Is North Korea essentially 'broke'?

[Lilly]

The real reason Kimmy wants to talk to Donald might have something to do with North Korea being almost bankrupt! 

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/north-korea-t-pay-hotel-185926758.html

[Gromdor]

Yeah, they have been broke for easily half a century.  The isolation and sanctions have the people starving.  Sean is right as well, the Kims will rattle sabres and get aid (and free hotels) just to stop for a while.  What is happening now will only break the pattern if they honor it past the receiving aid part.

[Piney]

31 minutes ago, Lilly said:

The real reason Kimmy wants to talk to Donald might have something to do with North Korea being almost bankrupt! 

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/north-korea-t-pay-hotel-185926758.html

They tightened the collar and their starving even more. But seeing pictures of North Korean soldiers taken by Nihon Intelligence, they've been starving for years. Now they are dying.

[Tatetopa]

4 hours ago, Lilly said:

The real reason Kimmy wants to talk to Donald might have something to do with North Korea being almost bankrupt! 

Also, for Kim, it is a huge victory  to be sanctioned on the international stage by a meeting with the President of the United States.  Maybe he will get the guarantee his family has been seeking; in exchange for peace, he can retain the Kim family business for another generation.  Show some progress, downplay human rights and if the Kim corporation can trade on the world stage, they can offer a cheap, non-troublesome, educated labor force.  Consider that.  Will North Korea become the new goto state for cheap global manufacturing?  How will that impact Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, and CHINA?  It will make Kim corporation fabulously wealthy and who knows, it might be good for business to feed their workers a little better.

[Aquila King]

Not to go too off-topic here, but as a non-interventionist, I really don't care. The libertarians here should agree with me. The US needs to get it's nose out of everyone else's business. NK is starving and broke? Sorry, but the US's top priority should be it's own people, not another nation's. I'm not against humanitarian aide, but if there was one thing that Trump at least claimed to support that I agreed with, it's his America first policy. (of course a lot of what he meant by that was basically to bully our allies for no reason and kick out undocumented immigrants etc., which I don't support, but the principle of the statement holds true IMO)

[AnchorSteam]

Kim has enough fancy Sports Cars to open a Dealership, but he can't pay for a Hotel room? 

Tell his wife to sell a few thousand of her least-favorite dresses.

[Lilly]

North Korea became ‘my problem’ when they threatened to nuke American cities.

Also, it’s my nation’s problem when we have a 566 Billion dollar trade deficit (in just 2017 no less) due to our ‘friends’ with whom we trade. 

[Gromdor]

53 minutes ago, Lilly said:

North Korea became ‘my problem’ when they threatened to nuke American cities.

Also, it’s my nation’s problem when we have a 566 Billion dollar trade deficit (in just 2017 no less) due to our ‘friends’ with whom we trade. 

Which begs the question, what is North Korea going to give us in exchange for economic aid to insure that it won't just become another "trade imbalance" country? 

[Lilly]

Well, if our ‘friends’ will stop shafting us in trade then perhaps the USA can get out of our own black hole of debt and even help less fortunate nations like North Korea (provided they ditch their nukes).

[Aquila King]

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

North Korea became ‘my problem’ when they threatened to nuke American cities.

Oh come on, you don't really believe that he would ever under any circumstance launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the US do you?  I mean, seriously? We have the largest military force the world has ever seen. If our military were a battle tank, his military by comparison would be akin to a rubber band gun and a pop tart.

The only possible reason he would ever launch a nuke at the US or attack us in any way would be if he knew as a rock-solid fact that we were attacking him. He's just using his nukes as a deterrent, but mostly just so he can sleep easier at night.

He's just a little Chihuahua yappin' at a great dane. Let him yap.

[Lilly]

Even a chihuahua is dangerous if it has a nuclear weapon.  

[Aquila King]

8 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Well, if our ‘friends’ will stop shafting us in trade then perhaps the USA can get out of our own black hole of debt and even help less fortunate nations like North Korea (provided they ditch their nukes).

We are the last ones to be trying to help other nations. Most of our deficit is caused by the problems that we caused around the world.

https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md

As my mother always said growing up, I stick to raising my own children, not everyone else's.

The US should stick to protecting the lives of US citizens. The rest is none of our business.

[Aquila King]

Just now, Lilly said:

Even a chihuahua is dangerous if it has a nuclear weapon.  

I just got done telling you, they aren't going to launch a nuke at us unless we attack them. It would be suicide for them to do so, and they know it.

[Lilly]

First, total isolationism won't work in the modern world. Second, Trump is not pro 'nation building'. Trump actually thinks we should be putting our own nation first and not engage in dictating to other nations how they should live. And finally, take a long hard look at North Korea...people with nothing to lose are the most dangerous of all. If North Korea manages to refine it's nuclear arsenal then they could very well opt to use nuclear weapons, especially if they thought their 'pal' China had their back. 

Oh, and 'help' for NK would be more along the lines of patching up things with the south and opening up to emerging markets.  

[Aquila King]

38 minutes ago, Lilly said:

First, total isolationism won't work in the modern world.

Did I say I supported total isolationism? No, I said I supported non-interventionism. Those are two totally different things. Google it.

I'm saying that we should not be militarily involved in the affairs of other nations.

41 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Second, Trump is not pro 'nation building'. Trump actually thinks we should be putting our own nation first and not engage in dictating to other nations how they should live.

Given that Trump flip-flops on just about every issue and lies every time he opens his mouth, it's hard to tell.

42 minutes ago, Lilly said:

And finally, take a long hard look at North Korea...people with nothing to lose are the most dangerous of all. If North Korea manages to refine it's nuclear arsenal then they could very well opt to use nuclear weapons, especially if they thought their 'pal' China had their back. 

I'm sorry, I just don't get it.  Conservatives want to build upon what is already the largest military ever constructed by man, yet you're afraid of a tiny little military like North Korea? That's like an elephant who's afraid of a mouse.

You're right, 'people with nothing to lose are the most dangerous of all'. So don't threaten them to give up what little they already have. If you keep pressuring them to give up their weapons or we'll go in and topple them (or worst yet, threaten to do the 'Libya model', a.k.a. kill their leader and do regime change) then they won't have anything left to lose and actually launch a strike against us. If we just leave them alone and let them keep what little they have, then they're less likely to do anything (what little they can do anyway).

Loki said it best:

50 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Oh, and 'help' for NK would be more along the lines of patching up things with the south and opening up to emerging markets.

See? Diplomacy. Now we're talking. Stop threatening them with war. It's ridiculous.

[Lilly]

Generally speaking when one says “the rest is none of our business” that indicates advocating for isolation. 

Having nuclear intercontinental missiles makes North Korea dangerous (regardless of the size of their military). 

[Aquila King]

8 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Generally speaking when one says “the rest is none of our business” that indicates advocating for isolation. 

Allow me to quote myself:

6 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Not to go too off-topic here, but as a non-interventionist, I really don't care.

An isolationist is someone who wants their country to be isolated. They want nothing to do with any other country. They tend to oppose immigration, trade, talks with other nations and they tend to be anti-war for the most part. This is North Korea.

Now for the term non-interventionism: This basically means minding our own business overseas. We shouldn’t be involved in the internal affairs of other countries. Some who support a non-interventionist foreign policy would justify war only in cases of self defense (such as myself), others are total pacifists who oppose war entirely.

Right now we are bombing 8 countries, so right now we are in 8 wars. We have 900 military bases around the world. It is not being an isolationist to ask, why are we in 8 foreign sovereign nations meddling in their internal affairs? Is this really the best use of taxpayer dollars?

I never once in the slightest suggested that I support isolationism. My position was crystal clear from the beginning.

22 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Having nuclear intercontinental missiles makes North Korea dangerous (regardless of the size of their military). 

Why? Simply because they're a dictatorship with nukes? By that logic we should go to war with Russia based on the simply fact that they're a dictatorship that has nuclear weapons. Where's your calls for nuclear disarmament there? And no, I'm not peddling a Russian conspiracy theory, I'm pointing out an inconsistency.

When it comes to North Korea you want them to lay down their nuclear weapons or head straight to war, but when it comes to Russia I find there to be little to no effort made towards disarming or going to war with them.

Not to mention, the sheer piety to call another nation 'dangerous' simply due to them having nukes while we ourselves are stock piled to the brim with them.

Also, if you want to make the case the NK is 'unique' in that it's ruled by an unhinged dictator, again, Russia is also ruled by an unhinged dictator, yet you aren't calling to go to war with them. Could it be because unlike NK, they actually pose a threat? Of course it is. NK is weak, we all know it, and those wanting to disarm them and go to war are just bullying them.

Don't get me wrong, I despise North Korea and genuinely feel for what they do to their people. But it isn't our job to act as the world's police force and go around bullying other countries and telling them what to do.

[Gromdor]

For a country that prides itself on our 2nd amendment rights and our armed citizenry, we really feel the need to disarm other countries.

[acidhead]

13 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

For a country that prides itself on our 2nd amendment rights and our armed citizenry, we really feel the need to disarm other countries.

Just curious....

Why does North Korea threaten the USA?

[Gromdor]

15 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Just curious....

Why does North Korea threaten the USA?

The threats usually come around the same time as the military exercises we hold next to their border.  The 30,000 troops we have there some to have some effect on it as well.  Then there is the economic blockade we've had on them for a few decades.  We talk about their human rights violations and regime change quite often as well.

But other than that, I can't think of a reason why they would be paranoid and threaten us.

[Aquila King]

U.S.A. vs. North Korea:

[acidhead]

15 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

The threats usually come around the same time as the military exercises we hold next to their border.  The 30,000 troops we have there some to have some effect on it as well.  Then there is the economic blockade we've had on them for a few decades.  We talk about their human rights violations and regime change quite often as well.

But other than that, I can't think of a reason why they would be paranoid and threaten us.

Just curious...

Why does the USA Military conduct exercises on their border? 

[Gromdor]

1 minute ago, acidhead said:

Just curious...

Why does the USA Military conduct exercises on their border? 

Practice in the event of war.  Show of strength.  Anger little despots and make them threaten people.

[acidhead]

10 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Practice in the event of war.  Show of strength.  Anger little despots and make them threaten people.

Just curious...

Why does the USA want to anger north korea and make them threaten people?

Edited June 11, 2018 by acidhead

[Gromdor]

47 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Just curious...

Why does the USA want to anger north korea and make them threaten people?

Why do politicians want to do that you mean?  Because we can scare our populace in line and give them an enemy to fear.  Also to be blunt, it's a great excuse to keep our troops there.  It's a nice strategic spot next to Russia and China.  Having military troops next to our competitors greatly weakens any attempts to claim the region.  Without North Korea, we would be struggling for a reason to keep so many troops in Asia.