ForumGarden

The shrill rhetoric from Pyongyang seems to presage impending war on the Korean peninsula, but North Koreans are living their everyday life. North Korean officials have warned diplomats that they cannot guarantee their safety in the capital. However, visitors this week described the atmosphere in North Korea as calm. Residents are apparently preparing not for bitter military conflict, but the anniversary of Kim Il-sung's birth. Some Chinese tour operators have halted travel to North Korea on urging from local authorities and rising safety concerns as Pyongyang whips up war rhetoric following weeks of tension on the Korean peninsula.

After a two-day meeting in London, ministers including US Secretary of State John Kerry warned Pyongyang it faced further sanctions in the event of an expected missile launch, amid soaring tensions on the Korean peninsula. In a final statement, the ministers "condemned in the strongest possible terms the continued development of its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs" including uranium enrichment. If North Korea conducts another missile launch or nuclear test we have to take further significant measures.

(Overland tourism by China to North Korea halted)

Are you the author of this:

LiveLeak.com - North Korea’s attempt to pressure the international community

The only shrill rhetoric ForumGarden sees is from Jessica and it's not even posted from Asia. How the poster thinks these write-only threads are helpful is a mystery. Engaging in dialogue would be a minimum essential step, just starting the threads and walking away is blatantly propagandist.

Not to mention possible plagiarism.

The only shrill rhetoric ForumGarden sees is from Jessica and it's not even posted from Asia. How the poster thinks these write-only threads are helpful is a mystery. Engaging in dialogue would be a minimum essential step, just starting the threads and walking away is blatantly propagandist.


The US media is screaming at the top of it's lungs also. Most likely at the bidding of the politicians who're doing everything in their power to keep feeding the MIC beast taking so much of our money. It on every news outlet, usually leading. The rest of the world doesn't seem to care.

As for Jessica, it's one of this forums failures.

Maybe, scrat, the rest of the world doesn't care is because they are not the ones being threatened. Kim Jong Il is a tiresome annoyance, at this stage an irritation, but personally.............I'd like to squash this bug. He's a pest, a dictator & helping his own people should be his main priority.

AnneBoleyn;1424341 wrote: Maybe, scrat, the rest of the world doesn't care is because they are not the ones being threatened. Kim Jong Il is a tiresome annoyance, at this stage an irritation, but personally.............I'd like to squash this bug. He's a pest, a dictator & helping his own people should be his main priority.


Scrat is right here in the good Ol' US of A, being threatened along with the rest of us.

I am not sure how to take this Korean nutcase, myself.

I think his plan is to pull a Saddam, and get the US to invade, and pour billions of dollars into North Korea like we did in Iraq.

Of course he seems to have forgotten how well that went for Mr Hussein.

By the way, it is Kim Jong Un, now, not Il

Every time I see pics of him, I am reminded of the people on the space ship in 'Wall-E'

LarsMac;1424342 wrote: I think his plan is to pull a Saddam, and get the US to invade, and pour billions of dollars into North Korea like we did in Iraq.
Are you trying to suggest Iraq improved as a result of the "liberation"?

Do you recall Riverbend, the Iraqi blogger? She posted her first blog in six years this month, it's worth reading.We are learning that those amenities we took for granted before 2003, you know- the luxuries – electricity, clean water from faucets, walkable streets, safe schools – those are for deserving populations. Those are for people who don’t allow occupiers into their country.

Baghdad Burning



The "liberation" didn't benefit Iraqis, nor did it benefit the Middle East in general, nor did it benefit the United States.we shouldn't forget what this was about - making America safer... And are you safer Americans? If you are, why is it that we hear more and more about attacks on your embassies and diplomats? Why is it that you are constantly warned to not go to this country or that one? Is it better now, ten years down the line? Do you feel safer, with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis out of the way (granted half of them were women and children, but children grow up, right?)?

Not that her thoughts aren't shared with many of her countrymen but are you implying that one blogger is speaking for her entire country? That's rather ingenuous of you.

Týr;1424343 wrote: Are you trying to suggest Iraq improved as a result of the "liberation"?

...




I am not.

I am merely suggesting an explanation of the Little Dictator's line of thinking.

SnoozeAgain;1424345 wrote: Not that her thoughts aren't shared with many of her countrymen but are you implying that one blogger is speaking for her entire country? That's rather ingenuous of you.


Why would you think I did that? She's one blogger but she's well known, she made best-seller lists with her books, her point of view regarding the "liberation" is informed by years of first-hand experience.

I was trying to suggest that this notion generally held by Americans that what the US does abroad predominantly benefits foreigners is a destructive lie, and that you-all have a skewed view of North Korea because it suits your politicians that you should think that way. And that your prostitute press goes along with pushing such drivel because it's sensational.

Týr;1424349 wrote:

I was trying to suggest that this notion generally held by Americans that what the US does abroad predominantly benefits foreigners is a destructive lie, and that you-all have a skewed view of North Korea because it suits your politicians that you should think that way. And that your prostitute press goes along with pushing such drivel because it's sensational.


I have no skewed view of North Korea. All I know of them is their fat little leader is poking a very large dragon with a very small stick.

And, that they spend enormous amounts of their meager GNP on a military that they really don't need. (so they have learned SOMETHING from the Americans.)

Perhaps we should all agree that reunification would be a good move all round. I doubt whether Jessica would like that.

I would agree to reunification being a good idea.

LarsMac;1424366 wrote: I would agree to reunification being a good idea.
Do you think the two halves of Korea could agree reunification terms while at the same time retaining a US military presence in the country?

Týr;1424372 wrote: Do you think the two halves of Korea could agree reunification terms while at the same time retaining a US military presence in the country?


Dunno,

But I do think that the US military presence is what has kept South Korea from being attacked by their northern kin.

Many of the South Koreans I know would favor reunification, followed by a US withdrawal.



They are not in favor of doing it the other way around.

Frankly I care not If Jessica Is a blogger or where she's posting from. The end result Is that she gets members discussing and debating along with maybe, some, like myself doing a little more reading on the North/South Korea divide. That can only be a good thing.

oscar;1424386 wrote: Frankly I care not If Jessica Is a blogger or where she's posting from. The end result Is that she gets members discussing and debating along with maybe, some, like myself doing a little more reading on the North/South Korea divide. That can only be a good thing.


That's true, and if the stuff posted here is her work, then it's ok. But the OP on this thread is the first two paragraphs from the link I included in my first post where I questioned her.

Given the pressure on the mods to manage how copyright laws affect the forum, I though it worth mentioning.

I do find her (assuming female) posts interesting, and often thought provoking, as she discusses the relationships between the several APac nations. I doubt most Americans realize just how much animosity there is between the several players.

Inside the world of Kim Jong Un:*North Korea's strange hermit king



Now, about Jessica12, I have nada.

LarsMac;1424350 wrote: I have no skewed view of North Korea. All I know of them is their fat little leader is poking a very large dragon with a very small stick.

And, that they spend enormous amounts of their meager GNP on a military that they really don't need. (so they have learned SOMETHING from the Americans.)Spot's skewed view of America is unshakable.



LarsMac;1424366 wrote: I would agree to reunification being a good idea.
Amen. I'd love to see someone broker a unification deal between the two governments, ideally with the US & China not being involved at all.

Accountable;1424418 wrote: Spot's skewed view of America is unshakable.
North Korea doesn't deploy its armed forces outside its own Homeland, and never has. That immediately tells me who the good guy is and who the bad.

N. Korea, the good guy ? I was sorta with you up to that point. As much as the US is often the bad boy, I'm not even sure Russia and China are thinking that Kim Jong Un is the good guy

Snowfire;1424446 wrote: N. Korea, the good guy ? I was sorta with you up to that point. As much as the US is often the bad boy, I'm not even sure Russia and China are thinking that Kim Jong Un is the good guy


Other than annoy the large countries by refusing to kow-tow I'm not sure what anyone can accuse the chap of. I've no beef with him at all. The press, on the other hand, use him to sell rabid copy.

Snowfire;1424446 wrote: N. Korea, the good guy ? I was sorta with you up to that point. As much as the US is often the bad boy, I'm not even sure Russia and China are thinking that Kim Jong Un is the good guy


It proves Acc's point.

Týr;1424444 wrote: North Korea doesn't deploy its armed forces outside its own Homeland, and never has. That immediately tells me who the good guy is and who the bad.


I suspect a lot of the credit for that fact goes to the Chinese, and the "American Military Presence" in South Korea.

LarsMac;1424449 wrote: I suspect a lot of the credit for that fact goes to the Chinese, and the "American Military Presence" in South Korea.


Why have you put "American Military Presence" in quotes? Surely it's an unqualified American military presence.

The comic-book villain parody portrayed by the press whenever it mentions General Kim Jong-un is scarcely helpful, it prevents rational discussion. North Korea has been at war with the US occupiers and the US satrap government running the south of their divided nation for the last sixty years. Its ruling body has kept North Korea focused and undivided over that entire period by having no power struggle for the leadership, by having a fixed rule of succession for the duration of hostilities. Nobody can think General Kim Jong-un will do anything but step down and retire to private life once the country is reunified.

Týr;1424451 wrote: Why have you put "American Military Presence" in quotes? Surely it's an unqualified American military presence.

The comic-book villain parody portrayed by the press whenever it mentions General Kim Jong-un is scarcely helpful, it prevents rational discussion. North Korea has been at war with the US occupiers and the US satrap government running the south of their divided nation for the last sixty years. Its ruling body has kept North Korea focused and undivided over that entire period by having no power struggle for the leadership, by having a fixed rule of succession for the duration of hostilities. Nobody can think General Kim Jong-un will do anything but step down and retire to private life once the country is reunified.


You should actually get to know some Koreans.

LarsMac;1424452 wrote: You should actually get to know some Koreans.


If their attitudes are anything like those of Jessica, I'll thankfully pass.

Instead of turning this Into a USA debate, let's concentrate on how reportedly North Korea Is starving her own people In order to obtain Nuke's to threaten the Western world.

How North Korea Starved Its People for a Nuke

Such is life in a totalitarian state. I'm personally not surprised at ANYTHING North Korea does. I've read Orwell's "1984."

oscar;1424454 wrote: Instead of turning this Into a USA debate, let's concentrate on how reportedly North Korea Is starving her own people In order to obtain Nuke's to threaten the Western world.

How North Korea Starved Its People for a Nuke
A perfectly reasonable article, it even provides the answer to the question of why North Koreans struggle to find sufficient basic necessities: "the steep economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations". What makes a country go to these lengths? Survival as a society. As opposed to the sick-minded antisocial Capitalist philosophy that's being buried on Wednesday:

In the infamous sermon on the Mound in Edinburgh addressing the Church of Scotland she opined that there was “no such thing as society¦only individuals

“Tramp the Dirt Down” | Red Molucca



There's a coherence to these strands, you know.

So you're saying NK got nukes because of the UN sanctions, not that the UN sanctions were imposed because NK has nukes?

SnoozeAgain;1424484 wrote: So you're saying NK got nukes because of the UN sanctions, not that the UN sanctions were imposed because NK has nukes?


I doubt whether I'm saying anything like that. I do think that no country with a nuclear arsenal has ever been invaded though, which is a pretty good reason for a nation which has been held on a war footing continuously for the last sixty years to develop a nuclear arsenal. Any country within range of the Israeli arsenal might well want to join the club too.

Nobody uses a nuclear weapon, it's there to prevent occupation by other countries. When the enemy at the door is the USA, with its lousy record when it comes to occupying foreign countries, it may well be an effective deterrent. The North Koreans can, we're told, bruise Guam with a nuclear missile, and Guam is obviously a vital strategic necessity to the Land of the Free.

No, that's pretty much what you said when you wrote: "it even provides the answer to the question of why North Koreans struggle to find sufficient basic necessities: "the steep economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations". What makes a country go to these lengths? Survival as a society."

Nice try though.

SnoozeAgain;1424486 wrote: No, that's pretty much what you said when you wrote: "it even provides the answer to the question of why North Koreans struggle to find sufficient basic necessities: "the steep economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations". What makes a country go to these lengths? Survival as a society."

Nice try though.
You should sleep more. What that says - let's take it a phrase at a time - is the causal reason why North Koreans struggle to find sufficient basic necessities is that the UN - for which read bully-boy USA - has for many years imposed steep economic sanctions, rather as it has on Cuba and for exactly the same underlying reason and with a comparable result. If it weren't for building nuclear arms it would be for sheltering terrorists or growing cocaine or imprisoning their minority races at a disproportionate level, the prime crime is North Korea's refusal to adopt Western Capitalist "principles".

Sanctions were after the UN called for NK to return to the table. The USA has In fact removed the last of tactical nuclear weapons from South Korea in 1991.... Any focus on the USA Is Inaccurate,

oscar;1424504 wrote: Sanctions were after the UN called for NK to return to the table. The USA has In fact removed the last of tactical nuclear weapons from South Korea in 1991.... Any focus on the USA Is Inaccurate,


And the relevance is?

Not a word of that contradicts anything I wrote.

Nobody uses a nuclear weapon, it's there to prevent occupation by other countries. When the enemy at the door is the USA, with its lousy record when it comes to occupying foreign countries, it may well be an effective deterrent. The North Koreans can, we're told, bruise Guam with a nuclear missile, and Guam is obviously a vital strategic necessity to the Land of the Free


Bruise? Do you want to be bruised that way?

AnneBoleyn;1424507 wrote: Bruise? Do you want to be bruised that way?


I chose the word in contrast with "destroy", which would be an inaccurate word.

Týr;1424508 wrote: I chose the word in contrast with "destroy", which would be an inaccurate word.


Not to anyone bruised as of course they would be destroyed.

Or, are Guam civilians less innocent than Iraqi because of Guam's ties to us?

Do you have any idea how tiny Guam is? A nuclear device would obliterate the entire land mass. Jesus Christ.

AnneBoleyn;1424547 wrote: Not to anyone bruised as of course they would be destroyed.

Or, are Guam civilians less innocent than Iraqi because of Guam's ties to us?
:yh_clap

AnneBoleyn;1424547 wrote: Not to anyone bruised as of course they would be destroyed.

Or, are Guam civilians less innocent than Iraqi because of Guam's ties to us?


I blatantly referred to Guam and not just to a subset of its inhabitants, didn't I. One rifle bullet can kill a person but it can't destroy a country. I scaled up the image to make a pertinent point.

Malapropos.

SnoozeAgain;1424558 wrote: Do you have any idea how tiny Guam is? A nuclear device would obliterate the entire land mass. Jesus Christ.


The odd thing is, young Snooze, that I was trained as part of the Civil Defence Corps back when the cold war was rampant, until we were wound down in the late sixties, so I do have quite a good clue about what nuclear arms achieve. It would do nothing of the sort. Guam's about the size of Greater London, we had maps of the blast and fallout effects on Greater London pinned to the wall of the training room.