That Bloke In North Korea Is Dead

[slinkydevil]

RIP - thoughts go out to Kim Jong-il's family and friends especially this Christmas.

[wheels]

http://www.nydailyne...rticle-1.992107

N. Korea to S. Korea: Turn off those border Christmas lights - or else - Cites 'psychological warfare'

What some might consider Christmas cheer, North Korean officials call “psychological warfare.”

The Kim Jong Il regime warned its South Korean neighbors that any Christmas light displays along their common border could result in something stronger than a lump of coal in their stocking.

South Korean officials are considering giving the okay for a Seoul church to string lights on a 100-foot tower about two miles from the dividing line on Dec. 23.

The threat of the twinkling lights is apparently driving the North Koreans to a decidedly non-“Peace on Earth” state of mind.

“The enemy warmongers ... should be aware that they should be held responsible entirely for any unexpected consequences that may be caused by their scheme,” the North Korean government warned on its web site.

“This issue is not something to be ignored quietly.”

For good measure, the North Koreans said the lights were also “a mean attempt for psychological warfare.”

Ho, ho, ho.

The border wars were suspended in 2004, when relations between the nations were good and South Korea agreed to dim its holiday lights.

But South Korea flipped on the switch last year after accusing the North of killing 46 people by torpedoing a warship.

North Korean denied involvement, but the bad feelings lingered through the holidays.

The atheist North Koreans fear the festive Christmas lights are an intrusion into their society.

[Merkin]

Slinky, LOL, you do have a wicked sense of humor! I had him down as an oppressive tyrant who habitually gassed and murdered people. I popped him off my Christmas card list some time ago

[BlitzBrione]

"I can only express satisfaction that the Dear Leader is joining the likes of Gadhafi, bin Laden, Hitler and Stalin in a warm corner of hell," said John McCain, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Fancy that! Coming five days after the Iraq War officially ended, leaving 100,000+ dead (Iraqis), hundreds of thousands of widows and orphans, 1.5 million refugees in neighbouring Jordan & Syria and a country in ruins not to mention the $800 billion bill. When it's their turn don't forget to add Bush & Blair to the warm corner of Hell list.

[Chinahand]

BlitzBrione - no doubt the Iraqi war was a disaster of epic proportions - but the death rate, the refugees, the terror were at a lower rate after Saddam was overthrown than under Saddam's rule. The numbers Saddam killed are in the millions, he undertook genocidal gasings, created huge refugee problems as Kurds fled into Turkey etc.

 

I don't believe in Hell, but Saddam, the Dear Leader, Mao, Hitler and Stalin are amongst the few who can ratchet up death tolls in the million plus. Bush and Blair's corner may be deserved (I'll reserve judgement on that for another 10 or so years!), but the Dear Leader was indifferent to killing on a massively larger scale.

[Lxxx]

BlitzBrione - no doubt the Iraqi war was a disaster of epic proportions - but the death rate, the refugees, the terror were at a lower rate after Saddam was overthrown than under Saddam's rule. The numbers Saddam killed are in the millions, he undertook genocidal gasings, created huge refugee problems as Kurds fled into Turkey etc.

 

I don't believe in Hell, but Saddam, the Dear Leader, Mao, Hitler and Stalin are amongst the few who can ratchet up death tolls in the million plus. Bush and Blair's corner may be deserved (I'll reserve judgement on that for another 10 or so years!), but the Dear Leader was indifferent to killing on a massively larger scale.

 

Oh my God, you couldn't make this up. Said like a true Daily Mail reader.

[pongo]


"I can only express satisfaction that the Dear Leader is joining the likes of Gadhafi, bin Laden, Hitler and Stalin in a warm corner of hell," said John McCain, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.


 

McCain was part of the US trade delegation which met Qaddafi in 2009 in order to try to secure industrial contracts. McCain wanted to arm Qaddafi and described him as "an important ally".

 

John McCain: Always Confused, Ever for War:

 

A government cable (leaked by Wikileaks) memorializes the excruciating details of meetings between the Senate delegation and Qaddafi, along with his son Mutassim, Libya's "national security adviser." We find McCain and Graham promising to use their influence to push along Libya's requests for C-130 military aircraft, among other armaments, and civilian nuclear assistance. And there's Lieberman gushing, "We never would have guessed ten years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by a son of Muammar al-Qadhafi." That's before he opined that Libya had become "an important ally in the war on terrorism," and that "common enemies sometimes make better friends."

 

The numbers Saddam killed are in the millions, he undertook genocidal gasings, created huge refugee problems as Kurds fled into Turkey etc.

 

Saddam was armed and supported by the same military - industrial complex which later turned against him.

[Monkey boy]

 

No doubt the population can look foward to another era of oppression and mindless paranoid propaganda accompanied by lots of slogan chanting and banner waving.

 

And they've got Nukes.

 

 

Same could be said for America if John McCain ever gets elected. (Or even if he doesn't for that matter)

[BlitzBrione]

BlitzBrione - no doubt the Iraqi war was a disaster of epic proportions - but the death rate, the refugees, the terror were at a lower rate after Saddam was overthrown than under Saddam's rule. The numbers Saddam killed are in the millions, he undertook genocidal gasings, created huge refugee problems as Kurds fled into Turkey etc.

 

I don't believe in Hell, but Saddam, the Dear Leader, Mao, Hitler and Stalin are amongst the few who can ratchet up death tolls in the million plus. Bush and Blair's corner may be deserved (I'll reserve judgement on that for another 10 or so years!), but the Dear Leader was indifferent to killing on a massively larger scale.

BlitzBrione - no doubt the Iraqi war was a disaster of epic proportions - but the death rate, the refugees, the terror were at a lower rate after Saddam was overthrown than under Saddam's rule. The numbers Saddam killed are in the millions, he undertook genocidal gasings, created huge refugee problems as Kurds fled into Turkey etc.

 

I don't believe in Hell, but Saddam, the Dear Leader, Mao, Hitler and Stalin are amongst the few who can ratchet up death tolls in the million plus. Bush and Blair's corner may be deserved (I'll reserve judgement on that for another 10 or so years!), but the Dear Leader was indifferent to killing on a massively larger scale.

Why wait to reserve judgement on Bush/Blair for another 10 or so years? " Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace" (Nurnberg Trials) is, er, a war crime non?. That's what got Adolf into so much trouble when he barged into Poland. I'm only trying to make the point that regardless of whoever the current World rogue is we (in the West) can match 'em like for like (it's just we can get away with trampling all over International law).

[Chinahand]

BlitzBrione - I admit issues of international law are very contentious, but the US position is that it had legal approval to launch military action from the UN resolutions which approved the military actions against Iraq after it invaded Kuwait and especially the cease fire afterwards which made the ceasefire conditional on Saddam openly renouncing WMD. He may have renounced them, but he didn't do it openly. The UK position was that latter resolutions, when added to these initial resolutions gave authorization - it is a matter of interpretation and lawyers disagree. But international law is basically an anarchy of the powerful and no international body is going to declare the invasions illegal. Quite the opposite, the UN ratified the invasion, the transfer of control of soverignty to the US/UK and the return of that soverignty to the Iraqi government which has now signed further treaties with the US regularizing their position.

 

Military action ratified by the UN is not illegal - the UN ratified the invasion. You may wish they hadn't, but they did.

 

I think the invasion was very poorly done and could have had far stronger legal and political support, but that Bush and Blair rushed it in their hubris.

 

The massive loss of status, lives, treasure, political support etc caused by the Iraq invasion has helped once again show the folly of aggressive war. They shouldn't have done it the way they did - maybe we can agree on that.

 

If in 10 years time Iraq is a flourishing democracy, balancing its diverse communities and using its resources to enrich all its people I'll definitely say it was worthwhile. We are a long way from there, but it is very unlikely we would be where we are today with Saddam still in power, with the reality most likely being more violence in a terror state.

[Lxxx]

BlitzBrione - I admit issues of international law are very contentious, but the US position is that it had legal approval to launch military action from the UN resolutions which approved the military actions against Iraq after it invaded Kuwait and especially the cease fire afterwards which made the ceasefire conditional on Saddam openly renouncing WMD. He may have renounced them, but he didn't do it openly. The UK position was that latter resolutions, when added to these initial resolutions gave authorization - it is a matter of interpretation and lawyers disagree. But international law is basically an anarchy of the powerful and no international body is going to declare the invasions illegal. Quite the opposite, the UN ratified the invasion, the transfer of control of soverignty to the US/UK and the return of that soverignty to the Iraqi government which has now signed further treaties with the US regularizing their position.

 

Military action ratified by the UN is not illegal - the UN ratified the invasion. You may wish they hadn't, but they did.

 

I think the invasion was very poorly done and could have had far stronger legal and political support, but that Bush and Blair rushed it in their hubris.

 

The massive loss of status, lives, treasure, political support etc caused by the Iraq invasion has helped once again show the folly of aggressive war. They shouldn't have done it the way they did - maybe we can agree on that.

 

If in 10 years time Iraq is a flourishing democracy, balancing its diverse communities and using its resources to enrich all its people I'll definitely say it was worthwhile. We are a long way from there, but it is very unlikely we would be where we are today with Saddam still in power, with the reality most likely being more violence in a terror state.

 

 

I suppose you think that Gaddafi was a tyrant who was persecuting his people and also leading a 'terror state' in which he was hated as well don't you?

[Chinahand]

BBC Link - listen to what it's like to discover the victims of state thugs.

 

I studied under Professor Ali Tarhouni - he was sentenced to death by Gaddafi as a student, but escaped into excile. He could tell you much about the bureaucratic terror that silenced resistence in Libya. It wasn't the Nazis, but the midnight knock, torture, disappearances and extrajudicial killings bred an environment where eventually the population lost their fear. They had little else to loose.

[Lxxx]

BBC Link - listen to what it's like to discover the victims of state thugs.

 

I studied under Professor Ali Tarhouni - he was sentenced to death by Gaddafi as a student, but escaped into excile. He could tell you much about the bureaucratic terror that silenced resistence in Libya. It wasn't the Nazis, but the midnight knock, torture, disappearances and extrajudicial killings bred an environment where eventually the population lost their fear. They had little else to loose.

 

The time to take action against him was years ago then, if the west really was concerned about 'human rights', which they clearly never are. It was only when he decided to progress the gold dinar idea in relation to exchanging for the nation's oil, as well as try to unite africa against the international criminals NATO, that they decided that they should care about how he treated his people. By which time he had built Libya as a model economy for north africa with true benefits for his people and was on the way to building an economic powerhouse of a nation built on no debt. Which obviously couldn't do as he was showing too much of a good example to those countries around him, so he had to go. Granted many years ago he was a dictator' in the true sense of the word but it appeared he was mellowing with age, and was therefore proving too unpredictable to be an ally of the west.

[BlitzBrione]

Military action ratified by the UN is not illegal - the UN ratified the invasion. You may wish they hadn't, but they did.

 

 

The United Nations secretary general stated in September 2004 that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal

[Max Power]

Told you I was ill.