Jump to content

North Korea's Supposed Hacking of U.S. Entertainment Company Sony


Zane Price

Recommended Posts

Federal Investigators accused North Korea of conducting the hacking attack on Sony today. They hacked Sony because of a movie that was set to release on Christmas Day, called The Interview. It was a comedy surrounding the assassination of North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un. This is said to be the first known breach of private U.S. computers by North Korea. North Korea has publicly stated that they have no involvement in the matter, but stated that it was a good action by the hackers. 

 

The group that claims responsibility for the attack calls themselves the Guardians of Peace. They sent messages to Sony executives thanking them for canceling the release of The Interview.

 

After the hackers threatened terrorist-type attacks on movie theaters that planned to show the film on Christmas Day, Sony canceled its release. What actions do you think the U.S. should take? Is this an attack? Should we feel threatened by North Korea? Above all, should Sony have canceled the release of a film based on threats from North Korea?

 

Interested to hear what you think!

Edited by Zane Price
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey there!

 

 

What actions should the US take? Honestly, there isn't much the US can actually do; sanctions have proven to be ineffective and invading North Korea is completely out of the question. They should denounce the attacks, make sure their cyber defence is strengthened, warn North Korea of 'grave consequences', pass a new resolution on North Korea in the United Nations security council, but beyond that, there isn't much they can do. Public statements could have an effect, but with North Korea, I doubt so. 

 

Is this an attack? Clearly so. Is that even a question? It is clearly an attack on Sony, and it is clearly an attack on the film industry, and it is a clear attack on freedom of speech. I don't really see the contention here, but if there is one, feel free to tell me. 

 

Should you guys feel threatened by North Korea? Not any more than you already are (and actually a bit less). North Korea has had the capabilities of executing these attacks for years, and has done so repeatedly against South Korean targets (even taking out the government pages once). The threat picture has not changed, and the actual threat against the US is currently minute. The threat against South Korea is actually also quite small, although much greater relatively speaking. Their threat lies more in economic disruption than anything else, as the Sony attacks show. Their military capabilities are very limited, and they know that going to war against anyone would be as if they're committing suicide. They'd only do that if someone pushed them into a corner and threatened their lives. They might have (one of) the biggest armies in the world, but it is largely outdated and inefficient. You hear about hunger in North Korea? That is also true for most army personnel (excluding body guards, the officers and the special forces). Furthermore, although they maintain that US is their biggest enemy, North Korea does not have the capability of attacking the US mainland. If something was to happen, South Korea and Japan are the two countries that should worry, not the US. So, although their threat is mainly economic through cyber crime, this is not going to be something to worry about - they're not going to launch these types of attacks often. In fact, this time they even have a (in their eye) justified motive for hacking; officially, Kim Jong Eun and his family are considered divine, and to even hint to the idea that he can be killed is a very offensive thing to do. They don't have this justification for mere economic disruption.

 

Should Sony have cancelled the movie? No, I think that was a wrong decision. First of all, as Obama said, they shouldn't let themselves be censored by anyone but their own government (and that only in rare cases). Secondly, considering the real threat picture and North Korea's history with verbal provocations, any terror attack on the scale of 9/11 would have been unlikely. The question is if the hackers were in possession of something they really didn't want to reveal to the rest of the world. In that case, unless it is more disgraceful emails, why not actually reveal it and take away one of the hackers' cards? Anyway, I think the reasons for the cancellations are shady and not strong enough to justify such a move. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most that you stated. As far as the attack, I feel that it really wasn't an attack. North Korea has a big mouth but little to back it up with. For example, earlier this year there was a scare about their increasing of nuclear power. I feel that this was a pure show to get attention for their country. As far as I am concerned, I think that North Korea is a poor country that spends all of its money on its weak military. When are they going to use that military? I am not sure. From what I can tell, they don't have an ally with any military power worth mentioning in the world. 

 

Sony just showed the weakness of the United States by cancelling the film. They should have released it as planned, just to show North Korea that we don't give a hoot about them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most that you stated. As far as the attack, I feel that it really wasn't an attack. North Korea has a big mouth but little to back it up with. For example, earlier this year there was a scare about their increasing of nuclear power. I feel that this was a pure show to get attention for their country. As far as I am concerned, I think that North Korea is a poor country that spends all of its money on its weak military. When are they going to use that military? I am not sure. From what I can tell, they don't have an ally with any military power worth mentioning in the world. 

 

Sony just showed the weakness of the United States by cancelling the film. They should have released it as planned, just to show North Korea that we don't give a hoot about them!

 

An attack does not have to be violent. There does not need to be a military in order for another state to attack another state. In this modern interconnected world, an attack may very well be through the internet - as was the case with this cyber attack. Whether or not they have 'little to back it up with' doesn't really matter, we still have to call a spade for a spade. If not, following that logic, although I have not much of military equipment, if I was to shoot a French soldier - wouldn't that be an attack on that person? It would still count as an attack, wouldn't it? The term 'attack' does not discriminate between capabilities or past events, and this was an attack intended to force through their own will (which they succeeded to do). 

Why is it that you don't 'feel' it was an attack? Maybe that'll help me understand your point, because I still see no reason to consider it otherwise. 

 

As for your assertion that 'North Korea has a big mouth but little to back it up with'.. Not completely true. The actual threat they pose towards South Korea and other countries are very small, but it is a real and dangerous threat. The potential threat, if anyone does any miscalculations, is massive. 70% or thereabouts of the North Korean army are in the very southern regions of North Korea. They have most of their artillery aimed at Seoul at all times, a city in which 20 million people reside. They do have rockets that could hit mainland US. They are in the process of developing an atomic bomb that could fit on such a rocket. They have huge storages of chemical weapons. If the West does anything suggesting an oncoming war, even unintentionally, North Korea can create a hell on earth. Now, they don't have equipment for extended fighting, but can sustain a war with a duration of less than 4 months WITHOUT external help. With external help, a war could go on for a very long time.

However, the size of the army is not in preparation for an invasion or anything like that. The North Korean government is not that stupid. Instead, it boasts about its military regularly, and makes a huge point about their nuclear projects (which is NOT just a scare, it is a real international problem), because that's their mode of survival. They consider the US particularly, but also South Korea, as a very real threat. They know that they are technologically disadvantaged and they know that their army would be disadvantaged in war, and they make up for that disadvantage by numbers. Also, since they are so disadvantaged, they are very concerned that South Korea and the US would invade and take over North Korea (which, honestly speaking, had North Korea not have had nuclear weapons and if it didn't have as huge an army, would have been a very real threat - there were serious discussions in the US government about this in the 1990s). That's why the North Korean army is so big, to balance things a bit more out. And, they know that nuclear arms is a great deterrent against foreign invasion, so that's why they are developing nuclear weapons. 

 

As for allies, as schulzeug1 pointed out, China is one of their key allies. In fact, North Korea and China has a legally binding defence pact saying that if anyone attacks North Korea, China will support them militarily. Furthermore, China supplies North Korea with a huge amount of humanitarian aid (as do the US and South Korea, but to a much smaller degree), and it is from China that North Korea gets most of its oil and coal (the former essential to keep its military running, the latter essential to create power). Now, China is becoming more and more disillusioned with North Korea, and their relations will probably deteriorate at some point in the future. However, as it is now, one shouldn't underestimate their relationship. As many experts have said before, China holds the key to North Korea.

North Korea does have a number of other, smaller, friends around the world as well, though. Iran, Cuba and Syria might ring a bell. North Korea also has a growing relationship with India, and relations with Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia are also rather good (at least relatively speaking). 

 

 

I don't know. China is part of the United Nations. Would a UN country fight against other UN countries?

 

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. UN countries fighting other UN countries have happened many times. Didn't USA invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Didn't the Soviet Union invade Afghanistan in 1979? Didn't the US invade Haiti in 1994? Didn't Iraq invade Kuwait in 1990? Didn't UK, France and Israel invade Egypt in 1956?

 

Yes, a UN country would fight against another UN country, given that the circumstances are correct. And, don't forget, North Korea is too a member of the United Nations. As for China and the US, they fought against each other in the Korean War, so it has happened before. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me correct myself. I feel that it is not an attack that North Korea could back up, nor something anyone needs to worry about. They may have a large military but they have no means to fight the world. They have no food to feed their army either. They do not have any real allies that could give them food. They are too isolated. In contrast, with the president that we have right now, we may have something to worry about. He is too passive toward organizations that threaten the United States. It's hard to tell. No one really knows the power that North Korea has because they are so secretive. One thing is for sure, the world would never allow North Korea to do any damage. The U.S. would blow them off the map just like we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War 2. So to answer your question, sure it was an attack. Should the United States worry about it? I don't think so.

 

With regards to North Korea posing a threat to South Korea, they wouldn't dare make a move. Furthermore, North Korea has the most to fear out of any country in the world. If the United States were to find out that North Korea were planning an attack, which we would, they would regret it. As docile as President Obama is, he would not put up with instigation from North Korea. There is good reason to believe that North Korea fears the United States, as they should. 

 

To start out, North Korea does not fear South Korea in the least. They fear the countries that supply the South Korean Army: France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Russia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Because however weak these countries may be alone, North Korea wouldn't stand a chance against them if they fought in unison. Moreover, the West doesn't have to worry about mentioning a war. It is the other way around. North Korea better be darn careful not to instigate the rest of the world, especially the United States.

 

I just read an article by "The Guardian" a few hours ago which read:

 

"The foreign ministry in Pyongyang denied responsibility for the the highest-profile corporate hack in history, and said there would be grave consequences if Washington refused to collaborate on an investigation and continued to blame it."

 

This is a perfect example of North Korea making themselves look ridiculous. The United States, after hearing this, will not bat an eye. What grave consequences do they plan on imposing? A joke if you ask me.

 

 

Overall, I agree with what you are saying. I just doubt North Korea's abilities more so than you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They do not have any real allies that could give them food. They are too isolated.

 

Not completely true. As I said earlier, China is providing North Korea with a massive amount of humanitarian aid, which consists mainly of food. The World Food Programme provides North Korea with food, though does everything in its power to make sure that it goes to civilians. The core problem in North Korea is not whether or not they have enough food, but how they ration the food. A vast majority of it goes to the leadership and key military units (the special forces, for instance). It is true that North Korea is relatively speaking an isolated country, but it is much less so than what is portrayed in the mainstream media. There are 24 embassies in North Korea, in addition to a couple of consulates and a diplomatic office. Furthermore, there are a number of embassies in Beijing and Seoul which covers that country in addition to North Korea. On the other side of the equation, North Korea has embassies in 46 different countries. Although not all of these countries approve of North Korea's actions, the mainstream media's depiction of North Korea as an isolated country as such is wrong. 

 

 

One thing is for sure, the world would never allow North Korea to do any damage. The U.S. would blow them off the map just like we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War 2.

 

Sorry, but  that is not true at all. North Korea has done A LOT of damage without direct interference from the US or any other nation. They killed US soldiers in the DMZ in 1976, they raided the Blue House (South Korea's version of the White House) in 1968 leaving 26 South Korean and 4 Americans dead. They shelled Yeonpyeongdo, a South Korean island close to the DMZ, in 2010, causing the deaths of two civilians (South Korea retaliated, which led to the death of close to 30 North Koreans). They torpedoed ROKS Cheonan earlier that year, killing 46 South Korean soldiers. Still, North Korea is alive and kicking. 

Also, I don't think you realise what geopolitical implications such an action would have. As I said earlier, China and North Korea has a pact, which means that if USA was to bomb North Korea like that, China would be forced to declare war on USA. Now, a war between two of the most powerful military forces is not exactly desirable, is it? 

Also, China simply does not want USA in North Korea. You know about the Soviet Union and the buffer zones, right? China is pursuing a similar tactic, with North Korea as an ideological stabiliser in that region. It is not unlikely that China would act if something was to seriously threaten this balance (as was the case in the Korean War). 

 

 

With regards to North Korea posing a threat to South Korea, they wouldn't dare make a move. Furthermore, North Korea has the most to fear out of any country in the world. If the United States were to find out that North Korea were planning an attack, which we would, they would regret it. As docile as President Obama is, he would not put up with instigation from North Korea. There is good reason to believe that North Korea fears the United States, as they should. 

 

I am sorry, but this deduction is misinformed, and I'm not sure if you read my response properly. As I said, North Korea is NOT planning an attack, because they know that's political suicide. However, if they're pushed into a corner, and they become desperate, that's when things can start to happen. This was exactly what was the concern amongst the academics in 2013 during the spring crisis. If you press North Korea into a corner, they will react violently. They will not invade South Korea unprovoked, but if they consider an American (or South Korean) invasion imminent, then a North Korea-initiated war is not so unlikely. That'd give North Korea a temporary advantage due to the moment of surprise, giving them time to prepare better for whatever would come afterwards.

I feel I am repeating myself quite a lot here, but let me restate this: North Korea has about 70% of its armed forces south of the Pyongyang-Wonsan line, which means that most of its army is in the very southern regions. North Korea has about 5000 artillery pieces in total according to the South Korean Ministry of National Defense. That's enough to completely destroy Seoul in a matter of hours. So, North Korea does pose a real threat to South Korea. Everyone who works with this particular conflict knows this. Yes, North Korea would be annihilated if they did attack Seoul, but those who sacrifice themselves for the great leader are considered martyrs, so if the situation forces them to act, they will. And considering that there are almost as many people in Seoul alone as there are in North Korea in total, I hope you understand that anything implying an American invasion or attack on North Korea will lead to massive civilian casualties on the 'wrong' side. 

 

 

To start out, North Korea does not fear South Korea in the least. They fear the countries that supply the South Korean Army: France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Russia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Because however weak these countries may be alone, North Korea wouldn't stand a chance against them if they fought in unison. 

 

Again, this is not completely true. The South Korean army in and by itself is very capable of fighting North Korea's troops, and North Korea knows it. had a war erupted, and the only two parties to the conflict were North and South Korea, South Korea would hold the advantage due both to technological advantages and to the greater (and modern) tactical expertise. North Korea would not stand a chance in a traditional war. That is not to say there wouldn't be huge costs on the South Korean side, of course there would, but North Korea would lose out in the end. The only potential way for North Korea to win would be by employing guerilla tactics. 

Both sides are very aware of this, and North Korea will do everything in its might to not end up in a direct conflict with other countries, even if it is 'only' South Korea.

 

 

Moreover, the West doesn't have to worry about mentioning a war. It is the other way around. North Korea better be darn careful not to instigate the rest of the world, especially the United States.

 

That is indeed true from the Western point of view, but definitely not how the North Korean elite regards it. They do regard USA as a real threat, and if they are not imposing a sense of threat in South Korea and USA, they do fear that USA would invade. Which is, honestly speaking, not too far-fetched. You can hear far-right Republicans advocating for invasion of North Korea even today if you ask them. Thankfully, there are some more reasonable people in power. 

 

 

 

 

...

 

  1. North Korea does not have a large army/military. Their military is actually smaller than that of Canada and Switzerland.
  2. No real allies you say? Well, we mentioned China previously and Putin seems to make a move towards Pyongyang as well for some reason (invited Kim Jong-Un for a diplomatic visit a couple of days ago). Why? Maybe to just shove his middle finger even further up into everyones face….
  3. "If the United States were to find out that North Korea were planning an attack, which we would” — Didn’t you just claim we knew nothing about North Korea as they “are so secretive”?
  4. "U.S. would blow them off the map just like we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki” — No. I hope the USA has moved on and will not destroy basically NKs whole population and an entire country which all would also immensely affect South Korea; especially if what you are indicating with “Hiroshima and Nagasaki” is atomic bombings. Trust me, the US will not simply “blow a country off the map”.

 

 

 

1. Where have you heard this? The active part of the North Korean army consists of about 700'000 soldiers, the Canadian army has just below 70'000 active personnel whilst Switzerland has just below 150'000 active personnel. The military reserves in North Korea is closer to 8'000'000 soldiers, whereas in Canada this number is around 50'000, in Switzerland 80'000. This is excluding the paramilitary groups in North Korea, which even children down to the age of 12 (I think) are forced to join. 

 

2. Putin is indeed, at least superficially, warming the Russo-North Korean relations. This is mostly due to the Ukrainian conflict, in which Russia has been heavily condemned by the West. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. Where have you heard this? The active part of the North Korean army consists of about 700'000 soldiers, the Canadian army has just below 70'000 active personnel whilst Switzerland has just below 150'000 active personnel. The military reserves in North Korea is closer to 8'000'000 soldiers, whereas in Canada this number is around 50'000, in Switzerland 80'000. This is excluding the paramilitary groups in North Korea, which even children down to the age of 12 (I think) are forced to join. 

 

apologies, my wording was a little wrong. smaller not meaning fewer soldiers but also taking into consideration naval and air power, missiles, tanks, etc.

 

 

Ah, I see, so you were considering size in terms of equipment as well.. Fair enough. I have no info on the military equipments Canada and Switzerland have, so I can't really contest that in any way. North Korea has a massive amount of equipment stockpiled, though, the only problem is that most of it is somewhat obsolete. Also, they are believed to have an absolutely horrid amount of chemical weapons. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In contrast, with the president that we have right now, we may have something to worry about. He is too passive toward organizations that threaten the United States. It's hard to tell. No one really knows the power that North Korea has because they are so secretive. One thing is for sure, the world would never allow North Korea to do any damage. The U.S. would blow them off the map just like we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War 2.

....

With regards to North Korea posing a threat to South Korea, they wouldn't dare make a move. Furthermore, North Korea has the most to fear out of any country in the world. If the United States were to find out that North Korea were planning an attack, which we would, they would regret it. As docile as President Obama is, he would not put up with instigation from North Korea. There is good reason to believe that North Korea fears the United States, as they should.

.....

It is the other way around. North Korea better be darn careful not to instigate the rest of the world, especially the United States.

 

Personally I think the massive series of ****-ups known as the invasion of Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Vietnam are as close as you're going to get to concrete proof that the stereotypical american approach to 'solving' difficult situations via the motto "divorce brain, engage weapons" is... not smart. Reacting to every threat by going on the offensive seems to have been phenomenally unsuccessful, but weirdly ingrained in the national psyche. "Team America" is a brilliant film precisely because it's so tragically true.

 

Being 'docile' is in my opinion just another way of saying "not trigger-happy" which to be honest I think is a good thing. I mean you can say that North Korea poses a threat to the US at the moment yes, but it's low-level in the sense that nothing is likely to happen. So just let it be. Pursuing North Korea will only increase the likelihood that something WILL happen, if for no other reason than that they're driven by all sorts of crazy rhetoric that at some point they would feel obliged to fulfil. To bring out an analogy, if you think a wild animal is threatened by you, you keep an eye on it but try to ignore it in the hope it will back down - you don't poke it with a stick because the more threatened it is by you, the more likely it is to lash out and actually do something. I think criticising Obama for not pushing N. Korea over the edge is a little backward. What else would you have happen, and what consequences do you really think it would have?

 

On one final note, your comments about casual use of nuclear weaponry seem to me in very bad taste. I doubt I'm the only person to view what happened in Japan as an atrocity that should never be repeated.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of things:

 

1. I don't know precisely the reasons for the war with Vietnam, so I won't go there. I do know one thing, you don't live in a country where Al Queda killed thousands of our own in an attack on September 11th. You have no idea what damage they caused to our country. That is the reason we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. To search for them. Those invasions were definitely not ****-ups.

 

2. I never said I supported what occurred at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I did say that the United States could do the exact same to North Korea, and North Korea knows it. You took that comment out of context. Read the passage again. It pertained to why North Korea fears the United States.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of things:

 

1. I don't know precisely the reasons for the war with Vietnam, so I won't go there. I do know one thing, you don't live in a country where Al Queda killed thousands of our own in an attack on September 11th. You have no idea what damage they caused to our country. That is the reason we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. To search for them. Those invasions were definitely not ****-ups.

 

2. I never said I supported what occurred at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I did say that the United States could do the exact same to North Korea, and North Korea knows it. You took that comment out of context. Read the passage again. It pertained to why North Korea fears the United States.

 

Oh I'm sorry I didn't realise that views depended on the numbers of people murdered by terrorists in your own country. Clearly an insufficient number of people have been killed in attacks on the UK for me to have any opinion! Or is it specifically the date on which an attack happened that allows you to make points about it? In case you can't tell, I think this is a pretty stupid point to be making. It may be controversial but I actually think that even people who've never had their country directly attacked by terrorists might be able to tentatively voice their thoughts - if anything, with more credibility because they are impartial. And I consider that British people in the same conflict are also allowed to speak with legitimacy.

One attack on one country by a small group of people does not by any measure justify starting decades of bloody war, destabilising several countries in the process such that they are now in states of civil war between their own countrymen, and of course the loss of hundreds of thousands more lives in other countries. Not least those of troops from the US and allied countries. What happened on 11/9 was obviously awful but the idea that it somehow makes all discussion about what happened afterwards moot seems insane. To be honest 11/9 isn't even necessarily related to the invasion of Iraq, so how it justifies that I've no idea. In terms of them not being ****-ups, I don't know what measures you're using of success, but I would struggle to highlight what positive things have resulted from them. I think that is generally recognised, even by the people most involved. Those regions have been left in a mess and because of what has been done to the people there, you could even argue that the cause of extremist Islam and terrorists there has been promoted. When the US and co are bombing your houses, killing your children with drones etc., it's hard not to feel hatred. We even have people from our own countries going out there to join them, because THEY feel it is justified. How is that success??

 

I never said anything beyond the fact I found your comments in very bad taste. Which I still do. "Blow them off the map" IS inappropriately casual to suggest considering what that actually means, and I continue to read it that way! "Blow them off the map" is making the murder of thousands if not millions of people sound like some kind of little kid's game, regardless of what you were saying about it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

schulzeug1:

In the context that I meant the statement, it doesn't matter. The fact that the United States has the ability to punish North Korea is what matters. I was talking about how North Korea fears the United States and not the other way around.

 

 

As far as North/South Korean relations, I'm not sure. As far as I know, they did have families that were split apart meet for a short, regulated time. I do not know when this happened.

Edited by Zane Price
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandwich:

 

Well, whether or not the invasion of Iraq was warranted is a matter of personal opinion. And in fact, the United Kingdom was in agreement with the United States at the time of the invasion. The United States and the United Kingdom agreed, together, that because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that they posed a significant threat to our allies closest to Iraq. That is why we invaded Iraq together, killing Suddam Hussein. That, in my opinion, was worth the invasion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandwich:

 

Well, whether or not the invasion of Iraq was warranted is a matter of personal opinion. And in fact, the United Kingdom was in agreement with the United States at the time of the invasion. The United States and the United Kingdom agreed, together, that because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that they posed a significant threat to our allies closest to Iraq. That is why we invaded Iraq together, killing Suddam Hussein. That, in my opinion, was worth the invasion.

 

So killing 1 man is sufficient justification for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people, including hundreds of US and British soldiers, amongst others? I ask these questions only because I think you might find your views are a little simplistic and incredibly dismissive of all that has happened in these countries as a consequence of what happened. In this country the general view is that the justification of the war in Iraq was based on lies about weapons of mass destruction, and that it should never have happened. Even at the time there was a great deal of protest.

Your opinion may still indeed be that it was worth it, but in which case you're putting the impact of one man above the lives of so many people it's not even worth counting. Who have since died, and continue to live in a land of civil war, religious factions and suicide bombings which have caused so many deaths it makes 11/9 look like small print.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to say this, but I think you have a rather simplistic way of looking at these issues.

 

 

1.I do know one thing, you don't live in a country where Al Queda killed thousands of our own in an attack on September 11th. You have no idea what damage they caused to our country. That is the reason we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. To search for them. Those invasions were definitely not ****-ups.

 

And I know another thing: You clearly don't live in a country where the US has killed tens and hundreds of thousands of civilians consistently since 2003, tortured the population and imprisoned them without any charges. You have no idea what damage the US caused to Afghanistan and Iraq. 

 

Your claims are wrong on a number of different levels. Let's address the invasion of Iraq first, as that's the one you've clearly misunderstood. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 at all. The invasion of Iraq was based on lies and fiction. Despite for the fact that the UN, who had done thorough investigations on Iraq's nuclear disarmament, concluded that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that the country had cooperated with United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), USA decided to invade 'due to the undeniable presence of WMDs'. The only contention in this regard prior to American invasion was whether or not their cooperation had been 'immediate, unconditional and active', which a prior resolution had ordered. They declared in early 2003 that it could take a few months to properly verify if this was the case or not. If they were proven to violate that particular clause, then they would still have complied with the international community in all the other aspects. The inspectors were allowed to all parts of Iraq, and their last inspection was just months prior to the American invasion. They concluded then that there were no WMDs in Iraq at all, but American Republicans pretended not to hear and shouted even louder for war. As such, Iraq doesn't really fit into this discussion at all.
In fact, by invading Iraq, USA broke all relating international law. Perhaps the most prominent is the UN Charter itself, in which it is clearly written that no country may attack another country without it being strictly in self-defence. It does not acknowledge pre-emptive wars as justifiable. Due to this, and due to its actions, US reputation abroad has plummeted. USA is no longer regarded as the 'saviour of the world', but an international bully by many. No wonder why there are so many people around the world who consider USA as a modern imperialistic country..
Furthermore, you say that the War in Iraq was not a ****-up. Sorry, but that is not exactly true. For something non-existing that didn't really pose a threat to the US at all, almost 4'500 American soldiers have been killed. In total, between 2003 and 2011, PLOS estimated that approximately 500'000 people had died due to the Iraq War. That's five-hundred-thousand people. Let that sink in for a bit. That's 167 times more than the amount of people who were killed in 9/11. And, what exactly did you achieve? Forced regime change, a very unstable government, more terrorism (suicide bombing was actually quite rare in the region before USA decided to play World Police, and ISIS gained most of its support during the war), an atrocious amount of people killed, significant reduction of favourable international opinions of the US, religious radicalisation, civil wars, etc. I think it is easy to see that the war was clearly not a success. This goes for both wars.

 

Also, for Afghanistan - Al-Qaeda is an extranational organisation, not a country. What the US did was to equate Afghanistan with Al-Qaeda, but the truth was that Afghanistan was run by Taliban. Now, I'm not saying Taliban is much better, but they did not execute 9/11, Al-Qaeda did. Taliban gave Al-Qaeda permission to stay in Afghanistan and funded them, but that is still not a reason for war. Had it been a reason for war, why hasn't USA invaded Iran? You know, some of the top leaders of Al-Qaeda are living in Iran. Or, why is USA remaining friends with Qatar, who is a country currently founding ISIS? Inconsistency at its finest. 

 

There are a huge number of other things I could also mention in terms of these wars, but this thread is and should be about North Korea, so I'll stop here. Let's discuss Iraq and Afghanistan elsewhere. Just don't trust everything the mainstream media tells you - the media in the US is some of the most biased and propagandist media I've seen in a democratic country, so try to find more objective sources before you claim Iraq was not a ****-up. 

 

 

2. I never said I supported what occurred at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I did say that the United States could do the exact same to North Korea, and North Korea knows it. You took that comment out of context. Read the passage again. It pertained to why North Korea fears the United States.

 

This has been addressed by both schulzeug1 and Sandwich (both statements I agree with), so I'll keep it brief. What you were saying was that if North Korea was to act, you'd support to 'blow them off the map' like what you did with the two Japanese cities in 1945. That is technically speaking implying that you support similar actions as what occurred in 1945 if the circumstances are correct. If that's not what you mean, then you should rephrase this completely, because this is what you're actually saying. And, as schulzeug1 correctly pointed out, you said would, not could. That's a difference of one letter only, but it changes the meaning completely. If you actually meant 'could', you need to be more careful when writing, otherwise you will cause big misunderstandings. And, no, it does not really matter what you meant with the statement if you're not communicating properly. It is what you communicate that is the important bit in debates such as this.

 

 

And in fact, the United Kingdom was in agreement with the United States at the time of the invasion. 

 

That's a ludicrous statement. Why would United Kingdom be a verification that the invasion was justified? Okay, let's put this into an analogy. Let's say we have ten friends, friend A through J. Neighbour X was once rather rude to Friend A, essentially pushing him off a bike, causing Friend A to have a rather bruised knee. Friend A then says to his other friends 'let's break into Neighbour X's house and prove to him that we're more powerful than him!' Friend B agrees, but Friends C through F are hesitant and Friends G to J are completely against it. As a result, Friend A and Friend B breaks in, causing massive damage to some of the world's rarest paintings and hurt Neighbour X's daughter severely. Does the fact that Friend B agree that breaking in is a good idea make it justifiable? Not at all. Yes, Neighbour X acted in a disgraceful way, but that does not mean that Friend A and his companions can destroy Neighbour X's house. 

Although that analogy is a bit simplified, I believe it is rather applicable in this context. Just because United Kingdom agreed to the invasion does not make it okay. In fact, that doesn't change things at all. The invasion broke all international laws that the US claims to respect so much, it did not have proper foundations, and it was a situation that could clearly have been resolved differently. But no, for some reason the US rushed into a very costly war. 

 

 

 

 

...

 

By the way, does anyone know what happened to the building up/warming up of relations between North and South Korea? I remember like half a year or a year ago, NK agreed to some trans-border split-family gathering and various other things...

 

 

Well, nothing has really changed. Very briefly, their relations were really bad from 1945 till 2000, then they actually experienced some really good years relatively speaking between 2000 and 2008, and then the new South Korean conservative government completely blew it, and it has been bad since. The 2013 Spring Crisis was a further deterioration of the relations, but it has since returned to its pre-2013 (but post-2008) relations. The family meetings have been held with some frequency since 2000, and the last one was held in February this year. 

Edited by alefal
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

An update: USA is going to impose sanctions on North Korea as a result of the Sony hacking. At the same time, the President of Norse, a security business, says that Norse had briefed FBI and that North Korea is not a likely culprit. Another expert agrees with this and said that the 'evidence' provided by FBI were 'tenuous at best'. What are your thoughts on that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...