ForumGarden

Dicatatorships always fall unless there is an outside enemy they can use to justify their staying in power their demise in inherent in tgheoir narture especially when the citizens are aware if alternatives that's why they try and control what people read and watch. All the west has to do is bide their time.

Saddam would have been replaced so would gaddafi, castro wanted to emulate america not fight it too bad the american government listened to big business and pushed cuba on to russia.

China got dragged in to the korean war thanks to an american general that disobeyed orders and thought the chinese were kidding when they warned they would get involved if US troops approached their borders or that they would not attack a force armed with nuclear weapons.

spot;1487431 wrote: If you're right that the Russians have done what you claim then I'll happily predict World War Three will engulf the planet before Christmas.

Are you sure of your facts?


There was a brief mention of this in one of the 'mainstream' news programmes. How much truth in it is open to speculation, but if it IS true, then may God help us all....

I'll have a quick 'trawl'....

It looks rather worrying. The key info is at the end of the report.

'Russia kills US-backed Syrian rebels in second day of air strikes as Iran prepares for ground offensive' - Telegraph

It would appear that under guise of attacking ISIL, Russian planes are attacking Syrian rebels. How could the Russians be so stupid?

This goes way beyond 'posturing', does it not?

Smaug;1487432 wrote: I have to ask where this idea of unification has come from, Spot. Has it been in the news? If so, I have missed it.
There's so much in the news it's hard to know which articles to show you. If you google korean reunification bonanza and click "news" it's full to brimming.

Here's a recent view from the North - Our Wish? A Painless Reunification | North Korean Review Journal

and one from the South - Park Extols Korea Bonanza With a North-South Unification - Bloomberg Business

gmc;1487433 wrote: Dicatatorships always fall unless there is an outside enemy they can use to justify their staying in power their demise in inherent in tgheoir narture especially when the citizens are aware if alternatives that's why they try and control what people read and watch. All the west has to do is bide their time.

Saddam would have been replaced so would gaddafi, castro wanted to emulate america not fight it too bad the american government listened to big business and pushed cuba on to russia.

China got dragged in to the korean war thanks to an american general that disobeyed orders and thought the chinese were kidding when they warned they would get involved if US troops approached their borders or that they would not attack a force armed with nuclear weapons.


Generally, I would agree with you, but it can take quite a long time for this to occur. Time breeds opportunity, to unseat the dictatorship, or for said dictatorship to upset various world powers, and drag 'bystanding' nations into conflict via 'treaty chains'. One thing IS for sure; North Korea, Syria, Russia and China all need handling carefully, but firmly.

spot;1487376 wrote: The spirit of the times, presumably. It's a style of speech. By all means adopt it.


The spirit of what times ?

You have failed to answer my simple question. Evading it with florid language may be clever but it is still evasion.It is a style of speech that is peculiarly your own, and you can keep it.......thanks all the same.

Anyway, please I withdraw my personal agreement officially to 'Forum Garden's' congratulations to North Korea.

I seriously wonder if given the chance of meeting face to face, so to speak,with no outside influence, whether South and North would or could agree on reunification. Several generations of Koreans are now indoctrinated into their different ways of life, where personalities and powerful dynasties of leaders are involved things get confusing.

spot;1487437 wrote: There's so much in the news it's hard to know which articles to show you. If you google korean reunification bonanza and click "news" it's full to brimming.

Here's a recent view from the North - Our Wish? A Painless Reunification | North Korean Review Journal

and one from the South - Park Extols Korea Bonanza With a North-South Unification - Bloomberg Business


It's rather dubious, to be honest, and I' wary of attaching too much significance, or hope to it. Here's a key segment from link#1 (Our wish)

Rather than peace, signs point to Kim Jung Un’s value system being preoccupied with military force and national pride and independence. Kim’s assertion that, “attempts at reunification by the absorption of North Korea or prayers for its collapse shall be answered with a resolute armed response shows little evidence that a mature constructive discussion regarding reunification is likely to ensue in the near future. (See 2012’s Iron Sun Address)



Among recent studies, a public survey of South Korea Citizen’s perception of reunification (2014) and a survey North Korean resident’s consciousness of reunification (2014) show a curious result. The belief that reunification is necessary and beneficial for the sake of the Korean nation and people has faded a great deal in both North and South, and the primary concern should be the calculation of costs and benefits of reunification.

I'll read link #2 now, and see what it has to say....

A little more optimistic, but there are many 'stumbling-blocks' to overcome. Both articles state that support for reunification is decreasing slowly. China is also not helping by imposing an 'air zone', combined with it's 'bully-boy' tactics in Asia. I still don't see kim voluntarily stepping down, though I would be pleased to be wrong on this.

I guess it's a case of 'don't hold your breath'.

Smaug;1487436 wrote: It looks rather worrying. The key info is at the end of the report.

'Russia kills US-backed Syrian rebels in second day of air strikes as Iran prepares for ground offensive' - Telegraph

It would appear that under guise of attacking ISIL, Russian planes are attacking Syrian rebels. How could the Russians be so stupid?

This goes way beyond 'posturing', does it not?


Ah. The "Syrian Free Army".

Your "Iranian Free Army" was bombing universities in the USA and consisted of ex-SAVAK employees, I wondered why the Russians were flying missions against them. Googling "Naser Rahimi Almaneih" tells the tale.

As for Russian planes bombing the Syrian Free Army, why would they not? In the middle of all the US-financed destabilization there's a US-financed civil war going on, which would never have even started had the US not been financing it. The Syrian Free Army are hoping to topple the Syrian government. The Russians are allies of the Syrian government. Who do you expect the Russians to be bombing.

spot;1487441 wrote: Ah. The "Syrian Free Army".

Your "Iranian Free Army" was bombing universities in the USA and consisted of ex-SAVAK employees, I wondered why the Russians were flying missions against them. Googling "Naser Rahimi Almaneih" tells the tale.

As for Russian planes bombing the Syrian Free Army, why would they not? In the middle of all the US-financed destabilization there's a US-financed civil war going on, which would never have even started had the US not been financing it. The Syrian Free Army are hoping to topple the Syrian government. The Russians are allies of the Syrian government. Who do you expect the Russians to be bombing.


For a start, it's not 'my' army! Secondly, with the Americans backing the 'free army', and the Russians bombing them, we could all have a nice 'suntan' soon! If Putin thinks Syria is worth risking a nuclear holocaust, then he's one of the biggest aholes in this world. It would be more to the point if he helped in the destruction of ISIL FIRST, then opened diplomatic negotiations over Assad and the Syrian Rebel Army, and America's financing and supplying of said army.

Why do you persist in defending the actions of self-serving tyrants, such as Putin (Puto?; see, I have a nickname for him, too! It's Spanish for faeces,BTW....) Appropriate for this Russian ahole, don't you think?

I must admit to being puzzled by your continuing defence of tyrants and despots. If you love regimes like this so much, why don't you try living under one for a while?

You'd soon change your tune!

I'm not sure you've yet grasped the difference between the "Syrian Free Army" and the "Iranian Free Army".



Smaug;1487444 wrote: Why do you persist in defending the actions of self-serving tyrants


Why do you persist in calling these leaders self-serving tyrants? You dislike their policies, you reed papers and websites which fling abuse at them, that's no reason to be uncivil.

Is there anything we can commend Kim Jong-un for, apart from a penchant for extreme executions ? I'd genuinely like to know. I might be missing something, what with all the snivelling, god-like adulation he gets from those who deserve better.

spot;1487445 wrote: I'm not sure you've yet grasped the difference between the "Syrian Free Army" and the "Iranian Free Army".







Why do you persist in calling these leaders self-serving tyrants? You dislike their policies, you reed papers and websites which fling abuse at them, that's no reason to be uncivil.


The links I posted earlier give me the perfect right to be as uncivil as I like about these murdering despots. Why would you want to be civil about human rights abusers?

You have a incomprehensible sense of propriety, Spot.You're quite content to annoy members of this site, yet you insist we're civil about despots?

Strange indeed! If you were looking to anger me you've achieved your goal, pal!

Reunification of Korea would indeed be a good thing. I'd like to see that negotiated.

Ding.............. seconds out................... round nine ...................... seems that Smaug is well ahead on points at the moment !

Snowfire;1487455 wrote: Is there anything we can commend Kim Jong-un for, apart from a penchant for extreme executions ?He's doing an unpleasant job he never volunteered for and can't resign from, and he's obviously succeeding at it. His appointed task - really appointed, not sought - is to keep the government of North Korea stuck where the hands of time froze in 1953. Korea was in a civil war, foreigners intervened and turned what would have been a short affair into a seventy year haul. Every Kim appointed to the task has had that one single mission - not to lose, despite the foreign intervention preventing a result. And that's what they've done regardless of the cost.

It's the same with Vietnam. Other countries have had short sharp civil wars, one side won and the reunited country went on to evolve. Vietnam was traumatized by massively asymmetrical, massively repressive foreign intervention and its political system has been frozen from then until now. The pattern is pretty clear - if your country is shattered the way Vietnam was, and Korea was, you don't evolve. There's no therapist, there's no progress, you're stuffed.

And it was the same with Iran, it will be the same with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and the devastation caused by lethal air superiority is at the root of all of it. If you want to name the bogeymen, start with everyone in uniform who ever briefed a US President.

spot;1487471 wrote: He's doing an unpleasant job he never volunteered for and can't resign from, and he's obviously succeeding at it. His appointed task - really appointed, not sought - is to keep the government of North Korea stuck where the hands of time froze in 1953. Korea was in a civil war, foreigners intervened and turned what would have been a short affair into a seventy year haul. Every Kim appointed to the task has had that one single mission - not to lose, despite the foreign intervention preventing a result. And that's what they've done regardless of the cost.

It's the same with Vietnam. Other countries have had short sharp civil wars, one side won and the reunited country went on to evolve. Vietnam was traumatized by massively asymmetrical, massively repressive foreign intervention and its political system has been frozen from then until now. The pattern is pretty clear - if your country is shattered the way Vietnam was, and Korea was, you don't evolve. There's no therapist, there's no progress, you're stuffed.

And it was the same with Iran, it will be the same with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and the devastation caused by lethal air superiority is at the root of all of it. If you want to name the bogeymen, start with everyone in uniform who ever briefed a US President.


Korea is a bad example for your argument the north started the war by invading the south it wasn't at the behest of the chinese. It's american paranoia about communism that lies at the heart of a lot of problems. They sytenatically destroyed democratic movements either out of paranoia or to protect economic interests. The US went in to vietbnam to prop up a nasty dictatorship after the people had the temerity to vote against him before that they had supported the french in their attempts to retain their old colony. Racism as well the inability to accept that the vietnamese were caopabkle of fighting a war without russian support despite the evidence from the war against japan. Syria, libya, iraq, afghanistan at thge back of it all is saudi arabia and oil. If you want to en terrorism cut the funding but since saudi is behind it all that's not going to happen is it.

Fascists lost the battles in europe they were never defeated in the US and now rule the country. The fascists lost the battles but liberal democracy is the loser despite winning ww2. Currently we have a tory party hell bent on turning the clock back to the days when an elite ruled and all opposition was quashed and destroying the achievements of socialism in the process. Patriotism. the monarchy and the church just wait till remembrence day and you'll see what I mean as the establishment line up agaisnt the godless left winger currently leading the labour party.

I take Spot's broader point that the US has capitalized on the opportunity to have a large presence in the country by maintaining the tension between the two sides. SK has become a large supplier of stuff for us now.

gmc;1487506 wrote: Korea is a bad example for your argument the north started the war by invading the south it wasn't at the behest of the chinese.


You're talking about an event in 1950.

In 1945, the Soviet Union began a military occupation of Korea as far south as the 38th Parallel and the USA began a military occupation of Korea from there to the southern tip.

That's a five year military occupation of the entire Korean Peninsula before anyone moved troops across the dividing zone and precipitated the civil war.

South Korea never had armed forces worth the name. North Korea set out with around 50,000 to 70,000 troops armed with rifles. The major forces in conflict between 1950 and 1953 were all foreign.

Since the cease-fire, North Korea has built up its armed capacity because it couldn't depend on indefinite Soviet or Chinese military support. As indeed it turned out that it couldn't.

The North had a choice - roll over and surrender, or stand its ground. Why does anyone criticize it for holding tight and pushing toward a negotiated basis for a reunified country? What divided Korea in the first place was the worldwide Soviet-American standoff.

spot;1487512 wrote:

The North had a choice - roll over and surrender, or stand its ground. Why does anyone criticize it for holding tight and pushing toward a negotiated basis for a reunified country? What divided Korea in the first place was the worldwide Soviet-American standoff.I suppose it's because it doesn't appear as though the north wishes to negotiate. You say that that's propaganda. You could be right, and I would not be surprised if you were. We only know what we read and see and hear.

Ahso!;1487519 wrote: I suppose it's because it doesn't appear as though the north wishes to negotiate.
When in doubt, watch the horse and see if its mouth is moving.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea_Juche Korea

spot;1487522 wrote: When in doubt, watch the horse and see if its mouth is moving.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea_Juche KoreaThat's good advice. Thanks.

gmc;1487506 wrote: Korea is a bad example for your argument the north started the war by invading the south it wasn't at the behest of the chinese. It's american paranoia about communism that lies at the heart of a lot of problems. They sytenatically destroyed democratic movements either out of paranoia or to protect economic interests. The US went in to vietbnam to prop up a nasty dictatorship after the people had the temerity to vote against him before that they had supported the french in their attempts to retain their old colony. Racism as well the inability to accept that the vietnamese were caopabkle of fighting a war without russian support despite the evidence from the war against japan. Syria, libya, iraq, afghanistan at thge back of it all is saudi arabia and oil. If you want to en terrorism cut the funding but since saudi is behind it all that's not going to happen is it.

Fascists lost the battles in europe they were never defeated in the US and now rule the country. The fascists lost the battles but liberal democracy is the loser despite winning ww2. Currently we have a tory party hell bent on turning the clock back to the days when an elite ruled and all opposition was quashed and destroying the achievements of socialism in the process. Patriotism. the monarchy and the church just wait till remembrence day and you'll see what I mean as the establishment line up agaisnt the godless left winger currently leading the labour party.


How so? It was a single country that descended into civil war, that cannot be described as one side invading the other in either direction.

spot;1487422 wrote: Mis-spelling the man's name doesn't reflect badly on him,


You're correct. After all what would a man once declared man Sexiest Man Alive For 2012

care?

The merciless comedy website The Onion has declared North Korean leader Kim Jong Un the "sexiest man alive for 2012." And it appears China's People's Daily Online has taken the story seriously.

"I love this one," Onion editor Will Tracy told CNN. "It has a certain delightfulness to it."

The Chinese story reprinted satirical comments describing Kim's "air of power that masks an unmistakable cute, cuddly side," his "impeccable fashion sense, chic short hairstyle, and," the story says, "that famous smile."




The Chinese website had underscored its story by including its own 55-page photo gallery to accompany the text, which was published in both English and Chinese. But the pages and the images were no longer available Wednesday.

A woman responding to a call Wednesday to the office of the website said it was "impossible that the People's Daily will quote from any unreliable media -- we do verify our news and sources."




Onion: We just fooled the Chinese government!

theONON

In what way do the prattish japes of a website dedicated to telling deliberate lies in an attempt to amuse its readership have anything to do with a discussion of Korean reunification? How can anyone see the quotes as relevant?

spot;1487537 wrote: In what way do the prattish japes of a website dedicated to telling deliberate lies in an attempt to amuse its readership have anything to do with a discussion of Korean reunification? How can anyone see the quotes as relevant?


Deliberate lies?

It's called satire, not to taken as gospel. The same way I took your OP.

Reunification?

That would take some most astonishing turn of events for that to happen.

All the costs would buurden the South as the North has nothing of value to contribute.



The Economist

70 years and the North has what to show for it?

Anniversary parade provides rare glimpse into North Korea's military might

A large but hungry army

North Korea's population of 25 million is half that of its adversary and neighbor to the south, but that hasn't stopped it amassing a huge army.

It has more than 1.2 million active soldiers, and a further 7.7 million in reserve, making North Korea's ground force one of the largest in the world. Its troops are bolstered by 200,000 highly-trained paramilitary soldiers, so in terms of pure numbers, North Korea has an immediate advantage.

However, the army is also the impoverished nation's biggest employer and despite their preferential access to resources, North Korean soldiers outside of the paramilitary are underpaid and often underfed.

Malnourishment has made them far smaller than South Korean fighters, and Hardy said reports of soldiers running black market operations to supplement their meager income is common. It's a disadvantage he said that is compounded by the inflexibility of the force and a lack of leadership and motivation common among armies of totalitarian regimes.

"And so yes, they have more numbers, but what are they fighting for?" Hardy asked. "There's an argument going on at the moment that the South Koreans have an awful lot to fight for with the way they have built their country up over the past 70 years from poverty to one of the world's big economies. What's your average soldier in North Korea defending?"

CNN

As sorry as the military maybe, when under the control of a retarded fool can cause a lot of misery.

Trollish idiots might see some relevancy.

tude dog;1487544 wrote: Deliberate lies?

It's called satire, not to taken as gospel. The same way I took your OP.


My main thrust was that the Onion's story had no truth whatever to it. I have a good grasp of satire, and lying with deliberate misinformation does not constitute satire. Satire involves presenting genuine verifiable truth in a way that utterly embarrasses the target. Simply inventing a filthy and deliberate lie can only reflect badly on the teller, not on the intended victim. That's why Fox News is so disreputable, along with its Murdoch owners.

If you can see anything at all in my OP which is not factual, do please say what it is. I'm currently unaware of any error of fact in it.

spot;1487548 wrote: My main thrust was that the Onion's story had no truth whatever to it. I have a good grasp of satire, and lying with deliberate misinformation does not constitute satire. Satire involves presenting genuine verifiable truth in a way that utterly embarrasses the target. Simply inventing a filthy and deliberate lie can only reflect badly on the teller, not on the intended victim.


Tha's a novel interpetation.

[spot;1487548 wrote: That's why Fox News is so disreputable, along with its Murdoch owners.




spot;1487548 wrote: If you can see anything at all in my OP which is not factual, do please say what it is. I'm currently unaware of any error of fact in it.


It all reads like an opinion devoid of facts.

tude dog;1487549 wrote: It all reads like an opinion devoid of facts.
Perhaps you'd like to answer in more detail, Earlier in the thread I broke down every statement from the OP into this post to make it easier for you, all you need do is click reply and then take each statement of fact in turn, showing why it's false.

As for calling "my definition of satire as truth" a novel interpretation, you're quite mistaken. Perhaps all Americans are equally mistaken, I can't say. The OED defines satire as " A thing or circumstance which exposes the faults or absurdities of something or someone; a mockery." A thing, or circumstance, you'll notice. Something real. Something true. Not a lie. The finest and most telling piece of satire I can bring to mind is Swift's Modest Proposal, and there's not a lie in it from start to finish.

Least of all is satire a deliberately invented lie. In England we refer to lies like that as filth. Tabloid filth. Gutter-press filth. The essential impression we aim to convey is one of excrement. The notion that by telling a deliberate lie we can thereafter avoid looking at the reality, because we can pretend we successfully dealt with the issue, is particularly nauseating.

spot;1487550 wrote: Perhaps you'd like to answer in more detail, Earlier in the thread I broke down every statement from the OP into this post to make it easier for you, all you need do is click reply and then take each statement of fact in turn, showing why it's false.


No, I have no interest in that. I'll leave it where as far as I am concerned reunification is a no starter.

spot;1487550 wrote: As for calling "my definition of satire as truth" a novel interpretation, you're quite mistaken. Perhaps all Americans are equally mistaken, I can't say. The OED defines satire as " A thing or circumstance which exposes the faults or absurdities of something or someone; a mockery." A thing, or circumstance, you'll notice. Something real. Something true. Not a lie.


uH, Seriously?

That was all there was to it on the OED?

I am familiar with the OED and know darn well there is much more to any word than what you present.

So excuse me as I go more pedestrian with dictionaries more accessible to the common folk.



satire

noun

1.

the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

2.

a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.

3.

a literary genre comprising such compositions.

spot;1487550 wrote: The finest and most telling piece of satire I can bring to mind is Swift's Modest Proposal, and there's not a lie in it from start to finish.


British Dictionary definitions for satire Expand

satire

/ˈsætaɪə/

noun

1.

a novel, play, entertainment, etc, in which topical issues, folly, or evil are held up to scorn by means of ridicule and irony

2.

the genre constituted by such works

3.

the use of ridicule, irony, etc, to create such an effect






spot;1487550 wrote: Least of all is satire a deliberately invented lie. In England we refer to lies like that as filth. Tabloid filth. Gutter-press filth. The essential impression we aim to convey is one of excrement. The notion that by telling a deliberate lie we can thereafter avoid looking at the reality, because we can pretend we successfully dealt with the issue, is particularly nauseating.

YONGYANG (The Borowitz Report)—The North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un said on Tuesday that he feels “snubbed by the decision of forty-seven Republican senators to write a letter to Iran but not to him, the official North Korean news agency reported.



In an unusually forthcoming interview with the Korean Central News Agency (K.C.N.A.), Kim said it was “hurtful that the Republicans would send a letter to one of the United States’ most longstanding enemies while “totally snubbing another.

BOROWITZ REPORT

tude dog;1487567 wrote: In an unusually forthcoming interview with the Korean Central News Agency (K.C.N.A.), Kim said it was “hurtful that the Republicans would send a letter to one of the United States’ most longstanding enemies while “totally snubbing another.And how can one distinguish whether that's true or not, other than by the precedent of the truth or otherwise of your previous posts? Posting deliberate lies is counter-productive.

Tude Dog is a stereotypical gung ho characterization of an American, if he reads something in the New Yorker it is the gospel...............he believes all North Koreans are hungry gangsters and South Koreans are born again American allies, because the TV said so.

Bruv;1487569 wrote: Tude Dog is a stereotypical gung ho characterization of an American, if he reads something in the New Yorker it is the gospel...............he believes all North Koreans are hungry gangsters and South Koreans are born again American allies, because the TV said so.


Somehow, I cannot picture Tude spending much time reading the New Yorker. I suspect it is a little to the left for his liking.

The Atlantic Monthly, perhaps.

LarsMac;1487570 wrote: Somehow, I cannot picture Tude spending much time reading the New Yorker. I suspect it is a little to the left for his liking.


spot;1487571 wrote: The Atlantic Monthly, perhaps.


I shall await his cryptically enigmatic reply......like Frank Carson "It's the way he tells em" that I like.

spot;1487568 wrote: And how can one distinguish whether that's true or not, other than by the precedent of the truth or otherwise of your previous posts? Posting deliberate lies is counter-productive.




Bruv sazs "Tude Dog is a stereotypical gung ho characterization of an American, if he reads something in the New Yorker it is the gospel...............he believes all North Koreans are hungry gangsters and South Koreans are born again American allies, because the TV said so.


Dude, when I first read that piece I realized it was just too rich to pass up. But unlike the Chinese, desperate to print something good about their fat little comrade I did some checking. When I couldn't find confirmation, went back and found

Lars sazs Somehow, I cannot picture Tude spending much time reading the New Yorker. I suspect it is a little toANDY BOROWITZ the left for his liking.


Tell ya the truth, I have no idea about the New Yorker, OK? I know of it but never ever paid it much attention.

I was looking for things to exemplify satire.

I came across this which was just too good by this author ANDY BOROWITZ

Long story short,

Get news satire from The Borowitz Report delivered to your inbox.

GET NEWS SATIRE FROM THE BOROWITZ REPORT DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.


Kim Jong-un Feels Snubbed by Absence of Letter from Republicans

It's in your face.

tude dog;1487594 wrote:



Dude, when I first read that piece I realized it was just too rich to pass up. But unlike the Chinese, desperate to print something good about their fat little comrade I did some checking. When I couldn't find confirmation, went back and found



Tell ya the truth, I have no idea about the New Yorker, OK? I know of it but never ever paid it much attention.

I was looking for things to exemplify satire.

I came across this which was just too good by this author ANDY BOROWITZ

Long story short,



Kim Jong-un Feels Snubbed by Absence of Letter from Republicans

It's in your face.


Andy Borrowitz is probably the high point of the New Yorker.

LarsMac;1487595 wrote: Andy Borrowitz is probably the high point of the New Yorker.


I believe that.

I looked at some of his writings. Reminds me of someone early in my life Art Buchwald, long time ago.

Good writing, thoght I am not all that into satire.

Talk about satire, Mad Magazine.

Back in the day, good stuff.

delete

tude dog;1487596 wrote: I believe that.

I looked at some of his writings. Reminds me of someone early in my life Art Buchwald, long time ago.

Good writing, thoght I am not all that into satire.

Talk about satire, Mad Magazine.

Back in the day, good stuff.




Ah, the good ol' days.

I was probably 8 or 9 when I met MAD Magazine in the late 50's

Kurtzman and Gaines were Genius.

Smaug;1487428 wrote: Imagine - reunification of North & South Korea under a single government - With Kim Jong Un as the head.

I'm sure that would be desirable in the extreme....To Kim! For us, it doesn't bear thinking about.

I'm in complete agreement with you on Russia too, FourPart. On both counts. I can see a 'flashpoint' coming if the reports are true abut Russian planes bombing the Iranian Free Army. Only a matter of time.....(Shudder)


Ignore the quoted post above, I meant to put Syrian Free Army!

Apologies for any confusion.

Given the back-and-forth speculation this evening, I'd quite like the preparations to result in the first successful manned orbit of a Korean satellite. That would be exciting.

North Korea may be preparing for rocket launch - US - BBC News

They're even booked a launch window...

North Korea 'planning satellite launch' - BBC News

What do you like so much about N.Korea, spot? How well they treat their people?

The fact that they've retained the independence their grandfathers won for themselves after centuries of foreign occupation, in spite of the capitalist military occupation, propaganda and economic violence they've had to stand up against since the 1950s. They're remarkably like Cuba in that regard. If the capitalist Korean war hadn't happened, the whole of Korea would now be a united normal prosperous Asian country. Instead they're a divided nation frozen for two thirds of a century into what otherwise would have been a one-year civil war.

N. Korea exists by permission of China, and you did not answer my question.

AnneBoleyn;1492279 wrote: N. Korea exists by permission of China, and you did not answer my question.


I have no idea how the general population of North Korea thrives. I have confidence they'd thrive more if the country put less resources into their military. I'm also confident that North Korea would no longer be an independent non-aligned nation if it had put less resources into its military.

I'm also confident that Western mainstream media lies on behalf of Western governments, just as happened with Libya and Cuba and Iran and Iraq and any other non-aligned nation you can think of. And the USSR, of course. Iraq and Libya, and their populations, would today be far better places had they not been subverted by the West. So too is Cuba, having resisted subversion more competently. Korea is a more complicated picture in that it's a country divided by a permanent self-serving military occupation of the South which has prevented re-unification.

To say "N. Korea exists by permission of China" is equivalent to saying Canada exists by permission of the USA. I've no reason to think North Korea is subsidized by the Chinese government, any more than Canada is subsidized by the US government. Both regional superpowers have sufficient strength to dictate foreign policy to their neighbor if they chose, the Americans rather more than the Chinese. I doubt the ability of Canada to retain its sovereignty in the long term rather more than I doubt the ability of a re-united Korea.

Had no idea you were so naive, spot. Likening Canada's position to N.Korea is nonsense. Until recently, Canada's flag was your flag, & the relationship between Britain & Canada remains intense. As for "I have no idea how the general population of North Korea thrives." They don't thrive. On the brink of starvation. Haven't you seen any of the documentaries about N. Korean life, or do you just prefer not to believe them? They are China's pawn, existing to annoy the planet.

Hopefully, you are just playing devil's advocate, stirring up conversation.

AnneBoleyn;1492285 wrote: Likening Canada's position to N.Korea is nonsense. In what way nonsense? China doesn't threaten or subsidize North Korea, the USA doesn't threaten or subsidize Canada. Both smaller countries have been invaded by the regional superpower in the past. It seems a remarkable parallel. How does the position of the smaller in relation to the more powerful differ?