North Korea and Kim Jong Il

[Macfistowannabe]

There are a number of reasons to eyeball North Korea, and also a number of reasons why attacking it could lead to a catastrophe. Kim Jong Il is more than willing to starve his own people in order to push for military power. Their human rights record is piss poor. They possess a brutal record of torture and killings of innocent citizens. Kim Jong Il's worst nightmare is that his citizens grab an understanding of the outside world, causing them to lose loyalty to North Korea and think of it as the world's greatest country.

This thread will discuss further the realities of this strict communist nation, which has been struck with extreme poverty at the government's expense.

http://nkfreedom.org/
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA240022004?open&of=ENG-2S2
http://monthly.chosun.com/html/200006/200006130003_5.html
http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm

 

[Macfistowannabe]

NORTH KOREA FACT SHEET

A starving child in a North Korean nursery school

More than 200,000 prisoners are being held in just 5 of the 12 prison camps of North Korea, a nation of less than 20 million people. (the number of additional prisoners who are imprisoned in the other known and unknown camps, some of which are said to be completely underground, is unknown)[1]

North Korea's State Security Agency maintains at least 12 political prisons and about 30 forced labor and labor education camps.1
At least two of the camps are larger in area than the District of Columbia
Camp Huaong is 3 times the size of Washington, DC.1
At one camp, Camp 22 in Haengyong, 50,000 prisoners toil each day in conditions that U.S. officials and former inmates say result in the death of 20 to 25 percent of the prison population every year.1
In the last three decades more than 400,000 people are believed to have perished in the gulag.[2]

The many violations of human rights that occur include:[3]
Systematic use of torture
Arbitrary and brutal imprisonment
Extreme deprivation and starvation (one daily ration is 100g of broken corn)
Intense forced labor
Frequent 'accidents', disfigurement and death due to oppressive conditions
The nation is characterized by injustice, such as:3
No due process
Arbitrary public execution
Punishment of up to 3 generations for the accusations against 1 family member
Caste/Class system based on hereditary family background limits opportunities and/or internally exiles at least 2/3 of North Korea's people
Imprisonment or execution of anyone who attepts to defect to South Korea or who has had contact with South Korean Christian or political groups
Pregnant Women forcibly repatriated to North Korea from China who are found to have been impregnated by Chinese men are subject to forced abortion or forced into labor by kicking them and then (if it survives) made to smother their newborn child. (According to some reports, the bodies of these newly born children are then collected and used for some kind of 'medicine'.)

President Kim Jong II uses starvation as a means of ethnic cleansing and religious persecution: [4]

In most rural areas there is no medicine, running water, heating, food, or bandages where as the capital city, Pyongyang, glitters with nightclubs, casinos, luxury hotels, gourmet restaurants and state-of-the-art hospitals.
Humanitarian Relief Experts say that more than 4 million North Koreans have died of starvation since 1995 despite the fact that North Korea receives more food aid than any nation in the world.4
Lee Young Kuk, former bodyguard to President Kim says that millions of dollars of food is stockpiled in military complexes and used to feed soldiers and the ruling elite.4
North Korea illicitly exports narcotics to Russia, China, South Korea and Japan
The North Korea manufactures 1/3 of all Methamphetamines sold in Japan

Between 4,200 and 7,000 hectares of land are dedicated to cultivating the opium poppy, which is used to make the illegal addictive drug heroin.[5]

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

[1] MSNBC. 'Death, terror in N. Korea gulag.' January 15, 2003. http://www.msnbc.com/news/859191.asp?0cv=CA01&cp1=1#BODY
[2] U.S. News and World Report. 'Gulag Nation.' June 23, 2003.
[3] Compiled from the Congressional Testimony of Soon Ok Lee before the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. April 22, 2002. http://wwwa.house.gov/international_relations/107/lee0502.htm
[4] WORLD magazine. 'View from the Axis.' March 9, 2002. http://worldmag.com/world/issue/03-09-02/cover_1.asp
[5] TIME asia, 'Kim's Rackets.' June 9, 2003. http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/printout/0,13675,501030609-455850,00.html

 

[NYRangers78]

without getting all crazy or arguing...its funny how i never really hear anyone complain about this guy but to many people, bush is hitler.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

without getting all crazy or arguing...its funny how i never really hear anyone complain about this guy but to many people, bush is hitler.

Don't you realize Bush is so much worse? I mean, he only exterminated millions of people and devotes his life to genocide and ethnic cleansing...

I agree with your statement by the way.

 

[VertigoGal]

Me too.

This guy is a sick bastard. He's murdering his own people. We hear plenty on the news about NKorea's nukes, but little about the plight of her people. I wonder why that is?

(really, I do...wouldn't our gov't/media *want* us all to hate them since they are on our little "axis of evil"?)

And knowing that all the aid in the world isn't doing much when there's a sadisitic bastard in power makes you feel kinda helpless.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I agree, VertigoGal. One has to wonder - is it the nukes that make them evil, or is he a complete kook?

Some believe he is no threat to the United States, but runs a nuclear program in case N. Korea is attacked. I really don't trust the guy, but this point in time is not a good time to consider overthrowing him. In contrast, I wonder how powerful his military will become 10-15 years from now.

 

[VertigoGal]

Yeah...I was reading some opinions at this site

NKzone.org

and several people seemed to think that they'll start to move towards a China situation...obviously the Chinese masses aren't millionares, and 1989 ain't that long ago, but that would at least be a move in the right direction. Honestly, I don't know nearly enough about their structure and true situation behind all the fancy parades to even speculate on whether that's a possibility. I hope so.

But someone on the site also made the point that we were saying the same thing about Castro 50 years ago, and aside from a broken leg, he seems fine....

 

[VertigoGal]

oops, reposted instead of editing...

 

[Anthony]

He is a threat, and the sooner something is done about him the better.

Ant.

 

[NYRangers78]

north korea has nukes and that puts us in america and around the world in a very hard position to be in. this is another reason why bush preempted iraq and saddam hussein so that it didnt get to the point that it has gotten to with north korea.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

North Koreans are also EXTREMELY loyal to their country. We would never be able to accomplish what we did in Iraq without the help of the rest of the world. When Kim Il Sung died (who was equally as ruthless), people literally died from excessive mourning.

 

[Klink]

Oh goodness! People want to go after a nuclear armed, heavily nationalist enemy in China's sphere of influence. This is even more insane than invading Iraq, killing 100,000 civlians and proclaiming it a success after puppet elections and with terrorism and coalition army violence as the norm.

Is this sane?

They won't do it for 2 reasons.

1)China
2)NO OIL IN NORTH KOREA (or is there?). With the same intelligence people working on WMD in Iraq, maybe Sat photos have found tanker trucks running about the country that contain oil supplies for the chinese.


Jon

 

[Macfistowannabe]

It's a bad time to go after them, but it has nothing to do with oil.

 

[earthshell]

fuckin' north korea. kim jong il - one crazy son of a bitch. he should be crucified.

 

[Klink]

it has nothing to do with oil.

I know, and that's one of two reasons why North Korea won't be attacked like Iraq, even though the human rights abuses there are probably worse than in Iraq. So much for our dedication to freedom fighting as we have - 2 years later - proclaimed the goal in Iraq .

Jon

 

[VertigoGal]

North Koreans are also EXTREMELY loyal to their country. We would never be able to accomplish what we did in Iraq without the help of the rest of the world. When Kim Il Sung died (who was equally as ruthless), people literally died from excessive mourning.

yeah, that could be a bit of a problem. we're obviously not going in there anytime soon.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Oh goodness! People want to go after a nuclear armed, heavily nationalist enemy in China's sphere of influence. This is even more insane than invading Iraq, killing 100,000 civlians and proclaiming it a success after puppet elections and with terrorism and coalition army violence as the norm.

100,000?

You may want to check your facts again.

www.iraqbodycount.net
www.massgraves.info
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_...11133930628B262
http://www.kurdishmedia.com/news.asp?id=6596
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/

2)NO OIL IN NORTH KOREA (or is there?). With the same intelligence people working on WMD in Iraq, maybe Sat photos have found tanker trucks running about the country that contain oil supplies for the chinese.

Nonsense. You obviously aren't reading a thing on this entire thread. Military action will most likely refrain because (a) North Koreans are extremely loyal to their country, and it would be hell in itself to attempt to cause a rebellion, (b) North Korea hasn't invaded another country in over 50 years, (c) Kim Jong Il is so militant as to starve his own people to strengthen his military. Going for the "oil" argument is nothing but a mere cheapshot that has no basis of reason.

 

[A_Wanderer]

No War on N-Korea because any action would have an extremely high probability of making the region go to hell and would almost certainly claim millions of lives. There is a cost to benefit ratio that must always be considered and in the case of N-Korea it is a no win situation. The only plausible way to deal with the threat is to engage with the leadership nd attempt to liberalise it with incentives. The next least worst option is for China to exert more pressure on North Korea to move in the right direction.

 

[Klink]

100,000?

You may want to check your facts again.

www.iraqbodycount.net
www.massgraves.info
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_...11133930628B262
http://www.kurdishmedia.com/news.asp?id=6596
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/


Nonsense. You obviously aren't reading a thing on this entire thread. Military action will most likely refrain because (a) North Koreans are extremely loyal to their country, and it would be hell in itself to attempt to cause a rebellion, (b) North Korea hasn't invaded another country in over 50 years, (c) Kim Jong Il is so militant as to starve his own people to strengthen his military. Going for the "oil" argument is nothing but a mere cheapshot that has no basis of reason.

http://www.yuricareport.com/Iraq/IraqiDeathsTenXsHigher.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3962969.stm


I've checked the sources before and, not surprisingly, all of your sources deal with very limited types information/reports and ths severely underestimate the number of civilian casualties. The Lancet Medical Journal published a study in October of last year. They used random sampling and determined that the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the US invasion has passed 100,000. Official statistics miss many forms of civilian casualities - the ones where bodies aren't found/identified/ reported - which has been determined to be a high percentage by this study. Your websites post numbers based on very very very limited data, so much so it puts their motives into question.

Thanks, but I've read the thread and I am contending that you are mistaken. Those things don't necessarily stop an invasion. North Korea will not be invaded, despite mass human rights abuses because they are (a) armed, (b) they are in China's sphere of influence and (c) most importantly because there is no economic benefit to an invasion. All US interventions (almost) have had economic motivations. It's naive to suggest otherwise. They were all attempts to thwart communism and keep markets open to capitalism. I'm not a communist but I don't agree with capitalism at any price - and a high price it's been.

The oil argument is no cheapshot. It's as clear as daylight that the US invasion of Iraq is meant to control China's oil supply and and subsequently their massive economic growth, which threatens to compete with the US. It's politcal-economic chess and it's not all that secret anymore. What is completely groundless to me is the whole war in Iraq, which now lacks justification on its original fundamental presence - WMD.

Jon

 

[Klink]

I should add that you may be right that NK hasn't invaded another country for 50 years. On the other hand, the US has invaded dozens - even ones that have not invaded others - so do you seriously think that's a criteria for US invasion? That would be kind of hypocritical, wouldn't it?

Jon

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Those things don't necessarily stop an invasion. North Korea will not be invaded, despite mass human rights abuses because they are (a) armed, (b) they are in China's sphere of influence and (c) most importantly because there is no economic benefit to an invasion. All US interventions (almost) have had economic motivations. It's naive to suggest otherwise. They were all attempts to thwart communism and keep markets open to capitalism. I'm not a communist but I don't agree with capitalism at any price - and a high price it's been.

The oil argument is no cheapshot. It's as clear as daylight that the US invasion of Iraq is meant to control China's oil supply and and subsequently their massive economic growth, which threatens to compete with the US. It's politcal-economic chess and it's not all that secret anymore. What is completely groundless to me is the whole war in Iraq, which now lacks justification on its original fundamental presence - WMD.

*Further Iraq discussion belongs on another thread. As mentioned at the very beginning, this thread is about North Korea and Kim Jong Il*

I don't buy into the oil argument at ALL. There are a million other reasons why it would be catastrophic to take on North Korea. The main reason - they have the nukes that could kill millions of people in a matter of minutes. Your take is that the US is in it for the money. I don't buy it. Did you ever get to think that we were in it to diminish global threats? We'd be going to war against Congo like France did if that were the case.

 

[NYRangers78]

funny....were invading iraq...but other countries BEG us to help them by going in and fixing their problems....cant have it both ways...we went into iraq too quickly, but we didnt go into haiti quick enough....was it wrong of america to go into bosnia and somalia??? i guess not to people because clinton ordered it. id love to see proof how were invading peoples countries... without our aid and military protection that we afford to hundreds of countries, the world would be really up shits creek....meanwhile countries like afghanistan are begging us to keep our military base there.

you should be thanking god theres a country like america out there because without it, another country with all that power might be abusing it.

 

[Klink]

1) I don't believe in God.

2)Yes, the US went into Iraq and not Haiti. I'll give you 2 guesses as to why, but you should only need one. One of the same reasons North Korea will not be invaded. No economic benefit. In terms of their arms, absolutely right. No wonder Iran wants a nuclear program...so that they don't end up like Iraq.

3) You're either not looking at your aid/military critically enough, or you haven't reviewed America's foreign interventions. The only reason much of the world is up shit creek today is because of US and European colonialism and imperialism. Africa, the Caribbean, the poorest parts of the world are getting poorer and they are going further up shit creek because of the dictators often installed by the US, and who were subsequently lent and forced to repay billions of $$$ in debt. US foreign policy post 1950s is perhaps the greatest disaster of the last 50 years. Just do a google search (or search academic journals if you really want good sources), and you will see how American military aid, economic aid and food aid, for example, has been handed out in order to further economic interest. This MO has been detrimental to the third world and is one of the key reasons behind the impoverishment in many parts of the globe. It's military aid has been largely ineffective and has put in as many dictators as its removed democratic gov'ts. It's financial "aid" usually comes in the form of loans from the IMF and World Bank. The debts incurred here are the most crippling financial stumbling blocks for developing economies. Aid is good, but aid comes in many forms, lots of which are detrimental more than they are productive (the food aid, for example).


4)Every US/western war has had political or economic motivations, but they have, naturally, always had to produce a benefit for the invader. America's deeds are not selfless protection. If America were in it to diminish global threats, why did they support Saddam when he gassed the Kurds? Why did the CIA help to overthrow a democratically elected Gov't in Chile and subsequently install a dictator, Augusta Pinochet on September 11, 1973? With all due respect, these are all well documented economic/political moves (and these are bedfollows). If America invaded Iraq to diminish a global threat, where is the threat? Saddam Hussein has no WMD. There's NO evidence that he's had any since the Gulf War. What threat was the war trying to diminish? (Clearly not Saddam the dictator because American foreign intervention installs dictators when it suits the purpose). France for its part in Congo, is no better.


Jon

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I don't believe in God.

Fair enough, not everybody does.

Yes, the US went into Iraq and not Haiti. I'll give you 2 guesses as to why, but you should only need one. One of the same reasons North Korea will not be invaded. No economic benefit. In terms of their arms, absolutely right. No wonder Iran wants a nuclear program...so that they don't end up like Iraq.[/B]

The whole talk about economic benefit as a primer for a motivation is nothing more than a myth. This link isn't even that balanced to begin with, and it doesn't agree with you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,879652,00.html

If you look at the facts with Iraq, Hussein revealed that he had plans to compete with Iran on nukes after he was captured and brought under questioning. If Iran didn't want to end up like Iraq, they can prevent military intervention by ending their sponsorship of terrorism to such places as Lebanon, which helped identify them as the world's most leading terrorist sponsor in the State Department annual report. However in recent years, they have attempted to shed their radical image by arresting Al Qaeda operatives from Afghanistan, discontinuing attacks on US targets, and erased the name of the man who assassinated Egypt's president in 1981. Still, it doesn't help that 15,000 people have completed a suicide bomber form entitled, "Preliminary Registration for Martyrdom Operations." Many have found their way into Israel and Iraq.

Africa, the Caribbean, the poorest parts of the world are getting poorer and they are going further up shit creek because of the dictators often installed by the US, and who were subsequently lent and forced to repay billions of $$$ in debt.[/B]

Often... care to share how often?

Every US/western war has had political or economic motivations, but they have, naturally, always had to produce a benefit for the invader. America's deeds are not selfless protection. If America were in it to diminish global threats, why did they support Saddam when he gassed the Kurds? Why did the CIA help to overthrow a democratically elected Gov't in Chile and subsequently install a dictator, Augusta Pinochet on September 11, 1973? With all due respect, these are all well documented economic/political moves (and these are bedfollows). If America invaded Iraq to diminish a global threat, where is the threat? Saddam Hussein has no WMD. There's NO evidence that he's had any since the Gulf War. What threat was the war trying to diminish? (Clearly not Saddam the dictator because American foreign intervention installs dictators when it suits the purpose). France for its part in Congo, is no better.[/B]

We didn't "support" Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. That wouldn't be far off from saying that Canada "supported" Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. Allende was a marxist. It was widely believed that Allende's "The Chilean Way to Socialism" would have put Chile on the same path as Cuba. However, claims for direct involvement of the actual coup are unproven. Hussein was a global threat, there is no disputing that. He used violence in and out of Iraq. He was more than happy to invade Kuwait and Iran, and if he had WMDs, it is very possible that he would end up using them. Either way, should we care less about the mass murders that were committed without the use of WMDs?

Your argument on resisting North Korea on the grounds of "oil" remains unfounded.

 

[Se7en]

This thread will discuss further the realities of this strict communist nation, which has been struck with extreme poverty at the government's expense.

n. korea isn't communist. but i will not derail your thread.

the u.s. won't take military action against the dprk for several reasons, namely:
dprk's bloated military capability - an invasion of n. korea would not be a walk in the park like the initial invasion of iraq was. kim jong il would most likely use whatever nuclear arms he has; he would probably fire missiles into japan and the western united states (though, i'm not 100% sure if his ability to reach u.s. soil has ever been verified); and soeul would most likely be devistated. the toll of human life on all sides would be well beyond what we've seen in iraq. i don't think there are enough strategic and economic gains available in n. korea to warrant the sort of nightmare an invasion would bring.