Welcome to North Korea [Archive]

HoreTore

03-23-2008, 08:45

Kind of freaks me out though. I mean, imagine if the whole world over was under a totallitarian regime like NK, and institutionalized brainwashing was going on. How would we know? We would be trapped in a world of ignorance for all eternity (mindless rambling).

Orwell, anyone? Read 1984, it's a very good recipe.

It's a shame the world forgets about north korea, and whines on about Iran and Saddam and other such wannabe despots. If there is ever a country in need of an invasion, it's North Korea. They are the darth vaders of the world, Ahmadinejad looks like a shy schoolgirl compared to them.

If only there was oil up there...

Fragony

03-23-2008, 09:35

Socialism is a scary thing, North Korea is the inevitable conclusion of such policy's.

KrooK

03-23-2008, 09:39

Thinks like that happen when commies or hippies takes control over country.
Next time think twice before wearing t-shirts with Che Guevara.

Tribesman

03-23-2008, 09:57

Thinks like that happen when commies or hippies takes control over country.

Ah that explains a lot , so your Polish nationalist nonsense and the Korean nationalist nonsense are both the results of having had communist takeovers in the past .

Quirinus

03-23-2008, 10:00

Socialism is a scary thing, North Korea is the inevitable conclusion of such policy's.
That isn't quite fair..... the government of North Korea is more Stalinist-Maoist than true Marxist. AFAIK Marx advocates "dictatorship of the proletariat", that is to say, 'dictatorship' by an entire class (i.e. the proletariat), rather than plutocracy or true dictatorship.

CountArach

03-23-2008, 10:09

Thinks like that happen when commies or hippies takes control over country.
North Korea is not a Socialist country, nor was it ever. They consider themselves "Socialist", but you would be hard pressed to find any Socialist in the western world who agrees with that.

KrooK

03-23-2008, 10:15

I wonder which country called themselves socialist is socialist.
USSR, China, N Korea, Kuba or maybe Spain into 30ties before general Franco saved country?

Difference between socialism and communism is into theory. There is no socialist country which did not turned into communist.

And yes - we have bad communist/socialist experiences. And I dream about world without that flue.

BTW Happy Easter Guys

Tribesman

03-23-2008, 10:26

There is no socialist country which did not turned into communist.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

CountArach

03-23-2008, 10:30

I wonder which country called themselves socialist is socialist.
USSR, China, N Korea, Kuba or maybe Spain into 30ties before general Franco saved country?
Hahahaha! I love the idea of a Fascist saving a country...

But seriously - what part of any of those country's was Socialist? None of them had anything in common with modern Democratic Socialism.

Difference between socialism and communism is into theory. There is no socialist country which did not turned into communist.
Venezuela isn't communist. Sweden isn't communist. Norway isn't communist. Bolivia isn't communist.

Do you want me to continue?

Fragony

03-23-2008, 10:44

That isn't quite fair..... the government of North Korea is more Stalinist-Maoist than true Marxist. AFAIK Marx advocates "dictatorship of the proletariat", that is to say, 'dictatorship' by an entire class (i.e. the proletariat), rather than plutocracy or true dictatorship.

That's the theory, North Korea is the outcome.

And Norway and Sweden are social-democratic country's, also a creepy ideoligy but not as evil as socialism.

CountArach

03-23-2008, 11:26

That's the theory, North Korea is the outcome.

And Norway and Sweden are social-democratic country's, also a creepy ideoligy but not as evil as socialism.
Ummm, what's the difference? Where did you think they got the name?

Fragony

03-23-2008, 11:38

Ummm, what's the difference? Where did you think they got the name?

Social democrats wants to level the playfield so everyone gets the chance to reap the benefits of the free-market, socialism wants to control the market. And of course it's want to control you, your friends, your thoughts, everything.

ABSOLUTE POWAR

KrooK

03-23-2008, 12:47

Venezuela isn't communist. Sweden isn't communist. Norway isn't communist. Bolivia isn't communist.

Venezuela is becoming communist country. Chavez lost last election when he wanted change constitution and take absolute power but communisation is into progress. I have no info about Bolivia.

Sweden and Norway are not socialist coutries. They are social countries which is big difference - social welfare state is not socialism. Into Germany, Sweden and Norway you can have real private property and public sector is rather small.

Franco saved Spain from communist because he stopped Peoples Front.
What was peoples front - socialist and communist together whom promise people golden mountains, won election and started changing Spain into USSR (which was not their promise).

And what is interesting - that fascist finished war into Spain, didn't took part into WW2 while socialists (from name like from name but communist generally used name socialists - Union of Soviet Socialist Republic) started war as allies of III Reich. I prefer "fascists" like Franco or Mannerheim than "socialists" like Stalin, Mao and Chavez.

Geoffrey S

03-23-2008, 13:11

Is it so hard to spot vicious regimes on all sides of the political spectrum?

Lol @KrooK. As per usual.

Kralizec

03-23-2008, 13:23

NK doesn't claim to be socialist. Their official ideology is called "Juche", meaning "self-reliance" but wich amounts to an extreme form of stalinism.

Anyway, invasion is not an option. I understand that NK has hundreds of artillery pieces pointed at Seoul with the standing order of firing in the event that communications break down. For the deterrence factor it's a lot more effective than their nuclear program, wich I always figured was meant more for extorting SK and America into giving them more fossil fuel. I haven't been following the news regarding this for a long time, however.

Tribesman

03-23-2008, 13:28

Lol @KrooK. As per usual.
Hey come on be fair , there wasn't a single reference to Polish superiority in that post so you can hardly call it the usual .

Though I suppose you are right , it is a very funny rant .

Quirinus

03-23-2008, 13:44

And what is interesting - that fascist finished war into Spain, didn't took part into WW2 while socialists (from name like from name but communist generally used name socialists - Union of Soviet Socialist Republic) started war as allies of III Reich.
Bah. I wonder exactly how much of Spain's decision not to join the Second World War had to do with ideology, and how much had to do with pragmatism. The official end of war in Spain hardly meant that peace and order was suddenly restored. There were outbreaks of guerilla warfare and savage reprisals way after the end of the war.

And the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggresion pact. Which is not the same as a binding alliance. Lest you forget, out of all the combatants, the Soviet Union suffered the most casualties in the war, fighting --whoops! the Third Reich.

~:)

seireikhaan

03-23-2008, 15:57

Thinks like that happen when commies or hippies takes control over country.
But they're all for freedom, man! :hippy:

On a more serious note, pretty much every country in the world right now has SOME socialist properties to it.

American Heritage Dictionary definition of Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Welfare? Socialist. US mail system? Socialist. Social security? Socialist. The BBC? Socialist. Some countries(even in the West) have state owned internet. It all depends on how much of the nation's industry and economy which becomes socialized.

HoreTore

03-23-2008, 16:57

Difference between socialism and communism is into theory. There is no socialist country which did not turned into communist.

Are you high? Do you even know what the difference between communism and socialism is? Anyway, I'll explain:

Over a hundred years ago, there was this guy called Marx, who came up with a new idea of how to distribute wealth and power. He called his idea socialism, and the end state of his idea, or utopia, he called communism. Socialism was the strive towards the goal, communism was when the goal was achieved. 50 years later, there was this guy in Russia, called Lenin, who was a bit upset at his Tsar, so he decided to overthrow him and take power. Lenin was a socialist, and his revolution was a success. However, there were still a lot of people who disagreed with him, even though his revolution was the only successful one. Lenin was unhappy with that situation, as he wanted to spread his revolution to other countries. As a part of his propaganda, he changed the name of his party from the socialist party to the communist party, to "show the world" that he was no longer on the way to paradise(socialism), but was already there(communism). His followers around the world quickly did the same, and renamed themselves communists, while those who did not agree with them, retained the name socialist.

So, "communist" and "socialist" doesn't mean the same thing, a communist is a marxist-leninist, while a socialist is one who disagrees with Lenin, which means that they disagree with things like the dictatorship and the police state, and sometimes even the revolution itself, believing that the utopia is best achieved through steady reforms, not a quick revolution.

Saying that "socialism turns into communism", is really like saying that christians turn into mormons or something. Socialism is the whole, communism is just one brand of socialism, like mormonism is one brand of christianity.

As for Norway not being socialist, well, we've had a socialist prime minister for 75%(or so) of the time since the 30's, I'd say that makes us pretty socialist. Our brand of socialism isn't marxist-leninism, however, it's called "social democracy". And small state? What the hey? Our public sector is one of the biggest, if not the biggest in the western world.

Fragony

03-23-2008, 17:22

All religions have an utopia, socialism is no different in that. Communism has been proven to be such a faillure that only an intellectual would try to ignore that, it's a vile ideoligy that has costed millions of people their lifes. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Kim Sung, how much proof does one need.

Mikeus Caesar

03-23-2008, 17:23

[Big long winded explanation]

http://xs125.xs.to/xs125/08120/2669785585.jpg

Nicely explained, bravo.

KrooK

03-23-2008, 17:38

Lets start from lie

And the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggresion pact. Which is not the same as a binding alliance. Lest you forget, out of all the combatants, the Soviet Union suffered the most casualties in the war, fighting --whoops! the Third Reich.

Typical half truth. Most of that pact was non-agresion pact and here I agree. Of course socialists into his history courses forget about secret protocol. According to it;
"Soviet Russia and Germany will attack Poland and divide it on 2 zones."
Maybe Russians got biggest casualties into ww2 (half because of killed civilians half because of Russian commander foolishness) but its THEIR OWN FAULT.
They supported Germans (selling them resources, allowing them to use their polygoons) while they were rebuilding their army - same time when Hitler proclamed nazi theory about arian race area into Europe. They help Germans destroy Poland - into 1939 they were breaking international law more than Germans. So if they were so stupid - its just their fault. For me dead Russians are punishment for Poles murdered by Russians or Germans with Russian support. You know Katyn (do not mix with Khatyn), I know GULAG (for me GULAGs at Kolyma were similar to Auschwitz) and Khazachstan steppes. To compare Russian and German behavior I can compare interesting fact - polish officer POWs were mostly murdered by Russians while most of polish POWs taken by Germans survived (Jews too). Thats why I think that Russians have no moral right to accuse Germans of killing their POWs - Russians started.

Attack on Poland and later on Finland was big social support into USSR. People of USSR did nothing to stop their rulers from massive killing Poles. So that when Germans/Balts started massive killing Russians - that was just a historical punishment IMO.

When we are talking about socialism there is big difference between social country and socialist country. Hore mentioned Norway - I don't know situation of this country well (I doubt Hore know Poland so I explain myself :D) but I'm sure that if you want establish new company in Norway, its possible. If you want start trade union its possible. Into socialist country 1st is almost impossible, 2nd is definitely impossible. Don't forget that into Europe socialist parties nowadays promote something that could be called liberalism even 30 years ago - like Labour Party and Tony Blair :)

Tribesman

03-23-2008, 18:55

Wow thats even funnier .
Well done Krook ,you surpass yourself .

Are you high?
I believe the Luna Megachipotera does reside at quite an altitude .

spmetla

03-23-2008, 19:17

As for the original questions, what would the world be like? Well it would free traffic up for party member's Mercedes:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Schpetzka/image8.jpg

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Schpetzka/north_korea.jpg
North Korean government is double plus good!

As for socialism, I don't think anyone would think it evil if their extreme Maoist and Stalinist cousins didn't carry it out to such a horrible degree. If the PRC and USSR stuck by the idea of just making everyone *equally* prosperous without cutting political freedoms, the ability to migrate where one wants or the violent exportation of that ideology then I'm sure the rest of the world wouldn't think it bad.

Kralizec

03-23-2008, 19:29

Are you high? Do you even know what the difference between communism and socialism is? Anyway, I'll explain:

Over a hundred years ago, there was this guy called Marx, who came up with a new idea of how to distribute wealth and power. He called his idea socialism, and the end state of his idea, or utopia, he called communism. Socialism was the strive towards the goal, communism was when the goal was achieved. 50 years later, there was this guy in Russia, called Lenin, who was a bit upset at his Tsar, so he decided to overthrow him and take power. Lenin was a socialist, and his revolution was a success. However, there were still a lot of people who disagreed with him, even though his revolution was the only successful one. Lenin was unhappy with that situation, as he wanted to spread his revolution to other countries. As a part of his propaganda, he changed the name of his party from the socialist party to the communist party, to "show the world" that he was no longer on the way to paradise(socialism), but was already there(communism). His followers around the world quickly did the same, and renamed themselves communists, while those who did not agree with them, retained the name socialist.

So, "communist" and "socialist" doesn't mean the same thing, a communist is a marxist-leninist, while a socialist is one who disagrees with Lenin, which means that they disagree with things like the dictatorship and the police state, and sometimes even the revolution itself, believing that the utopia is best achieved through steady reforms, not a quick revolution.

Saying that "socialism turns into communism", is really like saying that christians turn into mormons or something. Socialism is the whole, communism is just one brand of socialism, like mormonism is one brand of christianity.

As for Norway not being socialist, well, we've had a socialist prime minister for 75%(or so) of the time since the 30's, I'd say that makes us pretty socialist. Our brand of socialism isn't marxist-leninism, however, it's called "social democracy". And small state? What the hey? Our public sector is one of the biggest, if not the biggest in the western world.

1) socialism, as a concept and movement, existed before Marx wrote anything

2) the tzar abdicated under the pressure of the februari revolution, wich was carried out by liberals and various anti-monarchists as well. A provisional government was installed, but Lenin and his supporters decided that everything would be better if they ran the place. They carried out a coup d'etat wich was later dubbed "the october revolution".

3) the USSR only claimed to be socialist (it's in the name...), the communist party was named thus to reflect what they intended to achieve.

Geoffrey S

03-23-2008, 19:40

I'd like to emphasize the above post, which succinctly shoots down two classic popular errors. There's a reason why socialism is distinct from marxism, and it's a common misconception that Lenin and his cohorts overthrew the tsar.

Edit: oh, the irony. Want to emphasize it, but hide it with a new page. Darn.

seireikhaan

03-23-2008, 19:49

The truth about communism is that it simply has never been executed. It really does have a nice, wonderful theory, but unfortunately, humans have tended to get in the way of that theory. There is NO such thing as a communist state. China may call itself communist. The USSR may have called itself communist. But they never were, are, or ever will be. They are extreme socialists, combined with heavy authoritarianism.

HoreTore

03-23-2008, 20:09

When we are talking about socialism there is big difference between social country and socialist country. Hore mentioned Norway - I don't know situation of this country well (I doubt Hore know Poland so I explain myself :D) but I'm sure that if you want establish new company in Norway, its possible. If you want start trade union its possible. Into socialist country 1st is almost impossible, 2nd is definitely impossible. Don't forget that into Europe socialist parties nowadays promote something that could be called liberalism even 30 years ago - like Labour Party and Tony Blair :)

You're talking about Leninism, KrooK. Norway isn't a leninist country, but it is definitely a socialist country.

1) socialism, as a concept and movement, existed before Marx wrote anything

2) the tzar abdicated under the pressure of the februari revolution, wich was carried out by liberals and various anti-monarchists as well. A provisional government was installed, but Lenin and his supporters decided that everything would be better if they ran the place. They carried out a coup d'etat wich was later dubbed "the october revolution".

3) the USSR only claimed to be socialist (it's in the name...), the communist party was named thus to reflect what they intended to achieve.

Yeah, there's a limit to how much I have time to write...

They are extreme socialists, combined with heavy authoritarianism.

Or you could say they were/are leninists, stalinists and maoists...

Viking

03-23-2008, 23:30

Socialism is a scary thing, North Korea is the inevitable conclusion of such policy's.

Bollocks, socialism doesn't equal an authoritarian government. You could have a free trade market with little state influence and still have an authoritarian government. A capitalistic NK? Yes, very possible.

Norway isn't a leninist country, but it is definitely a socialist country.

Norwegian politics are leant to the left, but calling them socialism is hardly accurate.

HoreTore

03-24-2008, 08:13

Norwegian politics are leant to the left, but calling them socialism is hardly accurate.

Bah. Huge welfare state, nationalized companies, state monopolies on several fields, very powerful unions, womens rights, a very limited church/religion, the list goes on.

In the 73 years since 1935(first lasting labour government), we've had 7 non-socialist governments, for a total of 20 years, with only 3 of those governments actually serving a full term. I'd say it's pretty damn safe to say that we are a socialist country, even if you count newlab-wannabe Stoltenberg as an actual human being. He has, after all, showed at least some signs of sanity recently...

Xiahou

03-24-2008, 09:34

Bollocks, socialism doesn't equal an authoritarian government. You could have a free trade market with little state influence and still have an authoritarian government. A capitalistic NK? Yes, very possible.
An authoritarian free market government? Doesn't strike me as very sustainable- the two are opposites. A free market requires free people. People have to be able to work and earn income for themselves and then be able to decide for themselves how best to spend their earnings. Authoritarianism conflicts with that because it is about telling people where to go and what to do (not unlike communism). Communism meshes so well with authoritarianism because of this- it's all about controlling people- telling the people where they can work, what they can earn, what they can consume, where they can travel, and so on.

HoreTore

03-24-2008, 09:59

Tribesman

03-24-2008, 11:01

Communism meshes so well with authoritarianism because of this- it's all about controlling people- telling the people where they can work, what they can earn, what they can consume, where they can travel, and so on.
Wow Xiahou , I didn't relise that you were living in a communist country , that must be why you are so fond of the mythical free market .

A free market requires free people.
A free market requires no governments and no countries .

Fragony

03-24-2008, 11:56

Bollocks, socialism doesn't equal an authoritarian government. You could have a free trade market with little state influence and still have an authoritarian government. A capitalistic NK? Yes, very possible.

Authoritorian is necesarily oppressive but it's easy to become just that, call it soft tyranny. It will however always result in a huge intrusive government that sucks the life out of everything. I'll gladly sacrifice some, if not all social-security for a little bit of air. Soft tyrrany is the worst it a way, can't do anything about it because there is never the legitimacy to take up arms, and in the meantime it grows and grows and costs and costs.

Viking

03-24-2008, 16:39

Bah. Huge welfare state, nationalized companies, state monopolies on several fields, very powerful unions, womens rights, a very limited church/religion, the list goes on.

In the 73 years since 1935(first lasting labour government), we've had 7 non-socialist governments, for a total of 20 years, with only 3 of those governments actually serving a full term. I'd say it's pretty damn safe to say that we are a socialist country, even if you count newlab-wannabe Stoltenberg as an actual human being. He has, after all, showed at least some signs of sanity recently...

Ahem.

Yeah, I agree it is very leant to the left, but the only real socialist parties are The Socialistic Left and further out. DNA isn't fully socialistic.
Further more, do not forget that we do have private, albeit usually religiously themed, schools.

An authoritarian free market government? Doesn't strike me as very sustainable- the two are opposites. A free market requires free people. People have to be able to work and earn income for themselves and then be able to decide for themselves how best to spend their earnings. Authoritarianism conflicts with that because it is about telling people where to go and what to do (not unlike communism). Communism meshes so well with authoritarianism because of this- it's all about controlling people- telling the people where they can work, what they can earn, what they can consume, where they can travel, and so on.

A free market requires a free market, whether the government has strict opinions on what the people should think and watch on television does not conflict with a free market. The government doesn't bother to maintain it's own TV-stations, it just censors the commercial ones; as the US gov willl do too in extreme cases.

A free market requires no governments and no countries .

Indeed. :2thumbsup:

Soft tyrrany is the worst it a way, can't do anything about it because there is never the legitimacy to take up arms, and in the meantime it grows and grows and costs and costs.

Well if so, I'd suggest to do something else than to take up arms. :juggle2:

seireikhaan

03-24-2008, 16:43

An authoritarian free market government? Doesn't strike me as very sustainable- the two are opposites. A free market requires free people. People have to be able to work and earn income for themselves and then be able to decide for themselves how best to spend their earnings. Authoritarianism conflicts with that because it is about telling people where to go and what to do (not unlike communism). Communism meshes so well with authoritarianism because of this- it's all about controlling people- telling the people where they can work, what they can earn, what they can consume, where they can travel, and so on.
Heh. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, Batista(Cuba, the one Castro overthrew). All were in generally to the right economically, to varying degrees, but all proved themselves to be quite dictatorial too.

All religions have an utopia, socialism is no different in that. Communism has been proven to be such a faillure that only an intellectual would try to ignore that, it's a vile ideoligy that has costed millions of people their lifes. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Kim Sung, how much proof does one need.
Allow me to channel my inner Tribesman here for a moment.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Hitler HATED Communism. He hated it almost as much as the US did in the Cold War. Its the whole reason he diverted over 1/3 of his troops on the Eastern front to take Leningrad, which was a strategically worthless city. Like I said earlier, Hitler was mild right economically, didn't stop him from being a monster.

Geoffrey S

03-24-2008, 17:04

Heh. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, Batista(Cuba, the one Castro overthrew). All were in generally to the right economically, to varying degrees, but all proved themselves to be quite dictatorial too.

Allow me to channel my inner Tribesman here for a moment.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Hitler HATED Communism. He hated it almost as much as the US did in the Cold War. Its the whole reason he diverted over 1/3 of his troops on the Eastern front to take Leningrad, which was a strategically worthless city. Like I said earlier, Hitler was mild right economically, didn't stop him from being a monster.
Hitler was not to the right economically, much to the frustration of such early business and economic allies such as Schacht. Technically, none of those you mentioned could free-market economic right-wingers - autarky, their preferred system, pretty much precludes that sort of thing.

seireikhaan

03-24-2008, 17:20

Hitler was not to the right economically, much to the frustration of such early business and economic allies such as Schacht. Technically, none of those you mentioned could free-market economic right-wingers - autarky, their preferred system, pretty much precludes that sort of thing.
Being a dictator does NOT mean you can't be free market. All of those I mentioned previously were to some degree on the right economically, especially Pinochet. It just means you control in different manners, using other means. Certainly, Hitler did use some means of socialism- media, for example, but in general, he was more right than he was left. Free market does not necessarily equate to freedom as a whole.

Fragony

03-24-2008, 18:32

Allow me to channel my inner Tribesman here for a moment.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Your inner Tribesman needs some practise

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

Geoffrey S

03-24-2008, 18:44

Being a dictator does NOT mean you can't be free market. All of those I mentioned previously were to some degree on the right economically, especially Pinochet. It just means you control in different manners, using other means. Certainly, Hitler did use some means of socialism- media, for example, but in general, he was more right than he was left. Free market does not necessarily equate to freedom as a whole.
Being rather circular there, I'm afraid, and seemingly missing the point of socialist economic policies - and the extent to which those you mention were functionally dictators.

HoreTore

03-24-2008, 20:43

Ahem.

Yeah, I agree it is very leant to the left, but the only real socialist parties are The Socialistic Left and further out. DNA isn't fully socialistic.

What? Of course they are! Yes, they do currently have their privatization whores, like Stoltenberg, but that is only the last 10 years. Einar Gerhardsen etc, can't be called anything but socialists. Social democrats are a brand of socialism. And remember that DNA actually joined komintern for a short period ~;)

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

Everyone wants to pretend they're socialists ~,)

Anyway, Hitler and nationalsocialism was the third way, separate from both capitalism AND socialism, which both were, you know, created and controlled by them evil jews(marx).

seireikhaan

03-24-2008, 23:02

Your inner Tribesman needs some practise

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler
Hmm, interesting... I was going off of what I've read about Hitler's determination to take Leningrad and rather assumed it was an anti-'communist' mentality sorta thing. But whatever, I'll concede Hitler. However, my point still stands that dictators and fascists are capable of being free market with my other examples.

seireikhaan

03-24-2008, 23:04

Being rather circular there, I'm afraid, and seemingly missing the point of socialist economic policies - and the extent to which those you mention were functionally dictators.
Well, since I'm apparently incapable of perceiving what the 'point' of socialist policies are, why don't you tell me then?

Geoffrey S

03-24-2008, 23:53

Well, since I'm apparently incapable of perceiving what the 'point' of socialist policies are, why don't you tell me then?
Edit: actually, I'll give a hint. It's not so much about the socialist policies, but more about how the policies of the people you mentioned relate to how truly the were dictators. People like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, can be considered dictators in the strongest sense of the word - and their policies have the strongest socialist tendencies. The others you name had decidedly less absolute power, whether through dependency on internal (business, army) or external (foreign support) factors - and, not coincidentally, the degree to which their policies can be considered socialist declines with their true power, to the point that some policies are indeed decidedly free market and the person in charge can't strictly be called a dictator, in that he is as much dictated to as he does himself. An illustration of this would be the changing economic policies in China and the USSR as the level of personal dictatorship decreased.

CountArach

03-25-2008, 02:33

Your inner Tribesman needs some practise

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler
"I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative" - Adolf Hitler

"We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order." - Adolf Hitler

Fragony

03-25-2008, 09:24

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

Often, different members of a fascist party would make completely opposite statements about the economic policies they supported.[9] Once in power, fascists usually adopted whatever economic program they believed to be most suitable for political goals.

In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.[

Ironside

03-25-2008, 09:30

Geoffrey S

03-25-2008, 09:49

Not quite certain what you mean, really.

Ironside

03-25-2008, 10:21

Not quite certain what you mean, really.

"The dictorship of the proletariat" is the time where the workers control the state according to Marx and it's that time period between capitalism and communism that's called socialism.
This "dictorship of the proletariat" has a remarkable resemblance to direct democracy.

Fragony, you are aware that socialism and fascism have very different views on what the state is and what it reprensent? Simply saying that state control and socialism is the same is only a pretty fundamental flaw.

A free market requires no governments and no countries .
In theory yes, but a free market requires regulations to maintain it's freedom. And those has to come from somewhere.

CountArach

03-25-2008, 10:21

Fragony

03-25-2008, 10:28

What is your point?

Obviously my point is that Hitler was a socialist.

Ironside

03-25-2008, 10:34

Obviously my point is that Hitler was a socialist.

And as Fragony seems to be unable to differ between nationalism and socialism so is Fragony. :laugh4:

Do you indentify yourself with a certain political grouping: nationalists

CountArach

03-25-2008, 10:42

Obviously my point is that Hitler was a socialist.
But how does that wiki quote help your case at all? If anything I thought it proved mine... :inquisitive:

Quirinus

03-25-2008, 10:55

Lets start from lie

Typical half truth. Most of that pact was non-agresion pact and here I agree. Of course socialists into his history courses forget about secret protocol. According to it;
"Soviet Russia and Germany will attack Poland and divide it on 2 zones."
Maybe Russians got biggest casualties into ww2 (half because of killed civilians half because of Russian commander foolishness) but its THEIR OWN FAULT.
They supported Germans (selling them resources, allowing them to use their polygoons) while they were rebuilding their army - same time when Hitler proclamed nazi theory about arian race area into Europe. They help Germans destroy Poland - into 1939 they were breaking international law more than Germans. So if they were so stupid - its just their fault. For me dead Russians are punishment for Poles murdered by Russians or Germans with Russian support. You know Katyn (do not mix with Khatyn), I know GULAG (for me GULAGs at Kolyma were similar to Auschwitz) and Khazachstan steppes. To compare Russian and German behavior I can compare interesting fact - polish officer POWs were mostly murdered by Russians while most of polish POWs taken by Germans survived (Jews too). Thats why I think that Russians have no moral right to accuse Germans of killing their POWs - Russians started.

Attack on Poland and later on Finland was big social support into USSR. People of USSR did nothing to stop their rulers from massive killing Poles. So that when Germans/Balts started massive killing Russians - that was just a historical punishment IMO.

Um. You've missed my point. I'd like to use the same argument I used to refute your claim about Spain. How much of what happened was due to the fact that the Russians are communists, and how much due to the fact that the Russians were Russians?

Funny, really, that you should rage at my supposed half-truths when you make statements like:

And what is interesting - that fascist finished war into Spain, didn't took part into WW2 while socialists (from name like from name but communist generally used name socialists - Union of Soviet Socialist Republic) started war as allies of III Reich.
....which was what I was refuting in the first place.

Fragony

03-25-2008, 11:19

But how does that wiki quote help your case at all? If anything I thought it proved mine... :inquisitive:

:dizzy2:

Geoffrey S

03-25-2008, 11:48

"The dictorship of the proletariat" is the time where the workers control the state according to Marx and it's that time period between capitalism and communism that's called socialism.
This "dictorship of the proletariat" has a remarkable resemblance to direct democracy.
Cheers for the elementary explanation. And the link to autarky?

There's a reason why I'm focusing on the economic side of socialism. No, Hitler was not a pure socialist - there's a reason his movement is termed national-socialism. Nor was Stalin or Mao, for that matter. But to use a cliche, were they to sit around a table and talk about anything but politics they'd have more than a little in common when it came to economics, all with strong tendencies to socialist economic ideals - state control of business, creation of jobs to keep unemployment as low as possible, an extremely large proletariat, and an autarkic economy.

CountArach

03-25-2008, 12:02

@ Fragony
http://mattbrundage.com/publications/hitler-democracy.php

Hitler was not a socialist in the strict sense of the word; this can be shown by his definition of 'socialist', which differs from the norm:

Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of his nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, Deutschland, Deutschland, über Alles, to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land, land and people -- that man is a Socialist. (Bullock 76)

Hitler's meaning of socialism, therefore did not refer to a specific economic system, but to "an instinct for national self-preservation" (Fischer 125) or nationalism. Concerning the Socialist aspects of the 25-Point program, Hitler made promises "because in 1920, the German working class and the lower middle classes were saturated in a radical anti-capitalism; such phrases were essential for any politician who wanted to attract their support" (Bullock 75).

---------

Hitler had an overall disregard for the masses and refused to accept trade unions or the working classes. Once Hitler was in power, he broke all promises he had made to the workers. Hitler and the Nazi Party did away with collective bargaining and the right to strike. He replaced trade unions with an organization called the 'Labor Front', but this organization was fundamentally a tool of the Nazi Party and did not operate in the workers' favor. According to the law that created the Labor Front, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able to perform the maximum of work" (Kangas 13).
THIS MAN IS NOT A SOCIALIST.

This page also goes through many other things:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

Fragony

03-25-2008, 12:13

Hence national-socialism. Face it bubba Hitler was a leftie.

HoreTore

03-25-2008, 12:18

Hence national-socialism. Face it bubba Hitler was a leftie.

I'm sorry. Are you mad?

National socialism and fascism is the exact opposite of socialism/marxism. If you want to bash socialism, that's fine, but why don't you make an argument based upon real flaws, there are certainly enough of them, instead of making up outlandish and ridiculous claims like these?

Fragony

03-25-2008, 12:22

National socialism and fascism is the exact opposite of socialism/marxism.

Ya sure. Excuse me I am in the middle of a staring contest with my neighbours cat

HoreTore

03-25-2008, 12:26

Ya sure. Excuse me I am in the middle of a staring contest with my neighbours cat

What is the very essence of socialism? No, it's not brainwashing or nationalization, it's class struggle, and with a bias for the working class.

What was the class situation in nazi germany and their fascist allies? If Hitler was a socialist, surely the nobility and bourgeois would be crushed, and the working class was in power? Were they?

Fragony

03-25-2008, 12:35

The painter and the chicken farmer. The essence of socialism is state controlled economy.

Ironside

03-25-2008, 13:44

Cheers for the elementary explanation. And the link to autarky?

Too much simular words there. :oops:
Thought you talked about governing styles and not economics. Haven't seen that term for closed economies before.

While I haven't studied enough on the subject, but shouldn't most Latin-american dictorships been free market though? At least the ones not boycotted by the US.

Still, the authorian top-down system is something that the very essence that socialism is supposed to be against (as the policies is then used to keep the people in control so that they won't disturb the ruling elite), even if some economic policies may be simular. Can't find any socialist reason on why autarky should be used in socialism though, if anything rather the opposite, considering the view of nations.

Might partially explain why the revolutionary socialist movements seems to have a strong tendency to fail pretty bad after the revolution and end up in dictorships though. :sweatdrop:

Kralizec

03-25-2008, 13:55

I'm to busy right now to respond to any posts in detail, but I think I'll share this with you:

http://bp0.blogger.com/_N6fTS20LDZE/R-VvUfZQwuI/AAAAAAAAAgA/pscyS8iO7-8/s1600/Leon%27s%2BHorseshoe.JPG

I've read about the horseshoe model before, but this is the first picture of it that I could find on the internet. The idea is that both the USSR and the Axis regimes where authoritarian-collectivist in nature; the only real difference being that the USSR paid lip service to the idea that individuals are equal.

CountArach

03-25-2008, 22:46

The painter and the chicken farmer. The essence of socialism is state controlled economy.
No, the essence of socialism is why the economy is state controlled.

Tribesman

03-26-2008, 00:37

the only real difference being that the USSR paid lip service to the idea that individuals are equal.
Come on the Nazis were very big on the equality thing , if your politics were right and your heritage was right then you were equally as good as all the rest of the master race .

Fragony

03-26-2008, 07:35

No, the essence of socialism is why the economy is state controlled.

No Luke.

You are mixing up idea and essence, idea is class struggle the reality is replacing one elite with another. Class struggle was there in a way in germany as well in a way, a lot of the upper class, bankers, industrialists, were these nosy fella's, and were they stripped from their property by the state and send to Poland to gurgle zyklon-b or were they stripped from their property by the state and send to Poland to gurgle zyklon-b. Party members could keep it. One could argue that Hitler got a little too enthousiastic in his class struggle but hey, in other socialist countries having glasses was enough to be considered unwanted.

Csargo

03-26-2008, 08:05

I came to read about NK today and realized that actually meant 1930s Germany and Hitler's economic stance. Man, I was wrong.

HoreTore

03-26-2008, 10:40

I came to read about NK today and realized that actually meant 1930s Germany and Hitler's economic stance. Man, I was wrong.

Yeah, strange things tend to happen when someone tries to compare Segolene Royale to Adolf Hitler...

@Fragony: "Jew" isn't a class. Adolf Hitler had no problem with rich people, as long as they were german. That was a "race struggle", not a class struggle. Hitler was a nationalist and a racist, but he was no socialist.

Fragony

03-26-2008, 10:56

Upper class is a class, and a lot of jews were rich. State needed money, jews had it. The rich jews were the first. Hitler most certainly was a racist. And a socialist.

HoreTore

03-26-2008, 13:31

Upper class is a class, and a lot of jews were rich. State needed money, jews had it. The rich jews were the first..

Upper class is a class. Upper class jew is not a class, however. Hitler didn't eradicate the upper class, he eradicated the jews, upper classes or lower classes. Or do you have any evidence of Hitler eradicating the german upper class?

Fragony

03-26-2008, 13:49

No he didn't eradicate the native german upper class because most of them were party members, and who ruled germany, the party :idea2:

HoreTore

03-26-2008, 13:53

No he didn't eradicate the native german upper class because most of them were party members, and who ruled germany, the party :idea2:

Well did he at least confiscate their belongings and give it to the state then?

If not, what you're describing is fascism. Like we've been saying all along, though I'm not sure if you even attempt to be serious anymore. Have a state controlled economy does not equal socialism. Or are you suggesting that the monarchies of the middle ages were socialist? :dizzy:

Hitler was a nationalist and a racial theorist first and foremost. Deutschland Uber Alles and all that, and the aryan nonsense. His economic policies were really not his strongpoint, except perhaps his war economy. Btw, did you know that he was nominated for the peace prize in the late 30's? Do you know by whom and why? It was by the norwegian conservative(ie. market-liberal) party, and it was because of his economic policies. Would a market-liberal support a socialist economy?

Fragony

03-26-2008, 14:12

Well did he at least confiscate their belongings and give it to the state then?

They were the state. And I am dead serious, Hitler was a leftie. You can go on finding minor inconsistancies but it doesn't change the greater picture now does it. You consider Norway to be a socialist country even if it allows private property, if you want inconsistancies I suggest you start there.

Xiahou

03-26-2008, 21:07

Hjalmar Schacht was replaced in September 1936 by Hitler's lieutenant Hermann Goering, with a mandate to make Germany self-sufficient to fight a war within four years.[10] Under Goering imports were slashed. Wages and prices were controlled--under penalty of being sent to the concentration camp. Dividends were restricted to six percent on book capital. And strategic goals to be reached at all costs (much like Soviet planning) were declared: the construction of synthetic rubber plants, more steel plants, automatic textile factories.[10]

While the strict state intervention into the economy, and the massive rearmament policy, led to full employment during the 1930s, real wages in Germany dropped by roughly 25% between 1933 and 1938. [11] Trade unions were abolished, as well as collective bargaining and the right to strike. [12] The right to quit also disappeared: Labour books were introduced in 1935, and required the consent of the previous employer in order to be hired for another job. [12]

Another part of the new German economy was massive rearmament, with the goal being to expand the 100,000-strong German Army into a force of millions. The Four-Year Plan was discussed in the controversial Hossbach Memorandum, which provides the "minutes" from one of Hitler's briefings.

Nevertheless, the war came and although the Four-Year Plan technically expired in 1940, Hermann Göring had built up a power base in the "Office of the Four-Year Plan" that effectively controlled all German economic and production matters by this point in time. In 1942 the growing burdens of the war and the death of Todt saw the economy move to a full war economy under Albert Speer.From Wikipedia's entry on Nazi Germany:Economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany#Economy)

Hitler may have allowed political allies to maintain dejure ownership of some of their businesses, but the means of production were very much under state control- which is the definition of socialism.

Fragony

03-26-2008, 21:40

How very suckingly polarising of you to destroy a perfectly fine established idea with such a relative thing such as facts Xiahou ~;)

Ironside

03-26-2008, 21:47

From Wikipedia's entry on Nazi Germany:Economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany#Economy)

Hitler may have allowed political allies to maintain dejure ownership of some of their businesses, but the means of production were very much under state control- which is the definition of socialism.

You're aware that socialism and state control aren't interchangable right? Yes, socialism involves state control, but state control doesn't need to involve socialism.

The definition of socialism also requires that the state is controlled by the proletariat for example.

For starters, you can compare the nationalist/fascist view of what the state compared to the socialist view.

How very suckingly polarising of you to destroy a perfectly fine established idea with such a relative thing such as facts Xiahou ~;)

Well, by changing definitions you can prove anything... 1+1=3 is you define it that way.

Xiahou

03-26-2008, 21:57

You're aware that socialism and state control aren't interchangable right? Yes, socialism involves state control, but state control doesn't need to involve socialism.In the strictest, most basic sense, that's exactly what socialism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism) is.

You can talk about different methodologies, variants and so forth, but all socialism hinges on state control of the means of production.

Fragony

03-26-2008, 22:01

Well, by changing definitions you can prove anything... 1+1=3 is you define it that way.

Can be true for rabid capitalism as well don't worry, lefties got enron, I got hitler

CrossLOPER

03-26-2008, 22:16

Leonidas was a Nazi, apparently.

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

HoreTore

03-27-2008, 08:14

the means of production were very much under state control- which is the definition of socialism.

NO - absolutely not!

Socialism has the means of production under worker control.

Having the means of production under state control would be Leninism.

But seriously, if you call every state with a state controlled economy, that would make the european monarchies of the middle ages socialist states. Are you seriously suggesting that King Louis XIV was a socialist...?

Calling Hitler a socialist is just as ridiculous as calling Louis XIV, Henry IV, Charlemagne, etc, socialists.

Ironside

03-27-2008, 08:32

In the strictest, most basic sense, that's exactly what socialism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism) is.

You can talk about different methodologies, variants and so forth, but all socialism hinges on state control of the means of production.

That makes the non-socialist participation in WW2 quite low as during war economy the state controls the means of production. And as you appearently insist that what kind of state it is doesn't matter...

Can be true for rabid capitalism as well don't worry, lefties got enron, I got hitler

Point is that the scale contains more than capitalists and socialists. Why do you think the classical liberals (aka capitalists) are in the middle on the old left-right scale?

Fragony

03-27-2008, 09:03

NO - absolutely not!

YES - absolutily is!

Ah well it has been emotional, nothing to gain here

Frag out

Husar

03-27-2008, 10:57

Aww, please, now we're arguing over words and names...
If Hitler was such a socialist, I wonder why he didn't join their party, banned them, gassed them and started a war against them?
He certainly tried to make the world a better place for aryans but that's not socialism, that's racism. :dizzy2:
He also kept only a few people at the top and made them compete against eachother, that's not very socialist either.
Next you're going to tell me the deathcamps are a sign of socialism because they bring people together... :wall:

Fragony

03-27-2008, 11:34

So he can't be a socialist because he was a racist? That's odd....

hmmm, I said Frag out. So let's do that in style socialist socialist nananananaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaana

Husar

03-27-2008, 14:01

So he's a socialist because you ignore the rest of the arguments? :dizzy2:
He could at least read, nananana... ~;)

Fragony

03-27-2008, 14:13

HoreTore

03-27-2008, 18:09

Workers of the world unite! The Pope is socialist!

https://img517.imageshack.us/img517/3828/bentoxvi3010052007ur2.jpg

The revolutionary Pope Benedict XIV!

The vatican economy is completely controlled by the vatican state, there is no private business. And people are not even allowed to own land there! Truly, he a socialist hero! He even dresses in red!

Fragony

03-27-2008, 18:23

Well if you are referring to his absolute faith you might just have a point

CountArach

03-27-2008, 22:58

@ HoreTore - Truly, God is on our side.

@ Xiahou - Lets just pick out one paragraph of your wikipedia post:

While the strict state intervention into the economy, and the massive rearmament policy, led to full employment during the 1930s, real wages in Germany dropped by roughly 25% between 1933 and 1938. [11] Trade unions were abolished, as well as collective bargaining and the right to strike. [12] The right to quit also disappeared: Labour books were introduced in 1935, and required the consent of the previous employer in order to be hired for another job. [12]
Which part of this says Socialism to you?

Tribesman

03-28-2008, 00:10

Which part of this says Socialism to you?
lots of bits .
Trade unions
real wages
collective bargaining
the right to strike.
:2thumbsup:

CountArach

03-28-2008, 01:43

I must have missed those words. Thank you Tribes for enlightening me :bow:

Adrian II

03-28-2008, 11:30

That isn't quite fair..... the government of North Korea is more Stalinist-Maoist than true Marxist. AFAIK Marx advocates "dictatorship of the proletariat", that is to say, 'dictatorship' by an entire class (i.e. the proletariat), rather than plutocracy or true dictatorship.That reminds me of the best scene in what is probably the best Western ever made, A Fistful of Dynamite (1971) by Sergio Leone. Here's Rod Steiger explaining the whole ******* thing in on minute. Brilliant text, brilliant acting, brilliant music. Nuff said.

Clickety (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-cZWVChgYk)

Quirinus

03-28-2008, 11:51

Ooh. Cool stuff..... didn't expect a lesson in political ideology from a Western. :laugh4: I'll definitely buy that movie if I see it. I believe what he's saying is a generalisation though.

Why can't poor people be well-read too, especially in these modern times?

Adrian II

03-28-2008, 12:12

Ooh. Cool stuff..... didn't expect a lesson in political ideology from a Western. :laugh4: I'll definitely buy that movie if I see it.You should. That movie is the product of two Italian movie wizards (Leone and Morricone), two fine American actors (Coburn and Steiger), two major film schools (Hollywood and Cinecittà), and of course two of the world's most tragicomic revolutions... You'll love every minute of it.

Fragony

03-28-2008, 12:22

Hey we have a movie thread, this one is to annoy socialists

Adrian II

03-28-2008, 12:44

Hey we have a movie thread, this one is to annoy socialistsSorry to bring up good taste. It shall not happen again.

Tribesman

03-28-2008, 12:49

Hey Adrian , you had me down as the wrong charachter:laugh4:

Fragony

03-28-2008, 12:54

Sorry to bring up good taste. It shall not happen again.

Good boy, wasted on socialists anyway. Now if you could please say something funny this discussion is going nowhere,

Adrian II

03-28-2008, 12:55

Hey Adrian , you had me down as the wrong charachter:laugh4: :laugh4: I know what you mean.

Still, the pub scene in that movie must appeal to you..

Furious Mental

03-28-2008, 13:27

The economics of Nazism and fascism in general were not based on the USSR or the ideas of any communist or socialist movement. The inspiration for the so-called "corporate state" was the organisation of the British, French and German economies during World War One, that is, the economy remained in essentially private hands but through legal and political powers was subject to state control for war production. State power was also used to crush organised labour and thereby remove impediments to private capital's completion of its appointed tasks.

However Hitler considered himself neither a capitalist nor, in any objective sense, a socialist (the name National Socialist German Workers' Party having been adopted simply as a ploy when he and other Nazis believed they could take power at the head of a working class revolution). As far as fascists are concerned capitalists and socialists are both enemies because they divide the nation up with individual or class competition, and because both are utilitarian ideologies that ultimately measure happiness in material terms they turn people away from selfless sacrifice.

Tribesman

03-28-2008, 20:18

Still, the pub scene in that movie must appeal to you..

which one ?
the one where yer man is talking political :daisy: or the one where Coburn offs the cops , the soldiers and his mate that was talking political :daisy: ?

Adrian II

03-28-2008, 21:22

which one ?
the one where yer man is talking political :daisy: or the one where Coburn offs the cops , the soldiers and his mate that was talking political :daisy: ?The latter. I don't suppose this sort of thing ever happened to you, although you may have similar experiences. You're bound to have heard quite some stories in this vein.

My point is that it is very well done in the movie.

The only copy of the entire scene I could find is this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCU5fpL_Yek).

The juvenile, weasel-like British officer. The bland faces of the Irish visitors as the pub is gradually emptied, particularly the guy at the left end of the bar in the shot around 0.55 seconds into the scene. Most of all, the way in which Coburn's face suddenly hardens when he spots the traitor and the British soldiers is perfect cinema. Because of the use of the mirrors, among other things. I suppose they had to manipulate the camera and mirrors quite a bit to get every shot right. If you watch the scene again and again to let it sink in and grasp the details, you will see that the shooting angles are impossible unless you move the mirrors about. And I haven't even mentioned the lighting. This is pure art.

Shaka_Khan

03-29-2008, 01:05

Orwell, anyone? Read 1984, it's a very good recipe.

It's a shame the world forgets about north korea, and whines on about Iran and Saddam and other such wannabe despots. If there is ever a country in need of an invasion, it's North Korea. They are the darth vaders of the world, Ahmadinejad looks like a shy schoolgirl compared to them.

If only there was oil up there...
I'm glad you said if. It wouldn't make sense to invade the people whom we wanted to liberate. If we fight against N. Korea, we'd be fighting against a country that's unified under heavy brain-washing. Although they're people like us, if we attack them, they'll look at us as invaders, not liberators. Part of their propaganda is that we're the reason for they're starvation.
One of the main reasons why the other liberations were successful in the past was because we had allies. The US didn't fight Iraq and Afghanistan alone. In addition to the Coalition, there were a lot of Afghanis on our side. And a lot of the Iraqis resented Saddam Hussein. South Korea is on our side because we liberated that country after WWII and went to help that country when the North invaded. We wouldn't be in these countries in the first place if nobody in that area wanted our help.

With the nuke issue, the US wanted to invade N. Korea ever since Bill Clinton was president. But he didn't have the support of S. Korea, Japan, and China. The capital of S. Korea is within N. Korean artillery range. S. Korea would suffer the heaviest in civilian numbers. Japan doesn't like the N. Korean government either but Japan didn't support an invasion. The strongest action that the Japanese government preferred was economic sanctions. China would be wary of the US gaining a foothold on the Chinese border. Although China needs the US economically, incidents in the past near Taiwan have shown that both countries are competing militarily as well.

Anyway, I don't think people can convince wars with oil for now. I don't see how the liberation (or invasion) of Iraq helped us.

HoreTore

03-29-2008, 02:27

Well, the Iraq war is turning a million casualties and some 3-4 million refugees now, I doubt that an invasion of North Korea would have caused that many more. Also, Saddam was losing his grip, he would likely have been overthrown within 10 years anyway. The leadership in North Korea is not, however, if anything they're tightening their grip even more.

As to the artillery, well... Doesn't the US brag about how they have the mightiest military force in the world? Artillery positions are static positions, perfect targets for an air force/cruise missile. They might get a few rounds off, but it shouldn't be too difficult to overcome that challenge.

As for China not liking the US, the obvious solution would be to get them along.

As to allies within North Korea, judging from the interview with that refugee in the film, there should be party members on our side. Also, the US allies in Afghanistan and Iraq is one of the reasons why the wars there are not successful, as the only thing the warlords have is a loyalty on paper. They're corrupt criminals, and they have nothing against attacking NATO forces when their heroin farms are burned down.

I'm not in favour of war at all, but if there is one war I could support, it would be against North Korea. And Burma too, I suppose.

Another thing with North Korea, is that you can't attempt to destabilize the country by covert operations and such, because of the combination of insane/paranoid leaders and artillery fixed on South Korean civilian targets. It's either total war or nothing at all...

Furious Mental

03-29-2008, 05:59

I think North Korea is alot more ideologically disciplined than Iraq. There had many attempts at coups in Iraq before the American invasion, and there were rebels all over the country of every ideological hue from communists to Islamic fanatics. As far as anyone knows North Korea's government is neither prone to coups nor unable to exercise total control over all its territory. I very much doubt that the military of that country is amenable to serving a puppet regime.

"there should be party members on our side"

"Another thing with North Korea, is that you can't attempt to destabilize the country by covert operations and such, because of the combination of insane/paranoid leaders and artillery fixed on South Korean civilian targets. It's either total war or nothing at all..."

The problem there is that one can't wage total war and simultaneously be attempting to co-opt the government to be one's friend.