North Korea to launch rocket April 12-16 - Page 15
Forum Index > General Forum |
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
| ||
DeepElemBlues
United States5075 Posts
WW1 and WW2 to a degree were wars between western countries. And ideals have not much to do with it. Western countries claimed the same ideals in the past and it did not prevent them from killing thousands of their own citizens or even starving their citizens. Not even mentioning that even in the West people are still left to die or suffer because of ideology, thankfully not on such a scale as in NK. Well that's totally factually wrong, but you can believe what you wish. Neither the Central Powers nor Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan or Communist Russia and China were considered Western countries at the time, Imperial and Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy being the exceptions, and they certainly weren't practicing Western ideals as they were thought of at the time or today. Germany was both times (eventually, in the case of Imperial Germany and almost instantly as Nazi Germany) viewed as an irrational and dangerous aberration and Italy was considered a joke. Also that's a weaselly little statement, that people are still left to die or suffer because of ideology in the West, as I'm sure you're well aware that there is a difference between deliberate creation of human death and suffering and/or callous disregard for human life and suffering, and the kind of suffering in Western countries - almost entirely extinguished three or four generations ago - you're incorrectly implying has an equivalence. Mild agitprop is what you're doing, plain and simple. And trying to CYA with "thankfully not on such a scale" doesn't work, you're still implying a moral equivalence between the two which does not exist. | ||
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On April 15 2012 02:00 Blasterion wrote: But what if we are not really interested in Saving them, we just want NK out of the way. Besides who's going to feed these dirt broke refugees, I definitely don't want them coming over here. I doubt the South Koreans would want to feed them either. You're already feeding them, and so are the South Koreans, through food aid. | ||
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
On April 15 2012 02:29 sunprince wrote: You're already feeding them, and so are the South Koreans, through food aid. Yeah but that's because we wouldn't have to house them, I certainly don't like the idea of feeding them either, I think we should just give them a good ol' | ||
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On April 15 2012 02:00 Blasterion wrote: But what if we are not really interested in Saving them, we just want NK out of the way. Besides who's going to feed these dirt broke refugees, I definitely don't want them coming over here. I doubt the South Koreans would want to feed them either. Nice genocidal thoughts. EDIT: to expand. Saving them does not mean you necessarily need to let them immigrate. Just removing their leadership would be enough. But if you are not wanting to save them at all, then there is no reason to remove their leadership and cause additional suffering as they are not threatening you. So if you want to kill civilians just because you want to kill them, you are proposing genocide just because you feel like it. | ||
ETisME
12083 Posts
On April 13 2012 17:28 zalz wrote: Well to start, China is the sole reason that North-Korea exists in the first place. And second, China is keeping that regime on its feet. China isn't responsible for making North-Korea as insane as it is, and I never claimed they were, but they are responsible for not pulling the plug on this atrocity. The USA can fix this abomination with an invasion. China could fix this by putting on the pressure and forcing change. North-Korea remains stable by the grace of China. But as always, everything is going to fall on the shoulders of the US, and people will whine and complain that the US is playing world police. Good thing someone is when even regional powers like China are too incompetent to sort out their own backyard. What? China didn't make Korea split into half. Japan and USSR/USA played a much larger role. China was busy dealing with/just dealt with its own civil war. the rest...I just don't know what to say @@ solve it by invasion from USA? To NK? Even if China let them do it freely, they won't. Cost is too high and there aren't no resources that they want. Add in other factors, risk breaking relationship with China and Russia just because of "human right"? yea, I don't think that would happen. China to "force change" onto NK? China is almost the only country left to have tie with NK and to have any influence on them at all. Why would you break that relationship? You don't even understand the whole situation and history, how would you call them incompetent when your suggested solutions are as naive as possible - - these people aren't as stupid as you would think. especially when it comes to China which is trying to establish a global presence in world power and trying to come off as not threatening as possible. | ||
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On April 15 2012 02:18 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well that's totally factually wrong, but you can believe what you wish. Neither the Central Powers nor Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan or Communist Russia and China were considered Western countries at the time, Imperial and Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy being the exceptions, and they certainly weren't practicing Western ideals as they were thought of at the time or today. Germany was both times (eventually, in the case of Imperial Germany and almost instantly as Nazi Germany) viewed as an irrational and dangerous aberration and Italy was considered a joke. Also that's a weaselly little statement, that people are still left to die or suffer because of ideology in the West, as I'm sure you're well aware that there is a difference between deliberate creation of human death and suffering and/or callous disregard for human life and suffering, and the kind of suffering in Western countries - almost entirely extinguished three or four generations ago - you're incorrectly implying has an equivalence. Mild agitprop is what you're doing, plain and simple. And trying to CYA with "thankfully not on such a scale" doesn't work, you're still implying a moral equivalence between the two which does not exist. If you notice in case of WW2 there was a qualifier "to a degree", so that removes Japan and China from your objection. Germany is/was a western nation. I might grant you Russia. Does not change the fact that western nations were killing each other in millions in both wars. Also your view of Germany before and during WW1 is rather wrong. In WW1 all the big participants (except US) wanted war, it was more of a continuation of the wars from the previous centuries where one nation might start it, but pointing absolute blame is not so easy. If you want blame someone, blame the Austro-Hungary. As for the rest, I am not implying moral equivalence, that should be clear from my "CYA" (what does that stand for?) when I said "thankfully not on such a scale", thus saying that it is not morally equivalent. On one hand you have me explicitly stating that it is not morally equivalent and on the other hand you have your strange "reading between the lines" that in your world says I am implicating moral equivalence. Maybe you should actually argue with what I say not with what you think I am saying. I was pointing out that ideals in the west did not prevent them from behaving the same way as NK in the past, and even still let people suffer due to ideology. Because people starve in NK not because the elite wants them to starve, but because the elite wants to adhere to some stupid ideology(their version of marxism) and that causes people to starve. And the same way in the west people suffer because their elites are viewing the world through ideology. Is a western society morally superior, of course. But ideals are very small part of it. That was my point which you managed to misread due to some knee-jerk reactions. | ||
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
On April 15 2012 03:13 mcc wrote: Nice genocidal thoughts. EDIT: to expand. Saving them does not mean you necessarily need to let them immigrate. Just removing their leadership would be enough. But if you are not wanting to save them at all, then there is no reason to remove their leadership and cause additional suffering as they are not threatening you. So if you want to kill civilians just because you want to kill them, you are proposing genocide just because you feel like it. I am not saying we should kill them, we just should not be obligated to save them, | ||
Seldentar
United States888 Posts
On April 15 2012 02:00 Blasterion wrote: But what if we are not really interested in Saving them, we just want NK out of the way. Besides who's going to feed these dirt broke refugees, I definitely don't want them coming over here. I doubt the South Koreans would want to feed them either. Perhaps I should have you join them and condemn you to starve to death because hey it doesn't affect me after all. | ||
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
On April 15 2012 03:48 Seldentar wrote: Perhaps I should have you join them and condemn you to starve to death because hey it doesn't affect me after all. How is it my fault that they are starving, rather why should my country be interested in saving a bunch of refugee that would do nothing more than eat up or resources. | ||
chAse_
Germany84 Posts
well next time they will get it done right. | ||
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On April 15 2012 03:29 ETisME wrote: What? China didn't make Korea split into half. Japan and USSR/USA played a much larger role. China was busy dealing with/just dealt with its own civil war. 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. the rest...I just don't know what to say @@ solve it by invasion from USA? To NK? Even if China let them do it freely, they won't. Cost is too high and there aren't no resources that they want. Add in other factors, risk breaking relationship with China and Russia just because of "human right"? yea, I don't think that would happen. 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 to "force change" onto NK? China is almost the only country left to have tie with NK and to have any influence on them at all. Why would you break that relationship? 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... You don't even understand the whole situation and history, how would you call them incompetent when your suggested solutions are as naive as possible - - I don't think you understand the word naive. The word you were looking for was 'realistic'. these people aren't as stupid as you would think. especially when it comes to China which is trying to establish a global presence in world power and trying to come off as not threatening as possible. 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. | ||
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On April 15 2012 03:51 Blasterion wrote: How is it my fault that they are starving, rather why should my country be interested in saving a bunch of refugee that would do nothing more than eat up or resources. So basically they can "fuck off and die" to you because they were born in the wrong country? Great mindset you got there. | ||
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On April 15 2012 03:43 mcc wrote: If you notice in case of WW2 there was a qualifier "to a degree", so that removes Japan and China from your objection. Germany is/was a western nation. I might grant you Russia. Does not change the fact that western nations were killing each other in millions in both wars. Also your view of Germany before and during WW1 is rather wrong. In WW1 all the big participants (except US) wanted war, it was more of a continuation of the wars from the previous centuries where one nation might start it, but pointing absolute blame is not so easy. If you want blame someone, blame the Austro-Hungary. As for the rest, I am not implying moral equivalence, that should be clear from my "CYA" (what does that stand for?) when I said "thankfully not on such a scale", thus saying that it is not morally equivalent. On one hand you have me explicitly stating that it is not morally equivalent and on the other hand you have your strange "reading between the lines" that in your world says I am implicating moral equivalence. Maybe you should actually argue with what I say not with what you think I am saying. I was pointing out that ideals in the west did not prevent them from behaving the same way as NK in the past, and even still let people suffer due to ideology. Because people starve in NK not because the elite wants them to starve, but because the elite wants to adhere to some stupid ideology(their version of marxism) and that causes people to starve. And the same way in the west people suffer because their elites are viewing the world through ideology. Is a western society morally superior, of course. But ideals are very small part of it. That was my point which you managed to misread due to some knee-jerk reactions. Ottoman empire is now western. | ||
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
On April 15 2012 03:57 maartendq wrote: So basically they can "fuck off and die" to you because they were born in the wrong country? Great mindset you got there. You guys are totally taking his words the wrong way. | ||
Kojak21
Canada1104 Posts
On April 15 2012 03:57 maartendq wrote: So basically they can "fuck off and die" to you because they were born in the wrong country? Great mindset you got there. why dont you go join them and try to help them, instead of being a dick too all the people that dissagree with you. have u done anything for them other than complain on the internet about this? | ||
decaf
Austria1797 Posts
| ||
DeepElemBlues
United States5075 Posts
If you notice in case of WW2 there was a qualifier "to a degree", so that removes Japan and China from your objection. Germany is/was a western nation. I might grant you Russia. Does not change the fact that western nations were killing each other in millions in both wars. Also your view of Germany before and during WW1 is rather wrong. In WW1 all the big participants (except US) wanted war, it was more of a continuation of the wars from the previous centuries where one nation might start it, but pointing absolute blame is not so easy. If you want blame someone, blame the Austro-Hungary. 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. 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. As for the rest, I am not implying moral equivalence, that should be clear from my "CYA" (what does that stand for?) when I said "thankfully not on such a scale", thus saying that it is not morally equivalent. On one hand you have me explicitly stating that it is not morally equivalent and on the other hand you have your strange "reading between the lines" that in your world says I am implicating moral equivalence. Maybe you should actually argue with what I say not with what you think I am saying. I was pointing out that ideals in the west did not prevent them from behaving the same way as NK in the past, and even still let people suffer due to ideology. Because people starve in NK not because the elite wants them to starve, but because the elite wants to adhere to some stupid ideology(their version of marxism) and that causes people to starve. And the same way in the west people suffer because their elites are viewing the world through ideology. Is a western society morally superior, of course. But ideals are very small part of it. That was my point which you managed to misread due to some knee-jerk reactions. 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. | ||
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On April 15 2012 03:45 Blasterion wrote: I am not saying we should kill them, we just should not be obligated to save them, 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. | ||
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
Millions died on that front in WW1, or maybe not. Nitpicking does not really contradict my point, which was that western powers in WW1 were killing themselves with millions of casualties. | ||
| ||