North Korea on Western Civilisation Propaganda

[Bigbazz]

Came accross this on another site, with some heated discussion following. The video appears to be a video intended to show North Koreans how the western world is controlled and corrupted by propaganda.

On giving the first few minutes a watch I found it fairly interesting and could not disagree with what I saw, and the observations shown made sense. With that said it is a bit of a hypocrital film in that it is too a piece of propaganda.

 

[PeterJB]

I wonder what the North Korean athletes will be thinking now that they've had at least a little exposure to Western culture...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

North Korea wouldn't have let them out of the country without first making sure they could be trusted to ignore out decadent western ways.

 

[a6m5]

I watched the first ten minutes of this film. I really did. Much of what is being pointed out is true to a degree, and unless you've been living under a rock, you've heard them all before.

Only problem: The source.

It's like a mass murderer rapist preaching against parking violations. I was going to say pot calling kettle black, but no, that doesn't begin to describe the hypocrisy. At least in the U.S., if I speak up against the Government, they won't put my entire family in some brutal, torture slave camp for next three generations. Three generations.

Occupy footage were laughable, and it reeks of 90's documentaries(<<<info from the future in NK).

 

[Vegard]

If anyone else have a problem with hearing facts from North Koreans (understandable seeing there are so many Americans here).

or

.

 

[TP1]

North Korea wouldn't have let them out of the country without first making sure they could be trusted to ignore out decadent western ways.

That, or keeping their entire family as insurance.
N.Korea's largest export is of people; more specifically workers who get sent into the deep forests of Russia, where they're forced to work daily as lumberjacks for no money, in beyond misserable conditions, for 'contracts' lasting 10 years. No one tries to escape, because their entire family back home is at stake.

Also, to the OP. North Korea's campaigns are not to disproof their image, but rather depict the rest of the world (US & their allies) as the greater evil.

 

[PeterJB]

I'm hoping that things may start to change now. Kim Yong-Un has set up international trade routes, made public speeches (Which his father never did), and acknowledged the food shortage in the country.

 

[homeforsummer]

As all the comments above. It's actually funny how astute some of the observations are, but as the OP says, the video against Western propaganda is itself North Korean propaganda - the only reason people buy into it is because they themselves are petrified of what may become of them if they don't go with the flow.

It's two sides of the same coin. Paying taxes and living under religion isn't ideal, but then nor is being unable to exercise your freedom to choose how you live your life. There's a happy medium, but realistically that happy medium is closer to the western way of life...

 

[Sanji Himura]

Thirty years ago, we in the US wouldn't have to worry about so called "documentaries" like this one, nor would we have tolerated Kim Jong-Il going after a nuke. We had a strong leader that wouldn't have put up with that sort of thing under his foreign policy watch.

Then Clinton came and said that negotiations were the only way to deal with mad men like Kim, and he was allowed to build up his missile cache to the point where he was doing tests whenever he felt like it.

It is said that some mad men like to see the world burn. In this case, it is the leaders of an entire country.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Every country is susceptible to propaganda. If you don't think there are attempts to control the population through media then you are gravely mistaken.

I fought in Iraq twice for oil; not "Iraqi freedom." Try getting that on the news.

 

[Jeebuschryst]

I fought in Iraq twice for oil; not "Iraqi freedom." Try getting that on the news.[/QUOTE]

We didn't get any oil from that. We're paying full price per barrel of oil from them.

 

[terminator363]

I wonder what the North Korean athletes will be thinking now that they've had at least a little exposure to Western culture...

The ones that didn't get gold will likely be thrown in work camps, just a thought of mine...

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

We didn't get any oil from that. We're paying full price per barrel of oil from them.

Source?

Do you know what the first thing the US military did when we entered Iraq? We secured the oil ministries.

"Hours after the invasion began, U.S. forces had seized two offshore terminals that can transfer 2 million bbl. daily to tankers. They secured the southern Rumaila oil field so swiftly that Saddam Hussein's retreating troops managed to set only nine wells ablaze, compared with 650 Kuwaiti wells during Gulf War I, and U.S. airborne troops took the northern oil fields at Kirkuk largely intact."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,450939,00.html

The US military didn't guard any of the priceless artifacts in museums, schools, hospitals, government buildings.... we secured the oil.

Where are the WMD's?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2006/05/26/5528/rumsfelds-revisionist-history/

 

[DK]

I'm hoping that things may start to change now. Kim Yong-Un has set up international trade routes, made public speeches (Which his father never did), and acknowledged the food shortage in the country.

True liberalisation - e.g. freedom of speech and less restricted capitalism - will probably elude North Korea for a long time, I think what Kim Jong-un is doing is creating the illusion of liberalisation, and the country is still just as strict as it was under his father.

 

[Jeebuschryst]

Source?

Do you know what the first thing the US military did when we entered Iraq? We secured the oil ministries.

"Hours after the invasion began, U.S. forces had seized two offshore terminals that can transfer 2 million bbl. daily to tankers. They secured the southern Rumaila oil field so swiftly that Saddam Hussein's retreating troops managed to set only nine wells ablaze, compared with 650 Kuwaiti wells during Gulf War I, and U.S. airborne troops took the northern oil fields at Kirkuk largely intact."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,450939,00.html

The US military didn't guard any of the priceless artifacts in museums, schools, hospitals, government buildings.... we secured the oil.

Where are the WMD's?

Our job wasn't to guard any of their artifacts or secure their buildings. It was to provide a force to help fight against Hussein. Securing their oil fields was a military tactic. It's like when we bomb or capture enemy munition factories. When we had captured those wells, our price of oil didn't go down nor did our stock of it.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Military tactic? To disrupt Iraqi military operations? lol. The majority of Hussein's forces laid down their arms. There were no significant air combat forces. Ground forces reached Baghdad within hours.

Where are the WMD's? Do you believe you weren't manipulated in supporting a war based off the premise that Hussein had biological/chemical weapons and was in the process of building nuclear weapons? The administration told us many, many times they knew Iraq had WMD's and exactly where they were... so, where are they? I was "fortunate" enough to do deployments in Ramadi and Baghdad... They are quite frankly just not that advanced (unless you consider what weapons the US gave Iraq decades ago, but that's a whole other discussion).

Watch this and then tell me we were not there for oil: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912593/

 

[a6m5]

The elite are way too crafty to go into some oil producing nation, then take it by force. And nobody really believe that it was the U.S., as in the United States Government profiting by stealing oil?

I don't know any of the details, but if I was a powerful American figure, I'd steal oil in the name of reconstruction of Iraq. Iraq can overpay to replace everything we just came in and destroyed. My group is going to fix Iraq. How will they repay? Oh yeah, they have oil they can sell. Lot of $$$, but it doesn't stop there. All these military machines that were damaged, wore out, or had to be maintained due to sand & combat, that's more revenue they couldn't have secured without the war. Don't forget about the crazy cost of the fuel, ammunition, rockets, etc. They all cost money, and a lot of it. Select people profited from all that action.

Smart people will not come into your home, then physically jack your stuff. They are little more creative than that.

There is profit in peace, but also a lot of $$$ in wars.

 

[Tornado]

Do you know what the first thing the US military did when we entered Iraq? We secured the oil ministries.

Probably so the Iraqi military didn't blow any of them up on their way out like they did during Desert Storm, which the source you provided even said they were in the process of doing when the U.S. military secured them.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Here's a question:

If Iraq did not have one of the largest oil reserves would we have invaded?

Also, where are the WMD's?

 

[Tornado]

Where's the proof that we invaded Iraq to take all of their oil?

All you've committed towards proving that after you brought it up is linking an article that says the U.S. made securing Iraqi oil fields a top priority so Saddam's troops couldn't destroy them like they did in 1991, and change the subject back towards the WMD false dichotomy.

 

[McLaren]

Here's a question:

If Iraq did not have one of the largest oil reserves would we have invaded?

Also, where are the WMD's?

It's hard to give this a serious answer when you seem to be presenting them as rhetorical questions, based on your previous posts in the thread.

 

[Jeebuschryst]

Here's a question:

If Iraq did not have one of the largest oil reserves would we have invaded?

Also, where are the WMD's?

Why do you call it invaded? Any country has a problem, they come screaming to us to help them. Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq. Securing oil Was a good idea to help the country. Saving schools, museums, or other public places, aren't going to save the countries economy.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Where's the proof that we invaded Iraq to take all of their oil?

All you've committed towards proving that after you brought it up is linking an article that says the U.S. made securing Iraqi oil fields a top priority so Saddam's troops couldn't destroy them like they did in 1991, and change the subject back towards the WMD false dichotomy.

*** http://www.opednews.com/articles/Eager-to-Tap-Iraq-s-Vast-O-by-Jason-Leopold-090703-616.html ***

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2842315.stm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1006-03.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1138009.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2617783.stm

http://www.cato.org/publications/co...cia-report-undercuts-bushs-desire-invade-iraq

The point of this discussion is: "North Korea on Western Civilisation Propaganda" is it not?

So, once again, do you believe if Iraq did not have one of the largest oil reserves that we still would have invaded them?

And, where are the WMD's that the Bush administration told us they had?

Feel free to attack my posts instead of answering the questions though.

It's hard to give this a serious answer when you seem to be presenting them as rhetorical questions, based on your previous posts in the thread.

They're not rhetorical. If someone can answer them then I will shut my mouth.

Why do you call it invaded? Any country has a problem, they come screaming to us to help them. Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq. Securing oil Was a good idea to help the country. Saving schools, museums, or other public places, aren't going to save the countries economy.

What would you call what we did? Was Iraq screaming at us to help them? I don't remember that.

 

[Tornado]

The point of this discussion is: "North Korea on Western Civilisation Propaganda" is it not?

Yes, and bringing up Iraq War is only relevant up to the point of the intentional misrepresentation of the WMD situation, at which point it just becomes you presenting a theory as an unspoken fact that the government is squashing.

So, once again, do you believe if Iraq did not have one of the largest oil reserves that we still would have invaded them?

The Iraq War cannot be simplified to an "if/then" logical statement, which you keep trying to do ("If there were no WMDs, then we went there to get oil").

• There ultimately not being WMDs (which is what your fifth and sixth articles talk about, as well as the second from your previous post) does not mean that we went over their purely to take their oil.
• U.S. companies determining what they will do to rebuild Iraq after the at-that-point-inevitable war (which is what your second article talks about and the first touches on) does not prove that we went over their purely to take their oil.
• The fact that many of George Bush's advisers were former oil barons (which is what your fourth article talks about) does not mean that we went over their purely to take their oil.
• The U.S. acting quickly and decisively to prevent Saddam from employing the same scorched-earth tactics he attempted during Desert Storm (which is what your first article from your previous post said) does not prove that we went over their purely to take their oil.
• Even the U.S. acting to depose the government to protect U.S. and ally energy interests (which is mostly what your first article is about) does not prove that we went over their purely to take their oil.

In fact, off the top of my head I can think of a couple of things that would be cause for an invasion that, while detestable in their own right, wouldn't be what you are claiming is the reason; and the Bush Administration would have also needed to fabricate a reason to go and justify achieving them. Namely, increasing the United States' sphere of influence in the region by installing a pro-U.S. government and/or military presence; and making an example of what the U.S. would do to countries that don't bend under its will so it can saber rattle against "hostile" countries like Iran more effectively.

Feel free to attack my posts instead of answering the questions though.

You made a claim ("I fought in Iraq twice for oil; not 'Iraqi freedom.' Try getting that on the news"). Up until your last post the only attempt you had made towards actually supporting it was talking about how the U.S. had taken steps to avoid a repeat of what happened in 1991, and then laughed off the concept that doing such was a tactical decision when it was posed. But pointing that out is "attacking your posts"?

They're not rhetorical. If someone can answer them then I will shut my mouth.

I somehow doubt that, since while they apparently aren't rhetorical they are ridiculously loaded.

But I will answer your questions anyway:

So, once again, do you believe if Iraq did not have one of the largest oil reserves that we still would have invaded them?

No. We probably wouldn't have sent in a real invasion force in that case, since if they didn't hold anything strategically important to us/our allies that they could retaliate with destroying it would have been easier, cheaper and safer to take advantage of Iraq's complete lack of air superiority.

And, where are the WMD's that the Bush administration told us they had?

Where did I or anyone else in this thread say that they were there, or that Bush was in the right for stating as much?

 

[XoravaX]

I prefer the problems of our society to common poverty, hunger, forced labour camps and strong governmental oppression.

Why do you call it invaded? Any country has a problem, they come screaming to us to help them. Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq. Securing oil Was a good idea to help the country. Saving schools, museums, or other public places, aren't going to save the countries economy.

You don't call launching an armed assault against an unwilling country with the intention of changing the regime an invasion?

In Vietnam and Korea a sovereign nation (South Korea/South Vietnam) was threatened by an invasion by a neighbouring country (North Korea/North Vietnam). There the assistance of the US was based on helping a country to defend their lands and regime against an invasion of a hostile force, while in Iraq the situation was completely stable, with no imminent threat either way (only the Kurdish were oppressed, the common public was faring better than nowadays, it was just as stable as a dictatorship can be).
It was even different from Afghanistan where their government supported terrorists, violated human rights heavily and acted hostile towards not only the West, but Russia and China as well, and the invasion was therefore supported by the UN making it legal in the international sense.

How does securing the oil help the country? The locals never see the money made from it. Iraq's economy was already crashed by the invasion, it just helped to stabilise global economy and keep the global oil prices as low as possible. And calling the cause of the invasion "humanitarian" (as saving the Kurdish from a genocide and liberating the people from the totalitarian government) and "search of WMDs", wouldn't that necessitate saving and securing the civilian targets over the economical ones first? Economy doesn't help to save people if the hospitals are destroyed.

Compare it to an invasion launched against you by China or Russia by the reason "liberating you from capitalist plague and oppression of the poor" (the old Soviet (and their allies') reason for attacking non-communist countries). Then they wouldn't care at all about your civilian infrastructure even though they claimed to "liberate your people", but just take your factories and power plants "because they are necessary to the economy". Whose economy the factories support now, yours or the invaders'?
Similarly, can be asked whose economy the oil supported after the invasion, yours or the Iraqi's?

But I understand Bush, if I were him and invading a country somewhere far from mine, of course I would be after the natural resources and whatever could help my country first, and only second what helps their people.

 

[homeforsummer]

All this fighting! Stop! This is just what the North Koreans want us to do!

 

[TheCracker]

Thirty years ago, we in the US wouldn't have to worry about so called "documentaries" like this one, nor would we have tolerated Kim Jong-Il going after a nuke. We had a strong leader that wouldn't have put up with that sort of thing under his foreign policy watch.

Then Clinton came and said that negotiations were the only way to deal with mad men like Kim, and he was allowed to build up his missile cache to the point where he was doing tests whenever he felt like it.

It has nothing to do with whichever US President was or wasn't in office at the time. You can tolerate or not tolerate North Korea 'going after a nuke' all you wish, but you hold no say or have any power to stop them doing so if that's what they want to do.

We didn't get any oil from that. We're paying full price per barrel of oil from them.

Wars in Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter) haven't been about getting hold of cheaper oil now - It's all about securing access to their oil when it starts getting scarcer in the future and more and more nations are requiring it.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

I apologize for turning this thread into an Iraqi oil discussion.

This example was the first that came to mind; it highlights the past administration's willingness to use propaganda in order to gain public support.

"Iraq has WMD's (we gave them to them) we need to take over; but shhhh we didn't find any; our own intelligence agencies advise against invasion, the UN doesn't support it; multiple analysis(es?) done by business oriented organizations claim the loss of oil in the region will destabilize the global economy... so we're going in."

Anyone else have any other examples?

One I can think of is the escalation to the Spanish American war (USS Maine).

Obviously, propaganda is powerful in war.

Governments and Presidents never lie.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

"Read my lips... I am not a crook."

 

[Bigbazz]

Whoa, this thread went off the rails fairly fast.

Coming back I watched the whole thing, whilst the first 10 mins suck you in with things that make a lot of sense, the hypocrisy becomes more and more evident the longer you watch, by the end of the documentry (if you would call it that) it has turned into a pro North Korea film talking about how they are not afraid of America and how they are going to eventually lead the world.

My personal thoughts pretty much went from "Makes complete absolute sense I agree" to "These people really are crazy" on a slippery slope that climaxes towards the end.

 

[Omnis]

North Korea is intriguing because there's so much to learn about human nature and behavior when we don't have access to information.

It's neat to contrast North Korea's forced ignorance with the west's chosen ignorance.