US and Korea "Slipping Into War"

DanS · July 16, 2003, 01:09

A lot of interesting news regarding NK the last couple of days.

Perry, the former Defense Secretary, is warning that the US and the NK are slipping into war, and that we should engage in some coercive diplomacy to impose a diplomatic settlement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jul14.html

Now here's a very intriguing proposal that the US would accept up to 300,000 North Korean refugees per annum.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jul15.html

I can't imagine how this would actually be done. For instance, would we accept the people who make it to Mongolia?

For context, South Korea accepts only about 1,000 NKers per annum and hasn't asked China to send the refugees their way, rather than repatriating them to NK. The US doesn't accept these refugees under the assumption that they will go to SK.

A lot of those refugees would seem to be NK agents, and there are complications, but it is definitely an interesting proposal.

Drake Tungsten · July 16, 2003, 01:11

Quote:

Now here's a very intriguing proposal that the US would accept up to 300,000 North Korean refugees per annum.

Wouldn't this just release one of the major societal pressures on the current government, allowing them to stay in power longer?

Kramerman · July 16, 2003, 01:13

excellent

I didnt read the articles, but we should take all those refugees we can. I bet they would make model citizens in the US, and would be very greatful for the freedoms and ability to improve your socio-economic status

DanS · July 16, 2003, 01:13

The thought is that it would destablize the NK gov't as everybody with any skills tries to flee the country. It is probably a good thing to question this assumption, however.

Kramerman · July 16, 2003, 01:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Now here's a very intriguing proposal that the US would accept up to 300,000 North Korean refugees per annum.

Wouldn't this just release one of the major societal pressures on the current government, allowing them to stay in power longer?

who cares. we got room, and it would only make us a better nation, until our ultimate final showdown with NK...

they can go back with their new skills and education, if they want afterward and join their families, or they can stay here

GePap · July 16, 2003, 01:15

How would they get to the US? They can only leave NK by sneaking into China, so we woudl be talking about accepting 300,000 people via Chinese ports..nah, ain;t going to happen at all. Chances are zip.

As for the "Us and NK slipping into war", well, lets seriously hope not. But diplomacy does need to restart, cause if the NK has gone as far as they claim, the time at which the WH will have to either give up the notion it can stop a nuclear NK, or have to take actions that would lead to full war.

Nubclear · July 16, 2003, 01:15

The only winner that will come out of this is Kim-Jong Il.

DanS · July 16, 2003, 01:16

Kramerman: It's more complicated than that. Basically, NK is full of abused people. There are a lot of problems associated with that, such as suicidal tendencies and violent behavior. Q^3 linked to a heartwrenching article about this several months ago.

Drake Tungsten · July 16, 2003, 01:19

It really says a lot about North Korea when we can't even accept their refugees at face value. I wish there was an easy way to end that regime.

MichaeltheGreat · July 16, 2003, 01:19

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
The thought is that it would destablize the NK gov't as everybody with any skills tries to flee the country. It is probably a good thing to question this assumption, however.

You can bet the group will be loaded with DPRK agents of several varieties, and you can also bet that those with usable skills will be the absolute last allowed to leave - the DPRK will want to shed dead weight, since they can't feed their population.

I have no problem with aiding the NK people through a reunification process (or anything else where they're there, and the DPRK government apparatus is gone), but allowing a mass flood of refugees we're ill equipped to handle from either a humanitarian transitional or a security and intel POV is sheer lunacy.

DanS · July 16, 2003, 01:19

How would they get to the US? They can only leave NK by sneaking into China, so we woudl be talking about accepting 300,000 people via Chinese ports..nah, ain;t going to happen at all. Chances are zip.

Yeh, I would like to see the details. As I understand, the current underground railroad runs through Mongolia, as I said above. But there the flow is modest.

Kramerman · July 16, 2003, 01:22

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Kramerman: It's more complicated than that. Basically, NK is full of abused people. There are a lot of problems associated with that, such as suicidal tendencies and violent behavior. Q^3 linked to a heartwrenching article about this several months ago.

i know they are abused

Im no sociologist, but im sure they could do fine in american society, with a little help perhaps. mind you, im not going into any of the technicalities of getting them to the US. and MtG has some good points. Im just assuming we get all those who escape

DanS · July 16, 2003, 01:24

In SK, the NK refugees receive about 3 months of reeducation and then 2 years of benefits, IIRC. They also are shadowed by an SK intel agent for a couple of years.

Kramerman · July 16, 2003, 01:25

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
In SK, the NK refugees receive about 3 months of reeducation and then 2 years of benefits, IIRC. They also are shadowed by an SK intel agent for a couple of years.

hmm... thats pretty pricey, i suppose

GePap · July 16, 2003, 01:30

They had an interesting peice on the lives of NK teenagers that had fled and made it to SK. In general, they were about 6-12 inches shorter, due to malnutirtion. They were also geenrally more porne to violence, since life in NK is very violent. It was a depressing story.

As for the refugee thing: aint; going to happen ever.

Drake Tungsten · July 16, 2003, 01:32

Quote:

In general, they were about 6-12 inches shorter

Damn, I can't imagine being 4 feet tall. Poor kids.

Kramerman · July 16, 2003, 01:35

jeez... 4ft tall... really sad... their wangs must be insanely small

. not that their violent nature would make it likely for them to find a successful mate anyway. Is their education years behind as well? id hate to be one of them

GePap · July 16, 2003, 01:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Damn, I can't imagine being 4 feet tall. Poor kids.

Yeah, if South Korean teenagers averaged 5 feet, which they don't. But they are still pretty short.

Oh, for reference, the piece was in the NYT Magazine.

Kramerman · July 16, 2003, 01:45

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

Yeah, if South Korean teenagers averaged 5 feet, which they don't. But they are still pretty short.

Oh, for reference, the piece was in the NYT Magazine.

i dont think he was entirely serious

The Mad Monk · July 16, 2003, 01:48

NYT? Nevermind, then -- we all know how reliable they are...

Drake Tungsten · July 16, 2003, 01:48

Quote:

i dont think he was entirely serious

laurentius · July 16, 2003, 02:36

And if you want official answers from the north koreans just log on to this forum and ask!

have fun

VJ · July 16, 2003, 03:01

How long are we going to keep our eyes closed and avoid the war with DPRK, I wonder?

W and his supporters rally to fight for the oilfields at the same moment as we have a rogue opportunist oppressing millions and obtaining nuclear weapons.

Instead encouraging Iran to obtain nuclear and biologic weapons by leaving DPRK alone and invading Iraq, I'd like to see US finally actually taking the responsibilities of the world police -title it took from the UN in late 90's, and destroy the brutal serfdom of Kim Jong-Il.

problem_child · July 16, 2003, 06:46

I think it's better to call it the Worlds Godfather.

Pekka · July 16, 2003, 07:35

Hey I'm all for destroying that place. We have all valid reasons to get it on. They have nukes, and they're proud of it. They hate us and say they will use it against us. So.. what are we waiting for? Let's get it on and let they chips fall as they may.

Then when we have destroyed its nuclear capacity with a massive air strike, we can put Kim to a cage and drive it around NK and see how his magic powers can't defeat a simple lock. Then we fly him to international waters where I can wrestle him.

DinoDoc · July 16, 2003, 08:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuomerehu
I'd like to see US finally actually taking the responsibilities of the world police -title it took from the UN in late 90's, and destroy the brutal serfdom of Kim Jong-Il.

Well saddle up partner and put troops where your mounth is! Yeehaw! Oh and if you could get South Korea to go along with this, that'd be just peachy.

Q Classic · July 16, 2003, 10:03

Quote:

Q^3 linked to a heartwrenching article about this several months ago.

what, this article?
flight of the fluttering swallows (full&free)
buy from nytimes
it's a tragedy about the inability to absorb too many more refugees on the part of skorea.
i wish there was more that one could do...

Quote:

How long are we going to keep our eyes closed and avoid the war with DPRK, I wonder?
W and his supporters rally to fight for the oilfields at the same moment as we have a rogue opportunist oppressing millions and obtaining nuclear weapons.
Instead encouraging Iran to obtain nuclear and biologic weapons by leaving DPRK alone and invading Iraq, I'd like to see US finally actually taking the responsibilities of the world police -title it took from the UN in late 90's, and destroy the brutal serfdom of Kim Jong-Il.

we are still at war with nkorea, actually.
we are not going to restart hostilities. over 10 million people live less than 50 miles from thousands of hardened and hidden artillery pieces. over a million troops are stationed less than 2 miles from each other, ready to wipe each other out in the opening minutes of the war.
if he has wmd, he won't hesitate to use them, either on seoul or pusan or taejon or tokyo or any other major city he can reach.
are you willing to pay such a high blood price?
it's a difficult question. especially for koreans: faced with destroying everything they've built in the last fifty years and sending 40 million back into the ranks of the destitute or liberating 20 million from the clutches of evil... possibly at the cost of many millions of lives on both sides...
i'm not ready to pay it at this time. there's got to be another way.

Quote:

Then when we have destroyed its nuclear capacity with a massive air strike,

we may know where his nuclear capability lies. but we cannot wipe out his entire military with an air strike. the instant he's attacked, we'll have millions of soldiers pouring over the dmz.

sad, no?

give me a gun, a really nice and big ****ing gun, drop me off in pyongyang.
i'll have this sorted out in no time.

Vandal-1 · July 16, 2003, 10:05

I find this to very troubling but it' something that we have known about even before we deployed troops to Iraq.It could result in Iraq quickly becoming excessive baggage to the US machine as well as one of the final nails in the Bush coffin. The esculation in Nuclear weapons will not prompt the build up of conventional force however in any targetable area.( at least not openly) IMO The Japanese if armed and motivated to deal with a threat to their homeland would be able to deal with what is left of the NK and SK.We have nutured the Nippon-jin for 50 years and they must now prepare
to help us help them.I theink they can do it secretively
remember Pearl Harbor.

Sava · July 16, 2003, 11:35

Quote:

give me a gun, a really nice and big ****ing gun, drop me off in pyongyang.
i'll have this sorted out in no time.

Ditto... give me a Barret .50 cal sniper rifle and this little diplomatic conflict is over.

gunkulator · July 16, 2003, 11:41

Let the Chinese deal with their problem child. They've propped up this mess of a nation for years and now are trying to back out. Sorry. No dice.

If the US gets involved to rid the world of this nasty regime, how long before the rest of the world starts howling about imperialism again? I say we pass on this one.