In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 668
Online now 285 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
A thousand times this. And the edit.
Eh, let's invade them. No way those female soldiers can do anything in those high heels.
I'm oversimplifying, but this has been the basic cycle of NK/Western relations for a number of years now:
1.NK ratchets up rhetoric
2.NK launches some kind of provocative action (ballistic missile tests, nuclear tests, sinking a South Korean boat, whatever)
3.The west condemns NK, sometimes even joined by China
4.Additional sanctions are levied
5.Various concessions are offered to NK.
6.Wait a few months, or a year, then go back to step 1.
If I'm North Korea, I see a history of #1 and #2 leading to #5.
Escalation is a serious threat, but I'd be willing to bet that they think they know where the redline is, and that they can stop before they get there. The threat is that they may not know where it is, or that they end up getting backed into a corner where they'd have to take serious escalatory actions.
This post was edited by umdnc02 12 months ago
Like a spoiled toddler, perhaps the time has come to stop coddling and let him cry it out. No cookies before dinner, Kim! Go to your room, I don't want to hear your whining.
at first i thought you were talking about alexterp
This post was edited by phatphelix 12 months ago
Phatboy if you had any balls I'd meet you at the AFA Boxing gym and have Coach Weichers put some gloves on us.
This appears to me as ye old misdirection play - "toss the snow ball high in the air and zip a frozen rope at your foes eye socket".
Right now we're watching this slow moving snowball drift in the air. The question that remains is from whom will frozen rope be fired?
like I said above.....crazy? No, I don't think so either. It's basically extortion writ large (same trick Iran uses, primarily because it works). He'll more than likely sit on this rhetoric for another week or so until we offer something (aid or a freeze on the exercises with the ROK) and then he can go on national TV and brag about how he stared down the American Imperialists and saved the people. The Kim's have gotten really good at it.
The scary thing from my POV is that each time they have to nudge the envelope a little farther....and I do worry that while Un is probably quite calculating....one of the true believers in his high command might get a report of an F-18 or something on a recon mission off the coast and launch a full artillery barrage on Seoul or even a nuke because they thought they were being attacked.
High tension environments make for precious little wiggle room...and that's a scary thing when you are talking about a nuclear capable nation with 18,000 heavy guns pointed right at a city of 25 million.
This post was edited by BtownHeel 12 months ago
at the risk of repeating myself, i don't think this is extortion. i don't think this is about us, at least not directly. i think this is an unproven ruler looking to squash any doubts that might exist domestically (especially within the military) by playing the hardass and showing that he'll stand up to the great enemy. the united states is simply kim's eurasia/eastasia.
the danger for us lies in whether or not kim feels like it's working.
I believe our build up around and on the Korean Pennisula is not so much for that NK douchebag's benefit, but as support and the US ability to restrain South Korea's response to something stupid ordered if Kim feels threatened by his own general staff.
This post was edited by tagterp 12 months ago
This crisis is working out well for Kim, well for the US, well for the hardliners in Japan, so-so for SK, and poorly for China.
Kim gets: solidified domestic support and potentially concessions.
US gets: increased influence in East Asia and potentially more of a commitment by its allies to take a military role in the region.
Japanese hardliners get: domestic support for rebuilding their military.
SK gets: additional support from allies, but domestic tension and some economic concerns
China gets: encircled.
Wow. This is NOT roomy!
Sometimes I put from about 40 feet out and I get within 20 feet and I ask for a gimme, so I guess I have to okay this one too.
At the same time, this may be the only (military) international crisis where China is absolutely necessary. It means something that the United States has to depend on them to solve it.
and if that's how it it ends up playing out as a final result, I am more than okay with that. As I said earlier in the thread, I think we need to be very cautious/wary with China. NK is the same nation they've been for 50 years. If they haven't launched an offensive to this point, I don't think they are going to (at least not on purpose). No payoff in that scenario for Un. He was educated and spent time outside of his nation so he has to be aware of how badly his forces would get trounced in open combat. Hell, you can do a quick wikipedia search and can a pretty solid idea of U.S. military capability and numbers across the board.
Un isn't all that different from Hussein n the late 80's. i(sans the oil resources to fund his fiefdom). They are both tyrants that are interested in self preservation above all else and force a deity like worship of them by the people, or else. To this day, I still think Saddam logically thought he could get away with taking Kuwait and that we'd offer good terms for a diplomatic solution that allowed him to come out a big winner. He never thought we'd go to war over it. Remember, at that time; other than small brushfires like Grenada, the last military ops that the world had seen the US undertake were Vietnam and Desert One.....neither of which went well. Saddam (nor anyone else worldwide honestly....even some in OUR own high command) had realized how far the Reagan years had advanced us past everyone else from a capability standpoint.
Saddam gambled and lost. I doubt Un repeats that gamble.
I think the person who is President makes a difference. Bush (1 and 2), Reagan = taking action. Carter, Clinton, Obama = dither.
You can argue which course of action is better (and it IS arguable to some degree), but it's also predictable and constant. Dem presidents don't react aggressively (again, not necessarily a bad thing)
I don't know why you feel the need to inject partisanship into this, but to take your point, wtf did Bush do except allow them to build a nuclear weapon?
That might be broadly true, but I wouldn't agree that it's constant. Just as one example: Reagan backed down in response to (arguably) the first act of islamic terrorism against the US, while Obama has been exceptionally aggressive against terrorism. I'm not sure that either approach is entirely correct, but I don't agree that things can be categorized as neatly as dem president passive, republican president aggressive.
Not to mention, a strong case can be made that Obama's "shift to the East" has put us in stronger position to help with this crisis and continue to build a stronger relationship with SK.
I predict that NK will do their missile test on Monday (or whenever the upcoming national holiday is). It won't be targeted at any of our allies, and we won't shoot it down. They'll get condemned at the UN, China will lament a country ratcheting up tensions but won't name any names, and NK will make some belligerent statements in the media. Then it will all die down, the factory at the border gets reopened, and we wait another six months todo this again.
That's definitely the most likely outcome.
They're doing it either tonight or tomorrow bc Kerry will be in Japan. Their National holiday is Monday. I would not be shocked if they do multiple things.
That said, I agree with the latter part of your comment.
This post was edited by 2013Terp 12 months ago
Carter was the only president that was truly passive and tried peace first. Everyone else has engaged in significant military actions. Like another poster said, I don't think it's as simple as you mentioned.
“Route 1, where everybody meets.” ~Nick Faust #5
I didn't inject partisanship, I took Btown's point, examined it, and made an observation. I took great pains to indicate that while different presidents acted in different ways, in almost all cases there were drawbacks to every president's actions.
They're back at it:
"Our retaliatory action will start without any notice from now," the North said in a statement carried by its official news agency, KCNA.
North Korea said it was responding to insults from the"puppet authorities" in the South, claiming that there had been a rally against North Korea in Seoul, the South Korean capital. It called the rally a "monstrous criminal act."
Tell them we're busy with some real shit right now.
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports