http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2003w01/msg00088.htm

I found an interesting article the other day, thought I'd share it with. Especially look at the satelite images.

The text is severly outdates, but the pics speak for themselves...

An arresting image from space: a black hole on earth, No. Korea

There may be no better way to begin to grasp the North Korean situation than
to take a look at a single image. The globalsecurity.org website posts
satellite images of, say, American bases in Qatar or Iranian nuclear
facilities. The other day it posted the single most staggering image I've
seen in a long time -- a night shot from space of North and South Korea.
I've posted below the explanatory caption offered by globalsecurity, but you
simply must go take a look for yourself. At night, seen from the heavens,
it turns out, South Korea is ablaze, an electrical wonderland, a single
blast of light. North Korea is dark. A black hole on earth. An electrical
blank.

Nothing else so conveys the desperate state of the North Korean regime and
economy. You can, for instance, read a recent report in the British paper
The Independent that begins, "The United Nations food agency warned
yesterday that supplies for some seven million people, a third of North
Korea's population, will run out early next month without further aid."
("Seven million Koreans facing starvation,"
http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=366462&host=3&dir=71)
Or check out Steven Weisman's piece on p. 11 of today's New York Times,
"U.S. in No Rush Over North Korea's Food Aid," which indicates that the Bush
administration is quietly using food, as well as suspended shipments of oil,
as a weapon to pressure North Korea. (As with the decade-old sanctions
against Iraq, such a denial of everyday necessities to a people -- after all
we al l know that Kim Jong-Il doesn't lack gourmet level edibles -- will
someday undoubtedly be seen as a crime.)
(To read more of Weisman go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/06/international/asia/06DIPL.html)

But the satellite image tells it all.

"North Korea is Dark

South Korea is bright, North Korea is dark. This amazing image was made by
the orbiting Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) satellite over
regions of the world at night. The DMSP is a Department of Defense (DoD)
program run by the Air Force Space and Missle Systems Center (SMC). The
Defense Meteorological Satellite Program satellites carry the Operational
Linescan System (OLS) in low-altitude polar orbits. hese satellites record
nighttime data. The Operational Linescan System has a unique low-light
imaging capability developed for the detection of clouds using moonlight. In
addition to moonlit clouds, the OLS also detects lights from human
settlements,fires, gas flares, heavily lit fishing boats, lightning and the
aurora. It is possible to distinguish four primary types of lights present
at the earth's surface: human settlements, fires, gas flares, and fishing
boats." (To see the image go to:
http://globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm)

With this image in mind, try to imagine the effect, if successful, of the Bush administration's long-term plan to push North Korea beyond the edge of
collapse and you'll quickly see why it's opposed in most of Asia, but especially in South Korea. Were the North to collapse, the Chinese might inherit hundreds of thousands or millions of destitute refugees, but South
Korea would inherit that black hole itself, which could well pull the South Korean economy into hell. And, of course, if anything went wrong and the one thing the North Koreans have going for them -- a powerful army -- were unleashed, well the results could be incalculable. I thought the following
piece by Jim Lobe from Asia Times caught the mood of the moment, and the growing desperation of our own leaders to find some way out of the web of words and threats they've woven before the possibility of war in Iraq is somehow irreparably damaged. Tom
Kim Jong-il out-Saddams Saddam
By Jim Lobe

[you can stop reading here I think, just be sure to scroll down to the pic or check the pics itself at the website in the above text]

WASHINGTON - Iraqi President Saddam Hussein must be green with envy.

Not only has North Korean President Kim Jong-il eclipsed him in the US mass
media, but his fellow evil-doer in the infamous "axis of evil" is also
defying the world's dominant power on a daily basis, and getting away with
it.

After all, dozens of United Nations weapons inspectors are crawling all over
Iraq without the slightest hindrance, scouring the country for evidence of
biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Despite such cooperation, US
President George W Bush threatens war to "liberate" Baghdad virtually every
day.

How does this square with his kid-gloves treatment of Pyongyang, which
Washington believes already has chemical, biological and as many as two
nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them as far away as Japan and
even Hawaii?

Kim expels the remaining two UN inspectors from its territory, starts firing
up the Yongbyon nuclear plant that already houses enough plutonium to
produce half a dozen more atomic weapons in two months, warns it may soon
withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Bush responds by
insisting that Pyongyang need not fear military action by the United States.

Not only that. Bush is facing growing pressure both from his closest Asian
allies to go back on his pledge not to "negotiate" with Pyongyang, as the
North is demanding, until it dismantles all of its nuclear programs. And
there are already indications that his administration is figuring out
possible forums in which such a dialogue could take place.

But with respect to Iraq, Bush contemptuously rejects similar pleas by
Washington's Arab allies for patience and engagement, and appears bent - not
to say obsessed - instead on pursuing a military solution, unilaterally if
necessary.

Indeed, Washington's Asian allies, particularly South Korea where it has
stationed thousands of troops for a half-century, are defying Washington
directly, as both that country's outgoing and incoming presidents did this
past week by publicly denouncing Washington's efforts to isolate Pyongyang.

By contrast, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, and other Muslim states around
Iraq grumble publicly about the direction Washington is taking the region
while assuring Bush privately that, when push comes to shove, they will
cooperate with US war plans.

And while the Bush administration has done everything it can -
unsuccessfully - to link Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda and thus bolster its
case that whatever weapons of mass destruction he still has could be
transferred to terrorists for use against US targets, it does not even
mention the possibility that North Korea may be a much stronger candidate
for supplying weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaeda.

After all, North Korea, whose possession of such weapons and past resort to
terrorist methods are beyond dispute, has a long history of close
cooperation with Pakistan's military establishment, which reportedly
provided some of its nuclear secrets in exchange for North Korean missiles.

Moreover, some of the scientists and military sponsors in Pakistan's nuclear
program are known to have backed the Taliban in Afghanistan and to have
pro-Qaeda views. So why should Saddam be singled out for suspicion, as
opposed to the Pyongyang-Pakistan axis?

It all seems so unfair.

But if Saddam Hussein may be green with envy about Kim Jong-il, Bush
himself - and the hawks in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's
office - must be seeing red.

In the first place, Kim's defiance is showing the limitations of US military
strength at precisely the moment when Washington has laid out explicitly its
aims at achieving global military hegemony.

While Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tried to assure everyone early last
week that Washington retains the capacity to take on North Korea militarily
despite the massive buildup in US forces around Iraq, that notion was
pooh-poohed by even hardened hawks.

Others noted that, with thousands of North Korean missiles poised along the
Demilitarized Zone and within 40 kilometers of Seoul, military action is
simply unthinkable, especially without the support of South Korea itself.

But even more infuriating has been the criticism that has been leveled at
the administration from the left, right and center, as the crisis in Korea
has developed over the past month.

"Where's the Big Stick?" read one big Washington Post headline recently, a
particularly wicked reference to the foreign-policy advice of his hero, the
late president Theodore Roosevelt, who once said: "Speak softly and carry a
big stick."

The administration is not only being accused of double standards in dealing
with Iraq and Korea - and the fact that the strategic implications of a
nuclear arms race in Northeast Asia that could include Japan are likely to
be far more serious than even a US invasion of Iraq.

It is also having to suffer charges that its low-key response to the
situation so far is vastly more wimpish than actions - including the
deployment of US troops to the region - taken by the administration of
president Bill Clinton during the last great nuclear crisis on the Korean
Peninsula eight years ago.

Former Clinton officials, who advised the incoming Bush team to maintain an
engagement policy with North Korea that had already brought Clinton's
secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, to visit Pyongyang, are saying that
Bush's seemingly gratuitous hostility to North Korea is now having serious
political consequences. This hostility was evident during the March 2001
visit by South Korean President Kim Dae-jung to the White House and Bush's
subsequent inclusion of Pyongyang in his axis of evil.

"The political reminder from this episode is the danger that can come from
tough talk," noted Leon Fuerth, former vice president Al Gore's top
national-security aide. "When using words as weapons, a leader must be
prepared to back up his rhetoric with force." Bush's words, he went on, "now
look like a bluff that is being called".

But most harmful, perhaps, is the lesson to be drawn from these two crises
by countries that do not wish to be cowed by Washington: if you are
militarily strong, preferably armed with nuclear weapons and the missiles to
deliver them, like Kim Jong-il, you are safe. If you are militarily weak,
like Saddam Hussein, you are in trouble.

Or, as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman put it on Friday: "The best
self-preservation strategy for Mr Kim is to be dangerous."

(Inter Press Service)

http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/images/Korea-at-Night.jpg

Life in the workers' paradise.

It is called "zatemneniye" in Russian ("blackening" or "blackout" in English). Turning off the lights at night to prevent bombing.

During WW2 or drill periods in USSR, even ciggarette lighters were forbidden to use at night in USSR.

Didn't you know that?

Just visit it and see it yourself.

Also, because of America's current hostile policy, the bolstering of U.S. forces along the border, simulated air strikes, being labelled a "terrorist regime", etc., as part of war preparation it is well known that the DPRK has nightly blackout drills, in which all power is shut off, and during which time the people are often herded into underground bomb-proof shelters. All this is according to Western sources (BBC, the Guardian, etc.). Just another war preparation the citizens of the DPRK have to participate in, thanks to America.

Even according to the U.S. government, the black outs, when they do occur, only occur at night. They are occasional and momentary, usually not lasting for any more than a few minutes. The photograph was taken during one such major blackout. People from the National Laywer's Guild, who visited the DPRK and experienced one such blackout, said that it only lasted a few minutes. PBS, in a documentary, also experienced one such blackout, and reported the same thing.

Other countries have down the same thing.

In addition to blackout drills, they have been known to have power outages, which is partly why they are pursuing a nuclear energy programme, a programme which the U.S. is arrogantly pressuring them not to pursue. However, most likely those pictures were taken during blackout drills or "zatemneniye". Remember that the DPRK is still technically at war, and has been at war since the Fatherland Liberation War, and they have witnessed innumerable simulated air strikes and the like. they have plenty of intelligence suggesting that the US will bomb the DPRK.

Didn't you know that?

Of course I know of those actions. The were common procedure here in the Netherlands as well during the second world war.


Just another war preparation the citizens of the DPRK have to participate in, thanks to America.

hmm, maybe. I also think it's a tool the N. Koreasn goverment uses to inspire people with fear so they won't think about rebelling. It keeps people occupied. The USA does the same thing day in day out. Keep your people in constant fear and they won't turn against you just like that and ontop of that you can conduct actions that would otherwise attract to much attention amongst the people.


I'm not sure about these photo's being taken during a black-out or drill. Why isn't the capital included in this little drill of theirs? You'd say the capital would be the first place they would ensure total darkness in your mentioned arguments.It makes little sense.

hmm, maybe. I also think it's a tool the N. Koreasn goverment uses to inspire people with fear so they won't think about rebelling.
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. The people of the DPRK have no reason to rebell. They people of the DPRK are not 'occupied'. The people of south Korea are occupied by the US.
It keeps people occupied. The USA does the same thing day in day out. Keep your people in constant fear and they won't turn against you just like that and ontop of that you can conduct actions that would otherwise attract to much attention amongst the people.
No, the DPRK is in real danger.
I'm not sure about these photo's being taken during a black-out or drill. Why isn't the capital included in this little drill of theirs? You'd say the capital would be the first place they would ensure total darkness in your mentioned arguments.It makes little sense.
I mentioned three possibilities:
1. Black out drill
2. Zatemneniye
3. Power outage

It could have been a power outage. One power outage lasted for several weeks. Usually, however, they are very short, and very infrequent (this is confirmed by PBS).

By the way, do you even know how satellite photogrpahs are taken? They do not take one snapshot. Satellite photographs are made putting together several images taken during multiple satellite passes across the Earth's surface over several nights.

Therefore, it was probably during the long power outage they had in 2001.

This does not make it a 'black whole on earth'.

Even so, it would not surprise me that the image is a complete fabrication. I will not assert this, because I cannot prove it, but there would be nothing surprising about it.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. The people of the DPRK have no reason to rebell. They people of the DPRK are not 'occupied'. The people of south Korea are occupied by the US.

So, you think the people of N.Korea lead nice lives without hunger. Do they have free speech, can they travel wherever and whenever they choose to other countries?
I bet you would never want to live in a country plagued by the occasional famine.
Are you denying the people are being supressed?

It could have been a power outage. One power outage lasted for several weeks. Usually, however, they are very short, and very infrequent (this is confirmed by PBS).

This is rather perculiar. So power outages usually last for very short periods of time and happen very infrequently, but when you want to prove someone wrong you suddenyl claim that this happens to be taken during a power outtage that lasted for several weeks?

By the way, do you even know how satellite photogrpahs are taken? They do not take one snapshot. Satellite photographs are made putting together several images taken during multiple satellite passes across the Earth's surface over several nights.

so what does this prove if it is so. It wouldn't change the fact that it could be dark the entire night. A satelite can make more than one photo before the earth rotates and N. Korea is basked in sunlight again. Also a satelite can make alot of pictures per minute.
Also if you what you are saying is true and these photos are would prove that power outtages are more common than you claim as I don't believe these pictures were conveniently taken during that so called long coincidental blackout which spared the capital very conveniently.

I don't think Spinoza knows all that much about what he is talking about, again.

please explain, fade. What am I missing again according to you?
Am I missing the fact that i'm not a believer of consipracy theories or am I missing the point by not advocating the humane goverment of N.Korea?

So, you think the people of N.Korea lead nice lives without hunger.
Yes. There was a famine in the DPRK in the late nineties, brought about by massive floods and natural disasters, and worsened by the economic blockade. The droughts hit at critical stages in the crop cycle (e.g. planting, pollination/flowering). These factors greatly hindered rice and maize productivity and production. There were also huge shortages of fertilisers and other essential agro-chemicals. Unfavourable rainful and water availability also adversely affected the production of paddies, patatoes, and barley. And although the droughts affected parts of China and the Middle East, nonetheless they hit the DPRK the worst, for the DPRK can only produce food during one season of the year (June to October). The DPRK, moreover, has difficulty importing food, and therefore had to rely on assistance from the international community, on which it had relied for over half a decade. However, the assistance did not meet what was required to maintain agriculture and food production.

Such was one the conclusions of the FAO/WFP Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission to DPRK report (which can be read here: http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/480fa87...59?OpenDocument ).

In spite of this, the US, intent upon starving the people of the DPRK into submission, is still pressuring other countries to stop exporting food to the DPRK. (They are still suffering from shortages, but certainly no famine.)

From the National Lawyer's Guild report:

". . . we covered nearly 500 kilometers. During that time we had the opportunity to see agricultural communities and small towns. We noticed that the people on the whole looked well dressed and active. We saw no one who looked malnourished or emaciated and our observations were confirmed by many of the foreigners we met who had dealings around the country. The DPRK has very little areable land and we saw crops being harvested everywhere it was possible to grow them. It appears every square inch of arable land is cultivated, and on the roofs of their country cottages people had planted vines of what looked like melons or squash. The people we passed on the road or in rural towns looked relaxed. The images of children heading to school or playing, or women sitting side saddle on bikes as their husbands pedaled, provided human moments that moments that make war unthinkable. No one seemed dispirited or broken."

From here: http://www.nlg.org/korea/myths_of_the_hermit.html
"MYTH #2 - People are being Starved to Death by the Government
"While officials we met admitted to food shortages and hunger during the floods and natural disasters of the late 1990's, this is really old news. At that time it was the DPRK government who reached out to the international community for disaster food assistance. Today they are still in need of some imports, as are most countries, but everywhere we traveled we saw crops growing - even on rooftops. Rice was laid out to dry without guards. Small fruit stands existed and people looked healthy and active. Many others we met who traveled around the country supported our observations. Even in the countryside, housing is provided free to all DPRK residents.

"Sadly, the U.S. push for economic sanctions, and its pressuring of Japan, South Korea and other countries to cut off their food exports to the DPRK, exemplifies the inhumanity of using food and starvation as a political tool. With the emerging false justifications to start the war with Iraq, it is incumbent to set the record straight and base our decisions on up to date information."
Are you denying the people are being supressed?
Yes, I am certainly denying that.
So power outages usually last for very short periods of time and happen very infrequently,
Correct.
but when you want to prove someone wrong you suddenyl claim that this happens to be taken during a power outtage that lasted for several weeks?
A famous power outage did last for several weeks, back in 2001.

I'm not particulary an advocate on boycotting a nation. I wouldn't even go as far as supporting the boycot against iraq back when saddam reigned. I do not support the partial boycotting of Cuba. I would support a temporarliy boycot againt Israel for instance which might suprise fade amongst others greatly.

But for the people's sake(main priority of a goverment) I would not hesitate to reform the country somewhat to be able to work with the west. I think the N.Korean goverment is realising this as well and is already slowely incorperating this.

Yes, I am certainly denying that.

I gave you some arguments that you didn't counter yet. Can they do this, can they do this, is this allowed, etc..

Correct.

I would hope so then since they already have so little power already....;)

A famous power outage did last for several weeks, back in 2001.

Then for the main question if you will: why was the first picture I posted taken in 1996? Also a big blackout in '96 then?

But for the people's sake(main priority of a goverment) I would not hesitate to reform the country somewhat to be able to work with the west.
Make what reforms? Why? To become America's pseudo-colony like south Korea? You are falsely assuming that the DPRK is to blame, its government, is to blame for the situation. On what do you base this?
I think the N.Korean goverment is realising this as well and is already slowely incorperating this.
No it isn't, but from the beginning its actions have always been conducive to peace. North Korea has always been on the receiving end of aggression. It never did anything to provoke any of this. The only obstacle to peace on the Korean peninsula is the US government.
I gave you some arguments that you didn't counter yet. Can they do this, can they do this, is this allowed, etc..
What arguments? Tell me which ones. Quote yourself.

And while you are at it, respond to the arguments I made to which you have failed to respond. Thank you.
Then for the main question if you will: why was the first picture I posted taken in 1996? Also a big blackout in '96 then?
Yes, they have been having occasional power outages since the early nineties.

::please explain, fade. What am I missing again according to you?

Ixabert obviously knows much more about North Korea than you do.

::Am I missing the fact that i'm not a believer of consipracy theories or am I missing the point by not advocating the humane goverment of N.Korea?

Special interest groups that publically apply pressure upon their governments are not engaged in conspiracies, Spinoza.

for Fade:
yes Ixabert does know alot more about N.Korea then I do, but then again that probably doesn't take much. But that will not refrain me from giving my arguments which I will always try to support with facts. I just think that Ixabert is idealising N.Korea a bit too much.

I will not and probably will never come to cheer for a maoist/stalinist goverment that refuses acknowledge the world for what it is today. I'm not saying N.Korea should open it's borders completely and integrate privitasation acts and become a satelite/consumer nation of the west or more specifically the US.
But the lack of objective media/free media, basic human rights and the isolationist stand is not the choice of the people, but the choice of the chairman. But then again we are not all advocaters of some form of democracy here, are we?

For Ixabert
Make what reforms? Why? To become America's pseudo-colony like south Korea? You are falsely assuming that the DPRK is to blame, its government, is to blame for the situation. On what do you base this?

Like I said in the above arguments. I'm not advocating N.Korea becomming a satelite nation of the US. But N.Korea has only to blame itself. The goverment chose an isolationist stand and they knew the reprocutions(their gamble on working with the sovjets who treated Kim as a sovjet major did not pay off). If they don't want this then they can easily reform while keeping the larger part of their views(China is doing this as well). There are alot of countries in the world who don't have the same views as the US and I don't see them getting boycotted.

No it isn't, but from the beginning its actions have always been conducive to peace

well officially: "in the morning of June 25, 1950 the Korean war started, when north Korean troops invaded South Korea under the lead of General Chai Ung Jun in a surprise attack."

Yes, they have been having occasional power outages since the early nineties.

convenient...

::for Fade:yes Ixabert does know alot more about N.Korea then I do, but then again that probably doesn't take much.

Ixabert is has studied North Korea for several years now. You seem to be simply posting copy and paste off the internet in order to trash a regime you do not like. There is no comparsion.

:: But that will not refrain me from giving my arguments which I will always try to support with facts.

Let me guess.

Facts = Information Spinoza agrees with.
Opinions = Information Spinoza does not agree with.

::I just think that Ixabert is idealising N.Korea a bit too much.

I think your own moral prejudices have corrupted your analysis just as much as anyone else.

::I will not and probably will never come to cheer for a maoist/stalinist goverment that refuses acknowledge the world for what it is today.

So North Korea is not part of the world now?

:: I'm not saying N.Korea should open it's borders completely and integrate privitasation acts and become a satelite/consumer nation of the west or more specifically the US.

You seem to be suggesting that North Korea is not part of the world simply because it has a government that you do not like (e.g., one that does not grovel at the feet of the Jews).

::But the lack of objective media/free media

There is no such thing as an 'objective media' or a 'free media'. The Western press most certainly is not 'free' or 'objective'.

::basic human rights

Human rights is nothing more than a discourse used by Western imperialists to attack other nations. Who decides what the human rights are, Spinoza?

::and the isolationist stand is not the choice of the people

i.e. it is not the choice of Spinoza. The people don't decide anything. Leaders do that.

::but the choice of the chairman. But then again we are not all advocaters of some form of democracy here, are we?

I don't support the farce called democracy. Foreign policy is not made in democratic elections, but by unelected bureaucrats. Anyone who assumes otherwise is simply a fool.

Article seems dodgy to me, and as a supporter of DPRK on the basis that it is a worker's state I find it quite hard to take any articles from the West about what life is like in North Korea seriously.

Spinoza said:
~~well officially: "in the morning of June 25, 1950 the Korean war started, when north Korean troops invaded South Korea under the lead of General Chai Ung Jun in a surprise attack."
__
Nonsense. Quite a long time before the Korean War, the U.S. had been 'interested' in Korea. After WWII, the U.S. pushed ahead with preparations to take the areas which were occupied by Japan and the fascist allies. The hope was to seize strategic bridgeheads for world domination, and also for colonisation, because of the catastrophic economic crisis the U.S. had experienced starting in 1948. Korea was best suited for this.

To justify this, the U.S. said that the Koreans could not maintain a free independent government, and so they put forward a 'proposal for mandatory rule' of Korea. After they defeated Japan, they therefore sent troops to southern Korea. By August of that year they set up and enforced what they called a 'military government' under the leadership of John Hodges, and thereby supressed progessive political parties and people's committees. They did this to accelerate war preperations, that they might take over all of Korea, colonise the economy, etc., using southern Korea as a sort of 'springboard'.

There was an international convention in which Moscow proposed that Korea be an independent, democratic, sovereign state, with the consultation of democratic political parties in Korea. But the U.S. opposed this, in favour of the 'military government'.
Then it was proposed that the U.S. and the Soviet Union withdraw their troops from Korea. The Soviet Union withdrew all their troops. The U.S. was pressured to do the same, but it only ended up withdrawing part of their troops to a nearby base in Japan. They also kept their military bases in Korea, and they still commanded the south Korean army.

Then the U.S. created a so-called 'northward expedition' plan to invade the DPRK, according to which its military operations to provoke the Korean War would be launched by August 1949. Its main attack focused in the west of Korea, and its secondary one at the east of Korea. This plan was delayed till August, because U.S. troops in Japan and the south Korean armed forces were not prepared to carry it forward, and because of strong anti-American sentiment in south Korea.

Even before the outbreak of the Korean War, the U.S. insisted that they would need 100,000 modernised armed forces to invade northern Korea, and so they strengthened south Korea's arms build up as much as possible. In 1949, the south Korea army was reinforced into eight divisions and twenty-two regiments and its number totaled - guess what? - 100,000. To strengthen the south Korean armed forces as quickly as possible, the US sent advanced weapons, tanks, ships, etc. to south Korea. This amounted to $190,000,000 by 1949. They also built up ports and airdomes, set up military bases everwhere, dug trenches and built pillboxes along the area of the 38th parallel. All of this was just before the Korean War.

While thus preparing for war, they continued armed assaults on the area north of the 38th parallel to provoke a war. The number of such armed provocations was 2,617 in 1949 alone. The number of armed provovations was at its highest in 1950

Before the Korean War, Dulles, former advisor of the US president and the man who led the Korean war provocation, said before the outbreak of the Korean war: [/I]"To ensure the peace in the Far East, U.S. intends to take its active action right now."[/I] Then they attacked north Korea on June 25 1950. They shifted the blame to north Korea to bring UN forced into the Korean war.

This was very clever. They commanded the south Korean armed forced, sent part of their own troops to bases in Japan - which is right next to Korea - to appease the international community, and after the Soviet troop left north Korea, they said the north Koreans provoked the war so that they could get UN troops into the Korean war on their side. Very crafty indeed.

Don't believe me? Don't believe U.S.'s motivation for starting the Korean war was one of world domination, and also colonisation in effort to strengthen the U.S.'s suffering economy?

I received the following quotations in a document sent to me via E-mail by Chairman Mao (who is a member of PoliticsForum.org). There were dozens more like it.

- MacArthur said: "By occupying all of Korea we could cut into pieces the one and only supply line connecting Siberia and the south..., control the whole area between Vladivostok and Singapore.... Nothing would then be beyond the reach of our power."
Hershel D. Meyer, The Modern History of the United States, Kyoto, p. 148.

- "In view of the strategic position held by Korea in Northeast Asia, establishment of control over Korea and her people... will considerably strengthen the position of our country".
The Report of Information & Investigation Bureau of the US State Department, January 28, 1949, No. 4849.

- Upon receiving the news that the Korean War was ignited in Korea on June 25 1950, Acheson, the then US State Secretary, said "Koreans saved us".
"South Korea and USA" edited by Silchon Munhaksa , south Korea, 1986, p. 26

- Colonel Eida, US military adviser in Iran army stated at an interview with staff-officers on December 6 1950: "The Korean War was launched by the ROK [south Korean] army under the direct command of MacArthur's Headquarters in Japan."
Crossroads, Indian newspaper, December 23, 1950, Bombay

- In his book The Riddle of MacArthur, John Gunther wrote that on June 25 when he and his party were on an excursion to Nikko with a high-ranking officer of MacArthur's staff whose name was withheld, this officer was urgently called to the telephone by the General Headquarters just before noon. "He came back," writes Gunther, "and whispered a big story has just broken. The south Korean army has attacked north Korea!"' (The Riddle of MacArthur, p. 257.)

- "North Korean army was suddenly attacked by the ROK army before retreating 2-3km of 38th parallel from all fronts and switched over to counter attack.
(The Modern History of the United States, p. 230)

- "The lie revealed at last. South Korea invaded North Korea."
The Riddles of MacArthur" Tokyo, p.165)
The History of the Korean War, Vol 1, p. 230, Tokyo, Korea Critique Publishing House, 1967 edition

You talk about 'reforms', and 'isolationism'. Again I ask you: What reforms have you in mind? What exactly do you mean by 'isolationist'? How is the DPRK 'isolationist'? What does the DPRK's 'isolationism' have to do with the U.S.'s hostile policy towards the DPRK? What reason is there to suppose that the U.S. would put an end to its hostile policy towards the DPRK if the DPRK ceased being 'isolationist'?

Please answer all my questions this time.

In the meantime, here are some facts worth considering, from the National Lawyer's Guild website, which I urge you to consider:

-In 2003, South Korea’s trade with North Korea jumped 40% as South Korean companies are now engaged in over 557 projects with North Korea, including the building of cars, roads, rail roads and the production of clothing and televisions.

-South Korea is engaged in over $340 million dollars in bi-lateral trade with the North, and is the North’s largest foreign investor, and, after China, is the North’s largest trading partner.

-Both North and South Korea have committed to Reunification of their divided country in a manner that respects each sides economic systems. A president supporting Peace would not march tanks and weapons up and down the DMZ, but would devote full time to bringing the sides together to examine the Federation proposals that each has had on the table.

[...]

-North Korea is not isolated from the rest of the world. We met many people from around the world engaging in training on international stock market, farming, art exchanges, and other matters. Tourists were present from China and even from South Korea.

-The European Community, Britain, Italy, New Zealand, Australia and many other countries have formal diplomatic relations with North Korea.

[...]

-The United States entered into the 1994 Agreed Framework where they promised to “move toward full normalization of political and economic relations,” provide heavy fuel oil, and provide two light water reactors to replace their nuclear program by 2003. The Clinton administration officials did not follow through on the agreements and now admit that they never intended to follow them because they thought the regime would collapse.

-The Korean War was one of the most brutal in history with millions of North Koreans injured or killed. 20 million pounds of napalm were delivered in the first 20 months and there is convincing evidence that our troops used chemical and biological weapons. The North was leveled to the ground by U.S. bombing missions. Any peace with North Korea must come with an understanding of the pain and devastation caused to their country from the war.

-North Korea would trade any nuclear program for peaceful and normalized political and economic relations with the United States. How can one demand things from other nations if they have no relationship with them?

-There was no peace treaty entered ending the war and the armistice agreement we signed in 1953 to end the fighting (South Korea would not sign it) said that high level discussions would take place to remove all foreign troops from Korea within three months.

-During this period of preemptive war, regime change threats, the “axis of evil,” removal from the ABM treaty and Kyoto, not to mention the current crisis in Iraq, is it any surprise that the North Korean’s would play the nuclear card to protect themselves?
Maybe you were given a wrong impression of the DPRK?

-Anti-Americanism has been building in South Korea, including resentment against the U.S. soldiers, and today most South Koreans fear the U.S. reaction to North Korea more than the North Koreans.


Is this all a 'conspiracy theory', as you suggest? I think not. I think it is just scepticism - which is something to be praised. And I think it is the critics of the DPRK who employ conspiracy theorist methodology. Basically, their argument is this: "If I can't find an elephant in my bedroom, it is only because he is hiding himself very well. He is there." That is, "If we can't find atrocities in the DPRK, it is only because they are very cleverly concealed." This sort of crude reasoning is implied when they ask: "Why are they so secretive? Do they have something to hide?" And so on. This, in essence, is the chief argument used by almost every critic of the DPRK I have encountered.

Let me guess.

Facts = Information Spinoza agrees with.
Opinions = Information Spinoza does not agree with.

you seem to be a lousy reader. I stated I will always attempt to support my claims with facts, not opnions that I will try to sell as facts. You seem to be doing this quite well at times...

I think your own moral prejudices have corrupted your analysis just as much as anyone else.

that's your opnion. I like to think myself as a bit more wordly then that. When I hear you speak of Jews running America, Germany, Netherlands(jews side by side with gays), Great Brittain, etc I cannot help but think that you use the jews to trasjh regimes that YOU don't like or don't agree with in terms of policy. Of course you never come with facts when speaking of this, but merely with speculation.

So North Korea is not part of the world now?

Again you show poor reading skills. I stated that the N.Korean goverment has taken a stand in which they have isolated themselves from the economic powers of the world. They are most certainly a part of the world.

You seem to be suggesting that North Korea is not part of the world simply because it has a government that you do not like (e.g., one that does not grovel at the feet of the Jews).


LOL...There we go again with the Jews. So now the Jews are responsible for the siutation N.Korea is in right now?

There is no such thing as an 'objective media' or a 'free media'. The Western press most certainly is not 'free' or 'objective'.

If you look and filter the different news coverages carefully you can most definately get a good picture of what comes close to objective news coverage. I use thephora for this as well. I read things here, be it opions or news, that I would otherwise not read that much. You are mistaking if you believe i'm not filtering different views out here along with certain facts that I then add to my own views. Your posts are highly valued by me, but it doesn't mean I agree with everything. World views are all relative, one men's reality is totally different from someone elses reality. This meaning that neither mine nor your views should ever be perceived as the truth.

Human rights is nothing more than a discourse used by Western imperialists to attack other nations. Who decides what the human rights are, Spinoza?

I never advocated the attack on Iraq and such. But again you assume to much. You seem to assume I agree with the Israel/US state terrorism.
My post did however advocate the human basic rights that everyone should have rights to i.e. no torture, free speech, schooling and more.
N.Korea is violating on a daily base what I preceive as violations of basic human rights.
I'm against this on the bases that I belief one should not do to another what you don't want to happen to yourself. A simple moral compass that guides me through everyday life with ease.
I dislike any regime that deviates from the above stated moral guidelines.

i.e. it is not the choice of Spinoza. The people don't decide anything. Leaders do that.

Allow me to dig into my memory and quote you on this a while back:"
What is the purpose of government under capitalism?
It is to protect rights that governments are instituted. A proper government's only responsibility is to protect the rights of the individual, by banning the initiation of force, thus making all relations between men peaceful, i.e., free from the threat of violence and fraud.

or
Only through the initiation of force can a man's rights be violated.

A goverment that initiates force against the individual has given up it's right to exist.
Now, you know i've never been a capitalist, but I do find some peace in the above mentioned text. Under the above stated premises has the current N.Korean, amongst many other nations which are not udner debate right now, given up it's right to exist.

Let me ask you a simple question. would you voluntarily want to live in N.Korea?

I don't support the farce called democracy. Foreign policy is not made in democratic elections, but by unelected bureaucrats. Anyone who assumes otherwise is simply a fool.

When the people belief the goverment is out of line they will revolt against these bureaucrats.
as an example I would like to point at the USA during the vietnam war in which they lost the sympathy of the US civilians to continue the war.
In the end the people again have the power, at least in a democracy not in a dictatorship.


I will reply to Ixabert soon.

::you seem to be a lousy reader.

I consider myself to be a very sharp reader. I will let the gallery be the judge of that.

::I stated I will always attempt to support my claims with facts, not opnions that I will try to sell as facts.

You try to pass off opinions as facts all the time, actually. The only reason you are invoking 'facts' here, actually, is to privilege your own position for rhetorical purposes.

::You seem to be doing this quite well at times...

Facts are not value judgments, Spinoza.

::that's your opnion.

Not really. We can easily demonstrate (empirically) how your own own liberal values influence how you respond to topics on this board. Start a separate thread and I will do just that.

::I like to think myself as a bit more wordly then that.

Then what is all this liberal bull**** about humanity for? Humanity does not have any inate value.

::When I hear you speak of Jews running America, Germany, Netherlands(jews side by side with gays), Great Brittain, etc I cannot help but think that you use the jews to trasjh regimes that YOU don't like or don't agree with in terms of policy.

Point out for me where I have suggested on this board that the Jews 'run' the countries listed above. You can't, because I have never made that argument. I have simply argued that Jews are disproportionatly concentrated in certain places, such as the media and the entertainment industry. This has a distorting effect upon our culture.

::Of course you never come with facts when speaking of this, but merely with speculation.

I have actually thoroughly documented my arguments, usually with JEWISH sources, as those tend to be the only sources philo-Semites like yourself accept as 'legitimate'. I have Arthur Liebman's study Jews and the Left (1979) right here. I checked it out of the library the other day, just for you, Spinoza. I plan on extensively quoting it in my rebuttal.

::Again you show poor reading skills.

"I will not and probably will never come to cheer for a maoist/stalinist goverment that refuses acknowledge the world for what it is today."
--Spinoza

::I stated that the N.Korean goverment has taken a stand in which they have isolated themselves from the economic powers of the world. They are most certainly a part of the world.

You didn't suggest that at all, actually. You argued that the government of North Korea 'refuses acknowledge the world for what it is today'. That implies that North Korea is somehow less a part of the world than other nations.

::LOL...There we go again with the Jews.

There is a Jewish connection. North Korea often gets bad press because it sells a lot of weaponry to Israel's enemies, like the Hezbollah guerillas.

::So now the Jews are responsible for the siutation N.Korea is in right now?

Somewhat. They get bad press for the reason I stated above.

::If you look and filter the different news coverages carefully you can most definately get a good picture of what comes close to objective news coverage.

This is false. The stories that are reported in the news are filtered through the medium of values that sort out what stories are significant and worthy of coverage as opposed to those that are not. Values, prejudices, and biases also structure how the news is reported.

:: I read things here, be it opions or news, that I would otherwise not read that much.

I don't think anyone would dispute here that the values and prejudices of the people who post here structure which articles are posted here as opposed to those which are not. But that is just as true for The Phora as it is for the New York Times or the BBC. There is no such thing as 'objective' news. That is a myth.

:: You are mistaking if you believe i'm not filtering different views out here along with certain facts that I then add to my own views.

What separates a fact from an opinion?

Your posts are highly valued by me, but it doesn't mean I agree with everything.

I fully admit to my own prejudices. That is the difference here. I do not make the slightest pretense of suggesting that my own views are anything but my own views.

::World views are all relative, one men's reality is totally different from someone elses reality. This meaning that neither mine nor your views should ever be perceived as the truth.

I don't believe in objective truth, only perspectival accounts. Greater accuracy can be achieved by reviewing a plurality of perspectives about something, however.

::I never advocated the attack on Iraq and such.

The attack on Iraq was justified on the grounds that Saddam was violating the 'human rights' of Iraqis (whatever those are). 'Human rights' is simply a useful excuse to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations. It is precisely analagous to the function Christianity played in the Early Modern Era.

::But again you assume to much.

My argument does not assume that the discourse of human rights is interpreted in the same way by everyone. In fact, that is the whole point of 'human rights', to justify the use of force against others in the eyes of all the useful idiots and suckers who comprise the masses.

::You seem to assume I agree with the Israel/US state terrorism.

Why doesn't the U.K. send troops into Israel because of its 'human rights' abuses, as it in the case of Iraq?

::My post did however advocate the human basic rights that everyone should have rights to i.e. no torture, free speech, schooling and more.

There are no 'basic human rights'. This is nothing more than a reified discourse, an illusion. Its quite similiar to the man in the desert who has a mirage of an oasis. Human rights have been wished into existence.

::N.Korea is violating on a daily base what I preceive as violations of basic human rights.

Your totalitarianism offends me, Spinoza. Who are you to judge what is best for North Korea?

::I'm against this on the bases that I belief one should not do to another what you don't want to happen to yourself. A simple moral compass that guides me through everyday life with ease.

This is totalitarianism because you are proclaiming universal ethical truths that apply to all groups regardless of their wishes or the distinctions that exist between them.

::I dislike any regime that deviates from the above stated moral guidelines.

This is what separates people like me from people like you, Spinoza. Totalitarians like yourself want to force your views upon the entire human species. You STRIP nations and races of their particularity in the name of Christian universalism.

::Allow me to dig into my memory and quote you on this a while back

I am not a capitalist.

::Now, you know i've never been a capitalist, but I do find some peace in the above mentioned text.

I have rejected such positions as untenable.

::Under the above stated premises has the current N.Korean, amongst many other nations which are not udner debate right now, given up it's right to exist.

The fallacy here is that one group would be elevating itself in the name of humanity above the rest of humanity as judge of their actions.

::Let me ask you a simple question. would you voluntarily want to live in N.Korea?

I would much rather live in North Korea than Israel.

::When the people belief the goverment is out of line they will revolt against these bureaucrats.

The masses are suckers who are deluded by the puppet show called democracy. Voting is nothing more than a ritual. More on this:

"A second example of a speech-based place would be ritual. Or, to state it more correctly, certain types of rituals are examples of proper places of faithfulness. In oral cultures, certain types of rituals are examples of proper places of faithfulness. In oral cultures, every aspect of life is ritualized. By contrast, in our hypervisual culture, which has so thoroughly lost touch with the places inherent in speech, ritual appears to have no purpose; indeed, to refer to something as a "ritual" is often to disparage it as meaningless. But humans have a very deep-seated need for ritual. All human societies and institutions have a variety of rituals, and individual humans who have rituals, and individuals who have no rituals invent them. This is because ritual is an essential place; it allows individuals to orient themselves in the world. Rituals do this by representing very general human experiences in a highly particular manner, usually by representing very general human experiences that are very spread out in time and space in a manner that is much more localised.

An excellent example of a ritual that does this is the act of voting in a democratic political system. People in present-day democracies are taught that they vote to choose their leaders, but this is actually a poor explanation of what voting accomplishes. In any system of representative democracy, the process of choosing leaders takes place largely within organisations, such as political parties, which narrow the possible candidates for public office down to a small number, often only two, from which the voters much choose. Furthermore, as political scientists have pointed out, if voting is primarily an attempt to determine who one's leaders should be, then there really is no point in voting, since even in a local election -- much less a national election, where millions of votes are cast -- the probability that one's vote will actually make a difference is practically zero. Very few elections, even at the local level, are decided by one vote or even one hundred votes. In fact, for political scientists, one of the great mysteries of modern democracies is why anybody does bother to vote. A much better understanding of voting is that it is a ritual of democratic citizenship.

When one votes, one is taking part in a ritual that helps one to understand that one belongs to a community in which individuals are regarded as equal, and in which the people who govern are accountable to the people they govern, and cannot rule arbitrarily. Voting takes the experience of democratic citizenship -- of, for example, not having to bow low to certain privileged individuals, or of not living in terror of the secret police -- and represents it in the more compact procedure of voting, where each individual has one vote to choose the society's leaders." (Jardine, pp.247-48)

::as an example I would like to point at the USA during the vietnam war in which they lost the sympathy of the US civilians to continue the war.

The masses did not 'revolt' at all during the 1960s. There was a change in composition of the elites, actually.

::In the end the people again have the power, at least in a democracy not in a dictatorship.

The people never posses power in any system whatsoever, especially in a democracy. I would argue that people have even less power in democracies than they did in most premodern monarchies. This is because people are more isolated under democratic conditions than ever before and isolated people are most easily dominated by others.

You try to pass off opinions as facts all the time, actually. The only reason you are invoking 'facts' here, actually, is to privilege your own position for rhetorical purposes.

I always attempt to systain my arguments with legitimate facts.
We can debate all day about what are legitimate facts and what is legitimate news coverage, but it would only come down to that the jews controll all the news and all news is tainted.
I wonder why the Jews are being depicted so negativly in the news lately? Must be a family feud amongst the jews or something then?

Not really. We can easily demonstrate (empirically) how your own own liberal values influence how you respond to topics on this board. Start a separate thread and I will do just that.

We can do the same with you. We can easily demonstrate how your own NS values influence how you respond to topics on this board.
But then again, debating is all about facts and opinions, isn't
it?

Then what is all this liberal bull**** about humanity for? Humanity does not have any inate value.

The desire for a humane society does have value on the premises that one should not to to another what one does not want to happen to oneself.
A person who lives in a society where ones individualty is severly restricted will almost certainly develop a need for humanity.

Point out for me where I have suggested on this board that the Jews 'run' the countries listed above. You can't, because I have never made that argument. I have simply argued that Jews are disproportionatly concentrated in certain places, such as the media and the entertainment industry. This has a distorting effect upon our culture.

You use the Jews as a scapegoat for everything you don't like.

I have actually thoroughly documented my arguments, usually with JEWISH sources, as those tend to be the only sources philo-Semites like yourself accept as 'legitimate'. I have Arthur Liebman's study Jews and the Left (1979) right here. I checked it out of the library the other day, just for you, Spinoza. I plan on extensively quoting it in my rebuttal.

Can't wait for this. finally I'll learn the jews run the world and not the stonemasons.

"I will not and probably will never come to cheer for a maoist/stalinist goverment that refuses acknowledge the world for what it is today."
--Spinoza

Nowhere in the above argument did I state that N.Korea isn't part of the world. What I did state is that N.Korea is itself not acknowledging the world for what it is today. their policy is/has failed.

You didn't suggest that at all, actually. You argued that the government of North Korea 'refuses acknowledge the world for what it is today'. That implies that North Korea is somehow less a part of the world than other nations.

Don't mix up personal interpretations with intended purpose. My statment only meant that their govermantal institution has chosen not to be in league with the economic powers of the world.
In terms of international relations, economic relations they are indeed less part of the world. The country itself remains on the planet earth and I'd never imply that the country could somehow overcome this problem of physics.

There is a Jewish connection. North Korea often gets bad press because it sells a lot of weaponry to Israel's enemies, like the Hezbollah guerillas.

quite fallacious. Did any international legislation change because of this news coverage, did they suddenly loose economical interests because of this?
Israel is also getting alot of negatve news coverage. The main focus on N.Korea lays with the fact that they are assumingly attempting to arm themselves with nuclear weapons.
Before you go into Israel having nuclear weapons I think we already agree on that part.

Somewhat. They get bad press for the reason I stated above.

Doesn't prove a thing. I'd look up the fallacious argument right now, but i'm too tired.

This is false. The stories that are reported in the news are filtered through the medium of values that sort out what stories are significant and worthy of coverage as opposed to those that are not. Values, prejudices, and biases also structure how the news is reported.

I'm agreeing with you, based on yor arguments and my own personal views, that news is indeed subjective, but the quantity and quality of a certain subject can give someone a reasonable objective view on a matter.

What separates a fact from an opinion?

A fact is when I see a child soldier being shot to pieces by his comrades over food issues on TV or when I see a scar in my mothers neck from Morrocans who stabbed her bceause they wanted to rob her shop.
A fact is that the people of N.Korea have a differnt live than mine. An opnion is that my life is better, though many Korean would want to live my life.
I could make my opinion a overall accepted fact by supporting it with statistical valadility(something you argued in the "visiting hitlers ruins" thread on the matter of taste). Therefor the majority of the world would probably accept the opinion that my life is better than that of a N.Korean and I would not be wrong to pass it off as a fact.

I fully admit to my own prejudices. That is the difference here. I do not make the slightest pretense of suggesting that my own views are anything but my own views.

Each person is unique in his/her views.

I don't believe in objective truth, only perspectival accounts. Greater accuracy can be achieved by reviewing a plurality of perspectives about something, however.

agreed, as I stated in an argument above.

The attack on Iraq was justified on the grounds that Saddam was violating the 'human rights' of Iraqis (whatever those are). 'Human rights' is simply a useful excuse to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations. It is precisely analagous to the function Christianity played in the Early Modern Era.

I also never advocated intervening in N.Korea based on Human right violations. I did say it has ceased the right to exist. But nowwhere did I state that it should be followed by initiating force
Again I'll say, I'm not a supporter of the Iraq intervention. I did support the intervention against Iraq in the Iraq vs Kuwait matter though for they initiated force in a matter that could otherwise be diplomatically solved. By their actions they only aggravated matters.

My argument does not assume that the discourse of human rights is interpreted in the same way by everyone. In fact, that is the whole point of 'human rights', to justify the use of force against others in the eyes of all the useful idiots and suckers who comprise the masses.

I do not believe it's merely a tool to initiate force upon others. I sincerely belief that the conecpt known as human rights derived from the need for people to live protected lives. Basic Human rights serve as the foundation for Humanitarian concepts.

What legislation do people need in order to protect individuality and ensure a "good" start in the world it is today, fade?

Why doesn't the U.K. send troops into Israel because of its 'human rights' abuses, as it in the case of Iraq?

Hidden economical agenda. I never stated or implyed otherwise.

Your totalitarianism offends me, Spinoza. Who are you to judge what is best for North Korea?

I'm merely stating my opnion on what I think is best for them. I I have hopes that one day everyone can say they led their lives how they wanted to live it within reasonable standards that prevent society from going into total anarchy.

Fade, your lack of Humanity is shocking.

This is totalitarianism because you are proclaiming universal ethical truths that apply to all groups regardless of their wishes or the distinctions that exist between them.

So be it. But keep in mind that i'm proclaiming this with the best of intentions without feeling wanting to hurt anyone pshysically or mentally. You however refrain from stating anything on this matter.

Someome somewhere once argued that if aliens were to come to the earth now they would see something that is best compared with the PC game Tribes. That is what people like you are ensuring by distancing youself from someone elses fate.
(the above argument does not imply I believe aliens visited the planet earth or have anything to do with the state N.Korea is in right now. I'm also not implying jews and aliens are in league. I'm merely making a rather vivd comparison :) )

This is what separates people like me from people like you, Spinoza. Totalitarians like yourself want to force your views upon the entire human species. You STRIP nations and races of their particularity in the name of Christian universalism.

Nowhere did I advocate violence based on this premises. You should read more carefully then.

I am not a capitalist.

Then what is your stand on individualism right now?

I have rejected such positions as untenable.

You are not agreeing with any of it anymore then?

The fallacy here is that one group would be elevating itself in the name of humanity above the rest of humanity as judge of their actions.

and the people would be thankful for it.
You sincerely find that their lives are of high quality then?

Individuals are not slaves to society, but should be allowed to lead their own lives within overall accepted moral guidelines. Those guidelines could be written down in something we call the law. The law itself being an incarnation from the need of mankind to not be harmed/harassed by others should they not do so to others. I'd call it communal individualism if I were to call it anything. Some people would say liber-socialism probably :)

I would much rather live in North Korea than Israel.

the question still stands, would you want to live in N.Korea were you given the chance?

The masses are suckers who are deluded by the puppet show called democracy.

I still have hope in democracy here in the Netherlands and when I look at America I hope people like Nader will win. there's nothing ritual about that.
Here in the Netherlands it does matter a great deal which parties form a coalition. this resonates back into society almost immediately. Maybe becuse there are alot more political parties here ranging from left to right.

can you specify what your beliefs are currently(nuttshel will suffice).

The people never posses power in any system whatsoever, especially in a democracy. I would argue that people have even less power in democracies than they did in most premodern monarchies. This is because people are more isolated under democratic conditions than ever before and isolated people are most easily dominated by others.

I don't think so. In premodern monarchies the monarch was infaillable and could never be indicted as in most dictatorships.
A country could have a fool for a monrach for several decades and not do anything against it.

much less a national election, where millions of votes are cast -- the probability that one's vote will actually make a difference is practically zero. Very few elections, even at the local level, are decided by one vote or even one hundred votes.

In the Bush vs. Gore campaign a few hundred votes did make a difference.

Worker's state my WASP a**. Natural disasters happen everywhere. In a free market economy, people insure against them. In the socialist economy, they wreck all the planners' static economic models. I'd bet the hardest work the Beloved Leader has ever done is hoist a glass of Chardonnay with Madeleine Albright.

If North Korea were a worker's paradise, it would be a net producer of foreign aid and trying to figure out what to do with all its immigrants.

::I always attempt to systain my arguments with legitimate facts.

You attempt to privilege your argument by employing rhetorical devices, such as the logical fallacies, which you quite often do not even understand.

::We can debate all day about what are legitimate facts and what is legitimate news coverage, but it would only come down to that the jews controll all the news and all news is tainted.

1.) I don't believe the Jews 'control' all the news.
2.) I don't believe in objective news period.
3.) I don't believe in 'facts' either. There are no facts, only interpretations.

::I wonder why the Jews are being depicted so negativly in the news lately?

You don't live in the U.S.

::Must be a family feud amongst the jews or something then?

I have never argued that Jews were all of the same viewpoint either, just that they have a distorting effect upon our culture by being disproportionately represented in the media.

::We can do the same with you.

I have not argued that I arrive at my conclusions independently of my values. That would be ridiculous.

::We can easily demonstrate how your own NS values influence how you respond to topics on this board.

I am not a National Socialist. I do not know where you got that impression. Communitarianism is not National Socialism, although National Socialists are Communitarians.

::But then again, debating is all about facts and opinions, isn't it?

I don't believe in facts, that is, unmediated objective knowledge of existence.

::The desire for a humane society does have value on the premises that one should not to to another what one does not want to happen to oneself.

Now you are universalizing your own Christian values, do unto others as they would do unto you, as they say. There is nothing innate about that at all. Such a notion would have been considered absurd a few centuries ago, even in the West.

::A person who lives in a society where ones individualty is severly restricted will almost certainly develop a need for humanity.

This is bull****. The notion that people have individual identities separate from collective identities is a radical break with all preexisting history that only came about in the Medieval West. This disgusting fawning over humanity is Christian (and ultimately Jewish).

::You use the Jews as a scapegoat for everything you don't like.

This is absolutely false. I have never blamed all of our problems on the Jews. I have not even argued that all Jews are of the same viewpoints. On the other hand, you continue to deploy Jewish concepts, like 'racism' and 'holocaust' and now 'scapegoat' (that one comes from the Old Testament). You are so judaized yet you are oblivious to this.

::Can't wait for this. finally I'll learn the jews run the world and not the stonemasons.

You should first learn not to put words in the mouths of others.

::Nowhere in the above argument did I state that N.Korea isn't part of the world.

That is precisely what you implied.

::What I did state is that N.Korea is itself not acknowledging the world for what it is today. their policy is/has failed.

Yet North Korea is just as much a part of the world as the U.S.

::Don't mix up personal interpretations with intended purpose.

You used a rhetorical device to suggest that North Korea was less a part of the world than other nations.

::My statment only meant that their govermantal institution has chosen not to be in league with the economic powers of the world.

Not in your original statement, as the gallery can see. You attempted to slander North Korea.

::In terms of international relations, economic relations they are indeed less part of the world.

That is nonsense.

::The country itself remains on the planet earth and I'd never imply that the country could somehow overcome this problem of physics.

You identified 'the world' with economically successful countries. That is a form of intolerance and bigotry. You are such a little bourgeoisie. You are not even a socialist.

::quite fallacious.

North Korea sells to the Arab nations that arm themselves against Israel. Do you dispute this?

::Did any international legislation change because of this news coverage, did they suddenly loose economical interests because of this?

Absolutely.

::Israel is also getting alot of negatve news coverage.

In some places.

::The main focus on N.Korea lays with the fact that they are assumingly attempting to arm themselves with nuclear weapons.

Israel already has nuclear weapons. Israel is the single greatest threat to the entire region. It is armed to the teeth. Its government is run by fanatics and meglomanics.

::Before you go into Israel having nuclear weapons I think we already agree on that part.

Israel is a threat to every Arab country in the region.

::Doesn't prove a thing. I'd look up the fallacious argument right now, but i'm too tired.

North Korea's trading in arms with the Arab countries actually has a lot to do with its status as part of the 'Axis of Evil'.

::I'm agreeing with you, based on yor arguments and my own personal views, that news is indeed subjective, but the quantity and quality of a certain subject can give someone a reasonable objective view on a matter.

Its not objective at all. It is mediated through values and prejudices.

::A fact is when I see a child soldier being shot to pieces by his comrades over food issues on TV or when I see a scar in my mothers neck from Morrocans who stabbed her bceause they wanted to rob her shop.

I asked you, specifically, for the criterion that distinguishs facts from opinions. I didn't ask for a sob story.

::A fact is that the people of N.Korea have a differnt live than mine. An opnion is that my life is better, though many Korean would want to live my life.

I want the criteria, the differentia specifica, that separates facts from opinions.

::I could make my opinion a overall accepted fact by supporting it with statistical valadility(something you argued in the "visiting hitlers ruins" thread on the matter of taste).

Don't confuse validity and reliability with facts. Facts are unmediated, objective acknowledge of existence.

::Therefor the majority of the world would probably accept the opinion that my life is better than that of a N.Korean and I would not be wrong to pass it off as a fact.

What the majority of people think is irrelevant to the truth/falsehood of a proposition.

::agreed, as I stated in an argument above.

Then why do you continue to push forth this crap about facts?

::Hidden economical agenda. I never stated or implyed otherwise.

Here we go again. You see, this is what I am talking about. Your liberal views influence your interpretations. This is a good example.

::I also never advocated intervening in N.Korea based on Human right violations. I did say it has ceased the right to exist. But nowwhere did I state that it should be followed by initiating force

You argued that they were violating human rights. Actually, you are simply projecting this discourse upon the North Koreans. There are no innate human rights.

::Again I'll say, I'm not a supporter of the Iraq intervention. I did support the intervention against Iraq in the Iraq vs Kuwait matter though for they initiated force in a matter that could otherwise be diplomatically solved. By their actions they only aggravated matters.

This implies that the existing international order is sacred, that Iraq should have been attacked by other nations because it sought a territorial redress along its southern border.

::I do not believe it's merely a tool to initiate force upon others.

Its a tool of domination. It is used, time and time again, to justify domination.

::I sincerely belief that the conecpt known as human rights derived from the need for people to live protected lives.

That is the whole point of it! To fool idiots and suckers with sweet sounding words!

::Basic Human rights serve as the foundation for Humanitarian concepts.

The humanitarian is the most ruthless totalitarian there is because the humanitarian makes the entire world his business, into an object. The natural outcome of such logic is things like the Iraq War, whereby a nation that has not lifted a finger against any other nation can be ruthlessly attacked simply because others do not like it.

::What legislation do people need in order to protect individuality and ensure a "good" start in the world it is today, fade?

I don't want to legislate for all peoples. Even I do not have such audacity anoint myself with the title 'humanity' and speak in its name.

::I'm merely stating my opnion on what I think is best for them.

Imperialists always know what is best for others now don't they. Americans know what is best for Iraqis too.

::I I have hopes that one day everyone can say they led their lives how they wanted to live it within reasonable standards that prevent society from going into total anarchy.

Perhaps the North Koreans do not feel that bourgeoisie standards are reasonable.

::Fade, your lack of Humanity is shocking.

Those who speak on the behalf of humanity elevate themselves to being more than human. The result is the most brutal and malicious kind of destruction, because once one has identified one's own cause with humanity, the enemy is stripped of his humanity and can thus be ruthlessly exterminated.

::Then what is your stand on individualism right now?

Its a form of narrow-mindedness.

::So be it.

This is why totalitarianism/humanism degenerates into terror, because once one asserts universal moral truths applicable to all peoples, once one identifies oneself with humanity, then by extension, the enemy is constructed as the ignorant and the unhuman, the satanic.

::But keep in mind that i'm proclaiming this with the best of intentions without feeling wanting to hurt anyone pshysically or mentally. You however refrain from stating anything on this matter.

Totalitarianism begins with good intentions and ends in violence and terror. When certain people's start waging wars in the name of humanity, war does not become more humane. It is only brutalized as it becomes impossible to respect others with whom one disagrees.

::Someome somewhere once argued that if aliens were to come to the earth now they would see something that is best compared with the PC game Tribes.

They would have a hard time understanding the phenonemon known as 'morality', the superstition that some humans attach so much importance to.

::That is what people like you are ensuring by distancing youself from someone elses fate.

I am not the liberal here. You are. Liberalism isolates people not only from their ancestors and descendants, but from their contemporaries as well.

::You are not agreeing with any of it anymore then?

Of course not.

::the question still stands, would you want to live in N.Korea were you given the chance?

Probably not. I am not a communist. I am simply defending North Korea's right to difference from totalitarian humanists such as yourself.

::Nowhere did I advocate violence based on this premises. You should read more carefully then.

You have proclaimed universal ethnic truths applicable to every single person on the planet. You seek to annihilate and smother the differences that exist between peoples.

::and the people would be thankful for it. You sincerely find that their lives are of high quality then?

This is the same premise of George W. Bush and imperialists everywhere.

::Individuals are not slaves to society, but should be allowed to lead their own lives within overall accepted moral guidelines.

I must have forgotten to mention that I am also a postmoralist.

::Those guidelines could be written down in something we call the law.

Law is nothing more than the values of those who possess political power.

The law itself being an incarnation from the need of mankind to not be harmed/harassed by others should they not do so to others.

Law arises from political power, from authority, not sentimental superstitions about mankind and its needs.

::I'd call it communal individualism if I were to call it anything. Some people would say liber-socialism probably

i.e. Secular Christianity.

::I still have hope in democracy here in the Netherlands and when I look at America I hope people like Nader will win.

Haha! Yeah right.

::there's nothing ritual about that.

Sure there is. I have a better chance of winning many lotteries than I do of actual having my vote make a difference.

::Here in the Netherlands it does matter a great deal which parties form a coalition.

Democracy say you are not a person, but a number that can be plugged into a formula and calculated like one would ring up a sale on a cash register. Public policy is not made at such elections either, but mostly by unelected and unaccountable bureaucracts. They call this joke 'representation'. Its ridiculous.

::this resonates back into society almost immediately. Maybe becuse there are alot more political parties here ranging from left to right.

Whatever. Democracy operates on the notion that people are rationally calculating, free-thinking individuals. Pretty much the entire 20th century has been a refutation of that assumption, from the investigations into the subconscious to much of the recent work that has been done on the nature of language.

::can you specify what your beliefs are currently(nuttshel will suffice).

Hmm. A mix of racialism, postmodernism, aestheticism, and communitarianism.

::I don't think so. In premodern monarchies the monarch was infaillable and could never be indicted as in most dictatorships.

This is false. See my post on de Tocqueville. Modern democracies have FAR more control over their citizens than any premodern monarch ever did.

::A country could have a fool for a monrach for several decades and not do anything against it.

At least the monarch has a long term stake in the fate of the nation. That is not the case with democratic politicians who are not held accountable for the damage they inflict upon the nation simply to get themselves re-elected in the short term.

::In the Bush vs. Gore campaign a few hundred votes did make a difference.

The President is not elected by the popular vote.

You attempt to privilege your argument by employing rhetorical devices, such as the logical fallacies, which you quite often do not even understand.

You attemopt to undermine a conversation by only attacking without indepth feedback or opinions. You deconstruct a fact or opinion without construcing it again in one way or another. You did this a while back with other means as well by only employing the logical fallacies, this was a reason of great grief amongst many members of thephora.

1.) I don't believe the Jews 'control' all the news.

then what's the bull**** about jews tainting the media all the time with their own views though filtering methods and such?

2.) I don't believe in objective news period.

that's called paranoia combined with irrational behavior

3.) I don't believe in 'facts' either. There are no facts, only interpretations.

There are most certainly facts. The earth rotating it's own axis is a fact. N.Korea being a less developed country in terms of technology, wealth, international relations, stability when comparing it to western nations is also a fact. This cannot be disputed. anyone who does is a fool. That is also a fact and can be sustained with statistical valadility.

You don't live in the U.S.

So the jews are not getting negative media attention in the USA, not even after the USA issued concernerns for the current siuation in Israel concerning the matter with the palestinians?
Are you also saying the Jews are not controlling European media?

I am not a National Socialist. I do not know where you got that impression. Communitarianism is not National Socialism, although National Socialists are Communitarians.

http://www.infed.org/biblio/communitarianism.htm
"We hold that a moral revival in these United States is possible without Puritanism; that is, without busybodies meddling into our personal affairs, without thought police controlling our intellectual life. We can attain a recommitment to moral values – without puritanical excesses.

We hold that law and order can be restored without turning this country of the free into a police state, as long as we grant public authorities some carefully crafted and circumscribed new powers.

We hold that the family – without which no society has ever survived, let alone flourished – can be saved, without forcing women to stay at home or otherwise violating their rights.

We hold that schools can provide essential moral education – without indoctrinating young people.

We hold that people can live in communities without turning to vigilantes or becoming hostile to one another.

We hold that our call for increased social responsibilities… is not a call for curbing rights. On the contrary, strong rights presume strong responsibilities.

We hold that the pursuit of self-interest can be balanced by a commitment to the community, without requiring us to lead a life of austerity, altruism, or self-sacrifice….

We hold that powerful special-interest groups in the nation’s capital, and in so many statehouses and city halls, can be curbed without limiting the constitutional right of the people to lobby and petition those who govern….

We hold these truths as Communitarians, as people committed to creating a new moral, social, and public order based on restored communities, without puritanism or oppression."

Communitarism does support individualism doesn't it. It also seems to have some sort of laws and regulations. Care to Deconstruct communitarism Deconstructionist?

I have never argued that Jews were all of the same viewpoint either, just that they have a distorting effect upon our culture by being disproportionately represented in the media.

IF they would all be replaced by national socialists in the USA you would be very happy wouldn't you?


Now you are universalizing your own Christian values, do unto others as they would do unto you, as they say. There is nothing innate about that at all. Such a notion would have been considered absurd a few centuries ago, even in the West.

You are actually stating most people have a desire to live in fear and want to hurt others are they given the chance without being any need for it?
You argue that that notion would have been abusrd a few centuries ago, can you suatain that claim? Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth has been around since early Egyptian periods. If commoner killed the child of someone there was a good chance that his child would be killed as well if he got caught and in other cases death is followed by death instead of the more literal interpretation.
We can easily compare this to "do not do to another what you wouldn't want to be done to yourself".

This is bull****. The notion that people have individual identities separate from collective identities is a radical break with all preexisting history that only came about in the Medieval West. This disgusting fawning over humanity is Christian (and ultimately Jewish).[/quote[

what crap...People want to belong to a community, but without losing their sense of individuality and uniqueness. This has always been the case.

[quote]You are so judaized yet you are oblivious to this.


I disagree, for you are forgetting i've also expressed many concerns regarding the jewish community. Yet your paranoid anti jewish sentiments have clearly made you even more subjective when dealing with everyday issues and debates. You keep comming to the conclusion that somehow the jews are involved.

You should first learn not to put words in the mouths of others.

I'm just assuming and interpreting. Are you denying that you will try and prove that the jews are for far more to blame than I hold as my truth?

That is precisely what you implied.

did not! you did! did not! you did! Kids! play nice now.

Yet North Korea is just as much a part of the world as the U.S.

I never denied that they are physically occupying a part of a larger tectonic plate. again I will state that I would never imply that their presence on the great tectonic plate of the planet earth would be physically diminshed because of their direct influence in world affairs today. this is not possible since it would go against the laws of nature.

You used a rhetorical device to suggest that North Korea was less a part of the world than other nations.

again I will state that N.Korea is on some levels lesser part of the world. The took distance from alot of nations with their islolationist ways.

Not in your original statement, as the gallery can see. You attempted to slander North Korea.

When I slander N.Korea I would use factual rhetorics. the gallery can see clearly that you are pretty hang-up over this argument of mine which I tried to explain to you in 3 posts now.

That is nonsense.

statistics don't lie

You identified 'the world' with economically successful countries. That is a form of intolerance and bigotry. You are such a little bourgeoisie. You are not even a socialist.

Sad as it may be, wealth leads to power in this world. I believe that those who dictate world policies these days are countries with an economical leverage. If you find this flawed then please enlighten me. WEalth leads to power is not a sentiment I support.

You mark me as being a "little bourgeosisie" that kind of totalitarism offends me greatly. You elevate your own views based on your presumptious interpretations to brand me. Are you the great authority on marking people now? For you know that is flawed to do so since all facts are flawed and subjective. statistics don't matter anymore, only when it suits you. No, tastes are not arbitrary, but they have statistical valadility and then you state that Facts are arbitrary? Must I assume now that the facts deriving from statistics are arbitrry or..what?
Is this even possible Fade?

North Korea sells to the Arab nations that arm themselves against Israel. Do you dispute this?

Can you prove there is some jewish mastermind plotting all this negative press around Korea? Because I can very well imagine anyone who is interested in journalism doing an article on this, just like they did with Vananu and more recently the harsh actions agains the Palestinians and their relentlessness.

Absolutely.

like what?

In some places.

in the entire world

Israel is a threat to every Arab country in the region.

And visa versa.

North Korea's trading in arms with the Arab countries actually has a lot to do with its status as part of the 'Axis of Evil'.

Israel already has nuclear weapons. Israel is the single greatest threat to the entire region. It is armed to the teeth. Its government is run by fanatics and meglomanics.

I'm not sure I'd even want to dispute this. But then again I don't have to since I never stated the opposite. I refrain from comment at this moment. I don't belief this comment added any value to our original conversation.

haven't heard much about that Bush attempt to revive the WWII feeling anymore lately, you?

Its not objective at all. It is mediated through values and prejudices.

One can get a reasonably objective view on a matter. Maybe not entirely objective, but more or less somewhat unbiased subjective view can be reached.

I asked you, specifically, for the criterion that distinguishs facts from opinions. I didn't ask for a sob story.

LOL :)

"fact ( P ).
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact. "

"o·pin·ion ( P ).
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
The prevailing view: public opinion.
Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court. "

I want the criteria, the differentia specifica, that separates facts from opinions.

I hope the dictionary excert helped somewhat? Do you dispute what I was saying in my argument btw? you didn't go into it aside from direction attention to another subject.

Don't confuse validity and reliability with facts. Facts are unmediated, objective acknowledge of existence.

You said that tastes are not arbitrary. You said that people have a certain taste and that's that. You argued that statistics prove this. thus attempting to sell it off as a fact? denying this?

What the majority of people think is irrelevant to the truth/falsehood of a proposition.

It is however reliable and valid to assume this, right?

Then why do you continue to push forth this crap about facts?

Can you be more specific?

Here we go again. You see, this is what I am talking about. Your liberal views influence your interpretations. This is a good example.

USA's and great brittains economical agenda when talking about the Iraq war is a accepted fact. Are you disputing this?

You argued that they were violating human rights. Actually, you are simply projecting this discourse upon the North Koreans. There are no innate human rights.

All humans develop, because we have the ability of reason, a need for individuality and uniqness. All human beings have a survival instincs that all natural creatures posses wheter they possed the ability for reason and problem solving or not(or as to put it a higher level of intelligence).

This implies that the existing international order is sacred, that Iraq should have been attacked by other nations because it sought a territorial redress along its southern border.

The friends and allies of Kuwait helped them out. Would you not help a friend of yours when being he/she is being attacked by someone and you are within the ability to alleviate that persons distress?

Its a tool of domination. It is used, time and time again, to justify domination.

people kill people, not guns. A tool can be wielded in many different ways. It's upon people to decide how to use a proper instrument, if they choose to use it in such ways then one can harly blame the tool that was created with an entirely different purpose. I could kill a person with a guitar if I put some effort into it, i'm sure of it.

That is the whole point of it! To fool idiots and suckers with sweet sounding words!

watch out! the concept known as communitarian might be invented to supress fouls like you.

The humanitarian is the most ruthless totalitarian there is because the humanitarian makes the entire world his business, into an object. The natural outcome of such logic is things like the Iraq War, whereby a nation that has not lifted a finger against any other nation can be ruthlessly attacked simply because others do not like it.

yeah, that's what happened :P The first Iraw war would hardly fit under the above description does it? They did lift a few fingers to some people here and there.
the second gulf war is another case I agree. I'm still in debate with myself wheter or not I can justify the second intervention.

I don't want to legislate for all peoples. Even I do not have such audacity anoint myself with the title 'humanity' and speak in its name.

What legislation should the community of which you "choose to belong"(individual choice based on presumptious totalitarian ideas) at the very least have? In other words in your utopia, how should the community you belong to react on murder or theft?

Imperialists always know what is best for others now don't they. Americans know what is best for Iraqis too.

I already stated that I believe the USA has different agenda with Iraq. I never implied the americans invaded Iraq from the goodness of their heart, nor should they ever do so. I would consider an intervention force in some cases, like rwanda. Given the fact that the are only there ro seperate the people from slaughtering each other.

Perhaps the North Koreans do not feel that bourgeoisie standards are reasonable.

Do you honestly believe your own argument or are you just being provocative?

Those who speak on the behalf of humanity elevate themselves to being more than human. The result is the most brutal and malicious kind of destruction, because once one has identified one's own cause with humanity, the enemy is stripped of his humanity and can thus be ruthlessly exterminated.

The west are not conquistadores Fade, at least not the Europeans who have always taken a negative stand on the Iraq war except for Brittain.
you attempt to pass off facts which are in reality generalisations.
On the other thread however you were advocating the geographical expansion of the medieval times and argued that those "ACHIEVEMENTS", as you called it, are fare less nowadays and that is one of the reasons that current times are more degnerate in comparison to medieval times.
On one thread you advocate geographical expansion and economical expansion and on the other thread one is labeled a totalitarian for criticising totalitarian states. Can you explain this please?

Its a form of narrow-mindedness.

Then how can you justify every day individual choices you make? Do you regret being abel to choose every day. Would you rather have people plotting out a course for you? I thought Communitarism doesn't impede with individual choices, fade?

They would have a hard time understanding the phenonemon known as 'morality', the superstition that some humans attach so much importance to.

I doubt it very much. Would a race of higher intelligence be able to survive or develop without any morals? What would keep them from killing each other off all the time? It would be anarchy.

I am not the liberal here. You are. Liberalism isolates people not only from their ancestors and descendants, but from their contemporaries as well.

My coldheartedness for someone elses fate is truly distancing isn't it? Tell me why my views distant myself from my fellow human beings, fade?

Probably not. I am not a communist. I am simply defending North Korea's right to difference from totalitarian humanists such as yourself.

I'm not against differences. I'm agains inhumanity. I'm against systematic state sponoserd slavery. I'm against state terrorism against it's own citizens or those of abroad. I'm not against communism. I will however never come to cheer for a maoist/stalinist goverment :)

I would argue that you wouldn't want to live in N.Korea because it's people live in miserable standards right now. If you deny this then you are truly deluded or just being provocative.

I already showed you taking different stands in different threads for arguments sake only.

You have proclaimed universal ethnic truths applicable to every single person on the planet. You seek to annihilate and smother the differences that exist between peoples.

untrue. In fact you are doing this. You claim Humanity is wrong and flawed. "there is no such thing as humanity". Morals are for fools and more like that. You seem not to be agreeing much with someone else view that doesn't even preach violence. You are however advocating goverments like N.Korea and Nazi germany. Seems like you are cheering for brautal totalitarian goverments. Why not cheer for the USA and the jews. They are doing a much better job at ruling the world then germany ever did.
You could argue that USA is a facist state in a basterdised form, since all great and important industries are in hands of the ruling party. Facism is also a form of Cummunitarism.

This is the same premise of George W. Bush and imperialists everywhere.

*sigh* false analogy


I must have forgotten to mention that I am also a postmoralist.

sure fade...so it's not wrong for people to supress another? Would you find it agreeable if I would to supress you for the rest of your live?

Law is nothing more than the values of those who possess political power.

I sincerely belief you are a pure anarchist.

i.e. Secular Christianity.

funny...but you keep being provocative without making much sense. try the other way around in the next post please.

Haha! Yeah right.

quite the respone. got some more of that? Maybe a "ROFLMAO, that's stupid!"?

Sure there is. I have a better chance of winning many lotteries than I do of actual having my vote make a difference.

a single vote contributes. In a totalitarian state you would have no input at all. you wouldn't be able to win any lotteries to begin with :)

Democracy say you are not a person, but a number that can be plugged into a formula and calculated like one would ring up a sale on a cash register. Public policy is not made at such elections either, but mostly by unelected and unaccountable bureaucracts. They call this joke 'representation'. Its ridiculous.

seems to work quite well today, unlike most other govermental types.

Whatever. Democracy operates on the notion that people are rationally calculating, free-thinking individuals. Pretty much the entire 20th century has been a refutation of that assumption, from the investigations into the subconscious to much of the recent work that has been done on the nature of language.

Humans can indeed be predictable, so what? This predictibility has been around since the dawn of men. It's predictable for mankind to revolt and reclaim it's individuality. This is exactly the reason why totalitarian goverments have little chance of mainting power in the end.

totalitarism corrupts as much(maybe even more) as any other govemental type.

Hmm. A mix of racialism, postmodernism, aestheticism, and communitarianism.

ok. sounds pretty overlapping with some other govermental types I know.

This is false. See my post on de Tocqueville. Modern democracies have FAR more control over their citizens than any premodern monarch ever did.

I will read up on it an reply on it later if you supply me the link please.

The President is not elected by the popular vote.

In America there is more than one thing flawed with it's current form of democracy.

supplement to my post I just posted:


quote by fade:
Why doesn't the U.K. send troops into Israel because of its 'human rights' abuses, as it in the case of Iraq?

quote by me:
Hidden economical agenda. I never stated or implyed otherwise.

quote by fade:
Here we go again. You see, this is what I am talking about. Your liberal views influence your interpretations. This is a good example.

Nice set up this was fade. You first imply something then when I answer the logical thing you make your assertions which have nothing to do with the debate, but merely serves to demonize me and my views.

care to answer the question you stated yourself please?

::Nice set up this was fade. You first imply something then when I answer the logical thing you make your assertions which have nothing to do with the debate, but merely serves to demonize me and my views.

I never suggested that Iraq was invaded for 'economical reasons', nor is it 'logical' to assume my argument ever suggested that. You are simply projecting your own views, once again, upon others.

::care to answer the question you stated yourself please?

Do you want my view? Alright. The U.K. did not send troops into Iraq for 'economical reasons'.

::You attemopt to undermine a conversation by only attacking without indepth feedback or opinions.

Spinoza continues to put forth the lie here that others reply to him with 'opinions' whereas Spinoza simply reports the 'facts' (e.g., his own values and opinions). Furthermore, according to Spinoza, my comprehensive rebuttal to his previous reply is 'without indepth feedback' (e.g., Spinoza did not like it).

:: You deconstruct a fact or opinion without construcing it again in one way or another.

This is false. I made my position quite clear in my previous reply: there are no facts, only interpretations.

::You did this a while back with other means as well by only employing the logical fallacies, this was a reason of great grief amongst many members of thephora.

There is quite a difference here, Spinoza. I can recognize logical fallacies when they occur. On the other hand, you simply throw around words you do not understand in order to give greater rhetorical weight to you argument, to take advantage of your readers' ignorance.

::then what's the bull**** about jews tainting the media all the time with their own views though filtering methods and such?

My argument is very simple and straightforward -- so even you should be able to grasp it. Jews are disproportionately represented throughout the Western media. In some places (like America), this representation is hegemonic. In other places (like some parts of W. Europe), it is not. Regardless, the disproportionately Jewish nature of the Western media has a distorting effect upon Western culture, as the news is filtered through a highly Jewish medium which structures which stories are presented (as opposed to those that are not) and how they are presented to the public. This DOES NOT imply that the Jews 'control' the media, as a collective, only that their disproportionate presence creates a situation that would not otherwise exist, one that I perceive as being negative to my interests. This is a structuralist argument.

::that's called paranoia combined with irrational behavior

Spinoza attempts to privilege his argument again with buzzwords here by suggesting that my argument is 'paranoia' and 'irrational behaviour'. Once again, Spinoza has chosen such words and used them in his argument solely for rhetorical purposes.

But anyway, I suppose I will explain my rejection of the fact/opinion distinction, for some of the weaker brethern do not seem to be grasping what I am getting at. A fact is unmediated, objective knowledge of existence whereas an 'opinions' are held to be merely personal judgments. The problem with this distinction is that objective knowledge does not exist, precisely because it is impossible to verify observations in anything but a coherence sense. Yet it is impossible to jump outside the senses, language, and history in order to verify such observations.

::There are most certainly facts.

There are no objective facts because it is impossible to escape A.) the senses B.) history and C.) language.

::The earth rotating it's own axis is a fact.

That's not a 'fact' at all because this observation is both socially and historically situated. It is a generally accepted interpretation that we have a lot of evidence for.

::N.Korea being a less developed country in terms of technology, wealth, international relations, stability when comparing it to western nations is also a fact.

This is not a 'fact' at all either. Such judgments are made by a perspective that is comparing one nation with another. They are not impersonal because they are only made on a relational basis.

::This cannot be disputed.

I have disputed this.

::anyone who does is a fool.

Logical Fallacy - Prejudicial Language.

::That is also a fact and can be sustained with statistical valadility.

Statistical validity does not equal facts, Spinoza.

::Are you also saying the Jews are not controlling European media

I have not argued that the Jews control the media. If you had actually read my previous reply, then you would have known this. I have argued that their presence within the media distorts the manner in which the news is reported. This, in turn, has a distorting effect upon our culture.

::So the jews are not getting negative media attention in the USA, not even after the USA issued concernerns for the current siuation in Israel concerning the matter with the palestinians?

The Jews are not getting a lot of negative media attention in the U.S. at all. George W. Bush is the most pro-Israel President in American history. His opponent, John Kerry, prides himself upon having voted in favour of Israel's interests on every single vote he ever cast in the U.S. Senate.

::Communitarism does support individualism doesn't it.

You are confusing Communitarianism the perspective (see the Political Compass) with Communitarianism as a political/philosophical movement in the United States. The word is used in several senses.

::It also seems to have some sort of laws and regulations. Care to Deconstruct communitarism Deconstructionist?

There is no need for that, actually. You are equivocating communitarianism the perspective with the Communitarian political/philosophical movement in the United States. That is a fallacy, as I was referring to the former, not the latter.

::IF they would all be replaced by national socialists in the USA you would be very happy wouldn't you?

That would please me greatly. As I said before, I do not believe in objectivity or free speech. I believe in advancing my interests.

::You are actually stating most people have a desire to live in fear and want to hurt others are they given the chance without being any need for it?

Absolutely. In ancient pagan societies, your 'humane society' would have been identified with cowardness. War was held to be a glorious thing, a gift from the gods. It was seen as something that one should seek out, something one should engage in whenever possible. Actually, 'Hel' was originally a place that some people went who were not fortunate enough to die in battle.

::You argue that that notion would have been abusrd a few centuries ago, can you suatain that claim?

Sure. In the Middle Ages, raping women was one of the favourite past time of lords. War was seen as something glorious and European culture at the time reflected this. Criminals were often ruthlessly tortured in public spectacles. I have documented this on the board already. Search my posts.

::Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth has been around since early Egyptian periods.

That comes from the Babylonians, actually. :|

:: If commoner killed the child of someone there was a good chance that his child would be killed as well if he got caught and in other cases death is followed by death instead of the more literal interpretation.

All children were not considered to be equal either. In premodern Northern European societies, such blood feuds could be avoided by paying wergelds.

::did not! you did! did not! you did! Kids! play nice now.

I will let the gallery be the judge of that.

::I'm just assuming and interpreting.

You are setting up straw man arguments and attacking them.

::Are you denying that you will try and prove that the jews are for far more to blame than I hold as my truth?

There is no need for me to respond to a straw man argument, Spinoza. We can end this discussion right now if you only have the intention of talking to yourself.

::We can easily compare this to "do not do to another what you wouldn't want to be done to yourself".

Actually. We can't. They are not analogous concepts.

::what crap...People want to belong to a community, but without losing their sense of individuality and uniqueness. This has always been the case.

I have demonstrated several times now that the notion that people have an individual identity separate from their communal identity is A.) ultimately derived from Judaism and B.) a rather recent phenomenon. And no, that has not 'always been the case at all'. It only came about in the West during the Christian Middle Ages.

::I disagree, for you are forgetting i've also expressed many concerns regarding the jewish community.

Your thought is highly penetrated by Jewish concepts which you routinely emply in your posts. I would say that culturally you are somewhat Jewish, although probably more of a Christian.

::Yet your paranoid anti jewish sentiments have clearly made you even more subjective when dealing with everyday issues and debates.

I reject the subjectivity/objectivity binary opposition. Spinoza is one again trying to mislead the gallery by attempting to rhetorically privilege his argument. I have rationally laid out my case against the Jews which I have supported with meticulous research often taken from Jewish sources. But what does this matter to Spinoza? If Jewish authors write books about their disproportionate representation in the media and how this gives enormous power to the Jewish community, then what is this to Spinoza? He will simply deny the stronger argument anyway, for the sake of his faith, as he is motivated by a sentimental and irrational attachment to Judaism.

::You keep comming to the conclusion that somehow the jews are involved.

Like in the David Irving thread? In that case, the Jewish community in New Zealand lobbied their government for over a week to have views they do not like censored. It is quite rational to assume, on that basis, that yes, the Jews are involved.

::statistics don't lie

Statistics can be interpreted in all sorts of ways. They can be manipulated by people with an interest in promoting an agenda.

::I never denied that they are physically occupying a part of a larger tectonic plate.

Your original statement was quite clear. You implied that North Korea was less a part of the world than other nations.

::again I will state that I would never imply that their presence on the great tectonic plate of the planet earth would be physically diminshed because of their direct influence in world affairs today. this is not possible since it would go against the laws of nature.

Nature does not operate in accordance with any laws.

::watch out! the concept known as communitarian might be invented to supress fouls like you.

I think the gallery will accept my argument that I know much more about communitarianism than Spinoza.

::In America there is more than one thing flawed with it's current form of democracy.

The very concept of democracy is flawed. There is no such thing as a 'people' that rules itself. Leaders do that.

::I will read up on it an reply on it later if you supply me the link please.

Look in the Original Contributions forum under 'A Cultural Movement'.

:: . sounds pretty overlapping with some other govermental types I know.

I sincerely doubt it. My own personal philosophy is radically different from most types of government, with perhaps the exception of fascism.

::*sigh* false analogy

That's not a false analogy. Like George W. Bush, you also assume you know what's best for foreign nations.

::sure fade...so it's not wrong for people to supress another?

I don't believe in inherent value. I don't accept morality period. There is nothing inherently wrong with oppression.

:: Would you find it agreeable if I would to supress you for the rest of your live?

No, I would not. That does not imply that there is anything inherently wrong about oppression.

:: I sincerely belief you are a pure anarchist.

I am not an anarchist.

:: funny...but you keep being provocative without making much sense.

Your arguments are laden with Christian values, albeit in a secularized form.

:: try the other way around in the next post please.

I must be making a lot of sense so I will, erhm, stay the course.

:: quite the respone. got some more of that? Maybe a "ROFLMAO, that's stupid!"?

See my reply about putting words into the mouths of others.

:: a single vote contributes.

I participate in the lottery when I buy a ticket too.

:: In a totalitarian state you would have no input at all.

I live in a totalitarian country, Spinoza.

:: you wouldn't be able to win any lotteries to begin with

This is a false analogy. In my ideal state, representation would take take place on the aesthetic level (e.g., citizens would be represented by their very surroundings, by great public buildings.)

:: seems to work quite well today, unlike most other govermental types.

It does not work at all. That's the genius of democracy. It creates the illusion of representation while it does away with substantive representation.

:: Humans can indeed be predictable, so what?

Very few people are even capable of original thought. Most people operate in the concepts provided to them by their language, by others. Language structures thought.

:: This predictibility has been around since the dawn of men. It's predictable for mankind to revolt and reclaim it's individuality.

Mankind does not have any innate 'individuality'. This is simply liberalism speaking through the medium of Spinoza. Mankind does not even exist, except as an idol.

:: This is exactly the reason why totalitarian goverments have little chance of mainting power in the end.

I live under a totalitarian regime, in other words, under a regime in which the state and civil society are no longer separated.

:: totalitarism corrupts as much(maybe even more) as any other govemental type.

You are a totalitarian. Totalitarians proclaim universal truths applicable to all peoples and then go about trying to force their views upon everyone.

:: untrue.

You admitted this in the previous reply.

:: In fact you are doing this.

I don't speak on the behalf of 'humanity'. You do.

:: You claim Humanity is wrong and flawed.

Yes, I do. It is an idol that religious zealots like yourself venerate, have always venerated. It has simply taken the place of God.

:: "there is no such thing as humanity".

Humanity is an idol. Nothing more.

:: Morals are for fools and more like that.

The superstitious, to be precise..

:: You seem not to be agreeing much with someone else view that doesn't even preach violence.

You preach the worst kind of violence. You would have your views forced upon everybody in the entire world.

:: You are however advocating goverments like N.Korea and Nazi germany.

I have not advocated a government like North Korea's. I have simply defended North Korea's right to difference. That does not imply that I agree with the Juche ideology.

:: Seems like you are cheering for brautal totalitarian goverments.

Far from it. Nazi Germany and North Korea are not totalitarian governments. These nations do not proclaim universal moral truths applicable to all peoples and then go about enforcing them at the point of a bayonet.

:: Why not cheer for the USA and the jews.

Because the USA and Israel are totalitarian countries, Spinoza.

:: They are doing a much better job at ruling the world then germany ever did.

Germany never had any intention of 'ruling the world'. The last thing Hitler wanted to do was mix the Germans with humanity-at-large.

:: You could argue that USA is a facist state in a basterdised form, since all great and important industries are in hands of the ruling party.

The United States is not a fascist state. In fascism, aesthetics is privileged over economic concerns. In the USA, on the other hand, the fundamental purpose of art is merely to peddle products. It is subordinated to economics.

:: Facism is also a form of Cummunitarism.

Fascism is a form of communitarianism, yes. In fascism, the good of the individual is subordinated to the common good of the state.

:: My coldheartedness for someone elses fate is truly distancing isn't it?

The individualism of liberalism and atomization are the same thing. The purpose of individualism is to weaken communities in order to weaken the ability of the individual to resist domination.

:: Tell me why my views distant myself from my fellow human beings, fade?

Because you would weaken communities on the grounds that they are a threat to individual freedom, when in reality, you weaken the individual by isolating him from his contemporaries.

:: I'm not against differences.

Yes you are. You are a humanist. You do not respect the differences that exist between peoples because you regard them fundamentally as being part of the same unit.

:: I'm agains inhumanity.

Who are you to say what is humane and inhumane? How is warfare inhumane? Few things are more perennial than warfare. You are simply associating your own ideology with 'humanity' in order to privilege your own opinions.

:: I'm against systematic state sponoserd slavery.

I disagree. You advocate the most ruthless form of slavery there is -- democracy.

:: I'm against state terrorism against it's own citizens or those of abroad.

Few states in all of history have harrassed their own citizens more than the current democratic regimes.

:: I'm not against communism. I will however never come to cheer for a maoist/stalinist goverment

Well. That makes sense. You are, after all, a totalitarian who makes the entire world and all 'human beings' your object.

:: I would argue that you wouldn't want to live in N.Korea because it's people live in miserable standards right now.

What are 'miserable standards'?

:: If you deny this then you are truly deluded or just being provocative.

You are associating 'miserable standards' with economic prosperity. This is nothing more than a liberal prejudice.

:: I already showed you taking different stands in different threads for arguments sake only.

I do not associate 'miserable standards' fundamentally with economics, but instead, the aesthetic quality of a given society. See the 'Why I Hate Democracy' thread.

:: Sad as it may be, wealth leads to power in this world.

This is not necessarily so.

:: I believe that those who dictate world policies these days are countries with an economical leverage.

Why do such countries have such economic leverage to begin with?

:: If you find this flawed then please enlighten me.

It is flawed. Where does technology come from? Innovation. And where does innovation come from, Spinoza? Creativity. And how is creativity fostered?

:: WEalth leads to power is not a sentiment I support.

You didn't come off that way in your previous part.

:: You mark me as being a "little bourgeosisie" that kind of totalitarism offends me greatly.

You are a little bourgeoisie totalitarian. You proclaim universal moral truths and would force them upon the entire human species.

:: You elevate your own views based on your presumptious interpretations to brand me.

You said yourself that you believe in universal, ahistorical moral truths that are applicable to the entire human species. That is totalitarianism.

:: Are you the great authority on marking people now?

You have marked yourself in this debate by proclaiming your desire to force your views upon the entire human species.

:: For you know that is flawed to do so since all facts are flawed and subjective.

I don't believe in the subjectivity/objectivity binary opposition. I have rejected the fact/opinion binary opposition as well.

:: statistics don't matter anymore, only when it suits you.

Statistics can be interpreted in all sorts of ways. Correlation is not necessarily causation either.

:: No, tastes are not arbitrary, but they have statistical valadility and then you state that Facts are arbitrary?

I don't believe in facts. That should be clear. I have pointed that out now SEVERAL TIMES in the course of this debate alone. Statistical validity and facts are not the same thing.

:: Must I assume now that the facts deriving from statistics are arbitrry or..what?

Facts are not derived from statistics, as statistics are derived from historically situated perspectives.

:: Is this even possible Fade?

It is impossible to escape the senses, history, and language.

:: Can you prove there is some jewish mastermind plotting all this negative press around Korea?

I have made a structuralist argument. Structuralism does not assume conspiracies or plots.

:: Because I can very well imagine anyone who is interested in journalism doing an article on this, just like they did with Vananu and more recently the harsh actions agains the Palestinians and their relentlessness.

Yet it does not follow that all people write articles for the same reasons, Spinoza.

:: I doubt it very much.

Morality has changed significantly in just the last fifty years or so.

:: Would a race of higher intelligence be able to survive or develop without any morals?

Sure.

:: What would keep them from killing each other off all the time? It would be anarchy.

This is a Non Sequitur.

:: Then how can you justify every day individual choices you make?

They are not individual choices.

:: Do you regret being abel to choose every day.

I cannot choose to jump outside of my senses, history, and language.

:: Would you rather have people plotting out a course for you?

People have plotted out a course for me by imparting me their language.

:: I thought Communitarism doesn't impede with individual choices, fade?

You know very little about communitarianism, even less about postmodernism.

:: Do you honestly believe your own argument or are you just being provocative?

I am out to get you. :o

:: The west are not conquistadores Fade, at least not the Europeans who have always taken a negative stand on the Iraq war except for Brittain.

They proclaim universal moral truths applicable to all human beings. Many European countries participated in the Iraq War. Those that did not participate in it did not oppose the war because they respected Iraq's right to difference.

:: you attempt to pass off facts which are in reality generalisations.

I don't believe in facts. Language operates on the basis of generalisations.

:: On the other thread however you were advocating the geographical expansion of the medieval times and argued that those "ACHIEVEMENTS", as you called it, are fare less nowadays and that is one of the reasons that current times are more degnerate in comparison to medieval times.

Yes, I did say that.

:: On one thread you advocate geographical expansion and economical expansion and on the other thread one is labeled a totalitarian for criticising totalitarian states. Can you explain this please?

I don't believe North Korea is a totalitarian state. North Korea does not attempt to force the Juche ideology upon all nations. On the other hand, the USA is a totalitarian nation because it proclaims universal ethical truths and attacks other nations on the basis of this discourse.

Its a tool of domination. It is used, time and time again, to justify domination.

:: people kill people, not guns.

Guns do kill people, Spinoza. People use guns to kill others.

:: A tool can be wielded in many different ways.

The purpose of human rights is to delude suckers like yourself. The entire point is for people like you to take it seriously.

:: It's upon people to decide how to use a proper instrument, if they choose to use it in such ways then one can harly blame the tool that was created with an entirely different purpose. I could kill a person with a guitar if I put some effort into it, i'm sure of it.

Guitars were not designed to kill people. Human rights, on the other hand, is promoted precisely to justify attacking other nations. It is promoted precisely because it appeals to the sentimentalism that pervades Christian cultures.

:: watch out! the concept known as communitarian might be invented to supress fouls like you.

Don't confuse the communitarian perspective with the specific political movement called Communitarianism in the United States.

:: yeah, that's what happened :P The first Iraw war would hardly fit under the above description does it?

Yes, it does. Iraq did not attack America or the U.K. Instead, these nations made a local border dispute between two Middle Eastern nations into a moralistic crusade against evil.

:: They did lift a few fingers to some people here and there.

They attacked Iraq even though Iraq had committed not act of aggression against them.

:: the second gulf war is another case I agree. I'm still in debate with myself wheter or not I can justify the second intervention.

I don't see why not. You fundamentally agree with Dubya that there are universal moral truths which should be forced upon all nations and all of humanity, irrespective of their differences.

:: What legislation should the community of which you "choose to belong"(individual choice based on presumptious totalitarian ideas) at the very least have?

Racialized citizenship, at the very least. Absolutely no Jews.

:: In other words in your utopia, how should the community you belong to react on murder or theft?

I never said my ideal state would be a utopia. Murder and theft would still be punishable under the law by my ideal state.

:: I already stated that I believe the USA has different agenda with Iraq.

What agenda was this? How do you know this, Spinoza?

:: I never implied the americans invaded Iraq from the goodness of their heart, nor should they ever do so.

That is what the Americans said they did. Likewise, the government of New Zealand said it is not allowing David Irving to visit New Zealand on account of his immigration status.

:: I would consider an intervention force in some cases, like rwanda.

Why? How does what goes on in Rwanda affect the Netherlands? Why is it any of your business? Who are you to tell them how to run their society?

:: Given the fact that the are only there ro seperate the people from slaughtering each other.

Maybe they want to slaughter each other? If so, what is the problem? How does that affect the Netherlands? It doesn't. You simply want to force your own views upon the entire human species because you are a totalitarian.

:: Can you be more specific?

If you agree with my argument, then why do you keep giving us crap about 'facts'.

:: USA's and great brittains economical agenda when talking about the Iraq war is a accepted fact. Are you disputing this?

Its not an accepted fact. Yes, I dispute this. The U.S. and the U.K. have not benefitted economically from attacking Iraq.

Quote:
You argued that they were violating human rights. Actually, you are simply projecting this discourse upon the North Koreans. There are no innate human rights.

:: All humans develop, because we have the ability of reason, a need for individuality and uniqness.

This is false. This belief in individual and uniqueness was entirely foreign to the ancient pagan world and did not come about until the introduction of Christianity into Europe. Furthermore, reason is not an inate ability, but a skill that is pervasive in literate cultures.

:: All human beings have a survival instincs that all natural creatures posses wheter they possed the ability for reason and problem solving or not(or as to put it a higher level of intelligence).

I don't accept this either.

:: The friends and allies of Kuwait helped them out.

They attacked Iraq even though Iraq had committed no aggression upon them.

:: Would you not help a friend of yours when being he/she is being attacked by someone and you are within the ability to alleviate that persons distress?

I wonder how many people in the U.S. and Europe could have even located Kuwait on a map of the world prior to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.

:: I hope the dictionary excert helped somewhat?

No. That dictionary did not help at all because it did not give us a test or a standard by which facts can be differentiated from opinions.

:: Do you dispute what I was saying in my argument btw?

Yes.

:: you didn't go into it aside from direction attention to another subject.

Your argument relies upon an assumption about binary oppositions.

:: You said that tastes are not arbitrary.

They are not. I did not suggest that tastes were unmediated, however.

:: You said that people have a certain taste and that's that.

I said all tastes are not equal.

:: You argued that statistics prove this. thus attempting to sell it off as a fact? denying this?

I don't recall saying anything about facts.

:: It is however reliable and valid to assume this, right?

Not necessarily.

:: LOL

I don't see what is so funny. The dictionary gives nothing but the normative uses of terminology.

:: like what?

The sanctions upon NK.

:: One can get a reasonably objective view on a matter.

I totally disagree.

:: Maybe not entirely objective, but more or less somewhat unbiased subjective view can be reached.

I don't believe in objectivity. Consequently, I don't believe in subjectivity either. There is only one world -- the perspectival.

Doing some cherry picking. All from FaDe, I honestly know all too little about NK. China is something else, tho'.
There are no 'basic human rights'. This is nothing more than a reified discourse, an illusion. Its quite similiar to the man in the desert who has a mirage of an oasis. Human rights have been wished into existence.- Maybe so, but they are still in existence :p
I don't believe in facts, that is, unmediated objective knowledge of existence.
- Well, it's easy to get confused when you make statements like that:
You don't live in the U.S.I don't believe in facts, that is, unmediated objective knowledge of existence.
- Not even old 'cogito ergo sum'?
The humanitarian is the most ruthless totalitarian there is because the humanitarian makes the entire world his business, into an object. The natural outcome of such logic is things like the Iraq War, whereby a nation that has not lifted a finger against any other nation can be ruthlessly attacked simply because others do not like it.
- You're forgetting that the main argumentation behind the Iraqi war was the WMD's, meaning that it was sold on something as animalistic as self-defence :p which I suppose not even you can oppose.
Sure there is. I have a better chance of winning many lotteries than I do of actual having my vote make a difference.
- This is because of the size of the US. I've suggested you dissolve it many times, but it just ends up with me being called anti-American :p

Your argument is very individualistic-sounding btw
there are no facts, only interpretations.
- The ultimate one-fits-all argument :| odd that no one's started using it against you
Your arguments are laden with Christian values, albeit in a secularized form.
- Your language seems aimed to confuse. e.g. you say you don't believe in objective facts, yet you repeatedly make statements that imply you do.
It does not work at all. That's the genius of democracy. It creates the illusion of representation while it does away with substantive representation. - It pretty mutch removes any need for a violent revolution. If you have enough people behind you to owerthrow the administration violently, it's also likely you have enough people behind you to to become an elected member of the administration.
Very few people are even capable of original thought.- I'm surprised that you at all believe in original thought :\

:: Doing some cherry picking. All from FaDe, I honestly know all too little about NK. China is something else, tho'.

Alright.

:: Not even old 'cogito ergo sum'?

Nope.

:: Maybe so, but they are still in existence

In much the same way as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny exist, in that we talk about them.

:: Well, it's easy to get confused when you make statements like that:

That's an interpretation.

:: You're forgetting that the main argumentation behind the Iraqi war was the WMD's, meaning that it was sold on something as animalistic as self-defence :p which I suppose not even you can oppose.

That was part of the argument, yes. That part of the argument has since been discarded in favour of the humanitarian justification.

:: This is because of the size of the US. I've suggested you dissolve it many times, but it just ends up with me being called anti-American

This is somewhat correct. On the other hand, I would be more likely to ascribe it to the nature of democracy itself.

:: Your argument is very individualistic-sounding btw

I don't think so.

:: The ultimate one-fits-all argument :| odd that no one's started using it against you

That would be a little self-refuting on their part.

:: Your language seems aimed to confuse. e.g. you say you don't believe in objective facts, yet you repeatedly make statements that imply you do.

Not really. Its more likely that you are interpreting my argument in terms of the categories that you are familiar with, whereas I am relying on different ones.

:: It pretty mutch removes any need for a violent revolution.

I disagree. I would agree however that the strength of democracy is the powerful illusion it creates that the people run their own governments.

:: If you have enough people behind you to owerthrow the administration violently, it's also likely you have enough people behind you to to become an elected member of the administration.

Not necessarily.

:: I'm surprised that you at all believe in original thought :\

I believe in quasi-original thought. Thought for me is a linguistic process.

:: Not even old 'cogito ergo sum'?

Nope. - You'll have to explain why. I really can't see any clear arguments against it

:: Maybe so, but they are still in existence

In much the same way as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny exist, in that we talk about them. - In the same way any abstract things exist, FaDe

:: Well, it's easy to get confused when you make statements like that:

That's an interpretation. - Yes and, I believe, a common one.
:: You're forgetting that the main argumentation behind the Iraqi war was the WMD's, meaning that it was sold on something as animalistic as self-defence :p which I suppose not even you can oppose.
That was part of the argument, yes. That part of the argument has since been discarded in favour of the humanitarian justification. - That's not really my impression. The main argument still seems to be that Iraq threatened the western world in some way, e.g. by harbouring terrorists.
:: This is because of the size of the US. I've suggested you dissolve it many times, but it just ends up with me being called anti-American

This is somewhat correct. On the other hand, I would be more likely to ascribe it to the nature of democracy itself. - So you would.
:: The ultimate one-fits-all argument :| odd that no one's started using it against you

That would be a little self-refuting on their part. - So only you get to use it then, brilliant :p
:: Your language seems aimed to confuse. e.g. you say you don't believe in objective facts, yet you repeatedly make statements that imply you do.
Not really. Its more likely that you are interpreting my argument in terms of the categories that you are familiar with, whereas I am relying on different ones. - When you say 'A is B', most users of the english language would say you were implying that that is an undisputable, objective fact - as opposed to you saying 'I believe A is B'.
:: It pretty mutch removes any need for a violent revolution.
I disagree. I would agree however that the strength of democracy is the powerful illusion it creates that the people run their own governments. - You believe the violent revolution has other advantages than regime change?
:: If you have enough people behind you to owerthrow the administration violently, it's also likely you have enough people behind you to to become an elected member of the administration
Not necessarily. - Well, no. I realize that, it's why I wrote 'likely'. Still, it would usually be the case.
But I think you might view the violence in itself as a positive?

:: I'm surprised that you at all believe in original thought :\
I believe in quasi-original thought. Thought for me is a linguistic process. - Did you ever explain to me how it's possible to be in a situation where you can't find the words to express what you think? I mean; it shouldn't be a problem since all our thoughts are words anyway :p

Otherwise I think we sort of agree on original thought: nothing can be created out of nothing.

:: In the same way any abstract things exist, FaDe

Not exactly.

:: You'll have to explain why. I really can't see any clear arguments against it

The action gives rise to the consciousness of the 'I'.

:: That's not really my impression. The main argument still seems to be that Iraq threatened the western world in some way, e.g. by harbouring terrorists.

This line of reasoning has mostly been abandoned in the U.S. and the U.K. Blair and Bush continue to push forth the argument that Saddam was a horrible dictator who brutalized 'millions of his own people' more than anything else.

:: When you say 'A is B', most users of the english language would say you were implying that that is an undisputable, objective fact - as opposed to you saying 'I believe A is B'.

What most people believe has no effect upon the truth or falsehood of a proposition.

:: So only you get to use it then, brilliant

I accept the proposition. They do not.

:: You believe the violent revolution has other advantages than regime change?

Yes. All regimes are not the same.

:: Well, no. I realize that, it's why I wrote 'likely'. Still, it would usually be the case.

Not exactly. Super majorities are often required to change constitutions.

:: Did you ever explain to me how it's possible to be in a situation where you can't find the words to express what you think? I mean; it shouldn't be a problem since all our thoughts are words anyway

I believe I linked you to an article which you could not locate.

:: Otherwise I think we sort of agree on original thought: nothing can be created out of nothing.

Most people simply regurgitate the concepts provided to them by their language and declare this to be 'original thought'.
:: But I think you might view the violence in itself as a positive?

Yes.

I'll reply later to your post fade, but in the mean time I would like to mention the following:

:: You said that people have a certain taste and that's that.

I said all tastes are not equal.

ok. that is true, but how do you explain your following quote?

Beauty is not arbitrary, Spinoza.

I'm not sure I grasp this yet from your perspective.

:: ok. that is true, but how do you explain your following quote?

Because I have argued that one's senses, language, perspective, and values distort how one interprets existence. I have not argued this was an entirely arbitrary process.

:: I'm not sure I grasp this yet from your perspective.

I have argued that one's senses, language, perspective, and values mediate how one interprets existence. It is impossible to jump outside any of these into any 'objective reality'. This does not imply that the judgments we make are entirely arbitrary in the least.

My reply to Ixabert which is overdue:
Nonsense. Quite a long time before the Korean War, the U.S. had been 'interested' in Korea. After WWII, the U.S. pushed ahead with preparations to take the areas which were occupied by Japan and the fascist allies.

This is true, however I would like to make a more indepth note to shed some light on who was also to blame.

For centuries, this small nation has been attacked and conquered by both China and Japan. In fact it was completly controlled by Japan from 1910 until Japan's defeat in WW2 in 1945. This is how the American Army first arrived, as occupation troops ousting the Japanese. Russian troops had already entered Northern Korea fighting against the Japanese. An agreement was reached between the two occupying forces (U.S. and U.S.S.R.) splitting the country in half at the 38th parallel.

In 1945, we Koreans mistakenly believed that Japan's surrender meant independence at last. Little they knew that US was planning to impose a 40+ year trusteeship for Korea. US officials in charge of the Korean policy had no knowledge of the Korean history or any interest in the Korean people.

Some people say that Syngman Rhee had sold out the Republic to US, but in reality, the fate of Korea was in the hands of foreigners and no Korean leader had any say on the matter. Dr. Rhee, pretending to cooperate with US, outfoxed the Americans and ended the US occupation (after 2 years instead of 40-50 years!). The same goes to Gen. Kim Il Sung. Neither man had the stature to influence Stalin or US. By working with the foreign powers, they were able to salvage some semblance of nationhood in Koreas.

Gen. Kim's preoccupation with self reliance (Ju Che) had its origin in the humiliating treatments he had received from Soviet commanders in Korea and Stalin's underlings. Stalin treated Gen. Kim as a Soviet Army major - not as a peer leader of a nation. To US, Gen. Kim was a Russian army captain pretending to be the legendary Korean patriot Kim Il Sung. US treatments of Dr. Rhee were no better. Indeed. US has tried to eliminate him on a number of occasions for not following American orders!.



The hope was to seize strategic bridgeheads for world domination,

I find using the word world domination a bit to strong, don't you?

To justify this, the U.S. said that the Koreans could not maintain a free independent government, and so they put forward a 'proposal for mandatory rule' of Korea. After they defeated Japan, they therefore sent troops to southern Korea. By August of that year they set up and enforced what they called a 'military government' under the leadership of John Hodges, and thereby supressed progessive political parties and people's committees. They did this to accelerate war preperations, that they might take over all of Korea, colonise the economy, etc., using southern Korea as a sort of 'springboard'.

I already argued a slightly different case in the above statement.

There was an international convention in which Moscow proposed that Korea be an independent, democratic, sovereign state, with the consultation of democratic political parties in Korea.But the U.S. opposed this, in favour of the 'military government'.

You are conveniently leaving out USSR's role in this and events prior to this which I mentioned above.

Then it was proposed that the U.S. and the Soviet Union withdraw their troops from Korea. The Soviet Union withdrew all their troops. The U.S. was pressured to do the same, but it only ended up withdrawing part of their troops to a nearby base in Japan.

And USSR withdrawing their troops to a nearby base as well?

They also kept their military bases in Korea, and they still commanded the south Korean army.

Both armies did so, I will agree that the USA was paranoid for the "domino" effect, but USSR's interests are not to be diminshed.

- MacArthur said: "By occupying all of Korea we could cut into pieces the one and only supply line connecting Siberia and the south..., control the whole area between Vladivostok and Singapore.... Nothing would then be beyond the reach of our power."
Hershel D. Meyer, The Modern History of the United States, Kyoto, p. 148.

Last time I checked macArthur wasn't the president.

I'm sorry if I cannot comment on everything in your article. The reasons for this are several. For example, I believe that the USA(also still today) in interested in creating overseas stronghold to protect and expand their interests.
The reasons why i'm objecting to some of your points is that the role of the USSR should not be diminished. They also had an aggresive stand towards this. I hope you are not denying that.

Also I don't have the information at hand that you have and it would be difficult to prove the one way or the other. I'm an advocate of blaming both foreign powers in this case.

However to return to the current situation. The aim of my post was to indicate that N.Korea, because of their current political situation, is thriving less than it's southern neighbour when comparing the ecnomical situation.


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html
North Korea, one of the world's most centrally planned and isolated economies, faces desperate economic conditions. Industrial capital stock is nearly beyond repair as a result of years of underinvestment and spare parts shortages. Industrial and power output have declined in parallel. The nation has suffered its tenth year of food shortages because of a lack of arable land, collective farming, weather-related problems, and chronic shortages of fertilizer and fuel. Massive international food aid deliveries have allowed the regime to escape mass starvation since 1995-96, but the population remains the victim of prolonged malnutrition and deteriorating living conditions. Large-scale military spending eats up resources needed for investment and civilian consumption. In 2003, heightened political tensions with key donor countries and general donor fatigue threatened the flow of desperately needed food aid and fuel aid as well. Black market prices continued to rise following the increase in official prices and wages in the summer of 2002, leaving some vulnerable groups, such as the elderly and unemployed, less able to buy goods. The regime, however, relaxed restrictions on farmers' market activities in spring 2003, leading to an expansion of market activity.

with China, certain islands in Yalu and Tumen rivers are in uncontested dispute; a section of boundary around Paektu-san (mountain) is indefinite; China has been attempting to stop mass illegal migration of North Koreans escaping famine, economic privation, and oppression into northern China; Military Demarcation Line within the 4-km wide Demilitarized Zone has separated North from South Korea since 1953; periodic maritime disputes with South Korea

For a comparision with S.Korea please check here (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/ks.html)

That's not a 'fact' at all because this observation is both socially and historically situated. It is a generally accepted interpretation that we have a lot of evidence for.

what's evidence? Nothing more but interpretations and observations that can be manipulated to fit someone's agenda, right? Like the lunar landing by Armstrong.

You are confusing Communitarianism the perspective (see the Political Compass) with Communitarianism as a political/philosophical movement in the United States. The word is used in several senses.

what is the political movement you support?

Sure. In the Middle Ages, raping women was one of the favourite past time of lords. War was seen as something glorious and European culture at the time reflected this. Criminals were often ruthlessly tortured in public spectacles. I have documented this on the board already. Search my posts.

A minor 1% of the population's favorite past time. The others were very busy putting food on the table.

I have demonstrated several times now that the notion that people have an individual identity separate from their communal identity is A.) ultimately derived from Judaism and B.) a rather recent phenomenon. And no, that has not 'always been the case at all'. It only came about in the West during the Christian Middle Ages.

Though pharao's and such had a great sense of individuality. They went to great lenghts to preserve their own uniqueness in history.

Why? How does what goes on in Rwanda affect the Netherlands? Why is it any of your business? Who are you to tell them how to run their society?

since recent talks and such I can very well argue that keeping the peace in that country supports my personal agenda. My personal agenda being that I want peace and prosperity in that country while not disrupting their ways. This can be achieved, ensuring peace between two people's does not equal forcing my ways upon them. I'm not stating that this is what happened, of course it stays theoretical.

Maybe they want to slaughter each other? If so, what is the problem? How does that affect the Netherlands? It doesn't. You simply want to force your own views upon the entire human species because you are a totalitarian.

It has been very clear that at least one side didn't like them being slaughtered. I advocate peace between them to further my personal agenda.
The reason I don't want little children to be raped and killed has nothing to do with my hitorically indoctrined christian/jewish believes, but more with a matter of compassion. If I lived there right now I wouldn't want all that to happen to me no matter what I believe. I don't think anyone wants to be tortured even if someone teached you torture is great fun.

Its not an accepted fact. Yes, I dispute this. The U.S. and the U.K. have not benefitted economically from attacking Iraq.

they will

This is false. This belief in individual and uniqueness was entirely foreign to the ancient pagan world and did not come about until the introduction of Christianity into Europe. Furthermore, reason is not an inate ability, but a skill that is pervasive in literate cultures.

even in pagan cultures there were those who sought individuality, distincting themselves from the mass.

They attacked Iraq even though Iraq had committed no aggression upon them.

they did this to further their own agenda which happens to include Kuwaits soevereignity.

I wonder how many people in the U.S. and Europe could have even located Kuwait on a map of the world prior to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.

In Europe a whole lot more people than in the USA, I assure you.


I have given your perspective alot of thinking and came to the conclusion that I can see alot of things your way, yet one thing keeps bothering me.
You state their are no facts which is correct. Since all facts are indeed interpretations of observations that can vary depening one ones historical and linguistic situation.

Yet, Humans are born with 2 legs. This has always been the case and it is accepted throughout every culture in every time frame(be it pagan, christian or modern). This is not a variable, but a constant. Normal human beings are always born with 2 legs. How can we not call this constant a fact?
This surpasses an interpretation of an observation, since the function of out legs never change. Even without intelligence the function and the observation that we are born with two legs would still be the same.
Of course you can argue then that we have a lot of data to support our observation, but what should refrain us from calling this a "fact"?

:: In the same way any abstract things exist, FaDe
Not exactly.
- How is it different from, say, the value of the money we use?

:: You'll have to explain why. I really can't see any clear arguments against it
The action gives rise to the consciousness of the 'I'.
- So?

:: That's not really my impression. The main argument still seems to be that Iraq threatened the western world in some way, e.g. by harbouring terrorists.
This line of reasoning has mostly been abandoned in the U.S. and the U.K. Blair and Bush continue to push forth the argument that Saddam was a horrible dictator who brutalized 'millions of his own people' more than anything else.
- So we agree that they didn't go to war on that argument and that the UN never saw it as reasonable to go to war based only on that argument?

:: When you say 'A is B', most users of the english language would say you were implying that that is an undisputable, objective fact - as opposed to you saying 'I believe A is B'.
What most people believe has no effect upon the truth or falsehood of a proposition.
- When it comes to language it certainly does. Language is defined through use.

:: You believe the violent revolution has other advantages than regime change?
Yes. All regimes are not the same.
- I know this. So?

:: Well, no. I realize that, it's why I wrote 'likely'. Still, it would usually be the case.
Not exactly. Super majorities are often required to change constitutions.
- Sure, but this is not a prerequisite(sp?) for democracy.

Are you complaining that the individual doesn't have enough of a voice in a democracy, FaDe?
:: Did you ever explain to me how it's possible to be in a situation where you can't find the words to express what you think? I mean; it shouldn't be a problem since all our thoughts are words anyway
I believe I linked you to an article which you could not locate.
- Damn :\

:: Otherwise I think we sort of agree on original thought: nothing can be created out of nothing.
Most people simply regurgitate the concepts provided to them by their language and declare this to be 'original thought'.
- Do give an example.

:: But I think you might view the violence in itself as a positive?
Yes.
- Allways (as a glorious, romantic thing) or just in some cases?