DPRK Sank S. Korean Ship With Torpedo; Investigation findings are released

[Bud Struggle]

The evidence has been examined and it's clear the DPRK sank the Cheonan and killed 46 South Korean sailors.

President Lee Myung-bak vowed "stern action" for the provocation following the release of long-awaited results from a multinational investigation into the incident. North Korea, reacting swiftly, called the results a fabrication and warned that any retaliation would trigger war.

Investigators said evidence overwhelmingly proves North Korea fired a homing torpedo that caused a massive underwater blast that tore the Cheonan into two on March 26. Fifty-eight sailors were rescued from the frigid Yellow Sea waters near the Koreas' maritime border, but 46 perished.

"(We) will take resolute countermeasures against North Korea and make it admit its wrongdoings through strong international cooperation," Lee told Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in a phone conversation, the presidential office said.

The White House called the sinking an unacceptable "act of aggression" that violates international law and the truce signed in 1953.


The North Koreans responded to the idea of being held accountable:

"The all-out war to be undertaken by us will be a sacred war involving the whole nation, all the people and the whole state," a spokesman for North Korea's powerful National Defense Commission said, according to a report carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency.


and:

The North also warned the South against any provocative acts near the Koreas' borders in the aftermath of the sinking, saying it would react with an "unlimited retaliatory blow, merciless strong physical blow.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100520/ap_on_re_as/as_skorea_ship_sinks


It seems the DPRK are the obvious aggessors. No one actually thinks these people are ACTUAL Communists, right?

Do you think Communist should give them any support?

[Cal Engime]

It's not communism anymore. It's "Juche."

[Robert]

No one actually thinks these people are ACTUAL Communists, right?
I do.

They're dirty commies: grown up, real commies, not idealistic anti-Miseans with stars in their eyes; they're cold blooded murderers and I hate their guts.


Do you think Communist should give them any support?No one should give them any support. But they will.

on edit: I was right.

[Dimentio]

The question is what rational motivation is behind this seemingly well-orchestrated act. For me, it doesn't make sense. DPRK is in need of support from the South.

[Hexen]

This might be a false flag operation to start another war with North Korea.

[scarletghoul]

Those bastard communists! First they burn down the Reichstag, and now this ?!? Thank God we have 50,000 US troops in the region to keep those uppity orientals in line.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I rather see the DPRK controls Korea than the ROK. I couldn't give a fuck about shock finder articles from USA or UN.

[Dr Mindbender]

It seems the DPRK are the obvious aggessors. No one actually thinks these people are ACTUAL Communists, right?

Do you think Communist should give them any support?

I think a bit of context is necessary here, there are many unanswered questions. If the South Korean vessel was in North Korean waters, then by all rights the DPRK had every right to sink it anyway. Who was responsible for ordering the launch, or was it simply the North Korean ship misinterpreting aggressive behaviour?

I dont know, maybe the ROK is just sore about not qualifying for the world cup.
:lol:

[Dimentio]

Sink it by a suicide operation? Come on!

[Robert]

Those bastard communists!

Say it again.

[Bud Struggle]

I rather see the DPRK controls Korea than the ROK. I couldn't give a fuck about shock finder articles from USA or UN.

Then you better be ready to go sleepy time when Kim Il Jong tells you to go sleep time.

Here's a night time pic of the penninsula lights:

http://www.cfact.org/artimages/featureNvSKorea.jpg

The one light on in the North is Kim's big screen TV. :)

[Robert]

While his poor, hungry people shiver in the dark. You guys know how cold it gets in NK?

All you comsterinos say you don't want to end up like the North Koreans, but that's what'll happen if you get your way. One chief crazy commie and his spoiled offspring pre-anointed to succeed him. Everybody smiling and clapping at his every public appearance and utterance. Or else.

50 foot statues of the same asshole.

Juchism my ass.

[Dr Mindbender]

While his poor, hungry people shiver in the dark. You guys know how cold it gets in NK?
Im the last person to defend juche but i have to take issue here. The north korean ruling ideology aside, the infamous 'night picture' is a weak argument. did you know that NK has curtailed resources due to being in a defacto state of war against a much more powerful aggressor? Even the UK during wartime had blackouts. I think the picture secondly does little else than to highlight the cultural differences, the south being a consumerist, car using 24 society with many ecological questions to answer for. Maybe the west could take a leaf out of the DPRK's book in that stake.


All you comsterinos say you don't want to end up like the North Koreans, but that's what'll happen if you get your way. One chief crazy commie and his spoiled offspring pre-anointed to succeed him. Everybody smiling and clapping at his every public appearance and utterance. Or else.

this pathetic rant doesnt even deserve a verbal reply.

http://freethoughtpedia.com/images/Strawman-motivational.jpg

[scarletghoul]

Then you better be ready to go sleepy time when Kim Il Jong tells you to go sleep time.

Here's a night time pic of the penninsula lights:

http://www.cfact.org/artimages/featureNvSKorea.jpg

The one light on in the North is Kim's big screen TV. :)
When did South Korea build that giant supercity floating in the sea ???

[Bud Struggle]

Ships maybe?

http://www.moonbattery.com/korea_light.jpg

There are plenty of photos taken at differnt times and it seems to be in all of them with a slightly different configuration.

[scarletghoul]

Thats a hell of a load of ships, to shine brighter than a capital city..

And why doesnt Vladivostok have any power either ?? Surely Japan would have more too.

Certainly, that picture does not represent electric power exactly. Not sure what it is, but its not that.

[Bud Struggle]

I think it's actual lights seen from space.

http://chicagoboyz.net/wp-content/uploads/korea2.jpg

Anyway--why defend NK? Do you really think it conveys any real Communist norms or ideals?

[Richard Nixon]

I rather see the DPRK controls Korea than the ROK. I couldn't give a fuck about shock finder articles from USA or UN.

Oh yes because the seventy millions of Koreans would rather prefer an Stalinist, Orwellian dictatorship straight out of 1984 than a modern, wealthy, capitalistic democracy. Also even if North Korea was not behind this attack the more likely explantion for a cover-up would not be a false-flag operation (ROK does NOT want war neither does the US) but because it would be embarrasing for a ship to have been blown up accidentally.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Do you really think it conveys any real Communist norms or ideals?Does the South Korea or USA conveys any real Communist norms or ideals?

Communism won't happen in our life time. However, the experiment from many socialist albeit revisionism states show it is possible to manage a better economy, but coexistence with capitalism proved to be a huge barrier since capitalism will use any means to bring down socialism and will not compromise. North Korea is alone in such case on building better life because they are surrounded by the capitalists. If the capitalists really care, why don't they assist electrification of North Korea? The answer? They do not and will not bring/assist communism. But North Korea will not mind at all on bringing communism to the world and will assist if possible. That why it is necessary to defend them because they are willing to accept communism if they can, but they do not have much resource, let alone influence to do so.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Oh yes because the seventy millions of Koreans would rather prefer an Stalinist, Orwellian dictatorship straight out of 1984 than a modern, wealthy, capitalistic democracy. Who the hell would like to live in Orwellian society? North Korea are not aiming for it. Either way, that guy is a fucking fraud and it will never happen except for fantasy bait.

[Richard Nixon]

Does the South Korea or USA conveys any real Communist norms or ideals?

Communism won't happen in our life time. However, the experiment from many socialist albeit revisionism states show it is possible to manage a better economy, but coexistence with capitalism proved to be a huge barrier since capitalism will use any means to bring down socialism and will not compromise. North Korea is alone in such case on building better life because they are surrounded by the capitalists.

You mean building a better life by sending people to gulags, killing them, building a massive army while the people starve etc... I much prefer being a wage-slave in a twenty five dollar an hour job with full medical, dental insurance. :rolleyes:

[Che a chara]

I have no support for the DPRK but I do admire it's stance of anti-imperialism and reluctance to be 'westernised' in any way, however badly it may affect them, but my opinion of this is that they are the aggressor, and may want to test out it's nuclear weaponry and are ready to go to war if necessary.

They say when you're at a low ebb or like a cornered animal you lash out, well may be the DPRK are at that stage. Just another theory here.

Whatever people's feelings on capitalism and the US/ROK situation, it shouldn't cloud judgement on what really may be the case.

[Bright Banana Beard]

You mean building a better life by sending people to gulags, killing them, building a massive army while the people starve etc... I much prefer being a wage-slave in a twenty five dollar an hour job with full medical, dental insurance. :rolleyes: Like fantasy can do anything if we work hard on it right? No wonder the people defend Soviet Union from Fascism, they enjoyed the gulags.

[Nolan]

You mean building a better life by sending people to gulags, killing them, building a massive army while the people starve etc... I much prefer being a wage-slave in a twenty five dollar an hour job with full medical, dental insurance. :rolleyes:

Good try at mentioning only the bad things of socialist states and diverting attention away from what capitalism is like 99.9% percent of the time.

Holodomor?

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd81/freerunner-alex/Starving_Children.jpg

Nope. Where's the public outcry? The most we usually hear is some religious organization asking for pocket change to make more jesus-bots when what they really need is food and shelter. If this were in a socialist country we'd hear about it every fucking day from you.

How's this for workplace benefits:

http://halfdone.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/opinionated_sweatshop.jpeg

^ they get paid ten cents an hour.

Bottom line: Don't play that card. You'll lose. Many workers in the west have better standards of living

1. Because imperialism created vast wealth in those countries, and

2. The labor movement took it by force.

Judging by the state of the global economy, the party might be over soon.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I think it's actual lights seen from space.

http://chicagoboyz.net/wp-content/uploads/korea2.jpg

Anyway--why defend NK? Do you really think it conveys any real Communist norms or ideals?

Why does supporting someone during warfare mean that certain someone has to be Communist? I support them for their massive anti-imperialist stance. If you want to see a U.S. controlled N.K., then you can support what you like, but that'll be a defeat, not on just the DPRK, but on the working class struggle as well.

[Publius]

The question is what rational motivation is behind this seemingly well-orchestrated act. For me, it doesn't make sense. DPRK is in need of support from the South.

Extortion, possibly.

North Korea has nukes which means it can bully the South.

It doesn't need "support", it needs money. Maybe it figures it can extort that money.

[Nolan]

Extortion, possibly.

North Korea has nukes which means it can bully the South.

It doesn't need "support", it needs money. Maybe it figures it can extort that money.

Right......

[Publius]

Some of you people are hopelessly naive about world politics. Believe it or not, almost nothing that occurs in the political sphere is based on "ideology", it's based on power and influence.

Ideology is just a tool used to sway the opinions of people like you guys, people who aren't in power. The North is a purely cynical political actor, like every country on Earth, and thinks it can drum some measure of support for itself by appealing to socialist rhetoric. That you guys believe these shallow appeals to socialism and anti-Imperialism shows just how gullible you are.

North Korea claiming to have any lofty ideals is as credible as the US claiming it's motivations for political action are based on ideals of "freedom" and "liberty" -- these are just propaganda pieces, manifestly false abstractions designed to appeal to people's unguarded emotions.

North Korea is a dangerous rogue state fully capable of committing egregious mass murder by nuking South Korea.

In all probability they were responsible for this attack.

Whenever you have an urge to defend North Korea, go here and read of their propaganda: http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2010/201005/news21/20100521-11ee.html

http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

Hmm, "anti-imperialist" North Korea is for "re-unification" of the Korean Peninsula? I wonder what that means?

Actually these news stories are often hilarious:


DPRK Succeeds in Nuclear Fusion




Pyongyang, May 12 (KCNA) -- Scientists of the DPRK succeeded in nuclear fusion reaction on the significant occasion of the Day of the Sun this year, according to Rodong Sinmun Wednesday.
It goes on:

The successful nuclear fusion marks a great event that demonstrated the rapidly developing cutting-edge science and technology of the DPRK.

The nuclear fusion technology is called "artificial solar" technology as it represents a field of the latest science and technology for the development of new energy desired by humankind.

The nuclear fusion technology for obtaining safe and environment-friendly new energy the source of which is abundant draws great attention of world science at present.

Scientists of the DPRK have worked hard to develop nuclear fusion technology their own way.

They solved a great many scientific and technological problems entirely by their own efforts without the slightest hesitation and vacillation even under the conditions where everything was in short supply and there were a lot of difficulties, thus succeeding in nuclear fusion reaction at last.

In this course, Korean style thermo-nuclear reaction devices were designed and manufactured, basic researches into nuclear fusion reaction completed and strong scientific and technological forces built to perfect the thermo-nuclear technology by their own efforts.

The successful nuclear fusion in the DPRK made a definite breakthrough toward the development of new energy and opened up a new phase in the nation's development of the latest science and technology.

[Publius]

Right......

It's either that, or they did it for the advancement of Juche socialism and the glory of ghost-President Kim Il Sung.

[Nolan]

You're an idiot. You buy into the worst of western propaganda, that they're a "psycho rogue state wanting to nuke the world." The DPRK is in a Cold War with its neighbors - now ALL of them. It must defend itself. South Korea is the obvious aggressor here. The South Korean navy strayed too close to North Korea's shoreline - and got what was promised. If the South does the same again, the North should sink ships until they understand. Children should learn not to stick their hands into fire. The South routinely tries to bully the North.

All of this is assuming the North actually did sink anything.

Your extortion "theory" is completely laughable. It doesn't warrant a response.

[Publius]

You're an idiot. You buy into the worst of western propaganda, that they're a "psycho rogue state wanting to nuke the world."

No, I specifically said they are a cynical, rational economic actor like every other nation on earth.

They are also a rogue state, but that's because they deem it (correctly or incorrectly) in their interest to behave that way.

You buy into the worst of the North Korean propaganda which, if you read their news site, isn't even that good. So if I'm an idiot for falling for the good stuff you must be a REAL moron to buy stories about Kim Jung Il telling potato farmers to plant trees to block the wind.



The DPRK is in a Cold War with its neighbors - now ALL of them.And whose fault is that?

If everyone at work thinks Joe is an asshole, is it because everyone at work is involved in a giant conspiracy, or is misled about Joe? Or is it because Joe's an asshole?



It must defend itself. South Korea is the obvious aggressor here.South Korea is the one who got its boat torpedoed and you're telling me it's the "obvious aggressor".

Like I said, once you get involved in this bullshit rhetoric you'll say and believe anything, no matter how obviously stupid.



The South Korean navy strayed too close to North Korea's shoreline - and got what was promised. If the South does the same again, the North should sink ships until they understand. Children should learn not to stick their hands into fire. Wow, so you think this was a JUSTIFIED military response?

I guess you think it's OK to shoot trespassers too?

"Yeah, I killed that guy but he was walking on my lawn. Children should learn not to stick their hands into fire"

:laugh:



Your extortion "theory" is completely laughable. It doesn't warrant a response.My "extortion theory" is a purely descriptive account of what North Korea has been doing by developing its nuclear program.

What other theory is there? "Defending itself from Western imperialism"?

The only reason the West has any military interest in North Korea is because of its overt hostility towards the South and its development of nuclear weapons. If North Korea were less militaristic and didn't develop nuclear weapons the United States would give fuck all about that prison-state wasteland hellhole of a country.

It's clear you're delusion since you're defending the worst, most unlivable, most repressed and inhuman country on earth.

EDIT: What do you think North Korea saying it'll start "all out war" if sanctions are imposed amounts to, if not extortion? Did you think about that?

Economic sanctions are NOT an act of war, yet North Korea is claiming that it will persue all out war (presumably with its nuclear weapons) if sanctions are imposed. And you're saying that idea that North Korea is "extorting" anyone is "laughable".

"If you don't trade with me I"m going to kill you" is the most paradigmatic example of using threats to get what you want I can imagine.

[Nolan]

No, I specifically said they are a cynical, rational economic actor like every other nation on earth.

They are also a rogue state, but that's because they deem it (correctly or incorrectly) in their interest to behave that way.

They're a rogue state because there is no IMF office in Pyongyang.


You buy into the worst of the North Korean propaganda which, if you read their news site, isn't even that good. So if I'm an idiot for falling for the good stuff you must be a REAL moron to buy stories about Kim Jung Il telling potato farmers to plant trees to block the wind.

What?


And whose fault is that?

If everyone at work thinks Joe is an asshole, is it because everyone at work is involved in a giant conspiracy, or is misled about Joe? Or is it because Joe's an asshole?

Or maybe Joe is a black man in a KKK neighborhood.



South Korea is the one who got its boat torpedoed and you're telling me it's the "obvious aggressor".

Like I said, once you get involved in this bullshit rhetoric you'll say and believe anything, no matter how obviously stupid.

Hi there dumbass, if someone breaks into my house and threatens me, and I shoot them, they are still the aggressor.



Wow, so you think this was a JUSTIFIED military response?

I guess you think it's OK to shoot trespassers too?

"Yeah, I killed that guy but he was walking on my lawn. Children should learn not to stick their hands into fire"


If he's my enemy coming to kill me and I've warned him fifty times but he keeps camping out on my yard, well then hes not just "walking on my lawn."


My "extortion theory" is a purely descriptive account of what North Korea has been doing by developing its nuclear program.

No, it's complete bullshit I'd expect to hear from the likes of Glenn Beck.


What other theory is there? "Defending itself from Western imperialism"?

Maybe self-defense if that floats your boat? Or in your world the South and the West can defend themselves from the evil rogue states that don't open their legs for imperialism but the North can't even have a nuke. :rolleyes:


The only reason the West has any military interest in North Korea is because of its overt hostility towards the South and its development of nuclear weapons. If North Korea were less militaristic and didn't develop nuclear weapons the United States would give fuck all about that prison-state wasteland hellhole of a country.

:rolleyes: God. North Korea is militaristic because of western military presence. Ever heard of the Korean War, and the cease fire? Don't get it backwards. It's developing nuclear weapons because that is a sure deterrent against further aggression against the North. Not only could they use them, but they could give them to someone else. You're the one that is ignorant of geopolitical strategy and political reality.


It's clear you're delusion since you're defending the worst, most unlivable, most repressed and inhuman country on earth.

It's clear you're an idiot because that's completely beside the point and not even true in the slightest.

[The Vegan Marxist]

No, I specifically said they are a cynical, rational economic actor like every other nation on earth.

They are also a rogue state, but that's because they deem it (correctly or incorrectly) in their interest to behave that way.

You buy into the worst of the North Korean propaganda which, if you read their news site, isn't even that good. So if I'm an idiot for falling for the good stuff you must be a REAL moron to buy stories about Kim Jung Il telling potato farmers to plant trees to block the wind.

Can't say that I've ever read anything from their news site, but I don't believe everything that is fed to me by South Korea or the imperialists in which control S.K.


And whose fault is that?

If everyone at work thinks Joe is an asshole, is it because everyone at work is involved in a giant conspiracy, or is misled about Joe? Or is it because Joe's an asshole?

Well, given that the reason the Korean war started in the first place was not the fault of the DPRK, but rather the South's, in which was helped to lead such an aggression by the U.S. But when it comes to now, if there was a ship in a area that was deemed to not cross to the enemy, & S.K. knows this, then what other reason might they have sent their ship over marked territory? In good hopes? You've got to be kidding me. This is just another story of the "Lusitania".


South Korea is the one who got its boat torpedoed and you're telling me it's the "obvious aggressor".

Like I said, once you get involved in this bullshit rhetoric you'll say and believe anything, no matter how obviously stupid.

Again, they were on shores in which they knew would cause aggression. What other reason would they do such a thing except to bring about aggression. You're so quick to attack the DPRK with whatever propaganda you can spew, yet you never seem to clarify the stance you've taken. So please, share..if you can.


Wow, so you think this was a JUSTIFIED military response?

I guess you think it's OK to shoot trespassers too?

"Yeah, I killed that guy but he was walking on my lawn. Children should learn not to stick their hands into fire"

:laugh:

Cool story bro :thumbup1:

I think there's a difference between those who trespass on land that says "No Trespassing" & lands/shores in which were deemed unattainable towards the enemy, in which was deemed in the first place to keep peace between the two.

I'm guessing that, with the remarks & claims you've made, you're a supporter for the "white man" to plunder the lands of the ancient Native American tribes, as you deem those who walked such soil for many years before the "white man" as the enemy because they decided to resist as they entered their territory.


My "extortion theory" is a purely descriptive account of what North Korea has been doing by developing its nuclear program.

What other theory is there? "Defending itself from Western imperialism"?

The only reason the West has any military interest in North Korea is because of its overt hostility towards the South and its development of nuclear weapons. If North Korea were less militaristic and didn't develop nuclear weapons the United States would give fuck all about that prison-state wasteland hellhole of a country.

It's clear you're delusion since you're defending the worst, most unlivable, most repressed and inhuman country on earth.

EDIT: What do you think North Korea saying it'll start "all out war" if sanctions are imposed amounts to, if not extortion? Did you think about that?

Economic sanctions are NOT an act of war, yet North Korea is claiming that it will persue all out war (presumably with its nuclear weapons) if sanctions are imposed. And you're saying that idea that North Korea is "extorting" anyone is "laughable".

"If you don't trade with me I"m going to kill you" is the most paradigmatic example of using threats to get what you want I can imagine.

So, in other words, if the DPRK would've just kneel down & kiss the Western Imperialist's ass, like Vietnam, then all would be dandy, right? And I think you're a bit mistaken on why the Korean War started in the first place, & who exactly is being hostile to whom, & who's rather resisting such hostility & those who choose to create aggression.

Maybe you chose to not pay attention to reports like these:

http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1260975/BREAKING-NEWS-South-Korean-ship-100-board-sinking-torpedo-attack-North-Korea.html

In which it states, "Last November the two navies fought a brief gun battle that left one North Korean sailor dead and three others wounded. A North Korean ship was left in flames."

This was an attack on the DPRK, led by the S.K. military. So I personally don't care what your feeble mind may tell you, but you're only putting yourself under a gullible stance for Western propaganda against the DPRK. The DPRK may not be perfect, & I certainly don't support their Juche beliefs, but I'm smart enough to know when something is just outright bullshit.

[Publius]

They're a rogue state because there is no IMF office in Pyongyang.

Yeah, that's probably it.

Did you ever think that maybe the West just doesn't give a shit about North Korea, aside from its military threat?

Some parts of the globe just aren't of any interest to the West's economic influence: Antarctica, Somalia, North Korea, etc.

I know you have some cartoon idea of how the world works, but this idea that people care about North Korea for anything other than its possible military threat is just laughable.



What?

A recent story from the North Korean news agency. You know, God's honest truth.



Or maybe Joe is a black man in a KKK neighborhood.

So... every nation on earth except North Korea is the KKK? And North Korea is completely innocent?

:rolleyes:



Hi there dumbass, if someone breaks into my house and threatens me, and I shoot them, they are still the aggressor.

I didn't realize just floating in the water is actually a threat to North Korea.

Of course North Korea routinely threatens the South -- just look at some of their news articles.



If he's my enemy coming to kill me and I've warned him fifty times but he keeps camping out on my yard, well then hes not just "walking on my lawn."

So this South Korean ship was going up there to start a war on North Korea?

:rolleyes:



No, it's complete bullshit I'd expect to hear from the likes of Glenn Beck.

Yeah, but you're Hitler AND Stalin AND Mohammad!

I win!



Maybe self-defense if that floats your boat?

From who?


Or in your world the South and the West can defend themselves from the evil rogue states that don't open their legs for imperialism but the North can't even have a nuke. :rolleyes:

No, North Korea cannot have nuclear weapons.

No country on earth can have nuclear weapons.

They should be abolished. No one should have nuclear weapons, and it's not a good thing for Israel, or Iran, or North Korea, or the US to have them.

If you weren't a fucking barbaric moron you'd realize this.

The last thing anyone on the left should be promoting is nuclear weaponry, unless you're in favor of Seoul being blown up and 10,000,000 people dying.



:rolleyes: God. North Korea is militaristic because of western military presence. Ever heard of the Korean War, and the cease fire?

I guess they're defending themselves from Western time machines that will bring the Korean War from 50 years ago to their doorstep?

The Korean War that was STARTED BY THE NORTH?


Don't get it backwards.

You're the one who got it backwards.

You said North Korea was militaristic because of the Korean War. When North Korea started the Korean War by invading South Korea.



It's developing nuclear weapons because that is a sure deterrent against further aggression against the North.

Earlier you said South Korea was "aggressing" against the North by moving its ship into their waters. But last paragraph you said the North's nuclear weapons were a "sure deterrent".

Which is it?



Not only could they use them, but they could give them to someone else.

Oh, and that's a really good outcome too!

It would probably be really good if North Korea gave nuclear weapons to terrorists. That would be awesome. I really enjoy the prospect of several million people dying horrendous deaths in a nuclear holocaust.

Probably the best thing for the world would be to spread nuclear weapons around to all kinds of political and religious extremists. That will certainly end well.


You're the one that is ignorant of geopolitical strategy and political reality.

Yeah. Weaponizing was clearly the smart move for North Korea. Relations on the Korean peninsula have never been better now that North Korea possesses nuclear weapons. Their strategy of fending off outside influence is clearly working very well.

There was absolutely no risk or chance of North Korea being invaded aside from their posturing and threatening the South and their development of WMDs.

And of course life in North Korea couldn't possibly be any worse for its citizens.



It's clear you're an idiot because that's completely beside the point and not even true in the slightest.

That's what you're reduced to?

Burying your head in the sand?

"Nuh-uh, that's not true!"

But it is. North Korea threatened to start a war if further sanctions are imposed:

"Our army and people will promptly react to any 'punishment' and 'retaliation' and to any 'sanctions' infringing upon our state interests with various forms of tough measures including an all-out war," the DPRK's official news agency KCNA quoted the National Defense Commission as saying in a statement."

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2010-05/21/content_9875006.htm

DOES NOT COMPUTE. COMMUNIST BIAS CONTRADICTING INFORMATION. ABORT. ABORT.

But you know, ChinaDaily.com. Obviously capitalist pig-dog propaganda. I'm sure they said no such thing.

[Publius]

Can't say that I've ever read anything from their news site, but I don't believe everything that is fed to me by South Korea or the imperialists in which control S.K.

Neither do I.



Well, given that the reason the Korean war started in the first place was not the fault of the DPRK, but rather the South's, in which was helped to lead such an aggression by the U.S.

The Korean War started with the North invading the South...



But when it comes to now, if there was a ship in a area that was deemed to not cross to the enemy, & S.K. knows this, then what other reason might they have sent their ship over marked territory?

Probably to start shelling the North Korean coastline!


In good hopes?

Maybe it was a mistake?


You've got to be kidding me. This is just another story of the "Lusitania".

It's a good thing you're not falling for baseless and completely made-up speculation in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Oh wait.

That's all you're doing.



Again, they were on shores in which they knew would cause aggression. What other reason would they do such a thing except to bring about aggression.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense: The South Koreans sent their ship over there to be sunk and start a war with their nuclear-armed neigbor.

That's a really rational and smart explanation of these events.


You're so quick to attack the DPRK with whatever propaganda you can spew, yet you never seem to clarify the stance you've taken. So please, share..if you can.

The South Koreans probably did send the ship over there to intimidate the North Koreans.

So what?

There's a huge difference between intimidation and actual warfare.



Cool story bro :thumbup1:

I think there's a difference between those who trespass on land that says "No Trespassing" & lands/shores in which were deemed unattainable towards the enemy, in which was deemed in the first place to keep peace between the two.

Even if the South was trespassing (were they? Link me some proof) that doesn't justify sinking their ship.

Would the North have been justified in nuking Seoul is response to this "aggression"?



I'm guessing that, with the remarks & claims you've made, you're a supporter for the "white man" to plunder the lands of the ancient Native American tribes, as you deem those who walked such soil for many years before the "white man" as the enemy because they decided to resist as they entered their territory.

That sounds more like: you love blaming the victim like blaming South Korea for the Korean War.



So, in other words, if the DPRK would've just kneel down & kiss the Western Imperialist's ass, like Vietnam, then all would be dandy, right? And I think you're a bit mistaken on why the Korean War started in the first place, & who exactly is being hostile to whom, & who's rather resisting such hostility & those who choose to create aggression.

Maybe you chose to not pay attention to reports like these:

http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1260975/BREAKING-NEWS-South-Korean-ship-100-board-sinking-torpedo-attack-North-Korea.html

In which it states, "Last November the two navies fought a brief gun battle that left one North Korean sailor dead and three others wounded. A North Korean ship was left in flames."

This was an attack on the DPRK, led by the S.K. military. So I personally don't care what your feeble mind may tell you, but you're only putting yourself under a gullible stance for Western propaganda against the DPRK. The DPRK may not be perfect, & I certainly don't support their Juche beliefs, but I'm smart enough to know when something is just outright bullshit.

Oh, I see, when the South does something aggressive it's a sign of how stupid and gullible I am, but when the North does something it's NOT a sign of your gullibility.

That's probably how things work.

Of course neither side is blameless, but your defense of North Korea borders on hagiography.

You've completely whitewashed large parts of the history to conveniently fit your story.

If you want to tell yourself North Korea is "standing up imperialism" by attempting to instigate a nuclear conflict with the South, go right ahead.

Just don't expect me to buy that shit.

[anticap]

If the South Korean vessel was in North Korean waters, then by all rights the DPRK had every right to sink it anyway.

Rights do not derive from conditions as if by magic; they are a human convention; we humans grant them to (and revoke them from) one another as conditions dictate. Conditions do not create rights; conditions compel the creation of rights. Moreover, the creation of rights would be valid only under properly democratic conditions; the granting and revoking of rights under undemocratic conditions is invalid.

Nation-states, like corporations, are reified abstractions, not human actors; they can't exercise rights. Even if we humans democratically elected to bestow rights upon a nation-state, it couldn't act on them. It would remain nothing but an idea in our heads that we pretend is a concrete and personified actor -- just like we do with deities. What we mean when we say "the DPRK did X" is "the humans who act under the banner of 'the DPRK' did X."

Since rights are granted, not inherent, the question is who, in this undemocratic world, granted the humans who act under the banner of "the DPRK" the right to sink ships, ostensibly on behalf of the population that they rule undemocratically? We might agree that a right to self-defense is unnecessary, but that argument would not apply here, since, again, this was the act of humans under the banner of a reified abstraction, which they pretend is able to act in accord with the alleged will of the entire population that they oppress. Since the claim is utterly nonsensical (just as it is with every other nation-state), so then is your statement.

The Dear Leader knows that he's not long for this world, and is probably spoiling for a fight before he joins the Great Leader in the Great Beyond, from which he will likewise maintain his present office for eternity, and maintain his Earthly presence in the form of gigantic outdoor portraits and towering golden statues.

[Robert]

Publius, you're casting pearls before swine.

[Bud Struggle]

A Communist supporting NK is a lot like a Capitalist supporting Myanmar.

[Dr Mindbender]

i think the bottom line is had a north korean military ship strayed too close to the ROK or the US's shoreline the response would have been 1000 times more hysterical and every bit as agressive. All things considered the DPRK probably acted with restraint on this one.

The hypocrisy here is the double standard that any state deemed to be a threat to the US's world order is expected to behave with unconditional restraint despite how America or its whore satellites behave - or else.


A Communist supporting NK is a lot like a Capitalist supporting Myanmar.

Perhaps but the case of the West vs the DPRK is like the elephant vs the mouse.

I will stand on the side of the mouse every time.

[Conquer or Die]

^Which is most likely why you invariably give support to the imperialist minority in Éire.

Anyway, here is an article that some reactionaries might want to read: http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-another-gulf-of-tonkin-incident/

Ed:
A ministry spokesman, Won Tae-jae, told reporters that “With regard to this case, no particular activities by North Korean submarines or semi-submarines…have been verified. I am saying again that there were no activities that could be directly linked to” the Cheonan’s sinking.

Current South Korean president is an American dog who is more than willing to start war with North Korea.

If North Korea launches a nuke then North Korea is toast. It's called self-preservation, dumbfucks.

[Che a chara]

Anyway, here is an article that some reactionaries might want to read: http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-another-gulf-of-tonkin-incident/

Good find.

definitely puts another perspective on it and it will be intersting to see the official response from the USA and ROK. It puts my theory to shame :blushing:

If true, I hope this makes others look upon the imperialists with further suspicion and doubt and questions past actions.

[Dr Mindbender]

^Which is most likely why you invariably give support to the imperialist minority in Éire.


eh?

[Conquer or Die]

What's left is probably the sharpest, partisan anti imperialist blog on the internet.

[RedStarOverChina]

It seems the DPRK are the obvious aggessors. No one actually thinks these people are ACTUAL Communists, right?

It's so obvious! Our media said so! :rolleyes:

[Conquer or Die]

eh?

You claimed that Britain's foreign policy directives in Ireland during the famine were somehow incongruent with malfeasance responsible in Imperialism. You also claim to be a resident of Ulster - which invariably means that you reject the fact that you're actually on Irish land. You clearly have issues when it comes to your imperialist analysis which should make you the last one to post on this thread. Your only point of clarity came when you said "you stand by rats" which I took to mean your support for foreign regimes on the Island.

[Dr Mindbender]

You claimed that Britain's foreign policy directives in Ireland during the famine were somehow incongruent with malfeasance responsible in Imperialism.
I'd love to know how you connect the dots on that one, and i certainly don't recall making such a claim. British foreign policy was certainly an exacerbating factor that propelled the hardship of famine victims unnecessarilly via exhorbitant tenency rents but its historical ignorance to say that was the only factor; Ireland had faced its harshest winter for centuries which accelerated the blight and coupled with the potato forming the indigenous stable diet they were always in a vulnerable position. Does that excuse british behaviour? No it doesnt but please learn your history before you start handing out unwarranted accusations.


You also claim to be a resident of Ulster - which invariably means that you reject the fact that you're actually on Irish land.
Yes you dumb shit, im a resident of the nine county province of Ulster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster).

That is no more denying my irishness than had i claimed to be a resident of Connaught, Leinster or Munster.



You clearly have issues when it comes to your imperialist analysis which should make you the last one to post on this thread. Your only point of clarity came when you said "you stand by rats" which I took to mean your support for foreign regimes on the Island.

I said mice, it was a play on the idea of elephants and mice being opposite to each other in terms of might. Im sorry that went over your head.

Anyway do you want to stop derailing the thread yet?

[Bud Struggle]

^Which is most likely why you invariably give support to the imperialist minority in Éire.

Anyway, here is an article that some reactionaries might want to read: http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-another-gulf-of-tonkin-incident/ (http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-another-gulf-of-tonkin-incident/)



Well yea. From what I saw it was CONCLUSIVE that NK torpedoed the SK ship. If it isn't and this is some sort of SK piece of crap game they are playing--than the SK government should pay for this somehow.

We should be fair to all parties concerned.

[Conquer or Die]

I'd love to know how you connect the dots on that one, and i certainly don't recall making such a claim. British foreign policy was certainly an exacerbating factor that propelled the hardship of famine victims unnecessarilly via exhorbitant tenency rents but its historical ignorance to say that was the only factor; Ireland had faced its harshest winter for centuries which accelerated the blight and coupled with the potato forming the indigenous stable diet they were always in a vulnerable position. Does that excuse british behaviour? No it doesnt but please learn your history before you start handing out unwarranted accusations.

Of course Ireland had a natural famine. You seem to *want* to defend Britain, however, as somehow an oblivious actor that really doesn't warrant criticism. More to the point is why you want to defend Britain? My guess is, no matter how you want to focus on "errors" of rent. You don't really want to see Britain's willful ignorance be first on the chopping block.


Yes you dumb shit, im a resident of the nine county province of Ulster.

That is no more denying my irishness than had i claimed to be a resident of Connaught, Leinster or Munster.

People from Ireland say they're from Ireland. People from the US say they're from the US. People from Russia say they're from Russia. At least on international boards. You claim to be "Ulster" which is in line with reactionary separatist elements within Ireland's foreign occupied territory. Now, if my username was Nevada Communist or California Socialist we might be on the same footing, except there is no direct correlation between California and Nevada to being reactionary as there is to Ulster.


I said mice, it was a play on the idea of elephants and mice being opposite to each other in terms of might. Im sorry that went over your head.

Of course I understood the simple statement.


Anyway do you want to stop derailing the thread yet?

*yawn*

[Conquer or Die]

Well yea. From what I saw it was CONCLUSIVE that NK torpedoed the SK ship. If it isn't and this is some sort of SK piece of crap game they are playing--than the SK government should pay for this somehow.

We should be fair to all parties concerned.

Right, and if South Korea is using a catastrophe like this to start a war or put sanctions on North Korea then that makes South Korea the bad guy. If a fabrication is used in the altering of lives and livelyhoods of anybody, then South Korea should pay.

They won't, of course. So don't start shitting on anti imperialists for not being bamboozled shills for war mongers and profiteers.

[Dr Mindbender]

Of course Ireland had a natural famine. You seem to *want* to defend Britain, however, as somehow an oblivious actor that really doesn't warrant criticism. More to the point is why you want to defend Britain? My guess is, no matter how you want to focus on "errors" of rent. You don't really want to see Britain's willful ignorance be first on the chopping block.


People from Ireland say they're from Ireland. People from the US say they're from the US. People from Russia say they're from Russia. At least on international boards. You claim to be "Ulster" which is in line with reactionary separatist elements within Ireland's foreign occupied territory. Now, if my username was Nevada Communist or California Socialist we might be on the same footing, except there is no direct correlation between California and Nevada to being reactionary as there is to Ulster.


Of course I understood the simple statement.


*yawn*


want to uh, take this outside? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/split-n-korea-t135827/index.html?p=1754177)

[Robert]

Certainly, that picture does not represent electric power exactly. Not sure what it is, but its not that.

Indeed. If the Yanks could fake a moon landing, they could fake a "photo" of North Korea at night.:rolleyes:

[Turinbaar]

"sacred war"

Interesting little detail to pay attention to. I hope the religious begin paying attention to the DPRK propaganda before they call it an atheist state.

[Nolan]

Yeah, that's probably it.

Did you ever think that maybe the West just doesn't give a shit about North Korea, aside from its military threat?

Some parts of the globe just aren't of any interest to the West's economic influence: Antarctica, Somalia, North Korea, etc.

I know you have some cartoon idea of how the world works, but this idea that people care about North Korea for anything other than its possible military threat is just laughable.


They hate North Korea because it doesn't play the global capitalist game. The west wants to destroy the DPRK and open the area for foreign investment. It's classic imperialism. Surely this isn't too difficult to understand.


So... every nation on earth except North Korea is the KKK? And North Korea is completely innocent?


Fuck, this is like talking to children.


I didn't realize just floating in the water is actually a threat to North Korea.

Of course North Korea routinely threatens the South -- just look at some of their news articles.


Lol you're a fucking tool. If you didn't have your head so far up your ass you'd see it goes both ways.


So this South Korean ship was going up there to start a war on North Korea?



They fight all the time. They had a sea battle just not too long ago.


No, North Korea cannot have nuclear weapons.

No country on earth can have nuclear weapons.

They should be abolished. No one should have nuclear weapons, and it's not a good thing for Israel, or Iran, or North Korea, or the US to have them.

If you weren't a fucking barbaric moron you'd realize this.

The last thing anyone on the left should be promoting is nuclear weaponry, unless you're in favor of Seoul being blown up and 10,000,000 people dying.



Dumbass. ***** at the US and Russia, rival imperialist powers who have more nukes than is needed to exterminate humanity. If they have them, why can't North Korea? It's cold hard strategy, after all. :rolleyes:


I guess they're defending themselves from Western time machines that will bring the Korean War from 50 years ago to their doorstep?

The Korean War that was STARTED BY THE NORTH?



You're making an ass of yourself. NATO forces are on their borders.

And yes, they "formally" started the war, but that's meaningless as there had been fighting before that, much of it South Korean miltary action against Northern military and civilian targets.


Earlier you said South Korea was "aggressing" against the North by moving its ship into their waters. But last paragraph you said the North's nuclear weapons were a "sure deterrent".

Which is it?


It's a deterrent against agression.


Oh, and that's a really good outcome too!

It would probably be really good if North Korea gave nuclear weapons to terrorists. That would be awesome. I really enjoy the prospect of several million people dying horrendous deaths in a nuclear holocaust.

Probably the best thing for the world would be to spread nuclear weapons around to all kinds of political and religious extremists. That will certainly end well.


That's their strategy. If you don't want terrorists to have nukes, leave us the fuck alone and stop threatening us. They don't give a fuck if you like it or not.

And newsflash: Imperialist powers have killed far more people than terrorists.


Yeah. Weaponizing was clearly the smart move for North Korea. Relations on the Korean peninsula have never been better now that North Korea possesses nuclear weapons. Their strategy of fending off outside influence is clearly working very well.

There was absolutely no risk or chance of North Korea being invaded aside from their posturing and threatening the South and their development of WMDs.

And of course life in North Korea couldn't possibly be any worse for its citizens.



Because everything was so rosy before they started to develop nukes. They're evil so they had to mess it up. Kim is sitting in his underground layer in his spinning chair while stroking his naked cat and going "nyah, nyah!"



That's what you're reduced to?

Burying your head in the sand?

"Nuh-uh, that's not true!"

But it is. North Korea threatened to start a war if further sanctions are imposed:

"Our army and people will promptly react to any 'punishment' and 'retaliation' and to any 'sanctions' infringing upon our state interests with various forms of tough measures including an all-out war," the DPRK's official news agency KCNA quoted the National Defense Commission as saying in a statement."

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2...nt_9875006.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2010-05/21/content_9875006.htm)

DOES NOT COMPUTE. COMMUNIST BIAS CONTRADICTING INFORMATION. ABORT. ABORT.

But you know, ChinaDaily.com. Obviously capitalist pig-dog propaganda. I'm sure they said no such thing.

Dumbass, that's not even what I was responding to. But seriously, please don't tell me I have to explain why sanctions are an act of aggression against the DPRK.

HA WE MOCK YOU BECAUSE PEOPLE STARVE IN YOUR COUNTRY BUT WE LOVE SANCTIONS!

[danyboy27]

The question is what rational motivation is behind this seemingly well-orchestrated act. For me, it doesn't make sense. DPRK is in need of support from the South.

Shit happen, especially in disputed territorial zones.

To me, it make more sense than Alex Jones style argumentation on the subject.

[GreenCommunism]

and if north korea is invaded it will launch a nuke. it's called self-preservation dumb fuck.


Economic sanctions are NOT an act of war

they are close acts of war, they are aggressives attack on the right of a nation to have a strong economy. libertarian son of a ***** ron paul is against sanctions. what about 500 000 children dieing in iraq due to sanctions? is that not aggressive and mean?

[Demogorgon]

Some people here have immensely childish views of how international politics work. This view that the North is under attack by powers bent on bringing it down is really quite silly because their actual policy is to try and contain it and keep it as stable as possible.

We aren't talking about goodies and baddies here, we are talking about actors in the global capitalist system operating according to their economic interests and there is a pretty stark fact here: it is in nobody's economic interest to engage in conflict with North Korea.

Some of you seem to be stuck several decades ago when the Western Powers were heavily inclined towards a United Korea that essentially meant the North being incorporated into the American backed southern dictatorship. However the situation is completely different now, and it largely comes down to a very simple fact: the south cannot afford to incorporate the North. Attempting to unite the countries would bankrupt the South Korean Government and who wants that? And for all the South Korean Government's (now a Western Polyarchy incidentally) constitutional obligation to work towards reunification, it does everything it can to dampen public expectations there, because being left in a situation where it would have to attempt to make the North part of the country is a worst case scenario for them.

Stop living in the world of silly fantasies and start looking at where the money points.

[Publius]

Yeah, Demogorgon is correct.

The idea that economic interests of the capitalist class consist in "invading" or "toppling" North Korea is just ridiculous. The vast majority of Asia, Africa, and Latin America is undeveloped or underdeveloped from the perspective of Western capital -- they can get workers and land and resources (not that NK has any of these) almost anywhere, for next to nothing. There are nearly 2 billion people in China and India who are still not fully participating in pursuits by Western capital or newly created Asian capital. North Korea is just an irrelevent rock, if not for the fact that it's controlled by an increasingly-isolated and desperate (economically speaking) leadership.

Why would it be in the West's (or South Korea's) interest to topple North Korea?

All that would create is a failed-state and a humanitarian disaster somehow worse than the one that already exists in North Korea. It would be Somolia, with nuclear weapons, the border of China, Korea, and Japan. Nobody wants that, socialist or capitalist.

North Korea is, quite possibly the poorest country on the planet, and so it is NOT some socialist inspiration to other poor countries. Maybe that argument flies with Cuba or Venezuala, but not with North Korea.

[Skooma Addict]

The more communists who are sympathetic to/support NK the better. Keep up the good work everyone. Combine this with the violent riots that are on TV all the time and the "Stalin wasn't that bad" speeches, and ill let you guys just discredit yourselves.

[Nolan]

Some people here have immensely childish views of how international politics work. This view that the North is under attack by powers bent on bringing it down is really quite silly because their actual policy is to try and contain it and keep it as stable as possible.

Your analysis is quite wrong. They seek to force it to open itself to foreign investment. For fucks sake, this is neocolonialism 101.


We aren't talking about goodies and baddies here, we are talking about actors in the global capitalist system operating according to their economic interests and there is a pretty stark fact here: it is in nobody's economic interest to engage in conflict with North Korea.

Of course it's not about goodies and baddies. It's about the big fish looking for another buck versus the underdog. I actually don't like the North Korean system, contrary to the assumptions of a certain ignoramus.


Some of you seem to be stuck several decades ago when the Western Powers were heavily inclined towards a United Korea that essentially meant the North being incorporated into the American backed southern dictatorship. However the situation is completely different now, and it largely comes down to a very simple fact: the south cannot afford to incorporate the North. Attempting to unite the countries would bankrupt the South Korean Government and who wants that? And for all the South Korean Government's (now a Western Polyarchy incidentally) constitutional obligation to work towards reunification, it does everything it can to dampen public expectations there, because being left in a situation where it would have to attempt to make the North part of the country is a worst case scenario for them.

This is a strawman from what I believe most of us think. It has nothing necessarily to do with "incorporating the North into the South." It's about making the DPRK another China or another USSR. As long as the DPRK does not conform to these demands, there will be a de-facto "cold war" and constant military threat. A rogue DPRK is not good for capitalist stability in the region, not to mention that there would be huge profits in it's change to neoliberal capitalism.



Stop living in the world of silly fantasies and start looking at where the money points.

Indeed, why don't you take your own advice? The money points toward NATO using all the tools at their disposal short of actual war (unless North Korea is goaded into "formally" beginning it again) to open the North up to western multinationals. Any other analysis exposes the arguer as simply being in denial of the realities of modern neocolonialism.

[Publius]

Your analysis is quite wrong. They seek to force it to open itself to foreign investment. For fucks sake, this is neocolonialism 101.

There are large sections of planet earth which are open to colonial expanasion but which aren't being used for that effect for the quite basic reason that there's a finite amount of capital to invest in 3rd world countries and there's absolutely no good reason to invest that capital in North Korea when there are dozens of willing recipients in the region.

China, for example, despite years of Western and Asian influence, is still largely open to Western capital. A huge portion of the Chinese population still live as rural farmers.

The same goes for India, Indonesia, Phillipines, Taiwan, etc.

The idea that North Korea is some important country for capitalist interests is, as Demogorgon said, just false.

I can't imagine IBM/Coca Cola/McDonalds/GE/et al are in their corporate boardrooms saying "What we really need, more than anything, is a branch in Pyongyang!".



Of course it's not about goodies and baddies. It's about the big fish looking for another buck versus the underdog. I actually don't like the North Korean system, contrary to the assumptions of a certain ignoramus.

So why, then, is it in the capitalist's interest to wage a dangerous and expensive war for access to a small, poor country when it has almost unfettered access to the, essentially, the rest of the world?

Must be all the great wealth North Korea's hiding!



This is a strawman from what I believe most of us think. It has nothing necessarily to do with "incorporating the North into the South." It's about making the DPRK another China or another USSR. As long as the DPRK does not conform to these demands, there will be a de-facto "cold war" and constant military threat. A rogue DPRK is not good for capitalist stability in the region, not to mention that there would be huge profits in it's change to neoliberal capitalism.

So there are "huge profits" in North Korea but not in India or China or Taiwan or Kazakhstan or Russia or Indonesia or Bangladesh or Myanmar or Niger or Mexico or El Salvadore or I could go on?




Indeed, why don't you take your own advice? The money points toward NATO using all the tools at their disposal short of actual war (unless North Korea is goaded into "formally" beginning it again)

:rolleyes:



to open the North up to western multinationals.

:rolleyes:


Any other analysis exposes the arguer as simply being in denial of the realities of modern neocolonialism.

"Goddammit guys, I know we can invest in essentially every country on earth, and that investment oppurtunities far outstrip our financial ability to exploit them, but what we really need is North Korea!"

"But why, sir? Couldn't we just as easily -- more easily in fact -- invest those resources in, say, China?"

"No, you don't understand -- we're Western colonialists! We have to always cynically behave in our rational economic interest EXCEPT when it suits the whims of an armchair revolutionary on an Internet forum, who thinks that it's in our best interests to start a war with North Korea, topple its government, turning it into a failed stated, so THEN we can go in and invest in it!"

"Like... Somalia?"

"Yes, exactly! Like Somalia!"

"..."

I'm sure this conversation is happening in corporate boardrooms and at expensive cocktail parties as we speak.

[Demogorgon]

Your analysis is quite wrong. They seek to force it to open itself to foreign investment. For fucks sake, this is neocolonialism 101.

The only countries with investment interest in North Korea are South Korea and China. To others it is just a waste of resources. And both South Korea and China are already investing in North Korea and the North is allowing them to do it to a greater extent.

The investment opportunities are dependent on regional stability though, so the last thing they want to do is jeopardise them. And that is why the current situation is exactly what South Korean capitalists did not want, because the South Korean Government is going to restrict further investment in the North in retaliation for this.


This is a strawman from what I believe most of us think. It has nothing necessarily to do with "incorporating the North into the South." It's about making the DPRK another China or another USSR. As long as the DPRK does not conform to these demands, there will be a de-facto "cold war" and constant military threat. A rogue DPRK is not good for capitalist stability in the region, not to mention that there would be huge profits in it's change to neoliberal capitalism.

North Korea is rather different from the USSR or China in that it is a small country with little of economic interest. I don't know what profits you think the West is hoping to reap there. The simple fact is that if the current North Korean system goes, the only option is a united Korea and South Korea cannot afford to do that, so it is in the interests of capital to preserve the status quo.


Indeed, why don't you take your own advice? The money points toward NATO using all the tools at their disposal short of actual war (unless North Korea is goaded into "formally" beginning it again) to open the North up to western multinationals. Any other analysis exposes the arguer as simply being in denial of the realities of modern neocolonialism.
And exactly where is the financial incentive there? Or indeed the political one? This has nothing to do with NATO. South Korea is not part of it, so an attack on it places no obligations on NATO to act. And moreover why on earth would they want to waste resources on North Korea? Their military resources are already stretched to the limit as it is and anything that brings North Korea down could bankrupt South Korea. All for more or less non-existent investment opportunities. You are being hopelessly unrealistic here.

[RGacky3]

I don't understand why anyone is supporting North Korea, it makes absolutely no sense, there is noting remotely socialistic or democratic about North Korea, its a totalitarian state of the highest degree, why anyone supports them is beyond me.

As far as this incident, we just don't know, North Korea (if they did it) are probably just trying to flex their muscles a little bit, they NEED south Korea but they want to play from a position of power (which makes sense), I don't think anyone has any interest in invading North Korea, so I doubt its a set up.

[Dimentio]

I would prefer if Korea was reunited under the ROK, which at least has somewhat free labour unions and where the army isn't in control. I cannot understand socialists who defend a state which is the negation of all the values which progressives stand for.

[Demogorgon]

I would prefer if Korea was reunited under the ROK, which at least has somewhat free labour unions and where the army isn't in control. I cannot understand socialists who defend a state which is the negation of all the values which progressives stand for.
It is true that South Korea in practice has more to recommend it to progressives than North Korea. I know the usual suspects will jump down our throats for saying it, but the fact is that in South Korea dissent is allowed (since 1988), there is actually enough money to provide the Universal Healthcare to everyone and it is generally far less authoritarian (again since 1988 anyway).

Before the idiots here take that as me defending South Korea, I am not. It is not a progressive country, even by the standards of current Western countries or indeed Japan (apart from on the death penalty), but it is greatly preferable to North Korea in much the same way as Thatcher's Britain was superior to Pinochet's Chile.

[GreenCommunism]

as always the same arguments comes over and over. is south korea menaced of war by anyone in this world? hell if south korea wanted a nuclear bomb would the usa even give a shit? no they wouldn't.

i already posted this somewhere else and i don't want to spam this but i think it deserves to be on this thread more than the other one.


By Stephen Gowans

While the South Korean government announced on May 20 that it has overwhelming evidence that one of its warships was sunk by a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine, there is, in fact, no direct link between North Korea and the sunken ship. And it seems very unlikely that North Korea had anything to do with it.

That’s not my conclusion. It’s the conclusion of Won See-hoon, director of South Korea’s National Intelligence. Won told a South Korean parliamentary committee in early April, less than two weeks after the South Korean warship, the Cheonan, sank in waters off Baengnyeong Island, that there was no evidence linking North Korea to the Cheonan’s sinking. (1)

South Korea’s Defense Minister Kim Tae-young backed him up, pointing out that the Cheonan’s crew had not detected a torpedo (2), while Lee Ki-sik, head of the marine operations office at the South Korean joint chiefs of staff agreed that “No North Korean warships have been detected…(in) the waters where the accident took place.” (3)

Notice he said “accident.”


Soon after the sinking of the South Korean warship, the Cheonan, Defense Minister Kim Tae-young ruled out a North Korean torpedo attack, noting that a torpedo would have been spotted by radar, and no torpedo had been spotted. Intelligence chief Won See-hoon, said there was no evidence linking North Korea to the Cheonan’s sinking.
Defense Ministry officials added that they had not detected any North Korean submarines in the area at the time of the incident. (4) According to Lee, “We didn’t detect any movement by North Korean submarines near” the area where the Cheonan went down. (5)

When speculation persisted that the Cheonan had been sunk by a North Korean torpedo, the Defense Ministry called another press conference to reiterate “there was no unusual North Korean activities detected at the time of the disaster.” (6)

A ministry spokesman, Won Tae-jae, told reporters that “With regard to this case, no particular activities by North Korean submarines or semi-submarines…have been verified. I am saying again that there were no activities that could be directly linked to” the Cheonan’s sinking. (7)

Rear Admiral Lee, the head of the marine operations office, added that, “We closely watched the movement of the North’s vessels, including submarines and semi-submersibles, at the time of the sinking. But military did not detect any North Korean submarines near the country’s western sea border.” (8)

North Korea has vehemently denied any involvement in the sinking.

So, a North Korean submarine is now said to have fired a torpedo which sank the Cheonan, but in the immediate aftermath of the sinking the South Korean navy detected no North Korean naval vessels, including submarines, in the area. Indeed, immediately following the incident defense minister Lee ruled out a North Korean torpedo attack, noting that a torpedo would have been spotted by radar, and no torpedo had been spotted. (9)

The case gets weaker still.

It’s unlikely that a single torpedo could split a 1,200 ton warship in two. Baek Seung-joo, an analyst with the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis says that “If a single torpedo or floating mine causes a naval patrol vessel to split in half and sink, we will have to rewrite our military doctrine.” (10)

The Cheonan sank in shallow, rapidly running, waters, in which it’s virtually impossible for submarines to operate. “Some people are pointing the finger at North Korea,” notes Song Young-moo, a former South Korean navy chief of staff, “but anyone with knowledge about the waters where the shipwreck occurred would not draw that conclusion so easily.” (11)

Contrary to what looks like an improbable North-Korea-torpedo-hypothesis, the evidence points to the Cheonan splitting in two and sinking because it ran aground upon a reef, a real possibility given the shallow waters in which the warship was operating. According to Go Yeong-jae, the South Korean Coast Guard captain who rescued 56 of the stricken warship’s crew, he “received an order …that a naval patrol vessel had run aground in the waters 1.2 miles to the southwest of Baengnyeong Island, and that we were to move there quickly to rescue them.” (12)

So how is it that what looked like no North Korean involvement in the Cheonan’s sinking, according to the South Korean military in the days immediately following the incident, has now become, one and half months later, an open and shut case of North Korean aggression, according to government-appointed investigators?


South Korean president Lee Myung-bak is a North Korea-phobe who prefers a confrontational stance toward his neighbor to the north to the policy of peaceful coexistence and growing cooperation favored by his recent predecessors. His foreign policy rests on the goal of forcing the collapse of North Korea.
The answer has much to do with the electoral fortunes of South Korea’s ruling Grand National Party, and the party’s need to marshal support for a tougher stance on the North. Lurking in the wings are US arms manufacturers who stand to profit if South Korean president Lee Myung-bak wins public backing for beefed up spending on sonar equipment and warships to deter a North Korean threat – all the more likely with the Cheonan incident chalked up to North Korean aggression.

Lee is a North Korea-phobe who prefers a confrontational stance toward his neighbor to the north to the policy of peaceful coexistence and growing cooperation favored by his recent predecessors (and by Pyongyang, as well. It’s worth mentioning that North Korea supports a policy of peace and cooperation. South Korea, under its hawkish president, does not.) Fabricating a case against the North serves Lee in a number of ways. If voters in the South can be persuaded that the North is indeed a menace – and it looks like this is exactly what is happening – Lee’s hawkish policies will be embraced as the right ones for present circumstances. This will prove immeasurably helpful in upcoming mayoral and gubernatorial elections in June.

What’s more, Lee’s foreign policy rests on the goal of forcing the collapse of North Korea. When he took office in February 2008, he set about reversing a 10-year-old policy of unconditional aid to the North. He has also refused to move ahead on cross-border economic projects. (13) The claim that the sinking of the Cheonan is due to an unprovoked North Korean torpedo attack makes it easier for Lee to drum up support for his confrontational stance.

Finally, the RAND Corporation is urging South Korea to buy sensors to detect North Korean submarines and more warships to intercept North Korean naval vessels. (14) An unequivocal US-lackey – protesters have called the security perimeter around Lee’s office “the U.S. state of South Korea” (15) – Lee would be pleased to hand US corporations fat contracts to furnish the South Korean military with more hardware.

The United States, too, has motivations to fabricate a case against North Korea. One is to justify the continued presence, 65 years after the end of WWII, of US troops on Japanese soil. Many Japanese bristle at what is effectively a permanent occupation of their country by more than a token contingent of US troops. There are 60,000 US soldiers, airmen and sailors in Japan. Washington, and the Japanese government – which, when it isn’t willingly collaborating with its own occupiers, is forced into submission by the considerable leverage Washington exercises — justifies its troop presence through the sheer sophistry of presenting North Korea as an ongoing threat. The claim that North Korea sunk the Cheonan in an unprovoked attack strengthens Washington’s case for occupation. Not surprisingly, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has seized on the Cheonan incident to underline “the importance of the America-Japanese alliance, and the presence of American troops on Japanese soil.” (16)

Given these political realities, it comes as no surprise that from the start members of Lee’s party blamed the sinking of the Cheonan on a North Korean torpedo (17), just as members of the Bush administration immediately blamed 9/11 on Saddam Hussein, and then proceeded to look for evidence to substantiate their case, in the hopes of justifying an already planned invasion. (Later, the Bush administration fabricated an intelligence dossier on Iraq’s banned weapons.) In fact, the reason the ministry of defense felt the need to reiterate there was no evidence of a North Korean link was the persistent speculation of GNP politicians that North Korea was the culprit. Lee himself, ever hostile to his northern neighbor, said his “intuition” told him that North Korea was to blame. (18) Today, opposition parties accuse Lee of using “red scare” tactics to garner support as the June 2 elections draw near. (19) And leaders of South Korea’s four main opposition parties, as well as a number of civil groups, have issued a joint statement denouncing the government’s findings as untrustworthy. Woo Sang-ho, a spokesman for South Korea’s Democratic Party has called the probe results “insufficient proof and questioned whether the North was involved at all.” (20)

Lee announced, even before the inquiry rendered its findings, that a task force will be launched to overhaul the national security system and bulk up the military to prepare itself for threats from North Korea. (21) He even prepared a package of sanctions against the North in the event the inquiry confirmed what his intuition told him. (22) No wonder civil society groups denounced the inquiry’s findings, arguing that “The probe started after the conclusions had already been drawn.” (23)

Jung Sung-ki, a staff reporter for The Korean Times, has raised a number of questions about the inquiry’s findings. The inquiry concluded that “two North Korean submarines, one 300-ton Sango class and the other 130-ton Yeono class, were involved in the attack. Under the cover of the Sango class, the midget Yeono class submarine approached the Cheonan and launched the CHT-02D torpedo manufactured by North Korea.” But “’Sango class submarines…do not have an advanced system to guide homing weapons,’ an expert at a missile manufacturer told The Korea Times on condition of anonymity. ‘If a smaller class submarine was involved, there is a bigger question mark.’” (24)

“Rear Adm. Moon Byung-ok, spokesman for [the official inquiry] told reporters, ‘We confirmed that two submarines left their base two or three days prior to the attack and returned to the port two or three days after the assault.’” But earlier “South Korean and U.S. military authorities confirmed several times that there had been no sign of North Korean infiltration in the” area in which the Cheonan went down. (25)

“In addition, Moon’s team reversed its position on whether or not there was a column of water following an air bubble effect. Earlier, the team said there were no sailors who had witnessed a column of water. But during [a] briefing session, the team said a soldier onshore at Baengnyeong Island witnessed ‘an approximately 100-meter-high pillar of white,’ adding that the phenomenon was consistent with a shockwave and bubble effect.” (26)

The inquiry produced a torpedo propeller recovered by fishing vessels that it said perfectly match the schematics of a North Korean torpedo. “But it seemed that the collected parts had been corroding at least for several months.” (27)

Finally, the investigators “claim the Korean word written on the driving shaft of the propeller parts was same as that seen on a North Korean torpedo discovered by the South …seven years ago.” But the “’word is not inscribed on the part but written on it,’ an analyst said, adding that “’the lettering issue is dubious.’” (28)

On August 2, 1964, the United States announced that three North Vietnamese torpedo boats had launched an unprovoked attacked on the USS Maddox, a US Navy destroyer, in the Gulf of Tonkin. The incident handed US president Lyndon Johnson the Congressional support he needed to step up military intervention in Vietnam. In 1971, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon Papers, a secret Pentagon report, revealed that the incident had been faked to provide a pretext for escalated military intervention. There had been no attack. The Cheonan incident has all the markings of another Gulf of Tonkin incident. And as usual, the aggressor is accusing the intended victim of an unprovoked attack to justify a policy of aggression under the pretext of self-defense.

http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-another-gulf-of-tonkin-incident/

[Conquer or Die]

Thanks Green Anarchism, but it's already been posted.

North Korea is a military police state, nobody denies this. The question is not whether or not you disagree with North Korea's politics, but rather if you're willing to let a lie drive military action for the sake of ideology surpassing another truth, which is pure economics.

[Dimentio]

No one is going to attack North Korea. South Korea will probably just steamroll over the border, but wouldn't risk having Seoul nuked. As earlier stated by Demogorgon, South Korea doesn't have any economic interests by reunification, since that would ruin them.

[Paul Cockshott]

South Korea is the one who got its boat torpedoed and you're telling me it's the "obvious aggressor".

Like I said, once you get involved in this bullshit rhetoric you'll say and believe anything, no matter how obviously stupid.

There was an earlier event in the course of which the navy of the South shelled and set on fire a Northern ship, so one interpretation is that it was retalitiation. Another is that it was a Tonkin Gulf type incident. Completely unprovoked agression by the North does not seem one of the alternatives, in the light of the earlier attack by the South.

[Bud Struggle]

There was an earlier event in the course of which the navy of the South shelled and set on fire a Northern ship, so one interpretation is that it was retalitiation. Another is that it was a Tonkin Gulf type incident. Completely unprovoked agression by the North does not seem one of the alternatives, in the light of the earlier attack by the South.

So let's see:

Option 1. It was South Korea's fault.

Option 2. It was South Korea's fault.

Option 3. It could not have bee North Korea's fault.

Communist Parly propaganda right down the line. :rolleyes:

You guys could at least TRY to be a bit fair and balanced. I think we do here in OI--at least a little.

[Jazzratt]

Oh this is juvenile. It's not really shocking for something like this to happen. It's like the North spilt the South's pint or something. It's two imperialist regimes that have taken potshots at each other taking potshots at each other. The only difference, and I suspect the only reason that people like Bud and Robert or the endless baying hordes of anti-imperialists give a toss is that one of the regimes has given itself the least convincing communist veneer since the soviets were dissolved.

Honestly, if you believe Juche is what communsim eventually turns into then you're a fuckwit. There is very little else to be said about you. You're an ignorant fuckwit, that's the end of it. If you think that the DPRK is a bastion against imperialism you can get fucked too because you're exactly the kind of mouth breather that supports any old gang of nationalists with a lick of red paint. Ideally both sorts of person would be locked in a room somewhere toghether because frankly they deserve each other and humanity in general deserves neither of them. Pricks.

[scarletghoul]

It's two imperialist regimes that have taken potshots at each other taking potshots at each other.
Urrr, how is North Korea an imperialist regime ? There have been many ridiculous labels applied to this country, but 'imperialist' is not one I've heard before. Honestly I can not understand why you would say that ?


The only difference, and I suspect the only reason that people like Bud and Robert or the endless baying hordes of anti-imperialists give a toss is that one of the regimes has given itself the least convincing communist veneer since the soviets were dissolved.No you penis, the reason us 'baying hordes of anti-imperialists' care about this is because north Korea is a territory and people under seige from the most powerful force of imperialist capitalism and we support a peoples' right to self-determination.

It seems you take the disgusting and implicitly pro-imperialist view that 'both sides are just as bad'.


If you think that the DPRK is a bastion against imperialism you can get fucked too Are you opposed to imperialism ?
Do you think the 10000s of US troops in Korea is imperialism ?
Do you support the Korean people in their effort to expell those troops ?
If the answer to any of these questions is 'no', then you are a reactionary nob. If the answer to them is 'yes', then surely you must support that part of Korea which is free from US occupation against the US and its puppet government.

Plenty of leftists reject Juche and dont consider north Korea socialist at all (I do, but thats a seperate debate), however you refuse even to support the northern half of Korea in its resistance against imperialism, just because you dislike their government. Do you see how ridiculous it seems ? Try to think logically and to see beyond your own repulsion with juche and to see the korean peoples' heroic resistance against the US empire

[Bud Struggle]

The only difference, and I suspect the only reason that people like Bud and Robert or the endless baying hordes of anti-imperialists give a toss is that one of the regimes has given itself the least convincing communist veneer since the soviets were dissolved.


The reason I give a toss is that so many thoughtful and often quite reasonable Communist will give up all common sense and defend these guys every time they are slighted.

It makes one wonder a bit.

[Dr Mindbender]

I would prefer if Korea was reunited under the ROK, which at least has somewhat free labour unions and where the army isn't in control. I cannot understand socialists who defend a state which is the negation of all the values which progressives stand for.

I would much rather have a union of korea cheerled by either a workers north or south korea that had undergone a legitimate revolution, not led by a crony of the USA.

I dont see how unity led by the Southern bourgeioise state will benefit anyone but the USA and its lapdogs. The ROK does not want unity anyway because (rightly or wrongly) they fear a tidal surge of refugees from the north.

[Bud Struggle]

The Context: Capitalist Rape of the Congo

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/23/corporations_reaping_millions_as_congo_suffers

Corporations Reaping Millions as Congo Suffers Deadliest Conflict Since World War II


A new mortality report from the International Rescue Committee says that as many as 5.4 million people have died from war-related causes in the Congo since 1998. A staggering 45,000 people continue to die each month, both from the conflict and the related humanitarian crisis. Amidst the deadliest conflict since World War II, hundreds of international corporations have reaped enormous profits from extracting and processing Congolese minerals. We speak to Maurice Carney of Friends of the Congo and Nita Evele of Congo Global Action.




Posted by "Robert"
If you don't think that the Congo is a bastion against Communism you can get fucked too
Are you opposed to Communism?
Do you think the 10000s of Cuban troops in Angola is Communsim?
Do you support the people of the Congo in their effort to expell those troops ?
If the answer to any of these questions is 'no', then you are a Communist nob. If the answer to them is 'yes', then surely you must support that part of Congo which is free from Cuban occupation against Cuba and its puppet government.

Plenty of Rightests reject the Congo and don't consider the Congo Capitalist at all (I do, but thats a seperate debate), however you refuse even to support the Congo in its resistance against Communism, just because you dislike their government. Do you see how ridiculous it seems ? Try to think logically and to see beyond your own repulsion with Communism and to see the Congo peoples' heroic resistance against Communism.

[Jazzratt]

Urrr, how is North Korea an imperialist regime ? There have been many ridiculous labels applied to this country, but 'imperialist' is not one I've heard before. Honestly I can not understand why you would say that ?

Ah. I meant capitalist. It makes no real difference, to be honest. All the nations I see decried as "imperialist" are simply the winning side in a war between the bourgeoisie that can only ever harm the working class.


No you penis, the reason us 'baying hordes of anti-imperialists' care about this is because north Korea is a territory and people under seige from the most powerful force of imperialist capitalism and we support a peoples' right to self-determination.

Jesus but your lot can trot out the soaring rhetoric. The fact is that the "self-determination" that you cheerlead for is nothing but the continued exploitation of the working class by their local ruling class. Communists do not, or at least should not, clamour for a change in flags or borders. Leave that to the various dodgy nationalist groups.


It seems you take the disgusting and implicitly pro-imperialist view that 'both sides are just as bad'.

Of course I am. I don't support nation x against nation y because there's no sodding point. It's disgusting to take the view that we should be supporting workers fighting and dying so that they can be opressed under a different colour of flag.


Are you opposed to imperialism ?

I'm opposed to capitalism, of which Imperialism is a part. So yes.


Do you think the 10000s of US troops in Korea is imperialism ?
Do you support the Korean people in their effort to expell those troops ?
If the answer to any of these questions is 'no', then you are a reactionary nob. If the answer to them is 'yes', then surely you must support that part of Korea which is free from US occupation against the US and its puppet government.

I don't think it is any better for the Korean people to be oppressed by the Americans than by Koreans. Do you know what would happen if America left South Korea and the North moved in? The working class would be working to fill their bosses pockets with won rather than dollars. You'll forgive my cynicism but I don't think that difference is really enough to justify many thousands of workers fighting and dying.


Plenty of leftists reject Juche and dont consider north Korea socialist at all (I do, but thats a seperate debate), however you refuse even to support the northern half of Korea in its resistance against imperialism, just because you dislike their government.

I don't support any of the reactionary nationalist groups who are interested only in murdering workers in order to change the flag under which they are opressed. This is because I support the struggle of the working class against the ruling class not simply various factions of the ruling class.


Do you see how ridiculous it seems ? Try to think logically and to see beyond your own repulsion with juche and to see the korean peoples' heroic resistance against the US empire

You accuse me of sounding "ridiculous" and you go on to describe the tragic deaths of Koreans in an ultimately pointless struggle between nations as "heroic". You are nothing more than a grim cheerleader for nationalism. I bet you've got a hard-on just thinking of all that "heroic" combat and death you disgusting fuck.

[GreenCommunism]

I don't support any of the reactionary nationalist groups who are interested only in murdering workers in order to change the flag under which they are opressed. This is because I support the struggle of the working class against the ruling class not simply various factions of the ruling class.

do you believe kim jong il lives a luxury life? i don't but you can have your opinion.

i don't know what's your tendency, but if you are not a pacifist i wouldn't see how you can justify any violent revolution by what you said. do you mean oppressed or exploited? juche is what happens when revolution is desperate. cuba is close to the united states but the island isn't split in 2. there was the bay of pigs invasion and thankfully it was repelled. should we prefer a dictatorship that doesn't educate their worker or give them healthcare just because they don't give a bad name to communism?


The idea that economic interests of the capitalist class consist in "invading" or "toppling" North Korea is just ridiculous. The vast majority of Asia, Africa, and Latin America is undeveloped or underdeveloped from the perspective of Western capital -- they can get workers and land and resources (not that NK has any of these)

north korea has alot of metal needed for industrial work. though i admit i do not know what exactly they are. what north korea lack is agricultural land.

[RGacky3]

do you believe kim jong il lives a luxury life? i don't but you can have your opinion.

Thats not really a matter of opinion.


should we prefer a dictatorship that doesn't educate their worker or give them healthcare just because they don't give a bad name to communism?


I don't know if thats the choice here...

Its mind blowing that anyone supports North Korea, even Maoists, I'm even shocked maoists support them. As Jazzrat said, they support anything with some red paint on it, if Pinoche called himself communist they would support him.

[The Vegan Marxist]

To all those who think the DPRK had anything to do with the sinking of the Cheonan, I would love for any of you to try & refute this:


The sinking of the Cheonan: Another Gulf of Tonkin incident
By Stephen Gowans

While the South Korean government announced on May 20 that it has overwhelming evidence that one of its warships was sunk by a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine, there is, in fact, no direct link between North Korea and the sunken ship. And it seems very unlikely that North Korea had anything to do with it.

That’s not my conclusion. It’s the conclusion of Won See-hoon, director of South Korea’s National Intelligence. Won told a South Korean parliamentary committee in early April, less than two weeks after the South Korean warship, the Cheonan, sank in waters off Baengnyeong Island, that there was no evidence linking North Korea to the Cheonan’s sinking. (1)

South Korea’s Defense Minister Kim Tae-young backed him up, pointing out that the Cheonan’s crew had not detected a torpedo (2), while Lee Ki-sik, head of the marine operations office at the South Korean joint chiefs of staff agreed that “No North Korean warships have been detected…(in) the waters where the accident took place.” (3)

Notice he said “accident.”

Defense Ministry officials added that they had not detected any North Korean submarines in the area at the time of the incident. (4) According to Lee, “We didn’t detect any movement by North Korean submarines near” the area where the Cheonan went down. (5)

When speculation persisted that the Cheonan had been sunk by a North Korean torpedo, the Defense Ministry called another press conference to reiterate “there was no unusual North Korean activities detected at the time of the disaster.” (6)

A ministry spokesman, Won Tae-jae, told reporters that “With regard to this case, no particular activities by North Korean submarines or semi-submarines…have been verified. I am saying again that there were no activities that could be directly linked to” the Cheonan’s sinking. (7)

Rear Admiral Lee, the head of the marine operations office, added that, “We closely watched the movement of the North’s vessels, including submarines and semi-submersibles, at the time of the sinking. But military did not detect any North Korean submarines near the country’s western sea border.” (8)

North Korea has vehemently denied any involvement in the sinking.

So, a North Korean submarine is now said to have fired a torpedo which sank the Cheonan, but in the immediate aftermath of the sinking the South Korean navy detected no North Korean naval vessels, including submarines, in the area. Indeed, immediately following the incident defense minister Lee ruled out a North Korean torpedo attack, noting that a torpedo would have been spotted by radar, and no torpedo had been spotted. (9)

The case gets weaker still.

It’s unlikely that a single torpedo could split a 1,200 ton warship in two. Baek Seung-joo, an analyst with the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis says that “If a single torpedo or floating mine causes a naval patrol vessel to split in half and sink, we will have to rewrite our military doctrine.” (10)

The Cheonan sank in shallow, rapidly running, waters, in which it’s virtually impossible for submarines to operate. “Some people are pointing the finger at North Korea,” notes Song Young-moo, a former South Korean navy chief of staff, “but anyone with knowledge about the waters where the shipwreck occurred would not draw that conclusion so easily.” (11)

Contrary to what looks like an improbable North-Korea-torpedo-hypothesis, the evidence points to the Cheonan splitting in two and sinking because it ran aground upon a reef, a real possibility given the shallow waters in which the warship was operating. According to Go Yeong-jae, the South Korean Coast Guard captain who rescued 56 of the stricken warship’s crew, he “received an order …that a naval patrol vessel had run aground in the waters 1.2 miles to the southwest of Baengnyeong Island, and that we were to move there quickly to rescue them.” (12)

So how is it that what looked like no North Korean involvement in the Cheonan’s sinking, according to the South Korean military in the days immediately following the incident, has now become, one and half months later, an open and shut case of North Korean aggression, according to government-appointed investigators?

The answer has much to do with the electoral fortunes of South Korea’s ruling Grand National Party, and the party’s need to marshal support for a tougher stance on the North. Lurking in the wings are US arms manufacturers who stand to profit if South Korean president Lee Myung-bak wins public backing for beefed up spending on sonar equipment and warships to deter a North Korean threat – all the more likely with the Cheonan incident chalked up to North Korean aggression.

Lee is a North Korea-phobe who prefers a confrontational stance toward his neighbor to the north to the policy of peaceful coexistence and growing cooperation favored by his recent predecessors (and by Pyongyang, as well. It’s worth mentioning that North Korea supports a policy of peace and cooperation. South Korea, under its hawkish president, does not.) Fabricating a case against the North serves Lee in a number of ways. If voters in the South can be persuaded that the North is indeed a menace – and it looks like this is exactly what is happening – Lee’s hawkish policies will be embraced as the right ones for present circumstances. This will prove immeasurably helpful in upcoming mayoral and gubernatorial elections in June.

What’s more, Lee’s foreign policy rests on the goal of forcing the collapse of North Korea. When he took office in February 2008, he set about reversing a 10-year-old policy of unconditional aid to the North. He has also refused to move ahead on cross-border economic projects. (13) The claim that the sinking of the Cheonan is due to an unprovoked North Korean torpedo attack makes it easier for Lee to drum up support for his confrontational stance.

Finally, the RAND Corporation is urging South Korea to buy sensors to detect North Korean submarines and more warships to intercept North Korean naval vessels. (14) An unequivocal US-lackey – protesters have called the security perimeter around Lee’s office “the U.S. state of South Korea” (15) – Lee would be pleased to hand US corporations fat contracts to furnish the South Korean military with more hardware.

The United States, too, has motivations to fabricate a case against North Korea. One is to justify the continued presence, 65 years after the end of WWII, of US troops on Japanese soil. Many Japanese bristle at what is effectively a permanent occupation of their country by more than a token contingent of US troops. There are 60,000 US soldiers, airmen and sailors in Japan. Washington, and the Japanese government – which, when it isn’t willingly collaborating with its own occupiers, is forced into submission by the considerable leverage Washington exercises — justifies its troop presence through the sheer sophistry of presenting North Korea as an ongoing threat. The claim that North Korea sunk the Cheonan in an unprovoked attack strengthens Washington’s case for occupation. Not surprisingly, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has seized on the Cheonan incident to underline “the importance of the America-Japanese alliance, and the presence of American troops on Japanese soil.” (16)

Given these political realities, it comes as no surprise that from the start members of Lee’s party blamed the sinking of the Cheonan on a North Korean torpedo (17), just as members of the Bush administration immediately blamed 9/11 on Saddam Hussein, and then proceeded to look for evidence to substantiate their case, in the hopes of justifying an already planned invasion. (Later, the Bush administration fabricated an intelligence dossier on Iraq’s banned weapons.) In fact, the reason the ministry of defense felt the need to reiterate there was no evidence of a North Korean link was the persistent speculation of GNP politicians that North Korea was the culprit. Lee himself, ever hostile to his northern neighbor, said his “intuition” told him that North Korea was to blame. (18) Today, opposition parties accuse Lee of using “red scare” tactics to garner support as the June 2 elections draw near. (19) And leaders of South Korea’s four main opposition parties, as well as a number of civil groups, have issued a joint statement denouncing the government’s findings as untrustworthy. Woo Sang-ho, a spokesman for South Korea’s Democratic Party has called the probe results “insufficient proof and questioned whether the North was involved at all.” (20)

Lee announced, even before the inquiry rendered its findings, that a task force will be launched to overhaul the national security system and bulk up the military to prepare itself for threats from North Korea. (21) He even prepared a package of sanctions against the North in the event the inquiry confirmed what his intuition told him. (22) No wonder civil society groups denounced the inquiry’s findings, arguing that “The probe started after the conclusions had already been drawn.” (23)

Jung Sung-ki, a staff reporter for The Korean Times, has raised a number of questions about the inquiry’s findings. The inquiry concluded that “two North Korean submarines, one 300-ton Sango class and the other 130-ton Yeono class, were involved in the attack. Under the cover of the Sango class, the midget Yeono class submarine approached the Cheonan and launched the CHT-02D torpedo manufactured by North Korea.” But “’Sango class submarines…do not have an advanced system to guide homing weapons,’ an expert at a missile manufacturer told The Korea Times on condition of anonymity. ‘If a smaller class submarine was involved, there is a bigger question mark.’” (24)

“Rear Adm. Moon Byung-ok, spokesman for [the official inquiry] told reporters, ‘We confirmed that two submarines left their base two or three days prior to the attack and returned to the port two or three days after the assault.’” But earlier “South Korean and U.S. military authorities confirmed several times that there had been no sign of North Korean infiltration in the” area in which the Cheonan went down. (25)

“In addition, Moon’s team reversed its position on whether or not there was a column of water following an air bubble effect. Earlier, the team said there were no sailors who had witnessed a column of water. But during [a] briefing session, the team said a soldier onshore at Baengnyeong Island witnessed ‘an approximately 100-meter-high pillar of white,’ adding that the phenomenon was consistent with a shockwave and bubble effect.” (26)

The inquiry produced a torpedo propeller recovered by fishing vessels that it said perfectly match the schematics of a North Korean torpedo. “But it seemed that the collected parts had been corroding at least for several months.” (27)

Finally, the investigators “claim the Korean word written on the driving shaft of the propeller parts was same as that seen on a North Korean torpedo discovered by the South …seven years ago.” But the “’word is not inscribed on the part but written on it,’ an analyst said, adding that “’the lettering issue is dubious.’” (28)

On August 2, 1964, the United States announced that three North Vietnamese torpedo boats had launched an unprovoked attacked on the USS Maddox, a US Navy destroyer, in the Gulf of Tonkin. The incident handed US president Lyndon Johnson the Congressional support he needed to step up military intervention in Vietnam. In 1971, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon Papers, a secret Pentagon report, revealed that the incident had been faked to provide a pretext for escalated military intervention. There had been no attack. The Cheonan incident has all the markings of another Gulf of Tonkin incident. And as usual, the aggressor is accusing the intended victim of an unprovoked attack to justify a policy of aggression under the pretext of self-defense.

1. Kang Hyun-kyung, “Ruling camp differs over NK involvement in disaster”, The Korea Times, April 7, 2010.
2. Nicole Finnemann, “The sinking of the Cheonan”, Korea Economic Institute, April 1, 2010. http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/kei/issues/2010-04-01/1.html
3. “Military leadership adding to Cheonan chaos with contradictory statements”, The Hankyoreh, March 31, 2010.
4. “Birds or North Korean midget submarine?” The Korea Times, April 16, 2010.
5. Ibid.
6. “Military plays down N.K. foul play”, The Korea Herald, April 2, 2010.
7. Ibid.
8. “No subs near Cheonan: Ministry”, JoongAng Daily, April 2, 2010.
9. Jean H. Lee, “South Korea says mine from the North may have sunk warship”, The Washington Post, March 30, 2010.
10. “What caused the Cheonan to sink?” The Chosun Ilbo, March 29, 2010.
11. Ibid.
12. “Military leadership adding to Cheonan chaos with contradictory statements”, The Hankyoreh, March 31, 2010.
13. Blaine Harden, “Brawl Near Koreas’ Border,” The Washington Post, December 3, 2008.
14. “Kim So-hyun, “A touchstone of Lee’s leadership”, The Korea Herald, May 13, 2010.
15. The New York Times, June 12, 2008.
16. Mark Landler, “Clinton condemns attack on South Korean Ship”, The New York Times, May 21, 2010.
17. Kang Hyun-kyung, “Ruling camp differs over NK involvement in disaster”, The Korea Times, April 7, 2010.
18. “Kim So-hyun, “A touchstone of Lee’s leadership”, Korea Herald, May 13, 2010.
19. Kang Hyun-kyung, “Ruling camp differs over NK involvement in disaster”, The Korea Times, April 7, 2010; Choe Sang-Hun, “South Korean sailors say blast that sank their ship came from outside vessel”, The New York Times, April 8, 2010.
20. Cho Jae-eun, “Probe satisfies some, others have doubts”, JoongAng Daily, May 21, 2010.
21. “Kim So-hyun, “A touchstone of Lee’s leadership”, The Korea Herald, May 13, 2010.
22. “Seoul prepares sanctions over Cheonan sinking”, The Choson Ilbo, May 13, 2010.
23. Cho Jae-eun, “Probe satisfies some, others have doubts”, JoongAng Daily, May 21, 2010.
24. Jung Sung-ki, “Questions raised about ‘smoking gun’”, The Korea Times, May 20, 2010.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.

Most of the articles cited here are posted on Tim Beal’s DPRK- North Korea website, http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~caplabtb/dprk/, an invaluable resource for anyone interested in Korea.

http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-another-gulf-of-tonkin-incident/

[Bud Struggle]

To all those who think the DPRK had anything to do with the sinking of the Cheonan, I would love for any of you to try & refute this:

And this is where all this stuff turns to crap. (No criticism of you Vegan Marxist.) There IS a truth here. That ship went down for some reason but with all of the posturing and politicizing and all of the disinformation being distributed I have no idea what really happened or why or how the ship sunk.

[The Vegan Marxist]

And this is where all this stuff turns to crap. (No criticism of you Vegan Marxist.) There IS a truth here. That ship went down for some reason but with all of the posturing and politicizing and all of the disinformation being distributed I have no idea what really happened or why or how the ship sunk.

The main thing right now, as I feel, that we must look at is that the blame was put on the DPRK through the torpedo fragments that were found near the "attack" site. The problem with these fragments, though, is that they were already corroding & had signatures on them, although are those of the N.K., but they haven't been seen for years now. And the idea that a single torpedo split the ship in half is quite illogical.

[Bud Struggle]

The main thing right now, as I feel, that we must look at is that the blame was put on the DPRK through the torpedo fragments that were found near the "attack" site. The problem with these fragments, though, is that they were already corroding & had signatures on them, although are those of the N.K., but they haven't been seen for years now. And the idea that a single torpedo split the ship in half is quite illogical.

But you see, I'm not certain we know what the article said is true. If the USA and the SK's aren't telling the truth--what makes you so sure that the author of the article is telling the truth--or distorting the truth slightly enough to put the situation slightly agar.

Besides the NKs could have "mislabeled" the torpedo to create a faqse illusion (I'm not saying they did--but they could have.) As far as the torpedo goes--the damage it could do all depends on the amount of explosive it packed.

If I cou say for sure you article was correct or that what the SKs were saying was correct I would have no problem wither way--but I don't know if I could trust the sources.

[GreenCommunism]

a person on another forum, who has some military knowledge, says it is quite possible. another pointed out it would probably need higher end technology than the drpk can't have due to it's embargo


Its mind blowing that anyone supports North Korea, even Maoists, I'm even shocked maoists support them. As Jazzrat said, they support anything with some red paint on it, if Pinoche called himself communist they would support him.

it's more like reticent support, just like stalinist do not defend everything stalin did but try to dismiss the lies. as for the dprk it is the most demonized state on the planet, so much that a large pourcentage of communist simply hate it. any state that is so demonized deserves sympathy. it reminds me of how communists bash iran when all they do is actually play in the imperialist game of justifying foreign intervention, those who defend iran just want to dismiss lies, not defend the oppressive regime.


Thats not really a matter of opinion.

perhaps it's not an opinion but you make it sound like it is absolutly true. i remember an article about cuba who boasted that castro owns 100% of the country's wealth (the same che guevara haters featured on glenn beck's show revolutionary holocaust, a cappie told me forbes doesn't write bullshit article, well this one was. i personally have no idea about kim jong il's life. i may never know since i am 100% certain you will prop up a biased article full of lies.

[Os Cangaceiros]

When did South Korea build that giant supercity floating in the sea ???

They're shrimp fishermen. They use giant lights (about as bright as a Las Vegas billboard, supposedly) to lure their catch to the surface.

The same lights can be seen off the coast of parts of South America.

[LimitedIdeology]

I called up and spoke to my father about this, who was a sonar/radar technician and trained as a torpedo man in the US Navy. I asked him to give the likelihood of the story being true (That it was a torpedo, at any rate, and not some other danger). He rated it as a textbook torpedo sinking. Make of that what you will.

[Che a chara]

There will be no truth coming out in torpedogate. A war would be devastating for both sides. No matter if it's imperialist vs anti-imperialist, there would be no winners and there should be no cheerleaders. Both sides have faults and are not blameless.

the DPRK is a hermit state and should be more open. the USA/ROK is imperialist.

What is the likely outcome here ? and what should be the right outcome for all involved ? Of course hostilities should be halted, but what approach should be made to the 2 Korea's for them to look for a long-term solution?

The DPRK's position on it's nuclear weaponry should not be an excuse to exclude the nation and place sanctions upon it. The country has a right to arm and defend itself against an obvious aggressor looking to exploit it.

The DPRK say they are willing to go to war and reunify the countries if provoked, even if that means going against the USA, Japan and the ROK. (http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/world/N-Korea-says-it-s-ready-for-attack/Article1-548580.aspx). Doesn't sound sensible.

p.s.
DPRK's secret weapon ...... 'The People's Wayne Rooney' :laugh: (http://tvnz.co.nz/2010-fifa-world-cup-news/people-s-rooney-stars-north-korea-3568201)

[Jazzratt]

torpedogate

No. The lazy habit of journalists and other commentators welding the suffix "-gate" onto anything they see as controversial or a little scandalous is something that cannot die soon enough. Engaging in that sort of lazy writing should carry a heavy custodial sentence.

[Che a chara]

No. The lazy habit of journalists and other commentators welding the suffix "-gate" onto anything they see as controversial or a little scandalous is something that cannot die soon enough. Engaging in that sort of lazy writing should carry a heavy custodial sentence.

:eek: :crying: ya harsh hoor.... is that not a form of censorship ? ;) But yeah, it's only good use should be in humour only.

[Publius]

p.s.
DPRK's secret weapon ...... 'The People's Wayne Rooney' :laugh: (http://tvnz.co.nz/2010-fifa-world-cup-news/people-s-rooney-stars-north-korea-3568201)

That's hilarious.

In the World Cup he's going to be The People's Guy Who Picks the Ball Out of the Net.

[Publius]

No. The lazy habit of journalists and other commentators welding the suffix "-gate" onto anything they see as controversial or a little scandalous is something that cannot die soon enough. Engaging in that sort of lazy writing should carry a heavy custodial sentence.

We should call this "Suffixgate".

Or "Gategate".

[Robert]

"Suffixgate"

That was the name of a Gallic warrior who always seemed to be the last one to arrive at a battle with the Romans. But he's dead now so we can use his name.

[Paul Cockshott]

They're shrimp fishermen. They use giant lights (about as bright as a Las Vegas billboard, supposedly) to lure their catch to the surface.

The same lights can be seen off the coast of parts of South America.

I thought it was squid not shrimp?

[Bud Struggle]

It is funny that some squid/shrimp boats have more lights than all of NK. :)

[Os Cangaceiros]

I thought it was squid not shrimp?

Might be...I do know that shrimp are harvested via light, too, though.

[Dr Mindbender]

even if NK sank the ship i still dont see why they should have to apologise for attacking a hostile military ship trespassing on their sovereign waters.

[Bud Struggle]

even if NK sank the ship i still dont see why they should have to apologise for attacking a hostile military ship trespassing on their sovereign waters.

I've been on RevLeft so long that I remember way back when Communism were classless and stateless. :D

[Paul Cockshott]

I've been on RevLeft so long that I remember way back when Communism were classless and stateless. :D

So you go right back to Catalhoyok, do you attribute your long life to the Yoghurt?

[Dr Mindbender]

I've been on RevLeft so long that I remember way back when Communism were classless and stateless. :D
NK is not communist and frankly, i dont even think even NK claimed it was. NK is under juche.

In a predominately capitalist world, communists must support the self determination of nations facing unfavourable odds imposed by imperialists. Their survival depends on the economic, territorial and human rights taken for granted by bourgeoisie democracies, regardless of the ideology in question. It is for the same reason we support Palestinian and Irish liberation.

Only once communism is pan global can the concepts of states be dispensed with.

[Robert]

NK is not communist and frankly, i dont even think even NK claimed it was.

Oh, really?


According to Kim Jong-il's On the Juche Idea, the application of Juche in state policy entails the following:


The people must have independence (chajusong (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chajusong&action=edit&redlink=1)) in thought and politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics), economic self-sufficiency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-sufficiency), and self-reliance in defense.
Policy must reflect the will and aspirations of the masses and employ them fully in revolution and construction.
Methods of revolution and construction must be suitable to the situation of the country.
The most important work of revolution and construction is molding people ideologically as communists and mobilizing them to constructive action.

The Juche outlook requires absolute loyalty to the revolutionary party and leader. In North Korea, these are the Workers' Party of Korea and Kim Jong-il, respectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche

Of course, i have to admit that they are dirty lying juche bags. That's what you think too, right? They are liars, right?

[Dr Mindbender]

Of course, i have to admit that they are dirty lying juche bags. That's what you think too, right? They are liars, right?

I dont think Kim is a liar. I'm sure he even genuinely thinks he has the best interests of his people at heart.

I don't believe that makes him an authority on communism though because his fathers theories differ so wildly from other places that have attempted to implement socialism (i think the nationalist element of juche is pretty damn reactionary).

But then being a communist ideologically and running a communist society are 2 different things. The soviet union was ruled by the communist party but over a socialist country. Its a similar state of affairs in NK.

[Robert]

I have to agree with all that, but on what other basis can NK exclude imperialists and capitalists, ignore human rights conventions, or implement collectivization of ownership of the means of production among its people, without being nationalistic?

[Weezer]

Juchebags.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

a. The US does not, under any circumstances, want a war with NK. The thousands of US troops in SK are nowhere near enough to halt a determined North Korean offensive, let alone launch an offensive of their own. They're there mainly to act as a trip wire, as in, if NK were to attack SK, the US would immeidately be at war. It's a political tie with SK more than anything, knowing that our fate is tied to theirs in a sense. No deliberations in Washington, no debates for a years, an invasion by NK would mean war. Also, China doesn't want war, if only because they'd have to deal with millions of refugees and a full blown disaster on their porch.

b. Submarine captains act with a lot of independence. In fleets which have SSBNs, or "Boomers," (Subs which carry nukes), the captain is given responsibility for the retaliation after a nuclear strike (or possibly a first strike). In the US, he is the one person other than the President to have the power to do so. It is possible that the captain of this boat saw an enemy vessel in their territory and decided to act without making contact with his superiors (doing so in close proximity to an enemy vessel would compromise the ship and, frankly, defeat the purpose of a submarine). However, even if that is the case, the responsiblity is solely on the NK govt to apologize and make amends afterwards, which NK clearly has not done but instead opted for a more hostile course.

c. SK reminds me of the kid that gets punched in the face and shrugs it off like a little *****.

d. Fuck the DPRK, and everything they're about. Yes, one could say they're anti-imperialist. They're also a totalitarian militant state that shows no signs of being responsible with the weapons they're developing, instead using them merely to gain leverage over their neighbors.*

I will state that, though I am a socialist, I believe it would be better for NK to give in to imperialism. To open up to western investment and become a little more like every other country in the region, which all have higher standards of living than NK does.

*Yes, the US used the bomb in WWII. We know.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I will state that, though I am a socialist, I believe it would be better for NK to give in to imperialism. To open up to western investment and become a little more like every other country in the region, which all have higher standards of living than NK does.

Does it necessarily have to be US imperialism? There are "better" imperialist neighbours next door, such as China and especially Russia.

[synthesis]

Does it necessarily have to be US imperialism? There are "better" imperialist neighbours next door, such as China and especially Russia.

That already happened, more or less. The North Korean famines were pretty much a direct result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, in the present, North Korea receives food aid from China which is channeled mostly into the North Korean military.



China's support for Pyongyang ensures a friendly nation on its northeastern border, as well as provides a buffer zone between China and democratic South Korea, which is home to around twenty-nine thousand U.S. troops and marines. This allows China to reduce its military deployment in its northeast and "focus more directly on the issue of Taiwanese independence," Shen Dingli of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai writes in China Security (PDF) (http://www.wsichina.org/cs4_2.pdf). North Korea's allegiance is important to Beijing as a bulwark against U.S. military dominance of the region as well as against the rise of Japan's military.


China also gains economically from its association with North Korea; growing numbers of Chinese firms are investing in North Korea and gaining concessions like preferable trading terms and port operations.


"For the Chinese, stability and the avoidance of war are the top priorities," says Daniel Sneider (http://fsi.stanford.edu/people/danielcsneider/), the associate director for research at Stanford's Asia-Pacific Research Center. "From that point of view, the North Koreans are a huge problem for them, because Pyongyang could trigger a war on its own." The specter of hundreds of thousands of North Korean refugees flooding into China is a huge worry for Beijing.



"The Chinese are most concerned about the collapse of North Korea leading to chaos on the border," CFR's Segal says. If North Korea does provoke a war with the United States, China and South Korea would bear the brunt of any military confrontation on the Korean peninsula. Yet both those countries have been hesitant about pushing Pyongyang too hard, for fear of making Kim's regime collapse. The flow of refugees into China is already a problem: China has promised Pyongyang that it will repatriate North Koreans escaping across the border, but invites condemnation from human rights groups when sending them back to the DPRK. Jing-dong Yuan (http://cns.miis.edu/cns/staff/jdyuan.htm) of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in California says Beijing began its construction of a barbed wire fence along this border in 2006 for that reason.

[Demogorgon]

Does it necessarily have to be US imperialism? There are "better" imperialist neighbours next door, such as China and especially Russia.
I don't endorse the view that opening up on the US's terms would be good for North Korea, that usually makes a bad situation even worse* but opening up on China's terms wouldn't be that good an idea either. The reason being that North Korean development under China would involve preferential terms for Chinese companies investing in North Korea and in the short run that would lead to tensions with South Korea because it may jeopardise its own nascent investment there, but more importantly as North Korea developed and it became appealing to South Korea again, it could lead to an almighty tug of war between China and the South. And I really don't think the North needs any more trouble just now.

I honestly don't know what the solution is. I know what I would like to happen obviously, a socialist revolution. But let's face it, under the circumstances any "revolution" is likely to bring to power the sort of neoliberals who think the South Korean Government are dangerous Communists for their Universal Healthcare and social welfare.

The North has engaged in some market "liberalisation" in recent years. The result hasn't been any increase in the quantity or quality of goods. Simply rising prices. And given how bad things already were, something managing to make them even worse is a sort of perverse achievement.

[Bud Struggle]

Does it necessarily have to be US imperialism? There are "better" imperialist neighbours next door, such as China and especially Russia.

Desperate post. (No offense, nothing personal, DNZ.)

What happened to Communism? It has to be "better" than this don't you think?

[Dimentio]

I would much rather have a union of korea cheerled by either a workers north or south korea that had undergone a legitimate revolution, not led by a crony of the USA.

I dont see how unity led by the Southern bourgeioise state will benefit anyone but the USA and its lapdogs. The ROK does not want unity anyway because (rightly or wrongly) they fear a tidal surge of refugees from the north.

Even an occupation of China would probably be preferable to what they now have.

[Demogorgon]

Even an occupation of China would probably be preferable to what they now have.
Possibly. Though you have to be careful because after all Iraq prior to 2003 wasn't a very nice place either, but invasion still managed to make it even worse.

Nonetheless we have to accept that while it could get even worse, it is one of the worst places in the world right now and is-despite the abysmal attempts at propaganda designed to make naive Western Progressives back it-the victim of one of the most right wing Governments in the world. It needs to be said. I know the Usual suspects (indeed "useful idiots") here will jump down my throat for saying so and some of our restricted friends will say I am trying to shift what they see as an embarrassment onto their doorstep, but what other term can be used for a Government that follows the policies it has?

We know that right wing Governments spending priorities are such things as defence, sometimes "national prestige" programmes and so forth and dislike social welfare spending, public services and so forth. Well look at what the Northern Government has done! It has raised spending on the military to around 40% of GDP, paying for it by more or less eliminating social welfare and many public services and of course it doesn't exactly lack for various prestige projects.

Speaking of which, moving away from economic policies to some of its other policies. Forced conformity (doubtless none of it is true and is all "bourgeoisie lies") like the controls on people's appearances, the constant emphasis on militarism, the attempt to create a de facto state religion through the mystification the Kim dynasty and so on (and before the useful idiots say anything, read the North's own English language propaganda there) and you add up to something that has nothing to recommend it to progressives.

We aren't talking about Cuba here, a country not short of its own flaws, but with clear redeeming qualities and an obviously higher standard of living than its neighbours, despite less favourable circumstances, we are talk about one of the most reactionary Governments on Earth here, one that maintains an oppressive state without a single redeeming feature. Even the supposed "anti-imperialism" brought up here is false. The United States aims to isolate North Korea, not waste resources on an invasion, the North attempts to constantly raise the risk of conflict because the promotion of the seige mentality is how it controls its population.

It is time for the naive to take their heads out of the sands. Not only is the North Korean Government not progressive in any sense whatsoever, it is now in fact to the right of the South Korean Government and I say that in full knowledge of the behaviour of the Government there and its own shift further to the right in the last three years.

[Invincible Summer]

I've been on RevLeft so long that I remember way back when Communism were classless and stateless. :D


Desperate post. (No offense, nothing personal, DNZ.)

What happened to Communism? It has to be "better" than this don't you think?

Who ever said that the DPRK was communist?



I will state that, though I am a socialist, I believe it would be better for NK to give in to imperialism. To open up to western investment and become a little more like every other country in the region, which all have higher standards of living than NK does.

I believe that the DPRK does have "Special Economic Zones" or something where business has a bit more leash

[Publius]

Possibly. Though you have to be careful because after all Iraq prior to 2003 wasn't a very nice place either, but invasion still managed to make it even worse.

For a time.

It might be better now than it was under Saddam. It'll probably be better still in 15 years.

In order to oppose the Iraq war we don't have to pretend there weren't any good side effects to the invasion. Ousting Saddam and turning Iraq into a democratic state WERE good things, even if they occurred under the worst of pretenses, as they did.

[Publius]

We aren't talking about Cuba here, a country not short of its own flaws, but with clear redeeming qualities and an obviously higher standard of living than its neighbours, despite less favourable circumstances, we are talk about one of the most reactionary Governments on Earth here, one that maintains an oppressive state without a single redeeming feature. Even the supposed "anti-imperialism" brought up here is false. The United States aims to isolate North Korea, not waste resources on an invasion, the North attempts to constantly raise the risk of conflict because the promotion of the seige mentality is how it controls its population.

It is time for the naive to take their heads out of the sands. Not only is the North Korean Government not progressive in any sense whatsoever, it is now in fact to the right of the South Korean Government and I say that in full knowledge of the behaviour of the Government there and its own shift further to the right in the last three years.

Plus even thought Cuba has to deal with many of the same problems as North Korea including a ridiculous and, at this point farcical embargo, general poverty, and so on it doesn't respond by developing nuclear weapons (indeed spending much military at all) under some ridiculous pretense of "fighting of US imperialism".

If NK really need to be so violent, oppressive, and militaristic to stave of the US, why doesn't Cuba need to do the same?

Of course the US-Cuban relations include violent insurrection and assassination plots but those were a) a while ago b) during the Cold War and c) half-assed, abject failures.

If the "real reason" the US is so interested in North Korea is evil imperialist aims, instead concern for stability in the region, then the US should be just as violent towards Cuba.

At this point I don't think the US gives a shit about Cuba one way or the other. But they'd conquer Cuba in a heartbeat if they tried to build a nuke.

NK's military posturing and isolationism are the problem, not the solution.

Why doesn't NK just ease up and open up its borders?

No, we're not going to invade it they do that. We don't give a shit.

[Demogorgon]

For a time.

It might be better now than it was under Saddam. It'll probably be better still in 15 years.

In order to oppose the Iraq war we don't have to pretend there weren't any good side effects to the invasion. Ousting Saddam and turning Iraq into a democratic state WERE good things, even if they occurred under the worst of pretenses, as they did.
I don't want to derail this thread into a discussion on Iraq, but I should point out to you that at very least in terms of refugee movements-an area of particular concern to me-there are still clearly more people fleeing than before 2003.

Nobody is going to say that the previous regime should have stayed, but claiming that a democratic Government is now in place is not true either. That is not to say that there is not a democratic (by contemporary standards) constitution, there is. Indeed the great irony is that if you read the Iraqi constitution it is a lot more democratic than the American one. The fact is though that it isn't functioning and the fact that people are being killed by a wide variety of different thugs rather than just the Government, is not a great deal of comfort to them.

But let's not get caught up in that, my point was that I feared that anything like that in North Korea would make the situation even worse than it already is and I stand by that.
Plus even thought Cuba has to deal with many of the same problems as North Korea including a ridiculous and, at this point farcical embargo, general poverty, and so on it doesn't respond by developing nuclear weapons (indeed spending much military at all) under some ridiculous pretense of "fighting of US imperialism".

If NK really need to be so violent, oppressive, and militaristic to stave of the US, why doesn't Cuba need to do the same?

Of course the US-Cuban relations include violent insurrection and assassination plots but those were a) a while ago b) during the Cold War and c) half-assed, abject failures.

If the "real reason" the US is so interested in North Korea is evil imperialist aims, instead concern for stability in the region, then the US should be just as violent towards Cuba.

At this point I don't think the US gives a shit about Cuba one way or the other. But they'd conquer Cuba in a heartbeat if they tried to build a nuke.

NK's military posturing and isolationism are the problem, not the solution.

Why doesn't NK just ease up and open up its borders?

No, we're not going to invade it they do that. We don't give a shit.
I agree with a lot of this. It should be pointed out that the US does continue to be interested in Cuba, after all that noisy exiles in Florida make it hard to win elections for politicians who want to ease up there, but like you say, Cuba has not gone to anything like the lengths North Korea has gone to, yet seems safe, despite the fact that North Korea is of less interest to America.

The example I often use is comparing Iran developing Nuclear Weapons to North Korea doing so. Look at the different reactions. The mere thought of Iran developing a bomb obviously panics western governments whereas North Korea actually having one brought a much more subdued response and this is despite the fact that North Korea is much more likely than Iran to actually use such a weapon.

The simple reason is that while war with Iran has not been ruled out, the US and Britain and the rest of have intention whatsoever of engaging in conflict with North Korea if they can help it. The financial rewards for doing so aren't there.

[Publius]

I agree with a lot of this. It should be pointed out that the US does continue to be interested in Cuba, after all that noisy exiles in Florida make it hard to win elections for politicians who want to ease up there, but like you say, Cuba has not gone to anything like the lengths North Korea has gone to, yet seems safe, despite the fact that North Korea is of less interest to America.

In fact America has historical (and military -- we have a base there) interest in Cuba and, at this point, we've pretty accepted Castro's rule.

If our government weren't locked in a Cold War mindset we'd have free trade with them by now, ironically INCREASING the effect of US imperialism.

I mean, if the goal here is to resist Western Imperialism then we're doing Cuba a FAVOR by not trading with them.

But I don't think any rational person believes that not trading with Cuba does anyone any good or serves any purpose anymore.



The example I often use is comparing Iran developing Nuclear Weapons to North Korea doing so. Look at the different reactions. The mere thought of Iran developing a bomb obviously panics western governments whereas North Korea actually having one brought a much more subdued response and this is despite the fact that North Korea is much more likely than Iran to actually use such a weapon.

The simple reason is that while war with Iran has not been ruled out, the US and Britain and the rest of have intention whatsoever of engaging in conflict with North Korea if they can help it. The financial rewards for doing so aren't there.

The only reason we ever would have attacked North Korea is just to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon.

And we didn't even do that.

While you could argue a nuclear deterrent makes NK safer now, I think you could equally argue it was rather dangerous to attempt because we're fucking crazy, we'll invade anything that moves!

[Dimentio]

Possibly. Though you have to be careful because after all Iraq prior to 2003 wasn't a very nice place either, but invasion still managed to make it even worse.

Nonetheless we have to accept that while it could get even worse, it is one of the worst places in the world right now and is-despite the abysmal attempts at propaganda designed to make naive Western Progressives back it-the victim of one of the most right wing Governments in the world. It needs to be said. I know the Usual suspects (indeed "useful idiots") here will jump down my throat for saying so and some of our restricted friends will say I am trying to shift what they see as an embarrassment onto their doorstep, but what other term can be used for a Government that follows the policies it has?

We know that right wing Governments spending priorities are such things as defence, sometimes "national prestige" programmes and so forth and dislike social welfare spending, public services and so forth. Well look at what the Northern Government has done! It has raised spending on the military to around 40% of GDP, paying for it by more or less eliminating social welfare and many public services and of course it doesn't exactly lack for various prestige projects.

Speaking of which, moving away from economic policies to some of its other policies. Forced conformity (doubtless none of it is true and is all "bourgeoisie lies") like the controls on people's appearances, the constant emphasis on militarism, the attempt to create a de facto state religion through the mystification the Kim dynasty and so on (and before the useful idiots say anything, read the North's own English language propaganda there) and you add up to something that has nothing to recommend it to progressives.

We aren't talking about Cuba here, a country not short of its own flaws, but with clear redeeming qualities and an obviously higher standard of living than its neighbours, despite less favourable circumstances, we are talk about one of the most reactionary Governments on Earth here, one that maintains an oppressive state without a single redeeming feature. Even the supposed "anti-imperialism" brought up here is false. The United States aims to isolate North Korea, not waste resources on an invasion, the North attempts to constantly raise the risk of conflict because the promotion of the seige mentality is how it controls its population.

It is time for the naive to take their heads out of the sands. Not only is the North Korean Government not progressive in any sense whatsoever, it is now in fact to the right of the South Korean Government and I say that in full knowledge of the behaviour of the Government there and its own shift further to the right in the last three years.

Iraq 1991-2003 was probably better than DPRK today. There were at least areas of the country where Saddam couldn't reach.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't endorse the view that opening up on the US's terms would be good for North Korea, that usually makes a bad situation even worse* but opening up on China's terms wouldn't be that good an idea either. The reason being that North Korean development under China would involve preferential terms for Chinese companies investing in North Korea and in the short run that would lead to tensions with South Korea because it may jeopardise its own nascent investment there, but more importantly as North Korea developed and it became appealing to South Korea again, it could lead to an almighty tug of war between China and the South. And I really don't think the North needs any more trouble just now.

The South Koreans learned from the German experience, now that it's the consensus opinion that unification of Germany was an economic headache to say the least.

I'm aware of preferential investment terms that the Chinese have, but like you said, "nascent" investment is small change in the grand scheme of South Korean things.

[boxindave]

i wish the US would pull our troops out of s.korea, this creates part of the problem as the chinese won't get engaged until there is a real crisis with no alternative...with the US just sitting there, when something like this happens (inevitable over time), they know that the S.koreans will look to them for support, keeping the chinese in this disconnected/neutral capacity.

If the US troops left, would there really be a war? I like to think the Chinese would step in during troubled times and fix this isolated crackpot...probably being naive .... just can't imagine how upsetting it would be, seeing more of our soldiers killed over two asian countries fighting over one sunk ship.

[GreenCommunism]

paying for it by more or less eliminating social welfare and many public services and of course it doesn't exactly lack for various prestige projects.

what public service were eliminated? also those prestige projects as you call them were made during the 70s or 80s when the economy was doing good.


Forced conformity (doubtless none of it is true and is all "bourgeoisie lies") like the controls on people's appearances,
what formed conformity? there are control on people's appearance or are there public television campaign to get people to cut their hair? that's a shitload of difference.


It is time for the naive to take their heads out of the sands. Not only is the North Korean Government not progressive in any sense whatsoever, it is now in fact to the right of the South Korean Government and I say that in full knowledge of the behaviour of the Government there and its own shift further to the right in the last three years.
the current south korean government is pretty anti-communist and leftist. still, how is north korea cutting down on public services ?

[Demogorgon]

The lack of health services in most parts of the country is a pretty clear sign that provision of public services has slipped. As is the fact that public transport is now positively dangerous.

Realy though, why are people making any attempt to defend this Government? It is one of the most right wing Governments on earth.

[GreenCommunism]

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13979&news_iv_ctrl=1261

U.N. agency's aid small compensation for millions killed in Korean War and subsequent imperialist-imposed hardships

On April 27, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea formally launched a medical videoconference network to provide provincial hospitals with access to specialists in the capital city of Pyongyang. Ironically, the initiative was carried out with the assistance of the World Health Organization, an agency of the United Nations, which, along with the United States, is responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people during the Korean War.



Kim Man Yu Hospital, Pyonyang, North Korea

The WHO has been providing cameras, computers and other equipment to North Korea to help connect a main hospital in Pyongyang with medical facilities in 10 provinces. The system is designed to allow doctors to communicate with each other and enable specialists to serve patients in rural regions.

WHO Director-General Margaret Chan participated in the official inaugural ceremony for the system held at the Kim Man Yu hospital in Pyongyang. Chan was the first WHO chief to visit the DPRK since the agency opened its office in Pyongyang in 2001.

While the new system is a positive development for North Korea, it cannot be overlooked that insufficiencies in the country’s state health care system are directly linked to the history of imperialist intervention in the region.

The U.S.-U.N. war on Korea claimed the lives of 5 million people, devastated the entire peninsula and divided a whole people in two. The imperialist invaders, however, were ultimately driven from the North by the combined forces of the Korean People’s Army and nearly 1 million Chinese volunteers in December 1950.

Since 1953, the United States has refused to sign a peace treaty, leaving the two sides technically still at war. The unsettled conflict provides the United States with a flimsy pretext to station tens of thousands of troops on the North-South border and impose crippling economic and financial sanctions.

The new medical videoconference network is a welcome development for the DPRK, but cannot even begin to erase the history of exploitation and oppression inflicted upon the Korean people by world imperialism.

Stop the war on Korea! Self-determination for the Korean people! End the sanctions and blockade of North Korea! Hands off Korea now!

all your arguments saying that north korea is right-wing are easily disproven, public prestige works were done during the 80s. forced conformity are television campaign telling people to cut their hair (what about our western society where man with long hair are often thought of as lazy,punks or so thus not given a job, is that not forced conformity?)

north korea does what it can to give health services. the military first part is the only thing that may be right wing. but that's still dumb, weapons are not right wing, they are used by people who may be left or right wing. weapons are a mean to an end.

cuba and north korea can't be compared, one had biological warfare against it, and the other had a lame and shortlived bay of pigs invasion easily crushed.

[Demogorgon]

This is utterly demented. Obviously high military spending is right wing because militarism is a right wing spending priority and to place the achievement of 40%(!) of GDP dedicated to the military above providing food and medicine to the population shows a clear right wing bias.

Moreover your talk about the prestige projects being back in the eighties when the economy was slightly better is simply nonsense. The Ryugyong Hotel for instance, started in the nineties and resumed in 2008 despite the fact that it is structurally unsound and will never be fit for use has already taken up 2% of GDP (on a single building), how exactly does that not qualify as a wasteful prestige project?

And as for the forced conformity which you claim does not exist. Well in the first instance that television programme, backed by the general campaign the Government waged alongside it is a pretty textbook example no matter how much you try to dress it up, but it is hardly even the strongest example.

And all of this is before we even talk about the racial nationalism.

Really though, why the need to defend North Korea? Do you honestly believe there is anything leftist about it whatsoever? I defy you to find any leftist characteristics of the regime whatsoever.

[Jose Gracchus]

And the idea that a single torpedo split the ship in half is quite illogical.

I have to go to bed in the interests of making my philosophy class in the morning, so I will reply later with a deeper set of refutations of claims made generally, and particular by Gowans in that blog post.

However, are you so sure:

ht tp:// upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Mark_48_Torpedo_testing.jpg

The ROK claim they have compared the torpedo fragments and their serial number with an intact example from a decade ago, though I cannot convincingly confirm this right now (or refute it).

The above image is a test of the Mark 48 torpedo, which has a high-explosive warhead weight of 295 kgs. The test target is the retired Destroyer Escort Terrens, with a displacement of 2700 tons. For comparison, the ROKN corvette Cheonan was only 1,200 tons, and the KPANF deploys Yono-class small submarines with torpedoes in the 200-300 kgs warhead scale. Gowans' supposed technical conclusion, made on fiat, could be challenged on the basis of a few minutes of Google and Wiki searching on commonly-available military facts. I am loathe to offer any comforts to the ideologists and propagandists of American imperialism and its client, but this challenges Gowans' competency and reliability. I sincerely hope this does not result in war, which would only result in the deaths and privation for common Koreans, almost certainly a long-term political victory for far-right forces in the ROK and in the U.S., and generally be cast as another inevitable victorious march in the triumph of "free enterprise" and "freedom" over "Communism." The best any rational person I think can hope for is a return to the status quo and a simmering down of tensions.

[GreenCommunism]

This is utterly demented. Obviously high military spending is right wing because militarism is a right wing spending priority and to place the achievement of 40%(!) of GDP dedicated to the military above providing food and medicine to the population shows a clear right wing bias.

of course it is right wing militarism, but my point was that whether the government is rightist or not weapons are a mean to an end. that is people who need guns buy guns. the militarism you are refering to is pretty much in correlation with imperialism, attacking other countries.


Moreover your talk about the prestige projects being back in the eighties when the economy was slightly better is simply nonsense. The Ryugyong Hotel for instance, started in the nineties and resumed in 2008 despite the fact that it is structurally unsound and will never be fit for use has already taken up 2% of GDP (on a single building), how exactly does that not qualify as a wasteful prestige project?

i do not know about this hotel. but how do you know it's structurally unsound? that sounds like typical biased crap that north korean are too stupid to have good architects. of course it's possible but i find it suspicious and similar to all the crap said on north korea.
from wikipedia:

Construction began in 1987, but was halted in 1992 due to the economic disruptions that afflicted the country. The hotel stood topped out but without windows or interior fittings for the next sixteen years, until construction resumed in April 2008, under the supervision of the Orascom Group of Egypt, which has invested heavily in the North Korean mobile telephony and construction industries
1987 counts as 1980s, and they resumed the construction due to investment and support from orascom. what i've found is the European Union Chamber of Commerce in Korea which has strong ties with south korea claiming that it is irrepairable. while others said that part of the building are crooked.


And as for the forced conformity which you claim does not exist. Well in the first instance that television programme, backed by the general campaign the Government waged alongside it is a pretty textbook example no matter how much you try to dress it up, but it is hardly even the strongest example.
i somewhat changed my mind when i read that people can be arrested and forced to have a hair cut. if this is true. can't you get through your thick skull that this state is so demonized at one time they claimed that north korea was testing gas weapon on children. typical horror movies plot.


And all of this is before we even talk about the racial nationalism
what are you talking about here? they complained of south korea and the us involvement and this could be called xenophobia but it sounds like typical anti-imperialism to me. being wary of foreign invader is not really racism i believe. there's no law preventing mixed race couples, and there's no forced abortion of such mixed-race babies unlike what some may claim. from wikipedia

racially homogeneous: Koreans; small Chinese community, a few ethnic Japanese and ethnic Vietnamese


Really though, why the need to defend North Korea? Do you honestly believe there is anything leftist about it whatsoever? I defy you to find any leftist characteristics of the regime whatsoever.
we should defend all reactionary state including the taliban if the big nato dogs are engaging in disinformation campaign on them . we should respect the truth. and if all of what you say is true toward north korea then i would agree that it sucks even more than i thought, yet again i believe it is better than any third world dictatorship like burma.

I defy you to find any leftist characteristics of the regime whatsoever.
free post secondary education, public healthcare, high literacy rate. all positions are elected except the 4 top ones. if you disregard those then let's talk about what is leftist in china anymore except the name?

[Demogorgon]

of course it is right wing militarism, but my point was that whether the government is rightist or not weapons are a mean to an end. that is people who need guns buy guns. the militarism you are refering to is pretty much in correlation with imperialism, attacking other countries.Your point is irrelevant to the fact that the North Korean Government has pursued right wing spending priorities. Indeed if you chart all the world's countries according to their public spending priorities then North Korea comes out as one of the most right wing of all.

And don't give me rubbish about the North needing all that militarism for defence. The purpose of the military is internal oppression.


i do not know about this hotel. but how do you know it's structurally unsound? that sounds like typical biased crap that north korean are too stupid to have good architects. of course it's possible but i find it suspicious and similar to all the crap said on north korea.
from wikipedia:

1987 counts as 1980s, and they resumed the construction due to investment and support from orascom. what i've found is the European Union Chamber of Commerce in Korea which has strong ties with south korea claiming that it is irrepairable. while others said that part of the building are crooked.
There you have said it yourself, there is clear evidence it is structurally unsound and as I understand it the concrete used in it is of low quality. Notwithstanding all of that, the Government has blown 2% of GDP on a single building which shall give no benefit to ordinary people there.


i somewhat changed my mind when i read that people can be arrested and forced to have a hair cut. if this is true. can't you get through your thick skull that this state is so demonized at one time they claimed that north korea was testing gas weapon on children. typical horror movies plot.
In the same paragraph that you acknowledge my point, you claim it is me being stupid here. That is not the best tactic. As for the claims that it has tested gas weapons against children, it is unsubstantiated. Frankly though if it transpires that prisoners have been subjected to weapon tests, it would not surprise me.


what are you talking about here? they complained of south korea and the us involvement and this could be called xenophobia but it sounds like typical anti-imperialism to me. being wary of foreign invader is not really racism i believe. there's no law preventing mixed race couples, and there's no forced abortion of such mixed-race babies unlike what some may claim. from wikipedia

A good description of the racist ideology and general right wing nature of the state can be found here (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/22/north_koreas_race_problem). Yes, yes I know. It is not from the North's state propaganda department, so it can't be true.


we should defend all reactionary state including the taliban if the big nato dogs are engaging in disinformation campaign on them . we should respect the truth. and if all of what you say is true toward north korea then i would agree that it sucks even more than i thought, yet again i believe it is better than any third world dictatorship like burma.I presume you mean America's pacific allies because I doubt NATO would be keen to get involved in North Korea, but even then there is no war drum beating. Nobody wants war with North Korea because it would be expensive and achieve nothing.

We should certainly oppose the invasion of any country, but beyond that we are under no obligation to defend far-right Governments.

As for being better than other third world dictatorships, I don't think so. Burma perhaps comes close, but even it isn't as repressive. It doesn't execute dissidents these days for instance. Apart from that, I can only think of one or two others that come close. The key characteristic of almost all of them of course is that they aren't as shut off as North Korea.


free post secondary education, public healthcare, high literacy rate. all positions are elected except the 4 top ones. if you disregard those then let's talk about what is leftist in china anymore except the name?
That is nonsense. Apart from the supposedly high literacy rate (which is the same as South Korea's) your claims are absurd. Further education is only permitted to a very few, the Government has more or less given up on giving healthcare to rural areas and as for your claim about any position at all being elected, get real. You cannot describe something as being elected when only one candidate is ever permitted to run. That is De Facto appointment.

Once more, we are dealing with one of the most right wing regimes on earth. Any leftist who attempts to defend it, is being naive.

[Publius]

Come on Demogorgon, it has DEMOCRATIC in its country name. It has to be a democracy then.

Can't you read?

And it's a "People's" Republic, so it's definitely committed to egalitarian socialism.

[GreenCommunism]

Your point is irrelevant to the fact that the North Korean Government has pursued right wing spending priorities. Indeed if you chart all the world's countries according to their public spending priorities then North Korea comes out as one of the most right wing of all.

And don't give me rubbish about the North needing all that militarism for defence. The purpose of the military is internal oppression.
i still don't understand what the hell are right-wing spending priorities except the military. don't you think the military is to fight south korea? who needs a military for internal oppression, cops do that. a certain military is needed for insurgencies, but when was the last time that happened.


There you have said it yourself, there is clear evidence it is structurally unsound and as I understand it the concrete used in it is of low quality. Notwithstanding all of that, the Government has blown 2% of GDP on a single building which shall give no benefit to ordinary people there.
i think that single building is a hotel which would be used for rich foreigners, there's a use right there.

In the same paragraph that you acknowledge my point, you claim it is me being stupid here. That is not the best tactic. As for the claims that it has tested gas weapons against children, it is unsubstantiated. Frankly though if it transpires that prisoners have been subjected to weapon tests, it would not surprise me.
yeah because that's how much you believe everything about them. you wouldn't even be surprised that the regime is lead by a bunch of blood thirsty psychopaths.

A good description of the racist ideology and general right wing nature of the state can be found here. Yes, yes I know. It is not from the North's state propaganda department, so it can't be true.
i read about half of it and i must say that i believe some of it is true, and i am sure some of it is false. but i will take it as true, i will ask a north korean who lives in canada what he thinks of this article. as for being racially pure it is actually a fact that a nation is more united when all members of it share the same genetical characteristics. to try to preserve this is racist though. i am sure the population there is just as racist as any population, but if textbooks are encouraging this i think it is wrong.

I presume you mean America's pacific allies because I doubt NATO would be keen to get involved in North Korea, but even then there is no war drum beating. Nobody wants war with North Korea because it would be expensive and achieve nothing.

We should certainly oppose the invasion of any country, but beyond that we are under no obligation to defend far-right Governments.

As for being better than other third world dictatorships, I don't think so. Burma perhaps comes close, but even it isn't as repressive. It doesn't execute dissidents these days for instance. Apart from that, I can only think of one or two others that come close. The key characteristic of almost all of them of course is that they aren't as shut off as North Korea. i meant in the education field mostly.

that is nonsense. Apart from the supposedly high literacy rate (which is the same as South Korea's) your claims are absurd. Further education is only permitted to a very few, the Government has more or less given up on giving healthcare to rural areas and as for your claim about any position at all being elected, get real. You cannot describe something as being elected when only one candidate is ever permitted to run. That is De Facto appointment.
south korea has 98% literacy rate, north korea has 99%. yes it's the same i know :). the further education is given as a meritocracy by those who score higher at the exam, i have no idea if it is the way it works but i doubt there is some favoritism.

like i said, there are elections for everyone except the 4 top people. i doubt that there is only 1 candidate permitted to run. of course i am not saying anything with proof, but so do you.

Once more, we are dealing with one of the most right wing regimes on earth. Any leftist who attempts to defend it, is being naive.
there is nothing wrong trying to dispel myths about a country. no matter how fucking evil it is. i wouldn't care about dispelling myths about hitler's germany. and i wouldn't want anyone to tell me i am defending it.

[Bud Struggle]

like i said, there are elections for everyone except the 4 top people.

Just like Britain with the Royal family. :)

[Che a chara]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10752746


25 July 2010 Last updated at 04:28

S Korea-US military exercise begins in the Sea of Japan




http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48477000/jpg/_48477765_009860147-1.jpg
The US-South Korean military exercise, code-named Invincible Spirit, will last four days


The US and South Korea have begun a major military exercise in the Sea of Japan, despite threats of retaliation from North Korea.

The navy and air force manoeuvres involve 20 ships, 200 planes and 8,000 US and South Korean personnel.

Washington and Seoul say they want to send a clear signal to the North following the sinking of a South Korean warship in March.

An international investigation said a North Korean torpedo sank the ship.

However, the claim has been angrily denied by Pyongyang.

On Saturday, North Korea threatened to use its nuclear deterrent in a retaliatory, "sacred war" in response to the exercise.

The BBC's John Sudworth, who is aboard one of the warships, says the show of strength is intended to rattle Pyongyang's military and political elite.

But some observers are questioning whether the display of military power will simply galvanise the hardliners inside the isolated country, he says.

North Korea's inflammatory rhetoric is nothing new, he adds, but the rising tension is causing concern, with China urging all parties to show restraint.

The South Korean defence ministry said the manoeuvres had been relocated from the sensitive Yellow Sea to the Sea of Japan following protests from China, North Korea's ally.

Border monitored

Amid the rising tension, military officials in Seoul said they were closely monitoring the North's military in border areas but had not detected any unusual activity in the run-up to the exercises, code-named Invincible Spirit.

The North's National Defence Commission denounced the war games as "nothing but outright provocations aimed to stifle the Democratic People's Republic of Korea [North Korea] by force of arms," the state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said.

"The army and people of the DPRK will start a retaliatory sacred war of their own style based on nuclear deterrent any time necessary in order to counter the US imperialists and the South Korean puppet forces deliberately pushing the situation to the brink of a war," it added.

The US responded by saying it was "not interested in a war of words with North Korea".

The four-day drill includes the aircraft carrier USS George Washington and some 200 fixed-wing aircraft, officials said.

The sinking of the Cheonan warship claimed the lives of 46 South Korean sailors.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48449000/gif/_48449705_korea_n_s_dmz464wargames.gif

[Che a chara]

Is this just 'saber rattling' ?

[#FF0000]

Is this just 'saber rattling' ?

Hopefully. Probably, even, since, like Demo said a million years ago, there's no good reason to go to war against NK.

Also want to make it clear for folks like Robert that being firmly against military action against North Korea is different than "supporting" them.

[#FF0000]

In order to oppose the Iraq war we don't have to pretend there weren't any good side effects to the invasion. Ousting Saddam and turning Iraq into a democratic state WERE good things, even if they occurred under the worst of pretenses, as they did.

Yeah, destabilizing the entire Middle East and turning the country over to rampant ethnic violence is just great.

What kind of thinking is "hey, this war was good because maybe one day the country won't be totally fucked because of it anymore"?

EDIT: Back on the topic of the NK torpedo, I was under the impression a few months back that they decided it was an accidental sinking? That the SK ship had a problem and sunk on its own or something?

[Publius]

Yeah, destabilizing the entire Middle East and turning the country over to rampant ethnic violence is just great.

If there's one thing the Middle East definitely lacked before our invasion of Iraq it was destabilizing ethnic violence.

I guess somehow our invasion of Iraq caused Saddam to gas an ethnic minority with his time machine?

Anyway, I don't disagree that the war in Iraq was bad for the region. But it was already an unstable region full of ethnic strife coupled with a war mongering dictator.



What kind of thinking is "hey, this war was good because maybe one day the country won't be totally fucked because of it anymore"?

I didn't say the war was good. It wasn't. I said something bad can have good effects.

It is better than Iraq is a democracy (even a bad one) than a brutal dictatorship. On balance, does this make the war in Iraq worth it? No, but let's no pretend there were NO benefits from the war. That's not to say they outweigh the negatives.

[#FF0000]

If there's one thing the Middle East definitely lacked before our invasion of Iraq it was destabilizing ethnic violence.

I guess somehow our invasion of Iraq caused Saddam to gas an ethnic minority with his time machine?

That was 20 years ago. Meanwhile, as a direct result of the U.S. invasion, militias and police armed by the U.S. roamed the streets of Baghdad committing ethnic violence.

btw, take a guess where Saddam got the gas in the first place. Imperialist involvement in other countries is never a good thing.


Anyway, I don't disagree that the war in Iraq was bad for the region. But it was already an unstable region full of ethnic strife coupled with a war mongering dictator.

Nowhere near as bad as it is now. There weren't Ethnic death squads roaming the streets of Baghdad and there wasn't a massive power vacuum in the Middle East.


I didn't say the war was good. It wasn't. I said something bad can have good effects.

It is better than Iraq is a democracy (even a bad one) than a brutal dictatorship. On balance, does this make the war in Iraq worth it? No, but let's no pretend there were NO benefits from the war. That's not to say they outweigh the negatives.

Sure, the invasion was great, for U.S. contractors and business interests. The usual folks that get all the perks out of U.S. intervention in other countries.

[Demogorgon]

It is better than Iraq is a democracy (even a bad one) than a brutal dictatorship. On balance, does this make the war in Iraq worth it? No, but let's no pretend there were NO benefits from the war. That's not to say they outweigh the negatives.I don't want to drag this topic off on a great tangent, but I do wish to show the problem here. Suppose we have a hypothetical country with a reasonably functional polyarchy (to use the most accurate term) that doesn't exactly meet the highest standards but is superior in structure to many of its neighbours. So far so good, right?

Now suppose however that a particular region of this country is lawless and totally out of the control of this Government. It is run by various rebels perhaps or maybe it has come under the control of the crime bosses, the point is that it is not actually run by the plural Government elsewhere in the country and the people there faced terrible brutality. Does it make much difference to a person living in this area that the rest of the country is relatively free? Of course not, because they are not enjoying any of the benefits of that, even if the Government manages to get ballot boxes in and out every four years.

Now imagine that this situation does not apply simply in one region, but in most places and you have Iraq. On paper Iraq has a pretty democratic constitution, more democratic than the American one actually, and a very fair electoral system. It has the political institutions to support a very good polyarchy but the Government doesn't actually control much of the country so it doesn't matter one jot how democratic or not the system may be in paper, people aren't actually living under it.

Not to mention of course that where the Government is functioning it still isn't exactly proving to be much of an upholder of human rights or indeed democratic process. The last election there didn't quite proceed as planned after all.

[Dean]

If there's one thing the Middle East definitely lacked before our invasion of Iraq it was destabilizing ethnic violence.

I guess somehow our invasion of Iraq caused Saddam to gas an ethnic minority with his time machine?

Anyway, I don't disagree that the war in Iraq was bad for the region. But it was already an unstable region full of ethnic strife coupled with a war mongering dictator.
The ethnic strife in Iraq was fomented and instigated by political forces attempting to fill a power vacuum; the ethnic strife was not a serious part of Iraqi life before then, and indeed before, mixed neighborhoods were especially common and peaceful.

The new government is rife with as much corruption as before - quantitatively more in terms of misappropriation of funds. Add to that rampant violence and criminalization of labor unions and peaceful assembly, and we have a real "democratic oasis," don't we?

[RGacky3]

The ethnic strife in Iraq was fomented and instigated by political forces attempting to fill a power vacuum; the ethnic strife was not a serious part of Iraqi life before then, and indeed before, mixed neighborhoods were especially common and peaceful.

Thats absultely right, the funny thing is this is'nt new, imperialistic powers have been doing this since imperialism, going in, causing all types of problems, then whenever they want to interfere more they use those problems THEY caused as an excuse, it goes all the way back to the Roman Empire and the Pax Romana.

The US however does a crappy job of justifying, its so clear and obvious that they are ruining the country, and the excuses they give their own people are clearly problems caused BY imperialism, yet they arn't gonna leave, they have no intention of trying to help the country or at the least let them help themselves and leave them alone.

[#FF0000]

Let's keep this about North Korea plz

[Bud Struggle]

It seems to me that the torpedoing of the SK ship by the NK is the beginning of a narrative of dynastic succession. The Warrior Prince needs a track record of defending the kingdom before he takes the reigns of power from his failing father.

I think Kim Jong Il will be credited, not for the attack--which is denied, but for fighting off the SK and American response to the incident.

[Conquer or Die]

To be clear I bited so hard on Stephen Gowans' ass I've completely discredited everything I've said in this thread. The incident was clearly a provocation by the North Korean government. Is there room for debate on what happened? Sure, but the logic follows that it was NK and not SK who initiated the hostility and likely sunk the ship. Stephen Gowans always looks for whatever piece of dirt he can dig up in any corner of the world and make it apply to situations of global imperialist capitalism. There is always foul play on the part of competing powers, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (not to belittle the deaths of the sailors).

He's a Pravda man, no more and no less. He's simply anti-west for the hell of it. He foregoes critical thinking for the conspiracy theory angle that makes him in line with the very best Stalinist hackery.

My earlier posts in this thread were embarrassing.

[CJCM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNDn66K28p4&playnext=1&videos=165XrogouKk