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.

A framed poster on the wall of a kindergarten classroom shows bright-eyed children brandishing rifles and bayonets as they attack a hapless American soldier, his face bandaged and blood spurting from his mouth.

"We love playing military games knocking down the American bastards," reads the slogan printed across the top. Another poster depicts an American with a noose around his neck. "Let's wipe out the U.S. imperialists," it instructs.

Let's do a few things with this shall we?

First, let's say that it wasn't North Korea doing this. Suppose it had been Afghanistan or Iraq. Let's also change the "American" to "British".
You think your countrymen would just accept it and say "well we did do that stuff all those years ago, so their indoctrined hatred of us is justified"?

Now let's do something different with it. Suppose this was turned around on North Korea. Suppose it was a public school in the US that had anti Korean posters.
You think that the citizens of the US would go along with it? Hell no. There would be all manner of riots and law suits against the government.

Now, let's remember a few things. 1: Al Qaeda is a fanatical sect of a religion, who indoctrinate their members(and likely the children of members or communities) that EVERYONE who isn't Muslim is an immediate threat that must be eliminated, even at the cost of their own lives. The sect is so extreme that damn near every Muslim person out there in a civilized country want's nothing to do with them.

So now we find out that in North Korea, it isn't some religious fanatics that are doing this. It is the national government doing it. That means that their government wants the entirety of North Koreans to be militant anti-Americans.

At what point in the eyes of the world is it OK for the US to take action? Are we only allowed to fight after some Korean terrorists blow up a crap ton of civilians? Why should we have to wait for disaster to strike? We know for a fact that the NK govt. is against us. We know they are working on developing real threats to our country. So we should just sit back and let them build up an arsenal?

I hate that our country is so reactive. Why should we wait for the threat to get bigger? It's like someone saying they are going to mug you and you say "tell you what, you can take my stuff right now, but when you come back with a gun, then I'm going to fight back".

Are people in general supposed to only defend themselves after they have been wronged? Are we not allowed to protect ourselves from the threat before it strikes?

Manchu wrote:@SilverMK2: False equivalence is best equivalence!

Apparently so.

This is like Ryan Leaf saying that Peyton Manning is a terrible and failed QB.

All you can do is chuckle and just move on.

Aerethan wrote:

youbedead wrote:Why does that american soldier have a German mp38

That was my first thought as well.
North Korea is what? The size of Vermont? And their precious leader dropped dead a few months back.

My imperialist nature(which isn't to say "American" nature, I'm a self described imperialist by choice) makes me want to just go do an all out land invasion and take over. But NOOOOOO. The stupid UN and all these hippies here in the US would flip their gak if we did that.

There's also the small matter of the enormous amount of South Korean civilian casualties that would be caused by North Korea...

I love it how someone can make a Sarah Palin-esque comment on Korea's geopolitical situation, and then in the next breath talk about an all-out invasion of the peninsula.

Kovnik Obama wrote:I knew about the art, but I had no clue about how violent their rhetoric is.

Spoiler:

They have posters saying "crush America" and that they hate us, clearly we must invade them.

Let's also keep in mind that these are active military war-time propaganda posters. So comparing them to WW2 style posters is actually pretty accurate. We printed ours while we were at war, they are printing theirs while still at war. Look at Popeye killing those evil Japs for fun indoctrination of the youth, and they are doing the same.

North Korea and South Korea are at war. This is war time propaganda. We are the active military ally of their wartime enemy. Of course we are going to be targeted in their propaganda, it is what we did in war.

The propaganda that our government produced was often hideously and horrifyingly racist, and I disagree with it and wish that our government hadn't done that. And yet you are saying that I shouldn't disagree with hideously and horrifyingly racist things that other people produce?

Melissia wrote:The propaganda that our government produced was often hideously and horrifyingly racist, and I disagree with it and wish that our government hadn't done that. And yet you are saying that I shouldn't disagree with hideously and horrifyingly racist things that other people produce?

Not at all.

I was trying to address the "We did it, but it was okay because it was in the past and we were at war after all" argument.

If people are trying to use the "we were at war" excuse, then they need to take into account that North Korea is still at war. Not exactly a peace-time situation over there.

True, just because we pretty much consider ourselves at peace, doesn't mean the insanity that somehow just barely manages to pass for a government over there does. Heh.

Well, legally North and South have a declared war with each other.

And we are allied with the South, just because we haven't declared war ourselves doesn't mean we aren't.

But other than the rhetorical "war on drugs" and "war on terror", and maybe the "war on women", when have we actually bothered to declare a war anymore.

We did declare war on Iraq IIRC, but that was a deeply emotional time and very few people today will say that we acted completely rationally.

That was just an authorization of military action, same as Vietnam, Iraq #1, and Afghanistan though.

Although talking about the schematics of "declaring war" vs. "authorizing military actions" is probably a thread by itself.

I spoke to a Korean person about the second poster - even she didn't know one of the words (and it wasn't in a dictionary), she thought perhaps it is a Northern vernacular for 'sheep' - so, it probably says something along the lines of 'Don't forget those who followed like sheep already' - so possibly a reference to just following a super power (the US), and it ends up with babies being dangled over wells?

Well, legally North and South have a declared war with each other.

And we are allied with the South, just because we haven't declared war ourselves doesn't mean we aren't.

Technically the UK are still at war with Finland. If there is no intent to war, it doesn't mean anything.

Having lived in Korea there is kind of an unspoken acknowledgement that there won't be another war. Even when the Cheonan was sunk a few years ago (and the press, both East and West) were going mental about it, when you spoke to any Koreans about it, and asked them if there would be a war? Without exception every one of them said 'definitely not'. The last war was too damaging, it drained the soul of the country and the people as a race. And for the most part people are educated enough to know that both sides were puppets in a proxy war being carried out by the super-powers, who just couldn't bear to have some quiet and dusty corner of asia, that wasn't harming anyone and had just had 15 years of brutal Japanese oppression, having a government that was singing a different tune to them.

And they understand the consequences of the war - even in the South, who would almost certainly 'win', what would such a victory mean if Seoul had been reduced to rubble by the largest artillery contingent of any army in the world? The memories of the last conflict are still too fresh, but also I think there is a general acknowledgement amongst many Koreans that the people in the North are not the 'enemy' - remember we are talking about a country that has existed for 2000 years, has somehow survived being in the proximity of various super-powers over the centuries (China and then later Japan), and yet still exists as one race of people. They know the government in the North is crap, and a few evil individuals are responsible for the separation of the country, rather than the people themselves. Even during the height of public anger after the sinking of the Cheonan and the death of 50 soldiers, this was still the case.

A war between North and South again would be a final death of the country, and a travesty and tragedy beyond measure. Anyone saying it is a 'good idea' I think really needs to educate themselves about the Korean culture and people, and understanding of history and the costs involved.

Teaching little kids to utterly loathe an entire country. A disgusting practice.

Sorry, are we talking about North Korea or Scotland?

d-usa wrote:

Melissia wrote:The propaganda that our government produced was often hideously and horrifyingly racist, and I disagree with it and wish that our government hadn't done that. And yet you are saying that I shouldn't disagree with hideously and horrifyingly racist things that other people produce?

Not at all.

I was trying to address the "We did it, but it was okay because it was in the past and we were at war after all" argument.

If people are trying to use the "we were at war" excuse, then they need to take into account that North Korea is still at war. Not exactly a peace-time situation over there.

I don't think anyone was really saying war justifies it. Though certainly active fighting does engender a hateful spirit in a lot of people. That being said, it's not like North Korea is actively fighting us, or has been in the past sixty years.

The bigger issue is time; this stuff does seem to come out of a more hateful, racist period in time. We were functionally at war in Afghanistan and Iraq both recently, and you didn't see us producing racist war-bond-selling Disney shorts anymore. WWII was seventy years ago. Black people and white people couldn't get married in 29 US states at the time, so no shocker that our governmentally-endorsed propaganda was pretty racist back then too. It is more than a little disconcerting to see this kind of stuff still in use somewhere, and illustrative of the mindset still running the place.

I think you're right that this is understandable because of what we already know of NK's government and economic and political situation. Even if they're not actively at war with anyone, their people suffer so much hardship that it makes sense for their frankly evil government to tell them that suffering is because of an external enemy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Teaching little kids to utterly loathe an entire country. A disgusting practice.

Sorry, are we talking about North Korea or Scotland?

Renton, Trainspotting wrote: Some hate the English. I don't. They're just spankers. We, on the other hand, are COLONIZED by spankers. Can't even find a decent culture to be colonized BY. We're ruled by effete donkey-caves. It's a gak state of affairs to be in, Tommy, and ALL the fresh air in the world won't make any fething difference!

I remember when the Pueblo got captured by North Korea back in the 1960's. That was a huge propoganda fest for the communists that went on for over a year.
They were taking pictures of the American sailors, to show they were being well treated and how well they loved being captured.
One of the sailors flipped the bird at the camera. The Koreans asked what it meant. The Americans told them it was a "Hawaiian good luck sign".
This delighted the North Koreans who encouraged the Americans the flash the bird over the course of the next several photograph sessions. The pictures were then sent world wide to demonstrate how well loved the North Koreans were by the Americans.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
a cartoon showing North Korean school kids kick U.S. ass

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=ujtp-70zQME

Kovnik Obama wrote:I knew about the art, but I had no clue about how violent their rhetoric is.

Wow just wow. We have worn anything like that in generations. They need to update their posters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:They hate us for our technology and food.

This post is awesome. In fact it should be beamed into NK with the note: HAH HAH US Develops New infantry attack vehicle. Shenanigans when NK races to build a superior Biped Attack Recon Fighter and demonstrates it on May Day...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:I knew about the art, but I had no clue about how violent their rhetoric is.

Why does that american soldier have a German mp38

Son thats a grease gun from WWII / Korea. Its Old School Dakka!
They Really need to update. If they show a poster with Imperialist Running Dog Sabres being shot down by the People's Heroic Mig 5 Air Force, I'm going to have anice belly laugh. And I have a big belly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Find somewhere in the thread that the USA was proclaimed to be without flaw. I'm not sure that becuase the US or the UK aren't utopias, unblemished from sin, that they are the same as living in North Korea.

Oh come on, that entire article is designed to stir up Americans in (un)righteous indignation; the problem with that being that it was not all that long ago that the US was doing pretty much the same thing. And please find somewhere in the thread where I said that because there are certain similarities the UK/US are the same as NK in every way...

Indignation no, laughter yes.
And sometimes its good to be reminded we are still at war with these guys, that they have the bomb, they routinely redeclare war on us, and that they are flying rodent gak crazy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:That was just an authorization of military action, same as Vietnam, Iraq #1, and Afghanistan though.

Although talking about the schematics of "declaring war" vs. "authorizing military actions" is probably a thread by itself.

One's the Long Form, ones the Short Form.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pacific wrote:I spoke to a Korean person about the second poster - even she didn't know one of the words (and it wasn't in a dictionary), she thought perhaps it is a Northern vernacular for 'sheep' - so, it probably says something along the lines of 'Don't forget those who followed like sheep already' - so possibly a reference to just following a super power (the US), and it ends up with babies being dangled over wells?

Well, legally North and South have a declared war with each other.

And we are allied with the South, just because we haven't declared war ourselves doesn't mean we aren't.

Technically the UK are still at war with Finland. If there is no intent to war, it doesn't mean anything.

Having lived in Korea there is kind of an unspoken acknowledgement that there won't be another war. Even when the Cheonan was sunk a few years ago (and the press, both East and West) were going mental about it, when you spoke to any Koreans about it, and asked them if there would be a war? Without exception every one of them said 'definitely not'. The last war was too damaging, it drained the soul of the country and the people as a race. And for the most part people are educated enough to know that both sides were puppets in a proxy war being carried out by the super-powers, who just couldn't bear to have some quiet and dusty corner of asia, that wasn't harming anyone and had just had 15 years of brutal Japanese oppression, having a government that was singing a different tune to them.

And they understand the consequences of the war - even in the South, who would almost certainly 'win', what would such a victory mean if Seoul had been reduced to rubble by the largest artillery contingent of any army in the world? The memories of the last conflict are still too fresh, but also I think there is a general acknowledgement amongst many Koreans that the people in the North are not the 'enemy' - remember we are talking about a country that has existed for 2000 years, has somehow survived being in the proximity of various super-powers over the centuries (China and then later Japan), and yet still exists as one race of people. They know the government in the North is crap, and a few evil individuals are responsible for the separation of the country, rather than the people themselves. Even during the height of public anger after the sinking of the Cheonan and the death of 50 soldiers, this was still the case.

A war between North and South again would be a final death of the country, and a travesty and tragedy beyond measure. Anyone saying it is a 'good idea' I think really needs to educate themselves about the Korean culture and people, and understanding of history and the costs involved.

The problem of course is that, its not the person you talked to who's in charge of North Korea.

And how do you know I'm not a sedgeway engineer, or else a producer of 'art' movies, and got kidnapped while accidentally straying over the border during a routine trip on a Japanese fishing vessel?

The powers that be in NK have feathered their nests nicely, and despite the hardships of the poor sods living in the country probably have a lifestyle that is up there with some of the most decadent rulers of the Middle East. They know they would ultimately lose all of that if it came to conflict, so why risk it?

I think the only danger of a conflict happening is if there is a major mistake by either side. Something like the sinking of the Cheonan, but much bigger - regardless of what actually happened to that ship, that incident occurred because of the occasional muscle-flexing that both sides feel they need to do. Having dozens of planes and boats racing around next to the border and using live ammunition is basically like running with scissors, eventually you are going to trip and hurt yourself. So you could say that having the mass of troops and armaments sat so closely to each other allows for a potential accident to happen. Perhaps something like the Russian sub that almost had its reactor go critical off the coast of LA at the height of the cold war - in that incident both sides understood that a war would have resulted in MAD, but something like that happening would have been impossible to ignore.

Aerethan wrote:
You think that the citizens of the US would go along with it? Hell no. There would be all manner of riots and law suits against the government.

I'm not entirely convinced of that. This is the country that coined the phrase "Axis of Evil."

Aerethan wrote:
Now, let's remember a few things. 1: Al Qaeda is a fanatical sect of a religion, who indoctrinate their members(and likely the children of members or communities) that EVERYONE who isn't Muslim is an immediate threat that must be eliminated, even at the cost of their own lives.

Well, they don't really indoctrinate them, they don't have the infrastructure. Its more that they attract sympathetic ears.

Aerethan wrote:
Why should we have to wait for disaster to strike? We know for a fact that the NK govt. is against us. We know they are working on developing real threats to our country. So we should just sit back and let them build up an arsenal?

Because it costs us, and others (The Chinese would be very upset, so would the South Koreans, and Japanese.), money and lives. Any individual citizen who dies in a terrorist attack that may or may not happen isn't worth it. We have 300 million of them, we can lose several thousand without blinking.

Hell, we lose ~6000 people per day anyway.

Aerethan wrote:
Are people in general supposed to only defend themselves after they have been wronged? Are we not allowed to protect ourselves from the threat before it strikes?

Usually no, that tends to be considered a threat in itself.

dogma wrote:

Aerethan wrote:
Why should we have to wait for disaster to strike? We know for a fact that the NK govt. is against us. We know they are working on developing real threats to our country. So we should just sit back and let them build up an arsenal?

Because it costs us, and others (The Chinese would be very upset, so would the South Koreans, and Japanese.), money and lives. Any individual citizen who dies in a terrorist attack that may or may not happen isn't worth it. We have 300 million of them, we can lose several thousand without blinking.

Hell, we lose ~6000 people per day anyway.

Aerethan wrote:
Are people in general supposed to only defend themselves after they have been wronged? Are we not allowed to protect ourselves from the threat before it strikes?

Usually no, that tends to be considered a threat in itself.

Preemptive strike is something that got us into Iraq, and that turned out quite well didn't it.

Not to mention preemptive strikes usually don't win you much sympathy, since you know, you're like, an aggressor dude

Huffy wrote:Not to mention preemptive strikes usually don't win you much sympathy, since you know, you're like, an aggressor dude

No you are not.

You are clearly defending yourself.

Preemptively.

NorthKoreaIsBestKorea.jpg

d-usa wrote:

Preemptive strike is something that got us into Iraq, and that turned out quite well didn't it.

I'm hoping there is no real contemplation in government of a strike on NK? I know there was talk of it prior to the 2nd Iraq war from a few of the more hawkish elements of Bush & Co's group, but I didn' think that it was serious beyond some basic sabre-rattling?

It would not be another Iraq. The North Korean's army may be poorly trained and using outdated equipment, but it is massive (I think one of the largest land armies in the world)? The peninsula would be turned into a bloodbath, and Seoul would most likely be destroyed. I can't imagine that the US could possibly have enough troops without resorting to conscription again?

Furthermore, is there any situation in which S Korea, Japan and China would even consider countenancing such an attack?

Better idea.
Declare victory
Ask SK if they want these suplus nukes we were just going to get rid of...
Bail
PROFIT!

Pacific wrote:I can't imagine that the US could possibly have enough troops without resorting to conscription again?

We probably would, but its not really the loss of life we would be concerned about. Not statistically anyway, politically it would be a disaster at home and abroad.

Aerethan wrote:North Korea is what? The size of Vermont? And their precious leader dropped dead a few months back.

My imperialist nature(which isn't to say "American" nature, I'm a self described imperialist by choice) makes me want to just go do an all out land invasion and take over. But NOOOOOO. The stupid UN and all these hippies here in the US would flip their gak if we did that.

Umm ... It's not the UN and the hippies that are keeping the U.S. from erasing North Korea from the map. We don't attack North Korea because we like and are allies with South Korea. North Korea is basically setup to strike South Korea hard at any given moment. If we were to attack North Korea, South Korea (and I think Seoul in particular) would suffer significantly.

North Korea doesn't need to be able to hit the US with a nuke, all they have to be able to do is hit South Korea or Japan with a nuke for all hell to break loose.

Their nuclear deterrent is actually already working to an extend.

Aerethan wrote:

youbedead wrote:Why does that american soldier have a German mp38

That was my first thought as well.
North Korea is what? The size of Vermont? And their precious leader dropped dead a few months back.

My imperialist nature(which isn't to say "American" nature, I'm a self described imperialist by choice) makes me want to just go do an all out land invasion and take over. But NOOOOOO. The stupid UN and all these hippies here in the US would flip their gak if we did that.

My views on threats to national security are simple: eliminate them. Without violence is preferable but, to me, threats need to be dealt with, harshly if necessary. I have no ill will towards people of other nations if everyone is happy with being peaceful. But when you raise your kids to take revenge on a war from 60 years ago, and you are currently trying to build up a nuclear arsenal, then I'm gonna have to step in and put some people in their place.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't think the US should be the world police. I don't think we should be going in to other countries to restructure their governments so that they mimic ours. But I think all real threats should be dealt with. And I believe that the US shouldn't strong arm other countries into playing ball either. Our military strength should be strictly for use in defending the country from threats, not used as a threat to get what we want.

The problem with that is that they have nuclear capability. We step foot in north Korea and the missiles go flying. Things can never be simple.

Mr Nobody wrote:The problem with that is that they have nuclear capability. We step foot in north Korea and the missiles go flying. Things can never be simple.

Don't they have problems with delivery though? And they cannot have that many warheads...

Really, the problem would lay with the Americans, or anyone being willing to nuke a territory less than 150 miles away from the Chinese border. That's what making it less simple...