NationStates Jolt Archive

You know, it's always kind of easy to talk about the DPRK as this political entity, with lots of artillery guns aimed at Seoul etc.

But yesterday night I watched a report on the ABC Show "Foreign Correspondent", in which they showed footage that some brave people made with smuggled cameras and mobile phones.

I wonder whether the leaders there ever read "1984" - because this is it. Seriously.

I so far only found this clip, which actually isn't the worst I saw...I'd be glad if anyone else could find more.
http://www.northkoreanrefugees.com/dvd/

The one I saw played on the streets around a train station. There were dead people lying on the street (not just a few of them either), and no one dared to look at them.
Then people tried to get UN food bags from a train, and where consequently beaten up by soldiers, who then proceeded to sell the aid on the local market place.

You know, it's always kind of easy to talk about the DPRK as this political entity, with lots of artillery guns aimed at Seoul etc.

But yesterday night I watched a report on the ABC Show "Foreign Correspondent", in which they showed footage that some brave people made with smuggled cameras and mobile phones.

I wonder whether the leaders there ever read "1984" - because this is it. Seriously.

I so far only found this clip, which actually isn't the worst I saw...I'd be glad if anyone else could find more.
http://www.northkoreanrefugees.com/dvd/

The one I saw played on the streets around a train station. There were dead people lying on the street (not just a few of them either), and no one dared to look at them.
Then people tried to get UN food bags from a train, and where consequently beaten up by soldiers, who then proceeded to sell the aid on the local market place.


That video is of a trial followed by immediate execution. Believe it or not there are many people in the US who support implementing such a system in their own country. Ive seen people on this very board support it. They claim, among other things, that the appeals process and death row costs the tax payers too much money. They actually support what is shown in this video, trials followed by immediate execution. There are people here who would applaud such an efficient system.

Can you keep a look out for streaming video of the FC story?

They actually support what is shown in this video, trials followed by immediate execution. There are people here who would applaud such an efficient system.
He isn't lying either, I live in the US. Scary stuff. You might too, but I dunno.

I've heard such things as, "If an officer of the law knows somebody is a terrorist, or some kind of murderer or something, shoot them right on the spot. Show them terrorists whose boss."

Also, many people wished the soldiers would of just capped Saddam when they found him, instead of allowing him to be tried. He could spill a lot of beans on how the US helped him in the Iraq/Iran war thing.

Can you keep a look out for streaming video of the FC story?
I'm trying...

http://times.discovery.com/convergence/insidenorthkorea/video/video.html

http://www.dailynk.com/file/2005/01/19/DNKR00001267.wmv
This gets you killed in the DPRK, but this brave guy did it anyways.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4397847/
A Prison Camp. But the site that hosts a video, "freenorthkorea.net", is being reconstructed...

Sure, some Americans would like to see quicker executions, but that doesn't mean they support rigged trials and capital punishment for stealing food or bad-mouthing the government.

The one thing that suprised me was how they stuff the guys mouth so he can't say anything bad about the regime. That they're that concerned with censorship is amazing.

You know, it's always kind of easy to talk about the DPRK as this political entity, with lots of artillery guns aimed at Seoul etc.

But yesterday night I watched a report on the ABC Show "Foreign Correspondent", in which they showed footage that some brave people made with smuggled cameras and mobile phones.

I wonder whether the leaders there ever read "1984" - because this is it. Seriously.

I so far only found this clip, which actually isn't the worst I saw...I'd be glad if anyone else could find more.
http://www.northkoreanrefugees.com/dvd/

The one I saw played on the streets around a train station. There were dead people lying on the street (not just a few of them either), and no one dared to look at them.
Then people tried to get UN food bags from a train, and where consequently beaten up by soldiers, who then proceeded to sell the aid on the local market place.


And I'm sure the UN would condemn any attempt to free these people. And I don't think many people would be willing to send their children to war to free them, either.

It's a spineless world we live in.

And I don't think many people would be willing to send their children to war to free them, either.

It's a spineless world we live in.<shrug> Most of the people I know of who were against the Iraq War were in favor of a more militaristic approach to North Korea, perhaps even war.

I'd even consider going to war against North Korea.

<shrug> Most of the people I know of who were against the Iraq War were in favor of a more militaristic approach to North Korea, perhaps even war.

I'd even consider going to war against North Korea.

Right. Considering that it would involve the use of nuclear weapons by at least one side, that's rather assertive of you.

Whenever someone on the left says they want to go to war, though, I never believe it. Because they will always turn around later.

The real difference between Iraq and North Korea is that North Korea didn't sign a ceasefire with the US that it continually violated.

Its interesting to note that people, upon being faced with gross abuses by a socialist regime, immediately try to find a US angle to it.

Right. Considering that it would involve the use of nuclear weapons by at least one side, that's rather assertive of you.I wasn't asserting that everyone against the Iraq war felt this way, I was asserting that everyone I'd talked to did so.

Whenever someone on the left says they want to go to war, though, I never believe it. Because they will always turn around later.Saying that I would go to war with North Korea is different than saying that the U.S. is justified in whatever actions it takes during said war. I would reserve the right to criticize the U.S. if it took an action that I disagreed with. But that doesn't mean that I would disagree with the idea of going to war.

If there ever was just cause for military intervention, by the UN or some self-acclaimed global police, it is North Korea. And Sudan. And Rwanda, at the time.

A pity there is no oil.

(bloody ****ng hippocrites) :mad:

And I'm sure the UN would condemn any attempt to free these people. And I don't think many people would be willing to send their children to war to free them, either.

It's a spineless world we live in.Course no one wants to invade North Korea. There's no oil.

If there ever was just cause for military intervention, by the UN or some self-acclaimed global police, it is North Korea. And Sudan. And Rwanda, at the time.

A pity there is no oil.

(bloody ****ng hippocrites) :mad:

It's not the job of America to be world police, at the beck and call of all other nations who are unwilling to spend money on weapons and volunteer troops for war.

If people in other countries want "world police" then I suggest that they slash their current national budgets for social welfare, and divert that money to spend at least as much as the US spends on its defense budget - and then take that military and do the job.

I would be happy to sit here and criticize every single mistake that the "world police" make after that.

BTW, if you're counting on the UN to do anything - don't. It's better at watching and allowing genocide than it is anything else.

BTW, if you're counting on the UN to do anything - don't. It's better at watching and allowing genocide than it is anything else.It is unfortunate that the UN is structured in the way that it is, so I have to agree with you on this statement.

.........

BTW, if you're counting on the UN to do anything - don't. It's better at watching and allowing genocide than it is anything else.

Because of the liberal use of Veto power. Notice who uses it and when.

Because of the liberal use of Veto power. Notice who uses it and when.

Some 90 percent of US vetoes are over resolutions concerning Israel. Care to try again?

The American veto power has nothing to do with the Oil For Food scandal, does it?
Or the massacres in Kosovo?
Or the continuing abuse of children as prostitutes by UN peacekeepers?
Hm?

Some 90 percent of US vetoes are over resolutions concerning Israel. Care to try again?

The American veto power has nothing to do with the Oil For Food scandal, does it?
Or the massacres in Kosovo?
Or the continuing abuse of children as prostitutes by UN peacekeepers?
Hm?

True indeed, there are many wrongs and scandals in the world that are not caused by the US.

Some 90 percent of US vetoes are over resolutions concerning Israel. Care to try again?

The American veto power has nothing to do with the Oil For Food scandal, does it?
Or the massacres in Kosovo?
Or the continuing abuse of children as prostitutes by UN peacekeepers?
Hm?Of course, if the UN tried to prevent any of the human rights abuses comitted by US soldiers, you'd be crying bloody murder that they were getting involved.

Of course, if the UN tried to prevent any of the human rights abuses comitted by US soldiers, you'd be crying bloody murder that they were getting involved.

But we're talking about the demand that has been raised that the US should be the "world police" at the beck and call of the UN - other nations should be able to say, "hey, go take care of North Korea" and the poster is asserting that the US should just go do what the UN says.

I say that if you're not willing to pick up a rifle and do it yourself, you have no business asking someone else to do it. And if you're not willing to do it (and still asking for someone else to do it), you have no right to criticize how it's done.

But we're talking about the demand that has been raised that the US should be the "world police" at the beck and call of the UN - other nations should be able to say, "hey, go take care of North Korea" and the poster is asserting that the US should just go do what the UN says.

I say that if you're not willing to pick up a rifle and do it yourself, you have no business asking someone else to do it. And if you're not willing to do it (and still asking for someone else to do it), you have no right to criticize how it's done.In this instance, I agree. If you believe something should be done, but aren't willing to do it yourself, then you have no right to criticize how others do it.

But we're talking about the demand that has been raised that the US should be the "world police" at the beck and call of the UN - other nations should be able to say, "hey, go take care of North Korea" and the poster is asserting that the US should just go do what the UN says.Fair enough. My opinion is similar, but different enough.
I say that if you're not willing to pick up a rifle and do it yourself, you have no business asking someone else to do it. And if you're not willing to do it (and still asking for someone else to do it), you have no right to criticize how it's done.Now, does this analogy count for President Bush too?

In this instance, I agree. If you believe something should be done, but aren't willing to do it yourself, then you have no right to criticize how others do it.I'm not willing to do a policeman due to a decision I made when I was very young. Should this really keep me from being allowed to criticize police brutality when it occurs?

But we're talking about the demand that has been raised that the US should be the "world police" at the beck and call of the UN - other nations should be able to say, "hey, go take care of North Korea" and the poster is asserting that the US should just go do what the UN says.

I say that if you're not willing to pick up a rifle and do it yourself, you have no business asking someone else to do it. And if you're not willing to do it (and still asking for someone else to do it), you have no right to criticize how it's done.

Which poster? Read again.

I'm not willing to do a policeman due to a decision I made when I was very young. Should this really keep me from being allowed to criticize police brutality when it occurs?No, because you might not agree with the idea that crime should be stopped with such aggressive measures. This is different than saying that crime should be stopped with aggressive measures, just not the ones that the police might happen to be employing.

No, because you might not agree with the idea that crime should be stopped with such aggressive measures. This is different than saying that crime should be stopped with aggressive measures, just not the ones that the police might happen to be employing.Actually, I am against the police using "aggressive" measures. If you meant "violent", then I'm not opposed, but deescalation has proven more efficient than aggressive behavior by the police in my home city.

Fair enough. My opinion is similar, but different enough.
Now, does this analogy count for President Bush too?

Yes. At the very least, Presidents, Congressmen, and Senators should have either been to war, or have direct relatives who will be in the line of fire.

I exclude Bush's National Guard Service, because it was not combat.

And I exclude Kerry's service, because he used a loophole in the regulations to go home after only being in combat for six months.

Use either loophole - non combat service or go home early - and I don't think you're demonstrating a willingness to go the distance.

And there are NO Congressmen or Senators on either side of the aisle who have children in the armed forces today.

Actually, I am against the police using "aggressive" measures. If you meant "violent", then I'm not opposed, but deescalation has proven more efficient than aggressive behavior by the police in my home city.So then you would be against aggressive police tactics, and therefore my comment was not a contradiction. This is different than saying "I think we should go to war with country X, I'm not willing to help out with the war effort, and I will criticize the efforts of the people who are carrying out the war effort."

Yes. At the very least, Presidents, Congressmen, and Senators should have either been to war, or have direct relatives who will be in the line of fire.

I exclude Bush's National Guard Service, because it was not combat.

And I exclude Kerry's service, because he used a loophole in the regulations to go home after only being in combat for six months.

Use either loophole - non combat service or go home early - and I don't think you're demonstrating a willingness to go the distance.

And there are NO Congressmen or Senators on either side of the aisle who have children in the armed forces today.I can agree with this.
Thanks. Being able to do that is making me feel a bit better.

Actually, I am against the police using "aggressive" measures. If you meant "violent", then I'm not opposed, but deescalation has proven more efficient than aggressive behavior by the police in my home city.

You could always make a career of being a policeman, and try to affect the system from within.

Its interesting to note that people, upon being faced with gross abuses by a socialist [sic] regime, immediately try to find a US angle to it.

Actually, North Korea is better classified as a state capitalist régime. Think of the marketplaces, for one (markets are not incompatable with socialism, but they would be structured differently in it).

Actually, North Korea is better classified as a state capitalist régime. Think of the marketplaces, for one (markets are not incompatable with socialism, but they would be structured differently in it).

Yes, because it's "bad" and "oppressive", we can't call it socialist or communist, even though it characterizes itself as communist, because that would reflect badly on socialism or communism.

Can't have any bad press, you know.

Juche Ideals at its best...:rolleyes:

Yes, because it's "bad" and "oppressive", we can't call it socialist or communist, even though it characterizes itself as communist, because that would reflect badly on socialism or communism.

Can't have any bad press, you know.

I'll remember that next time the libertarians on here are ranting about how the USA is "too socialist".

Yes, because it's "bad" and "oppressive", we can't call it socialist or communist, even though it characterizes itself as communist, because that would reflect badly on socialism or communism.

Can't have any bad press, you know.

Whatever it calls itself, it is first and foremost an oppressionship. A change to communism, or capitalism, or anarchy, or socialism is what it needs. If it wants it.

Yes, because it's "bad" and "oppressive", we can't call it socialist or communist, even though it characterizes itself as communist, because that would reflect badly on socialism or communism.

Can't have any bad press, you know.

North Korea also calls itself a democracy and a republic, but that doesn't make it so. It's strange how people believe dictators who base their careers on lies when they say they are socialist but when they call their nation a democracy or republic, people correctly recognize that they are full of crap.

If you want to criticize socialism, criticize it on something real, like low success rate, crappy contributions to society, etc. but don't try to pin the actions of every dictator in the world on it, because that's just dishonest.

If you want to criticize socialism, criticize it on something real, like low success rate, crappy contributions to society, etc. but don't try to pin the actions of every dictator in the world on it, because that's just dishonest.

Why shouldn't I? It's how most socialists criticize the US. We get the actions of most dictators in the world pinned on us.

Why shouldn't I? It's how most socialists criticize the US. We get the actions of most dictators in the world pinned on us.

I've never heard any socialist blame the US directly. What we mean is that the US has backed a number of dictators in the past to varying degrees. That is something that people outside the US seem to agree on.

Can't one once post something about an "axis of evil" country (or rather the people in it) without seeing:

ZOMG!!! teh UN si teh liberal bias!!!one!!

or

OMFG! The EviL Ammerikkans bomb teh Iraq!!!!!!11!!1

Please people, am I the only one who actually cares about the people who have to live there and don't actually know that they're not in the worker's paradise?

You know, it's always kind of easy to talk about the DPRK as this political entity, with lots of artillery guns aimed at Seoul etc.

But yesterday night I watched a report on the ABC Show "Foreign Correspondent", in which they showed footage that some brave people made with smuggled cameras and mobile phones.

I wonder whether the leaders there ever read "1984" - because this is it. Seriously.

I so far only found this clip, which actually isn't the worst I saw...I'd be glad if anyone else could find more.
http://www.northkoreanrefugees.com/dvd/

The one I saw played on the streets around a train station. There were dead people lying on the street (not just a few of them either), and no one dared to look at them.
Then people tried to get UN food bags from a train, and where consequently beaten up by soldiers, who then proceeded to sell the aid on the local market place.
I'm not surprised. The particular clip shown looks liike something from an age gone by, but happening today. Yet there was hope. The very fact that it could be secretly filmed meant that news could spread. Such technology probably had the most to do with the end of communism in much of the world. If it continues to secretly proliferate in North Korea, the end will come for them, too, and the South Korean flag will wave over P'yongyang.

Can't one once post something about an "axis of evil" country (or rather the people in it) without seeing:

ZOMG!!! teh UN si teh liberal bias!!!one!!

or

OMFG! The EviL Ammerikkans bomb teh Iraq!!!!!!11!!1

Please people, am I the only one who actually cares about the people who have to live there and don't actually know that they're not in the worker's paradise?
I agree. The rest is just noise.

If there ever was just cause for military intervention, by the UN or some self-acclaimed global police, it is North Korea. And Sudan. And Rwanda, at the time.

A pity there is no oil.

(bloody ****ng hippocrites) :mad:


No oil in Sudan? Really????
http://www.yaleinsider.org/article.jsp?id=14
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/sudan.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Africa/Sudan_Oil_Blood.html
http://www.afrol.com/articles/13921
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/tncs/oil99.htm
http://www.woaafrica.org/Oil.htm

Perhaps a bit of research before the knee-jerk reaction, hmm?

Yes, because it's "bad" and "oppressive", we can't call it socialist or communist, even though it characterizes itself as communist, because that would reflect badly on socialism or communism.

Can't have any bad press, you know.


The society in North Korea is too structured along the lines of class to be considered communist. Communism requires the elimination of class, and in this country class has been compounded into six levels, as opposed to two. And naturally I don't think it's communist because communism requires democracy. Socialist yes though.

Can't one once post something about an "axis of evil" country (or rather the people in it) without seeing:

ZOMG!!! teh UN si teh liberal bias!!!one!!

or

OMFG! The EviL Ammerikkans bomb teh Iraq!!!!!!11!!1

Please people, am I the only one who actually cares about the people who have to live there and don't actually know that they're not in the worker's paradise?


It shows directly though, the more isolated and controlled a society is, the worse off it will do. For some reason this doesn't seem to be the case with economics though (case in point Japan, South Korea). Naturally, I'm led to believe that total democracy and total economic control are best. It just makes the most sense.

You know, it's always kind of easy to talk about the DPRK as this political entity, with lots of artillery guns aimed at Seoul etc.

But yesterday night I watched a report on the ABC Show "Foreign Correspondent", in which they showed footage that some brave people made with smuggled cameras and mobile phones.

I wonder whether the leaders there ever read "1984" - because this is it. Seriously.

I so far only found this clip, which actually isn't the worst I saw...I'd be glad if anyone else could find more.
http://www.northkoreanrefugees.com/dvd/

The one I saw played on the streets around a train station. There were dead people lying on the street (not just a few of them either), and no one dared to look at them.
Then people tried to get UN food bags from a train, and where consequently beaten up by soldiers, who then proceeded to sell the aid on the local market place.

I watched that show too, it was extremely interesting. I could hardly believe the bodies just lying in the streets & the people wanting to stop & help but obviously too scared.

No oil in Sudan? Really????
http://www.yaleinsider.org/article.jsp?id=14
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/sudan.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Africa/Sudan_Oil_Blood.html
http://www.afrol.com/articles/13921
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/tncs/oil99.htm
http://www.woaafrica.org/Oil.htm

Perhaps a bit of research before the knee-jerk reaction, hmm?

Well, make that "no easy oil". Besides, if I can get folks like you to do my research for me, just by a knee-jerk reaction, why not? Especially if it makes them happy....

btw, thanks for the research:)

Gruesome indeed.

In the UK you may get shot when you LOOK like a terrorist, though. Whatever a terrorist should look like. Brazilian for instance.