General North Korea thread

[Purple]

The two are not contradictory. Rather they feed into one another. This whole DPRK vs the world mentality isn't something that the Kims have made up. It's not some imposed lie that the people on the ground have been indoctrinated to believe in. It's the government telling the people what they already know and than using that truth as a baseline to propagate its own platform. That's how all good propaganda works. It does not subvert the facts conclusions are based on but the process that derives conclusions from them. Take the truth that everyone knows and derive from it a lie suitable to your needs.

Ever since forever the west has been out to exterminate North Korea. First the war proper and than the sanctions all really serve a single purpose and that is to make the average citizen on the ground suffer. Kim sure as hell ain't loosing any sleep over them. But people are starving. Thus it is the people who feel besieged. They feel like it is them against the entire world. And rightly so for it well and truly is. So it is very easy for the government to just tell them: "Look what these foreigners are doing to us. They want to make you all starve to death." (which is true) and than make the wrong but convenient logical leap to "And if not for our atomic weapons and army they would not bother slowly starving us. They'd just send over the bombers to finish us off like they tried back during the war."

Thus every layer of sanctions the UN imposes is another layer of security for the government at the expense of its people.

[Broomstick]

Have you actually read any of the official North Korean propaganda? (In translation, of course, I assume you don't read Korean) It is WAAAAAAAAAAAAY over the top for that sort of thing.

The reason the world (not just the US) is against North Korea is due to that government's actions, not some inherent joy the rest of the world gets from imposing them. Look at Cuba - the US has imposed a half century of sanctions on them as well, and it has certainly had an impact on them, but the rest of the world doesn't despise them, and plenty ignore the sanctions and having been doing business with them for decades.

The notion that the government of the DPRK are hapless victims of bullies is bullshit. They've brought considerable problems on themselves.

[Purple]

Have you actually read any of the official North Korean propaganda? (In translation, of course, I assume you don't read Korean) It is WAAAAAAAAAAAAY over the top for that sort of thing.

I have seen it. It's just that I don't really find it to be that over the top. Certainly not once you compare it to other propaganda efforts by various dictatorial regimes in the past.

The reason the world (not just the US) is against North Korea is due to that government's actions, not some inherent joy the rest of the world gets from imposing them. Look at Cuba - the US has imposed a half century of sanctions on them as well, and it has certainly had an impact on them, but the rest of the world doesn't despise them, and plenty ignore the sanctions and having been doing business with them for decades.

And Cuba is an excellent example of willful and idiotic sanctions imposed on the basis of "we don't like you".

The notion that the government of the DPRK are hapless victims of bullies is bullshit. They've brought considerable problems on themselves.

And that's the problem with your reasoning. You think sanctions are a way to punish a government for something when in fact they are a way to torture the innocent civilians of a country whilst giving the government political ammo to stay in power.

[Broomstick]

Have you actually read any of the official North Korean propaganda? (In translation, of course, I assume you don't read Korean) It is WAAAAAAAAAAAAY over the top for that sort of thing.

I have seen it. It's just that I don't really find it to be that over the top. Certainly not once you compare it to other propaganda efforts by various dictatorial regimes in the past.

Teaching children in kindergarten to beat and stab effigies of the regime's enemies is somehow typical? Since when?

The reason the world (not just the US) is against North Korea is due to that government's actions, not some inherent joy the rest of the world gets from imposing them. Look at Cuba - the US has imposed a half century of sanctions on them as well, and it has certainly had an impact on them, but the rest of the world doesn't despise them, and plenty ignore the sanctions and having been doing business with them for decades.

And Cuba is an excellent example of willful and idiotic sanctions imposed on the basis of "we don't like you".

You are correct - the Cuban sanctions were out of spite on the part of US politicians angered that Cuba went communist and gave the Soviets influence so close to home. And they have gone on far, far too long.

Nonetheless - the rest of the world didn't kowtow to the US position. As just one example, Canadians have long used Cuba as a tourist destination, and Americans wanting to visit Cuba usually went through Canada to do so. The rest of the world continued to have relations with Cuba, visit Cuba, and even do some business there.

North Korea? No one seems to want fuck all to do with it. Even the Chinese, their closest and only ally, have withdrawn considerably from them in recent years, basically only doing the minimum to prop up the regime and keep a flood of refugees from invading.

But hey, keep refusing to see that there are any differences there.

The notion that the government of the DPRK are hapless victims of bullies is bullshit. They've brought considerable problems on themselves.

And that's the problem with your reasoning. You think sanctions are a way to punish a government for something when in fact they are a way to torture the innocent civilians of a country whilst giving the government political ammo to stay in power.

The idea - and I think it's flawed, but there it is - is to make the people so uncomfortable they pressure their government to change. Which, of course, won't happen in a system based on a living god being in charge combined with absolute dictatorship (which is really what you have in North Korea).

The "bullies" here are really the folks in power in the DPRK. They're the ones torturing the populace via their polices.

Again, look at Cuba - Castro, despite real obstacles, devoted quite a bit to education, health care, and true self-sufficiency of the island population. It wasn't paradise, but as a general rule people got an education, enough to eat, work to do, and health care. Certainly Cuba has endured some hard times, but nothing like what the North Koreans have. A couple million North Koreans died of famine in the 1990's, Cuba has never experienced a crisis on that level, and a big difference is that the Norks initially refused outside aid.

Also, nice touches - Cuba has occasionally offered help during natural disasters in the US like Hurricane Katrina (if I recall, the US turned them down but it was a nice gesture), whereas the Norks tend to rejoice at the misfortune of others. When North Korea "rescues" someone in a sinking boat (or outright kidnaps them) they tend to bring said people up on spy charges and hold them for months or years - when the US picks up Cubans in leaky boats they don't bring them up on criminal charges and return them to dry land promptly (there are issues as to whether that dry land is Cuba or the US, but let's not digress that far). And while there have been unfortunate, even lethal incidents between the US and Cuba neither side makes it a habit to fire warning shots at each other, whereas the North Koreans shoot off stuff towards South Korea and Japan on an almost monthly basis - which tends to make their nearest neighbors nervous as all hell and not inclined to view them with mercy.

You see, these things aren't entirely black and white, and while Cuba has unquestionably been hurt by US sanctions the government there made very different choices that lead to a much more humane existence for the average Cuban in comparison to what the average North Korean endures. But then, Castro might have set himself up as a hero (arguably, he was to the downtrodden) but never as a god, unlike the ruling family of North Korea.

Your post is nothing more than the boilerplate "blame the US for every problem in the world" - congratulations, you and the Norks have that in common. It's also bullshit. Yes, the US interferes far too much and it's a thousand-pound bull in a china shop, but the worst offenses in North Korea come solely from the people at the top. THEY are responsible for hundreds of thousands dying of hunger for multiple years when even their worst enemies were willing to give them food at no charge and no strings attached as a humanitarian gesture. THEY are responsible for work camps and death camps. THEY are responsible for multiple kidnappings at the whim of their godkings. The fact that other oppressed nations have avoided those practices shows that they are not an inevitable outcome of either sanctions or being pushed around by super/major world powers.

[SpottedKitty]

Have you actually read any of the official North Korean propaganda? (In translation, of course, I assume you don't read Korean) It is WAAAAAAAAAAAAY over the top for that sort of thing.

No kidding — when I heard the BBC translation of their announcement of the recent bomb test, I honestly thought for a moment it had been written by a Nigerian spammer; the only thing missing was actual bad grammar.

[Purple]

Teaching children in kindergarten to beat and stab effigies of the regime's enemies is somehow typical? Since when?

You have to realize this is a society that was systematically drive to extremism through imposed isolation by foreign power. If someone told me that americans were the reason I have to go to bed hungry I would NOT need to be taught anything in order to want to stab pictures of them. Or in fact the real them either.

But hey, keep refusing to see that there are any differences there.

The difference is that you are conflating the state with the people and give absolutely zero fucks about their suffering because you find the government of the DPRK to be distasteful to your standards and I don't.

The idea - and I think it's flawed, but there it is - is to make the people so uncomfortable they pressure their government to change.

That's not just flawed it is flat out monstrous. The idea that any country or organizations has the right to sentence millions of people to suffering in order to force their hand politically is so morally abhorrent even I can see it.

The "bullies" here are really the folks in power in the DPRK. They're the ones torturing the populace via their polices.

Seriously? You are seriously going to go there?

Again, look at Cuba - Castro, despite real obstacles, devoted quite a bit to education, health care, and true self-sufficiency of the island population. It wasn't paradise, but as a general rule people got an education, enough to eat, work to do, and health care. Certainly Cuba has endured some hard times, but nothing like what the North Koreans have. A couple million North Koreans died of famine in the 1990's, Cuba has never experienced a crisis on that level, and a big difference is that the Norks initially refused outside aid.

Well after the whole massive war to destroy them as a nation combined with strategic bombing and all can you blame them?

Also, nice touches - Cuba has occasionally offered help during natural disasters in the US like Hurricane Katrina (if I recall, the US turned them down but it was a nice gesture), whereas the Norks tend to rejoice at the misfortune of others. When North Korea "rescues" someone in a sinking boat (or outright kidnaps them) they tend to bring said people up on spy charges and hold them for months or years - when the US picks up Cubans in leaky boats they don't bring them up on criminal charges and return them to dry land promptly (there are issues as to whether that dry land is Cuba or the US, but let's not digress that far). And while there have been unfortunate, even lethal incidents between the US and Cuba neither side makes it a habit to fire warning shots at each other, whereas the North Koreans shoot off stuff towards South Korea and Japan on an almost monthly basis - which tends to make their nearest neighbors nervous as all hell and not inclined to view them with mercy.

It is altogether fitting and righteous to find pleasure in the suffering of your torturers.

Your post is nothing more than the boilerplate "blame the US for every problem in the world" - congratulations, you and the Norks have that in common. It's also bullshit. Yes, the US interferes far too much and it's a thousand-pound bull in a china shop, but the worst offenses in North Korea come solely from the people at the top. THEY are responsible for hundreds of thousands dying of hunger for multiple years when even their worst enemies were willing to give them food at no charge and no strings attached as a humanitarian gesture. THEY are responsible for work camps and death camps. THEY are responsible for multiple kidnappings at the whim of their godkings. The fact that other oppressed nations have avoided those practices shows that they are not an inevitable outcome of either sanctions or being pushed around by super/major world powers.

Actually my post is a political statement against the very notion of interventionism of the kind that leads to any entity imposing sanctions and thus sentencing millions of people to suffer for having different political ideas. I don't rightly care if its done by america, Russia, the EU, the UN or little green men from mars. What's wrong is wrong.


And frankly I ain't saying that the Kim clan are nice people who would bring forth an era of peace and prosperity if only they were allowed to by the big bad sanction makers. They are viscous evil opportunists. But the sanctions are what's giving them the opportunity. Their entire power base is built exclusively on having the west oppress their people for them. And the whole reason the DPRK is where it is right now is because every time the current Kim feels insecure he knows he can just ring a bell and get the west to redouble their oppression for instant political points.

[K. A. Pital]

Sanctions have imposed enormous suffering on the population of Cuba, Iraq etc., and they have never once in history resulted in an improvement in the well-being of the population.

If anyone had something to add here or provide counterexamples, he or she is free to do so.

[Simon_Jester]

Sanctions on a nation result in human suffering, and are only understandable in circumstances where that nation poses a major, imminent threat to other nations likely to cause comparable or greater suffering.

The nation of North Korea experiences great suffering as a consequence of their leadership enforcing xenophobia and hostility toward foreign nations.

I fail to see how these statements are mutually exclusive. If anything, both of them being true helps to explain why North Korea gets a double dose of suffering, whereas nations like Cuba get only a single dose.

[Purple]

Sanctions on a nation result in human suffering, and are only understandable in circumstances where that nation poses a major, imminent threat to other nations likely to cause comparable or greater suffering.

Even than I would say that there is absolutely no excuse to sentence its people to suffering. Wait until it starts a war than beat them at it. Or better yet just deter them from going to war to begin with.

The nation of North Korea experiences great suffering as a consequence of their leadership enforcing xenophobia and hostility toward foreign nations

I fail to see how these statements are mutually exclusive. If anything, both of them being true helps to explain why North Korea gets a double dose of suffering, whereas nations like Cuba get only a single dose.

What you fail to see is the fact that whilst yes, the government of the DPRK causes suffering that does not in fact make the sanctions them self any less heinous and abhorrent. Sanctions are quite literally a way of punishing the victim for the crime of being a victim.

[Broomstick]

Even than I would say that there is absolutely no excuse to sentence its people to suffering. Wait until it starts a war than beat them at it.

Actually, North Korea DID start the Korean War... and that war has never ended even if there has been a very long cease-fire.

Do you not understand that? Legally, the US and North Korea are still at war.

So... since you say “wait until they start a war”, and the Norks did, in fact, start a war, you would prefer the US to roll in and end it in bloodshed? Yes, North Korea is under siege because they started a war they couldn't finish.

Since you know everything how do you suggest that this war be ended?

Teaching children in kindergarten to beat and stab effigies of the regime's enemies is somehow typical? Since when?

You have to realize this is a society that was systematically drive to extremism through imposed isolation by foreign power. If someone told me that americans were the reason I have to go to bed hungry I would NOT need to be taught anything in order to want to stab pictures of them. Or in fact the real them either.

Two points here:

Korea was xenophobic and hostile towards outsiders even before the Korea war started. The sanctions undoubtedly exacerbated this, but look at the South, which is pretty openly racist by western standards and an uneasy ally with the US despite the US being the reason they haven't been overrun by the North this past half century.

Second – their children go to bed hungry NOT because of the US, or sanctions, but because the DPRK government reserves all food first for the rulers and second for the military, including free food given by countries throughout the world. Food aid initially refused by the DPRK, then grudgingly accepted when it became apparent that mass death was occurring.

The sanctions were never intended to cause actual starvation, and in fact many nations, including the big bad US which is still at war with the North donated massive amounts of food, most of which wound up feeding the military, which the US was still at war with, but donations continued because the only way to make sure at least some of the civilians were fed was to give enough to feed the army. It's a little bit as if the Allies in WWII were shipping food supplies to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

But hey, keep refusing to see that there are any differences there.

The difference is that you are conflating the state with the people and give absolutely zero fucks about their suffering because you find the government of the DPRK to be distasteful to your standards and I don't.

I actually do give a fuck about North Koreans, but I'm wise enough to realize there's not a goddamned thing I can do to help them. With Cuba I could write my representatives and say “hey, let's end sanctions and resume diplomatic relations, especially now Fidel Castro is retired”, which sentiment apparently finally gained some traction in Washington, but what the fuck do you expect me to say about North Korea? Let's be nice to a despot god-king who is spending his money to build shitty nukes instead of feeding his people?

The idea - and I think it's flawed, but there it is - is to make the people so uncomfortable they pressure their government to change.

That's not just flawed it is flat out monstrous. The idea that any country or organizations has the right to sentence millions of people to suffering in order to force their hand politically is so morally abhorrent even I can see it.

And yet... that has been an international tactic at least since WWII. Personally, I don't see where it's ever been successful but really, if you think that's beyond the pale you haven't studied much history.

The "bullies" here are really the folks in power in the DPRK. They're the ones torturing the populace via their polices.

Seriously? You are seriously going to go there?

Yeah, I seriously want to go there.

When the international community donated food aid to North Korea in the 1990's almost none of it reached the civilian populations, the vast majority of it was reserved for the rulers and military and that is a decision the DPRK government is solely responsible for.

Building “labor camps” that rival Auschwitz in horror, if they don't actually exceed it, is solely the decision and responsibility of the DPRK government.

Kidnapping Japanese nationals because the god-king fancies himself a movie director and wants to use those people as his personal servants/toys is solely the decision and responsibility of the DPRK government.

Forcing North Korean women who return from China to get abortions no matter how far along in the pregnancy they are is solely the decision and responsibility of the DPRK government.

Punishing not just individuals but their entire families out to three generations is solely the decision and responsibility of the DPRK government.

NONE of those evil acts is the result of sanctions, nor are they the norm in nations that are oppressed by other nations. North Korea isn't just an alternative system of government and society, it's malicious on a level seldom seen even in dictatorships.

Again, look at Cuba - Castro, despite real obstacles, devoted quite a bit to education, health care, and true self-sufficiency of the island population. It wasn't paradise, but as a general rule people got an education, enough to eat, work to do, and health care. Certainly Cuba has endured some hard times, but nothing like what the North Koreans have. A couple million North Koreans died of famine in the 1990's, Cuba has never experienced a crisis on that level, and a big difference is that the Norks initially refused outside aid.

Well after the whole massive war to destroy them as a nation combined with strategic bombing and all can you blame them?

Maybe they shouldn't have started the war in the first place? Yeah, sucks when you start the fight and then lose it, doesn't it?

Funny, though – Japan started a war, endured massive deprivation, was strategically bombed including some of the absolute worst firebombings of cities ever seen, and then atom bombed twice but managed to avoid sinking into a hellhole.

Nazi Germany started a war in Europe that killed what, 12 or 15 million civilians in addition to the actual military causalities yet they didn't descend into a cesspit.

The Soviets were certainly at odds with the US, but when they had crop shortfalls or failures actually paid the US for wheat and other food to feed its people despite on-going tensions between the two

So... yes, I DO blame the North Koreans for developing a system that resembles what someone would come up with after reading Orwell's 1984 and studying the Nazi labor camps of WWII and saying... “you know, there's some good ideas here but they didn't take it far enough”.

Yes, sanctions suck. However, they do not excuse the cesspit that the DPRK has become. Other nations have endured sanctions, famine, deprivation, and powerful enemies without descending to the sub-level of the Norks.

It is altogether fitting and righteous to find pleasure in the suffering of your torturers.

No, it's not. It's barbaric.

If it was the right thing to do then the US should have enslaved Japan, not rebuilt it. The Allies should have destroyed Germany forever rather than rebuilding it. Punitive treatment of the losers in WWI was a major factor in starting WWII, which was a far worse war than the previous one.

It is NEVER morally or ethically correct to find pleasure in the suffering of others.

[Purple]

Actually, North Korea DID start the Korean War... and that war has never ended even if there has been a very long cease-fire.

Do you not understand that? Legally, the US and North Korea are still at war.

I understand. I just find it to be insanely idiotic.

So... since you say “wait until they start a war”, and the Norks did, in fact, start a war, you would prefer the US to roll in and end it in bloodshed? Yes, North Korea is under siege because they started a war they couldn't finish.

I would prefer it if some sort of negotiated settlement had been made back in the 50's. Instead the world got an idiotic ceasefire and layer after layer of sanctions that made sure that no sane person is left in the DPRK government to negotiate with.

Seriously, like would it have been so hard to sit down at the table with Stalin and negotiate a more permanent solution for the DPRK to be ordered to accept?

Since you know everything how do you suggest that this war be ended?

At this point my best guess at an answer, and this is just a guess would be to promote some sort of coup to get rid of the Kims in favor of someone that is willing to negotiate a permanent peace settlement along the lines of maintaining the status quo and removing the sanctions.

Two points here:

Korea was xenophobic and hostile towards outsiders even before the Korea war started. The sanctions undoubtedly exacerbated this, but look at the South, which is pretty openly racist by western standards and an uneasy ally with the US despite the US being the reason they haven't been overrun by the North this past half century.

Which is completely within their right either way. The people of any country have the full right to hold any social, political or other values that they see fit.

Second – their children go to bed hungry NOT because of the US, or sanctions, but because the DPRK government reserves all food first for the rulers and second for the military, including free food given by countries throughout the world. Food aid initially refused by the DPRK, then grudgingly accepted when it became apparent that mass death was occurring.

And why does the government need to maintain such a large military? While we are at it why has the government slipped so far into insanity? I already answered that.

The sanctions were never intended to cause actual starvation, and in fact many nations, including the big bad US which is still at war with the North donated massive amounts of food, most of which wound up feeding the military, which the US was still at war with, but donations continued because the only way to make sure at least some of the civilians were fed was to give enough to feed the army. It's a little bit as if the Allies in WWII were shipping food supplies to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

So what? Even if every North Korean is fed and plump their lives still suffer because of the whole thing. That's the whole point. You can not get out of the immorality of sanctions by saying "Oh well. They are not literally starving."

I actually do give a fuck about North Koreans, but I'm wise enough to realize there's not a goddamned thing I can do to help them. With Cuba I could write my representatives and say “hey, let's end sanctions and resume diplomatic relations, especially now Fidel Castro is retired”, which sentiment apparently finally gained some traction in Washington, but what the fuck do you expect me to say about North Korea? Let's be nice to a despot god-king who is spending his money to build shitty nukes instead of feeding his people?

I expect you to admit that all sanctions, these included are counterproductive at best and frankly immoral and criminal. And that anyone who supports sanctions in any way, shape or form is an evil person. Or if not admit at least understand that this is my final unchangeable position.

And yet... that has been an international tactic at least since WWII. Personally, I don't see where it's ever been successful but really, if you think that's beyond the pale you haven't studied much history.

So what? Just because it's an old thing does not make it not be immoral or evil. There are plenty of old traditional tactics and ways of doing things that we as a civilized world have abandoned or at least are trying to abandon. What makes sanctions any different?

Yeah, I seriously want to go there.

When the international community donated food aid to North Korea in the 1990's almost none of it reached the civilian populations, the vast majority of it was reserved for the rulers and military and that is a decision the DPRK government is solely responsible for.

Building “labor camps” that rival Auschwitz in horror, if they don't actually exceed it, is solely the decision and responsibility of the DPRK government.

Kidnapping Japanese nationals because the god-king fancies himself a movie director and wants to use those people as his personal servants/toys is solely the decision and responsibility of the DPRK government.

Forcing North Korean women who return from China to get abortions no matter how far along in the pregnancy they are is solely the decision and responsibility of the DPRK government.

Punishing not just individuals but their entire families out to three generations is solely the decision and responsibility of the DPRK government.

NONE of those evil acts is the result of sanctions, nor are they the norm in nations that are oppressed by other nations. North Korea isn't just an alternative system of government and society, it's malicious on a level seldom seen even in dictatorships.

I disagree. They are all the result of the war and sanctions that since the 50's have given the Kim clan an infinite supply of political ammo to use in order to cement them self as the insane god kings that they are. Every single wrong of today can be traced back to the failure of the west to end the Korean war one way or the other.

Again, look at Cuba - Castro, despite real obstacles, devoted quite a bit to education, health care, and true self-sufficiency of the island population. It wasn't paradise, but as a general rule people got an education, enough to eat, work to do, and health care. Certainly Cuba has endured some hard times, but nothing like what the North Koreans have. A couple million North Koreans died of famine in the 1990's, Cuba has never experienced a crisis on that level, and a big difference is that the Norks initially refused outside aid.

Well after the whole massive war to destroy them as a nation combined with strategic bombing and all can you blame them?

Maybe they shouldn't have started the war in the first place? Yeah, sucks when you start the fight and then lose it, doesn't it?

Funny, though – Japan started a war, endured massive deprivation, was strategically bombed including some of the absolute worst firebombings of cities ever seen, and then atom bombed twice but managed to avoid sinking into a hellhole.

Nazi Germany started a war in Europe that killed what, 12 or 15 million civilians in addition to the actual military causalities yet they didn't descend into a cesspit.

The Soviets were certainly at odds with the US, but when they had crop shortfalls or failures actually paid the US for wheat and other food to feed its people despite on-going tensions between the two

So... yes, I DO blame the North Koreans for developing a system that resembles what someone would come up with after reading Orwell's 1984 and studying the Nazi labor camps of WWII and saying... “you know, there's some good ideas here but they didn't take it far enough”.

Yes, sanctions suck. However, they do not excuse the cesspit that the DPRK has become. Other nations have endured sanctions, famine, deprivation, and powerful enemies without descending to the sub-level of the Norks.

No, it's not. It's barbaric.

If it was the right thing to do then the US should have enslaved Japan, not rebuilt it. The Allies should have destroyed Germany forever rather than rebuilding it. Punitive treatment of the losers in WWI was a major factor in starting WWII, which was a far worse war than the previous one.

It is NEVER morally or ethically correct to find pleasure in the suffering of others.

You seem to be unable to separate thought from deed. What you describe are deeds where as I speak of thoughts. It is altogether fine to take joy in the suffering of others just as long as your deeds do not inflict said suffering for the purpose of provoking said pleasure.

[Broomstick]

Actually, North Korea DID start the Korean War... and that war has never ended even if there has been a very long cease-fire.

Do you not understand that? Legally, the US and North Korea are still at war.

I understand. I just find it to be insanely idiotic.

Yes, well, war is sort of inherently stupid and insane. We're probably in agreement on that.

So... since you say “wait until they start a war”, and the Norks did, in fact, start a war, you would prefer the US to roll in and end it in bloodshed? Yes, North Korea is under siege because they started a war they couldn't finish.

I would prefer it if some sort of negotiated settlement had been made back in the 50's. Instead the world got an idiotic ceasefire and layer after layer of sanctions that made sure that no sane person is left in the DPRK government to negotiate with.

Seriously, like would it have been so hard to sit down at the table with Stalin and negotiate a more permanent solution for the DPRK to be ordered to accept?

I'm not entirely certain Stalin was the one calling the shots. Although the DPRK did have close relations with the Soviets for quite some time arguably they were always closer allies with China, in which case it would have required a negotiation with Mao.

Actually, negotiations for the cease-fire were mainly with China+North Korea and the US+South Korea and I think the UK was also involved. The Soviets were boycotting a lot of the UN meetings at the time due to the kerfluffle over mainland China vs. Taiwan. India actually proposed the cease-fire finally adopted, if I recall my history correctly, although I've not studied that war very closely.

One of sticking points was that a lot of the northern soldiers held in POW camps in the south did not want to go back home. That's never a good sign, when POW's want to stay in the enemy's territory. As it is, quite a few were forced back to the north after the cease-fire. I don't know what happened to them all, but one of the things that can get you black-listed in Korean is having a relative who was a POW in the south during the war, so I assume things didn't turn out too well for them.

Since you know everything how do you suggest that this war be ended?

At this point my best guess at an answer, and this is just a guess would be to promote some sort of coup to get rid of the Kims in favor of someone that is willing to negotiate a permanent peace settlement along the lines of maintaining the status quo and removing the sanctions.

I though you were opposed to outside intervention? Because that's the only way the Kim's will be removed by force.

And, frankly, the “status quo” isn't acceptable, the people of North Korea deserve better than what they have at present.

Two points here:

Korea was xenophobic and hostile towards outsiders even before the Korea war started. The sanctions undoubtedly exacerbated this, but look at the South, which is pretty openly racist by western standards and an uneasy ally with the US despite the US being the reason they haven't been overrun by the North this past half century.

Which is completely within their right either way. The people of any country have the full right to hold any social, political or other values that they see fit.

You were attributing that xenophobia to the sanctions when in fact it existed well before them.

Second – their children go to bed hungry NOT because of the US, or sanctions, but because the DPRK government reserves all food first for the rulers and second for the military, including free food given by countries throughout the world. Food aid initially refused by the DPRK, then grudgingly accepted when it became apparent that mass death was occurring.

And why does the government need to maintain such a large military? While we are at it why has the government slipped so far into insanity? I already answered that.

Sufficient food was given to feed EVERYONE – both military and civilian. It was the decision of the DPRK government to withhold most food aid from the civilians. “We have to feed the soldiers, that's why the serfs starve” isn't a valid excuse when there actually is enough food to go around.

I actually do give a fuck about North Koreans, but I'm wise enough to realize there's not a goddamned thing I can do to help them. With Cuba I could write my representatives and say “hey, let's end sanctions and resume diplomatic relations, especially now Fidel Castro is retired”, which sentiment apparently finally gained some traction in Washington, but what the fuck do you expect me to say about North Korea? Let's be nice to a despot god-king who is spending his money to build shitty nukes instead of feeding his people?

I expect you to admit that all sanctions, these included are counterproductive at best and frankly immoral and criminal. And that anyone who supports sanctions in any way, shape or form is an evil person. Or if not admit at least understand that this is my final unchangeable position.

I acknowledge your position is what you state, however, I “admit” nothing other than the facts: sanctions are a long-standing tactic. As others have stated, they never seem to achieve their stated objectives and I don't see a lot of usefulness from them, either. Certainly when over used they're counter productive. (I can see “sanctions” to the extent of not providing certain types of high tech to adversaries, but not those interfering with vital commerce in food, fuel, and medicine)

And yet... that has been an international tactic at least since WWII. Personally, I don't see where it's ever been successful but really, if you think that's beyond the pale you haven't studied much history.

So what? Just because it's an old thing does not make it not be immoral or evil. There are plenty of old traditional tactics and ways of doing things that we as a civilized world have abandoned or at least are trying to abandon. What makes sanctions any different?

I was not making a moral judgment, I was stating a fact – sanctions aren't new or just for North Korea. Nor are they they worst thing ever in international relations even if they do suck.

Every single wrong of today can be traced back to the failure of the west to end the Korean war one way or the other.

The west spent three years fighting the war, there were 20+ nations involved in one way or another, there were half a million dead on the ground and a further million wounded with real fears that this could escalate into open conflict between the nuclear powers the US, USSR, and China. It's 1953, that's the situation, what do YOU do?

Spend more years and lives fighting? After three years and half million dead we'd only gotten halfway up the peninsula, it would take at least another three years and half million dead to go all the way, and likely more than that using conventional warfare.

Do you escalate and risk either another world war (remember, this was only 8 years past the end of WWII) or nuclear war?

Or do you negotiate an imperfect cease fire? Because then, at least, people stop dying in such massive numbers.

Also, DO keep in mind that until the 1970's the North Koreans were actually wealthier and enjoyed a better standard of living than in the south. The North had more industry. What really hurt them was not the war and not the sanctions (which only ever applied to the US allies) but losing the support from the Soviets that helped prop them up, then by the 1990's losing most of their aid from China. So... why aren't you arguing that the Soviets (and their descendants) and China have a moral obligation to continue to help their ally? Because that's when things really went down the toilet for the Norks.

But I don't expect you to have even my feeble grasp of history.

It is NEVER morally or ethically correct to find pleasure in the suffering of others.

You seem to be unable to separate thought from deed. What you describe are deeds where as I speak of thoughts. It is altogether fine to take joy in the suffering of others just as long as your deeds do not inflict said suffering for the purpose of provoking said pleasure.

Nope, sorry, can't agree.

Although I would I agree the legal system's and society's concerns are with actions, anyone who takes pleasure from the suffering of another human being is a sick fuck in my book. It's not OK.

[Simon_Jester]

I understand. I just find it to be insanely idiotic.

Yes; it is intensely idiotic, which is exactly what you'd expect given that the North Korean government is itself idiotic, and intense.

I would prefer it if some sort of negotiated settlement had been made back in the 50's. Instead the world got an idiotic ceasefire and layer after layer of sanctions that made sure that no sane person is left in the DPRK government to negotiate with.

Why are you assuming that the US is responsible for this, rather than blaming the Soviets.

Seriously, like would it have been so hard to sit down at the table with Stalin and negotiate a more permanent solution for the DPRK to be ordered to accept?

Very possibly. Stalin was not known for negotiating in good faith.

Since you know everything how do you suggest that this war be ended?

At this point my best guess at an answer, and this is just a guess would be to promote some sort of coup to get rid of the Kims in favor of someone that is willing to negotiate a permanent peace settlement along the lines of maintaining the status quo and removing the sanctions.

This would itself be an act of war against North Korea

Two points here:

Korea was xenophobic and hostile towards outsiders even before the Korea war started. The sanctions undoubtedly exacerbated this, but look at the South, which is pretty openly racist by western standards and an uneasy ally with the US despite the US being the reason they haven't been overrun by the North this past half century.

Which is completely within their right either way. The people of any country have the full right to hold any social, political or other values that they see fit.

People have the right to hold views. But if as a consequence of these views, they suffer, then the suffering is their responsibility.

Second – their children go to bed hungry NOT because of the US, or sanctions, but because the DPRK government reserves all food first for the rulers and second for the military, including free food given by countries throughout the world. Food aid initially refused by the DPRK, then grudgingly accepted when it became apparent that mass death was occurring.

And why does the government need to maintain such a large military? While we are at it why has the government slipped so far into insanity? I already answered that.

They don't, and no you didn't.

The sanctions were never intended to cause actual starvation, and in fact many nations, including the big bad US which is still at war with the North donated massive amounts of food, most of which wound up feeding the military, which the US was still at war with, but donations continued because the only way to make sure at least some of the civilians were fed was to give enough to feed the army. It's a little bit as if the Allies in WWII were shipping food supplies to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

So what? Even if every North Korean is fed and plump their lives still suffer because of the whole thing. That's the whole point. You can not get out of the immorality of sanctions by saying "Oh well. They are not literally starving."

This doesn't even make any sense. When the US ships North Korea food, to prevent starvation, and the food is prevented from reaching starving North Koreans by North Korea's own government, then the US is not responsible for this suffering. The North Korean government is.

So the US may be partially responsible for North Koreans being poor... but the North Korean government is responsible for North Koreans being dead. Which is worse?

I expect you to admit that all sanctions, these included are counterproductive at best and frankly immoral and criminal. And that anyone who supports sanctions in any way, shape or form is an evil person. Or if not admit at least understand that this is my final unchangeable position.

I admit only that you have rocks between your ears, and may be the most spectacularly unqualified person to comment on morality and ethics of anyone that I know.

I disagree. They are all the result of the war and sanctions that since the 50's have given the Kim clan an infinite supply of political ammo to use in order to cement them self as the insane god kings that they are. Every single wrong of today can be traced back to the failure of the west to end the Korean war one way or the other.

Ending the war by defeating the North Koreans would have entailed nuclear bombardment of North Korea. Ending the war by signing a permanent peace and normalizing relations was not allowed by the Communist bloc powers. Go complain at Stalin's grave in the Kremlin Wall, or Mao's tomb.

You seem to be unable to separate thought from deed. What you describe are deeds where as I speak of thoughts. It is altogether fine to take joy in the suffering of others just as long as your deeds do not inflict said suffering for the purpose of provoking said pleasure.

No, it really is barbaric, for a variety of simple reasons. If you are ignorant of these reasons we could enlighten you, but it would be pointless if you are not prepared to keep an open mind on the matter.

[K. A. Pital]

Before you guys start going into "Why don't you blame the Soviets for stopping the help to North Korea", I want you to pause for a bit and remember that you actively supported the destruction of the USSR in a fight to the death, where you made such unlikely alliances as supporting Maoist China and Pol Pot in Cambodia just to piss off Vietnam who was a Soviet ally.

"Communist bloc powers" were too busy surviving in a Cold War against the most powerful military and economic bloc that ever existed (US-led NATO/SEATO) and only now there are powers which seem to be able to rival it, at least in economic clout. And they did not survive. They were destroyed and you preyed on these ruins. The West stripped these nations of their human capital, buying up people and technologies for your military juggernaut. The West paid no attention to the plight of the impoverished commoners.

Just my two kopeks.

And as all here admit the sanctions are a worthless policy which usually does not achieve the objectives but often causes enormous suffering, what is left is determining whether supporting such a policy is just idiotic or actually implies malevolence.

Kinda goes against the "common logic", I understand, but there is not much morality to be found in introducing sanctions that limit or restric the import of all goods, including those needed for bare economic necessities, while selling weapons to some of the world's worst regimes like Saudi Arabia just because DPRK is hostile while the House of Saud is "friendly".

Purple has gone too far, but his argument exposes a key contradiction. Arms trade will still run (nobody can forbid China to haul weaponry over the river by rail in containers, FFS!) but the sanctions will make it harder for DPRK's special zones to function and hurt its civilian sector only.

Don't know what else to say.

[Broomstick]

The Cold War was still a conflict, even if it wasn't a war in the traditional sense, and one side eventually won. I'm not going to apologize for that, because that's what happens in war - or else you get an endless stalemate such as we see in North Korea. Don't pretend the Soviets would not have engaged in plundering the west had they won. The conflict between communism and capitalism had been on-going since the early 20th Century and was only interrupted by WWII because of the mutual threat both sides faced from the Nazis.

Given how that conflict could have ended (massive nuclear exchange) the actual historical result is far from the worst outcome, even if there's a lot of suck in it for the losing side. Yes, both sides were dicks and did horrible things, that's also a feature of war, whether cold or hot. That's not excusing anything, that's just recognizing reality.

And yes, loss of support to both North Korea and Cuba, which impacted both nations tremendously, was an inevitable result of the loss of the Cold War by the USSR. What it really showed was that neither of those two nations was truly capable of supporting themselves at late-20th Century levels without outside interaction. Cuba has chosen (always did) to maintain and improve contacts with others. North Korea just became more and more insular, resulting in a downward spiral.

And finally - no, I don't think sanctions should apply to vital supplies like food and medicine. As I said, it makes sense to NOT sell your adversaries certain forms of tech, but those are not vital to life and health.

[K. A. Pital]

I didn't ask for an apology.

The latest round of sanctions against North Korea has led to the collapse of minor border trade for DPRK's special economic zones as the regulations make it too complicated for small exim companies in China, Russia and South Korea to trade ordinary stuff with DPRK.

So the only thing that was accomplished is that the places inside DPRK which were more like China and located on the Chinese border - which was a good thing - will get less food and clothes than they used to get. Also it can possibly cause the collapse of the Transkorean Railway effort, which will also in no way hinder DPRK's nuclear program or military effort, but will make life in the province across the planned line worse than it could have been.

I think if the world powers were really using sanctions as a moral policy, they would start with prohibiting the sale of weapons to the Middle East, and offer no restrictions on non-weapon shipments of any kind to any nation or territory, be it Zimbabwe or DPRK. But of course, this will not happen.

[Flagg]

Legally, the US and North Korea are still at war.

No. The US never declared war on North Korea, nor was the United States the only foreign power to intervene (It was a UN operation that was primarily, but not solely, fought by the US) on behalf of South Korea, which is still technically at war with North Korea. The last time the United States of America bothered to actually declare war on another country before invading it was WWII.

Oh, and the war could have been effectively ended had the US/UN forces, controlled by that fucking lunatic McArthur, not fought the North all the way to the Chinese border resulting in China feeling threatened and thus entering the war causing even more death and suffering to essentially end up with borders right where they were when the fucking thing started.

[Broomstick]

Actually.... no. There was the 1990-91 Gulf War involving the invasion of Iraq after Iraq invaded Kuwait. If I recall correctly that was an actual war declared by Congress.

[Flagg]

Actually.... no. There was the 1990-91 Gulf War involving the invasion of Iraq after Iraq invaded Kuwait. If I recall correctly that was an actual war declared by Congress.

You recall incorrectly.
As shown here, the last declaration of war made by the US Congress was in World War 2. Congress has approved military action since, but has not actually declared war.

[Broomstick]

Even if officially you call it a "police action" or some such it's just a euphemism for "war". Everyone knows that.

[Flagg]

Even if officially you call it a "police action" or some such it's just a euphemism for "war". Everyone knows that.

No. You said (paraphrasing) "Legally the US and North Korea are still at war." That's not in any way, shape, or form correct, as the United States of America has not legally issued a declaration of war against anyone since World War 2.

It's a minor fucking issue, why in the hell are you so insistent on defending an incorrect statement? I mean seriousely, move on. The only reason I even corrected you is because it's a common mistake, when it's only South Korea and North Korea who are technically still in a state of war.

[Broomstick]

Did I protest your correction? No.

However, I do have an issue with undeclared wars. It's fucking stupid to call "police actions" and other "military adventures" anything other than what they actually are: war. In other words, I have moved on, to a related but somewhat different issue.

Calling something a "police action" makes the dead no less dead, and results in equal levels of destruction. It's a stupid, misleading euphemism.

[Flagg]

Did I protest your correction? No.

However, I do have an issue with undeclared wars. It's fucking stupid to call "police actions" and other "military adventures" anything other than what they actually are: war. In other words, I have moved on, to a related but somewhat different issue.

Calling something a "police action" makes the dead no less dead, and results in equal levels of destruction. It's a stupid, misleading euphemism.

Yes, it is fucking stupid. When the United States goes to war with a nation is should legally declare so like in 1941.

But it still does not change the fact that there has not been a war legally declared by the United States of America since WW2 as you claimed and you did not retract the claim that the US is still at war with North Korea, which it is not. And how exactly did you move on? By further claiming that the US declared war against Iraq when it liberated Kuwait? How is that in any way an acknowledgment of your ignorance on this subject? Changing the subject without acknowledging you made a grossly incorrect and ignorant statement of fact is just that; changing the subject. Everyone knows that.

In any case, concession accepted.

[Broomstick]

Flagg, just give it a rest, I'm tired of you getting hysterical every time I enter a discussion.

The really stupid thing is that we are actually in agreement here, but you keep beating the dead horse.

One more time - when I said what I did about the Iraq war I specifically said "if I recall correctly", which means I'm doing it on memory that I'm acknowledging may be fallible. You corrected me. I didn't say shit about that, because nothing needed to be said, but then I said that if the US has a "military adventure" it SHOULD declare war - which you agree with - and you're still bitching that I didn't kiss your feet or whatever fucking shit you want.

So fuck off and writhe in your misery. I don't what the fuck you want these days and even I did I'm even less inclined to give it to you than I might have been a week ago. I'm not your chew toy and I'm not your punching bag. Go to hell.

[Flagg]

Flagg, just give it a rest, I'm tired of you getting hysterical every time I enter a discussion.

The really stupid thing is that we are actually in agreement here, but you keep beating the dead horse.

One more time - when I said what I did about the Iraq war I specifically said "if I recall correctly", which means I'm doing it on memory that I'm acknowledging may be fallible. You corrected me. I didn't say shit about that, because nothing needed to be said, but then I said that if the US has a "military adventure" it SHOULD declare war - which you agree with - and you're still bitching that I didn't kiss your feet or whatever fucking shit you want.

So fuck off and writhe in your misery. I don't what the fuck you want these days and even I did I'm even less inclined to give it to you than I might have been a week ago. I'm not your chew toy and I'm not your punching bag. Go to hell.

I'm not the one in hysterics. I'm also not the one currently violating board rules. All I did was correct an error (the error being that the United States is still legally at war with North Korea) with the expectation that you would acknowledge it, which you failed to do even after I provided evidence, instead saying there was no difference and quickly changing the subject. Now you are insulting me personally without any substance to back it up as if I'm somehow in the wrong when that is clearly not the case.