Shouldn't we liberate North-Korea?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

wintercoat:

the clockmaker:

wintercoat:

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.

The easiest way to shut down someone who think's they're right is to actually show them how they are wrong, something that you have not done. I actually can put myself into the shoes of a citizen of the DPRK (and by the way, for someone so big on walking in another's shoes, you'd think that you would know that calling it 'north korea' is highly offensive to them) I can do this as much as anyone who lives outside their cone of silence and doesn't suffer what they suffer can. One of my bookmarks is the DPRK news site, in all of its years behind the time glory because comparing what I think to what they think and examining the differance is how you learn how others think.

It is the differance between sypathy and empathy, I can empathise with that world view, I find it distasteful to, even temporarily bring my assumptions into line with theirs, but I can do it, I do not sympathise with it and you seem to be assuming that the two acts are inherintly linked.
We have two possibilies, either the worldview of the DPRK govt. is valid, in which case there would be a requirement to support it. Or it is invalid, which is where it becomes less a matter of pondering it and more a matter of dealing with the fallout of it.

I have put forward reasons backing up why I am right, why life in the west is better than life in the DPRK, so either you agree that I am right about this, or you need to put forward some support as to why I am not. At the moment, all you are doing is insisting that I am wrong because I won't admit that I am wrong.

I also like the edit where you try to make an assumption about me based on the fact that your metaphor was poorly worded and failed to convey the meaning that you wished to inject. For the record, what I took was that the cars were the philosophical and political systems that the parties have.

Going to war with North Korea would cause a large degree of suffering in South Korea. It's not worth it, whatever you might think of the North Korean prison administration government.

Not G. Ivingname:

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.

Seoul is right there on the border and has quite a few artillery pieces trained on it. Around fourteen thousand if I'm not mistaken, and well entrenched. The North Korean government need not attack its own people to exact a heavy price in blood.

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.

Sovereignty has little to do with it. We wouldn't have a moral imperative to invade a country with or without sovereignty.

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.

Yes, Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un tells the citizens that they enjoy the leadership of the Eternal President Kim Il Sung, and who are we to disagree with a great person born of heaven?

No, if it were a simple matter of sovereignty it would be an open and shut case. North Korea is about as 'sovereign' as a regularly abusive husband over his wife. Yeah, maybe in some twisted Stockholm syndrome kind of way she does still love him, but that's not exactly enough for most people. Usually people who want to shut down such a relationship aren't denounced as supremely arrogant. Now, certainly, it would be improper to go after every regime that has less political freedom than the United States or France or the Netherlands, but the North Korean state simply goes beyond the pale.

The regime escapes justice because they've taken hostages. It's purely a matter of all the other horrible consequences a regime-changing invasion would entail. Sovereignty is of the least concern in this particular case. It's not that North Korea has less political freedom than the United States or any other country, it's that it has absolutely none whatsoever. For a supposed "People's Republic", the people have absolutely no input whatsoever into decisions that are made, and the decisions that are made benefit the military of North Korea at the expense of its people. Some of the results can be seen from space. It is a predatory relationship that results in poverty, starvation, and intellectual and economic stagnation. They're not just being 'green.'

Korean War II: Electric Boogaloo (now with more chemical weapons) doesn't sound like the most fantastic idea right now.

Reading these comments, you people make me sick. The only thing it seems you care about is that you are safe and if 24million people are suffering beyond your contemplation, you don't give a fuck.

The question about do we have the moral right to invade another country, even without getting into a discussion about it, let's look at it from a different angle, did we have a right to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria. Let's say no. But that didn't stop us, so why can't we invade this one where people are suffering much, much more ?

About warfare do we need to go to a direct war ? I like a good blood bath like any other guy ? But what about if the liberation would be done from inside. The North Korea is becoming weaker and with the change of the dictator, ore than ever. It's possible, especially if China would support this, to simply assassinate the thousand people in power and support by supplies the pro democracy movements which i am sure would emerge. The country might get to be in distress and civil war may brake out, but with the support from the west the pro democracy forces would win i believe. I am just brainstorming. But liberation is definitely possible, especially if China would go aboard with it.

We talk about the Arab spring and how great it is most of those countries freed themselves from dictatorship and we celebrate it ( and that is wonderful). But the fact is the dictatorship that was in those countries is like the United States compared to what they have in North Korea. This might have been a figure of speech, but most of the people literally don't understand how bad it is in North Korea. For god fucking sake, they still have concentration camps, remember the ones that Nazis used in ww2? The ones that Stalin did ? I can't realize how other people could justify such suffering of others and just say, ou yea it will collapse by itself. Yea nothing lasts forever in 20-40 years North Korea might be gone. But what about all the millions of lives lost till then ????

David Merton:
Reading these comments, you people make me sick. The only thing it seems you care about is that you are safe and if 24million people are suffering beyond your contemplation, you don't give a fuck.

The question about do we have the moral right to invade another country, even without getting into a discussion about it, let's look at it from a different angle, did we have a right to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria. Let's say no. But that didn't stop us, so why can't we invade this one where people are suffering much, much more ?

We talk about the Arab spring and how great it is most of those countries freed themselves from dictatorship and we celebrate it ( and that is wonderful). But the fact is the dictatorship that was in those countries is like the United States compared to what they have in North Korea. This might have been a figure of speech, but most of the people literally don't understand how bad it is in North Korea. For god fucking sake, they still have concentration camps, remember the ones that Nazis used in ww2? The ones that Stalin did ? I can't realize how other people could justify such suffering of others and just say, ou yea it will collapse by itself. Yea nothing lasts forever in 20-40 years North Korea might be gone. But what about all the millions of lives lost till then ????

Almost everyone here will share your indignation, me included.

North Korea is a horrible and nasty little dictatorship.

But if "liberating" that country through military invasion involves bombing it to hell; causing civil war; provoking devastating attacks on South Korea; bringing China into the game; creating a wider conflict and destabilisation of the entire region; etc then you gotta really take a dogmatism and realpolitick check.

Because causing more deaths and more instability and more insecurity in the name of "freedom" and "human rights" is not actually freedom or human rights at all, it is colonal Kurtz territory. The point is not about whether or not North Korea is a shitty regime (because everyone here thinks it is shitty regime btw, there is no debate on that point), the point is how to change it or contain it in a way that doesn't do more harm than good.

I think careful diplomacy is the way forward right now and the economic success stories of China and Vietnam, through their own economic reforms, are far more likely to change North Korea than people resorting to cold war rhetoric, dogmatism and zero-sum ultimatums.

Regards

Nightspore

Xanthious:

thaluikhain:

Lilani:

The problem also with North Korea is we don't exactly know how brainwashed the people are. I'm sure the government knows more than we do, but there's a lot we have to know in order to be sure intervening would put the people on our side. They may be so throughly convinced their government will crack down on them if they revolt that even in the face of rescue they would resist every step of the way, and fight to the last man. And the last thing any country--especially America right now--needs is yet another rescue-turned-genocide.

That's overlooking people resisting foreign troops invading their nation simply because they are foreign troops invading their nation. You don't have to be brainwashed to resist invasion.

Exactly! Afghanistan is a perfect example of this. There a lot of people in Afghanistan that didn't much care for Al Qaeda but ya know who they REALLY didn't care for? America coming in and playing the world's police force.

So now we are in a position where the people we went in there to fight obviously don't care for us but now we also have the locals who really don't like us all that much more because we're sticking our noses someplace they don't belong and have long overstayed our welcome which was far from warm to begin with.

The thing of it is there is a section of the government that believes that if we try really hard we'll be able to transform Kabul into Des Moines. We can't. Afghanistan isn't known as the fucking GRAVEYARD OF EMPIRES because they just thought the name was cute.

We need to stop trying to police the world and worry about focusing our efforts more locally. We're spending countless amounts of money trying to civilize a group of people that really don't want to be civilized.

I think the same thing applies to North Korea. Yeah there's a cubic fuck ton of messed up shit going on there but even so the locals aren't going to take kindly to America rushing in to save the day. Ultimately we'd end up going in there with the idea of liberating the people and very likely only succeeding in galvanizing their support for the very system that is keeping them oppressed.

A Republican in 'favor' of cutting military spending by more than 20%? Colour me suprised. To be fair though, Xanthious. Thou shouldnt be too hard on yourself for Afghanistan, it had UN mandate and was in large an international effort. Iraq was the US one.

That being said, I also think its smart if America closed down their military bases all over the world. I mean, Europe used Italy and Greece as the road to Libya. Theres no reason that the US couldnt do the same thing. Unless it actively expects to have all its allies turn on them at the start of an kind of war. Mobility is important, but its also 'really' 'really' expensive.

If closed it would go a long way in repaying that massive debt to China.

Im also pretty suprised that you are such a bleedingheart man. I didnt know! What with caring so much about Arab lives and what 'they' think an their countries sovereignity. Are you sure you havent gone all soft on us?

nikki191:
as of may this year the estimates put north korea as having 6-8 nuclear weapons, that can be mounted on missiles with a 3-4,000 miles range that can be carried on north korean subs or use mobile launchers. on top of the fact they have a very large conventional military with a very large neighour who is an ally to the north, an invasion of north korea would probably end up with millions dead.

they'll also have enough material within a few hours for another nuclear test

the north korean regime will fall eventually its only a matter of when not if

Actually they can't mount them on missiles. They don't have the technological capability to miniaturize the warheads. All they have are large "fat-man" "little-boy" style nukes. Not even hydrogen bombs.

Of course, such weapons are still INCREDIBLY powerful. And you're right - if they use them on the south and on themselves, you're looking at millions dead. Not a good idea to invade. They can't nuke the US, but they sure as hell can nuke the south.

David Merton:
The question about do we have the moral right to invade another country, even without getting into a discussion about it, let's look at it from a different angle, did we have a right to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria. Let's say no. But that didn't stop us, so why can't we invade this one where people are suffering much, much more ?

I put a strikethrough on Syria there for you since no nation state has yet to assume open hostilities with Syria, even though many obviously are supporting the rebels with various kinds of weapons and aid.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been costly for everyone involved in them. As in, thousands of well-trained soldiers dead (with many more scarred or injured for life) and trillions of dollars flushed down the toilet costly. And both Afghanistan and Iraq were cakewalks in terms of the military and operational strength of their standing forces and insurgents compared to what North Korea is sitting on. Hence the current situation where we either ignore it or try to coerce it with diplomatic moves and aid.

David Merton:
About warfare do we need to go to a direct war ? I like a good blood bath like any other guy ? But what about if the liberation would be done from inside. The North Korea is becoming weaker and with the change of the dictator, ore than ever. It's possible, especially if China would support this, to simply assassinate the thousand people in power and support by supplies the pro democracy movements which i am sure would emerge. The country might get to be in distress and civil war may brake out, but with the support from the west the pro democracy forces would win i believe. I am just brainstorming. But liberation is definitely possible, especially if China would go aboard with it.

China has the most to lose from a unified Korea dominated by the South. They would lose their privileges in terms of resource extraction and economic activity in the North and would face the possibility of US military bases right at their border with missiles just a few minutes away from Beijing. They're not propping up the North Korean regime because they're evil or ignorant of the conditions people live under there, they're doing it because it seems like the safest move to make compared to the alternatives.

The notion that North Korea can be taken down from the inside seems highly unrealistic to me. It is a totalitarian, centralized nation with an insane amount of soldiers and informants spread around a rugged country that is basically on war-alert. It's like suggesting the Allied countries could have infiltrated Nazi-Germany and couped Hitler in 1938, any attempts you make are simply going to be discovered and suppressed long before they can become a threat to the state.

We can't liberate North Korea. It has no oil.

North Korea holds the largest standing army on the face of the planet, and they have it standing right on the border of South Korea. Any attempt at invasion would trigger an attack on South Korea, including Seoul, which is right smack on the border of the DMZ. Reports indicate that there may be hundreds of tunnels already leading into South Korea, in which case the slaughter would occur even faster.

THIS IS A VERY BAD IDEA

Montezuma's Lawyer:
Reports indicate that there may be hundreds of tunnels already leading into South Korea, in which case the slaughter would occur even faster.

Not hundreds, IIRC, each division on the border has the responsibility for digging one tunnel for itself into SK territory. But yeah, they'd been planning this for some time.

I will not appove of wasting government funds, equiptment and the lives of my friends to liberate a people who might as well not want to be liberated.

They don't have oil, and they aren't close enough to Europe for Europe to want us to.

So...

According to the reasons we have gone to war recently... nope.

EDIT: The post above reminds me of a certain Morpheus quote...

randomsix:
They don't have oil, and they aren't close enough to Europe for Europe to want us to.

So...

According to the reasons we have gone to war recently... nope.

EDIT: The post above reminds me of a certain Morpheus quote...

.
Ding ding ding ding, we have a winner.
Now I need to get a life.

randomsix:
They don't have oil, and they aren't close enough to Europe for Europe to want us to.

So...

According to the reasons we have gone to war recently... nope.

EDIT: The post above reminds me of a certain Morpheus quote...

They are ruled by a crazy dictator who is unfriendly to America. So it does match with reasons we have gone to war recently.

That doesn't mean I think we should liberate North Korea. If the reaction to us going into Iraq/Afghanistan is any indication, the rest of the world doesn't like us doing our "liberation" thing. We need to learn that even though human rights violations may be abhorrent to us, it's apparently what they want. We need to stop saving people who don't want to be saved. We need to take a page from Pilate's book and wash our hands of them.

Yeah... No. If history has taught us anything, it's that we need to stop sticking our noses in and meddling with other countries. Because we have "such a stellar track record" for "helping" oppressed nations.

I won't bother reading the whole thread but simply: NO.
In 30 minutes seoul would be turned into a "sea of fire", more or less literally depending on what kind of ammunition north korea has in its artillery pieces.

On another point: North Korea actively develops chemical weapons capable of killing you in 3 minutes straights, and there's a small, but still present chance that it can be waterborne, and in a warzone, i'm pretty sure a single north korean commando would be able to poison a reservoir or two, and seeing how high the population density is, a single small reservoir may kill over 50000 people.

Add the nukes into this cocktail, and other WMDs we don't know (enhanced super restitant meningitis anyone?) and we got a little dictatorship that is better left alone.

If this was 2003, I would have said "go ahead. What's the worst that could happen?"

cthulhuspawn82:
We need to stop saving people who don't want to be saved.

When did they start?

Afghanistan was in response to 911, Iraq was because Saddam Hussein was building those 45 minutes WMDs to give to Al Qaeda or whatever.

The reasons for the war changed a number of times, it only got to being to improve things for the locals after it was going on.

David Merton:

The question about do we have the moral right to invade another country, even without getting into a discussion about it, let's look at it from a different angle, did we have a right to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria. Let's say no. But that didn't stop us, so why can't we invade this one where people are suffering much, much more ?

And look what happened to these countries. The wars are either still ongoing or left as a gigantic mess. And those countries didnt have nukes.

Nightspore:

David Merton:
snip

re-snip

I'm with nightspore on this one.
Sometimes you need to look at the facts first before jumping on the idealist band wagon.

North Korea has 1 million active duty soldiers, 10 million reservists and nukes. Now i'm not sure what you'd expect when invading North Korea but considering they think the US is the reincarnation of the devil and the West is rotten and corrupted they won't just surrender. You'll have to fight an army that is as big as the entire population of Belgium. And based on their nationalism they won't surrender after killing 100k soldiers they'll at least fight until you destroy half their army and that's a whopping 5.5 million soldiers you'll need to kill. And add to that a little million civilian casualties + casualties on the coalition's side and you got a 6.5 million deaths. And that number can easily increase if they use nukes or if the US follows their usual "bomb the shit out of everything before even considering sending in ground troops" policy.

Is "liberating" them really worth that? (and i'm not even mentioning the potential diplomatic issues)

cthulhuspawn82:

randomsix:
They don't have oil, and they aren't close enough to Europe for Europe to want us to.

So...

According to the reasons we have gone to war recently... nope.

EDIT: The post above reminds me of a certain Morpheus quote...

They are ruled by a crazy dictator who is unfriendly to America. So it does match with reasons we have gone to war recently.

That doesn't mean I think we should liberate North Korea. If the reaction to us going into Iraq/Afghanistan is any indication, the rest of the world doesn't like us doing our "liberation" thing. We need to learn that even though human rights violations may be abhorrent to us, it's apparently what they want. We need to stop saving people who don't want to be saved. We need to take a page from Pilate's book and wash our hands of them.

.
Hey, the USA did pretty well in Panama overthrowing the regime and all that, nobody can recall the bloody incident if you ask people on the streets, but 911... or ofcourse they do.

The Egyptian people: Want our help. (Ish, it's more complicated now)

The Libyan people: Want our help.

The North Korean people? They do not want our help. Once they at least START a revolt against their own government, THEN we can swoop in and save the day, if we're still in our 'herp derp policing the world' phase. Until then, doing anything would only cause far, far more death on both sides than is necessary. See: Vietnam, the first Korean War, etc.

Also, we shouldn't think that helping Koreans out would be easier than helping a predominately Islamic country out. We've seen the loyalty and honor that at least three Asian countries have had in respect to fighting (China, Japan, Vietnam), and we have no reason to believe that a large portion of North Korea wouldn't do the same under threat of invasion.

chadachada123:
The Egyptian people: Want our help. (Ish, it's more complicated now)

The Libyan people: Want our help.

The North Korean people? They do not want our help. Once they at least START a revolt against their own government, THEN we can swoop in and save the day, if we're still in our 'herp derp policing the world' phase. Until then, doing anything would only cause far, far more death on both sides than is necessary. See: Vietnam, the first Korean War, etc.

Also, we shouldn't think that helping Koreans out would be easier than helping a predominately Islamic country out. We've seen the loyalty and honor that at least three Asian countries have had in respect to fighting (China, Japan, Vietnam), and we have no reason to believe that a large portion of North Korea wouldn't do the same under threat of invasion.

Well, you can't really know that they don't want help. My parents lived under communism and they sure as hell would have welcomed American troops. There even was a political revolt and a whole bunch of tanks and soldiers of the Warsaw pact invaded. The only reason communism existed for 40 years is because people thought it would cease to exist and didn't do anything (people back in the 50s thought it was going to last a year at most). Even organizing such a revolt would have been extremely tough, since when it becomes big enough, the secret police would have intervened.

The whole "if they wanted a revolution they would have started one" is a poor argument.

Not to mention, these people also don't know anything else. Generations have been born and raised under this regime that have no idea how any other political system or even a country works.

If you saw a granny walking down the street, and she got mugged, would you help her only if she fought back?

Edit: I'm not saying we should or should not invade. I'm just trying to educate a bit on the topic, since not many countries have a history of communist dictatorship.

As others have already pointed out, the idea of "liberation" is nothing more than propaganda with an end involving realpolitik. And given the current crisis, the U.S. is better off trying to deal with its own problems.

People tend to liberate nations not just through war, but by bombing the fuck out of them and tearing everything down. I don't know if that's what the North Koreans need >_>

randomsix:
They don't have oil, and they aren't close enough to Europe for Europe to want us to.

Wait, when was the last time Europe wanted "you" to "liberate" anything?

Boudica:
People tend to liberate nations not just through war, but by bombing the fuck out of them and tearing everything down. I don't know if that's what the North Koreans need >_>

And then there's this, too, yes.

You'd think the American military/politicians would do something, anything.
Apparently Saddam Hussein was an awful enough dictator to warrant invasion.
The standard of living or chance of being persecuted for your average person seems to be much worse in North Korea.
Yet the only time they seem to give a fuck is when their own journalists are stuck there.
If you're going to police the world then police all of it, don't leave North Korea to become the worlds equivalent of South Central LA.

Of course I realise that is over-simplifying things but I just feel so sorry for the people living there. I would rather live on the Gaza strip than in North Korea.

Smeatza:

Apparently Saddam Hussein was an awful enough dictator to warrant invasion.

Excuse me, but...you don't really believe that was the reason Iraq was invaded, do you?

Vegosiux:

Smeatza:

Apparently Saddam Hussein was an awful enough dictator to warrant invasion.

Excuse me, but...you don't really believe that was the reason Iraq was invaded, do you?

No but that was the excuse that was provided, that and some bullshit about weapons of mass destruction.

So, let's assume you've got permission from the USSR and PRC to invade DPRK now they see it as a massive threat.

To "liberate" North Korea, one would first have to destroy it. The population are so brainwashed that they share vastly different ideals to the South Korean population which would make reunification and reconciliation very difficult. Maybe the instruments of the North Korean state could be used to undo their brainwashing or at least reprogram them. It would be extremely traumatic, but worth it if the eventual goal is Korean reunification...

Then comes the economic imbalance. Print lots of money to cause hyperinflation in North Korea (maybe 50% of Weimar inflation), especially in capital investments and special economic regions, then scrap both currencies and introduce a singular currency for one Korea.

Vegosiux:

randomsix:
They don't have oil, and they aren't close enough to Europe for Europe to want us to.

Wait, when was the last time Europe wanted "you" to "liberate" anything?

Europe was all about getting funky in Libya.

Cowpoo:
Well, you can't really know that they don't want help.

We also can't be sure that they do. And since one would have to be so arrogant as to barely be able to interact with other human beings to just assume a society secretly wants us to invade, waiting for the people to express their desire should be the bare minimum standard for an invasion.

Not to mention, these people also don't know anything else. Generations have been born and raised under this regime that have no idea how any other political system or even a country works.

This is proof then that the DPRK system essentially works, albeit in a way that is loathesome and undesireable to those of us who were brought up in free societies. A society that can sustain itself for multiple generations is by definition a society that is working.

If you saw a granny walking down the street, and she got mugged, would you help her only if she fought back?

You fail to grasp the fundamental distinction: sovereignty.

In my society, I am invested in determining what the rules are. I am invested in ensuring that my society is just for its members. And most importantly, in my society there's a fucking law against mugging. There isn't any international authority to declare North Korea's government as illegal. We aren't invested in the society there. We have no right to intervene.

Katatori-kun:

Cowpoo:
Well, you can't really know that they don't want help.

We also can't be sure that they do. And since one would have to be so arrogant as to barely be able to interact with other human beings to just assume a society secretly wants us to invade, waiting for the people to express their desire should be the bare minimum standard for an invasion.

Oh, that's no fun, there's all sorts of things you can do with that sort of logic.

I mean, you've never explicitly stated that you don't want to be fried in a giant wok, have you?

Danyal:
So today, 'Dumpert' showed me this video...

Obviously, the North-Korean population suffers under the 1984-style government. Shouldn't we try to liberate North-Korea?

And okay, maybe the war would be so horrible that liberation just isn't worth it - but are there any moral arguments against a liberation without that much casualties?

It is obvious the something is going wrong in North Korea... If you have two countries having the same race, same religion... but different political regimes and leadership, one is a leading country in technology, economy, industry, culture, human rights.... and one is promoting terrorism, wars, military and suppressing human rights...

In fact here are GDP per Capita for North Korea and South Korea( http://lebanese-economy-forum.com/world-facts/show/kn-gdp/ http://lebanese-economy-forum.com/world-facts/show/ks-gdp/ )... this just reflects the vast different between the two countries :

North Korea's GDP - per capita (PPP): $1,800 (2011 est.)
South Korea's GDP - per capita (PPP): $32,100 (2011 est.)

I really wish liberating the North Koreans were possible, but they probably would have to do it their selves... outside interference with the presence of Nuclear Weapons is very risky.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked