South Korea to Host 2018 Winter Olympic Games

There is a strong tie between N and S Korea just like that between E and W Germany and that between China and Taiwan. They are all families seperated by artificial and plitical forces imposed on them. The Germans are now united and the Chinese are enjoying de facto if not political unification. Sooner or later, the Koreans will be back with their kins as well. The will and desires of the people are there even if the controling politicians, both in Koreas and foreign, have different designs and agendas. U.S. surely wants to maintain its military presence around China.

South Korea may not suffer economic consequences in case of unification. Possibly the largest amount of oil in Asia has been located off the shores of N Korea. China has signed an exploration and mining agreement with N Korea, and companies in Western nations are very interested as well but for the political prohibition. Meanwhile, China is the main supplier of oil to N Korea and has used such leverage to reign in N Korea during critical times. E.g. It stopped oil supply to get N Korea to give in to the pressure to halt nuclear weapon development, and recently to stop N Korea from retaliating against S Korea's artillary drill in disputed waters. China has warned N Korea not to fall for this and other similar tauntings that they consider as American traps to provoke a war.

The discovery of oil and the agreement with China do complicate matters including unification. US always has very strong interest and military presence whereever there is substantial oil.

That is sadly true of the US in any area where oil is found.

SkateFiguring said:

There is a strong tie between N and S Korea just like that between E and W Germany and that between China and Taiwan. They are all families seperated by artificial and plitical forces imposed on them. The Germans are now united and the Chinese are enjoying de facto if not political unification. Sooner or later, the Koreans will be back with their kins as well. The will and desires of the people are there even if the controling politicians, both in Koreas and foreign, have different designs and agendas. U.S. surely wants to maintain its military presence around China.

South Korea may not suffer economic consequences in case of unification. Possibly the largest amount of oil in Asia has been located off the shores of N Korea. China has signed an exploration and mining agreement with N Korea, and companies in Western nations are very interested as well but for the political prohibition. Meanwhile, China is the main supplier of oil to N Korea and has used such leverage to reign in N Korea during critical times. E.g. It stopped oil supply to get N Korea to give in to the pressure to halt nuclear weapon development, and recently to stop N Korea from retaliating against S Korea's artillary drill in disputed waters. China has warned N Korea not to fall for this and other similar tauntings that they consider as American traps to provoke a war.

The discovery of oil and the agreement with China do complicate matters including unification. US always has very strong interest and military presence whereever there is substantial oil.

Click to expand...

Are you effin' kidding me?

Japan had no oil. U.S. is there.
Taiwan has no oil. U.S. is there.
Korea has no oil. U.S. is there.
So educate yourself before you go around posting BS propaganda.

dorispulaski said:

That is sadly true of the US in any area where oil is found.

Click to expand...

And the oil routes. US navy is along all the sea routes, especially chokepoints such as Straits Of Malacca. Over land, one can expect sudden bursts of news of evil regimes and human rights violations and termoils in Asian nations along the pipe lines between the Middle East, Russia, and China.

One can predict the world's trouble spots just by looking at the map. E.g. N and S Yamen, which have control of both chockpoints of the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea for Saudi oil. And obviously, Iran, which US has surrounded on all sides. If not for the Iraqi war not going as easily as planned, it would have been invaded.

The unification of Korea is a pipe dream so long as China continues to prop the North's regime. The PRC has a strong interest in North Korea's continued existence and isolation, especially as a means to keeping the US, RoK, and Japan on edge and distracted over its nuclear ambitions. North Korea's regime is also a convenient PRC ally and puppet, which China can use for its own purposes, unlike the other countries near China who are getting very wary of its growing militarism. In any case, the PRC doesn't want the flood of refugees and immigrants should the regime collapse.

The most likely "peaceful" non-chaotic scenario is for the North's regime to be pushed into economic reform by China, which will loosen the regime's hold until its political structure is more conducive to openness and non-dynastic rule. Development will ensue and then finally a point will come when the North and South will form a treaty to reunify over a period of, say, 10-20 years.

Or a rebellion/coup overthrow the Kims, followed by civil war and an outpouring of refugees into China and the South. China moves in to stabilize the situation and establishes the North as one of its SAR. They may not hand over the North to the South, especially if substantial resources (oil) is discovered. It wouldn't be the first time China's invaded and took over Korea.

Cerulean said:

Are you effin' kidding me?

Japan had no oil. U.S. is there.
Taiwan has no oil. U.S. is there.
Korea has no oil. U.S. is there.
So educate yourself before you go around posting BS propaganda.

Click to expand...

US military is just about everywhere. US interests are obviously more than just about oil.

American troops are stationed in more than 820 foreign bases in more than 135 nations. Nearly half of the world's military spending is by the US, more than the next big 16 nations combined. The 2012 military budget of the US is more than $1 trillion. Active and related military spendings take up more than half of the US Federal budget. You must deem such spending and world wide deployment worthwhile.

This report from The Korea Harold talks about China-N Korea relationship - China's distaste for N Korea's dynastic succession, and its preferred direction for N Korea's economic development, as well as their agreement on off shore oil development.

To be on topic, I'm sure North Koreans love Yuna too, and are proud of her as one of their own. They will just fall harder for her if given the chance to know her as much as their Southern folks do.

SkateFiguring said:

US military is just about everywhere. US interests are obviously more than just about oil.

American troops are stationed in more than 820 foreign bases in more than 135 nations. Nearly half of the world's military spending is by the US, more than the next big 16 nations combined. The 2012 military budget of the US is more than $1 trillion. Active and related military spendings take up more than half of the US Federal budget. You must deem such spending and world wide deployment worthwhile.

Click to expand...

Where do you get your facts from?

Medicare/medicaid and social security are the top epxenditures of the US federal govt.
I might be with those who think US military spending is too high but in 2009 it was about half of what you wrote. I doubt that it has doubled in a couple of years.

Care to share some of your sources?

As to world wide deployment it feels necessary at times. President Clinton has said his biggest regret was not getting involved and stopping the genocide in Rwanda.

A while ago, I believe it was Olympia who wrote the sense of pride she felt seeing the active role the US military took aiding Japan.
The tragic suffering caused by the tsunami several years ago was greatly reduced by aid brought to many thousands of people by the US military.

Hopefully there will be no more conflict between the two Korean nations. The US military presence in S. Korea has never been about oil but the war we fought and the security agreements between USA and S. Korea have had a real purpose.

All one has to do is look at the differences between S. Korea and N. Korea to see the difference US involvment and Chinese involvement brought to the two Koreas.

Mathman said:

Governments make that pitch to their own people, and it almost always works because we are eager to see ourselves as the good guys. But not all people where the United States has sent troops are grateful.

Click to expand...

No, it's nevert altruism. However, I do believe that there are some absolutes, sovereign national borders being one of them. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Czechoslovakian border in 1938, Korean border in 1950, Kuwaiti border in 1990, or Georgian border in 2008. While preventing such international aggression should not come "at any cost", I don't think the same cynicism should be extended to those situations as we tend to use for other conflicts.

OK Hernando, I admit I was writing off the top of my head since I haven't been looking up such data for a long while now, by decision to spend my energy elsewhere. So I just quickly looked up some sources for you but really, and hopefully, rebels like you and Joesitz should be examining your government numbers instead of accepting whatever they offer up.

Let me give you some basic tricks US government uses to lie to the population. All official figures given are manipulated for political expediencies, basically to make the government and the economy look better and to keep the dismal reality from people. They also regularly make a big fuss announcing some estimated numbers and then quietly "adjust" them later.

Let's look at the components of the Misery Index - Inflation and Unemployment. They want to keep inflation rate low officially so they can save $Trillions over the years in indexed payouts such as social security, disabilities, veteran benefits, etc. Firstly, food and energy prices are not included in Consumer Price Index, which is all fine and dandy if you don't eat, don't heat, don't drive and all materials and goods don't need transport. The housing cost is based on rental equivalence of your house, so the more people buy houses, the higher the rental vacancy and the lower the rents. And all consumer tech items such as computers and cell phones are assigned negative inflation value even if you pay the same prices on account that increased functions and power equal lower prices.

For unemployment rate, they simply drop those who have been unemployed so long that they are kicked off the benefits roll, and those who give up looking for work. OTOH, part-timers and under-employed are included.

ShadowStats is a well recognized and respected source for numbers as calculated with original government formulas before statistics became just another political tool. John Williams of Shadow Stats calculated the current inflation rate as over 10% vs the official rate of under 4% and the unemployment rate of over 20% vs the official rate of under 10%.

As for the Federal budget, the government actually employs illegal accounting practices forbidden for businesses, especially large corporations. The biggest infraction is including what people pay into social security and medical insurance, etc as current revenue without entering future obligations incurred. It boosts today's income for the government to spend now without accounting for future payouts. Meanwhile they also swap out what's in the SS with worthless government IOUs - remember the real inflation that will eat away the purchasing power of your income drastically over time while at the same time you get paid according to the fake inflation rate, before taking into account inevitable currency devaluation with all the money printing. In 2011, Social Insurance "Tax" accounts for 37% of US Federal revenue.

Projecting this into 2012 budget, the revenue of estimated $2.627 Trillion is actually over reported by close to $1 Trillion which would almost double the estimated $1.101 Trillion deficit.

Keeping this kind of accounting in mind, and noting much of the military spending is hidden in other departments, here is one calculation of 2012 US military budget of $1.2 trillion. Here is an illustration and explanation of discrepency in military spending as a percentage of total budget acoording to government data and what I claimed. (I believe I also included related spending, e.g. veteran care.)

I don't claim 100% accuracy, especially since I am not doing any real research for posting here, but I hope you will look more closely at your official numbers instead of just accepting them even while most people can feel their reality and experiences are very different from what official stats portray.

And to breifly address some of your other points. The costs of intervening in Rowanda if it happened and the Japan disaster aid are miniscule compared to the total military spending. Many nations without military bases there came to the aid of Japan. President Clinton was absolutely correct that it's cheaper to buy oil than to take it. He was smart enough to know that.

BTW, one day of spending on the War in Iraq could have paid for AIDS medicines for all of Africa. A very compassionate Stephen Lewis told me so.

Ptichka said:

No, it's never altruism...

...It doesn't matter if we're talking about Czechoslovakian border in 1938, Korean border in 1950, Kuwaiti border in 1990, or Georgian border in 2008. While preventing such international aggression should not come "at any cost", I don't think the same cynicism should be extended to those situations as we tend to use for other conflicts.

Click to expand...

I agree; this is the position I take.

I am not so blind as to believe that every US involvement in international affairs has a positive result, but I would acknowledge those that did.

SkateFiguring said:

US military is just about everywhere. US interests are obviously more than just about oil.

American troops are stationed in more than 820 foreign bases in more than 135 nations. Nearly half of the world's military spending is by the US, more than the next big 16 nations combined. The 2012 military budget of the US is more than $1 trillion. Active and related military spendings take up more than half of the US Federal budget. You must deem such spending and world wide deployment worthwhile.

Click to expand...

Be careful with pigeon-holing people based on specific political opinions. Just because some people acknowledge that government X's actions had positive results, doesn't meant they endorse everything the government says and does as absolute truth. Moreover the alternative to such an opinion is not just the belief that everything the government does is oil-motivated and every politician is a puppet controlled by oil execs. The world is not that simple and neat. You should know that, considering how sophisticated you claim to be knowing the truth behind the government's accounting.

Some parts of the budget are more susceptible to manipulation, as are some government departments, programs, wars and spending more harmful than beneficial. The US government is not such a clear cut all-evil institution. It's highly mixed. Even the military and its spending and activities. Some are quite legitimate, others not so. Some wars/operations may be to secure oil sources, others are motivated by a mixture ideology, strategy and policy (good or bad).

I highly doubt Hernando believes everything the government says, considering his/her skepticism of the ISU (another government-like institution), and you should be more careful than to accuse others of being so naive or blind.

About 6 weeks ago I had the opportunity to meet up with a foreigner actually living in North Korea, who was taking a short holiday in China and passing through Beijing on his way back. Over the last decade, I have met quite a number of people (non-Chinese foreigners) who have visited North Korea briefly, but none who have actually lived there for a period of many months to a year—so I was eager to get the scoop about how things really are...politically, economically, socially, etc. This fellow was a European, working for another small European NGO on issues of animal husbandry/food supply. There are only about 100-150 foreigners living in North Korea right now (excluding the Chinese and the Russians, who have their own separate conclaves in Pyongyang), so it’s a small community where most expats know each other.

His take on the political realities, which he said was pretty much shared by the other expats in NK: Until Kim Jong-Il dies, there isn’t going to be any chance at meaningful movement on North Korea’s relationships via the rest of the world, including South Korea. In other words, expect a continued stalemate and tensions. The North will continue its propensity to demand concessions from others (esp the USA) without wanting to give up anything meaningful in return. The Chinese have some influence, but not as much as some imagine—and the North Koreans have pulled stunts that have caused the Chinese gov’t to lose face, to the point where the Chinese are pretty exasperated (you won't get them to admit this publicly though). Kim Jong-Il is in poor health, so he could die this year, next year, or further in the future. It is very unlikely he will last until the Olympics 2018. The son he tapped to be his successor (let us call him “the young fat general”) doesn’t have a lot of internal credibility with the people that count—the senior brass of the North Korean military—so the Kim dynasty may end up on the dustbin of history sooner than they wish. Then...nobody knows what to predict. If some of the older, hawkish die-hard generals are still around, the situation could worsen from the current status quo. More likely though, more moderate heads favoring of systematically abandoning the isolationist stance will prevail.

At this point, I would not rule out the possibility of a unified North/South Korean team at the 2018 Winter Olympics, even if political reunification has not yet occurred. I have no doubt that the IOC would get behind and support a unified team, if the two sides were enthusiastic about giving it a go. Not sure what flag a unified team would use to march under though.....

Thank you so much for the fascinating and rare look into North Korea, bigsisjiejie! And the word "rare" is literally true here...150 foreigners in the whole country, except for Russians and Chinese? Almost unimaginable. How amazing that you got to hear from someone with such direct experience.

Your remarks about the "crown prince" are especially interesting. The first two generations of Kims have been treated like demigods by the North Korean media, with publicly expressed devotion for, not just obedience to, the "beloved leader." Who will decide whether the third generation isn't up to that standard? Are there other sons? The word "Machiavellian" comes to mind.

I have a vague recollection of some country or another marching into the Olympics under the Olympic flag. Maybe the two Koreas could do that if they compete as a single team. Though it would be too bad to lose the beautiful yin-yang symbol of South Korea's flag.

Olympia said:

I have a vague recollection of some country or another marching into the Olympics under the Olympic flag. Maybe the two Koreas could do that if they compete as a single team. Though it would be too bad to lose the beautiful yin-yang symbol of South Korea's flag.

Click to expand...

I think you're recalling the "Unified Team" - USSR has fallen apart, but it each of its member states have not yet formed their own federations. So they competed as a "Unified Team", and a generic Olympic anthem was played for Petrenko, Mishutenok & Dmitriev, Klimova & Ponomarenko, and all the other non-figure skating winners. While I am not a fan of the Soviet anthem (nor it Russian re-incarnation), I think this generic approach did take something important away.

Thanks, Ptichka. That was probably what I was thinking of. I remember Tamara Moskvina saying that she really missed the anthem, and after one competition that year (possibly the Olympics itself), the American TV station replayed the victory lap of several winning Unified Team skaters with the Soviet anthem dubbed in. I don't know the words of the anthem, so to me it's just a tune. So when I say that I find this anthem stirring, I'm reacting purely to the melody. I also like the Japanese national anthem; I find it both stately and poignant. It's always possible that I also like these anthems because I associate them with good skaters standing happily with medals around their necks.

As for the Marseillaise, the French anthem--fierce as it is, it holds a special place in my heart; don't know why. Maybe it's because of the movie Casablanca. There's a scene where the Nazi soldiers start singing "Watch on the Rhine," and Viktor Laszlo goes over to the band and says, "Play the Marseillaise...play it!" They start playing, everyone in the bar who isn't a Nazi soldier starts singing, and they drown out "Watch on the Rhine." When that scene comes on, I always sing along, and I usually stand. The power of certain kinds of music!

SkateFiguring said:

This report from The Korea Harold talks about China-N Korea relationship - China's distaste for N Korea's dynastic succession, and its preferred direction for N Korea's economic development, as well as their agreement on off shore oil development.

Click to expand...

That's the Korea Herald. Harold is a common male name. Big difference.

SkateFiguring said:

To be on topic, I'm sure North Koreans love Yuna too, and are proud of her as one of their own. They will just fall harder for her if given the chance to know her as much as their Southern folks do.

Click to expand...

If you really believe that, you clearly don't have a good grasp of inter-Korea relations.

Olympia said:

Thanks, Ptichka. That was probably what I was thinking of. I remember Tamara Moskvina saying that she really missed the anthem, and after one competition that year (possibly the Olympics itself), the American TV station replayed the victory lap of several winning Unified Team skaters with the Soviet anthem dubbed in. I don't know the words of the anthem, so to me it's just a tune. So when I say that I find this anthem stirring, I'm reacting purely to the melody. I also like the Japanese national anthem; I find it both stately and poignant. It's always possible that I also like these anthems because I associate them with good skaters standing happily with medals around their necks.

As for the Marseillaise, the French anthem--fierce as it is, it holds a special place in my heart; don't know why. Maybe it's because of the movie Casablanca. There's a scene where the Nazi soldiers start singing "Watch on the Rhine," and Viktor Laszlo goes over to the band and says, "Play the Marseillaise...play it!" They start playing, everyone in the bar who isn't a Nazi soldier starts singing, and they drown out "Watch on the Rhine." When that scene comes on, I always sing along, and I usually stand. The power of certain kinds of music!

Click to expand...

I like Flower of Scotland, the unofficial national anthem of Scotland. And no, I'm not Scottish but my dog is.

My vote goes to Waltzing Matilda for the all-time cool national anthem. :yes:

Mathman said:

My vote goes to Waltzing Matilda for the all-time cool national anthem. :yes:

Click to expand...

I remember during the Sydney Olympics at the end they did a montage of Australians singing this song, and one of the most potent parts was watching this gravel-voiced older man sing the song. He had such conviction in the words. It felt like I was watching someone's life story and I really wanted to meet him.

Olympia said:

Thanks, Ptichka. That was probably what I was thinking of. I remember Tamara Moskvina saying that she really missed the anthem, and after one competition that year (possibly the Olympics itself), the American TV station replayed the victory lap of several winning Unified Team skaters with the Soviet anthem dubbed in. I don't know the words of the anthem, so to me it's just a tune. So when I say that I find this anthem stirring, I'm reacting purely to the melody. I also like the Japanese national anthem; I find it both stately and poignant. It's always possible that I also like these anthems because I associate them with good skaters standing happily with medals around their necks.

Click to expand...

Soviet/ Russian anthem has a funny history. The late poet Mikhalkov composed words to three (yes, 3!) versions of the anthem. The first one was commissioned in 1944 as WWII was winding down and mentioned Stalin as well as Lenin as in:
Through storms the sun of freedom has shined upon us,
And the great Lenin has lighted the way
Stalin has taught us faithfulness to the people,
To labour, and inspired us to great feats!

It was also very much a wartime anthem as in:
We brought our army to the battles.
We shall brave the despicable invaders from the street!
In battles we shall decide the fate of generations,
We shall lead to the glory of the Motherland!

Since de-Stalinization in 1953 to 1977, the anthem actually had no words. Then, in 1977, it was altered by taking Stalin out along with the more belligerent symbolism. For example, the part that used to mention Stalin now became:
Through tempests the sun of freedom shone to us,
And the great Lenin lighted us the way.
He raised peoples to the righteous cause,
Inspired us to labour and to acts of heroism

After the fall of USSR, there was much debate on the new anthem. In the spirit of the 90's, there was a near universal agreement on a completely different tune; Yeltsin' choice fell on the classic Glinka's "Patriotic Song". It was performed without words, and contests were held for appropriate lyrics. And then, of course, Mr. Putin came to power. He resurrected the old warhorse and, bypassing all contests, asked Mikhalkov to bring the anthem into the 21st century. The near-senile poet did so, giving us the memorable words such as (this is that same part that used to mention Stalin in 1944):
From the southern seas to the polar lands
Spread our forests and fields.
You are unique in the world, one of a kind –
Native land protected by God!

Here is another bit of figure skating trivia for you - at their second Olympic medal ceremony, Berezhnaya was singing the new words whereas Sikhuralidze was singing the old