North Korea names successor?

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
The world needs another Kim running North Korea like I need a hernia.

link

N Korea 'names Kim's successor'
North Korea's leader Kim Jong-il has designated his youngest son to be the country's next leader, according to reports in South Korean media.


Two newspapers and an opposition lawmaker said South Korea's spy agency had briefed legislators on the move.

North Korean officials were reportedly told to support Kim Jong-un after the North's 25 May nuclear test.

There has been much speculation over who would follow Mr Kim, who is thought to have suffered a stroke last year.

Analysts have said the North's recent military actions, including last week's nuclear test, may have been aimed at helping Mr Kim solidify power so that he could name a successor.

Little known

The reports in the Hankook Ilbo and Dong-a Ilbo newspapers quoted unnamed members of South Korea's parliamentary intelligence committee briefed by the National Intelligence Service, although the spy agency refused to confirm the reports.


The Associated Press news agency reported that opposition legislator Park Jie-won, a member of the parliament's intelligence committee, told local radio he had been briefed by the government on the North's move.

Mr Park said the regime is "pledging allegiance to Kim Jong-un", it reported.

Little is known about Kim Jong-il's youngest son, who is thought to have been born in 1983 or early 1984.

The Dong-a Ilbo added that the North is teaching its people a song lauding Kim Jong-un - who reportedly enjoys skiing and studied English, German and French at a Swiss school.

Nuclear concern

There is no confirmed photograph of him as an adult.

Questions have also been raised over whether his late mother, a Japanese-born professional dancer called Ko Yong-hui, was Kim Jong-il's official wife or mistress.

The youngest Kim has been reported as being the son who most resembles his father.

The BBC's Seoul correspondent, Chris Hogg, says it is not the first time there has been speculation that the youngest son was being groomed to succeed his father.

There were reports he had been named as his successor in January. In April the South Korean news agency, Yonhap, said he had joined the North's powerful National Defence Commission.

Our correspondent notes that in a society that values seniority his youth could be a problem.

Some analysts have urged caution, noting that in the absence of much verifiable information coming out of North Korea, there is a wealth of speculation and rumour.

"We had rumours in September, October that it will be Chang Song-taek, Kim Jong-il's brother-in-law, then briefly there were rumours about his second son, then stories about his third son," Andrei Lankov of the Australian National University in Seoul told our correspondent.

"Every few months we have a new wave of rumours."

Who will eventually rule the nuclear-armed North has been the focus of intense media speculation since leader Mr Kim, 67, reportedly suffered a stroke last August.

The last succession was settled 20 years before the death of the Great Leader Kim Il-sung in 1994, and publicly announced at a party congress in 1980.

The reports of the naming of the next leader come amid growing international concern over the North's nuclear programme and its recent missile tests.

South Korea has deployed a high-speed patrol boat armed with missiles to its disputed western maritime border with the North.

It follows reports that the North has moved a long-range missile to a launch site on the west coast.

Meanwhile, at the end of a two-day summit, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and leaders from the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean) condemned North Korea's recent nuclear test and missile launches.

 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I bet NK wouldn't suck as much if its male leaders didn't continually have girl's names. Must give them a complex.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Great Leader, Dear Leader, what's the next title? I find North Korea sociologically fascinating in this era of homogenized world culture, but at a horrific human cost. If anyone wants a reminder how bad a high concentration of wealth and power is for a society, there's a lesson from North Korea on the subject.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Heh, at this point NK should just declare itself an absolute monarchy and get it over with. Communism? Bah! Fuck the people we are theoretically supposed to help!
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I bet NK wouldn't suck as much if its male leaders didn't continually have girl's names. Must give them a complex.
???

/Taps sarcasm meter
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Heh, at this point NK should just declare itself an absolute monarchy and get it over with. Communism? Bah! Fuck the people we are theoretically supposed to help!

Thing is, to a lesser degree, leaders like Bush, Cheney, DeLay et al do the same thing to the American people, just to a lesser degree.

But ask the slave labor DeLay kept in slavery how they feel about saying he's better than the North Koreans.

(Assuming you are familiar with the story of DeLay on this, taking the money to block any reform - which he did block after the Senate passed it unanimously).
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,633
9,913
136
Originally posted by: Craig234
If anyone wants a reminder how bad a high concentration of wealth and power is for a society, there's a lesson from North Korea on the subject.

That sounds funny coming from an American. Both of our major political parties, of which you're a devotee, have that exact goal of wealth and power concentration under the guise of helping us out. Which is why we rail against you, giving examples of tyranny and communist dictatorships such as North Korea.

As for the NK leader, I hope one day they'll have a guy who values humans.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Imagine the competition in a country where only the Leader can own a tivo and an Ipod.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Craig234
If anyone wants a reminder how bad a high concentration of wealth and power is for a society, there's a lesson from North Korea on the subject.

That sounds funny coming from an American. Both of our major political parties, of which you're a devotee, have that exact goal of wealth and power concentration under the guise of helping us out. Which is why we rail against you, giving examples of tyranny and communist dictatorships such as North Korea.

The progressive Democrats are for a more limited concentration of wealth, far lower than the Republicans or the regimes like North Korea; among the lowest of any major party globally.

But they are for some inequality in wealth,because of the benefits of rewarding and incenting productivity. Excessive power from wealth to corrupt is bad.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,633
9,913
136
Originally posted by: Craig234
The progressive Democrats are for a very limited concentration of wealth, far lower than the Republicans or the regimes like North Korea; among the lowest of any major party globally.

You are discounting taxes. That is both wealth and power and before we dole it out we concentrate it. That is a profound failure in checks and balances.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Craig234
The progressive Democrats are for a very limited concentration of wealth, far lower than the Republicans or the regimes like North Korea; among the lowest of any major party globally.

You are discounting taxes. That is both wealth and power and before we dole it out we concentrate it. That is a profound failure in checks and balances.

Huh? I'm not discounting taxes; we don't have a president who sits on a pile of a trillion dollars in taxs like Scrooge Duck. Taxes are a verb, not a noun, they move money.

What do you mean 'before we dole it out we concentrate it'? Wealth has some level of concentration. Taxes have an effect on that. Republican policies increase the concentration.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I bet NK wouldn't suck as much if its male leaders didn't continually have girl's names. Must give them a complex.
???

/Taps sarcasm meter
Kim You thought Bush sucked, imagine if his name was Susie or if Obama's name was Jasmine. Hell, then we'd have something to really complain about as they took out their life's frustrations on an entire country.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Craig234
If anyone wants a reminder how bad a high concentration of wealth and power is for a society, there's a lesson from North Korea on the subject.

That sounds funny coming from an American. Both of our major political parties, of which you're a devotee, have that exact goal of wealth and power concentration under the guise of helping us out. Which is why we rail against you, giving examples of tyranny and communist dictatorships such as North Korea.

As for the NK leader, I hope one day they'll have a guy who values humans.

Craig doesnt seem to want to make the last leap. He goes on about concentrations of wealth in the private sector and ignores the most obvious, especially in this example, concentrations of wealth and power within govt. KN is a model of what happens when wealth and power is concentrated within govt. He is so ideologically bent he cant bring himself to admit our ever growing size of govt is more likely to hurt our civil liberties and freedom than Bill gates making another 10 billion.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Craig234
If anyone wants a reminder how bad a high concentration of wealth and power is for a society, there's a lesson from North Korea on the subject.

That sounds funny coming from an American. Both of our major political parties, of which you're a devotee, have that exact goal of wealth and power concentration under the guise of helping us out. Which is why we rail against you, giving examples of tyranny and communist dictatorships such as North Korea.

As for the NK leader, I hope one day they'll have a guy who values humans.

Craig doesnt seem to want to make the last leap. He goes on about concentrations of wealth in the private sector and ignores the most obvious, especially in this example, concentrations of wealth and power within govt. KN is a model of what happens when wealth and power is concentrated within govt. He is so ideologically bent he cant bring himself to admit our ever growing size of govt is more likely to hurt our civil liberties and freedom than Bill gates making another 10 billion.

Concentration of wealth is concentration of wealth, whether the wealthy ARE the government or the government serves them.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Well we are getting somewhere here craig. Will you admit that having 3.5 trillion in wealth concentrated in DC is a problem? One that will see our civil liberties eroded over time? I dont think the fact Bush expanded govt at record rates and trampling of our civil rights is a coincidence. Nor will I find it coincidental when Obama does the same.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Well we are getting somewhere here craig. Will you admit that having 3.5 trillion in wealth concentrated in DC is a problem? One that will see our civil liberties eroded over time? I dont think the fact Bush expanded govt at record rates and trampling of our civil rights is a coincidence. Nor will I find it coincidental when Obama does the same.

Would you agree that 10 percent of Americans owning 90 percent of the wealth is a problem?
 

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I bet NK wouldn't suck as much if its male leaders didn't continually have girl's names. Must give them a complex.

Skoorb, I love you man! Everything you say I agree with nearly 100% of the time!
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I bet NK wouldn't suck as much if its male leaders didn't continually have girl's names. Must give them a complex.
A missile complex?

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Genx87
Well we are getting somewhere here craig. Will you admit that having 3.5 trillion in wealth concentrated in DC is a problem? One that will see our civil liberties eroded over time? I dont think the fact Bush expanded govt at record rates and trampling of our civil rights is a coincidence. Nor will I find it coincidental when Obama does the same.

Would you agree that 10 percent of Americans owning 90 percent of the wealth is a problem?

That isnt true but it "could" be a problem if it were. But nowhere near as bad as govt owning that much wealth.

Currently the best most liberal numbers I can come up with shows top 25% own 84% of the wealth. But I have also seen the numbers break down pretty close to the income tax distribution as well.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I bet NK wouldn't suck as much if its male leaders didn't continually have girl's names. Must give them a complex.
???

/Taps sarcasm meter
Kim You thought Bush sucked, imagine if his name was Susie or if Obama's name was Jasmine. Hell, then we'd have something to really complain about as they took out their life's frustrations on an entire country.
???
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,398
8,567
126
Originally posted by: Genx87

Craig doesnt seem to want to make the last leap. He goes on about concentrations of wealth in the private sector and ignores the most obvious, especially in this example, concentrations of wealth and power within govt. KN is a model of what happens when wealth and power is concentrated within govt. He is so ideologically bent he cant bring himself to admit our ever growing size of govt is more likely to hurt our civil liberties and freedom than Bill gates making another 10 billion.

and if there is any lesson to be had from the last century it is that people have more to fear from their own governments than practically anything else.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Well we are getting somewhere here craig. Will you admit that having 3.5 trillion in wealth concentrated in DC is a problem? One that will see our civil liberties eroded over time? I dont think the fact Bush expanded govt at record rates and trampling of our civil rights is a coincidence. Nor will I find it coincidental when Obama does the same.

Having it concentrated by the Government is better than the Private Sector, because at least we all can vote out corrupt/bad government officials.

And Ideally, most of said concentrated wealth would go back to provide services to the people via government programs.

When an anonymous CEO makes an extra $1 Billion, it is not going to go to anything but his personal desires, and there's no way to "vote him out of power" if he is corrupt/sociopathic/etc...
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Originally posted by: Genx87
Well we are getting somewhere here craig. Will you admit that having 3.5 trillion in wealth concentrated in DC is a problem? One that will see our civil liberties eroded over time? I dont think the fact Bush expanded govt at record rates and trampling of our civil rights is a coincidence. Nor will I find it coincidental when Obama does the same.

Having it concentrated by the Government is better than the Private Sector, because at least we all can vote out corrupt/bad government officials.

And Ideally, most of said concentrated wealth would go back to provide services to the people via government programs.

Are you kidding me? Look back through the last century and note when the govt owns most or all of the wealth the lack of democracy in that nation.

When an anonymous CEO makes an extra $1 Billion, it is not going to go to anything but his personal desires, and there's no way to "vote him out of power" if he is corrupt/sociopathic/etc...

His money unless tucked under a matress goes to employ people. And we dont need to vote him out because he lacks any power to trample people's rights and liberties. Stop buying his companies wares if his political views worry you that much.