South Korea has given up on talking to the North
South Korea has given up on talking to the North
The conservative government prefers emphasising its military superiority
You're viewing a single thread.
Don't even know why that was even an option, anyway. NK isn't ever going to cooperate with its "enemies" and will just continue to indoctrinate its population with propaganda.
The only solution is a military invasion of NK. Always has been.
Worked out so well last time, right?
will just continue to indoctrinate its population with propaganda.
Oh yes, definitely that doesn't happen in any of those "civilized" western countries right? Nobody making up things like "North Koreans have no word for love" or "We push trains to work every day".
Your perspective being shared by bloodthirsty us officials is why the drpk has and is justified in having nukes
If you don't wan't to be invaded, don't give your enemies a convenient and completely morally justifiable reason to do so.
Bloodthirsty imperialist, keep fantasizing about them being helpless so they could be invaded.
The only solution is a military invasion of NK. Always has been.
The US always could have not disrupted the planned elections and installed a military dictatorship that kept a lot of the Japanese colonial officers around and started mass killing Koreans. Then the democratic korea wouldn't have had to try to liberate their country.
Could've, would've, should've. The US has had a long and sordid history of downright fucked-up foreign policy decisions.
But, bitching about it doesn't really change the current situation. NK has a dictatorship with a enough military power that it still requires a decent army to overrun. Kim isn't going to listen to any diplomacy, except when he can trick some diplomat to give him more power or image-building. At best, China might be able to cut off its funding and topple Kim's little empire, but China has no interest in that.
Okay seriously guys! Who let John Bolton join lemmy?
They have nukes, my lemon. This has never be the solution.
No war but class war. Death to all forms of government.
Without government, who's going to stop armed gangs from killing you and taking all of your property?
You seem to he under the belief that human beings are incapable of managing themselves and we need hirearchies that know better to rule over us
No, I'm under the belief that there are groups of bad people that the rest of us need protection from.
I'm also under the belief that I live in a democracy, in which we the people choose our leaders. If the government does something bad, it's because we put someone bad into power. The blame lies with us, not some distant, faceless, unelected hierarchy.
Don't believe me? Listen to Republican rhetoric some time. Decode the dog whistles. You'll find that they've been doing precisely what they've been saying they'd do: ban abortion, make life hell for immigrants, give money to the rich, dismantle democracy, and so on. None of their actions are surprising. There is no deep state conspiracy here, just politicians doing what they were elected to do.
First of all, protection from bad groups is very important. But I don't believe it should be provided to us by people that would do anything to harm you as long as it's profitable and they can get away with it (that's also inherently a bad group)
If you were under a democracy basic human rights like the freedom of movement, housing, healthcare and autonomy of one's body would never be QUESTIONED. Even assuming you democratically elected the republican party so they could do that (the americans elected the democrats in 2020, in case you've forgotten) it's inherently undemocratic to take away your human rights, even if it was voted on.
If you were under a democracy the policies that the government approves wouldn't be the ones lobbied by the rich. That's what we call "corruption"
Also, it's funny you mention abortion, considering it was the supreme court that overturned Roe v Wade. I'm not sure about you but the supreme court doesn't look like the most democratic institution to me.
First of all, protection from bad groups is very important. But I don’t believe it should be provided to us by people that would do anything to harm you as long as it’s profitable and they can get away with it (that’s also inherently a bad group)
Then who will protect us? Who, but the government, can hope to have more manpower and firepower than organized crime?
If you were under a democracy basic human rights like the freedom of movement, housing, healthcare and autonomy of one’s body would never be QUESTIONED. Even assuming you democratically elected the republican party so they could do that (the americans elected the democrats in 2020, in case you’ve forgotten) it’s inherently undemocratic to take away your human rights, even if it was voted on.
That's a bit of a paradox of democracy, isn't it? Does democracy give the people the power to vote away their power to vote? You would say no, but then does that not imply there is some greater power than the will of the people? For there to be a greater power than the will of the people doesn't sound very democratic.
If you were under a democracy the policies that the government approves wouldn’t be the ones lobbied by the rich. That’s what we call “corruption”
You forget, they do so with the tacit approval of the voters who keep voting for them after they do so. Members of Congress who sell America out to the highest bidder often do so for decades, not just one term.
Also, it’s funny you mention abortion, considering it was the supreme court that overturned Roe v Wade. I’m not sure about you but the supreme court doesn’t look like the most democratic institution to me.
It is also the Supreme Court that instituted the right to abortion in the first place. Roe v. Wade is the name of a Supreme Court case.
Congress should have codified the right to an abortion, and would have if not for people electing enough Republicans and DINOs to block such a bill.
In the USA (and most places, honestly) all your options are lobbied by rich, there is no alternative in your great democracy. It's rich people that hate gays, women, immigrants and workers or rich people that hate workers. I wouldn't call that democracy, personally. And I also don't think that those people lobbied by the rich, people that couldn't give less of a crap about us, should be the ones in charge of protecting us. There are more people in the world than monsters, there is more love in the world than hate. Humanity loves the earth and everyone on it, we have the power to create a society based on love and respect we have for eachother. A better world is possible, don't let these inhumane beings let you believe otherwise.
As you said, you could call my definiton of democracy a paradox, that is a valid argument. But I'd like to say that's slightly more democratic than having rich people run around and do whatever they want with the fruits of OUR labour, destroying the planet for fun and the endless accumulation of fake tokens to the point where a human can not even comprehend that big of a number, and then blaming US for the state the planet is in.
Society has existed before the state and will exist after the state.
In the USA (and most places, honestly) all your options are lobbied by rich, there is no alternative in your great democracy.
Spare me this nonsense. Only one party is in favor of outlawing abortion, not both.
There are more people in the world than monsters, there is more love in the world than hate.
Doubtful. Very doubtful, given how many Americans don't vote Democratic.
A better world is possible, don’t let these inhumane beings let you believe otherwise.
This from the one trying to help the Republicans turn America into a brutal theocracy by discouraging people from voting Democratic.
Society has existed before the state and will exist after the state.
History does not support this claim. Every society has had leadership of some kind. I'm aware of exactly zero libertarian utopias.
Government is the only thing protecting you from the rich and powerful.
well the government is doing a pretty bad job at that considering it is run by the rich and poweful
Least bloodthirsty lib
I would argue that we are, as a planetary civilization, almost past the point where a war of that sort is even possible.
On the other hand, if China were to ever shun NK, I would bet that their government would likely collapse in less than a decade.
Sadly, China has a ton of reasons to want to prevent that, one of the bigger ones being the border with NK where many, many refugees would try to cross into China.
I could however see, someday, China agreeing to a massive backroom deal on a scale that would be unprecedented:
China abruptly works to ensure a complete collapse of the NK government, without any NK nuclear weapons either coming into play or any NK nuclear weapons going missing (except to China itself, if it wants them).
And SK along with a good chunk of the Western world agrees to immediately conduct one of the largest humanitarian missions in history, to ensure that nobody is fleeing NK into China unless they have tons of assets and they want to avoid repercussions for their actions.
There are, sadly, a lot of reasons why China wouldn't want the western powers capable of pulling that off to have control of territory that close to China though.
SK would be their safest bet, but SK doesn't have the resources to pull of that kind of a humanitarian effort.
And the chances that someone like the US wouldn't take the chance to plop a military base in what is currently NK seems awfully slim.