North Korea

oh come on we have what 50K troops there, we're all over everything

xp

Echo of the infamous "they will welcome us as liberators" nonsense, pre-Iraq war.

I dunno how much I need to emphasize this but Iraq /= NK

Echo of the infamous "they will welcome us as liberators" nonsense, pre-Iraq war.

― Aimless, Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:07 PM (16 seconds ago) Bookmark

ok, now you're pushing it a bit. iraq may have been dysfunctional and bad, but the DPRK is literally a million times worse, if we're going to conjure up a spectrum of Bad To Live In.

1023: The BBC's John Sudworth in Seoul says there has been no sense of panic in the capital

― James Mitchell, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 21:33 (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

After 50+ years of having a billion DPRK rockets pointed at them they're probably inured to the threat of annihilation.

I just think humoring lunatics is a fool's game, tbh. you will never win. they will still BE LUNATICS

― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:56 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

feel like this is a pretty know nothing pov

please to spell out course of action wherein DPRK doesn't see "provocation" in every little goddamned thing

especially because those "provocations" are used for domestic audience and win points in internal power struggles.

I mean it's pretty obvious that NK orchestrates these mini-crisis for whatever reason.

love how you can be all THERES NOTHING YOU CAN DO ITS JUST NUTJOBS and then demand a detailed policy proposal in response, are you sure youre not the lunatic xp

NK is like a needy, violent kid - if you don't pay attention to it, it will ensure you pay attention to it. This has been the country's negotiation strategy for years. Demand crazy stuff, get mired in determining a compromise, establish a default detente, then do it over again. The relationship between NK and the USA has largely been one of extorter and patient extortion victim - they threaten to go nuke, we offer them food and fuel to not go nuke. Whatever advantage NK has in actually going nuke seems less than what is has threatening to go nuke, but who knows what makes these dudes tick.

Also, the relationship between the US and SK is a weird one as well. S Koreans seem to resent the US presence in their region, but at the same time recognize why we're there. I have no idea what would happen if we just left, though. Would NK consider that a victory? Does it matter?

In some ways NK reminds me a bit of Albania. Crazed despot isolates country, convinced an invasion is imminent. (Hoxha severed ties with ostensible Communist allies China and Russia, I think, because he was so paranoid). Albania is even littered with tens of thousands of bomb shelters, one in virtually every backyard. But of course, Albania didn't even pose a hypothetical threat to its neighbors.

I don't have a shiny uniform and a population to oppress so yeah I'm pretty sure

xp

love how you can be all THERES NOTHING YOU CAN DO ITS JUST NUTJOBS and then demand a detailed policy proposal in response, are you sure youre not the lunatic

but maybe I am a lunatic because I don't see how these are mutually exclusive positions. I DON'T think there's anything we can do because yes lol nutjobs. You seem to think there IS something we can do. Burden of proof is on you.

this thread: only just now hilarious

point is you make the laziest possible argument, one clearly not based on any particular knowledge of the situation, and then demand that people humor and educate you, in conclusion you must be a crazy person

I think it is so, therefore it is so. A contrary conclusion constitutes an extraordianry claim, which therefore requires extraordinary proof.

^_^

lol clean hit from the ice man

S Koreans seem to resent the US presence in their region

younger S Koreans more than older. people that grew up in the 50s there have a more understanding viewpoint towards US bases on their soil

NK has a duly constituted government. It may be constituted of shitheels and thugs, but it is a government all the same and international law, such as it is, "respects" such entities. Look how well it worked to decide to impose regime change in Iraq, for no better reason than its government was constituted of shitheels and thugs, and we imputed they had nuclear ambitions.

this is a stupid parallel in any case, but the logic of 'they have a duly constituted government' is pretty awful in its implications

not endorsing invasion btw, just saying that the terrible disaster of iraq has made people crazy

only awful in that it might suggest that a "duly constituted government" can do what it wants with its citizenry, right? cf nazis

"only"

iraq may have been dysfunctional and bad, but the DPRK is literally a million times worse

also fucking ridiculous, "literally a million times worse", get a grip, or maybe read some about iraq

point is you make the laziest possible argument, one clearly not based on any particular knowledge of the situation, and then demand that people humor and educate you, in conclusion you must be a crazy person

I make no claims to having any specialized knowledge. If there is some rational basis (as Shasta implies) driving the DPRKs never-ending cries of provocation, by all means please elaborate. As far as I can tell, they use the flimsiest of pretexts to rattle their sabres and bare their teeth - whether or not the US actually DOES anything seems largely immaterial.

xp

also fucking ridiculous, "literally a million times worse", get a grip, or maybe read some about iraq

― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:44 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

also fucking ridiculous: taking something like "literally a million times worse" at face value. my only point is that, from what i've read (clearly not a lot), it seems like the situation in NK for a given NK citizen is likely much worse than that of an average citizen in iraq under saddam.

the logic of 'they have a duly constituted government' is pretty awful in its implications

Agreed. But the logic of "we don't like their government, so we may use military force to whatever extent we desire in order to change it to one more to our liking" is, if anything, worse. The problem is creating clear criteria that will be fairly and universally applied. There's always a loophole, always a disagreement, and always a case to be made on each side.

As for Iraq/NK being a stupid parallel, I can't agree. The details of every conflict in every region will naturally be different, but where the parallel does exist is at the point where arguments are made that an aggressive war is justified by the behavior of the opponent. Those claims and counter-claims always sound hauntingly familiar, whether it is Iran vs. Iraq or the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

the point where arguments are made that an aggressive war is justified by the behavior of the opponent

FYI no one is making this argument

FYI no one is making this argument

The argument is indeed being made. Calling the opponent "lunatics" is integral to the argument for war. Saying, for instance, "iraq may have been dysfunctional and bad, but the DPRK is literally a million times worse" is also a fundamental part of the argument.

What is lacking here is not the argument but the conclusion the argument leads to. Once the argument is well constructed in the public mind, the final step is a very short one. Many of us seem to be properly primed for taking that step, when called upon to do so.

you are being silly.

and fwiw I didn't mean no one's making that argument just on this thread. I have literally never seen anyone seriously advance the argument that NK should be invaded on grounds similar to those used as a pretext for Iraq.

otoh this entire thread DOES pretty clearly illustrate the lunacy of the DPRK. They are not rational actors.

I really don't understand the POV you're advocating here - that we should treat NK with the attendant dignity and respect that they demand, regardless of their actual behavior, policies, and public demeanor? gtfo

/FYI no one is making this argument/

The argument is indeed being made. Calling the opponent "lunatics" is integral to the argument for war. Saying, for instance, "iraq may have been dysfunctional and bad, but the DPRK is literally a million times worse" is also a fundamental part of the argument.

What is lacking here is not the argument but the conclusion the argument leads to. Once the argument is well constructed in the public mind, the final step is a very short one. Many of us seem to be properly primed for taking that step, when called upon to do so.

wtf dude leave me out of this.

actually wait I've never seen anyone advance the argument that NK should be invaded on ANY grounds now that I think about it

You all are bickering like North and South Korea.

anyway is yr point that concluding that Iraq/DPRK is so bad and hated is a necessary condition for mounting popular support for war? yes duh.

but as shakey said: no one is concluding that war is a good idea. could you? sure go ahead

calling opponent "lunatics" is literally a million times less serious than making an agument for war.

aimless being somewhat hyperbolic but yes concluding that the situation is unworkable because yr adversary is omg crazy wont listen to reason is a fairly universal rational for war

Disrespecting them isn't going to add anything useful to the mix, Shakey.

There do not seem to be any constructive actions available to us at present that we are not already taking. Dehumanizing them, disrespecting them, or demonizing them is not productive of anything but a mindset that makes it easier to demand action, even when that action makes matters worse, and a sense of superiority that clouds one's judgment.

none of us are making any decisions re nk iirc

can't believe shakey mo collier just nuked n korea

the thing abt n koreas serial provocations is that this is how they engage in diplomacy, they just want a lil food and attention, and yeah theyre pretty skilled at putting their negotiating partners in a lesser of two evils type bind

Shit, gbx, I'm pretty sure this will mean little to you, but we are all making decisions about how we regard NK, and those decisions do make a difference in a situation like this. Americans were predisposed to hate commies in 1963, and N. Vietnam was full of commies. We were predisposed to hate Saddam. We're now becoming more and more predisposed to hate on Muslims generally. NK is still in the nasty commies camp. Etc.

It's not like engaging in such thinking is utterly without consequence.

dude why do you insist on being a such smug asshole? you made a pretty facile observation (yes, othering the enemy is a waypoint on the road to war) and seem to be intent on suggesting that if i or anyone else thinks "man the dprk doesn't seem like a very rational actor" then we are already apologists for a war that hasn't even happened, and likely won't. which is a good thing, btw.

Heavens, those facile observations just keep getting in the way of the greater profundities being exchanged here.

ha

haha ok fair

north korea is just going to have to get by with me thinking their ruling clique is a bunch of monsters.

american hawks are going to have to get by likewise.

not that they're the same or anything!!

I'm nuking all of you btw

shocker!

amazing that a thread titled "North Korea: still hilarious" is light on int'l diplomacy seriousness

feel like w/north korea people are confusing awfulness for irrationality, seems like their actions bare their desired fruits as often as any more humane nations, the fact that theyre in process of an unprecedented in modern times for a despotic pariah state third generational transfer of power is testament to the fact that they know what theyre doing