N. Korea has asked for peace before but the US refuses to give it to them.

I'm all for a Peace Treaty on the peninsula - but I think the main negotiating parties should be the DPRK and the ROK.

Treaty should be between the South and the North. Unfortunately the North considers the South a "puppet state" and refusing to acknowledge them.

Then leave South Korea. It will be harder for North Korea to think that then wont it. Then it won't be so "unfortunate" oh wise western gentleman from Canada.

The North is acknowledging them right now by offering a Peace treaty. Your logic fails.

Once the majority of South Koreans want that and elect a similar thinking government then it will happen.

lol

Why isn't this type of racism banned yet?

o rly?

Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun were taking SK on the path of a peace treaty with the north, but they were constantly sabotaged by the Americans.

Notice how Americans never need to justify why they are so hostile to this or that country, but they only need to launch a character assassination. The real motives are always revealed to be geopolitical, once you have peeled away the layers of lies.

Quote the post, report to moderator and have some patience

I was getting bored anyway.

Got proof?



The invasion of the South and continued attacks seem to be ample justification.


Perhaps you don't give a piss about the dead soldiers here, but many do.

lol

your comment seems to differ from the report you quote, which is kind of like the below example.





or a little better than this example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y...feature=related

Where in the article did you see the North acknowledging the South? The statements seem directed at the US (as usual).

I strongly believe that any peace treaty needs to have the ROK and DPRK out in front. Any other regional players should be secondary.

From that article it seems as though North thinks it's a war not between the koreas but a war between DPRK and US.
If US leaves ROK will both koreas be as one, it will take a long while until their is trust between both parties when or if a peace treaty is signed ending the war.

What else can you say to people such as Bill O'Reilly?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B-K4NGo2HE...feature=related




The point is that NK and SK do not mutually recognize the separation of Korea into independent sovereign states. The only realistic peace treaty between them is a confederate solution, which both sides were working on before the US-supported Korean right wing derailed the process in order to support American hegemonistic interests.

A peace treaty between NK and US is what makes sense at this point, as SK and China already did in 1992. US is just using the NK-SK impasse for cover, while sabotaging realistic reconciliation behind the scenes. The US knows that NK cannot be realistically toppled through its hostile methods, it only wants to maintain tension in the region to bolster its importance in Japan and Korea and maintain a kind of sideways strangle on China through North Korea.

Again, I ask simply - why does the DPRK insist on excluding the ROK from peace negotiations?

You may not see it as important, but this nation does.

First sentence, dude.

So they can't discuss peace because of that?

Also, the 2007 summit specifically noted that the two sides needed to end the armistice.

That's right, in 2007. The sabotage came in 2008.

It's the same reason mainland China and Taiwan can never sign a peace treaty - they don't even recognize each other's existence! Before US recognized mainland China they'd make incursions into Chinese airspace all the time (and before 1992 Chinese subs often went into SK waters). This is all legal if you don't even recognize the sovereignty of the other side, that's the big stick US currently holds over North Korea, and NK is desperate to find some safety given this situation.

now taiwan recognise that PRC represents the whole of china.
besides, they ain't technically at war except that china had not yet renounced war aggression, so is there a need for peace treaty?

^Stop making things up.

How can "taiwan" recognise that the PRC represents the whole of China when it itself is officially the Republic of China?

Source?

technically speaking. just like DPRK isn't democratic. the official name is technical. u can call an apple an orange, it is still an apple going by its physical properties and not its name.

but it is true that kmt doesn't recognise that, and is currently incumbent. and i mean taiwan, not "taiwan".

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2...e-policy-change


http://www.jpri.org/publications/workingpapers/wp20.html

Seriously? USA who installed Syngman Rhee in the first place with zero public input from Koreans, whose military general would take it on his own initiative to imprison a Korean president, who then supported fascist dictatorships through overt and covert methods, now became so respectful of Korea, that it just walked out and left the country alone? Seriously??

I can see that with inadequate moderation the Korean Chat of AF has become bashfest for the Chinese members. Kudos, for AF has become yet another Stormfront for the Chinese.

When US and its trained puppets have nothing to use to counter facts, they assassinate personal character. Why does the real world always prove me right?

I don't understand the point of the article on President Lee. He was democratically elected by the South Korean people. His tough stance against the North was well known before then.





Rhee was also elected President in 1948. He was a dictator in my opinion but one who had plenty of hardline support in the country.

All of this leads to your previous statement:



Source?

By all common sense, South Korea is a democratic country. This is where the people have sovereign powers over their nation. North Korea has been offering "peace" to the United States for quite a long time. The dubious motives behind this is apparent in North Korea's reluctance to offer the same to South Korea. So their ulterior motives is interpreted as outing the United States in a potential war under the name of the peace treaty, once it engages in war with South Korea. This kind of offer has been long around for quite some time, and this is the reason why it has been rejected so far.

A peace treaty with US would be little more than a small assurance of safety for NK from US attack. It has nothing to do with what happens if NK and SK go to war, I have no idea how you convinced yourself of that.

Democracy isn't just about having elections. Elections can become a tool for special interests or even foreign interests. The Nazis were elected, East Germany had elections, USA is only able to elect "friends of Israel", Japan kept electing the same pro-US party for 50 years and now those same guys are back, etc etc.

are you the same person as CC? you sound exactly the same. LOL

No. I just want to see if you can defend that statement.

Which part of it is a problem for you?

catman is another white Canadian with a Korean "wife".

btw, who made these guys put the onus on others to prove their views while they asume that they are right.

Both parties generally provide a justification but the game these two Canadians play is assume their position is correct and then make others do all the work. Their approach is if you are not 100% convincing in every single one of your arguements, you are wrong and that everything that they believe and assert becomes automatically right, despite them not saying anything or saying almost nothing. They also reject any reasoning that goes beyond typical American propaganda or cold war era scare logic of commies under beds or evil communism vs great democracy of the United States despite the fact that politically aware and savy people from experts to university students know the intricacies and hyopcrisy of politics which Captain Corea dismisses as being a "tin foil hat" type.

These two self rightous and smug Canadians will have you adhere to the simplistic characatured notions of freedom and democracy as childish and typical as Captain Coreas cartoons. It is so smug and insolent that they even deny notions that are accepted by everyone such as the notion that sanctions are responsible for starving and killing North Koreans.

Its arrogant, it's wrong and its just well... very Eurocentric isn't it. Can imagine what kind of "family" they are grooming inside Korea.

By all common sense some justification that a population can elect representatives is a redundant arguement to argue that a nation is not under the control of the United States. Leaders in the United States do not represent the people, they represent the interests of the business and polticial establishment. The notion that a people can decide between two rich members of the establishment somehow magically means the nation legitimatley represents the people is laughable but "by all common sense" is clearly illogical, simplistic and pathetically outdated like the propaganda from a cold war era. America is part of the political establishment in South Korea, hell America "established" South Korea. lol.

The reason North Korea does not give peace to South Korea is because it is American foriegn policy that will decide if there will be peace on the peninsula, not South Korea. Can South Korea decide to stop the sanctions imposed by the Americans? That is an American policy not South Koreas. It was America that interfered and created the South Korean government, not the SOuth Korean people. If North Korea wants to be left alone as a seperate country is that up to South Korea or America?

Your assertion that North Korea will invade S.Korea if America leaves is your opinon and from the current differences between the North and South in military power shows you are just a moron. As it stands the one who is shaping South Korea's diplomatic climate and relations with the North are and always have been the Americans. When South Korea sought to go nuclear, this was disallowed by...America. Nothing happens on the peninsula unless it is okay to U.S foriegn policy, that is a reality that ensures S.Korea is not truly soverign.

America is not a democracy it is a republic. Technically speaking America is a Republic and it is not a democracy by nature either yet you are most likely a poster who thinks America = Democracy.

http://antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=5015
March 2, 2005
A Republic, Not a Democracy

by Patrick J. Buchanan

As Herr Schroeder was babbling on in Mainz, during his joint press conference with President Bush, about a need for carrots to coax Tehran off its nuclear program, Bush interrupted the chancellor to issue yet another demand – that "the Iranian government listen to the hopes and aspirations of the Iranian people."

"We believe," said Bush, "that the voice of the people ought to be determining policy, because we believe in democracy…"

Who, one wonders, is feeding the president his talking points?

Is he unaware that the Iranian people, even opponents of the regime, believe Iran has a right to nuclear power and should retain the capacity to build nuclear weapons? Tehran's decision to stop enriching uranium, to appease EU negotiators, was not at all popular.

While 70 percent of Iranians may have voted to dump the mullahs, just as Pakistanis were delirious with joy when they exploded their first nuclear device, we should expect Iranians to react the same way. What people have not celebrated when their nation has joined the exclusive nuclear club?

"We believe … that the voice of the people ought to be determining policy," said Bush, "because we believe in democracy."

But does Bush really believe this? How does the president think the Arab peoples would vote on the following questions: (1) Should the United States get out of Iraq? (2) Is it fair to compare Israel's treatment of Palestinians to Nazi treatment of the Jews? (3) Do Arab nations have the same right to an atom bomb as Ariel Sharon? (4) Is Osama bin Laden a terrorist or hero?

If Bush believes he and we are popular in the Islamic world, why has he not scheduled a grand tour of Rabat, Cairo, Beirut, Amman, Riyadh, and Islamabad to rally the masses to America's side, rather than preaching democracy at them from the White House? If one-man, one-vote democracy came suddenly to the Arab world, every pro-American ruler in the region would be at risk of being swept away.

Yet there is a larger issue here than misreading the Arab mind. Whence comes this democracy-worship, this belief by President Bush that "the voice of the people ought to be determining policy"?

Would Bush himself let a poll of Americans decide how long we keep troops in Iraq? Would he submit his immigration policy to popular vote?

"We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy," writes columnist Dr. Walter Williams. But, "That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. … The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules for, our nation to be a republic. … The word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution."

Indeed, the Constitution guarantees "to every State in this Union a republican form of government."

Asks Williams: "Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to 'the democracy for which it stands,' or does it say to 'the republic for which it stands'? Or do we sing 'The Battle Hymn of the Democracy' or 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic'?"

There is a critical difference between a republic and a democracy, Williams notes, citing our second president: "John Adams captured the essence of that difference when he said: 'You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.' Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights."

The founders deeply distrusted democracy. Williams cites Adams again: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall seconded Adams' motion: "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

"When the Constitution was framed," wrote historian Charles Beard, "no respectable person called himself or herself a democrat."

Democracy-worship suggests a childlike belief in the wisdom and goodness of "the people." But the people supported the guillotine in the French Revolution and Napoleon. The people were wild with joy as the British, French, and German boys marched off in August 1914 to the Great War that inflicted the mortal wound on Western civilization. The people supported Hitler and the Nuremburg Laws.

Our fathers no more trusted in the people always to do the right thing than they trusted in kings. In the republic they created, the House of Representatives, the people's house, was severely restricted in its powers by a Bill of Rights and checked by a Senate whose members were to be chosen by the states, by a president with veto power, and by a Supreme Court.

"What kind of government do we have?" the lady asked Benjamin Franklin, as he emerged from the Constitutional Convention.

Said Franklin, "A republic – if you can keep it."

Let us restore that republic and, as Jefferson said, "Hear no more of trust in men, but rather bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution."



http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1...1_3/ts213d.html

"These United States Of America . . . Are Not a Democracy!"

by James Kraft-Lorenz

Introduction

The United States of America was founded as a federation of Republics whose sole purpose was to protect persons and their property. Without regulations, subsidies and other privileges, individuals and businesses co-evolved in a competitive environment to be the most inventive and efficient on earth. Democracy—rule by the majority; disregard for individual rights—has perverted what was once a symbiotic relationship among individuals and businesses into a parasitic relationship. Even our massive deficit spending can no longer hide our decline.

This nation was never intended to be a democracy. The framers and ratifiers meant to impose the stable rule of law and not the rule of men, motivated, at the instant, by whim and passion. Democracy is the antithesis of the rule of law, for it is precisely the rule of the voters: that is, rule without limits, obtaining its power from 50%, plus 1, regardless of the established law. Under demos (populace) kratos (master), from the Greek, the mere whim of the majority, right, wrong or indifferent, becomes the law. A lynch mob is democratic within this definition.

Look at the Internal Revenue Service or the DEA—do they not violate the Law guaranteed by the Bill of Rights? Aren't they a product of the legislative democracy, outside the rule of the ratified Law? Yes, but they are certainly democratic. The voters in the States elected the whole Congress. The majority in Congress voted to empower these agents beyond the powers given to Congress by the People. Both votes, the direct election of Senators and the Congress's vote to bestow powers they do not Lawfully have, are contra to the Constitution as Lawfully ratified.

Consensus facit legem is an incontrovertible rule of law which means 'consent makes law.' How does a minority in the right oppose a majority in the wrong, without resort to a fixed rule of law? It cannot. Without a republican form of government a peaceful defense of rights may not be possible.

In short, the operative word is republican. (Not to be confused with the modern Republican party.) Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." A serious and potentially damaging bit of misinformation usually follows this line: "Our Treasured Basic Freedoms . . . the historical basic documents that laid the foundation for our democracy, etc." The author of this mistake is usually innocent. He or she is not aware of the real foundation of our federated government.

The closest American dictionary to the ratification period is Noah Webster's "An American Dictionary of the English Language," printed in 1828. Noah Webster says in part:

REPUB'LIC, n. [L. respublica; res and publica; public affairs.]
A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person.
REPUBLICAN, a.
Pertaining to a republic; consisting of a commonwealth; as a republican constitution or government.

Seems pretty clear, for the then commonly understood definition of 'republican.'

The Declaration of Independence (the Primary statute), along with the Constitution (the Organic Law), as properly ratified, by two- thirds of the states' votes, is the total and perfect definition of the American republic. The only external interpretation is the intent of the framers and ratifiers.1

Our nation is, properly, a limited constitutional federal republic, formed of limited constitutional state republics, all using majority rule to fill certain elective offices and decide certain matters. With the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the People reserved only four direct (majority) votes:

1. Direct election of Representatives to Congress;

2. Direct election of Presidential Electors;

3. Direct votes as Jurors;

4. Direct votes as Grand Jurors.

We are democratic to the extent of these direct votes of the People. Our government's model is republican in form.
The Fully Informed Jury

What is to keep the Republic just and free? Who watches the watchers? Fully informed jurors are the palladium of liberty.2 Statutes are formed by the various legislatures, and must be confirmed by fully informed Juries of the People, who have no tenure to earn, no election to win, no office to save but one: a safe home protected by peace and justice.

What is the Common Law? It is the law of common sense. It is the pursuit of justice tempered with mercy. It is the final barrier to overzealous legislation and enforcement. If there is no injury, there is no crime. No one can be arrested without probable cause. No ex post facto tricks; Habeas Corpus; no entry or search without a valid warrant. No life, liberty or property can be taken absent a judgment of peers, with all due process.

Grand Juries are required to return True Bills of indictment, or no trial may begin. Juries know of their right, power and duty to judge the statutes, the law and the facts, and the application of all to the case in question. This is the Law of which no competent adult can plead ignorance. It is based on the presumption that all are innocent persons of goodwill until conviction on charges of a crime that has caused injury.

What did Noah Webster say on the subject of the jury?

JU'RY, n. [Fr. juré , sworn, L. juro, to swear.]
A number of freeholders, selected in the manner prescribed by law, empannelled and sworn to inquire into and try any matter of fact, and to declare the truth on the evidence given them in the case. Grand juries consist usually of twenty four freeholders at least, and are summoned to try matters alledged in indictments. Petty juries, consisting of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions. The decision of a petty jury is called a verdict.

It is on the authority of the People that the Constitutions for the States and for these United States of America exist in the first place. When an American Jury renders a verdict, they have spoken, as WE THE PEOPLE, resuming their delegation of legislative, executive and judicial authority, limited to the circumstances in the instant case. The verdicts of fully informed American Juries are not subject to rebuke or censure: they are the in-person voice of the true Sovereigns. The government can create any 'law' by statute, rule or regulation, but as long as the Jury stands between the accused and the accuser, neither life, liberty nor property can be taken without the knowing consent of twelve other potential victims of the same bad law. This right to trial by Jury is the glory of our English legal heritage and the cornerstone of our Republic.

American Juries are limited by due process and the common law, preventing legal murder. Juries have no power to create legislation, only to veto the statute before them. Juries have no power to execute law that is not already in existence, but they can refuse to act on it. Juries cannot judge the conduct of the defendant beyond the scope of the indicting charges, but they can refuse to convict. Juries of the People are, comparably to the Supreme Court, not bound by any precedent. If a legislated 'crime' is no longer seen as such by Juries, they can and do ignore the statute, acquitting in the face of the law and the facts.

This was the trend in the Fugitive Slave Law cases and in the Volstead Act cases during alcohol prohibition.

All action to legislate, to execute, and adjudicate, was delegated by the people, under the Constitution (the rule of Law), to the States and the threemajor branches of the National Government. All officers of State and National Government swear or affirm to protect and defend the appropriate constitutions. But Jurors do not take that oath, for they are not bound as servants: here, they are masters in their own house. This is the essence of res publica (affairs of the public).
Republic: Loss and Restoration

In our current society the word 'democracy' is used to signify a move away from the limited, enumerated constitutional powers. Away from the specific grants of power, delegated by the people, that are required to exist within our republican form. It is important to remember that what has been delegated can be resumed by the lawful holder of the power.

An excerpt from the script of a videotape which I helped produce3 tells part of the story of the drift:

Our founders were students of history, and they designed the Constitution for the United States of America to guard against such encroachment. But the tyrants eventually uncovered a flaw. It is precisely located in the Constitution in Article 1, section 8, clause seventeen. The clause reads:

[Congress shall have the power] "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; "

Clear enough. The Constitution remains as a limitation on the federal government's authority in the States, while Congress is permitted to make all laws governing the territories and property under its jurisdiction. However, in the years following the Civil War, the 39th and 40th Congresses perverted the intention of the language such that the municipal government based in Washington, D.C . has come to control virtually every political, social and geographical subdivision of the individual States, effectively destroying their sovereignty and converting their citizens into federal subjects.

Prior to the 1930s, the United States of America was rarely referred to as a democracy. In a Republic, every individual is recognized to have certain absolute rights. The sole purpose of government is to secure those rights. In a democracy, individuals are dissolved into the body politic and are granted rights which vary according to the will of the majority.

Our restoration as a Constitutional Republic depends upon our individual knowledge of these essential facts and concepts. They are seldom mentioned in the government-controlled schools and almost never in modern schools of law. Monitor a class for yourself; ask the students about these 'revolutionary' ideas

There is one thing Karl Marx had right when he said: "If you can cut people off from their history they can be easily persuaded." Who we are and what we are is vitally connected to who we were. It all hangs on a word.

The framers and ratifiers did not intend to establish a democracy. As Dr. Franklin is reported to have said to an inquirer at the closing of the Constitutional Convention, "Madame, We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it."

James Kraft-Lorenz is a freelance writer and lecturer and has appeared in the Truth Seeker often. He resides in Salt Lake City, Utah.

References:

1. The Federalist Papers, the Anti-federalist Papers, Madison's Notes, the constitutional debates (various). The Articles of Confederation, and the principal documents that preceded the American revolution, such as the various letters of Sam Adams' Committees of Correspondence, and Common Sense and The American Crisis, by the honorable Thomas Paine, whom George Washington credited with the title "Author of the Revolution."

2. The Palladium was the shrine of Athena, goddess of wisdom, war and justice. In ancient Greece it was allowed to be used as a sanctuary by the accused-in a word, the last refuge of freedom.

3. "Liberty In The Balance: America, the Fed, and the IRS," Mosaic Media, Common Law Copyright, 1993, Pasadena, California Republic. This 50-minute tape is available from the National League for the Separation of Church and State, P.O. Box 2832, San Diego, CA, 92112. $29 + $3 postage and handling.

For information on Fully Informed Jury Association call or write: F.I.J.A., P.O. Box 59, Helmville, Montana 59843. (406) 793-5550.

The DPRK views the ROK as either a puppet state of the US or more or less irrevelant; if there is an attack on North Korea, they believe it will come from the US. From 2003 onwards, especially in regards to nuclear disarmament, the DPRK has wanted to skip the ROK, PRC, and Japan and negotiate directly with the US. This has been something that the DPRK has sought since the first Korean nuclear crisis.

I think it should have been 3 party talks. China+NK should bang on US to implement its obligations under the 1994 agreement which it unilaterally broke off which is what precipitated the whole "crisis". Going to six parties, the reasons that the US brought forward was to involve more donors to NK and also to apply more pressure to disarm. In the end we see the US had no intention of working on the "donors" part but was only interested in applying hostile pressure, while getting its allies to cover for the US failing to implement the original agreement.

NK is right to go out on its own to "provoke" US into 1-on-1 dealings. Chinese foreign policy has been too appeasing of USA, and it tends to overthink the web of its national interests. Recently the PLA has come out to become more involved in foreign policy. These guys put out a lot more character and they're much more value-centered in their dealings with others. That is the right approach and more effective approach.

Well, Bush refused to deal with the DPRK bilaterally unless the DPRK disarmed, but the DPRK developed its nukes for fear of the US's linking the DPRK with the Axis of Evil and then blowing one of the AOE up. The one thing the DPRK has always wanted was a peace-deal with the US and normalization.


It's then up to debate as to whether or not the DPRK are serious or are just stalling/messing around again.

Again, you said:



When was this? Who was involved?

Nope.



I know you whine about backing up your claims but I'm going to ask you to do it again. The about statement is completely unsubstantiated. We've aruged this on the board before and the only evidence the Chinese nationalists who were making the claim could come up with was some guy on a blog. Nothing from a single NGO. No statistical evidence. Because there is no blockade of North Korea. Nothing preventing food from coming into the country. In fact they receive tons of aid from the outside world including the United States (which shouldn't be happening according to your logic.)

S.korea has a better option than try to reunify with n.korea.

N.korean thinking is wicked and they are completely out of the league in their thinking.
Rest of the world run on the clock of capitalism, and compete amongst based on who can achieve what first,
as time is money thinking.

To north korea, time is nothing and it stands still. To n.korea they can wait another 50 or even 100 yrs , for tides to change in their favor and to take over s.korea by force. Peace treaty, probably involve n.korea's asking to annex s.korea and US withdrawal from korean war theatre, or else the n.korea will continue to develope weapons and missle capabilities to one day reach the US mainland.

I think for s.korea to protect itself it can become a greater target that n.korea cannot one day swallow-up. Create a federal government with Japan. Or even join and become a 51st state of USA. After this n.korean thinking will finally change and cooperate with rest of the world. Recent s,korean FTA with EU is positive, and signing more FTA with latin america is also positive, S.korea increasingly becomes more important in global economics, and be out of reach from n.korean Kim regime.

So what the US did was sign a deal with NK that had it join the NPT and freeze its program for nearly a decade, while refusing to implement the US part of the deal. Now US says it won't even talk about that, until NK falls for the trick ONE MORE TIME?



I have suggested who and when multiple times already. Work it out yourself.


Talk about "wicked and totally out of the league" LOL

He might not be Canadian, he might not have a Korean wife but he is white.



You see most people understand sanctions destroy a peoples economy, an economic and political siege. A modern day blockade. People understand an economy allows a people to survive and live, and eat. Even a small research on wiki shows their overseas assets are frozen. It's not about me proving sanctions are starving North Koreans because it's understood that it does; not only from common sense but by the general population. Therefore the onus is on you to run around and grab all kinds of information to show that sanctions are not starving and killing North Koreans. Considering that is exactly what a sanction is supposed to achieve good luck. Your devious mind try to put the onus on us, to show rather than your outlandish position.

On a second point aid does not equal sustainable amount of living conditions. It would defeat the purpose of a sanction now wouldnt it. lol this is so ridiculous, you even fly against the face of your own western governments and intellectuals who acknowledge sanctions simply kill civilians.

You and Captain Corea are some of the most thick skinned white guys we have ever seen with some serious ugly views. The thing is you just happen to be less insistent than the 40+ year old super hero.

LOL.....USA USA USA our saviour of the world !!!

You posted an article about current President Lee agreeing with US diplomats. Not sure what that had to do with anything.

You mention Syngman Rhee being brought in by the US. Yet, the man was still elected President of South Korea.

Exactly how the US sabotaged the reunification of the Korean Peninsula still remains a mystery. If you're not up to the task maybe someone else is.

For the record I am a German born Canadian. Caucasian. No wife.



You want me to prove a negative? Total logic fail. If it is so understood that these sanctions are killing North Koreans (which they aren't) it should be so easy to find an NGO or humanitarian organization that says so. Look up sanctions against Iraq. Plenty of information available about the devestation they caused. Why nothing on North Korea? Because maybe it is the government's fault? They are bordering an economic superpower but can't feed their own people?

Look at the famine in the 1990's that occured immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union. North Korea has not been food self sufficient since the cold war. Wonder why?



http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/200...elf-sufficient/



http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea...003053315F.HTML

I love how casually you talk about provoking... when it's actual people who are dying.

The US has been one of the biggest aid donors to the DPRK over the decades and also donated $$ to the 1994 agreement. If they didn't want it to happen, why give nay money at all?