Guys, you're OWNED lol

What species is this Putin?
Intelligence, devastating energy... What's his motivational force?

Procrastination...

Putin, I am indeed critical of official sources and American foreign policy. But I'm also critical of authoritarian regimes lacking freedom of the press.

I'm kind of half-remembering things. Cumings is all about the nationalistic-civil war aspect of the Korean War, right? Also aren't those all kind of old guys? I was under the impression (again, open to correction) that the opening of the soviet archives demonstrated how Kim had traveled to get Stalin's support for his proposed invasion of South Korea.

Somebody also needs to explain why the South invaded the North in May 1949 with six infantry battalions and yet the North is blamed for this war.

"Also aren't those all kind of old guys?"

Not really, no. Cumings still writes about the war.

"I was under the impression (again, open to correction) that the opening of the soviet archives demonstrated how Kim had traveled to get Stalin's support for his proposed invasion of South Korea."

Yes, but he didn't get Stalin's support for the proposed invasion, and so it didn't happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeju_Uprising

I thought that 1949 skirmish/invasion was a bit like what you describe in Kim's trip to Stalin; Rhee wanted the US to back an invasion but it didn't happen, so there was no further fighting.

Also with regards to the Jeju Uprising, I don't think anyone would say that South Korea has historically been a model of democracy or proper behavior. It was an authoritarian government that wanted to invade the north and unify the peninsula under single rule. I am even prepared to concede that South Korean skirmishing had the specific purpose of provoking the north. That doesn't mean, however, that North Korea was not also an authoritarian regime, in fact a worse one, and that their invasion in 1950 was the one that directly started the Korean War.

What do the specifics of a 60 year old war have to do with the dreadful conditions which exist in North Korea now? This is always what Putin33 does. He dodges the issue of things like the concentration camp the man in this book lived in and instead goes on and on and on about things that may as well be plagiarized from a 1952 edition of Pravda.

Here's another good review of the book. Reading it makes Putin33's apologetics for this unimaginably awful regime all the more infuriating.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9241026/North-Korea-continues-to-brutalise-its-people-and-yet-we-do-nothing.html

That's the spirit Snitchy, who needs history when we got your "things fall from the sky" approach to international issues. Seriously the jeers about Pravda are pretty funny when you advocate such a facile and superficial treatment of complex problems.

"Reading it makes Putin33's apologetics for this unimaginably awful regime all the more infuriating."

Keep feeding your brain trollfeed, troll.

"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9241026/North-Korea-continues-to-brutalise-its-people-and-yet-we-do-nothing.html"

Oh goodie, who wouldda thunk Murdoch would have anything but an adoring review of some cheap hitpiece from a serial liar.

"I thought that 1949 skirmish/invasion was a bit like what you describe in Kim's trip to Stalin; Rhee wanted the US to back an invasion but it didn't happen, so there was no further fighting."

Wow, that's some mighty awesome false equivalence. So you're equating an actual invasion with multiple battalions and about 500 deaths on the North Korean side with Stalin's stoppage of an invasion because he feared the geopolitical consequences of such a thing? That makes sense how? Kim Il Sung didn't do anything close to what the South did, over & over again, from the time it was established until the war. He may have asked about an invasion, but that was fully a year before June 25, 1950 happened. Why are you stretching so much to prove that the South was invaded? You claim you have no sympathy for this government, except to somehow claim the massacres at Jeju were "not as bad" as the North, what equivalent massacres took place, or brutal counterinsurgency campaign took place, you'll have to tell me. Considering the northern government was popular since these were the same people who fought the Japanese, while the southern government was full of pro-Japanese collaborators and well hated. You claim no sympathy yet you continue to wring your hands about the so-called northern invasion of an artificially divided peninsula. Does not compute.

I suppose the fact that this "irrelevant war" that happened from 1950-1953 and demolished every population center in North Korea never officially ended, and American troops still occupy the South, and these same Americans refuse to normalize relations or sign a non-aggression accord, are all 'irrelevant' facts too. The only thing that is relevant is Invictus's desperate need for some low hanging fruit from which to feel better about amoral love of war.

you still haven't addressed the control camp issue because Invictus is right...what about now? Because your right that South Korea's gov't at the time of the Korean war was a brutal dictatorship and definitely can be blamed for a lot, but that doesn't excuse the current behavior of the North Korean gov't.

"You claim you have no sympathy for this government, except to somehow claim the massacres at Jeju were "not as bad" as the North, what equivalent massacres took place, or brutal counterinsurgency campaign took place, you'll have to tell me. Considering the northern government was popular since these were the same people who fought the Japanese, while the southern government was full of pro-Japanese collaborators and well hated."

I was saying that the South Korean regime isn't as bad. Also, plenty of dictatorships are popular, particularly when invaded by a foreign power. The North Vietnamese were decidedly authoritarian and very popular; those are the two most important reasons they won the Vietnam War. And I'm not stretching to prove anything; it's the general academic consensus.

"Because your right that South Korea's gov't at the time of the Korean war was a brutal dictatorship and definitely can be blamed for a lot, but that doesn't excuse the current behavior of the North Korean gov't."

I have addressed the "now" issue quite a bit. To which I've gotten nary a reply. Just sneering. I provided evidence that the DPRK government did everything it could to feed its population and successfully avoided famine in the mid-1990s, when its neighbors were cutting grain exports by more than half and raising the price of grain on the international market for the DPRK by demanding nothing but hard currency in exchange.

None of Snitch's book can be verified or fact checked, it's just one man's sensational claims. One in a long line of hysterical absurd and ridiculous stories from exiles.

And you don't become a garrison state out of the clear blue sky. There are reasons for it. Israel is a garrison state for a reason, but for whatever reason people are a hell of a lot more willing to accept that Israel has legitimate security threats. Israel hasn't faced anything close to what the DPRK faces on a continual basis. The war is not irrelevant, it hasn't even ended. Israel actually signed a peace treaty with the only country that can legitimately test it militarily - Egypt.

"I was saying that the South Korean regime isn't as bad."

You weren't talking present tense. We were talking 1950 because we were talking about the start of the war. The regime that was murdering people by the hundreds of thousands wasn't as bad as the regime that was made of WWII heroes? Get real.

The northern government was popular before 1950, because as I said, it wasn't made up of traitors and fascist stooges who helped the Japanese enslave the country.

"it's the general academic consensus."

No it isn't. You're just asserting this. And anyway why do you care about the 'academic consensus' if it means defending a horrific brutal military regime and the artificial division of a country? It's amazing how libertarians, who are so cynical about government, are willing to accept the State Department's version of history so uncritically. The "authoritarian" excuse doesn't wash, as the south's government was disgusting and brutal.

No you haven't explained why that individual was treated so harshly for the crimes, real or not, of his parents. Other than saying he was just lying...a prop....I don't see where you can go with it.

I don't see how you can take such a story as the gospel truth. It's not fact checked, comes from a very unreliable reporter, and exiles are notorious for simply making shit up. The more ridiculous the story, the more attention they'll get from an anti-communist press eager for North Korea bogeyman stories.

"You're just putting words in my mouth, Wilders. I gave a specific definition of monarchy and the DPRK doesn't fit, even if Gim Jeong Un leads the country. Constitutionally power does not pass down in a monarchist fashion. There are elections. The fact that Bush II came after Bush I doesn't make the US a monarchy. The fact that Assad II came after Assad I doesn't make Syria a monarchy. The fact that Raul came after Fidel doesn't make Cuba a monarchy. The fact that Bhutto's husband came to power after Bhutto doesn't make Pakistan a monarchy. The fact that Indira came after Nehru doesn't make India a monarchy.

There is more to monarchy than family members both ascending to the top position in government. Thanks for playing."

Your long-term history is obviously better than your short term. I vividly remember a William J. Clinton after Bush, but perhaps it was the incredible amount of soft drugs I was consuming at the time that caused that.

Owwwwww and look at that. What do all these citations of other countries have in common? That's right, 2 people in the same family, not 3. There's been 3 Uns, but only 2 Assads, 2 Bushes, 2 Roosevelts for that matter, 2 Adamses, 2 Castros.

But I'm not the one against monarchies. You are. Normally. And your calling me Wilders - a man I never voted for - is just an expression of how desperate your position is.

Let's remind everyone of exactly how desperate that position is:

threadID=864634

Yes we almost went Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. But I guess a rotation of two families suddenly makes a country 'unmonarchist' even though all it takes is three family members for the DPRK to be deemed a 'monarchy'.

INdia went Nehru/Gandhi and then Gandhi! I guess they're a monarchy then. They had three family members after all.

And yeah, you never voted for Wilders, just the party that panders to him & his crowd.

*pandered ;)