On April 10 2013 15:01 fight_or_flight wrote: Ok, what gives us the right to destroy their economy and starve their people because they launch a satellite? As the article says, it has nothing to do with ballistic missile tests. At the same time we totally ignore countries doing real ballistics missiles tests who didn't sign the non-poliferation treaty such as India, Pakistan, and Israel. North korea on the other hand doesn't bow down to the US or the IMF, however, and therefore they need to be dealt with.
It's just colonialism, the same thing that was done in the middle east. We draw an arbitrary line cutting the country in half, and create the entire situation. 1 in 3 families were split apart because they had members in both countries. Read the above or listen to the interview.
Here's a list of what North Korea has done since the war. They've been acting like bullies since forever, and the south tends to just shrug it off, because they don't want things to escalate.
Yup, because that's what you do when someone bullies you, but that time is over, and South Korea has decided that the time to retaliate has come...
Though I agree with your point on Stalin, I wouldn't say that he's the guy to blame. Or rather, I wouldn't phrase it that way. If the US went along with him, there wouldn't have been a split, so we should just say that both parties didn't agree and they decided to split the country. Imho (in a perfect world) they should have asked the Korean population on what they wanted (independance, US or USSR protection, or whatever) and done just that, instead of acting with no such consideration. I just hope that when the war actually starts, the nukes all misfire and none actually explodes, then NK loses the war, both Koreas are unified and tadaaa, end of concetration camps, hunger & stuff in NK! Unfortunately, I doubt that's what's going to happen.
Stalin indirectly or Kim Il Sung directly split the country. Those two are the only ppl you can put the blame on. It's the north that shut off their country from the world, not the south. Same with Germany. USA is 0% to blame for the split of those countries. The only thing they've done is protect the southern koreans from a communist takeover.
I don't really agree about what you're saying that they should have been asked to pick between independence, USA or USSR. South Korea actually got independence. After a short period of american rule, Rhee Syngman, the first South Korean president was elected in a election observed by the UN. That election was supposed to include the north as well, but the north rejected the idea of an election. That's why Korea remained split in two. In the north, Kim Il Sung was handpicked by Stalin. He had fought in the russian army and also helped Mao and the chinese communists gain power. Kim Il Sung's personality cult was a obvious copy of how Stalin was ruling Soviet Russia, so it's obvious that they "made him" and told him how to rule the country.
The South struggled a lot at first, but they were always independent from outsiders, and they had a lot more freedom, although their freedom of speech was questionable, but in such a poor and broken country, could you really expect everything. Imo, freedom of movement (including freedom to leave the country), and freedom to own your own land or business are the most basic human rights. A country that doesn't give their citizens those rights are not legitimate in my book.
And the north had a normal election just with the DPRK winning. Rhee was just a puppet for the US like Kim was for the Soviets. Both claimed their party & Korea was the true Korea with the super power behind them acknowledging said claim. Also you leave out Rhee's police state like behavior with arresting (killing) a lot of left wing people (later: all his political opponents) Korea under Rhee wasnt a free & happy country.
Also you cannot compare Germany's situation to Korea's. So you should stop mentioning it.
Kim Il Sung was not elected democratically by the ppl. The Soviet Union put DPRK in power.
Rhee had the job of trying to fight communism, so you have to put his actions in perspective. If he had been more pacifistic, it's possible that the south would have accepted communism too. It must have been a huge challenge to be the president of South Korea at that time. The north was very organized, and they also had a strong industry thanks to the japanese, who had build a lot of factories close to the mines in the north, so they were doing a lot better economically. It's well known that DPRK sent over agents who tried to infiltrate the South, and spread communist propaganda to regular citizens and to politicians. Communism is such a radical and oppressive form of government that I think he had every right to fight it. Surely he went overboard, and many innocent ppl were killed, but you have to put his actions in perspective.
Rhee's South Korea was a lot more free than North Korea was. Politically, both countries were harsh, but in everyday life it was a lot different. In communism, the state owns you, so they will tell you what to do, and the only freedoms you have are the freedoms they grant you. Because the state owns you under communism, all your ordinary actions have political consequences. That's what makes communism so harsh. The north korean ppl were slaves of the great leader, and all their personal decisions was made by the great leader, or by representatives of the great leader. How anyone can consider such a government as a valid regime is beyond me.
My point is that it's hardly a coincidence that North Korea have moved backwards, and South Korea have become one of the richest and most free countries outside of Europe. South Korea was allowed to rule independently, while the Soviet Union, by backing the right ppl, forced upon North Korea their crazy Stalinism ideology, which was designed for one purpose only, to keep the ppl in check and to keep the current regime in control. That's the reason why we have this problem today, because of the actions of the Soviet Union and China, and because of the ppl who have ruled DPRK since then, who have perpetuated this toxic form of government.
Both Rhee and Kim at that time were pretty much puppets of the respective super-powers. The whole thing about 'state owning you' under communism is hogwash because South Korean leadership of the cold war era had no issues with imprisoning or downright killing anyone who got in the way without much second thought. South Korea was anything but a free, democratic state; and the US presence in Korea had nothing to do with 'defending freedom' or whatever. In fact US is known to have interfered with the unification talks more than once.
Anyway it was under Park's ridiculously brutal dictatorship that SK caught up and begun to overtake North Korea in terms of economic development. It had nothing to do with independent rule or freedom of people in the country - if anything, South Korea of that time was more of a police state than the North.
Chances are that Korea would've been a lot more China-like today had USA not interfered back then (which would probably be not that great of a thing, but who knows), but don't try to paint SK & America as the 'good guys' and the North & Communists as the 'bad guys' of that period - both sides did their share of horribly messed up shit and there's a good reason why even today plenty of South Koreans have a strong distaste for Americans, especially those in uniforms.
On April 10 2013 16:46 felisconcolori wrote: How about we have been trying to talk to them for the past 30 years and they have steadily ignored, refused, or outright said no? If you believe that their aim is to put up a peaceful satellite (on a rocket that can barely get it into an unstable orbit) I have some land I think you might be interested in.
I don't want to refute your interpretation of the DPRK's belligerence, but as a matter of rocket science, satellites don't really have unstable orbits. Unstable orbits happen when there's other objects around whose gravity can perturb something's orbit, or in the case of low Earth orbit, when you didn't give it enough speed to get full above the atmosphere. But Kwangmyeongseong-3 #2 is in an orbit of around 500km by 600km, and that's well above the altitude where you spontaneously deorbit due to atmospheric drag (also a little higher than the ISS flies). With that kind of altitude, you can go in circles for years, for hundreds of thousands of times, no problem.
I agree with your phrasing that they can barely get into orbit They had to use a 3-stage rocket to launch a mere 100kg satellite when launching a small satellite to low orbit is a job for any number of economical 2-stage launchers. For reference, South Korea's own first satellite, from January 2013, also 100kg, was launched by a 2-stage vehicle. The thing that jumps out is did the DPRK really conduct a successful satellite launch before the ROK did? The answer is yes, and the reasoning is that the political pressures on the Korean peninsula have tried to avoid the escalation of ballistic missile technology (which is equivalent to space launch vehicles) on either side.
Both Rhee and Kim at that time were pretty much puppets of the respective super-powers. The whole thing about 'state owning you' under communism is hogwash because South Korean leadership of the cold war era had no issues with imprisoning or downright killing anyone who got in the way without much second thought. South Korea was anything but a free, democratic state; and the US presence in Korea had nothing to do with 'defending freedom' or whatever. In fact US is known to have interfered with the unification talks more than once.
Anyway it was under Park's ridiculously brutal dictatorship that SK caught up and begun to overtake North Korea in terms of economic development. It had nothing to do with independent rule or freedom of people in the country - if anything, South Korea of that time was more of a police state than the North.
Chances are that Korea would've been a lot more China-like today had USA not interfered back then (which would probably be not that great of a thing, but who knows), but don't try to paint SK & America as the 'good guys' and the North & Communists as the 'bad guys' of that period - both sides did their share of horribly messed up shit and there's a good reason why even today plenty of South Koreans have a strong distaste for Americans, especially those in uniforms.
To be fair, it's really the younger generation of South Koreans who have distaste for USA, and it has nothing to do with what USA did after WW2. It really has to do with the fact that USA decided to back Jeon Du Hwan's military regime during the 80s. And the whole thing about american soldiers having bad reputation is more about different isolated incidences where american soldiers just decided to be dumb rather than US policy. But the public likes to do whats easiest and thats to blame the country as a whole.
I always lol at the people who talk about how undemocratic and repressive the south korean rhee government was. Do you think the north was any better? Kim il sung did the exact same thing, and he went as far as killing not just his respective political opponents (ie the pro-US, capitalists), but other communist leaders and their supporters who were potential threats to his leadership later on. He also went about killing former resistance members (ie friends) who fought with him against the japanese during the colonial period.
And for those that pin the blame on the US for dividing the country, I start laughing again. Because it's pretty clear today in the year 2013 which ideology is the one that brought freedom, wealth, and liberty to the people that followed it. The koreans that supported communism (and subsequently moved north to join kim and his party) and their descendents chose the wrong side of history. The south korean government had its share of repression during the cold war and no one is denying that but its system ultimately placed its priorities on the right values and look where we are now, compared to the north. I think people should appreciate the fact that a vigorous defense of south korea by the US is the reason why at least half the korean peninsula is able to live in relative peace and prosperity.
It's interesting to think that if communism had not existed would SK be as prosperous as it is right now. If the marshal plan and it's Asian equivalent was not implemented because of the lack of a enemy I wonder if SK would be as successful due to the large capital injections from Japan and US.
On April 11 2013 12:01 white_horse wrote: I always lol at the people who talk about how undemocratic and repressive the south korean rhee government was. Do you think the north was any better? Kim il sung did the exact same thing, and he went as far as killing not just his respective political opponents (ie the pro-US, capitalists), but other communist leaders and their supporters who were potential threats to his leadership later on. He also went about killing former resistance members (ie friends) who fought with him against the japanese during the colonial period.
And for those that pin the blame on the US for dividing the country, I start laughing again. Because it's pretty clear today in the year 2013 which ideology is the one that brought freedom, wealth, and liberty to the people that followed it. The koreans that supported communism (and subsequently moved north to join kim and his party) and their descendents chose the wrong side of history. The south korean government had its share of repression during the cold war and no one is denying that but its system ultimately placed its priorities on the right values and look where we are now, compared to the north. I think people should appreciate the fact that a vigorous defense of south korea by the US is the reason why at least half the korean peninsula is able to live in relative peace and prosperity.
Things might have turned out better in the long run if everyone (U.S., Soviets, China, whoever else might have interfered, etc.) had just left Korea alone.
Without US and western intervention, South Korea along with Japan would have been more pro-China/Soviet, adopting communism because of geopolitical pressure from their powerful neighbors, but that's a big if in history. Also, it is clear today that communism has failed, but it was not considered so 60 years ago. Then again, North Korea is unique in that it is Kim Dynastry with Juche Idea rather than ordinary communist country.
On April 11 2013 12:01 white_horse wrote: I always lol at the people who talk about how undemocratic and repressive the south korean rhee government was. Do you think the north was any better? Kim il sung did the exact same thing, and he went as far as killing not just his respective political opponents (ie the pro-US, liberalism people), but other communist leaders and their supporters who were potential threats to his leadership later on. He also went about killing former resistance members (ie friends) who fought with him against the japanese during the colonial period.
And for those that pin the blame on the US for dividing the country, I start laughing again. Because it's pretty clear today in the year 2013 which ideology is the one that brought freedom, wealth, and liberty to the people that followed it. The koreans that supported communism (and subsequently moved north to join kim and his party) and their descendents chose the wrong side of history. The south korean government had its share of repression during the cold war and no one is denying that but its system ultimately placed its priorities on the right values and look where we are now, compared to the north. I think people should appreciate the fact that a vigorous defense of south korea by the US is the reason why at least half the korean peninsula is able to live in relative peace and prosperity.
You brought good points but, you forgot that what mainly put NK in its actual position (of freedom, liberty and wealth) is the solid embargo they endured, knowing china wasn't as strong as it is right now to help them either. And when you say the koreans who supported communism chose "the wrong side" and the south opted for the "right values" your'e not being eccletic in your answer. You have to take everything into account and not jump into fast conclusion that are impregnated with strong ideology and connotation. then again you first start your agrument with the concept of democracy which might not be accurate as well (it is to be debated). As for US' part in this conflict its competely relevant to consider their strong implication(more than any other country) in the conflict, and moreso QUESTION their reason for such implication. It is reknown that US have pressured socialist/communist/stalinist and expanded west's hegemony around the globe (you know what the redscare is). I just happen to study WW2 in a university history class and we came across this critical question : why didn't the US go to war right when poland was taken by the axis? according to the teacher, it might have been because faschism was more preferable than Communism from an ideolody standpoint (do not take this as my opinion but as hints to a discussion). To say the least, let's not jump into conclusion too quickly regarding NK's situation. It's almost a tradition now to see NK's menacing peace in order to obtain aid, or w/e they ask for from the international community. Wouldn't such actions simply indicate the country is in deep trouble inside (politically and economically), it might only be a way to reaffirm beliefs amongst the population (nationalism).
On April 11 2013 13:01 Orek wrote: Without US and western intervention, South Korea along with Japan would have been more pro-China/Soviet, adopting communism because of geopolitical pressure from their powerful neighbors, but that's a big if in history. Also, it is clear today that communism has failed, but it was not considered so 60 years ago. Then again, North Korea is unique in that it is Kim Dynastry with Juche Idea rather than ordinary communist country.
there are also reasons behind communism's failure that Communist aren't responsible for. That big IF, you can't really predict it's issue and certainly not assume it would not have been as good or bad (else you are yourself judging values according to an ideological point of view, making your jugdement biased).
What "mainly put north korea in its current position" is because of the embargos? As far as I know, international sanctions didn't start until late in the 20th century. North korea was already lagging behind its neighbors at that point. And I'd like to know some specifics. You keep talking about having to "take everything into account" and certain "reasons" that led to communism's downfall but avoid actually mentioning them. If you're trying to convince me that communism didn't work because of external factors (such as the US' interference or influence against communism) or give me some bullshit argument that communism failed because it wasn't "correctly implemented", you should take your argument elsewhere.
April 11 1st anniversary of Kim Jong-Un's election as first secretary of the ruling Worker's Party in North Korea. It is 5pm local time, but no ceremony has been reported yet.
April 13 1st anniversary of Kim Jong-Un's election as first chairman of the national defense commission.
On April 11 2013 14:03 white_horse wrote: What "mainly put north korea in its current position" is because of the embargos? As far as I know, international sanctions didn't start until late in the 20th century. North korea was already lagging behind its neighbors at that point. And I'd like to know some specifics. You keep talking about having to "take everything into account" and certain "reasons" that led to communism's downfall but avoid actually mentioning them. If you're trying to convince me that communism didn't work because of external factors (such as the US' interference or influence against communism) or give me some bullshit argument that communism failed because it wasn't "correctly implemented", you should take your argument elsewhere.
south koreas economy was pretty much the same as the north's before the 1970's. the north, before the korean war, spent more money on military might and would have won the korean war, but the UN decided that the north should lose. and when you bank that heavily on winning a war the ecnomic impact will obviously be huge.
koreas recent economic growth from random small asian state in to g20 local power house was fueled by good trade links with the rest of the world, something the north has never had.
so its not really about if communism can/does work, as much as its about south korea was on the winning side of history, through both no fault and no input of their own.
On April 11 2013 14:03 white_horse wrote: What "mainly put north korea in its current position" is because of the embargos? As far as I know, international sanctions didn't start until late in the 20th century. North korea was already lagging behind its neighbors at that point. And I'd like to know some specifics. You keep talking about having to "take everything into account" and certain "reasons" that led to communism's downfall but avoid actually mentioning them. If you're trying to convince me that communism didn't work because of external factors (such as the US' interference or influence against communism) or give me some bullshit argument that communism failed because it wasn't "correctly implemented", you should take your argument elsewhere.
south koreas economy was pretty much the same as the north's before the 1970's. the north, before the korean war, spent more money on military might and would have won the korean war, but the UN decided that the north should lose. and when you bank that heavily on winning a war the ecnomic impact will obviously be huge.
koreas recent economic growth from random small asian state in to g20 local power house was fueled by good trade links with the rest of the world, something the north has never had.
so its not really about if communism can/does work, as much as its about south korea was on the winning side of history, through both no fault and no input of their own.
I always thought of the North as having gone for an all-in, which failed, then decided to tech to nukes off a handful of the workers they had left.
I'm pretty sure NK had the superior economy for a fair while and only went under once the machine parts etc. stopped coming as the USSR collapsed.
On April 11 2013 14:03 white_horse wrote: What "mainly put north korea in its current position" is because of the embargos? As far as I know, international sanctions didn't start until late in the 20th century. North korea was already lagging behind its neighbors at that point. And I'd like to know some specifics. You keep talking about having to "take everything into account" and certain "reasons" that led to communism's downfall but avoid actually mentioning them. If you're trying to convince me that communism didn't work because of external factors (such as the US' interference or influence against communism) or give me some bullshit argument that communism failed because it wasn't "correctly implemented", you should take your argument elsewhere.
south koreas economy was pretty much the same as the north's before the 1970's. the north, before the korean war, spent more money on military might and would have won the korean war, but the UN decided that the north should lose. and when you bank that heavily on winning a war the ecnomic impact will obviously be huge.
koreas recent economic growth from random small asian state in to g20 local power house was fueled by good trade links with the rest of the world, something the north has never had.
so its not really about if communism can/does work, as much as its about south korea was on the winning side of history, through both no fault and no input of their own.
I always thought of the North as having gone for an all-in, which failed, then decided to tech to nukes off a handful of the workers they had left.
I'm pretty sure NK had the superior economy for a fair while and only went under once the machine parts etc. stopped coming as the USSR collapsed.
NK has some ressources left, but they are turteling hard and investing all minerals they harvest into army instead of workers. edit: And they play in bronze/silver, so it's not a good thing to challenge a GM player like Obama.
On April 11 2013 12:01 white_horse wrote: I always lol at the people who talk about how undemocratic and repressive the south korean rhee government was. Do you think the north was any better? Kim il sung did the exact same thing, and he went as far as killing not just his respective political opponents (ie the pro-US, capitalists), but other communist leaders and their supporters who were potential threats to his leadership later on. He also went about killing former resistance members (ie friends) who fought with him against the japanese during the colonial period.
And for those that pin the blame on the US for dividing the country, I start laughing again. Because it's pretty clear today in the year 2013 which ideology is the one that brought freedom, wealth, and liberty to the people that followed it. The koreans that supported communism (and subsequently moved north to join kim and his party) and their descendents chose the wrong side of history. The south korean government had its share of repression during the cold war and no one is denying that but its system ultimately placed its priorities on the right values and look where we are now, compared to the north. I think people should appreciate the fact that a vigorous defense of south korea by the US is the reason why at least half the korean peninsula is able to live in relative peace and prosperity.
I just want to point out that I don't think the parts I bolded in your quote make a coherent argument. A country isn't any more or less democratic depending upon what its neighbours do. Democracy has to to with freedom of speech, free elections, etc., not relative oppressiveness compared to your neighbours. Any (counter-) argument that goes along the lines of "You can't claim that A is x because B else is more x" (and in this case, x is undemocratic and repressive) fails to address the central issue, which is whether A is actually x or not.
Of course, later you affirm that no one is denying that SK had its share of repression, so we don't actually disagree, but I just wanted to point out the fallacy of your first argument, because I see it all the time and just now I felt like responding to it.
On April 11 2013 14:03 white_horse wrote: What "mainly put north korea in its current position" is because of the embargos? As far as I know, international sanctions didn't start until late in the 20th century. North korea was already lagging behind its neighbors at that point. And I'd like to know some specifics. You keep talking about having to "take everything into account" and certain "reasons" that led to communism's downfall but avoid actually mentioning them. If you're trying to convince me that communism didn't work because of external factors (such as the US' interference or influence against communism) or give me some bullshit argument that communism failed because it wasn't "correctly implemented", you should take your argument elsewhere.
Why should he take such an argument elsewhere if it would completely invalidate what you have said? Either what you said should not have been said here or a counter-argument is also in place here. Why do you act like you know it all and your view is the only possible correct one?
Communism did not fail, it was beaten by capitalism, that doesn't make capitalism better. If I 6 pool while you fast-expand and I win, does that make 6 pool better? No! It just happened to counter you. Same for communism, it could work in a different setup. I'm not at all pro communism at a large scale (I think it could work on a small scale, < 100 people), but these arguments as to why it's not preferable are just not backed by reason. You make many assumptions without realizing or mentioning them and you go on an unreasonable bashing spree.
On April 11 2013 17:18 Orek wrote: April 11 1st anniversary of Kim Jong-Un's election as first secretary of the ruling Worker's Party in North Korea. It is 5pm local time, but no ceremony has been reported yet.
April 13 1st anniversary of Kim Jong-Un's election as first chairman of the national defense commission.
April 15 Kim Il-Sung's birthday.
We might see something soon.
If the missiles are actually already fueled, they can't just keep them ready forever, if they wan't to achieve something.
The actual rocket design is a liquid fuel rocket using a hypergolic combination of unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine as fuel, and inhibited red fuming nitric acid as oxidizer; this fuel/oxidizer combination does not vaporise like liquified hydrogen/oxygen gas at 35°C. As a result, once the fuel/oxidizer combination were fed into the missile, it could maintain a 'ready to launch' condition for several days, or even weeks, like the R-27 SLBM; however it could not be kept longer than this, because of tank corrosion caused by the red fuming nitric acid. A fueled Musudan would not have the structural strength to be land transported, so would have to be fueled at the launch site
On April 11 2013 17:18 Orek wrote: April 11 1st anniversary of Kim Jong-Un's election as first secretary of the ruling Worker's Party in North Korea. It is 5pm local time, but no ceremony has been reported yet.
April 13 1st anniversary of Kim Jong-Un's election as first chairman of the national defense commission.
April 15 Kim Il-Sung's birthday.
We might see something soon.
If the missiles are actually already fueled, they can't just keep them ready forever, if they wan't to achieve something. I wonder how this affects it though.
The actual rocket design is a liquid fuel rocket using a hypergolic combination of unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine as fuel, and inhibited red fuming nitric acid as oxidizer; this fuel/oxidizer combination does not vaporise like liquified hydrogen/oxygen gas at 35°C. As a result, once the fuel/oxidizer combination were fed into the missile, it could maintain a 'ready to launch' condition for several days, or even weeks, like the R-27 SLBM; however it could not be kept longer than this, because of tank corrosion caused by the red fuming nitric acid. A fueled Musudan would not have the structural strength to be land transported, so would have to be fueled at the launch site
While we are speculating, my bets are on April 15th of those dates.
Nothing against you, but it almost sounds like you wish something exciting would happen. 2012 was the 100th year since the birth of Kim Il Sung, and there were speculations of NK doing something big, but 2012 came and gone. It's better to just do nothing for NK than to embarass themselves on an eventful anniversary.
On April 11 2013 17:18 Orek wrote: April 11 1st anniversary of Kim Jong-Un's election as first secretary of the ruling Worker's Party in North Korea. It is 5pm local time, but no ceremony has been reported yet.
April 13 1st anniversary of Kim Jong-Un's election as first chairman of the national defense commission.
April 15 Kim Il-Sung's birthday.
We might see something soon.
If the missiles are actually already fueled, they can't just keep them ready forever, if they wan't to achieve something. I wonder how this affects it though.
The actual rocket design is a liquid fuel rocket using a hypergolic combination of unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine as fuel, and inhibited red fuming nitric acid as oxidizer; this fuel/oxidizer combination does not vaporise like liquified hydrogen/oxygen gas at 35°C. As a result, once the fuel/oxidizer combination were fed into the missile, it could maintain a 'ready to launch' condition for several days, or even weeks, like the R-27 SLBM; however it could not be kept longer than this, because of tank corrosion caused by the red fuming nitric acid. A fueled Musudan would not have the structural strength to be land transported, so would have to be fueled at the launch site
While we are speculating, my bets are on April 15th of those dates.
Nothing against you, but it almost sounds like you wish something exciting would happen. 2012 was the 100th year since the birth of Kim Il Sung, and there were speculations of NK doing something big, but 2012 came and gone. It's better to just do nothing for NK than to embarass themselves on an eventful anniversary.
Heh well, truthfully i would like something to happen to North-Korean government especially, but then i think about all the (possible) casualties both sides and i quickly change my mind.
But you are right. Probably nothing will happen, but since the dates got brought up and how there has been news and talks about the readiness of the missiles, it's interesting to speculate.
Anyway, just watched a new documentary what was filmed fairly recently compared to the other documentary's out there.
EPT
