DIPLOMACY: North Korea Threatens to Nuke Washington Over Sanctions - Page 6
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 157

Thread: North Korea Threatens to Nuke Washington Over Sanctions

  1. #76
    Feeling of being watched 99unownoak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    598

    Default Re: North Korea Threatens to Nuke Washington Over Sanctions

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Lutz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 99unownoak View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jabberwocky View Post
    Honestly, I'd be skeptical of any appointed guide to a country as a source for information regarding the government of that country and its policies/practices/level of corruption/etc. simply on principle.
    I agree with you 100%. I feel that I've expressed this several times in previous posts yet I'm sure many will still doubt it.
    I am curious, if you say you are completely skeptical of what the guide said, why did you add on to your original post that you found the guide's reaction "reassuring"? Not to reopen the discussion, it is merely a question I had.
    I really don't mind the question at all. When I said "And no, I wasn’t expecting any other answer than that from him but it was still reassuring." I meant that if the guide had said that the three generation thing was a true policy of the DPRK, for example if it was commonly mentioned in their media or over radio announcements then that wouldn't be very assuring to my skeptical stance on the issue. It was really a literal statement but just don't forget that I mentioned I only expected one view from the guide to begin with. Please don't feel that I based my own opinion on that of what a DPRK citizen, who was probably trained on how to answer certain questions told me.

    May I ask you, respectfully of course, about the lies that I've framed my arguments with and the facts (something absolutely indisputable) that I've rejected? It's just not very clear to me.
    Last edited by 99unownoak; 2nd April 2013 at 10:51 PM.

  2. #77
    Proud Pokeservative! 97SaturnSL1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    cuyahoga falls ohio
    Posts
    1,162
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default Re: North Korea Threatens to Nuke Washington Over Sanctions

    I heard the north is going to put one of their Fuel machines back online. thats going to make China mad and give more proof that Russia is correct that this will go out of hand. And Anonymus is now getting involved by hacking NK computers and showing civilans messages for them to go against the government. Its going to get VERY INTERESTING NOW...

  3. #78

    Default Re: North Korea Threatens to Nuke Washington Over Sanctions

    Quote Originally Posted by 99unownoak View Post
    I really don't mind the question at all. When I said "And no, I wasn’t expecting any other answer than that from him but it was still reassuring." I meant that if the guide had said that the three generation thing was a true policy of the DPRK, for example if it was commonly mentioned in their media or over radio announcements then that wouldn't be very assuring to my skeptical stance on the issue. It was really a literal statement but just don't forget that I mentioned I only expected one view from the guide to begin with. Please don't feel that I based my own opinion on that of what a DPRK citizen, who was probably trained on how to answer certain questions told me.
    Okay that really does not clean it up, but either way you do realize how your sentence can be seen right? Saying it was reassuring that they did not outright tell you the policy existed, makes it seem like you already decided it did not, and that hearing the tour guide reply like that merely reassured your own beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by 99unownoak View Post
    May I ask you, respectfully of course, about the lies that I've framed my arguments with and the facts (something absolutely indisputable) that I've rejected? It's just not very clear to me.
    Let me go through some of the things you have said that I would consider a utter falsehood.

    "Saying that north Korea oppresses and starves its people in labor camps is an incorrect generalisation for obvious reasons." The oppression and starvation of it's people in the labor camps is very well known and has been provided through evidence of sources that have been posted here by myself and others. To say that mistreatment like oppression and starvation does not happen in labor camps is again a falsehood.

    "Not everyone in the country is starving to death, there's a general food shortage but most people are fine and the others are just plain poor just as there are poor people all over the world." Saying most people are fine is another falsehood. 1 in 3, or 30 percent of the children suffer from "chronically malnourished" that has led to stunted growth. Such widespread lack of food is why North Koreans are now considered three inches shorter than their South Korean counterparts. BBC News - Are North Koreans really three inches shorter than South Koreans?

    "There are vested interests in claims tarnishing the DPRK, similar 'facts' have been cooked up in other countries America opposes such as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the horrors that would befall south Vietnam if the communists took over." this one we really covered but I do believe it bares mentioning again. As denying the horrors that befell over a million people I would say, is up there with holocaust denial in terms of white washing such a massive tragedy.

    Anyway I could go through all of them but I think you get the idea, in many of your early posts you portray North Korea through very rose tinted glasses. Which is why you were labeled as a North Korean apologist. I would suggest if you are going to continue discussing North Korea to take the time out and look at the things said by the World Food Programme, Amnesty International, and the defectors.
    Last edited by Big Lutz; 2nd April 2013 at 11:23 PM.

  4. #79
    Proud Pokeservative! 97SaturnSL1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    cuyahoga falls ohio
    Posts
    1,162
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default Re: North Korea Threatens to Nuke Washington Over Sanctions

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Lutz View Post

    "Not everyone in the country is starving to death, there's a general food shortage but most people are fine and the others are just plain poor just as there are poor people all over the world." Saying most people are fine is another falsehood. 1 in 3, or 30 percent of the children suffer from "chronically malnourished" that has led to stunted growth. Such widespread lack of food is why North Koreans are now considered three inches shorter than their South Korean counterparts. BBC News - Are North Koreans really three inches shorter than South Koreans?
    Also to build on that statement, when Mr Rodman did talk about "dearest leader's" wife's height being 5ft 5 and the average female in NK being 5ft 2. "dearest leader" want too happy

  5. #80
    Feeling of being watched 99unownoak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    598

    Default Re: North Korea Threatens to Nuke Washington Over Sanctions

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Lutz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 99unownoak View Post
    I really don't mind the question at all. When I said "And no, I wasn’t expecting any other answer than that from him but it was still reassuring." I meant that if the guide had said that the three generation thing was a true policy of the DPRK, for example if it was commonly mentioned in their media or over radio announcements then that wouldn't be very assuring to my skeptical stance on the issue. It was really a literal statement but just don't forget that I mentioned I only expected one view from the guide to begin with. Please don't feel that I based my own opinion on that of what a DPRK citizen, who was probably trained on how to answer certain questions told me.
    Okay that really does not clean it up, but either way you do realize how your sentence can be seen right? Saying it was reassuring that they did not outright tell you the policy existed, makes it seem like you already decided it did not, and that hearing the tour guide reply like that merely reassured your own beliefs.
    I realize how you've seen it and how you've interpreted it to form your opinion. The fact that I acknowledged the biased though I think is crucial however. I had my original opinion, if the guide had said there was a policy of three generations then my opinion would have changed. I retained my original opinion with regard or without regard to the guide's comments. I'm happy to leave this issue rest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Lutz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 99unownoak View Post
    May I ask you, respectfully of course, about the lies that I've framed my arguments with and the facts (something absolutely indisputable) that I've rejected? It's just not very clear to me.
    Let me go through some of the things you have said that I would consider a utter falsehood.

    "Saying that north Korea oppresses and starves its people in labor camps is an incorrect generalisation for obvious reasons." The oppression and starvation of it's people in the labor camps is very well known and has been provided through evidence of sources that have been posted here by myself and others. To say that mistreatment like oppression and starvation does not happen in labor camps is again a falsehood.
    The generalisation was the point I was at. True there's starvation and labor camps (you know that I know this) but I meant that it shouldn't be generalised to the entire population because of course it isn't true in that case. I didn't say or mean that starvation and labor camps aren't present (I've actually said the opposite). Denying the starvation and labor camps is an "utter falsehood", saying that it shouldn't be generalised isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Lutz View Post
    "Not everyone in the country is starving to death, there's a general food shortage but most people are fine and the others are just plain poor just as there are poor people all over the world." Saying most people are fine is another falsehood. 1 in 3, or 30 percent of the children suffer from "chronically malnourished" that has led to stunted growth. Such widespread lack of food is why North Koreans are now considered three inches shorter than their South Korean counterparts. BBC News - Are North Koreans really three inches shorter than South Koreans?
    "Not everyone in the country is starving to death" - that's true
    "There's a general food shortage but most people are fine" - The food shortage thing a fact, the most people are fine is an opinion as truly no one knows the conditions, yet that's my opinion. The statement also has an aspect of ambiguity of what "fine" means. Your statistic, let's say it's 100% correct even though it's an estimate because again no one knows; it's saying that 30% of kids are chronically malnourished, my statement of "most people are fine" can't be altered by that alone. Chiefly because it's on the demographic of children but also supported by it's not over 50%. This article estimates that 6 million people are at risk due to food shortages ( North Korea faces famine: 'Tell the world we are starving' - Telegraph ), again let's assume the statistic is spot on, it still only makes up around 25% of the DPRK population, and lets us assume that the other 75% aren't at risk of imminent food shortages. Don't think that I think that 25% isn't bad, it's horrendous yet the point I'm trying to make is that I don't think my original statement was an "utter falsehood" as you claim.
    "and the others are just plain poor just as there are poor people all over the world" - Again this is a broad and ambiguous statement yet I may as well stick with it. They are poor, there are many poor people in the world.

    Therefore I'm not deliberately trying to disagree with you but I feel that saying that statement is an "utter falsehood" isn't true as I hope you will see.

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Lutz View Post
    "There are vested interests in claims tarnishing the DPRK, similar 'facts' have been cooked up in other countries America opposes such as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the horrors that would befall south Vietnam if the communists took over." this one we really covered but I do believe it bares mentioning again.

    Anyway I could go through all of them but I think you get the idea, in many of your early posts you portray North Korea through very rose tinted glasses. Which is why you were labeled as a North Korean apologist. I would suggest if you are going to continue discussing North Korea to take the time out and look at the things said by the World Food Programme, Amnesty International, and the defectors.
    The vested interest in claims tarnishing the DPRK is an opinion I believe to be correct. However it's only an opinion. The Iraq thing isn't an "utter falsehood" and the Vietnam thing we've discussed extensively in past posts, it's a distraction to the main argument we're having, and I don't want to reignite discussion about this sub-topic again.

    I don't get the idea. These "lies" and "rejected" facts are either not lies or rejected facts or they can be based on opinion or interpretation. There's a complete difference. Give me one out right lie I've told on the DPRK. Also, this topic of lies, I know I haven't told any lies with me thinking "oh I'll just put this in the argument and hopefully they won't notice", I know I haven't but if you do bring up an example of a "lie" don't you think it would have been a mistake not a lie? There's a huge difference. Like when you said the thing about the grass video, you weren't lying you just made a simple error. I'd like to ask you to reconsider your word choice from "lie" to "mistake" or "incorrect". I'm not ordering you to do this but can see where I'm coming from or do you honestly think that I've been trying to tell outright deliberate lies? Either way I know I haven't told any "lies" and I don't think I've said anything incorrect when you look at my explanation to it which I will be happy to provide to you or anyone else on anything that I've expressed.

  6. #81

    Default Re: North Korea Threatens to Nuke Washington Over Sanctions

    Quote Originally Posted by 99unownoak View Post
    The generalisation was the point I was at. True there's starvation and labor camps (you know that I know this) but I meant that it shouldn't be generalised to the entire population because of course it isn't true in that case. I didn't say or mean that starvation and labor camps aren't present (I've actually said the opposite). Denying the starvation and labor camps is an "utter falsehood", saying that it shouldn't be generalised isn't.
    Words have meaning however look at how the sentence is put together: "Saying that north Korea oppresses and starves its people in labor camps is an incorrect generalisation for obvious reasons." no where in your sentence do you say anything about all of North Korean people, merely "its" people which can mean two, to the entire population.

    Quote Originally Posted by 99unownoak View Post
    "Not everyone in the country is starving to death" - that's true
    "There's a general food shortage but most people are fine" - The food shortage thing a fact, the most people are fine is an opinion as truly no one knows the conditions, yet that's my opinion. The statement also has an aspect of ambiguity of what "fine" means. Your statistic, let's say it's 100% correct even though it's an estimate because again no one knows; it's saying that 30% of kids are chronically malnourished, my statement of "most people are fine" can't be altered by that alone. Chiefly because it's on the demographic of children but also supported by it's not over 50%. This article estimates that 6 million people are at risk due to food shortages ( North Korea faces famine: 'Tell the world we are starving' - Telegraph ), again let's assume the statistic is spot on, it still only makes up around 25% of the DPRK population, and lets us assume that the other 75% aren't at risk of imminent food shortages. Don't think that I think that 25% isn't bad, it's horrendous yet the point I'm trying to make is that I don't think my original statement was an "utter falsehood" as you claim.
    "and the others are just plain poor just as there are poor people all over the world" - Again this is a broad and ambiguous statement yet I may as well stick with it. They are poor, there are many poor people in the world.

    Therefore I'm not deliberately trying to disagree with you but I feel that saying that statement is an "utter falsehood" isn't true as I hope you will see.
    Well we get into semantics as to what most means, yet I would say that even though a person is not labeled as "Chronically Malnourished" the fact that a majority of North Koreans have stunted growth shows that Most are not fine. Look at the statement included in the article by Kerry Brown Head of Asia Programme. "Since 1998, people have been fed but the diet is very poor - low in meat, poor quality grain, no fruit and sporadic famine. So their calorie intake must be very low and it's no surprise they have stunted growth." Just because not everyone reaches the level of Chronically Malnourished, hardly means they are fine, the diet is incredibly poor, and the people suffer because of it.

    Mind you, you cannot claim "No one knows" on this, as North Korea relies on food programs like the World Food Programme to provide their aid, as such they are able to provide account of the famine happening in North Korea.

    Now I know you say that you saw food in their markets in the cities, but I will remind you that according to interviews from North Koreans who travel back and forth from North Korea to China the average person cannot actually afford the food in the markets. And mind you these reports are not coming from defectors, but people who currently live in North Korea.

    http://www.npr.org/2012/12/10/166760055/hunger-still-haunts-north-korea-citizens-say

    The UN report also sites statistics from a random visit of 100 families, finding they almost have "no or negligible stock levels" in their pantries.

    Quote Originally Posted by 99unownoak View Post
    The vested interest in claims tarnishing the DPRK is an opinion I believe to be correct. However it's only an opinion. The Iraq thing isn't an "utter falsehood" and the Vietnam thing we've discussed extensively in past posts, it's a distraction to the main argument we're having, and I don't want to reignite discussion about this sub-topic again.
    The Vietnam thing is a falsehood which is what I was getting at. By the way, there is no need for anyone to have a vested interest in tarnishing North Korea, between the malnutrition, the massive camps, the shooting of people trying to escape, and the nuclear tests, North Korea is doing more than enough to tarnish it's own image.

    Quote Originally Posted by 99unownoak View Post
    I don't get the idea. These "lies" and "rejected" facts are either not lies or rejected facts or they can be based on opinion or interpretation. There's a complete difference. Give me one out right lie I've told on the DPRK. Also, this topic of lies, I know I haven't told any lies with me thinking "oh I'll just put this in the argument and hopefully they won't notice", I know I haven't but if you do bring up an example of a "lie" don't you think it would have been a mistake not a lie? There's a huge difference. Like when you said the thing about the grass video, you weren't lying you just made a simple error. I'd like to ask you to reconsider your word choice from "lie" to "mistake" or "incorrect". I'm not ordering you to do this but can see where I'm coming from or do you honestly think that I've been trying to tell outright deliberate lies? Either way I know I haven't told any "lies" and I don't think I've said anything incorrect when you look at my explanation to it which I will be happy to provide to you or anyone else on anything that I've expressed.
    I would believe the food argument on your part was a utter lie, saying that most of the people are just fine is not just a difference of opinion, but is rejected by the very people that give North Koreans their food!
    Last edited by Big Lutz; 3rd April 2013 at 12:42 AM.

  7. #82
    Feeling of being watched 99unownoak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    598

    Default Re: North Korea Threatens to Nuke Washington Over Sanctions

    I see we've boiled down to personal opinions and interpretation again. You can say that you know better what I meant when I wrote it and I can say that I know what I meant when I wrote it. I'm happy to leave our discussion here.
    Last edited by 99unownoak; 3rd April 2013 at 02:57 AM.

  8. #83
    No it's Dr. Strange, love Joshawott's Avatar Forum Head
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Posts
    11,529
    Blog Entries
    15
    Follow Joshawott On Twitter
    Add Joshawott on Linkedin Follow Joshawott on Tumblr Visit Joshawott's Youtube Channel

    Default Re: North Korea Threatens to Nuke Washington Over Sanctions


  9. #84
    Copy Theif Famed Mimic Gogo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Uncertain
    Location
    Zone Eater's anu...belly.
    Posts
    859

    Default Re: North Korea Threatens to Nuke Washington Over Sanctions

    Can everyone stop argueing? It looks like there is more important stuff about to happened.
    "Ah...you say you are going to save the world? Than I shall save the world as well!"
    "I am GOGO, master of the simulacrum...My miming skills will astonish you!"

  10. #85
    Registered User Caitlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    1,592
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: North Korea Threatens to Nuke Washington Over Sanctions

    I await North Korea's missile launch. $10 says the missiles will fall over and they'll accidentally nuke their only launch base.

    My real father lost his head at King's Landing. I made a choice, and I chose wrong. ~ Theon Greyjoy

  11. #86

    Default Re: North Korea Threatens to Nuke Washington Over Sanctions

    As much as I rag on Obama, I do trust him to protect us in this, if there is evidence that North Korea is fueling it's rockets and not looking to have the U.S. be pushed into a first strike, he will hit them.

  12. #87
    Proud Pokeservative! 97SaturnSL1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    cuyahoga falls ohio
    Posts
    1,162
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default Re: North Korea Threatens to Nuke Washington Over Sanctions

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Lutz View Post
    As much as I rag on Obama, I do trust him to protect us in this, if there is evidence that North Korea is fueling it's rockets and not looking to have the U.S. be pushed into a first strike, he will hit them.
    I think Kim jong un thinks that those B-2 and F-22 are the same as the old MIGs form the USSR and have a very minimal payload. If he doesn magange to try to launch anything twords Guam, it will likely be intercepted. though i wonder why Kim though Austin TX was a good target?

  13. #88

    Default Re: North Korea Threatens to Nuke Washington Over Sanctions

    Quote Originally Posted by 97SaturnSL1 View Post
    though i wonder why Kim though Austin TX was a good target?
    He wants to take out our greatest weapon first.... Chuck Norris. Or maybe he was disappointed by South by Southwest, or maybe he is a Oklahoma Sooners fan and is pissed at the rivalry between them and the UT Longhorns.

  14. #89
    Proud Pokeservative! 97SaturnSL1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    cuyahoga falls ohio
    Posts
    1,162
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default Re: North Korea Threatens to Nuke Washington Over Sanctions

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Lutz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 97SaturnSL1 View Post
    though i wonder why Kim though Austin TX was a good target?
    He wants to take out our greatest weapon first.... Chuck Norris. Or maybe he was disappointed by South by Southwest, or maybe he is a Oklahoma Sooners fan and is pissed at the rivalry between them and the UT Longhorns.
    YEP Chuck Norris. it makes sence now... although seriously I was wondering that because Samsung USA has a factory there. though by that logic he would have made Montgomery AL and West Point GA targets because other big SK companys are located there too

  15. #90

    Default Re: North Korea Threatens to Nuke Washington Over Sanctions

    Quote Originally Posted by 97SaturnSL1 View Post
    YEP Chuck Norris. it makes sence now... although seriously I was wondering that because Samsung USA has a factory there. though by that logic he would have made Montgomery AL and West Point GA targets because other big SK companys are located there too
    Seriously I am betting that North Korean leadership went "Well Texas is a big part of the U.S. so lets hit their capital". In reality they would do alot more damage if they bombed the DFW area or Houston in terms of economic damage and fatalities. Hitting Austin will just wipe out much of the Texas Hippie population.

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •