Thread: North korea cutting food rations by almost half

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

No doubt they will try and blame the US for this, conveniently ignoring NK's shameful history of starving its own people.

It Takes two to Tango

Originally Posted by Switch

Look at Iran, Lybia and Venezuela today and tell me that they are better off for such interventions.

Do you think Iran is better off for the regime change that put the beardy twats in charge of the country?

Do you think Libyans (or "lybians" to you I guess) were better off being bombed by their own ruler?

Do you think Venezuelans don't want food and medicine?

Do you think you should accuse anyone of having a small brain when you ask such dumb questions?

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

It Takes two to Tango

Yes, and a rolling stone gathers no moss.

WTF?

Originally Posted by Switch

Do try to keep up numb nuts. I know it’s a big world and you have a very small brain but ffs.

Thanks for your informative reply to my question.
Yes, it somehow escaped my notice that Western agencies have installed a new regime in Iran.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Do you think Iran is better off for the regime change that put the beardy twats in charge of the country?

Do you think Libyans (or "lybians" to you I guess) were better off being bombed by their own ruler?

Do you think Venezuelans don't want food and medicine?

Do you think you should accuse anyone of having a small brain when you ask such dumb questions?

Its really quite simple Harry. Consider the downside of enforced regime change, and the consequences, before ordering it. Consider other, singular or multiple options.
The western option to blitz the place and forcibly remove leaders, has not really covered itself in glory has it?
It has driven many who lost family to western incursion, to join terrorist organizations, turned thousands against the west and its policy of democratisation.
If a cull is the only option, all others have to be exhausted first, and the consequences understood and planned for.

Perhaps you’d prefer more deranged martyrs to a violent cause?

Originally Posted by stroller

Thanks for your informative reply to my question.
Yes, it somehow escaped my notice that Western agencies have installed a new regime in Iran.

Fuck off you spunk bubble troll.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

It Takes two to Tango

Are you having a pop at the orange one?

Get the nurse to wipe the spittle from the computer screen, other OEPs in the home want to use it after you finished and got tucked up in bed with clean nappies.

Originally Posted by Switch

Its really quite simple Harry. Consider the downside of enforced regime change, and the consequences, before ordering it. Consider other, singular or multiple options.
The western option to blitz the place and forcibly remove leaders, has not really covered itself in glory has it?
It has driven many who lost family to western incursion, to join terrorist organizations, turned thousands against the west and its policy of democratisation.
If a cull is the only option, all others have to be exhausted first, and the consequences understood and planned for.

Perhaps you’d prefer more deranged martyrs to a violent cause?

You gave three examples, one of them was just wrong, another a response to a dictator using military weapons against his own people and the third also where the people are in the shit without US intervention.

Now had you just stuck to Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd agree with you, but I think it takes a special kind of idiot to not know they were simply money making adventures with no real benefit to their populations (unless you're Shi'a, in which case they may offer you a different opinion of Saddam Hussein).

Basically you're just demonstrating that you really don't understand the subject matter.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

The situation in NK is the result of actions by those who for whatever reasons decided to live under a particular political/ economic system...

Oh, people decide to be born & live in North Korea?

I said "for whatever reason". For whatever reason they decided to go that political/economic direction, If that direction was the correct decision we will never know because it was never allowed to succeed or fail on its own merits .

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

You gave three examples, one of them was just wrong, another a response to a dictator using military weapons against his own people and the third also where the people are in the shit without US intervention.

Now had you just stuck to Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd agree with you, but I think it takes a special kind of idiot to not know they were simply money making adventures with no real benefit to their populations (unless you're Shi'a, in which case they may offer you a different opinion of Saddam Hussein).

Basically you're just demonstrating that you really don't understand the subject matter.

Iran is an excellent example of western interference. Sanctioned for trying to utilize nuclear power. Is it for military or domestic purposes? Where is the proof. Just becaus e you disagree with a particular regime .....
I would prefer to haggle over education and emancipation for women in exchange for independent nuclear inspections.

Originally Posted by stroller

Get the nurse to wipe the spittle from the computer screen, other OEPs in the home want to use it after you finished and got tucked up in bed with clean nappies.

You’d be well advised to stop plagiarizing butterfly’s pathetic and repetitive attempts at insults. Like everything else he claims expertise in, he shit at it.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

Action and reaction. The situation in NK is the result of actions by those who for whatever reasons decided to live under a particular political/ economic system and the reactions of an opposing political/economic system that views the success of any opposing system as an existential threat.
Thus "it takes two to tango ".

Ah, OK, you need it explaining.

No-one gave a shit about North Korea (except South Korea) until it started building nukes and threatened to use them (even if it is a ploy to get foreign cash).

The nukes are the existential threat, not the power structure in North Korea.

Originally Posted by Switch

Iran is an excellent example of western interference. Sanctioned for trying to utilize nuclear power. Is it for military or domestic purposes? Where is the proof. Just becaus e you disagree with a particular regime .....
I would prefer to haggle over education and emancipation for women in exchange for independent nuclear inspections.

Don't shift the goalposts fucknuts.

You were talking about REGIME CHANGE.

Unless there has been a military action in Iran that I don't know about - and that's frankly a bit fucking unlikely - then there has been no regime change.

And frankly the Iranians were doing quite well at maintaining sensible relations with the West - you can't call Baldy Orange Cunto the west, he's just a fucking imbecile who barks at any right wing dog that whistles at him.

Originally Posted by Switch

You’d be well advised to stop plagiarizing butterfly’s pathetic and repetitive attempts at insults. Like everything else he claims expertise in, he shit at it.

Nurse!
An Alzheimer patient is roaming the corridors after bed-time! Fixation needed.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Ah, OK, you need it explaining.

No-one gave a shit about North Korea (except South Korea) until it started building nukes and threatened to use them (even if it is a ploy to get foreign cash).

The nukes are the existential threat, not the power structure in North Korea.

IMO the only reason NK developed nuclear weapons was as as a deterrent to existential threats by the west. Personally and in the opinion of many analysts I don't believe they will ever give the up , having seen what happens to those who gave them up or did not have them. IMO the only way they will give them up will be if the Kim regime capitulates and sells out.

Nukes keep the merkin pests away, that is true.

Max Weber subliminal....

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

it was never allowed to succeed or fail on its own merits.

Perhaps you should double check the title of this thread. For whatever reason they're taking a citizenry surviving on very thin gruel, and cutting their portions in half. Maybe it just needs more time to prove its success.

Certainly a very cursory analysis below, but I hate long replies , si I am trying to pack a lot in a short reply.
I don't think it needs more time, I think it needs for outside forces to stop interfering.
But there are is a lot of money invested in a Capitalist system, such money will not , and has not allowed a competing system to succeed. I would set a bad president that others might try to emulate.
Since external regime change attempts have failed in the past, the west changed its approach and has tried to prompt internal regime change by starving the country through sanctions. With the development of NK nuclear weapons such approach is becoming very dangerous and the game is changing again ,a carrot is added to the stick arsenal. IMO expect to see a communist/capitalist hybrid China style system developing in NK where Kim will curb its nuclear show of power, and get fabulously wealthy in the proces. In the meantime the NK people are paying the price.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

IMO the only reason NK developed nuclear weapons was as as a deterrent to existential threats by the west.

Who gave a fuck about North Korea until they got nukes?

No-one. They were just a comedy country that occasionally popped up a "and finally" story for news bulletins.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

Certainly a very cursory analysis below, but I hate long replies , si I am trying to pack a lot in a short reply.
I don't think it needs more time, I think it needs for outside forces to stop interfering.
But there are is a lot of money invested in a Capitalist system, such money will not , and has not allowed a competing system to succeed. I would set a bad president that others might try to emulate.
Since external regime change attempts have failed in the past, the west changed its approach and has tried to prompt internal regime change by starving the country through sanctions. With the development of NK nuclear weapons such approach is becoming very dangerous and the game is changing again ,a carrot is added to the stick arsenal. IMO expect to see a communist/capitalist hybrid China style system developing in NK where Kim will curb its nuclear show of power, and get fabulously wealthy in the proces. In the meantime the NK people are paying the price.

Again: The Kim regime starved millions of people to death well before any sanctions came in. There was never any attempt at regime change.

In fact in the '94-'98 famine, the US gave North Korea more aid than anyone, including China.

The global community would rather North Korea opened up, regardless of who runs the country. It's just that the Kim family think that the only way to keep a grip on power is to cut it off from the outside world and tell everyone how nasty the rest are.

So as documented below The US has imposed sanctions since the 1950s, NK was never recognised by the US, NK was occupied by western forces, with the intent of its destruction, western forces were beaten back . an armistice was signed and the DNZ was established. but no peace treaty was ever signed the west being still technically in a state of war with NK. Based on this I would say that the west has being hostile to NK and its existence , and that Nk was not allowed to succeed or fail on its own merits.

The United States imposed sanctions in the 1950s and tightened them further after international bombings against South Korea by North Korean agents during the 1980s, including the Rangoon bombing and the bombing of Korean Air Flight 858. In 1988, the United States added North Korea to its list of state sponsors of terrorism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sancti...st_North_Korea
On September 9, 1948, Kim Il-sung declared the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; he promptly received diplomatic recognition from the Soviet Union, but not the United States. The U.S. did not extend, and has never extended, diplomatic recognition to the DPRK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_...ations#History
North Koreans had their closest encounter with the United States during the US/UN occupation of North Korea in the two months after the Inchon landing. With help from the ROK Army, the United States' military, under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, moved to set up a civil administration for North Korea in the wake of the presumed defeat of North Korea. MacArthur planned to find North Korean generals, especially Kim Il-Sung, and try them as war criminals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_...ations#History
The fighting ended on 27 July 1953, when an armistice was signed. The agreement created the Korean Demilitarized Zone to separate North and South Korea, and allowed the return of prisoners. However, no peace treaty was ever signed, and according to some sources the two Koreas are technically still at war,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War