Iggy: Let North Koreans starve

So, Iggy wants to be Prime Minister?

Sorry, Canada already has an amoral psychopath for a Prime Minister.

Ol' Stevo isn't about to relinquish his job anytime soon or none too easily.

Iggy sure has an "American centric" spin on human rights. Only it appears to me that the US politicos believe in a compassionate philosophy of the faux "this will hurt me more than it will hurt you" mindset - sure Iggy starving people - those of less value - is a great way to get the "upper hand" in geopolitical positioning on the world stage.

This is music to the ears of neocon types - no wonder he feels more comfortable trying desparately in securing their attention and vote. Heard elsewhere, Iggy is influenced by the business liberals in his party but it was suggested he was progressive socially. I think not considering his past pronouncements on torture (and now changed once folks don't find that a great thing to do in their name - no matter what).

Iggy is nothing but a neocon - no wonder their is no light between him and Harper.

In the famous words of Fidel:

"Liberal, Tory. It's the same old story!"

Iggy is an elititist, he knows his place, people what's wrong with you?

Do you not understand that if people earn less than five hundred thousand a year they are not really human?  At least not human the way Iggy and his friends are and since "not really human" it doesn't count, their deaths will reinforce the elite structure of our society and is therefore a good thing.

Seriously, you gotta appreciate Iggy for being  so truthful. 

If you haven't seen the "American Ruling Class" I recommend it.

Edit:  I don 't even know what to say about using food as a weapon, to begin with who starves?  Is it those who are most vulnerable, who have least say in the war?  Yes. 

Thanks Iggy, you have reminded me just how despicable you truly are.

Hasn't Iggy heard?  NK is testing missiles and nukes out the wazoo.  They don't need food aid when they're obviously rollin' in dough.

As the  NK regime seems to be becoming more erratic, I often wonder the best way to engage the NK government. To not engage with them, would seem to inevitably lead to mass starvation.

But they've got lots of money.  Enough money to blow on nukes to detonate just for hoots, and missiles to set off like roman candles on May two-four.  And Kim Jong Il must be feeding The People or they wouldn't call him Dear Leader, now would they?

You are about as bright as Iggy. Because you think North Korea is "rolling in dough" they are?

I presume you are using irony Snert?

I think that things like missiles and nuclear weapons cost a pretty fair amount of money... enough to buy a little rice for The People, at the very least.  

Would you expect countries to send food the the United States, so that the United States could use the money they have to manufacture more weapons? If not, why would we expect them (or us) to send food to NK?

The US has millions of acres of lush and arable farmland from from one coast to the other and in all directions.  Plus there's all that cheap labour in the backyard sending citrus to the US and paid slave wages by trading companies since forever. It would be a really dumb trick for anyone in the US to be hungry - even though before the meltdown there were an estimated 38 million food insecure Americans.

I'll just step out of the way now and let you two go at it.

If North Korea stopped building missles and nuclear weapons, and made no other changes, its people would still be starving.

But the real point is that you are prepared to advocate not sending food aid because of some ignorant common sense notion that pops into your head.

I am pretty sure NK has fairly cheap slave labour, so that is not an issue...

Right. Because the money saved could never be exchanged for food, the way other nations exchange money for food (sometimes called "importing"). I've heard that other countries with limited arable land sometimes do this. Have you heard anything about this??

And even if you were right that the military spending is enough to feed the people- it would still be equally bright and callous as was Iggy's comment.

We know that the military program is the regimes first priority. Feeding the people comes second. [And there is a brutal totalitarion logic to even using the people's starvation: didivde and conquer, turn neighbour on neighbour so their family doesn't starve, etc.]

So if you cut food aid, its very simple: more people starve.

Another simple fact: you are an ass.

Assinine comments don't deserve rplies. Least of all when the subject is people starving.

I'll just note that you ignored my point: starvation and economic collapse in North Korea is so massive that the money saved from scrapping the missle and nuclear weapons programs would only make the people somewhat less starved.

I can't help wondering whether maybe The People still might not prefer to be somewhat less starved.

Also, if I'm an ass, kiss me.

But do they have the equivalent farmland that exists in just Florida, Texas, Idaho, Kansas, California, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, or PEI, Southern Ontario, Canada's vast prairie wheatfields, or BC's lush Okanagan Valley?

We're talking about an Asian country about the size of Mississippi that is about 85% mountainous region and low lying rice fields by the sea vulnerable to inclement weather.

In other words, like Japan.

And the connection of this to you proposing North Korea be cut off from food aid is what now?

Wave a wand and make the missle and nuclear programs go away- which you and Iggy have not mentioned how will happen- and there would indeed be some resorces available that would mean there would be a little less starvation.

Cut North Koreans off from food aid and there will definitely be a lot more starvation.

Guess we know what impoverished Canadians can expect, if Iggy should ever get in.

I think we should not interfere in NKorean affairs. We need food aid in many locales in Canada and also need urgent aid for farmers, as well as increased subsidies to bring us in line with the level that the US and Europe provide.

They have made statements the past few days indicating that they would like to use their limited resources to do missile strikes. I don't believe they will be successful, however it is not our job to dictate how they spend their resources.

No

Maybe it's time to talk about the real issues then.  How exactly is it that NK is in some state of constant starvation, while right across an imaginary border, SK seems to be doing alright?  Did SK get all the arable land, and NK got all the rocks?  Or how is it that NK simply can't make a go of it, no matter how hard they try?

Surely there must be something a little more sustainable than constant food handouts from the west, even as the government finds more and more money for more and more stockpiling, yes?

NK is much more mountainous than the South. And Japan was bombed to smithereens by the US military during WW II and has enjoyed MFN trade status for decades afterward in order to pursuade them from going communist. Japan and S Korea have different geography for the most part.

And you make it sound as if NK has a nuclear arsenal comparable to that of the USA's, a country which has threatened NK with nuclear incinceration several times since the 1950's. Most Koreans simply want reunification and for the Yanks to stop occupying their country militarily. Cold war's over but not in the minds of a handful of maniacs in US shadow gov and Pentagon hawks.

Canadian Stephen Gowans on Undertstanding North Korea

How do you know what most N. Koreans want? They aren't allowed to express themselves. and I refuse to believe that their dictatorship speaks for them - I think a little more highly of the N. Korean people as individuals.

Same way youve formed your opinions about NK  by various information sources. I'm curious as to what youve been reading though.

Democracy protest and subsequent massacre at Kwang ju 1980 They wanted US military to go home

The "real issues"?

Why there is starvation is far from rocket science. Its the product of a kelptocratic and extremely authoritarian 'hyper-Stalinism'. There is absolutely no excuse for starvation in North Korea.

The issue of the thread is whether you do or don't provide food aid, not whether it should be required.

I formed by opinion on the NKorean gov't based on Kim Jong Il.s own statements, actions and reports from human rights groups. I have no opinion really of the NK people, other than sympathy really and an assumption that they don't all agree with their "Dear Leader".

Of course we should. There are now a billion chronically hungry people around the democratic capitalist third world. And capitalist globalization and deregulation isnt working for very many more than that.

But our sometimes competent newz sources said thousands were massacred at Kwang ju in 1980 for having protested against US military occupation. I would have to conclude that many Koreans simply want reunification and sovereignty respected.

I thought that those were South Koreans who were massacred? We are talking about North Korea here.

As Canadian Stephen Gowans said, it wasnt Koreans who bisected Korea into North and South, it was our American friends.

Ah. So the topic is solely "do we or don't we give charity to NK, in perpetuity, so that they can redirect food money to things like nuclear weapons?"

That seems like a bit of an arbitrarily binary choice, don't you think?

C'mon... the interweb has enough bandwidth to also discuss more sustainable, more sensible options than simply underwriting NK's weapons stockpiling program, doesn't it??

There are other issues.

But you essentially said they don't need food aid.

Care to expand on that?

For example, but not exclusively, what are the logical steps between 'food aid underwrites the weapons program'; AND, the logical steps in the alternative 'cut off food aid and ......

Ya only designated third world capitalist hellholes are allowed to obtain nuclear power technology as an alternative to expensive oil imports and economic strangulation by the west with Yanquis leading the charge.

And only Yanqui imperialists should be allowed to occupy Korea and dozens of other countries militarily, and to continue threatening North Korea with nuclear weapons and representing the largest threat to peace and security in the region. That's their right as a vicious empire with Canadian lackeys in Ottawa parroting the USsA's hard line position on Korea. We need some real leaders instead of the usual bought and paid-for stooges like Iggy.

Team America!

It does indeed. What's your suggestion? 

--

"One law for the lion and the ox is oppression" - Blake

It should be obvious.

Send food as long as they need it.

If you want to play politics put the name of the country on the packages saying where they came from and that it is food aid.

Let the people there ask why they have food coming from other places.

there is never an excuse to let a population starve-- but there are a lot of other places that need more food aid as well.

Millions are sacrificed to an invisible hand free market god every year like clockwork since some time before 1847 Ireland. The number of skeletons in capitalism's closet would be truly breathtaking if the numbers were revealed.

 I don't really have a script for that.  Really, I hadn't given it all that much thought.  But I have a hard time believing that the only possible solutions are to either load up ships full of wheat, or not load up ships full of wheat.

added:

That's the question. Do they need it? If I choose to spend all of my money on, say, my gun collection, and I have none left for food, should it be someone else's obligation to feed me, or should I be re-evaluating my priorities? And if you choose to pay for my food, aren't you in effect paying for my guns?

We've seen the results of the empire's vicious trade sanctions on three-quarters of a million Iraqi children. All of that baloney just to get to one man, Saddam. Trade has been used as a weapon throughout the cold war. When will it stop?

What would the Crazy Georges or Bubba, leaders of the  most oil-dependent and most wasteful economy in the world have said, if Canada decided to simply stop shipping oil and natural gas to corporate America? And every country refused to stop buying American IOU's in the form of US Treasury bonds? Would they consider that an act of aggression and begin pointing ICBMs in our direction, too?

Can there ever be a legitimate purpose for nuclear weapons?

Video not working.

Try this

or this [47]

Looks like the really good one from Korean TV has been taken down.

Our stooges in Ottawa and Queen's Parks refuse to say no to the world's number one jailer of its own people, the USsA. Canada aids and abets a country maintaining somewhere between 700 and 1000 military bases around the world and the only rogue superpower with nukes roaming the seven seas and nuclear weapons installations on non-US soil. I wish our lackeys in perpetual power in Ottawa could someday grow spines, but I'm not hopeful.

I'm assuming they buy that energy from us, yes?

Surely you'd be even more opposed to us giving it to them for free, because they've spent all their money on enriched Uranium?

You've given it enough thought to sneer at one perspective, but not enough to do more than that? I'd suggest giving it a bit of thought, then. Those who actually send the food certainly have given it a lot of thought. The policy is broader than "load up ships full of wheat," though it includes that as one component. (It assumes, for instance, that a starving population is more likely to rally around their leader and less likely to be able to mobilize against him.) The Ignatieff-then policy was sanctions on food, which has the predictable outcome of allowing people to starve in full knowledge of that outcome. The alternatives to food sanctions are many, but they all include short-term food shipments as one component.

--

"One law for the lion and the ox is oppression" - Blake 

Snert-- you are quite right -- the people's republic of korea does not need food aid and could feed its own people.

The thing is the human beings who live within the territory of north korea do need it and the people's republic is not providing it. I don't care about the republic I do about people.

The analogy of someone spending money on guns and not having enough for food is not correct-- more like the parents spending money on guns do you feed their children or let them starve to death. Put that way does it not become much clearer?

The people of a country only have influence on their government they are not the one and the same. The worse their political system the less influence they have-- we should know this here where elections are massively influenced by money such that governments almost get bought-- there, they don't even have elections. So saying let the people starve for the sins of their government doesn't work for me at all-- it makes us as bad as their government.

In Canada we have a system where First Nations people live in third world conditions on reserves because governments federal and provincial are not doing what the need to do. I don't find one government's waste and failure an excuse for the other level of governemnt to not bother either. These points of view can be quite consistant when you start looking at people as people and less as extensions of one government or another.

I am very much interested in the political self-determination of peoples-- but starvation is not a political choice.

And Canada should therefore lead sanctions against the USA, the largest trade recipient of massive amounts of Canadian raw materials and energy for the USA having blocked, delayed, and denied humanitarian aid to countries like North Korea and Cuba in the recent past and illegally so according to the UN. The USA needs to agree to the UN declaration of basic human rights that says all people have a right to food and life in general. No country can impose the terms of democracy on another country while flouting the rules themselves countless times throughout the cold war and continuing to do so ie. our largest trade benefactors who refuse to live within their means and stop menacing other countries with nuclear weapons. 

I was just wondering why the double standards for Israel as opposed to North Korea, on the part of snert.

It's a vicious circle. The way the N Korean government has been managing the economy has run it into the ground. This, combined with adverse climate and little arable land compounded by U.S. and other nations' economic embargoes of N Korea, have all contributed to starvation in that country.

Why do you think Kim Jong Il is testing ballistic missiles and atomic bombs (especially on the 4th of July)? To attract world and especially, American, attention that N Korea is a poor country and its people are starving.

Now, we could adopt the attitude that sanctions ended apartheid in South Africa and thus sanctions will bring down the current form of government in N Korea.

Judging by what is going on in N Korea however, it looks to me like the regime is going to radically change in 10 to 15 years regardless.

If we impose economic sanctions against N Korea, the government will continue to do what it's doing already: Making sure its ruling elite is well fed and looked after while starvation and hardship becomes more widespread among its people.

I am a strong supporter of people having universal rights to access to clean drinking water, nourishment, adequate shelter, clothing, health care, education, human rights and human dignity.

Those of us who have these things in abundance and have the ability to ensure that those less fortunate than ourselves have a corresponding duty to ensure that the less fortunate have access to these basic human necessities.

Fidel, I totally agree with you on this. I recognize the need to be careful about needlessly annoying allies, friends and big nations who can hurt us. We must choose carefully when we do this. The crappy interference in the last US election by Canada was an example of what not to do. We should be using and spending when required our goodwill on things that matter like this. I am tired of the stupid nuisances between Canada and the US and then the comments from the same people saying we cannot oppose them on things that actually matter. It would be more respectable if we took a strong position of leadership on important issues anyway and then this country could actually be one of influence in the world.

Yes, it's definitely clearer. In the example you give, we'd definitely be talking about taking those kids from the parents, if the parents can't smarten up. Yes?

But it's going to look like they're trying to draw world attention to the fact that they're belligerent and a little off-balance. Are you really suggesting that this is an entire nation's crie de coeur??

Wow-- help feeding kids is somehow taking autonomy from the parents. Did you think this one through Snert?

Yeah, call me on interfering but I would step in and provide food for children even if the parents were at fault in blowing their money. I support breakfasts in schools for kids who arrive without eating as well.

I have no idea how you equate this with a removal of the children--

And if you take the analogy back to the national Korea level it is the same-- feeding the children and providing food aid to the nation is a fair comparisson. As would be removing the children and sending in an army to depose the current government (and I have advocated neither). You could not equate providing North Koreans food aid with going in and deposing their government.

I see a huge distinction between providing resources to feed hungry kids and taking the children away from the parents-- why don't you???

In fact failing to help provide resources is more of an interference-- at the national level-- by allowing people to starve unless they get the government we want is comparable to at the family level denying social assistance to parents whose parenting we don't approve of.

The more you look at it Snert, the more consistent my position actually is thanks for helping me consider this.

I can only guess that you're thinking short term and I'm thinking long term.

If a parent consistently refuses (not "is unable to", but refuses) to provide for a child, we take the child away. We don't keep sending that child meals in a box until they're 18.

Sure, we let families live anywhere below poverty line. And then when any of a myriad of troubles begin for the family, the state removes the children and gives money to total strangers for them  to raise foster children. It's kind of like a means test for poverty, and money is produced only after the family proves that they are struggling in poverty and are having difficulties providing food and other basic necessities.

But condemning North Korea is politically motivated absolutely. Michael Ignatieff is towing the old US party line on cold war era politics. In reality, there are dozens of thirdworld capitalist hellholes where the people arent enjoying three, two, or even one square meal a day. And unlike North Korea, billions of people whose basic human rights to food, education, health care and something more than corrugated tin and cardboard over their heads have those rights violated and trampled around the democratic capitalist thirdworld on a daily basis. And yet the leadership abilities of US friendlies ruling those countries is rarely mentioned let alone questioned by vicious toadies to US empire as Michael Ignatieff makes a special effort of doing in front of the press. Iggy's grovelling to our imperial masters in Washington is both repugnant and embarrassing.

Do you really think that applies to NK? Is the real problem just that they "can't find work"? It's not that, y'know, maybe they're blowing their resources on stockpiling nukes or something?

I mean, it's kind of absurd, don't you think, to compare NK to someone who's having troubles but is actually trying?? Do you really believe that NK is trying, as hard as it can, to feed its people? Yes or no?

Youre asking me if a 20-some million people forced to live in an inhospitable northern part of the country have had difficulties importing food after various US-led sanctions have attempted to cripple the economy over the years?

Yes I do believe they are trying. A CitiGroup Financial report to the US government of about two years ago stated that North Korea's economic reforms are about where China was in the 1980s. And monetary reforms in North Korea are about where China was at by the 1990's.

The issue is that the US doesnt want unification of Korea or to have to give up any of its 700 to 1000 military bases and troop occupations around the world. If you can think of the USA as a vicious empire for just a moment, then you have to realize that Asian people have been considered as if barbarians since before WW II. But while the vicious empire was bombing and invading three soviereign countries since 1999, certain Asian and Pacific Rim countries were busy snapping up world resources and becoming the world's engine of growth and largest generator of capital wealth bar none. The Yanks dont want another Asian tiger economy to compete with if a unified Korea was to occur. Throughout imperialist history, the name of the game is to maintain division among barbarians not unite them.

No suggestions then Snert? Or is your proposal to have the CAS go in and take away the majority of the people of North Korea from their parents?

Honestly, I'm trying to get my head around what you're arguing. Do you thing there should be a food embargo? Possibly you do, you've danced up to that line. Or perhaps you are not arguing anything but just playing out a Chris Hitchens pseudo-contrarian act. If you have an actual argument, recommendation, or suggestion on the issue, I'd actually love to hear it. 

Well, a forced regime change certainly sounds like a better long term plan than charity forever, but really, that's not my agenda, and I certainly wouldn't imagine Canada being at the forefront of such a thing. But if it's true that it's the government of NK that's essentially starving the people, wouldn't it make more sense than to keep trying to sneak in food?

Here would be my idea: tell NK no more free food, but we'll be happy to trade with them as we trade with anyone else. Money for food, not bombs. If the real problem is that nobody will trade with them, that should fix it. We might also want to use a bit of diplomatic influence, if we have any, on other nations in the area like China, Vietnam or Laos, who I would assume to have no ideological barriers to trade with a Communist state.

Regarding an embargo, I would assume that would be a coordinated effort to block NK from receiving food. I have no interest in whether other countries wish to send them food; that's their sovereign business. I just don't see any compelling reason why Canada should, without addressing why.

What about Warshington and Crazy Georges I&II and BIll Clinton bombing and invading three countries since 1999 and threatening to bomb Iran? Was murdering a couple of million people through vicious sanctions and aerial bombing merely erratic, or was it the height of insanity? Personally I think it was the work of a handful of megalomaniacal psychopaths to be perfectly honest.

The Yanks have threatened North Korea with nuclear weapons since the 1950's. It's illegal to threaten other countries with military attack let alone attack using nuclear weapons. North Korean leaders believe that if they cave in to nuclear blackmail by the Americanos, then they'll end up like Iraq and Afghanistan and former Yugoslavia. I think it's cosmetic leaders in the USA who are "erratic" and have acted illegally in threatening countries with military attack and invasion since Crazy George I's personal vendetta with Saddam Hussein in 1991 and former CIA pointman in Baghdad. The largest recipient nation of cheap Canadian energy and raw materials exports also happens to be the world's number one exporter of terrorism to the world. The whole world knows now that Uncle Sam's military threats are not idle threats, and North Korea's leaders are doing something very sane and very sensible by arming themselves with nuclear weapons. Uncle Sam has never attacked a sovereign nation possessing nuclear weapons before.

"No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons." - Barack Obama

ignatieff is obviously very out of step with most canadians on this issue. helping innocent people in korea has to come before any political motivations, but obiously he doesnt get that.