IBTZ?
Hmmmm.......
Nice thought, if the douche that ran NK wasnt a maniacal tyrant that actually wants closed borders....He's posturing for concessions so he can keep his little tyranny before the people rise up and hang him do to starvation...
Open borders? Three letters: DMZ
Okay. One minor problem: What do they have that we want?
Go and smack your high school English teacher for all of us.
It's not us, it's them. WE are open, they are not. You can travel to SK but a NK cannot under pain of DEATH!..............
First of all, opening borders with a communist country doesn't really work. They don't have capitalist-style banking, laws that would allow trade to work well, and any number of other factors.
Secondly, the concept that has worked well in the past is to isolate communists. If they were a functional system, they would prosper in our absence -- as we prosper in their absence.
Thirdly, this guy's not well. He will continue to be unpredictable, and I suspect before he dies he will use a nuke in anger.
You would have agents of NK all over SK. Before long SK would topple. You forget the Chicoms are behind NK.
I think we are still technically at war with NK. We signed an armistice but never a final peace treaty.
QUESTION: Would these dong missiles be more dangerous if they were surrounded in silos?
Kill Ronery Kim first.
Open borders and free trade require two willing participants and Kim Jung-Il, for the reasons you pointed out, does not want open borders and free trade.
"Let ustrade, and our allies trade with NK and then the people there will see what the truth is and rise up."
A. They have nothing to trade due to their adherence to a communist system.
B. Their media is COMPLETELY controlled, therefor the people will not "see what the truth is".
C. They possess not the means to rise up, i.e. arms, a theology of freedom, etc.
D. We have tried peaceful coexistence with the COMMUNIST regimes before. We have provided them food as their citizens starved, even to the USSR during the height of the cold war!
The bottom line is they are COMMUNISTS, and therefor not reasonable or sane. Dealing with them as if they are reasonable is insane. Get it?
35 years ago, I felt this way about Russia. Then I saw the pitiful quality in their cars and cameras. The NK missile failed in its launch. I think the threat is overblown hype.
Good Lord, did you pass history? Then again it depends on who was teaching or grading.
Sounds to me like either you weren't taught, or you didn't learn.
Anyway, if you get a chance, compare and contrast how the Clinton administration dealt with NK with the Bush administration. See if "cooperation" and "agreements" got anythign done in the past.
History will judge what this president does in these critical days. It will be Reaganesque.
Just off the cuff my thoughts are they are first choking off the life blood and giving specific consequences for bad behavior, and or know that if they did not sanction the 'Il' would take it all anyway and still use the same manipulative tactics with the general population (starvation etc) to control them. Lastly, it is a sickness and they want to contain it.
Think for a moment if the 'Il' spread his tactics to S. Korea and just ended up widening his territory of repression, as opposed to the opposite happening. At least right now the problem is isolated and has clearly defined borders (minus of course the behind the scenes support of the Chinese--but even this is a known factor). Thus is it easier to contain the threat.
Sometimes the unknown is worst than the known and this is sometimes why we see, in my opinion, small steps taken with countries such as NK unless they become a huge threat, versus just wiping out the leaders. Look at all the energy, time and money it is taking to rebuild Iraq. Can you imagine this happening in at least two to three other countries such as Iran and NK at the same time? It would leave the US over taxed and possibly unable to defend itself from even larger threats such as an attack from China/Russia etc. JMO. Food for thought. Thanks for the post.