed bid to send a satellite into space — not a disguised test of missile technology as Washington and Seoul claim. Two days after the attempt, Pyongyang unveiled a new long-range missile at a military birthday parade for late President Kim Il Sung.

There are new concerns that North Korea may conduct a nuclear test as it did after rocket launches in 2006 and 2009. South Korean intelligence officials say recent satellite images show the North has been digging a new tunnel in what could be preparation for a third atomic test.

On the North Korean side of the Demilitarized Zone, a military guide told The Associated Press that he believes his country needs atomic weapons to defend itself against the threat of attack from the U.S.

“Nuclear weapons are not the monopoly of the United States,” Lt. Col. Nam Dong Ho said. “It’s my personal opinion, but I think we’ll continue to conduct nuclear tests.”

On Monday, the military warned in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency that it would launch “special actions” soon against the South Korean government and conservative media.

For days, North Korea has railed against South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and conservative South Korean media for criticizing its rocket launch and the celebrations of the centennial of Kim Il Sung’s birth. But the military message, attributed to the “special operation action group” of the Korean People’s Army’s Supreme Command, was unusual in its specificity.

“Once the above-said special actions kick off, they will reduce all the rat-like groups and the bases for provocations to ashes in three or four minutes, in much shorter time, by unprecedented peculiar means and methods of our own style,” it said.

The threat comes as North Korea’s new commander in chief, Kim Jong Un, makes a show of support for the “military first” policy championed by his late father and predecessor, Kim Jong Il. North Korea marks the 80th anniversary of the founding of its army Wednesday.

A South Korean Defense Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with departmental rules, said no special military movement had been observed in the North.

There also was no outward sign of tension on the North Korean side of the Demilitarized Zone. At Panmunjom, small groups of tourists were touring the “peace” village and the buildings where the Korean War armistice was signed in 1953.

Seoul expressed worry that the threats were hurting relations.

“We urge North Korea to immediately stop this practice,” Unification Ministry spokesman Kim Hyung-suk told reporters, according to the ministry. “We express deep concern that the North’s threats and accusations have worsened inter-Korean ties and heightened tensions.”

In November 2010, after issuing a warning to the South Korean government, North Korean troops showered artillery on a front-line island in disputed western waters held by South Korea. The attack killed four people, including two civilians.

However, it is unlikely that North Korea would launch a large-scale military attack against South Korea, which is backed by nearly 30,000 U.S. troops stationed in the South, said Kim Young-soo, a professor at Sogang University in Seoul.

Late Monday, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry accused the U.S. of slander and of spearheading the campaign of criticism of its rocket launch. The launch prompted the U.S. to halt a Feb. 29 deal to provide Pyongyang with much-needed food aid in exchange for a moratorium on nuclear and missile activity.

In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said North Korea “needs to understand that it’s not going to achieve anything but further isolation and pressure by threats, by launches, by any of this.”



What are the possibilities of this actually happening and how will that affect American deployments?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:Nothing on BBC news. Clearly no one is taking this seriously.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17810198

North Korea has warned of "unprecedented" action against South Korea's ruling establishment, amid tough rhetoric between the two sides.

A special operation to begin "soon" would "reduce its target to ashes", the military said in a statement.

On Friday North Korea also held a rally calling for the death of South Korea's president, condemning his comments against the North.

Seoul said last week it had deployed more missiles against the North.

A defence ministry spokesman said the missiles had a range of 1,000km (625 miles) and could hit any of Pyongyang's nuclear or missile sites.
'Rat-like'

The North's statement directly criticised South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, the defence minister, analysts and "rat-like elements" including conservative broadcasters, who were accused of "destroying fair-minded public opinion."

The statement, which was read out on state television, said that "the special actions of our revolutionary armed forces will start soon to meet the reckless challenge of the group of traitors".

North Korean rhetoric has been getting sharper in recent days following its failed rocket on 13 April, reports the BBC's Lucy Williamson.

Pyongyang said it was putting a satellite into orbit but critics said the launch was a disguised test of missile technology banned under UN resolutions.

The relationship between the two Koreas has also been especially strained since Mr Lee assumed office in 2008 because of his government's policy towards the North, linking food aid to progress on nuclear disarmament.

But North Korea has reacted strongly towards the South over its criticism of the rocket launch, which it said was to commemorate the centenary of the birth of founding leader Kim Il-sung.

"Those actions are an eruption of the public anger and resentment and a sacred war of all service personnel and people to protect the dignity of our supreme leadership," North Korea said.

On Sunday the North's major ally China, however, vowed closer ties.

China's most senior foreign diplomat, Dai Bingguo, told North Korean visiting official Kim Yong-il that it would "push friendly and co-operative China-North Korean relations to a new level", according to a statement released by its foreign ministry.

I am SO going to refer to people I don't like as "underwits" from now on, and rank their intelligence in terms of megabytes.

I think I would make a great anchor on North Korean State Television.

Couldn't the US just bomb the crap out of them with aircraft over three days Libya-style?

We don't need a war but I'd wager that Yankee Doodle must have special weapons a plenty to cripple the crap out of the NK military?

And then they'd just put innocent civillians in the way, and convince said civillians it was all America's fault.

Japan might get involved if they thought the conflict might affect them, or if they thought getting involved might soothe reationships between them and Korea. Of course, it wouldn't, seeing as Japan just has to turn on a bedside lamp to attract mass hatred from Korea. (Yes, I am exaggurating).

Henners91 wrote:Couldn't the US just bomb the crap out of them with aircraft over three days Libya-style?

We don't need a war but I'd wager that Yankee Doodle must have special weapons a plenty to cripple the crap out of the NK military?

NK is all hardened targets. Much more than 3 days. At best you are slowing logistics and troops as they head south, but even there a lot of that is already prepositioned in hardened underground sites and doens't have far south to travel (and some of that movement is underground too).

In three days you will be able to atrit the Nork arty capable of hitting Seoul, take out what little of an airforce the Norks have (or at least keep it confined to their hardened undergound hangers) and do some decent work against their integrated ADA network. We can only generate so many sorties though. I suspect airfields in South Korea may be largely unusable for the first few days so sorties are going to have to travel to get to targets and then re-arm to generate the next strike packages.

Henners91 wrote:Couldn't the US just bomb the crap out of them with aircraft over three days Libya-style?

We don't need a war but I'd wager that Yankee Doodle must have special weapons a plenty to cripple the crap out of the NK military?

Clinton tried that with Iraq for years. It was irrelevant. Plus iraq didn't have a nuke and thousands of artillery positioned around Seoul.

I think the most prudent thing is get the out. SK has the economic capacity to build a military stronger than anything in Europe currently. It should be NK that is quivering in fear. Enough is enough, let the SK's defend SK. Its not US territory.

If it were to get messy the Americans would have egg on their face much like they did when their other Asian puppet collapsed

(Not saying SK's government is in any way under US control - merely that the US is responsible for its genesis and development)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If it were to get messy the Americans would have egg on their face much like they did when their other Asian puppet collapsed

(Not saying SK's government is in any way under US control - merely that the US is responsible for its genesis and development)

Henners91 wrote:Asian puppet
[...]
Not saying SK's government is in any way under US control

Your anti-Americanism is showing.

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Couldn't the US just bomb the crap out of them with aircraft over three days Libya-style?

We don't need a war but I'd wager that Yankee Doodle must have special weapons a plenty to cripple the crap out of the NK military?

Clinton tried that with Iraq for years. It was irrelevant. Plus iraq didn't have a nuke and thousands of artillery positioned around Seoul.

I think the most prudent thing is get the out. SK has the economic capacity to build a military stronger than anything in Europe currently. It should be NK that is quivering in fear. Enough is enough, let the SK's defend SK. Its not US territory.

This, both south korea and japan have more than enough military muscle to defend themselves from Red Communist Aggression

Henners91 wrote:If it were to get messy the Americans would have egg on their face much like they did when their other Asian puppet collapsed

(Not saying SK's government is in any way under US control - merely that the US is responsible for its genesis and development)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If it were to get messy the Americans would have egg on their face much like they did when their other Asian puppet collapsed

(Not saying SK's government is in any way under US control - merely that the US is responsible for its genesis and development)

Sorry, your statement is denied. We're not responsible for anything except the fact SK is not ruled by the same people who bring you such classic hits as: Our Dear Leader made nine holes in one playing golf; you don't need food, just eat grass; and the world's largest gulag. I will grant you, we're (collective we - UK included) are also responsible for SK not speaking Japanese.

Dont listen to Henners, he knows about as much about war as I know about knitting.

And yes, of course the UK were involved in the Korean war, The Royal Marine Commandos (41 commando) travelled to Japan in civilian clothes, were issued American winter uniforms and weapons but retained their green berets, and promtly went and fethed everyone's gak up. 41 Commando were awarded the American Presidential Unit Citation, and I believe to this day are the only foreign force to do so.

Anyway, Ignoring absolutely everything else, the complex machinations of international politics and what have you, the most obvious answer to any conflict is simply this.

South Korea spend about half as much as the UK on defence spending, namely. gak loads of money.

North Korea spend.. well.. less.

South Korea have roughly twice the population, and its citizens are far smarter.

If I had to pick between the pot bellied ignorant savages of the North, and the smarter, richer, better educated better fed Southerners, I know who my money would be on.

Generally speaking, the fethers with the most men and the most money tend to win.

I've seen your handiwork, mattyrm:



BOOOOOID!


And oopsie doodle, I do appear to have allowed my A-level history courses to have merged and thought that Korea was the country in which the US ignored the outcome of elections... that was Vietnam. I most humbly bow and submit to the incredible cumulative knowledge that is the interwebs. (Cited source: Wikipedia)

I'll also add that I intended no anti-Americanism, if I were an educated sort and not the grass-munching provincial peasant that I be, I'd subscribe to realpolitik; in that case, were I a world leader, I'd certainly consciously set up puppet governments and the like; it's the best way to roll, brahs. It's what got Japan turned from a bunch of Samurai badasses into CHIBE ANIME KAWAII DESU DESU DESU ^.^ Were a Samurai to stand up out of his grave tomorrow and observe the total absence of testosterone, he'd immediately sepukku his a**. Interfering with defeated nations is what's given us world peace; by disowning militarism as a foreign policy tool, Germany and Japan may now skip together in the meadows of economic dominance and giggle as the victors of the war are subjugated... Oh long-term victory; JUST AS PLANNED!

mattyrm wrote:Dont listen to Henners, he knows about as much about war as I know about knitting.

And yes, of course the UK were involved in the Korean war, The Royal Marine Commandos (41 commando) travelled to Japan in civilian clothes, were issued American winter uniforms and weapons but retained their green berets, and promtly went and fethed everyone's gak up. 41 Commando were awarded the American Presidential Unit Citation, and I believe to this day are the only foreign force to do so.

Anyway, Ignoring absolutely everything else, the complex machinations of international politics and what have you, the most obvious answer to any conflict is simply this.

South Korea spend about half as much as the UK on defence spending, namely. gak loads of money.

North Korea spend.. well.. less.

South Korea have roughly twice the population, and its citizens are far smarter.

If I had to pick between the pot bellied ignorant savages of the North, and the smarter, richer, better educated better fed Southerners, I know who my money would be on.

Generally speaking, the fethers with the most men and the most money tend to win.

Er...yes, the UK was one of the powers that formally sent troops to aid SK as part of the Korean War...er police action, along with the US, Turkey (yes Turkey), and a variety of other countries. I've seen list but I can never figure out British formations. You have names from like, when you were fighting the Burgundians or the Lancasters or some damn thing.
(translation you have units that were around before most of the current countries were in existence. )

It was one of those affairs where a stamp of approval was needed in that the invasion should be an international effort (similar to how Johnson badgered the crap out of Harold Wilson to join the party in Vietnam) - such affairs usually have American dominance, but they ask a couple of the GIs to don a sombrero or something to give it that international 'flavour'

Henners91 wrote:
I'll also add that I intended no anti-Americanism, if I were an educated sort and not the grass-munching provincial peasant that I be, I'd subscribe to realpolitik; in that case, were I a world leader, I'd certainly consciously set up puppet governments and the like; it's the best way to roll, brahs. It's what got Japan turned from a bunch of Samurai badasses into CHIBE ANIME KAWAII DESU DESU DESU ^.^ Were a Samurai to stand up out of his grave tomorrow and observe the total absence of testosterone, he'd immediately sepukku his a**. Interfering with defeated nations is what's given us world peace; by disowning militarism as a foreign policy tool, Germany and Japan may now skip together in the meadows of economic dominance and giggle as the victors of the war are subjugated... Oh long-term victory; JUST AS PLANNED!

What the actual feth are you saying here dude? I'm baffled... It may just be because I'm skim-reading this in work... But that just went so far over my head I think it left Earth orbit

Henners91 wrote:It was one of those affairs where a stamp of approval was needed in that the invasion should be an international effort (similar to how Johnson badgered the crap out of Harold Wilson to join the party in Vietnam) - such affairs usually have American dominance, but they ask a couple of the GIs to don a sombrero or something to give it that international 'flavour'

This was the first military action the UN supported. It may also be the only war in the 20th Century that french troops did not surrender in.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea
People's Republic of China
The Soviet Union

The "South Korean" side consisted of

Republic of Korea
Australia
Belgium
Canada
Colombia
Ethiopia
France
Greece
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Philippines
South Africa
Thailand
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Naval Support and Military Servicing/Repairs:



Japan

Medical staff:



Denmark
Italy
Norway
India
Sweden


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_countries_were_involved_in_the_Korean_War#ixzz1sxpayLWY


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tibbsy wrote:

Henners91 wrote:
I'll also add that I intended no anti-Americanism, if I were an educated sort and not the grass-munching provincial peasant that I be, I'd subscribe to realpolitik; in that case, were I a world leader, I'd certainly consciously set up puppet governments and the like; it's the best way to roll, brahs. It's what got Japan turned from a bunch of Samurai badasses into CHIBE ANIME KAWAII DESU DESU DESU ^.^ Were a Samurai to stand up out of his grave tomorrow and observe the total absence of testosterone, he'd immediately sepukku his a**. Interfering with defeated nations is what's given us world peace; by disowning militarism as a foreign policy tool, Germany and Japan may now skip together in the meadows of economic dominance and giggle as the victors of the war are subjugated... Oh long-term victory; JUST AS PLANNED!

What the actual feth are you saying here dude? I'm baffled... It may just be because I'm skim-reading this in work... But that just went so far over my head I think it left Earth orbit

Here I can help. Take some spray paint - gold is the best. Spray it into a brown paper bag. Stick your nose in and inhale deeply.* Then re-read it.


*Don't actually do this.

Tibbsy wrote:

Henners91 wrote:
I'll also add that I intended no anti-Americanism, if I were an educated sort and not the grass-munching provincial peasant that I be, I'd subscribe to realpolitik; in that case, were I a world leader, I'd certainly consciously set up puppet governments and the like; it's the best way to roll, brahs. It's what got Japan turned from a bunch of Samurai badasses into CHIBE ANIME KAWAII DESU DESU DESU ^.^ Were a Samurai to stand up out of his grave tomorrow and observe the total absence of testosterone, he'd immediately sepukku his a**. Interfering with defeated nations is what's given us world peace; by disowning militarism as a foreign policy tool, Germany and Japan may now skip together in the meadows of economic dominance and giggle as the victors of the war are subjugated... Oh long-term victory; JUST AS PLANNED!

What the actual feth are you saying here dude? I'm baffled... It may just be because I'm skim-reading this in work... But that just went so far over my head I think it left Earth orbit

TL;DR: It is not bad to admit to making puppet governments because the end results are this:


to this:


Your fiercest enemies are rendered peace-loving beatnik anime-loving hippies!

There is one downside though:

Henners91 wrote:I've seen your handiwork, mattyrm:



BOOOOOID!


And oopsie doodle, I do appear to have allowed my A-level history courses to have merged and thought that Korea was the country in which the US ignored the outcome of elections... that was Vietnam. I most humbly bow and submit to the incredible cumulative knowledge that is the interwebs. (Cited source: Wikipedia)

I'll also add that I intended no anti-Americanism, if I were an educated sort and not the grass-munching provincial peasant that I be, I'd subscribe to realpolitik; in that case, were I a world leader, I'd certainly consciously set up puppet governments and the like; it's the best way to roll, brahs. It's what got Japan turned from a bunch of Samurai badasses into CHIBE ANIME KAWAII DESU DESU DESU ^.^ Were a Samurai to stand up out of his grave tomorrow and observe the total absence of testosterone, he'd immediately sepukku his a**. Interfering with defeated nations is what's given us world peace; by disowning militarism as a foreign policy tool, Germany and Japan may now skip together in the meadows of economic dominance and giggle as the victors of the war are subjugated... Oh long-term victory; JUST AS PLANNED!

Well, I couldn't have put it more offensively myself. Especially considering that:

A: Desu has been a Japanese word for as long as the Japanese language has existed. I know this, I'm learning Japanese, and it does come up a lot. It has absolutely nothing to do with Otaku culture. They've always ended a lot of sentences with desu.

B: Uh, yeah...Samurai badasses? Right...Also bear in mind that a lot of "Japan's" military actions were beyond their control, as during the second world war the Japanese military essentially went rogue. Also, I hardly see how having the longest average lifespan, lowest crime rates and best standards of living in the world is a bad thing. Desu.

C: Desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu.

TL, DR:

Sounds like a nifty reason to disown everything and anything the military did in textbooks 'n' all and also means that the lovable Emprah Hirohito was indeed totally innocent and honestly a good guy, really, like he didn't even know a war was happening; he was napping, I'm serious guys, quit asking me about him!

Desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu.

- Gesundheit!

Squigsquasher wrote:
B: Uh, yeah...Samurai badasses? Right...Also bear in mind that a lot of "Japan's" military actions were beyond their control, as during the second world war the Japanese military essentially went rogue.
TL, DR:

Wow. That is a distorted view.

Not really. Hirohito essentially became powerless during WW2 and the events leading up to it; the military took over the country, and even assasinated the Japanese prime minister. In fact, it was Hirohito who finally put his foot down, told Tojo "enough is enough" and got Japan to surrender.

Yeah, he didn't have a good ten year period before 1941 to be all like 'yo guys, that stuff in China... not cool man.'

Once more: GODWIN'S LAW! Heinrich Himmler was all like 'enough is enough' to Hitler; he even tried to go rogue and negotiate a surrender. Himmler was a good guy clearly!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I get the feeling that you're defending Japan's war record because it's 'fashionable' there is, quite rightly, a lot of friendship and cultural affiliation nowadays that just makes it trendy to kind of forget that their war record was horrific. So White Knight'ing in these discussions is perfectly understandable; you have my empathy.

Fact of the matter is (and it's what bothers me) that they go to considerable extents to ensure that their kiddlywinks don't know a thing about what happened. Lord forbid lessons being learned or an olive branch going out to the Chinese. But it doesn't matter because we all love them, and go to speak Japanese so we can fulfill our dreams of going there to find 'spiritual fulfillment' and those lives we imagine we could have had if only we had been born there... Oh, and most importantly, we can watch Ghost in the Shell with the original dub!

Actually, Godwin's Law dictates that the first person to mention Hitler or the Nazis loses the argument.

Once more I fail to small print! Go forth the victor, my friend! Substances of arguments must always fail on technicalities! Woe be to me and my misguided ways :(

Henners91 wrote:Yeah, he didn't have a good ten year period before 1941 to be all like 'yo guys, that stuff in China... not cool man.'

Once more: GODWIN'S LAW! Heinrich Himmler was all like 'enough is enough' to Hitler; he even tried to go rogue and negotiate a surrender. Himmler was a good guy clearly!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I get the feeling that you're defending Japan's war record because it's 'fashionable' there is, quite rightly, a lot of friendship and cultural affiliation nowadays that just makes it trendy to kind of forget that their war record was horrific. So White Knight'ing in these discussions is perfectly understandable; you have my empathy.

Dude, I might agree with but you need to put down the crack pipe when you're posting. Its difficult to understand you. You're posting like this guy:

Indeed. Also, you referred to the WW2 Japanese as "Samurai Badasses" and to post-war Japanese as...Well, you remember. And yet now you are condemning the things the Japanese did in WW2. Make your mind up. Besides, it seems unfair to blame the modern Generation of Japanese people for something that they had no control over, on account of the fact they didn't even exist then. But then I have noticed a very racist anti-Japanese stance from you.

Dakka fact of the day: Pyongyang was the only Communist capital to be captured during the Cold War.

See, your not wasting your time with aimless browsing

@Frazzled
That's what I've been doing between posts

Squigsquasher wrote:Indeed. Also, you referred to the WW2 Japanese as "Samurai Badasses" and to post-war Japanese as...Well, you remember. And yet now you are condemning the things the Japanese did in WW2. Make your mind up. Besides, it seems unfair to blame the modern Generation of Japanese people for something that they had no control over, on account of the fact they didn't even exist then. But then I have noticed a very racist anti-Japanese stance from you.

I was referring to the Samurai (though, obv. it's inaccurate to refer to them when talking about WW2, but mnyah, everyone was totally emulating them, like) as warriors, pretty badass guys. No matter your war record you can still be badass as a combatant. That's why so many kids these days play a game of CoD or MoH and suddenly start posting comments on YouTube along the lines of 'Yeah them Wehrmacht guys; gotta respect them as soldiers... besides, they didn't do anything wrong like.' So yeah, I'm committing a similar mistake by referring to the Samurai positively. I blame Shogun 2 for eating up too much of my time.

Now to drop my semi-mocking tone and actually engage seriously here: I am not blaming the Japanese people of today for the crimes of the past, that's illogical. But, speaking as an individual with half a family full of Germans (and the resultant conversations that entails), I've found that coming to terms with a conflict is very important for any society. I'm going to have to refer to Germans primarily in this analogy as I've had the most first-hand experience with them: They're not as bad as Japan when it comes to 'covering it up'; but Nazism is taboo. They don't discuss it, they often don't feel at liberty to discuss it even if they want to. Everyone just wants to get on with their lives and just forget. My aunt once started crying when I brought up the movie Downfall; she just said 'Why can't everyone stop going on about it?! We did nothing! Everyone who did is dead! You - the BBC, should stop always broadcasting about the war, stop mentioning it- it's racist.' Now I felt sorry for her, sure, but her point was ultimately unacceptable: You can't just brush history under the rug and refuse to engage with it. The problems in Germany with even mentioning it is totally counter-productive. The best way to get over a trauma is to be casual about it - just be able to talk about it and take it like a pinch of salt... when an issue no longer really leads to an emotional reaction in you because you've explored it to its fullest extent, then you're done. Other countries aren't going to sweep the war under the rug - they shouldn't have to, hell, for Britain it's almost pathetic because it's the last significant thing we did in donkey's years; so a source of national pride. This is probably a bit of a rant by now but what I am essentially saying is that both Germany and Japan need to be able to converse about these things whilst you still have countries like Poland and China who will keep bringing it up, as the issues affect them to this day (see: Poland's population if WW2 hadn't happened), this is to say nothing about 'learning the lessons'.

What does it say to the Chinese (can you imagine being Chinese?) when the Japanese revise history? Can you imagine the indignation if German textbooks didn't mention the Holocaust?

As for my alleged racism: perhaps I phrased it a tad offensively, as I rather deliberately assumed a 4chan-esque rendition of peacetime Japan. But I did so within the context of using them as an example as to the benefits of conquering an enemy and dictating his initial redevelopment.

I do, however, possess an animosity toward the substantial number of people who possess an affinity for Japan that borders on what I judge to be obsession. Or see things in it that I consider utterly patronising: I.E. the types who watch The Last Samurai and suddenly decide 'zomg, Japan will heal me spiritually' and project false images onto the country. I wonder what the average John Doe in Japan thinks when he sees a bunch of white guys arguing over Naruto or some bogus. I don't know, I shan't continue this point as I fear I'll become unduly offensive... but I refer to those who have a variety of harsh nicknames that, again, you'd probably come across on 4chan... and start with W.

Oh and to finally prove that I am not racist: I mentioned that I play Shogun 2. How could I hate Japan? Tsk.