N. Korea Could Face Prosecution For 'Crimes Against Humanity' 325
An anonymous reader writes with this news from The Telegraph: "North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, has been warned that he could face prosecution for crimes against humanity after a United Nations inquiry accused him of some of the worst human rights abuses since the Second World War. In some of the harshest criticism ever unleashed by the international community against the Pyongyang regime, a UN panel branded it 'a shock to the conscience of humanity.' Michael Kirby, a retired Australian judge who has spent nearly a year taking testimony from victims of the regime, said much of it reminded him of atrocities perpetrated by Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's Cambodia. Yesterday his team published a 374-page report detailing allegations of murder, torture, rape, abductions, enslavement, and starvation, describing North Korea as a dictatorship 'that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.' In a bid to put pressure on Kim Jong-un, 31, Mr Kirby has taken the unusual step of writing to the North Korean leader to warn him that both he and hundreds of his henchmen could one day face prosecution."
More at the BBC, including a cache of the report.
They're finally going to do something. (Score:5, Insightful)
Issue a sternly worded warning.
That'll teach him.
Re:They're finally going to do something. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Just wait until he finds out that this is going on his permanent record.
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait until he finds out that this is going on his permanent record.
In North Korea there ARE no permanent records, unless dear leader *says* the record has been permanent.
Re: (Score:3)
We might fine them some of the money we've been giving them, that might send a lesson.
And all that will happen is they'll rattle their sabres and threaten to unleash the righteous forces of the north on the evil vampyric United States and it's lackey state in the south. All glory to heroic leader Kim, etc, etc, etc.
It's like shouting at a rock - it has no heart and doesn't care.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Certainly cheaper than marching in there and slapping some cuffs on him (or a noose on his neck)!
Anyway I'm sure they're bad, but someone else can take the reigns on this one. Team America, World Police needs to retire.
Re:They're finally going to do something. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure the thoughts going through the regime's heads is "You and what army."
So long as China sees fit to shield North Korea, there's precious little to be done, and even if China walked away, this nightmarish regime has at least some nuclear capacity, enough to turn good portions of the peninsula into Armageddon. I'm afraid there is no practical or safe way for external force to be applied, and one only hopes that eventually, somehow, those who live within this hell on Earth find a way to depose the Kims and their underlings.
Re:They're finally going to do something. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They're finally going to do something. (Score:4, Interesting)
Managing to nuke Seoul would be a catastrophe; huge loss of life, regional and indeed even global economic impact would be huge, and something tells me if the NK regime was actually collapsing, they would have no qualms about doing as much damage as they could to South Korea. The risks as far as regional stability are concerned are probably the chief reasons that China still backs them and even the US does its part by facilitating food shipments when the almost perpetual famines reach crisis level.
There are no easy answers to North Korea. Regime collapse is in many ways more frightening than keeping it going. I really don't see an end in sight. The Kims have done something rather rare on the face of it; a multigenerational monarchical dictatorship; with a sort of absolutism that even the absolute monarchs of Europe could not have imagined. There seemed to be some during the transition between Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un, and indeed by the looks of it many high ranking North Koreans thought so as well as they sought to increase business ties with China, but Kim Jong Il chose his heir well and the third Kim is as ruthless as his father or grandfather and has tamed the NK military machine to his will. I'd say any new hope of change is decades off now.
Re: (Score:2)
No way. Since when has a stern warning had such an effect? It will have to be a REALLY stern warning. With multiple exclamation points and everything!! Then and only then will they see the error of their ways and repent.
Re:They're finally going to do something. (Score:5, Funny)
I think ALL CAPS is in order
Re: (Score:2)
Why, it's almost like isolationists didn't want the UN to have substantial power when they crafted it. And now neo-isolationists use that lack of power to justify ignoring the body.
Re: (Score:2)
Misleading. The UN was crafted to deal with tangled webs of international diplomacy that could lead to world war situations. Discussion was certainly an important part of that. So was shared treaty systems, which could be contingent on getting enough signatories to make a safer world. To that end, sanction treaties were always an intended goal.
Re:They're finally going to do something. (Score:5, Interesting)
There is history here. History teaches us that scrutiny and criticism from other nations does, in fact, make an important difference.
Many Soviet dissidents survived because killing them would have made maintaining the fig leaf of Soviet respectability impossible for the western Left. The Soviets did not wish to be a pariah state; they had to tolerate a degree of dissent and eventually this allowed satellite nations like Poland to develop a genuine resistance.
N. Korea appears to be directly immune to this sort of pressure, but China isn't. N. Korea needs a cadre of internationally recognized dissidents to destabilize the regime and the only thing that might allow them to survive is international pressure. Could a dissident survive in N. Korea in the near future? Not likely. But international pressure could permit a high profile N. Korean dissident to survive in China and create problems for the Chinese.
You have to start somewhere. The rest of the planet has be copping out on N. Korea since the 50's. Couldn't hurt to change that. Their farcical nuclear capability not withstanding.
Re:They're finally going to do something. (Score:5, Informative)
North Korea politics in a nutshell:
The North Koreans brutally maintain their control and constantly threaten massive destruction, test nuclear weapons and fire missiles over Tokyo. They then allow themselves to be "convinced" to back down for food and funds to maintain their grip.
China finds this useful. They support him because the US and the West are constantly at odds with him (technically never signed a Peace treaty after the armistice). They keep him along and it keeps the West distracted, and gives them a cheap bargaining chip to "bring them back from the brink" in exchange for concessions in other parts of Asia.
The US finds them annoying. In general we don't like dictatorships and tyrants and in particular are morally opposed to human rights abuses. However, toppling the regime through force has serious implications. Despite being relatively weak, they are heavily armed with fanatical soldiers with around 1 million troops. While their nukes are essentially a joke, their artillery they have constantly aimed at Seoul is not. The damage they would inflict if backed into a corner on the peninsula would have repercussions throughout the entire Pacific economy. In addition, assuming they are toppled, what then? Who takes over? Does Seoul? How does a dynamic, robust, educated, high standard of living economy of 50 million people somehow take over and integrate 24 million uneducated dirt poor people who have been living under a tyrants thumb for so many years? It would take decades to integrate the two, and meanwhile South Korea, the source of around 51% of the world's new shipbuilding and around 1/3 of the world's steel production, would struggle with global ramifications. The cost and difficulty is very high for war.
North Korea knows this. They constantly bring themselves right up to the line of not being worth it to eliminate, and everyone else gives them concessions to back down from their most recent round of "crazy". It's an odd game they play, but it's worked for them for 30+ years and no one has found a cost effective alternative.
Re: (Score:3)
In today's North Korea, information leaks through. This means that there will be an awareness among the general population of these accusations. True, there will be propaganda countering this, but the seed will be planted.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly! Just like we do with our corporate overlords.
Seems to be working, right?
We should give them the business. Literally. Send our banks over to them. If that doesn't topple the regime, nothing will.
Re:They're finally going to do something. (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing about dictatorships is that it really should only take one bomb to finish the job.
Bombing the countrymen really is a bigger crime against humanity.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because America allowed the Iraqis (and Kuwaitis) self-rule in no way proves that their aggressions in the Persian Gulf were /not/ about ensuring itself a continued supply of petrochemicals.
But the fact that when the government of Iraq asked us to leave, we did, does indicate that access to oil isn't the primary goal. It is at least secondary if not lower on the list or you just continue to occupy the country.
The USA has a LONG history of not wanting to be an imperial power. We could have been. Lord knows we conquered enough territory to control more than half of the world if that was our goal. The same with oil. We've captured and returned to it's previous owners much of the world's oil
I don't understand.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe they found some interesting resources now.
Why now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Is there some political timing involved in it coming out now as opposed to a decade ago?
Obviously, since not saying precisely the same shit about China in the same breath is rampant hypocrisy. But China is still buying things, so let's keep endorsing organlegging and slavery.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, get this book from your local library and read it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the UN is very definitely favourable towards the US, the US has veto power, you hardly give that to someone you aren't favourable towards. The problem with the UN is that they are favourable towards TOO MANY people and gave out veto power to several countries who never agree. This ensures that the UN can never actually accomplish anything because they must get all veto powered countries to agree (something that simply doesn't happen)
For the UN to be effective they have to stop the idea of ANY country having veto power, it just means that those countries are immune to the UN rules.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a gift given to countries they like. The US and 4 other nations had had veto power since the inception of the UN. It's not something arbitrarily given, or able to be taken away.
Well then, here's
Re:Why now? (Score:4, Insightful)
France had atomic bombs before China. If not for domestic problems after WWI, France could have been the first nuclear power. That's where Marie Currie and other researchers came from, after all.
"The French military is currently thought to retain a weapons stockpile of around 300 operational nuclear warheads, making it the third-largest in the world."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Are you talking about the same Kim Jong-un that had his uncle declared an un-person, then executed him, then imprisoned his entire family?
There really isn't all that much evidence that the homicidal little s**t isn't really in charge over t
Depends on China (Score:5, Informative)
North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, has been warned that he could face prosecution for crimes against humanity after a United Nations inquiry accused him of some of the worst human rights abuses since the Second World War.
Not as long as China protects him he won't. For various reasons I don't entirely understand China has elected to keep this family in power. (I know they want a buffer from South Korea but there has to be more to it than that) They don't even seem concerned about North Korea possessing nuclear weapons.
If China decides to withdraw support, the North Korean regime will be gone pretty quick most likely. Until then, nothing will happen unless a war starts between North and South Korea.
Re:Depends on China (Score:5, Informative)
Aren't they still at war?
Re:Depends on China (Score:4, Informative)
Aren't they still at war?
Technically yes. The Korean war theoretically never actually ended. There was an armistice but never any permanent peace agreement. $Diety knows what they think they still have to fight about...
Re: (Score:2)
And the US, too, under the UN's authority.
Re: (Score:2)
Officially, war never stopped between the 2 Koreas
Re: (Score:2)
Only in a way that doesn't matter. They're not shooting at each other or maneuvering to shoot at each other. They're not at war.
Actually they still do shoot at each other in various ways. This happened only a few years ago.
'North Korean torpedo' sank South's navy ship - report [bbc.co.uk]
This is just a sample, there are other incidents that happen in the DMZ or other places that aren't covered here.
Timeline: North Korean attacks [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine china will drop the support when they think they can move in and assume control. They dont want a revolution on their border. Stability over all.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't entirely understand China has elected to keep this family in power
Because the minute China stop supporting that dictatorship half a dozen country, the first of them being the US of A, go get rid of that family, and a reunited US-friendly Korean is reborn. And China doesn't want another US friendly country near by..
Re: (Score:3)
However, they probably still see USA as a potential enemy. And if NK were to collapse and get absorbed into South Korea, there could be US troops right on the Chinese border (there are a number of US troops in South Korea right now). If I were a
Re:Depends on China (Score:5, Interesting)
You nailed it, DPRK is very much dependent on China for support. I don't fully understand why China wants to keep DPRK in power either, but I can shed a bit of light on the issue. You mentioned China's desire for a buffer between their borders and a westernized and America-friendly South Korea, this is a major issue. Another huge issue is that if the North Korean regime fails, China will have millions of refugees crossing its eastern border into areas that are already less stable than they would like. These areas have not developed at a rate consistent with the larger Chinese cities, and millions of Korean refugees would be a huge burden on those areas, threatening the regional stability - which is a hot-button issue for China.
I can't say that any country is immune from supporting regimes where atrocities exist when it supports their interests...but it doesn't stop me from being frustrated with China for supporting a failed regime like DPRK.
Re:China's Non-Interventionst Foreign Policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather, it is China's view that it is no one's business outside the DPRK how the DPRK conducts it's affairs.
Baloney. If that were the case then China wouldn't be subsidizing the regime. China thinks it is China's business what the DPRK does.
China never wants to be involved in other countries' problems nor do they seek to impose their will on other countries - you don't see China out trying to spread their own unique brand of communist/capitalism elsewhere do you?
They most certainly do get themselves involved in other countries problems. Ask Tibet. Need more examples? Look at what China is doing in Africa [wikipedia.org]. They are investing hugely there and they certainly are pushing their own interests. China is contesting with Japan over various islands (over oil mostly), they continue to insist that Taiwan is their property, they are increasingly becoming a force in east asian geo-politics, they are growing their military rapidly, etc. Claims that China doesn't exert power in other parts of the world is complete nonsense and demonstrably so.
It is hard for people in the West to believe this because in the West foreign policy is essentially *ALL ABOUT* spreading your influence and trying to spread democracy. China has no interest in any of this.
Bullshit China doesn't have any interest. China is NO different than any other large nation state. They definitely see themselves as a player on the world stage and they are behaving like a country with global interests. To simply keep their economic engine humming they HAVE to be involved in other parts of the world whether they want to or not.
Non-Interventionist is BS; China no Different (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I think the issue with China is that it's a regime that's even more touchy than governments usually are about admitting mistakes. They don't like North Korea's nuclear program, or being associated with North Korean atrocities, but a public admission of a mistake they like even less. It's seen as weak, and weak governments leading to chaos is the number one lesson a student of Chinese history learns. Being Pyongyang's *only* ally puts China on the spot; the more embarrassing those ties are the harde
Re: (Score:2)
Not as long as China protects him he won't. For various reasons I don't entirely understand China has elected to keep this family in power.
NK is China's insurance policy. As long as North Korea is around China and their abuses look a lot better by comparison. At the same time, if they ever need some international good will, they can just go along with UNSC resolutions against North Korea, or get them to open up or release some political prisoners or something. At the same time, they have a market for domestically produced entertainment, goods, and weapons because no one should be exporting things to North Korea, and North Korea cannot have
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that China fears that if the regime collapses, they'll have millions of North Korean refugees flooding across the border. In essence, as awful as the North Korean regime is, it's the lid on the jar, so to speak.
Re: (Score:2)
Not as long as China protects him he won't. For various reasons I don't entirely understand China has elected to keep this family in power.
I think China has more fear of the US than we expect, and it distorts their decisions. They are still living with the memory of the Korean war, much more than we are. Also, remember that a lot of times when China wants to do something, the US says "no," and enforces it militarily, for example, by sending warships to the Taiwan strait. I'm not saying the US made the wrong decision (although I favor less military adventurism by the US), there are reasons to defend Taiwan, but China feels their own weakness ac
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If North Korea became hostile to China, they would lose a lof of naval power.
If North Korea became hostile to China, China would and could simply topple the country and could do so quickly. China wouldn't even break a sweat putting Kim Jong-Un out of power. They don't do it because it would cause all sorts of other problems and hasn't been necessary so far but North Korea isn't really much of a threat to China.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
China is hardly land locked and without ports or navy.
Most of their coast is not in there control? Then who's control is it in?
Re: (Score:2)
For various reasons I don't entirely understand China has elected to keep this family in power.
DPRK is the just about only neighbor that China has that actually likes them. Everyone else that shares a border with China has relations that run the gamut from "cool" to "antagonistic." China fears losing the Kim regime in much the same way Russia fears NATO expansion, for similar reasons.
Irrelavant and inept. (Score:2, Insightful)
It goes to show how irrelevant and inept the UN is. Since it has no Army or Navy, it can't enforce anything and expects member nations to toe the line. Sure, we all know the PRK is a repressive regime and the leadership is corrupt and brutal but they have a powerful ally with a permanent seat on the Security Council, meaning that nothing will ultimately come of trying to rein in Pyongyang or force the regime to collapse. This is a nation that has no problems starving its own people and putting them unwave
Re:Irrelavant and inept. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Do that, and North Korea is likely, in its dying moments, to bomb South Korea (if not its own populace, I honestly wouldn't put it past them). This is why there is this sort of unofficial entente between the US and China over North Korea. Neither probably likes the regime at all, but keeping it propped up is infinitely better than what may happen if it melts down.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it's really China's imperative to do something about the monsters that they create. China shouldn't have to stop trading with North Korea, they should want to stop. Until we get to that point it won't matter much what the rest of the world thinks.
The UN? LOL. (Score:2)
This is the same organization that took 10 friggin years to define the term "genocide" as it applied to the Rwandan massacres that took place unimpeded for a decade.
So...which nations will ante up to remove KJ-u from NK to stand trial?
United Nations eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
My grandma was more threatening than the United Nations. This is nothing more than a joke.
I'm sure he's quivering in his boots... (Score:2)
I'm sure Kim Jong-un is just quivering in his boots at this "strongly worded condemnation" by the UN. After all, the UN has such a strong record of following up such condemnations with action...
What's pathetic about this is such UN declarations just serve to reinforce what an absolute joke the whole organization is. The UN has no power whatsoever to do anything to North Korea and Dear Leader knows this.
China (Score:2)
North Korea only exists due to the largesse of China.
If the world really cared, China would be publicly shamed everywhere on the planet - Pictures of starving Koreans in front of every embassy, consulate and trade mission. Protests in front of the offices of every state-run businesses - Huawei, Lenovo, the lot.
Basically deeply embarrass China into realizing propping up this criminal state isn't worth it - Babies are being drowned? China's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China is doing much the same
Is China a paradise? No damn way - But writing something like this belittles the terrible suffering that goes on in North Korea.
I work with a lot of Chinese - None of them were shot when they emigrated. None of them that successfully emigrated found their family and friends, including children, tortured and killed to punish them.
Chinese can travel, go to the movies, buy a car.
None of these options exist for the average North Korean.
Re: (Score:2)
None of them were shot when they emigrated.
You don't say. The people you met weren't killed before?
China is not as bad as North Korea, no shit. But they're guilty of human rights abuses aplenty and already get bad press for it aplenty. Shaming them publicly moreso than they already are will likely not work well for making them shift their strategic position on North Korea.
Good Luck (Score:2)
Ineffective (Score:2)
Not going to work (Score:3)
One leader at a time (Score:3)
In this day and age, there is no need to go to war with an entire nation to remove in inhumane and oppressive regime. ... whatever it takes. Just take them down quietly, one at a time, no press statements, warnings or threats.
Go to war with the leaders and only the leaders. The U.N. needs a tactical and surgical response. Use intelligence, snipers, spies, drones, DNA biological agents, laser-equipped frogs,
They'll eventually lose their nerve.
Re:And how will they bring him to justice? (Score:5, Informative)
Even ignoring the problem of getting him from power, ICC has no jurisdiction as Korea isn't a signatory and the UN security council is needed either to refer the case to the ICC or to create an ad hoc tribunal. Even if China might as some point decide to stop propping up its neighbour, it is not very likely that they will allow them to be tried in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And how will they bring him to justice? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey! We're talking about reducing the torture there!
Re:And how will they bring him to justice? (Score:5, Funny)
Send a fleet of C-130 Hercules filled with lawyers and drop them on Pyongyang at 10000 ft.
If that doesn't work send another fleet and drop more lawyers, but this time give them parachutes
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care who you are, that there is funny!.
You made me laugh. Wish I could mod you up..
Re:They're atheists... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can be an atheist and still behave morally, ethically, and decently towards other human beings.
Likewise, you can believe in a god (or gods) and still be a murderous psychopath. Heck, as long as you fervently believe those gods are on your side, you can pretty much do anything you like... including interpreting scripture to suit your own purposes.
Re:They're atheists... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact this report directly compares the leader of North Korea to a specific devout Christian who committed many atrocities just under a hundred years ago...
Re: (Score:2)
Because religious folks would never do anything morally objectionable, like fly planes into buildings, or start wars of choice, or use atomic bombs on cities. Nope... it's only atheists who do awful things.
Tu quoque!
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you haven't heard but the US did fight a war there to keep North Korea out of South Korea. The US still has tens of thousands of troops there. That kind of shoots a hole in the whole "blood for oil" thing, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
And i bet that that don't even qualifies as the tip of the iceberg.
I agree completely. We get closer to the iceberg if we consider the invasion and the ongoing occupation of Iraq, which is a war of aggression and a war crime, and carries with it a tremendous toll on the civilian population.
If UN is going to police the world, they should start with interstate conflicts, and the rogue state number one, instead of meddling with the internal affairs of a state so week that it will collapse on it own without humanitarian help.
Re: (Score:2)
If you really want the people in the U.S. military to be held accountable for this kind of thing, you need to convince the American people that it is a problem that needs to be dealt with. It needs to become a campaign issue and something that becomes commonly hated. Unfortunately, if this stuff is happening on another continent upon people that don't speak the same language or share the same culture and those same people have threatened "Death to America" including no regard for killing civilians in Amer
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, its puff puff pass. Others want some of what you are smoking so don't bogard the shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why "first post" is important to anyone who doesn't have anything useful to say. It isn't hard to get and it's easy to actually contribute to the discussion in a first post. That is useful, you're the one starting the conversation. But just posting FRIST POST is fucking stupid.
However, the "first (-1, Offtopic)" is amusing.
Re:first (Score:4, Insightful)
As much as we can criticize many regimes for their ill conduct, I have a hard time imagining that what the Saudis or Israelis do is anything close to the North Korean regime's abuses.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. The New York Times has just been heard from.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have you been to Syria lately?
Have YOU been to Syria?
Syria is a propaganda story. Here's a TINY example, plucked from the firehose of lies:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2014/02/cnn-propaganda-poor-lone-kid-edition.html [moonofalabama.org]
Same for Venezuela:
https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/10360 [venezuelanalysis.com]
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And Saudi is a tacit Israeli partner. The paid thug. Who were the 9/1 hijackers?
Do you actually believe they carried their own valid passports? This last point. Really? To think they carried ID beggars belief.
Re:first (Score:4, Insightful)
Note, if the NK regime was demonstrably reasonable --- let's say, anywhere between China's government and South Korea's --- it would make a lot of sense to drawn down the US presence. So there is no impasse here.
Re:first (Score:4, Informative)
So you are poorly informed AND you have a weak imagination.
Hey Anonymous Coward, pull your head out of the sand.
Can Saudis leave their country?
Are Saudis starving to death?
Are mothers of Saudi newborn Saudi babies forced to drown them?
Is crystal meth the only medicine available to a sick Saudi?
Is Saudi Arabia a paradise? No damn way - But to suggest Saudi Arabia is as bad as North Korea is an INSULT to your fellow humans in North Korea, including children for christ's sake, who are suffering and dying.
Re:first (Score:5, Informative)
You are the recipient of other people's "information".
Saudi's CANNOT leave. Unless they are of a certain class, and have been specifically cleared by the secret police.
Saudi's are starving to death in the NW Shiite region
Rural Saudi girls are killed on birth, as liabilities to their poor families
Meth? You are crazy. But yes. Qat is the only medicine for millions.
Re:first (Score:5, Insightful)
Many countries have departure restrictions. Not defending it, but that's hardly unique to the Saudis. India has lots of people living at or below the poverty, as well as the killing of baby girls.
No matter how you cut it, North Korea puts almost every other regime in recent memory to shame. That's not to say that there are lots of other states with appalling human rights records, but there's appalling and then there's nightmares.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The USA is currently the invader of over 100 countries, worldwide.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Asinine, obnoxious hyperbole!
Way to fucking make your case!
Hyperbole? Where?
Both commit genocide, religious persecution and use state resources to fund terror and armed disturbance beyond their borders.
North Korea is small potatoes in these stakes. Designed to distract, and elevated to "Global Crisis" proportions, so that folks like you are left confused, misdirected and ultimately ineffectual in the cause of doing good, or subordinated in the works of greater evil.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, you're actually claiming the Powers That Be designed North Korea the way it is just to fool Westerners?
Re: (Score:2)
Scale, scope, relevance, impact.
Re: (Score:2)
Let the country without sin cast the first stone. US? Can you spell Guantanamo, napalm? UK? Ask Gandhi. Etc.
That's an utterly absurd comparison. Guantanamo is shameful, and a blot on the US. It embarasses and outrages me. That said, comparing it to North Korea is like saying that someone who got a parking ticket can't judge Charles Manson.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess the British Empire should have let the Nazis march all over Europe because Britain's record had blemishes.
This is the most tortured logic I can imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I always find it interesting that a regime we like has "officials" and a regime we don't like has "henchmen."
How about the fact that a country that we're friends with has a government, and the others have regimes? I don't think I've ever seen a US newspaper talking about the Tony Blair regime, or the Francois Hollande regime.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is in the amount of power concentrated in a single person. There's a strong correlation between "countries we're friends with" and "widely-distributed authority". Tony Blair and Francois Hollande are limited by their various democratic councils, but Kim Jong-un is not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
regime
riZHm
noun
1. a government, esp. an authoritarian one
The emphasis is on the authoritarian part. Granted, one could argue that many "governments" we support are actually regimes in disguise...
Re: (Score:3)
Granted, one could argue that many "governments" we support are actually regimes in disguise...
If one uses a definition of "disguise" loose enough to mean "can fool Lois Lane."
Re: (Score:2)
I don't recall the Allies worrying overly much about the lack of treaties with the Germans and Japanese (both had repudiated the League of Nations in the 1930s) when it came to the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials. If North Korea ever shirks the Kims and the international community can agree on having trials, they will happen. The war crimes and crimes against humanity that the Axis powers were charged with set the precedent.