North Korea to launch rocket April 12-16 - Page 16
Forum Index > General Forum |
MountainDewJunkie
United States10340 Posts
| ||
furymonkey
New Zealand1587 Posts
On April 15 2012 03:57 zalz wrote: China is short-sighted, and by extension, stupid. Not touching the problem means it will fester, but it also means it won't explode today. If you have a tumor, you can ignore it and you will be fine for a while. You can also get chemo, you will be sick, but you will cure the cancer and be better for it in the long run. China is playing the short game, ignoring the tumor that is North-Korea, because they don't want to make the hard choice of forcing change and improving the situation in the long haul. China has no benefit from North-Korea. The often mentioned "buffer state" is beyond uninformed, it is downright dishonest. I disagree with this. Just because North Korea is a problem for western countries, South Korean, Japan ect, doesn't meant it is a big problem for China. You have to know different countries have different goals, so just because it appears illogical in your perspective doesn't meant it is. If they rid of all problems right now, all focus would land on China, and that is bad for them. A buffer state for all the political attentions sounds about right. | ||
Zooper31
United States5709 Posts
On April 15 2012 05:28 furymonkey wrote: I disagree with this. Just because North Korea is a problem for western countries, South Korean, Japan ect, doesn't meant it is a big problem for China. You have to know different countries have different goals, so just because it appears illogical in your perspective doesn't meant it is. If they rid of all problems right now, all focus would land on China, and that is bad for them. A buffer state for all the political attentions sounds about right. Enemies of your enemies are your friends. edit: FUCK YEAH DARK TEMPLAR! | ||
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On April 15 2012 04:38 DeepElemBlues wrote: There was no qualifier, it's pretty settled that in both in WW1 and WW2 the losing powers were not acting in a way compatible with Western ideals, e.g. the invasion of neutral Belgium, the violent and repressive nature of German occupation in Belgium and northern France (though it was nowhere near the degree that Allied propaganda portrayed it as), and the entirety of Germany and Japan's actions in WW2 being wars of imperial aggression and widespread crimes against humanity as a matter of policy, which is the point I made. This point was hammered home regularly by the Allies in both wars, both in their responses (going to war) and in their treatment of the nations after defeat. Particularly after WW2, the defeated nations were held as having put themselves outside the bounds of civilization and had to prove themselves afterward as having reformed to a degree necessary to be allowed back into consideration as civilized peoples. You can hold stubbornly to your simplistic classification all you like, it doesn't change the facts. It is also pretty settled unless one is an inveterate Stalinist or Maoist that the behavior of Communist Russia and China were also barbaric to the point of being outside the bounds of civilization, although the reckoning for Russia was much less than it was for Germany and Japan and China has not yet had much of a reckoning. I could care less how you define western yourself. Germany/Austro-Hungary/Italy are culturally western nations with very similar ideals to France and even GB. Ideals are exactly that, practical behaviour is something different. Having ideals does not mean they are followed. So the fact that Germany behaved in some way is beside the point. On April 15 2012 04:38 DeepElemBlues wrote: In WW1 none of the participants except Austria-Hungary wanted a war, and none of the powers, including Austria-Hungary, wanted a general European war. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was at first considered yet another flare-up of the kind that had occurred - and been dealt with without war - for 20 years preceding 1914. It was the decision of Russia to mobilize that started the dominoes falling; the rest of the great powers felt compelled to take the first step in what turned out to be an unstoppable chain reaction to general war. Which is not to blame Russia, Austria-Hungary made the decision to opportunistically declare war on Serbia, after receiving reassurances from Germany that Berlin would back them up. The Germans thought that with their backing AH that neither Russia nor France would mobilize; it was this miscalculation that caused the war. Just to stress, no power in 1914 wanted a general war. They did not want general war, true. They all wanted some things that could basically be achieved only by war, thus leading to war. Germany to "rearrange" colonies, French wanted back Alsace and Lotharingia, Austro-Hungary wanted what they actually did, Italy wanted territories from Austro-Hungary and so on. All of them played their game and even though most of them did not want war exactly in 1914, they had their goals that were only achievable by war. On April 15 2012 04:38 DeepElemBlues wrote: What you said was in essence that Western nations have not so much room to talk, or a claim to necessity for having superior military technology, as they would like to think they do because they have acted similarly to NK in the past - even though, again, they have not, and you have not proved by evidence or argument, past your very weak assertions about WW1 in particular and Germany in general, that that is the case. All the evidence, how the actions of Germany and Japan were considered then and how they are considered now, shows that you are wrong. Ideals are not a very small part of it, they are the largest part of it. If it were not for the ideal of peace Britain would not have pledged to protect the neutrality of Belgium as a way of maintaining a balance of power in Europe that it was thought would prevent general war. Were it not for the ideal of "if everyone is so strong, no one will want to bring on the devastation of a big fight," and the ideal of better safe than sorry, and the ideals of Wilhelm II of national glory, the militarization of Europe pre-WW1 would not have taken place. Ideals are the building blocks of society, this does not mean that they have to be good. Germany had ideals, Japan had ideals, they would have been great for Aryan Germans and Japanese in general if they had come to fruition, but everyone else did not particularly care for the idea of being exterminated or being slaves for the rest of time. You said something ignorant and ridiculous by the scale of its ignorance. And again with arguing against something that I did not say, but something that you created in your head. But anyway, to some of your points.You say that England gave guarantee to Belgium because of their ideal of peace. But you mention the actual reason, to keep status quo in Europe. England's behaviour has nothing to do with noble ideas, but with wanting to keep status quo in Europe for their own geopolitical reasons. Nothing to do with ideals, eveything to do with realpolitik. As was my point. As for western nations behaving like NK, let's see. Artificial famines in India, Ireland. Genocides in America and Africa. That should be enough. And before you argue that it was too long ago. Yes it was, and as I said I am not arguing that they are today not morally superior. I am arguing that ideals have not much to do with it. Proclaimed ideas of US and GB were not really that different than they were later and yet today they (England at least) are actually morally quite superior. What changed was not ideals proclaimed by the nations. And yes I believe in your mind it is ridiculous seeing as you argue against things I never said. | ||
Xellows
United States1 Post
| ||
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
On April 15 2012 05:07 mcc wrote: Ok, but then you reacting to me makes little sense Because I was responding to a poster that wanted to help them by decimating Pyongyang. I see i thought you were saying that choosing not to save them would be genocidal. | ||
Friedrich Nietzsche
Germany171 Posts
I can't believe for the life of me that after 2 major global wars and thousands of national and civil/political wars, people in the world still espouse the idea of violence and aggression towards others. | ||
Miyoshino
314 Posts
It is easy to see this has zero deterrence on countries thinking about starting new wars. | ||
ETisME
12067 Posts
On April 15 2012 03:57 zalz wrote: China didn't make Korea split in half... Except for the part where they moved their troops into North-Korea to fight America and maintain the split. Had China done nothing, there would only be one Korea, and it would be a unified Korea that would be just as prosperous (more so probably because the North had most of the intellectuals) as South-Korea is today. People wouldn't be starving, eating mud, grass, each other. There wouldn't be totalitarianism of the worst kind and a nuclear threat that destablizes the entire Asian region. The USSR made the North-Korea the first time. China made it the second. It happened in Iraq. The US didn't take a single drop of oil and improved the human rights record of the country by a ridiculous degree. By and large, human rights have flourished since America became a super power, and often by direct intervention, not just cultural projection. China is the only country that has influence over NK? I wonder why I pointed to them as being the country that has to get change in North-Korea...Surely, it can't be because they have the influence to get it done... I don't think you understand the word naive. The word you were looking for was 'realistic'. China is short-sighted, and by extension, stupid. Not touching the problem means it will fester, but it also means it won't explode today. If you have a tumor, you can ignore it and you will be fine for a while. You can also get chemo, you will be sick, but you will cure the cancer and be better for it in the long run. China is playing the short game, ignoring the tumor that is North-Korea, because they don't want to make the hard choice of forcing change and improving the situation in the long haul. China has no benefit from North-Korea. The often mentioned "buffer state" is beyond uninformed, it is downright dishonest. Let me tell you something. USA oil companies FAILED the bid, they didn't not go for it. There is a huge difference in between. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html The same thing could have been said about USA, Japan and USSR. If they didn't start anything over in Korea, it won't even be in half anyway. And yet you say China is the one that caused the cancer lol There is a difference between not touching the problem than letting the problem resolve through other means. Let's use your cancer example. Taking an operation means much more than healing back. Cancer cells could have spread, operation could have failed which encourages even more cancer cell growth. While you could choose to use medicine to slow down the growth and prevent any spread and then do the operation when you are at a healthy state It only looks short sighted etcetc because you don't know the situation clearly. i.e. how sensitive this issue is with the whole global balanceness. It isn't as simple as removing NK = bring happiness to everyone. | ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On April 15 2012 22:34 ETisME wrote: Let me tell you something. USA oil companies FAILED the bid, they didn't not go for it. There is a huge difference in between. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html The same thing could have been said about USA, Japan and USSR. If they didn't start anything over in Korea, it won't even be in half anyway. And yet you say China is the one that caused the cancer lol There is a difference between not touching the problem than letting the problem resolve through other means. Let's use your cancer example. Taking an operation means much more than healing back. Cancer cells could have spread, operation could have failed which encourages even more cancer cell growth. While you could choose to use medicine to slow down the growth and prevent any spread and then do the operation when you are at a healthy state It only looks short sighted etcetc because you don't know the situation clearly. i.e. how sensitive this issue is with the whole global balanceness. It isn't as simple as removing NK = bring happiness to everyone. Even if the oil companies won the bid they wouldn't get the oil. The article you linked to pointed out that they were bidding on service contracts - not ownership of the oil. Furthermore, there's a huge difference between bidding on something being sold and taking it by force. I'll totally agree that removing NK is extremely complicated. A war would potentially be disastrous for South Korea. Even if that could be avoided China and South Korea would have a huge refugee and humanitarian crisis on their hands. That said, there is already a humanitarian crisis in NK. We just don't get to see it every day and so it is easy to ignore. | ||
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On April 15 2012 22:34 ETisME wrote: Let me tell you something. USA oil companies FAILED the bid, they didn't not go for it. There is a huge difference in between. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html The same thing could have been said about USA, Japan and USSR. If they didn't start anything over in Korea, it won't even be in half anyway. And yet you say China is the one that caused the cancer lol There is a difference between not touching the problem than letting the problem resolve through other means. Let's use your cancer example. Taking an operation means much more than healing back. Cancer cells could have spread, operation could have failed which encourages even more cancer cell growth. While you could choose to use medicine to slow down the growth and prevent any spread and then do the operation when you are at a healthy state It only looks short sighted etcetc because you don't know the situation clearly. i.e. how sensitive this issue is with the whole global balanceness. It isn't as simple as removing NK = bring happiness to everyone. You are all over the place. You even lose track of your own logic. First of all, you don't even read your own 'sources', if you did you would realize how silly you looked by linking that one which has barely anything to do with the oil. Then you forget the difference between stealing and buying. Apparently you think me a thief when I walk into a store and pay money for something. Then you proceed to act erratic by completely missing the point. You somehow forget that the issue was North-Korea, not the cancer example, which was just a comparison. You proceed to 'solve' the comparison, which doesn't really do anything other than display your inability to keep track of the discussion. Remove NK = hapiness for anyone that cares for human rights. That won't include everyone, you probably wouldn't like it, but most people will appreciate it and be happier for it. | ||
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On April 15 2012 05:28 furymonkey wrote: I disagree with this. Just because North Korea is a problem for western countries, South Korean, Japan ect, doesn't meant it is a big problem for China. You have to know different countries have different goals, so just because it appears illogical in your perspective doesn't meant it is. If they rid of all problems right now, all focus would land on China, and that is bad for them. A buffer state for all the political attentions sounds about right. China doesn't like NK, it certainly doesn't use it as a buffer state. The wikileak documents show this much. China only wants one thing, to keep the region as stable as possible. Why? Because their economy is booming and they want to ride that wave for as long as it lasts, which makes sense. A "buffer state for all the political attention" is a naive view of how the world works. If China were to suddenly have a major crackdown on the population, it would get reported on. You don't honestly think that China keeps NK next to them because the media would then only report on NK? Because that is what you are implying with "buffer state for political attention." The world isn't simplistic. China doesn't get ignored just because they have an even more insane neighbour. China escapes any massive media backlash because they don't have a free media and their day-to-day affairs are too alien for most people to care about. Add to that the fact that they are a big part of the world economy and you can see why there aren't many governments interested in kicking the dog either. | ||
mensrea
Canada5062 Posts
On March 31 2012 04:02 Alay wrote: Space programs in those countries are very real things. The sad truth of life is that anything good can just as likely be turned into something very bad. Discrediting them, or space exploration as a whole, as it currently uses rocket propulsion in much of the world is a very dirty thing. That being said, North Korea is probably just doing the same thing they've always been doing since as long as I can remember. Showing off their shiny missiles, their atomic weapons, and saying "You guys like Seoul right? Why not give us some food so we can just put these back into storage for a bit." You are being naive. No matter how romantic the endeavor, nations do not spend billions of dollars to fund space exploration programs if that were the primary objective. Military application first, fantastic idealism second. That conclusion would only seem controversial to someone who has never had meaningful responsibilities. Like most students. | ||
heroyi
United States1064 Posts
I honestly wonder if the NK government knows they are considered one of the biggest jokes out there... | ||
| ||