Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

#ActualPrinz Eugn

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:45 PM

Double Post


#1Prinz Eugn

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:42 PM

The statement I quoted is the beginning of the "aimed at the US" rhetoric, and is important because, again, it's singling out the US in response to very multilateral new UN sanctions which were put into effect after the North violated a similarly multilateral series of resolutions. And it while it wasn't quite as clear as later North Korean statements, it was taken as a threat of nuclear attack, though not super widely.

 

 

Not from their point of view. If they ask the US to disarm their nukes, and to stop routinely violating the armistice, is it provocation when the US ignores these demands? No - the US doesn't value these demands.


Why would it be any different the other way around? They're in a war (remember, the US and NK are technically still at war) against people with satellites and nukes, so of course they're going to want their own. When your enemy makes some weak demand that you stop following the logical course of action, of course you're not going to listen, just as the US ignores demands to disarm. Saying that their satellite launch is "instigation" is not at all objective.

Giving in to demands and being told what to do by the US, to them means defeat in the war. It means being a servant instead of an equal - after all, the US doesn't give in to anyone's demands (which includes defying the UN too - remember how incredibly insulting of the UN every American news outlet was in 2003?). That's obviously not going to happen while they're still at war.
Many other countries have satellites and nukes, so it is a double standard and an infringement of sovereignty to try and stop others taking this same path. The reason we accept this double standard is because we obviously don't want people that we're at war with to be able to catch up, that's bad strategy. Other powers also don't want a US war to break out in their own spheres, and they certainly don't want to let any more members into their exclusive MAD club.

 

Once again, this is not the United States and North Korea, this is the broader international community... and North Korea. If the US can get China and Russia to agree on something involving a country they share a border with, it's kind of a big deal. And it's not just the "MAD club" that approved multiple resolutions calling for the North to give up those programs, we have all the rotating members of the UNSC, plus countries that weren't on the UNSC openly calling on the North to abide by them. This goes both for the rocket launches and the nuclear test. This is the majority of the international community acknowledging the North's actions are a threat to stability to a much greater degree than the US or South Korea's. Even the Venezuelan government has called for a relaxation on both sides, rather than blaming the US, and their President accuses the US of plotting to frame him for the assassination of his main opponent. If Nicolas Maduro can't bring himself to call on the US by name to reduce its threats (implicitly blaming the US), then the US probably isn't the belligerent party.

 

And, as I said in my last post, the North did not stop short of decrying the perceived hypocrisy of the UN member states who have both Nuclear weapons and launch vehicles, they singled out the United States (declaring all UNSC members are puppets), and then say that were going to launch some rockets and explode nuclear weapons "aimed at the United States", that the time for talk was over, and declare that "Settling accounts with the U.S. needs to be done with force, not with words as it regards jungle law as the rule of its survival."

 

To assume these statements reflect their actual point of view and are not mostly political maneuvering aimed at raising tensions, you have to assume they're either crazy, have zero understanding of how the international community works, or that their accusations that some sort of US-led globe-spanning cabal (that somehow includes all UNSC members) exists is actually true. All signs point to these statements, which have fueled the crisis, are intentionally provocative.

 

 

 

keep in mind these are primarily internal documents aimed at their own people.

 

They are not. These statements are published in English on the internet, by the official state mouthpiece. This is the state media translating their own provocative propaganda into the native tongue of their ostensible enemies and making it available on a medium that their own people don't have access to. At the very least, they should be aware not only western media but other governments take these KCNA statements as official positions of the North Korean government. If they wanted to keep it on the down-low, they wouldn't do that. KCNA is the primary way the North Korean government publically communicates to the outside world, and nearly the only way. 

 

So going back to your original assertions and why I responded to this topic in the first place:

 

 

Keep in mind that for every bit of crazy internal propaganda that they have (a lot of which is actually justified, seeing as they actually are under seige and constant threat from us), there is just as much external propaganda coming from us that's designed to make them look even more crazy than they really are. The amount of propaganda in our media aimed against the enemies (or exploited allies, whatever) of the west is pretty ridiculous TBH...

 

Western media mostly quotes KCNA directly, and sometimes jumps to conclusions about what it says, but far less often than "just as much".

 

 

The US rehearsed the nuclear bombing of the North, while the South threatened the survival of the North. In response, the North is making all sorts of counter threats and promising to defend themselves...
The idea that they're being the aggressor here is totally down to how you spin the story.

 

The US sent bombers after the North exploded an honest-to-God nuclear bomb, and launched a satellite which the international community, not just the US, associates with ICBM development. The idea that they're being the aggressor here is supported by repeated UNSC resolutions, which I guess you could count as "spin."


PARTNERS