|
Of all people my GF explained it like this to me:
Kim Jong Un is trying to appease the army by giving them 'sort of' what they want - A show of force and a possible war. Getting the army behind him in this way means he can try shifting internal funds away from the army and to a reform of the internal structure of the rest of the country.
If he didn't appease the army and tried to push through internal reforms without their support it would be possible for him t be overthrown by said army and the situation would become even worse.
It might be possible that the current sequence of events won't lead to war, but is aimed at starting a reform inside North Korea.
|
On April 12 2013 01:56 RvB wrote:Sounds credible but it's all very speculative. I mean there have been rulers who were very young and inexperienced and are some of the best rulers ever known. Or people who were appointed as a puppet but went their own way.
From what I have heard Putin was supposed to be one.
|
It's funny how the U.S invaded iraq because of the possibility that they might have access to weapons of mass destruction.
Now we have a country with weapons of mass destruction who are also threatening to use them, and having usa as perhaps their main target, usa are more like "please stop it  "
On an unrelated note; how much natural resources does north korea have to be such a poor country? Can't be much oil lying around.
|
On April 12 2013 02:19 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 01:56 RvB wrote:Sounds credible but it's all very speculative. I mean there have been rulers who were very young and inexperienced and are some of the best rulers ever known. Or people who were appointed as a puppet but went their own way. From what I have heard Putin was supposed to be one.
Fidel Castro too. He received support from the CIA to overthrow whoever was ruling the country at that time, only to become one of the worst enemies the USA have ever had
Rassmussen and John Kerry will both be in Seoul tomorrow (the 12th, so... today in KR time). Any thoughts on that?
I suppose it could trigger an attack from NK but I doubt it.
I wonder which one of the following four hypothesizes (not sure about spelling?) is correct (according to what I've read, they're the most popular) :
1) KMJ intends to attack, either because he's batshit insane or wants to show that he's not all talk (which is still madness)
2) KMJ is doing this to have a stronger grasp on his army (possibly being influenced by his uncle and his aunt), while aiming to settle for food and money, a) only to continue the dictatorship (and the investments in nuclear weapons development) or b) after seeing the outside world and living abroad for a while, he wants to give freedom, food, etc to his people, and intends to use the money to do some good (but then he'd have to get rid of everyone that opposes the idea of peace)
3) KMJ is just a puppet saying what he's forced to say (by who? aunt/uncle couple? older army generals? maybe both groups of people have the same opinion and put pressure on him to act accordingly to their wishes?)
Which one do you think is the closest to the truth? I know it's only speculations, but still.
Maybe you have something else in mind?
|
On April 11 2013 13:24 crazyweasel wrote:Show nested quote +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).
Soviet Russia's failure was well-known, even before WW2, not by the general public, but by politicians, spies and so on.
There were ppl here from Sweden who went to "the workers paradise" in the 30's, but they realized it was all lies, and they weren't even allowed to return. In order to work in the Soviet Union, you needed a citizenship, and when you got a citizenship, you weren't allowed to leave. All that's left of these ppl are letters that they sent home to their families, expressing their regrets, but it's not clear what happened to them.
You can count on that the american president knew exactly what was going on there. Freedom was very important for the americans, it's always been like that, so they probably took offense to what the russians were doing inside their own borders.
Considering how fast Soviet Russia's bordering nations, like all of Eastern Europe, and China turned to communism, the americans knew what was going on, and thanks to their espionage they knew what communism was really about, so they obviously didn't like it for multiple reasons. Then they started their holy war against communism.
Anyway, I don't agree that North Korea is different from russian communism. North Korea is the prime example of Stalin Marxism. It's such a obvious rip-off, so you can't say that USA didn't have the knowledge to predict how bad it would be. Even if it was only half as bad as Soviet communism, it had been bad enough to justify fighting it.
On April 11 2013 10:08 Zocat wrote:It's probably a bit offtopic, since it's not about current North Korea, so spoilered + Show Spoiler +On April 11 2013 08:29 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 04:46 Zocat wrote:On April 11 2013 04:14 ninini wrote:On April 11 2013 02:30 Adel wrote:On April 11 2013 00:57 ninini wrote: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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea 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. Rhee as a guy with an Austrian wife, spending half his life in exile (in the US), studying there and being a big anti-communist. Him being supported by the US government when running for government in South Korea is really leaving a bitter taste. He was the ideal counterpart to Kim. Also you mention that the election in NK wasnt democratic. Yes, i agree Kim wasnt elected in a democratic way (but a election nonetheless). But neither was Rhee on the 10th of May. There were strikes, demonstrations and protests against creating a separate South Korea. The repression of this opposition resulted in over 10,000 arrests of left-wing supporters. While North Korean people were slaves to the great leader, communists in South Korea were murdered. Later Rhee declared martial law to force his ongoing rule (though that has nothing to do with the US but more with Rhee and his authoritarian state). Both Rhee & Kim wanted a unified Korea under their own rule. Even if that meant war. Sure, I can chose a lesser evil between Kim's communism and Rhee's authoritarianism. But both are not democratic ways. And both suck.
The north turned down having an election for the entire Korea. If they had said yes, maybe Kim would have won, but I don't think so. The communists may have been powerful, but back then I believe Rhee was the stronger president candidate. Because the north turned the UN down, they made a election over the south only, and Rhee was elected. A month afterwards Kim Il Sung was announced as the leader of the north.
Kim executed his opposition in the north too, ppl who wanted more freedom. They both did. Rhee might not have been a fair leader, but he was fighting communism, which is probably the most oppressive form of government that have ever existed. Rhee was fighting a good cause, so you have to cut him some slack. I will not defend his actions entirely, but I'm not convinced that someone else would have handled it better, and it's also possible that the situation required someone as ruthless as him, to prevent the south from adopting communism too.
Just imagine that your country gets divided in half, with two regimes. Then the other regime is doing twice as well as your regime. How are you supposed to prevent the other regime from absorbing the entire country, when it's obvious that everybody wants a independent country? That's the kind of situation where you're supposed to lose, but Rhee still managed to stay on top. Rhee knew what the communists were about. Most of the south koreans didn't, and many were probably swept away by the propaganda from the north, as communism sounds really nice in theory.
The reason why South Korea is doing so much better today is because they took on the fight against communism rather than surrendering to it, and it was Rhee who started that fight. Rhee might not have been very democratic, but if he had lost the power to a communistic branch, future elections would have been abolished, and they would have been absorbed by the north. A country that is willing to support a governmental system that takes democracy away isn't ready for democracy.
|
I'm not reading 92 pages. But at the start, someone said the best thing we can do for the people of North Korea is send them food.
No, we're just propping up an inherently corrupt social system that way. (Socialism/Communism.) The best thing we can do for them and for the world and for ourselves is to let it collapse. Pick the tick off and let it starve to death. Maybe then the people of North Korea can rebuild a freer society out of the ashes.
Military intervention may be required. Unfree countries will always need war with freer countries because they need to loot the wealth of those countries, because their self-imposed tyranny keeps them too piss poor to survive.
|
On April 12 2013 02:24 nkr wrote:It's funny how the U.S invaded iraq because of the possibility that they might have access to weapons of mass destruction. Now we have a country with weapons of mass destruction who are also threatening to use them, and having usa as perhaps their main target, usa are more like "please stop it " On an unrelated note; how much natural resources does north korea have to be such a poor country? Can't be much oil lying around.
Are you saying we should invade North Korea to be consistant?
|
On April 12 2013 02:55 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 02:24 nkr wrote:It's funny how the U.S invaded iraq because of the possibility that they might have access to weapons of mass destruction. Now we have a country with weapons of mass destruction who are also threatening to use them, and having usa as perhaps their main target, usa are more like "please stop it " On an unrelated note; how much natural resources does north korea have to be such a poor country? Can't be much oil lying around. Are you saying we should invade North Korea to be consistant?
i think its obvious to everybody what the difference is here.
|
On April 12 2013 02:19 ChromeBallz wrote:
Of all people my GF explained it like this to me:
Kim Jong Un is trying to appease the army by giving them 'sort of' what they want - A show of force and a possible war. Getting the army behind him in this way means he can try shifting internal funds away from the army and to a reform of the internal structure of the rest of the country.
If he didn't appease the army and tried to push through internal reforms without their support it would be possible for him t be overthrown by said army and the situation would become even worse.
It might be possible that the current sequence of events won't lead to war, but is aimed at starting a reform inside North Korea.
But if he promises so much and doesn't come through with any of it, no one will respect or back him as a leader. He's a young lion still trying to earn his mane..
I don't believe anything will happen personally, but only time will tell I suppose.
|
On April 12 2013 02:24 nkr wrote:It's funny how the U.S invaded iraq because of the possibility that they might have access to weapons of mass destruction. Now we have a country with weapons of mass destruction who are also threatening to use them, and having usa as perhaps their main target, usa are more like "please stop it " On an unrelated note; how much natural resources does north korea have to be such a poor country? Can't be much oil lying around.
It is just total mismanagement, it's actually a resource rich country, much richer then South Korea.
From wiki:
According to a 2012 report by South Korea-based North Korea Resource Institute (NKRI) North Korea has substantial reserves of iron ore, coal, limestone and magnesite.[26] In addition, North Korea is thought to have tremendous potential rare metal resources, which have been valued in excess of $6 trillion USD.[27]
|
|
|
|
|
What gives the US the right to govern the entire world? South Korea shouldn't even exist, most Koreans, including those in the south, hate their governments. The north is a dictatorship, but it's advancing and as a country doing a lot for themselves. Good for them. south Korea is run by a select few people, same people who took power when they split from the north and now they control everything in south Korea. But, because they are buddy buddy with us, we ignore anything bad the south Korean government does.
Tldr, one Korea, Fuck the south just as much as the north, starcraft is ok
User was warned for this post
|
On April 12 2013 03:52 fellcrow wrote:
What gives the US the right to govern the entire world? South Korea shouldn't even exist, most Koreans, including those in the south, hate their governments. The north is a dictatorship, but it's advancing and as a country doing a lot for themselves. Good for them. south Korea is run by a select few people, same people who took power when they split from the north and now they control everything in south Korea. But, because they are buddy buddy with us, we ignore anything bad the south Korean government does.
Tldr, one Korea, Fuck the south just as much as the north, starcraft is ok
My simple opinion is that the country with the least suffering citizens is the best country. I have a feeling that the family oriented concentration camps in North Korea makes them fail a bit in that aspect.
|
On April 12 2013 03:52 fellcrow wrote:
What gives the US the right to govern the entire world? South Korea shouldn't even exist, most Koreans, including those in the south, hate their governments. The north is a dictatorship, but it's advancing and as a country doing a lot for themselves. Good for them. south Korea is run by a select few people, same people who took power when they split from the north and now they control everything in south Korea. But, because they are buddy buddy with us, we ignore anything bad the south Korean government does.
Tldr, one Korea, Fuck the south just as much as the north, starcraft is ok
......... do you actually have any idea what you are talking about? Lol.
|
On April 12 2013 04:08 Eruism wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 03:52 fellcrow wrote:
What gives the US the right to govern the entire world? South Korea shouldn't even exist, most Koreans, including those in the south, hate their governments. The north is a dictatorship, but it's advancing and as a country doing a lot for themselves. Good for them. south Korea is run by a select few people, same people who took power when they split from the north and now they control everything in south Korea. But, because they are buddy buddy with us, we ignore anything bad the south Korean government does.
Tldr, one Korea, Fuck the south just as much as the north, starcraft is ok ......... do you actually have any idea what you are talking about? Lol.
I read the part where the North was "advancing itself" and my troll detectors started going off
|
On April 12 2013 03:52 fellcrow wrote:
What gives the US the right to govern the entire world? South Korea shouldn't even exist, most Koreans, including those in the south, hate their governments. The north is a dictatorship, but it's advancing and as a country doing a lot for themselves. Good for them. south Korea is run by a select few people, same people who took power when they split from the north and now they control everything in south Korea. But, because they are buddy buddy with us, we ignore anything bad the south Korean government does.
Tldr, one Korea, Fuck the south just as much as the north, starcraft is ok
The south sounds terrible from that perspective! Can you explain why there doesn't seem to be a flood of South Koreans rushing into North Korea to escape the government they hate?
And as far as North Korea doing a lot for itself and advancing are you referring to the fact that it can't even feed its own people?
|
On April 12 2013 04:11 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 04:08 Eruism wrote:On April 12 2013 03:52 fellcrow wrote:
What gives the US the right to govern the entire world? South Korea shouldn't even exist, most Koreans, including those in the south, hate their governments. The north is a dictatorship, but it's advancing and as a country doing a lot for themselves. Good for them. south Korea is run by a select few people, same people who took power when they split from the north and now they control everything in south Korea. But, because they are buddy buddy with us, we ignore anything bad the south Korean government does.
Tldr, one Korea, Fuck the south just as much as the north, starcraft is ok ......... do you actually have any idea what you are talking about? Lol. I read the part where the North was "advancing itself" and my troll detectors started going off
nah man you just gotta realise that starvation, slave labour and torture is the way forward
|
i like this north korean things, it's like a real serie, with at least 1 episode every two days
|
1019 Posts
On April 11 2013 21:15 Tennoji wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Off topic (@white_horse): + Show Spoiler +
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.
You want a reason? The reason is that communism is a failure. Because as far as I know, there isn't an argument that communism works. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and more importantly, we would be able to see many communist states around the world today living in comparable peace and wealth to the western powers. I don't see many communist countries today and the few ones that are left are the laughing stock of the entire world.
Capitalism didn't "beat" communism. That's wrong. I hate it when people say that. "Beat" implies that during the cold war the US and its western friends somehow successfully defeated the communists in a war and then forced them to switch to capitalism or that the US somehow coerced communist countries into switching to capitalism. None of these ever happened. Communism failed under its own weight because it's a bullshit system and the ex-USSR states ultimately accepted capitalism as a more successful system for its peoples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
