North Korea

  On 4/4/2013 at 9:36 PM, Squee said:

i'm so sick of this kind of shit, both the beliefs these people espouse and the airing of them on national news networks.

  On 4/4/2013 at 9:32 PM, Rubin Farr said:

This is a good look at the state of N Korea and really the mental state of its citizens. The metaphors of a cult are just about spot on. I will say this film is very depressing and my girlfriend started crying while we were watching.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B000M2E34K/ref=redir_mdp_mobile

is this the one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxLBywKrTf4

I sorta wonder if AC is doing more harm than good by giving stuff like that airtime. Sorta lends it legitimacy in a way, like it's worth acknowledging and responding to.

  On 4/4/2013 at 12:46 PM, delet... said:

I note with disgust that both Colbert and the Daily Show have been doing their anti-north korea duty, in long segments. Helping to ramp up the spin.

 

I see the point of all this as not forthcoming military action. But to demonize a leader that might otherwise have been seen by the public more sympathetically. As he was new, the western citizens might have been willing to give him a chance. Then there was the rodman visit. Whereapon the US upped the sactions gambit which caused an obvious reaction from NK, and so here we are today.

 

Silly games played by cunting wankers to convince gullible twats to keep funding their cursed bullshit.

  On 4/4/2013 at 10:18 PM, pattern recognition said:

 

  On 4/4/2013 at 9:32 PM, Rubin Farr said:

This is a good look at the state of N Korea and really the mental state of its citizens. The metaphors of a cult are just about spot on. I will say this film is very depressing and my girlfriend started crying while we were watching.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B000M2E34K/ref=redir_mdp_mobile

is this the one?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxLBywKrTf4

I think I started watching that one on Netflix, but I stopped after a couple of minutes. Extremely fucking depressing.

Watch The Red Chapel instead. It's on Netflix as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDqBWSknlWQ

no im not a communist lol.

on phone so no long posts but myers is no expert on NK. he did his academic work on German literature.

  On 4/5/2013 at 1:31 AM, chenGOD said:

on phone so no long posts but myers is no expert on NK. he did his academic work on German literature.

ummmm..

----------------------------------

Brian Reynolds "B.R." Myers (born 1963) is an American associate professor of international studies at Dongseo University in Busan, South Korea, best known for his works regarding North Korean history.

Myers is a contributing editor for the Atlantic, and an opinion columnist for the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. He is the author of Han Sǒrya and North Korean Literature, published by Cornell in 1994, A Reader's Manifesto, published by Melville House in 2002, and The Cleanest Race, published by Melville House, in 2010.

Myers was born in the U.S. state of New Jersey, spent his childhood in Bermuda and his youth in South Africa, and received graduate education in Germany.^[3][4] He earned an MA degree in Soviet studies at Ruhr University (1989) and a PhD degree in North Korean literature at the University of Tübingen (1992). Myers subsequently taught German in Japan^[4] and worked for the Mercedes-Benz Beijing Liaison Office in 1996.^[5]

Before his appointment at Dongseo University, Myers lectured in North Korean literature and society at the Korea University North Korean Studies Department.^[6] He also taught globalization and North Korean literature at the Inje University Korean Studies Department.^[7]

Myers’ Han Sŏrya and the North Korean literature: The Failure of Socialist Realism in the DPRK was adapted from his 1992 dissertation at the University of Tübingen and published as the sixty-ninth volume of the Cornell East Asia Series.^[8]A Reader’s Manifesto: An Attack on the Growing Pretentiousness in American Literary Prose was developed from his critical review essay of the same name published in the Atlantic in 2001.^[9]

---------------------------------------------------------------

That's just from the first few sections of his wiki page...

Not really sure how the above doesn't qualify him as an "expert" lol. Pretty sure he knows a thing or two more than the average watmmer regarding North Korean issues, yeah?

he knows a bit about NK literature. his book "the cleanest race" is really poor for an academic work.

the university he teaches at in South Korea is a diploma mill.

if you want to read about NK, i would suggest andrei lankov. Bruce cumings is alright too although he gets a little too anti-US in his later writings.

Regardless of who is making the threats, threats regarding nuclear action should nonetheless be taken VERY seriously, and it creeps me out that so many people/sites are openly mocking these "empty threats". Yeah it is most likely posturing, but do we take threats like this lightly from other nations?

Just remember, no European nation wanted a WWI, but a couple of simple fuckups and misguided intentions taken one step too far brought it to that.

  On 4/1/2013 at 1:16 AM, Bread said:

'm curious to know whether anyone thinks North Korea's attitudes towards the US and South Korea would improve if the sanctions being imposed on them are lifted? Does anyone think this is the best route to go down and see what happens?

I've been curious about this as well, and Smet's reply certainly wasn't the reply I was hoping for. I feel there is a lot more to these threats from North Korea than "The new guy just wants to look like a strong leader".

Edit:

Well this quote seems to answers my question (still curious if lifting sanctions would improve relations though):

  Quote

...The aim should be to reach an arms control agreement which implicitly accepts North Korea's claim to being a nuclear power, while also limiting the size of North Korea's nuclear arsenal, and setting out a clear and specific means of controlling this arsenal. In other words, the pipe dream of denuclearization should be discarded; arms control is the only attainable goal.

 

Such a dialogue should be entered into with no illusions: North Korea has a proven track record of cheating, and they will try hard to cheat again this time. Pyongyang will sign such an arms control agreement only if the outside world is prepared to pay them for the privilege in the form of aid and other assistance, as it's done in past negotiations. It is not a good compromise, but it's the best option remaining -- the result of decades of canny foreign policy maneuvering by North Korea's leaders.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/12/north_korea_is_a_nuclear_power

Double Post

i don't agree we have to accept the north as a (weaponized) nuclear power. Invade now and stop them in their tracks. I do not believe in appeasement for peeps like that (meaning the govt of course, not the common man).

However, as with Pakistan, may have no choice, especially if South Korea and China are unwilling to get on board.

Thing is I love the idea of an isolationist communist state - I hate the thought of mcdonalds and starbucks stretching to every corner of the globe - I just wish they'd keep to themselves. If they'd just shut up and live quietly I'd have no truck with them. Un could have totally ushered in a new era, but he chose not to. I seriously wonder if someone else is pulling his strings.

  On 4/5/2013 at 6:55 AM, lumpenprol said:

Thing is I love the idea of an isolationist communist state - I hate the thought of mcdonalds and starbucks stretching to every corner of the globe - I just wish they'd keep to themselves. If they'd just shut up and live quietly I'd have no truck with them. Un could have totally ushered in a new era, but he chose not to. I seriously wonder if someone else is pulling his strings.

I heard the possibility that his uncle would be the "puppet master" right after Kim Jong Il passed. I agree about isolationism as well. If they'd keep quiet then they'd be left alone. But all this talk of escalation is putting a lot of folks on edge.

I believe part of the cause for NK's agitation is the US government telling them that they're not allowed to have nukes. Same with Iran. If they shouldn't have nuclear armaments though, then why should we? Seems hypocritical to me.

  On 4/5/2013 at 7:11 AM, ambermonk said:

 

  On 4/5/2013 at 6:55 AM, lumpenprol said:

Thing is I love the idea of an isolationist communist state - I hate the thought of mcdonalds and starbucks stretching to every corner of the globe - I just wish they'd keep to themselves. If they'd just shut up and live quietly I'd have no truck with them. Un could have totally ushered in a new era, but he chose not to. I seriously wonder if someone else is pulling his strings.

 

I heard the possibility that his uncle would be the "puppet master" right after Kim Jong Il passed. I agree about isolationism as well. If they'd keep quiet then they'd be left alone. But all this talk of escalation is putting a lot of folks on edge.

 

I believe part of the cause for NK's agitation is the US government telling them that they're not allowed to have nukes. Same with Iran. If they shouldn't have nuclear armaments though, then why should we? Seems hypocritical to me.

We should definitely be dismantling or disposing of our nukes, but the idea of nuclear proliferation is to keep nukes contained and limited so that no one who is crazy enough actually starts a nuclear war. We've used them twice in Japan to end WW2 as the Japanese were practically defeated but refused to surrender. It most likely saved lives. Post that era I doubt we will ever use a nuke again.. even if NK uses one, we are much more effective with strategic missiles and aircraft/drones (taking out their military / not civilians).

  On 4/5/2013 at 7:13 AM, compson said:

 

  On 4/5/2013 at 7:11 AM, ambermonk said:

 

  On 4/5/2013 at 6:55 AM, lumpenprol said:

Thing is I love the idea of an isolationist communist state - I hate the thought of mcdonalds and starbucks stretching to every corner of the globe - I just wish they'd keep to themselves. If they'd just shut up and live quietly I'd have no truck with them. Un could have totally ushered in a new era, but he chose not to. I seriously wonder if someone else is pulling his strings.

 

I heard the possibility that his uncle would be the "puppet master" right after Kim Jong Il passed. I agree about isolationism as well. If they'd keep quiet then they'd be left alone. But all this talk of escalation is putting a lot of folks on edge.

 

I believe part of the cause for NK's agitation is the US government telling them that they're not allowed to have nukes. Same with Iran. If they shouldn't have nuclear armaments though, then why should we? Seems hypocritical to me.

 

We should definitely be dismantling or disposes of our nukes, but the idea of nuclear proliferation is to keep nukes contained and limited so that no one who is crazy enough actually starts a nuclear war.

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but "proliferation" by definition would be the opposite of trying to limit stockpiles. I'm having trouble making sense of that statement.

Would not surprise me if the US quietly slipped in to NK and did in their fearless leader, heart attack, etc. May be the catalyst that NK needs, though, to show what the US "is really made of".

Sorry... this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

If it's NON-proliferation though, then never mind my previous comment.

  On 4/5/2013 at 6:55 AM, lumpenprol said:

i don't agree we have to accept the north as a (weaponized) nuclear power. Invade now and stop them in their tracks. I do not believe in appeasement for peeps like that (meaning the govt of course, not the common man).

 

However, as with Pakistan, may have no choice, especially if South Korea and China are unwilling to get on board.

 

Thing is I love the idea of an isolationist communist state - I hate the thought of mcdonalds and starbucks stretching to every corner of the globe - I just wish they'd keep to themselves. If they'd just shut up and live quietly I'd have no truck with them. Un could have totally ushered in a new era, but he chose not to. I seriously wonder if someone else is pulling his strings.

North Korea basically is a weaponized nuclear state. Again, if the US invades now, North Korea launches at the very least all of their conventional artillery toward South Korea and Japan, causing millions of deaths. Discussion at the official level is not appeasement.

The day China signs on to any sort of agreement where the US invades is the day I eat an entire raw onion on live webcam for y'all.

  On 4/5/2013 at 6:55 AM, lumpenprol said:

i don't agree we have to accept the north as a (weaponized) nuclear power. Invade now and stop them in their tracks. I do not believe in appeasement for peeps like that (meaning the govt of course, not the common man).

 

However, as with Pakistan, may have no choice, especially if South Korea and China are unwilling to get on board.

 

Thing is I love the idea of an isolationist communist state - I hate the thought of mcdonalds and starbucks stretching to every corner of the globe - I just wish they'd keep to themselves. If they'd just shut up and live quietly I'd have no truck with them. Un could have totally ushered in a new era, but he chose not to. I seriously wonder if someone else is pulling his strings.

  On 4/5/2013 at 7:11 AM, ambermonk said:

 

  On 4/5/2013 at 6:55 AM, lumpenprol said:

Thing is I love the idea of an isolationist communist state - I hate the thought of mcdonalds and starbucks stretching to every corner of the globe - I just wish they'd keep to themselves. If they'd just shut up and live quietly I'd have no truck with them. Un could have totally ushered in a new era, but he chose not to. I seriously wonder if someone else is pulling his strings.

 

I heard the possibility that his uncle would be the "puppet master" right after Kim Jong Il passed. I agree about isolationism as well. If they'd keep quiet then they'd be left alone. But all this talk of escalation is putting a lot of folks on edge.

 

I believe part of the cause for NK's agitation is the US government telling them that they're not allowed to have nukes. Same with Iran. If they shouldn't have nuclear armaments though, then why should we? Seems hypocritical to me.

Bit hard to do that when you've been under an harsh sanctions regime for 60 years over a war that has never ended.

And lumpy suggesting we should bomb the place omG. If china gets dragged into a war (has been an over the horizon idea of US hawks for a while) your child could die ! Along with millions of others.

This is the problem with these threads, most in them hasn't a clue. They press the reset button on the value of the media that ramped them up into a frenzy about iraq and afghanistan (and libya and syria and iran). Same with the belief in statements from think tanks and other apparatus of the state war machine. So they bring to the table all this useless propaganda that they are so sure of, that is making them so incensed.

-sie-

It's hard to remain friendly about these types of things when so much blood is on all your hands. I remember similar threads prior to invading afghanistan on watmm, good grief.

[goes for a walk and doesn't come back into the thread for a week or so till the shouting down of delet,,, subsides.]

  On 4/5/2013 at 8:19 AM, delet... said:

 

 

This is the problem with these threads, no one in them has any clue. They press the reset button on the value of the media that ramped them up into a frenzy about iraq and afghanistan. Same with the belief in think tanks and other aparatus of the state war machine.

 

Ummm hi.

  On 4/5/2013 at 8:19 AM, delet... said:

It's hard to remain friendly about these types of things when so much blood is on all your hands.

With all due respect, not "all". If fingers are going to be pointed, they should be in the direction of warhawk politicians.

  On 4/5/2013 at 8:02 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 4/5/2013 at 6:55 AM, lumpenprol said:

i don't agree we have to accept the north as a (weaponized) nuclear power. Invade now and stop them in their tracks. I do not believe in appeasement for peeps like that (meaning the govt of course, not the common man).

 

However, as with Pakistan, may have no choice, especially if South Korea and China are unwilling to get on board.

 

Thing is I love the idea of an isolationist communist state - I hate the thought of mcdonalds and starbucks stretching to every corner of the globe - I just wish they'd keep to themselves. If they'd just shut up and live quietly I'd have no truck with them. Un could have totally ushered in a new era, but he chose not to. I seriously wonder if someone else is pulling his strings.

 

North Korea basically is a weaponized nuclear state. Again, if the US invades now, North Korea launches at the very least all of their conventional artillery toward South Korea and Japan, causing millions of deaths. Discussion at the official level is not appeasement.

 

The day China signs on to any sort of agreement where the US invades is the day I eat an entire raw onion on live webcam for y'all.

Source on the millions of deaths? I have no understanding of how capable SK/US forces would be in destroying most of their air and missile forces. I read some figure that said they could take out their airforce if they attacked first and then minimize causalities to 100,000 in Seoule. But I still had no idea how accurate that was.

North Korea has some 10,000 artillery pieces pointed toward Seoul and Tokyo (primarily, obviously they are targeting other locations). The population density in those two cities would guarantee a casualty rate in the millions. You do understand that artillery is not the same as air force right?