[Kolgena]

China's going to already be thinking about how to turn this to its advantage, especially against the west. I'm guessing that their approach is going to be pretty creative. I think we can rule out China declaring unconditional support for North Korea or something retarded like that at least, but that beyond that, it's hard to say what they'll do. They also have to consider that a very pissed off nuclear nation next door could level a province or two, equating to tens of millions of lives and a pretty big chunk of GDP.

[TopAce]

They'd have the Kim "dynasty" removed, and a new Communist government installed. Present it as advantageous to the West, and there you go. That's what I would recommend for them to do.

Going to war against NK and letting the West merge the two Koreas is obviously not going to work for China. Supporting NK and waging war against the West would economically drain everyone, and that's as bad for China as it is to the rest of the world. After 15 years of economic prosperity, they wouldn't risk it, especially now that we are in a recession ourselves. The US economy came out rather well from the last worldwide war, because her mainland territory was left intact while everyone else's country was devastated. If this turned into a full-scale war, China would be ruined almost as hard as the affected European powers were during WWII. I'm supposing no one would use nukes.

The best imaginable scenario would be if Kim the Younger decided to back off and see to it that NK becomes a democratic nation, a symbol of due process of law, a haven for unbiased and balanced journalism, rational elections, etc. It's highly likely, isn't it?

[Flipside]

You can be certain that it isn't just China who are looking to turn this situation to their advantage though. Enlightened self-interest is the guiding phrase of most countries. That's part of the problem, but it's not one that will go away soon because it's human nature, no person and no government can change that.

I'm firmly of the opinion that the only change that stays comes from within, America had to do it themselves, so did France, the UK and several other countries, in fact, the only time that didn't happen was at the end of WW2, and even then, the country remained divided until the people themselves pulled down the wall. The more external countries try to interfere, the harder it becomes for any other system to remain stable.

[NGTM-1R]

China has so far refused to admit the North is at fault. Much as they did with the torpedo. Status quo again.

You can be certain that it isn't just China who are looking to turn this situation to their advantage though. Enlightened self-interest is the guiding phrase of most countries.

You're assuming China's self-interest behaves in an enlightened fashion. Since this is highly debatable even towards their own citizens...

I'm firmly of the opinion that the only change that stays comes from within, America had to do it themselves, so did France, the UK and several other countries, in fact, the only time that didn't happen was at the end of WW2, and even then, the country remained divided until the people themselves pulled down the wall. The more external countries try to interfere, the harder it becomes for any other system to remain stable.

Mexico on one side, and the Marshall Plan on the other...Korea...misremembering Germany...hmm.

[Flipside]

And you are assuming that the US also behaves in an enlightened fashion, once again, it depends on perspective doesn't it? Of course you side with America, you've been raised with those values, so do I, but that doesn't mean those self interests are the slightest bit more 'enlightened' than anyone elses, it just means that's the societal situation you were bought up in and that is what you expect from your life.

And, as I have already stated, I believe this, I am not saying you have to, that's part of the culture we were both raised in, remember?

Edit: It should also be noted that (a) I did not state that every attempt at change from within works, and that (b) If you think Europe is universally happy with the American military presence in Europe, you are mistaken, that presence, regardless of intent or impact has caused strife both in America and in Europe. I'm not really certain what you are getting at here.

[NGTM-1R]

And you are assuming that the US also behaves in an enlightened fashion, once again, it depends on perspective doesn't it?

I'm not assuming anything. The US has plenty of awful things in the closet. Now, while your attempt to straw man me into supporting America by bashing it is cute, it's not effective. That's not remotely what I said.

I made claims about China, not about the US. Are you prepared to challenge those claims or not?

I also made claims about the course of history and how outside intervention does not necessarily result in failed change. I pointed to the successful rebuilding of Europe as proof. South Korea itself is a similar proof.

Germany's reunification was assured, in the end, by West Germany's economic and political success (aided and abetted by the military and economic might of NATO) whereas East Germany failed (abetted by the general failure of the Soviet Union). Now, one could make a good argument this is actually for your original point that outside changes do not succeed, since what the Western Allies did with their half of the German partition was much closer to preserving the prewar system then it was to imposing their own.

Mexico, on the other hand, is an example of self-imposed change that has failed due to lack of outside intervention. The country is, in many ways, in more trouble than Iraq is currently, because it has a long and not-glorious history with the United States and is loathe to accept or ask for help from us.

Columbia, by contrast, asked for and received help. And they have essentially won the war against their own narco-rebels.

But you do not appear interested in arguing with my actual points, instead constructing a straw man about the United States.

[Flipside]

I fail to see where I am attempting to make you do anything of the sort, so please calm down and don't start accusing me of things. Nor did I claim China were better or worse, I was merely pointing out that any action taken by any country will involve a certain degree of self-interest. Please do not read accusations into my posts that I did not make.

As I stated in my previous post, this is not a claim of supporting China, I never once stated that, I simply pointed out that to assume that China would be the only state involved that had an interest that could also involve self-motivation would be incorrect. As I stated in my previous post, I do not agree with all of Chinas' behaviour, nor do I agree entirely with the US's (nor my own countries actions) but that is entirely irrelevant to the point that I was making.

Whilst I agree that external intervention does not always result in a failed change, once again, I didn't say that, I said that change had to come from within to work, which is something else entirely.

And yes, Germany's unification was assured, but whilst Russia dismantled most of Germany's industrial structure, the UK & US took billions in IP from them, it wasn't until Germany was firmly back into the hands of the Germans themselves that it started to re-emerge as a unique state with its own take on Democracy, Freedom of Speech and other matters, that change could not have happened had it not been bought about by the German people themselves, had they not wanted and fought for that change, it would not  have happened.

If you consider my statement as some kind of 'attack' on yourself or on America, then I'd very much like to hear why.

Edit :  And for clarification purposes, let me put it this way. If the majority of Germans had wanted a communist state (unlikely in reality, but it's a hypothetical situation) then Germany would have ended up as a Communist state, regardless of what other countries opinion or desires were, I have not used the words 'Right' or 'Wrong' once in my comments because they are irrelevant, I am discussing Social/Political influences and their effect on the surrounding societies, not the morality of the matter.

[NGTM-1R]

I fail to see where I am attempting to make you do anything of the sort, so please calm down and don't start accusing me of things. Nor did I claim China were better or worse, I was merely pointing out that any action taken by any country will involve a certain degree of self-interest. Please do not read accusations into my posts that I did not make.

And you are assuming that the US also behaves in an enlightened fashion, once again, it depends on perspective doesn't it? Of course you side with America, you've been raised with those values, so do I, but that doesn't mean those self interests are the slightest bit more 'enlightened' than anyone elses, it just means that's the societal situation you were bought up in and that is what you expect from your life.

What is this paragraph about then?

It's certainly not about my assertion that China does not operate under principles of enlightened self-interest, or even under principles of self-interest. It doesn't even talk about China, it only mentions "the US" and "America".

It even says that I am "siding with America". I did no such thing. I sided against China, which is an admittedly American position if you squint hard enough (considering economic ties). The only country in the world that could be truly be said to side wholly against mainland China is the ROC, Taiwan. Your assumption is both wholly unwarranted, and exactly what you say did not happen.

You, for some reason, did not discuss my assertions about China at all, and instead made it about America. This is either a straw man, or a red herring. As you spent your entire post on the America thing, I can only assume it is a straw man, because red herring does not encompass the entirety of an argument, only a single one-off fallacy.

Whilst I agree that external intervention does not always result in a failed change, once again, I didn't say that, I said that change had to come from within to work, which is something else entirely.

Which is both a distinction without a difference, and you do not actually qualify your statement about change from external or internal sources to say that external intervention does not always result in failure. Your exact wording, in fact, was...

The more external countries try to interfere, the harder it becomes for any other system to remain stable.

Which, being totally unqualified, would lead to the conclusion you believe that external changes to a country will not last. None of the rest of that paragraph disproves this notion either. You say that "I didn't say that" but you in fact did say just that. You simply didn't mean it. If you don't qualify a statement, I have no way of knowing that it's not absolute.

Edit :  And for clarification purposes, let me put it this way. If the majority of Germans had wanted a communist state (unlikely in reality, but it's a hypothetical situation) then Germany would have ended up as a Communist state, regardless of what other countries opinion or desires were, I have not used the words 'Right' or 'Wrong' once in my comments because they are irrelevant, I am discussing Social/Political influences and their effect on the surrounding societies, not the morality of the matter.

This is a laughable sentiment. Do you honestly believe that the other NATO countries would have allowed it to happen? South Vietnam is a good example of the ease of propping up a government for decades. East Germany is another. Germany was only able to unify, much less become democratic because, the USSR and Russia were in no condition to oppose it. If Germany had wanted to become unified and communist, Russia would have repartitioned it. They considered a united Germany, communist or not, a strategic threat. Also, consider what happened to any other democratic revolution in the Warsaw Pact before that point: they were forcibly put down.

It had very little to do with the will of the German people that Germany was reunited, and everything to do with the fact that if Russia was internally too unstable to attempt to prevent it, in the face of the US and NATO militaries that had been revitalized and upgraded dramatically in the early 80s and were hitting their peak in force levels and training.

[Flipside]

What is this paragraph about then?

It's certainly not about my assertion that China does not operate under principles of enlightened self-interest, or even under principles of self-interest. It doesn't even talk about China, it only mentions "the US" and "America".

It even says that I am "siding with America". I did no such thing. I sided against China, which is an admittedly American position if you squint hard enough (considering economic ties). The only country in the world that could be truly be said to side wholly against mainland China is the ROC, Taiwan. Your assumption is both wholly unwarranted, and exactly what you say did not happen.

You, for some reason, did not discuss my assertions about China at all, and instead made it about America. This is either a straw man, or a red herring. As you spent your entire post on the America thing, I can only assume it is a straw man, because red herring does not encompass the entirety of an argument, only a single one-off fallacy.

Your reference makes no sense, the paragraph you quoted makes no statement in either direction, it simply points out that opinions may differ, just because you believe it to be so, it does not follow that there is some kind of altruistic 'ideal' that a country should achieve. You believe that America's opinions are the 'best' available, China believes otherwise. For the third time, I am not stating an opinion in either direction, merely pointing out that a difference of opinion exists depending on opinion of those involved. You think China are wholly wrong, we get that, but you will find many Chinese who would disagree, you would consider them to be wrong. That is, as I stated in my first post, human nature.

I do not discuss your assertations about China but they are wholly and entirely irrelevant to the conversation that was taking place in this thread before you got involved, for the second time, this is not a discussion about what is 'moral' or 'right', it is a discussion about the delicacies of the situation and the fact that the other countries involved distrust each others interest in the matter, which is adding to the fragility of it.

Once again you are attempting to turn this into some kind of argument about morals, which is nothing to do with what I am saying.

With regards to external interference and Germany, I did actually state it was a hypothetical situation, and I did not specify a timeline, yet again, I'm discussing social intertia and you are reading it from a moralistic viewpoint, I don't care about what you think is morally correct or not, social intertia from within is a large part of what defines the history of a country, external interference to try to push that social intertia in a different direction is often unproductive and causes strife. There's a marked difference between helping social change along and trying to enforce a change in society.

If the majority of German people wanted to be communist, whether it happened at the point of reunification or 100 years later, it would have happened, it doesn't have to happen on a short timescale and no-one stated it did, but social interia is an incredibly strong force and if that was what the majority of Germans had desired, that is eventually what would have happened. Same with North Korea, it may take centuries, but, should the populace desire it, Social change will happen, but if you try to force it down their throats then historically this causes far more problems than it solves.

Yes, in my opinion, China have not done great in the realm of human rights, but what has that got to do with anything? You seem to be intent on turning a political and social discussion of the complexity of the situation into a matter of morals. The people in this thread were simply trying to view the matter from the point of view of the entire world stage, not just the Western half of it, China don't trust the West, whether that is good or bad is immaterial, and I cannot see why you keep attempting to de-rail it with these strange accusations that I am, in some way, taking sides in the matter, my own concern is about stability, not the 'right kind of Government', and yes, that in itself is powered by self-interest. I don't want the whole thing to kick off into a war.

You, for some reason, did not discuss my assertions about China at all, and instead made it about America. This is either a straw man, or a red herring. As you spent your entire post on the America thing, I can only assume it is a straw man, because red herring does not encompass the entirety of an argument, only a single one-off fallacy.

And that's just bordering on paranoia, you're actually out hunting for anti-American sentiment in my posts when I am making absolutely no such claims.

[Bobboau]

so, sorry to interupt the pissing contest, but it looks like South Korea is seriously pissed about all this. if the north does one more thing I would not be surprised the whole place explodes into violence.

[Dilmah G]

Indeed.

"The government should have reacted immediately to the attack, firing enough shells to completely devastate the North Korean side and President Lee should have actively commanded the counter-offence himself," said Kim of Myungji University.

For a country that imposes national service, this bloke obviously fell through the cracks somewhere during military science and diplomacy. But I guess they are after WWIII...

[MP-Ryan]

so, sorry to interupt the pissing contest, but it looks like South Korea is seriously pissed about all this. if the north does one more thing I would not be surprised the whole place explodes into violence.

I see it more as a war of miscalculation than anything.

MAD doctrine basically applies to the Koreas - sure, the South (with NATO backing) can level the North, but not before the North turns Seoul into a large pile of rubble mixed with smashed Starcraft discs.  I don't think nuclear is a likely possibility in the Koreas - SK and NATO likely have contingencies in place to eliminate Northern nuclear assets post-haste in the event of escalating conflict.

The real trouble is human cost - no one can win if it devolves into active conflict.  China is the only reason the North is still able to even function - and there is no way in hell they will back the North militarily at this point in history.  In fact, I could see them cutting off all support to prevent active warfare as SK is a huge Chinese trading partner.

In my view, the only thing that could devolve the Korean peninsula in active warfare again is if both sides miscalculate enormously - which has of course happened historically, I just don't see it happening here.  There is no way the Chinese would risk war with NATO.

[StarSlayer]

Have Japan send in the RX-78-2


I mean why build it an not use it?

[newman]

Finally, a serious proposal in an otherwise silly discussion.

[Flipside]

Looks like China are stepping in :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11850821

[newman]

War's just based on hate and fear
Stop fighting North and South Korea
You're both basically Chinese..

[Herra Tohtori]

zomg

China has signalled its readiness to accept Korean reunification and is privately distancing itself from the North Korean regime, according to leaked US embassy cables that reveal senior Beijing figures regard their official ally as a "spoiled child".

This would make things quite interesting...

[MR_T3D]

the Chinese actions make sense, i mean, other than having a number of people, NK really doesn't contribute anything.

[karajorma]

The article pretty much sums up what I suspected was going on over here. China doesn't really have anywhere near as much influence as people think it does and are determined to make sure that NK doesn't fall apart or start pointing their guns at China because they know that neither of those things would be good for their country.

[Mongoose]

Yeah, I don't think that position is any real surprise.  China's desire for regional influence and face-saving aside, they know that having a certifiably insane autocrat with nuclear technology right on their border is a Very Bad Thing.  A unified Korea might reduce their regional influence a bit, but the benefits would be enormous.