N. Korea Threatens War if 'Satellite' Is Shot Down

[devilhunterred]

wow
and this guy is still in power?

why hasnt he been assasinated yet..im sure the CIA could pull it off

Two reasons why.

1) CIA can't pull it off. The entire NK borders are sealed air-tight. Infiltration into Pyongyang by deploying special forces or operatives is pretty much nigh impossible.

2) NK doesn't have oil.

 

[Dachs]

Waging wars and territorial expansion contribute to the "ambitious" characteristics, not "megalomaniactic".

You've got a different conception of 'megalomaniac' than most people do, apparently. True Scotsman?

As for "making attempts to religiously engineer the populace as he wanted...", like you said, it was only an half effort attempt that was never done rigorously and ruthlessly, which he could have.

Okay, so it could have been worse? Does that make him a Good Dude? Just because he didn't do what Ioustinos II did to the Severan Monophysites doesn't mean he didn't do some nasty things to the Hindus of his state and those of others.

That's why I don't use wiki. Does it tell you that although Hinduism was not encouraged, Indian Hindus could still practice their religion after paying their taxes? Sounds pretty tolerating to me.

I know what jizya is, thanks. Except I also know the penalty for not paying and continuing to practice the religion. There are a lot of poor people in India. 'Nuff said? What about the destruction of Hindu temples? The wars on Hindu states because they were Hindu?

How is expanding one's kingdom not justified if it's at the interests of the people by bringing additional resources and materials into the nation?

You could claim, actually, that most of the country didn't benefit, just the notables and higher leadership.

The Indians and even Hindus certainly didn't seem to have any problems with Akbar's wars.

I trust you haven't read the Dalpat Vilas; elseways you'd not be able to say that with a straight face.

I never said the title of the Great implies perfection on a man.

I am saying that the title of the Great implies he is a great leader.

Obviously Alexander is still titled the Great because his military genius and accomplishments far exceeds his alchoholic flaws.

Really. That would be my point. That doesn't erase the fact that there were flaws, and they were pretty major ones, and they should not be ignored or whitewashed in the interests of proving a point about a modern Korean strongman.

Then tell me, what you were indicating by stating that Eastern Europe has little to do with plantation when the subject at hand was slavery.

Making a differentiation between serfdom and slavery and alluding to the growing stigma surrounding the whole thing?

No, you did.



See?

Congratulations, you know how to ignore me and miss the point!

I'm a Star Wars fan, deal with it.

wut

Now you are just picking out minor typos and building arguments around them. As well as copying and pasting Arabics from wiki into your post to pretend you actually know something.

That's just low.

It would if it comprised an actual argument of mine as opposed to a point made wholly for the lulz. And your dismissal of my 'Wikipedia Arabic' would probably be effective if I weren't in my second semester of the class, with pretty good knowledge of how to get an Arabic-language keyboard off the Internet.

For Christ's sake, go look up the definition of sarcasm, seriously.

I could direct you to that in response to the previous quote. I could also say that most people don't swim away from the life preserver.

My entire argument with you has been over how poor the examples you've picked are if you want to try to make the point that just because Kim - or anyone - has absolute power, doesn't mean he's automatically going to do bad stuff with it. I gave you a relatively good example for that; Kypselos is another (I believe there's actually a forumer who's taken his moniker). I recommend that you not throw it away and continue arguing with me over relatively pointless historical minutiae that have little to do with the Korean at hand, just to try to prove something.

 

[Sharwood]

 

[Patroklos]

Only South Korean ones. After the kidnaping he would offer them generous ammounts of money to stay in NK. Some did, some refused and eventually returned to SK.

That is NOT how it happened.

Shin was put in comfortable accommodations, but, after an escape attempt, was placed in prison. He was brought to Pyongyang in 1983, to learn why he had been brought to North Korea. [4] His ex-wife was also brought to the same dinner party, where she first learned that Shin was also in North Korea. They re-married shortly afterwards, as suggested by Kim Jong-il.

In 1986, eight years after his kidnapping, Shin and his wife escaped while in Vienna for a business meeting[4], before eventually fleeing to the United States, seeking political asylum.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_Sang-ok

People who are voluntarily working and can return to SK on their wish don't have to escape.

 

[Phlegmak]

why hasnt he been assasinated yet..im sure the CIA could pull it off

It would bring instaibility to North Korea, threatening South Korea and any other neighbor.

 

[RedRalph]

and in any case, I really doubt they could pull it off.

 

[Yeekim]

and in any case, I really doubt they could pull it off.

What happened to good old guided missiles n' stuff, hmm...?

 

[RedRalph]

What happened to good old guided missiles n' stuff, hmm...?

Yeah, a guided missile fired into Pyongyang... hint: If youre going to do that, dont just do that

 

[devilhunterred]

You've got a different conception of 'megalomaniac' than most people do, apparently. True Scotsman?

From dictionary.com

Megalomanic: a person who has megalomania

Megalomania: 1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies
of wealth, power, or omnipotence.

2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.

If waging wars to expand one's kingdom is regarded as characteristics of megalomania, jeez, I can't even being to count how many megalomaniac kings and leaders we have over the course of human history.

Okay, so it could have been worse? Does that make him a Good Dude? Just because he didn't do what Ioustinos II did to the Severan Monophysites doesn't mean he didn't do some nasty things to the Hindus of his state and those of others.

He was a good dude considering the nature of his actions during the historical period he was in. What, you expected a king in the 14th century to emancipate slaves? Perhaps make a long glorious speech to the people about natural rights, property rights and human equality? And then impose universal suffrage to his kingdom?

I know what jizya is, thanks. Except I also know the penalty for not paying and continuing to practice the religion.

Wow, surprise. The law was that Hindus could only practice their religion after paying their taxes. If a citizen didn't pay his taxes and continued to practice Hindu, he is penalized. I mean, wow, I really didn't expect that. How shocking.

You could claim, actually, that most of the country didn't benefit, just the notables and higher leadership.

Frankly, the greatest benefit Akbar contributed to India by waging his wars was to lay the foundation of the modern Indian state borders. India today would most likely be a lot smaller if Akbar didn't establish the Mughal dynasty and have his wars.

I trust you haven't read the Dalpat Vilas; elseways you'd not be able to say that with a straight face.

No I haven't, but the existence of a single collected manuscript doesn't ascertain that the majority of the Indian population objected his wars.

Really. That would be my point. That doesn't erase the fact that there were flaws, and they were pretty major ones, and they should not be ignored or whitewashed in the interests of proving a point about a modern Korean strongman.

I have never claimed Akbar didn't have flaws in his leadership and governing, but by stating that Akbar was a ruthless, aggressive, megalomaniac tyrant of India is just plain stupid.

Akbar has done so much so India I don't even know where to begin.

He developed a system between the throne and nobility that suited India as a centralized state, installed political stability under diverse ethnic and religious groups, created balance in the ruling class by increasing the usage of Persians, Rajputs and Indian in the imperial service, converted indigenous clan leaders to be loyal to the Mughal and maintained social harmony by staffing them to be in charge of frontier areas, recruited non-Turani to work in the civil and finance service, expanded India to the seas and encouraged international trade, aquired strategic resources and horses for India in Kabul and Ghanzi, obtained enourmous territories from Baluchistan, Sindh, Kashmir and all the Northern warring tribes that the Vijayanagara dynasty was unable to conquer.

And oh yea, I forgot forgot to add, he actually abolished the pilgrimage taxes in 1563, and as well as the jizyah in 1564.

You just have to make me waste 20 minutes and dig up my old history paper to prove how utterly wrong you are.

Making a differentiation between serfdom and slavery and alluding to the growing stigma surrounding the whole thing?

Eastern Europe used slaves just as much as Western Europe did, no to mention they also supplied them.

What are you trying to argue?

My entire argument with you has been over how poor the examples you've picked are if you want to try to make the point that just because Kim - or anyone - has absolute power, doesn't mean he's automatically going to do bad stuff with it. I gave you a relatively good example for that; Kypselos is another (I believe there's actually a forumer who's taken his moniker). I recommend that you not throw it away and continue arguing with me over relatively pointless historical minutiae that have little to do with the Korean at hand, just to try to prove something.

Yea, Akbar is a great leader, just as all the kings and dictators I have mentioned in the list: Kangxi, Tang Taizhong, Louis XIV, Peter the Great.

And I proved it.

 

[Dachs]

If waging wars to expand one's kingdom is regarded as characteristics of megalomania, jeez, I can't even being to count how many megalomaniac kings and leaders we have over the course of human history.

He was a good dude considering the nature of his actions during the historical period he was in. What, you expected a king in the 14th century to emancipate slaves? Perhaps make a long glorious speech to the people about natural rights, property rights and human equality? And then impose universal suffrage to his kingdom?

No, but I don't think that it's too much to ask to not initiate large-scale religious persecution. There are plenty of rulers before and after Akbar who saw their way fit to doing that.

Wow, surprise. The law was that Hindus could only practice their religion after paying their taxes. If a citizen didn't pay his taxes and continued to practice Hindu, he is penalized. I mean, wow, I really didn't expect that. How shocking.

...with death. That's not excessive to you? A tax imposed for reasons of creating a condition of religious uniformity; either you convert, you pay your tax, or if you can't pay your tax you die.

Frankly, the greatest benefit Akbar contributed to India by waging his wars was to lay the foundation of the modern Indian state borders. India today would most likely be a lot smaller if Akbar didn't establish the Mughal dynasty and have his wars.

The modern Indian Hindu state's borders are a result of one Muslim potentate's conquest of some of his neighbors, which ended up not approximating India at all?

No I haven't, but the existence of a single collected manuscript doesn't ascertain that the majority of the Indian population objected his wars.

...

How about how Raja Ram and a group of Hindus' desecration of Akbar's resting place after he died? Or basically all of the scholarship done by Sharma and Paliwal? Or how about I turn that on you and ask that you provide some accounts of Akbar's 'tolerance' toward Hindus with sources other than his own court historians?

I have never claimed Akbar didn't have flaws in his leadership and governing, but by stating that Akbar was a ruthless, aggressive, megalomaniac tyrant of India is just plain stupid.

He wasn't aggressive? A tyrant? Those seem self-evident in the initiation of aggressive wars, and his position as monarch. Ruthless? How about the third Siege of Chittorgarh? The destruction of the Doab temples? Megalomaniac...well, invading most of your neighbors is a good way to indicate that.

Akbar has done so much so India I don't even know where to begin.

While I don't wish to be associated with the position that Akbar has done nothing for India, it's important to recognize that many of these things didn't actually help the Hindu majority over which he ruled. In many ways, the domination of Muslims was perpetuated and lengthened, and if you say that the political stability etc. he created set the tone for later Mughals, so too did the persecutions of Akbar against Hindus create a precedent for Aurangzeb and his reign.

And oh yea, I forgot forgot to add, he actually abolished the pilgrimage taxes in 1563, and as well as the jizyah in 1564.

...and reinstated jizya in 1575. Iqtidar Alam Khan has done a pretty good work on the actual benefits to Hindus of the periodic removals of religious taxation, read it.

You just have to make me waste 20 minutes and dig up my old history paper to prove how utterly wrong you are.

First off, I'm not making you do anything. I've stated a few times that instead of picking somebody so contentious, that you should probably just go with people who weren't so easily construed as bad dudes, like some of the people I've mentioned. I don't understand why you're going off on this tangent, unless it's personal. It has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic. If you want to continue this, I suggest you get a new thread. Secondly, it seems presumptuous of you to claim that I'm 'utterly wrong'.

Eastern Europe used slaves just as much as Western Europe did, no to mention they also supplied them.

Kholops were not actually all that common in the early eighteenth century (their institution was in the process of abolition).

What are you trying to argue?

That the Greater Wrath was a pretty vicious, nasty, tyrannical thing to do, even in a time of war, to civilians. It was as bad as the devastation of the Palatinate, but carried out over a greater time period.

Yea, Akbar is a great leader, just as all the kings and dictators I have mentioned in the list: Kangxi, Tang Taizhong, Louis XIV, Peter the Great.

And I proved it.

My quarrel is not with the characterization as 'great' but rather your assertion that these men in their autocracy (or a close semblance thereof) didn't do some really nasty things.

 

[Ecofarm]

I'm a Star Wars fan, deal with it.

I just cannot!

Seriously... explain?

 

[Azale]

9 out of 10 people in this dicussion have never even read anything close to a booklet about the man besides the news they watch on TV, and they are officially claiming him as insane, mad, and requires assylum.

Figure that.

Some people's ignorance is truly shocking.

I don't claim to an expert on Kim but in the very least i have read a 200 page biography and analysis on him.

He isn't insane, but he should be on trial for crimes against humanity in the Hague. His crimes exceed that of Bashir's, and that's saying something.

I've read two books on Kim Jong Il and I'm halfway through a reeeally long one on his father, as far as "credentials" go.

 

[devilhunterred]

He isn't insane, but he should be on trial for crimes against humanity in the Hague. His crimes exceed that of Bashir's, and that's saying something.

I've read two books on Kim Jong Il and I'm halfway through a reeeally long one on his father, as far as "credentials" go.

Have you read the one by Michael Breen? His analysis is very insightful, and his thesis on Kim's personalities and motives of his actions is superb.

 

[Ecofarm]

GLaM: Do you think Kim Jong-il has nukes? Do you think he'd use them?

Breen: Yes, I think he has them. I think he'd use them if he were militarily attacked. But this would be a last, suicidal resort. He's not a fool.

GLaM: Your book contends Kim Jong-il is neither insane nor evil, but the North Korean system is. Yet you also say that Kim's exit is "what we're all waiting for". Wouldn't his "exit" likely lead to someone worse, someone lacking Kim's relative sophistication born of his privileged life and more exemplary of that the insane, evil system?

Breen: As I've indicated, the post-Kim scenario is by no means clear. For North Koreans, things could get worse. But my best sense - and hope - is that the madness would stop when the political leadership is no longer required to adhere to the lie of the personality cult.

I think that a future regime would, in order to justify itself, have to separate from the past and justify its power by improving the economic lot of the citizenry. That's the way out of communism.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/FA16Dg10.html

Originally posted by Breen:

To be fair to President Bush, when it comes to nuclear weapons, you do not need incontrovertible proof of a threat before defending yourself against it. If a country has the will, capability, technology and runs rings around inspectors, it’s reasonable to assume the worst. In many ways, we may compare North Korea and Pakistan. Both are dictatorships with illicit nuclear programs. Both want ties with the US. The problem is that the US can trust the Pakistani leadership, but can’t trust the North Korean leadership.

On this theme of evil, though, if we broaden our definition of the word, North Korea becomes a shoe-in. It is thoroughly evil in that it literally devours its own people – thru an unsurpassed degree of suppression of thought and action, thru avoidable famine, and thru its extensive gulag.

http://www.business-in-asia.com/books/korea_book.html

 

[devilhunterred]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/FA16Dg10.html


http://www.business-in-asia.com/books/korea_book.html

Good links.

The only way there can be improvements of relatons with NK is that the masses actually understand Kim better. It doesn't help the situation by blindy proclaiming him as insane, mad and crazy.

I recommend Michael Breen's books to anyone who wish to understand the dictator of NK more than what they watch on the news.

 

[Ecofarm]

So Bush isn't stupid, the US system is?

I'm not buying that excuse for Kim or Bush. Kim is insane. Bush is mostly a dumb-ass (but he still managed to achieve political objectives I support and I think he will be vindicated [not intellectually] in history books).

Sorry, but I'm not writing off Kim's insanity to 'just a result of the system'. He has the power to control the system. One cannot be an all-powerful stalinist dictator and be sane; those things are mutually exclusive.

 

[devilhunterred]

So Bush isn't stupid, the US system is?

I'm not buying that excuse for Kim or Bush. Kim is insane. Bush is mostly a dumb-ass. (But he still managed to achieve political objectives I support)

It's been almost a year since I last read his book in Hong Kong.

But I remember one of his theses is that Kim is himself a prisoner of the rigid and conservative government system and infrastructure in NK. Kim is forced to play the game according to the traditions or risk a legimitacy crisis from the governing body itself.

That being said, this isn't a justification for his tyranny and crimes against humanity, but simply to understand the man better for what he truly is and isn't.

 

[Ecofarm]

Everyone's a victim of the system...

pah-lease

Why don't we just remove personal responsibility from all national leaders? We're no longer allowed to blame them for anything. They're just victims.

 

[devilhunterred]

Everyone's a victim of the system...

pah-lease

Why don't we just remove personal responsibility from all national leaders? We're no longer allowed to blame them for anything. They're just victims.

Most people believe Kim has absolute powers and therefore free to do anything as he wishes, which is surprisingly false. The NK system may be dictatorial, but the system also ensures actions of the leader follow the rigid rules and guidelines that permit no changes to the system.

It's very difficult for me to explain. Just go read his book and you will understand.

 

[Ecofarm]

I'm not buying the excuse, and there is ample evidence of his insanity. I really have no interest in learning about the nK system... it's a piece of garbage... nuff said. Lil Kim nor his regime are worthy of study for me; I wouldn't begin to give either the legitimacy of caring. If I were to read something about nK, it surely would not be some apologist crap; it would be a history/documentary of the ordinary citizens and their suffering.

---

Anyway, is nK ever going to launch this thing? I can't wait to see footage of it blasted out of the sky (is footage possible?).