North Korea

[Guest MattP]

42 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

How depressingly, unpleasantly cynical. And also accurate, in most places.

 

I have no doubt that the NK athletes in these Games are in fear for their lives, that the current NK regime would do anything as long as it maintained their power and what happens up there is entirely reminiscent of 1984, as well as us having been here before with respect to combined sporting teams.

 

However, if Mr Syed wanted to do more than stating what the facts of the matter are, he might suggest his solution to the problem as well as merely highlighting what the problem is.

He's a sportsman, not a politician and I thought he reflected on his experiences well. 

 

It's made me feel a bit sick watching it, the BBC commentator even at one point said how wonderful it was, if you find positive propaganda for the most evil regime on the planet wonderful then so be it, it's gut-wrenching for me.

 

I doubt Mike Pence has been as easily fooled as some of the commentariate. 

[leicsmac]

53 minutes ago, MattP said:

He's a sportsman, not a politician and I thought he reflected on his experiences well. 

 

It's made me feel a bit sick watching it, the BBC commentator even at one point said how wonderful it was, if you find positive propaganda for the most evil regime on the planet wonderful then so be it, it's gut-wrenching for me.

 

I doubt Mike Pence has been as easily fooled as some of the commentariate. 

I honestly don't think highlighting what most people familiar with the situation know already is all that useful tbh, though it is as you say a good reflection.

 

What's happening here is only important/good if it leads to greater rapprochement down the line, but at least with this, that chance, slim as it is, exists, and I think at least that chance should be highlighted - bringing better times to NK has got to start somewhere, right?

 

Of course Pence "isn't buying it", all his behaviour on the matter implies that he considers the only option from here to be one that results in hundreds of thousands of deaths - if he feels at peace with his God about that, then so be it.

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, MattP said:

Quite a good read from Matthew Syed in The Times today, he's been a part of what we are seeing now and looks back with embarrassment at how naive he was.

 

Interesting as that is what it doesn't tell us is what the motivation for the calculated thawing is on this occasion. It simply says he thinks it's calculated, such I wouldn't disagree with. It's obviously also true the priority is kim staying in control. What is interesting, and we've already both put forward differing possibilities, is why. I guess we may find out in the fullness of time.

[Guest MattP]

16 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I honestly don't think highlighting what most people familiar with the situation know already is all that useful tbh, though it is as you say a good reflection.

 

What's happening here is only important/good if it leads to greater rapprochement down the line, but at least with this, that chance, slim as it is, exists, and I think at least that chance should be highlighted - bringing better times to NK has got to start somewhere, right?

 

Of course Pence "isn't buying it", all his behaviour on the matter implies that he considers the only option from here to be one that results in hundreds of thousands of deaths - if he feels at peace with his God about that, then so be it.

Absolutely, and anyone who has read any history will realise that doesn't happen by treating deplorable regimes as normal and appeasing brutal dictators. It's a shame it only takes a generation or two for people to forget that.

[Buce]

31 minutes ago, MattP said:

Absolutely, and anyone who has read any history will realise that doesn't happen by treating deplorable regimes as normal and appeasing brutal dictators. It's a shame it only takes a generation or two for people to forget that.

 

I think that depends entirely on their economic and political relationship with the West, tbh.

 

I don't recall Franco being sanctioned, and that reached a natural conclusion.

[Guest MattP]

21 minutes ago, Buce said:

I think that depends entirely on their economic and political relationship with the West, tbh.

 

I don't recall Franco being sanctioned, and that reached a natural conclusion.

Certainly, Franco was a interesting case, the way he played both sides during the conflict was quite incredible, he was a genius. Being a friend to the Americans also helps I guess.

 

I see no natural conclusion to North Korea though, I've stayed up at night thinking about it.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

Certainly, Franco was a interesting case, the way he played both sides during the conflict was quite incredible, he was a genius. Being a friend to the Americans also helps I guess.

 

I see no natural conclusion to North Korea though, I've stayed up at night thinking about it.

Just leave them to their weird little world?

[Wymsey]

Can certainly imagine Russia helping out North Korea in some ways.

They've been joint-accused of hacking attacks on big companies in Europe as recently as yesterday.

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Just leave them to their weird little world?

Not when I believe the World has a moral obligation to free those people from what they have to live under. Just because I'm OK doesn't mean I'm coll with people across the World being beaten, tortured, starved and killed - I can't turn a blind eye to it.

 

That's the difference between right and left there.

[Buce]

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

Not when I believe the World has a moral obligation to free those people from what they have to live under. Just because I'm OK doesn't mean I'm coll with people across the World being beaten, tortured, starved and killed - I can't turn a blind eye to it.

 

That's the difference between right and left there.

 

Just the other day you said you'd be happy to trade with any country.

 

Are you retracting that now?

Edited 15 February 2018 by Buce

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, MattP said:

Not when I believe the World has a moral obligation to free those people from what they have to live under. Just because I'm OK doesn't mean I'm coll with people across the World being beaten, tortured, starved and killed - I can't turn a blind eye to it.

 

That's the difference between right and left there.

Saudi Arabia if they keep buying our arms. IsraelI settlements outside their borders if it appeases the americans. Tory ignorance of Chinese Human Rights abuses if they can make a few quid. 

 

You rather pick and choose when it bothers you.

Edited 15 February 2018 by Guest

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

Absolutely, and anyone who has read any history will realise that doesn't happen by treating deplorable regimes as normal and appeasing brutal dictators. It's a shame it only takes a generation or two for people to forget that.

I'm sorry, but you'll never get me to believe that change coming on a sea of blood regarding such regimes is always necessary, not every time, no matter how many times it's had to happen in the past (and it has, absolutely).

 

Normalising war and all that comes with it as (if only an occasional) necessity is basically accepting that the human race has zero capacity for learning from its mistakes.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

Just the other day you said you'd be happy to trade with any country.

 

Are you retracting that now?

Not at all, refusing trade would harm the people more. Where have you taken my words as refusing to trade?

 

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Saudi Arabia if they keep buying our arms. IsraelI settlements outside their borders if it appeases the americans. Tory ignorance of Chinese Human Rights abuses if they can make a few quid. 

 

You rather pick and choose when it bothers you.

Same question, where have you assumed I wouldn't trade with them?

 

I don't think the other situations are comparable to this, Saudi and Israel are involved in war or a proxy war, China has opened up to World, we are talking about a country here that doesn't give it's citizens a passport.

 

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry, but you'll never get me to believe that change coming on a sea of blood regarding such regimes is always necessary, not every time, no matter how many times it's had to happen in the past (and it has, absolutely).

 

Normalising war and all that comes with it as (if only an occasional) necessity is basically accepting that the human race has zero capacity for learning from its mistakes.

I didn't say it was always necessary, it may well be though.

 

I'm sure the North Koreans in the gulags will be delighted you are so morally opposed to conflict you are prepared to do nothing, a real help to them.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

I didn't say it was always necessary, it may well be though.

 

I'm sure the North Koreans in the gulags will be delighted you are so morally opposed to conflict you are prepared to do nothing, a real help to them.

 

I'm not entirely sure other solutions than war (like gradual rapprochement and diplomacy leading to them gradually coming out into the international community, for instance) qualifies as "nothing", but...

 

Interesting question, though - would more of them die in a short and bloody war of liberation (though I use that term loosely) than in the time it took to execute a more gradual stage approach involving diplomacy and trade (to say nothing of the South Koreans and Americans who would also die during such a war)?

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

21 minutes ago, MattP said:

Not at all, refusing trade would harm the people more. Where have you taken my words as refusing to trade?

 

Same question, where have you assumed I wouldn't trade with them?

 

I don't think the other situations are comparable to this, Saudi and Israel are involved in war or a proxy war, China has opened up to World, we are talking about a country here that doesn't give it's citizens a passport.

 

I didn't say it was always necessary, it may well be though.

 

I'm sure the North Koreans in the gulags will be delighted you are so morally opposed to conflict you are prepared to do nothing, a real help to them.

Is there actually any chance of us doing anything (in a military vein) to change how a foreign country is run based on moral grounds?  I dont think this is something we do or have ever done

Edited 15 February 2018 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[Buce]

18 minutes ago, MattP said:

Not at all, refusing trade would harm the people more. Where have you taken my words as refusing to trade?

 

 

Perhaps I'm mistaken.

 

So, to be clear, you don't agree with sanctions then? Or those against Iran?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

On 14/02/2018 at 16:05, leicsmac said:

I honestly don't think highlighting what most people familiar with the situation know already is all that useful tbh, though it is as you say a good reflection.

 

What's happening here is only important/good if it leads to greater rapprochement down the line, but at least with this, that chance, slim as it is, exists, and I think at least that chance should be highlighted - bringing better times to NK has got to start somewhere, right?

 

Of course Pence "isn't buying it", all his behaviour on the matter implies that he considers the only option from here to be one that results in hundreds of thousands of deaths - if he feels at peace with his God about that, then so be it.

 

 

It is however, when you have a generation and significant portion of the population that won’t be familiar with the situation. 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

It is however, when you have a generation and significant portion of the population that won’t be familiar with the situation. 

Given all the news that has emerged about NK in recent times, I think that if you were to ask the vast majority of people in the UK, US or other OECD countries about them, you'd come up with at least some variation of what Syed wrote in that article - NK are nasty, brutish, nuts, totalitarian and anyone who expects them to be sorted out diplomatically is naive. It's a pretty well-worn, well-stated narrative and I'm not sure how much more it needs repeating before most folks are aware of it. And the first part of that is true - but the second, in my own opinion, is not.

 

What would be a little more unique (and useful), as well as highlighting just what monumental totalitarian nutjobs they are, would be to propose a solution that doesn't involve hundreds of thousands of casualties and a well-functioning OECD country ruined.

Edited 15 February 2018 by leicsmac

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

@leicsmac

 

I disagree with you’re analysis, because the headline press on North Korea can feel like hyperbole to the extent some people might just associate North Korea as that silly little man, with the funny haircut, who likes to fire rockets. That the focus has become so much on the leader, that he’s become a standing joke; even the pictures of the North Korean cheer leading squad was posed as isn’t this absurd / funny, is a concern.

 

I think Matthew’s piece is a timely reminder there’s a lot more going on than two leaders talking tough and threatening Nuclear war. 

 

True, whether this piece will find its way to those with less understanding of the situation behind a Times paywall is doubtful.

 

And whilst I understand you wanting a suggested solution within it, expecting someone who is primarily know as a Table Tennis player to come up with something considered credible doesn’t work. It would have looked totally out of place, the piece’s goal is to highlight how caution is needed before accepting North Korea’s actions at the Winter Olympics as a welcome conciliatory act.

 

 

Edited 15 February 2018 by DJ Barry Hammond

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

@leicsmac

 

I disagree with you’re analysis, because the headline press on North Korea can feel like hyperbole to the extent some people might just associate North Korea as that silly little man, with the funny haircut, who likes to fire rockets. That the focus has become so much on the leader, that he’s become a standing joke; even the pictures of the North Korean cheer leading squad was posed as isn’t this absurd / funny, is a concern.

 

I think Matthew’s piece is a timely reminder there’s a lot more going on than two leaders talking tough and threatening Nuclear war. 

 

True, whether this piece will find its way to those with less understanding of the situation behind a Times paywall is doubtful.

 

And whilst I understand you wanting a suggested solution within it, expecting someone who is primarily know as a Table Tennis player to come up with something considered credible doesn’t work. It would have looked totally out of place, the piece’s goal is to highlight how caution is needed before accepting North Korea’s actions at the Winter Olympics as a welcome conciliatory act.

 

 

I would agree that a more serious and sober look at the picture (rather than just painting the leader as a nutjob and leaving it at that) is likely called for, though in all honesty I don't think this piece adds much beyond warning folks that NK isn't to be trusted, even at the best of times (whether you think that message is right or not is down to the reader).

 

Perhaps I'm a little touchy on this topic tbh because it has personal connotations, but I tend to view those who turn their noses up at even the possibility of rapprochement with North Korea (even if it's an outside shot and they think it's just a trick) in a pretty dim light, because when they do that it's often pretty clear what the solution they at least deem acceptable is instead, and that would result in a very great deal of trouble in a corner of the word that happens to mean rather a lot to me, talked about by people from their armchairs who have no idea of the suffering that would occur nor have any chance of that same suffering coming anywhere near their doorsteps.

 

And yes, I consider this issue to be that binary because frankly, no one has presented me with any kind of viable middle ground between reconciliation and flat-out war.

Edited 16 February 2018 by leicsmac

[Wymsey]

'It remains to be seen if the countries will hold their first top-level talks in a decade. For all their reticence to speak politically, the North Korean athletes seem to be pushing the idea.'

http://www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/la-sp-olympics-north-korea-mystery-20180217-story.html

 

If NK don't gain any medal success from this, doubt the country will be willing to negotiate a peace etc deal imo.

-

May be BS due to it being the Daily Star, but can't help to laugh at this story..

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/681920/winter-olympics-north-korea-sex-ban-kim-jong-un-village-pyeongchang

[leicsmac]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43153976

 

Better signs.

[Wymsey]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43153976

 

Better signs.

But that could cause aggro from concerned nations such as the US etc in thinking they're only doing it just to put a 'front on' in front of the global stage to try and make it seen in others eyes that they really want to improve relations.

Edited 22 February 2018 by Wymeswold fox

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

But that could cause aggro from concerned nations such as the US etc in thinking they're only doing it just to put a 'front on' in front of the global stage to try and make it e seen in others eyes that they really want to improve relations.

Oh, it absolutely could, and it likely will. I've seen a dozen cynical talking heads saying exactly that already.

 

I hope that the SK's ignore every single one of them.

[leicsmac]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43189691

 

Interesting times - honestly unsure as to where things go from here tbh.