ForumGarden

Simple...

Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...

South Korea..!!

fuzzy butt;973187 wrote: WHAT?



Okay mister real estate agent give me your commercial speel on both please . Are we talking views ? or political beliefs? How many acres are we talking here? And are you selling off river side frontage?


I'm talking in overall retrospect...

Given two choices of both countries and how you see them today which country would you rather live in?...

fuzzy butt;973232 wrote: Okay where would you rather live ? Sudan or Georgia?

plese tell me you're not running for presidential election too. Because tha's the kind of stupid political choice that someone like that would come up with .

And i stand by what i said , does it come with riverside frontage and views? casue there is plenty of industry and corruption in North Korea and as a westerner if I play my cards right I could have a rather nice life there just like all the other westerners living there. and if we are going by scenery I'd definately choose North . Spectacular views!!!!

K do your homework and don't just hold a silly propagandish opinion on a particular country because you country has had a arse up veiw about it for over 50 -60 years.


No you're missing my point fuzzy butt...

The entire point being you've had to contimplate it as opposed to come in here and vehemontly voice that you'd rather live in North Korea...You're throwing about accusations based upon speculation...

The emphasis being one need not think about the opposed upon any circumstance being questionable...

Simple really...You're having contemplated it illustrates how the US has not rendered South Korea inferior to North Korea...Thanks...

And 100% vote for South Korea to boot!!!...:-6...

I'd rather live in a Korea that hadn't been split sixty years ago into two halves and kept that way ever since. I'd much rather live in Cuba than any part of Korea, united or not, and Cuba's had much the same propaganda war against it for almost as long.

I dont want to live in Korea at all.

I would like to live in Wyoming though.

I'd rather like to live on the beach, preferably the Atlantic side.

Did you know that the Bahamas has one of the highest murder rates in the world?...

K.Snyder;973774 wrote: Did you know that the Bahamas has one of the highest murder rates in the world?...


How about the Grand Caymen Islands?

spot;973309 wrote: I'd rather live in a Korea that hadn't been split sixty years ago into two halves and kept that way ever since. This is speculation...The same unpredictability as a race of aliens inhabiting all of Korea subjecting people to torture...

spot;973309 wrote:

I'd much rather live in Cuba than any part of Korea, united or not, and Cuba's had much the same propaganda war against it for almost as long.


The question is simple...A choice between two variables...I hadn't been more sincere on any other question I've asked throughout my entire existence on this board...

Why anyone would feel I'm trying to belittle any country or anyone on this thread is beyond me...

Nomad;973447 wrote: I dont want to live in Korea at all.

I would like to live in Wyoming though.


Upon being forced to choose would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...

Simple question. (Not aimed at you exclusively)...

spot;973309 wrote: I'd rather live in a Korea that hadn't been split sixty years ago into two halves and kept that way ever since. I'd much rather live in Cuba than any part of Korea, united or not, and Cuba's had much the same propaganda war against it for almost as long.


What is there about Cuba that would make you choose living there as opposed to South Korea?

They have both changed I know, but I was in Korea in 1953 and in Cuba 1956 (pre-Castro). In 1956 I would have chosen to live in Cuba as opposed to Korea, but not now.

Why would anyone wish to live in North Korea?

Lon;973863 wrote: What is there about Cuba that would make you choose living there as opposed to South Korea?

They have both changed I know, but I was in Korea in 1953 and in Cuba 1956 (pre-Castro). In 1956 I would have chosen to live in Cuba as opposed to Korea, but not now.


South Korea is a major economic power and one of the wealthiest countries in Asia. It had one of the world's fastest growing economies since the 1960s, now highly developed and the fourth largest in Asia and 13th largest in the world. Forming the G20 industrial nations and the world's top ten exporters, it is an APEC and OECD member, defined as a High Income Nation by the World Bank and an Advanced Economy by the IMF and CIA. A major non-NATO ally, it has the world's sixth largest armed forces and the tenth largest defence budget in the world. The Asian Tiger is leading the Next Eleven nations and is still among the world's fastest growing developed countries. Today, its success story is known as the "Miracle on the Han River", a role model for many developing countries.

South Korea is leading several key industries in the world, particularly in the fields of science and technology. It has a very advanced and modern infrastructure and is a world leader in information technology such as electronics, semiconductors, LCD displays, computers and mobile phones, led by Samsung and LG. Home of the world's third largest steel producer, POSCO, it is the world's largest shipbuilder, the world's fourth largest oil refiner and one of the world's top five automobile producers, headed by Hyundai and Kia. It is also a leading country in biotechnology, construction, engineering, machinery, petrochemicals, robotics and textiles.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea



The economy of North Korea is a centrally planned economy.

North Korea's economy remains one of the world's last centrally planned systems. The role of market allocation is sharply limited - mainly in the rural sector where peasants sell produce from small private plots. There are almost no small businesses. Although there have been scattered and limited attempts at decentralization, as of mid-1993, P'yongyang's basic adherence to a rigid centrally planned economy continues, as does its reliance on fundamentally non-pecuniary incentives. The collapse of socialist governments around the world in 1991, particularly North Korea's principal benefactor, the Soviet Union, have forced North Korean economy to realign its foreign economic relations. Economic exchanges with South Korea have even begun in earnest. A recent attempt at creating Chinese-style Special Economic Zones is representative of North Korea's current movement towards capitalism.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_North_Korea

:yh_think...

I'm going to think about this one for a bit...

K.Snyder;973788 wrote: [QUOTE=spot;973309]I'd rather live in a Korea that hadn't been split sixty years ago into two halves and kept that way ever since. This is speculation...The same unpredictability as a race of aliens inhabiting all of Korea subjecting people to torture...

spot;973309 wrote:

I'd much rather live in Cuba than any part of Korea, united or not, and Cuba's had much the same propaganda war against it for almost as long.


The question is simple...A choice between two variables...I hadn't been more sincere on any other question I've asked throughout my entire existence on this board...

Why anyone would feel I'm trying to belittle any country or anyone on this thread is beyond me...


It's not speculation, it's a statement. Korea's split into two halves at the moment, and has been for sixty years, because the US intervened and drove their civil war to a stalemate which is still in place. Without the intervention it would be a single country. What's speculative about that?

What's entirely unlikely is that the current North Korean leadership would be running Korea if the North had won sixty years ago and the country had remained united. Regimes stay in power unchanged from within when they have an external enemy to distract their population into accepting their condition. You don't like the chap who runs North Korea? He's only there because the country's split and the North has been a pariah state ever since the civil war failed to end cleanly. North Korea is a construct of US interference.

China became a communist country in 1949, two years before the Korean civil war. What you've seen in China since then is huge change and immense growth and development. I'm sure a Communist Korea would have had an equivalent sixty years and similar rosy prospects if it had remained united. More to the point, what you've seen in China has been several major replacements of the political elite, not a family-inherited leadership.

I would likve in South Korea, since my adopted brother has family there. I would want to be with family, and would love to study at Kukiwan in Seoul.

spot;974150 wrote: It's not speculation, it's a statement. Korea's split into two halves at the moment, and has been for sixty years, because the US intervened and drove their civil war to a stalemate which is still in place. Without the intervention it would be a single country. What's speculative about that?It's speculation because you're voicing your opinion off of the presumption a united Korea would be better economically and politically than both of them combined today...As I've posted earlier North Korea is by far the underachiever...Which we're about to get into...

spot;974150 wrote:

What's entirely unlikely is that the current North Korean leadership would be running Korea if the North had won sixty years ago and the country had remained united. Regimes stay in power unchanged from within when they have an external enemy to distract their population into accepting their condition. You don't like the chap who runs North Korea? He's only there because the country's split and the North has been a pariah state ever since the civil war failed to end cleanly. North Korea is a construct of US interference. Yes here it is...North Korea is a construct of it's own stubbornness...All North Korea need(Should have) do is lay down their arms and allow both countries to prosper economically which gives credence to an overwhelmingly unquestionable government...Why is it that North Korea only recently has allowed for the procurement of economical radiance, in direct association with the conjoining of both countries, diplomatically?...Do you honestly feel that pride is due cause in allowing a country to remain subpar at best?...

Simple really...North Korea reflects the very same view you oppose...They have the power to unite Korea yet choose not to because they're pride is too stubborn to allow their people a much healthier lifestyle...

Would you or would you not lay down your arms if you were the leader of North Korea knowing full well the potential for a better society of it's people?...

spot;974150 wrote:

China became a communist country in 1949, two years before the Korean civil war. What you've seen in China since then is huge change and immense growth and development. I'm sure a Communist Korea would have had an equivalent sixty years and similar rosy prospects if it had remained united. More to the point, what you've seen in China has been several major replacements of the political elite, not a family-inherited leadership.I applaud China's economical success I honestly do...I can't exactly say China as a whole lacks concern but they've come a long way...

K.Snyder;974230 wrote: It's speculation because you're voicing your opinion off of the presumption a united Korea would be better economically and politically than both of them combined today....No I haven't!

spot;974275 wrote: No I haven't!


Can I ask why you would rather live in a united Korea as opposed to both options to live in North or South Korea?...

Hypothetically speaking you would rather live in a united Korea with a £500 per capita rate and a 22% inflation rate than North or South Korea today?...

K.Snyder;974509 wrote: Can I ask why you would rather live in a united Korea as opposed to both options to live in North or South Korea?...I have no desire to live anywhere within a thousand miles of Korea. I'd rather that Korea had never been partitioned by the stalemate which resulted from the US military intervention because then what's become North Korea would never have come into existence, its hereditary rule would never have been established by a country under permanent sanctions thinking it was under permanent external threat, the combined Korea would have developed along entirely different lines to either North or South Korea's history.

K.Snyder wrote: Hypothetically speaking you would rather live in a united Korea with a £500 per capita rate and a 22% inflation rate than North or South Korea today?...


A united Korea wouldn't have those conditions. You can't just dream up what-if projections out of your head like that and expect anyone to find them believable. Korea's a split country because the US sent troops there in the early fifties and intervened, that's all I've put to you. Why do you not agree that it's true? It's a split country and the consequence is that the North's poverty-stricken because it's been subject to sanctions for the last sixty years. It has an appalling regime entrenched because of that. China started out from a similar civil war at the same time but all it lost was an economically insignificant offshore island, not the prosperous half of the country.

Why are you allowed to be hypothetical - especially since you're coming up with totally unbelievable scenarios - and I'm not allowed to be speculative even though I'm being reasonable?

spot;974513 wrote: ...the North's poverty-stricken because it's been subject to sanctions for the last sixty years. It has an appalling regime entrenched because of that. China started out from a similar civil war at the same time but all it lost was an economically insignificant offshore island, not the prosperous half of the country. Because North Korea is too stubborn to allow their people to live much more prosperously reflective of you're average South Koreans' life...As of January 30th 1952 and from that moment onward "...it's been subject to sanctions for the last sixty years" is entirely the fualt of North Korea. Seeing as how we've already established the fact that the United States does not make it a virtue of theirs to torture or kill prisoners of war surrendering and joing South Korea would be in North Koreas' best interests...North Korea would just rather subject their people to poor living conditions while their leader lives in 17 Palaces...What is he clapping for anyway?...

spot;974513 wrote:

Why are you allowed to be hypothetical - especially since you're coming up with totally unbelievable scenarios - and I'm not allowed to be speculative even though I'm being reasonable?


Being speculative means nothing when forming an opinion based entirely on a question referencing present events...I'd asked you "Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?"..."Live" being the key word...

My being hypothetical justifies itself upon speculation...I couldn't think of an easier way to understand your logic when you do not answer my questions specifically...

If you do not wish to answer that's fine...I think it's a completely straight forward question...

Id like to live here K

Its no Korea but at least they have coconuts

A friend of mine just returned from a wedding in South Korea and for €50 you can take a tour through the border line between countries. The guards stand face to face for hours with no one moving.

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0601 ... Image3.jpg

OK and S Korea looks OK to me

http://img.news.yahoo.co.kr/picture/a3/ ... 041301.jpg

south k

How could I possibly say - I've never lived in either and so I'm not compitent to judge.

As an aside - to say that NK is being stubborn and all they have to do is surrender for everything to be alright is a nonsense. They're the enemy so they must be wrong, they should give up and it'll be OK - would you if it was your country under attack or would you be patriotic? It works both ways.

Bryn Mawr;975711 wrote: How could I possibly say - I've never lived in either and so I'm not compitent to judge.

As an aside - to say that NK is being stubborn and all they have to do is surrender for everything to be alright is a nonsense. They're the enemy so they must be wrong, they should give up and it'll be OK - would you if it was your country under attack or would you be patriotic? It works both ways.


I do not believe it is at all...

I would most definitely surrender my arms if I were the Leader of North Korea...

The facts do not lie...

South Koreas' economy is three times that of North Korea...Why would you be against allowing North Korea to progress in the way that South Korea has?...

I'm not justifying the choice to go to war...

I've presented facts that state quite blatantly that South Korea is a much more prosperous nation...So why would anyone wish to subject North Koreans to a much less prosperous life at the same time caging them like animals?...

At the same time why would anyone justify the imprisonment of said peoples and ban them from leaving?...Is that or is that not a nice thing to do?...

Bryn Mawr;975711 wrote: How could I possibly say - I've never lived in either and so I'm not compitent to judge.




Oh and I'd rather live in South Korea because the economy is much better...

K.Snyder;976188 wrote: I do not believe it is at all...

I would most definitely surrender my arms if I were the Leader of North Korea...

The facts do not lie...

South Koreas' economy is three times that of North Korea...Why would you be against allowing North Korea to progress in the way that South Korea has?...

I'm not justifying the choice to go to war...

I've presented facts that state quite blatantly that South Korea is a much more prosperous nation...So why would anyone wish to subject North Koreans to a much less prosperous life at the same time caging them like animals?...

At the same time why would anyone justify the imprisonment of said peoples and ban them from leaving?...Is that or is that not a nice thing to do?...


None of this, absolutely none of it, has anything to do with what condition an undivided Korea would now be in had the country not been partitioned by the stalemate in 1953. You simply can't project today's North Korea onto such a united country, it's meaningless. A united Korea wouldn't have had the same history as North Korea's had.

spot;976193 wrote: None of this, absolutely none of it, has anything to do with what condition an undivided Korea would now be in had the country not been partitioned by the stalemate in 1953. You simply can't project today's North Korea onto such a united country, it's meaningless. A united Korea wouldn't have had the same history as North Korea's had.


I hadn't asked the question 59 years ago...

The emphasis being that the United States of America has not rendered South Korea a country with a lower economical gradient comparative to North Korea...The fact that North Korea refuses to surrender their arms gives credence to the fact that a united Korea has not come to fruition ultimately exposing their people to a much better economy...

The difference being that "None of this, absolutely none of it, has anything to do with what condition an undivided Korea would now be in had the country not been partitioned by the stalemate in 1953." is speculation considering the year is 2008 whereas "South Koreas' economy is three times that of North Korea...Why would you be against allowing North Korea to progress in the way that South Korea has?..." becomes not only relevant but very educational...

Surely pride is not something worth the sacrifice...

You seem to justify an attack by North Korea on south Korea whereas I see the US' involvement as being an aid for the defense of South Korea...You also try and place blame on the US whereas Russian involvement you seem to find to be ok?...

What's left is that South Korea and the US hadn't completely annihilated North Korea at the same time South Koreas' economy and people are much more prosperous...

By your speculating that "None of this, absolutely none of it, has anything to do with what condition an undivided Korea would now be in had the country not been partitioned by the stalemate in 1953." I can just as easily say that a united Korea would be built upon the every same foundation from which we see the economical prominence of North Korea and Russia...I've presented facts pertaining to South Koreas' economy...

By your blaming America for the dividing of North and South Korea the other sees it as saving the lives of South Koreaners from being subject to much more poorer living conditions...

The fact is is that South Koreas' economy allows for their people to live much more fruitfully...

K.Snyder;976258 wrote: The fact is is that South Koreas' economy allows for their people to live much more fruitfully...The moral cost is simply too high. Perhaps you missed http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=39716 when I posted it.

K.Snyder;976188 wrote: I do not believe it is at all...

I would most definitely surrender my arms if I were the Leader of North Korea...

The facts do not lie...

South Koreas' economy is three times that of North Korea...Why would you be against allowing North Korea to progress in the way that South Korea has?...

I'm not justifying the choice to go to war...

I've presented facts that state quite blatantly that South Korea is a much more prosperous nation...So why would anyone wish to subject North Koreans to a much less prosperous life at the same time caging them like animals?...

At the same time why would anyone justify the imprisonment of said peoples and ban them from leaving?...Is that or is that not a nice thing to do?...


Firstly, you are not North Korean - would you surrender if you were the leader of the US in the same circumstance?

Secondly, Georgia is poorer than Russia - should she surrender if Russia invades?

Bryn Mawr;976329 wrote: Firstly, you are not North Korean - would you surrender if you were the leader of the US in the same circumstance? Yes. I wouldn't even have to have thought about it.

Bryn Mawr;976329 wrote:

Secondly, Georgia is poorer than Russia - should she surrender if Russia invades?


The circumstances between the two variables are different...

On one hand you have a stalemate from which the US is blatantly not invading North Korea ultimately giving the ultimatum to North Korea whereas Russia is blatantly invading Georgia...

As I've said I'm not justifying invasion...Being sympathetic to North Korea is justifying their blatant aggression in their invading South Korea.

Do you feel Russia is justified in attacking Georgia?...

spot;976281 wrote: The moral cost is simply too high. Perhaps you missed http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=39716 when I posted it.


I don't see this angle being prudent considering that the accusations are of executions consisting of "civilian leftist sympathisers" from which would have been of no fortuitous nature seeing as how there would be no cause for concern...

Are you suggesting that North Korean citizens would now be, or would have been mass murdered upon their surrender, or at least justifying North Koreas' decision to not surrender?...

K.Snyder;976375 wrote: Yes. I wouldn't even have to have thought about it.



The circumstances between the two variables are different...

On one hand you have a stalemate from which the US is blatantly not invading North Korea ultimately giving the ultimatum to North Korea whereas Russia is blatantly invading Georgia...

As I've said I'm not justifying invasion...Being sympathetic to North Korea is justifying their blatant aggression in their invading South Korea.

Do you feel Russia is justified in attacking Georgia?...


Not very patriotic are you?

Russia didn't invade Georgia so much as Georgia invaded South Ossetia, and yes, Russia was justified in responding - just went too far afterwards.

North Korea didn't invade South Korea - it was a civil war within a single country of Korea.

Bryn Mawr;976422 wrote: Not very patriotic are you? Patriotism means nothing to me when the majority of said peoples cannot benefit from it. As for other instances I call them traitors.

Bryn Mawr;976422 wrote:

Russia didn't invade Georgia so much as Georgia invaded South Ossetia, and yes, Russia was justified in responding - just went too far afterwards. I do not give justification to anyone that invades another country without it being a matter of unquestionably appropriate preemptive solution for the betterment of the ethical.



Bryn Mawr;976422 wrote:

North Korea didn't invade South Korea - it was a civil war within a single country of Korea. We've been down this road before...:wah:...

I stand by my believing there cannot be two peoples equally aggressive upon physical change...It's just not numerically, nor scientifically accurate...The one who initiates physical change is the more aggressive when physical change has not been agreed upon by both parties...

K.Snyder;976441 wrote: I stand by my believing there cannot be two peoples equally aggressive upon physical change...It's just not numerically, nor scientifically accurate...The one who initiates physical change is the more aggressive when physical change has not been agreed upon by both parties...So much for Iraq, eh?

spot;976475 wrote: So much for Iraq, eh?


What's left is justification...

At the moment I cannot say that I would have agreed to go to war with Iraq given the circumstances yet nor can I say that I wouldn't have...One thing's for certain,..and that's I wouldn't have infiltrated Iraq for the reasons done so...

I would have mandated all automobile manufacturers induce a set percentage of their revenue(Say around 35% of their profits) to alternative fuel procurement and in most instances expansion...

For the record, I'd have ousted Hussein ages ago and you can damn well bet I'd not hide why either.

spot;976475 wrote: So much for Iraq, eh?


Can I ask why the parallel?...

Why you're so ready to ratify the "innocence" of North Korea after they'd initiated the defining point of aggression being backed by Russian interest yet feel the US is wrong in defending all humans' right to govern thyself?...

K.Snyder;976485 wrote: For the record, I'd have ousted Hussein ages ago and you can damn well bet I'd not hide why either.Even though it was none of your - or America's - business how he ran Iraq?

My comment was on your "The one who initiates physical change is the more aggressive when physical change has not been agreed upon by both parties..." when applied to Iraq, that's why I posted it.

spot;976513 wrote: Even though it was none of your - or America's - business how he ran Iraq?

My comment was on your "The one who initiates physical change is the more aggressive when physical change has not been agreed upon by both parties..." when applied to Iraq, that's why I posted it.


Aggressive need not be associated as being a bad thing...It's all in the divination of said events...

But yes it is my business because I consider myself a human being before I consider myself American...The day I see people subject to poor treatment is the day you can bet I'll be there helping them within my power.

Do you feel Hussein treated his citizens poorly?...

K.Snyder;976493 wrote: Why you're so ready to ratify the "innocence" of North Korea after they'd initiated the defining point of aggression being backed by Russian interestListen carefully. There was NO North or South Korea before the Korean Civil War, there was just one country, Korea. After the Civil War, had there been no intervention by the US, there would still have been one country, Korea. There would never have been a North Korea - North Korea is a consequence of the stalemate which US intervention brought about. US intervention created your bogeyman. US sanctions have kept it there in the condition it's become. Without US intervention it wouldn't exist. Of course North Korea's not "innocent" but it's a monster you made yourselves.

I'd much rather that Korea had always stayed a single country.

K.Snyder;976515 wrote: But yes it is my business because I consider myself a human being before I consider myself American...The day I see people subject to poor treatment is the day you can bet I'll be there helping them within my power.Your bloody country's just been responsible for the deaths of over a million Iraqis, for crying out loud! They'd not be dead if you'd kept yourselves out of Iraq! With friends like you, who needs enemies!

spot;976516 wrote: Listen carefully. There was NO North or South Korea before the Korean Civil War, there was just one country, Korea. After the Civil War, had there been no intervention by the US, there would still have been one country, Korea. There would never have been a North Korea - North Korea is a consequence of the stalemate which US intervention brought about. US intervention created your bogeyman. US sanctions have kept it there in the condition it's become. Without US intervention it wouldn't exist. Of course North Korea's not "innocent" but it's a monster you made yourselves.

I'd much rather that Korea had always stayed a single country.


I don't buy it...

You're missing one key factor...

You're missing the potential for a better life North Korea could have and is not dictated by the fact that "North Korea" lacks sufficient income to do so...

Here's the poof...



Lavish lifestyle of Korea’s “Great Leader”

Posted in Osho Rajneesh, North Korea at 9:43 am by Rick Ross

Some say that dictator Kim Jong Il, known as the “Great Leader” to North Koreans, is little more than a “cult leader.” They point out the way he has systematically “brainwashed” his people and controls Korean society.

Well, like many historical cult leaders he also seems to have a penchant for living the good life, through the exploitation of followers.

While the people of North Korea remain largely impoverished and often go hungry Kim lives lavishly.

Newsweek (January 13, 2003) reported that the “Great Leader” is having a good time, while the world fears what he may do next.

On a special train ride through Russia Kim brought along his two armored Mercedes and told his host about the girls in Paris nightclubs. Later his beautiful female staff serenaded him. His beverage preferences for the trip were Bordeaux, Burgundy and Hennesy Paradis cognac at $650.00 per bottle. He consumed 20 course dinners.

Kim ordered 200 Class S Mercedes in 1998 for a total cost of $20 million. This beats Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh who ended up with just 90 Rolls Royces, by the time he was deported from the US.

Kim has also imported pizza ovens and two Milanese chefs to teach his staff how to make pizzas. And he doesn’t like anchovies.

Where does all the money to pay for this come from?

Kim uses slave labor to mine gold in North Korea. And he reportedly has stashed away billions in Switzerland. The dictator also has a villa in Geneva as well as five other mansions in Europe.

In the end it seems that all that this “Great Leader” really represents, is a “Great Rip-off.”http://www.cultnews.com/?p=1163



North Korea is said by some international observers to be on the brink of famine.

The United Nations World Food Programme estimates that the country is more than one million tonnes of grain short of what it needs to feed its people this year.

The United States has agreed to send half a million tonnes of food aid.

But with the first shipment due to arrive some time in the next few days, how much is really known about the nature of the food crisis inside one of the most closed countries in the world?

North Korea makes no secret of the fact that its people's plates may be far from full.

State media quotes the country's long-standing leader, Kim Jong-il, as insisting that the issue be given top priority.

"Nothing is more pressing than solving the people's food problem," he is reported to have said on a recent visit to a farm in the north of the country.

North Korea has long suffered from serious shortages - the centralised economy is notoriously inefficient and the distribution system is failing.

North Koreans are noticeably smaller and thinner than their vastly richer and better fed South Korean neighbours.

But in 2008 the situation has been made much worse by the serious flooding that hit last year's harvest.

Some people are predicting that the country is about to experience a famine on the scale of the one that claimed up to one million lives in the mid-1990s.

'Nothing to eat'

The South Korean human rights group, Good Friends, is affiliated with an aid agency that has access to North Korea. It has been making alarming claims about the current levels of hunger.

"More deaths are coming from the rural farming community because, essentially, they have nothing to eat," their spokesperson, Erica Kang, said.

Based on testimony from North Korean officials, the group claims army personnel are beginning to desert, the ration system is breaking down even in the capital, Pyongyang, and citizens have been shot for trying to cross the Chinese border to escape the hardship.

But others are not so sure.

South Korean workers load fertilizer onto a ship in June 2006

North Korea has relied on foreign aid for years

The South Korean government dismisses claims that things have got this bad.

It has recently promised to send 50,000 tonnes of corn, but has so far held off from offering the large-scale aid donations made in recent years.

Marcus Noland from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington based think-tank, has written one of the most comprehensive studies of the mid-90s famine.

"It is very difficult to calculate the overall food shortfall in North Korea," he says, "and there are very large margins of error."

Mr Noland believes that the World Food Programme has consistently overstated the amount of aid North Korea needs.

But he points to one very telling indicator, the sky-rocketing prices that North Koreans are paying for rice and corn on the black market.

A sure sign of widespread food shortages and hunger - and perhaps the portent of famine.

Assessment teams

But while observers disagree about the extent of the crisis, they have even less knowledge of its distribution.

North Korea's tight controls grant very few opportunities to travel outside of Pyongyang for foreign diplomats or aid workers.

Very little is known about which part of the population, rural or urban, is suffering the most and in what part of the country, north or south.

It may be that even the North Korean government is unaware of the full extent of the crisis, despite Kim Jong-il's exhortations mentioned above.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, pictured in May 2008

It is possible top leaders may not be fully aware of the situation

There is evidence that during the last famine the ruling elite were shielded from the true picture.

A system that proffers harsh punishment for administrative failure does not tend to encourage bearers of bad news. Lies percolate upwards.

But the arrival of the first wave of American aid will create an opportunity to grasp a better understanding.

The food was sent with one condition - that independent monitors be allowed into the country to assess the situation on the ground.

For the past week a team from the World Food Programme, accompanied by staff from US aid organisations, has been travelling to schools, hospitals and individual homes across North Korea.

The observers are few in number and their assessment will be rapid, but nonetheless, it will be a rare glimpse, at least in recent years, of everyday life and how people are coping.

Their report will be made public in the next few days. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7472833.stm

Live it up mr. kim jong-il...Us humane people will "send half a million tonnes of food aid." to your country while you live it up in your 17 palaces...

How you feel America is responsible for the actions of human beings is beyond me.

I ask again,.what's he clapping for?...

Attached files

K.Snyder;976525 wrote: Live it up mr. kim jong-il...Us humane people will "send half a million tonnes of food aid." to your country while you live it up in your 17 palaces...He's only President of North Korea because the US intervened in the Korean Civil War and brought North Korea into being as a direct result of the stalemate that followed that intervention. I'd much rather that Korea had always stayed a single country.

What don't you buy, in what I wrote? Your reply doesn't seem to relate to my post at all.

spot;976527 wrote: He's only President of North Korea because the US intervened in the Korean Civil War and brought North Korea into being as a direct result of the stalemate that followed that intervention. I'd much rather that Korea had always stayed a single country.


Why do you feel that people are responsible for others' actions?...

K.Snyder;976528 wrote: Why do you feel that people are responsible for others' actions?...


I don't. What did I post that makes you think I do?

He's only President of North Korea because the US intervened in the Korean Civil War and brought North Korea into being as a direct result of the stalemate that followed that intervention. That's a simple statement of fact, it's obviously true. It has nothing to do with the way the man behaves.

I'd much rather that Korea had always stayed a single country. It didn't because the US intervened and forced a stalemate. What's untrue about that?

spot;976531 wrote: I don't. What did I post that makes you think I do?

He's only President of North Korea because the US intervened in the Korean Civil War and brought North Korea into being as a direct result of the stalemate that followed that intervention. That's a simple statement of fact, it's obviously true. It has nothing to do with the way the man behaves.

I'd much rather that Korea had always stayed a single country. It didn't because the US intervened and forced a stalemate. What's untrue about that?


Because of the intervention of China and Russia from preventing all of Korea from prospering under the observance of the United States of America...

Here's your proof...



South Korea is a major economic power and one of the wealthiest countries in Asia. It had one of the world's fastest growing economies since the 1960s, now highly developed and the fourth largest in Asia and 13th largest in the world. Forming the G20 industrial nations and the world's top ten exporters, it is an APEC and OECD member, defined as a High Income Nation by the World Bank and an Advanced Economy by the IMF and CIA. A major non-NATO ally, it has the world's sixth largest armed forces and the tenth largest defence budget in the world. The Asian Tiger is leading the Next Eleven nations and is still among the world's fastest growing developed countries. Today, its success story is known as the "Miracle on the Han River", a role model for many developing countries.

South Korea is leading several key industries in the world, particularly in the fields of science and technology. It has a very advanced and modern infrastructure and is a world leader in information technology such as electronics, semiconductors, LCD displays, computers and mobile phones, led by Samsung and LG. Home of the world's third largest steel producer, POSCO, it is the world's largest shipbuilder, the world's fourth largest oil refiner and one of the world's top five automobile producers, headed by Hyundai and Kia. It is also a leading country in biotechnology, construction, engineering, machinery, petrochemicals, robotics and textiles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea

You're gripe's with the states of Russia and China...

Seeing as how my emphasis is based primarily upon circumstance and I hadn't intervened personally this is where I lay my opinion to rest...