Results 1 to 20 of 31
South Korean Populace Betraying DPRK in Winter Olympics?
Google: WSJ olympics-buzzkill-dragging-in-the-north
(Sorry I can't post links)
This brings great sadness for me to see this. Why are mainstream Korean politicians (Sohn Hak Kyu) in support of dual hosting but 75% of the South Koreans are not?
From everything that I have read the DPRK is willing to invest significant resources to dual host the winter Olympics. It would be a point of great pride for the DPRK. Do most people here support the right of the DPRK to dual host as equal partners?
Why would any nation want to host the Olympics? It sets countries back even further into debt. Look at Sydney, Athens, Vancouver. They all slashed spending to needed social services, embarked on vicious wars against the poor to make the city "presentable" to the rest of the world, and after the Games, look what they are left with: debt and despair. No politician should support the Games coming to their city/country.
I don't care if politicians squabble over some ridiculous competitions.
"If those in charge of our society — politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television — can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves."
-Howard Zinn
What about the Moscow Olympics...
Respectfully, I think you are totally wrong, you are thinking about the effect of the Olympics in western capitalist societies, what about the Moscow Olympics?
The Moscow Olympics brought the world together and showed the petty nature of the western capitalist nations who boycotted it.
Also, if the Winter Olympics in 2018 were jointly hosted in the DPRK and south Korea it would show the success of socialist construction and be an opportunity for Korean unification, to bring things in that general direction. Furthermore, the DPRK is a people's country and has a constitutional guarantee of housing, food and employment therefore hosting the Olympics would not be oppressive to the poor or homeless since no such thing exists in the DPRK. Look up the Kumsusan Memorial Palace, a socialist country such as Korea would not build such a thing if there were poor or homeless.
I don't exactly see how they can be "betraying" the DPRK considering North Korea seems to have shown no interest in hosting, didn't make any contribution to the bid and still hasn't even made any kind of a response to South Korea being chosen..
Maybe they haven't answered precisely because they now they'll be turned down?
I think RBB here is being overly optimistic, but if he was right, wouldn't South Korea oppose dual hosting precisely because of the positive effect it might have on the DPRK's image?
"oh noes they be takin mah surplus value" -Tim Finnegan
"'The' names reached a peak with The The and hence after were obsolete. " -Angry Young Man
"anyone seen blazin saddles? best fucking movie ever." - Red Spartan
I had typed out a legit response, and then read that sentence. Keep on drinking the Kool-Aid man.
"If those in charge of our society — politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television — can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves."
-Howard Zinn
Feel like telling us exactly which definition of the word 'betray' you're using here?
[FONT=Arial]be·tray (b-tr
)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]tr.v. be·trayed, be·tray·ing, be·trays[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]1[/FONT][FONT=Arial].[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]a. To give aid or information to an enemy of; commit treason against: betray one's country.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] b. To deliver into the hands of an enemy in violation of a trust or allegiance: betrayed Christ to the Romans.
2. To be false or disloyal to: betrayed their cause; betray one's better nature.
3. To divulge in a breach of confidence: betray a secret.
4. To make known unintentionally: Her hollow laugh betrayed her contempt for the idea.
5. To reveal against one's desire or will.
6. To lead astray; deceive. See Synonyms at deceive.
[/FONT]
Actually the DPRK has expressed interest, and some mainstream left leaning politicians in south Korea have also expressed support for dual hosting. The problem is that the populace of so called "south" Korea has not expressed support for the idea... they have been brainwashed by their media into opposition to the DPRK.
b. To deliver into the hands of an enemy in violation of a trust or allegiance: betrayed Christ to the Romans.
That one, the "south" Koreans are betraying the legitimate people's government of the Korean peninsula by not supporting its aspirations. Also as others have pointed out the Olympics in capitalistic societies lead to greater repression but if they were shared with the DPRK the Olympics would become a people's Olympics.
OT, but here is a nice example of the concern of the concern that KJI has for the people...
Originally Posted by KCNA
Last edited by RevLeft By Birth; 20th July 2011 at 05:09.
He signed his name to a letter? That's the proof you have of his kindness? When I hear about a national election, maybe I'll think twice about that pint-sized dictator.
"If those in charge of our society — politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television — can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves."
-Howard Zinn
And I suppose you would rather live under the boot heel of the puppet clique in the so called "south" Korea? Also my respect for you decreases with your cheap ad-hominem attack for Kim Jong Il, the lodestar of the 21st century. Do I go about insulting your favored leaders?? Furthermore, there are elections in North Korea, all candidates are under the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, the last election had over 99.8% turnout with 100% of voters voting to support the candidates of the United Front.
Such a high turnout makes a mockery of so called "participatory" democracies like the United States, or European countries such as Sweden. Even countries of a high standard such as Cuba, which many here think provides a good model, lacking have such a high turnout. Yet I am restricted on this forum meanwhile others, who defend the so called "social democracies" like Sweden or Norway, post freely. It is quite an irony, don't you think?
Betray? Why should Koreans (North or South) have any loyalty to the DPRK?
The DPRK is the people's government and represents all Korean peoples.
Fuck, is this guy really still here?
Well, to the point that someone made about cities initiating wars against the poor to make the city presentable. As I understand it the southern part of North Korea is the part with cities, where I guess people aren't quite as starving, but there aren't many people in those cities. The northern part is where the starving-to-death-as-we-speak farmers and other people live. So they'd probably host it in the cities where the not so starving people already are.
The only Nazis I like are Grammar Nazis and ex-Nazis. I would say dead ones as well, but they tend to smell.
Mama's Whiskey-fried Fish Hoecakes, fried twice cause she wants me
The DPRK does not represent the Korean people and it certainly is not a "people's government".
Everything about their "democracy" is a fraud. They don't even attempt to make it look realistic. Their "election results" are always 99.9% or 100% turnout with 99.9% or 100% going to the approved candidate. There is only ONE candidate that is nominated by the ruling party and you can either vote for them or not vote for them, and nobody is going to not vote for them and risk being executed or sent to a labor camp for being a traitor. People have no choice but to take part and vote for every single bureaucrat.
That is a slander on the DPRK. The only people who publish such propaganda solely rely on the testimony of defectors who are unreliable. You are free to see North Korea for yourself and see that it is quite nice. There is no verifiable proof that people would be punished for protest votes in fact candidates are carefully selected thats why there are no protest votes.
Who were the other candidates?
Okay, so first we have to assume that the South Koreans are delivering DPRK into the hands of an enemy. Which enemy is this, exactly? But that's not enough, it also has to be in violation of a trust of allegiance...when did this happen? I wasn't aware that the South Koreans had any kind of agreement with DPRK concerning trust or allegiance. Why exactly do you feel that the South Koreans have this responsibility of sorts to a foreign State (other than the fact that this State has declared itself as their 'legitimate' overlord), which they have necessarily broken by not wishing the winter Olympics to be hosted in that country? Is that how we define 'betrayal' nowadays, not wanting some foreign country to host a sporting event? Shiiiiit, I'm such a traitor to Qatar
Why is it an either/or situation?
Was this the same day you're height-challenged friend shot an 18 on an 18-hole golf course?
No, you're just an extremely confused person.
"If those in charge of our society — politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television — can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves."
-Howard Zinn
Yes, IF you can get a visa, which you'd probably have to do through China, then you get to see North Korea, with a "guide" and a guard with you all the time, in a special hotel, and you'll get to see all the wonderful stuff that they allow you to see in the scripted and pre-planned tours.
Did the "government" ask them if they wanted to be represented by an insane fat elvis impersonating dictator?
YES, and almost everyone would, even a lot of North Koreans.
Look up what participatory democracy means, its not the US or Europe.
But voter turnout has no bearing on whether or not a country is democratic, btw, Sadamm Hussain got 100% of the vote too.
