Re: North and South Korea Exchange Fire

RainCityGirl · ‎12-16-2012

On 3/31/2014 JaneMarple said:
On 3/31/2014 RainCityGirl said:
On 3/31/2014 JaneMarple said:
On 3/31/2014 RainCityGirl said:
On 3/31/2014 JaneMarple said:
On 3/31/2014 RainCityGirl said:
At the risk of being accused of being "snarky," I would just like to point out that the number of hot spots boiling to the surface is increasing. That means there is potential for an escalation and the taking of sides by major powers. There's our continuing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Syrian situation, Egypt, Crimea, North Korea, several places in Africa, Libya, Pakistan, South America, etc. Together they could end up a catalyst for a world war, if leaders don't keep the provocative rhetoric to a minimum. I don't understand why these tunnel visioned politicians are always ready to grab weapons and go in. When you look at how countries have pulled together to all help out with a crisis like the missing airliner or tsunamis, you just have to wonder why they can't band together to avoid a holocaust of war.

Your post is not snarky at all, you made several valid points.

Neither were any of the other posts, but the inference was still made in this quote: " Is this going to be a "spirited discussion" or a snark-o-rama?" I put in the disclaimer ahead of time because some will find snark where it doesn't even exist. Thanks for your polite response, though.

I liked your post and defended it in case you were accused of being snarky, nothing more than that. Why so defensive? You can't take a complement?

HUH? I thought I was thanking you for your response and explaining to you why I said what I did in my first sentence about snark. I even highlighted the other poster's comment that made me put in the disclaimer. I give up.

Never mind it's a misunderstanding. I really liked your post with your various points which made a lot of sense.

Thank you.

jubilant · ‎06-10-2010

That's true. I know how important that buffer has been for them...but I see your point for sure. OOPs! Forgot to hit the quote button. This was for terrier3.

chickenbutt · ‎03-09-2010

On 3/31/2014 Magenta said:
Not a good thing. The North Korean dude is something else, and I really don't think he is ok in his head. I hope South Korea can constraint themselves. What a provocation.

He does seem pretty messed up. I think he likes to bring attention himself so, hopefully, that is all this is. Lately another guy's been getting all the attention. Methinks he doesn't like that.

SydneyH · ‎03-10-2010

On 3/31/2014 RainCityGirl said:
Sidney, I can't imagine why anyone from South Korea would ever want unification. They would have to accept the insane, repressive, poverty ridden practices of Kim Jong Un. The South is trying to build their economy and raise their people's standards of living, instead. I'd be terrified to share a border with the North. It is considered one of the most brutal regimes in the world.

While this is undoubtedly true, the future may require a unified country, sooner rather than later. North Korea, hard as they try will not be able to continue to exist with an uneducated population, especially with the advancement of radio and internet communications. I suspect a revolution is coming, the question is when imo.

RainCityGirl · ‎12-16-2012

On 3/31/2014 SydneyH said:
On 3/31/2014 RainCityGirl said:
Sidney, I can't imagine why anyone from South Korea would ever want unification. They would have to accept the insane, repressive, poverty ridden practices of Kim Jong Un. The South is trying to build their economy and raise their people's standards of living, instead. I'd be terrified to share a border with the North. It is considered one of the most brutal regimes in the world.

While this is undoubtedly true, the future may require a unified country, sooner rather than later. North Korea, hard as they try will not be able to continue to exist with an uneducated population, especially with the advancement of radio and internet communications. I suspect a revolution is coming, the question is when imo.

I think the North Koreans would like to revolt, but their situation is hopeless with Un's army. He would mow them down and then parade their corpses all over the country. The only way that country has any chance at all is if someone gets rid of Un's dynasty. I can't see that happening. Un would never give up his privileged position and high life for unification, and South Korea would be crazy to accept him as a unified leader. The unification would only serve Un because SK is a modernized, manufacturing country. His is not. He'd just steal the wealth and profits for himself...at least that's how I see him...and subjugate the South Korean population the same as he has done with his own. He is a despicable human being.

SydneyH · ‎03-10-2010

On 3/31/2014 RainCityGirl said:
I think the North Koreans would like to revolt, but their situation is hopeless with Un's army. He would mow them down and then parade their corpses all over the country. The only way that country has any chance at all is if someone gets rid of Un's dynasty. I can't see that happening. Un would never give up his privileged position and high life for unification, and South Korea would be crazy to accept him as a unified leader. The unification would only serve Un because SK is a modernized, manufacturing country. His is not. He'd just steal the wealth and profits for himself...at least that's how I see him...and subjugate the South Korean population the same as he has done with his own. He is a despicable human being.

The dynasty definitely needs to be dismantled, again, how or when that will occur, if ever is a mystery. Did you know the current leader had plastic surgery to look like his deceased father? Or that he may have been educated here in the West (under an assumed name)?

RainCityGirl · ‎12-16-2012

On 3/31/2014 SydneyH said:
On 3/31/2014 RainCityGirl said:
I think the North Koreans would like to revolt, but their situation is hopeless with Un's army. He would mow them down and then parade their corpses all over the country. The only way that country has any chance at all is if someone gets rid of Un's dynasty. I can't see that happening. Un would never give up his privileged position and high life for unification, and South Korea would be crazy to accept him as a unified leader. The unification would only serve Un because SK is a modernized, manufacturing country. His is not. He'd just steal the wealth and profits for himself...at least that's how I see him...and subjugate the South Korean population the same as he has done with his own. He is a despicable human being.

The dynasty definitely needs to be dismantled, again, how or when that will occur, if ever is a mystery. Did you know the current leader had plastic surgery to look like his deceased father? Or that he may have been educated here in the West (under an assumed name)?

I didn't know about the plastic surgery, but he most definitely was educated in the West.

terrier3 · ‎03-10-2010

On 3/31/2014 SydneyH said:
On 3/31/2014 Ford1224 said:
"WW III" is going to be precipitated by a catastrophic earth-wide climate event with every man for himself. JMO

What I find really perplexing is how South Korea refuses to really push for unification of their entire country. I just finished reading a book about an escapee from one of North Korea's death camps, he claims South Koreans are more concerned with making money, lol.

S Korea doesn't want to be responsible for millions of uneducated, starving people. China doesn't want them either.

N Korea is a buffer for them both...neither could care less about the people living in N Korea, IMO.

SydneyH · ‎03-10-2010

On 3/31/2014 RainCityGirl said:
I didn't know about the plastic surgery, but he most definitely was educated in the West.

I was under the assumption he received most of his education in Western Europe, but the book alludes to the US. Scary, lol. Maybe that's where he honed in on US basketball.

SugarNSpice · ‎03-26-2010

On 3/31/2014 Cakers1 said:
On 3/31/2014 JaneMarple said:
On 3/31/2014 RainCityGirl said:
At the risk of being accused of being "snarky," I would just like to point out that the number of hot spots boiling to the surface is increasing. That means there is potential for an escalation and the taking of sides by major powers. There's our continuing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Syrian situation, Egypt, Crimea, North Korea, several places in Africa, Libya, Pakistan, South America, etc. Together they could end up a catalyst for a world war, if leaders don't keep the provocative rhetoric to a minimum. I don't understand why these tunnel visioned politicians are always ready to grab weapons and go in. When you look at how countries have pulled together to all help out with a crisis like the missing airliner or tsunamis, you just have to wonder why they can't band together to avoid a holocaust of war.

Your post is not snarky at all, you made several valid points.

Nobody said RCG's post was snarky. You know that these threads can turn in a heartbeat. That was my point, made before RCG posted. And I agree that RCG did make good points.