Did North Korea Really Attack Sony? 282
An anonymous reader writes "Many security experts remain skeptical of North Korea's involvement in the recent Sony hacks. Schneier writes: "Clues in the hackers' attack code seem to point in all directions at once. The FBI points to reused code from previous attacks associated with North Korea, as well as similarities in the networks used to launch the attacks. Korean language in the code also suggests a Korean origin, though not necessarily a North Korean one, since North Koreans use a unique dialect. However you read it, this sort of evidence is circumstantial at best. It's easy to fake, and it's even easier to interpret it incorrectly. In general, it's a situation that rapidly devolves into storytelling, where analysts pick bits and pieces of the "evidence" to suit the narrative they already have worked out in their heads.""
Welcome to foxdot.com (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3)
It seems that the entire story is pure speculation and its huge.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah /. is turning into gawker lite. Notice the amount of shit coming in from all the clickbait sites these days? Dice must be suffering as people continue to leave, hell even good articles or articles that normally would have had 1k+ 8mo ago are only pulling 300 posts now.
Re: (Score:3)
Speculation becomes news when somebody adopts an official position about it.
My 2c is that either NK is not behind it, or NK is not considered a menace. Else the attack would be downplayed and covered in FUD as all enemy achievements in war always are.
Very doubtful it was North Korea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He said it wasn't him though, which rather pooh-poohs that argument. That and the fact his nation's internet presence can be taken out by going to one of the four .kp sites and hitting F5 repeatedly.
Re: (Score:2)
But what happens to that cyberattack option if North Korea replaces its Dell Vostro with an iMac?
Re:Very doubtful it was North Korea (Score:4, Funny)
I thought they used Pyongvax [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Very doubtful it was North Korea (Score:5, Insightful)
Kim Jong Un is exactly the type who would accept undeserved credit for a cyberattack. "What, who me? I did what? Uh ... oh really? Oh! OK, yeah everybody, I did it!"
Except that historically, he's always denied responsibility for attacks that were clearly accredited to NK. It's kind of like Putin's behavior in the Ukraine, only even a bit more bizarre.
I was suspicious from the moment they denied it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Implausible Deniability (Score:5, Insightful)
I was suspicious of the U.S. allegations that the North Korean government was behind it when the North Koreans denied it was them. If you're going to hack somebody to make a political statement, it makes no sense to later deny that you were involved. Someone might be trying to make it look like North Korea, but I seriously doubt they were directly involved in this.
Wrong--Even implausible denials can be very useful in international relations. They give sympathetic expatriates and foreigners something to support and are also useful legally. The obvious example is Putin's recent doublespeak over invading Ukraine. It is only a paper shield but it helps confuse the issues slightly, delaying and discouraging organized response of any kind.
As another example, since the UN Charter as passed, open wars of aggression have been outlawed. As a result, there have been a whole lotta agressive "self-defense."
As another example, Israel-Palestine. Regardless of which side you're on, you'll see the other side doing what you think is lying about something or the other.
Re:Implausible Deniability (Score:5, Insightful)
As another example, since the UN Charter as passed, open wars of aggression have been outlawed. As a result, there have been a whole lotta agressive "self-defense."
Which is why we can't believe the US either. It's Iraqi WMD all over again, a lie designed to create an excuse for an attack.
Re: (Score:2)
To make a political statement? Since when was this "a political statement"? It was an attempt to stop a movie that made fun of the Great Leader. An attempt that mostly succeeded. Which was done after previously threatening Sony about the issue.
What, exactly, is to gain by admitting culpability? Is that usually what criminals do? "Why, yes, officer! I threw the brick through my ex's window to get back at her and scare her. I'm telling you now so that you can go ahead and punish me!"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bin Laden initially denied that he was responsible for 9/11. He only started bragging about it years later, after US was occupying Afghanistan.
Re:I was suspicious from the moment they denied it (Score:5, Insightful)
I was suspicious of the U.S. allegations that the North Korean government was behind it when the North Koreans denied it was them.
Yes, because the North Koreans are forthright and honest chaps, their statements are always unbiased and true...
If you're going to hack somebody to make a political statement, it makes no sense to later deny that you were involved.
The North Koreans do not operate on the same logical reasoning that most of the rest of the world does. Trying to apply what most of the world defines as "making sense" to what North Korea says and does in not as straight forward as you might think. They have often denied involvement in thing later proven.
Re: (Score:2)
I was suspicious of the U.S. allegations that the North Korean government was behind it when the North Koreans denied it was them.
Yes, because the North Koreans are forthright and honest chaps, their statements are always unbiased and true...
That is also true about the US too, and their adamant allegations about another country have always turned out to be true...
Re: (Score:2)
That is also true about the US too
And this has exactly what to do with the possiblity that NK did the Sony hack? Not much if anything.
Re: (Score:2)
I was suspicious of the U.S. allegations that the North Korean government was behind it when the North Koreans denied it was them.
Yes, because the North Koreans are forthright and honest chaps, their statements are always unbiased and true...
Sure, but in fairness, American TLA's aren't well known for their honesty, either. Remember James 'my job is to lie to the American people' Clapper?
Re: (Score:2)
2. No one who knows actual facts about this case has any interest in letting the truth be known.
3. We will never, ever know who hacked Sony, or why, until it IS in someone's interest for the truth to be known.
4. That won't happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Consider the sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan a few years ago. It was sunk by an explosion not far from North Korean wat
Right. (Score:3)
Because the world is just full of people who would hack a company to blackmail them not to release a movie about Kim Jong Un. Because everyone loves the Great Leader! His family's personality cult^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HVoluntary Praise Actions only take up about 1/3rd of the North Korean budget. And I mean, they totally deserve it. I mean, did you know that his father was the world's greatest golf player who never had to defecate and whose birth was fortold by a swallow and heralded by a new star in the sky?
No, of course it wasn't North Korea. Clearly it was the work of America! Because America wants nothing more than a conflict with North Korea right now. Because clearly Russia and Syria and ISIS aren't enough, no, the US obviously has nothing better to do than to try to stir up things out of the blue with the Hollywood obsessed leader of a cult state whose family has gone so far as to kidnap filmmakers and force them to make movies for him. It all just makes so damn much sense!
Cue the conspiracy theorists in three, two, one...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a very good way to stop anyone talking about what was actually in all the released internal documents though. While the media's been all over this stupid N. Korea angle, where are the reports about the actual scandals in the released documents?
Re: (Score:2)
Shakey evidence hasn't stopped the US government (Score:2, Insightful)
Removing the government, destabilising the region and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians based solely on circumstantial evidence isn't exactly new to the US government, i'm sure they don't really care who was truly responsible.
Re: Shakey evidence hasn't stopped the US governme (Score:5, Interesting)
There is, however, possibly the world's largest repositories of rare earth metals [wikipedia.org].
not really likely (Score:5, Interesting)
NK denied it, rather than taking credit.
Their tools are widely distributed, so faking the source is really easy.
The US government is weird combination of ineptitude and self-aggrandizement, so the FBI claims are likely pure BS designed to make the claimants look good (they were SOOO sure that had profiled the Yosemite killer years ago that it only took two more deaths to prove them wrong).
Re: (Score:3)
The FBI could certainly be wrong (there's a reason there's a joke that the acronym stands for "Famous But Incompetent"). There's also a lot of 'experts' out there pushing that it was/wasn't North Korea, most of whom also
Re: (Score:2)
Frame up yes.. but internal to NK... not external..
Re:not really likely (Score:4, Interesting)
What makes it suspicious is that the hackers seem to have access to Sony's system for an extended period of time before going public. If their goal was to prevent the release of this movie they left it rather late in the day. It doesn't seem to have been their primary goal, and in fact they tried to extort money out of Sony first which seems like an odd thing for a nation state to do.
The only evidence that the FBI has offered are some Korean strings, which by themselves tell us very little.
To What End? (Score:3)
Re:To What End? (Score:5, Informative)
The same article over at boing boing suggested that a sacked ex employee had released the files.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm skeptical it was North Korea too. But they do in fact have a huge motive. You know how Thailand's government gets their panties in a bunch every time a foreigner somehow mocks their king? Multiply that by a hundred. That's how much North Korea reveres their leader. Not just their government, but a good fraction of their people. They've had it drilled into their heads since birth that their leader is a god. They got upset at this commercial [youtube.com]. Sony was gonna release a who
Re: (Score:2)
I'm skeptical it was North Korea too. But they do in fact have a huge motive. You know how Thailand's government gets their panties in a bunch every time a foreigner somehow mocks their king?
What the hell does Thailand have to do with North Korea?
Prejudiced much?
North Korea does not have any great need to repress bad publicity. The royal house of Thailand is very different, and in a very different country with a very different culture.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait - what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um... I hate to be the non-technical person that points this out, but...
The evidence that implicates NK on the previous attacks - is it the same evidence used to assign blame in the current attack?
Is this citing the conclusions based on the same evidence/situation from previous attacks to give legitimacy to the evidence in the current attack?
What a scam! Claim something on flimsy evidence, then cite those claims to give legitimacy to the flimsy evidence!
I wonder... can I do this sort of thing in the scientific literature? Hmmmm...
Re: (Score:2)
It is begging the question, isn't it?
I am fairly confident that there are people in the three letter agencies and the government that aren't so much interested in finding the truth as in blaming the Most Hated Enemy du jour.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, assuming we believe these events to be related, it does seem like the likeliest answer wou
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.wired.com/2014/12/s... [wired.com]
"Rather, he thinks someone in a political position inside the FBI, not actual investigators, got hold of a report
"These FBI insiders read this and “wanted it to be North Korea so much that they just threw away caution,” he suggests. "
BREAKING: We Can Conclusively Confirm North Korea Was Not Behind #Sony Hack (DECEMBER 22, 2014 )
http://gotnews.com/breaking-ca... [gotnews.com]
It is too good an accusation to pass up ... (Score:2)
our governments love bogey men, someone who they can point at and make us forget their own faults or to use as an excuse for more spending on the military/spy-agencies/... We have been here before, anyone remember how Saddam was supposed to have WMD (in spite of doubts from Hans Blix), Tony Blair's ''dodgy dossier''. Finding other examples is not hard.
Time will (probably) tell if it was/wasn't NK - but by then the difference will not make a story.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, North Korea HAS WMDs, and has even set off nukes. They have far more WMD than Bush/Blair/Cheney/etc ever claimed Iraq had. They're also responsible for all sorts of horrible things done both to their own people and others. Really, if North Korea was behind the Sony hack, it woul
If NK did it, explain this one.. (Score:5, Informative)
If NK did it, explain this one.. (Score:3)
You are saying that NK has a lack of powerful computer skills.. do you actually have a factual basis for that? They send many students outside for training and education, and there are reports that they do indeed have a cyber war unit. They used to kidnap Japanese people for information, surely they could get their hands on some Pcs running linux.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/n... [zdnet.com]
So much wrong here (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Movie is probably total piece of sh*t anyways, who cares?
3) Even if NK did it, it is not an attack on US but a foreign corp with some US holding, but still a Japanese company, why don't they saber rattle instead of us?
4) The whole thing could have been PR stunt from Sony to advertise the movie
5) Why didn't POTS just tell Sony "get your sh*t together, improve your security - tired of this crap, dayum!"
Re:So much wrong here (Score:4)
POTS didn't do it.
they are really such a twisted pair, they are; but they didn't do this hack.
Re: (Score:2)
The NK story was cover to protect Sony (and NSA) (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course North Korea didn't attack Sony. Asking "Did North Korea really attack Sony?" is like asking "Does NORAD really track Santa?"
The North Korea story was spin to save Sony from the devastating bad publicity about the depths of their business and technological incompetence. (The politicians who defended them will get repaid for this favor during the next election cycle. My previous comment about this from last week: They may even start using this to try to rescue that disaster of a movie. "You have to see 'The Interview'! To support free speech and America!" [slashdot.org])
The Dear Leader Of The Free World announcing "don't blame poor Sony, they were helpless victims of the evil North Koreans" totally changed the media story, saving Sony huge $$$ in both public perception and future lawsuits.
But just how America's President and trillion-dollar national security state could get things so wrong - but should always be trusted when saying who's bad and deserves to be killed, like some kind of psycho-Santa delivering death from his sleigh filled with drones - will never be questioned.
Businesses and politicians will never stop lying when it works this well.
Merry Christmas.
What's interesting to me ... (Score:2)
... is how many people don't want it to be North Korea.
Re: (Score:3)
It's marketing bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as I'm concerned, it's just marketing bullshit trying to put a good face on Sony's latest breach. If it were their first, I might think differently, but it's pretty clear Sony's "security" is a freakin' joke. Add in a movie that would have probably bombed without all the exposure, and you have all the excuses you need to paint a "North Korea" connection.
It doesn't hurt that the US has a hate-on for North Korea so they can try to score some political points off the story, too.
Shame on Obama for selling out to Sony so blatantly.
Did you watch "The Producers" ? (Score:3)
One theory is that Sony is doing a real life twist on that movie's plot. They make a movie they realize is going to be a big money loser, so to rescue it -- they fabricate a scenario where its offensive nature causes a situation where it causes a security risk for everyone. Film has to be pulled from the theaters to protect the people, and they get paid by insurance for the resulting losses from the "hack attempt".
Re:Motive (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse than we got? A company that everyone loves to hate got embarrassed. Sony will likely lose a bunch of money. The FBI will get Beltway Cred for it's great Cyber sleuthing work. Hundreds of security consultants will get some nice Christmas bonuses. A few people will have their lives messed up.
What are we supposed to do to NK? Give them a stocking full of coal?
Re:Motive (Score:5, Funny)
Coal?! Definitely not! That would just help them stay warm through the winter. Send dirt instead.
Re: (Score:2)
You would deny them warmth, but would give them food instead?
Hard to make life worse for those in NK. They're so bad off if you give them something, it's more than they had before, and if you take something away, it's more than they had before.
Re:Motive (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you really want to send your son or daughter to die in North Korea because crackers broke into a company's servers? Also I'm not really convinced yet that NPRK's military was behind the crime.
Re: (Score:2)
That should be DPRK, of course. Serves me right trying to use fancy initialisms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Motive (Score:5, Informative)
Given what the D stands for, you are correct to change it to something else at random. N for Nazi seems a fitting alternative for the FPRK.
Usually any country with a form of government (Democratic, Republic, Socialist, etc.) in the name is not that form of government.Doubly so when it is 'Democratic'.
Re: Motive (Score:2)
I prefer DKNY yours sounds like a cheap Asian knock off.
Re: (Score:3)
Would you really want to send your son or daughter to die in North Korea because crackers broke into a company's servers?
The cast of "Duck Dynasty" did North Korea's hacking for them? I didn't know this...
Re: (Score:2)
Would you really want to send your son or daughter to die in North Korea because crackers broke into a company's servers?
The cast of "Duck Dynasty" did North Korea's hacking for them? I didn't know this...
Cracker is also a term for a malicious hacker. [techrepublic.com] The media has corrupted the term hacker from its original meaning: someone who is obsessed with the internal details of a system and is able to manipulate it in unconventional ways.
I think of the difference between a cracker and a hacker as similar to the difference between a burglar and a locksmith.
Re:Motive (Score:5, Insightful)
But I wouldn't mind sending our forces in to remove the North Korean government and return the land to South Korea...
I'm with you in spirit on that, but there's a tiny little problem with actually doing it: China actually likes North Korea for some reason, and would get very, very upset with us for even so much as supporting a South Korean invasion of the North, let alone us spearheading the removal of the (sorry, have to say it) legitimate and sovereign leadership of North Korea. In short, it would be the start of World War III (or, 'The Last War', if you prefer). I'm sure Russia would pile on, too, since they're buddies with China. Everything else would pretty much go to Hell in a handbasket pretty quickly from there.
I, too, however, am beginning to wonder if this whole incident was staged by Sony as a gigantic publicity stunt.
Re:Motive (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if China didn't intervene, the fact that millions of South Koreans live within artillery range of the border with North Korea means that in a shooting war with North Korea we'd probably be looking at tens to hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties just for the South alone, and probably as many or more North Korean civilians just from economic hardships and displacement - and that's leaving out the North's ballistic missles, nukes/etc. So even if the worst case scenario doesn't occur, the minimum expected result is already horrific enough that no sane person would want to pursue it.
As for it being a publicity stunt, I considered that too at first, but Sony is going to get hammered so badly by the stuff that's been released that the lawyers' fees alone will outweigh any http://it.slashdot.org/story/14/12/24/1757224/did-north-korea-really-attack-sony#additional profit they could make off the movie. It would have to be something like a shady coalition of greedy entertainment industry lawyers, or a cabal of deranged Seth Rogen/James Franco fans trying to boost the movie's popularity... but at that point we're going completely off the deep end.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if China didn't intervene, the fact that millions of South Koreans live within artillery range of the border with North Korea means that in a shooting war with North Korea we'd probably be looking at tens to hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties just for the South alone
A deal would of course have to be done with China to make them ok with this, there are many things in this world more important to China than North Korea, the objective of the President is to find something more important to China than North Korea that can be given to them in return for them being ok with it.
As for the artillery within range of the border, that is indeed an issue. However with China's help that may not even be needed.
It is worth noting that if we had 6-12 months to prepare for this in secr
Re:Motive (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Motive (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but I do believe that the DPNK will cause a million deaths over 20 years to its own people.
And that is a crime against humanity and all humans should feel responsible to do something about it.
Re:Motive (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Motive (Score:4, Interesting)
It's an interesting question though, how the population would react. They've been fed a diet of lies all their lives, but judging by what various defectors to the South have said, people have an inkling of what the truth is. After all, they can see that things are so much better even just in China. If I had to guess, you'd have initial euphoria over rejoined families, of the influx of economic aid and the restoration of liberty, followed by lingering resentment on both sides due to the massive difference in productivity and wealth. Southerners would gripe about having to support and rebuild the North, and Northerners would resent the Southerners in turn. It would be generations before the scars would start to fade. Many of the current defectors seem to have a lot of difficulty adjusting to life in the South for all sorts of reasons, even with assistance from the South's government. I think it would something like that, played out on a much larger scale.
Re:Motive (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm with you in spirit on that, but there's a tiny little problem with actually doing it: China actually likes North Korea for some reason, and would get very, very upset with us for even so much as supporting a South Korean invasion of the North
Would they? Perhaps, yes...
Would they DO anything other than wave their arms around? I'm pretty sure I could make sure they don't...
Taiwan and the disputed seas off Japan are far more important to China than North Korea is... I imagine I could make a deal with them over that. They might still wave their arms around, but even Japan may be willing to give up some of the disputed islands or do a joint oil development deal with China (oil is really what it is about there) in return for North Korea going away.
It just takes a President who is a leader and not a reactor and follower, and we really haven't had one of those since Reagan. (Bush is no better than Obama in this case, so I'm not picking sides there)
(sorry, have to say it) legitimate and sovereign leadership of North Korea.
So was the Nazi government in Germany, but we didn't let that stop us.
History is written by the victor. It sounds cold and heartless, but it is the truth. The current leadership of North Korea is only sovereign and legitimate until someone else comes along and knocks them off.
After all, England used to be the sovereign and legitimate government of America, or at least the 13 colonies. Shall we give that back? ;)
I'm sure Russia would pile on, too, since they're buddies with China.
Don't be silly, Putin needs a way out, I'd give him one...
In return for Ukraine joining NATO and Russia signing a treaty with Ukraine acknowledging its sovereignty, Russia could keep Crimea and we would recognize that. Crimea shouldn't have changed hands the way it did, but it happened and isn't likely to be undone, and it was Russia's just 50 years ago anyway.
---
Everyone has their price, and most people have something else more important to them than any given item, other than of course the most important thing.
The islands off Japan are not as important as removing North Korea, Russia behaving is more important than who controls Crimea, etc.
If you try to lead people along by the nose, saying things like Bush did "you're either with us or against us", they just fall over and fight back. Give them a better option and most people will take it.
Re:Motive (Score:5, Insightful)
Used to be that East met West in Hong Kong, and the water kept the Western cultural norms from corrupting the peasantry.
Now, South Korea is the island, and North Korea is the water.
Re: (Score:3)
China actually likes North Korea for some reason,
That reason is, the NK regime is keeping its bizarrely oppressed people from flooding into China as refugees. As long as Kim Jong XX is in power that's 24 million people China doesn't have to deal with.
Side note: NK's government is as legitimate as a dictatorship can be after being installed when the west and soviets divided up the spoils of WWII. That is, not legitimate at all.
They like it for a very Chinese (or US) reason (Score:3)
Because as the sole trader with N.K. they can, and do, seriously gouge them on the price of oil and most likely everything else.
That's why they put up with such xenophobic nutcases who even hate Chinese. The mother of a friend of mine had to flee the place when she married a man from China because of a large number of death threats from her neighbours. It's probably just as well because she made it out before the place devolved into starvation central in the
Re:Motive (Score:5, Insightful)
But I wouldn't mind sending our forces in to remove the North Korean government and return the land to South Korea...
I would. Fund the pointless, unjust war yourself, if you want it so badly; don't take my money to do it. I don't much care for randomly invading sovereign countries and killing thousands to install puppet governments that our government likes.
And South Korea's government may be better, but it's far from freedom-minded.
Re: (Score:2)
Last time we fought NK, South Korea lost half a million people. I can't imagine the casualties this time around. North Korea has the third largest standing army in the world, and they're not spread out all over the world.
SK wants a more normal NK, not a war that could potentially cost them their existence. Some warmongers in the US and Japan certainly want war, but that's because they're not directly in the line of fire. Actually, Japan really just wants face by making war, which may be even more dangerous
Re:Motive (Score:5, Interesting)
How about a compromise - let's let Sony pay for the war. Just give them a one-time legal exception, let them hire whatever mercenaries (excuse me... "private military contractors") they want, then invade. It would cost Sony probably one or two years' profits, but they might be able to get other corporations to buy in under the idea that they'd be the next to be attacked.
That does leave the question of what to do with NK afterwards, but we can deal with that once it becomes an actual issue.
Re:Motive (Score:4, Insightful)
Likewise, North Korea... don't setup a new one, just make it merge with South Korea, everyone will be better off.
Except the countless thousands that will die as a result of this, the people who have their money taken to fund the useless war, and all the people who will have to rebuild the country and suffer from the rebellions that will inevitably happen. Then people will have to deal with the South Korean government, which is only better, but still far from good.
Sometimes the adults in the room have to do what is best for everyone, even if the kids don't like it.
I don't like the world police mentality, and nor do I care for preemptive warfare. They're a sovereign country and we have no pressing reason to invade unless they physically attack us.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think setting up puppet governments works either, look at Iraq, Iran, and a hundred other countries.
On the other hand, look at South Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Motive (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I wouldn't...
But I wouldn't mind sending our forces in to remove the North Korean government... ...A simple 2-3% tax on corporate earnings from the new United Korea until the cost is repaid, including a healthy payment to the family of any US solder who dies.
Nothing too big, so that it isn't painful enough to cause problems, but something to show that they have to do their part in paying for our services.
"The Iraq war will pay for itself." Dick Cheney, is that you?
It still gives me a little shock when I see someone express such breathtaking arrogance and ignorance.
You added a new twist, though, I have to hand it to you for suggesting that we levy a tax after "liberating" North Korea, to *literally* pay blood money to families of soldiers who die.
Most of the United States' problems around the world are exacerbated by the enforcer mentality behind much of our foreign policy, and you want to turn the U.S. into an openly mercenary state.
Bravo, sir, bravo. Tell the orderly to stop stealing your meds.
Re: (Score:3)
"The Iraq war will pay for itself." Dick Cheney, is that you?
We all know the Iraq war was nonsense, which is why we were well supported going into Afghanistan but not into Iraq.
And as far as your quote, it would have made sense if we had actually taken the oil for ourselves as payment, as so many nations have done in the past. Why we didn't actually is a bit beyond me.
Since everyone assumed that is why we went in, we might as well have done it. As it stands, I don't think we took a single barrel, unless you know otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Motive (Score:4, Insightful)
install a puppet government
Why does everything think that we should be setting up puppet governments?
History shows that is generally a bad idea.
We might run things for a few years, the way we did in Japan and Germany after WWII, but then it needs to be turned over to them.
In this case, "them" is South Korea, simply give them North Korea and it simply becomes "Korea".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Motive (Score:4)
Had America been left to decide its own fate, we would still be British citizens. France stepped in and funded our war, a fact that a lot of Americans like to forget when bashing the French. France also sent their navy to help, without which we probably also wouldn't have won.
Very few nations really throw off the current government in power without outside help. It is a romantic idea, but without help, it is very hard to do.
The people of North Korea can try all they like, but they lack the means to actually do it, they need someone to help.
And frankly, we're all human beings, lines on a map are just drawn to divide up stuff, shouldn't we all care that millions have starved to death there?
Re: (Score:2)
That pretty much sums up the problem with America. Always wanting to go in and topple governments in other countries and set up their own sock puppets.
Someone has to be the adult in the room, if nations want to act like children, then they need a spanking.
And we don't have to setup ANY government, South Korea is easily wealthy enough to be able to absorb North Korea and make a unified nation, they get the land, they get that job.
Re: (Score:3)
Kim who? Kim Dotcom?
Re: (Score:2)
Kim had the motive. If it is war he wants it is war he gets. We'll give worse than we get.
I did not realize you had your own army.
Pro-War Propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't buy any of it. Show me the video where Kim Jong Un threatens America. The only "evidence" we have is entirely circumstantial -- from government and media talking heads. And I wouldn't trust a word they say. The U.S. government and the media alike have entirely too much to gain by issuing propaganda and laying the groundwork for a future war. Key reasons America would love to start a war with North Korea:
1. Would complete an unfinished war we settled with armistice in the 1950's. Old warmongers have long memories and a war with North Korea would cement their legacies and would justify America's Korean War.
2. North Korea has tremendous human capital -- meaning a highly-intelligent, highly-literate workforce that the West would love to exploit. The West has every expectation that North Korea's citizens would be just like those of South Korea: westernized, consumers, who have a strong national GDP. Hundreds of bulge-bracket corporations would love to set up shop in North Korea, export goods to North Korea, trade with North Korea, sell their wares in North Korea, and employ a highly-intelligent North Korean labor pool for all sorts of professional services at dramatically lower wage rates -- like the way back office jobs have been exported to Vietnam and to the Philippines.
3. And perhaps the most important reason the U.S. would love to start -- and finish -- a war with North Korea is that America could station more of its troops there as a strategic jumping off point against Cold War foes Russia and China. Don't for a minute think that the U.S. invaded Iraq and Afghanistan by accident. Both nations border either Russia or China. That's also the reason the U.S. has continued military operations in those nations. With the U.S. posting thousands of troops on the border of Russia and China, its effectively like what the Soviet Union tried with parking missiles in Cuba -- playing the game of Risk with real lives on a global scale and trying to park your munitions, your troops, your war vehicles as close to the opponent as possible. It sends a clear message to Russia and China -- the U.S. is in your back yard.
Which is precisely why the U.S. did nothing during the Rwandan civil war. Or why the U.S. did nothing to stop genocide in East Timor that killed 100,000 people. Those nations do not border former Cold War foes. Those nations do not have exploitable human capital resources. There is conscious design into the choices behind our aggression with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea. Don't for a moment think these nations were picked at random.
I question the rhetoric coming out of Washington. We've seen too many historical examples where U.S. secret government has created propaganda to lay the groundwork for future war. We've seen too many examples where U.S. secret government has assisting in the deposing or assassination of leaders of sovereign nations (Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, for example) with the intent of installing leaders who favor American business interests. And we've seen too many examples where U.S. secret government has waged covert war against a nation (Cuba for example).
And we've seen plenty of examples of this sort of propaganda from other nations. For example, the Reichstag fire.
Don't just go for the knee-jerk American patriotic response. Do your own thinking on North Korea. Frankly, I'm still wondering how North Korea bridged a 15-year technology gap in the 1990's, when the CIA concluded that North Korea had no mid-range missile technology despite the conservative heads in America calling for more funding on Star Wars Strategic Defense Initiative, but then suddenly North Korea launched a test of the taepodong 1 missile over Japan.
Again, don't just swallow rhetoric such as, "America never bargains with terrorists." That's hogwash. Do your own research and thinking. You'll note that the U.S. has given arms to dozens of hostile, terrorist groups, and has given millions of dollars to other terrorist organizations, if only to ensure those terrorist organiza
Re:Motive (Score:4, Insightful)
What would you think if NK released a movie about killing a US president?
They've released propaganda films about nuking us [telegraph.co.uk]. We didn't mobilize the cyber or real armies over the matter; I guess that's the difference between a modern nation-state and one held together with a pygmy's cult of personality....
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Occam's Razor: Is there conclusive evidence that it was North Korea? No. Therefore, rational people lack a reason to believe it was.
I always doubt North Korea would bother with this and then not admit it was them.
Re: (Score:3)
I do not think you know what Occam's razor is. It does not mean you need conclusive evidence to believe in something. It means the simplest explanation tends to be the best one, other things being equal.
In order to say CIA hacked Sony, you would have to invent all sorts of motives and cover-up to explain it. The simpler explanation is that N. Korea did it, because the circumstances and evidence so far all point to it.
Re:Occam's Razor (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Occam's Razor said the simplest answer is most likely true. The OP didn't go on a flight of fantasy, you did. Nation state hacks corporation with possible major diplomatic consequences over a B-movie? Pull the other one, it's got WMDs on it.
Re:Occam's Razor (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not think you know what Occam's razor is. It does not mean you need conclusive evidence to believe in something. It means the simplest explanation tends to be the best one, other things being equal.
Actually, that's not what it says. It says that plurality is not to be posited without necessity, i.e. don't add complexity to reach a conclusion if it can be reached without adding it.
The simplest solution here isn't that it's North Korea acting based on an unreleased movie they probably hadn't even heard of before this whole debacle, displaying hacking skills not seen before, and then denying it.
Much simpler solutions could be disgruntled former employees or someone doing it for the lulz. It's not like Sony hasn't been a magnet for the latter, with all the previous hacks.
In any case, unless the three letter agencies are withholding crucial information, there's not enough to go on here to point the fingers at Kim Jong-Un. I'm sure there are people who would blame him no matter what, because frankly he's an asshole of Goatse dimensions, but the evidence needs to be far more solid than this.
Re:Occam's Razor - PR stunt (Score:3)
Yeah, I'm with you here. I'm sure it's more likely that this is a PR stunt gone wild and we all fell for it. Even the POTUS fell for it. Before this, I hadn't even heard of the studio, much less the movie.
Let's see...
* Sony was already in panic mode after their security breach. This sure took the new spotlight off of that.
* OK, movie is coming out now... oh, no, no it isn't, it's too dangerous! ("ooh, forbidden fruit! No one wants to SEE a BANNED movie, do you?")
* media goes n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Probably never heard of the movie eh? It was all over the news back in June.
http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/no-north-korea-did-not-threaten-war-over-seth-rogan-movie/ [thediplomat.com]
It doesn't prove anything, but NK's displeasure at the movie has been well known for a long time now.
Re: Occam's Razor (Score:2)
Your objections are easily explained away as a false flag operation initiated by an individual or group.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the motives and cover-up the media has so far invented all point to it. An even simpler explanation is that disgruntled hacker groups reused some attack code, perhaps from an attack on South Korean companies a few weeks back which maybe North Korea paid them to deploy. The narrativ
Re: Question (Score:2)
Correct as usual, King Friday.
Now, about that Brazil Connection ...