Why don't we just finish them off now? NKorea that is

[Solaris]

I meant as bad a man.

Of course Stalin has killed more people.

But was Kim Jong in charge of the soviet union I think he would have done alot worse.

Right now his entire population are starving. Children of children of political dissidents are tortured a murdered in concentration camps. I don't think Stalin put offenders children into gulags did he?

But it's not a competition. Kim Jong is an evil man who makes millions of peoples lives a complete misery. We must not let him perpetuate his system of terror and murder.

 

[CptStern]

I meant as bad a man.

Of course Stalin has killed more people.

But was Kim Jong in charge of the soviet union I think he would have done alot worse.

Right now his entire population are starving. Children of children of political dissidents are tortured a murdered in concentration camps. I don't think Stalin put offenders children into gulags did he?

.

stop posting, you dont know what you're talking about

* Special camps or zones for children (Gulag jargon: "малолетки", maloletki, underaged), for disabled (in Spassk), and for mothers ("мамки", mamki) with babies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

Among these monstrous crimes, Ukraine stands out as the worst in terms of numbers. Stalin declared war on his own people in 1932, sending Commissars V. Molotov and Lazar Kaganovitch and NKVD secret police chief Genrikh Yagoda to crush the resistance of Ukrainian farmers to forced collectivization.

Ukraine was sealed off. All food supplies and livestock were confiscated. NKVD death squads executed "anti-party elements." Furious that insufficient Ukrainians were being shot, Kaganovitch - virtually the Soviet Union's Adolf Eichmann - set a quota of 10,000 executions a week. Eighty percent of Ukrainian intellectuals were shot.

During the bitter winter of 1932-33, 25,000 Ukrainians per day were being shot or died of starvation and cold. Cannibalism became common. Ukraine, writes historian Robert Conquest, looked like a giant version of the future Bergen-Belsen death camp.

The mass murder of seven million Ukrainians, three million of them children, and deportation to the gulag of two million more (where most died) was hidden by Soviet propaganda.

http://www.ukemonde.com/genocide/margolisholocaust.html

stalin is responsible for more deaths of children in a single day than during Kim's entire reign

 

[repiV]

North Korea is a horrible regime, of that there is no question. Possibly the worst place to live in the world. And not because "people die", there are countries around the world in worse poverty and where people live in far greater fear and terror for their lives.

But because the people there live in a state of pure oppression and subservience, with no freedom at all of any kind, and no access to information, brainwashed to oblivion. In the less "educated" parts of North Korea, they don't even realise there is a world beyond NK. As far as they're concerned, NK is the world. As far as the more educated people are concerned, NK is by far the best place to live in the world and Kim Jong Il is great. A nation of slaves of the worst kind - people who do not even realise they are being enslaved.

Does that mean invading North Korea is a good idea? No. For a start, you can't give freedom to a people who don't want or understand it, who know nothing of the world beyond their own upbringing and who would readily kill you for trying to help them. Not by military means, at least.

Then as someone previously mentioned, North Korea has enough missiles aimed at Seoul to utterly annihilate it within a matter of hours if they so chose. Their army is a million-strong and fiercely loyal, and though we would surely defeat them one way or another, it would not come without colossal cost to ourselves.

Even if we were at the height of our military and economic glory, the above would be a serious matter. As it stands, the UK military is a fraction of the size it was a decade ago, underfunded to the point where we could no longer fight a war without help, and massively overstretched on other engagements aswell. The entire western world is in the midst of a recession, possibly a depression (something you may not have really noticed, being a student, but believe me it's quite real).

Maintaining the status quo is the sensible option. Military force does not exist for moral crusades but for self-defence, and while the plight of the North Koreans is deeply regrettable, it is not our plight and most of them probably do not even realise their own plight anyway.

Should have finished the job the first time, mind. But numbers, you really should just forget about this reunification nonsense. It's idealistic bollocks, which makes about as much sense as attempting to turn the USA and Saudi Arabia into a unified nation.

 

[nurizeko]

"War is a horrible thing, but not the horriblest of things; the decayed moral and patriotic feeling that nothing is worth a war, is worse."

This, I actually get bored of the bitter smarmy smug anti-establishment-anti-war opinions of so many people.

Some people think that because one or two of our most recent foreign wars was completely un-neccisary, they all are, lets all just sit in our happy lala lands and do nothing as dictators rise, tyrants burn their own countries around them, and people cry for help and were far too "civilized" and "noble" to provide it.

That's not to say we should invade every third world poophole when the feeling takes us, but I think stopping these backwards conveyors of hate and suffering from gaining nuclear capabilities is a legitimate one and the west shouldn't feel it has no right to snuff out these nuclear programmes because some people cry the game isn't fair.

Tyrants don't care about fair play.

Iran and NK can have nuclear programmes when they have proven themselves democratic liberal leading nations in the world community.

In my mind its regrettable that China and Russia have nukes, but at least they serve some use as a counter-weight. Iran and NK would only serve to upset the balance further.

Until then they should always live in at least a slight fear that they may earn themselves the attentions of the west's military powers, that there is a not to defined line that if they cross it they will be punished and hunted and consigned to history as the dead-end primates they are.

Nukes are like a shield to protect a state from ultimate punishment, they should serve to protect only liberal and free nations, if they need to exist at all.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Bush Quotes

Difference being Bush lied through his ass with no evidence. NK has tested multiple missiles and lied about them being missiles for the most part.

Just talking through my video game oriented mind, when I say NK has to be eliminated. I would mean to do so with a very swift and coordinated first strike. Shit needs planning of course but the faster the better. I'd guess we might need more reliable evidence on their military's whereabouts and such (Spy satellite anyone?). I would think it more possible with NK than with say Iraq.

 

[CptStern]

OMG they have missiles! SK and it's allies could pulverize NK before the nuke ever reaches the launching pad ..also their "nuke" is in name only:

The apparent low yield of the North's test could signal that its scientists, working largely in isolation, haven't quite perfected the deadly art of efficiently splitting atoms.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003297551_webnkorea10.html

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1230/nork-data-it-was-a-dud

http://www.bellona.org/news/news_2006/korea_dud


let's nuke them anyways JUST IN CASE!

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Now you've got it!

/ignoring sarcasm

 

[Mr-Fusion]

This thread is insane. INSANE!!