Time for the World to face up to the truth of North Korea

[aerocontrols]

Never (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61886-2003Oct21.html)

Again (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110004200).


Right?

[Ziggurat]

That's pretty damn horrific. I'm wondering how long till someone like Malachi tries to pin the blame on US imperialist agression.

[aerocontrols]

It's my understanding that of the few thousand North Koreans who have managed to escape to a free country over the past few decades, those who have done so with outside aid have primarily been helped by fundamentalist Christian groups. One of the results of this is that most people who escape North Korea are Christians. (That's how the groups find people who are willing to escape, I understand)

Does anyone know of an atheist/humanist group who does similar work?

MattJ

Edit because no matter how many times I type it, I am forever typing atheist as athiest. It's "I before E, except after C" d#mm!t

[aerocontrols]

Here (http://www.hrnk.org/pr-oct2103.html) is where interested parties can find the full report.

[geni]

North korea makes Sadam's Iraq look like an improvement. Unfortunetly and Iraq style responce will result in parts of japan and south korea becomimng extreamly radioactive. for now at least the probelm seems intracterble

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
That's pretty damn horrific. I'm wondering how long till someone like Malachi tries to pin the blame on US imperialist agression.

You, of course, realize that the dialectic is infalible.

In otherwords, the more than 100 millions deaths in the last century directly attributable to "communist" governments -- Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kims and others -- are really, completely the fault of US imperialism.

Had it not been for adverse US influence on the world, barely a few 100,000 would have died. There would have been no Russian famine in the 20's, nor purges in the 30s. There would have been no Chinese famine in the 50s, nor cultural revolution in the 60s. And on and on....

Fortunately for the people of North Korea, the government is, at heart, humanistic and democratic. Once the pressures of US imperialism are removed, the people of North Korea will enjoy true democracy, and they will be able to export the blessings of their state and the Juche ideal to their oppressed brethern in the South (who only think they've thrown off the bonds of oppressive totalitarianism, but who continue to live in the horrors created by western colonialist and neo-Japanese domination.).

[headscratcher4]

PS: clearly, if you want the real truth about what is happening in North Korea, you should go to a reliable news source, not some simpering toties for US imperalism.

Try:

http://www.kcna.co.jp/

Unfiltered news doesn't come any more reliable (well, maybe with the exception of Fox News...:roll: )

[American]

We'll cream them. Don't worry about it.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by geni
North korea makes Sadam's Iraq look like an improvement. Unfortunetly and Iraq style responce will result in parts of japan and south korea becomimng extreamly radioactive. for now at least the probelm seems intracterble

An Iraq style response is not the only option open to us, is it?

How about making more efforts to smuggle out those who want out?

China reportedly has a couple of hundred thousand North Korean refugees. Well, they aren't officially recognized as refugees, because (I suppose) that would only encourage them.

Koreans: The refugees nobody wants (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/EI30Dg05.html).

The problem cannot perhaps be solved, but surely some of the people can be helped.

MattJ

[geni]

Trying to help thoes trying to leave is a good idea and should be doen where posible. Unfortunatly this is a bit remincant of putting sticking plaster aon a gaping wound. Something major nees to but done but the problem is what?

[geni]

Originally posted by American
We'll cream them. Don't worry about it.

I hope you don't have any friends living in Japan.
Sure the US would win without any real problems but the Korean peoples army is far better trained and equiped than its Iraq equivelent.

[Luke T.]

Before AUP has a chance, here is a link (http://www.iacenter.org/ktc_report10-2002.html) to the Korea Truth Commission. Lovely name, eh?


The 8th International Fact-Finding Mission of the Korea Truth Commission (KTC) visited the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) from October 19 to 26, 2002, as part of the ongoing work of the KTC to conduct a scientific investigation into massacres of civilians by the United States military during the time of the Korean War.

Take some time out to trace the connections this "truth" commission has. Start with it's mother web site, ieacenter, and go from there.

[headscratcher4]

Useful Animals Multiplied in DPRK
Pyongyang, October 21 (KCNA) -- Useful animals have been protected and multiplied in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Many stock farms in Pyongyang, North Phyongan and South Hwanghae provinces are breeding a large number of profitable animals such as pheasant and roe deer.
Stock farms in provinces, cities and counties set pheasants and roe deer free in mountains and fields during the autumn general mobilization period for land management every year.
Recently the North Hwanghae Province released some 10,000 pheasants and North Phyongan Province thousands of pheasants in mountains and fields.
The pheasants and roe deer released in North Hwanghae Province over the past 26 years total more than 215,000.
The government has taken steps to plant many trees in places good for useful animals to live in and provide conditions favorable for their inhabitation.
Great efforts are being directed to a solution to scientific and technical issues arising in breeding and multiplying pheasants and roe deer.

____

See...they can't be all bad...they want to multiply pheasants and cute little roe deer....

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


You, of course, realize that the dialectic is infalible.

In otherwords, the more than 100 millions deaths in the last century directly attributable to "communist" governments -- Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kims and others -- are really, completely the fault of US imperialism.

Had it not been for adverse US influence on the world, barely a few 100,000 would have died. There would have been no Russian famine in the 20's, nor purges in the 30s. There would have been no Chinese famine in the 50s, nor cultural revolution in the 60s. And on and on....

Fortunately for the people of North Korea, the government is, at heart, humanistic and democratic. Once the pressures of US imperialism are removed, the people of North Korea will enjoy true democracy, and they will be able to export the blessings of their state and the Juche ideal to their oppressed brethern in the South (who only think they've thrown off the bonds of oppressive totalitarianism, but who continue to live in the horrors created by western colonialist and neo-Japanese domination.).

Hi Headscratcher.
You left out the other component of true believers like Malachi.
When these regimes collapse and are shown to be hell holes, it doesn't really matter.
The excuse is always used: "That wasn't real Marxism or Communism."
Of course it is a tad odd that EVERY single country that claims to be communism isn't.

As far as Matt's point, I wouldn't hold my breath for those warriors on the left to say a word about North Korea. It doesn't have the same cache as crying crocidile tears over US or Israeli impearilism. There is no radical chic involved.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Luke T.

Take some time out to trace the connections this "truth" commission has. Start with it's mother web site, ieacenter, and go from there.

That's pretty choice. I particularly like their quest to get Milosevic freed.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Hi Headscratcher.
You left out the other component of true believers like Malachi.
When these regimes collapse and are shown to be hell holes, it doesn't really matter.
The excuse is always used: "That wasn't real Marxism or Communism."
Of course it is a tad odd that EVERY single country that claims to be communism isn't.

As far as Matt's point, I wouldn't hold my breath for those warriors on the left to say a word about North Korea. It doesn't have the same cache as crying crocidile tears over US or Israeli impearilism. There is no radical chic involved.

This is because, as you noted, no true "communist" could ever be involved in deciet, torture, oppression, etc. All of the millions of deaths are caused by systematic aborations, rather than a fundumental flaw in either Marxism, its analysis, or how it has been adapted.

Where as the Western democratic system is completely premised on flaws, deciet, oppression, etc. It is a wonder that it hasn't systematically killed more people than it has.

What I don't get about our friends the hard core Marxist is this:

If you were an engineer building airplanes, and every model you biult -- and you've built a lot -- crashed and burned because of intrinsic flaws either in the design or the production, you would scrap the methodology and either try to build airplanes in a comletely different way, or get out of the airplane deisign business altogether.

However, our friend like Malachi, keep building the same airplane, watch it crash, and than say, Ah, it was an imperfect airplane, but the pilot was bad, the manufacture was bad, the parts were deffective...but certainly not the design. Methinks it is time to look at the design....

[Kodiak]

You dunderheads!...

a_u_p and Malachi et. al. are of course waiting until the U.S. takes definitive action of one sort or the other so they can criticize after the fact and with 20/20 hindsight.

They'll come out of hiding the first time a civilian casualty can be attributed to U.S. actions.

[dsm]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

An Iraq style response is not the only option open to us, is it?


Hmmm. Perhaps Bush can talk his UN friends into getting involved while he's pressing them for money to help in Iraq.

:roll:


How about making more efforts to smuggle out those who want out?


Your proposal on how? :confused:


The problem cannot perhaps be solved, but surely some of the people can be helped.


Help from non-governmental entities will always be looked at as "not enough". Help from governmental entities will be looked at as "an act of war".

:(

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by headscratcher4

However, our friend like Malachi, keep building the same airplane, watch it crash, and than say, Ah, it was an imperfect airplane, but the pilot was bad, the manufacture was bad, the parts were deffective...but certainly not the design. Methinks it is time to look at the design....

Don't forget the weather (ie, American imperialist pressure)! :o

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by dsm


Hmmm. Perhaps Bush can talk his UN friends into getting involved while he's pressing them for money to help in Iraq.

:roll:


I don't see why he would bother. Starving and/or oppressed people in North Korea are not a US security issue.


Originally posted by dsm
Your proposal on how? :confused:

The Christians manage to smuggle people out. Assuming they aren't doing it through the power of prayer, it must be possible for others as well.

One thing that the North Koreans lack is access to news about what is going on outside. I wonder how much it would cost to launch 10,000 helium balloons with Korean-language pamphlets from upwind of the country once a week or so. (weighted so that the majority would fall into the country)

Originally posted by dsm
Help from non-governmental entities will always be looked at as "not enough". Help from governmental entities will be looked at as "an act of war".

:(

Not all help from governments can be labelled as "an act of war". Governmental pressure on China to classify their couple-hundred thousand refugees as refugees certainly wouldn't be. Government money spent on making their lives better wouldn't be. Pressuring South Korea to allow more North Koreans into the country (only about 1300 have been allowed in in recent decades) would not be.

There are all kinds of things short of war that could be done.

I am also asking here if there are any atheist groups (or even just non-religious groups) that have as a mission smuggling out people who want out.

Seems not.

MattJ

[subgenius]

I can't imagine anyone coming up with an apology for the nightmare hellhole that is North Korea. But maybe I'll be surprised.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius
I can't imagine anyone coming up with an apology for the nightmare hellhole that is North Korea. But maybe I'll be surprised.

Unlike (it seems) some here, I am not trying to bait people I think might be likely NK apologists into doing so. I can't see what good that could do anyone.

I am, rather, looking for people's ideas on what steps could legitimately be taken so that 'never again' becomes more than something we say to alleviate collective guilt for our governments' lack of action in prior genocides.

MattJ

[subgenius]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Unlike (it seems) some here, I am not trying to bait people I think might be likely NK apologists into doing so. I can't see what good that could do anyone.

I am, rather, looking for people's ideas on what steps could legitimately be taken so that 'never again' becomes more than something we say to alleviate collective guilt for our government's lack of action in prior genocides.

MattJ
Nice sentiment.
This is a human tragedy of incomprehensible proportion.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by subgenius
I can't imagine anyone coming up with an apology for the nightmare hellhole that is North Korea. But maybe I'll be surprised.

Where have you been the last weeks? Didn´t you read Huzington/Fraeybol´s thread on Kim Jong Il "the genius"?

[c0rbin]

I wonder how much it would cost to launch 10,000 helium balloons with Korean-language pamphlets from upwind of the country once a week or so. (weighted so that the majority would fall into the country)


The cost would probably be a couple hundered executions. Just guessing, but I bet that those pamphlets would be a death sentence for anyone caught reding one.

Enslaved starving people do not make very good insurgents, unfortunately.

The fate of these people is in the indifferent hands of the rest of the world.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Chaos


Where have you been the last weeks? Didn´t you read Huzington/Fraeybol´s thread on Kim Jong Il "the genius"? Yeah, where is that guy? He disappeared outa here faster 'n a rat up a drainpipe. Came along with a thread, repeating without critical comment all kinds of fantasy-land looney-tunes propoganda about the great achievements of Kim the Killer the Younger, and then, under blistering attack, claimed he wasn't here to defend him. What a card. We need him now.

One of the claims was that Kim wrote 1500 books while at University. I'm beginning to think all those books were about how to put your whole country into prison camps. That might be a legitimate claim.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by c0rbin


The cost would probably be a couple hundered executions. Just guessing, but I bet that those pamphlets would be a death sentence for anyone caught reding one.

Enslaved starving people do not make very good insurgents, unfortunately.

The fate of these people is in the indifferent hands of the rest of the world.

It's not quite that bad in NK yet. There was an article in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago by a North Korean dissident who described his reasons for escaping.

Basically he was a party official whose job took him into China occassionally, and on one trip he managed to smuggle back in a radio. Someone informed on him, and he escaped. He describes his threat of punishment (roughly) this way:

Caught with a radio, I could expect to be imprisoned for the rest of my life. If I was just a farmer, perhaps only one or two years would have been enough. An official like me they would make an example out of.

bleh... I quit relying on memory here and chose to just found the story instead. From MSNBC.com:

Han, a Communist Party official in North Korea, was walking home from work when he heard he was in trouble. He had smuggled a radio back from China after an official trip. He listened to it late at night, huddled with earphones on and shades drawn, to hear music that brought him a whisper of sanity and took him away from the horrors of his day.

NOW, someone had found it, or someone had told.

“It could have been my children who said something outside. It could have been my friend; one knew,” said Han, 39, who spoke on condition he be identified only by his surname.

“If a farmer or laborer had a radio, he could have been released,” Han said. “But I was an official. In my case, it would have been torture and a life sentence in a political prisoners’ camp.”


I guess i remembered (http://msnbc.com/news/975847.asp?0sl=-41) the story pretty well. From the byline I suppose I probably read it at the Washpost website originally.

MattJ

[dsm]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

I don't see why he would bother. Starving and/or oppressed people in North Korea are not a US security issue.


But starving and oppressed people in Iraq were? :confused:


The Christians manage to smuggle people out. Assuming they aren't doing it through the power of prayer, it must be possible for others as well.


In small numbers, it's always possible. But would that solve anything?


One thing that the North Koreans lack is access to news about what is going on outside. I wonder how much it would cost to launch 10,000 helium balloons with Korean-language pamphlets from upwind of the country once a week or so. (weighted so that the majority would fall into the country)


Would that be viewed as "an act of war" by the NK government? For that reason, independent parties are unlikely to try it and government entities would be very wary (but it might fall under US Dept. of State International Information Agency).


Not all help from governments can be labelled as "an act of war". Governmental pressure on China to classify their couple-hundred thousand refugees as refugees certainly wouldn't be. Government money spent on making their lives better wouldn't be. Pressuring South Korea to allow more North Koreans into the country (only about 1300 have been allowed in in recent decades) would not be.

There are all kinds of things short of war that could be done.


The last one is, I think, problematic and, thus, the reason that SK hasn't allowed more NKers in.


I am also asking here if there are any atheist groups (or even just non-religious groups) that have as a mission smuggling out people who want out.


United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (http://www.unhcr.ch)
Immigration and Refugee Services of America (http://www.refugeesusa.org)

There are probably others. Naturally, they are not going to "say" that they smuggle people out as that would attract unwanted attention. With respect to religious groups, if they do do smuggling, they have an "in" that non-religious groups don't (ie. they are bringing religion to the masses).

[Tony]

North Korea is a shining example of why it is important to remain vigilant against the tyrannical left.

[headscratcher4]

Areo: here is one suggestion. Give in.

Seriously, we should give in. Not in terms of sacrificing or abandoning South Korea, so long as the SK government wants us there, rather, sign a non-aggression pact. Trade. Invite delegations. Play sports.

My belief is that the more North Koreans know about the rest of the world, even if it is whispered rummors from returning atheletes, the better chance they have at undermining their system themselves.

Russia failed, ultimately, because it couldn't keep up, and more and more of its elites knew it couldn't keep up.

NK has them barricaded in, and their ability to see beyond the wall is minimal.

We can't bomb them into submission.

However, the bottom line is that -- with the exception of South Korea -- the North can never be more than a passing threat to the US. Even if they have the bomb and managed to get one lobbed into the US (Stalin had the bomb and never tried it, is Kim crazier than Stalin? Mao? I don't think so), they know they would be completely wipped out.

I say give in. Give them everything materially they want...demand only that they trade.

I also think this is how you bring down Castro.


Impractical, I know, but I do believe this to a large extent.

[Skeptic]

You dunderheads!...

a_u_p and Malachi et. al. are of course waiting until the U.S. takes definitive action of one sort or the other so they can criticize after the fact and with 20/20 hindsight.

They'll come out of hiding the first time a civilian casualty can be attributed to U.S. actions.

Well, that's their usual MODUS OPERANDI, as I wrote in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27123&highlight=blood+AND+imperialistic) ...

[Tony]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Areo: here is one suggestion. Give in.

Seriously, we should give in. Not in terms of sacrificing or abandoning South Korea, so long as the SK government wants us there, rather, sign a non-aggression pact. Trade. Invite delegations. Play sports.

My belief is that the more North Koreans know about the rest of the world, even if it is whispered rummors from returning atheletes, the better chance they have at undermining their system themselves.

Russia failed, ultimately, because it couldn't keep up, and more and more of its elites knew it couldn't keep up.

NK has them barricaded in, and their ability to see beyond the wall is minimal.

We can't bomb them into submission.

However, the bottom line is that -- with the exception of South Korea -- the North can never be more than a passing threat to the US. Even if they have the bomb and managed to get one lobbed into the US (Stalin had the bomb and never tried it, is Kim crazier than Stalin? Mao? I don't think so), they know they would be completely wipped out.

I say give in. Give them everything materially they want...demand only that they trade.

I also think this is how you bring down Castro.


Impractical, I know, but I do believe this to a large extent.


I agree. However, what are your thoughts on using the same strategy in the muslim world?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by dsm
But starving and oppressed people in Iraq were? :confused:

Yeah. Did you pay any attention to Osama Bin Laden's stated reasons for crashing airplanes into office buildings?

Originally posted by dsm
In small numbers, it's always possible. But would that solve anything?

I repeat what I said earlier: The problem cannot perhaps be solved, but surely some of the people can be helped.

Originally posted by dsm
Would that be viewed as "an act of war" by the NK government? For that reason, independent parties are unlikely to try it and government entities would be very wary (but it might fall under US Dept. of State International Information Agency).

I can't see how it could be viewed as an act of war by any definition. Is the international community so weak that even this small act would be beyond it?

Originally posted by dsm
The last one is, I think, problematic and, thus, the reason that SK hasn't allowed more NKers in.

I don't know what you mean by that statement.

Originally posted by dsm
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (http://www.unhcr.ch)
Immigration and Refugee Services of America (http://www.refugeesusa.org)

There are probably others. Naturally, they are not going to "say" that they smuggle people out as that would attract unwanted attention. With respect to religious groups, if they do do smuggling, they have an "in" that non-religious groups don't (ie. they are bringing religion to the masses).

The second link has but once instance of the word "Korea" on their website.

UNHCR can do little about the vast majority of North Koreans who have fled until China allows them to be recognized as refugees.

The primary advantage the Christian groups (not 'religious' groups, as I'm not aware of any other religions engaging in this activity) have is that their churches in North Korea already function as an underground network, it would seem.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Areo: here is one suggestion. Give in.

Seriously, we should give in. Not in terms of sacrificing or abandoning South Korea, so long as the SK government wants us there, rather, sign a non-aggression pact. Trade. Invite delegations. Play sports.

Well, it's certainly an idea. I think it's far too late for this option.

What would we buy from them that they don't need desperately? Missile technology?

We could quadruple our aid package to them, but that wouldn't give us any more opportunities to interact with them, would it?

I think the best argument against your approach is the idea that it rewards bad behavior. Once they see that the worse they are, the more concessions they get, then worser and worser is what they'll get, isn't it? What stops them from taking everything we'll give them and demanding more?

I support signing a non-agression pact, but I don't support to giving in to their 'divide and conquer' strategy where it's just a US/NK pact, and none of our allies have any stake in the negotiations, or holding NK to the terms of the pact.

aerocontrols

[dsm]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

Yeah. Did you pay any attention to Osama Bin Laden's stated reasons for crashing airplanes into office buildings?


Uhh, enlighten me. I'm not sure what you mean here.


I repeat what I said earlier: The problem cannot perhaps be solved, but surely some of the people can be helped.


If you're looking to help a lot of people, then you've got to explore the notion of "solving the problem". If you're only looking to help a few people, then you're not going to find the answer on the Internet as it's probably being done surreptitiously.


I can't see how it could be viewed as an act of war by any definition. Is the international community so weak that even this small act would be beyond it?


I don't understand the relationship of your first sentence to your second. It is likely that NK would view the actions of people attempting to illegally leave the country as criminal and the actions of other nations that help in that as a potential act of war. The nuclear threat then comes into play.

[Scott]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Seriously, we should give in. Not in terms of sacrificing or abandoning South Korea, so long as the SK government wants us there, rather, sign a non-aggression pact. Trade. Invite delegations. Play sports.

I can get with international relations and such, but do you honestly think the NKs would abide by any pact they signed?

If you do, what have they done to make you think they would?

Wouldn't this lead to everyone else thinking they could threaten us into giving in? Iran, Lybia, Syria, Pakistan, India, Russia, France, the former Soviet states... "Hey, look, all we've got to do is tell them we've got nukes and aren't afraid to use them!"

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Unlike (it seems) some here, I am not trying to bait people I think might be likely NK apologists into doing so. I can't see what good that could do anyone.

I am, rather, looking for people's ideas on what steps could legitimately be taken so that 'never again' becomes more than something we say to alleviate collective guilt for our governments' lack of action in prior genocides.

MattJ

It is a very good question, and my answer probably won't please you, since I think the UN is the only way to go in the long term. It is not a perfect solution, by any means, but, like democracy, is the best one that we have come up with yet.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
You dunderheads!...

a_u_p and Malachi et. al. are of course waiting until the U.S. takes definitive action of one sort or the other so they can criticize after the fact and with 20/20 hindsight.

They'll come out of hiding the first time a civilian casualty can be attributed to U.S. actions.

Well, that's their usual MODUS OPERANDI, as I wrote in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27123&highlight=blood+AND+imperialistic) ...

Wrong again, Skeptic, I blame Israel.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by dsm
Uhh, enlighten me. I'm not sure what you mean here.

Osama Bin Laden (http://www.anusha.com/osamaint.htm), 1997:

We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical...

A reaction might take place as a result of US government's hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600 thousand Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them.

Osama Bin Laden (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/05/binladen.transcript/index.html), Oct. 2001

More than 1 million children, more than 1 million children died in Iraq and others are still dying.

We were keeping Hussein 'in a box' with 2 strategies: Sanctions and enforcement of the No-Fly zones. Now that Hussein is not the ruler of Iraq, sanctions are ended, and we no longer have troops in 'the land of the two holy places'.

Originally posted by dsm
I don't understand the relationship of your first sentence to your second. It is likely that NK would view the actions of people attempting to illegally leave the country as criminal and the actions of other nations that help in that as a potential act of war. The nuclear threat then comes into play.

My mistake. The response was meant to indicate more of a way we could help the North Koreans generally, not a way to help them escape.

Idea from here (http://www.freenorthkorea.net/archives/freenorthkorea/000638.html#more)

I respectfully disagree that seeking to alleviate rather than solve the problem is a waste of time.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


It is a very good question, and my answer probably won't please you, since I think the UN is the only way to go in the long term. It is not a perfect solution, by any means, but, like democracy, is the best one that we have come up with yet.

If your answer is less than pleasing, it's only because you haven't offered one. Care to be more specific?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Does anyone know of an atheist/humanist group who does similar work?
Amnesty International.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Amnesty International.

I noticed about 2 weeks ago while looking at Amnesty's site that the page where they store their 2003 report on North Korea gets the country's name wrong (http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/prk-summary-eng). I think they're busy with other countries or something.

Searching their website for results on the word 'Korea' results in 25 documents -- 24 of these documents detail human rights abuses in South Korea. The sole document I find on North Korea is their 2003 report, which is about 1 1/3 pages.

Amnesty is guilty of 'searching under the streetlight'. They expend their resources aiding others, I suspect. I don't take them seriously as an organization that considers North Korea a priority.

MattJ

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


It is a very good question, and my answer probably won't please you, since I think the UN is the only way to go in the long term. It is not a perfect solution, by any means, but, like democracy, is the best one that we have come up with yet.

Therefore you are content with and support the creation of the state of Isreal, right?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Ed


Therefore you are content with and support the creation of the state of Isreal, right?

Nononono, THAT democracy must be destroyed so the "liberated palestinians" could settle into the usual arab kleptocratic dictatorship in its place.

[aerocontrols]

Ed, Skeptic, AUP...

If you don't mind, could we avoid talking about Israel and Palestine in this thread?

MattJ

[Graham]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
It's my understanding that of the few thousand North Koreans who have managed to escape to a free country over the past few decades, those who have done so with outside aid have primarily been helped by fundamentalist Christian groups. One of the results of this is that most people who escape North Korea are Christians. (That's how the groups find people who are willing to escape, I understand)

Does anyone know of an atheist/humanist group who does similar work?

MattJ


You know, I've been thinking about this all day and I have to say I object to the insinuation that we should be less critical of Religious groups because they do so much more for the world than atheists/humanists do.

Three points:

1) There are a hell of a lot more theists of one sort or another than atheists. Assuming an otherwise level playing field, the number of religious people involved in altruistic activities is going to be that much higher too.

2) A Christian, for example, founding a charity, almost invariably calls it a "Christian Charity" whereas it seems unlikely that an atheist/humanist orgainisation would market themselves as an "Atheist Charity", if for no better reason than that it would probably have a negative effect on their donation income. for an atheist, charity is about being charitable, for many (not all) religious people, charity is about being holy or serving God or whatever.

3) Religious charities are often offshoots of existing churches or congregations. This gives them a head start when it comes to fundraising, support, etc. It also gives an opportunity to meet with like-minded people, which encourages the formation of orgainisations like charities. Partially becasue of (1), above, Atheists/humanists tend not to belong to "Atheist groups" and therefore live sad and lonely lives . . . just kidding, they tend not to form orgainisations so easily.

Anyway, that's my little OT rant for the day . . . carry on.

Graham

[Ed]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Ed, Skeptic, AUP...

If you don't mind, could we avoid talking about Israel and Palestine in this thread?

MattJ


Ok, ok, ok ... Let me just get it out of my system:


IT'S THE JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS

Thank you, I'm done now.

:D

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Scott


I can get with international relations and such, but do you honestly think the NKs would abide by any pact they signed?

If you do, what have they done to make you think they would?

Wouldn't this lead to everyone else thinking they could threaten us into giving in? Iran, Lybia, Syria, Pakistan, India, Russia, France, the former Soviet states... "Hey, look, all we've got to do is tell them we've got nukes and aren't afraid to use them!"

All fair points, as are the objections raised by Aero.

Clearly, I don't know the answer. I do think, regardless of what we do with North Korea, we (the West, for I think these are issues beyond just US interest) face the same questions with all of the countries you mentione. First, India, Pakistan, Russia, France (and some of the former Soviet States?) are already nuclear powers, as is China. The lesson that the cold war taught democracies and dictators alike is: if you want a seat at the world table, if you want to be heard: go nuclear.

It is getting easier, not harder to do so.

Why should any of those countries forgo the nuclear option, regardless of what happens to N. Korea?

I believe, and it may not be provable in the case of North Korea, that exposure to the world -- "globalization" as it were -- generally can not but help undermine dictators. I suggest in the muslim world that, while they "hate" the West and its influences, that in part stems from the fact that exposure to the world, and the indiffernece of their governments to liberty, is part of what inflames the Muslim world.

In other words, Muslims see us in the west talking about Democracy, exporting Britany Spears and supporting repressive regimes. No wonder they doubt our word (not to mention the whole middle east conflict).

In any event, I don't think these regimes can stand information. Again, for example, our policy in Cuba is simply wrong. It is a different kind of regime from N. Korea, already more open, but Americans and Cuban Americans engaging with Cuba, bringing tourist dollars and CNN and Maxim magazine to the island, with Tee-Shirt sales and cruise ship stop overs, would cause the regime to fall in just a short time. Can't prove it, just believe it.

So, anyway, back to NK. Check out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/19/magazine/19KOREA.html

in last Sunday's NYTimes (you may have to register). It is an interesting article. It does little to suggest that resolution will be easy, for it suggests that the West and the US in particular, has underestimated Kim's intelligence and political cunning, if not his brutality.

Clearly, this is a man who doesn't want to end up against a wall, like the Rumanians, or on the dust-bin of history like Gorbachev.

But, he may be smart enough to recognize that his state is in serious trouble, and the nuclear option and saber rattling is all he has. He knows he would be wipped out if he did anything....

I am also concerned that we (the US) is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the South Koreans. We are no longer being seen as the protectors by large numbers of younger Koreans, but rather the reason the nation is seperated. They've lived a relatively good and successful life the last 20 years, they really can't imagine the horror show to the North, or the brutality and inflexibility of the regime. To Kim's credit, he capitalizes on Korean nationalism and presents himself as a leader of all the people.

I also keep thinking that the Chinese don't want to have a nuclear power on their southern border, yet their actions have been mystifying to me...I would have thought they would have supported the regime with food, etc. but demanded that they not go nuclear. So...maybe they will, but it hasn't happened yet.

Other than giving in, I guess that the only other alternative is to be strict. Far stricter, in fact than Bush has been. Bush, because he is a unilateralist, has already blown it. What you need is a coalition of interested parties willing to shut down all support and access to North Korea. Bush can't get cooperation from key players like China or even South Korea. They don't trust him. THey don't think he understands the situation. THey don't think that he will act in concert, but believe that the US will act rashly and unilaterally -- and they've got proof in other parts of the world.

Just rambeling and thinking out loud here...

[c0rbin]

Keep it up, scratcher. I, for one, am always interested in your ramblings.

[Larspeart]

Okay, I know that most people on thsi board are atheist to some degree, but. . .

How can one spin a christian group (fundamentalist or otherwise) saving people from a N. Korean hell into a bad thing?

Be at least as 'open-minded' as the groups you make fun of! Sheesh!


The North Korean propaganda is as intense as any I have ever seen or read about. I can't think of another country that drips with so much party-line progagandic BS as N. Korea.

A war with N. Korea (god help us) would be different then any other war ever fought, in that the only way to decide to attack them would be to disregard immediately civilian life wholesale. Within 3 minutes of an attack (or a paranoid perceived attack) on N. Korea, South Korea would be leveled by the 15,000+ artillery pieces they have aimed at their major cities.

THEN, they are believed to have at least 1-2 nukes, and I have no doubt that Kim would use them. Perhaps one on S. Korea, and one on Japan.

I would hate to be inthe position of anyone who would haveto make the call on attacking Korea; not because they are better, stronger, or bigger then anyone (the USA), but because they are crazy enough to do what no one else would. . . annihilate everything around them, incuding themselves out of 'principal'.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Larspeart
How can one spin a christian group (fundamentalist or otherwise) saving people from a N. Korean hell into a bad thing?

Be at least as 'open-minded' as the groups you make fun of! Sheesh!


Who here has attempted to spin their efforts as a bad thing? What I am trying to do is convince non-Christians that we should do likewise.

MattJ

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Larspeart

A war with N. Korea (god help us) would be different then any other war ever fought, in that the only way to decide to attack them would be to disregard immediately civilian life wholesale. Within 3 minutes of an attack (or a paranoid perceived attack) on N. Korea, South Korea would be leveled by the 15,000+ artillery pieces they have aimed at their major cities.


A significant first strike under cover of darkness by air could eliminate a significant amount of this firepower. So I don't think we'd be talking about leveling S. Korea, but there would still be heavy civilian casualties, yes.

I'm also left wondering how much of that artillery power is really functional (the equipment is kept in working condition, with full stocks of ammunition, and staffed by properly trained soldiers), or whether some of it isn't maybe a paper tiger, akin to their fake towns that they put up across the border to try to impress the south koreans.


THEN, they are believed to have at least 1-2 nukes, and I have no doubt that Kim would use them. Perhaps one on S. Korea, and one on Japan.


It's not clear that they have nukes ready, and it's not clear to me that the nukes they can build are small enough to fit on their balistic missiles - anybody got info on that? If they can only send the nuke by bomber, they'd have a damn hard time getting one to Japan, and not that great a shot at getting it over any large South Korean population center either.


I would hate to be inthe position of anyone who would haveto make the call on attacking Korea; not because they are better, stronger, or bigger then anyone (the USA), but because they are crazy enough to do what no one else would. . . annihilate everything around them, incuding themselves out of 'principal'.

I'm with you on that point. Crazy bastards.

[Chaos]

It's not clear that they have nukes ready, and it's not clear to me that the nukes they can build are small enough to fit on their balistic missiles - anybody got info on that? If they can only send the nuke by bomber, they'd have a damn hard time getting one to Japan, and not that great a shot at getting it over any large South Korean population center either.

Seoul is not far from the border - I think 10 miles or so. Most artillery guns or rocket launchers can cover that distance; I think even some heavy mortars can.

And there is the possibility of dropping the Bomb as a normal, unguided bomb by ballistic attack, that is, climb steeply to give the bomb forward and upward momentum, and then release it; I read once that the USAF had planned to use A-Bomb like that in the event of WW3. Nuclear-capable bombers aren´t the big, clumsy B-29 any more; I think most fighter aircraft could carry an A-Bomb.
Is anybody here who knows from how far away you could drop such a bomb? Accuracy is not much an issue - Seoul would be hard to miss, I suppose.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Chaos


Seoul is not far from the border - I think 10 miles or so. Most artillery guns or rocket launchers can cover that distance; I think even some heavy mortars can.

And there is the possibility of dropping the Bomb as a normal, unguided bomb by ballistic attack, that is, climb steeply to give the bomb forward and upward momentum, and then release it; I read once that the USAF had planned to use A-Bomb like that in the event of WW3. Nuclear-capable bombers aren´t the big, clumsy B-29 any more; I think most fighter aircraft could carry an A-Bomb.
Is anybody here who knows from how far away you could drop such a bomb? Accuracy is not much an issue - Seoul would be hard to miss, I suppose.

I suspect that the tactic you describe would be unlikely to get past South Korea's modern air defenses. The US uses it sometimes when launching JDAMs against semi-formidable air defenses. It's called a 'loft' trajectory.

Are you suggesting that a fighter can lift more than one of N. Korea's ballistic missiles? I suspect that ballistic missile payloads are larger than MiG payloads, and N. Korea's nukes (if they actually have any) are larger still.

A big bomber is what they are likely to need, given the likely size of their bomb.

MattJ

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Chaos

And there is the possibility of dropping the Bomb as a normal, unguided bomb by ballistic attack, that is, climb steeply to give the bomb forward and upward momentum, and then release it; I read once that the USAF had planned to use A-Bomb like that in the event of WW3. Nuclear-capable bombers aren´t the big, clumsy B-29 any more; I think most fighter aircraft could carry an A-Bomb.
Is anybody here who knows from how far away you could drop such a bomb? Accuracy is not much an issue - Seoul would be hard to miss, I suppose.

If it's only coming down as an unguided, unpropelled ballistic, it could be brought down by stuff like Patriot missiles or other antiaircraft missiles. And while US nuclear weapons can be carried by fighter planes, the north koreans are probably dealing with a much heavier design. I'm sure their fighters can carry more than WW2 fighters, but their bomb design probably isn't much lighter or smaller than our WW2 nukes. I'm no expert on this so I don't want to make any claims, but it seems quite possible that their fighter planes might not be able to carry their nukes. Not to say that South Korea would be safe, rather that the North Koreans don't actually have a sure shot at hitting them with a nuke (though that's not a chance one would relish taking).

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


If it's only coming down...

Beat ya to it ;)

[Chaos]

I don´t know how massive their bombs are, or what fighters the NKPA has (my best guess is MiG-21 or -23, that would be 60´s/70´s-era Russian equipment, or perhaps the Chinese copy of these)

According to "Every Man a Tiger" (Tom Clancy, with ret. Air Force General Chuck Horner as co-author) that plan I mentioned employed single- or double-seater fighters of that era - I guess that, as far as size and payload are concerned, they are quite equivalent to a MiG-21.

Also, I have no idea about the payload of North Korean missiles.

It should at least be feasible as a last-ditch plan - strap the bomb, already armed, to an aircraft, carry it as far as possible and release it before being shot down. As I said, it´s a short way from the border to Seoul.

[bangdazap]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I noticed about 2 weeks ago while looking at Amnesty's site that the page where they store their 2003 report on North Korea gets the country's name wrong (http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/prk-summary-eng). I think they're busy with other countries or something.

Searching their website for results on the word 'Korea' results in 25 documents -- 24 of these documents detail human rights abuses in South Korea. The sole document I find on North Korea is their 2003 report, which is about 1 1/3 pages.

Amnesty is guilty of 'searching under the streetlight'. They expend their resources aiding others, I suspect. I don't take them seriously as an organization that considers North Korea a priority.

MattJ
You didn't even bother to read the page you've linked to, did you? If you had then maybe you would have seen what it says under the heading "Denial of Access".
The reason AI doesn't have as many reports on right abuses in North Korea is because they simply aren't allowed in by one of the most closed dictarships on earth (and maybe I have to tell you why people in NK can't tell AI about abuses either?).

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by bangdazap

You didn't even bother to read the page you've linked to, did you? If you had then maybe you would have seen what it says under the heading "Denial of Access".
The reason AI doesn't have as many reports on right abuses in North Korea is because they simply aren't allowed in by one of the most closed dictarships on earth (and maybe I have to tell you why people in NK can't tell AI about abuses either?).

Yes, I did read it. I'm fully aware of the reasons why Amnesty finds it difficult to report on North Korea. And now I search for a different organization that is less daunted by these obstacles.

It seems clear to me that if I want to help North Koreans, Amnesty is not an organization I should turn to. The U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea seems to be able to bring to attention details that Amnesty (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/23/wkor23.xml) can't because of "Denial of Access".

From the discussion here, while that organization isn't in the business of smuggling people out or smuggling information in, they're probably the best organization to support for this purpose.

MattJ

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by subgenius
I can't imagine anyone coming up with an apology for the nightmare hellhole that is North Korea. But maybe I'll be surprised.

It's due to Global Warming. It makes tempers flare. And everyone knows Global Warming is caused by the US.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
And everyone knows Global Warming is caused by the US.
You're righter than you think. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1069883,00.html)

[aerocontrols]

Link (http://www.gweilodiaries.com/archives/001591.html#001591).

In case anyone is wondering what a human rights advocacy group like Amnesty International has to say about Hwang Jang Yop's treatment at the hands of the South Korean government since his defection, a search of their website reveals... not much.

Amnesty's only interest in him seems to be that he defected and helped the South Koreans find North Korean agents.

aerocontrols

[dsm]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

In case anyone is wondering what a human rights advocacy group like Amnesty International has to say about Hwang Jang Yop's treatment at the hands of the South Korean government since his defection, a search of their website reveals... not much.

Amnesty's only interest in him seems to be that he defected and helped the South Koreans find North Korean agents.


Maybe because there is no reason (http://www.atimes.com/koreas/BK30Dg01.html) to give HJY much interest...?

:confused:

[Graham]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Who here has attempted to spin their efforts as a bad thing? What I am trying to do is convince non-Christians that we should do likewise.

MattJ

And what I was trying to do was point out that non-Christians are doing likewise they're just not labelling themselves as "non Christian".

Medecins Sans Frontieres (http://www.msf.org/) , for instance, is non-Christian (though many of its member are Christian). Their Charter (http://www.msf.org/about/index.cfm?indexid=76997B7B-BA3E-11D4-B1FA0060084A6370) states:

Médecins Sans Frontières' volunteers undertake to respect their professional code of ethics and to maintain complete independence from all political, economic and religious powers.

They have been active in North Korea since 1995 (http://www.msf.org/content/page.cfm?articleid=17676DD1-D73B-4CC0-930302696435F7DF).

Though not involved in smuggling out of refugees, part of the MSF mission is:

testimony, open advocacy and outright denunciation when working with endangered populations throughout the world.

MSF do tremendous work throughout the world and are often first in and last out of some of the most desperate and dangerous situations in the world.

You'd have to look hard to find one mention of any god anywhere in their website. If you want an example of a worthwhile secular charity - they're it.

Graham

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by dsm


Maybe because there is no reason (http://www.atimes.com/koreas/BK30Dg01.html) to give HJY much interest...?

:confused:

I fail to see how your link shows that there is no reason to give him interest. He's been held as a virtual prisoner of the South Korean state since 1997, which your article notes. Its conclusion:

But to deny him the freedom for which he sacrificed so much is surely to betray democracy.

Apparently you (and Amnesty) don't think it's that important.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Graham
You'd have to look hard to find one mention of any god anywhere in their website. If you want an example of a worthwhile secular charity - they're it.


Thanks, Graham... that's exactly what I was looking for.

MattJ

[dsm]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

I fail to see how your link shows that there is no reason to give him interest. He's been held as a virtual prisoner of the South Korean state since 1997, which your article notes.


From that (and other articles), I see nothing to suggest that, other than being denied a passport out of the country until recently, Hwang Jang-yop has been mistreated. In fact, until the last couple of years, it appeared that he wanted to be in South Korea in order to influence its position on North Korea. As such, he seems less deserving of attention than (say) Park Kyung-soon (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA250012003?open&of=ENG-KOR). Amnesty International does recognize the "special considerations" that South Korea has for North Korea, but they are pushing SK to "abolish the National Security Law".

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by dsm
From that (and other articles), I see nothing to suggest that, other than being denied a passport out of the country until recently, Hwang Jang-yop has been mistreated.

Then you are blind:

For most of the six years since his defection in 1997, Hwang, 80, lived in an intelligence agency compound in Seoul and was barred from speaking in public, meeting people and talking to reporters.

Other than being denied a passport indeed. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by dsm
In fact, until the last couple of years, it appeared that he wanted to be in South Korea in order to influence its position on North Korea.

Did it appear that way to you? So assuming you are correct, what would you have to say about being held against one's will for only 'the last couple of years'?

Originally posted by dsm
As such, he seems less deserving of attention than (say) Park Kyung-soon (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA250012003?open&of=ENG-KOR). Amnesty International does recognize the "special considerations" that South Korea has for North Korea, but they are pushing SK to "abolish the National Security Law".

You'll forgive me if I see a pattern where you see some sort of prioritizing.

MattJ

[dsm]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

Then you are blind:


Your quote is unattributed even in the article you link to. Where did the quote come from? Is it reliable?


Other than being denied a passport indeed. :rolleyes:


I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you about him. It was just that your link seemed biased and selectively quoting. A broader look at other articles around the Internet didn't suggest that it was anything more than detention and that he was still writing books and such.


Did it appear that way to you? So assuming you are correct, what would you have to say about being held against one's will for only 'the last couple of years'?


It happens, but it is not right. With various members of Congress and the Administration already weighing in on this, what more could be done?


You'll forgive me if I see a pattern where you see some sort of prioritizing.


Perhaps. However, I don't understand your singling out Amnesty International on this particular issue and in this particular thread when AI does seem to be pushing South Korea on many issues (especially the National Security Law).

Are you being "fair and balanced" or am I seeing a "pattern" of a different sort?

:p

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by dsm
Your quote is unattributed even in the article you link to. Where did the quote come from? Is it reliable?

My original post on Hwang had a link, which took you to that quote. The quote is from The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26323-2003Oct27.html).



Originally posted by dsm
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you about him. It was just that your link seemed biased and selectively quoting. A broader look at other articles around the Internet didn't suggest that it was anything more than detention and that he was still writing books and such.

So you suggest. The Washington Post says as I indicated. You're not quoting at all, just telling me a 'feeling' you get from surfing around to various websites that you're not identifying. In fact, you did link to one website and I challenged you on your interpretation of what you read there. I quoted its conclusion to you, which states that he has been denied freedom and his treatment is a betrayal of democracy. It's hard for me to imagine that you're looking at anything you've read in an objective manner when you interpret the article you linked to as you do.

Originally posted by dsm
It happens, but it is not right. With various members of Congress and the Administration already weighing in on this, what more could be done?

I'm not criticizing the behavior of Congress or the Administration. I didn't even bring them up.

Originally posted by dsm
Perhaps. However, I don't understand your singling out Amnesty International on this particular issue and in this particular thread when AI does seem to be pushing South Korea on many issues (especially the National Security Law).

Are you being "fair and balanced" or am I seeing a "pattern" of a different sort?

:p

It should be obvious that I'm no fan of Amnesty International. The more I learn about their priorities, the less I think of them. Is that what you're getting at?

I'm not interested in Amnesty pushing South Korea, because as far as I'm concerned, South Korea isn't the bad guy. This pretty much sums up my main beef with Amnesty, actually. You do understand that my problem with them in relation to this thread is that they're harder on South Korea than they are on North Korea, right? The "searching under the streetlight" behavior that I mentioned before?

However, since Amnesty is pushing South Korea, it would be nice if it was pushing them on this issue. It is not, and that's what I would expect from Amnesty's recent history. This is a clear case where Amnesty could bring to light human rights abuses in North Korea without regard to North Korea's "Denial of Access". Because it is South Korea holding this guy, fighting for his release, fighting to get him access to reporters, fighting to get him out of South Korea or just fighting to have him heard would be fighting to expose human rights abuses in North Korea that South Korea wants kept quiet as part of their 'Sunshine Policy'. Unsurprisingly, (to me) Amnesty was not interested.

MattJ