SKorean navy ship sinks in waters near NKorea

[Red Flag]

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — South Korea's military scrambled naval vessels to the western waters near the disputed maritime border with rival North Korea late Friday after an explosion ripped a hole in the bottom of a military ship, officials and news reports said.

The ship, on a routine patrolling mission with 104 crew members on board, began sinking off the coast of South Korean-controlled Baengnyeong Island close to North Korea around 9:45 p.m. (1245 GMT, 9:45 a.m. EDT), an official at the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with department policy.
South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported an explosion in the rear of the 1,200-ton ship and said the military had not ruled out the possibility of an attack by North Korea. However, the military official said the exact cause was not immediately clear and said he could not confirm the Yonhap report.

A rescue mission was under way and the military moved to strengthen its vigilance near the maritime border, the site of three bloody naval clashes in the past between the warring Koreas. The divided peninsula remains in a state of war because the three-year Korean conflict ended in a truce, not a peace treaty, in 1953.
Earlier Friday, North Korea's military threatened "unpredictable strikes," including a nuclear attack, in anger over a report that South Korea and the U.S. were preparing for possible instability in the totalitarian country.

After the ship began sinking, President Lee Myung-bak convened an emergency meeting of security-related ministers, Yonhap said, citing presidential spokeswoman Kim Eun-hye. She said it wasn't clear yet whether North Korea was involved in the ship's demise.

Six naval ships and two coast guard vessels were rushed to the waters to save the crew, Yonhap said. Rescue helicopters and ambulances also sped to the scene, the military official said. By 12:30 a.m. Saturday (1430 GMT, 10:30 a.m. EDT Friday), with the ship nearly submerged, 58 of the soldiers had been rescued, the official said. There were no immediate confirmation of any casualties.

Yonhap reported earlier that a South Korean ship fired shots toward an unidentified target in the direction of North Korea. The military official confirmed that shots were fired but said the object detected by radar may have been a flock of birds.

Baeknyeong Island, four hours' by boat from the port of Incheon, is the westernmost point of South Korea and is a key military post for South Korea because of its proximity to the North.


The military official confirmed that shots were fired but said the object detected by radar may have been a flock of birds.
lolwut?

[scarletghoul]

I found this interesting, from a bbc article on it
The police force was put on heightened alert in the capital, Seoul. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8589507.stm
Why do they need to do that ? Are there pro-DPRK elements in the capital that could attack if the conflict intensifies ? or what


The Korean war should not have eneded with a Truce it should have been a victroy (depewnding on your side, I am voting for the UN). Wait, what ? You are supporting the US/UN forces ? You realise that was the side of capitalist imperialism, right ? Whatever your criticisms of the DPRK, it was back then a fresh revolutionary state with a socialist economy, and it was also free from military occupation, unlike the US client state in the South. Most people in the South wanted to get rid of the Amerikans and so supported the northern forces, considering it not so much an invasion but a completion of national liberation. How can anyone call themselves a leftist and support the side of US imperialism is beyond me.

EDIT: just read your intro post, it all makes sense now XD

[Nolan]

Yeah, like in Vietnam, popular support was on the side of the north. The imperialists can pay lip service to "democracy" all they want.

[Guerrilla22]

Maybe the ROK shouldn't build such shotty ships and they wouldn't sink.

[RedStarOverChina]

My guess is that the ship was torpedoed by the DPRK, and the ROK government is simply refusing to acknowledge it.

[Nolan]

My guess is that the ship was torpedoed by the DPRK, and the ROK government is simply refusing to acknowledge it.

Because they were sticking their fingers in the cookie jar. ;)

[Antifa94]

For the love of God, just overthrow the North Korean government already.

[Wanted Man]

For the love of God, just overthrow the North Korean government already.

Yes sir, I'm on it!

[mykittyhasaboner]

For the love of God, just overthrow the North Korean government already.

"God" has nothing to do with this.

Perhaps you should say "For the love of imperialism" instead of God. Your hostile sentiment towards the DPRK resembles that of an ignorant liberal rather than an anti-imperialist stance.

[Sendo]

Maybe the ROK shouldn't build such shotty ships and they wouldn't sink.

SKorea has the best shipbuilding companies in the world, moron.

Today I saw some political pep rally being held by the major train station in Seoul. They had speakers getting fired up for the department of territorial waters and land. I was a bit thrown off by the red headbands and uniformed workers speaking on stage, and the general messages confused me as well.

They were pissed at the government. But I don't know what they wanted, my korean wasn't good enough and the papers don't have much to say yet. Maybe they were thinking the government was lying to them...but the banners said the government was not maintaining itself. I think it was anger for letting their ship be sunk by the North. I find that odd since so many people are anti-hawk here. In any case, it wouldn't surprise to see left-wing imagery co-opted once again in the world.

This is what the left-wing daily has to say:

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/412676.html (Hankyoreh means brother-offspring or one nation, by the way, they're very anti-us imperialism and dovish towards the North)

[Antifa94]

Military action against North Korea wouldn't be considered imperialist like it was in the 1950's. The country is hell on earth. Any action would be humanitarian in nature.... The people seem too weak to engage in a proletarian revolution of their own, but who knows, if capitalism is established there( and the subsequent freedom of press and speech, and the burgeoning market of literature) then masses will be capable of creating a socialist state. Capitalism is less malevolent than an elitist bureaucracy of the like that exists in the DPRK currently.

[mosfeld]

Military action against North Korea wouldn't be considered imperialist like it was in the 1950's. The country is hell on earth. Any action would be humanitarian in nature.... The people seem too weak to engage in a proletarian revolution of their own, but who knows, if capitalism is established there( and the subsequent freedom of press and speech, and the burgeoning market of literature) then masses will be capable of creating a socialist state. Capitalism is less malevolent than an elitist bureaucracy of the like that exists in the DPRK currently.

???

Are you serious? At least you've shown your true colors; You're a liberal, pro-imperialist reactionary. Disgusting reactionary and pro-capitalist sentiment like this should not be tolerated.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Wow, and here I was thinking you would actually advocate something a bit more sensible like the working people of the DPRK should take power from the "elitist bureaucracy". Like a sensible anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist or whatever name you want. That kind of position would at least carry some kind of validity, as it is based on advocating the power of working people.

But you are just openly advocating the imperialist attack and victory over the DPRK. Do you seriously think that the conditions and livelihood of north Koreans would be better as a result? If so then please stop trying to paint this reactionary crap red.


Military action against North Korea wouldn't be considered imperialist like it was in the 1950's.

Oh really? Do you have any knowledge of what your talking about..at all?



The country is hell on earth.Define "hell on earth". What is it with this biblical crap anyways. Were talking about politics and history. There is no room for idealism or any kind of superstition.



Any action would be humanitarian in nature.... Yeah just like the US military was so humanitarian towards Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake. Or how humanitarian the US military was towards Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or any other country that have been victim to military action from the US, NATO, or any other imperialist state.


The people seem too weak to engage in a proletarian revolution of their own,How so? Please shed some light on the whole situation. You are a wealth of knowledge when it comes to north Korea.


but who knows, if capitalism is established there( and the subsequent freedom of press and speech, and the burgeoning market of literature)You're joking right?


then masses will be capable of creating a socialist state.Brilliant logic. Imperialist take over = higher chance of strong enough revolution to create a socialist state--keeping in mind that the degenerate socialist state was already overthrown by the imperialists in the first place.


Capitalism is less malevolent than an elitist bureaucracy of the like that exists in the DPRK currently.Yeah I'm sure Syngman Rhee was a nice guy, or that south Korean workers don't face immense degrees of economic exploitation and oppression, or US imperialism is just kind enough to help everybody under the oppression of totalitarian tyranny right? :lol:

[Raightning]

Military action against North Korea wouldn't be considered imperialist like it was in the 1950's. The country is hell on earth. Any action would be humanitarian in nature.... The people seem too weak to engage in a proletarian revolution of their own, but who knows, if capitalism is established there( and the subsequent freedom of press and speech, and the burgeoning market of literature) then masses will be capable of creating a socialist state. Capitalism is less malevolent than an elitist bureaucracy of the like that exists in the DPRK currently.
The issue is this, though. Intervention could be humanitarian in nature; yet what it could be is in essence a trade of the possibility of long term prosperity for short term relative prosperity.

It's unlikely that under the current system the DPRK will be able to reform itself. Kim Jong-Il would be unlikely to tolerate; even if it comes that a successor of his is more utopian and committed to a real socialism, he could be restricted by the posturing of the capitalist world, and would struggle to implement reform and sustainability without selling out to capitalism (Cuba had to do the same during the Cold War, in their case to state capitalism). But this doesn't mean that the conditions for socialism can't develop without intervention and without a complete internationalisation of the state.

Yet, what intervention would mean is the creation of a thrall state (or a thrall state within a state more likely, but you get the idea) to global capitalism. Capital will flood the country, and will gain an economic stranglehold; it will not even be comparable to Russia and the Warsaw Pact, because the old state bureaucracy who could create a national capitalism (preferable to an international capitalism IMO - at least a national capitalism can be overthrown by national forces!) will be purged too thoroughly. The country will become a playground for the multi-nationals, and it will be difficult to recover from that situation, because it will mean governance by forces far more unfriendly to anti-capitalism, with far more resources, and a good deal of brutality to boot.

This isn't even considering the military aspect. The army are, consciously or unconsciously (and you should need no clues as to which one is more likely), agents of imperialism and of terror. An army intervention would have seriously unpleasant side effects for the North Korean population, particularly at the non-bureaucrat level. Not quite enough to dispel intervention on its own - ANY policy of change, and most of maintenance, will require such actions - but when considering how the main action of 'intervention' is proposed as humanitarian, well.

It wouldn't be considered imperialist by many Western leftists, but that is in no way the bloody point. It WOULD be imperialist - economically especially, and even politically it would serve to strengthen the area of American hegemony.

Intervention by the Western capitalist powers in North Korea, regardless of how odious the regime is, is the wrong proposal for the revolutionary left, because it will make the progress of socialism in the country that much more difficult.

N.B. I should note that I'm not that great an expert on the situation on the ground in North Korea, even in the terms it's framed in the West. It could be hellish as many claim, heavenly as very few claim, or somewhere in between. My inclination is that the situation is bad, given the inherent reactionary nature of the "military first" system and the blockade in any case imposed by global capital, but this isn't relevant in whether to intervene; whether you believe the situation is horrible, or whether North Korea is the closest thing to socialism around, intervention should still be stridently opposed.

[Antifa94]

Sorry, there is no possibility of a proletarian revolution in a nation so authoritarian as the DPRK.

Define "hell on earth". What is it with this biblical crap anyways. Were talking about politics and history. There is no room for idealism or any kind of superstition.
I'm spewing biblical crap, you imbecile. it's a phrase.

How so? Please shed some light on the whole situation. You are a wealth of knowledge when it comes to north Korea.

They haven't done ANYTHING. There are no revolts, no protests. The country is 1984 incarnate. Let's see, under an incessant barrage of propaganda, a prodigious military presence, why don't YOU try to protest against the government, or for that matter, engage in armed insurrection? Overthrowing the government doesn't mean American military presence in the country.

Definition of hell on earth- PEOPLE LIVING IN CONSTANT FEAR, STARVING TO DEATH, AND HAVING MEDIEVAL LIVING CONDITIONS.

Dismissing my points as reactionary or calling me a liberal are ad hominem attacks, they don't do shit to negate my points. I'm sure your hasty, half-baked negation of my argument by calling me a liberal really soothes your ego.

Not all military actions by the United States or other world powers are imperialist in nature. Your classification as such denotes a conspiracy-theory mentality, antithetical to a logical analysis of current events.
And, to classify, I meant establishment of a quasi-democratic( like the one existing in American and European nations now) capitalist nation.

How do you expect a revolution to occur without knowledge of global conditions, without theoretical analysis, and literature? It can't. Hence it hasn't happened.

[zimmerwald1915]

if capitalism is established there.
Capitalism is already established there. The fact that it is a particularly caricature-like and heavy-handed form of state capitalism makes very little difference.


Sorry, there is no possibility of a proletarian revolution in a nation so authoritarian as the DPRK.
The Tsarist Empire was about as reactionary as one got in 1917. The German Empire was a military dictatorship in 1918. Italy in 1926 was a fascist dictatorship. China in 1928 was a hodgepodge of various military dictatorships. And yet all of them managed to witness strong working-class struggles, some of which managed to pose the question of power. On the other hand, the USA today is a liberal democracy, and is witnessing no such struggle. The liberalization of the North Korean state is no guarantee that its proletariat will embrace fervent combat. Communists have learned through bitter experience that whatever form the bourgeois state takes, it is always the enemy of the proletariat. This is not 1879 where one could have illusions in liberal democracy, and Engels is long dead.


They haven't done ANYTHING. There are no revolts, no protests. The country is 1984 incarnate. Let's see, under an incessant barrage of propaganda, a prodigious military presence, why don't YOU try to protest against the government, or for that matter, engage in armed insurrection? Overthrowing the government doesn't mean American military presence in the country.
In the USA we have an "incessant barrage of propaganda" coming from the cable and network news, I can count at least ten overtly uniformed soldiers in Penn Station, quadruple that on holidays, and yet leftists in the USA manage to struggle on without demanding that China or the rest of NATO "liberate" American workers with missile strikes.


Dismissing my points as reactionary or calling me a liberal are ad hominem attacks
No they're not. Only calling you a liberal might be an ad hominem attack. Calling your points reactionary is a perfectly sound debating tactic, particularly once your points have been explored.


Not all military actions by the United States or other world powers are imperialist in nature. Your classification as such denotes a conspiracy-theory mentality, antithetical to a logical analysis of current events.
That's crap and you know it. Even the "aid" scheme to Haiti was dominated by imperialist squabbling between the USA and France. I'm pretty sure you're trolling here.


And, to classify, I meant establishment of a quasi-democratic( like the one existing in American and European nations now) capitalist nation.
This is a utopia. Even in capitalism's ascendent period, liberal democracy was generated out of the objective conditions in a given country, not imposed on it by force. See the example of France in 1871.

[Antifa94]

Something must be done. North Korea's army and Bureaucracy must be squelched, for the benefit of the people. Even if there was an American presence, there would be contact to the outside world, and the environment of fear would be assuaged to some degree.... There would then be a guerilla war against the occupiers, if such a scenario were to occur.

Mykitty, What do you believe should be done pertaining to the situation there? Leave it how it is? How can you bring about the end of a degenerate worker's state without the aid of an imperialist power these days? What would you do, considering there are no legitimate socialist states these days, and thereby no martial means to overthrow the Korean government on a communist basis? The Army doesn't revolt because they are treated well, as part of a neo-feudalist bureaucracy. The workers can't revolt due to fear and hunger. How else can this be solved?

[Antifa94]

Zimmerwald, I mean a free market, not state capitalism.
The introduction of capitalism and intellectual freedom would ultimately lead to a true communist revolution, or, it may lead to the introduction of another bureaucracy.
A hypothetical timeline. 1. government overthrown through "imperialist" military action. 2. People are given food. Speculative businesses thrive, global trade begins. 3. slowly, oppression reappears, albeit under a different mask. 4. Through global contacts and the spread of ideologies, literature, etc., the workers become informed of their ideological choices in which they can gain freedom from oppression. 5. the steps to revolution occur.

[Raightning]

Something must be done. North Korea's army and Bureaucracy must be squelched, for the benefit of the people. Even if there was an American presence, there would be contact to the outside world, and the environment of fear would be assuaged to some degree.... There would then be a guerilla war against the occupiers, if such a scenario were to occur.

The North Korean army and bureaucracy are less of a threat than global capital. The army and bureaucracy can turn or be overthrown by North Koreans alone; global capital is a far heavier weight that cannot be lifted by them alone.

As for the 'climate of fear', outside contact, etc, there are ways in which these could change without sending in the troops - and, in the end, they are political obstacles. US intervention would invite a massive economic obstacle, and that is often far harder to deal with.

It could, or could not, be more difficult for North Korea to produce a national revolution because of these political problems; yet, it is possible, and a far more likely occurrence than a renationalisation of the economic and political system after an American intervention. Global revolution is the goal of socialism in the long run, but that doesn't mean accepting any step just because 'oh, at utopia it'll all be fine anyway'.

With regards to the point you're making about the spreading of socialist ideals in these circumstances, the issue is that capitalism necessarily establishes a cultural hegemony. It would be difficult to do so anyway, particularly with an economic and - lest we forget American policy - military presence in the country.

[zimmerwald1915]

Zimmerwald, I mean a free market, not state capitalism.
There is no such a thing as a "free market" in the present period. All capitalism in the present period, in the USA, in Venezuela, in China, and in North Korea, is state capitalism. Not all state capitalisms are created equal, of course, but still.


The introduction of capitalism and intellectual freedom would ultimately lead to a true communist revolution, or, it may lead to the introduction of another bureaucracy.
Show me the communist revolution in the USA, where "intellectual freedom" by bourgeois standards has been around the longest. Go on, I dare ya.


A hypothetical timeline. 1. government overthrown through "imperialist" military action. 2. People are given food. Speculative businesses thrive, global trade begins. 3. slowly, oppression reappears, albeit under a different mask. 4. Through global contacts and the spread of ideologies, literature, etc., the workers become informed of their ideological choices in which they can gain freedom from oppression. 5. the steps to revolution occur.
So...in one post you talk about having concrete details and knowledge, and in this post you work in hypotheticals divorced from reality. You have made your idealist, nay, wishful-thinking method plain for all to see.

[Qayin]

Fuck Juche Regime. Down with Kim.

[Antifa94]

You are applying what I said to a different country. It is analysis for one specific country. There has been no revolution in America for a great many of reasons. But that is for another place, that discussion.

Yes, I state concrete knowledge. A hypothetical plan is not divorced from reality, I am showing the importance of ideological freedom and the presence of literature in creating a revolution.

[zimmerwald1915]

You are applying what I said to a different country. It is analysis for one specific country. There has been no revolution in America for a great many of reasons. But that is for another place, that discussions.
Any analysis of capitalism must analyze the whole, worldwide, system if it is to be of any use at all. The existence of liberal democracy in a country does not mean the working class of that country will be more able or willing to struggle than before, since the liberal democratic bourgeois state is still a bourgeois state, and will not hesitate to use force against the working class. Revolutionaries stopped fighting for liberal democracy in the 1920s. Let's not regress ninety years, shall we?


Yes, I state concrete knowledge. A hypothetical plan is not divorced from reality, I am showing the importance of ideological freedom and the presence of literature in creating a revolution.
You are engaging in wishful thinking, outlining your preferred course of events. But just because you say liberal democracy yields communist revolution--with some intermediary steps, of course--does not make it so.

[Antifa94]

I didn't state it as a fact, I stated that it seems much more likely that a proletarian revolution can occur under a liberal democracy. It's the lesser of two evils.
A communist revolution is much more likely in Europe than North Korea. Why? Bourgeois liberalism and its commitment to "freedom of speech". they try to restrict this, of course, by making books " intellectual property" and preventing the poor from reading them due to their prices, and their inundation of prolefeed literature, however, the very fact that these things are allowed to be published undermines the bourgeois establishment.

I like you, Zimmerwald.

[zimmerwald1915]

I didn't state it as a fact, I stated that it seems much more likely that a proletarian revolution can occur under a liberal democracy. It's the lesser of two evils.
On the contrary, liberal democracy and DPRK-style despotism are a slightly different forms of the same evil. Revolution may "seem more likely" in the former than the latter when one uses the method of "pure reason", but an examination of reality shows that that is not in fact the case.


A communist revolution is much more likely in Europe than North Korea. Why? Bourgeois liberalism and its commitment to "freedom of speech". they try to restrict this, of course, by making books " intellectual property" and preventing the poor from reading them due to their prices, and their inundation of prolefeed literature, however, the very fact that these things are allowed to be published undermines the bourgeois establishment.
So, according to you, on the one hand liberalism has a "commitment to 'freedom of speech'" and on the other it restricts the dissemination of information. In fact, liberalism's "commitment" is a mystification that it has always, even from its nineteenth century roots, been willing and able to disregard at the drop of a hat. This "commitment" does not exist in reality but only in the minds of those who buy liberal propaganda. Why, even some who consider themselves revolutionaries sometimes struggle for "free speech" for themselves because they believe in that liberalism can be guilted into re-embracing its "commitment".


I like you, Zimmerwald.
You're sweet :blushing:

[revolution inaction]

They haven't done ANYTHING. There are no revolts, no protests.

how do you know that? i doubt that the NK government is going to report that the people are protesting against it, so how would you know if there are revolts and protests or not?

[Antifa94]

I know refugees.
Also, protests and revolts have a means of getting in the news. Considering AP and Reuters report on trivial things like people selling chestnuts outside of officially sanctioned ares, they would jump on a protest.
They'd be happy for the prospect of the North Korean government being weakened, albeit for the wrong reasons.

[Nolan]

Military action against North Korea wouldn't be considered imperialist like it was in the 1950's. The country is hell on earth. Any action would be humanitarian in nature.... The people seem too weak to engage in a proletarian revolution of their own, but who knows, if capitalism is established there( and the subsequent freedom of press and speech, and the burgeoning market of literature) then masses will be capable of creating a socialist state. Capitalism is less malevolent than an elitist bureaucracy of the like that exists in the DPRK currently.

I think somebody needs a restriction.

[RedStarOverChina]

Military action against North Korea wouldn't be considered imperialist like it was in the 1950's. The country is hell on earth. Any action would be humanitarian in nature.... The people seem too weak to engage in a proletarian revolution of their own, but who knows, if capitalism is established there( and the subsequent freedom of press and speech, and the burgeoning market of literature) then masses will be capable of creating a socialist state. Capitalism is less malevolent than an elitist bureaucracy of the like that exists in the DPRK currently.I don't know if it's due to ignorance or malevolence that you utter these words. That's the same thing they said about Yugoslavia before they bombed the shit out of it. In the end, the imperialists killed way more innocent people than the deaths that was used as a pretext for the invasion.

The rule of the thumb for being a socialist is never support imperialist interventions.

I hate arguing for restrictions, especially in restricting "newbies" who don't know what they are talking about. But you're arguing for something so horribly malicious that even I would support a restriction.

[InuyashaKnight]

Good if they survived.

[Antifa94]

Wow. I can not believe you are honestly considering restricting me. arguing for something so horribly malicious... are you kidding me?! You are supporting the retention of a state in which thousands die of starvation and live under constant oppression, how can you POSSIBLY state that what I am arguing for is malicious? Defining every action taken by America or European nations as imperialist is simply absurd. I am NOT an imperialist, I am sincerely arguing for the betterment of the North Korean people. And you know what? It doesn't need to come from the United States of European nations,South Korea can do such. If I were an imperialist, I'd support the economic exploitation of the nation for the benefit of America. I just want to see the people stop starving.....

[Antifa94]

I don't wish to be imperialist in nature, I am not arguing for the exploitation of the North Korean people, if my arguments disregards or fails to see inevitable exploitation that would occur, I am sorry. Let's get things straight. I am not for a military presence in North Korea by an imperialist nation. What I want is a means of purging the bureaucracy, and then leaving the nation to itself, with financial and alimental aid coming from South Korea.

[RedStarOverChina]

Wow. I can not believe you are honestly considering restricting me. arguing for something so horribly malicious... are you kidding me?! You are supporting the retention of a state in which thousands die of starvation and live under constant oppression, how can you POSSIBLY state that what I am arguing for is malicious? Defining every action taken by America or European nations as imperialist is simply absurd. I am NOT an imperialist, I am sincerely arguing for the betterment of the North Korean people. And you know what? It doesn't need to come from the United States of European nations,South Korea can do such. If I were an imperialist, I'd support the economic exploitation of the nation for the benefit of America. I just want to see the people stop starving.....
Right. Let's bomb the shit out of North Koreans so that they won't starve to death. While we're at it, kill as many North Koreans as we can so they can be free.

No, it doesn't work like that. It never did.

Arguing for the invasion and subjugation of a third world country is way overdone even in the 20th century. You obviously don't realize that every imperialist war was justified that way---and nothing good ever came of it. If imperialists and their lapdogs in South Korea genuinely cared about starving North Koreans, they'd send more food, not troops and gun ships.

I genuinely hate restricting people. I think you're probably very young (born in 94', maybe?), and I was also pretty darn misled when I was young, so I can empathize. Even if you do end up being restricted, it's not the end of the world.

I understand how easy it is to fall into the pattern of thinking promoted by the media and the ruling class, but I really hope you think things through the next time.

[Antifa94]

Did I argue for that? No. I argue for the extirpation of the bureaucracy and their dogs, the army. Giving them food works fine until there is a bad year in South Korea. Also, whilst taking away from one of the ills faced by the common North Korean, they still live under an oppressive state.
Also, Excuse me, But I believe the majority of imperialists wars in the 20th century ( Vietnam, Cambodia, laos, Korea, Nicaragua) were done to stop the spread of communism, not to better the people, America didn't want to lose a business opportunity. Other imperialists wars were done for the control of a colony that was revolting, because the mother country wished to retain the source of resources that it could obtain freely.
The military action that I advocate stands for none of these things, although I'm sure capitalists would hijack it in order to make a profit. I've just negated my argument. But I need to know, what can be done other than a military strike on let's say the nuclear facilities and domestic facilities of the ruler? If there was a rebel army there, we could aid them financially and with munitions... If the North Korean proletariat doesn't arise, should we allow them to continue to suffer?

[gorillafuck]

For the love of God, just overthrow the North Korean government already.
Who would you like to overthrow the DPRK?

Edit: Oh, you're advocating a military invasion of North Korea. You think that people there should be "freed" by bombs and tanks.

The thing is, that is the excuse for all wars against weaker countries. They invaded Iraq to supposedly "free" them (they wanted dominance is the real reason). But I'm telling you, that wouldn't liberate anybody. It would just make the streets in North Korea run with blood until a pro-US regime is fully established (figuratively speaking).

[Antifa94]

I will sound like a fool if I answer that question, won't I , users of Revleft?

[RedStarOverChina]

We can't fight the North Koreans' battles for them, and they can't fight ours for us. All we can do for them at this point is to advocate for greater humanitarian assistance like fellow human beings should. Only when we ourselves have put an end to our own ruling class do we have the right to assist the North Korean to get rid of their own.

[dez]

Did I argue for that? No. I argue for the extirpation of the bureaucracy and their dogs, the army. Giving them food works fine until there is a bad year in South Korea. Also, whilst taking away from one of the ills faced by the common North Korean, they still live under an oppressive state.
Also, Excuse me, But I believe the majority of imperialists wars in the 20th century ( Vietnam, Cambodia, laos, Korea, Nicaragua) were done to stop the spread of communism, not to better the people, America didn't want to lose a business opportunity. Other imperialists wars were done for the control of a colony that was revolting, because the mother country wished to retain the source of resources that it could obtain freely.
The military action that I advocate stands for none of these things, although I'm sure capitalists would hijack it in order to make a profit. I've just negated my argument. But I need to know, what can be done other than a military strike on let's say the nuclear facilities and domestic facilities of the ruler? If there was a rebel army there, we could aid them financially and with munitions... If the North Korean proletariat doesn't arise, should we allow them to continue to suffer?

The rhetoric for all of those wars was to fight for freedom and to bring democracy. While they were at it, they established a ruling class to measure that freedom and to control that democracy.
There are far more oppressive regimes than north korea, it is hardly "hell on earth" as it is painted by the media. Its just willing to stand up to imperialism to its last consequence.

[Antifa94]

Organ, Move there, enjoy it. See what a pleasant time you have.

[dez]

Organ, Move there, enjoy it. See what a pleasant time you have.

This is also part of imperialist propaganda.
They attempt to dissuade the population of developed countries from collaborating with movements seeking to empower the population of developing countries by claiming "their ideas lead to poverty", and consequentially "it is their fault". Its really just rhetoric, as it takes considerably more than ideas to develop a nation materially (labor, capital, qualified workers...).
The clearest example is cuba.
They claim it is a shit country, an oppressive dictatorship and whatnot, but they don't tell you how it was during the batista regime, or even how nations that developed in parallel (say, south korea) managed to achieve that "miracle".

[Red Flag]

Some families also vented anger at the military, accusing authorities of a cover-up and saying survivors told them the Cheonan was leaky and in need of repair. They shouted "Liars!" and jumped on a car carrying the rescued ship captain as it drove away.

As family members scuffled with guards, some soldiers pointed their guns at the protesting relatives.

"I find this gruesome reality — one where soldiers point their guns at heartstricken families of their comrades in arms — absolutely devastating and regrettable," said Chung Hae-kyung, 65, father of a missing lieutenant.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100328/ap_on_re_as/as_skorea_ship_sinks

[RedStarOverChina]

It's sad, really. Many if not most of the sailors were probably conscripted.

[Wanted Man]

Military action against North Korea wouldn't be considered imperialist like it was in the 1950's. The country is hell on earth. Any action would be humanitarian in nature.... The people seem too weak to engage in a proletarian revolution of their own, but who knows, if capitalism is established there( and the subsequent freedom of press and speech, and the burgeoning market of literature) then masses will be capable of creating a socialist state. Capitalism is less malevolent than an elitist bureaucracy of the like that exists in the DPRK currently.

I fully agree. Workers are incapable of affecting any change by themselves; only tanks and bombs from imperialist nations can lead in a revolution.


Organ, Move there, enjoy it. See what a pleasant time you have.

Again, I agree. If commies don't like freedom, they should go back to Russia.

Seriously though, I think you're looking for this site: http://www.freerepublic.com


I will sound like a fool if I answer that question, won't I , users of Revleft?

At this point, I'm almost tempted to simply answer "yes", but that would be unfair. At 15, I also held plenty of opinions that I would seriously disagree with today. But people are much more likely to bite your head off when you say something that most people would disagree with in an arrogant way, and with the line of argument presented above. On the other hand, being prepared to learn something can go a long way.

If you want that, why not just admit that you don't know everything yet? Why not simply start a thread on the Learning forum asking, "Why do communists generally agree that US military intervention is not a way to revolution?" and "If communists like North Korea so much, why don't they move there?"

[Red Flag]

Many if not most of the sailors were probably conscripted.

They all were. Service in the army of the Republic of Korea is mandatory for all male citizens.

[revolution inaction]

I know refugees.

the fact that there are refuges shows that the govenment doesn't have total control, also i think that hte NK government is likley to do everything it can to stop any information about protests and resistance to its rule from spreading within the county, so people from NK will not necessary know about resistance to the government even if it is there.



Also, protests and revolts have a means of getting in the news. Considering AP and Reuters report on trivial things like people selling chestnuts outside of officially sanctioned ares, they would jump on a protest.

i've never heard of this?

There are some mentions of protests in NK if you look, this artical mentions protests http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20100321a1.html and say there was enough unrest to cause the government to change policy.

We also know that there are black markets and people who smuggle people out and goods in, so clearly every thing is not under the complete control of the government.

[Sendo]

Military action against North Korea wouldn't be considered imperialist like it was in the 1950's. The country is hell on earth. Any action would be humanitarian in nature.... The people seem too weak to engage in a proletarian revolution of their own, but who knows, if capitalism is established there( and the subsequent freedom of press and speech, and the burgeoning market of literature) then masses will be capable of creating a socialist state. Capitalism is less malevolent than an elitist bureaucracy of the like that exists in the DPRK currently.

racist. guess the yellow man needs liberal whites to tell him how oppressed he is.

Fuck off racist.

And for saying that capitalism would improve NK, and that American invasion would be good (just like at No-geun-ri huh?), you can pass a hello from me to the OI crew.

[Sendo]

http://hani.co.kr/arti/politics/defense/412865.html

it seems that the search was botched, and the ship drifted while sinking compounding rescue efforts.

I'll translate some when i have the time. The google/yahoo version is shit.

천안함 Cheon an-ham = boat name

백령도 Baeng nyeong-do = island name

북 Buk = North Korea

Okay, it was never NK it seems. The protestors I saw were upset at the department which had received more funds, but "where did the money go?" because the government botched the rescue, was late, and was not maintaining its ships well enough.

The Americans had to go stir up fear and panic about NK which prejudiced me.

http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/cartoon/hanicartoon/412864.html

Set me straight.

My god, even my folks were freaking out when they heard. It's strange, even in freaking Seoul, there is nowhere near the level of panic as Americans have on the other side of the world. Chill out.

[Antifa94]

Fuck you Sendo. There's nothing racist in what I said.

[zimmerwald1915]

(just like at No-geun-ri huh?)
To what are you referring?

[Spawn of Stalin]

Something must be done. North Korea's army and Bureaucracy must be squelched, for the benefit of the people.

The KPA is not a volunteer force, most servicemen and women are conscripted based on their age, physical and mental fitness, and training and occupation. About 25% of the DPRK's men aged 18-50 are currently serving in the KPA, most people receive basic training as young adults. In the case of war the DPRK has nearly ten million civilians and reserve forces ready to serve in the KPA, this is more or less 50% of the population. You can see where I'm going with this and if you can't, I'll spell it out for you, to squelch the army would be to squelch the people, if you think that this would be in the interest of the people then you are a genocidal maniac.

[Antifa94]

Squelching the army doesn't mean the systematic annihilation of them, now does it? I mean killing the army bureaucracy.

[Spawn of Stalin]

But isn't your argument itself squelched by the fact that the people (many of whom have regular,free access to firepower) haven't done this themselves. The vast majority of the DPRK's weaponry is held by ordinary people serving in the armed forces, with this in mind, if the North Koreans wanted a civil war, don't you think they would have started one already?

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm generally very hostile to Juche, but no way in hell would i condone another western invasion of the country.

Its funny how when people use North Korea and Cuba as examples to prove how shit 'socialism' is they convieniently forget about countries like Ethiopia, Sudan, the Philippines and the multitude of other countries that prove how shit capitalism is.

[Antifa94]

I agree Dr Mindbender, but I'm not trying to show that socialism is bad... I am a communist! the Revolution was just betrayed there.

Motionless, I highly doubt that the people are actually happy there. Also, the weapons are controlled by the Party Bureaucracy in the Army. The people, due to the constant barrage of propaganda, love Big Brother, and won't rebel. At least that is how it is at the present moment. I read somewhere that it looks as though insurrection is about to occur there soon..

[zimmerwald1915]

Squelching the army doesn't mean the systematic annihilation of them, now does it? I mean killing the army bureaucracy.
That's a utopia. Among other things, the USA or whatever imperialist power is doing your bidding this week doesn't have the capability to surgically strike every North Korean officers' club, at least not without taking a couple hundred thousand ordinary North Korean soldiers along for the ride.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Motionless, I highly doubt that the people are actually happy there. Also, the weapons are controlled by the Party Bureaucracy in the Army. The people, due to the constant barrage of propaganda, love Big Brother, and won't rebel. At least that is how it is at the present moment.
Typical ramblings of someone who watches the news too often, what you call Big Brother, the Korean people know as the thing that keeps their country from becoming a puppet state. And the weapons are not controlled by anyone but the people who carry them, and that's the working class soldiers. From what I've heard from Korean communists and comrades who have visited the country, the Korean proletariat is perfectly capable of rebelling, and that they are very good at thinking for themselves. If life in the DPRK was as bad as you say it is, the proletariat would know about it, no population is that brainwashed that they can't differentiate between a good and a bad life. So you know refugees, big deal, there are refugees from every country in the world who will tell you all kinds of lies just to get a bit of attention, and to put the spotlight on the country in question. If you want the truth you have to go to the DPRK and ask the people who actually live and work there.

I read somewhere that it looks as though insurrection is about to occur there soon..
"Somewhere"? That's a little vague my friend. I read somewhere that if I don't follow a set of rules, I'll go to Hell when I die. I read somewhere that 9/11 was an inside job. I even read somewhere that Labour is still the party of the working class. So an insurrection is about to occur sometime soon? What happened to the people there being too brainwashed? And loving Big Brother? Surely if a revolution happened in Korea there would be no need for the invasion which you so proudly support. So one minute they "won't rebel", the next minute "insurrection is about to occur"? Make up your mind. Even if there was going to be a revolution there, why now? Why not any other time in the last six decades since the country was founded? Why not when Kim Jong-il took over nearly twenty years ago? Why not during the famine in 1997? Let me guess, they were too hungry to revolt, right? If the people were going to overthrow this "military bureaucracy" as you call it, they would have done it already.

[Davie zepeda]

The three d"s i call it dehumanize,discredit, destroy Learn them well!

[Raightning]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jBKUIn2-cOQ84U2WrHISFbfiz5fQ



SEOUL — First inspections of the bow of a South Korean warship show it was hit by an outside impact of considerable force, a military official said on Saturday, as suspicion increasingly falls on North Korea.

The Cheonan sank and was split in half after a mystery blast on March 26 close to the disputed border of the two Koreas, leaving 40 sailors confirmed dead and six others still unaccounted for.

Seoul has been careful not to point the finger directly at the North over the incident in the Yellow Sea, which has stoked already tense ties, and Pyongyang has denied it was to blame.

However, the South's Yonhap news agency on Thursday quoted a senior military source in Seoul as saying it was suspected that North Korean submarines attacked the ship with a heavy torpedo.

On Saturday, salvage teams took their first look at the bow section after it was hauled to the surface a day earlier, finding another body and more evidence a strong external blast was to blame.

Quoting an unidentified military official, Yonhap said initial inspections confirmed a large iron gate was off its hinges and a chimney was missing.
"This means there was a strong impact from the outside," the official said.

A Joint Chiefs of Staff spokesman told AFP that they expected to find more bodies in the bow, which was to be towed ashore later Saturday for detailed inspections to find extra clues as to what tore the vessel apart.

The stern was salvaged on April 15 but offered few ideas as to what had caused the explosion, from which 58 sailors were rescued.

Although Seoul has so far refrained from directly accusing North Korea, investigators say an external explosion was most likely the cause.
South Korean Defence Minister Kim Tae-Young said a mine or torpedo may have sunk the corvette, but his ministry said it would keep an open mind until the investigation is completed.

Pyongyang has accused the South's "war maniacs" of seeking to shift the blame for the tragedy to the North.

The disputed Yellow Sea border was the scene of deadly naval clashes between the North and South in 1999 and 2002 and of a firefight last November that left a North Korean patrol boat in flames.

The communist North on Friday seized South Korean-owned assets at a mountain resort, warning that the two countries were on the brink of war over the sinking.

The tensions prompted US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to say she hoped there would be "no miscalculation" that could spark a new war between the Koreas.

South Korea President Lee Myung-Bak on Wednesday vowed a "resolute" response to the Cheonan disaster, calling the worst peacetime loss of life for South Korea's navy a "wake-up call" and describing the North as the world's "most belligerent" state.

Ties between the two Koreas appeared to have entered a new phase of reconciliation after an historic inter-Korean summit in 2000 but have spiralled downwards since Lee's government took power in 2008.
Lee has taken a tougher stance toward Pyongyang, while the North's nuclear weapons development sparked international condemnation and sanctions.

A high-ranking North Korean defector on Thursday said it was "obvious" the communist regime's leader Kim Jong-Il was behind the sinking, accusing him of wanting to create chaos on the Korean peninsula.

Hwang Jang-Yop, the architect of the communist regime's ideology of "juche," or self-reliance, was once secretary of the ruling Workers' Party and a tutor to Kim.

[RedStarOverChina]

I knew it:)

Remember this is shortly after a South Korean fleet wounded a North Korean ship patrolling in its waters.

[the last donut of the night]

Military action against North Korea wouldn't be considered imperialist like it was in the 1950's. The country is hell on earth. Any action would be humanitarian in nature.... The people seem too weak to engage in a proletarian revolution of their own, but who knows, if capitalism is established there( and the subsequent freedom of press and speech, and the burgeoning market of literature) then masses will be capable of creating a socialist state. Capitalism is less malevolent than an elitist bureaucracy of the like that exists in the DPRK currently.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_io3Q-rUp0k0/SMLoGvAhowI/AAAAAAAAAd4/8LGrD79HAtc/s320/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again.jpg


Gotta love liberal currents in revolutionary movements...