backtop


Print 76 comment(s) - last by Just Tom.. on Jan 30 at 2:21 PM

No mobile phones during 100-day mourning period

North Korea is in a period of mourning, which will last for 100 days, for its deceased former leader Kim Jong-il. Officials in the country have laid down the law for citizens during that 100-day period -- there will be some stern consequences for the “unfathomable” offense of talking on a cell phone, and defecting to other countries like China is not an option.
 
North Korea has warned that any captured defectors will be treated as war criminals. Along with those defectors, anyone caught talking on a mobile phone will be considered a war criminal as well.
 

The punishment for defectors will be levied against those that are caught trying to flee North Korea and those that are caught in China and sent back across the border. The warning comes after there has reportedly been an increase in the number of people attempting to jump the border. Food is again said to be scarce in the region and the defections are rising.
 
Some of the defectors eventually cross into South Korea. There are said to be 23,000 North Koreans now living in South Korea.
 
Apparently, the reason for the ban on mobile phone use is that officials in North Korea fear people calling in from outside the country might tell the population that conditions are better in other countries and lead to more people attempting to defect.
 
Former North Korean leader Kim Jong-il died on December 17, 2011 from a heart attack and was replaced as leader by his son, Kim Jong-un. 

Source: Telegraph



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Where's the U.N.?
By joedon3 on 1/27/2012 10:47:17 AM , Rating: 1
Isn't it about time the U.N. step in and make sure the citizens are being treated fairly? They have no problem getting involved everywhere else in the world...




RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Reclaimer77 on 1/27/2012 10:53:30 AM , Rating: 2
If the "U.N" did, it would be the U.S actually enforcing such a directive. In which case the media morons and everyone else would get to make us the bad guy for doing what nobody else has the balls to do, again.

I feel so bad for the people who have to live in that shithole knowing there is, literally, a comparative paradise right on their southern border.

Something should be done about North Korea. Honestly, enough is enough.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Kurz on 1/27/2012 11:17:10 AM , Rating: 2
Easy, Stop foreign aid.
Their government will collapse in short order without a steady stream of income.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By lolmuly on 1/27/2012 11:31:24 AM , Rating: 2
as much as it might hurt the people living there now, I'm afraid you're right. North Korean Citizens will have to de-brainwash themselves alongside any kind of liberation, and showing them just how much of a failure their leaders really are is the only hope of success.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Reclaimer77 on 1/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Kurz on 1/27/2012 11:56:41 AM , Rating: 2
Lowly officers are afraid of their Superiors.
The true leaders aren't hurting, and until they do North Korea isn't going to change.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By bh192012 on 1/27/2012 1:52:49 PM , Rating: 5
I think of it like a hostage situation, where the hostages might even have Stockholm Syndrome. Either you raid the compound or you don't.

Giving them food and some energy aid since 1995 hasn't changed anything. The hostages have breed more hostages and the hostage takers have gathered more weapons. Sold portions of the food we gave them for government money or as rewards for loyalty. Sunk some ships, tested some nukes, killed some South Korean soldiers in an artillery attack. Paying thugs to not hurt people isn't working out.

The only way I'd agree to food aid, is if it's delivered by Americans draped in old glory, directly to NK citizens and we watch them eat it.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Warwulf on 1/28/2012 9:31:08 AM , Rating: 4
By giving food aid, we are keeping the country from falling apart. We are, indirectly, prolonging the suffering of the North Korean people.

GG


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By yomamafor1 on 1/27/2012 12:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
Stopping foreign aid would just punish the average citizens some more. Look at Iran. The economic sanction pushed their economy to the brink of collapse, and the average citizens suffer from massive inflation and lack of works.

I don't see the leadership of Iran suffering from anything.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Kurz on 1/27/2012 12:30:27 PM , Rating: 2
Who is to say that foreign aid helps the people directly?
I wonder how much actually makes it to the average citizen.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Solandri on 1/27/2012 5:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
Another problem is the country has been isolated for over 60 years. There are very few people left who actually know what things were like before the current regime. Except for the regions bordering China, most North Koreans may actually think living on the brink of starvation is normal. So sanctions would generate little to no internal pressure for reform.

It could cause a huge population decline though. A couple million people (about 10% of the population) is estimated to have died during the famine in the 1990s.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Natch on 1/27/2012 2:23:25 PM , Rating: 2
OR, it will finally force the next war on the Korean peninsula, because the leaders will have nothing to lose.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By tayb on 1/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Reclaimer77 on 1/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: Where's the U.N.?
By ClownPuncher on 1/27/2012 12:28:15 PM , Rating: 1
Such a bleeding heart you have. ;)


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By tayb on 1/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Where's the U.N.?
By ClownPuncher on 1/27/2012 12:38:54 PM , Rating: 1
4 million? That would be quite the war. You're decompressing, need to get you to the hyperbolic chamber!


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By tayb on 1/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Where's the U.N.?
By ClownPuncher on 1/27/2012 5:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you must have bought that Homefront game.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Reclaimer77 on 1/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Where's the U.N.?
By MrBlastman on 1/27/2012 1:15:39 PM , Rating: 1
Kids don't chill out. Just look at my daughter and the tantrum she gave this morning! Holy bleep. That kid screams so loud my ears ring.

They can be distracted though.

Hey, Tayb, the United States was spotted trying to invade Iceland today!

:)


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By tayb on 1/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Ringold on 1/27/2012 3:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
You don't know what you're talking about, at all.

First of all, not taking military action as a last recourse to redress grievances suggests the Jews should've just rolled over before Hitler, as with all other prosecuted groups in history. Every fiber of the United States being, or its reason for existence, goes the other way.

Second, there's very few well organized, disciplined military forces in the world. Fear and lack of other options keep the North's army in line. Who knows how much of their half century old crap even works. Further, if they have any functional warheads they're weak at best and, based on tests they've done so far, just as likely to fail to detonate. This assumes they even have the capacity to use them in any sort of tactical or strategic manner. Remember, if conflict started, allied/NATO/US forces would be swarming their nuclear sites within minutes.

It's much more likely that the North's military, once realizing its leadership is scattered, command bunkers getting razed, and its positions pounded all around the country simultaneously, would melt in to the weeds, never to be heard from again.

People in the know understand why the situation in North Korea is allowed to go on. (No ones mentioned the millions more that have died of starvation, btw) That is refugees. China fears being swamped, and South Korea sees their former brothers north of the border as backward and fear the burden of reunification.

The above assumes, though, we move first. If they moved first, they might be able to 'zerg' their way to Seoul, that'd be nasty. But, it'd be our own fault for letting them take the initiative.

Whatever though, 'tayb', Bill Maher is on tonight, tune back in to CNN in the mean time.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Iaiken on 1/27/2012 5:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are oversimplifying this, CIA information from 2010 suggested that North Korea would be able to level Seoul in two hours using conventional artillery and would be able to reduce the 35 mile wide band along the border to a smoking ruin before the end of the first day of combat.

CIA estimates from 2000 suggested that North Korea had 80,000 conventional artillery pieces, 12,000 mobile gun systems, 6,000 rocket launchers and 2,000 surface to surface missiles. Munitions were estimated to be in the area of 1.7 million tonne range, sufficient to wage full-scale war for 100 days. So while I am absolutely confident that the North would lose in the long run, it would be a Pyrrhic victory for the South.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Just Tom on 1/29/2012 3:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
CIA estimates from 2000 suggested that North Korea had 80,000 conventional artillery pieces, 12,000 mobile gun systems, 6,000 rocket launchers and 2,000 surface to surface missiles.


Citation please. Because frankly I think you are pulling numbers out of your arse. There is no way North Korea has nearly 100K artillery pieces. Most sources I have seen would indicate a total force of perhaps 10K-20K. As far as supplies goes, it is pretty meaningless how much stores you have if you cannot transport anything. If there was a joint South Korean/US first strike on North Korea their command and control would be gone in hours, any truck seeking to transport material would end up a smoking wreck on the side of the road, and most guns would should a few times before being silenced. America is really really good at counter-battery tactics.

The irony is NK's force structure and deployment actually encourages a first strike in any situation war is likely. The majority of their troops are near the DMZ as is their equiptment. If a first strike could neatralize those units NK would be finished. On the other hand a first strike by NK would be devastating, since even if they don't have 100K tubes they have a lot. And in a suprise attack an awful lot of shells would land.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.9b44fd...

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-st...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/...


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Paj on 1/30/2012 4:57:23 AM , Rating: 2
Its difficult to know how a war with NK would work. They have the 4th largest army in the world, and the largest number of special forces. Conscription is for 10 years.

While a lot of their equipment is composed of crusty ex Soviet pieces, having that much hardware and manpower in such a small country would make any land invasion very difficult.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Just Tom on 1/30/2012 2:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
Iraq had the world's 4th largest Army at the time of first Persian Gulf war, soldiers without proper training and equipment are just targets. NK's troops are forward deployed, the worst possible situation to be in in case of suprise attack. Especially against an adversary who will most likely have air superiority very early on. They would be in a better defensive position to be positioned in depth, especially since the country is so mostly hills and mountains.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By priusone on 1/27/2012 9:08:52 PM , Rating: 1
Although a full military invasion sure would be fun.

But oh well. First Iran will change, then perhaps North Korea. I just hope that China gets tired of putting up with their annoying neighbor to its south. Then again, it might be cheaper and easier for China to keep North Korea's the way it is, than deal with a bunch of illegals running north across the border.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By priusone on 1/27/2012 9:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
Although a full military invasion sure would be fun.

But oh well. First Iran will change, then perhaps North Korea. I just hope that China gets tired of putting up with their annoying neighbor to its south. Then again, it might be cheaper and easier for China to keep North Korea's the way it is, than deal with a bunch of illegals running north across the border.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By priusone on 1/28/2012 12:19:39 AM , Rating: 1
502 Bad Gateway

Thanks Dailytech. I hate double posts so much, and now you are turning me into someone that double posts. I'm seriously considering terminating this relationship, even if it has been 5 mostly great years. Speaking of which, how do you delete and account?


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By bh192012 on 1/27/2012 3:04:47 PM , Rating: 2
That's just the direct intentional deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine

Add another few million for the 90's famine. Probably a couple more million for their pathetic state of health care and nutrition in general since then.

Then compare that with South Korea where we did kill people and sucessfully executed the war without USSR and China's intervention.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By ballist1x on 1/27/2012 12:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
But N Korea need the US and other countries aid because they are unable to provide all of the food that they need for themselves and their people.

Are US food aid politics starving North Korean children?

http://digitaljournal.com/article/318050

The Koreans beg on one hand and take with the other...They are hardly a bastion of self sufficiency who can survive without the help of the west, and china etc.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By V-Money on 1/27/2012 1:59:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are US food aid politics starving North Korean children?


My problem with this notion is that it seems that you are blaming us for their inability to feed themselves. I think that if we cut all foreign aid their country would topple pretty quickly and overall it would have a much more positive outcome than this sit and wait approach. People can only take so much,and starvation is a pretty good motivator to topple your corrupt government. As a side note, with a 15Trillion dollar deficit I'm not exactly sure we are even in a position to be wasting any resources.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By TheSev on 1/29/2012 10:47:56 PM , Rating: 1
North Korea is considered a sovereign nation? When did this happen?


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By x10Unit1 on 1/27/2012 11:14:41 AM , Rating: 2
Doesn't NK have nukes? Those are a pretty good deterrent. Makes you wonder why other countries want them so badly.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By gamerk2 on 1/27/2012 11:41:14 AM , Rating: 5
Iraq: Didn't have nukes, and got invaded.
NK: Has nukes, and hasn't gotten invaded.

...No wonder Iran wants a nuke.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By teflonbilly on 1/27/2012 12:06:37 PM , Rating: 4
Iraq has oil. North Korea, not so much.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Nacho on 1/27/2012 12:08:29 PM , Rating: 3
Let me rephrase that:

Iraq: Has oil, and got invaded.
NK: Doesn't have oil, and hasn't gotten invaded.

There, I corrected it for you.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By MrBlastman on 1/27/2012 12:11:41 PM , Rating: 2
Oh lord, the whole oil argument. It's been a while since I've seen that one. Yep, we sure pumped Iraq dry while we were there. Bottled it all up and shipped it back to Amerika!

Not. :(


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Dr of crap on 1/27/2012 12:18:54 PM , Rating: 1
No, see what we did as make sure the oil can flow, then we BUY it from them! :(


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Reclaimer77 on 1/27/2012 12:22:53 PM , Rating: 3
Our oil is flowing from Canada and South America. Iraq barely makes the list of places we import oil from.

Sorry Liberals. The "War for Oil" thing was just more smelly idiocy.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By tayb on 1/27/2012 3:01:23 PM , Rating: 1
If it wasn't for oil, then, uh, what was it for? It couldn't have been because they had WMD's because they didn't have them and we've no problem letting other "evil" countries own WMD's.

At least the oil excuse made some sense of it all. Otherwise we spent several trillion dollars, thousands of lives, and accomplished absolutely nothing all for, well, nothing.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By bh192012 on 1/27/2012 3:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
Bush thought it was going to be an easy way to keep them from WMD. I'm certain that he figured maybe a few hundred billion and 12 months would be enough. It was a massive underestimate.

We know with China's support of NK, invading there is a non-starter.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Ringold on 1/27/2012 3:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
Read everyones own memoirs, including what Powell has said, and he's no super-conservative apologist. They honestly deep down believed Iraq had WMD's. The intelligence was wrong.

Wasn't a 100% loss; it's a democracy now, not a state that murders scores of its own people. An expensive way to impart Democracy on the world, and its a flawed one at that, and not what the initial goal was, but it's an achievement none the less.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Lord-Vale3 on 1/27/2012 3:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
It wasnt for oil, no. It was in part because it was certain that Saddam was channeling huge amounts of money to terrorist organizations. Also because Iraq had the know-how of very, very nasty chemical weapons - which Hussien was using against his own people in Northern Iraq. It would be very easy for a little bit of VX to make its ways into terrorist hands the way Saddam was funding them. And all you need is a little bit of VX to do something much more horrible than the 9/11 attacks. Honestly, I'd rather be the victim of a nuke than a victim of Sarin or VX.

You liberals should be quite happy with the whole invasion of Iraq anyways. Because it was the ultimate form of wealth redistribution. All the money in that nation was in the top like .001 percent of the population, not now.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Omega215D on 1/27/2012 9:28:39 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that Kuwait is a friendly that has oil as well but we still get a majority of our oil from this side of the world.

The Iraq for oil thing is just a fallacy.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By ClownPuncher on 1/27/2012 12:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
True, all that happened was the price of gas went up.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By MrBlastman on 1/27/2012 12:10:32 PM , Rating: 4
It's not foolproof, though. :(

If I have a nuke in my home, the police will still invade it.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Omega215D on 1/27/2012 9:29:07 PM , Rating: 4
With a name like that how do you not?


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By MrBlastman on 1/28/2012 12:21:19 AM , Rating: 2
:)


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By tayb on 1/27/2012 12:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
North Korea also has one of the largest standing armies in the world.

Iraq? Not so much.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Keeir on 1/27/2012 12:58:11 PM , Rating: 2
Iraq always maintained a "large" army. (Wikipedia is telling me the current army size is ~.8 million which is pretty close to North Korea's 1.1 million)

North Korea though suffers from the same problem Iraq does... its military is out of date and staffed in large part by conscripts. The North Korean Army doesn't really pose much of a threat except to small countries like South Korea.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By tayb on 1/27/2012 2:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
I have an extremely hard time believing that Iraq has 800,000 active soldiers. When the US invaded them it was like a hot knife through butter. No resistance.

Technology is a force multiplier but it would still be extremely costly, in terms of human lives, to try and invade and occupy that country. This doesn't even take into account the nuclear factor. There is no threat of N. Korea attacking another country though. Not really even a thread to S. Korea.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Lord-Vale3 on 1/27/2012 3:18:52 PM , Rating: 2
When we invaded, Iraq had the 3rd or 4th largest Army in the world. They tried to resist - at first. You know why we beat them so quickly? Because Abrams tanks annihilated T54/55. Because air superiority annihilated T54/55s that werent even on the front, among other things, like airfields, fuel/weapon depots, etc. Because Stealth bombers that they couldnt even detect dropped leaflets in the cities and bases that said "Surrender or be destroyed"

Shock and awe brought down one of the largest militaries in the world in a matter of weeks.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Reclaimer77 on 1/27/2012 6:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
You're wasting your time with facts and reason. This tayb kid is dumber than the dumbest smart bomb we've ever made. I really just can't believe the things he says and the reasoning he provides to try and back it up. It's a treasure trove of stupid, the gift that keeps on giving.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Ringold on 1/27/2012 3:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
It's actually a real risk, IF the regime collapses and civil war starts between rival generals. A mixed signal might get sent, mistakes could compound. Or, a general, to appear strong, may rush the DMZ or outright invade. All of which is why the recent succession was watched so closely.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Keeir on 1/27/2012 3:27:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When the US invaded them it was like a hot knife through butter. No resistance.


Someone needs to -learn- about history. Iraq maintained a large standing army from 1985-2003. But a large army comprised of poorly trained conscripts with substand equipment is just what it is....

Look at Pizarro's conquest of the Incas. Look of the First Gulf War.

When one side has a sufficient technological advantage, numbers stop mattering entirely.

North Korea's lack of reasources, lack of direct biligerent action, and potential for a few nuclear weapons is the deterant to invasion... not the size of its Army, which is mainly used to keep domestic order.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By MrBlastman on 1/27/2012 11:20:55 AM , Rating: 1
Hahahahahahaha. Seriously? You think the U.N. can do something about this?

They can't! Why? Because the U.N. needs AMERICA to do it and guess what, we've just cut funding to our Military.

Oh blessed U.N., where are your gladiators, your champions now? The evil, imperialistic Americans have closed up shop. Who's going to save us all, this time?

The U.N. is a joke.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/27/2012 11:47:35 AM , Rating: 2
United abomiNations


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By Ringold on 1/27/2012 3:24:30 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, even the Libya thing was a joke. It didn't make a lot of front-page headlines, but without us being 100% involved the Europeans were stretched to their logistical breaking points, and Libya was just across their little pond. They were running out of munitions, fuel, etc.

This will be good, though, US withdrawing for a bit. Remind Europe what its like to earn their own way in the world.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By bigdawg1988 on 1/27/2012 2:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't it about time the U.N. step in and make sure the citizens are being treated fairly? They have no problem getting involved everywhere else in the world...

That's because the other countries don't have a big a**ed, veto-power having, semi-dictatorship country to the north to protect them.
And more importantly... they don't have a damn thing that we want. Discover some oil in NK, and we'll have troops there faster than you can post this message.


RE: Where's the U.N.?
By bh192012 on 1/27/2012 2:44:02 PM , Rating: 3
I strongly agree with your first point. If China wasn't involved, this would have been easily over in the 50's.

I disagree about the oil thing.


Nothing but a cult
By masamasa on 1/27/2012 11:02:12 AM , Rating: 3
Absolute bloody ridiculous. NK is nothing more than a cult with a bunch of worshipers, some desperate to leave and afraid for their lives. Pathetic that they can call themselves a country since it's run by a bunch of goons.




RE: Nothing but a cult
By x10Unit1 on 1/27/2012 11:24:20 AM , Rating: 2
To be fair, if that is what you grew up learning, do you really know any different?

The best way to keep a population under control is to keep them occupied/focused on something that is not the problem and ignorant....hmmmmm sounds familiar.


RE: Nothing but a cult
By MrBlastman on 1/27/2012 11:27:15 AM , Rating: 3
A cult, by definition, is full of people that *want* to be there. North Korea, by analysis, is full of people that are *afraid* to leave.

Cult members don't want to leave, they embrace it and love it.

North Korea is a sick, militaristic dictatorship run by a madman's son (and his advisers) that forces the people do suffer like starving dogs.


RE: Nothing but a cult
By wordsworm on 1/29/2012 8:46:48 AM , Rating: 2
The Vatican is no different. But in all seriousness, we have politicians who are telling people who are dying from cancer and other illnesses that they can't smoke marijuana even though they're telling the gov't that it makes them feel better.

I wouldn't want to be in NK, but I think a lot of these kinds of media articles are meant to direct attention away from our own issues with freedom.


priorities
By invidious on 1/27/2012 11:05:56 AM , Rating: 5
Why can't North Korea just spend all of their capital on Starcraft like South Korea?




I think the trope is called
By geddarkstorm on 1/27/2012 11:50:55 AM , Rating: 2
Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking.




RE: I think the trope is called
By FastEddieLB on 1/28/2012 4:01:08 PM , Rating: 2
Give this post a 6


Death due to unused minutes
By bebimbap on 1/27/2012 2:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'm wondering if they have roll over minutes during this time period.

But seriously N.Korea has done things way worse than this for decades, I don't see why THIS is news. Unless cell phones have become so ubiquitous in our culture that such "rights" being taken away would be considered inhumane...

N.Koreans have been starving/poor/repressed for a long time, but they have enough money left over to afford cell phones? Any country where the people can afford cell phones but too "poor" to eat won't ever get my sympathy. Earn your own damn dollar.

2 Thessalonians 3
If you don't work, you don't eat




RE: Death due to unused minutes
By Keeir on 1/27/2012 6:57:05 PM , Rating: 1
Hmmm... revolutions are typically formulated by the Middle and Upper classes. Rarely do the poor and starving in the fields do much more than Riot.

I am sure this new regulation is to "ensure" that foriegn spies and comparatively well-off members of society do not undermine the regime.


a "period of mourning"??
By kattanna on 1/27/2012 10:48:50 AM , Rating: 2
seriously.. north korea has been in a state of mourning for decades now.




They might be starving
By A11 on 1/27/2012 11:39:59 AM , Rating: 2
but I'm sure there's no lack of posters of the great leader.




And actual war criminals...
By bupkus on 1/28/2012 2:20:28 PM , Rating: 2
will be promoted.




oil??
By RuptureX on 1/29/2012 10:56:59 AM , Rating: 2
You guys are joking when you said that US invaded iraq to free the people and should do the same with NK right? Man... thats so naive. No one in this world do anything for free, US invaded iraq because it was a good idea, they could use the cover of "free the people" to control the oil in the region. To overtake NK they need something more, free the people is not the "legit" reason for that. Well I'm not complaining about US politics, to be honest I prefer US doing it than china. Just Imagine the situation....




practicality
By poohbear on 1/28/2012 2:23:40 AM , Rating: 1
wow, some of u really think we didn't invade Iraq for the oil? I mean seriously, of all the messed up countries in the world, Libya & Iraq were targeted why? u can't be that naive can u? Oil is the most valuable resource on earth, its the fuel for our, and our rivals, economic engines. Lose control of this valuable resource, and ure screwed. Controlling Iraqi oil was to ensure we control who receives it and at what price/quantity (ie China & India), not necessarily for our own usage.




"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki