Well, the US didn't have much issue with European fascism in Spain, or with supporting fascism in Chile and otherwhere in Lat. Am., not to mention the horrendous state that Saudi Arabia is...

It is foolhardy to defend North Korea so the only option to argue is that America is bad too, but what you are arguing is the way of the world. If the US thought they could play NK against China they certainly would.

Well, I don't like the way of the world.

And I believe that a bad country that doesn't fuck with your country is better than a bad country that fucks with mine and most countries.

North Korea is not a fascist or nationalistic regime. And it's only been turned into a concentration camp by the West through sanctions. It's not even any more antithesis to democracy either. The party members are elected. The institution members are promoted by performance like anywhere else. The 'supreme leader' being some sort of a Sauron is a fantasy. Since you're comparing to Nazi Germany, you should also know that Hitler wasn't some sort of a god who bent everyone to his will. He was a leader of a party and a movement with the fascist ideology. Please don't equate Nazism and Communism.

You know that North Korea has actual concentration camps, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoeryong_concentration_camp

Unfortunately, every country has prison colonies. USA has more than anyone, including abroad. You choose to believe 'Database Center for North Korean Human Rights' from which this article is sourced, that it seeks to publicize the truth and isn't funded by CIA. I believe otherwise, after comparing activities of human rights organizations in countries all over the world. It makes me quite sad that the human rights cause and genuinely well meaning people are used to further US imperialism.

>after comparing activities of human rights organizations in countries all over the world.

Is this comparison available for us to view?

Sure. My country(Poland) used to be communist for nearly 50 years, and you know what we called ourselves? Democratic Republic of Poland, just like North Korea calls itself democratic. There were elections, party members were elected - but it was all corrupt through and through. The same party would win with 99.9% of the votes, party members were chosen by who gave the largest bribe or who was closest family member. And the secret police didn't make people "disappear" because of any Western sanctions on the East - it's because they were bad people with bad morals. North Korean government is a bad government, where people at the top have everything and people below them have very little to nothing. Just because they are not starving like people in Africa are, doesn't mean that their system "works". It doesn't.

I love how american and european chauvinism continues to conquer reason in the 21th century. Why mention Africa when most of the world's malnourished people are in Asia? With the great variance that can occur on a continent why mention continents at all? If one must it is irresponsible to omit that both continents were forced into producing cash crops for export to Western Europe.

Does that mean that the Western European models of governance work? Duh!

>Why mention Africa when most of the world's malnourished people are in Asia?

Because in the US, at least in my experience, 'starving people in africa' is kind of a colloquial trope - it is more readily referenced than starving people in asia, since we don't see charity organizations constantly using asian faces to advertise their foundations.

>forced into producing cash crops for export to Western Europe

Who exactly went around the the countries in africa and asia and disallowed them from growing their own food instead of cash crops? My bet is that these places found economic incentive in growing these crops rather than what they would consume locally - whether the global economy is a net benefit or net loss for a poor country is an entirely different discussion

Ok, most of world's malnourished people are in Asia, so now I can't say that people are starving in Africa without being accused of European chauvinism. Got it.

Everyone is saying that North Korea is a bloody dictatorship where people are starving to death. Medias, scientists, tourists who were there (yes, you can actually go there), geopoliticians, ... There is just some evidence everywhere. There is no conspiracy about North Korea and this has nothing to do with capitalism.

They have giant statues of their leader and a massive painting of him in the most prestigious place of the country. On official articles, the leader is mentioned everywhere. They manufacture 'pins' with the face of the leader on it and everyone is wearing it. There is painting of the leader in almost every house. (do I need to continue ?)

>> "They have giant statues of their leader and a massive painting of him in the most prestigious place of the country."

I'm sorry. I agree NK is a horrible place but that reasoning is ridiculous. Every heard of the Lincoln Memorial [0] or the Lansdowne portrait [1].

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Memorial

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lansdowne_portrait

Edit: Just realised you may have been using sarcasm. If so my mistake.

I am pretty sure they were mentioning that in the sense that North Korea has a full blown cult of personality around their leader (who is an unelected life-long dictator).

You'll note that there isn't a giant statue of Obama on the White House lawn and in every town square. In N. Korea this is the case.

Adult Americans are not legally required to wear lapel pins featuring prominent past presidents, nor are they required to have images of those presidents in their homes with nothing else permitted on the wall that hosts those images, while in N. Korea they must.

Americans can freely speak a poor opinion of Obama or the Congress or the SCOTUS and not fear that they and their family will be imprisoned and tortured, unlike N. Korea.

The press can say what they like about Obama/other branches of the government without fear of censorship and imprisonment, unlike N. Korea where there is only state-run media that fawn over their leader.

I think that was what they were trying to get at even if they didn't fully expand it.

> On official articles, the leader is mentioned everywhere.

Washington Post? ;).