Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - South Korea Gave North Korea US$3.5 Billion

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

South Korea Gave North Korea US$3.5 Billion
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

matthewwoodford

Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Location: Location, location, location.

Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 5:55 am Post subject:

ulsanchris wrote:

IF you keep throwing money at those commie b*st*rds you will eventually buy them off. Once they start liking the money and things they can't enjoy in a communist country they will begin to bow down to the capitalist alter.

Yeehaw

That's the plan isn't it? Sunshine policy. Except, as someone already said, you can replace 'those commie bastards' with Kim Jong Il (that monstrous pig).

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 6:26 am Post subject:

Quote:

Colonialist? Actually you'll find that Rhodesia unilaterally declared independence from Britain. Yes, didn't want to be a colony.

I'm a little vague on this, but wasn't there an apartheid policy in place at the time Rhodesia declared independence? And wasn't the desire to maintain that system largely the reason for independence?

rapier

Joined: 16 Feb 2003

Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 8:11 pm Post subject:

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

Quote:

Colonialist? Actually you'll find that Rhodesia unilaterally declared independence from Britain. Yes, didn't want to be a colony.

Aren't you thinking of South Africa? There was no apartheid in Rhodesia. My earliest memories are of growing up at school with black kids as well as white. In fact there were more blacks fighting in the Rhodesian security forces than whites.
we got our independence bacause some eejit at a desk in london has no idea how to run a country in the middle of Africa thousands of miles away. That unilateral declaration, the second in history behind America's, irritated London so much that they embarked on a campaign to discredit and embargo our country..even sending warplanes against us. They stirred it even further by getting the other western countries to help slander and wreck the country before handing it over to the child-killing terrorists you see in power today.
Our economy and rugby team was just getting too strong and competitive you see. Much better to ruin it and then send in your multinational companies to exploit the new poverty.

Black African nationalism was spurred by Russians, Chinese and Cubans etc who sent in shiploads of weapons. And backed politically by Britain and other powers (thanks guys Wink

). They were salivating at carving up the place and trying to buy future influence with the new, easier to manipulate black governments.

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:21 am Post subject:

soviet_man wrote:

I have no sympathy for the white settlers (and that's what they are) and their pathetic nationalistic and colonialist contexts. The whole concept of private property in Zimbabwe has been a failure and has created far more poverty that it has solved.

So you have no sympathy for a group of people who built one of the wealthiest countries in the history of Africa which before the show was nothing more than a baron wasteland on which barely a million nomads almost devoid of the necessary skills to sustain their families roamed around aimlessly? I don't think you have thought this through. This former train wreck was the bread basket of Southern Africa before Mugabe and his terrorists showed up and put their grubby hands on the levers of power.

Quote:

If Mugabe can be critisized for anything - it's that he didn't go even further with the land reforms. The liquidation and collectivization of private assets, assists a broader level of society (not just the tiny, white, ruling class community) to reclaim land that has never belonged to them.

This is reminiscent of the thread about North Korea in which you ignored all the evidence I presented and made some outrageous claims which led the masses to believe that I had handed you your ass on plate. And again right here you are spewing forth nonsense for some reason I am unable to fathom. Mugabe's thugs have nothing in common with the nomads who were wondering around with their goats barely able to provide for their families before the whites came along and created a wealthy country out of nothing. Mugabe and his henchmen have stolen land from people who were providing jobs for and feeding black Africans on a scale his gang can never hope to match. His criminal land grabs have turned Zimbabwe into a train wreck on par with the disasters in other parts of Africa. It's a rags to riches story with an additional chapter in which the gang get in a time machine and start all over again.

Quote:

The Zimbabwe government is not constitutionally compelled to recognise private property.

And the sum of your argument is a euphemism for "Mugabe and his lackeys are not constitutionally compelled to feed their countrymen."

soviet_man

Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Location: Seoul

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:23 am Post subject:

Quote:

What crimes exactly? You have to remember that when Europeans arrived, the 2 main tribes were warring and massacring eachother wholesale. Europeans brought peace and order.

"...It may be recalled that between 1890 and 1920, British settlers, who constituted less than 2% of the population, assisted by the British Expeditionary Force, seized at gunpoint more than 75% of the best arable land, while more than 98% of the population were forcibly confined to less than 24% of the land, which was also located in the most marginal and least productive ecological regions of the country..."

SOURCE:
www.lalkar.org

Quote:

Would you advocate white Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Americans remove themselves from those countries and "give back" the ground they walk on to the red Indians etc?

I oppose all forms of private property irrespective of who claims to "own" it. That includes all property claimed by BOTH indigenous and non-indigenous.

Quote:

How about Giving England back to the Celts of long ago based on DNA profiling?

What I'm advocating is full state ownership of all assets. Not specific racial-group ownership of individual items.

Quote:

the majority want Mugabe out. Tsvangirai has a large support, but he cannot make headway because Mugabe has so successfully intimidated and brutalised any dissent with his army and police (the only people to get paid). We're talking of the typical rigged/sham elections: beating and intimidation of people of different ethnicity; enforced destruction of homes and property belong to the poor or those who disagree.

I am sceptical about the existence of popular opposition to Mugabe. Even if I supported a multi-party political system (and I don't) I would still retain a positive assessment of Mugabe's politics and his role in smashing British colonialism in Zimbabwe.

Quote:

So, where are you from, soviet man? Once again..

Currently Seoul, formerly Vladivostok

Quote:

Mugabe's thugs have nothing in common with the nomads who were wondering around with their goats barely able to provide for their families before the whites came along and created a wealthy country out of nothing.

If you ask a black Zimbabwian whether they (would) enjoy working for a white employer, I think this point would be dismissed.

Quote:

I don't see that Anglo-Europeans had any entitlement to colonialize Zimbabwe in the first place. I think their subsequent role has been characterized by disruption and exploitation.

ulsanchris

Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Location: take a wild guess

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:59 am Post subject:

I think soviet_man is just trying to yank your guys' chain. No one could possibly believe half the stuff he says.

rapier

Joined: 16 Feb 2003

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 6:57 am Post subject:

[quote="soviet_man"]

Quote:

less than 24% of the land, which was also located in the most marginal and least productive ecological regions of the country..."

The point is that whites knew how to utilise land to feed the entire country and have enough for export. The 'indigenous" used land on a temporary rotational basis- exhausting one area within a couple of years before moving to the next, and so on. A subsistence level that produced nothing.
i have seen black farmers who recently acquired land in the 90's. Despite being funded through agricultural college and granted fertile land among traditionally white areas, their new donated tractors etc were broken and rusted quickly. resorting to ox plow, they then ploughed downslope, after removing all trees for firewood..and so on. Even with productive land, they still lacked the ability to make the most of it in the modern era. Its a shame.

Quote:

I oppose all forms of private property irrespective of who claims to "own" it. That includes all property claimed by BOTH indigenous and non-indigenous.

can I have your car this weekend then?- it belongs to everyone, after all.
Look..like it or not, humans are motivated by personal gain and advancement. we're competitive. You can harness this to advance a country forward as a whole. Of course there are some at the top of the pyramid. But there is also a trickle down effect of creating wealth for all.

Quote:

What I'm advocating is full state ownership of all assets. Not specific racial-group ownership of individual items.

But you've already advocated that blacks own everything and whites are stripped because of their ancestral heritage.
As it is, Mugabe has stolen everything for himself anyway- one of the richest dictators around, with foreign property and bank accounts etc.
The west tried to introduce Africa to its own principles via colonialism. It has failed because they withdrew before due time, before the indigenous were ready to assume the reins. Now you're trying to introduce your own, equally foreign ideas to them.
Africa must just be left to find its own equilibrium. That is happening, although it will take massive suffering and ecological disaster before it is achieved. And it will simply be a return to the stone age.

Quote:

I would still retain a positive assessment of Mugabe's politics and his role in smashing British colonialism in Zimbabwe.

Actually, it was Ian Smith who smashed British colonialism in Zimbabwe.
Mugabe, with the help of the rest of the world apparently, smashed civilisation.

Quote:

Currently Seoul, formerly Vladivostok

So you have benefitted from former soviet imperialism. When will you finally retreat from all that stolen land in Chechnya?

Quote:

If you ask a black Zimbabwian whether they (would) enjoy working for a white employer, I think this point would be dismissed.

I think you'd be very surprised. White employers were known as reliable: they not only paid their employees but sponsored them through college/training etc..firm but fair. Whites relied on a skilled workforce. All blacks I ever met were clamouring to work for whites- for fair treatment and their own advancement. No black wants to work for another black- they treat their own worse than anybody else.
Talking of apartheid- you do know that more blacks owned their own cars under that system, than there were cars in the whole of the soviet union at that time?

Quote:

I don't see that Anglo-Europeans had any entitlement to colonialize Zimbabwe in the first place.

That was a different era..people thought differently, the whole world thought differently. Colonialism was an effort by Britain to share civilisation with the world. Bring it out of the dark ages. British colonialism in africa was characterised by the effort to advance, educate, and bring on indigenous people to self government ultimately. It was christian-motivated. People were genuinely religious then.. the idea was to empower others and bring peace and order.

Quote:

I think their subsequent role has been characterized by disruption and exploitation.

Tell that to the many whites who have provided so much for the indigenous people. My own uncle had a farm employing hundreds..he operated a free surgery every monday morning..he built a school for his workers children..and so on... Why do you think the blacks thrived and their numbers mushroomed with white rule? Colonialism in Africa was different to other continents. It is because we helped the indigenous that we found ourselves a tiny minority a hundred years later. In America and so on, they simply eliminated the native populations wholesale.

soviet_man

Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Location: Seoul

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:38 am Post subject:

Quote:

The 'indigenous" used land on a temporary rotational basis- exhausting one area within a couple of years before moving to the next, and so on. A subsistence level that produced nothing.

Given your background I can understand *why* you are defending this, I just don't agree with the ultimate conclusion that white colonialism was good. It wasn't.

Quote:

can I have your car this weekend then?- it belongs to everyone, after all.

Essentially, all private automobiles are a ruling class fetish.

But if I actually owned any private property (I don't) I would have no objection to letting anyone else use it.

Quote:

Look..like it or not, humans are motivated by personal gain and advancement.

The upper class are perhaps motivated by personal gain. But the other 80% of the world (5 billion people) live in poverty with little to no opportunity for personal gain.

Quote:

As it is, Mugabe has stolen everything for himself anyway- one of the richest dictators around, with foreign property and bank accounts etc.

Hearsay.

Quote:

Mugabe, with the help of the rest of the world apparently, smashed civilisation.

Irrespectively - Mugabe remains preferable to both:
(a) the former political regime that he replaced.
(b) the current alternative political leadership.

Quote:

So you have benefitted from former soviet imperialism. When will you finally retreat from all that stolen land in Chechnya?

Chechnya is Russian territory. The alternative to Russian rule would be armed militias and effectively handing control to para-terrorist groups.

Quote:

White employers were known as reliable: they not only paid their employees but sponsored them through college/training etc..firm but fair. Whites relied on a skilled workforce. All blacks I ever met were clamouring to work for whites- for fair treatment and their own advancement.

I think that's a stretch. Would you see a white man plowing a field? Working in a manual labor job? Being a servant? Shining shoes? The concept of white employers using black workers to perform underpaid positions and then saying it is not exploitative is hard to accept.

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:20 am Post subject:

soviet_man wrote:

But if I actually owned any private property (I don't) I would have no objection to letting anyone else use it.

I smell bs.

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:27 am Post subject:

Gwangjuboy wrote:

soviet_man wrote:

But if I actually owned any private property (I don't) I would have no objection to letting anyone else use it.

I smell bs.

Well, then, who owns YOU SovietMan? The state? Che? Um, I think you need to rethink your concept of property.

Your most important possessions, that is, your most important property is your physical/intellectual/emotional productive proclivities. What you are missing is that when people are nationalized they become slaves. Not in an abstract Marxist Labour Theory of Value slave, but a real slave.

Anyhow, are you naked in a free PC Bang? What is on your wrist? How about your wallet. Hey, while we are at it, if the 'people' own all your stuff can I have your money... I promise to share!

rapier

Joined: 16 Feb 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:19 am Post subject:

[quote="soviet_man"]

Quote:

I just don't agree with the ultimate conclusion that white colonialism was good. It wasn't.

Who told you that? i'll agree that some aspects of colonialism were bad: sure...but the reason it has become a pet -hate topic of the late 20th century is because of a certain agenda propogated by the mass media, to which you are a victim.

Quote:

The upper class are perhaps motivated by personal gain. But the other 80% of the world (5 billion people) live in poverty with little to no opportunity for personal gain.

Actually i would say the opposite: the poor are far more motivated by personal gain than the rich. They are desperate to improve their situation. All living things are engaged in a struggle for life: to increase their influence and territory, and spread their genes widely.

Quote:

As it is, Mugabe has stolen everything for himself anyway- one of the richest dictators around, with foreign property and bank accounts etc.

Hearsay.

This month Mugabe's wife is completing a monstrous mansion, her third, in Harare, and other regime fat cats are spending lavishly on land and houses. Much of Mugabe's own wealth is stashed in the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Man. He also owns large properties in Britain.

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgnews/Features/opeds/053005_rotberg.htm

Quote:

Chechnya is Russian territory. The alternative to Russian rule would be armed militias and effectively handing control to para-terrorist groups.

Hahaha..Don't you mean freedom fighters striving for equal rights and recognition in their own land, trying to throw off the soviet imperialist occupation? I think its time you went back to moscow, and gave back what you stole.

Quote:

Would you see a white man plowing a field? Working in a manual labor job? Being a servant? Shining shoes? The concept of white employers using black workers to perform underpaid positions and then saying it is not exploitative is hard to accept.

I think you're dwelling in some dickensian fantasy world..the type I have come across time and again from armchair theorists who have never been to Africa. From the mouths of babes..
"Servant"?? If you're talking of the gardener we used to employ for example, we provided him with a house and running water where he lived with his 3 wives and 7 children. We put some of his kids through elementary school. I myself played with his children as a boy. He was an excellent gardener..and of course he was free to leave anytime he wanted as he was a paid employee. He never did, because we paid him reliably and well. Unfortunately, he was ultimately killed by terrorists in 1979..I don't think Mugabe's been looking after his wives and kids too well since then.

Lets just see the latest news from Zimbabwe:

Children Die Beneath Mugabe's Bulldozer (Telegraph, UK, 23/06/2005)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1429412/posts

chotaerang

Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Location: In the gym

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 6:16 pm Post subject:

rapier wrote:

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

Quote:

Colonialist? Actually you'll find that Rhodesia unilaterally declared independence from Britain. Yes, didn't want to be a colony.

Aren't you thinking of South Africa? There was no apartheid in Rhodesia. My earliest memories are of growing up at school with black kids as well as white.

And did the parents of those black kids enjoy the same rights, say to vote, that yours did?

rapier

Joined: 16 Feb 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:11 pm Post subject:

chotaerang wrote:

And did the parents of those black kids enjoy the same rights, say to vote, that yours did?

Do your 5 year old students run your school? What are they responsible for..making the syllabus, or driving the minivan?

soviet_man

Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Location: Seoul

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:37 am Post subject:

Quote:

Well, then, who owns YOU SovietMan? The state? Che? Um, I think you need to rethink your concept of property.

As far as property goes - in the DPRK for instance, the state provides approved clothing, approved shelter, approved haircuts and many other items that people require to live. The need for accumulation of individual property thus ceases to exist.

Quote:

Anyhow, are you naked in a free PC Bang? What is on your wrist? How about your wallet. Hey, while we are at it, if the 'people' own all your stuff can I have your money... I promise to share!

I reject the concept of private property. Apart from a few essential clothes, I have zero material possessions.

Quote:

Again, hearsay. "The Toronto Star" is itself a ruling class tool.

Quote:

In terms of territorial disputes, I support the side that will advance the cause of socialism being established. An independent Chechnya will have a lesser chance of implementing socialist policies, than if the territory remained within the federation.

Quote:

"Servant"?? If you're talking of the gardener we used to employ for example, we provided him with a house and running water where he lived with his 3 wives and 7 children. We put some of his kids through elementary school. I myself played with his children as a boy. He was an excellent gardener..and of course he was free to leave anytime he wanted as he was a paid employee.

Again, anyone who can afford to hire servants is ruling class. It is in your interest to use such arguments to defend such actions. But that doesn't make it right.

rapier

Joined: 16 Feb 2003

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:24 am Post subject:

Soviet man you're quite the troll now aren't you, hahaha Had me going for a while tho. I didn't realise Gord had a sock, either.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe