This AM on BBC world news, they aired the report of one of the western correspondents allowed to film inside North Korea. It is amazing what the face of totalitarianism looks like.
Of course, only the most favorable views of the country were allowed to be shown, and even in those images the oppression is obvious. They showed off the new computers that they had in a library, but when the reporter asked a young woman if she would like to be on the internet, she obviously wanted to say something but instead stayed silent. When the reporter asked street vendors questions (and just the act of selling something is a recent reform), he was hurried away by his handlers without a reply (and people were scared to talk, anyway). At a military exhibition of a precision drill team 10,000 strong, probably 1 in 50 of the audience were handlers/police/agents keeping a close eye and ear on the crowd. It would be amazing if it weren't so sad.
This society only exists because the people have no concept of the outside world. The reason the western journalists were allowed in was to showcase the recent reforms of allowing even a scant bit of capitalism.
Sounds like they are ripe for invasion by the NeoCons because freedom is on the march. Surely, there have been human rights abuses in North Korea and the mad man that runs that country possesses WMD. North Koreas needs democracy. Let's invade. Oh wait, they don't have any oil. Nevermind.
Well, that didn't take long...
Seriously, these people are so isolated and repressed it's amazing. They have no independent news sources (OK, maybe not such a bad thing considering CNN and Fox), no economy, not one iota of any personal rights whatsoever.
I can see a society choosing to be this way. But denying the information of the outside world to allow members to know how the rest of the world lives is unfathomable to most westerners.
What will probably be the downfall of this communist regime, as was the others, is trade and the black market. They are probably the shining example of how the current policy with Cuba is all wrong; isolation only helps dictatorships. Constant economic and social pressure from the outside world destroys totalitarian regimes.
The reason Kim is so repressive of outside news and influences is that is what led to the Berlin wall coming down and eventually the total collapse of the Soviet Union. Kim must feel if he can keep his people ignorant of what true freedom can bring then he can keep total control. Otherwise, there would likely be a rebellion at some point or reunification of the two Koreas.
Of course, the same thing couldn't be happening in Islamic countries...could it?
Possibly. But you are dealing with religious vs. socio-political ideologies.
So while Kim may be an unrepentant brutal dictator we must kiss his ass so as not to offend anyone.
No, you're dealing with the same beast...POWER.
True, but they are sold to the people in different ways. Religion has a millenia of inroads into society. Not to say that Iraq's totalitarianism had much to do with religious motives, though.
Nope. Honor killings and all the other oppressive religious tenets of Islam are no different than the forced labor and caste system of North Korea.
Controlling information...owning the truth...that's how they both maintain power.
"he same thing couldn't be happening in Islamic countries...could it"
Perhaps, but religion is the strongest, most mind-clouding opiate. ex: 50% of Americans believe that evolutionary theory is false. Millions of American believe the Bible is literally true, scientifically accurate.
When so much of "free, educated, high-tech, fat-ass wealthy" America has been hoodwinked by religious nuttiness into a modern Dark Ages, there is little chance that poor, primitive people socially arrested at the tribal stage will go cold-turkey will "de-program" themselves and throw off Islam-fascist oppression, with or without America's ham-handed "help". (Surely you right-wingers have memorized Repub Reagans' "9 scariest words" sound-bite?)
While head and rummy chase some 1-in-million neo-con dreamy pre-occupation with democratizing Iraq-as-example, all other efforts against protecting the US from terrorism, and attacking the root causes of WHY America is attacked, are abandoned.
"same beast...POWER"
Yes, but power seeking though hypnotizing, programming people with "religion" is quite different from power driven by taking of land or simple military muscle flexing. Religion is powerful enough to create suicide bombers, while mere land-grabbing and war-mongering is meant to keep the power-seekers alive to enjoy the fruits of the power seeking. The religious suicide bombers will simply "out-crazy" the materialistic power seekers.
Not really. Not invading North Korea is not the equivalent of kissing his ass. It is up to the people of North Korea to rid themselves of Kim.
That's all well and good until he invades South Korea or has a brain fart and tries to nuke a neighbor.
Why is it so hard to grasp the concept that internal political problems are no longer confined to the nations in which they exist. It's very in vogue these days to blame Western influence for unrest in all countries where it exists. People in Africa are starving and dying of AIDS because we don't care enough. Islamic extremists hate us because we have a military presence in the Middle East or are Jewish allies. Europeans hate us because we're too big for our britches.
It just gets old. Why can't these places have problems because of their own poor policies?
So we're back to the 'we really hope he goes away' plan.
And that's worked so well in the past.
Let's see, we're the strongest nation on earth. Our way of life is entact. The economy has it's ups and downs as it always has. Seems like it works out just fine. I prefer it to sending our people to war because the guy is some sort of despot. When he does something, then you act. I don't believe in pre-emptive wars because of what someone might do.
Okay...and that's all well and good when it took months -- even years -- for a maniac to manifest and evil deed. We no longer have that luxury.
But, how do you define "something?" If we had detected the Japanese fleet steaming toward Hawaii on December 5, 1941 -- loaded with planes and bombs and pilots -- would pre-emption have been okay?
I'll just agree to disagree with you here.
"for a maniac to manifest and evil deed. We no longer have that luxury."
The US re-acted to Saddam when he invaded Kuweit, destroyed his army, put him under constant close surveillance, embargoed his country, occupied friendly!! nearby countries to keep him under control. ie, the US, not immediately threatend by Iraq, waited for Condi's "smoking gun" of the Kuweit invasion before acting.
All of that RE-ACTIVE work against Iraq was MUCH cheaper and more effective in lives and $$$ than the PRO-ACTIVE invasion of an enfeebled, and now dangerously de-stabilized, no-end-on-horizon Iraq.
Which maniac is a __threat to the USA__ now? Bashir/Syria? Iran? NK? Iran has learned the NK lesson. Have nuclear weapons with delivery systems, and the US will be frozen into inaction.
What kind of pre-emptive military actions against NK and Iran would work?
A hail storm of cruise missles on key Iranian and NK nuclear/other sites?
If anybody wants to pin "lily-livered liberal dove" on me, imo, the US stills "owes" Iran for the Teheran Embassy story, and still "owes" Syria for the Beirut Marines bombing. Those bygones should not be forgotten. The Reagan Repubs letting both of those terrorist aggressions go unpunished did as much to embolden the Islamic terrorists that the US wouldn't react to terrorism did as much/more harm as anything Clinton is supposedly done or not done. But of course, Reagan was a real tough bas with the easy, pushovers targets like air-traffic controllers, hyper-dangerous Grenada, and tin-pot Panama.
^idiot.
^^ Does this guy have a clue... Maybe he should go to NOrth korea and whip up the masses to rally against Kim Jong, overthrow the billion man army thats equipped with nuke tech and fighter planes, and overthrow the govt,.. un armed..
Well invading N Korea would not be an Iraq...
I am sure a lot of there troops would defect. but a lot would fight hard.
Would be 10-30k US casualties .. guesstimate.
Funny, that's the same estimate we got about our invasion of Iraq? Remember the 25,000 body bags that would be needed in order to topple Saddam Hussein?
We have the best military, bar none. Give 'em a mission and get out of their way -- they'll accomplish it. Effectively, efficiently, and with minimal loss of life.
North Korea? Dude I worked for the Air Force I know a lot about Korea. I have been there. It's no Iraq. They are better trained and equipped. And the terrain is a lot harsher. I am just saying the casualties will be high so it's not going to happen. Unless North invades the south.
::yawn:: Iraqi Republican Guard, sandstorms, severed supply lines...blah blah blah...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
