d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > War With North Korea
Prev1188189190191192199Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 45,888
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,189.49
May 24 2018 11:44am
Quote (thesnipa @ May 24 2018 11:26am)
the issue is you're presupposing that isolation isn't Kim's perpetual goal, and that he cares about horrid conditions.

The Kim regime made isolation the way of life, and they are responsible for the horrid conditions. They use them as a tool keep the people down.

It's hard to believe that all the Kims are after is a bit of stuff for propaganda films, but that's the truth. The don't care much how the world sees them or talks about them, because their people have no access to the internet and get told lies about how the world sees them. Every single things about NK needs to be run through the following filter: "The kims wont care if they die as long as every NK citizen dies before them."

to be frank, Kim wouldnt mind if half the population died off. why? they systematically test and check people for loyalty to the regime, and give food in a hierarchy to those who are loyal. everyone who dies off is less loyal, objectively. when people die he maintains control.


I don't buy into this mindset. I don't think we can turn dictators into two dimensional caricatures that fiddle as rome burns. It is an easy way to dehumanize and vilify the opposition, but I think it gives a disingenuous look at their motivations and thus harms our ability to play the game against them. Can you say that you don't think Kim Jong Un is doing what he thinks is best for his country and his people? When we look at the iron fist used by tyrants like Bashar Assad, Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, etc- their actions are coherent and logical as the product of someone willing to engage in atrocities not out of pure paranoia or megalomania, but out of larger humanitarian desires. Its easy for a tyrant to believe he's a champion of the common people who is looking out for their interests, but knows that extremists and counter-revolutionaries threaten his tenuous regime and have to be crushed mercilessly if he's going to bring peace. Expressed with infantile hackneyed dialogue you get prequel memes. But it describes a huge chunk of the past 150 years of world events, especially after the october revolution.

Put in Kim's shoes, his actions make sense for the future of his country. He's threatened both externally and internally, and the two fathers before him created a relatively stable system based around military loyalty and suppression of minorities. To pursue nuclear weapons was the only plausible path forward that could set up north korea as a world power rather than being one more minor vassal state of pseudoslave labor. He does the same dance Il did in threatening the west to coerce food aid for his people, he kept the same police state in place. His geopolitical actions have the same tit-for-tat proportional and measured responses that we saw all throughout the nuclear powers of the cold war- south korea sinks a ship, north korea sink a ship.

I say Kim is a rational actor. If anything, it might mean we're at a lesser risk of nuclear threat and/or proliferation from North Korea than we are from Pakistan.
Kim wants to develop and modernize his country. He wants to exploit his nukes to force concessions from the west. And its reasonable to say he's got the interest of his country, not himself, in mind.

This post was edited by Goomshill on May 24 2018 11:48am
Member
Posts: 14,370
Joined: Feb 3 2007
Gold: 0.00
May 24 2018 11:54am
Quote (thesnipa @ May 25 2018 03:34am)
what i find funny in all of this is people want to push Israeli's and Palestinians into a room together until they can "work it out", but put up a Japanese American as ambassador to SK and people lose their minds. its funny how openly accepted Asian internal racism is. i guess it makes sense given the atrocities over the years but still. they've had rather cooled off relationship for decades.


Japan occupied their country for 35 years, massacring any political opposition. There are many on-going issues between the countries as well.

There's a difference between negotiating between two countries, and literally assigning a Japanese person to represent South Korea. It was a horrible move.
Member
Posts: 61,380
Joined: Mar 14 2006
Gold: 10.77
May 24 2018 11:57am
Quote (IceMage @ May 24 2018 09:52am)
It's okay, all my dirty commie friends support the most right-wing president since Reagan too. 4d chess.



I don't think that's the main cause... from the reporting I've heard the US never pretended the exercises would be cancelled, and North Korea wasn't pushing hard for it.




Then let's just go with what Trump said... A North Korean called Mike Pence a "political dummy" which lead to the cancellation of the peace talks... because it was super hostile.

Snowflaking hard.

Also,

"You talk about your nuclear capabilities, but ours are so massive and powerful that I pray to God they will never have to be used"

You think your dick is big, well mine is bigger neener neener neener.
Member
Posts: 90,657
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,489.69
May 24 2018 12:28pm
Quote (Goomshill @ May 24 2018 11:44am)
I don't buy into this mindset. I don't think we can turn dictators into two dimensional caricatures that fiddle as rome burns. It is an easy way to dehumanize and vilify the opposition, but I think it gives a disingenuous look at their motivations and thus harms our ability to play the game against them.Can you say that you don't think Kim Jong Un is doing what he thinks is best for his country and his people? When we look at the iron fist used by tyrants like Bashar Assad, Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, etc- their actions are coherent and logical as the product of someone willing to engage in atrocities not out of pure paranoia or megalomania, but out of larger humanitarian desires. Its easy for a tyrant to believe he's a champion of the common people who is looking out for their interests, but knows that extremists and counter-revolutionaries threaten his tenuous regime and have to be crushed mercilessly if he's going to bring peace. Expressed with infantile hackneyed dialogue you get prequel memes. But it describes a huge chunk of the past 150 years of world events, especially after the october revolution.

Put in Kim's shoes, his actions make sense for the future of his country. He's threatened both externally and internally, and the two fathers before him created a relatively stable system based around military loyalty and suppression of minorities. To pursue nuclear weapons was the only plausible path forward that could set up north korea as a world power rather than being one more minor vassal state of pseudoslave labor. He does the same dance Il did in threatening the west to coerce food aid for his people, he kept the same police state in place. His geopolitical actions have the same tit-for-tat proportional and measured responses that we saw all throughout the nuclear powers of the cold war- south korea sinks a ship, north korea sink a ship.

I say Kim is a rational actor. If anything, it might mean we're at a lesser risk of nuclear threat and/or proliferation from North Korea than we are from Pakistan.
Kim wants to develop and modernize his country. He wants to exploit his nukes to force concessions from the west. And its reasonable to say he's got the interest of his country, not himself, in mind.


that is exactly what i'm saying. to a T.

i have to ask before getting into the subject with you, what reading have you done on North Korea? Your post misses one of the key events in North Korean history. In the famine the UN offered to come in and give free aid. Kim Jong Il led them on a wild goose chase to villiages they created to look like no one was starving. He did this to intentionally cull off the opposition. They have objective data on which families are loyal, and they're starving the disloyal.

the kims care about maintaining control. no more, no less. they dont care about the future of the country. at all.

Quote (CoheedAndCambria @ May 24 2018 11:54am)
Japan occupied their country for 35 years, massacring any political opposition. There are many on-going issues between the countries as well.

There's a difference between negotiating between two countries, and literally assigning a Japanese person to represent South Korea. It was a horrible move.


it wasn't a perfect comparison, and maybe this isn't the perfect example of it, i was just looking to rant on asian racism and how open it is.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 24 2018 12:30pm
Member
Posts: 66,070
Joined: May 17 2005
Gold: 17,384.69
May 24 2018 01:39pm
Quote (inkanddagger @ 24 May 2018 18:57)
A North Korean called Mike Pence a "political dummy"


Even if it's true, this north korean is one too, more than probably ahah
Member
Posts: 16,959
Joined: Sep 18 2010
Gold: 36,347.70
May 25 2018 05:09pm


Liberal cucks in this thread, I suggest you read this book quickly. QUICKLY!
Member
Posts: 66,070
Joined: May 17 2005
Gold: 17,384.69
May 25 2018 05:25pm
Quote (EA7 @ 26 May 2018 00:09)
http://www.1nairashop.com.ng/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ArtOfTheDeal1491215904-400x290.jpg

Liberal cucks in this thread, I suggest you read this book quickly. QUICKLY!


isolated and agitated
Member
Posts: 12,379
Joined: Jul 14 2008
Gold: 2,620.00
May 25 2018 05:42pm
Quote (IceMage @ 24 May 2018 08:49)
I like this move by Trump. Now North Korea understands that he's willing to walk away. Maybe this is bad for peace in the short run, but Kim Jong Un meeting with the POTUS is a big fucking deal for North Korea, and now it's not going to happen because of their inflammatory rhetoric.


I agree with this. The reporting I saw indicated NK was backing away from the table no matter what. And that's in line with how the Kim regime has historically operated - engage in initial talks of diplomacy only to walk away. They've been putting on that act since at least the 1990s and probably before that.

Trump's foreign policy on the Korean Peninsula has admittedly been riskier than previous administrations, and it's tough to say whether it's actually changed anything. But generally speaking, I think it's been worth a shot. Our more metered diplomatic approach with NK seemed to have been stalling, though I admit I'm not an expert in this subject.

Quote (Goomshill @ 24 May 2018 11:44)
I don't buy into this mindset. I don't think we can turn dictators into two dimensional caricatures that fiddle as rome burns. It is an easy way to dehumanize and vilify the opposition, but I think it gives a disingenuous look at their motivations and thus harms our ability to play the game against them. Can you say that you don't think Kim Jong Un is doing what he thinks is best for his country and his people? When we look at the iron fist used by tyrants like Bashar Assad, Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, etc- their actions are coherent and logical as the product of someone willing to engage in atrocities not out of pure paranoia or megalomania, but out of larger humanitarian desires. Its easy for a tyrant to believe he's a champion of the common people who is looking out for their interests, but knows that extremists and counter-revolutionaries threaten his tenuous regime and have to be crushed mercilessly if he's going to bring peace. Expressed with infantile hackneyed dialogue you get prequel memes. But it describes a huge chunk of the past 150 years of world events, especially after the october revolution.

Put in Kim's shoes, his actions make sense for the future of his country. He's threatened both externally and internally, and the two fathers before him created a relatively stable system based around military loyalty and suppression of minorities. To pursue nuclear weapons was the only plausible path forward that could set up north korea as a world power rather than being one more minor vassal state of pseudoslave labor. He does the same dance Il did in threatening the west to coerce food aid for his people, he kept the same police state in place. His geopolitical actions have the same tit-for-tat proportional and measured responses that we saw all throughout the nuclear powers of the cold war- south korea sinks a ship, north korea sink a ship.

I say Kim is a rational actor. If anything, it might mean we're at a lesser risk of nuclear threat and/or proliferation from North Korea than we are from Pakistan.
Kim wants to develop and modernize his country. He wants to exploit his nukes to force concessions from the west. And its reasonable to say he's got the interest of his country, not himself, in mind.


I think the assertion that Kim is a rational political actor is most likely correct. Pursuing nuclear capacity is a reasonable fast track toward joining the big kid table. Take Pakistan, for instance. They might be Iran if they didn't nuclearize in the 1990s. Their country is as shitty and corrupt as most other countries in the Middle East. But they have nukes, so we look the other way. Even if they knowlingly harbor Osama Bin Laden.
Member
Posts: 39,256
Joined: Feb 14 2007
Gold: 2,094.99
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1188189190191192199Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll