What do citizens of non Anglo-American countries think about the North Korea Situation?

Hi ATS!

So the war drums seem to be beating pretty hard these days, over US media. From my perspective... perhaps it is justified, perhaps it isn't?

The thing that I would most compare this to, from my perspective would be the US media's treatment of Iran as a country, and in estimating what level of threat it poses the world / what reasonable place it has in the global community.

US media over the last 20 years or so has focused on Iran as a threat to Israel and American interests, and being on the cusp of developing nuclear weapons for immediate use.

This is very much not how the majority of the world views Iran is a country, and it is worth noting that they are probably the most stable of the three major middle east power centers (the other two being Egypt and the Saudis), and despite the current extremism of their government, Iran is home to probably more secular moderates than the other two by a wide margin, and thus has the potential to bring stability to the rest of the region, if they escape the tampering of dueling super powers.

They are hardly boy scouts, but they are the best of the worst, when it comes to that region. I believe the drive to destabilize Iran is a mandate given to the US directly from the Saudi's, but that is a matter for another time.

So the question in my mind, is... are we in the Anglo-American world being fed an accurate picture of events in reference to NK, or are we being groomed to accept (or even demand) a war? I ask myself this question whenever rhetoric about a certain country or other heads in this direction, and I think it is a logical thing to do, especially as a citizen of the US, with the track record that government has.

So for ATS users outside this sphere (ie.: outside the US, England, Australia, Canada, New zealand, etc), how would you answer some of the following questions?

-What level of danger does NK represent to the world?

-Do you believe the US Media is accurately representing NK and the danger it represents?

-What do you think the reality of NK actually is?

-Do you believe NK is likely to act on the threats it makes to the west and SK / Japan?

-What should be done about NK as a country?

-Are sanctions a positive thing? Should they continue? Should they be increased? Should they diminish?

-Is a pre-emptive strike aimed at disabling the NK military power, and forcing a regime change a good thing?

-Who should oversee a regime change, if it happens?

-Who should pay for such a strike, if it is required?

Put Kim-Jong Un and Trump in a cage.

Let them fight it out.

Un is younger and should have slight advantages in endurance, Trump is much older but bigger.

How to get them to participate? Easy.
Schmooze Trump, tell him for 3 following days that he is the biggest, baddest and bestest fighter in the world. Problem 1 solved.
Tell Un that he can personally kick USA's ass and bring honor to his people. Problem 2 solved.

Why? Because why should any other person get hurt or even die for this stupid saber-rattling? Mark my words, in the next 2-3 weeks some kind of encounter will happen on sea, one navy shoots at another ship, things escalate and we have a "minor incident", with injured and/or dead people for an unnecessary dispute.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Except that this has been an ongoing problem with Kim-Jong Un since he took power. The expansion of North Korea's nuclear arsenal has been fast. Coupled with the constant threats of the use of such weapons against the US, South Korea, and Japan and we can see the problem here.

Kim(and his father before him) has been fortunate for the previous 16 years that his saber rattling has gone mostly ignored. But today is a new day, and we don't have the same half hearted measures being applied as we had for so many years before. Now he's actually ramping up nuclear delivery systems and issuing threats with every test.

North Korea has an estimated 60 to 100 warheads capable of causing some serious damage to the US and its neighbors. They only lack reliable delivery vehicles. Once they have the ICBMs they need things are going to get very ugly. Now is not the time to worry about feelings. We've been threatened so much and finally we have a president that stood up and returned the threat in the EXACT language that Kim could understand.

I don't know much about the situation and won't claim to. I am kept up to date on the latest events concerning NK through ATS, but the media here in France doesn't make mention really. There doesn't seem to be much interest.

On the other hand, I know that the media here tends to try to downplay reporting things which risk causing too much panic or upset in the public (the complete opposite of the US media which will do whatever it needs to have exactly that effect).

I have a tendancy to suspect or assume, therefore, that the reality of the events or circumstances actually can be found somewhere in between these two extremes...

Anyone with knowledge of the Pacific would fear Korea...

They are the genetic cousins of the mighty Japanese...

However, their sensibilities and culture became sullied by their adoption of the communist ethos...

Koreans maintain the third highest inherent IQ on the planet behind Japanese(1) and [Western]Caucasian(2)

SCAP Gen Douglas MacArthur fought and bled with South Koreans as his brothers...
He knew what I know...that South Korea is to be protected at all cost...

I refuse to watch the North drop bombs on my beloved South Korea...
America is morally bound to finish the fight we should have 70 years ago but a feckless democrat fired MacArthur...

Since Truman failed so miserably we must now fight a nuclear powered North Korea...
Which, by the way, MacArthur predicted would happen in a half century...

Anyhow, get off your couches and stand up for our brothers and sisters in Korea...

I cannot fathom the sorry of kim Jong un sending a few dozen nukes into seoul/Incheon

Seeing South Korea in ruin would be the last mass death my eyes can stand in the Pacific...

-Chris

a reply to: Christosterone

It sounds like you have a pretty involved personal connection with Korea.

I know a handful of South Koreans myself. Most of them are pretty delightful (with the exception of one sociopath, but bad apples in any bunch, hehe). But it sounds like you have a deeper personal connection?

As an Aussie, Anglo English
(Anglo American, What is that???)

What level of danger does NK represent to the world? -Do you believe the US Media is accurately representing NK and the danger it represents?
Imminent threat globally

What do you think the reality of NK actually is? -
Angry with the US

Do you believe NK is likely to act on the threats it makes to the west and SK / Japan? -
Yes

What should be done about NK as a country? -
Very difficult question to answer



Are sanctions a positive thing? Should they continue? Should they be increased? Should they diminish? -
No sanctions are causing this

Is a pre-emptive strike aimed at disabling the NK military power, and forcing a regime change a good thing? -
Pre emptive, no, not without Chinese support or some attack

Who should oversee a regime change, if it happens? - China


Who should pay for such a strike, if it is required? The US have the reserve currency, they have been manipulating markets forever, they have the weapons
Other countries should financially support them.

There are no simple answers.
Nobody has dealt with NK since the Sixties, poor Trump having to deal with this.
Glad Clinton got sacked from politics

originally posted by: Christosterone
Anyone with knowledge of the Pacific would fear Korea...

They are the genetic cousins of the mighty Japanese...

However, their sensibilities and culture became sullied by their adoption of the communist ethos...

Koreans maintain the third highest inherent IQ on the planet behind Japanese(1) and [Western]Caucasian(2)

SCAP Gen Douglas MacArthur fought and bled with South Koreans as his brothers...
He knew what I know...that South Korea is to be protected at all cost...

I refuse to watch the North drop bombs on my beloved South Korea...
America is morally bound to finish the fight we should have 70 years ago but a feckless democrat fired MacArthur...

Since Truman failed so miserably we must now fight a nuclear powered North Korea...
Which, by the way, MacArthur predicted would happen in a half century...

Anyhow, get off your couches and stand up for our brothers and sisters in Korea...

I cannot fathom the sorry of kim Jong un sending a few dozen nukes into seoul/Incheon

Seeing South Korea in ruin would be the last mass death my eyes can stand in the Pacific...

-Chris

The US was fighting Noth Korea and China
Bit harsh on the US arnt you.
WW3 if they were not careful.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
As an Aussie, Anglo English
(Anglo American, What is that???)

What level of danger does NK represent to the world? -Do you believe the US Media is accurately representing NK and the danger it represents?
Imminent threat globally

What do you think the reality of NK actually is? -
Angry with the US

Do you believe NK is likely to act on the threats it makes to the west and SK / Japan? -
Yes

What should be done about NK as a country? -
Very difficult question to answer



Are sanctions a positive thing? Should they continue? Should they be increased? Should they diminish? -
No sanctions are causing this

Is a pre-emptive strike aimed at disabling the NK military power, and forcing a regime change a good thing? -
Pre emptive, no, not without Chinese support or some attack

Who should oversee a regime change, if it happens? - China


Who should pay for such a strike, if it is required? The US have the reserve currency, they have been manipulating markets forever, they have the weapons
Other countries should financially support them.

There are no simple answers.
Nobody has dealt with NK since the Sixties, poor Trump having to deal with this.
Glad Clinton got sacked from politics

I think I would agree about the sanctions. They probably are the major cause, and it sort of gets downplayed in our media here. On the other hand, I think most of the world seems to feel impotent to pressure NK in any other way.

While I am not a Trump supporter, I am very glad that Hillary wasn't in charge of this situation either. My feeling is that Trump is manipulated by an "old guard" of the government into enacting the status quo foreign policies they promote (further Saudi interests, protect the petro-dollar system, support the military-industrial, etc); but Clinton is one of the officers of that old guard.

I feel that China will eventually decide what becomes of NK. I hope they choose in a way that furthers wellbeing of the Korean people, but I also feel they will just continue to view Korea mainly as a financial / geopolitical asset, and decide accordingly.

a reply to: joeraynor

So for ATS users outside this sphere (ie.: outside the US, England, Australia, Canada, New zealand, etc), how would you answer some of the following questions?

-What level of danger does NK represent to the world? - If not threatened by the US - zero risk

-Do you believe the US Media is accurately representing NK and the danger it represents? - no, since when has it ever given a clear balanced account of anything related to the global agenda/

-What do you think the reality of NK actually is? - The leaders of this country always have been pissing in the wind, They are not stupid, they have no desire to annihilate themselves by being bombed into non existence by the US and its slave states.

-Do you believe NK is likely to act on the threats it makes to the west and SK / Japan? - Depends on how afraid it has been made to feel by the US and Israyhell - Is there any credible evidence they can deliver on any warlike claims they make?

-What should be done about NK as a country? - Leave them alone and wait until either China exerts its influence which it has not done because they are concerned about US encirclement of China and Russia. They too are not stupid and have spent decades watching the US slowly encircle them with bases and nuke weapons

-Are sanctions a positive thing? Should they continue? Should they be increased? Should they diminish? - dunno

-Is a pre-emptive strike aimed at disabling the NK military power, and forcing a regime change a good thing? - why poke a stick at a snake when it has not made any attempt to bite you?

-Who should oversee a regime change, if it happens? - The North Korean people and nobody else. Why is there insinuation in this question that there should not be self determination by the NK people ???

-Who should pay for such a strike, if it is required? - NA

The biggest single risk to world peace is this:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

Is Wolfowitz, when referring to “hostile power” referring to any power not under Washington’s control?

I think NK would be willing to sell technology or working bombs to anybody with cash.

Not to mention they plan to use them in retaliation for sanctions.

A Portuguese point of view.

originally posted by: joeraynor
-What level of danger does NK represent to the world?

Moderate.

-Do you believe the US Media is accurately representing NK and the danger it represents?

I'm not familiar what it, so I can't comment.

-What do you think the reality of NK actually is?

A very poor country that is controlled with iron fist and that, probably, just all dictatorships, has many people supporting the dictator because they gain something from it or because they are kept in ignorance of how the rest of the world is.

-Do you believe NK is likely to act on the threats it makes to the west and SK / Japan?

I don't think it's likely, at least for the next few years, unless provoked into an action that can be used as internal propaganda.

-What should be done about NK as a country?

That's the difficult part, situations like this need to be solved internally, but, by definition, a dictatorship controls the country in a way to make that hard to happen. I don't really know what should be done.

-Are sanctions a positive thing? Should they continue? Should they be increased? Should they diminish?

I don't think so, when did sanctions worked? I don't remember any case.

-Is a pre-emptive strike aimed at disabling the NK military power, and forcing a regime change a good thing?

I think so, pre-emptive strikes create victims and "propaganda martyrs" that can be used to improve the internal position of the dictator.

-Who should oversee a regime change, if it happens?

Only North Koreans, all cases of external "help" end badly.

-Who should pay for such a strike, if it is required?

No strike, no payment.

This is easy, send Trump and Kim to the border armed with a knife each. Winners gets to spruik the loser just bleeds out. This way countless people don't have to die for these two arseholes!

a reply to: joeraynor

I don't have the answers but i feel intense pity and sadness for the NK citizens.I know how it feels to face the very real threat of extermination just for being born in the wrong place on this planet,and to know that one's beloved children and grandchildren will be annihilated along with one,in a country you cannot escape from.

-Who should oversee a regime change, if it happens? - The North Korean people and nobody else. Why is there insinuation in this question that there should not be self determination by the NK people ???

Self-determination is best. But removing the current North Korean regime creates a power vacuum. Out of a power vacuum, self-determination almost never arises, generally only a new dictatorship, presided over by the strongest strongman around at the time, can be expected. If the North Korean people are to be allowed self-determination, their situation will likely need to be overseen by some power. But who? The US will only try to create a puppet state. China will just subjugate NK as a vassal state.

My own opinion is that the South Koreans be given the task of overseeing NK, and possibly unifying the country. Neither North nor South Koreans really hate the other side. The South pities the North really, more than anything. I think this can be done amicably. I think a provision would be that the US doesn't build bases or move troops into former North Korea, and China's interests will be satisfied enough to let this happen.

As an Aussie, Anglo English (Anglo American, What is that???)

The Anglo-side is England and its Colonies, territories and states with an English lineage: England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Austrialia, New Zealand, US, Canada, and the like.

And then the US and its territories and such make up the other side of Anglo-American.

The US largely took up part of the colonial role England used to have.

I mention that because all of these states, to varying degrees, somewhat share common worldviews, and have a relationship between their media and culture that a state like say, Argentina, or Ukraine wouldn't necessarily share.

I still hear the Trumpists saying:

With Hillary we will have WWIII...

originally posted by: joeraynor


The US largely took up part of the colonial role England used to have.

Easy tiger, that is wrong on so many levels. England progressively gave up its colonies as relics of a time gone by, we acknowledged a change in time and retreated with dignity to the changes in climate.

Many of these places would have probably been in a much better state had Britain stayed in power, however, we gave back and moved on. We no longer think we rule the world but we reflect that we once did and we grew up.

The west (USA including the UK under Tony War Crimes Blair) have taken us back to the colonial past where we think we can install remote western power like we did in the old days but without the requirement of 1m plus foreign soldiers and british politicians to maintain law and order.

North Korea is not a problem you can solve with old school colonial ambitions that have failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is now a borderline Nuclear power with what is effectively Seoul as a human shield.

Sort that sh1t out!!

Pressure should be applied to NK from the UN and China.

Other than that...nothing.

I am actually surprised that China isn't doing more to pour oil on troubled waters. It's right on their doorstep after all.

But then I think it highly probable that NK has full backing by Russia and China.

What the US should not be doing is sabre-rattling. That's never wise.

The softly-softly approach is the desirable one; I'm sure that Russia and China are having a good giggle at Trump's macho rhetoric.

a reply to: Forensick

I don't think it is quite wrong to say that the US has played the colonial game (with varying degrees of success in varying places).

Pretty much half of the places the US military visited in WW2 in the pacific, they straight-up never left. Okinawa, the Philipines, Korea, Guam...

The US subjugated large parts of Central and South America for a while through debt slavery. The middle east is a real botched act, but then it wasn't clear the goal was ever to stabilize it. From what I can tell, the goal seems to be propping up the Saudis by taking down rival powers, punishing states that deviate from the Petro-dollar reserve system, and making some drug money on the sides. Whether it was a success or not depends on who you ask. The CIA and the likes of Haliburton made off like bandits. The people of those respective countries, and the US and English taxpayers footing the bill for that insanity... not so much.

I think many of the former English colonies benefited to a great degree from English rule, but then it wasn't like the goal was ecumenical service. It was mercantilistic servitude. That is generally the goal of any colony.