N. Korea Could Face Prosecution For 'Crimes Against Humanity'

They're finally going to do something. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-18 03:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Issue a sternly worded warning.

That'll teach him.

Re:They're finally going to do something. by master_kaos · 2014-02-18 04:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

Exactly, what exactly are they going to do? Shake their first harder? Wave their finger in shame longer? I know Dennis Rodman could go down again and sort everything out!
Re:They're finally going to do something. by Austerity+Empowers · 2014-02-18 04:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Certainly cheaper than marching in there and slapping some cuffs on him (or a noose on his neck)!
Anyway I'm sure they're bad, but someone else can take the reigns on this one. Team America, World Police needs to retire.
Re:They're finally going to do something. by imikem · 2014-02-18 04:21 · Score: 1

No way. Since when has a stern warning had such an effect? It will have to be a REALLY stern warning. With multiple exclamation points and everything!! Then and only then will they see the error of their ways and repent.

--
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
Re:They're finally going to do something. by i+kan+reed · 2014-02-18 04:22 · Score: 1

Why, it's almost like isolationists didn't want the UN to have substantial power when they crafted it. And now neo-isolationists use that lack of power to justify ignoring the body.
Re:They're finally going to do something. by MightyMartian · 2014-02-18 04:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm sure the thoughts going through the regime's heads is "You and what army."
So long as China sees fit to shield North Korea, there's precious little to be done, and even if China walked away, this nightmarish regime has at least some nuclear capacity, enough to turn good portions of the peninsula into Armageddon. I'm afraid there is no practical or safe way for external force to be applied, and one only hopes that eventually, somehow, those who live within this hell on Earth find a way to depose the Kims and their underlings.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:They're finally going to do something. by bhcompy · 2014-02-18 04:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

Well, that's the thing. Kim killed the family member that had the tightest ties with China, so the only reason this letter got out is probably because China said they would go along with it
Re:They're finally going to do something. by amicusNYCL · 2014-02-18 04:50 · Score: 2

Just wait until he finds out that this is going on his permanent record.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:They're finally going to do something. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-18 04:57 · Score: 1

Modern anti-UN sentiment is neither isolationist, nor does it oppose the UN because of the lack of power.
The UN is disliked because it tries to act like a governing body when it was never chartered to be one. It was chartered to be a discussion forum, mainly between the world powers of the time, but also with seating for every nation willing to participate. UN consensus was to mean simply that the governments of the world pretty much agree about something.
Now we have people trying to defer to the UN as if it were a government and we have people mocking the UN for making declarations like it were a government. The mocking is not (unless the mocker is an idiot) about the UN being too weak of a government, but that the UN mistakes itself for a government. We mock the egos, not the limits. We also mock the fools who want to see the UN as a functional global authority.
Re:They're finally going to do something. by NEDHead · 2014-02-18 05:26 · Score: 4, Funny

I think ALL CAPS is in order
Re:They're finally going to do something. by bobbied · 2014-02-18 05:33 · Score: 1

Just wait until he finds out that this is going on his permanent record.
In North Korea there ARE no permanent records, unless dear leader *says* the record has been permanent.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:They're finally going to do something. by Tailhook · 2014-02-18 05:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

There is history here. History teaches us that scrutiny and criticism from other nations does, in fact, make an important difference.
Many Soviet dissidents survived because killing them would have made maintaining the fig leaf of Soviet respectability impossible for the western Left. The Soviets did not wish to be a pariah state; they had to tolerate a degree of dissent and eventually this allowed satellite nations like Poland to develop a genuine resistance.
N. Korea appears to be directly immune to this sort of pressure, but China isn't. N. Korea needs a cadre of internationally recognized dissidents to destabilize the regime and the only thing that might allow them to survive is international pressure. Could a dissident survive in N. Korea in the near future? Not likely. But international pressure could permit a high profile N. Korean dissident to survive in China and create problems for the Chinese.
You have to start somewhere. The rest of the planet has be copping out on N. Korea since the 50's. Couldn't hurt to change that. Their farcical nuclear capability not withstanding.

--
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Re:They're finally going to do something. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-18 05:51 · Score: 5, Informative

North Korea politics in a nutshell:
The North Koreans brutally maintain their control and constantly threaten massive destruction, test nuclear weapons and fire missiles over Tokyo. They then allow themselves to be "convinced" to back down for food and funds to maintain their grip.
China finds this useful. They support him because the US and the West are constantly at odds with him (technically never signed a Peace treaty after the armistice). They keep him along and it keeps the West distracted, and gives them a cheap bargaining chip to "bring them back from the brink" in exchange for concessions in other parts of Asia.
The US finds them annoying. In general we don't like dictatorships and tyrants and in particular are morally opposed to human rights abuses. However, toppling the regime through force has serious implications. Despite being relatively weak, they are heavily armed with fanatical soldiers with around 1 million troops. While their nukes are essentially a joke, their artillery they have constantly aimed at Seoul is not. The damage they would inflict if backed into a corner on the peninsula would have repercussions throughout the entire Pacific economy. In addition, assuming they are toppled, what then? Who takes over? Does Seoul? How does a dynamic, robust, educated, high standard of living economy of 50 million people somehow take over and integrate 24 million uneducated dirt poor people who have been living under a tyrants thumb for so many years? It would take decades to integrate the two, and meanwhile South Korea, the source of around 51% of the world's new shipbuilding and around 1/3 of the world's steel production, would struggle with global ramifications. The cost and difficulty is very high for war.
North Korea knows this. They constantly bring themselves right up to the line of not being worth it to eliminate, and everyone else gives them concessions to back down from their most recent round of "crazy". It's an odd game they play, but it's worked for them for 30+ years and no one has found a cost effective alternative.
Re:They're finally going to do something. by i+kan+reed · 2014-02-18 05:56 · Score: 1

Misleading. The UN was crafted to deal with tangled webs of international diplomacy that could lead to world war situations. Discussion was certainly an important part of that. So was shared treaty systems, which could be contingent on getting enough signatories to make a safer world. To that end, sanction treaties were always an intended goal.
Re:They're finally going to do something. by LordLimecat · 2014-02-18 06:04 · Score: 1

We might fine them some of the money we've been giving them, that might send a lesson.
Re:They're finally going to do something. by ackthpt · 2014-02-18 06:10 · Score: 1

Just wait until he finds out that this is going on his permanent record.
In North Korea there ARE no permanent records, unless dear leader *says* the record has been permanent.*
*Subject to change without notice.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:They're finally going to do something. by ackthpt · 2014-02-18 06:13 · Score: 2

We might fine them some of the money we've been giving them, that might send a lesson.
And all that will happen is they'll rattle their sabres and threaten to unleash the righteous forces of the north on the evil vampyric United States and it's lackey state in the south. All glory to heroic leader Kim, etc, etc, etc.
It's like shouting at a rock - it has no heart and doesn't care.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:They're finally going to do something. by ackthpt · 2014-02-18 06:14 · Score: 2

Exactly! Just like we do with our corporate overlords.
Seems to be working, right?
We should give them the business. Literally. Send our banks over to them. If that doesn't topple the regime, nothing will.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:They're finally going to do something. by jlowery · 2014-02-18 06:16 · Score: 2

In today's North Korea, information leaks through. This means that there will be an awareness among the general population of these accusations. True, there will be propaganda countering this, but the seed will be planted.

--
If you post it, they will read.
Re:They're finally going to do something. by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-02-18 06:42 · Score: 1

This means that there will be an awareness among the general population of these accusations. True, there will be propaganda countering this, but the seed will be planted.
So, you don't think they already know that baby Kim's uncle was killed and his family arrested?
Or that being sent to a concentration camp is the normal punishment for being related to someone convicted of bad things?
This isn't going to tell the North Koreans anything they didn't already know, even if it were broadcast directly into their brains.
All this is going to do is make a few people in the UN feel better about themselves, and help to justify higher salaries, so they can continue doing useful analysis of the *simply dreadful* situation in NK....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:They're finally going to do something. by Khashishi · 2014-02-18 07:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

The thing about dictatorships is that it really should only take one bomb to finish the job.
Bombing the countrymen really is a bigger crime against humanity.
Re:They're finally going to do something. by DNS-and-BIND · 2014-02-18 08:18 · Score: 1

Responding to criticisms that he and Khrushchev did not do enough to expose Stalin's crimes, former first deputy premier Anastas Mikoyan reportedly said: "We couldn't do that because then everyone would have known what scoundrels we were."
That, too, is the difference between Communism and Nazism: the Communist scoundrels understood who they were because they realised the gulf separating them from the ideals they revered; the Nazis liked being scoundrels - that was their ideal.
-- Alexander Mekhanik, Rossiyskaya Gazeta

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:They're finally going to do something. by Chris+Mattern · 2014-02-18 08:50 · Score: 1

Might work, too. There's been some signs that China may be getting a little tired of the shit North Korea is constantly stirring up. Not that China isn't above that sort of thing themselves (airspace over the Senkakus, anyone?), but North Korea's antics aren't getting them anything but pain.
Re:They're finally going to do something. by canadiannomad · 2014-02-18 09:00 · Score: 1

I think I heard a "whoosh" go over at least 1 moderators head.

--
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
Re:They're finally going to do something. by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-02-18 10:02 · Score: 1

this nightmarish regime has at least some nuclear capacity, enough to turn good portions of the peninsula into Armageddon.
For certain values of "armageddon".
The NK's theoretically have about half a dozen devices comparable to the Hiroshima bomb. Which would certainly be enough to devastate South Korea if they were all used successfully.
But it would hardly be "armageddon". Japan suffered through FAR worse in WW2, as did Germany (remember, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs combined did less damage than the fire-bombing of Tokyo or the Dresden firestorm).
Note that this is not meant to imply that I think dealing with NK would be anything less than nightmarish. I merely object to the suggestion that NK has the ability to "turn good portions of the peninsula into Armageddon" - it wishes it did, but it knows better (or it would have tried again to take over SK before now).

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:They're finally going to do something. by MightyMartian · 2014-02-18 10:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

Managing to nuke Seoul would be a catastrophe; huge loss of life, regional and indeed even global economic impact would be huge, and something tells me if the NK regime was actually collapsing, they would have no qualms about doing as much damage as they could to South Korea. The risks as far as regional stability are concerned are probably the chief reasons that China still backs them and even the US does its part by facilitating food shipments when the almost perpetual famines reach crisis level.
There are no easy answers to North Korea. Regime collapse is in many ways more frightening than keeping it going. I really don't see an end in sight. The Kims have done something rather rare on the face of it; a multigenerational monarchical dictatorship; with a sort of absolutism that even the absolute monarchs of Europe could not have imagined. There seemed to be some during the transition between Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un, and indeed by the looks of it many high ranking North Koreans thought so as well as they sought to increase business ties with China, but Kim Jong Il chose his heir well and the third Kim is as ruthless as his father or grandfather and has tamed the NK military machine to his will. I'd say any new hope of change is decades off now.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:They're finally going to do something. by Koreantoast · 2014-02-18 11:11 · Score: 1

This is true, but I would add that there is a real calculus that the Chinese are doing, and if North Korea's new leadership pushes too hard, the Chinese government may find that they'd be better off "forcefully advocating" for new North Korean leadership. The nuclear weapons and recent violent altercations are already making the Chinese uneasy, especially since they give China's neighbors more excuses to pour money into military upgrades... upgrades that can also be used to contest Chinese military supremacy in the region. The Kim Jong Un's recent purges of pro-Chinese factions in the government isn't exactly currying favor either.
Re:They're finally going to do something. by sjames · 2014-02-18 11:40 · Score: 1

We might as well have school children draw funny pictures of him depicting raggedy underwear and teeny weeny peenie and send those to him.
Who knows, he seems like he could be the type to blow an aneurysm over that sort of thing.
Re:They're finally going to do something. by phantomfive · 2014-02-18 12:38 · Score: 1

That's the kind of thinking that got Mosaddegh killed in Iran. It also got Mubarak removed from Egypt.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:They're finally going to do something. by Nimey · 2014-02-18 13:40 · Score: 1

In general we don't like dictatorships and tyrants and in particular are morally opposed to human rights abuses
Point of order! We don't like dictatorships and tyrants that aren't otherwise useful to us. We supported enough of them during the Cold War simply for being anti-communist. We also tended not to give a toss about their human rights abuses for the same reason.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:They're finally going to do something. by WWJohnBrowningDo · 2014-02-18 16:49 · Score: 1

around 1/3 of the world's steel production
It's actually closer to 4%.

Henchmen by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-18 04:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

I always find it interesting that a regime we like has "officials" and a regime we don't like has "henchmen." I don't mean to imply that North Korea has a good government, just that the use of language itself is supposed to sway you, like the facts are not enough.

Re:Henchmen by mark-t · 2014-02-18 04:50 · Score: 1

I've always been partial to the term "minions".

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Henchmen by amicusNYCL · 2014-02-18 04:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

I always find it interesting that a regime we like has "officials" and a regime we don't like has "henchmen."
How about the fact that a country that we're friends with has a government, and the others have regimes? I don't think I've ever seen a US newspaper talking about the Tony Blair regime, or the Francois Hollande regime.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:Henchmen by Sarten-X · 2014-02-18 05:30 · Score: 2

The difference is in the amount of power concentrated in a single person. There's a strong correlation between "countries we're friends with" and "widely-distributed authority". Tony Blair and Francois Hollande are limited by their various democratic councils, but Kim Jong-un is not.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:Henchmen by dontbemad · 2014-02-18 06:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

regime
riZHm
noun
1. a government, esp. an authoritarian one

The emphasis is on the authoritarian part. Granted, one could argue that many "governments" we support are actually regimes in disguise...
Re:Henchmen by geminidomino · 2014-02-18 06:28 · Score: 2

Granted, one could argue that many "governments" we support are actually regimes in disguise...
If one uses a definition of "disguise" loose enough to mean "can fool Lois Lane."
Re:Henchmen by Minwee · 2014-02-18 07:11 · Score: 1

And yet whenever a red light lasts too long, Americans immediately blame their President.
They're a funny people.
Re:Henchmen by Sarten-X · 2014-02-18 08:47 · Score: 1

Of course. You see, in the United States, our two main political parties have long been associated with the colors red and blue. Our current president comes from the evil blue party, so rather than worry about international relations or fixing our economy, he's mandated longer red-light times, to increase the hatred we associate with the color of his opponents' party.
When the evil red party is in power, they increase red-light times so as to increase the amount of free marketing their party's color gets.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:Henchmen by fredprado · 2014-02-18 09:30 · Score: 1

So then how do you explain the fact that corporate lobbyists are actually the ones fulfilling the job as lawmakers in the US.

No problem. There are a lot of them and their interests conflict, and therefore power is not concentrated in a single person or very few individuals. Corporate America is not even remotely ideal as it is, but it is still worlds apart from authoritarian regimens.
Re:Henchmen by Gavagai80 · 2014-02-18 10:01 · Score: 1

I don't think I've ever seen the US media refer to Iranian officials as henchmen. Henchmen tends to imply a personality cult where the henchmen are devoted to the leader and not to the rule of law... as in North Korea.

--
This space intentionally left blank

I don't understand.... by Premo_Maggot · 2014-02-18 04:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

We know this has been going on.....why is the UN bothering now and what could they possibly do that they're not doing now?

--
Good karma sticks to me like velcro on a piece of plexiglass.
Move along, citizen.

Re:I don't understand.... by Opportunist · 2014-02-18 04:24 · Score: 2

Maybe they found some interesting resources now.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:I don't understand.... by cold+fjord · 2014-02-18 06:44 · Score: 1

I have little doubt that was your first (wrong) thought. Can you think of any others?

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:I don't understand.... by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-02-18 07:35 · Score: 1

North Korea is already known to have substantial mineral deposits.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:I don't understand.... by cold+fjord · 2014-02-18 07:41 · Score: 1

You're still on the same wrong track. Besides, wouldn't the vast mineral wealth of Afghanistan make it moot?

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:I don't understand.... by Opportunist · 2014-02-18 18:10 · Score: 1

I'd have to go with the AC above you, they tried to trade some important resource for something other than Dollars.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:I don't understand.... by cold+fjord · 2014-02-19 00:30 · Score: 1

You and Zontar should form a tag team of wrong, at least on this one.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell

Why now? by Terminaldogma · 2014-02-18 04:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

These atrocities have been known for a long time, and there are already several good books on the subject (which hopefully some Slashdotters with more time can link). What I don't understand is why this report came out know? Is there some political timing involved in it coming out now as opposed to a decade ago?

Re:Why now? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-18 04:07 · Score: 1

America needs war to keep its decrepit empire alive. N. Korea is just one of many on the list.
Re:Why now? by drinkypoo · 2014-02-18 04:07 · Score: 1, Insightful

Is there some political timing involved in it coming out now as opposed to a decade ago?
Obviously, since not saying precisely the same shit about China in the same breath is rampant hypocrisy. But China is still buying things, so let's keep endorsing organlegging and slavery.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Why now? by Oligonicella · 2014-02-18 04:26 · Score: 1, Informative

If you believe the UN is favorable towards the US in any way, shape or form, all I have to say to you sir or madam is YAAFM.
Re:Why now? by green1 · 2014-02-18 04:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually the UN is very definitely favourable towards the US, the US has veto power, you hardly give that to someone you aren't favourable towards. The problem with the UN is that they are favourable towards TOO MANY people and gave out veto power to several countries who never agree. This ensures that the UN can never actually accomplish anything because they must get all veto powered countries to agree (something that simply doesn't happen)
For the UN to be effective they have to stop the idea of ANY country having veto power, it just means that those countries are immune to the UN rules.
Re:Why now? by evilviper · 2014-02-18 06:08 · Score: 2

Actually the UN is very definitely favourable towards the US, the US has veto power, you hardly give that to someone you aren't favourable towards.
It's not a gift given to countries they like. The US and 4 other nations had had veto power since the inception of the UN. It's not something arbitrarily given, or able to be taken away.

This ensures that the UN can never actually accomplish anything because they must get all veto powered countries to agree (something that simply doesn't happen
Well then, here's a small list of these things which NEVER HAPPEN:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And here's a few more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

For the UN to be effective they have to stop the idea of ANY country having veto power, it just means that those countries are immune to the UN rules
That would be suicidal. The UN's main reason exist is to prevent World War 3. You don't do that by starting wars that one or more of the major nuclear powers adamantly disagrees with...
The UN doesn't *give* the permanent members the power to stop something it dislikes. They're really just admitting that any one of them can wipe out all of humanity, if they're sufficiently pissed-off. So the UN makes sure they aren't pissed-off.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Why now? by dryeo · 2014-02-18 06:35 · Score: 1

Well if you're gong to talk about slave labour, then America has to be added to the list. Prison labour is big business now and the main source of made in America products I see for sale. Something like 1% of the adult American population in jail is pretty extreme.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:Why now? by Rich0 · 2014-02-18 07:56 · Score: 1

These atrocities have been known for a long time, and there are already several good books on the subject (which hopefully some Slashdotters with more time can link). What I don't understand is why this report came out know? Is there some political timing involved in it coming out now as opposed to a decade ago?
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned here is that Kim Jong-un only took over for his father in 2011. It might be possible to put pressure on him to clean things up, though I'm not sure what internal power struggles might exist which make Kim Jong-un just a figurehead.
He now has two full years under his belt, but conceivably the world could save face and let him declare, "man, my father really messed up, and I've been struggling to fix things on my own and am having trouble, so let's have the UN come in and help me transition this to a more legitimate government." He might remain an interim leader until democracy could be instituted, and perhaps he'd be offered refuge somewhere and immunity for anything that happened under his watch. The argument would be that what exists in NK today are the sins of his ancestors, and his role was to fix things, but he can't just stick around because so much harm was done in the past that he'd be a target.
In theory he could probably live out a nice comfortable life someplace, but he would no longer have any political power. I have no idea what it is like to grow up with the destiny to take over the dictatorship of someplace like NK. However, if I found myself in that position with the personality I have I'd be glad to be offered a way out of it, and just live a nice quiet comfortable life someplace where the entire world isn't having debates over mounting an invasion to try me for crimes against humanity.
For the rest of the world it would be a way out of the mess of NK without having to fight a war and watch Seoul get shelled. The world wouldn't be letting some guy with 30 years of brutality off the hook - leaders could save face and say that they found that Kim Jong-un is new to power and genuinely wants to fix things.
So, the report is the stick, and an offer of a way out is the carrot. I doubt it will work, but perhaps it is possible for a new generation of Koreans (and everybody else) to decide that there is no reason to keep doing things they way they were done.
Re:Why now? by chilvence · 2014-02-18 08:23 · Score: 1

Meh. The prison population in the US is indeed ridiculous, and you do need to really have a long hard think about what merits prison time, but calling prison labour slave labour is bullshit. Prison labour is punishment for a crime. Don't want to be punished? Try not to do a crime! What should the prisoners be doing, watching TV and eating pizza?
Re:Why now? by evilviper · 2014-02-18 08:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

France had atomic bombs before China. If not for domestic problems after WWI, France could have been the first nuclear power. That's where Marie Currie and other researchers came from, after all.
"The French military is currently thought to retain a weapons stockpile of around 300 operational nuclear warheads, making it the third-largest in the world."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Why now? by Anonymous+Meoward · 2014-02-18 09:13 · Score: 2

Nothing To Envy by Barbara Demick. It not only was constructed from interviews with numerous defectors, it is also very well written. (David Sedaris recommended it recently for both its message and its prose.)
Seriously, get this book from your local library and read it.

--
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
Re:Why now? by dryeo · 2014-02-18 09:39 · Score: 1

Around here the prisoners are put to work doing things like cleaning up garbage for the minimum security people and even the maximum security people do things to maintain the prison, grow food and such.
And of course the Chinese prisoners in the same way did some crime and quite likely also have thousands of pages of crimes on the books that are used mostly for undesirables though they do seem to punish the rich more then America.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:Why now? by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-02-18 10:10 · Score: 2

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned here is that Kim Jong-un only took over for his father in 2011. It might be possible to put pressure on him to clean things up, though I'm not sure what internal power struggles might exist which make Kim Jong-un just a figurehead.
Are you talking about the same Kim Jong-un that had his uncle declared an un-person, then executed him, then imprisoned his entire family?
There really isn't all that much evidence that the homicidal little s**t isn't really in charge over there.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Why now? by Monsuco · 2014-02-18 10:11 · Score: 1

Well if you're gong to talk about slave labour, then America has to be added to the list. Prison labour is big business now and the main source of made in America products I see for sale. Something like 1% of the adult American population in jail is pretty extreme.
The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude but explicitly exempts convict labor.

--
The Gospel according to lolcat
Re:Why now? by UtsuMaster · 2014-02-18 12:34 · Score: 1

Actually, the veto mechanism has been designed precisely to make the UN ineffective when everyone (that matters) does not agree.
Disagreements make the UN ineffective in pushing one-sided agendas. This is what made the UN largely a talk-shop during the Cold War. Anything of significance would be pro-US or pro-Soviet Union, but nothing would come out of it. This is what enabled the UN to survive. Making small progress, here and there.
On the other hand, the League of Nations was 'effective' in the sense that it was a puppet of the status quo powers. It passed all kinds of strongly worded condemnations. Revisionist states quickly learned to disregard it, and soon enough the whole institution was worse than useless. States with real power used their power (read: took to arms) instead of keeping politics to diplomacy, because the diplomacy was rigged against them. And then we had WW2. Veto power arguably ensures that states powerful enough to upset the international system will not be sidelined, because their disagreement can simply halt everything. And thus the UN remains valuable to them. And thus the UN will not be simply abandoned and become irrelevant as the League of Nations did. And hopefully we will not have WW3.
Because it persisted, for better or worse the UN has been increasingly active in imposing particular sets of values on the 'international community', whether it wants or not. And we are critical when it fails in this new role, because some of those values (like human rights) are very important to us. But it is also very important that the UN was set up as a point of peaceful friction between sovereign states who were not to be imposed on in any aspect, for a good reason.
So, beware of effectiveness. Not everyone has the same image of the future. The countries with power will use that power to shape the world the way they want. Do you want them to set the rules, or do you want them to break the rules? The purpose of the veto is to keep the UN rules acceptable. It is not pretty, but I think it is pretty clever, and we are all probably better off because of it.

--
...or not.
Re:Why now? by dryeo · 2014-02-18 13:12 · Score: 1

Which of course is an incentive to criminalize as many actions as possible, as well as to have a court system that hands out long sentences to anyone that doesn't plea bargain.
Doesn't help either that America (along with Nigeria) still has the feudal means of segregation called felonies, which leaves citizens deprived of rights, including opportunities for many jobs and the chance to vote in new laws or better government, for the rest of their life.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:Why now? by Rich0 · 2014-02-18 15:30 · Score: 1

Honestly, the powers that be don't care about Kim or his uncle. They don't really care about all the starving people over there either - not enough to do something about it at least.
Really it is all about saving face, looking tough, and all that. If letting the likes of Kim off easy is a way to quickly give freedom to millions of people without fighting a major war then perhaps it is a price worth paying, no matter how sick it might make me feel.
I'm just trying to think of reasons why the UN bothers...
Re: Why now? by dryeo · 2014-02-18 19:18 · Score: 1

Hardly see made in America stuff any more but the latest example was shopping for a trailer. Totally shit build quality but inexpensive, all prison labour. Talking to the owner, it seems nothing else is available, at least mass produced and all through those types of goods the same thing is happening.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:Why now? by Galilee · 2014-02-19 03:00 · Score: 1

"The Aquariums of Pyongyang: Ten Years in the North Korean Gulag" is a great book on this subjet. I was both amazed and horrified by the descriptions of the gulags.
Re:Why now? by Muad'Dave · 2014-02-25 07:01 · Score: 1

Marie Curie came from Poland - she moved to France when she was 24.

--
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.

Depends on China by sjbe · 2014-02-18 04:08 · Score: 5, Informative

North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, has been warned that he could face prosecution for crimes against humanity after a United Nations inquiry accused him of some of the worst human rights abuses since the Second World War.

Not as long as China protects him he won't. For various reasons I don't entirely understand China has elected to keep this family in power. (I know they want a buffer from South Korea but there has to be more to it than that) They don't even seem concerned about North Korea possessing nuclear weapons.

If China decides to withdraw support, the North Korean regime will be gone pretty quick most likely. Until then, nothing will happen unless a war starts between North and South Korea.

Re:Depends on China by Opportunist · 2014-02-18 04:25 · Score: 4, Informative

Aren't they still at war?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Depends on China by Ryanrule · 2014-02-18 04:35 · Score: 1

I imagine china will drop the support when they think they can move in and assume control. They dont want a revolution on their border. Stability over all.
Re:Depends on China by hcs_$reboot · 2014-02-18 04:38 · Score: 2

I don't entirely understand China has elected to keep this family in power
Because the minute China stop supporting that dictatorship half a dozen country, the first of them being the US of A, go get rid of that family, and a reunited US-friendly Korean is reborn. And China doesn't want another US friendly country near by..

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Re:Depends on China by uffe_nordholm · 2014-02-18 04:39 · Score: 2

I think China's support of NK started out as supporting a political ally: China and NK had vaguely similar political ideas and government. After the Korean War China and NK developed into different countries, and I think China no longer sees NK as a political ally.
However, they probably still see USA as a potential enemy. And if NK were to collapse and get absorbed into South Korea, there could be US troops right on the Chinese border (there are a number of US troops in South Korea right now). If I were a Chinese general, I would not like that possibility. The cheap and easy way to see to it that it doesn't happen is to keep the NK govenrment in power.
As for NK having nukes, I don't see why China would worry: they are not the target. They might very well suffer some consequences of NK nuking SK, but even NK ought to realise that nuking SK would mean open war with a country (USA) that could wipe them off the map. NK might therefore actually have nukes, but using them seems very improbable. At least until they can be successfully delivered to mainland USA...
Re:Depends on China by sjbe · 2014-02-18 04:39 · Score: 3, Informative

Aren't they still at war?
Technically yes. The Korean war theoretically never actually ended. There was an armistice but never any permanent peace agreement. $Diety knows what they think they still have to fight about...
Re:Depends on China by j-turkey · 2014-02-18 04:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

You nailed it, DPRK is very much dependent on China for support. I don't fully understand why China wants to keep DPRK in power either, but I can shed a bit of light on the issue. You mentioned China's desire for a buffer between their borders and a westernized and America-friendly South Korea, this is a major issue. Another huge issue is that if the North Korean regime fails, China will have millions of refugees crossing its eastern border into areas that are already less stable than they would like. These areas have not developed at a rate consistent with the larger Chinese cities, and millions of Korean refugees would be a huge burden on those areas, threatening the regional stability - which is a hot-button issue for China.
I can't say that any country is immune from supporting regimes where atrocities exist when it supports their interests...but it doesn't stop me from being frustrated with China for supporting a failed regime like DPRK.

--

-Turkey
Re:Depends on China by hey! · 2014-02-18 04:43 · Score: 1

Well, I think the issue with China is that it's a regime that's even more touchy than governments usually are about admitting mistakes. They don't like North Korea's nuclear program, or being associated with North Korean atrocities, but a public admission of a mistake they like even less. It's seen as weak, and weak governments leading to chaos is the number one lesson a student of Chinese history learns. Being Pyongyang's *only* ally puts China on the spot; the more embarrassing those ties are the harder they are to cut.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Depends on China by wiredog · 2014-02-18 04:56 · Score: 1

And the US, too, under the UN's authority.

--

Best Slashdot Co
Re:Depends on China by cold+fjord · 2014-02-18 04:56 · Score: 1

Only in a way that doesn't matter. They're not shooting at each other or maneuvering to shoot at each other. They're not at war.
Actually they still do shoot at each other in various ways. This happened only a few years ago.
'North Korean torpedo' sank South's navy ship - report
This is just a sample, there are other incidents that happen in the DMZ or other places that aren't covered here.
Timeline: North Korean attacks

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Depends on China by Nidi62 · 2014-02-18 05:01 · Score: 1

Not as long as China protects him he won't. For various reasons I don't entirely understand China has elected to keep this family in power.
NK is China's insurance policy. As long as North Korea is around China and their abuses look a lot better by comparison. At the same time, if they ever need some international good will, they can just go along with UNSC resolutions against North Korea, or get them to open up or release some political prisoners or something. At the same time, they have a market for domestically produced entertainment, goods, and weapons because no one should be exporting things to North Korea, and North Korea cannot have a significant manufacturing capacity of their own. The relationship between China and North Korea is very similar to that of Russia and Syria, if you need another example of this type of relationship.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Re:Depends on China by MightyMartian · 2014-02-18 05:05 · Score: 1

My understanding is that China fears that if the regime collapses, they'll have millions of North Korean refugees flooding across the border. In essence, as awful as the North Korean regime is, it's the lid on the jar, so to speak.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Depends on China by phantomfive · 2014-02-18 05:07 · Score: 1

Not as long as China protects him he won't. For various reasons I don't entirely understand China has elected to keep this family in power.

I think China has more fear of the US than we expect, and it distorts their decisions. They are still living with the memory of the Korean war, much more than we are. Also, remember that a lot of times when China wants to do something, the US says "no," and enforces it militarily, for example, by sending warships to the Taiwan strait. I'm not saying the US made the wrong decision (although I favor less military adventurism by the US), there are reasons to defend Taiwan, but China feels their own weakness acutely, and that causes them to make less-optimal decisions.

That's one hypothesis that could help explain.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Depends on China by oodaloop · 2014-02-18 05:13 · Score: 1, Interesting

China needs a friendly nation in charge of the Korean Peninsulsa in order to miantain access to the sea. Take a look at a map of China's coast. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and numerous small U.S. controlled islands dominate their border and shipping lanes. They have a large coast, but most of it is not in their control. If North Korea became hostile to China, they would lose a lof of naval power. They are going to do everything possible to hold onto this strip of land.

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Re:Depends on China by Chatterton · 2014-02-18 05:14 · Score: 1

Officially, war never stopped between the 2 Koreas
Re:Depends on China by Guppy06 · 2014-02-18 05:26 · Score: 1

For various reasons I don't entirely understand China has elected to keep this family in power.
DPRK is the just about only neighbor that China has that actually likes them. Everyone else that shares a border with China has relations that run the gamut from "cool" to "antagonistic." China fears losing the Kim regime in much the same way Russia fears NATO expansion, for similar reasons.
Re:Depends on China by sjbe · 2014-02-18 05:38 · Score: 1

If North Korea became hostile to China, they would lose a lof of naval power.
If North Korea became hostile to China, China would and could simply topple the country and could do so quickly. China wouldn't even break a sweat putting Kim Jong-Un out of power. They don't do it because it would cause all sorts of other problems and hasn't been necessary so far but North Korea isn't really much of a threat to China.
Re:Depends on China by oodaloop · 2014-02-18 05:42 · Score: 1

That's sort of my point. China needs a friendly North Korea one way or another.

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Re:Depends on China by cold+fjord · 2014-02-18 06:47 · Score: 1

North Korea still desires to inflict^H^H^H^H^H^H bring all of the "advantages" of the revolution to the South, to reunite the country even if it takes force of arms. China views Taiwan in a similar light.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Depends on China by mycroft822 · 2014-02-18 06:56 · Score: 1

Sounds to me like they just need to build a really big wall. Problem solved!
Re:Depends on China by Somebody+Is+Using+My · 2014-02-18 07:17 · Score: 1

Officially -as far as the governments on the peninsula are concerned - there is only one Korea, and a bunch of rebels.
Both sides have differing opinions as to who is the "real" Korean government and who are the rebels, of course.
Re:Depends on China by Khashishi · 2014-02-18 07:29 · Score: 1

It's important for DPRK to make a move every couple of years or so, because War is Peace.
Re:Depends on China by Anonymous+Meoward · 2014-02-18 09:17 · Score: 1

Yep. And China won't drop it any time soon.
Why? Because they don't want a few million - or tens of millions of - refugees crossing the Yalu or Tumen Rivers.
The Kims have effectively blackmailed the Chinese with threat of a mind-bending humanitarian crisis.
And the DPRK knows that a coup is in China's best interest as well. Hence the ginormous military.

--
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
Re:Depends on China by HornWumpus · 2014-02-18 09:45 · Score: 2

China is hardly land locked and without ports or navy.
Most of their coast is not in there control? Then who's control is it in?

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Depends on China by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-02-18 10:16 · Score: 1

And if NK were to collapse and get absorbed into South Korea, there could be US troops right on the Chinese border (there are a number of US troops in South Korea right now).

The US forces in South Korea are there to provide support along the DMZ against North Korea. Odds are good that we'd be gone as quickly as we could move the men home if NK vanished.
Do remember that we only put troops in SK in response to the NK attack - we didn't want to be there, and the locals didn't want us there before that.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Depends on China by ClassicASP · 2014-02-18 13:41 · Score: 1

Not as long as China protects him he won't. For various reasons I don't entirely understand China has elected to keep this family in power.
I thought it was rather obvious. Kim Jong-un and his kin are likely a family line of alcoholics more than happy to just stay drunk and remain too busy having fun partying it up to dare think clearly for a moment and "rock the boat" (just ask Dennis Rodman). Kim is Probably a pushover who is easily persuaded to keep drinking by his admirees. And as long as he's too busy keeping staying drunk, he's not dabbling in more dangerous things things like warfare and nukes. Last thing we want is a family line of stone-cold-sober and power-obsessed critical thinkers at the helm. That could lead to genocide. So I guess we can all give a big thanks to Rodman for sacrificing his time and health to do his part to protect world peace by keeping this overempowered wild-child distracted. Things could be a lot worse.
Re:Depends on China by denelson83 · 2014-02-18 22:27 · Score: 1

Yeah, and as with any lid on the jar, no air gets in, and anyone inside suffocates.
Re:Depends on China by sjbe · 2014-02-19 05:37 · Score: 1

Because the minute China stop supporting that dictatorship half a dozen country, the first of them being the US of A, go get rid of that family, and a reunited US-friendly Korean is reborn. And China doesn't want another US friendly country near by..
Which is logic I don't really understand. Let's say that Korea reunites peacefully and is firmly pro-US. What is the downside to China? It's not like Korea is going to invade China even with US backing. As long as China remains peaceful, trade will benefit both sides hugely. A reunited Korea would be less of a financial burden on China and they wouldn't have to worry (much) about refugees coming across the border. China would have ample opportunity to "persuade" Korea to be friendly to China.
I just don't get the logic at work here. I fully admit there must be a lot of nuance I don't really understand and I'm sure there are certain racial and historical tensions I don't appreciate but even so their behavior makes little sense to me.

Irrelavant and inept. by Virtucon · 2014-02-18 04:10 · Score: 1, Insightful

It goes to show how irrelevant and inept the UN is. Since it has no Army or Navy, it can't enforce anything and expects member nations to toe the line. Sure, we all know the PRK is a repressive regime and the leadership is corrupt and brutal but they have a powerful ally with a permanent seat on the Security Council, meaning that nothing will ultimately come of trying to rein in Pyongyang or force the regime to collapse. This is a nation that has no problems starving its own people and putting them unwavering cruelty to make their dreams come true. Do you think they care what the UN says?

If you want to bring about change to the PRK, embargo all trade with the PRK. This means China will have to stop trading and propping them up. Stop their arms trading business by seizing cargo wherever possible. Sanction any trading partners who still continue to do business with them.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"

Re:Irrelavant and inept. by C0R1D4N · 2014-02-18 04:21 · Score: 5, Funny

I propose a Grand Army of the UN. Worked well for the Old Republic.
Re:Irrelavant and inept. by MightyMartian · 2014-02-18 05:15 · Score: 2

Do that, and North Korea is likely, in its dying moments, to bomb South Korea (if not its own populace, I honestly wouldn't put it past them). This is why there is this sort of unofficial entente between the US and China over North Korea. Neither probably likes the regime at all, but keeping it propped up is infinitely better than what may happen if it melts down.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Irrelavant and inept. by rasmusbr · 2014-02-18 05:16 · Score: 2

Well, it's really China's imperative to do something about the monsters that they create. China shouldn't have to stop trading with North Korea, they should want to stop. Until we get to that point it won't matter much what the rest of the world thinks.
Re:Irrelavant and inept. by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-02-18 07:48 · Score: 1

Well, it's really China's imperative to do something about the monsters that they create.
Actually, it was the other way round. Kim-Il Sung took power in what was then the Soviet zone, and gave the Chinese Communists refuge across the border, gave them supplies, and contributed troops as well. This is one of the reasons Mao gave his full backing (including the promise of troops) to Kim's invasion of the South a couple of years later.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Irrelavant and inept. by Virtucon · 2014-02-18 12:54 · Score: 1

Since Robocop has now been "remade"...
"Red Alert! Red Alert!"
"You crossed my line of death!"
"You haven't dismantled your MX Stockpile!"
"Pakistan is threatening my border!"
"That's it Buster! No more military aide!"
"Nukem! Get them before they get you."
- Robocop

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"

Re:And how will they bring him to justice? by Salgak1 · 2014-02-18 04:15 · Score: 1

. . . and if that doesn't work. . . .send Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber. . .

The UN? LOL. by mandark1967 · 2014-02-18 04:15 · Score: 1

This is the same organization that took 10 friggin years to define the term "genocide" as it applied to the Rwandan massacres that took place unimpeded for a decade.

So...which nations will ante up to remove KJ-u from NK to stand trial?

--
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain

United Nations eh? by Krojack · 2014-02-18 04:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

My grandma was more threatening than the United Nations. This is nothing more than a joke.

I'm sure he's quivering in his boots... by prisoner-of-enigma · 2014-02-18 04:21 · Score: 2

I'm sure Kim Jong-un is just quivering in his boots at this "strongly worded condemnation" by the UN. After all, the UN has such a strong record of following up such condemnations with action...

What's pathetic about this is such UN declarations just serve to reinforce what an absolute joke the whole organization is. The UN has no power whatsoever to do anything to North Korea and Dear Leader knows this.

--
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Re:I'm sure he's quivering in his boots... by UtsuMaster · 2014-02-18 13:26 · Score: 1

The UN record is far from perfect, and yet once upon a time - in fact the only time the UN explicitly took sides in an interstate armed conflict - the UNC, a UN army, directly intervened against North Korea. And was beating up North Korea so much that China, and even Russia at some point, had to sneak in.
I think this sort of intervention is nigh impossible nowadays, but it would be foolish for anyone to disregard the UN as a joke. Gaddafi must have been very surprised when the UN let NATO have its fun in Libya, but Kim Jong-un would be especially dumb to let Korean history repeat itself.

--
...or not.

Re:And how will they bring him to justice? by Opportunist · 2014-02-18 04:23 · Score: 5, Funny

Hey! We're talking about reducing the torture there!

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:They're atheists... by QilessQi · 2014-02-18 04:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

You can be an atheist and still behave morally, ethically, and decently towards other human beings.

Likewise, you can believe in a god (or gods) and still be a murderous psychopath. Heck, as long as you fervently believe those gods are on your side, you can pretty much do anything you like... including interpreting scripture to suit your own purposes.

--
Koans and fables for the software engineer

If only they'd had oil by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-18 04:28 · Score: 1

If only they had huge oil reserves, then those poor people would have a chance of being rescued.

Weapons of mass destruction like Iraq supposedly had? - check.

Brutal dictator like Iraq? - check.

Oil? - Nope.

Re:And how will they bring him to justice? by mrvan · 2014-02-18 04:28 · Score: 4, Informative

Even ignoring the problem of getting him from power, ICC has no jurisdiction as Korea isn't a signatory and the UN security council is needed either to refer the case to the ICC or to create an ad hoc tribunal. Even if China might as some point decide to stop propping up its neighbour, it is not very likely that they will allow them to be tried in court.

Re:if only they had oil by cold+fjord · 2014-02-18 04:29 · Score: 2

Maybe you haven't heard but the US did fight a war there to keep North Korea out of South Korea. The US still has tens of thousands of troops there. That kind of shoots a hole in the whole "blood for oil" thing, huh?

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell

Re:Probably never by Oligonicella · 2014-02-18 04:30 · Score: 1

Hush, you'll put a ding in his self-loathing.

Re:Elephant in the room by melikamp · 2014-02-18 04:30 · Score: 1

And i bet that that don't even qualifies as the tip of the iceberg.

I agree completely. We get closer to the iceberg if we consider the invasion and the ongoing occupation of Iraq, which is a war of aggression and a war crime, and carries with it a tremendous toll on the civilian population.

If UN is going to police the world, they should start with interstate conflicts, and the rogue state number one, instead of meddling with the internal affairs of a state so week that it will collapse on it own without humanitarian help.

Re:Elephant in the room by Teancum · 2014-02-18 04:33 · Score: 1

If you really want the people in the U.S. military to be held accountable for this kind of thing, you need to convince the American people that it is a problem that needs to be dealt with. It needs to become a campaign issue and something that becomes commonly hated. Unfortunately, if this stuff is happening on another continent upon people that don't speak the same language or share the same culture and those same people have threatened "Death to America" including no regard for killing civilians in America.... the best you are going to get from ordinary Americans is "Meh?"

Re:And how will they bring him to justice? by gnalre · 2014-02-18 04:35 · Score: 5, Funny

Send a fleet of C-130 Hercules filled with lawyers and drop them on Pyongyang at 10000 ft.

If that doesn't work send another fleet and drop more lawyers, but this time give them parachutes

--
Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies

Re:first by MightyMartian · 2014-02-18 04:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

As much as we can criticize many regimes for their ill conduct, I have a hard time imagining that what the Saudis or Israelis do is anything close to the North Korean regime's abuses.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:Elephant in the room by sumdumass · 2014-02-18 04:36 · Score: 1

Dude, its puff puff pass. Others want some of what you are smoking so don't bogard the shit.

Re:They're atheists... by green1 · 2014-02-18 04:37 · Score: 1

In fact this report directly compares the leader of North Korea to a specific devout Christian who committed many atrocities just under a hundred years ago...

Re:They're atheists... by XxtraLarGe · 2014-02-18 04:38 · Score: 1

Because religious folks would never do anything morally objectionable, like fly planes into buildings, or start wars of choice, or use atomic bombs on cities. Nope... it's only atheists who do awful things.

Tu quoque!

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.

China by CohibaVancouver · 2014-02-18 04:41 · Score: 1

IMO the path to taking down North Korea is via China.

North Korea only exists due to the largesse of China.

If the world really cared, China would be publicly shamed everywhere on the planet - Pictures of starving Koreans in front of every embassy, consulate and trade mission. Protests in front of the offices of every state-run businesses - Huawei, Lenovo, the lot.

Basically deeply embarrass China into realizing propping up this criminal state isn't worth it - Babies are being drowned? China's fault. If / when they let NK go, it will tumble down like a house of cards.

Re:China by oodaloop · 2014-02-18 05:16 · Score: 1

China is doing much the same, and doesn't seem to care about their image. I would propose working out a solution with China for alternate shipping lanes and access to the sea; this is the only reason that China needs North Korea, and China needs it badly enough to endure a little bad publicity.

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Re:China by CohibaVancouver · 2014-02-18 05:27 · Score: 1

China is doing much the same
Is China a paradise? No damn way - But writing something like this belittles the terrible suffering that goes on in North Korea.

I work with a lot of Chinese - None of them were shot when they emigrated. None of them that successfully emigrated found their family and friends, including children, tortured and killed to punish them.

Chinese can travel, go to the movies, buy a car.

None of these options exist for the average North Korean.
Re:China by oodaloop · 2014-02-18 05:41 · Score: 1

None of them were shot when they emigrated.
You don't say. The people you met weren't killed before?

China is not as bad as North Korea, no shit. But they're guilty of human rights abuses aplenty and already get bad press for it aplenty. Shaming them publicly moreso than they already are will likely not work well for making them shift their strategic position on North Korea.

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.

Re:Throwing stones by jratcliffe · 2014-02-18 04:45 · Score: 1

Let the country without sin cast the first stone. US? Can you spell Guantanamo, napalm? UK? Ask Gandhi. Etc.

That's an utterly absurd comparison. Guantanamo is shameful, and a blot on the US. It embarasses and outrages me. That said, comparing it to North Korea is like saying that someone who got a parking ticket can't judge Charles Manson.

Re:They're atheists... by ideonexus · 2014-02-18 04:47 · Score: 3, Informative

North Koeans are required to worship their leaders as gods. There is nothing Atheistic about that.

--
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation

Re:first by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-02-18 04:56 · Score: 1

Thank you. The New York Times has just been heard from.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Re:first by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-02-18 05:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Have you been to Syria lately?

Have YOU been to Syria?

Syria is a propaganda story. Here's a TINY example, plucked from the firehose of lies:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2014/02/cnn-propaganda-poor-lone-kid-edition.html

Same for Venezuela:
https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/10360

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Re:first by CohibaVancouver · 2014-02-18 05:01 · Score: 3, Informative

So you are poorly informed AND you have a weak imagination.

Hey Anonymous Coward, pull your head out of the sand.

Can Saudis leave their country?
Are Saudis starving to death?
Are mothers of Saudi newborn Saudi babies forced to drown them?
Is crystal meth the only medicine available to a sick Saudi?

Is Saudi Arabia a paradise? No damn way - But to suggest Saudi Arabia is as bad as North Korea is an INSULT to your fellow humans in North Korea, including children for christ's sake, who are suffering and dying.

Re:first by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-02-18 05:10 · Score: 1, Insightful

Asinine, obnoxious hyperbole!

Way to fucking make your case!

Hyperbole? Where?

Both commit genocide, religious persecution and use state resources to fund terror and armed disturbance beyond their borders.

North Korea is small potatoes in these stakes. Designed to distract, and elevated to "Global Crisis" proportions, so that folks like you are left confused, misdirected and ultimately ineffectual in the cause of doing good, or subordinated in the works of greater evil.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Good Luck by Culture20 · 2014-02-18 05:14 · Score: 1

Their words are backed by the power of Nuclear Weapons!

Re:first by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-02-18 05:23 · Score: 1, Troll

And Saudi is a tacit Israeli partner. The paid thug. Who were the 9/1 hijackers?

Do you actually believe they carried their own valid passports? This last point. Really? To think they carried ID beggars belief.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Re:first by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-02-18 05:27 · Score: 5, Informative

You are the recipient of other people's "information".

Saudi's CANNOT leave. Unless they are of a certain class, and have been specifically cleared by the secret police.
Saudi's are starving to death in the NW Shiite region
Rural Saudi girls are killed on birth, as liabilities to their poor families
Meth? You are crazy. But yes. Qat is the only medicine for millions.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Re:first by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-02-18 05:31 · Score: 1, Troll

The USA is currently the invader of over 100 countries, worldwide.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Re:Throwing stones by MightyMartian · 2014-02-18 05:32 · Score: 2

I guess the British Empire should have let the Nazis march all over Europe because Britain's record had blemishes.

This is the most tortured logic I can imagine.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:The UN is not a government by MightyMartian · 2014-02-18 05:34 · Score: 1

I don't recall the Allies worrying overly much about the lack of treaties with the Germans and Japanese (both had repudiated the League of Nations in the 1930s) when it came to the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials. If North Korea ever shirks the Kims and the international community can agree on having trials, they will happen. The war crimes and crimes against humanity that the Axis powers were charged with set the precedent.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:China's Non-Interventionst Foreign Policy by sjbe · 2014-02-18 05:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Rather, it is China's view that it is no one's business outside the DPRK how the DPRK conducts it's affairs.

Baloney. If that were the case then China wouldn't be subsidizing the regime. China thinks it is China's business what the DPRK does.

China never wants to be involved in other countries' problems nor do they seek to impose their will on other countries - you don't see China out trying to spread their own unique brand of communist/capitalism elsewhere do you?

They most certainly do get themselves involved in other countries problems. Ask Tibet. Need more examples? Look at what China is doing in Africa. They are investing hugely there and they certainly are pushing their own interests. China is contesting with Japan over various islands (over oil mostly), they continue to insist that Taiwan is their property, they are increasingly becoming a force in east asian geo-politics, they are growing their military rapidly, etc. Claims that China doesn't exert power in other parts of the world is complete nonsense and demonstrably so.

It is hard for people in the West to believe this because in the West foreign policy is essentially *ALL ABOUT* spreading your influence and trying to spread democracy. China has no interest in any of this.

Bullshit China doesn't have any interest. China is NO different than any other large nation state. They definitely see themselves as a player on the world stage and they are behaving like a country with global interests. To simply keep their economic engine humming they HAVE to be involved in other parts of the world whether they want to or not.

Re:first by MightyMartian · 2014-02-18 05:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

Many countries have departure restrictions. Not defending it, but that's hardly unique to the Saudis. India has lots of people living at or below the poverty, as well as the killing of baby girls.

No matter how you cut it, North Korea puts almost every other regime in recent memory to shame. That's not to say that there are lots of other states with appalling human rights records, but there's appalling and then there's nightmares.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:And how will they bring him to justice? by bobbied · 2014-02-18 05:43 · Score: 1

I don't care who you are, that there is funny!.

You made me laugh. Wish I could mod you up..

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101

Ineffective by confused+one · 2014-02-18 05:44 · Score: 1

China has indicated it will block the world court from initiating a case. Even if it goes though, and various actors are found guitly in absentia, there's nothing they can do but send a stern letter to the NK ambassador asking for these people to be turned over. Since those are the people running the country and its military, we all know that's not going to happen. Unfortunately, the UN really has no teeth in cases like this.

Re:first by MightyMartian · 2014-02-18 05:48 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, you're actually claiming the Powers That Be designed North Korea the way it is just to fool Westerners?

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Not Korea's fault by BisuDagger · 2014-02-18 05:49 · Score: 1

For the past few decades they were Ill-educated and now they are Un-educated.

Re:first by mcgrew · 2014-02-18 05:51 · Score: 1

I don't understand why "first post" is important to anyone who doesn't have anything useful to say. It isn't hard to get and it's easy to actually contribute to the discussion in a first post. That is useful, you're the one starting the conversation. But just posting FRIST POST is fucking stupid.

However, the "first (-1, Offtopic)" is amusing.

--
Free Martian Whores!

Not going to work by DriveDog · 2014-02-18 05:59 · Score: 2

Isn't this kind of like warning a serial killer to not kill again because he might be prosecuted if he does? Seriously, why would KimCo be willing to believe that by not committing any more crimes they'd be safe from prosecution? Warning them to try and minimize future crimes is fine, just don't expect it to work on them. Other Kim wannabees might possibly pay attention to it, however. But even that would work a lot better if KimCo were actually prosecuted.

Re:first by dontbemad · 2014-02-18 06:00 · Score: 1

Don't forget about Obama. Or are civilian casualties from machines not technically the responsibility of the commander in chief?

Re:first by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-02-18 06:01 · Score: 1

Scale, scope, relevance, impact.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Re:Throwing stones by confused+one · 2014-02-18 06:03 · Score: 1

Similarly, the U.S. should have let the Japanese take ownership of the Pacific theatre in 1942. WWII era Japanese soldiers were not known for being kind to war prisoners or civilians in any controlled territories. By early 1943 they controlled China, owned pretty much everything from Indonesia to the Bering Sea, out as far west as Hawaii. They took posession of part of the Alutian island chain in Alaska. They likely could have taken Hawaii in 1942 or early 1943. They stopped only at Australia, New Zealand, and mainland Alaska due to resistance. By the parent's logic, we should have pulled back and let them have the Pacific in it's entirety.

Re:first by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-02-18 06:07 · Score: 1, Interesting

There is NO "Israeli Palestinian Conflict".

There is an Israeli boot, smashing a Palestinian face, forever.

Contrary to what's been reported in the news for years, there is no Israeli-Palestinian conflict. None, zero, zilch, diddly-squat. I can say with confidence that Palestinians have no agency. The Israeli government controls everything in the country. This total control which is most magnified in the West Bank, concerns everything from where Palestinians are permitted to travel, to how much water they consume per month. Currently, there is no 'conflict,' only the omnipresent power of the Israeli government and those who resist it. This is important to understand.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ferrari-sheppard/i-traveled-to-palestine_b_4761896.html

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Re:first by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-02-18 06:10 · Score: 1

What you mean "We", white man?

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Selectivity by ThatsNotPudding · 2014-02-18 06:31 · Score: 1

describing North Korea as a dictatorship 'that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.'

Except for a goodly chunk of central Africa. #FTFY

Re:Selectivity by Gavagai80 · 2014-02-18 10:17 · Score: 1

I don't see anything NKesque in central africa. Maybe Mobutu back in the day, but not now. Just run of the mill dictators and run of the mill slaughters. Perhaps if the Lord's resistance army ever took over a whole nation.

--
This space intentionally left blank

Re:first by cold+fjord · 2014-02-18 06:33 · Score: 1

Easy there, Tonto. I'm sure Sergeant Preston will be along shortly.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell

Re:first by cold+fjord · 2014-02-18 06:34 · Score: 1

A government granting basing rights is a bit different than being invaded.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell

Re:first by cold+fjord · 2014-02-18 06:41 · Score: 1

I suggest reading the reports. Even the Guardian hasn't been pulling punches for some time.

Revealed: the gas chamber horror of North Korea's gulag

North Korea is a horror.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell

Re:first by cheesybagel · 2014-02-18 06:53 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Dude. Saudi Arabia applies Sharia as the rule of law. People get stoned for being unfaithful and thieves get their hands cut off.

Re:They're atheists... by cold+fjord · 2014-02-18 06:57 · Score: 1

Individual atheists can behave morally, ethically, and decently towards other human beings. Officially atheist governments, as opposed to simply secular, don't have a good track record, especially when they are predisposed to suppressing religion. That was the case in at least most communist countries. What makes North Korea notable is that it is still acting in the present day and age as the most oppressive communist countries did 50-90 years ago. To get a taste for that, watch the Soviet Story (trailer) - available on DVD or streaming video

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell

United Nations Prosecuting for N.K. by hackus · 2014-02-18 06:57 · Score: 1

Pot Kettle Black.

End of story.

--
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.

Re:first by psithurism · 2014-02-18 06:58 · Score: 1

Yeah, but the Saudis give us oil and the Israelis make us feel better about WWII. What does N.K. give us?

If your going to starve your populace, at least produce something! Waste of cheap human capital is just accepted as the de facto worst abuse by everyone but yourself. I shouldn't have to be stated.

Re:No invasion, no gassing Re:If only they'd had o by Somebody+Is+Using+My · 2014-02-18 07:08 · Score: 1

Not that I necessarily agree with the argument that the two Iraq wars were fought over oil, but...

America is not interested in the countries; they are interested in the oil. Imperialism is expensive; running a country is costly in men and money. The locals dislike being under a foreign regime, and your own people stand out as targets.

Better to allow the locals to rule themselves, but set up the situation so their only real option is to sell you the local resources. That way you get the benefit of harvesting the valuables without the vast expenditures necessary to hold a hostile people. Better still, your own people are less exposed, as they are not the only target of local aggression (that's why let the locals rule themselves; nobody likes a politician, even if he is a neighbor).

Just because America allowed the Iraqis (and Kuwaitis) self-rule in no way proves that their aggressions in the Persian Gulf were /not/ about ensuring itself a continued supply of petrochemicals.

Re:first by sosume · 2014-02-18 07:12 · Score: 1

Saudi's have it nowhere as bad as the North Koreans. Look up the Kaechon prison:

(wikipedia) ".. anyone found guilty of committing a crime, which could be as simple as trying to escape North Korea, would be sent to the camp along with that person's entire family. The subsequent two generations of family members would be born in the camp and must also live their entire lives and die there."

Now THAT is a brutal regime. And if you ask me, it's China's responsibility to step in before too many people have died.

Re:first by xevioso · 2014-02-18 07:13 · Score: 1

This is part of war, and we are at war with a group of people who want to impose a strict fascist interpretation of Islam on their own countrymen, and if possible, the rest of the world. In a time of war, sometimes civilian casualties happen; this is called, euphemistically, collateral damage.

nothing to lose by Khashishi · 2014-02-18 07:14 · Score: 1

It seems to me that the effect of the warning is to prevent any sort of change from taking place. I mean, if people warn you that you will be prosecuted for crimes against humanity, you are going to clamp down harder on dissidents to keep that from happening, wouldn't you? You wouldn't go down without a fight.

Re:Throwing stones by donscarletti · 2014-02-18 07:18 · Score: 1

Gandhi?

So, you're comparing locking a guy up for a couple of years because he organises a massive and successful revolt (then letting him out when he got sick), with killing people for picking up South Korean leaflets, entering China or making international phoneccalls.

The Raj literally kept Gandhi locked in a palace when he revolted during WWII, a palace! Try organising a revolt in peace time in North Korea and see what happens to your entire family.

The British had 77 years during which they could have easily killed Gandhi, since he lived all but the last year of his life in the British Empire (including many years in the UK) and never kept his location hidden. Instead they didn't, and he was gunned down by a fellow Hindu in newly independent India.

Seriously, some people need to understand the concept of magnitude.

--
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem

Re:No invasion, no gassing Re:If only they'd had o by bobbied · 2014-02-18 07:28 · Score: 2

Just because America allowed the Iraqis (and Kuwaitis) self-rule in no way proves that their aggressions in the Persian Gulf were /not/ about ensuring itself a continued supply of petrochemicals.

But the fact that when the government of Iraq asked us to leave, we did, does indicate that access to oil isn't the primary goal. It is at least secondary if not lower on the list or you just continue to occupy the country.

The USA has a LONG history of not wanting to be an imperial power. We could have been. Lord knows we conquered enough territory to control more than half of the world if that was our goal. The same with oil. We've captured and returned to it's previous owners much of the world's oil supply. If our primary goal was to obtain oil, we are pretty stupid to give it back all the time.

But it does seem that the USA tends to get involved in conflict that surrounds the world's supply of Oil more often than other areas. A tendency that I can only explain by agreeing that oil is a consideration, as is the free flow of it around the world. But I would argue that this has accrued to the overall benefit for all of the world. We could have just taken it and hauled it home, but over and over we haven't.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101

Re:first by Pentagram · 2014-02-18 07:31 · Score: 1

I've been to Syria recently -- well in the last couple of years, after the start of the revolution. I experienced first hand the extreme corruption, the ever-present secret police, and the aura of fear and intimidation.

Just because some of the information coming out of the country is untrue (how could you not expect some of it to be?) doesn't mean the current state of Syria is propaganda. Most of the reporting is true; the alternative is that every major news organisation, charity and most governments (bar Russia and Iran) are part of some vast conspiracy.

Re:first by Mister+Liberty · 2014-02-18 07:37 · Score: 1

Agreed, though you forgot Rogue State Number One.

Re:first by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-02-18 07:41 · Score: 1

Intersting .sig.

I went to school with young Markus Hess, you know.. ;-)

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Re:first by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-02-18 07:44 · Score: 1

Go back to 'Jersey... Bet yo momma wears a wig.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Re:They're atheists... by QilessQi · 2014-02-18 07:46 · Score: 1

I see your distinction between a secular government which has no official position on God, and an atheistic government which has the official position that God does not exist and must not be worshipped in any form. Certainly the latter is necessarily as oppressive as a government which insists upon the worship of one particular God. I'll even grant that by this definition, atheistic governments have a horrible track record on human rights.

That being said, the GP simply said "They're atheists..." and went on to imply a causal relationship between being an atheist and seeing people as nothing more than cogs in a machine. Without clearly stating that "they" means the government and not the people, it comes across very differently.

--
Koans and fables for the software engineer

Re:They're atheists... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-02-18 07:49 · Score: 1

Most of this "but they're atheists!" stuff in politics, usually re: communism, fail to recognize that religion and politics aren't just similar phenomena, in their ability to induce raging, but they are the exact same phenomenon.

Both are meme groupings designed to gather people ofor the purpose of seizing power.

In both, freedom takes a back seat.

Oh, by the way, this also means you, dear reader, as you cluster together for this or that righteous cause. All of it, anti-freedom.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Re:And how will they bring him to justice? by Salgak1 · 2014-02-18 07:49 · Score: 1

But it WOULD rid us of Miley and Justin. Sometimes, you have to break a few eggs. . . . (evil grin)

Re:first by Oligonicella · 2014-02-18 08:11 · Score: 1

Please provide that list. Use the common working version of "invaded', not your own.

This makes me laugh by Doomsought · 2014-02-18 08:15 · Score: 1

An international court has about just as much legitimacy as a courtroom role-play done by high-school students. You see, there is this little thing called sovereignty. Until you send an army in to conquer the land, then you don't have jurisdiction.

Too many outdated talking points and stereotypes by Endymion · 2014-02-18 08:38 · Score: 1

So many people here obviously haven't learned anything new about the NK situation in the last 10 yeears, or even the last 5.

Basically any real "stability" in the country died with Kim Jong-il. It probably collapsed much earlier, though that gets harder to pin down the further you go back. The key point, though, is what once was a more-or-less unified group of fanatics has slowly come to realize that there's another world out there, and the reality of what their leaders are has become harder and harder to ignore.

Doubt this? Think there's still some kind of politics or ideology at work here, making NK the same "annoyance" they were 10 - or even 5 - years ago? Then watch this brave NK woman publicly confront a soldier, shame him, and chase him off .

A handful of years ago that would have been suicidal - or worse.

Oh, and China? The politics of the past doesn't matter. What they know now is that there are a VERY large number of people - mostly decent people, most likely - that have lived their whole lives in what was, more or less, a cult. And they know that there is a very real risk that those "[sometimes former] cult members" could become "starving refugees" almost overnight.

Even if they wanted to, that's a crisis on a scale not even China can sweep under a rug. They are facing the possiblity of being neighbors to a country with a small number of fanatics/old-guard that no longer have real power (enough to be a problem, though), a MASSIVE numbre of people who really need some sort of deprogramming/cult-exit-councelor, and some unknown mix of economic assistance, knowledge assistance/guidance, etc. If they end up with an incredible amount of luck, the people of NK might just be able to so they can bootstrap their country into something aproaching sustainable.

I suspect that China, more than anything, wishes they could simply get rid of this mess.

--
Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.

Re:They're atheists... by roca · 2014-02-18 08:51 · Score: 1

Thanks for being honest about the implications of your position in that last sentence.

The fact that religion, politics, and anything else people care about can be abused to build a power base does not mean those things are in themselves bad. Nor does it mean we should abolish them and become apathetic drudges. Even if the latter was desirable and worked, it's a Prisoner's Dilemma where the first defector conquers the world. So much for freedom.

Non-Interventionist is BS; China no Different by Koreantoast · 2014-02-18 08:53 · Score: 2

No, it's China's view that the DPRK's internal affairs are none of its business until China feels that the DPRK is no longer worth propping up. China is out for China's interest, and they are more than happy to interfere when it's in their national interest, no different than any other major global power. They may not currently have the force projection capabilities that other nations had, but just the sheer number of weapons they've shipped during the PRC's short history to pro-Chinese insurgencies and governments shows that they are not above this game. Perhaps the most blatant was the punitive campaign they launched against Vietnam in 1979, leaving tens of thousands of people dead and "scorched earth" in the northern half of Vietnam, all because the Vietnamese had the audacity to stop the massacres of the pro-PRC Khmer Rouge.

Yet for now, as much of a headache that the DPRK is for China, they put up with them because all of the other options are much less desirable for China (anarchy from regime collapse, war on its frontier, millions of refugees).

Re:They're atheists... by roca · 2014-02-18 08:53 · Score: 1

Atheists certainly can behave morally, ethically, and decently, and most do. The problem is, in most cases they do so in defiance of their professed epistemology.

Re:first by roca · 2014-02-18 08:55 · Score: 1

Too many people have already died. China's support for North Korea is about their worst sin at the moment.

Re:first by roca · 2014-02-18 08:59 · Score: 1

The US is not occupying South Korea. South Korea has its own democratically elected government running the country.

A subset of South Koreans don't like the presence of US bases. But with the constant, explicitly stated threats from North Korea, as a nation they'd be suicidal to push US forces out.

Re:BBC pushed for tortue after 9/11 by chilvence · 2014-02-18 09:00 · Score: 1

You're a total dork. Most of the world population WANTS Korea to re-unifiy. They want Korea to re-unify, shut the fuck up with the tit-for tat squabbling over 60 year old bullshit and actually have some sort of healthy stable relationship with the rest of the world, without seeming like it might explode at any instant. Do you know what an unstable neighbour is? A fucking liability, that is what. Look at Germany. We basically leveled the country, then the Russians decided they wanted to cut it in half. Did it actually solve any problem? NO, and I am delighted that the dickbag politicians involved got bored of that charade and let the country re-constitute itself.

Re:first by roca · 2014-02-18 09:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

Note, if the NK regime was demonstrably reasonable --- let's say, anywhere between China's government and South Korea's --- it would make a lot of sense to drawn down the US presence. So there is no impasse here.

Re:first by roca · 2014-02-18 09:05 · Score: 1

They were all planning to die, and they had no reason to care about the impact on other Saudis, so it makes perfect sense they would take the simple safe option and carry their own ID.

Wrong target: they should try Kim Il Sung by real+gumby · 2014-02-18 09:07 · Score: 1

Apparently he is still the president of norks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

Re:China's Non-Interventionst Foreign Policy by Gavagai80 · 2014-02-18 10:06 · Score: 1

I see, all those Chinese troops in the Korean War went there to watch and ensure non-intervention. Same as in Vietnam.

--
This space intentionally left blank

Re:They're atheists... by Gavagai80 · 2014-02-18 10:14 · Score: 1

An officially atheist (as opposed to simply secular) government is by definition suppressing religion. It's hardly a surprise to find that they're "predisposed to suppressing religion" when they set in law that people should not be religious. This suggests nothing at all bad about atheism. It suggests simply that imposing a belief on the country -- whether it's belief in a particular religion or in atheism -- is a means of control used by oppressive regimes.

--
This space intentionally left blank

Re:first by Uberbah · 2014-02-18 10:38 · Score: 1

I've been to Syria recently -- well in the last couple of years, after the start of the revolution.

You mean the proxy war funded - with both fighters and money - by Syria's enemies.

I experienced first hand the extreme corruption, the ever-present secret police, and the aura of fear and intimidation.

Did you experience the ethnic cleansing performed by anti-Assad forces backed by the U.S. government? How about the organ eating rebels, happen to catch that? And for their next trick, Kerry and Obama are talking about how we might have to go in with force not to fight Assad, but to attack the Al Queda franchise that's been gaining power in Syria.

The franchise that Kerry and Obama have spent the last two years arming, so they would fight Assad.

Re:China's Non-Interventionst Foreign Policy by Monsuco · 2014-02-18 10:41 · Score: 1

It is not hard to understand. It is not that China "wants to keep DPRK in power". Rather, it is China's view that it is no one's business outside the DPRK how the DPRK conducts it's affairs. This is not new or unique, it is how basically all of China's foreign-policy doctrine - keep your nose out of other countrie's business.

China never wants to be involved in other countries' problems nor do they seek to impose their will on other countries - you don't see China out trying to spread their own unique brand of communist/capitalism elsewhere do you? That's because they don't - China keeps to themselves, for good or bad.

It is hard for people in the West to believe this because in the West foreign policy is essentially *ALL ABOUT* spreading your influence and trying to spread democracy. China has no interest in any of this.

China is a regional power, but the reason they don't engage in the actions you discuss is because they currently are not a superpower. It's true that they are clearly "communist" in name only as they've clearly abandoned any notion of being part of an international socialist movement. That being said, their harassment of Japan, their cold relations with South Korea and their continued insistence that Taiwan/Republic of China is their property shows they don't mind badgering others, even if they're indifferent to the ideology of other nations.

They do indeed try to impose their will on other countries well outside of Asia in some cases too. A clear example of this is how they demand that every nation recognize the PRC as the "one China" which is why most of the Western world including America only have limited relations with Taiwan and those nations cannot refer to Taiwan as the "Republic of China". They're pretty fickle about how other nations relate with Tibet too. They manipulate the currencies of other nations, particularly the US Dollar to give themselves a trade advantage (though this is hardly unique to China, most central banks seem to do this including America's own Federal Reserve and their "peg" has been much softer in recent years).

I see you clearly want to imply there's something inherently "bad" about America playing the role of a superpower but you must ask yourself what is the alternative? When I look at world history, America seems like a far more gentle superpower compared with historical superpowers in Greece, Rome, the Khans, China, or Napoleonic France. I suppose British Empire wasn't *so* bad, though they still had much more desire for conquest and colonization than modern America does and America's concern for human rights isn't perfect, but it is generally better than that of Imperial Britain. What about no superpower? Historically, that seems to have led to instability and war. The various European wars and especially the two World Wars were caused by nations feeling they had a shot at winning because things were basically balanced. The Cold War and all the proxy wars it entailed were caused by the USA and USSR each thinking it could gain the upper hand.

I know Westerners are raised with the notion that being "fair" is always inherently a good thing, but the truth is, sometimes an unfair balance of power can promote peace. America's lopsided power advantage over other nations has led to most nations having little desire to want to fight America because they know they'd loose. Likewise, America doesn't need to fight most nations since most will concede to them. The fact that American voters don't generally have much of a taste for conquest or long wars generally keeps America from demanding too much. It's not "fair" but it does promote peace.

--
The Gospel according to lolcat

Re:first by Pentagram · 2014-02-18 10:57 · Score: 1

I wasn't commenting on the motives of the western countries, nor whether atrocities have been carried out by the rebels (it appears they have, though not on the scale that Assad has). I was replying to the OP who seemed to think the reporting in Syria was all propaganda. The coverage in the media seems to have been reasonably balanced, reporting the abuses of both sides. There has not been the dramatic attempts to control the media by e.g. the US and UK governments that we saw in the Iraq war.

One leader at a time by AttillaTheNun · 2014-02-18 11:09 · Score: 2

In this day and age, there is no need to go to war with an entire nation to remove in inhumane and oppressive regime.
Go to war with the leaders and only the leaders. The U.N. needs a tactical and surgical response. Use intelligence, snipers, spies, drones, DNA biological agents, laser-equipped frogs, ... whatever it takes. Just take them down quietly, one at a time, no press statements, warnings or threats.
They'll eventually lose their nerve.

How many in a humanity? by Jonner · 2014-02-18 12:12 · Score: 1

I have no doubt that the North Korean government is repressive, murderous and generally not nice guys. However, whenever someone uses the phrase "crime against humanity," I wonder exactly how many humans are in a humanity. Do the Russian and Chinese governments manage to come in just under the limit, while North Korea goes over? That seems extremely unlikely, given the relative populations of those countries. Maybe it's defined by a fraction: a government can repress up to half of its citizens and just be seen as somewhat evil, but 51% becomes a crime against humanity?

Re:Throwing stones by Nimey · 2014-02-18 13:44 · Score: 1

Horseshit. There's no way Japan could have taken Hawaii, not without disposing of the US Navy's carriers and submarines first. That'd be a hell of a long supply line to keep open, for starters.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem

Re:first by cheesybagel · 2014-02-18 13:56 · Score: 1

Not to mention that Saudi Arabia has invaded Bahrain and funds international Islamic terrorists all around the world. Chechnya, Yugoslavia, Syria, you name it. Which countries has North Korea invaded this century?

Re: first by DigiShaman · 2014-02-18 14:00 · Score: 1

Yes, correct; no argument. But there is N. Korea, and everything else. You have to pick and choose your battles carefully. Given N. Korea is a pit of hell on Earth, we (humanity) should prioritize what is dealt with, how, and when. Wouldn't you agree?

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Re:Too many outdated talking points and stereotype by UtsuMaster · 2014-02-18 14:42 · Score: 1

Very interesting post, and I wholeheartedly agree with the China part, but I have to say the instability of the regime is significantly overplayed. The whole video thing is being used to construct a Western fairy tale.

Somehow it is being made as a sign of rebellion, of cracks in the system, imminent collapse. True, the 'army first' ideology is a very strong pillar of the DPRK regime, and of course it is uncommon to see people being uncooperative with army officials. But that is just ideology. Merely the means to keep the masses compliant with authority.

But authority has many forms. As in every corrupt regime the currency of North Korea is loyalty. Every North Korean has a pin on their chest; of Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, or Kim Jong-un. Sometimes a combination of them. These pins have to be earned, they are passed within the family, and they are very clear signs of allegiance. Shiny new pins means a well-connected person enjoying political favour. Whoever this woman is she has a vehicle, whereas most people use bicycles or ox-carts (without oxen, unfortunately). She has fuel to run it. We take these trivial things for granted, but in North Korea this means a lot. She definitely has the right combination of pins on her chest.

The army uniform shows no pins, they are their own faction. Ordinarily the army uses no vehicles, of course, because they have no fuel to spare. The DPRK army is proud of their wood-fueled trucks. Its like a steam locomotive, but stupider. Party officials drive around the wide Pyongyang boulevards in Mercedes-Benz though. Their relatives can have trucks. And can impose the authority of the ruling elite on hapless schmucks like the soldier on the video.

So, nothing really new to see there, just the firm grasp of the ruling elite on the rest of North Korean society. There must be some fanatics, but regular people don't believe all that ideology crap anymore, if they ever did. There is too much information coming in from the South. Still, everyone knows they are expected to act as if they did believe it. And for the sake of their family and future prospects, they do. They remain under control, and things stay exactly the same as 5, 10, 50 years ago. A less attractive story, but truth usually is.

--
...or not.

Re:first by murdocj · 2014-02-18 15:02 · Score: 1

You forgot about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Not to mention the blood of Christ being on the hands of the Jews. C'mon, get with the program!

Re:They're atheists... by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-02-18 15:16 · Score: 1

North Koeans are required to worship their leaders as gods. There is nothing Atheistic about that.

Looks familiar .

TFTFY.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.

Re:Elephant in the room by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-02-18 15:18 · Score: 1

That's "bogart", as in "Humphrey", Grasshopper.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.

Re:BBC pushed for tortue after 9/11 by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-02-18 15:28 · Score: 1

Look at Germany. We basically leveled the country, then the Russians decided they wanted to cut it in half. Did it actually solve any problem?

It certainly rid Europe of the Nazis.

BTW, perhaps your history class neglected to mention this when discussing the period. But that would complicate the "the Russians were the ones who wanted to divide Germany" story that such classes (at least in US schools) like to tell.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.

Re:first by DigiShaman · 2014-02-18 16:42 · Score: 1

Right, and so it's perfectly justifiable for these palestinian thugs to launch rockets (from welded scrap metal) into the homes of civilians killing babies and small children with shrapnel. Right? Right?!

And then there's Pallywood. I could give two shits about the Isreali movement, but those Palestinian fuckers can rot were they fester...on rationed water no less.

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Re:And how will they bring him to justice? by Opportunist · 2014-02-18 18:09 · Score: 1

Didn't these poor people in NK suffer enough already?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Too many outdated talking points and stereotype by Endymion · 2014-02-18 18:43 · Score: 1

I think there's a slight misscommunication here (probably on my part).

The instability in NK isn't only from a change in attitude, though that HAS been significant in recent years. The instability comes from the fact that it's getting harder and harder to ignore the *starving population* and *rapidly failing "industry"*. Even the strongest True Believer in the Kim family regime has to be doing an increasinly absurd amount of justification. The fact that some (still VERY small, but growing) portion of the population has started to look outside that carefully controlled box is a byproduct of this decay. There are many parts of NK that are really only holding together by the thinest of threads, and that imbalance is harder to support when you run out of natural resources and productiivty to pillage.

Hence the problem for China: if NK went full rebellion, tthat would sugest there's a certain critical mass of people within NK that could handle stuff like rebuilding their infrastructure, at least in principle. After the dust settles, go in with some UN people to offer a bit of financial or industrial help while they bootstarp. As bad as revolutions are, that situation at least has a "reasonable" chance at a stable, not-horribly-expensive-for-China outcome.

Unfortunately, as you note, there ISN'T enough support for a traditional rebellion. It's a big change in attitude for NK, but you can't erase that much indoctroination overnight. They likely will need a nation's worht of "deprogrammers"/exit-councelers or somesuch, which is *not* something China (or anybody) really wants to be suck providing.

--
Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.

Re:first by Falconhell · 2014-02-18 20:07 · Score: 1

Yes it is thoroughly justifiable, when Israeli attacks regularly, and inflicts collective punishment. The scum who support Israels war crimes are utterly deluded, when Israel kills at least 10x the number of Palestinians regularly.

Re:And how will they bring him to justice? by Salgak1 · 2014-02-19 03:34 · Score: 1

Think of it as Mutual Assured Destruction meets Darwin in Action. It will be painful, brief, and then over. . .

Re:first by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-02-19 05:35 · Score: 1

How Israel treats Palestine and "occupied territories" is the moral equivalent of European colonists sending smallpox blankets to the Iroquois.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Re:first by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-02-19 05:40 · Score: 1

RIght. Because political opposition to Israeli oppression can ONLY be a symptom of "antisemitism". Therefore, Israel is benevolent and just, otherwise you are a RACIST.

Nice racket.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Re:first by Rakarra · 2014-02-19 08:04 · Score: 1

Which side in the conflict there won't even recognize the right of the other to exist, and openly calls for it to be literally "wiped off the map" - all but publicly calling for genocide?

Not that I'm any friend of Israel, but Ahmadinejad didn't claim Iran would wipe them off the map. The accurate translation was that "the regime which occupies Jerusalem would vanish from the pages of time." The mistranslation has been repeated endlessly by those who have an axe to grind.

A lie made to discredit Iran is the same as a lie made to discredit Israel: still a lie.

Re:They're atheists... by airdweller · 2014-02-19 08:12 · Score: 1

"An officially atheist (as opposed to simply secular) government is by definition suppressing religion."
Which you, of course, can corroborate with a link to Britannica or Merriam-Webster?

Re:They're atheists... by airdweller · 2014-02-19 08:13 · Score: 1

Nice job. Keep up the trolling.

Re:if only they had oil by RockDoctor · 2014-02-19 10:02 · Score: 1

We've spent 10 years trying to find it, but the political bullshit of trying to work there just became a waste of effort.

It's highly likely that they've got oil (they're along strike from large oilfields in the Gulf of Bohai in China) ; but it's a probable reserve, not a proven reserve.

What, you expected some bullshitty political response? Sorry, this is slashdot, not BETA.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"

Re:first by weweedmaniii · 2014-02-19 15:14 · Score: 1

South Korea. They have sunk a South Korean destroyer 46 sailors were killed & shelled a South Korean island 2 civilians & 2 ROK marines killed. The Korean People's Army crosses the DMZ on a nearly daily basis trying to goad the Republic of Korea Army into a firefight big enough to make the headlines. Usually only one or two a year are that big but firefights across the border are a nightly occurrence. Ask any US Army soldier to actually served in Area I.

--
"If stupid things work...then they are not stupid."

Re:first by stoatwblr · 2014-02-20 00:37 · Score: 1

China's support for the Norks is minor compared to russian support. The state was setup by Stalin in the first place.

Re:if only they had oil by zaroastra · 2014-02-20 06:01 · Score: 1

yeah, troll me to oblivion if you disagree!!! Thats gotta be for sure the answer to living in a dual standard society

--
I'm trying to get modded "Interesting Flamebait Informative and Insightful Redundant Troll" *-* Please Help *-*

Re:first by Uberbah · 2014-02-20 07:37 · Score: 1

I was commenting on your propaganda. Calling this a revolution instead of what it is, a proxy war, and acting as if Assad was the only bad guy.

Re:if only they had oil by zaroastra · 2014-02-27 16:06 · Score: 1

hi shill, how much are you payed to always jump on any comment that hints of USA government not being the best thing since sliced bread?
are you even for real, or do they have algorithms so powerfull that your propaganda is spewed automatically?

--
I'm trying to get modded "Interesting Flamebait Informative and Insightful Redundant Troll" *-* Please Help *-*

Slashdot Mirror

N. Korea Could Face Prosecution For 'Crimes Against Humanity'

214 of 325 comments (clear)