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.

dietrich wrote:It's the same thing we should have done with Iraq. Just airdrop weapons. If you give a person something for 'free' (in Iraq's case, it's allegedly democracy), they don't want it. ("Saddam was an awful man, but at least we had electricity for 8 hours a day." aka, "Mussolini made the trains run on time.") If they have to earn it, they value it. If the dictator is really so hated and opressive, arm the populace, and they'll topple him, and form the government that they want. If in 20 years, it's another tin-can dictator running the country, repeat. Let the population determine their own fate.

It's a terrible misunderstanding of history to think revolutions don't occur because the people lack guns. It hasn't ever worked that way. It certainly isn't the issue in N Korea right now.

N Korea has an almost complete shut down of communication with the outside world. They don't know things are better out here. If there was this underlying revolution waiting to happen, people would get their hands on the weapons needed. We're clever like that.

What's needed is to open up N Korea to the rest of the world. Expose the populace to how things work elsewhere, and how their own country can be different. It is, of course, a very difficult thing to achieve and miles away from the current situation (where thinking should be entirely about not letting things get worse).

JD21290 wrote:
Killing is no buisness, its just something that needs to be done.
child with a gun? if he open fire on your unit you open fire back, child or not he is putting your lives in danger.
not as easy as it sounds, but if you dont then your 6 feet under for having emotions.

Quote from an American comedy. I believe the my joke was lost crossing the the great waters over to your computer. I completely empathize with dashed delusions of grandeur in the armed forces.

I know youngblood.
got the point of the joke
was just saying that killing isnt really a buisness as such, more of a lose/lose situation.

Unless its killing time waiting for Friday!!!!

Then its win/win!

Frazzled wrote:Unless its killing time waiting for Friday!!!!

Then its win/win!

True that. Double true.

Yes killing people is a lose/lose.

not for me frazz lol, tomorrow im working a morning and night shift
so im waiting on the weekend

We're all waiting for the weekend baby.

for what? so we can go out and spend everything we earned that week? lol
i think ive allready done that this week

may have to have a cheap weekend with a few drinks and taking the missus out.

Frazzled wrote:We're all waiting for the weekend baby.

now wait a tick, I thought everybody was working for the weekend.

Waiting working its all pre-weekend.

Not if you're Loverboy.

Frazzled wrote:[After all, haven't you heard? We're the great Satan, if only the US weren't illegally assaulting countries the world would be a paradise and there would be no wars ever again, as there weren't before the US unilaterally started WWII. Thats what I keep being told.

You have it all wrong. The US is responsible for everything back to (and including) the First Crusade. Even though the US wasn't founded until about 700 years later. Somehow, the US was still responsible.

We might have killed Jesus and Mohamed as the same time.

sebster wrote:It's a terrible misunderstanding of history to think revolutions don't occur because the people lack guns. It hasn't ever worked that way. It certainly isn't the issue in N Korea right now.

Without the right to bear arms, an oppressive military regime has little opposition. While people won't like it, and may plot and scheme, at some point, the answer is that they need access to weapons. Whether it's AK-47s or C-4 explosives, it doesn't matter. Having weapons doesn't result in a revolution. Not having weapons can stall a revolution.

I do agree with you. Part of the problem is that the population doesn't know that the grass really is greener on the other side of the DMZ. Of course, how do they find out, if they can't topple the government?

South Korea could go ahead and start getting everybody out of the immediate vicinity of the DMZ right now and let the little maniac know we're doing it. That might impress on him that his temper tantrum may have consequences above and beyond what they are willing to deal with. No guarantees, however, that's what it's like dealing with crazy people who have their own country. The US does have plenty of experience in that, after all.

The problem for NK is Seoul is right on the border. SHould have moved Seoul south right after the war.

dietrich wrote:

sebster wrote:It's a terrible misunderstanding of history to think revolutions don't occur because the people lack guns. It hasn't ever worked that way. It certainly isn't the issue in N Korea right now.

Without the right to bear arms, an oppressive military regime has little opposition. While people won't like it, and may plot and scheme, at some point, the answer is that they need access to weapons. Whether it's AK-47s or C-4 explosives, it doesn't matter. Having weapons doesn't result in a revolution. Not having weapons can stall a revolution.

I do agree with you. Part of the problem is that the population doesn't know that the grass really is greener on the other side of the DMZ. Of course, how do they find out, if they can't topple the government?

The NK government keeps absolute control of the media and tries to prevent interaction between their population and neighbours even including their relatives in the south.

A lot of the population probably believe the outside world is a grey wasteland.

dietrich wrote:Without the right to bear arms, an oppressive military regime has little opposition. While people won't like it, and may plot and scheme, at some point, the answer is that they need access to weapons. Whether it's AK-47s or C-4 explosives, it doesn't matter. Having weapons doesn't result in a revolution. Not having weapons can stall a revolution.

Nah, when unarmed populations have moved to revolution, the guns are the easiest part.

I do agree with you. Part of the problem is that the population doesn't know that the grass really is greener on the other side of the DMZ. Of course, how do they find out, if they can't topple the government?

There's an interesting idea called the j-curve. It argues that while absolutely free governments are the most stable, it doesn't follow that completely isolated governments are the least stable. Instead the least stable govts are the partially open countries, with completely closed societies generally lasting a long time. But yeah, actually getting N Korea to open the gates is tricky one, and something for the long term once things have stabilised somewhat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JD21290 wrote:we cannot control a country, helping them out would simply lose our own troops in a battle which isnt ours.
if we decide to fight, then we should be taking the country from them, not helping them.

That's seriously bonkers.

and having the experience of being thown into the battlefield im pleased to say im pissed off with fighting for no fething reason atall, why would i want to risk my life for something that is none of my buisness?

It is your business, and that literally 'business'. There are vast amounts of US capital invested in S Korea, and if you signed up thinking you wouldn't be exposed to danger to protect the business holdings of the rich, you haven't been paying attention to the last 200 years of history.

Economists like to do the 'guns vs butter' debate (domestic spending vs military spending). Someone once commented, it was really economics that brought down the Berlin Wall and the end of the USSR. Because the Russian populance realized that the US not only had guns and butter, but they also had washing machines, cars, and aircraft carriers too.

sebster wrote:N Korea has an almost complete shut down of communication with the outside world. They don't know things are better out here. If there was this underlying revolution waiting to happen, people would get their hands on the weapons needed. We're clever like that.

What's needed is to open up N Korea to the rest of the world. Expose the populace to how things work elsewhere, and how their own country can be different. It is, of course, a very difficult thing to achieve and miles away from the current situation (where thinking should be entirely about not letting things get worse).

When reunification happens (and it will someday because they're still one people), the UN's going to have to get involved in a major way. I can't imagine how much delicate lifting it's going to take to get the north up to speed, but at the right rate.

Although I will add that there's perhaps more knowledge of the outside world there than we realize. People do get smuggled out, which would indicate they're aware things are different in the south.

sebster wrote:There's an interesting idea called the j-curve. It argues that while absolutely free governments are the most stable, it doesn't follow that completely isolated governments are the least stable. Instead the least stable govts are the partially open countries, with completely closed societies generally lasting a long time. But yeah, actually getting N Korea to open the gates is tricky one, and something for the long term once things have stabilised somewhat.

I've heard this before too, although as more of an adage about how as you gain freedoms, the more dissatisfied you become. The USSR is a great example.

dietrich wrote:
Without the right to bear arms, an oppressive military regime has little opposition. While people won't like it, and may plot and scheme, at some point, the answer is that they need access to weapons. Whether it's AK-47s or C-4 explosives, it doesn't matter. Having weapons doesn't result in a revolution. Not having weapons can stall a revolution.

With the right to bear arms an oppressive military regime has little opposition, at least in the contemporary environment. Of course you're also presuming the revolutions actually exist in the classical sense. History shows that they tend to be periods of violence followed by business as usual, regardless of who comes out on top.

Either way, if the desire for revolution was strong the NK people would have weapons. All those soldiers serving Kim are hardly automatons.

dietrich wrote:
I do agree with you. Part of the problem is that the population doesn't know that the grass really is greener on the other side of the DMZ. Of course, how do they find out, if they can't topple the government?

Why bother toppling the government if you don't know the grass is greener? Its hardly worth the violence to enter into a social system that you believe to be necessarily the same.

Kilkrazy wrote:
The NK government keeps absolute control of the media and tries to prevent interaction between their population and neighbours even including their relatives in the south.

A lot of the population probably believe the outside world is a grey wasteland.

A while ago there was photo journalist who got into NK and took a bunch of pictures. I think it was published in Foreign Policy. Crazy stuff. According to him the only available media sources were the 3 TV networks that filled the air with propaganda about Kim; including discussions of how his birth was foretold by a sparrow, and his ability to manipulate time.

Frazzled wrote:
I want men like JD12120 to do their job and what they signed up-to protect the US and its citizens. Not the citizens of every country in the world.

Just to clarify : when did it become the British armies job to " to protect the US and its citizens. Not the citizens of every country in the world" ?

I know our armed forces have a much higher success rate of actually winning wars than yours do and you are big fans of subcontracting out but...jeez...

He's not in the British army reds8n. He forwarded something about "See the world, join Cobra Command,' but I just trashed the ad after realizing the free vacation getaway required a meeting first.

reds8n wrote:I know our armed forces have a much higher success rate of actually winning wars than yours do and you are big fans of subcontracting out but...jeez...

I noe, write?

You say that, but.... you never see Lizzie and Cobra Commander together do you eh ? Eh ?

Look at Destro.. now look at Philip... ....

Now consider : Both seemingly have limitless funds without actually, you know, doing any actual work. Extremely loyal-- to the point of fanaticism fans.

Plus the whole wacky schemes to rule the world thing too.
The murder of Diana was merely the first step in creating Serpentor MK II : The Uber Royal. A being of such breeding and genetic superiority that all who see him/her will have an overwhelming compulsion to bow or curtsy.

Diana-- killed in a CAR.

Cobra Commander-- built a brainwashing CARwash.. see? See ?

...errrr....... or was that Ratbat and the other later arrivals from Cybertron ? After they'd built the Space bridge-- which actually incorporated Blasters friend Spanner as part of it ? And Lord Straxus got blown to bits, before trying to possess Megatron later ? Yeah.. I think it was.. I think he hypnotised GB Rockwell perhaps ? This was all well after Circuit Breaker had tried to.. continues ad nauseum...

Run! The Monster is unleashed!

You jest..but look




See the scales ? Scales.... snakes.... see !

have you read David Icke's stunning revelations ? They're terrifying.

At the heart of Icke's theories is the view that the world is ruled by a secret group called the "Global Elite" or "Illuminati," which he has linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic hoax.[3][4] In 1999, he published The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie.[3][5]

Well Kris Kristofferson I could believe, but the Queen? Never! Thats like saying Willie Nelson is a reptilian. He's not. He's just stoned.

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I want men like JD12120 to do their job and what they signed up-to protect the US and its citizens. Not the citizens of every country in the world.

Just to clarify : when did it become the British armies job to " to protect the US and its citizens. Not the citizens of every country in the world" ?

I know our armed forces have a much higher success rate of actually winning wars than yours do and you are big fans of subcontracting out but...jeez...

When TBlair decided we should help invade Iraq and Afghanistan, as far as I can tell.

ba dump-tish!

We're here all week, you've been a lovely audience.

or perhaps this would be more apt ?