Reports of Desperate N.Koreans resorting to Canabalism...
 

...and yet they can support over a million man standing army, tens of thousands of artillery pieces pointed at the South (with millions of shells) and a nuclear weapons program.

Does anyone else get the feeling that the "Dear Leader" really doesn't give a shit about the people?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link

Famine-struck N Koreans 'eating children'
By Mark Nicol
(Filed: 08/06/2003)


Cannibalism is increasing in North Korea following another poor harvest and a big cut in international food aid, according to refugees who have fled the stricken country.

Aid agencies are alarmed by refugees' reports that children have been killed and corpses cut up by people desperate for food. Requests by the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) to be allowed access to "farmers' markets", where human meat is said to be traded, have been turned down by Pyongyang, citing "security reasons".

Anyone caught selling human meat faces execution, but in a report compiled by the North Korean Refugees Assistance Fund (NKRAF), one refugee said: "Pieces of 'special' meat are displayed on straw mats for sale. People know where they came from, but they don't talk about it."

The NKRAF, an aid body set up in China five years ago which helps to smuggle food and medicines into parts of North Korea off-limits to WFP officials, interviewed 200 refugees for the report.

"If a funeral takes place during the day and the burial is performed that evening, the grave may be dug open and the body stolen before morning," said one refugee.

Another witness, named only as Lee, 54, said he feared that his missing grandsons, aged eight and 11, had been killed for food. As he searched widely for them, they boys' friends said they had vanished near a market.

Mr Lee said police who raided a nearby restaurant found body parts. The business's owners were shot.

Gerald Bourke, the WFP's representative in Beijing, said it was difficult for his organisation to substantiate the reports of cannibalism as they were unable to get to the markets. "As in any desperately poor country, it is something we might stumble on," he said. "It's not just a problem for us, but also our donors." Because of the food shortages, many people were having to survive on nine ounces of rations a day - less than half the recommended minimum daily intake.

North Korea's ability to feed itself has been hit by floods, deforestation and lack of farm fertilisers and equipment.

The WFP says Japan provided 500,000 tons of food aid in 2001, making it the biggest donor, but sent nothing last year. Food aid from America has been cut from 340,000 tons in 2001 to 40,000 tons so far this year. Washington has pledged to send a further 60,000 tons if Pyongyang lifts restrictions on the operations of agencies such as the WFP.

that's sad indeed.

this is what pisses me off, they're spending a shitload of money on their military (when a time when they're not in grave danger. let's get this straight, s.korea is NOT going to take a "pre-emptive" striek on n.korea) when their people are starving.

this is what you get for having a lunatic running the country.

And why aren't we in there right now, today, helping those starving fucking people out? We should storm the hell in there, depose Kim Jong Il, and share our endless god damn bounty with them. They're eating fucking children and we're obese fucking fatasses. What the hell else does Bush need? The man has nukes. His people are in Hell. Why aren't we there. Why? WHY?!

People might later denounce Mr. Bush because he can find no tangible evidence of cannabalism. And if he does, the media will insist it was planted to support the CIA's claim that it existed, and we really invaded North Korea to further American imperialism and provide more workers for the Hyundai plants in the south so that Americans could buy cheaper cars.

geep. I mean this in the most respectful way possible.
Shut up. It's not funny. It's not appropriate to use this to fuel the flame war. Get with the program. Think about the people, not this petty shit.

Kadath, geep is right. Regardless of what Bush does, he will be blasted up and down in the media simply because there is an upcoming election. If he goes into North Korea, he's a warmonger that loves to push people around. If he doesn't, he's an insensitive cowboy that is standing by while hundreds of thousands (media-exagerration, per museum looting instance) of helpless people starve to death.

Why is the UN not rescuing these starving people? It is more their responsibility than it is ours. If you want us to do everything that the UN should be (they are obviously incapable of enforcing their own rules), then the UN should just be dissolved.

This is not purely a humanitarian situation, so any act by the US government in that sense would most likely be viewed as hostile. Let the UN handle this, or a more competant humanitarian organization.

seretogis, take my previous post, remove geep's name, insert your own. This is not fucking about Bush, I don't give a fuck what people say about him, what motives they ascribe to him, this one fucking time. People are kidnapping, killing, and eating children, for God's sake. Robbing graves for food.
And you can't have it both fucking ways. Now we're out of the UN. Bush wants to do things his way and not wait for the UN, welcome to the first time that decision comes home to roost. If Bush cared one fucking iota about anything but his reelection chances, he would be at least SAYING SOMETHING about this.

You asked why we are not in there, and we aren't because of politics. It isn't, politically, a good idea to rush in and interfere while we are in the middle of talking them out of developing/using nukes.

Why does everything need to be predicated by an "invasion"? Surely the world's "greatest military" and "richest nation" can airlift food over the region?

I can understand how it wouldn't be politically expedient to invade a country, but the world opinion would certainly not condemn us if we demonstrated our motives were purely humanitarian by our actions.

if the war in iraq was ever about "helping the people of iraq", the people of n.k. need us 10x.

Sanctions don't work. All they do is hurt the poor people. One day we will learn.

As cold has it sounds, why is it our responsibilty to do anything??? American's can't feed themselves shouldn't we aim to feed them first???

Also anyone remember Somalia? We went into a fucked up country that was suffering from a horrible famine and what happened? We pissed of Terrorists and lost America lives to a problem that still hasn't been solved today.

Somalis are a problem today?

Yeah, we're not the most obese nation on Earth. The only conceivable reason we couldn't feed ourselves would be that our corpulent limbs couldn't bend enough to cram more food into our collective gaping maw. It's our responsibility to do something because we are in a position to ease the suffering of our fellow man. Nine ounces of food a day? That's half a Hungry Man frozen dinner.

But it's O.K. for you to have it both ways? You condemn your country when it does something and condemn it when it does nothing. Is this New World Order speak? I agree something should be done. Maybe the responsibilty to do that belongs to the North Korean government. I'm sure that the money and resources spent on nuclear research could buy an awful lot of food. Kim Jong Il doesn't look like he's starving. I do agree with you on one thing... it's not funny.

It's too bad North Korea isn't 'swimming on a sea of oil', then maybe the Bush Administration would do something about it...

He is simply implying that the reasons for our country "doing something" in Iraq are all wrong and illegitimate (so far). In recent times the Iraqi people were (and are and will be) suffering due to American sanctions and American bombings.

So, I suppose we went to Iraq instead of NK due to "humanitarian" reasons to save the Iraqi people from ourselves.

Another reason was the imminent "threat". Nukes. Chemicals. So far these have been proved wrong by the quickness of the slaughter of the country and it's culture and the failure of the "weapons inspections."

Another reason was Iraq's danger to its neighbors. Right. Bullocks.

Yet the blokes in NK have forever been a threat to SK and Japan. NK has nukes. What in the bloody hell are the white house wankers doing anyway? Is the American cowboy afraid of an equal matching Korean army? Yes, and, well, there is no petrol there.

I guess all the oil in North Korea ran out in the 50's after 30,000+ american soldiers died there.

Uhhh.... Okay. I'm not even going to try to figure out what you're implying. *shrug*

Because if we were to do something like that by tomorrow morning Bush would be cursed from A to Z for the entire action - The liberals would be demanding to see half-eaten remains and want a list of the entrees. We would have done it because we acted on poor intelligence and only did it because we wanted their rice paddies. Perhaps we should take this to the UN and have them set up a committee to appoint an investigating team to go to N Korea and attempt to find out if this is really going on or is simply a figment of someone's imagination. France and Germany could filibuster the UN and threaten to use their veto unless they are guaranteed that nothing less than 50% of any foodstuffs purchased should be divided between their nations and that N Korea must first pay any outstanding debts before we can give them any further consideration. Does this sound familiar? There would be half the fuckin' Democrats in Washington screaming for a special investigation to see if Halliburton was involved while the other half screamed there is no N Korea! It is just a figment of the Republican parties imagination.

None of this stopped us from going into Iraq.... Having second thoughts, Liquor Dealer?

Couldn't be bothered to read beyond my first post, hey?

I read every pious one of them. What I said was that some of you seem to be suggesting we go into N Korea and appoint ourselves to clean up their mess - This doesn't seem to be a setup for the same liberal crap to you?

Yeah, I'll take "pious" as a label. Better than "two-faced," "hypocritical" or "heartless."
I'm wish to clarify. I don't want to take over NK. I want to feed the people. I don't think the "same liberal crap" would apply, as what do we have to gain in NK? But I've been over this before. So over this.

Lets see..N Korea's world policy seems to be "Let us develop Nukes so we can sell them to rouge nations and spend the money on wepons production and the military, AND anything you do to try and stop us will be considered an act of war and force us to destroy the major cities of S Korea"

Yeah I'm willing to help them get to hell on the express train

Gentlemen?

If the conversation is getting too intense, please step back.

Please?

Hey, Lebell, is that gun by any chance a Colt Peacemaker? :)

I'd have to look it up.

If you notice, there's a theme there :)

(Wire Paladin, San Francisco)

edited to add:


Well, waddaya know, that's exactly what it is :D

Have gun, will travel.

I think the issue with asking why we're not in there comes in the hypocrisy of criticizing the US government for acting without the UN on one thing and then saying it should act without the UN for another.

And, by the way, we're not out of the UN.

Politically, yes, no matter what the administration does they will be criticized - you're providing an example for that right now. You can't get angry over something and say they should do the opposite, and then get angry when they do just that. So you say it wasn't the fact we went at it without the UN with Iraq that made you mad, but the reasons we did it? That's fine, then DON'T SAY THAT YOU'RE MAD THAT WE WENT AT IT WITHOUT THE UN. Otherwise, it just makes you look like a hypocrite.

Either way, the reason we're not in there right now has nothing to do with upcoming elections or not wanting to go against the UN or anything like that. There is a fundamental difference between Iraq and North Korea here - intelligence showed Iraq as having weapons of mass destruction of the chemical and biological nature, and that they may have looked into nuclear weapons. However, they had no weapons of a long enough range to do much damage - but did have weapons of a longer range than they should have. So, the situation wasn't as sticky, and was a matter of stopping things before they got worse.

North Korea is entirely different.

North Korea HAS 10 nuclear warheads, and 2 nuclear devices capable of being carried by a transport vehicle. They have missiles capable of hitting the US - WITH nuclear warheads.

These are not idle threats being made that they can attack the US. And they don't care that we can match whatever they'd do tenfold. If they can destroy Los Angeles for example, they would be perfectly accepting of the fact we'd destroy all of North Korea. Not that they wouldn't fight, just that they're not afraid of it.

So, it's not about upcoming elections, or the UN, or not caring about humanitarian needs. It's a matter of the lesser of two evils. We can work slowly at this - think Cold War II slowly - or we can have them fire nukes and other missiles at us, as well as possibly S Korea, Japan, and other countries on their bad side. Personally, living in Chicago, where they have missiles that can reach, I'd rather not wake up one day to hear antiquated cold war-era raid sirens.

Any way you look at it, Bush seems to have screwed up. North Korea certainly presents a much clearer threat than Iraq did-does ANYONE disagree with that?

No one but Bush can truly know his motives, but I certainly do want to know why he thought Iraq was more important to take out 'now' than North Korea is.

P.S. The talk about Syria and Iran, ridiculous IMO

N Korea apparently has some form of nuclear weapon. What form, to the best of my knowledge is unknown. Has the weapon been completed and does it work? I don't think anyone knows. Do they have a delivery system that is capable of delivering such a weapon? They have very limited ability in this area - they possess missiles. They have limited range and a guidance system on a par with the catapult or a mortar - they have to basically aim it with direction, elevation, and a guess at its range. Are they really a threat? Sure they're a threat. They are a threat to those they can reach out and touch. S Korea, Japan, China, perhaps Russia, and perhaps Alaska. In all reality, does this make them a more serious threat than was Iraq? Only if they export their technology to someone else. Iraq was considered a more ominous threat because of their willingness to deal with other terrorist states and to deal out right with terrorists and their organizations. Should we go deal with N Korea? It is a terrible situation when a government chooses to sacrifice its own people to attain its political or economic aims. But! do those of you who are indicating that we, the US, on our own, with no support from international organization, with no authorization, just go into Korea and physically overthrow their government? Cause a regime change? Does this sound familiar?

*standing beside Lebell*... let's take a deep breath everyone and try to stay focused on the original thread?

I guess what I was trying to say is we've been in Korea before with very devastating results. It wasn't about oil either. The current DMZ that divides the Koreas was a negotiated truce. When the United Nations, led by the United States, entered the war they pushed the North Koreans to positions north of Pyonyang. When it seemed North Korea would be defeated, China entered the war and nearly pushed the United Nations forces off the Korean penisula. After a risky sea landing at Inchon, The United Nations forces battled back to approximately the current DMZ. There a truce was finally reached, and over the course of the last 50 years the truce has held. The United States lost over 30,000 troops in the fighting. The estimates of the Chinese losses are over 1,000,000. The war is not "officially" over.

These facts need to be considered when advocating our military returns to Korea. Maybe we need to "finish" the job. Maybe we should wait. It's a shame that international politics should get in the way of helping people who desperately need help. But in the long run these situations demand courage from the people involved. Saber rattling is not courage. A terrible wrong is being done to the people of North Korea. All efforts should be made to right the wrong. Blame for it can be assesed later. If people are truly starving and dying, it seems to me we should be able to give them something more substantial ther our own silly opinions.

Why aren't we there?

<a href="http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/ea/easec/gilmannk.htm">From the US State Department:</a>
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/405150.stm">From BBC</a>
and
So their little missile can hit China, Japan, India, South Korea, and Russia. A payload capacity of several hundred kilograms is enough to carry a nuclear weapon with a yield in the hundred-kiloton range. It may not be much compared to the US arsenal, but a weapon with a yield of only 12-18 kilotons flattened Hiroshima.

CNN:
We do not have a reliable missile defense system in place; the successful results from our tests were achieved with advance knowledge of launch times and no decoy payloads. A retaliatory missile launch in response to an invasoin of North Korea could reult in the near-complete destruction of Sattle, Honolulu, Portland, Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, and any other major city on the US West coast, along with much of Canada.

As for airdropping food, North Korea has shot down troop transports off their coast, 40 miles into international territory, and does not hesitate to fire on planes that fly near their airspace. Any relief effort would be thwarted by hostile fire before cargo planes made it anywhere near land.

For now, it seems that diplomacy is the only viable solution. Let's hope it works.

shouldnt we take out the most dangerous ones first?

remember "imminent threat" ?