(no subject)

[mythteller]

We KNOW North Korea has WMDs. We know where they are and we know North Korea is testing them. If you just look at recent history, you'd think that the US would take a harsh military stance against this.

But all they seem to want to do is write nasty things about them on the bathroom walls in the UN vestibule:

Pyongyang's mother wears combat boots made in Cuba! Damn the commies!
Pyongyang has "failure to launch" issues, know what I mean?
North Korea sucks. USA #1!

The reason? North Korea's main exports include: Clothing and Textiles, Electronic Equipment, Fish, Footwear, Food Stuffs, Iron and Steel, Ships. There's also a fair trade in illegal drugs.

So did you notice what's missing. There's no oil in North Korea. So unless American cars start running on Saki, there's not much point in defending freedom.

Thanks for pointing this out to me MetroDude.

Comments

[toughlovemuse.livejournal.com]

Well, not exactly. It's also about Seoul being within easy firing range, and it's a city with a lot of people that no one's insterested in seeing blown up. It's about North Korea saying they're willing to use nuclear weapons if they're attacked. It's likely that they actually could, and that's not something anyone wants to be the test case for.

It's a complex political situation. Saying "oh, it's just 'cause of the lack of oil" is a gross oversimplification.

[jdhobbes.livejournal.com]

The war in Iraq was supposed to be to "free the Iraqi people from threat and to stop Saddam from using his weapons against the US". North Korea sounds like it should be a similar situation, but the same rhetoric is not being used. Why is that?

The US has to have something to financial to gain from getting involved like they did in Iraq. Selling as a Moral Victory to the people is one thing, but the investors/corporations need to have something profitable to come of it.

Of course this is a complex political situation, but if the US simplified the Iraq war for its people as the Fight Against Terror, then why are they not simpilfying the North Korean situation as a Fight Against Terror?

That's the question!

[toughlovemuse.livejournal.com]

"...if the US simplified the Iraq war for its people as the Fight Against Terror, then why are they not simpilfying the North Korean situation as a Fight Against Terror?"

I answered this above:

1. Because attacking North Korea endangers South Korea, even if North Korea didn't have nuclear weapons.
2. Because attacking North Korea could also possibly endanger the US. If North Korea has nuclear weapons, they have indicated that they're willing to use them on any country that attacks them.

If you're arguing that it's hypocritical to attack one and not the other, you're arguing a point that was made when the Iraq war started. People have been saying it for years. That doesn't change the fact that it's not uniquely about the oil, as you imply.

[richgoalie.livejournal.com]

It's not necessarily about the oil. But frankly, it IS an economic issue as much as anything else.

Plus, Halliburton, et al. won't make any money.

[toughlovemuse.livejournal.com]

There is an economic factor to it, sure. I still think having no reasonable belief that Iraq would fight back was a big factor (well, among many other things, like Bush Sr. attacking the country back in the '90s but never getting rid of Saddam). My point though is that it's partly that the US won't fight someone they think will hit back.

(And this all assumes it's the problem of the US alone, which it isn't. North Korea isn't a US problem alone, and the US was wrong to invade Iraq -- they'd be wrong to do it here too.)

And North Korea has been impoverished for decades. Wouldn't Haliburton make a ton on "rebuilding", like they're doing now?

[richgoalie.livejournal.com]

Welcome to the cynical side.
There are also a few other points, besides just the oil.

1) Halliburton wouldn't make much if we went to war with N. Korea.
2)It's unlikely they could reach us with a weapon, so there's the "head under the covers" option that they're taking.
3)Historically, we don't do too well in Asian wars.
4)We're spread too thin. We simply don't have the capacity to go after another one. Yet. The problem is, if they reinstate the draft, they're gonna have to draft women. Except Cheney's lesbian daughter, b/c she's already told them that she is (not that there's anything wrong with it, but seriously, how in the hell do you take an anti-gay stance when your own flesh and blood is gay?
5) If we bombed them back to the stone age, they'd STILL be a 3rd world country. Their standard of living isn't very high to begin with.
6) One has to wonder if there's not also some other considerations, such as who they might be selling nuclear materials to, and for what purpose.
7)You'd have thought that "Police Actions" wouldn't be plausible anymore, but they are, apparently.
8) Did I mention Halliburton, et al. won't make any money off of it?

[beautifulstars.livejournal.com]

this is completely off topic, but i know that here is a storytelling festival in the southern states somewhere that is world-wide famous and has put out a book of transcribed tales. do you have any idea when it happens and where? i believe i've heard you mention it, but...it escapes me at the moment.