Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

#ActualHodgman

Posted 30 March 2013 - 09:14 AM

I find it ironic that you defend them so, considering that all of their excuses for being in a position of self-defense are entirely without merit.

You hate America I take it.

I'm not defending anybody. I like to look at things from every point of view. It's sad to live in an age where looking into the facts, or putting yourself in someone elses shoes makes you an "enemy sympathiser". I'm probably on a fucking American watch list for daring to read the source press releases from KCNA instead of the filtered western versions...

 

If you read the western papers, we try not to mention anything we've done to piss off the North, and we always try to throw in some personal attacks against their leader's personality.

If you read their (dictatorial government) paper, they of course have the opposite spin. You also have to keep in mind that from their point of view, they're still half way through a war that's been paused. That's a very different view from what many outsiders would have, where we consider South Korea to basically be at peace (apart from having mandatory military training, and a neighbour that shoots them from time to time, and the most heavily armed border on the planet...).

 

As for hating America:

America is corrupt and double-faced in all it's policies, domestic and foreign, which is plain for anyone to see thanks to the Internet and leakers... As are many countries.

America is the perfect example of why unfettered capitalism, fear of socialism, bigotry, inequality and fear of the working class are dangerous ideals to embrace.

They're so big and successful while harbouring these dark undercurrents, that they're a brilliant example of what not to emulate. For that, they're useful.

 

The main hate that I have is when I see my own nation going down a similar dark path -- the same small handful of umbrella corporations owning almost every major company here (often owning both sides in a harmful duopoly), Murdoch owning 70% of the newspapers and in turn having enough power to crush any politician looking to enact reforms to constrain his power over democracy, increased litigiousness across the board, democratic elections giving way more and more to corpocracy every year, governmental discussion becoming more hysterical, informed political debate giving way to uneducated slogan slinging, class inequality growing exponentially, more governments hand-outs going to the top 10% than the other 90% combined, the selling off of public assets to corporate monopolies, the dismantling of the free education system and the building of a two-tier education system, the dismantling of free public health care and the invasion of inefficient corporate insurance bureaucracies leaching healthcare funding, the mandatory detention of refugees in inhumane concentration camps, the power for corporations to appropriate and exploit private farming land and leave the essential water basins as toxic wastelands without accountability, the destruction of a natural wonder of the world for short term profit, enacting or martial law in communities that just need basic services, creation of fake sex scandals to swing the political balance of power, being caught out in international diplomatic lies showing a preference for political power games over honesty and integrity (e.g. we knew about the Assange case before it happened, and knew Iraq had no weapons before the war, but we said we knew nothing - this is on the public record now)... the list is endless, but we're following the success of greed, and all the darkness it brings. That, I hate. I hate the fact that we've got America as a warning beacon, but we're too blinded by it's light to realize the real message.

 

America may have a spotty history of invading countries without reason, but that was Bush and there was a selfish reason to invade.  We aren’t Bush anymore and there is nothing in North Korea America wants.  No invasion could possibly be justified.  Invasion requires justification to the rest of the world

The evidence against Saddam was fabricated, but the US also justified their entry into Vietnam/Cambodia/South east Asia by having the NSA fabricate an attack on their ships. That wasn't Bush.

The majority of American wars have been based around shoddy justifications, even WW1/2 with deliberately sending the Lusitania to the Germans to sink (against their warnings), so it could be called aggression, and doing everything in their power to provoke an act of war from Japan. These weren't Bush.

Since Iraq, the US has overthrown Libya and Syria (ongoing), though through much more subtle means. The instigation and subsequent justification was simple. The propaganda was clean cut. That wasn't Bush.

Anyway, Bush wasn't the architect of Iraq/Afghanistan, he was just the figurehead and chief that happened to be there at the time to guide them.

There's many incidents where the North has done crazy things to attack the South, but there's also been attacks on the South that the North denies, but nontheless caused a huge amount of tension. All an external instigator would need to do is fire a single torpedo or missile at a South Korean destroyer to potentially start a war... That's all the justification that's required. It's not at all impossible.

Making up a motive for war is worthy of a James Bond story or conspiracy website. I don't have one. But it's possible that someone outside of NK has a motive.

NK themselves don't really have a motive, because we all know, and they know that the destruction would be massive. Their game is to live in a state of war without real war -- the 1984 playbook to a tee.

 

 

You claim he is all in defense and cite the American/South Korean military practice as a reason for that defensive stance.

No, I quoted their statements that are being used by the BBC and wikipedia, and pointed out that the original statements claim that these new threats are being made in self defence, while the BBC/Wikipedia forgot to mention this part of the original statement.

 

I never made a personal judgement about whether their statements are heartfelt or righteous. Personally, I believe that none of the parties involved are righteous.

 


The BBC made out that the latest statement from KCNA was a threat of aggression. If you go and read the KCNA statement for yourself, you'll see it's actually a threat of retaliation -- "if you attack us, we'll attack you". That's not me defending NK, that's me paraphrasing them and the BBC's words. What's interesting is that this twisting of the KCNA statement has been syndicated across almost every major western newspaper, thanks to a few key organizations providing cheap syndicated content to the world. The same story, the same (mis)interpretation of the original statement in every newspaper I pick up.
 
It's very hard to lambast the KCNA for being a government mouthpiece for propaganda when we so obviously twist their words to fit our own world-view and agenda, in turn pushing our own propaganda... which is A-OK because we do it through a decentralized system instead of a communist-dictatorship, of course. 

 

What has America done except reply to threats towards North Korea?
America was the aggressor in a military exercise that they hold annually?  Just because it pissed off North Korea does not mean America actually did anything aggressive or provocative.

The US violated the cease fire agreement, the one that NK is now in trouble for ripping up, decades ago by bringing nuclear weapons into South Korea. The US doesn't agree that they violated the agreement, because they edited their copy unilaterally just prior to changing this clause, so that importing nukes isn't really an escalation... They started the nuclear arms race, so it's obvious for NK to try and catch up by matching them. You can't at all seriously be reprimanding the North for pursuing nukes, when they've been under the threat of them for decades, and all that time tolerantly (or not so tolerantly) hanging on to the invalidated cease fire agreement.

Every time these military exercises are carried out with imported US weapons, the South and the US are violating the original terms of the cease fire... so why wouldn't the North want to rip it up? It's a bit of a double standard to violate it and then reprimand someone for not wanting to agree to it any more. It's obviously irrelevant if it's being broken annually.

 

Anyway, they've made this exact same announcement 5 times in the past already... so business as usual.

Either they forget they said it after some more discussions, or eventually a new cease-fire will be written up, or someone will attack someone, and the retaliations will lead to war (betting based on history gives this outcome pretty poor odds though), or (most unlikely) a proper cessation of hostilities and a real end to war will happen.

 

In the end it boils down to both sides saying, "if you attack us, we'll destroy you", and both sides justifying their statement by pointing at the other's statements.

That's the whole situation in a nutshell.

 

Looking at it purely objectively, as to the history of the conflict, I don't like either side and I want them to just get along and agree to the current border. The original division into north and south probably shouldn't have happened in the first place, but we can't change that. We've got two countries now, and they should just deal with what they have.

However, bringing my feelings into the debate, I love e-sports and broadband Internet, and I hate personality-cults and starvation, so I wish for SK's safety and the peaceful dismantling of NK...


#9Hodgman

Posted 30 March 2013 - 09:04 AM

I find it ironic that you defend them so, considering that all of their excuses for being in a position of self-defense are entirely without merit.

You hate America I take it.

I'm not defending anybody. I like to look at things from every point of view. It's sad to live in an age where looking into the facts, or putting yourself in someone elses shoes makes you an "enemy sympathiser". I'm probably on a fucking American watch list for daring to read the source press releases from KCNA instead of the filtered western versions...

 

If you read the western papers, we try not to mention anything we've done to piss off the North, and we always try to throw in some personal attacks against their leader's personality.

If you read their (dictatorial government) paper, they of course have the opposite spin. You also have to keep in mind that from their point of view, they're still half way through a war that's been paused. That's a very different view from what many outsiders would have, where we consider South Korea to basically be at peace (apart from having mandatory military training, and a neighbour that shoots them from time to time, and the most heavily armed border on the planet...).

 

As for hating America:

America is corrupt and double-faced in all it's policies, domestic and foreign, which is plain for anyone to see thanks to the Internet and leakers... As are many countries.

America is the perfect example of why unfettered capitalism, fear of socialism, bigotry, inequality and fear of the working class are dangerous ideals to embrace.

They're so big and successful while harbouring these dark undercurrents, that they're a brilliant example of what not to emulate. For that, they're useful.

 

The main hate that I have is when I see my own nation going down a similar dark path -- the same small handful of umbrella corporations owning almost every major company here (often owning both sides in a harmful duopoly), Murdoch owning 70% of the newspapers and in turn having enough power to crush any politician looking to enact reforms to constrain his power over democracy, increased litigiousness across the board, democratic elections giving way more and more to corpocracy every year, governmental discussion becoming more hysterical, informed political debate giving way to uneducated slogan slinging, class inequality growing exponentially, more governments hand-outs going to the top 10% than the other 90% combined, the selling off of public assets to corporate monopolies, the dismantling of the free education system and the building of a two-tier education system, the dismantling of free public health care and the invasion of inefficient corporate insurance bureaucracies leaching healthcare funding, the mandatory detention of refugees in inhumane concentration camps, the power for corporations to appropriate and exploit private farming land and leave the essential water basins as toxic wastelands without accountability, the destruction of a natural wonder of the world for short term profit, enacting or martial law in communities that just need basic services, creation of fake sex scandals to swing the political balance of power, being caught out in international diplomatic lies showing a preference for political power games over honesty and integrity (e.g. we knew about the Assange case before it happened, and knew Iraq had no weapons before the war, but we said we knew nothing - this is on the public record now)... the list is endless, but we're following the success of greed, and all the darkness it brings. That, I hate. I hate the fact that we've got America as a warning beacon, but we're too blinded by it's light to realize the real message.

 

America may have a spotty history of invading countries without reason, but that was Bush and there was a selfish reason to invade.  We aren’t Bush anymore and there is nothing in North Korea America wants.  No invasion could possibly be justified.  Invasion requires justification to the rest of the world

The evidence against Saddam was fabricated, but the US also justified their entry into Vietnam/Cambodia/South east Asia by having the NSA fabricate an attack on their ships. That wasn't Bush.

The majority of American wars have been based around shoddy justifications, even WW1/2 with deliberately sending the Lusitania to the Germans to sink (against their warnings), so it could be called aggression, and doing everything in their power to provoke an act of war from Japan. These weren't Bush.

Since Iraq, the US has overthrown Libya and Syria (ongoing), though through much more subtle means. The instigation and subsequent justification was simple. The propaganda was clean cut. That wasn't Bush.

Anyway, Bush wasn't the architect of Iraq/Afghanistan, he was just the figurehead and chief that happened to be there at the time to guide them.

There's many incidents where the North has done crazy things to attack the South, but there's also been attacks on the South that the North denies, but nontheless caused a huge amount of tension. All an external instigator would need to do is fire a single torpedo or missile at a South Korean destroyer to potentially start a war... That's all the justification that's required. It's not at all impossible.

Making up a motive for war is worthy of a James Bond story or conspiracy website. I don't have one. But it's possible that someone outside of NK has a motive.

NK themselves don't really have a motive, because we all know, and they know that the destruction would be massive. Their game is to live in a state of war without real war -- the 1984 playbook to a tee.

 

 

You claim he is all in defense and cite the American/South Korean military practice as a reason for that defensive stance.

No, I quoted their statements that are being used by the BBC and wikipedia, and pointed out that the original statements claim that these new threats are being made in self defence, while the BBC/Wikipedia forgot to mention this part of the original statement.

 

I never made a personal judgement about whether their statements are heartfelt or righteous. Personally, I believe that none of the parties involved are righteous.

 


The BBC made out that the latest statement from KCNA was a threat of aggression. If you go and read the KCNA statement for yourself, you'll see it's actually a threat of retaliation -- "if you attack us, we'll attack you". That's not me defending NK, that's me paraphrasing them and the BBC's words. What's interesting is that this twisting of the KCNA statement has been syndicated across almost every major western newspaper, thanks to a few key organizations providing cheap syndicated content to the world. The same story, the same (mis)interpretation of the original statement in every newspaper I pick up.
 
It's very hard to lambast the KCNA for being a government mouthpiece for propaganda when we so obviously twist their words to fit our own world-view and agenda, in turn pushing our own propaganda... which is A-OK because we do it through a decentralized system instead of a communist-dictatorship, of course. 

 

What has America done except reply to threats towards North Korea?
America was the aggressor in a military exercise that they hold annually?  Just because it pissed off North Korea does not mean America actually did anything aggressive or provocative.

The US violated the cease fire agreement, the one that NK is now in trouble for ripping up, decades ago by bringing nuclear weapons into South Korea. The US doesn't agree that they violated the agreement, because they edited their copy unilaterally just prior to changing this clause, so that importing nukes isn't really an escalation... They started the nuclear arms race, so it's obvious for NK to try and catch up by matching them. You can't at all seriously be reprimanding the North for pursuing nukes, when they've been under the threat of them for decades, and all that time tolerantly clinging to the invalidated cease fire agreement.

Every time these military exercises are carried out with imported US weapons, the South and the US are violating the original terms of the cease fire... so why wouldn't the North want to rip it up? It's a bit of a double standard to violate it and then reprimand someone for not wanting to agree to it any more. It's obviously irrelevant.

Anyway, they've made this exact same announcement 5 times in the past already... so business as usual.

 

It boils down to both sides saying, "if you attack us, we'll destroy you", and both sides justifying their statement by pointing at the other's.

 

Looking at it purely objectively, as to the history of the conflict, I don't like either side and I want them to just get along and agree to the border. The original division into north and south probably shouldn't have happened in the first place, but we can't change that. We've got two countries now, and they should just deal with what they have.

However, bringing my feelings into the debate, I love e-sports and broadband Internet, and I hate personality-cults and starvation, so I wish for SK's safety and the peaceful dismantling of NK...


#8Hodgman

Posted 30 March 2013 - 08:57 AM

I find it ironic that you defend them so, considering that all of their excuses for being in a position of self-defense are entirely without merit.

You hate America I take it.

I'm not defending anybody. I like to look at things from every point of view. It's sad to live in an age where looking into the facts, or putting yourself in someone elses shoes makes you an "enemy sympathiser". I'm probably on a fucking American watch list for daring to read the source press releases from KCNA instead of the filtered western versions...

 

If you read the western papers, we try not to mention anything we've done to piss off the North, and we always try to throw in some personal attacks against their leader's personality.

If you read their (dictatorial government) paper, they of course have the opposite spin. You also have to keep in mind that from their point of view, they're still half way through a war that's been paused. That's a very different view from what many outsiders would have, where we consider South Korea to basically be at peace (apart from having mandatory military training, and a neighbour that shoots them from time to time, and the most heavily armed border on the planet...).

 

As for hating America:

America is corrupt and double-faced in all it's policies, domestic and foreign, which is plain for anyone to see thanks to the Internet and leakers... As are many countries.

America is the perfect example of why unfettered capitalism, fear of socialism, bigotry, inequality and fear of the working class are dangerous ideals to embrace.

They're so big and successful while harbouring these dark undercurrents, that they're a brilliant example of what not to emulate. For that, they're useful.

 

The main hate that I have is when I see my own nation going down a similar dark path -- the same small handful of umbrella corporations owning almost every major company here (often owning both sides in a harmful duopoly), Murdoch owning 70% of the newspapers and in turn having enough power to crush any politician looking to enact reforms to constrain his power over democracy, increased litigiousness across the board, democratic elections giving way more and more to corpocracy every year, governmental discussion becoming more hysterical, informed political debate giving way to uneducated slogan slinging, class inequality growing exponentially, more governments hand-outs going to the top 10% than the other 90% combined, the selling off of public assets to corporate monopolies, the dismantling of the free education system and the building of a two-tier education system, the dismantling of free public health care and the invasion of inefficient corporate insurance bureaucracies leaching healthcare funding, the mandatory detention of refugees in inhumane concentration camps, the power for corporations to appropriate and exploit private farming land and leave the essential water basins as toxic wastelands without accountability, the destruction of a natural wonder of the world for short term profit, enacting or martial law in communities that just need basic services, creation of fake sex scandals to swing the political balance of power, being caught out in international diplomatic lies showing a preference for political power games over honesty and integrity (e.g. we knew about the Assange case before it happened, and knew Iraq had no weapons before the war, but we said we knew nothing - this is on the public record now)... the list is endless, but we're following the success of greed, and all the darkness it brings. That, I hate. I hate the fact that we've got America as a warning beacon, but we're too blinded by it's light to realize the real message.

 

America may have a spotty history of invading countries without reason, but that was Bush and there was a selfish reason to invade.  We aren’t Bush anymore and there is nothing in North Korea America wants.  No invasion could possibly be justified.  Invasion requires justification to the rest of the world

The evidence against Saddam was fabricated, but the US also justified their entry into Vietnam/Cambodia/South east Asia by having the NSA fabricate an attack on their ships. That wasn't Bush.

The majority of American wars have been based around shoddy justifications, even WW1/2 with deliberately sending the Lusitania to the Germans to sink (against their warnings), so it could be called aggression, and doing everything in their power to provoke an act of war from Japan. These weren't Bush.

Since Iraq, the US has overthrown Libya and Syria (ongoing), though through much more subtle means. The instigation and subsequent justification was simple. The propaganda was clean cut. That wasn't Bush.

Anyway, Bush wasn't the architect of Iraq/Afghanistan, he was just the figurehead and chief that happened to be there at the time to guide them.

There's many incidents where the North has done crazy things to attack the South, but there's also been attacks on the South that the North denies, but nontheless caused a huge amount of tension. All an external instigator would need to do is fire a single torpedo or missile at a South Korean destroyer to potentially start a war... That's all the justification that's required. It's not at all impossible.

Making up a motive for war is worthy of a James Bond story or conspiracy website. I don't have one. But it's possible that someone outside of NK has a motive.

NK themselves don't really have a motive, because we all know, and they know that the destruction would be massive. Their game is to live in a state of war without real war -- the 1984 playbook to a tee.

 

 

You claim he is all in defense and cite the American/South Korean military practice as a reason for that defensive stance.

No, I quoted their statements that are being used by the BBC and wikipedia, and pointed out that the original statements claim that these new threats are being made in self defence, while the BBC/Wikipedia forgot to mention this part of the original statement.

 

I never made a personal judgement about whether their statements are heartfelt or righteous. Personally, I believe that none of the parties involved are righteous.

 


The BBC made out that the latest statement from KCNA was a threat of aggression. If you go and read the KCNA statement for yourself, you'll see it's actually a threat of retaliation -- "if you attack us, we'll attack you". That's not me defending NK, that's me paraphrasing them and the BBC's words. What's interesting is that this twisting of the KCNA statement has been syndicated across almost every major western newspaper, thanks to a few key organizations providing cheap syndicated content to the world. The same story, the same (mis)interpretation of the original statement in every newspaper I pick up.
 
It's very hard to lambast the KCNA for being a government mouthpiece for propaganda when we so obviously twist their words to fit our own world-view and agenda, in turn pushing our own propaganda... which is A-OK because we do it through a decentralized system instead of a communist-dictatorship, of course. 

 

What has America done except reply to threats towards North Korea?
America was the aggressor in a military exercise that they hold annually?  Just because it pissed off North Korea does not mean America actually did anything aggressive or provocative.

The US violated the cease fire agreement, the one that NK is now in trouble for ripping up, decades ago by bringing nuclear weapons into South Korea. The US doesn't agree that they violated the agreement, because they edited their copy unilaterally just prior to changing this clause, so that importing nukes isn't really an escalation... They started the nuclear arms race, so it's obvious for NK to try and catch up by matching them. You can't at all seriously be reprimanding the North for pursuing nukes, when they've been under the threat of them for decades, and all that time tolerantly clinging to the invalidated cease fire agreement.

Every time these military exercises are carried out with imported US weapons, the South and the US are violating the original terms of the cease fire... so why wouldn't the North want to rip it up? It's a bit of a double standard to violate it and then reprimand someone for not wanting to agree to it any more. It's obviously irrelevant.

Anyway, they've made this exact same announcement 5 times in the past already... so business as usual.

 

It boils down to both sides saying, "if you attack us, we'll destroy you", and both sides justifying their statement by pointing at the other's.


#7Hodgman

Posted 30 March 2013 - 08:47 AM

I find it ironic that you defend them so, considering that all of their excuses for being in a position of self-defense are entirely without merit.

You hate America I take it.

I'm not defending anybody. I like to look at things from every point of view. It's sad to live in an age where looking into the facts, or putting yourself in someone elses shoes makes you an "enemy sympathiser". I'm probably on a fucking American watch list for daring to read the source press releases from KCNA instead of the filtered western versions...

 

If you read the western papers, we try not to mention anything we've done to piss off the North, and we always try to throw in some personal attacks against their leader's personality.

If you read their (dictatorial government) paper, they of course have the opposite spin. You also have to keep in mind that from their point of view, they're still half way through a war that's been paused. That's a very different view from what many outsiders would have, where we consider South Korea to basically be at peace (apart from having mandatory military training, and a neighbour that shoots them from time to time, and the most heavily armed border on the planet...).

 

As for hating America:

America is corrupt and double-faced in all it's policies, domestic and foreign, which is plain for anyone to see thanks to the Internet and leakers... As are many countries.

America is the perfect example of why unfettered capitalism, fear of socialism, bigotry, inequality and fear of the working class are dangerous ideals to embrace.

They're so big and successful while harbouring these dark undercurrents, that they're a brilliant example of what not to emulate. For that, they're useful.

 

The main hate that I have is when I see my own nation going down a similar dark path -- the same small handful of umbrella corporations owning almost every major company here (often owning both sides in a harmful duopoly), Murdoch owning 70% of the newspapers and in turn having enough power to crush any politician looking to enact reforms to constrain his power over democracy, increased litigiousness across the board, democratic elections giving way more and more to corpocracy every year, governmental discussion becoming more hysterical, informed political debate giving way to uneducated slogan slinging, class inequality growing exponentially, more governments hand-outs going to the top 10% than the other 90% combined, the selling off of public assets to corporate monopolies, the dismantling of the free education system and the building of a two-tier education system, the dismantling of free public health care and the invasion of inefficient corporate insurance bureaucracies leaching healthcare funding, the mandatory detention of refugees in inhumane concentration camps, the power for corporations to appropriate and exploit private farming land and leave the essential water basins as toxic wastelands without accountability, the destruction of a natural wonder of the world for short term profit, enacting or martial law in communities that just need basic services, creation of fake sex scandals to swing the political balance of power, being caught out in international diplomatic lies showing a preference for political power games over honesty and integrity (e.g. we knew about the Assange case before it happened, and knew Iraq had no weapons before the war, but we said we knew nothing - this is on the public record now)... the list is endless, but we're following the success of greed, and all the darkness it brings. That, I hate. I hate the fact that we've got America as a warning beacon, but we're too blinded by it's light to realize the real message.

 

America may have a spotty history of invading countries without reason, but that was Bush and there was a selfish reason to invade.  We aren’t Bush anymore and there is nothing in North Korea America wants.  No invasion could possibly be justified.  Invasion requires justification to the rest of the world

The evidence against Saddam was fabricated, but the US also justified their entry into Vietnam/Cambodia/South east Asia by having the NSA fabricate an attack on their ships. That wasn't Bush.

The majority of American wars have been based around shoddy justifications, even WW1/2 with deliberately sending the Lusitania to the Germans to sink (against their warnings), so it could be called aggression, and doing everything in their power to provoke an act of war from Japan. These weren't Bush.

Since Iraq, the US has overthrown Libya and Syria (ongoing), though through much more subtle means. The instigation and subsequent justification was simple. The propaganda was clean cut. That wasn't Bush.

Anyway, Bush wasn't the architect of Iraq/Afghanistan, he was just the figurehead and chief that happened to be there at the time to guide them.

There's many incidents where the North has done crazy things to attack the South, but there's also been attacks on the South that the North denies, but nontheless caused a huge amount of tension. All an external instigator would need to do is fire a single torpedo or missile at a South Korean destroyer to potentially start a war... That's all the justification that's required. It's not at all impossible.

Making up a motive for war is worthy of a James Bond story or conspiracy website. I don't have one. But it's possible that someone outside of NK has a motive.

NK themselves don't really have a motive, because we all know, and they know that the destruction would be massive. Their game is to live in a state of war without real war -- the 1984 playbook to a tee.

 

 

You claim he is all in defense and cite the American/South Korean military practice as a reason for that defensive stance.

No, I quoted their statements that are being used by the BBC and wikipedia, and pointed out that the original statements claim that these new threats are being made in self defence, while the BBC/Wikipedia forgot to mention this part of the original statement.

 

The BBC made out that the latest statement from KCNA was a threat of aggression. If you go and read the KCNA statement for yourself, you'll see it's actually a threat of retaliation -- "if you attack us, we'll attack you". That's not me defending NK, that's me paraphrasing them and the BBC's words.

 


I never made a personal judgement about whether their statements are heartfelt or righteous. Personally, I believe that none of the parties involved are righteous.

 

What has America done except reply to threats towards North Korea?
America was the aggressor in a military exercise that they hold annually?  Just because it pissed off North Korea does not mean America actually did anything aggressive or provocative.

The US violated the cease fire agreement, the one that NK is now in trouble for ripping up, decades ago by bringing nuclear weapons into South Korea. The US doesn't agree that they violated the agreement, because they edited their copy unilaterally just prior to changing this clause, so that importing nukes isn't really an escalation... They started the nuclear arms race, so it's obvious for NK to try and catch up by matching them. You can't at all seriously be reprimanding the North for pursuing nukes, when they've been under the threat of them for decades, and all that time tolerantly clinging to the invalidated cease fire agreement.

Every time these military exercises are carried out with imported US weapons, the South and the US are violating the original terms of the cease fire... so why wouldn't the North want to rip it up? It's a bit of a double standard to violate it and then reprimand someone for not wanting to agree to it any more. It's obviously irrelevant.

Anyway, they've made this exact same announcement 5 times in the past already... so business as usual.

 

It boils down to both sides saying, "if you attack us, we'll destroy you", and both sides justifying their statement by pointing at the other's.


#6Hodgman

Posted 30 March 2013 - 08:38 AM

I find it ironic that you defend them so, considering that all of their excuses for being in a position of self-defense are entirely without merit.

You hate America I take it.

I'm not defending anybody. I like to look at things from every point of view. It's sad to live in an age where looking into the facts, or putting yourself in someone elses shoes makes you an "enemy sympathiser". I'm probably on a fucking American watch list for daring to read the source press releases from KCNA instead of the filtered western versions...

 

If you read the western papers, we try not to mention anything we've done to piss off the North, and we always try to throw in some personal attacks against their leader's personality.

If you read their (dictatorial government) paper, they of course have the opposite spin. You also have to keep in mind that from their point of view, they're still half way through a war that's been paused. That's a very different view from what many outsiders would have, where we consider South Korea to basically be at peace (apart from having mandatory military training, and a neighbour that shoots them from time to time, and the most heavily armed border on the planet...).

 

As for hating America:

America is corrupt and double-faced in all it's policies, domestic and foreign, which is plain for anyone to see thanks to the Internet and leakers... As are many countries.

America is the perfect example of why unfettered capitalism, fear of socialism, bigotry, inequality and fear of the working class are dangerous ideals to embrace.

They're so big and successful while harbouring these dark undercurrents, that they're a brilliant example of what not to emulate. For that, they're useful.

 

The main hate that I have is when I see my own nation going down a similar dark path -- the same small handful of umbrella corporations owning almost every major company here (often owning both sides in a harmful duopoly), Murdoch owning 70% of the newspapers and in turn having enough power to crush any politician looking to enact reforms to constrain his power over democracy, increased litigiousness across the board, democratic elections giving way more and more to corpocracy every year, governmental discussion becoming more hysterical, informed political debate giving way to uneducated slogan slinging, class inequality growing exponentially, more governments hand-outs going to the top 10% than the other 90% combined, the selling off of public assets to corporate monopolies, the dismantling of the free education system and the building of a two-tier education system, the dismantling of free public health care and the invasion of inefficient corporate insurance bureaucracies leaching healthcare funding, the mandatory detention of refugees in inhumane concentration camps, the power for corporations to appropriate and exploit private farming land and leave the essential water basins as toxic wastelands without accountability, the destruction of a natural wonder of the world for short term profit, enacting or martial law in communities that just need basic services, creation of fake sex scandals to swing the political balance of power, being caught out in international diplomatic lies showing a preference for political power games over honesty and integrity (e.g. we knew about the Assange case before it happened, and knew Iraq had no weapons before the war, but we said we knew nothing - this is on the public record now)... the list is endless, but we're following the success of greed, and all the darkness it brings. That, I hate. I hate the fact that we've got America as a warning beacon, but we're too blinded by it's light to realize the real message.

 

America may have a spotty history of invading countries without reason, but that was Bush and there was a selfish reason to invade.  We aren’t Bush anymore and there is nothing in North Korea America wants.  No invasion could possibly be justified.  Invasion requires justification to the rest of the world

The evidence against Saddam was fabricated, but the US also justified their entry into Vietnam/Cambodia/South east Asia by having the NSA fabricate an attack on their ships. That wasn't bush.

Since Iraq, the US has overthrown Libya and Syria (ongoing), though through much more subtle means. The instigation and subsequent justification was simple. The propaganda was clean cut. That wasn't Bush.

There's many incidents where the North has done crazy things to attack the South, but there's also been attacks on the South that the North denies, but nontheless caused a huge amount of tension. All an external instigator would need to do is fire a single torpedo or missile at a South Korean destroyer to potentially start a war... That's all the justification that's required. It's not at all impossible.

Making up a motive for war is worthy of a James Bond story or conspiracy website. I don't have one. But it's possible that someone outside of NK has a motive.

NK themselves don't really have a motive, because we all know, and they know that the destruction would be massive. Their game is to live in a state of war without real war -- the 1984 playbook to a tee.

 

 

You claim he is all in defense and cite the American/South Korean military practice as a reason for that defensive stance.

No, I quoted their statements that are being used by the BBC and wikipedia, and pointed out that the original statements claim that these new threats are being made in self defence, while the BBC/Wikipedia forgot to mention this part of the original statement.

 

The BBC made out that the latest statement from KCNA was a threat of aggression. If you go and read the KCNA statement for yourself, you'll see it's actually a threat of retaliation -- "if you attack us, we'll attack you". That's not me defending NK, that's me paraphrasing them and the BBC's words.

 


I never made a personal judgement about whether their statements are heartfelt or righteous. Personally, I believe that none of the parties involved are righteous.

 

What has America done except reply to threats towards North Korea?
America was the aggressor in a military exercise that they hold annually?  Just because it pissed off North Korea does not mean America actually did anything aggressive or provocative.

The US violated the cease fire agreement, the one that NK is now in trouble for ripping up, decades ago by bringing nuclear weapons into South Korea. The US doesn't agree that they violated the agreement, because they edited their copy unilaterally just prior to changing this clause, so that importing nukes isn't really an escalation... They started the nuclear arms race, so it's obvious for NK to try and catch up by matching them. You can't at all seriously be reprimanding the North for pursuing nukes, when they've been under the threat of them for decades, and all that time tolerantly clinging to the invalidated cease fire agreement.

Every time these military exercises are carried out with imported US weapons, the South and the US are violating the original terms of the cease fire... so why wouldn't the North want to rip it up? It's a bit of a double standard to violate it and then reprimand someone for not wanting to agree to it any more. It's obviously irrelevant.

Anyway, they've made this exact same announcement 5 times in the past already... so business as usual.

 

It boils down to both sides saying, "if you attack us, we'll destroy you", and both sides justifying their statement by pointing at the other's.


#5Hodgman

Posted 30 March 2013 - 08:34 AM

I find it ironic that you defend them so, considering that all of their excuses for being in a position of self-defense are entirely without merit.

You hate America I take it.

I'm not defending anybody. I like to look at things from every point of view. It's sad to live in an age where looking into the facts, or putting yourself in someone elses shoes makes you an "enemy sympathiser". I'm probably on a fucking American watch list for daring to read the source press releases from KCNA instead of the filtered western versions...

 

If you read the western papers, we try not to mention anything we've done to piss off the North, and we always try to throw in some personal attacks against their leader's personality.

If you read their (dictatorial government) paper, they of course have the opposite spin. You also have to keep in mind that from their point of view, they're still half way through a war that's been paused. That's a very different view from what many outsiders would have, where we consider South Korea to basically be at peace (apart from having mandatory military training, and a neighbour that shoots them from time to time, and the most heavily armed border on the planet...).

 

As for hating America:

America is corrupt and double-faced in all it's policies, domestic and foreign, which is plain for anyone to see thanks to the Internet and leakers... As are many countries.

America is the perfect example of why unfettered capitalism, fear of socialism, bigotry, inequality are dangerous ideals to embrace.

They're so big and successful while harbouring these dark undercurrents, that they're a brilliant example of what not to emulate. For that, they're useful.

 

The main hate that I have is when I see my own nation going down a similar dark path -- the same small handful of umbrella corporations owning almost every major company here (often owning both sides in a harmful duopoly), Murdoch owning 70% of the newspapers and in turn having enough power to crush any politician looking to enact reforms to constrain his power over democracy, increased litigiousness across the board, democratic elections giving way more and more to corpocracy every year, governmental discussion becoming more hysterical, informed political debate giving way to uneducated slogan slinging, class inequality growing exponentially, more governments hand-outs going to the top 10% than the other 90% combined, the selling off of public assets to corporate monopolies, the dismantling of the free education system and the building of a two-tier education system, the dismantling of free public health care and the invasion of inefficient corporate insurance bureaucracies leaching healthcare funding, the mandatory detention of refugees in inhumane concentration camps, the power for corporations to appropriate and exploit private farming land and leave the essential water basins as toxic wastelands without accountability, the destruction of a natural wonder of the world for short term profit, creation of fake sex scandals to swing the political balance of power, being caught out in international diplomatic lies showing a preference for political power games over honesty and integrity (e.g. we knew about the Assange case before it happened, and knew Iraq had no weapons before the war, but we said we knew nothing - this is on the public record now)... the list is endless, but we're following the success of greed, and all the darkness it brings. That, I hate. I hate the fact that we've got America as a warning beacon, but we're too blinded by it's light to realize the real message.

 

America may have a spotty history of invading countries without reason, but that was Bush and there was a selfish reason to invade.  We aren’t Bush anymore and there is nothing in North Korea America wants.  No invasion could possibly be justified.  Invasion requires justification to the rest of the world

The evidence against Saddam was fabricated, but the US also justified their entry into Vietnam/Cambodia/South east Asia by having the NSA fabricate an attack on their ships. That wasn't bush.

Since Iraq, the US has overthrown Libya and Syria (ongoing), though through much more subtle means. The instigation and subsequent justification was simple. The propaganda was clean cut. That wasn't Bush.

There's many incidents where the North has done crazy things to attack the South, but there's also been attacks on the South that the North denies, but nontheless caused a huge amount of tension. All an external instigator would need to do is fire a single torpedo or missile at a South Korean destroyer to potentially start a war... That's all the justification that's required. It's not at all impossible.

Making up a motive for war is worthy of a James Bond story or conspiracy website. I don't have one. But it's possible that someone outside of NK has a motive.

NK themselves don't really have a motive, because we all know, and they know that the destruction would be massive. Their game is to live in a state of war without real war -- the 1984 playbook to a tee.

 

 

You claim he is all in defense and cite the American/South Korean military practice as a reason for that defensive stance.

No, I quoted their statements that are being used by the BBC and wikipedia, and pointed out that the original statements claim that these new threats are being made in self defence, while the BBC/Wikipedia forgot to mention this part of the original statement.

 

The BBC made out that the latest statement from KCNA was a threat of aggression. If you go and read the KCNA statement for yourself, you'll see it's actually a threat of retaliation -- "if you attack us, we'll attack you". That's not me defending NK, that's me paraphrasing them and the BBC's words.

 


I never made a personal judgement about whether their statements are heartfelt or righteous. Personally, I believe that none of the parties involved are righteous.

 

What has America done except reply to threats towards North Korea?
America was the aggressor in a military exercise that they hold annually?  Just because it pissed off North Korea does not mean America actually did anything aggressive or provocative.

The US violated the cease fire agreement, the one that NK is now in trouble for ripping up, decades ago by bringing nuclear weapons into South Korea. The US doesn't agree that they violated the agreement, because they edited their copy unilaterally just prior to change this clause, so that importing nukes isn't really an escalation... They started the nuclear arms race, so it's obvious for NK to try and catch up by matching them. You can't at all seriously be reprimanding the North for pursuing nukes, when they've been under the threat of them for decades, and all that time tolerantly clinging to the invalidated cease fire agreement.

Every time these military exercises are carried out with imported US weapons, the South and the US are violating the original terms of the cease fire... so why wouldn't the North want to rip it up? It's a bit of a double standard to violate it and then reprimand someone for not wanting to agree to it any more. It's obviously irrelevant.

Anyway, they've made this exact same announcement 5 times in the past already... so business as usual.

 

It boils down to both sides saying, "if you attack us, we'll destroy you", and both sides justifying their statement by pointing at the other's.


PARTNERS