North Koreans to Starve to Death

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
If their leader won't give in on WMDs, then let them starve. Why should the world mitigate a tyrant's problem?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food aid to North Korea dries up

More than six million North Koreans will go without emergency food aid until April, says the UN.

The UN World Food Programme (WFP) says it has run out of food and blames the supply shortfall on a funding crisis.

For the next two months food rations will only be given to 100,000 people - mostly child-bearing women and children in hospitals and orphanages.

A quarter of the population who normally receive food aid will have to survive winter without normal rations.

Food shortages have plagued North Korea for at least nine years, after floods, economic mismanagement and the consequences of the break-up of chief donor the USSR combined to precipitate the crisis.
WFP Pyongyang representative Masood Hyder said the agency was scraping the bottom of the barrel.

"If you're going to give, please give early," was Mr Hyder's message to donor countries.

He said the crisis had come at the "wrong time", when harvest stocks were already depleted and recent economic reforms had forced up prices on farmers' markets.

'Solution or problem?'

Mr Hyder blamed the funding shortfall on an unfavourable political context - a reference perhaps to North Korea's nuclear ambitions, says the BBC's Louisa Lim in Beijing - and donor fatigue with a country which has received food aid for nine years.

Mr Hyder said he hoped six-nation talks on the nuclear crisis could change this.

He responded to the charge that assistance from the WFP was contributing to a dependence on aid in North Korea.

"Whenever humanitarian action is protracted these kinds of worries arise: 'Are we the solution or have we become part of the problem?'" he told the BBC World Service's World Today programme.

"I think we've got to be quite robust in confronting these issues - so long as there are people in need ... there is a strong case for the WFP to assist."

'Total cutback'

The WFP representative said the current pattern of stop-go had begun in September 2002.

The worst until now had been an inability to feed half the people on the WFP's books.

"Now we're talking of a total cutback," Mr Hyder said. "It's graver, with deeper consequences."

"Right now we are in the situation where we will be unable to feed all 6.5million, perhaps we will be able to feed just under 100,000 in February and March, but the vast majority we will not be able to help," he said.

Mr Hyder described the consequences as a real increase in suffering and malnourishment.

"People are not really expected to die because of the short-term deprivations," he said. "People in fragile and recovering health... would then again suffer a setback."

Underweight pregnant mothers were more likely to give birth to poorly developed babies, and many elderly people would be unable to buy food at the markets.

Though the US, Russia and other countries had pledged thousands of tonnes of grain and other food, the next shipments of aid will only arrive in North Korea in April.

The WFP says it will face another crisis from June onwards.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Dari
If their leader won't give in on WMDs, then let them starve. Why should the world mitigate a tyrant's problem?
That certainly wasn't our attitude prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, now was it? Not only that, what kind of attitude is that to have? I mean, these are innocent people starving to death meanwhile America can't buy large enough SUVs to wedge our collectively fat-asses into.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Dari
If their leader won't give in on WMDs, then let them starve. Why should the world mitigate a tyrant's problem?
That certainly wasn't our attitude prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, now was it? Not only that, what kind of attitude is that to have? I mean, these are innocent people starving to death meanwhile America can't buy large enough SUVs to wedge our collectively fat-asses into.

Actually it was until the world cried about the general population of iraq suffering because of the sanctions. France pushed for the oil for food program....
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Dari
If their leader won't give in on WMDs, then let them starve. Why should the world mitigate a tyrant's problem?
That certainly wasn't our attitude prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, now was it? Not only that, what kind of attitude is that to have? I mean, these are innocent people starving to death meanwhile America can't buy large enough SUVs to wedge our collectively fat-asses into.

Actually it was until the world cried about the general population of iraq suffering because of the sanctions. France pushed for the oil for food program....

In other words, America doesn't care if you starve to death unless it serves our political and military goals abroad and then we can't possibly care enough? Meaning, we went into Iraq for "humanitarian reasons" when before it was all about the WMDs.
 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,810
487
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Dari
If their leader won't give in on WMDs, then let them starve. Why should the world mitigate a tyrant's problem?
That certainly wasn't our attitude prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, now was it? Not only that, what kind of attitude is that to have? I mean, these are innocent people starving to death meanwhile America can't buy large enough SUVs to wedge our collectively fat-asses into.

Actually it was until the world cried about the general population of iraq suffering because of the sanctions. France pushed for the oil for food program....

In other words, America doesn't care if you starve to death unless it serves our political and military goals abroad and then we can't possibly care enough? Meaning, we went into Iraq for "humanitarian reasons" when before it was all about the WMDs.

If the stupid bastages would find oil maybe we would help em! For now we'll just have to say they are being punished by god for being commies!

/ducks head and runs
;)
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Dari
If their leader won't give in on WMDs, then let them starve. Why should the world mitigate a tyrant's problem?
That certainly wasn't our attitude prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, now was it? Not only that, what kind of attitude is that to have? I mean, these are innocent people starving to death meanwhile America can't buy large enough SUVs to wedge our collectively fat-asses into.

Actually it was until the world cried about the general population of iraq suffering because of the sanctions. France pushed for the oil for food program....

In other words, America doesn't care if you starve to death unless it serves our political and military goals abroad and then we can't possibly care enough? Meaning, we went into Iraq for "humanitarian reasons" when before it was all about the WMDs.

Typical liberal, blame america no matter what.

You are starving them with sanctions...
You are feeding the people but you are buying the oil.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Dari
If their leader won't give in on WMDs, then let them starve. Why should the world mitigate a tyrant's problem?
That certainly wasn't our attitude prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, now was it? Not only that, what kind of attitude is that to have? I mean, these are innocent people starving to death meanwhile America can't buy large enough SUVs to wedge our collectively fat-asses into.

Actually it was until the world cried about the general population of iraq suffering because of the sanctions. France pushed for the oil for food program....

In other words, America doesn't care if you starve to death unless it serves our political and military goals abroad and then we can't possibly care enough? Meaning, we went into Iraq for "humanitarian reasons" when before it was all about the WMDs.

Typical liberal, blame america no matter what.

You are starving them with sanctions...
You are feeding the people but you are buying the oil.

Well what do you want me to say when the U.S. is being inconsistant? Either we care about humanitarian crisis like what's happening in NK, or we don't. From your own words, we were content to let the Iraqis starve under sanctions until the UN stepped in with oil-for-food. Hell, it wasn't even our idea. So, do we care or not? Frankly, it seems like we only care when it's politically expedient to do so. Am I wrong?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Dari
If their leader won't give in on WMDs, then let them starve. Why should the world mitigate a tyrant's problem?
That certainly wasn't our attitude prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, now was it? Not only that, what kind of attitude is that to have? I mean, these are innocent people starving to death meanwhile America can't buy large enough SUVs to wedge our collectively fat-asses into.

Actually it was until the world cried about the general population of iraq suffering because of the sanctions. France pushed for the oil for food program....

In other words, America doesn't care if you starve to death unless it serves our political and military goals abroad and then we can't possibly care enough? Meaning, we went into Iraq for "humanitarian reasons" when before it was all about the WMDs.

Typical liberal, blame america no matter what.

You are starving them with sanctions...
You are feeding the people but you are buying the oil.

Well what do you want me to say when the U.S. is being inconsistant? Either we care about humanitarian crisis like what's happening in NK, or we don't. From your own words, we were content to let the Iraqis starve under sanctions until the UN stepped in with oil-for-food. Hell, it wasn't even our idea. So, do we care or not? Frankly, it seems like we only care when it's politically expedient to do so. Am I wrong?

The US is not being inconsistent. That was my opinion, not that of Powell or Bush. In fact, the latter two echoed Reagan when they supported the extension of aid to North Korea.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Dari
If their leader won't give in on WMDs, then let them starve. Why should the world mitigate a tyrant's problem?
That certainly wasn't our attitude prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, now was it? Not only that, what kind of attitude is that to have? I mean, these are innocent people starving to death meanwhile America can't buy large enough SUVs to wedge our collectively fat-asses into.

Actually it was until the world cried about the general population of iraq suffering because of the sanctions. France pushed for the oil for food program....

In other words, America doesn't care if you starve to death unless it serves our political and military goals abroad and then we can't possibly care enough? Meaning, we went into Iraq for "humanitarian reasons" when before it was all about the WMDs.

Typical liberal, blame america no matter what.

You are starving them with sanctions...
You are feeding the people but you are buying the oil.

Well what do you want me to say when the U.S. is being inconsistant? Either we care about humanitarian crisis like what's happening in NK, or we don't. From your own words, we were content to let the Iraqis starve under sanctions until the UN stepped in with oil-for-food. Hell, it wasn't even our idea. So, do we care or not? Frankly, it seems like we only care when it's politically expedient to do so. Am I wrong?

The US is not being inconsistent. That was my opinion, not that of Powell or Bush. In fact, the latter two echoed Reagan when they supported the extension of aid to North Korea.


At least Dari admits that he cares not about watching six million people starve out of spite for thier dictator.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Dari
If their leader won't give in on WMDs, then let them starve. Why should the world mitigate a tyrant's problem?
That certainly wasn't our attitude prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, now was it? Not only that, what kind of attitude is that to have? I mean, these are innocent people starving to death meanwhile America can't buy large enough SUVs to wedge our collectively fat-asses into.

Actually it was until the world cried about the general population of iraq suffering because of the sanctions. France pushed for the oil for food program....

In other words, America doesn't care if you starve to death unless it serves our political and military goals abroad and then we can't possibly care enough? Meaning, we went into Iraq for "humanitarian reasons" when before it was all about the WMDs.

Typical liberal, blame america no matter what.

You are starving them with sanctions...
You are feeding the people but you are buying the oil.

Well what do you want me to say when the U.S. is being inconsistant? Either we care about humanitarian crisis like what's happening in NK, or we don't. From your own words, we were content to let the Iraqis starve under sanctions until the UN stepped in with oil-for-food. Hell, it wasn't even our idea. So, do we care or not? Frankly, it seems like we only care when it's politically expedient to do so. Am I wrong?

The US is not being inconsistent. That was my opinion, not that of Powell or Bush. In fact, the latter two echoed Reagan when they supported the extension of aid to North Korea.


At least Dari admits that he cares not about watching six million people starve out of spite for thier dictator.

I'd rather see this Stalinist tyrant come begging us to help him feed his own damn people than see him threaten global order or order any more Looney Tunes videos with counterfeit dollars.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
In other words, America doesn't care if you starve to death unless it serves our political and military goals abroad and then we can't possibly care enough? Meaning, we went into Iraq for "humanitarian reasons" when before it was all about the WMDs.
When was the last time you donated food to a foodbank. When was the last time you gave to a charity? How much? Have you ever gone abroad and helped in a relief effort? I'm just curious to what extent your committment to saving the world has manifest itself.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
In other words, America doesn't care if you starve to death unless it serves our political and military goals abroad and then we can't possibly care enough? Meaning, we went into Iraq for "humanitarian reasons" when before it was all about the WMDs.
When was the last time you donated food to a foodbank. When was the last time you gave to a charity? How much? Have you ever gone abroad and helped in a relief effort? I'm just curious to what extent your committment to saving the world has manifest itself.
This thread isn't about me.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Dari
If their leader won't give in on WMDs, then let them starve. Why should the world mitigate a tyrant's problem?
That certainly wasn't our attitude prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, now was it? Not only that, what kind of attitude is that to have? I mean, these are innocent people starving to death meanwhile America can't buy large enough SUVs to wedge our collectively fat-asses into.

Actually it was until the world cried about the general population of iraq suffering because of the sanctions. France pushed for the oil for food program....

In other words, America doesn't care if you starve to death unless it serves our political and military goals abroad and then we can't possibly care enough? Meaning, we went into Iraq for "humanitarian reasons" when before it was all about the WMDs.

Typical liberal, blame america no matter what.

You are starving them with sanctions...
You are feeding the people but you are buying the oil.

That Tyrant, he's starving his people and REALLY has WMD, we must launch a Pre-Emptive strike immediately!!
This time we get the WMD and FREE the North Korean people from an Evil Regime, a Twofer.
 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,810
487
126
"I was playing operation desert storm today, based on my success I think we should attack immediately"

Lewis Black :)
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
Originally posted by: Dari


I'd rather see this Stalinist tyrant come begging us to help him feed his own damn people than see him threaten global order or order any more Looney Tunes videos with counterfeit dollars.

I'd love to see him beg for help and finally give up, but the likelihood of that happening is, well, never. :(

Unfortunately, North Korea, even without nukes, they do have a lot of artillery pointed at Seoul, as well as missiles that can reach several million other people.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Dari
If their leader won't give in on WMDs, then let them starve. Why should the world mitigate a tyrant's problem?
That certainly wasn't our attitude prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, now was it? Not only that, what kind of attitude is that to have? I mean, these are innocent people starving to death meanwhile America can't buy large enough SUVs to wedge our collectively fat-asses into.

Actually it was until the world cried about the general population of iraq suffering because of the sanctions. France pushed for the oil for food program....

In other words, America doesn't care if you starve to death unless it serves our political and military goals abroad and then we can't possibly care enough? Meaning, we went into Iraq for "humanitarian reasons" when before it was all about the WMDs.

Typical liberal, blame america no matter what.

You are starving them with sanctions...
You are feeding the people but you are buying the oil.

Well what do you want me to say when the U.S. is being inconsistant? Either we care about humanitarian crisis like what's happening in NK, or we don't. From your own words, we were content to let the Iraqis starve under sanctions until the UN stepped in with oil-for-food. Hell, it wasn't even our idea. So, do we care or not? Frankly, it seems like we only care when it's politically expedient to do so. Am I wrong?


Care to guess how much food aid the US gives NK?
 

AnImuS

Senior member
Sep 28, 2001
939
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Dari
If their leader won't give in on WMDs, then let them starve. Why should the world mitigate a tyrant's problem?
That certainly wasn't our attitude prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, now was it? Not only that, what kind of attitude is that to have? I mean, these are innocent people starving to death meanwhile America can't buy large enough SUVs to wedge our collectively fat-asses into.

Actually it was until the world cried about the general population of iraq suffering because of the sanctions. France pushed for the oil for food program....

In other words, America doesn't care if you starve to death unless it serves our political and military goals abroad and then we can't possibly care enough? Meaning, we went into Iraq for "humanitarian reasons" when before it was all about the WMDs.

yup
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
I really don't understand why the U.S. is feeding its enemy. Let them starve enough to realize that its time to overthrow their government. North Korea spends 30% of its GDP on its military and now the U.S. has to bail them out? This is fvcking bogus!
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Care to guess how much food aid the US gives NK?
A lot, however it appears to be in a stop-go fashion and right now supplies are drying up. As much as I blame the leadership of NK, I feel for the people who have no say-so in the actions of their gov't.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
Care to guess how much food aid the US gives NK?
A lot, however it appears to be in a stop-go fashion and right now supplies are drying up. As much as I blame the leadership of NK, I feel for the people who have no say-so in the actions of their gov't.

UN aid is drying up. Says nothing about US aid.
 

RigorousT

Senior member
Jan 12, 2001
560
0
0
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I really don't understand why the U.S. is feeding its enemy. Let them starve enough to realize that its time to overthrow their government.
This is pretty much the aim of sanctions. It's a last-ditch effort to achieve foreign diplomacy when a government is uncooperative. Let the people rise up and blah blah blah...

Of course, in a communist country where the government brings a royal beatdown to any citizen who questions them, it just leads to quiet suffering..

We don't want them to suffer and gain world empathy.. We also don't want to look like the bad guys... And lastly, we still want to keep them on a short leash. Like a crack dealer... keep them crawling back.. So we always have something to bargain with.

We do this with food and medicine.. We do it with loans... We do it by waving debts. We try to buy our friends but everyone still hates us. We aren't the only ones donating foreign aid, but if we stopped everything tomorrow.. there would be a major instability in many problem areas of the world..

North Korea included..
But hey, we're sending them something like 76,000 tons of food in April...
Coincidentally, they agreed to have another set of six-way talks at the end of this month...
Just when they said they had no interest in any follow-up talks, after the last round..



*strings a carrot off a stick and dangles it over NK*
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Dari
If their leader won't give in on WMDs, then let them starve. Why should the world mitigate a tyrant's problem?
That certainly wasn't our attitude prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, now was it? Not only that, what kind of attitude is that to have? I mean, these are innocent people starving to death meanwhile America can't buy large enough SUVs to wedge our collectively fat-asses into.


economic sanctions cause much more suffering for the people than anything. looking at kim i see he has plenty to eat.