1
   

Uh Oh... N. Korea troubles

 
 
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 02:00 pm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11387512%255E2703,00.html

Quote:

Consort's death rocks Kim Jong-il
Michael Sheridan, Beijing
November 15, 2004
HARDLINERS have tightened their political grip on North Korea while Kim Jong-il, the Stalinist state's dictator, has retreated into virtual seclusion after the death of his favourite consort from cancer.

Chinese and Western sources say the regime has prepared for a state of siege as it confronts a re-elected US administration under George W. Bush that is determined to break Pyongyang and disarm it of nuclear weapons.

As Japanese envoys tried to persuade the North Koreans last week to rejoin multinational talks, Mr Kim's absence from the scene led to speculation a debilitating power struggle might have paralysed the ruling group.

This followed the death of Koh Young-hee, a dancer who had provided Mr Kim with an heir-apparent to the world's only communist dynasty.

"The loss of this woman was a blow," said a foreign diplomat.









"But (US Democratic candidate) John Kerry's loss in the US election was a harder one. These are now very worried men."

Diplomats and aid officials in Pyongyang noticed the first signs of a clampdown when some members of their North Korean staff were abruptly reassigned to new jobs and others became more nervous than usual about discussing current affairs. Restrictions had been imposed on foreigners' movements, they said.

Telephones used by foreign residents have been cut off and the secret police have assumed control of the country's mobile phone service.

Entry permits for foreigners have been curtailed.

The story of how personal bereavement and international crisis became intertwined began with the shipment of an elaborate coffin from Paris to Pyongyang during the summer.

North Korean diplomats had ordered it for Koh, 51, who flew home to die after specialists at an exclusive Paris clinic decided she could not be saved from breast cancer.

There was no public funeral, but North Koreans noticed that extravagant praise for a figure called Omonim ("respected mother") had vanished from propaganda documents.

Koh, whose family arrived from Japan in the 1960s, caught Mr Kim's roving eye when she was dancing in the renowned Mansudae Art Troupe.

The dictator, 63, has had at least two wives and many affairs, but defectors say Koh emerged as the most influential woman in a regime beset by dynastic rivalries.

In 1981, she gave birth to their son Kim Jong-chul, who was educated in Geneva and now works in the propaganda department of the ruling Korean Workers Party. A second son, Kim Jong-un, followed three years later.

South Korean intelligence officials have identified Jong-chul as Mr Kim's chosen heir, displacing his eldest son, Kim Jong-nam, whose mother, Song Hye-rim, died in Moscow in 2002 after seeking treatment for depression.

Chinese, Japanese and Russian diplomats have all urged the North Koreans to return to the negotiating table to avoid a showdown with the US. The response was a demand that the US President renounce a refugee law he signed to help North Korean refugees.

Meanwhile, the human toll of China's treaty of friendship with North Korea is mounting. The Chinese have sent home 62 defectors caught in police raids, knowing they are destined for concentration camps. The deportations, commented Chosun Ilbo, the South Korean newspaper, were "tantamount to telling them, 'Go and die"'.

The Sunday Times




Well, this certainly doesn't look good.

Can someone with more knowledge on the politics of the area help me out here?

Cycloptichorn
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 11,924 • Replies: 215
No top replies

 
gav
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 03:46 pm
Hmmm - a situation for an eye to be kept on Confused
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 03:50 pm
we won't fight them...they might hit back.....
0 Replies
 
gav
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 04:04 pm
Too true BPB, too true!!
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 04:09 pm
That is so overdue. Kim has murdered literally millions of people in North Korea. The starving masses have been known to resort to trying to eat grass, bark and even cannibalism. Enough aid is sent to feed everyone, but Kim keeps it for his army or sells it on the black market. The longer we wait, the more dangerous he may become. In years past, everyone who's visited with him is shocked to learn that he doesn't come off as the "mad-man" one would think you'd have to be to perpetrate such horrid oppression. Perhaps he's going through the depressing struggle of knowing he must back down. If not, millions may die. It's way past time for an ultimatum. Again, he's already murdered millions and his ability to kill is increasing with each new weapon he builds. I hope with all of my might Bush will, once again, make the decision to act.

On the plus side: in this theater most of the death will be over when the war is. The only real separation between the North and South (other than the demarcation) is Kim's propaganda. There are literally families divided by that line and the South will pour their resources into the North to aid in recovery. Think more like Germany than Iraq.

Bear is wrong. He can't really hit the U.S., Stateside... but if he wants to go out with a bang his neighbors are in trouble.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 04:09 pm
Interesting....
The US couldn't handle N. Korea if they wanted to play hard right now.
It'll be interesting to see what happens.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 04:10 pm
Does the U.S. have any troops to spare for a conflict with North Korea?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 04:11 pm
candidone1 wrote:
Interesting....
The US couldn't handle N. Korea if they wanted to play hard right now.
It'll be interesting to see what happens.


If N. Korea wanted to play hard, we could play harder.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 04:12 pm
With what human resources, Ticomaya?

Can any further conflict be entered into without a draft?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 04:21 pm
ehBeth wrote:
Does the U.S. have any troops to spare for a conflict with North Korea?
North Korea isn't a "need for troops" situation. This one calls for an emense decapitation strike, at any cost, followed within seconds by crippling blows to every known military installation... then calling swiftly for a cease-fire which will presumably be a nuclear standoff where NK chooses to hurt others, with the one or two atomic weapons they may have left-> and be annihilated or surrender. Additional troops, IMHO, would be more of a liability than anything else.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 04:26 pm
ehBeth wrote:
Does the U.S. have any troops to spare for a conflict with North Korea?


I think they could probably go over to all the VFW halls on bingo night and round up a few recalls....
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 04:29 pm
ehBeth wrote:
With what human resources, Ticomaya?

Can any further conflict be entered into without a draft?


O'Bill has helpfully supplied the answer ...

OCCOM BILL wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
Does the U.S. have any troops to spare for a conflict with North Korea?
North Korea isn't a "need for troops" situation. This one calls for an emense decapitation strike, at any cost, followed within seconds by crippling blows to every known military installation... then calling swiftly for a cease-fire which will presumably be a nuclear standoff where NK chooses to hurt others, with the one or two atomic weapons they may have left-> and be annihilated or surrender. Additional troops, IMHO, would be more of a liability than anything else.
0 Replies
 
gav
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 04:38 pm
Where has this worked before?
0 Replies
 
gav
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 04:50 pm
Anybody? No takers?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 04:56 pm
Irrelevant question. It hasn't come up before. The United States currently has an ability to strike that is unprecedented in history and has never been fully tested.
Btw; it isn't your questions that discourage people from answering. :wink:
0 Replies
 
gav
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 05:01 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Irrelevant question. It hasn't come up before. The United States currently has an ability to strike that is unprecedented in history and has never been fully tested.
Btw; it isn't your questions that discourage people from answering. :wink:


I fail to see how its an irrelevant question.

If it has never been fully tested how do you know it would work?

I shouldn't be so damn "anti-american" (as you have labelled me) then I might have friends in here: of course thats why I signed into A2K!!
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 05:30 pm
gav wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Irrelevant question. It hasn't come up before. The United States currently has an ability to strike that is unprecedented in history and has never been fully tested.
Btw; it isn't your questions that discourage people from answering. :wink:


I fail to see how its an irrelevant question.

If it has never been fully tested how do you know it would work?
I don't. I do know that our current plan or rather lack thereof, has already resulted in millions of innocent deaths. MILLIONS. That's just in the last 10 years... and the situation is now more dangerous than ever before. Each day we wait, the more dangerous Kim becomes. While action may very well prove to be deadly for millions, inaction already has... and has shown no signs of slowing down. War plans don't come with guarantees.

gav wrote:
I shouldn't be so damn "anti-american" (as you have labelled me) then I might have friends in here: of course thats why I signed into A2K!!

Gav, anti-American sentiments are hardly unpopular here. If you don't like America, it's perfectly okay to say so... but don't be a hypocrite and don't be surprised when people who disagree refute your arguments. Now if you take the opposite side of everything American, you may find some get board with covering your individual complaints. Speaking only for myself, that's how it seems to me.
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 05:43 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
Does the U.S. have any troops to spare for a conflict with North Korea?
North Korea isn't a "need for troops" situation. This one calls for an emense decapitation strike, at any cost, followed within seconds by crippling blows to every known military installation... then calling swiftly for a cease-fire which will presumably be a nuclear standoff where NK chooses to hurt others, with the one or two atomic weapons they may have left-> and be annihilated or surrender. Additional troops, IMHO, would be more of a liability than anything else.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 06:09 pm
So they'd get nuked and then left to try and cope on their own?
Brilliant.
America will definitely get support from the world on that one.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 06:21 pm
Bill, that was the most cartoonish geopolitical scenario I have seen in recent times. The scenario you propose is beyond most "worst case scenarios" and it takes something special to actually propose the worst case scenario as any type of solution or response.

Thankfully, even the most hawkish people in power in the US have much more sense than that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Uh Oh... N. Korea troubles
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 4.25 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 08:18:18