North Korea Threatens Armed Strike, End to Armistice

[Yazman]

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aS17xp.yHokM&refer=home

Snippet from source:


May 27 (Bloomberg) -- North Korea threatened a military response to South Korean participation in a U.S.-led program to seize weapons of mass destruction, and said it’s no longer bound by the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War.

“The Korean People’s Army will not be bound to the Armistice Agreement any longer,” the official Korean Central News Agency said in a statement today. Any attempt to inspect North Korean vessels will be countered with “prompt and strong military strikes.”

The threats are the strongest since North Korea tested a nuclear weapon on May 25, drawing international condemnation and the prospect of increased sanctions against the communist nation. South Korea dispatched a warship to its maritime border and is prepared to deploy aircraft, Yonhap News reported, citing military officials it didn’t identify.

“This rapid-fire provocation indicates a more aggressive shift in the Kim Jong Il regime,” said Ryoo Kihl Jae, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul.

South Korea’s benchmark Kospi stock index fell for a fifth day, surrendering an almost 2 percent gain after the KCNA release. The index fell 0.7 percent to 1,362.02.

North Korea can’t guarantee the safety of ships passing through its western waters, KCNA said. The statement specified five islands controlled by the South that were the site of naval skirmishes in 1999 and 2002.

What does everybody think of this? Personally I think they're bluffing, and that there won't be any actual conflict at all.

If something does happen however it will be quite interesting.

[apathy maybe]

I think that the North Korean Regime is crazy. I think that Bush and Co didn't want to attack North Korea (rather than Iraq), because they knew that they (the NK regime) possibly actually had "WMD", and were crazy enough to use them (unlike the people in the place they decided to actually invade).

I think it would suck if there was a war, too many people would die. I wish that someone would (perhaps on May Day next year, 'cause they would all be together hopefully), drop a large bomb on Mr Kim and Co.

[Q]

North-Korea would be quite simply crushed. The regime would fall.

What would happen however afterwards is another matter. China, a society riddled with class struggle, could have another headache in the east. A unification with South-Korea would bankrupt them. The US army is overstretched as it is. Japan might have some reserves to share, but even they would find a prolonged occupation impossible given the resistance this would inevitably cause (Korea was occupied for decades before WW2, I'm sure the Koreans still remember those years).

[Invariance]

Re-read the article:
South Korea yesterday agreed to join the Proliferation Security Initiative, or PSI, set up to locate and seize shipments of equipment and materials used to make weapons of mass destruction.

“What they are saying is that they will take military action if there is any action taken on behalf of the program such as boarding their ships, stopping and searching and so on,” said Han Sung Joo (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Han+Sung+Joo&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), a former South Korean foreign minister.
In other words, if South Korea first uses force to board ships then North Korea will take military action to defend those ships. Now, do you think that is threatening force or simply North Korea asserting that it will defend its interests if it is compelled to? If South Korea did attempt to inspect North Korean ships then:
“The Korean People’s Army will not be bound to the Armistice Agreement any longer,” the official Korean Central News Agency said in a statement today. Any attempt to inspect North Korean vessels will be countered with “prompt and strong military strikes.”
And speaking of threatening:

South Korea dispatched a warship to its maritime border and is prepared to deploy aircraft, Yonhap News reported, citing military officials it didn’t identify.

If something does happen however it will be quite interesting. So you think that a possible nuclear war which would, at the very least, kill tens of millions, would be 'interesting?' Nothing would be gained for either side, certainly nothing for the working class. This 'news' article tells nothing new; that North Korea will defend its interests if put in that position. From the way the media have spun it, North Korea is issuing sporadic threats. On the contrary, I would say South Korea joining the US-lead PSI did nothing to help the situation.

I would also say that the former defence minister and leader of Japan's Liberal Democratic Party security committee, stating that Japan should switch to an active military position 'where launch targets on enemy ground can be directly attacked' constitutes a threat, a threat supported by the current Japanese defence minister as well as various US politicians. The difference is we don't have headlines saying 'Japan threatens to attack North Korea.' Some articles have cited an 'academic' from Harvard who thinks that North Korea could sell nuclear bombs to Osama bin Laden. That is the sort of hysteria and lack of analysis about this. North Korea is pretty clear about its position: "Our army and people are fully ready for battle against any reckless US attempt for a pre-emptive attack."

[Invariance]

I think it would suck if there was a war, too many people would die. I wish that someone would (perhaps on May Day next year, 'cause they would all be together hopefully), drop a large bomb on Mr Kim and Co. Because obviously killing a head of state is going to calm the situation down, right? :rolleyes:

[Yazman]

So you think that a possible nuclear war which would, at the very least, kill tens of millions, would be 'interesting?'

Quit the overly moralistic bullshit. It is clear that the politics of the situation leading up to such a conflict would be interesting as nothing seems to be leading to a conflict right now. The others figured this out, why was it so hard for you?

Should I make sure to write a painstakingly clear legalistic document complete with references and an appendix listing the specific definitions I intend for each word coupled with the context of the usage for you next time?

[REDSOX]

The north korean deformed workers and peasents state is feeling very threatened at the moment and to be honest since the collapse of stalinism in eastern europe and the soviet union and the gradual restoration of capitalism in china it has felt even more paranoid and threatened. The north korean government is fully entitled to take whatever measures it needs to defend its nation against imperialism which obviously wishes to reconquer North korea. Whatever our personal feelings against Kim jong il and the bureacratic caste in power there lets not lose sight of the issue here. The imperialists led by the United states of america want to crush the north korean regime and restore neo liberal capitalism to North korea and that is NOT in the interests of its people and of the working classes generally. In the event of an imperialist provacation against the regime it is a socialist and communist duty to defend North korea whilst opposing the bureacratic caste that runs it.

Hands off North korea
Down with imperialism
For a genuine workers and peasents state

[apathy maybe]

Because obviously killing a head of state is going to calm the situation down, right? :rolleyes:

Killing off the head of state, as well as large chunks of the top military brass, and other leaders of the government, would calm things down.

Cut the head off a dragon, and it can no longer breath fire (or, for that matter, take much action at all).

Cut the head of the state, and at a minimum it runs around in confusion for a little while.

If all the people with authority to authorise the use of nuclear weapons are crazy, killing them all off will reduce the likely possibility of those weapons being used.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Killing off the head of state, as well as large chunks of the top military brass, and other leaders of the government, would calm things down.

Cut the head off a dragon, and it can no longer breath fire (or, for that matter, take much action at all).

Cut the head of the state, and at a minimum it runs around in confusion for a little while.

If all the people with authority to authorise the use of nuclear weapons are crazy, killing them all off will reduce the likely possibility of those weapons being used.

So your telling me you think the replacements put in charge will not feel under pressure to retaliate somehow, most likely thorugh launching these missiles.

[Invariance]

Killing off the head of state, as well as large chunks of the top military brass, and other leaders of the government, would calm things down. Only if you live in a delusional fantasy-world. That ‘someone’ who would kill the leaders of North Korea would more than likely be the US or one of its proxies. Assuming power would be passed down in the same manner it has previously, one of Kim’s sons would 'gain power', although it’s plausible other high-ranking generals or party officials would. Now, how do you think a son would react if his father was killed? How do you think North Koreans would act if their leader was killed by the US? What do you think would be the response if missiles were launched at North Korea? What do you think would be the response of the North Korean state if it believed that the attack was conducted by one of its citizens? Please think through things more carefully before you post again.


Cut the head off a dragon, and it can no longer breath fire (or, for that matter, take much action at all). Just as I thought, you live in fairy-tale land.


Cut the head of the state, and at a minimum it runs around in confusion for a little while. More than that, it runs around screaming in pain and colliding with as many objects as it can. What you’re talking about could very well spark a conflict between North Korea and South Korea. Your solution of just ‘killing everyone’ shows how politically immature you are. But for a revolutionary situation states can’t be ‘cut off.’ Your ‘solution’, far from being ‘anti-state’ would give rise to further support of the state in the face of further possible military attacks, and a panicked population would thoroughly support that.


If all the people with authority to authorise the use of nuclear weapons are crazy, killing them all off will reduce the likely possibility of those weapons being used. This is where you’re wrong, and it shows how xenophobic and misinformed you are. You see this as a problem of those ‘crazy North Koreans.’ If only those ‘crazies’ were removed we wouldn’t be in this situation, right?! It has nothing to do with the personalities of the parties, everything to do with capitalism which pits nations against nations, totally unsympathetic to the working class, totally unsympathetic to reason.

[Josef Balin]

Only if you live in a delusional fantasy-world. That ‘someone’ who would kill the leaders of North Korea would more than likely be the US or one of its proxies. Assuming power would be passed down in the same manner it has previously, one of Kim’s sons would 'gain power'.
Thank you for making a completely baseless assumption, you've made a valiant effort to keep misinformation abound.

[apathy maybe]

This is where you’re wrong, and it shows how xenophobic and misinformed you are. You see this as a problem of those ‘crazy North Koreans.’ If only those ‘crazies’ were removed we wouldn’t be in this situation, right?! It has nothing to do with the personalities of the parties, everything to do with capitalism which pits nations against nations, totally unsympathetic to the working class, totally unsympathetic to reason.
I really can't be bothered to respond to the rest of your post. You disagree with me, and I don't want to hassle with trying to convince you that you should agree with me.

However, I do want to respond to the crap in the above quote.

I may well be "misinformed", after all, I get the majority of my news on all subjects from "main stream" media. "Xenophobic" though?

Xenophobia is a dislike and/or fear of that which is unknown or different from oneself. It comes from the Greek words ξένος (xenos), meaning "stranger," "foreigner," and φόβος (phobos), meaning "fear." The term is typically used to describe a fear or dislike of foreigners or of people significantly different from oneself.

Now, that's crazy.

I don't see it as a problem with the Korean people, but the North Korean leadership. Big difference.

Of course I see capitalism as a problem, and certainly that's a major issue when it comes to other countries reactions to North Korea. However, North Korea is not capitalist (in case you hadn't noticed...).


-----

And, let's think about Iraq for a minute. What would have happened to the USA if they had have managed to assassinate Saddam Hussein? What about Cuba, the CIA tried many times to kill of Fidel Castro, what action could Cuba have taken if they had have succeeded?

Why wouldn't such a policy work in North Korea?

----

Another thought:
Does anyone have any statistics on whether the people of North Korea actually supports the government or not? And what their reaction would be in the face of the top level of government being killed off?

'Cause I would have thought they wouldn't be panicking, so much as going "yay!"...

[Pogue]

I am sure this nuclear weapon brings them one step closer to GLORIOUS COMMUNISM.

[Robespierre2.0]

Communists should be unanimous in support for the Korean People's Republic and their program to build a nuclear deterrent.
I do think that the Worker's Party is engaging in some risky nuclear brinkmanship, which has me worried, but I trust that they know what they're doing- If the U.S. imperialists dare to interfere, the response will be a crushing humiliation for them. We've already seen that a superpower can bleed, as evidenced by their blunders in the Middle East. All their high-tech toys will be no match for the sheer determination and manpower of the Korean People's Army.

[Invariance]

Thank you for making a completely baseless assumption, you've made a valiant effort to keep misinformation abound. Except it isn't completely baseless; considering that Kim Jong-il followed Kim Il-sung, and that Kim Jong-un occupies a place in the NDC, just like his father, its perfectly plausible that Kim Jong-un will, one day, be chairman of the NDC or General Secretary of the WPK. Again, it depends on whom the WPK congress votes for, but various military officials, ranking members of the WPK and family members of Kim Jong-il support Kim Jong-un. So no, its far from a baseless assumption that Kim Jong-un may possibly follow his father (and there are, of course, a host of other possible candidates). But that's not the topic of this thread, and was only peripherally related to the purpose of my post.

[Pogue]

Communists should be unanimous in support for the Korean People's Republic and their program to build a nuclear deterrent.
I do think that the Worker's Party is engaging in some risky nuclear brinkmanship, which has me worried, but I trust that they know what they're doing- If the U.S. imperialists dare to interfere, the response will be a crushing humiliation for them. We've already seen that a superpower can bleed, as evidenced by their blunders in the Middle East. All their high-tech toys will be no match for the sheer determination and manpower of the Korean People's Army.

The squabblings and pathetic posturing of bourgeois states offers nothing to the working class. This country is spending money on nuclear weapons when its in such a dire state? Why don't they spend the billions looking after their people? I'm not going to support the ruling elites little games when it comes at the expense of a population which has sporadic electricity access. If you think communists should support this then I suggest you re-assess what you mean by 'communist'.

[Bilan]

Communists should be unanimous in support for the Korean People's Republic and their program to build a nuclear deterrent.

Why?



I do think that the Worker's Party is engaging in some risky nuclear brinkmanship, which has me worried, but I trust that they know what they're doing

Why? What basis do you have for this trust?



- If the U.S. imperialists dare to interfere, the response will be a crushing humiliation for them.

Are you serious? The North Korean Army would be hammered into the ground. This type of response is suicide.



We've already seen that a superpower can bleed, as evidenced by their blunders in the Middle East. All their high-tech toys will be no match for the sheer determination and manpower of the Korean People's Army.

This is negating, of course, the type of response that will follow if North Korea tries any funny business. The Imperialist armies are not unstoppable (a better example would probably be Vietnam, but the example of the Middle East is good as well) but they're incredibly violent, and recognize North Korea as a serious danger due to its accumulation of Nuclear Weapons. Most people, I think, regard Kim as absolutely insane, and I presume the offensive against them would be very swift and very, very bloody.
This is, however, pure speculation.

[Orange Juche]

Communists should be unanimous in support for the Korean People's Republic and their program to build a nuclear deterrent.

Word?

I can't see why communists should support North Korea. Theres nothing "revolutionary" about them in terms of Marxism, its a tyrannical dynastic aristocracy, bordering on having a pseudo-state religion.

And just because their opposition is the imperialist west, it does not justify their government or its activities. That government is far from being a workers democracy in any meaningful sense, and is nothing but a cult-of-personality driven hellhole. Theres no way in shit that I would ever offer support to N.K., in any way, shape, or form.

[LeninBalls]

Word?

I Theres nothing "revolutionary" about them in terms of Marxism, its a tyrannical dynastic aristocracy, bordering on having a pseudo-state religion.

And just because their opposition is the imperialist west, it does not justify their government or its activities. That government is far from being a workers democracy in any meaningful sense, and is nothing but a cult-of-personality driven hellhole.

Prove it?

[Q]

Prove it?
Why is the sky blue (http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html)?

[RHIZOMES]

The squabblings and pathetic posturing of bourgeois states offers nothing to the working class. This country is spending money on nuclear weapons when its in such a dire state? Why don't they spend the billions looking after their people? I'm not going to support the ruling elites little games when it comes at the expense of a population which has sporadic electricity access. If you think communists should support this then I suggest you re-assess what you mean by 'communist'.

Because they're under constant military threat from the US and South Korea, you dunce.

[#FF0000]

Because they're under constant military threat from the US and South Korea, you dunce.

So they build nuclear weapons, the use of which will assuredly lead to North Korea being reduced to a smoldering crater and the deaths of many millions of workers. Let's be honest now. A full-on nuclear missile is meant to bomb whole, civilian, cities, not military targets.

[mykittyhasaboner]

So they build nuclear weapons, the use of which will assuredly lead to North Korea being reduced to a smoldering crater and the deaths of many millions of workers. Let's be honest now. A full-on nuclear missile is meant to bomb whole, civilian, cities, not military targets.

How do you know what it's meant to be used on?

An invading military force is probably a good target as well.

[Q]

How do you know what it's meant to be used on?

An invading military force is probably a good target as well.
Yeah, that explains the ICBM's too. Besides, nuking an invading army - assuming it is invading in one front - is perhaps one of the more stupidest strategies ever, as the nuclear fallout will in all probability hit you just as bad.

[Pogue]

How do you know what it's meant to be used on?

An invading military force is probably a good target as well.

I love how Marx-Leninists, in their mindless display of nationalistic chauvinism, will apologise for anything a nation does as logn as its 'red'. I favour the lives of the international proletariat more than the 'territorial sovereignty' of just another bourgeois state.

[Pogue]

Because they're under constant military threat from the US and South Korea, you dunce.

Sorry, I thought revolutionaries supported the interests of the working class, not the interests of whatever ruler they happened to decide was sufficiently non-imperialist enough to slave over. My mistake.

Oh wait no, you long ago valued the interests of the working class, instead substituting 'state x' in its place. My mistake.

[gorillafuck]

How do you know what it's meant to be used on?

An invading military force is probably a good target as well.
When a military force invades your country it's kind of a bad idea to drop a nuclear bomb on them. Because, ya know, you'd be dropping it on your own country.

Just sayin'.

[Pogue]

Because they're under constant military threat from the US and South Korea, you dunce.

I refer you too also:


When a military force invades your country it's kind of a bad idea to drop a nuclear bomb on them. Because, ya know, you'd be dropping it on your own country.

Just sayin'.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Yeah, that explains the ICBM's too. Besides, nuking an invading army - assuming it is invading in one front - is perhaps one of the more stupidest strategies ever, as the nuclear fallout will in all probability hit you just as bad.

Well to fair your right, but I was simply implying that there is no way to be sure whether or not said weapons are meant to be used on military or civilian targets.




I love how Marx-Leninists, in their mindless display of nationalistic chauvinism, will apologise for anything a nation does as logn as its 'red'. I favour the lives of the international proletariat more than the 'territorial sovereignty' of just another bourgeois state.

I love how ignorant pieces of shit like you, take things I say and completely misrepresent my position.

[Pogue]

Well to fair your right, but I was simply implying that there is no way to be sure whether or not said weapons are meant to be used on military or civilian targets.





I love how ignorant pieces of shit like you, take things I say and completely misrepresent my position.

Looks like I got under your skin there, nevermind, go listen to the anthem of the USSR a bit more and calm down. Remember, military discipline, like the glorious Soviet soldier comrade!

[Yazman]

How do you know what it's meant to be used on?

An invading military force is probably a good target as well.

LMFAO This is one of the funniest fucking things I've ever read on revleft, ever. an invading military force? What do you think this is, ancient greece?
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Red Saxon]

Because they're under constant military threat from the US and South Korea, you dunce.But if North Korea would actually reduce it's Military, wouldn't it embarrass South Korea and the United States to attack it?

I believe if this is ever to be the case, the nations of the world would stand up for North Korea.

[Q]

LMFAO This is one of the funniest fucking things I've ever read on revleft, ever. an invading military force? What do you think this is, ancient greece?
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qR0Uke2XNI

[mykittyhasaboner]

LMFAO This is one of the funniest fucking things I've ever read on revleft, ever. an invading military force? What do you think this is, ancient greece?
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
I'm glad you find what I said humorous, yes it's ancient Greece and were talking about nukes. It all makes sense to me.

[Yazman]

I'm glad you find what I said humorous, yes it's ancient Greece and were talking about nukes. It all makes sense to me.

Do you have any idea what an "invading force" looks like or how it takes place in the modern age? its not just hundreds of thousands of dudes running across the border.

What next, we're going to nuke the B-2 bombers out of the sky so they can't drop clusterbombs on us? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Stranger Than Paradise]

How do you know what it's meant to be used on?

An invading military force is probably a good target as well.

They do not build these Nuclear weapons to defend against invading military forces. They do so with the intention of bombing targets which will kill thousands of workers in the process. This action cannot be defended.

[Q]

North-Korea's plan is to create some elite nuclear invading forces, here's a mashup:
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptationsvideogame/red/deso.jpg

[Pogue]

I'm glad you find what I said humorous, yes it's ancient Greece and were talking about nukes. It all makes sense to me.

I hope you never rise to a high position in the Stalinist administration, you'll be issuing the secret police with nukes to catch dissenters!

[RedHal]

But if North Korea would actually reduce it's Military, wouldn't it embarrass South Korea and the United States to attack it?

I believe if this is ever to be the case, the nations of the world would stand up for North Korea.

:laugh:Seriously this is the real world, do you think the imperialist leaders of the world are honorable men/women? The US imperialists and its lackeys are bullies, bullies only pick on weaker nations. I'm not just talking about just war, but colonialism, trade and outright theft.

[Wanted Man]

Do you have any idea what an "invading force" looks like or how it takes place in the modern age? its not just hundreds of thousands of dudes running across the border.

What next, we're going to nuke the B-2 bombers out of the sky so they can't drop clusterbombs on us? :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Easy there, military genius. Anyone can have their opinion, but may I ask what your problem is? In just about every thread, it only takes 5 minutes for you to come in, screaming like a maniac at anyone who disagrees with you. Not just about North Korea, any subject seems to do the trick. What's wrong? Stop trying so hard.

The guy obviously phrased it wrongly. It's true that "invading force" means something totally different nowadays (only for the last 50 years or so, the "ancient Greeks" is absurd). And yet, militaries do feel the need to have tactical nukes, to be used on either side of the border. I'm not sure what NK's intentions are in that respect, but consider it for a moment.

Or, in language that may be more familiar: OMG, you said that nukes can only be used to mass murder innocent workers. LOL! Do you have any fucking idea about war??? What's next? China invading North Korea on giant dragons??? :laugh::laugh::laugh: :rolleyes:

Seriously though, I know that the prospect of a bloody war may be exciting to some people. Take a chill pill. It's kind of sad that, when discussing potential millions of dead, some people are only worried about getting one over on that asshole on RevLeft.

[Red Saxon]

:laugh:Seriously this is the real world, do you think the imperialist leaders of the world are honorable men/women? The US imperialists and its lackeys are bullies, bullies only pick on weaker nations. I'm not just talking about just war, but colonialism, trade and outright theft.That is true, but it would surely bring enough international backlash to curtail this?

Sorry if I forget that not everyone has a sense of honour any longer.

[Wanted Man]

I don't think "international outcry" would matter much. If I recall correctly, France, Germany and Belgium all complained about the invasion of Iraq. It still went on, and now those countries are just more aligned with the US.

[Yazman]

It's kind of sad that, when discussing potential millions of dead, some people are only worried about getting one over on that asshole on RevLeft.

lol, the hypocrisy of this statement is astounding, especially given I wasn't even the first person to point out the silliness of what he said, and that my responses were far outnumbered by others.

Get over it and quit whining, if you can't take the heat get out of the bloody kitchen.

[Red Saxon]

I don't think "international outcry" would matter much. If I recall correctly, France, Germany and Belgium all complained about the invasion of Iraq. It still went on, and now those countries are just more aligned with the US.That is true, but it's different if you were to attack a country who had absolutely not threatened you whatsoever. ( Which is what I'm suggesting North Korea do )

[Wanted Man]

lol, the hypocrisy of this statement is astounding, especially given I wasn't even the first person to point out the silliness of what he said, and that my responses were far outnumbered by others.

Get over it and quit whining, if you can't take the heat get out of the bloody kitchen.
Again, take it easy. It's just a pattern I noticed, how most of your posts lately have just been about completely ripping the shit about people for daring to voice some kind of disagreement. There are others, but that doesn't make it "hypocritical" to point out, because I'm not one of those others.


That is true, but it's different if you were to attack a country who had absolutely not threatened you whatsoever. ( Which is what I'm suggesting North Korea do )
And who did Iraq threaten? :confused:

[Stranger Than Paradise]

That is true, but it's different if you were to attack a country who had absolutely not threatened you whatsoever. ( Which is what I'm suggesting North Korea do )

Sorry your suggesting a bourgeois nation attacks another bourgeois nation with nuclear weapons?

[Red Saxon]

Sorry your suggesting a bourgeois nation attacks another bourgeois nation with nuclear weapons?Wouldn't that make our job easier? :laugh:
But seriously, my suggestion only applies if North Korea were to lay down its arms ( which it's not ) and to regress back into true Communism ( which it probably won't )

And who did Iraq threaten? :confused:Kuwait ring a bell? I believe that the Iraq war is nothing more than an extension of Jeorge Dubyah finishing up his daddy' war.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Wouldn't that make our job easier? :laugh:

Are you for real? How would killing thousands of civilians in a time of low class consciousness help to further our goal.

[Pogue]

Wouldn't that make our job easier? :laugh:
But seriously, my suggestion only applies if North Korea were to lay down its arms ( which it's not ) and to regress back into true Communism ( which it probably won't )
Kuwait?

Regress back into true communism? Are you syaing the DPRK used to be communist but moved on from it?

Shit guys I might have to become a post-Communist.

[Wanted Man]

Kuwait ring a bell? I believe that the Iraq war is nothing more than an extension of Jeorge Dubyah finishing up his daddy' war.
2003 mate. Not "daddy's war". Of all the motivations for this current Iraq war, I haven't heard that one yet. The point is that "international outcry" would be useless in the face of actual imperialist aggression. Which is what's going on, and which starts wars in the first place (not "daddy").

[Red Saxon]

Regress back into true communism? Are you syaing the DPRK used to be communist but moved on from it?

Shit guys I might have to become a post-Communist.There's little argument that the North Korean government is focusing that much of it's attention of the welfare of it's people.


Are you for real? How would killing thousands of civilians in a time of low class consciousness help to further our goal.It was a joke...no harm intended :)


2003 mate. Not "daddy's war". Of all the motivations for this current Iraq war, I haven't heard that one yet. The point is that "international outcry" would be useless in the face of actual imperialist aggression. Which is what's going on, and which starts wars in the first place (not "daddy").What other motivation did George Bush have to attack Iraq then? 9/11 happened and then he shot a dart at the world map?
I'll have to think about my opinion more.

[x359594]

Any attack on the DPRK would bring swift retaliation down on Seoul, which could be reduced to rubble in a matter of minutes, and that includes the US 8th Army headquarted at Itaewon. In addition, US bases in Japan are vulnerable, including Yokosuka Naval Base and Ibraki Air Force Base.

Kim Jong-Il is not a "madman", contrary to his portrayal as such in the Western capitalist media. The ROK knows as much and so does Japan. For example, in his one-on-one dealings with Koizumi Junichiro who's known to be a slick politician, he cleaned his clock as we say in the US. The DPRK wrung important concessions out of Japan without giving up anything at all thanks to Kim.

There is no doubt that the DPRK is vulnerable, but it's prepared for war in a way that the ROK and Japan aren't. It could hold out long enough to do incredible damage to both countries. Any all out conflict would leave the Korean peninsula a smoking ruin and take a big piece out of Japan and the US Far Eastern Armed Forces in the bargain. The balance of power would inevitably shift in the PRC's favor in the aftermath. And this is without the use of atomic weapons.

A war would be a disaster for everyone involved. Even the Bush-Cheney fascists understood that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Do you have any idea what an "invading force" looks like or how it takes place in the modern age? its not just hundreds of thousands of dudes running across the border.

What next, we're going to nuke the B-2 bombers out of the sky so they can't drop clusterbombs on us? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

ITT Yazman displays his ignorance of nuclear warfare.

Nuking enemy aircraft is a perfectly valid tactic. Both the Soviets (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MnogoNukesSurfaceToAirMissiles) and the Americans (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuperiorFirepowerSurfaceToAirMissiles) developed surface-to-air systems to eliminate targets using nuclear warheads. The Americans also developed a nuclear-tipped air-to-air missile, the AIR-2 Genie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie), which could be mounted by interceptor aircraft.

At the heights at which most contemporary military aircraft operate, fallout is of minimal concern thanks to the inverse-square law and the fact that there's much less dust and stuff to contaminate compared to the ground. Airbursts in general are "cleaner" in terms of fallout than groundbursts, although obviously that depends how close the device is to the ground when it initiates. They also have the military advantage of being more destructive.

[R_P_A_S]

Hey guys I honestly think that Kim Jong Il feels he has his days numbered and would like to go out with a bang. Think about it. He seems delusional! This is bad for all those people in the DPRK. The Party & Military elite are so high on them selves that they will risk the lives of their people just to rub shoulders with the U.S. and the other Korea.

If the regime does fall to an American and South Korean coalition I trust that the people of the DPRK will not let their past of imperial rule wether its by Japan, The U.S. or South Korea free market slavery come back to rule them.

The people of the DPRK are not fools. Their government might be morons, true. But no Imperial power is gonna walk through and set up shop under those people's noses. no sir-e!;)

[Led Zeppelin]

I doubt there's going to be an all-out war. There's a partial MAD in place so that acts as a pretty good deterrent for both sides, as it has for the past decades.

The DPRK has thousands of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul and other major cities, and Seoul has the backing of the US, who would annihilate the entire military structure of the DPRK if necessary.

So both sides would gain nothing, but lose everything.

[ComradeR]

Regardless of what you think of NK it has the right to defend itself from invasion, and the best way to do that is to deter any aggression which is why NK is building nukes.

Killing off the head of state, as well as large chunks of the top military brass, and other leaders of the government, would calm things down.
This is absolutely ludicrous, when has the sudden collapse of a state ever been calm? Especially in a country like NK?

Cut the head off a dragon, and it can no longer breath fire (or, for that matter, take much action at all).

Cut the head of the state, and at a minimum it runs around in confusion for a little while.
Or it would retaliate against whoever it believed attacked it with bloody results.

If all the people with authority to authorise the use of nuclear weapons are crazy, killing them all off will reduce the likely possibility of those weapons being used.
I'm really getting sick of the continued portrayal of NK as hell on earth run by a bunch of crazies with itchy trigger fingers. Whats so special about the North-Koreans that makes them crazy and not to be trusted as opposed to the French, British, Russians, Chinese or Americans etc.?

Nuking enemy aircraft is a perfectly valid tactic. Both the Soviets and the Americans developed surface-to-air systems to eliminate targets using nuclear warheads. The Americans also developed a nuclear-tipped air-to-air missile, the AIR-2 Genie, which could be mounted by interceptor aircraft.
Another example is the use of nukes against navel targets to cripple a fleet.

I doubt there's going to be an all-out war. There's a partial MAD in place so that acts as a pretty good deterrent for both sides, as it has for the past decades.
Which is why it's easy to see that NK is only interested in it's own defense and survival, not aggression against it's neighbors.

[Led Zeppelin]

Which is why it's easy to see that NK is only interested in it's own defense and survival, not aggression against it's neighbors.

Of course, I have no doubt that the bureaucracy which rules over North-Korean society has only its own interests, i.e., its own defense and survival, at heart.

Real aggression doesn't really fit into that equation for the reasons I laid out in my previous post.

[JimmyJazz]

I love how Marx-Leninists, in their mindless display of nationalistic chauvinism, will apologise for anything a nation does as logn as its 'red'. I favour the lives of the international proletariat more than the 'territorial sovereignty' of just another bourgeois state.

Extreme workerism is so weird. Lives are worth more if those who died were "proletarians". :laugh:

Also, you don't know what bourgeois means.

[SecondLife]

Dont worry too mutch, anyone must die sometimes, noone lives forever. Is there difference, becomes death with nuke or with some other kind. Be strong and don't fear. :laugh:

[Hiero]

I am getting really sick of the stupidity when it comes to DPRK.

1) DPRK said it would defend it's ships if the imperialist attempt to take their ships by force.

2) Nukes that are/were built outside the USA, UK and Russia are created with the intention of avioding nuclear war. DPRK built nukes that were probally never really intend to use against anyone.

So there is a reality beyond the racist constructions of DPRK, a reality which you constantly fail to grasp. That is all it is, a construction.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Dont worry too mutch, anyone must die sometimes, noone lives forever. Is there difference, becomes death with nuke or with some other kind. Be strong and don't fear. :laugh:

So your telling me you advocate NK having nuclear weapons, even though they aren't even a communist country?

[PRC-UTE]

I am getting really sick of the stupidity when it comes to DPRK.

1) DPRK said it would defend it's ships if the imperialist attempt to take their ships by force.

2) Nukes that are/were built outside the USA, UK and Russia are created with the intention of avioding nuclear war. DPRK built nukes that were probally never really intend to use against anyone.

So there is a reality beyond the racist constructions of DPRK, a reality which you constantly fail to grasp. That is all it is, a construction.

You've hit on an important point here re deterrence. The Korean War is often considered the best example of a limited war to achieve political objectives. The DPRK seems to be seeking a deterrent by having weapons. If they really wanted some all-out/ total war type of scenario, they would probably be preparing an army that could invade and occupy the south instead of nuclear missiles.

[Yazman]

ITT Yazman displays his ignorance of nuclear warfare.

Nuking enemy aircraft is a perfectly valid tactic. Both the Soviets (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MnogoNukesSurfaceToAirMissiles) and the Americans (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuperiorFirepowerSurfaceToAirMissiles) developed surface-to-air systems to eliminate targets using nuclear warheads. The Americans also developed a nuclear-tipped air-to-air missile, the AIR-2 Genie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie), which could be mounted by interceptor aircraft.

At the heights at which most contemporary military aircraft operate, fallout is of minimal concern thanks to the inverse-square law and the fact that there's much less dust and stuff to contaminate compared to the ground. Airbursts in general are "cleaner" in terms of fallout than groundbursts, although obviously that depends how close the device is to the ground when it initiates. They also have the military advantage of being more destructive.

This is true, Noxion, and would be a complete refutation were we talking about the whole spectrum of nuclear weapons. But we weren't. It is clear that we are discussing nuclear bombs and not simply terrestrial-to-air missiles. The technology North Korea is developing is a nuclear explosive device utilised for destroying whole civilian targets (cities), and not an anti-air missile. This technology cannot feasibly be used on aircraft or "invading military forces."

[SecondLife]

So there is a reality beyond the racist constructions of DPRK, a reality which you constantly fail to grasp. That is all it is, a construction.

You think, example if Korea attacks USA, this is racism. It's not racism, beacuse enemy isn't nation, but instead capitalism. Aspects that you live also in USA don't make USA non-capitalist state.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

You think, example if Korea attacks USA, this is racism. It's not racism, beacuse enemy isn't nation, but instead capitalism. Aspects that you live also in USA don't make USA non-capitalist state.

So why do you want one Capitalist state to attack another one?

[Hiero]

I am very confused. I think alot has been lost in translation.

I don't think Korea is racist. What alot of people believe about North Korea is based on a racist construction that has developed out of the cold war and even earlier.

[himalayanspirit]

It really bothers me a lot to see how successful the mainstream media, especially in the west, has been in spreading propaganda against North Korea.

It worries me a lot to see many of the so-called leftists calling North Korea as a "crazy" imperialistic nation, and North Koreans as "crazy". The extent of propaganda is disturbing.

If the likes of US, Israel, Pakistan, India etc, can possess nukes, then they have no right to stop others from doing to the same. In fact, others would have a better reason to possess nukes; so that they can defend themselves against these bully nation and not be exploited by them.

I whole-heartedly support North Korea's display of nuclear power. At least now its bullying will reduce somewhat.


The main accusation that I read against North Korea, usually from those who are from the west, is that people are living in poverty and oppression there. How would you know? Just because Faux news and CNN have been feeding you all that bullshit for years? Has anyone of you ever been there? I am sure once in every three days the western MSM must be broadcasting some program regarding North Korea (all manipulated nonsense and propaganda), showing ads stereotyping the North Koreans, demonizing their governance etc. This is enough to make any common man believe that North Korea is an evil empire which is illegitimately occupying North Korea.

The people of North Korea are not poor, nor are they being oppressed. Thats a fact. They would have lived with more prosperity had these bullies like US not been interfering with their business. Because of the likes of US, North Korea has to face lots of trade restrictions, and even boycott from capitalistic nations; and this IS the reason why NK appears to be poor.

North Korea, in fact, is the last nation that is still continuing with its original socialist politics that the likes of Russia and China have abandoned for capitalism.

All NK requires for the US and its puppets to leave it in peace is to abandon its leftist policies, install one central bank which would be subservient to the IMF and world bank (and as a result under control of US empire), and thereby become just another nation that takes order from the US. If this happens, US will open its trade with NK, and "prosperity", as most of you define here, would naturally return to NK. But why doesn't NK do this? Because it doesn't want to become another puppet of the capitalistic empires like US. So, its fighting an authentic battle. Its one of the few nations that refuses to submit to the US empire, and like all other such nations, is being demonized in most of the western mainstream media.


I whole-heartedly support North Korea here. But whats worrying me more is that imperialists like China and Russia, which were once socialists, are now distancing themselves from Korea, leaving it alone in this world under constant bullying of the US empires.

Go North Korea! You have all support from true comrades!


F**k USA empire.

[Bilan]

I am very confused. I think alot has been lost in translation.

I don't think Korea is racist. What alot of people believe about North Korea is based on a racist construction that has developed out of the cold war and even earlier.

What? What has been said that's racist? How is not defending North Korea 'racist'?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is true, Noxion, and would be a complete refutation were we talking about the whole spectrum of nuclear weapons. But we weren't. It is clear that we are discussing nuclear bombs and not simply terrestrial-to-air missiles. The technology North Korea is developing is a nuclear explosive device utilised for destroying whole civilian targets (cities), and not an anti-air missile. This technology cannot feasibly be used on aircraft or "invading military forces."

How can the DPRK be expected to develop nuclear weapons without testing them?

Further, the estimated yield of the device recently initiated was to 400 to 600 tons of TNT, based on the reported Richter scale of the event. This is closer to yields used on tactical nuclear weapons such as the M-388 Davy Crockett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29) rather than strategic systems such as the Minuteman III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_III#Minuteman-III_.28LGM-30G.29), which are currently being backfitted with W87 warheads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W87) with a yield of 475 kilotons (upgraded from 300 kilotons).

Considering the fact that the Korean People's Army has an extensive arsenal of artillery weapons (and is suspected to have chemical weapons as well), it makes more sense for them to go for force multiplication of that arsenal than to develop ICBMs, especially in light of the reported failure of their most recent rocket launch. The KPA already has a fuckload of guns pointed at Seoul, so such a "Scorched Earth" military doctrine has precedent.

[Robespierre2.0]

So your telling me you advocate NK having nuclear weapons, even though they aren't even a communist country?

They're a socialist country. Communist countries don't exist. Well, the WPK adheres to revisionist Juche theory, but aside from that, the economy is run pretty much along socialist lines.

I don't know why anyone here wouldn't want them to have nuclear weapons. The DPRK seems to be doing very well for their citizens considering the international pressure they're under.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUvYVZvGUC0
(I know it breaks your fragile first-world chauvinist hearts to see that North Koreans are actually normal people just like us instead of poor savages suffering under the yoke of 'Asiatic Barbarism')
By calling the U.S. on it's bluff and proving that they are not to be trifled with, hopefully they will buy themselves some breathing room.

[The Deepest Red]

I love how Marx-Leninists, in their mindless display of nationalistic chauvinism, will apologise for anything a nation does as logn as its 'red'. I favour the lives of the international proletariat more than the 'territorial sovereignty' of just another bourgeois state.

Who needs geopolitics when you have ideological purity, right? :rolleyes:

There's a distinct difference between (critically) supporting the DPRK against imperialism and actively supporting the WPK bureaucracy and 'Juche'. No-one's claiming here (not even the Stalinists) that the DPRK is socialist or even on the road to socialism, but the workers have made certain democratic gains that are worth defending and are certainly much better than any imperialist designs for the region. More generally I would think it's obvious enough which class interests benefit from the DPRK 'prevailing' in this present spat.

This thread yet again shows the worthlessness of anarchists and their infantile, overtly subjective ideas. Instead of calling for the mass murder of the DPRK's government or whatever how about demanding the UN lift all sanctions on the state and encourage the workers and peasants of the entire Korean peninsula to strive for real socialism.

[Robespierre2.0]

http://www.korea-dpr.com/business.htm


The above suggests that
1) the working class are paid peanuts
2) they are not free to "leave their job". They don't even have the illusion of "choice" to find other jobs. How is this different from slavery? This is not wage slavery, but actual slavery.

So, how is North Korea not imperialistic? While I don't support western imperialist invasion of North Korea, I don't see why anyone should support the NK regime. The unfortunate fact with totalitarian thinkers is that they cannot differentiate between the ruled and the rulers. So if I don't support the anti-working class regime of NK, it does not mean that I think that the working class of NK is any different or "less worthy" than the rest of the working class of the world.

Thats the reason I don't support any imperialist wars or jingoist/chauvinist Third World/First World nationalism.

I certainly wouldn't base my opinion on the 'cost of labor' or 'wages' in North Korea, because unlike the U.S., they have a lot less to pay for. Medicine, housing, and education are all paid for by the state.

Oh, and the DPRK website says 'As opposed to other Asian countries, worker's will not abandon their positions for higher salaries once they are trained.' and you still manage to find some way to look at it negatively. Ever considered that perhaps the Koreans have other values besides personal benefit and callous individualism?

It's like you WANT to dislike the DPRK and look at everything in a way that reinforces your views, which coincidentally are pretty similar to those of liberal-leftists from the U.S.

Oh, and last time I checked, imperialism meant subjugating other nations for their resources. As far as I can tell, the DPRK has never invaded or occupied other countries. On the contrary, it is the southern half of their country that is under U.S. occupation.

[Led Zeppelin]

Oh, and the DPRK website says 'As opposed to other Asian countries, worker's will not abandon their positions for higher salaries once they are trained.' and you still manage to find some way to look at it negatively. Ever considered that perhaps the Koreans have other values besides personal benefit and callous individualism?


At first I was thinking socialist was being ridiculous for posting that quote, but now that you've defended it...

Yeah, workers who want higher pay have shitty values because all they care about is "their personal benefit and callous individualism". We should all want the state to determine whether we want to keep our low-paying jobs or not, because if we want to leave our jobs for better paid ones we're doing it because we have "bad values".

You're going through such great lengths to defend the DPRK that it's bordering on the reactionary. You're even accepting negative statements about the DPRK, which could very well be propaganda, and turning them into something positive.

[SecondLife]

There's a distinct difference between (critically) supporting the DPRK against imperialism and actively supporting the WPK bureaucracy and 'Juche'.


Exactly! You must choose right (I mean left) side in critical situation. Our enemy is capitalism and not Juche. If example devil itself fight with capitalism, then we must support also devil. After enemy is destroyed, then our problem is to make society without Juche.

[Robespierre2.0]

Yeah, workers who want higher pay have shitty values because all they care about is "their personal benefit and callous individualism". We should all want the state to determine whether we want to keep our low-paying jobs or not, because if we want to leave our jobs for better paid ones we're doing it because we have "bad values".

Gee, still viewing everything from the totalitarian paradigm, are we? I'm not saying that personal benefit or working your way up the ladder is an inherently bad thing, but two things:
1. Is it so hard to believe that those doing the grunt work have pride in their work? Not everyone wants to become a rocket scientist, you know.
2. Differences in wages and compensation from the state are not nearly as extreme as in the capitalist west.
For example, with rice rations, the system is set up so that those with the most intense work receive the most rice

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8846/rations.jpg



You're going through such great lengths to defend the DPRK that it's bordering on the reactionary. You're even accepting negative statements about the DPRK, which could very well be propaganda, and turning them into something positive.'OMG HOW DARE HE CHALLENGE MY ASSUMPTIONS?!'

If Anarchists and Trotskyites are calling me reactionary, I take it as a sign that I'm doing things right.

[Led Zeppelin]

1. Is it so hard to believe that those doing the grunt work have pride in their work? Not everyone wants to become a rocket scientist, you know.

Having pride in your work doesn't mean that you don't want a higher standard of living. If you can find the same job somewhere else that pays higher you are still performing the same work, the only difference being that you're getting paid more and can enjoy a higher standard of living.

But hey, I'm sure a lot of people living in poverty and squalid conditions really enjoy their living conditions and would reject higher pay if it was offered to them, because they reject "callous individualism" and have higher values than that.

You seem to be quite in touch with those poor people in the "third world", which probably explains why you refer to your opponents as "first world liberals" so often.


'OMG HOW DARE HE CHALLENGE MY ASSUMPTIONS?!'

If Anarchists and Trotskyites are calling me reactionary, I take it as a sign that I'm doing things right.

Firstly, you can challenge the "assumption" that people who are poor want to have a higher standard of living all you want, I and many other people who are working-class couldn't give less of a crap if you do.

Secondly, if you need to take your cues to know if what you're saying is right from your ideological opponents, then your convictions must be based on something really weak.

It wouldn't surprise me to find you in disagreement with the theory of gravity if some anarchist or Trotskyist supports it in a discussion you're having with them at the time.


Pray, why?

Because I didn't actually expect anyone from the pro-DPRK side to defend it....I guess I misjudged to which lows some of them are prepared to go, so I must apologize.

[Wanted Man]

The Korea DPR website is run by the KFA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Friendship_Association), a sort of international solidarity group that supports the DPRK to the point of over-identification. They are not necessarily socialist, in fact I believe one of their reps in Cyprus was once accused of being a fascist. As such, they also put up this stuff to draw foreign investment to the country. Besides "friendship tours", they also run trips for foreign investors...

The KFA thing is apparently the "official webpage of the DPRK", but I wonder if anyone takes it seriously. The "web portal" of the DPRK is http://www.naenara.kp/en/ and its news service is http://www.kcna.co.jp/

[Hiero]

What? What has been said that's racist? How is not defending North Korea 'racist'?

It's not just the fact of "not defending North Korea" but the ridiculous things people will believe in regards to North Korea.

Such as the belief that Kim Jong Il being crazy and planing to go out with a bang, this is based on the idea of the oriental despot.

Or the idioicy behind the idea that the DPRK are able to build nukes because they divert money from food.

Or just the way an anouncement about defending DPRK ships can be transformed into a "armed strike" and easily believed by "leftists" just shows how far orientalist thinking has embedded itself in the western world.

[JimmyJazz]

Honestly, I think the accusations of racism and "orientalism" are pretty absurd when there's a so much more obvious culprit, and that is the virtual mainstream media monopoly on our information. Leftists obviously need to learn how to see through the most blatant MSM garbage, but that doesn't mean it's easy, or that it doesn't take time to learn to do.

I'm quite sure that ethnocentrism plays a role in many people's views of North Korea (and of South Korea for that matter), but I would only accuse another leftist of it if all other plausible explanations were ruled out.

[Red Saxon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUvYVZvGUC0From my International travels, I can tell you now that they're living much better than most West African Capitalist Nations.

[ls]

More generally I would think it's obvious enough which class interests benefit from the DPRK 'prevailing' in this present spat.

It depends what 'prevailing' in this present spat means to you. If it means the satisfication of your sick desire to kill some 'imperialist soldiers' with whatever you think should be used against them then you're filled with shit - that benefits no-one despite your romantic fantasies of what 'anti-imperialism' really is.


This thread yet again shows the worthlessness of anarchists and their infantile, overtly subjective ideas. Instead of calling for the mass murder of the DPRK's government or whatever how about demanding the UN lift all sanctions on the state and encourage the workers and peasants of the entire Korean peninsula to strive for real socialism.

Calling on the UN to do things achieves so much eh. I note the way you call it DPRK instead of NK probably indicates you think some kind of socialism actually exists there.

[The Deepest Red]

It depends what 'prevailing' in this present spat means to you. If it means the satisfication of your sick desire to kill some 'imperialist soldiers' with whatever you think should be used against them then you're filled with shit - that benefits no-one despite your romantic fantasies of what 'anti-imperialism' really is.

Quite an emotional response there and an entirely unjustified one at that. By the DPRK prevailing I mean I hope they successfully call the US's bluff, so to speak, and the country is allowed to develop without imperialist intervention in the form of economic sanctions or the threat of invasion. Why, may I ask, did you put imperialist soldiers in inverted commas? I have no desire to see anyone killed but unfortunately there are certain situations in which one is forced to take life.


Calling on the UN to do things achieves so much eh. I note the way you call it DPRK instead of NK probably indicates you think some kind of socialism actually exists there.And by that comment I note you obviously didn't read what I actually said in the above post. I refer to it as the DPRK because that is it's official name. There is no such place as 'North Korea'.

[ls]

Quite an emotional response there and an entirely unjustified one at that.

The amount of people in your group that cheer on things like those Maoists killing Indian soldiers is astounding, it's not unjustified.


By the DPRK prevailing I mean I hope they successfully call the US's bluff, so to speak, and the country is allowed to develop without imperialist intervention in the form of economic sanctions or the threat of invasion.

No one hopes it gets invaded though.


Why, may I ask, did you put imperialist soldiers in inverted commas?

Because alot of people that decry imperialism as much as you do have quite horrific fetishes for murdering 'imperialist armies'.


I have no desire to see anyone killed but unfortunately there are certain situations in which one is forced to take life.

Yeah but what situations is the point.


And by that comment I note you obviously didn't read what I actually said in the above post. I refer to it as the DPRK because that is it's official name. There is no such place as 'North Korea'.

Yeah because there is only Korea and I suppose you think south korea would be better and should be under juche also, at least there are people on this thread that take a similar stance to yours but agree that south korea has better living conditions for people.

[Verix]

I don't see why the other countrys in the world don't just LEAVE THEM ALONE! its the US's fault for thinking there the police of the world and that only they can decide who can have nukes, its not like north korea was threating to blow up south korea, it was just testing a nuke and with good reason because they are afraid the US will invade like they did iraq and threatened to do to iran because all 3 are on the "axis of evil " bush made. N. Korea could not defeat the US with ground forces if it invaded then the US is way more powerful the only way to keep the US out is by building nukes in there mind, and like a 3 year old child the US is throwing a hissy fit because it could not get its way. in short- BLAME OBAMA AND BUSH.

[Hiero]

Honestly, I think the accusations of racism and "orientalism" are pretty absurd when there's a so much more obvious culprit, and that is the virtual mainstream media monopoly on our information. Leftists obviously need to learn how to see through the most blatant MSM garbage, but that doesn't mean it's easy, or that it doesn't take time to learn to do.

I'm quite sure that ethnocentrism plays a role in many people's views of North Korea (and of South Korea for that matter), but I would only accuse another leftist of it if all other plausible explanations were ruled out.

I can agree that the racist claim is going a bit too far. It's not like people are saying Koreans in general are inferior, to blame for their poverty and completly pyscho. Well not in that straight forward manner.

I guess the term orientalist is better. As people's comments allude to thoose ideas mentioned above. Ofcourse the media has alot to do with shapping people's minds. The racist idea that was put out their towards the end of the cold war where North Korea had it's first fammine. The media and every western government basically said "look what happens to these Koreans (orientals) when left to their own autonomy, compared to South Koreans who have intergrated into the capitalist global economy". Then due to this idea that isolation of the oriental brings out his worse behaviour of despotism, slavery, torture, plotting world destruction and also the insanity that is brought on by isolation.

This idea that had basis in the 90s or even earlier but I imagine it was mainly constructed after the collapse of the USSR, has influence the minds of todays generations. This leads them to make ridicilious claims, like if the DPRK is building a nuke it is because the crazy despot is dying and wants to take the world with him. It reads straight out sci-fi and fantasy stories that depict the ultimate evil.

[natacha]

The frustrating thing about North Korea is that it seems as if everyone there is so frightened and weak and brainwashed that there's not even a hint of a positive workers movement to get behind. A lot of you are pointing to shitty western media as the reason we think North Korea is authoritarian, I go to Amnesty International reports (i've met the woman who works on the North Korean report that comes out every two years) as I trust them.
I was surprised to read for example that the 90s famine was mainly brought about through environmental disasters and unfertile land, but they did blame the government in some way in that they could have lessened the damage by letting people leave their towns (you must live and work in the same town if you are to get your ration) and they stopped giving it to the elderly and disabled altogether! and they didn't let in aid.
But seriously go and check their reports they are as objective as you can be about human rights, which is hard, in a country like North Korea.

[The Deepest Red]

The amount of people in your group that cheer on things like those Maoists killing Indian soldiers is astounding, it's not unjustified.

Are you a pacifist?


No one hopes it gets invaded though.Okay.


Because alot of people that decry imperialism as much as you do have quite horrific fetishes for murdering 'imperialist armies'.I have no such fetish.


Yeah but what situations is the point.In defence or when peaceful agitation becomes impossible.


Yeah because there is only Korea and I suppose you think south korea would be better and should be under juche also, at least there are people on this thread that take a similar stance to yours but agree that south korea has better living conditions for people.So you are in favour of capitalism then?

[Holden Caulfield]

This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8073721.stm) is an good short little account of things, not really overtly political but I felt the need to share

[FreeFocus]

I think it's pathetic that some people in this thread are arguing against Kim Jong-Il being a fucking crazy fool. North Korea has one of the most disgusting cults of personality ever. I will never defend the North Korean government, but conditions in North Korea are not only its fault, but years and decades of imperialist harassment.

[x359594]

I think it's pathetic that some people in this thread are arguing against Kim Jong-Il being a fucking crazy fool. North Korea has one of the most disgusting cults of personality ever...

True, the personality cult is disgusting, but Kim is not crazy. He's a shrewd politician, as Koizumi learned when he had a one-on-one meeting with him. It's to Kim's advantage to be viewed as crazy and foolish by his enemies, a classic East Asian ploy from SunTzu's rule book. His Asian adversaries are on to him, but his Western opponents are still suckered, at least going by their media mouthpieces.



...I will never defend the North Korean government, but conditions in North Korea are not only its fault, but years and decades of imperialist harassment.

That is entirely accurate.

[FreeFocus]

True, the personality cult is disgusting, but Kim is not crazy. He's a shrewd politician, as Koizumi learned when he had a one-on-one meeting with him. It's to Kim's advantage to be viewed as crazy and foolish by his enemies, a classic East Asian ploy from SunTzu's rule book. His Asian adversaries are on to him, but his Western opponents are still suckered, at least going by their media mouthpieces.

That is entirely accurate.

I never said Kim was stupid though. In order to form a personality cult, one must no doubt be intelligent. But good points.

[Yazman]

More news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090602/wl_nm/us_korea_north;_ylt=AlFvPwgTpQvwvFuYKr2KDrv9xg8F;_ ylu=X3oDMTE1NWtlNWw3BHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bi1jaGFubmVsBH NsawNub3J0aGtvcmVhMzk-


Analysts believe that Kim Jong-il, whose power base stems from his support for the military, may be using the growing tension to give him greater leverage over power elites at home to nominate his own successor.

It has raised alarm in the region over how far iron ruler Kim, 67 and thought to have suffered a stroke last year, may be prepared to take his latest military grandstanding.
North Korea has asked the country's main bodies and its overseas missions to pledge loyalty to Kim's youngest son Kim Jong-un, various South Korean media outlets quoted informed sources as saying.

"I was notified by the South Korean government of such moves and the loyalty pledges," Park Jie-won, a member of the opposition Democratic Party, said in a statement.

He declined to name his source but Yonhap said Park was among a group of lawmakers briefed on Monday night by the country's spy agency about the succession plans.

Kim Jong-un, born either in 1983 or early 1984, was educated in Switzerland and intelligence sources have said he appears to be the most capable of Kim's three known sons.
Even by North Korea's opaque standards, very little is known about the son, whose youth is a potential problem in a society that adheres closely to the importance of seniority.

[ls]

Are you a pacifist?

By that I guess you mean that NK 'striking a blow against imperialism' would be 'awesome'.


I have no such fetish.

You sure about that?


In defence or when peaceful agitation becomes impossible.

The NK government is not a good judge of that and neither are the aggressive western governments, but to be fair you might want to read the article Holden posted, up a few posts.


So you are in favour of capitalism then?

Brilliant how you can twist my words to mean whatever you like. Yes, of course I am, for observing the situation as it is.

[Charles Xavier]

Its imperialism that is causing this conflict and provocations not north Korea. They have to make strong stands against Imperialism else they will be sweeped aside

[The Deepest Red]

By that I guess you mean that NK 'striking a blow against imperialism' would be 'awesome'.

Would you rather blows weren't struck against imperialism?


You sure about that?

Quite.


The NK government is not a good judge of that and neither are the aggressive western governments, but to be fair you might want to read the article Holden posted, up a few posts.

Will do.


Brilliant how you can twist my words to mean whatever you like. Yes, of course I am, for observing the situation as it is.

You suggested the South Korean system was preferable to the North Korean one. As one is capitalist and the other a deformed workers state I deduced that you favour capitalism (in this particular instance).

[ls]

Would you rather blows weren't struck against imperialism?

Not if they are counter-revolutionary.


You suggested the South Korean system was preferable to the North Korean one. As one is capitalist and the other a deformed workers state I deduced that you favour capitalism (in this particular instance).

Whatever that last bit means, what I mean on the other hand is that living conditions in south Korea are better. It does not mean that I favour the underlying system simply because conditions are better however - if I thought that then I would have favoured the system in the USSR over anarchism in Ukraine......