Shouldn't we liberate North-Korea?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Yaaaay! Let's all declare war on the most militarized country on earth!

I mean, it's not like the DPRK has the fourth largest armed forces on earth, an unquantified nuclear weapons programme, the third largest chemical weapon stockpile in the world and a reserve force more than 5 times the size of the currently serving US armed forces. Seriously. You thought Iraq and Afghanistan were rough. A second Korean war would be an almost unprecedented bloodbath.

The war would cost billions upon billions of dollars. It would require decades of enormous military presence in the country. It would require the entire population to undergo pro-democratic re-education, it would require the suppression of beliefs which have defined the national psyche and character of an entire population for decades. It would make every military action conducted by any developed country in the latter half of the 20th century look like a picnic.

The DPRK is a failing state. Any state where 25% of GDP goes to the military is a failing state. It's extremely poor, de-urbanized, has virtually no international trade and despite being hugely agrarian society can't even produce adequate food reserves for its own population. It's only going to get harder and harder for the leadership to maintain a bloated military institution on ever-decreasing GDP. Sitting back and watching the state fail might seem harsh, but it's still better (and infinately more realistic) than trying to take on the most bloated military establishment in the world in direct warfare.

As far as anyone can tell, the majority of citizens in the DPRK still ardently believe to some degree in the juche ideal and the principles on which the country was founded. Threatening those principles is going to cause a shitstorm. You can't externally impose reform on a 25 million people, they need to embrace it themselves, to some degree.

Sure, liberating North Korea from communism worked the last time we tried it so why not now when China and Russia are already furious with the west for trampling over their allies in the middle east. Nuclear weapons just adds to the fun, and we got so much experience with telling the Vietnamese that they're too stupid to rule themselves so what could possibly go wrong?

It's certainly better than awaiting the inevitable reforms/collapse.

Do you people have any notion of what the word "sovereign" means? We do not have a moral imperative to invade a country simply because we don't like their government. If a significant portion of the North Korean population was calling for us to liberate them that would be one thing, but to just decide it amongst ourselves is some of the rankest arrogance I've ever seen on this forum- and this is a forum where everyone (myself included) can get pretty damn arrogant.

Unfortunately, Cowboy Bush's Cavalcade Crusade of Combative Invasion puts us in a funny spot. See, he claimed Iraq and Afghanistan were liberations. So that makes people think we do have the responsibility to overthrow any government that isn't as liberal as ours. Leaving aside the disturbing possibility that this doctrine would grant a good many nations in the world the moral imperative to invade and overthrow the US government, it's also problematic in that there are numerous non-democratic nations that we support as allies- most notably Saudi Arabia. Luckily for the citizens of the DPRK, they don't have oil, so the whole issue is moot. There is no profit in invading them, so Republicans won't call for it.

I've often argued against attempts to paint North Korea's sole ally China as a belligerent, aggressive nation. Certainly China's foreign policy is needlessly aggressive and lacks tact, but I've seen no sign the nation actually wants to take over the world and turn the map red. China's foreign policy seems to be one of resisting encirclement and securing resources. But I guarantee you that if anything could switch public sentiment in China and get the second most powerful economy in the world on a war footing, it's unilaterally invading one of China's neighbors- especially because the refugee crisis that would cause would have severe economic repercussions for both China and South Korea.

No, invading North Korea unilaterally is just mindbogglingly foolish.

just to point out: China, as revealed in the infamous US embassy cables leaks, wants an independent, stable, prosperous and unified Korea with Seoul as its capital in the long term.

exasperated at Pyongyangs behaviour they actually accuse North Korea of acting like acting like a "spoiled child" at one point.

in short they want Korean reunification and for it to work.

from an economic and trade pov its not hard to see how this is potentially highly advantageous to them in the long run as a direct neighbour with a land border and from a diplomatic pov i get the feeling North Korea probably causes just as many faceplams in China as it does in the West the only difference being they can't openly say so for diplomatic reasons...except when it's leaked obviously...

Katatori-kun:
Do you people have any notion of what the word "sovereign" means? We do not have a moral imperative to invade a country simply because we don't like their government. If a significant portion of the North Korean population was calling for us to liberate them that would be one thing, but to just decide it amongst ourselves is some of the rankest arrogance I've ever seen on this forum- and this is a forum where everyone (myself included) can get pretty damn arrogant.

Unfortunately, Cowboy Bush's Cavalcade Crusade of Combative Invasion puts us in a funny spot. See, he claimed Iraq and Afghanistan were liberations. So that makes people think we do have the responsibility to overthrow any government that isn't as liberal as ours. Leaving aside the disturbing possibility that this doctrine would grant a good many nations in the world the moral imperative to invade and overthrow the US government, it's also problematic in that there are numerous non-democratic nations that we support as allies- most notably Saudi Arabia. Luckily for the citizens of the DPRK, they don't have oil, so the whole issue is moot. There is no profit in invading them, so Republicans won't call for it.

I've often argued against attempts to paint North Korea's sole ally China as a belligerent, aggressive nation. Certainly China's foreign policy is needlessly aggressive and lacks tact, but I've seen no sign the nation actually wants to take over the world and turn the map red. China's foreign policy seems to be one of resisting encirclement and securing resources. But I guarantee you that if anything could switch public sentiment in China and get the second most powerful economy in the world on a war footing, it's unilaterally invading one of China's neighbors- especially because the refugee crisis that would cause would have severe economic repercussions for both China and South Korea.

No, invading North Korea unilaterally is just mindbogglingly foolish.

This is one of the few times we agree. It would be a total mess trying to "liberate" North Korea. Beyond that though the US Army is already spread far too thinly to begin with in places we have no reason being in. Why people keep insisting that we flex the military might of the US in order to police all the injustice from the world is beyond me.

Hell the Iraqi and Afghan people can't get us out their countries fast enough. Why people believe that the North Korean locals would be any more open to our efforts is beyond me. Even if we go in with the best of intentions we would still be an invading force and even if the North Koreans don't fight against us along side the the military they sure as hell won't welcome us in for punch and pie.

Aaand everybody in the thread misses why we haven't done so. The reason is because SKs capital is within heavy arty range of NKs border. And immediately after the cease-fire they proceeded to build and maintain a metric fuckton of said arty in the mountains by the border. When war comes, unless we go nuclear from the start to take out those arty positions, anywhere between 2 and 5 million South Koreans civilians will be killed before we can take out the artillery with conventional munitions. That of course ignores the nuclear arsenal they now have thanks to that asshole Clinton handing them a pair of light water nuclear reactors.

PrinceOfShapeir:
*Dons my decent person hat.*

Absolutely, we should liberate North Korea, the conditions there are inhuman and the fact that we've let it go on for this long is shameful.

I'm going to guess you'll need for them to create their own movement first, if you just go in and invade they're not going to have much of a smooth transition. This was the case with Iraq, a Socialist dictatorship which everyone though if it was overthrown all would be well but no it just created a vacuum.

There was of course the way all the other Communist governments were brought down i.e. by their own people.

PrinceOfShapeir:

*Puts on Realpolitik hat*

But we can't liberate them, I don't think. One, the Second Korean War (although technically the first never ended) would be catastrophic and result in a -lot- of deaths. North Korea has the largest (albeit a very crappy) military in the world and may have access to nuclear weapons. Moreover, China intervened in the last Korean War and it's more than possible that they'd back up North Korea to keep South Korea, who might as well be the United States' puppet from being right on their border with no buffer zone.

China though was very different 1953 than it is today.

PrinceOfShapeir:

Besides which, what happens after we liberate the North Koreans. Reunification? I dread to imagine what that would do to the South Korean economy.

When West and East Germany were unified it didn't really cause much of a strain on West Germany.

Sleekit:

TheIronRuler:

PrinceOfShapeir:
*Dons my decent person hat.*

Absolutely, we should liberate North Korea, the conditions there are inhuman and the fact that we've let it go on for this long is shameful.

*Puts on Realpolitik hat*

But we can't liberate them, I don't think. One, the Second Korean War (although technically the first never ended) would be catastrophic and result in a -lot- of deaths. North Korea has the largest (albeit a very crappy) military in the world and may have access to nuclear weapons. Moreover, China intervened in the last Korean War and it's more than possible that they'd back up North Korea to keep South Korea, who might as well be the United States' puppet from being right on their border with no buffer zone.

Besides which, what happens after we liberate the North Koreans. Reunification? I dread to imagine what that would do to the South Korean economy.

Reunification would be madness, I agree with your points.

that kind of view neglects the potential opportunity for growth.

there's a reason investors love "emerging economies".

anyway i think simplistically saying "its madness" is an overly negative view and besides which the South Koreans are already preparing for it and are quite prepared to go through with it.

i think its probably fair to say that partition of Korea probably holds more even more pain for Koreans than the partition of Germany did for Germans give the entity known as Germany has no where near the history Korea has (as a prior unified entity) and regardless of the suggestion people aren't solely concerned with nothing but the supposed potential cost.

Korea has a very long history and imo this artificial severance along 38th parallel is likely to be little more than a blip in the grand scheme of things.

tbth if i make it to retirement age i fully expect it to happen within my lifetime.

South korean workforce is more educated and skilled. The current market situation leaves much property in the hands of the gov, and when its gone... Plus, there are great shortages in the north. There will be a very long period of unrest and uncertainty as a foreign power installs a glvernment there.

Danyal:
Should

Whether or not we "Should" do something is a different kettle of fish to whether or not it's a wise thing to do.

While this idea sounds nice, it's not going to happen. Mostly because NOBODY anywhere near North Korea wants this to happen.
South Korea doesn't want it (since war with the North would mean that Seoul gets demolished within hours), China doesn't want it (have fun trying to control the border with millions of North Korean refugees, and the whole "we don't interfere in domestic politics" thing), Russia doesn't want it (same reason as China), Japan doesn't want it (they're sitting pretty close to Korea too, and the vast majority of US troops will go through Japanese territory), and Taiwan doesn't want it (something like this will totally fuck up Taipei-Beijing relations; the last thing the China sea needs is more American ships).

Sure, the idea of bringing freedom and happiness to others is awesome. But are we seriously considering building on top of a foundation of millions of corpses? We are talking about invading a heavily armed country with nukes. And this isn't even looking at the last few times the US tinkered with the internal politics of other nations. Not the prettiest track record, I must say.

It's easy and ego-filling to talk about "liberating" another country when your own backyard is outside the range of the guns.

Liberating North Korea would be a nightmare on so many fronts. The Refuge nightmare, the fact they may turn there nukes on there own population when they figure out they have no way to get them across the border.

While yes, it military is pathetic in terms of equipment and training, and they don't have enough resources to sustain any long term war, like Iraq various resistance groups will make recreating the nation difficult.

The North Korean people are so poor, hungry, and had such malnutrition problems the people are a lot extremely weak and small. For example, the guards on the border, which are were you want your biggest and strongest men to show off your enemy, and be the first to respond to an invasion, are 6 inches shorter than there southern counterparts

Also, we have the problem that many of these people don't want to be liberated. Be bombarded with lies and proparganda enough, and you believe it.

Ugh. I don't like this question. I want to say yes, we should...but no, we shouldn't. NKorea may be a total clusterfuck of a place where perhaps even the possibility of revolting may not be possible and they'd need outside help to throw off their government, but does that mean they're going to be better off after an invasion? I don't necessarily think so. It might even be worse. I think the only way this is going to end is peacefully when North and South Korea kiss and make up when a greedy NKorean leader values money over power and realizes he can make a shit load more money through democratization and unification than he can in maintaining the status quo.

Katatori-kun:
So that makes people think we do have the responsibility to overthrow any government that isn't as liberal as ours.

Not that I disagree with what you're generally saying, but there's quite a significant difference between, "government that isn't as liberal as ours," and, "government that makes Norsefire look benevolent."

We have tried this liberation thing before, and the rest of the world, along with our own people call us evil for doing it. The consensus on this issue is pretty clear. Given the choice between freeing people for oppressive governments or letting them stay oppressed, the world pretty much agrees that the second option is more desirable. I am almost inclined to agree. We should adopt the prime directive.

Riker: "These people need our help!"
Picard: "No, we must not interfere with their culture."
Riker: "But they are mutilating women, and beheading children in the street!"
Picard: "Who is to say that our way of life is superior to theirs?"

Danyal:
snip

I don't know how familiar you are with the Hallyu wave, but South Korea is already liberating North Korea in a very subtle way. Give it time, the people of North Korea are slowly seeing past the veil that their government has placed in front of their eyes.

Katatori-kun:
Do you people have any notion of what the word "sovereign" means?

Government ignores rights of their 'own' citizens - meh.
Government ignores rights of another nation, a nation that ignores the rights of their 'own' citizens - ONE OF THE MOST ARROGANT THINGS I'VE EVER SEEN

I've got multiple Eastern European friends who hate living in their countries, because they lack progress - because of half a century of communism. I personally know multiple people who experienced Soviet terror and who absolutely hate the Soviet Union and communism. And now I'm f*cking arrogant because I value people instead of nations?

Katatori-kun:
If a significant portion of the North Korean population was calling for us to liberate them that would be one thing, but to just decide it amongst ourselves is some of the rankest arrogance I've ever seen on this forum- and this is a forum where everyone (myself included) can get pretty damn arrogant.

Oh yes - the North Koreans aren't starting a Facebook campaign to demand their own liberty - how's that possible?

evilthecat:
Yaaaay! Let's all declare war on the most militarized country on earth!

I mean, it's not like the DPRK has the fourth largest armed forces on earth, an unquantified nuclear weapons programme, the third largest chemical weapon stockpile in the world and a reserve force more than 5 times the size of the currently serving US armed forces. Seriously. You thought Iraq and Afghanistan were rough. A second Korean war would be an almost unprecedented bloodbath.

The war would cost billions upon billions of dollars. It would require decades of enormous military presence in the country. It would require the entire population to undergo pro-democratic re-education, it would require the suppression of beliefs which have defined the national psyche and character of an entire population for decades. It would make every military action conducted by any developed country in the latter half of the 20th century look like a picnic.

The DPRK is a failing state. Any state where 25% of GDP goes to the military is a failing state. It's extremely poor, de-urbanized, has virtually no international trade and despite being hugely agrarian society can't even produce adequate food reserves for its own population. It's only going to get harder and harder for the leadership to maintain a bloated military institution on ever-decreasing GDP. Sitting back and watching the state fail might seem harsh, but it's still better (and infinately more realistic) than trying to take on the most bloated military establishment in the world in direct warfare.

As far as anyone can tell, the majority of citizens in the DPRK still ardently believe to some degree in the juche ideal and the principles on which the country was founded. Threatening those principles is going to cause a shitstorm. You can't externally impose reform on a 25 million people, they need to embrace it themselves, to some degree.

woo, I agree with every word. This is one of the situations where I thank my mother for giving birth to me not in such a place. Thanks, mom!

evilthecat:
Yaaaay! Let's all declare war on the most militarized country on earth!

I mean, it's not like the DPRK has the fourth largest armed forces on earth, an unquantified nuclear weapons programme, the third largest chemical weapon stockpile in the world and a reserve force more than 5 times the size of the currently serving US armed forces. Seriously. You thought Iraq and Afghanistan were rough. A second Korean war would be an almost unprecedented bloodbath.

The war would cost billions upon billions of dollars. It would require decades of enormous military presence in the country. It would require the entire population to undergo pro-democratic re-education, it would require the suppression of beliefs which have defined the national psyche and character of an entire population for decades. It would make every military action conducted by any developed country in the latter half of the 20th century look like a picnic.

The DPRK is a failing state. Any state where 25% of GDP goes to the military is a failing state. It's extremely poor, de-urbanized, has virtually no international trade and despite being hugely agrarian society can't even produce adequate food reserves for its own population. It's only going to get harder and harder for the leadership to maintain a bloated military institution on ever-decreasing GDP. Sitting back and watching the state fail might seem harsh, but it's still better (and infinately more realistic) than trying to take on the most bloated military establishment in the world in direct warfare.

As far as anyone can tell, the majority of citizens in the DPRK still ardently believe to some degree in the juche ideal and the principles on which the country was founded. Threatening those principles is going to cause a shitstorm. You can't externally impose reform on a 25 million people, they need to embrace it themselves, to some degree.

Agreed, and I'd also point out any attack would decimate seoul and kill 10s if not 100s of thousands of South Koreans.

It would be too costly (in money and blood) to simply invade North Korea, change would have to come from within the state over time.

evilthecat:
Yaaaay! Let's all declare war on the most militarized country on earth!

I mean, it's not like the DPRK has the fourth largest armed forces on earth, an unquantified nuclear weapons programme, the third largest chemical weapon stockpile in the world and a reserve force more than 5 times the size of the currently serving US armed forces. Seriously. You thought Iraq and Afghanistan were rough. A second Korean war would be an almost unprecedented bloodbath.

Lets be fair here, though. They may have tons of men, but these are extremely underfed men, as a consequence are much smaller and weaker than their capitalist counter parts (go to the border, and you will see the men on the Northern side are 6 inches shorter). They have tons of reserves, but these are children and old men with bladed weapons. They have tons of equipment, but at it's youngest they are what the USSR had at it's fall, and the oldest predates the Korean war (a large portion of their air-force is BIPLANES). They have many guns and tanks, but no bullets or oil to use them. They have nukes and chemical weapons, but no way to get them across the border.

The results of a war, however, may be much worse, with the weapons turned on the North Korean people in punishment and desperation, just like one of Hitler's last order to bomb Germany for failing him.

No.

While the situation in North Korea is shitty, having our asses handed to us over the course of three guerrilla wars would tend to make most sane folks a bit cautious. Keep in mind I'm not talking about the initial battles, which would be against the North Korean military: the US is great at kicking over such militaries, as we proved at the start of the Iraq war. The issue is once we start fighting the inevitable terrorism-warfare, we suck at it: the opponent doesn't have to play by the rules, and that means we get stuck in a quagmire. Let's also ignore that this is a country that has nuclear weapons, and a leader possibly crazy enough to use them out of desperation on his own people.

Also there would be severe diplomatic repercussions. As much of a wart as North Korea is on the world, it does not exist in a vacuum. The nation has close ties with China, and getting into a war with North Korea might wind up dragging in the Chinese, who already distrust America and its increasingly loud positions over matters in Asia. If you add to that the we have some serious fucking war fatigue and that the stereotype of Americans as war-mongerers has grown exponentially over the last few years (meaning we would have few allies in the fight)... it's just not worth it on a diplomatic level.

We can happily sit here till the cows come home while North Korea's people get fucked over by their cruel dictator. It's a bad situation, but war at this point would be an absolute nightmare, and the only hope for change lies with the North Koreans themselves, either through revolution or a Burma-esque change in tone.

I suppose if you take out the need for the well....war, forcing a regime change would be a good thing.

However as far as fighting a war with a nation full of crazy people with a huge(if ill equipped) military and nuclear weapons? Fuck a lot of that.

Axolotl:
... Then consider that North Korea has nuclear weapons.

...

Im sorry, I had to stop and laugh there for a few minutes, thank you for that.

OT: Considering the korean war hasnt ever officially ended, I dont think it would be advisable. while I dont know of anyone who would come to the defense of N. Korea, that they might have china on their side is not something worth pissing around with. Plus whoever does take them over most likely doesnt have the time, resources, or man power ot occupy.

Just let them go. They're not a danger to anyone considering they cant get their shit together.

Plus:

Atrocious Joystick:
.... Just like we SHOULD liberate ... Syria ...

we did liberate Syria, or at least gave them the chance, as a UN united effort (primarily led by the British cause its about time they cleaned up one of their messes) and look where it got us. The UN by and large and pretty much a useless organization since it cant police the world worth a damn without looking to the United States to do it and dragging its feet along and all of its peace efforts like helping poor nations usually back fires because the countries they try to help dont address the issue of the psychopath leading the country keeping the people impoverished and downtroddened.

EDIT:

Shock and Awe:
...

However as far as fighting a war with a nation full of crazy people with a huge(if ill equipped) military and nuclear weapons? Fuck a lot of that.

The north korean army isnt all that big. It may be something like the third or fourth largest military in man power but I dont even think they spend 10 Billion dollars on the military), but even at that South Korea is spending triple the N. Korean's military budget on its own military. Its greatest show of Nuclear Weaponry was a missile it launched in japan's direction that turned out to be a dud and their nuclear program is just laughable.

If pretty much any of the surrounding nations got into a war with N. Korea (including its neighbor to the south), they'd steam roll over N. Korea. the only real threat is who might back them, and unless china or russia does theres not really a need for concern. just no one needs it witht is economy causing rebuilding taht country would cost infinitely more than whatever it would take to crush it and no one wants that bill.

Shouldn't N.Korea liberate us Westerners from the evil Capitalist dogs? I mean, don't they believe that we are the ones that are being oppressed? If we have the right to invade their country under the pretense of liberation, shouldn't they be afforded the same right? Or is it only Capitalistic Western countries that are allowed to "liberate" their fellow man based solely on their principles of right and wrong?

Just as a bit of counter-balance. My money is on Kim Jong-Un reforming - like China and Vietnam - over the next decade.

Now there is some good stuff to come out of North Korea recently, like these young North Korean musicians doing a cover of Ah Ha's "Take on Me" with accordians:

Oh, and by the way. They put that song together at short-notice - if I remember rightly within one or two days - after being lent a CD of European pop by a Norwegian visitor. Pure genuis.

Regards

Nightspore

wintercoat:
Shouldn't N.Korea liberate us Westerners from the evil Capitalist dogs? I mean, don't they believe that we are the ones that are being oppressed? If we have the right to invade their country under the pretense of liberation, shouldn't they be afforded the same right? Or is it only Capitalistic Western countries that are allowed to "liberate" their fellow man based solely on their principles of right and wrong?

Okay, put out five rights, benefits or quality of life aspects that exist in the DPRK that do not exist in the west.

And hey, while we're applying the absurd standard that all opinions are equal, why don't we embrace the flat earth society. I men, don't they believe that we are the ones being deluded into thinking the earth is round? Or is it only insane cultural relativism that gets to use that standard.

the clockmaker:

wintercoat:
Shouldn't N.Korea liberate us Westerners from the evil Capitalist dogs? I mean, don't they believe that we are the ones that are being oppressed? If we have the right to invade their country under the pretense of liberation, shouldn't they be afforded the same right? Or is it only Capitalistic Western countries that are allowed to "liberate" their fellow man based solely on their principles of right and wrong?

Okay, put out five rights, benefits or quality of life aspects that exist in the DPRK that do not exist in the west.

And hey, while we're applying the absurd standard that all opinions are equal, why don't we embrace the flat earth society. I men, don't they believe that we are the ones being deluded into thinking the earth is round? Or is it only insane cultural relativism that gets to use that standard.

You do realize that all of those things are subjective based on an individual's world view, yes? The N.Koreans are heavily indoctrinated to believe that the Western world is the one of oppression. They believe Dear Leader guides them out of love, and that, were it up to the dirty Capitalist pig dogs of the west, their entire culture would be stripped from them in an instant, and they would live as second-class citizens. The majority of them don't even realize that they already live as second-class citizens! And the army is even more indoctrinated than the regular people are!

Now imagine Kim Jong-un goes full retard and decides to tell his people he wishes to "liberate the poor oppressed Westerners for their own good, and bring them under the banner of the People's Republic." How do you think they'll react? Do you think they'll realize that Dear Leader is a dictator ruling over a third world country so riddled with human rights violations that it'll be studied in textbooks for years to come? Or do you think they'll happily throw themselves into the grinder in an effort to help the poor oppressed Westerners?

wintercoat:

the clockmaker:

wintercoat:
Shouldn't N.Korea liberate us Westerners from the evil Capitalist dogs? I mean, don't they believe that we are the ones that are being oppressed? If we have the right to invade their country under the pretense of liberation, shouldn't they be afforded the same right? Or is it only Capitalistic Western countries that are allowed to "liberate" their fellow man based solely on their principles of right and wrong?

Okay, put out five rights, benefits or quality of life aspects that exist in the DPRK that do not exist in the west.

And hey, while we're applying the absurd standard that all opinions are equal, why don't we embrace the flat earth society. I men, don't they believe that we are the ones being deluded into thinking the earth is round? Or is it only insane cultural relativism that gets to use that standard.

You do realize that all of those things are subjective based on an individual's world view, yes? The N.Koreans are heavily indoctrinated to believe that the Western world is the one of oppression. They believe Dear Leader guides them out of love, and that, were it up to the dirty Capitalist pig dogs of the west, their entire culture would be stripped from them in an instant, and they would live as second-class citizens. The majority of them don't even realize that they already live as second-class citizens! And the army is even more indoctrinated than the regular people are!

Now imagine Kim Jong-un goes full retard and decides to tell his people he wishes to "liberate the poor oppressed Westerners for their own good, and bring them under the banner of the People's Republic." How do you think they'll react? Do you think they'll realize that Dear Leader is a dictator ruling over a third world country so riddled with human rights violations that it'll be studied in textbooks for years to come? Or do you think they'll happily throw themselves into the grinder in an effort to help the poor oppressed Westerners?

They would blindly follow their leader, and they would be wrong. What you are trying to do is put the west on their level by implying that we are just as indoctrinated as they are. So, point out some rights that exist in the DPRK that don't exist in the west otherwise you are just engaging in 'he says she says' without any backing.

Again, outside of a group therepy session, something does not become valid just because somebody thinks it. Life is demonstably better in the west than in the DPRK by just about any metric you care to use, so the issue of the DPRK's citizens becomes a logistic and planning issue not a moral one. Is that what you are getting at, that an indoctrinated population is a barrier to liberation in terms of insurgent and passive resistance to the foriegn forces? Or are you claiming that the fact that they believe that the dear leader invented the hamburger somehow invalidates the human moral imperitive to help those living in the DPRK, by whatever method?

the clockmaker:

wintercoat:

the clockmaker:

Okay, put out five rights, benefits or quality of life aspects that exist in the DPRK that do not exist in the west.

And hey, while we're applying the absurd standard that all opinions are equal, why don't we embrace the flat earth society. I men, don't they believe that we are the ones being deluded into thinking the earth is round? Or is it only insane cultural relativism that gets to use that standard.

You do realize that all of those things are subjective based on an individual's world view, yes? The N.Koreans are heavily indoctrinated to believe that the Western world is the one of oppression. They believe Dear Leader guides them out of love, and that, were it up to the dirty Capitalist pig dogs of the west, their entire culture would be stripped from them in an instant, and they would live as second-class citizens. The majority of them don't even realize that they already live as second-class citizens! And the army is even more indoctrinated than the regular people are!

Now imagine Kim Jong-un goes full retard and decides to tell his people he wishes to "liberate the poor oppressed Westerners for their own good, and bring them under the banner of the People's Republic." How do you think they'll react? Do you think they'll realize that Dear Leader is a dictator ruling over a third world country so riddled with human rights violations that it'll be studied in textbooks for years to come? Or do you think they'll happily throw themselves into the grinder in an effort to help the poor oppressed Westerners?

They would blindly follow their leader, and they would be wrong. What you are trying to do is put the west on their level by implying that we are just as indoctrinated as they are. So, point out some rights that exist in the DPRK that don't exist in the west otherwise you are just engaging in 'he says she says' without any backing.

Again, outside of a group therepy session, something does not become valid just because somebody thinks it. Life is demonstably better in the west than in the DPRK by just about any metric you care to use, so the issue of the DPRK's citizens becomes a logistic and planning issue not a moral one. Is that what you are getting at, that an indoctrinated population is a barrier to liberation in terms of insurgent and passive resistance to the foriegn forces? Or are you claiming that the fact that they believe that the dear leader invented the hamburger somehow invalidates the human moral imperitive to help those living in the DPRK, by whatever method?

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that our reasons for liberating them would be the exact same reasons they would use to "liberate" us. Yet we would call them wrong and bomb them back to the stoneage, all the while patting ourselves on the back. Doing something because you think it's right is selfish and foolhardy, especially when dealing with a heavily indoctrinated people who would see any and all help from us as an attempt to take over, and would fight against us every step of the way. My point is that they'd fight us, just like we'd fight them.

wintercoat:

the clockmaker:

wintercoat:

You do realize that all of those things are subjective based on an individual's world view, yes? The N.Koreans are heavily indoctrinated to believe that the Western world is the one of oppression. They believe Dear Leader guides them out of love, and that, were it up to the dirty Capitalist pig dogs of the west, their entire culture would be stripped from them in an instant, and they would live as second-class citizens. The majority of them don't even realize that they already live as second-class citizens! And the army is even more indoctrinated than the regular people are!

Now imagine Kim Jong-un goes full retard and decides to tell his people he wishes to "liberate the poor oppressed Westerners for their own good, and bring them under the banner of the People's Republic." How do you think they'll react? Do you think they'll realize that Dear Leader is a dictator ruling over a third world country so riddled with human rights violations that it'll be studied in textbooks for years to come? Or do you think they'll happily throw themselves into the grinder in an effort to help the poor oppressed Westerners?

They would blindly follow their leader, and they would be wrong. What you are trying to do is put the west on their level by implying that we are just as indoctrinated as they are. So, point out some rights that exist in the DPRK that don't exist in the west otherwise you are just engaging in 'he says she says' without any backing.

Again, outside of a group therepy session, something does not become valid just because somebody thinks it. Life is demonstably better in the west than in the DPRK by just about any metric you care to use, so the issue of the DPRK's citizens becomes a logistic and planning issue not a moral one. Is that what you are getting at, that an indoctrinated population is a barrier to liberation in terms of insurgent and passive resistance to the foriegn forces? Or are you claiming that the fact that they believe that the dear leader invented the hamburger somehow invalidates the human moral imperitive to help those living in the DPRK, by whatever method?

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that our reasons for liberating them would be the exact same reasons they would use to "liberate" us. Yet we would call them wrong and bomb them back to the stoneage, all the while patting ourselves on the back. Doing something because you think it's right is selfish and foolhardy, especially when dealing with a heavily indoctrinated people who would see any and all help from us as an attempt to take over, and would fight against us every step of the way. My point is that they'd fight us, just like we'd fight them.

Lets say that you have a car, you have the papers for it, you payed your money for it and you care for that thing like it was your first born son. I then claim that it is my car, I have none of the support for my claim that you do, but I make it all the same. Does that mean that I should be listend to? that seems to be the point that you are raising, that simply because they are claiming something their claim is valid.

And I am curious, if doing what I think is right is wrong, what motivation do you suggest for action.

the clockmaker:

wintercoat:

the clockmaker:

They would blindly follow their leader, and they would be wrong. What you are trying to do is put the west on their level by implying that we are just as indoctrinated as they are. So, point out some rights that exist in the DPRK that don't exist in the west otherwise you are just engaging in 'he says she says' without any backing.

Again, outside of a group therepy session, something does not become valid just because somebody thinks it. Life is demonstably better in the west than in the DPRK by just about any metric you care to use, so the issue of the DPRK's citizens becomes a logistic and planning issue not a moral one. Is that what you are getting at, that an indoctrinated population is a barrier to liberation in terms of insurgent and passive resistance to the foriegn forces? Or are you claiming that the fact that they believe that the dear leader invented the hamburger somehow invalidates the human moral imperitive to help those living in the DPRK, by whatever method?

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that our reasons for liberating them would be the exact same reasons they would use to "liberate" us. Yet we would call them wrong and bomb them back to the stoneage, all the while patting ourselves on the back. Doing something because you think it's right is selfish and foolhardy, especially when dealing with a heavily indoctrinated people who would see any and all help from us as an attempt to take over, and would fight against us every step of the way. My point is that they'd fight us, just like we'd fight them.

Lets say that you have a car, you have the papers for it, you payed your money for it and you care for that thing like it was your first born son. I then claim that it is my car, I have none of the support for my claim that you do, but I make it all the same. Does that mean that I should be listend to? that seems to be the point that you are raising, that simply because they are claiming something their claim is valid.

And I am curious, if doing what I think is right is wrong, what motivation do you suggest for action.

You aren't fucking listening to me.

Lets use your analogy. I own a car, have all the papers filled, everything's squared away. I treat it like shit. The undercarriage is half rusted away, the break pads are worn down, as are the tires, the windows are covered in cardboard, and there are more dents in it than the lunar surface. It's been considered a wreck and I no longer pay insurance on it, or even use it for that matter. You want to fix my car because you think it deserves fixing. I tell you to fuck off, but you do it anyways, beating me into submission and tying me down. I now have to pay insurance on my car because it's in working condition, have to refile all my papers, get it inspected, everything. I can't actually afford to do this, but because of how things work, I'm forced to. You throw me a fiver and say that you're helping me, but now I can't afford to pay my rent, or buy food, because I have to pay my car insurance or go to jail.

What makes you any better than me going to your house and destroying your car because i think your materialistic ways are destroying your life, forcing you to buy a new car?

wintercoat:

the clockmaker:

wintercoat:

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that our reasons for liberating them would be the exact same reasons they would use to "liberate" us. Yet we would call them wrong and bomb them back to the stoneage, all the while patting ourselves on the back. Doing something because you think it's right is selfish and foolhardy, especially when dealing with a heavily indoctrinated people who would see any and all help from us as an attempt to take over, and would fight against us every step of the way. My point is that they'd fight us, just like we'd fight them.

Lets say that you have a car, you have the papers for it, you payed your money for it and you care for that thing like it was your first born son. I then claim that it is my car, I have none of the support for my claim that you do, but I make it all the same. Does that mean that I should be listend to? that seems to be the point that you are raising, that simply because they are claiming something their claim is valid.

And I am curious, if doing what I think is right is wrong, what motivation do you suggest for action.

You aren't fucking listening to me.

Lets use your analogy. I own a car, have all the papers filled, everything's squared away. I treat it like shit. The undercarriage is half rusted away, the break pads are worn down, as are the tires, the windows are covered in cardboard, and there are more dents in it than the lunar surface. It's been considered a wreck and I no longer pay insurance on it, or even use it for that matter. You want to fix my car because you think it deserves fixing. I tell you to fuck off, but you do it anyways, beating me into submission and tying me down. I now have to pay insurance on my car because it's in working condition, have to refile all my papers, get it inspected, everything. I can't actually afford to do this, but because of how things work, I'm forced to. You throw me a fiver and say that you're helping me, but now I can't afford to pay my rent, or buy food, because I have to pay my car insurance or go to jail.

What makes you any better than me going to your house and destroying your car because i think your materialistic ways are destroying your life, forcing you to buy a new car?

Well, that was not so much my analogy as a completely differant one, but it had cars in it, so that's something. I do like how you compare essential freedoms and assurances to something undesirable like a beat up old car. Do you not use your right to free speech, have you let the assurances that you will not be sent off to a camp in the mountains rust, do you treat your right to self determination like shit?

I am listening too you, but you're not saying much. You can't escape facts by shouting 'differant world view' and then sticking your head in the sand. Can you point to anything, that validates the world view of the DPRK having better conditions than the west. If not, then it is not a valid view. If it is not a valid view, then why bring it up?

You also did not answer my question, if doing what I think is right is foolish, what motivation do you use to do anything?

Now what you alluded to in this post was that the horrors of war might outweigh any possible benefits of liberation, is that what you want to discuss or are you simply going for the 'everyone has their opinion and that is sacrosant no matter what it is and no matter how little backing it has'.

And again, can you indicate anything that the DPRK has that we don't because as someone from the west (though I never liked how australia was labeled as 'west') I can vote, voice dissent, choose my own career, be safe from government violence, not be starved to the point of cannibalism and not to see any children I have with a foriegner forcibly torn from their mother and killed for being racially impure.

the clockmaker:

wintercoat:

the clockmaker:

Lets say that you have a car, you have the papers for it, you payed your money for it and you care for that thing like it was your first born son. I then claim that it is my car, I have none of the support for my claim that you do, but I make it all the same. Does that mean that I should be listend to? that seems to be the point that you are raising, that simply because they are claiming something their claim is valid.

And I am curious, if doing what I think is right is wrong, what motivation do you suggest for action.

You aren't fucking listening to me.

Lets use your analogy. I own a car, have all the papers filled, everything's squared away. I treat it like shit. The undercarriage is half rusted away, the break pads are worn down, as are the tires, the windows are covered in cardboard, and there are more dents in it than the lunar surface. It's been considered a wreck and I no longer pay insurance on it, or even use it for that matter. You want to fix my car because you think it deserves fixing. I tell you to fuck off, but you do it anyways, beating me into submission and tying me down. I now have to pay insurance on my car because it's in working condition, have to refile all my papers, get it inspected, everything. I can't actually afford to do this, but because of how things work, I'm forced to. You throw me a fiver and say that you're helping me, but now I can't afford to pay my rent, or buy food, because I have to pay my car insurance or go to jail.

What makes you any better than me going to your house and destroying your car because i think your materialistic ways are destroying your life, forcing you to buy a new car?

Well, that was not so much my analogy as a completely differant one, but it had cars in it, so that's something. I do like how you compare essential freedoms and assurances to something undesirable like a beat up old car. Do you not use your right to free speech, have you let the assurances that you will not be sent off to a camp in the mountains rust, do you treat your right to self determination like shit?

I am listening too you, but you're not saying much. You can't escape facts by shouting 'differant world view' and then sticking your head in the sand. Can you point to anything, that validates the world view of the DPRK having better conditions than the west. If not, then it is not a valid view. If it is not a valid view, then why bring it up?

You also did not answer my question, if doing what I think is right is foolish, what motivation do you use to do anything?

Now what you alluded to in this post was that the horrors of war might outweigh any possible benefits of liberation, is that what you want to discuss or are you simply going for the 'everyone has their opinion and that is sacrosant no matter what it is and no matter how little backing it has'.

And again, can you indicate anything that the DPRK has that we don't because as someone from the west (though I never liked how australia was labeled as 'west') I can vote, voice dissent, choose my own career, be safe from government violence, not be starved to the point of cannibalism and not to see any children I have with a foriegner forcibly torn from their mother and killed for being racially impure.

Okay, let me try and make this simple. They feel the same way about the west as the west feels about them. If we have the right to invade them for no other reason than because we think it's right, then they should have the right to invade us. I am trying to point out that "because we think it's the right thing to do" is a fucked up reason to invade an already disheveled country and fuck it up even more.

wintercoat:

the clockmaker:

wintercoat:

You aren't fucking listening to me.

Lets use your analogy. I own a car, have all the papers filled, everything's squared away. I treat it like shit. The undercarriage is half rusted away, the break pads are worn down, as are the tires, the windows are covered in cardboard, and there are more dents in it than the lunar surface. It's been considered a wreck and I no longer pay insurance on it, or even use it for that matter. You want to fix my car because you think it deserves fixing. I tell you to fuck off, but you do it anyways, beating me into submission and tying me down. I now have to pay insurance on my car because it's in working condition, have to refile all my papers, get it inspected, everything. I can't actually afford to do this, but because of how things work, I'm forced to. You throw me a fiver and say that you're helping me, but now I can't afford to pay my rent, or buy food, because I have to pay my car insurance or go to jail.

What makes you any better than me going to your house and destroying your car because i think your materialistic ways are destroying your life, forcing you to buy a new car?

Well, that was not so much my analogy as a completely differant one, but it had cars in it, so that's something. I do like how you compare essential freedoms and assurances to something undesirable like a beat up old car. Do you not use your right to free speech, have you let the assurances that you will not be sent off to a camp in the mountains rust, do you treat your right to self determination like shit?

I am listening too you, but you're not saying much. You can't escape facts by shouting 'differant world view' and then sticking your head in the sand. Can you point to anything, that validates the world view of the DPRK having better conditions than the west. If not, then it is not a valid view. If it is not a valid view, then why bring it up?

You also did not answer my question, if doing what I think is right is foolish, what motivation do you use to do anything?

Now what you alluded to in this post was that the horrors of war might outweigh any possible benefits of liberation, is that what you want to discuss or are you simply going for the 'everyone has their opinion and that is sacrosant no matter what it is and no matter how little backing it has'.

And again, can you indicate anything that the DPRK has that we don't because as someone from the west (though I never liked how australia was labeled as 'west') I can vote, voice dissent, choose my own career, be safe from government violence, not be starved to the point of cannibalism and not to see any children I have with a foriegner forcibly torn from their mother and killed for being racially impure.

Okay, let me try and make this simple. They feel the same way about the west as the west feels about them. If we have the right to invade them for no other reason than because we think it's right, then they should have the right to invade us. I am trying to point out that "because we think it's the right thing to do" is a fucked up reason to invade an already disheveled country and fuck it up even more.

You can break it down all the way to the 2+2=5 level, that won't make it any more right. I see exactly what you are saying, I have seen it since your first post, you are wrong, you are not, in any way, supporting your opinion.

See where you are falling down, is I and several others are saying it is right because of X Y Z (go back over the thread for the reasoning) we are not just saying that it is right, we are backing it up. Either you can back up their reasoning for thinking that they are right, or it is not a valid view.

And again if you do not act on what you think is right, what do you act on?

the clockmaker:

wintercoat:

the clockmaker:

Well, that was not so much my analogy as a completely differant one, but it had cars in it, so that's something. I do like how you compare essential freedoms and assurances to something undesirable like a beat up old car. Do you not use your right to free speech, have you let the assurances that you will not be sent off to a camp in the mountains rust, do you treat your right to self determination like shit?

I am listening too you, but you're not saying much. You can't escape facts by shouting 'differant world view' and then sticking your head in the sand. Can you point to anything, that validates the world view of the DPRK having better conditions than the west. If not, then it is not a valid view. If it is not a valid view, then why bring it up?

You also did not answer my question, if doing what I think is right is foolish, what motivation do you use to do anything?

Now what you alluded to in this post was that the horrors of war might outweigh any possible benefits of liberation, is that what you want to discuss or are you simply going for the 'everyone has their opinion and that is sacrosant no matter what it is and no matter how little backing it has'.

And again, can you indicate anything that the DPRK has that we don't because as someone from the west (though I never liked how australia was labeled as 'west') I can vote, voice dissent, choose my own career, be safe from government violence, not be starved to the point of cannibalism and not to see any children I have with a foriegner forcibly torn from their mother and killed for being racially impure.

Okay, let me try and make this simple. They feel the same way about the west as the west feels about them. If we have the right to invade them for no other reason than because we think it's right, then they should have the right to invade us. I am trying to point out that "because we think it's the right thing to do" is a fucked up reason to invade an already disheveled country and fuck it up even more.

You can break it down all the way to the 2+2=5 level, that won't make it any more right. I see exactly what you are saying, I have seen it since your first post, you are wrong, you are not, in any way, supporting your opinion.

See where you are falling down, is I and several others are saying it is right because of X Y Z (go back over the thread for the reasoning) we are not just saying that it is right, we are backing it up. Either you can back up their reasoning for thinking that they are right, or it is not a valid view.

And again if you do not act on what you think is right, what do you act on?

Okay, how about this. If you cannot put yourself in the shoes of the people you want to "liberate" and see it as a good thing, IT'S NOT A GOOD FUCKING THING! Not once, not fucking once, did I bring up whether N.Korea's thinking was right or not, and yet your whole god damned premise for shooting me down was that one thought. My whole premise was that, just because you think something is a worthy cause, doesn't make it a worthy cause, by juxtaposing it with the opposition wanting the same thing for the same reasons. And you know what, you've proved my point perfectly. You are so clouded with the idea that they're wrong for thinking that way but you're right, you can't see how stupid an idea it is.

Edit: Oh, and the car represented the run down, destroyed state that N.Korea is in. Nice to know you don't think it's worth fighting for.

If we do "liberate" North Korea, I'd like it to be a U.N. operation if something happens. We can spearhead it, but I think the manpower needed to get rid of the current regime and get one in that can stand on it's two feet needs something like that.

Now if they could only agree on something.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here