North Korea style of negotiating?

[Redeye]

This threat reminds me of something.

If anyone knows how I might get a copy of Adm Turner Joy (the chief US/UN negotiator with the North during the Korean War)'s book "How Communists Negotiate", I'd be much obliged.  It's apparently quite a fascinating read.

 

[atticus]

Assuming they are well-trained, and are able to fully cooperate with US forces, they would probably have a large impact on the war. BUT, that's a pretty big assumption. I have my doubts about the US commanders' confidence in Korean forces, and there would probably be some dissent between Korean and US commanders over operational planning.

I believe that South Korean troops to have about the same amount of training as the US. When I was looking at a "top ten" of everything book (a quite intersting book by the way) South Korea was right up there in the top ten (with the US leading the pack by a few hundred billion). I think that the Korean commanders should more or less get the say over US commander because it is kinda their country.

You basically said you can get into the country if you give them free stuff. In many countries around the world, bribing officials isn't just accepted, it's expected. Customs agents can spend an hour looking over your passport, but $5 will get you through in 5 minutes. In first world nations it's not so widespread, but no matter where you go, money makes anything possible.

Oh, okay, I understand what you mean but we didn't bribe anybody. I went in to North Korea with a textiles company. South Korea regularily helps out North Korea by selling them goods super cheap or by giving them food. The company I was with gave some materials for clothing and some cattle. After all they can barely afford to feed themselves (if you seen it you would be amazed that people still live the way they do). It was all done legally under the supervision of the South Korean gov't. I was there because I know the CEO of the company.

 

[FredDaHead]

I believe that South Korean troops to have about the same amount of training as the US. When I was looking at a "top ten" of everything book (a quite intersting book by the way) South Korea was right up there in the top ten (with the US leading the pack by a few hundred billion). I think that the Korean commanders should more or less get the say over US commander because it is kinda their country.

You mean top ten in funding for training, right? (This talk of billions...) I think that, looking at the Canadian Forces, it'd be easy to see that lots of money isn't needed to have a well-trained soldiers; conversely I'd venture to say that lots of money doesn't necessarily equal good soldiers. But like I said, I don't know enough about them so I'm pretty much talking out of my exit-only orifice.

As to the control of forces, I doubt the US commanders would let South Korea lead them. I haven't heard about Iraqis and Afghanis leading US troops. (Of course, that's just from what I know, do correct me if I'm wrong) And, say, in World War II, I'm pretty sure the US troops liberating France weren't led by French generals. Generally, US commanders seem to want to do their thing, at least from an outsider's point of view. I do agree that in principle Korean commanders should lead allied forces, though.

Good points, though.

 

[Sandbag]

If you want a little more information on some aspects of command structure, search Combined Forces Command (CFC), United States Forces Korea (USFK) and United Nations Command (UNC).  It should lead you to the various homepages where explanations are given into a bit of the history of the various orgs and a little about responsibilities. 

 

[atticus]

You mean top ten in funding for training, right? (This talk of billions...) I think that, looking at the Canadian Forces, it'd be easy to see that lots of money isn't needed to have a well-trained soldiers; conversely I'd venture to say that lots of money doesn't necessarily equal good soldiers. But like I said, I don't know enough about them so I'm pretty much talking out of my exit-only orifice.

As to the control of forces, I doubt the US commanders would let South Korea lead them. I haven't heard about Iraqis and Afghanis leading US troops. (Of course, that's just from what I know, do correct me if I'm wrong) And, say, in World War II, I'm pretty sure the US troops liberating France weren't led by French generals. Generally, US commanders seem to want to do their thing, at least from an outsider's point of view. I do agree that in principle Korean commanders should lead allied forces, though.

Good points, though.

No, it was in military spending for one year. The US had a huge number and was number one by I think about 200 billion then China. North Korea was around fifth and South Korea was about eighth. The US generals in France lead their own troops, just like Canadians, but they followed allied plans which was made of from generals from all over. I would think it would be something along the same lines if there was another Korean war.

 

[48Highlander]

No, it was in military spending for one year. The US had a huge number and was number one by I think about 200 billion then China. North Korea was around fifth and South Korea was about eighth. The US generals in France lead their own troops, just like Canadians, but they followed allied plans which was made of from generals from all over. I would think it would be something along the same lines if there was another Korean war.

It'd have to be a joint effort.  SK would have overall command but they'd deffinitely listen to the advice of US generals and politicians.  Neither one could act alone.

 

[atticus]

It'd have to be a joint effort.   SK would have overall command but they'd deffinitely listen to the advice of US generals and politicians.   Neither one could act alone.

Yeah, and thats the way it should be. But if there was another Korean war wouldn't the UN be involved again? Then if the UN was involved again it would have generals from many different countries doing the planning.

 

[48Highlander]

Naw, the UN would protest it as an "act of agression" against the "peaceful and benevolent" people of North Korea

Seriously, considering how the US has been acting towards the UN recently, I doubt that the UN will ever again have much of a say in any conflict which the US is involved in.

 

[atticus]

Seriously, considering how the US has been acting towards the UN recently, I doubt that the UN will ever again have much of a say in any conflict which the US is involved in.

Didn't Bush apoligize to the UN security council for saying that the UN is no longer working?

 

[jmackenzie_15]

If he did he shouldnt have, he's right.

 

[atticus]

If he did he shouldnt have, he's right.

What? He admited that he was wrong. What basis do you have to say the UN doesn't work?

 

[jmackenzie_15]

On the armed force side of things, the UN is far too passive IMO.Situations like 'illegal wars' get started, and the UN does.. well, nothing really significant it would seem.Was the UN not formed in the beginning to stop this type of thing from happening? After all, they had just defeated Germany, a world superpower and one of the main founding reasons, I thought, for creating the UN was to attempt to make sure nothing like that ever got out of control in the future.
Not saying that the UN should have acted with force on the United States or something to prevent them from entering Iraq, but they didnt even really seem to protest it much, then or now.

And then there are places like Sudan having genocide occur, while the UN was content to take the time to train african peacekeepers to deal with the situation rather than send an established force to deter the Janjaweed militias.From what I can tell, the UN is either unable, or unwilling to take any kind of firm, aggressive action when it comes to violence, war etc.

Just an opinion and heresay, but it's mine and im allowed to have it 

 

[48Highlander]

What? He admited that he was wrong. What basis do you have to say the UN doesn't work?

    Don't need too much proof.  The UN failed to do anything about Rwanda, didn't take part in Kosovo, were against the war in Iraq, and have passed several hundred resolutions condemning Israel, and none against Palestine.  That right there is more than enough to convince me that they're a moraly bankrupt body, but there are plenty of other examples if you care to look.

 

[pbi]

We might want to remember who actually controls the UN-it isn't all the little nations, or Khofi Annan. It's the Security Council, which ensures that the actions of the UN will almost always be held hostage to the agendas of one or more of the "Great Powers" (although one has to wonder why, for example, the UK is still permanently there and India is not...). Cheers.

 

[atticus]

Yeah, I guess when it comes to things like Somalia, Rwanda, and Iraq, the UN doesn't seem to do much. Although in their support they do many things to help children (like UNCEF, who hasn't went around on halloween collecting change for it)

 

[48Highlander]

Yeah and those child-prostitution rings they helped set up also help boost the kids income.  It'd be great if all of us could do something so nice for the kids  :

 

[atticus]

Yeah and those child-prostitution rings they helped set up also help boost the kids income.

Child-prostitution rings? Whats with that?

 

[48Highlander]

This is getting very off topic, but here, take a look at this link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3145-2004Dec15.html
There's lots more info out there, just google for it.  Last I heard, the UN canceled the investigation entirely, so nobody will be held responsible.

 

[jmackenzie_15]

Beat me to it 48th, I was just about to post the CBC link from a few days ago =p
But yeah, stupid UN.
Only something like half the guys were investigated, and something like maybe 10 cases had enough evidence to do anything about it.Thats it boys, keep up the reputation of the UN  8)

 

[atticus]

Oh, wow, I never heard anything about that before. Maybe the UN cancelled the investigations because each different country with their peacekeepers doing this took the investigation into their own hands (though I do doubt that was the case).