North Korea

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

starving your populace not the most rational of political decisions imho. hasn't worked out very well historically.

rational enough for you and your army if there's not much food around

except in china (site of the worst starvation in human history) and north korea, at some point yall hand waving psychologists are gonna have to grapple w/the fact that n korea has been a country for like 60 years, something yr average lunatic would have a hard time managing xp

i think icey is right; the 'irrationality' is thrown out there, sometimes, to say, there's nothing we can do, the whole country is nuts, bombs away already.

but there is a big question as to how deep into the populace and how fanatical the support of the Kims goes. it could be most of the country is very clear-eyed about who is causing their misery. or it could be there really are huge swathes of true believers who'd rather die than join the South. it kinda depends on which other despotism you want to compare it to.

they've extended the Mao/Stalin model farther/longer than either managed. Agree that the real miracle has been the transition of power from one ruler to the next, with no real attendant change in policy. Highly unusual. they're kind of in uncharted territory in that respect

xp

read this interview w/a n korean escapee teen girl who went across a froze river into china and she was clear that at least where she was from in the western part of the country people hate the government pretty much but they just got them so locked down that any sort of uprising feels pretty impossible - they snatch people up and throw them in work camps at the drop of hat, control commerce tightly etc - and as is typical in these situations the leadership is protected by a relatively large favored elite - now obvs that anecdotal but its consistent w/what other refugees say and you makes sense

but also these regimes fall apart from an outsiders pov at seemingly random times - it kind of feels like just looking at it how long can this bizarre anachronism exist in the world today - that may just be lack of imagination speaking tho

maybe un will just say fuck it and hand his problems over to his friends in the south, thatd be nice

but also these regimes fall apart from an outsiders pov at seemingly random times - it kind of feels like just looking at it how long can this bizarre anachronism exist in the world today - that may just be lack of imagination speaking tho

^^^that's definitely how I feel about it. it's kind of some cruel miracle that the regime has lasted this long, they've run with this schtick longer and farther than anyone ever has. it's bizarre.

xp

The schtick is slowly losing its grip internally, if Barbara Demick's recent book is to be believed. The famine seems to have dulled much (but not all obv) of the blind GL/DL adulation.

x-post The country is pretty irrational, isn't it? Unlike, say, Iran, whose wants, needs and desires can be frustrating but are pretty clear, and whose positions are pretty well understood, N. Korea is an enigma. Leave 'em alone? They don't like that. Give them what they want? They like that, as long as you realize they want more. Engage? They break off talks. Suggest talks? They require good faith actions (but don't expect any in return). I mean really, everything we do for N. Korea we essentially do just to keep some semblance of talks going. Meanwhile. N. Korea does whatever it wants. What's unclear about N. Korea is either a) it really thinks it's in danger of invasion or b) it's just cynically using that alleged threat as a pretense for aggressive bargaining. But you've got to figure N. Korea could get a lot more out of cooperation than it does from total obstinence, without losing a bit of autonomy. Again, look at Iran, hardly pushovers. There are any number of despotic regimes that do what they want, yet aren't quite so isolated. How exactly does N. Korea benefit from its behavior? That is, what can it get by behaving the way it does that it probably couldn't get by some other less antagonistic means?

just cause you dont know what theyre doing doesnt mean they dont know what theyre doing

what can it get by behaving the way it does that it probably couldn't get by some other less antagonistic means?

yeah this is the yardstick I'm measuring them by

by that measure most if not all countries are insane

I don't know about that

Most if not all countries don't let their people starve en masse to strengthen a bargaining position.

My point is that N. Korea can still stay plenty inscrutable, unpredictable, mysterious, whatever, toning things down a few notches from where it stands now.

and my point is pretty much every country could stand to tone it down a notch or two, people be aggressive and are hard to reason w/if its working out for them

pretty sure this is all fallout from them not getting out of the group stage in south africa

x-post But again, most countries do not allow their people to starve. Though I'm not sure who is worse on this front, Kim or Mugabe. At least North Koreans gets top-notch security out of the deal!

I feel like Mugabe's as bad as it gets in pretty much every way but I'll cop to knowing a lot less about NK