North Korea

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

I do agree, it just sits uncomfortably that we are abandoning millions of North Koreans to effective imprisonment.  

 

Maybe China can persuade Kim of the advantages of opening up his country a bit.

It's horrific - I just hope the people of the North don't know and aren't just waiting to be rescued. 

 

South Korean's throw old phones in bottles into the sea with footage of the outside World on them hoping they wash up in the North - I'd imagine a fair few now do realise they are in a prison state.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

No, I think it's a moderate victory for both, but as I say - I still Kim is trying to buy time until the next election.

 

I'm baffled anyone can declare it "game, set match" for either. But I think you only see that because of your hatred for Trump.

Perhaps but I certainly don't think Trump will get anything like what he hopes and I think the North's position is much stronger than you've made out at times. I broadly think Kim has gained more than Trump to date. And I expect that to continue given how things currently stand.

[Rogstanley]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

No, I think it's a moderate victory for both, but as I say - I still Kim is trying to buy time until the next election.

 

I'm baffled anyone can declare it "game, set match" for either. But I think you only see that because of your hatred for Trump.

How can the fact that NK has increased its nuclear capability to the point they can reach mainland US possibly be considered a victory for Trump?

 

Kim has got everything he wanted. Trump has got nothing.

[Guest MattP]

13 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Perhaps but I certainly don't think Trump will get anything like what he hopes and I think the North's position is much stronger than you've made out at times. I broadly think Kim has gained more than Trump to date. And I expect that to continue given how things currently stand.

I've never denied they have a strong position - developing nuclear weapons always puts you in a fantastic one, it's the ultimate piece of insurance policy. 

 

Kim never wanted to come to the table though, that was never the intention of this dynasty, he's been forced into this because of some better late than never more productive US foreign policy. Would Kim swop Trump for Obama? We all know like a shot he would.

 

His next moves will be interesting but if it stops his nuclear development the US has achieved a short term goal. 

[Innovindil]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-43921385

 

Tubby says no more nukes. Interesting. 

[MC Prussian]

Personally, and all the bickering on there aside, I'd say North Korea have reached a point where they simply could no longer sustain their internal policy.

 

Too many people have been killed in concentration/labour camps for the Grand Idea and the Great Leader, too many North Koreans starved to death, too many families torn apart by the constant spying and observing going on between family members.

The development of a nuclear program was the only trump card (sic!) on the table. Now, with its collapse, so has the country fallen apart.

 

Other than that, the poverty and 19th century agriculture, plus a lack of additional industries and income and the sole dependance on China - you can't keep such a system up forever, it was bound to break apart at some point. And better now than later.

 

Happy for both North and South Korea. I hope peace and prosperity reign now for a long, long time.

A deeply historical moment when Kim crossed the demarcation line earlier today. It puts an end to roughly 70 years of fear, oppression and desperation.

Edited 27 April 2018 by MC Prussian

[Merging Cultures]

49 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-43921385

 

Tubby says no more nukes. Interesting. 

I've read that denuclearisation would mean removing the US presence from South Korea. That could be a sticking point.

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I've never denied they have a strong position - developing nuclear weapons always puts you in a fantastic one, it's the ultimate piece of insurance policy. 

 

Kim never wanted to come to the table though, that was never the intention of this dynasty, he's been forced into this because of some better late than never more productive US foreign policy. Would Kim swop Trump for Obama? We all know like a shot he would.

 

His next moves will be interesting but if it stops his nuclear development the US has achieved a short term goal. 

They've been to the table before and nothing has changed. They're more powerful now, why would anything change now?

 

Fair play on your determination to ignore and twist reality to make it look like trump has achieved something here, but anyone capable of a basic fact check can see through all the lies.

[Guest MattP]

52 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Fair play on your determination to ignore and twist reality to make it look like trump has achieved something here, but anyone capable of a basic fact check can see through all the lies.

 

 

Who do we believe? The South Korean Foreign Minister or weird multi-account anonymous dude on the Internet? 

 

Tough call.

 

So much hate, love trumps hate. 

[Webbo]

56 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

They've been to the table before and nothing has changed. They're more powerful now, why would anything change now?

 

Fair play on your determination to ignore and twist reality to make it look like trump has achieved something here, but anyone capable of a basic fact check can see through all the lies.

How would things be different if Trump had done the same as Obama?

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Merging Cultures said:

I've read that denuclearisation would mean removing the US presence from South Korea. That could be a sticking point.

TBH if a peace treaty is proposed that includes denuclearisation and total cessation of hostilities in return for US presence leaving the peninsula, then if the Americans don't go for it they should be castigated.

 

Regarding the above discussion, I'm with Prussian in that the peace is the important thing as well as a pathway to freeing up the North Korean people in the future, rather than bickering about who was responsible and to what degree.

[Rogstanley]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

 

Who do we believe? The South Korean Foreign Minister or weird multi-account anonymous dude on the Internet? 

 

Tough call.

 

So much hate, love trumps hate. 

 

They're buttering him up obviously. Trump is a global laughing stock but these people have got their own interests in mind first and foremost. Trump is easy to butter up so that's what they do.

[Rogstanley]

11 minutes ago, Webbo said:

How would things be different if Trump had done the same as Obama?

When Obama wanted to meet with NK all the right wingers lambasted him. When trump wants to meet with NK suddenly it's oh wow isn't Donald amazing. They've got more dangerous weapons now than they had before. At this point that's trumps legacy.

 

If you and Matty like trump just say so, we all know you do anyway, there's no need to keep up the pretence.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

When Obama wanted to meet with NK all the right wingers lambasted him. When trump wants to meet with NK suddenly it's oh wow isn't Donald amazing. They've got more dangerous weapons now than they had before. At this point that's trumps legacy.

 

If you and Matty like trump just say so, we all know you do anyway, there's no need to keep up the pretence.

All the right wingers? Which side were you on then?

[Rogstanley]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

All the right wingers? Which side were you on then?

I'm talking about right wingers predominantly in the American media and among conservatives eg

 

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/fox-news-different-reactions-regarding-negotiations-with-north-korea

[Merging Cultures]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

TBH if a peace treaty is proposed that includes denuclearisation and total cessation of hostilities in return for US presence leaving the peninsula, then if the Americans don't go for it they should be castigated.

 

Regarding the above discussion, I'm with Prussian in that the peace is the important thing as well as a pathway to freeing up the North Korean people in the future, rather than bickering about who was responsible and to what degree.

I agree. It's probably just too strategic, in terms of military and influence in the region to just leave.

 

But given than Trump is so odd, he might just leave against the advice of military interests.

 

Congrats to him for being madder than the next maddest man. His unpredictability may have brought peace.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Merging Cultures said:

I agree. It's probably just too strategic, in terms of military and influence in the region to just leave.

 

But given than Trump is so odd, he might just leave against the advice of military interests.

 

Congrats to him for being madder than the next maddest man. His unpredictability may have brought peace.

It's a key strategic point, but not backing down on it when everyone else is agreeing will still make them look like spoilt warmongering kids - I don't think they'll have much choice.

 

Definite shades of "only Nixon could go to China" about all this, but I don't believe for a second this panned out exactly in the way the current administration intended. But who cares? Peace is peace.

[Countryfox]

 

Wow ! ..   wtf is happening out there ?! ...    if there’s a diabolical masterplan by the evil imp then I haven’t got a fookin clue what it might be ...    exciting isn’t it ...   

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

I don't trust that North Korea cnut as far as I could throw the bastard.

[Alf Bentley]

For people (like me) who don't know much about the history of Korea, a decent little potted history in the Mirror: 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/why-north-south-korea-divided-12272371

 

Anyone, such as @leicsmac, care to explain a bit more about Korea? Cultural differences from China & Japan? Public attitudes to China & Japan now?

Would it have been a country with a strong, unified identity if it hadn't been for the Korean war (Cold War by proxy) and partition from 1950s?

 

I really know very little about that part of the world....

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

I don't trust that North Korea cnut as far as I could throw the bastard.

Thankfully those with the power to affect the process don't seem to be thinking this way at this point in time.

 

11 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

For people (like me) who don't know much about the history of Korea, a decent little potted history in the Mirror: 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/why-north-south-korea-divided-12272371

 

Anyone, such as @leicsmac, care to explain a bit more about Korea? Cultural differences from China & Japan? Public attitudes to China & Japan now?

Would it have been a country with a strong, unified identity if it hadn't been for the Korean war (Cold War by proxy) and partition from 1950s?

 

I really know very little about that part of the world....

Korea does have a pretty separate cultural identity to both China and Japan, but given that at one time or another they have often been ruled by either one of them such things tend to get blurred and as such the Koreans themselves tend to wish to point out the differences as much as they can as often as they can. Differing "creation" mythologies, differing societal structures (though Confucianism is a big thing), a lot of differences that might be better explained by asking specific questions (some of which I might not be able to answer), really.

 

Public attitudes towards China are reasonable right now, though China are NK's biggest supporters they also give a lot of trade and aid to South Korea too as well as being a very good market for tourism and expensive electronics and gifts, so by and large they get along well enough. Relations with Japan have improved a bit too (a fellow US-aligned ally in the region), apart from the occasional nationalist tit-for-tat involving disputed islands or the sometimes brought-up issue of Japanese war crimes that hasn't been fully addressed in the minds of some Koreans.

 

Regarding what might have been...it's really difficult to tell what might have happened if the US and USSR had done what any moral entity would have done and simply left Korea alone as one nation and offered material support if/when they could. There's a strong argument that it was the many many billions of dollars in US aid that allowed South Korea to acheive the "Miracle on the Han" on the way to becoming the economic powerhouse it is today (not to mention that while receiving Soviet support North Korea had an impressive economy too), but it's possible that Korea could have developed its own identity and become a functioning member of the OECD without it, too. I would certainly think that the sense of national identity (still prevalent in both countries) would be there and possibly stronger if they were one nation, but that's just me guessing, really.

 

If you've got any more questions about it, do let me know.

[Alf Bentley]

43 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Thankfully those with the power to affect the process don't seem to be thinking this way at this point in time.

 

Korea does have a pretty separate cultural identity to both China and Japan, but given that at one time or another they have often been ruled by either one of them such things tend to get blurred and as such the Koreans themselves tend to wish to point out the differences as much as they can as often as they can. Differing "creation" mythologies, differing societal structures (though Confucianism is a big thing), a lot of differences that might be better explained by asking specific questions (some of which I might not be able to answer), really.

 

Public attitudes towards China are reasonable right now, though China are NK's biggest supporters they also give a lot of trade and aid to South Korea too as well as being a very good market for tourism and expensive electronics and gifts, so by and large they get along well enough. Relations with Japan have improved a bit too (a fellow US-aligned ally in the region), apart from the occasional nationalist tit-for-tat involving disputed islands or the sometimes brought-up issue of Japanese war crimes that hasn't been fully addressed in the minds of some Koreans.

 

Regarding what might have been...it's really difficult to tell what might have happened if the US and USSR had done what any moral entity would have done and simply left Korea alone as one nation and offered material support if/when they could. There's a strong argument that it was the many many billions of dollars in US aid that allowed South Korea to acheive the "Miracle on the Han" on the way to becoming the economic powerhouse it is today (not to mention that while receiving Soviet support North Korea had an impressive economy too), but it's possible that Korea could have developed its own identity and become a functioning member of the OECD without it, too. I would certainly think that the sense of national identity (still prevalent in both countries) would be there and possibly stronger if they were one nation, but that's just me guessing, really.

 

If you've got any more questions about it, do let me know.

 

Thanks for that, Mac. t's mainly down to me to read a book - or visit one day - I know. 

 

Brief supplementaries, if you don't mind my cheek....

- What differences do Koreans tend to point out: i.e. what do they view as important Korean characteristics?

- In what ways would you say they differ from Chinese or Japanese (I'm aware that there'll be a big range in all those countries - and don't know how well you know the Chinese or Japanese)?

- Are there major cultural variations between regions, as there are with a lot of other countries?

- Would you say Koreans are more or less conservative/traditional, modern/outgoing or family/socially-oriented, compared to Chinese/Japanese/West....or is there a big variation between urban/rural and young/old?

 

Feel free to tell me I'm being cheeky and should find out for myself! 

[Buce]

9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Thanks for that, Mac. t's mainly down to me to read a book - or visit one day - I know. 

 

Brief supplementaries, if you don't mind my cheek....

- What differences do Koreans tend to point out: i.e. what do they view as important Korean characteristics?

- In what ways would you say they differ from Chinese or Japanese (I'm aware that there'll be a big range in all those countries - and don't know how well you know the Chinese or Japanese)?

- Are there major cultural variations between regions, as there are with a lot of other countries?

- Would you say Koreans are more or less conservative/traditional, modern/outgoing or family/socially-oriented, compared to Chinese/Japanese/West....or is there a big variation between urban/rural and young/old?

 

Feel free to tell me I'm being cheeky and should find out for myself! 

3

 

This hiking trail is on my bucket list, Alf:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeju_Olle_Trail

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

21 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

This hiking trail is on my bucket list, Alf:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeju_Olle_Trail

 

 

 

Sounds like a great hike.

 

On a more low-key scale, I'm now booked up to do the Hadrian's Wall walk in a couple of months.

Let's see just how unfit I am (first longish walk for several years, though I've done the odd longish 1-day walk and coped fine). 

[Buce]

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Sounds like a great hike.

 

On a more low-key scale, I'm now booked up to do the Hadrian's Wall walk in a couple of months.

Let's see just how unfit I am (first longish walk for several years, though I've done the odd longish 1-day walk and coped fine). 

 

Cool. 

 

Are you planning to stay in accomodation or are you camping?