Russia supplying NK with internet access

[Fanatical Meat]

I bet they are giving NK free antivirus protection too.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I bet they are giving NK free antivirus protection too.

It probably works kind of like this.

 

[kage69]

I bet they are giving NK free antivirus protection too.

I had a medium grade lol there.

 

[UberNeuman]

It's nice that someone found a use for all those old AOL discs.

 

[Puffnstuff]

It's nice that someone found a use for all those old AOL discs.

I forgot about how aol, prodigy and earthlink used to send cd's with everything under the sun on them.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Canada is also a massive country, and yet we don't need a tyrant to rule?

Elk don't cause much of a stir.

 

[woolfe9998]

I think America has already ruined things in North Korea. We killed 20% of their population in the 50s and then we proceeded to isolate them politically and then threatened and harassed them for 60 or so years. We started threatening to Nuke them preemptively when Captain Texas aka George W. Bush came into office. Clinton was the only one who attempted to negotiate with them, but he could've ended their famine with a few words... and didn't. They've been through innumerable hardships because of the treatment they've received form the world community and the US specifically.


What we are doing now is just a attempted continuation of that policy. The problem is we no longer can keep a straight face while calling ourselves "saviors of democracy" with a leader like Trump at the helm. In the past, other countries respected the US for its stated ideals and for the charisma and intelligence of our leaders. That started changing with George W. Bush and changed completely with Trump. Now we are a laughing stock with nuclear weapons and a huge military. The world laughs nervously at us while North Korea sees this as their chance to break out as a world power.

Could you please source the bolded statistic. I Googled, and I found only Global Research. Surely you're not getting your information from an anti-western conspiracy site?

 

[FIVR]

Could you please source the bolded statistic. I Googled, and I found only Global Research. Surely you're not getting your information from an anti-western conspiracy site?

How about the Korean ministry of defense. Is that a "good enough" source for you?

Oh wait, you didn't even bother to post your own source. You just claimed I was wrong, then insulted some think tank I've never even heard of... which is not even where my numbers come from.

Try harder next time, and you can have the link. I have no need to provide you with it unless you can provide contrary statistics. Your own suppositions (based on your obvious total lack of knowledge on the subject) are not good enough.

 

[MajinCry]

The fuck's with you guys hating on Gryz? Don't tell me there are posters that still believe that the US is some bastion of freedom and democracy.

If you do, go watch some Chomsky videos.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The fuck's with you guys hating on Gryz? Don't tell me there are posters that still believe that the US is some bastion of freedom and democracy.

If you do, go watch some Chomsky videos.

Yes obliviously anyone living in NK would choose to stay there if they had an option to head to the US consequence free.

 

[woolfe9998]

How about the Korean ministry of defense. Is that a "good enough" source for you?

Oh wait, you didn't even bother to post your own source. You just claimed I was wrong, then insulted some think tank I've never even heard of... which is not even where my numbers come from.

Try harder next time, and you can have the link. I have no need to provide you with it unless you can provide contrary statistics. Your own suppositions (based on your obvious total lack of knowledge on the subject) are not good enough.

I asked you for a source. I made absolutely no claim one way or another on the topic. You're the one who made an affirmative claim. When people make claims, it is totally fair to ask for a source. You have declined to provide one, other than "the Korean ministry of defense." I'm sorry, I don't know how to access data from a Korean government agency. You seem to think I must provide sources to refute your unsourced claims. Absurd.

Nonetheless, since you're asking for contrary statistics, I did some digging:

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...s-one-the-deadliest-wars-modern-history-20445

This one says 12-15%.

Wiki says 10%, citing Brittanica:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_in_the_Korean_War

The point source of the 20% claim appears to be an isolated quote from General Lemay where he seems to have been making an estimate off the top of his head.

Another problem with what you wrote is that you put all this on the US, when in fact the South Koreans killed many of these people. As well, the North Koreans killed plenty of South Korean civilians.

 

[MrDudeMan]

How about the Korean ministry of defense. Is that a "good enough" source for you?

No, actually. Plus, you didn't actually post the source information, so we're still basically just hearing it from you. But this has been addressed already, so I digress.

 

[thilanliyan]

Elk don't cause much of a stir.

There's people here too

 

[Victorian Gray]

Elk don't cause much of a stir.

As long as you don't piss them off

 

[FIVR]

I asked you for a source. I made absolutely no claim one way or another on the topic. You're the one who made an affirmative claim. When people make claims, it is totally fair to ask for a source. You have declined to provide one, other than "the Korean ministry of defense." I'm sorry, I don't know how to access data from a Korean government agency. You seem to think I must provide sources to refute your unsourced claims. Absurd.

Nonetheless, since you're asking for contrary statistics, I did some digging:

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...s-one-the-deadliest-wars-modern-history-20445

This one says 12-15%.

Wiki says 10%, citing Brittanica:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_in_the_Korean_War

The point source of the 20% claim appears to be an isolated quote from General Lemay where he seems to have been making an estimate off the top of his head.

Another problem with what you wrote is that you put all this on the US, when in fact the South Koreans killed many of these people. As well, the North Koreans killed plenty of South Korean civilians.

Thank you for providing your own propaganda sources. It appears you obtained your propaganda from a right wing propaganda outlet.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-interest/


As I said, my information came from the korean ministry of defense. That would be where you would go, if you actually wanted to find out the information. Instead, you went to your own right-wing american propaganda outlet. Typical of somebody with little knowledge but lots of pro-american bias.


The population of North korea was around 8-10 million people in the 1950s. Below are the civilian death statistics. Add those to the combat casualties (around 400-700 million according to wikipedia) and you get 20-30% of their population dead. Do the math.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

Here are the civilian death statistics from the Korean MOD
https://web.archive.org/web/2013012....kr/imhcroot/data/korea_view.jsp?seq=4&page=1

 

[woolfe9998]

Thank you for providing your own propaganda sources. It appears you obtained your propaganda from a right wing propaganda outlet.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-interest/

You are stunningly dishonest. Your media fact check site, which I am familiar with as I've visited it before, rates nationalinterest.org as "center right." It also happens to rate NYT and WaPo as "center left." So I must either presume that you consider those two mainstream sources to also be "propaganda" as you call it, or else you're full of crap.

Also, if you actually read what I linked, which you clearly did not, it is no attempt to whitewash anything. Here's a sample of what it says:

On a per-capita basis, the Korean War was one of the deadliest wars in modern history, especially for the civilian population of North Korea. The scale of the devastation shocked and disgusted the American military personnel who witnessed it, including some who had fought in the most horrific battles of World War II.

There's your right wing propaganda machine. Next time read the source you are criticizing so you don't look like a fool.

And also because you didn't read it, you failed to notice that the article I linked is itself quoting another source on the casualty estimate, an article written in the Asia Pacific Journal, which is certainly neither right wing nor pro-US. It's extremely anti-Trump, for example.

http://apjjf.org/-Charles-K.-Armstrong/3460/article.html
http://apjjf.org/

There's the actual original source.. Like I said, you should read the sources first before you criticize.

As I said, my information came from the korean ministry of defense. That would be where you would go, if you actually wanted to find out the information. Instead, you went to your own right-wing american propaganda outlet. Typical of somebody with little knowledge but lots of pro-american bias.

The population of North korea was around 8-10 million people in the 1950s. Below are the civilian death statistics. Add those to the combat casualties (around 400-700 million according to wikipedia) and you get 20-30% of their population dead. Do the math.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

Here are the civilian death statistics from the Korean MOD
https://web.archive.org/web/2013012....kr/imhcroot/data/korea_view.jsp?seq=4&page=1

No, that is not what the wiki says on NK military casualties. That is the total number for NK and China combined. If you hit the "show" button below those numbers, you see a range of 215,000-350,000. Let's take the midpoint of that range, which is about 282,000.

NK population in 1950 was 9.726 million.

http://www.populstat.info/Asia/nkoreac.htm

If we assume the wiki is accurately translating the Ministry of Defense source, and we assume that this source is correct, we get 18.8%. That would be close enough that I'd give you the point, but you're relying on the highest available estimates.

First off, I can't read Korean, but when that site is translated, it shows only a chart reflecting military casualties. There doesn't appear to be any statistics on civilian casualties. The number cited in the wiki isn't there. Perhaps they were relying on an earlier version of what was at that link.

Then again, CNN estimates NK civilian casualties at 600K, though they rate the military deaths a bit higher than the wiki source.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/28/world/asia/korean-war-fast-facts/index.html

I can only assume CNN is basing this on a source rather than making it up. David Halberstam's book The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War, puts total NK and Chinese deaths at 1.5 million which, after subtracting military casualties for both nations, yields an NK civilian death toll of around 800K - 1 million.

The point being, there is obviously a range here, meaning it isn't dissimilar from other civilian death tolls in other wars. Civilian deaths are notoriously harder to estimate than military deaths.

The 1.55 million you're citing is the highest estimate I've seen. I strongly suspect whoever wrote the wiki is misreading the source, combining military and civilian deaths, though I can't prove that because I can only read the chart and its numbers and none of the other text.

Yet even if I give you every favorable assumption and put it at 18.8%, you did not respond to my second point, which was why you attributed 100% of these casualties to the US. Clearly SK was responsible for many of these and the other 14 nations fighting against NK where responsible for at least some of them. Under no circumstances is it reasonable to put this all on the US, and hence, your claim that "we" killed 20% of their population is wrong even under the most charitable assumptions. If we put 75% of those casualties on the US and the other 25% on SK and all the others combined, and we round up your number to 19%, that puts casualties attributable to "us" at 14.25%, and that's as good as it gets. I can't possibly give your more favorable assumptions than that.

 

[FIVR]

You are stunningly dishonest. Your media fact check site, which I am familiar with as I've visited it before, rates nationalinterest.org as "center right." It also happens to rate NYT and WaPo as "center left." So I must either presume that you consider those two mainstream sources to also be "propaganda" as you call it, or else you're full of crap.

Also, if you actually read what I linked, which you clearly did not, it is no attempt to whitewash anything. Here's a sample of what it says:



There's your right wing propaganda machine. Next time read the source you are criticizing so you don't look like a fool.

And also because you didn't read it, you failed to notice that the article I linked is itself quoting another source on the casualty estimate, an article written in the Asia Pacific Journal, which is certainly neither right wing nor pro-US. It's extremely anti-Trump, for example.

http://apjjf.org/-Charles-K.-Armstrong/3460/article.html
http://apjjf.org/

There's the actual original source.. Like I said, you should read the sources first before you criticize.



No, that is not what the wiki says on NK military casualties. That is the total number for NK and China combined. If you hit the "show" button below those numbers, you see a range of 215,000-350,000. Let's take the midpoint of that range, which is about 282,000.

NK population in 1950 was 9.726 million.

http://www.populstat.info/Asia/nkoreac.htm

If we assume the wiki is accurately translating the Ministry of Defense source, and we assume that this source is correct, we get 18.8%. That would be close enough that I'd give you the point, but you're relying on the highest available estimates.

First off, I can't read Korean, but when that site is translated, it shows only a chart reflecting military casualties. There doesn't appear to be any statistics on civilian casualties. The number cited in the wiki isn't there. Perhaps they were relying on an earlier version of what was at that link.

Then again, CNN estimates NK civilian casualties at 600K, though they rate the military deaths a bit higher than the wiki source.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/28/world/asia/korean-war-fast-facts/index.html

I can only assume CNN is basing this on a source rather than making it up. David Halberstam's book The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War, puts total NK and Chinese deaths at 1.5 million which, after subtracting military casualties for both nations, yields an NK civilian death toll of around 800K - 1 million.

The point being, there is obviously a range here, meaning it isn't dissimilar from other civilian death tolls in other wars. Civilian deaths are notoriously harder to estimate than military deaths.

The 1.55 million you're citing is the highest estimate I've seen. I strongly suspect whoever wrote the wiki is misreading the source, combining military and civilian deaths, though I can't prove that because I can only read the chart and its numbers and none of the other text.

Yet even if I give you every favorable assumption and put it at 18.8%, you did not respond to my second point, which was why you attributed 100% of these casualties to the US. Clearly SK was responsible for many of these and the other 14 nations fighting against NK where responsible for at least some of them. Under no circumstances is it reasonable to put this all on the US, and hence, your claim that "we" killed 20% of their population is wrong even under the most charitable assumptions. If we put 75% of those casualties on the US and the other 25% on SK and all the others combined, and we round up your number to 19%, that puts casualties attributable to "us" at 14.25%, and that's as good as it gets. I can't possibly give your more favorable assumptions than that.

This is too many words for you to say "I was wrong and my propaganda sources were wrong". It's good that somewhere in there you acknowledge that I was right and the UN forces (that's what I was referring to when I said "we") killed around 1.5-2.5 million people based on most available estimates and the korean population was around 9-10 million.


All my number were off the top of my head, and the best you could do was basically confirm what i said. A brief look at wikipedia would have confirmed that this was one of the deadliest slaughters of civilians in the history of the planet. The holomodor is only slightly larger!


If you want to tell yourself that you were "right" because US forces (who started the conflict to begin with) only killed 18.5% or whatever of their population based on american estimates then feel free to delude yourself.

 

[interchange]

Putin may be doing us a favor. Harsh sanctions seems more likely to spur increased militarization and advance the doomsday clock than the opposite. Sadly, I think the only hope of a non-military solution is through erosion of the echo chamber from within. There's apparently a black market for foreign media that's growing; maybe there are operations for foreign agencies to smuggle in counter-propaganda.

 

[MrDudeMan]

This is too many words for you to say "I was wrong and my propaganda sources were wrong". It's good that somewhere in there you acknowledge that I was right and the UN forces (that's what I was referring to when I said "we") killed around 1.5-2.5 million people based on most available estimates and the korean population was around 9-10 million.


All my number were off the top of my head, and the best you could do was basically confirm what i said. A brief look at wikipedia would have confirmed that this was one of the deadliest slaughters of civilians in the history of the planet. The holomodor is only slightly larger!


If you want to tell yourself that you were "right" because US forces (who started the conflict to begin with) only killed 18.5% or whatever of their population based on american estimates then feel free to delude yourself.

In other words, you can't be bothered to refute most of what he said because you're too lazy and many of his points are unassailable. Good talk.