""Critically"" ""Evaluating"" Grover Furr's Blood Lies

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > ""Critically"" ""Evaluating"" Grover Furr's Blood Lies

«‹›22 »

IAMNOTADOCTOR: Sep 26, 2013

Homework Explainer posted:

i'm going to assume you're asking this in good faith and take your questions seriously. it's also very difficult to answer these questions while being succinct.

1. first, i'm not sure that a moral judgment is the best gauge for judging a country or its practices. that's pretty intangible and i'd be more interested in concrete figures like life expectancy, literacy, infant mortality, etc. coupled with what tangible, material things are guaranteed for citizens. looking at the dprk, which ensures housing, employment, health care, education, and the like, the moral judgment i can extrapolate from that is a desire to establish a permanent, unshakable minimum quality of life and dignity for its people.

2. HOWEVER, this is easier said than done, and in many ways the dprk has failed to live up to this aim. in an ideal world socialism wouldn't require labor camps, except perhaps for rehabilitative purposes for violent criminals, former members of the bourgeoisie, those sorts of folks. it's impossible to hear about conditions for prisoners in the dprk � while keeping in mind the dominant ideology of the country where i live has an interest in creating a narrative about those prisoners and the dprk � without feeling, at the very least, deep disappointment. the famine conditions of the 1990s were also tragic, similar in scope to the special period in cuba. like cuba, though, the dprk got through that period without eroding those aforementioned guarantees.

it's also important to recall the history of the peninsula. as swampman pointed out, war devastated the korean people and the military occupation of the rok meant a hostile power on the dprk's doorstep at all times. remember that "benefactor," america, remains the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons on a sovereign nation. even now, the united states exerts incredible influence over the government of south korea, and efforts at unification have been blocked despite the people of both countries desiring it by wide margins. so the secrecy, the focus on the korean people's army, all that make sense given the context. i don't like it very much! i'd prefer the united states leave the peninsula to its people. with hands off korea, the dprk might not have a need for such strictness. look at cuba, for instance, a country that has dealt with us hostility for decades and is now maybe, just maybe, allowed some breathing room. that's a good test case for the dprk.

along with all this, i will say again that the dprk is still a poor country. they are not *megaphone crackles* I REPEAT, NOT A FULLY DEVELOPED NATION. as such it's unfair to compare them to the united states or even china. (it's still unfair to compare china to the united states, but that's a different topic.) they're going to have the kinds of problems poor countries have. in fact, they should be in a worse state with the factors i mentioned earlier.

anyway, if that doesn't adequately answer your questions i can give more detail on something. looking forward to the ways in which this becomes me saying "north korea did nothing wrong" or whatever that one weirdo thought and posted about in another thread.

i'm not seriously arguing that at all, but feel free to behave as if i am, the way you have since the subject came up.

Thank you for this, would I be wrong in summarizing this as:

The aims and intentions of North Korea are of such a value to you that you would rate these as more important than the human rights issues, which are a both a product of circumstance and a necessary evil to achieve said goals?

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 09:27

OldMemes: Sep 5, 2011; I have to go now. My planet needs me.

South Korea doesn't want reunification in the near future, because feeding and re-educating people who can't surivive in the modern world, putting the leaders on trial, rebuliding North Korea etc would cost a fortune, and there's no easy short term fix to the mountain of issues it would create.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:18

R. Guyovich: Dec 25, 1991

IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:

Thank you for this, would I be wrong in summarizing this as:

The aims and intentions of North Korea are of such a value to you that you would rate these as more important than the human rights issues, which are a both a product of circumstance and a necessary evil to achieve said goals?

mmmmmaybe. there's a line i'd rather not cross so making such blanket statements is probably more imprecise than i'd prefer.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:19

OldMemes: Sep 5, 2011; I have to go now. My planet needs me.

Homework Explainer posted:

mmmmmaybe. there's a line i'd rather not cross so making such blanket statements is probably more imprecise than i'd prefer.

Stalin: 'the ends justify the means!' *dumps more bodies of political prisoners into a mass grave*

I'm sure that he'd be happy that seventy odd years later, his useful idiots are still around.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:22

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

swampman posted:

I'm referring to the broader point that in America, historical consensus on certain issues is often a matter of unquestioned mantra. A lot of the terrible conditions in North Korea can be explained by the war America waged and continues to wage on them. You think it's weird and bad they don't have IV bags when they would have no way to import or manufacture them? Or, HVAC is something Americans take for granted, it causes enormous energy expenditure in the form of burning coal... I'm just saying that the narrative about North Korea is so tainted that there is no way to take most of the outrageous claims about them seriously.

I appreciate that people have linked actual documentation, it is really not my intention to defend North Korea in this thread, a subject I only know a little bit about - I've already posted almost everything I do know about it. But I will also point out that according to the Losurdo excerpt I had posted, and I don't know if anyone in this thread has disputed this, the form of the "concentration camp" had its origins in the USA in the antebellum South.

It's a good thing NK neighbor the worlds 2nd and 9th largest economies so they can get their IV bags there instead.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:24

OldMemes: Sep 5, 2011; I have to go now. My planet needs me.

America: 'stop mass murdering people and we'll give you more aid'

North Korea: 'no'

Amerikkka looks at its stash of IV bags, laughing because he knows that plucky little North Korea will never get them.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:25

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

OldMemes posted:

America: 'stop mass murdering people and we'll give you more aid'

North Korea: 'no'

I'm not surprised that you think the USA would actually give aid to North Korea if it disarmed and liberalized a tad.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:26

OldMemes: Sep 5, 2011; I have to go now. My planet needs me.

Brainiac Five posted:

I'm not surprised that you think the USA would actually give aid to North Korea if it disarmed and liberalized a tad.

They already give a lot of food aid. What the embargo bans is luxury items, so Kim can't buy him and his friends expensive junk to play with while the country starves and his nuke is prepared. I mean, jet skis are on the current embargo! Jet skis!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/north-korea-food-aid-fund

They could easily afford to buy and import food if they didn't spend all the money on an army they don't need, made up of soldiers who are too weak to fight, and weapons that are in some cases, decades old Soviet surplus supplies.

OldMemes fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Apr 6, 2016

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:28

StandardVC10: Feb 6, 2007; This avatar now 50% more dark mode compliant

It seems to me that a country ruled by a three-generation patrilineal dynasty that funnels all the meager wealth their country produces towards their own lifestyles, the military, and propaganda, is hardly a model of social organization that communists would want to follow.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:29

Acebuckeye13: Nov 2, 2010; Against All Tyrants; Ultra Carp

The problem with adopting a "I'm just asking questions" approach is that it very quickly leads to asking some very dumb questions.

Really though, I'm disappointed in you both. As Americans (Presumably), you should be very well aware that the stated goals and intentions of a country are utterly loving worthless if not backed up by action. After all, Jefferson may have written "All men are created equal", but what worth did that phrase have when he was regularly banging his slaves?

North Korea may claim that they're committed to their citizens all they want, but the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence clearly shows that the country's leadership doesn't care anything at all about their citizens, and only for enriching themselves and satisfying their own egos. Why on earth would they otherwise continue their disastrous nuclear program that's only resulted in further and further sanctions getting placed upon them? Why does their leadership live in luxury while the vast majority of their country suffers in utter poverty? Why would they loving kidnap a South Korean movie director if not for their own horrific desires?

North Korea's an awful country with horrific leadership and I feel greatly for their people, because I cannot imagine living in the utter despair that must be their existence.

Oh, and for the record, a final argument:

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:30

swampman: Oct 20, 2008; by Shine

I'd like to bring this thread on track with another lengthy quotation from Furr's book:

quote:

Snyder's Dishonest Attack on Walter Duranty

Snyder claims that New York Times Moscow correspondent Walter Duranty "did his best to undermine Jones's accurate reporting."
quote:
Duranty, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1932, called Jones's account of the famine a "big scare story." Duranty's claim that there was "no actual starvation" but only "widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition" echoed Soviet usages and pushed euphemism into mendacity. ... Duranty knew that millions of people had starved to death. Yet he maintained in his journalism that the hunger served a higher purpose. Duranty thought that "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs." (56)
Snyder's evidence (n. 95 p. 468): "For Duranty, see New York Times, 31 March 1933."

Snyder is wrong about Duranty and Duranty's article of March 31, 1933. Duranty did use the words "a big scare story" - but to refer to Jones' "conclusion that the country was 'on the verge of a terrific smash'." Duranty said of Jones' words to him, "nothing could shake his conviction of impending doom." This is where Duranty said he disagreed with Jones. Of course it was not Jones but Duranty who was right - the USSR did not suffer "a terrific smash."

Then Duranty goes on to say that he agreed with Jones! He wrote:
quote:
But to return to Mr Jones. He told me there was virtually no bread in the villages he had visited and that the adults were haggard, gaunt and discouraged, but that he had seen no dead or dying animals or human beings.

I believed him because I knew it to be correct not only of some parts of the Ukraine but of sections of the North Caucasus and lower Volga regions and, for that matter, Kazakstan, ...
According to Duranty Jones himself had said he had seen "no actual starvation" - that is, "no dead or dying animals or human beings." Snyder gives no evidence that "Duranty knew that millions of people had starved to death."

As for this claim of Snyder's:
quote:
Yet he maintained in his journalism that the hunger served a higher purpose. Duranty thought that "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs."
Here is what Duranty actually wrote:
quote:
But - to put it brutally - you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, and the Bolshevist leaders are just as indifferent to the casualties that may be involved in their drive toward socialization as any General during the World War who ordered a costly attack in order to show his superiors that he and his division possessed the proper soldierly spirit. In fact, the Bolsheviki are more indifferent because they are animated by fanatical conviction.
Snyder is deliberately deceiving his readers. There is no hint here that Duranty "maintained... that the hunger served a higher purpose." In reality Duranty explicitly stated that Bolshevik leaders were even more "indifferent to the casualties" than were commanders in WW1 who callously ordered attacks for the purposes of career advances only.

Why does Snyder go out of his way to attack this article of Duranty's when in it Duranty states plainly that he agrees with what Jones told him concerning what he, Jones, had observed; called the Bolsheviks "indifferent" to casualties; and termed them "fanatical," therefore even "more indifferent to casualties"?

The reason seems to lie in his sponsors, the Ukrainian nationalists. For some reason the Ukrainian Nationalists have tried time and again to have Duranty's Pulitzer Prize posthumously revoked on the grounds that he did not report the famine. Their latest effort of about a decade ago was unsuccessful, in large part due to the fact that Duranty's Pulitzer was for reporting done in 1931, before any famine existed, and therefore had nothing to do with anything he wrote (or did not write) about the famine later on.

Evidently, therefore, Snyder's misrepresentation of Duranty's March 31, 1933 article is simply a "tell," a signal that he is taking his cues from the Ukrainian nationalists.

Duranty was one of the New York Times Russian correspondents whose reporting on the Russian Revolution and ensuing Civil War was so anticommunist and biased that it completely distorted the truth, as determined in the famous study "A Test of the News" by Walter Lippmann and Charles Merz, published as a supplement to the August 4, 1920 edition of The New Republic. Lippmann went on to be advisor to presidents and Merz to being an editor of The New York Times. After this experience, it seems, Duranty determined to curb his anticommunist bias and report only what he himself had witnessed, as reporters are trained to do in the US.

To me, this is a pretty straightforward example of Timothy Snyder engaging in outright academic fraud to make his point. Anyone have an alternate take?

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:33

IAMNOTADOCTOR: Sep 26, 2013

Homework Explainer posted:

mmmmmaybe. there's a line i'd rather not cross so making such blanket statements is probably more imprecise than i'd prefer.

Then my curiosity is satisfied, thank you.

A logical follow-up question presents itself though and I hope you will indulge me once more: could you give a rough indication of where you would draw the line where human rights violations outweigh the aims, intentions and aspirations of N.Korea as you perceive them to be?

This is difficult, I understand but to use myself as an example:

My preferred form of government is a Scandinavian like (capitalist)democratic socialism. However, If the alternative is the American system, I'd be at maximum willing to give up on human rights as far as for instance Israel has gone.( State sanctioned limited discrimination) Anything beyond that would for me not be worth the trade-off.

Could you make a similar statement of what you would be willing to give up to achieve the ideal North Korean aspiration, if the alternative was America as it is now?

Edit: spelling

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:33

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

OldMemes posted:

They already give a lot of food aid. What the embargo bans is luxury items, so Kim can't buy him and his friends expensive junk to play with while the country starves and his nuke is prepared. I mean, jet skis are on the current embargo! Jet skis!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/north-korea-food-aid-fund

They could easily afford to buy and import food if they didn't spend all the money on an army they don't need, made up of soldiers who are too weak to fight, and weapons that are in some cases, decades old Soviet surplus supplies.

The US doesn't give food aid because the people in the State Department are bleeding hearts, it gives food aid to keep North Korea's leadership happy and willing to play along. If the DPRK disarmed, the reasons the US has for feeding North Korea disappear and I have never, ever encountered a single person involved in US foreign policy who wouldn't let all of North Korea starve to death if there wasn't a compelling reason to feed them. Thus, the DPRK will never disarm as things stand currently, because it's their best bet for feeding people.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:33

swampman: Oct 20, 2008; by Shine

Acebuckeye13 posted:

Oh, and for the record, a final argument:

As someone who grew up in a rural area, light pollution disgusts me. I hate not being able to see the stars.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:34

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

swampman posted:

As someone who grew up in a rural area, light pollution disgusts me. I hate not being able to see the stars.

LOL.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:36

OldMemes: Sep 5, 2011; I have to go now. My planet needs me.

swampman posted:

As someone who grew up in a rural area, light pollution disgusts me. I hate not being able to see the stars.

Do you also not enjoy hospitals that have power? I guess you would love the rolling blackouts that North Korea has frequently! Of course, there's no point in looking at the stars when you're too weak from starvation to care, too uneducated to appreciate it, and taught not to be curious or think for yourself!

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:37

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

swampman posted:

As someone who grew up in a rural area, light pollution disgusts me. I hate not being able to see the stars.

That's the sane implication to draw from this, yes.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:38

swampman: Oct 20, 2008; by Shine

OldMemes posted:

Do you also not enjoy hospitals that have power? I guess you would love the rolling blackouts that North Korea has frequently! Of course, there's no point in looking at the stars when you're too weak from starvation to care, too uneducated to appreciate it, and taught not to be curious or think for yourself!

The people in the pictures you've posted don't seem to be starving to death and I can't tell by looking whether they're too uneducated to enjoy starlight.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:38

Tacky-Ass Rococco: Sep 7, 2010; by R. Guyovich

Brainiac Five posted:

The US doesn't give food aid because the people in the State Department are bleeding hearts, it gives food aid to keep North Korea's leadership happy and willing to play along. If the DPRK disarmed, the reasons the US has for feeding North Korea disappear and I have never, ever encountered a single person involved in US foreign policy who wouldn't let all of North Korea starve to death if there wasn't a compelling reason to feed them. Thus, the DPRK will never disarm as things stand currently, because it's their best bet for feeding people.

Maybe they can disarm while retaining the capacity to rearm?

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:39

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

OldMemes posted:

Do you also not enjoy hospitals that have power? I guess you would love the rolling blackouts that North Korea has frequently! Of course, there's no point in looking at the stars when you're too weak from starvation to care, too uneducated to appreciate it, and taught not to be curious or think for yourself!

Oh man, I knew this would come around to "North Koreans are rendered subhuman by the evils of the Kim family", with a nice beat of "if you haven't memorized the constellations you don't really appreciate the stars."

Jack of Hearts posted:

Maybe they can disarm while retaining the capacity to rearm?

Sure, they should definitely take the risk. This would be an absolutely sane thing for the people who run North Korea to do.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:39

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Brainiac Five posted:

The US doesn't give food aid because the people in the State Department are bleeding hearts, it gives food aid to keep North Korea's leadership happy and willing to play along. If the DPRK disarmed, the reasons the US has for feeding North Korea disappear and I have never, ever encountered a single person involved in US foreign policy who wouldn't let all of North Korea starve to death if there wasn't a compelling reason to feed them. Thus, the DPRK will never disarm as things stand currently, because it's their best bet for feeding people.

Planet Earth contains more nations than the US and NK. Neither China nor SK has any particular interest in people starving in NK.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:41

Acebuckeye13: Nov 2, 2010; Against All Tyrants; Ultra Carp

swampman posted:

As someone who grew up in a rural area, light pollution disgusts me. I hate not being able to see the stars.

Good golly miss molly

that sure is an opinion alright

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:41

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

swampman posted:

The people in the pictures you've posted don't seem to be starving to death and I can't tell by looking whether they're too uneducated to enjoy starlight.

Someone post that pic of the US and Korean DMZ guards.

Wait, nevermind. Here it is:

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:45

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Anosmoman posted:

Planet Earth contains more nations than the US and NK. Neither China nor SK has any particular interest in people starving in NK.

Who loving cares? What matters is if they have a compelling interest in feeding North Korea, and China's main interest in North Korea seems to be it being a reliable buffer against American troops, which disarming would render impossible, and while it's possible South Korea could fund food and energy aid for the DPRK, there's also the basic problem that the North Korean leadership would probably see that as a first step towards South Korea absorbing the North.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:46

Acebuckeye13: Nov 2, 2010; Against All Tyrants; Ultra Carp

Jack of Hearts posted:

Maybe they can disarm while retaining the capacity to rearm?

North Korea is barely armed to begin with. They've got lots of tanks, guns, and jets, but they're all ancient and in various states of disrepair. If a war broke out they'd probably manage to kill a bunch of people in Seoul, but otherwise North Korea's defense capabilities are... not great.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:47

fatherboxx: Mar 25, 2013

Ukrainian peasants were just engaging in food pollution, very unwise

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:47

OldMemes: Sep 5, 2011; I have to go now. My planet needs me.

swampman posted:

The people in the pictures you've posted don't seem to be starving to death and I can't tell by looking whether they're too uneducated to enjoy starlight.

Mass famines have broken out every few years - the worse being in the 90s.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/7249849/North-Korea-secrets-and-lies.html

Barbara Demick met a defector who used to be a school teacher. This is an extract from how the children in her class starved to death in front of her. She also records that there were rumours of cannibalism in the country back that. The famines are a fact.

And if you're starving and afraid of being caught by the secret police for breaking curfew, I doubt you're going to be stargazing much.

These are real people, suffering real pain, living in fear. Is it worth it, so you can imagine your utopian communist land that didn't and will never exist?

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:47

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Homework Explainer posted:

yeah that's about the caliber of response i expected. thanks

i'd prefer to see for myself, and your implication that the entire city of pyongyang would be putting on a potemkin show for a bunch of westerners is odd, to say the least.

http://travel.cnn.com/touring-north-korea-whats-real-whats-fake-487216/ this thing is kind of cool, though. shows how effective the propagandizing has been about the dprk

That's not what I'm implying at all. Going on a guided tour through the heart of Pyongyang, you're going to mostly be coming in contact with the urban elites and dedicated service workers in the heart of the wealthiest city in North Korea. You're not going to meet the poor rural farmers, let alone the labor camp residents. It's like taking a tour of NYC focusing on areas such as Wall Street, Times Square, beautiful waterfront vistas looking out at the Statue of Liberty, and so on, and then declaring based on your experiences there that all Americans are happy, wealthy secular liberals.

swampman posted:

I'm sorry you feel this way. I think I've responded to a significant number of your arguments. You claim that you've "properly" refuted some of Furr's points. I looked back through your post history in this thread and didn't see a single reference to a scholar of Soviet history, or citation of any work of any kind, or hyperlink to any source. Except for one hyperlink, which I think it's likely you found while Googling "sergei strygin":
I think that Strygin's relationship to Stalin probably informs his viewpoint... but it's not an argument against Strygin's claim that Closed Packet No 1 could have been a forgery, based on the fact that an unknown typewriter, not in Beria's offices, was used to type pages 1-3, unlike the authentic page 4. Strygin was allowed access to the Soviet archives to make copies of rare documents, and worked with a typography expert to analyze the type... I'd say that makes him a researcher in some sense of the word.
I don't think you or anybody has shown this. Moreover, a lot of these sources are garbage because they are Snyder's sources for Snyder's lies. They are cited by Snyder and other anticommunists, and Furr is bringing them up to examine how they don't support the official, Western narrative of Soviet history.

Well, you're wrong! You completely ignored the entirety of my post about the shell casings and why both you and Furr are totally wrong about them. Also, as usual, you've completely misinterpreted Furr's claims, Strygin's claims, my claims, and everything else you've looked at...

Wait, why is it that I have to cite a "scholar of Soviet history" as a source, while unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims by Stalin's grandson's lawyer are apparently good enough for you when Furr cites them? A "source" that no one except one guy is allowed to see isn't a source, it's hearsay. History may not be a real science but that doesn't mean any bullshit qualifies as an academic-level source. It's like citing Loose Change as an example of academic research or climate change deniers as "climate researchers".

swampman posted:

I'm referring to the broader point that in America, historical consensus on certain issues is often a matter of unquestioned mantra. A lot of the terrible conditions in North Korea can be explained by the war America waged and continues to wage on them. You think it's weird and bad they don't have IV bags when they would have no way to import or manufacture them? Or, HVAC is something Americans take for granted, it causes enormous energy expenditure in the form of burning coal... I'm just saying that the narrative about North Korea is so tainted that there is no way to take most of the outrageous claims about them seriously.

Nope, you're wrong. Popular consensus on issues is often a matter of unquestioned mantra. However, academic history, being populated by actual researchers trained in the ability to evaluate sources and already familiar with various historical context, is typically in a much more sane place than the hysterical hyperbole you hear from politicians and reporters. Yes, North Korea's poverty is largely the result of economic isolation following the fall of the Soviet Union...but the repression and human rights abuses that take place within its borders are much harder to blame on outside actors!

swampman posted:

I'd like to bring this thread on track with another lengthy quotation from Furr's book:

To me, this is a pretty straightforward example of Timothy Snyder engaging in outright academic fraud to make his point. Anyone have an alternate take?

Looks like Furr is quoting some author out of context in order to make the case that that author was quoting another author out of context! And since I don't plan on buying two books and digging up a newspaper article older than my grandmother just to comment on a slapfight between authors which has precisely zero relevance to anything, here is my take: "whatever, I don't really care, but since Furr has had a pretty good streak of being wrong about everything and making intentionally misleading arguments, I'm not going to take his word for it. also, you clearly have absolutely no idea whatsoever what 'academic fraud' means, nor do you seem to understand the word 'academic' at all".

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:51

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

Brainiac Five posted:

Who loving cares? What matters is if they have a compelling interest in feeding North Korea, and China's main interest in North Korea seems to be it being a reliable buffer against American troops

That's entirely untrue. Beijing's primary interest in North Korea is ensuring that they don't have a failed state on their border, and that there aren't streams of malnourished, brainwashed North Korean refugees pouring into China with no marketable skills whatsoever.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:51

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Majorian posted:

That's entirely untrue. Beijing's primary interest in North Korea is ensuring that they don't have a failed state on their border, and that there aren't streams of malnourished, brainwashed North Korean refugees pouring into China with no marketable skills whatsoever.

China supported the DPRK when it was still functional under Kim Il-Sung, and has consistently done so since 1949. It's far more likely that the Chinese support for North Korea extends from their decision to intervene in the Korean War.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:54

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

Brainiac Five posted:

China supported the DPRK when it was still functional under Kim Il-Sung, and has consistently done so since 1949. It's far more likely that the Chinese support for North Korea extends from their decision to intervene in the Korean War.

Reasons for more powerful states propping up client regimes evolves over time. It's no longer about North Korea being a buffer. It's all about keeping that particular festering boil from bursting and infecting the rest of East Asia.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:56

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Majorian posted:

Reasons for more powerful states propping up client regimes evolves over time. It's no longer about North Korea being a buffer. It's all about keeping that particular festering boil from bursting and infecting the rest of East Asia.

Except that relations have markedly cooled as North Korea becomes less compliant, which is odd if the goal is to keep North Korea together.

# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:58

Tacky-Ass Rococco: Sep 7, 2010; by R. Guyovich

Brainiac Five posted:

Except that relations have markedly cooled as North Korea becomes less compliant, which is odd if the goal is to keep North Korea together.

That doesn't seem odd at all, though. That seems very reasonable.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 00:02

R. Guyovich: Dec 25, 1991

IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:

Could you make a similar statement of what you would be willing to give up to achieve the ideal North Korean aspiration, if the alternative was America as it is now?

well, i don't flinch at the existence of prisons, police, law enforcement in an actually existing socialist state. really my line is drawn in parallel or exactly on what any good socialist should want: no discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. maintaining a worker's state will rely on enforcement the same way maintaining a capitalist state does, though.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 00:04

Best Friends: Nov 4, 2011

Brainiac Five posted:

The US doesn't give food aid because the people in the State Department are bleeding hearts, it gives food aid to keep North Korea's leadership happy and willing to play along. If the DPRK disarmed, the reasons the US has for feeding North Korea disappear and I have never, ever encountered a single person involved in US foreign policy who wouldn't let all of North Korea starve to death if there wasn't a compelling reason to feed them. Thus, the DPRK will never disarm as things stand currently, because it's their best bet for feeding people.

The compelling reason to feed them post regime is not having millions of starving people crossing the Yalu river and DMZ.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 00:05

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Brainiac Five posted:

Who loving cares? What matters is if they have a compelling interest in feeding North Korea, and China's main interest in North Korea seems to be it being a reliable buffer against American troops, which disarming would render impossible, and while it's possible South Korea could fund food and energy aid for the DPRK, there's also the basic problem that the North Korean leadership would probably see that as a first step towards South Korea absorbing the North.

So the real problem is that North Korea doesn't want reunification and the US state department theoretically ignoring starvation in NK is irrelevant.

Incidentally the buffer-zone theory makes no sense. Putting a base next to Syria, North Korea etc. is useful because those nations will be immediately dominated. Putting a base on China's border is not useful because it will be immediately vaporized. The US has only 30k troops in SK because SK can handle NK on its own and if a war with China were to happen those troops would be a liability, not a benefit.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 00:06

R. Guyovich: Dec 25, 1991

Main Paineframe posted:

That's not what I'm implying at all. Going on a guided tour through the heart of Pyongyang, you're going to mostly be coming in contact with the urban elites and dedicated service workers in the heart of the wealthiest city in North Korea. You're not going to meet the poor rural farmers, let alone the labor camp residents. It's like taking a tour of NYC focusing on areas such as Wall Street, Times Square, beautiful waterfront vistas looking out at the Statue of Liberty, and so on, and then declaring based on your experiences there that all Americans are happy, wealthy secular liberals.

your analogy is exactly what happens on tours of the united states, though? unless you think i'm going to go there and internalize everything i see as indisputable truth about the whole of the dprk, never to be convinced otherwise. which, i assure you, i will not.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 00:06

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012; This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

Uhhh re: the argument that the U.S. would want nothing to do with a liberalized DPRK... the U.S. loving loves South Korea as an economic partner that does bangin' tech development. Why exactly would ze capitalistas (who IIRC are looking for every possible way to break the wages of brave domestic workers' unions in America with their loving H1B visas and open borders, just ask Bernie Sanders) not prefer to 2x that overseas Korean capability and market?

# ? Apr 7, 2016 00:07

OldMemes: Sep 5, 2011; I have to go now. My planet needs me.

Homework Explainer posted:

well, i don't flinch at the existence of prisons, police, law enforcement in an actually existing socialist state. really my line is drawn in parallel or exactly on what any good socialist should want: no discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. maintaining a worker's state will rely on enforcement the same way maintaining a capitalist state does, though.

Race purity is a big thing in North Korea - up to the point of forced abortions. They're insanely racist and the state sponsors eugenics there.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 00:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 09:27

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Jack of Hearts posted:

That doesn't seem odd at all, though. That seems very reasonable.

Really? So, your goal is to keep North Korea stable. So when it shows signs of instability, you withdraw from it? Tell me, do you have a hard time keeping friends?

Best Friends posted:

The compelling reason to feed them post regime is not having millions of starving people crossing the Yalu river and DMZ.

I'm pretty sure that if that were to happen, the US and PRC would simply massacre North Korean refugees with barely a peep of public indignation, but even if all of Foggy Bottom had heart attacks there's still no reason to prop up the remnants of the DPRK rather than feeding refugees who cross the DMZ.

Anosmoman posted:

So the real problem is that North Korea doesn't want reunification and the US state department theoretically ignoring starvation in NK is irrelevant.

Incidentally the buffer-zone theory makes no sense. Putting a base next to Syria, North Korea etc. is useful because those nations will be immediately dominated. Putting a base on China's border is not useful because it will be immediately vaporized. The US has only 30k troops in SK because SK can handle NK on its own and if a war with China were to happen those troops would be a liability, not a benefit.

The real problem is that North Korea is run by people who have an ideological outlook that drives them towards making bad decisions.

Well, funnily enough, the PRC joined the Korean War for that exact purpose, so I guess the Chinese are loving idiots, or else just don't want to border American client states.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 00:12

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > ""Critically"" ""Evaluating"" Grover Furr's Blood Lies

«‹›22 »