Should we declare War on North Korea?

There is no vocal minority, cause there is no minority. That's the part that you just don't seem to understand. Sure, there may be a few that would rather have other leadership but they wouldn't dare make a single sound of it to anyone because they know it would mean their deaths.

Did you watch the videos from the death of kim jung il? Because the entire population of north korea attended. The entire freakin population paid their tribute, not because they were forced to but because they wanted to.

You keep saying overstate, but the response that we talk of is understating what they can do. Because the facts of the matter is, we don't know. These people are not stupid, they understand nuclear fusion, they have atomic weapons and nuclear power plants. They have intel gathered by the FSB and KGB from the soviets on america. They have intel from south korean prisoners and defectors about the military strength of america in south korea. They have allies still in russia and china that can and have pointed out locations of american troops and battle strength. They most certainly watched how america waged war in the middle east with detailed eyes on every action, and they even have spies in america right now feeding back information.

And what do we know of north korea? Other than they have an estimated 1.2 million troops, they were trained by elite soviet officials and chinese operatives. They are well dug in on all positions and we know who the leader is. We don't know where all their troops are located. Hell, we only recently discovered some of the tunnels going under south korea. We don't know their full battle stregth, we don't know how their economy works at all, they are a complete black out nation and you want us to believe that we are overstating the response. You can never overstate that which you don't know, you can only understate. You either prepare and have the correct response or you underestimate and lose. Those are your only two options.


If defecting civilians can get through the DMZ, between the north and south, I can't imagine what the military can do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/world/asia/south-korea-is-rattled-by-border-guards-failure-to-spot-defector.html?_r=0
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/04/04/serial-defector-steals-trawler-sails-back-to-north-korea

And they don't even notice the defectors for days and the defectors aren't hiding nearly as well as a spy would.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/21/north-korea-similar-uk-defector-claims_n_2169768.html

Read the article above ^. This is a north korean doctor who left and was upper middle class. He had access to american news papers and other foreign materials, the upper class had nearly unlimited access to foreign materials and they as he states, do not want to change. It is only the lower middle class and poor who do not know anything about the outside world.

What I find most interesting in that article is that there is a north korean doctor, who has lived much of his life in korea stating that the UK is very similar to north korea. That alone just proves how dumb we are in the first world and how little we know about them.

How is it possible for you to read an article, and yet be grossly misleading? The NK Doctor clearly stated that he had access to some foreign material, but far from "unlimited"

He stated that the regime far from a republic, nor a democracy but was Feudal in intents and purposes. That the general public would like to aspire towards a better future in the North, but they have no templates with which to follow. And like in any other walks of life, the higher upper class do have it better, as such why would they complain?

Psychologically, there's a difference between security and eagerness. That is to say, they may not find a reason to move forward but that doesn't mean they would oppose the idea.

Like all other developing countries, NK simply needs a push in the right direction. And to be sure, it won't come easy. But a few decades later, we'll be thankful if we made such a push.

The opportunity is there for us to do so, I'm sure Fiery (very logically) hadn't expected the severe negative response by both China and Russia to Un's bolstering and postering in the region.

They've both benefited from a global, open economy. A transformed North Korea would be to their economic advantage. There's an unprecedented opportunity to save lives, to further transform the world to a model of future prosperity and peace.

We feared a Chinese and Russian response, but both are leaning towards reform. If there's any time to push North Korea into the 'New Age of Reality', it's now.

Your reading comprehension is at a kindergarden grade level. I have to quote myself since you DIDN'T READ WHAT I WROTE. Every time you post, you just misread everything that other people have said, throw in a bunch of misdirected facts, and avoid questions directly asked of you. Why do you keep posting.



I'll even quote the article itself and exactly what it says since you can't read.

Good job, you quoted one part of the article. Now can you manage to read the whole thing? Or hell, read the sentence you quote "Have an idea" is not the same as a complete understanding, and I gave you psychological reasons as to why the higher classes wouldn't necessarily want change.

I've had a college level reading comprehension since the 9th grade, now that's not to brag but it is to put your insults into context. Please, just stop it.

Understand this: What you write is irrelevant, it's your opinion(not even based on facts, but on what you stretched out to be the 'truth'.).

To that same extent, if you wish, I'll say that what I write is also irrelevant. My opinion on this matter matters none, because I'm neither a senior official or hell, any type of official at all.

That said, others have participated in the discussion because of its intellectual integrity. If you wish to be productive, please read the finer points of the articles you post and comprehend them.

You did it again, just as you have so many times before. I said something and you completely dodged it. I didn't mention the man at all, but if you read the quote that I used, it clearly stated that his sister, living in the capital, has access to foreign news unlike him who only had it on a limited basis. The upper class having access to the same thing on a daily basis just like his sister would, would have a pretty decent idea of the world.

But since you love dodging the questions asked, there is no point in arguing with you considering you still didn't read what I wrote with your so claimed high level reading comprehension.

And since we're on that topic, please explain how me clearly using the words "High Class", brought you to think of anyone else in the article, like the doctor who is from above average middle class. Because last I checked, middle class was not high class.

You yourself said it, there's no point in us discussing since you can't even read. I didn't dodge you, I answered you. You're just NOT CAPABLE of reading. That's not my fault, if anything I blame your teachers and education system.

I thought I told you that what you write is absolutely irrelevant. Especially since you can't refer to your own pieces of evidence properly.

Let's see if we can revisit the actual quote and ontop of that, I'll try to teach you how to read. It's a token of friendship since your teachers laughingly failed at it.



Okay, note the sentence structure. The words "Sister" and "Highest class" don't come together at all, in fact they're part of separate sentences altogether.

Secondly, note the word "People", if he were referring to his older sister, he could've added her into the sentence. But he didn't. "People", in this context is used to mean generalities.

Not relatives, not close associates or anyone he knows. He's talking specifically about class differences.

And so ends today's lesson on reading comprehension. With this knowledge, you can go back, re read my post and know that in fact I responded to you.

Where did I use the word unlimted, let me quote myself again.


You clearly state in your post that the doctor did not have unlimted access to foreign materials. I clearly state in my post that the high class have NEARLY UNLIMTED access to foreign material. If we're going to start with an english literaccy lesson, lets start right there. I used very specific words, and you clearly ignored those very specific words used to draw your own conclusions. So if we are to discuss this, start my educating yourself with your own lessions.

You have failed to explain how I have failed to read when you haven't even begun to get into the realm of what I am talking about. Stick to the subject which I am talking about. I could say that the north koreans are going to kill you cheese and you'll start going on about cows. Because that is the trend which you have been on, taking a subject and twisting it.




Now let's address this portion of the argument since you want to go there. The article is written by Jessica Elgot, a british journalist who I can only assume is fluent in english. I can assume she would know how to write things clearly and percisely as she recieves information. Which bring me to the next fact, did you watch the video on the webpage? Because I am guessing you didn't. The man to which she is interviewing is north korean, who escaped to china, then south korea, then the UK. It is not explained to what length of time he was in each country but one thing is blatently clear in the video. HE NEEDED A TRANSLATOR.

Let me say this one more time. HE NEEDED A TRANSLATOR.

Do you know what that means, it means that he does not speak english, or any bit of english, or remotely understand english, or know how to write english. Do you speak korean? Because the only way that I can be wrong is if you are indeed a first language, fluent korean speaker, and the translation that she recieved was a word by word translation which is impossible because the korean vocab and the english vocab are not the same. A literal word for word translation and sentencing stucture are different between languages. Who'd have guessed that. Which means one thing, that is was roughly translated and the words were placed on the page in a order that sounded correct for the purpose of the writers interview.

Low and behold, we have come to a conclusion!! Praise be to god that we can now understand that english and korean are not the same language.

So are we done yet?










Edit:

http://www.spike.com/full-episodes/7sijwz/deadliest-warrior-u-s-army-rangers-vs-north-korean-special-operations-forces-season-3-ep-303

The army rangers win by a margin of 1%. 50.08% to 49.92%


But we also know that the north koreans were trained by russian spetzna, which was done in season 1 episode 6, against the american green beret. To which the spetzna won 59.1% of the battles.

What does this prove, that in a war where neither side uses nuclear weapons, the outcome is uncertain but one thing is for sure, numbers will mean all the difference and north korea has over 1.2 million soldiers.

I highlighted it for your incompetent pleasure. Normally, I'd hate to bring myself down to someone else's level but I still haven't found a way to stop myself from being annoyed at perpetual stupidity.





How many times do I have to explain that your words are absolutely meaningless? Like, who are you? You're not directly quoting the article, you're not even paraphrasing it. You're making a miserable assumption that isn't accurate.

Never once in the article did the man say the 'elite' had unlimited access to information, or anyone for that matter. In fact, the words 'unlimited access' don't appear in the article, AT ALL.




There isn't a subject, all you've spoken of is false conjuncture from your inability to interpret plain english! It's not even that complicated of an article,
every word in that article I swear I learned in the third grade. The 'subject', if there is one is trying to correct your miserable interpretation.

Your false conjecture is meaningless, it cannot be a 'subject' because it does not exist. The story is not being told from YOUR narrative. Far from "twisting" the subject, I've actually responded to your inane stupidity which is the 'subject' of the moment. To me, I feel like I've far exceeded what I should've done. I gave you a freaking english lesson, show some gratitude.










Yeah, we are done. You see, dealing with you takes a lot out of my time, energy and frankly passion. About the only thing you got right here, is that the Korean Language is obviously different from the english language, and misinterpretation is certainly possible.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean you can add your OWN interpretation in its place(unless you can share us the secret that you are a native Korean speaker). That's not all, while its true that different languages have different meaning to their words, capturing that meaning is what's more important than say the structure of the sentence.

Let's use Japanese as an example, I could call Fiery, "Fiery-san", and there are multiple interpretations:

"The Honorable Fiery"
"Mr. Fiery"

Or even "Senior Fiery"

Knowing the texture of the conversation, and the words used allows one to pick the roughly correct translation.

(In case you missed it, 'The Honorable' refers to a Judge. 'Mr' is the closest thing to san. And 'Senior' would refer to the unlikely event that Fiery's an old man)

Don't take the authors lightly, while a mistake is possible I believe in their reading comprehension a lot more than yours. That much, has been self evident.

It doesn't matter what I write because you are fully convinced that no matter what I saw, my point of view is irrelevent because you say so, then you further say that your point of view is irrelevent. So if my point if view is irrelevent and so is what you say, then why do you keep posting.

Stop posting then, because all you're doing is arguing that what I was is irrelevent without providing any tangable proof that what I say is wrong. You quoted me, you highlighted one word while ignoring the first few words of what I said. So me sitting her and drawing a connect the dot picture for you would be irrelevent because as you said, my opinion is irrelevent.

And what does it matter who I am, maybe I'm a north korean defector, maybe I'm a former cia agent, maybe I'm south korean living near the DMZ. Maybe I'm chinese living near korea or maybe I'm russian living near the forced labour camps. But none of that holds any weight because you'll just claim that I'm making anecdotal evidence since it's only relevent to my experiences. But you can also claim that what I say is made up because I have no tangable proof that what I say is true about myself. Even if I had a picture of me in the capital of north korea, all that shows is that I was there, there is no proof that I lived there, or that I know anything about it. If I was a former cia agent with expertise on the north koreans, I can't prove it.

So why do you even bother arguing anything. Just leave and let the rest of us have a discussion as the rest of us can actually understand each other to some degree. The only reason you're here is to try and prove how much of a know-it-all you are, and to fill your own selfish ego for being right all the time and putting others down.

There's no better proof of that then the obvious fact that you can't stand not having the last word.

Yeah, wrong. As someone who's taken Japanese and is currently living in Japan, I can safely say you don't know what you're talking about (big surprise). While it's true "-san" is versatile, you still have it wrong with your examples. Fiery-san would just be standard honorific, I guess "Mr. Fiery" is fine. "Honorable Fiery" in the context of a judge? No, that sounds more like Fiery-sensei. Because sensei can also refer to doctors, lawyers, or really anyone who's become a master in their field. And then "Senior Fiery"? Really? If Fiery were an old man you'd probably just call him ojiisan. Just -san definitely doesn't signify in any way that Fiery would be old. So, sorry Lustful but you are definitively wrong here. And I noticed that you continued your trend of dodging questions with Jacob too.

Great, another worm crawled out of a hole. You're just as foolish as he is, name just ONE time in this entire conversation have I "dodged" a question.

Knowing you, you'll reference how I supposedly didn't answer about defending my Coup, oh but I did, in the larger context of the conversation with Fiery. It's not my fault that like Jacob, your reading comprehension needs work.


I'm currently learning Japanese myself, and I'll admit that I didn't quite nail it with the example but that wasn't the point. The point was to teach our friend that those translators make their living off of what they do, and he can't debase their efforts just on his opinion alone.

I can choose to answer directly or indirectly, that doesn't mean I didn't answer. It just means for the sake of efficiency I'd rather not have one big ass post.

You have 3 people now accusing you of dodging questions in multiple threads. There must be some truth behind it is 3 people are accusing you. Myself, 623 and Fiery_penguin_of_doom has all mentioned you dodging questions.

Fiery misinterpreted some of my positions(And I, his positions) in no case did I dodge any of his questions(Plus I can't even recall when he used the specific words 'dodging question'). He had accused me of flip flopping, I clarified that I didn't state my positions clearly enough.

My position being that whereas I don't believe we should be the 'policeman' of the world, but I also don't believe we should leave our allies in harms way, nor most importantly the fragile yet hard fought system that we currently have.

When a nation positions missiles that have considerable range, makes constant threats and above all targets your citizens in said propaganda, I'm taking that very seriously. As have our elected officials, thank GOD.

And I really couldn't care for what you or 623 have had to say, I've been back and forth with you two for the majority of the time only to get absolutely nowhere.

It would do you both some good to eat some humble pie, you've brought absolutely nothing, zero, zip to the conversation. Especially you, Jacob. You who tried to interpret for other people and to create a story that didn't even exist.

Then yell that I should be paying attention to your fantasies based off your inability to grasp what you've read.

I'll give you one example. When I liked that article of the north korean defector who was in the UK. You stated that he did not have unlimited access to foreign material, and I asked on several occasions to point out to me where I said "the north korean doctor who defected has unlimited access to foreign material in north korea"

Which I never said in any of my posts.

Uh, I did point out precisely where you said it. Hell, you quoted yourself! Dude, this is just hilarious now. Just stop it.

Yeah that's what people want to hear. "I totally responded to your question. It was just in the larger context of my response to someone else. Lrn 2 read n00b"



Forgive me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure Jacob wasn't debasing them at all. He was saying that since English and Korean are such vastly different languages, it's difficult to get exact translations. Let's use Japanese as an example (only correctly this time). In Japanese, you could probably get away with holding out some food of yours to a friend and say "Taberu?" Literally translated, you'd be saying "to eat." However, in this context, you'd probably be saying something more akin to "Want some?" The translation is totally context-based. And, after a quick look at wiki, it seems like Korean can have implied elements to sentences as well.



Pretty sure people would appreciate direct answers more. And usually your posts are big-ass anyway.

Edit: FYI, Jacob said "nearly unlimited" not just "unlimited." I'm sure if you were in his shoes you'd argue there's definitely a difference.

Perhaps addressing someone directly would denote 'respect' in a sense, but this is a forum and not a chatroom. It makes it difficult then, to address several people at once. So what do you do? You try to address as much as you can in one post.

I made my position clear on what I'd do, why I'd do it. And perhaps my 'how' wasn't completely clear. But as I would say later, it's quite obvious that I'm not in the position to do these things. But I believe they have to be done.

I don't think we can have this problem with North Korea indefinitely, nor am I of the belief that packing our bags and going is going to bring "lasting peace".

It didn't for Britain, it didn't for Norway, Greece or Finland. Taking a stand is the most difficult thing to do in life, but god damn it it has to be done. Especially if one believes in 'freedom'.





He was debasing them to justify his mistranslation(at best), at worst he openly misrepresented what was there to be read in plain english.(The sentence in question referenced to class privilege in North Korea. Jacob proclaimed that
the doctor's 'sister' was part of that elite. When clearly, the article stated no such thing)






Point taken, I'll certainly try to address everyone's post in the future but do take into consideration the difference between a forum and a chatroom. The kind of back and forth we're having isn't well equipped in a forum setting in general.(Lest I double post)

Actually Fiery did a good job of separating his responses and I could do things that way. I'll try that.

Now, there's not that much of a difference, it's still a significant statement and it's still borderline false. As I said earlier, those words never appeared in the article....at all...

I believe we never stoped being at war. Just a cease-fire. Just saying.

I prefer Fiery-dono but, Pengi-kun would suffice for those I'm on good terms with.

On Topic: Can we move the conversation back towards North Korea?

An update I recently read was that North Korea has asked foreign embassies if they have plans to withdrawl staff and stated "it cannot guarantee their safety from the threat of conflict after 10 April".

No you didn't. You highlighted a since word, and used it in the wrong context.

You were strictly talking about the north korean defector, I was talking about the upper class of north korea. The doctor clearly stated that he is above average middle class, he is not high class in his former society. I don't see what is so hard to understand here, and what is so confusing. You are accusing me of talking about something that I clearly was not talking about. Whether I am right or wrong is irrelevent when you don't address the exact sentence that I used. But allow me to explain my logic.

His sister lives in the capital
His sister has access to foreign newspapers more than he does
The high class have an idea of what the outside world
The poor do not know
Most of the middle class do not know

What can we learn from these things stated in the article. He doesn't directly say that his sister is high class but she would have to be of somewhat moderate wealth if she has access to all these foreign papers since he does not. She can't be poor because then she would not know anything about the outside world. She does live in the city and being that her location allows her access to foreign materials shows that there are few poor people in the capital. This must mean that the capital is occupied by at least middle class people and high class people. But this would also mean that high class people would have access to all these documents too. Thus the statment: high class have nearly unlimited access to foreign material.

It's pretty clean logic and didn't take sherlock holmes to figure it out.


I'm going to quote myself from another thread because there is a piece of information that is relevent here.



I do admit that I am not fluent in mandarin chinese, but my best friend is who lived 2 years in china is. I did some studying in this language, but that is not the point I'm trying to make. In mandarin, the tone in which you use completely changes the context of what you are saying. I can't remember the exact words, but if you take a phase like "to eat". The exact same words, the exact same sounds depending on how they are used can mean "already eaten" "want to eat" "what to eat" "where to eat".

We can also look at this word: 雞
technically it is ji, and means chicken to the best of my understanding.

But so does é³® and é·„. Even for a skilled translator, I can understand if they get it wrong sometimes.

Sometimes translations don't work out. When I was little I was a fairly fluent russian speaker. And I remember talking about my babushka, or grandmother as most russians would understand but to an english person, it means scarf or head dress usually worn by an old lady. A completely different interpritation if you ask me.