Jump to content


Photo

Korea Conflict


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 The Midnight Q

The Midnight Q

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,444 posts
  • Mood::giggidy
  • LocationQuahog, RI

Posted 11 August 2011 - 04:14 AM

This incident just occurred yesterday, just one of many that happens in the region. Last November a similar incident where artillery shells from the DPRK landed on the island of Yeonpyeong resulting in fatalities. This incident really got me convinced that the conflict would've immediately escalated into a full on conventional war once again.

Just an fyi to anyone who may not be convinced, the Korean War never ended. The fighting only lasted from 1950 to 1953 but only an armistice was signed. No formal treaty between the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea was ever signed and the two countries are still at war. I always hear stories of small skirmishes occurring along the De-Militarized Zone (DMZ) which almost never make the news. It's only a matter of time before someone gets trigger happy and causes WWIII. Yes, it will become WWIII. I already know that Pakistan and the Peoples Republic of China will be backing the DPRK (north) while the US, Japan and possibly NATO will support the Republic of Korea (south). I'm not sure where Russia will stand because right now they are the prime mediator between the two sides, they might be neutral if anything happens.

The tensions between the West and the Peoples Republic of China isn't helping either. Relations between the PRC and Japan/Vietnam/Philippines/Taiwan is very volatile.

There's some of my thoughts on the issue, what are yours? In my opinion, full on combat is inevitable.

Edited by sirbenedictvs, 11 August 2011 - 04:22 AM.

Posted Image
~Thanks Jade~

#2 130671

130671

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,064 posts
  • Mood:::/
  • LocationBetween a rock and a hard place ?

Posted 11 August 2011 - 05:35 PM

A few years ago I would have seen it the same way, but now it seems less and less likely.
First thing is, do the US and China really want to risk all out war with its ruinous cost and destabilizing potential because of some weird and embarrassing regime in the north?
Second, I heard that by now the fighting power of the south is three or four times that of the north. Destructive power, not manpower. The shift to high-tech weapons and efficient combined arms tactics hasn't been kind to the ponderous, old fashioned mass conscript army of the north. We all know what happens to a huge mechanized army when caught in the open concentrated on a handful of roads without air superiority....and that is the one thing the north just can't achieve.
Attacking the south is countdown to suicide for Kim-jong-ill.....

If there was open fighting, I think the US and China know its best to let the two Koreas slug it out, keep it contained, then go on doing business as usual. The chinese probably have more to gain from a "South Korea" directly on their doorstep than that maoist-style detention camp they have now!

In the 1950's-1980's, the chinese had little to loose....but now????;)Do chinese generals want to risk their pretty new military to help that sorry excuse for a ruler? I know what I would say if he called for help.....

#3 Mr. Pumpkinhead

Mr. Pumpkinhead

    Advanced Member

  • Wind
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,994 posts
  • Mood::Happy =)
  • LocationLooking for Loooove in the Room of Requirement! ;)

Posted 30 March 2013 - 03:29 PM

North Korea is really making waves in the news in the United States again.  I think that a lot of the time Americans can kind of push these world conflicts aside in our thoughts until they really ratchett up.  I suppose that's only natural as being so omnipresent in World affairs would require a constant vigil by the American public if every skirmish or statement drew our attention.  Therefore it's not a criticism, simply an observation. 

 

Obviously South Korea has the most pressing concerns with the recent news, but I think it's important for the American public to pay attention to what's going on.  The biggest challenge is balancing the words/threats of Kim Jong-Un who has always been a bit unpredictable to say the least with the U.S. media reports.  In trying to do that I often find it difficult to determine what level of concern/attention I should pay towards what is happening.  Is there a legitimate concern of war World Wide?  I have read that Russia has been critical of recent U.S. actions/exercises in South Korea, suggesting that we are escalating tensions.  Does the U.S. have an agenda here that would make an escalation of tensions beneficial to America?  I simply don't see any reason or purpose towards that from my perspective.  I have to admit to not knowing a great deal about the current events.  How is the current escalation of tensions viewed by people from other countries?  Is it American bravado to believe that when America is involved that the world should pay attention?  Or maybe that's better said by saying that when American's become concerned that the world should pay attention (because we've been involved for decades now)?

 

I have to admit to to not knowing a lot about what life is like in North Korea, or South Korea for that matter.  It would be interesting to hear the thoughts and opinions of people more informed/knowledgable than myself.


Posted Image

Beautiful Emma Watson St. Patrick's Day signature graphic and icon by BoMa
special thank you to BoMa for her talent and her time and to Mr. and Mrs. Watson for having such a photogenic young lady. =p


MY E-FAMILY: e-married to Mrs. Pumpkinhead <3; e-niece: Kim and Kimberley (Kim Twins); e-grandkids: BoMa, Ardi, favorite e-grandchild: Arie<3; e-greatgrandchildren: Will =O, Sarah, Lindy; EX-e-nurse: Carlyn; e-son: Andrew e-daughter: Tara e-soninlaw: Chris e-bestie: Tom jsjs (don't tell Lolly)>.<

#4 Sacred_Path

Sacred_Path

    Dedicated Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 908 posts
  • Mood::excited by tangents ô.Ô
  • LocationGermany

Posted 30 March 2013 - 05:23 PM

I also cannot see that a Korean conflict would spread. Or rather, the other way round; as long as there is no interest in escalation on the side of the major players, open warfare will not erupt.

Russia-Georgia was an interesting example of how contained military action can be nowadays, even with trigger-happy individuals in the mix.

"Ok, well, the 'hot bod' is not a characteristic."


#5 I am Not Purple

I am Not Purple

    Advanced Member

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,589 posts
  • Mood::meh
  • LocationThe Pale Blue Dot

Posted 31 March 2013 - 06:39 AM

A few years ago I would have seen it the same way, but now it seems less and less likely.
First thing is, do the US and China really want to risk all out war with its ruinous cost and destabilizing potential because of some weird and embarrassing regime in the north?
Second, I heard that by now the fighting power of the south is three or four times that of the north. Destructive power, not manpower. The shift to high-tech weapons and efficient combined arms tactics hasn't been kind to the ponderous, old fashioned mass conscript army of the north. We all know what happens to a huge mechanized army when caught in the open concentrated on a handful of roads without air superiority....and that is the one thing the north just can't achieve.
Attacking the south is countdown to suicide for Kim-jong-ill.....

If there was open fighting, I think the US and China know its best to let the two Koreas slug it out, keep it contained, then go on doing business as usual. The chinese probably have more to gain from a "South Korea" directly on their doorstep than that maoist-style detention camp they have now!

In the 1950's-1980's, the chinese had little to loose....but now????;)Do chinese generals want to risk their pretty new military to help that sorry excuse for a ruler? I know what I would say if he called for help.....

I have to agree.

 

The other question is would the USA really dare to challenge China. I'm not convinced that this will happen anytime soon. Besides as you said Jeremy, the war has been going since the 1950's. I don't think there will be a full scaled war, not a-bomb wise at least.


Yin-Yang_klein.gif I'm Yang, Dina is Yin

Aunt: Arie


#6 Emma_Rules

Emma_Rules

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • LocationVirginia Beach, Virginia

Posted 31 March 2013 - 07:10 PM

i hope that fat kim jong ill jr. bastard trips over a piece of lego. grrrr!!!


good_music_zps1def08f8.gif


#7 Dax

Dax

    Forum Founder

  • Site Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 876 posts
  • Mood::Drunk and Happy ^.^
  • LocationSea World, I hang with Shamu

Posted 31 March 2013 - 07:15 PM

Guys, the media is over exaggerating things. What North Korea's doing now really isn't all that different from what it's always done. They're trying to be provocative and more likely Kim Jong-un is trying to consolidate power internally. He doesn't want to appear weak right now. These tactics are nothing new.

 

As for your guys' talk involving China and the US let me speak bluntly. China is pissed at North Korea's continued nuclear program. Believe it or not they don't want North Korea to have nukes. Why? For one North Korea's highly unstable, and who wants an unstable nuclear neighbor? Two, all the sanctions and ties severed from South Korea is hurting North Korea's economy, take a wild guess who's a major trade partner with North Korea. Three, China likes keeping control of it's allies. Kim jong-il was more agreeable to the policies of China. Nobody knows what kim jong-un will do. Don't get me wrong. North Korea and China still have strong ties, but if North Korea does something stupid like launch a couple of nukes don't be surprised if China cuts ties with them.

 

It's really unlikely North Korea will do anything, especially with nuclear weapons. It would pretty much mean the destruction of North Korea.



#8 Mr. Pumpkinhead

Mr. Pumpkinhead

    Advanced Member

  • Wind
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,994 posts
  • Mood::Happy =)
  • LocationLooking for Loooove in the Room of Requirement! ;)

Posted 03 April 2013 - 04:41 AM

Thanks Dax.  The U.S. media was one of the things I was really wondering about.  I watch less media than I have ever watched before because I become more and more skeptical of the t.v. media.  I suppose the best or most reliable sources might come from print media, but one of the toughest decisions I make especially when it comes to world affairs is knowing where to get my news/current events from.  I know that virtually everyone has some agenda and to ask for an entirely unbiased news source is not realistic.  I believe it's good to have an opinion any way, I just don't feel comfortable shaping my opinions from sources more concerned with sensationalizing a story than reporting it accurately.  It's hard to not feel a little concern when each time I go to my MSN home page or each time I turn on even the local news I'm seeing another story about Kim Jong-Un and a threat against South Korea or the United States.

 

That said, to me this entire story is becoming as much about my skepticism over what I hear/read as it is about North Korea and Kim Jong-Un. Who do people trust most as legitimate news sources here?  I know most of what I see is from what I call the "popular media" now - that which is on the national news networks and thier websites. I'm not someone who desires being a news or current events junky, but I do desire knowing where news current events junkies turn to when something does peak my interest, so I don't just fall victim to the hype.


Edited by Mr. Pumpkinhead, 03 April 2013 - 04:42 AM.

Posted Image

Beautiful Emma Watson St. Patrick's Day signature graphic and icon by BoMa
special thank you to BoMa for her talent and her time and to Mr. and Mrs. Watson for having such a photogenic young lady. =p


MY E-FAMILY: e-married to Mrs. Pumpkinhead <3; e-niece: Kim and Kimberley (Kim Twins); e-grandkids: BoMa, Ardi, favorite e-grandchild: Arie<3; e-greatgrandchildren: Will =O, Sarah, Lindy; EX-e-nurse: Carlyn; e-son: Andrew e-daughter: Tara e-soninlaw: Chris e-bestie: Tom jsjs (don't tell Lolly)>.<

#9 I am Not Purple

I am Not Purple

    Advanced Member

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,589 posts
  • Mood::meh
  • LocationThe Pale Blue Dot

Posted 03 April 2013 - 12:20 PM

Thanks Dax.  The U.S. media was one of the things I was really wondering about.  I watch less media than I have ever watched before because I become more and more skeptical of the t.v. media.  I suppose the best or most reliable sources might come from print media, but one of the toughest decisions I make especially when it comes to world affairs is knowing where to get my news/current events from.  I know that virtually everyone has some agenda and to ask for an entirely unbiased news source is not realistic.  I believe it's good to have an opinion any way, I just don't feel comfortable shaping my opinions from sources more concerned with sensationalizing a story than reporting it accurately.  It's hard to not feel a little concern when each time I go to my MSN home page or each time I turn on even the local news I'm seeing another story about Kim Jong-Un and a threat against South Korea or the United States.

 

That said, to me this entire story is becoming as much about my skepticism over what I hear/read as it is about North Korea and Kim Jong-Un. Who do people trust most as legitimate news sources here?  I know most of what I see is from what I call the "popular media" now - that which is on the national news networks and thier websites. I'm not someone who desires being a news or current events junky, but I do desire knowing where news current events junkies turn to when something does peak my interest, so I don't just fall victim to the hype.

 

Well if you don't want to fall for the hype, don't watch CNN or Fox News etc. They are one of the worst imo. That being said I wouldn't trust any media tbh. But if you want to see other opinions, I recommend Russia Today. 

The Guardian has sometimes good articles too.

As Dax pointed out though, the media is over exaggerating things. Creating panic.


Yin-Yang_klein.gif I'm Yang, Dina is Yin

Aunt: Arie


#10 Emma_Rules

Emma_Rules

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • LocationVirginia Beach, Virginia

Posted 14 April 2013 - 12:08 AM

china better keep it's n. korean pet dog on a tighter leash. if those n. korean nutcases try to nuke japan as they are now threatening, the fallout will easily spread across the 200 mile-wide Sea of Japan, and hit those tons of chinese navy and army bases on the coast. china is shooting itself in the feet, if it doesn't reign in that fatboy waving around his insane daddy's nuclear fire-crackers. i am so sick of the chinese and their half commie/half capitalist country. pick one, morons. you can't have your cake and it eat it too. grrrrr


good_music_zps1def08f8.gif


#11 Badab

Badab

    Dedicated Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 860 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 15 April 2013 - 12:01 PM

Yeah, there is some truth in it.

 

But because China had always helped Korea they are trying again to get something more out of the west, some more privileges they want.

And self if they Shoot the weapons, they will probably still existing, because America and co can´t attack without chinas permission so maybe just the leader of the state will be another, the state will be the same or as good as.

 

it is said how complicated and frustrating war is today. If truth be told, i hate it. To much politic in it, to much rules and codes you have to obey who makes things so difficult that in the end for the war is after the war. Nothing changed. Ok a bit, but so few that you have to get a close look to realize it.

 

In the end. i think Nuclear weapons and other stuff like chemical weapons etc. should be totally forbidden and states who doesn´t obey should be punished by getting attacked by special forces who destroy the Weapons or steal them. So that every dictator and every state is thinking twice if he should stay against the law.


"Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely. And Rhaegar died" - Jorah Mormont about Rhaegar Targaryen from A Storm of Swords.

coldplanet64bannercolor.png

Combi made by the talented cutiesmartgurl!

 

Odi et amo. Quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio. Sed fieri sentio et excucior.
>> I hate and i love. Why i do this, you maybe want to know.
Don´t know. But i feel, that i get true it, an i feel great torment.<<

carmen 85 by Catull


#12 I am Not Purple

I am Not Purple

    Advanced Member

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,589 posts
  • Mood::meh
  • LocationThe Pale Blue Dot

Posted 15 April 2013 - 01:23 PM

china better keep it's n. korean pet dog on a tighter leash. if those n. korean nutcases try to nuke japan as they are now threatening, the fallout will easily spread across the 200 mile-wide Sea of Japan, and hit those tons of chinese navy and army bases on the coast. china is shooting itself in the feet, if it doesn't reign in that fatboy waving around his insane daddy's nuclear fire-crackers. i am so sick of the chinese and their half commie/half capitalist country. pick one, morons. you can't have your cake and it eat it too. grrrrr

 

Exactly why no one will use them. But North Korea can only get attention if they threaten. I mean the USA does it as well. They constantly threaten Iran. And they constantly threaten North Korea. Military maneuvers on the coast etc. It's a natural reaction. So why can't North Korea or any other country do the same? Or own nuclear weapons? Who are we to decide who can have them and who can't if the US, and everyone else owns them as well.

It's pretty pathetic how our media makes Kim Jong-un look. This isn't serious journalism.

 

Why should they "pick one"? It works quite well for them. 

 

Yeah, there is some truth in it.

 

But because China had always helped Korea they are trying again to get something more out of the west, some more privileges they want.

And self if they Shoot the weapons, they will probably still existing, because America and co can´t attack without chinas permission so maybe just the leader of the state will be another, the state will be the same or as good as.

 

it is said how complicated and frustrating war is today. If truth be told, i hate it. To much politic in it, to much rules and codes you have to obey who makes things so difficult that in the end for the war is after the war. Nothing changed. Ok a bit, but so few that you have to get a close look to realize it.

 

In the end. i think Nuclear weapons and other stuff like chemical weapons etc. should be totally forbidden and states who doesn´t obey should be punished by getting attacked by special forces who destroy the Weapons or steal them. So that every dictator and every state is thinking twice if he should stay against the law.

 

Since when wasn't war "complicated and frustrating" or sad? There were always politics behind it. And I don't really remember anyone ever obeying to rules in war. Nobody actually listens to the UN if they say "no". Look at the last Iraq War, or the Kosovo War. They were both wars of aggression that are not allowed. Both times they were unjustified.


Edited by I am Not Purple, 15 April 2013 - 01:25 PM.

Yin-Yang_klein.gif I'm Yang, Dina is Yin

Aunt: Arie


#13 Badab

Badab

    Dedicated Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 860 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 15 April 2013 - 01:36 PM

They was easery in the past. You said you conquer in the name of the one true Religion and then you go. Of course the lords wanted power but they don´t had to let it look unbloody or had to make statements and so on.

 

And in the ancient world it was much simpler. In Rome to make a war you have to say it was to save Rom and then get an permission of the Senat, and then you go. And the Senat was often willing to give that permission because it got wealth in there homes.

 

And even in the later time, the 17/18th century and so on you don´t have to obey some human rights or had to make some politic specification that it is no war just a warlike expedition. You could say it is war and go in with it. Of course there were political consequences but nut the spider net we have today.

 

I don´t say i want that time back and war that spreads all over the world but it could be simpler and more truthful at least. You have to look so hard to guess if there rebels are working on there one alone or if there is some state or Organization behind it that wants that because it would destabilizes the state it is in what would be good for there one purpose because it is against another state.

 

Today i think we could make so much more if we would co operate more. But that seems impossible. Europe is one of the best examples, i think.


"Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely. And Rhaegar died" - Jorah Mormont about Rhaegar Targaryen from A Storm of Swords.

coldplanet64bannercolor.png

Combi made by the talented cutiesmartgurl!

 

Odi et amo. Quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio. Sed fieri sentio et excucior.
>> I hate and i love. Why i do this, you maybe want to know.
Don´t know. But i feel, that i get true it, an i feel great torment.<<

carmen 85 by Catull


#14 Emma_Rules

Emma_Rules

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • LocationVirginia Beach, Virginia

Posted 18 April 2013 - 03:29 PM

the north korean buffoons now say they are open to talks...........lolz

 

yeah, you give us your nuclear weapons, all weapons-grade plutonium, centrifuges, and your complete research program and facilities, and we will give you food for your malnourished and starving 23 million countrymen, and cake for you, kim jon un fatboy.


good_music_zps1def08f8.gif


#15 Badab

Badab

    Dedicated Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 860 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 18 April 2013 - 07:38 PM

So he want some privileges he has´nt deserve. 

The WEapons he will keep, just don´t keep them in position. So he can bring them out again, when he want´s some new toy from the world.


"Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely. And Rhaegar died" - Jorah Mormont about Rhaegar Targaryen from A Storm of Swords.

coldplanet64bannercolor.png

Combi made by the talented cutiesmartgurl!

 

Odi et amo. Quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio. Sed fieri sentio et excucior.
>> I hate and i love. Why i do this, you maybe want to know.
Don´t know. But i feel, that i get true it, an i feel great torment.<<

carmen 85 by Catull


#16 Comrade Chris

Comrade Chris

    Advanced Member

  • Earth
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,257 posts
  • LocationProbably in the woods

Posted 19 April 2013 - 09:38 PM

Why should only North Korea have to undergo disarmament, why not America, and Russia, and the UK, and France? Any of these countries could radically become unstable tomorrow, and become rogue states, what if the nukes are Kim Jong Un's safety net, so that if America attack, he actually has some basis of defencive threat. 

 

Just an alternative view..



#17 Badab

Badab

    Dedicated Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 860 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 19 April 2013 - 09:47 PM

lol

 

lucky thought. But yeah it could be a sighned. but he put them in position not America. it would be a view if he had them but not put them in an attacking position.

 

Also i want to say, that we are from outside of North Korea and influenced by western thoughts, so the eastern North Koreans are the bad.


"Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely. And Rhaegar died" - Jorah Mormont about Rhaegar Targaryen from A Storm of Swords.

coldplanet64bannercolor.png

Combi made by the talented cutiesmartgurl!

 

Odi et amo. Quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio. Sed fieri sentio et excucior.
>> I hate and i love. Why i do this, you maybe want to know.
Don´t know. But i feel, that i get true it, an i feel great torment.<<

carmen 85 by Catull


#18 The Midnight Q

The Midnight Q

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,444 posts
  • Mood::giggidy
  • LocationQuahog, RI

Posted 19 April 2013 - 11:40 PM

Why should only North Korea have to undergo disarmament, why not America, and Russia, and the UK, and France? Any of these countries could radically become unstable tomorrow, and become rogue states, what if the nukes are Kim Jong Un's safety net, so that if America attack, he actually has some basis of defencive threat. 

 

Just an alternative view..

 

Ever heard of the START-1 and START-2? During the Cold War, both NATO and the USSR realized the potential dangers of having such weapons (both sides have thousands of nuclear weapons at this point). The agreement was to disarm their nuclear stockpiles significantly while still maintaining a 'healthy' number of weapons for deterrence. The two sides have matured after half a decade of trigger fingers getting itchy. The problem with regimes like Iran and the DPRK having nuclear weapons is that they will use such weapons offensively rather than in a defensive stance. The US does not even want Israel to have such a weapon for the same reason, considering their actions against Iraq in the 90's and threats against Iran and Syria recently.

 

-----

There was a discussion made not too long ago about why Saddam Insane did not deny any accusation of having WMDs. Whether or not the UN was absolutely sure he had such weapons. Saddam would've wanted to seem armed to the world. Why? To keep control of his own people. With the mustard gas attacks he ordered against the Kurds and the Iranians, his people knew what he's capable of. In order to deter a possible large-scale rebellion Saddam needed to have a major show of force.


Edited by The Midnight Q, 19 April 2013 - 11:45 PM.

Posted Image
~Thanks Jade~

#19 Comrade Chris

Comrade Chris

    Advanced Member

  • Earth
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,257 posts
  • LocationProbably in the woods

Posted 20 April 2013 - 09:29 PM

That of course isn't what I truly think, I believe that North Korea should be disarmed in terms of WMD, but I was just putting forward a different viewpoint that I have heard..



#20 Emma_Rules

Emma_Rules

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • LocationVirginia Beach, Virginia

Posted 20 April 2013 - 10:27 PM

the thing is, people with Western-type views (America, Europe, NATO-allies, others) never actually want to use these horrific weapons and choose to leave them in the background as the unspoken deterrant, while these north korean clowns, and the nutty tinpot arab dictators like aberdinajhad, parade them out, brag and boast about them, and given half a chance would actually USE them directly or through their terrorist-puppet stooges, like hezbolloh and al-quaeda. when was the last time you heard the USA actually talking about their nuclear weapons and programs, much less even acknowledging said weapons deployed or actively in use? the USA does not discuss these programs, and Israel is even more secretive, as they have had the capability probably since the 1960s and still deny their existence to this very day. there is a huge difference in the views of these weapons, between the West, and the nutbags currently joining the nuclear club.


good_music_zps1def08f8.gif





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users