'Ex-Cuban leader Fidel Castro 'surprised' by survival'

[Popular Front of Judea]

Interesting disclosure of a North Korean connection to be found in this:

Mr Castro also revealed that Cuba had received weapons from North Korea in the early 1980s.

The North Korean weapons shipment was provided after Soviet leader Yuri Andropov warned that his country was no longer prepared to step in to defend the communist-run island.

"He told us that if we were attacked by the United States we would have to fight alone," wrote Mr Castro.

The Soviet Union renewed its commitment, however, to continue providing weapons to the island.

But Cuba decided to gather weapons from "other friends" to arm "one million Cuban fighters."

"Comrade Kim Il Sung, a veteran and exemplary soldier, sent us 100,000 AK rifles and accompanying ammunition without charging a penny," writes Mr Castro.

Ex-Cuban leader Fidel Castro 'surprised' by survival | BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23707253)

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I won't lie that I have some fondness for Kim Il Sung, he's one of the better bourgeois revolutionaries.

Doesn't make him a Communist or worthy of support or defense, but he seems like a guy I'd like to hang out with

[Glitchcraft]

I won't lie that I have some fondness for Kim Il Sung, he's one of the better bourgeois revolutionaries.

Doesn't make him a Communist or worthy of support or defense, but he seems like a guy I'd like to hang out with

Not worthy of Defence? Even Saddam was worthy of defence. Support no.
Does that mean you don't oppose imperialist aggression towards North Korea?

[Sheepy]

Does that mean you don't oppose imperialist aggression towards North Korea?

Oh no, here we go again...

Since when did opposing imperialism have to entail the obsessive, undying love for authoritarian bourgeois dictators?

[Glitchcraft]

Oh no, here we go again...

Since when did opposing imperialism have to entail the obsessive, undying love for authoritarian bourgeois dictators?

Hey just asking. I mean words have meanings. Defence doesn't mean support.
It means defence and you said you don't defend NK. just checking.

[Sheepy]

Well, I never said that I didn't think that North Korea should be left alone, but there's a line here when it comes to their government that it just can't be defended by any self-respecting leftist.

[Glitchcraft]

Well, I never said that I didn't think that North Korea should be left alone, but there's a line here when it comes to their government that it just can't be defended by any self-respecting leftist.

Now see that sounds to me like you condone US aggression against NK.
Defence isn't support. To call for the defence of the NK is to oppose imperialist aggression aka invasion or air strikes by the US, UK etc.
Why does "Do you defend NK" always equate to "Do you love the Kims"?
We defended Iraq (with little success) what's the difference?

[Sheepy]

Now see that sounds to me like you condone US aggression against NK.
Defence isn't support. To call for the defence of the NK is to oppose imperialist aggression aka invasion or air strikes by the US, UK etc.

You know, this was exactly what I was talking about. Look, I already said that I do not condone such things, don't be ridiculous. Like I said, while I don't support North Korea's state capitalist government, I do think that it should be left alone, I already said that too. North Korea is an enigma on it's own and is far from the peaceful proletarian paradise that is claims to be. I don't think you even understand what you're talking about regarding defense and support.

Anti-imperialism is okay as long as you don't turn into a rhetorical fanatic of these hellhole governments run by whacked out bourgeois nationalists.

[Glitchcraft]

this was exactly what I was talking about.
You say I'm ridiculous for wanting clarification. You say it shouldn't be invaded but it shouldn't be left alone.
What do you mean by shouldn't be left alone? Can I ask that question without being accused of being a "rhetorical fanatic of these hellhole governments run by whacked out bourgeois nationalists."
Are you calling for sanctions or what? A stern letter writing campaign? What then? I'm just asking questions and your accusing me of being a fanatic.

If you wanna just be mad and say "oh this again" fine, quit responding.
Or answer my normal question in a civil manor and stop accusing me of being a fanatic and being stupid.
What do you mean by shouldn't be left alone? Is there some other path here? All I’ve heard on this subject is "To Invade or Not to Invade". But you have some new position. Not to invade but not leave alone.
What does that mean?
If there is some new idea for dealing with NK and it's hellholeishness I'd love to hear it.
Please enlighten me without the name calling if you can.

[Sheepy]

this was exactly what I was talking about.
You say I'm ridiculous for wanting clarification. You say it shouldn't be invaded but it shouldn't be left alone.

I specifically said twice that they should be left alone. I made that very clear.

I'm not advocating anything, you're just getting really prissy over your own reading incomprehension. The fact that you're really getting this defensive over the issue says a lot. I didn't say anything other than "leave them alone, but don't support their government" as in "for heaven's sake don't invade and kill everyone, but don't kiss Kim Jong-Un's ass like an idiot" and here you are yelling at me over it.

[Glitchcraft]

Well, I never said that I didn't think that North Korea should be left alone,

Sorry this was not very clear to me it sounded like you were saying you never said it should be left alone, I misread this double negative. In fact I misread your other statement too. My bad.
It's usually all hate for NK and no real exchange of ideas. My apologies it's late, I'm tired.
BUT
I'm not yelling and I don't know where you get this. I'm also not answering every question with snide comments and accusations.
I am curious about NK and ask questions, your the one getting mad.
I apologize for the overwhelming offence it has seemed to cause to your delicate sensibilities but next time try being a little nicer not everyone is a super expert on every issue and being called names doesn't support your stance or help educate people at all.
Just once I'd like to hear some sane discussions on North Korea without the anger/name calling/accusations, but I am apparently on the wrong forum for any amount of courtesy or respect.

I don't know what to think about North Korea but I do know that many people on this forum react to any mentioning it with vehement disdain and all civility and reasoned debate goes out the window.
Ask a question about NK and people act like you shot their puppy.

[Taters]

I don't know what to think about North Korea but I do know that many people on this forum react to any mentioning it with vehement disdain and all civility and reasoned debate goes out the window.
Ask a question about NK and people act like you shot their puppy.

And yet, despite all the puppy-shooting, no one here (I hope) would call for an invasion of North Korea.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Not worthy of Defence? Even Saddam was worthy of defence. Support no.
Does that mean you don't oppose imperialist aggression towards North Korea?

Defense? Well, if defending them means that we necessarily oppose the whole sale slaughter of the Korean People, and that we recognize that the Korean People's Army is the only thing standing between them and destruction, well then ys. And should we bust a myth about them once and a while? Definitely, but not because we want to "defend them from bourgeois slander" but because we should educate the working class on how propaganda reinforces imperialism abroad and because we should strive towards a concrete analysis of the conditions in the DPRK. But of course, we should have this standard for all regimes that the imperialist at home wish to destroy. We should have combated the smear campaign against the Japanese people during world war II, and I personally think that we should try to put Nazi Germany within the context of historical imperialism instead of assuming that it had mystical qualities which earned it a special categorization of "fascism" that somehow allows us to abandon Marxist analysis in favor of emotional appeals to the sacred nature of democracy and the complete surrender of class independence. This is necessary not because we wish to defend these regimes in question, but because a true defeatist line would involve de-legitimizing any imperialist war by removing any moral imperative for it to continue. Hence, a minimal "defense" is necessary for defeatism. But likewise, while we should "defend" the DPRK in such a minimal sense, a Communist Party in North Korea should "defend" America in the sense that it should educate that the main enemy is always at home. Though perhaps in a time of invasion it might be necessary to make a tactical alliance but this is only assuming that America is capable of pulling off a Blizkrieg maneuver of completely destroying the DPRK in a matter of months and there was a real possibility of re-colonization. In such a case a tactical alliance is necessary because one can not achieve socialism under the boot of occupation. if it ended up in a semi-stalemate than of course defeatism is the only option

[Glitchcraft]

Wow was that so hard? Not one instance of name calling, not one accusation of monstrous proportions.
Thank you You to Yet_Anothar_boring_Marxist.
Do you have any good materials/suggestions to read about the history of NK or the class nature?
Barnes and Nobles doesn't have any in stock atm.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I won't lie that I have some fondness for Kim Il Sung, he's one of the better bourgeois revolutionaries.

Doesn't make him a Communist or worthy of support or defense, but he seems like a guy I'd like to hang out with

Yeah hanging out with egoist psychopaths who think they are gods, who doesn't want a friend like that?

[Sheepy]

I'm not yelling and I don't know where you get this. I'm also not answering every question with snide comments and accusations.
I am curious about NK and ask questions, your the one getting mad.

But I'm not. You're the one that had to challenge me over a misread statement that I did not say determining whether or not that I would somehow be in favor of a U.S lead invasion of the Peninsula, which is just downright insane.


Now see that sounds to me like you condone US aggression against NK.

Your words, not mine.

But whatever, what's done is done.

[Comrade Jacob]

Look what you did now PFJ you've got people into a little cat fight about defence vs support.
Well done to Fidel for surviving also it is interesting but not surprising about the AK trade.