Suikoden Ugly and Irenic Karma Original Xperience

Suikox Home | The Speculation Shelter | Tablet of Stars | Suikoden Timeline | Suikoden Geography |Legacies


  [ View Profile | Edit Profile | Nation System | Members | Groups | Search | Register | Check PMs | Log in | FAQ ]

Five Years
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Community Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Amyral

Windriders


Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Jowy Atreides wrote:
Well, I wasn't really attempting to give my own opinion of the six-party talks, I was just explaining what the other five parties think. They see even the possibility of a nuclear North Korea as a threat. If you disagree, it's not something to discuss with me.


I agree that they see it as a threat, which is why they had the talks. I don't think that's the same thing as N. Korea have any leverage in negotiations. It's like a parent telling a kid not to do something. They do it because they don't want the kid to take an action. Most often, the child doesn't really have anything they can do otherwise.

For the military-first policy, we'll have to just agree to disagree, because I still think they're just as bad off as they were before and that their economy hasn't been bolstered in the slightest. Their military-first policy has exacerbated other issues, which has set them back even further. They've attempted time and time again to

For China/N. Korea, note that, in the bit you quoted, I called them their "one big ally." I'd have a hard time calling South Korea their closest ally, really, because, while they don't seem to hate each other anymore and while North Korea isn't seemingly jumping the demilitarized zone to kidnap South Koreans anymore, they really just look to me to be two countries with the same basic goal, but widely different opinions on how to do it. For their link, aside from the border they share, China has the interest in them as a buffer between the US and them. China has been giving large amounts to aid to the country, so I think the link to them is fairly obvious. Even if China is communist in name only, they have a vested interest in N. Korea, have had one for a long while.

For the security council meetings, I don't go to them, so I'm not really aware of how negotiations go in them. However, correct me if I misunderstand, it seems that your basic argument is that, because they went with their allies/the UN, they had little interest in diplomacy? Or am I not understanding your argument?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Jowy Atreides




Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Post Count: 265

486378 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

But there is still a choice, is there not? It would probably isolate North Korea even further, but who knows what those guys are thinking.

OK, that's fine about the military-first policy. I think something got cut out of your post though; the sentence doesn't end.

Historically-speaking, yes, China and the Soviet Union were much closer with North Korea, especially before the ideological split, as all they were all nominally "communist."

How are you using the word 'buffer' here? Do you mean a literal military buffer, or something else entirely? I'd have to know how the word is being used before responding.

If you look at relations between North and South, they've come a long way, even to the point of talking about formally ending the Korean War. They had their first summit back in 2000, and another just took place in 2007. There are even talks of resuming train service between the two capitals. Compare this to Chinese, where Hu Jintao has only met Kim Jong-il once, and even then, nothing of consequence happened. Just a photo-op, mostly.

My primary point is that the United States was fully within its power as one of the Permanent Five to reject the Resolution that woud sanction Sudan, but did not. This was initially in response to this part of one of your posts:

Quote:
Sudan... the US really just followed the UN's lead there


The United States didn't just go along with the United Nations, they are one of the five countries that practically run the UN, with the extensive powers granted to the Security Council. So, rather than being led, they were one of the countries that helped bring the sanctions about. That's my only point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vextor




Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Post Count: 12086
Location: Hell
11331071 Potch
23689 Soldiers
160 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

With the election of Lee Myung Bak, the South has started taking a tougher stance against the North. Personally, I've always thought the "Sunshine Policy" was a load of horse manure, so I'm glad to see this change. I've always thought Roh was a totally incompetent president, which shows from how unpopular he was even within South Korea (at one point polls showed that only 5% of South Koreans supported Roh).

South Korea may emotionally wish for reuinification, but doesn't want reunification from a pragmatic perspective because an incredibly inpoverished North Korea merging with South Korea will create a socio-economic catastrophe. There's already social tension between South Koreans and those who have escaped North Korea and took residence within South Korea. Over 50 years of separation and cultural isolation has transformed the two Koreas into culturally separate nations. Integrating the two would be a pretty tough task, and the resultant economic instability is something that no nation in the region wants. Even though South Korea has been one of the largest contributor of aid to North Korea next to China, it's uncertain if this would continue under Lee.

Although Kim Jong-Il is far less friendly with China compared to his dad, North Korea still gets a bunch of goods from China, and the border-region along the Yalu Rive directly faces China's Manchurian industrial zone. A lot of goods both legal and illegal pass into North Korea from China, and cheap goods from North Korea flow out into China largely from this trade route. Without oil coming from China, North Korea will be in dire straits, too.

Kim Jong-Il is politically closer with Russia, considering how he was born and raised within Russia and is fluent in the language, etc. He frequently goes to Moscow aboard his special train (he refuses to travel by plane). Even if Russia is now a democracy, he probably trusts Russia more than China for whatever personal reason he has.

So there's ample trade between Russia and North Korea, even though a lot of it may be black-market and unofficial. A lot of trade takes place between Nahodka / Korsakov and the various North Korean ports in the eastern shore. The Russian ports function as a transit point for Japanese goods, such as second-hand cars, bicycles, electronic equipment, etc. In turn, goods from North Korea are exported to Japan, bought secretly by fishermen and given a "made in Japan" stamp. As a result, a pretty interesting underground trade route exists in the Sea of Japan.

As far as "buffer" goes, the reason China got involved with the Korean War was to make sure North Korea remained as a buffer between itself and "US-controlled regions" (South Korea). As mentioned previously, the Manchu industrual region which was developed by Japan before WWII existed beyond the Yalu, and was (and still is) strategically important to China. I assume Amyral meant "buffer" in that context.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jowy Atreides




Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Post Count: 265

486378 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Looking at how little North Korea has changed in roughly 60 years, I don't think a tough, or overly-friendly stance towards North Korea from the South will change anything. In most situations I prefer carrots over sticks, but maybe a combination would be better, and that seems to be what the Six-Party Talks are all about.

It seems that these are the same fears that people expressed when West and East Germany united, so I'm not so sure. Perhaps there would be a backlash, but I think things would settle down with time. Reunification definitely won't be happening for a while though; I can agree with you on that. If reunification were inevitable, I'd definitely prefer Southern control rather than Northern.

Yeah, it's too early to see how the new President will treat North Korea.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Amyral

Windriders


Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Jowy Atreides wrote:
But there is still a choice, is there not? It would probably isolate North Korea even further, but who knows what those guys are thinking.


I don't get exactly what point you're trying to make. We were talking about leverage in negotiations/diplomacy, not whether or not everyone else chose to come down on North Korea.

For your question, umm, yeah, I suppose there is the choice. Then again, I could choose to jump off an overpass today, or tie a steak to my ass and taunt a pit bull. There's always a choice somewhere, doesn't mean it makes any sense whatsoever to choose something. Yeah, all parties had a choice in the matter... I don't see what that proves. England and France chose not to respond when Germany remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936, and we know how that turned out.

For buffer, yeah, Vex pretty much covered what I meant by it.

For the Korea relations, I don't think it really matters if North Korea changes at all. That doesn't mean the South isn't changing their stance on the North. In fact, North Korea not changing at all would facilitate a change of stance.

The Sunshine Policy always had its critics. The Koreas are ideologically and economically worlds apart, as are their visions of reunification. The current South Korea president took a rather hard line stance because of that. If he hadn't done anything yet, I'd agree that it would be too early to tell what his stance was. However, the fact that he's taken a hardline stance would seem to indicate the exact opposite. That's not saying reunification isn't possible, it's that they have a whole lot of differences to reconcile before they could even start talking seriously.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Jowy Atreides




Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Post Count: 265

486378 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I was reinforcing your final statement in the first paragraph:

Quote:
Most often, the child doesn't really have anything they can do otherwise.


I already mentioned that it would be a crappy choice on their part, but they've already made plenty of bad choices, so how would it be surprising if they did it again? We're assuming that the North Korean leadership is capable of making pragmatic choices based upon the available facts, which is not correct, unless the line is explicitly drawn.

He could just be fulfilling campaign promises of "getting tough on North Korea." I know that he's already moved his Chess pieces, but he could switch things up if he wants.

Also, sorry for the slow response. Someone broke The Internets at my hotel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fu Su Lu

Hungry Drunken TigerMen


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Post Count: 4043
Location: Costa Esmiran
569802 Potch
3084 Soldiers
800 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

My toughts are simple...this was a war for oil, oil and oil.

This war was and is a shame which never should have happened.

However, leaving the country now would likely take us to a country in chaos, a lot worse (yeah, worse, even if its a contradiction) than Saddam was in charge. So, probably leaving troops in Irak for years would be the right choice (yep, another contradiction...) at this point.

The cost? Hundreds of lives...is the US government ready to pay it for the years it may take? Or more important, will the people, the families of the dead ones tolerate it for long?
_________________
The drunkest cavalry unit in the world.
Who lights a candle casts a shadow.
Uncle Weirdo is on hoilidays... by now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Jowy Atreides




Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Post Count: 265

486378 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

It looks like our 4000th soldier has died, and he was homosexual.

How interesting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Community Forum All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
suikox.com by: Vextor


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
  Username:    Password:      Remember me