Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

N Korea marks 61st anniversary amid nuclear standoff

World Sep. 09, 2009 - 02:23PM JST ( 15 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

15 Comments

0

YGHomeSep. 09, 2009 - 05:16PM JST

There arises the question of what is lying beneath the nuclear standoff, and what is causing it. Are the sanctions imposed on North Korea aimed at bringing security to the region, or are they aimed at toppling the socialist regime in Korea?

If it were about bringing security to the region, the standoff would have been resolved six years ago, when the six-party talks opened. It is clear that America is anticipating that the socialist regime in Korea will collapse soon, and is taking all possible measures to make that happen. The UNSC sanctions are one of these measures, perhaps the primary one, but certainly not the only one.
0

KwaabishSep. 09, 2009 - 08:04PM JST

Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

Paradise, huh?

I didn't know the typical conditions at paradise included lack of heat and electricity along with rationing of food...

If that's the paradise they want, rack up the sanctions and bans on any and all aid to the troll nation.
0

OssanAmericaSep. 09, 2009 - 09:38PM JST

“The Korean people have confidently come close to the gate to a thriving socialist nation.”

What a joke of a country.
0

smithinjapanSep. 09, 2009 - 10:32PM JST

“The Korean people have confidently come close to the gate to a thriving socialist nation.”

Not even close. The only nation that ever TRULY came close was Cuba, and that was only due to the support of the USSR and other Communist nations. NK is truly the example of the worst of the worst in terms of 'Socialist' nations, and the best proof that TRUE Socialism can never be achieved.
0

techallSep. 09, 2009 - 11:03PM JST

the standoff would have been resolved six years ago, when the six-party talks opened.

Please remember Jimmy Carter went to KN during the Clinton administration and gave away the store. We (the west) gave KN fuel oil and food in return for them abandoning their nuclear ambitions. They never even slowed down their development of nukes, and even boasted about it when confronted by Bush.
0

YGHomeSep. 09, 2009 - 11:43PM JST

techall, North Korea abided by the agreement reached with Bill Clinton, which the congress did not ratify. Then George Bush came, with a different policy.

Smith, you might be right when you say that true socialism can never be achieved. But the reason for this is that external powers will never let socialism have the chance. The reason is not intrinsic.
0

techallSep. 10, 2009 - 12:11AM JST

@TGHome:

Hans Blix (head of the IAEA) was never able to varify that KN had stopped production of Nuclear Weapons grade material and repeatedly stated that he was denied access to the smaller (5 MW) reactor in KN where he believed the KNs were still processing uranium. The KN adimssion that they still had a nuclear program varified that belief. Come out of your shell.
0

OssanAmericaSep. 10, 2009 - 12:34AM JST

Smith, you might be right when you say that true socialism can never be >achieved. But the reason for this is that external powers will never let >socialism have the chance. The reason is not intrinsic.

I disagree. What "external power" has kept NKorea a socialist basket case from 1952 to the present? In Vietnam we certainly applied an undue amount of "external power" and yet they managed to become a "succesful" socialist country.
0

SuperLibSep. 10, 2009 - 01:56AM JST

KGHome: North Korea abided by the agreement reached with Bill Clinton, which the congress did not ratify. Then George Bush came, with a different policy.

Every policy has failed. Look at the situation under Obama. Better or worse? I don't really think North Korea responds to any kind of external stimuli. They just do what they want when they want no matter who is in the White House.
0

YGHomeSep. 10, 2009 - 04:33AM JST

It is not true that the North Koreans cannot reach and honor an agreement. It is true, however, that they insist on their rights. The basic question still stands as follows: Is the aim of the sanctions ensuring peace or toppling a political/social system?
0

SuperLibSep. 10, 2009 - 11:42AM JST

Well I think everyone in the world would like to see the North Korea regime toppled. His policies have lead to the death of more people than Iraq, Afghanistan, and Rwanda combined.

But failing that, I think people would be happy to see an agreement that brings NK into the "international fold," as they say. NK could really be toppled at any time since they survive on handouts from other countries just to survive. They don't need 6-party talks, nuclear agreements, etc. China and the West could simply stop sending aid and NK would topple before Christmas.
0

smithinjapanSep. 10, 2009 - 12:54PM JST

YGhome: "Smith, you might be right when you say that true socialism can never be achieved. But the reason for this is that external powers will never let socialism have the chance. The reason is not intrinsic."

While there are definitely a lot of external factors invovled in the failure to reach a truly Socialist country, there are plenty of intrinsic factors as well. Cambodia is a pretty good example of a Socialist Utopria that failed worse than any attempt in history, and that was almost entirely intrinsic. More to the point, by the very definition of Socialism you CANNOT have a government; it must be anarchy in the true sense of the word with no one representing anyone else. THAT is why it can never succeed. The minute you claim to want a Socialist nation and elect someone to govern, it's over -- that person quickly becomes corrupt, if not already, and while the poor way work away like peasants and be 'equal' to the neighbour, even they 'look after their own' and will fight for food, etc.

There will never be a successful Socialist nation for human beings.

SuperLib: "Well I think everyone in the world would like to see the North Korea regime toppled. His policies have lead to the death of more people than Iraq, Afghanistan, and Rwanda combined."

Any stats on your assumption? I'm not saying it's not possible; it just sounds like you're injection personal assumption into the debate. Also, I'm not sure everyone wants the regime 'toppled', which seems to indicate pressure or raw force, but I AM sure that most want the two Koreas to unify peacefully and under elected representation. I thought for a while they were seriously starting to make efforts towards that about 10 years ago, but then something went seriously wrong (worse than normal, I mean) about a year and half later.

I don't think you can honestly say one way or the other if things are better now under Obama than they were under the previous WH Admin. with 100% certainly. In a number of ways, they are: they have agreed with bilateral talks with Washington, and have recently resumed joint projects with the South, are sitting down to talks with the South, and have agreed to resume visitations between relatives who were separated during the war. On the other hand the NUCLEAR issue is at it's worst yet, but that didn't start after Obama was elected, either. It's called a 'stand off' for a reason. The most provocative actions have occurred since Obama took office (aside from the underground tests a while before GWB left), but I think most agree those were in large part to get the attention of the newly elected WH.

At any rate, I'm not disagreeing with you that every policy has failed. Some, however, have been far more devastating in their failure than others, and the latter at least made signs of progress before failing.
0

smithinjapanSep. 10, 2009 - 12:55PM JST

Ossan: "In Vietnam we certainly applied an undue amount of "external power" and yet they managed to become a "succesful" socialist country."

Agreed that external 'pressure' didn't work on Viet Nam in terms of invasion, etc. but they certainly are NOT a Socialist nation in practice, which is why they are growing as a Capitalist state. Same with China. They call themselves Socialist nations, but they failed in that department as has any other experiment into that realm.
0

WayneRooney10Sep. 11, 2009 - 12:35PM JST

Koreans must have the world's strongest shoulders,what with the chips they carry on em.