• P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    47
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • Krause [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      The only solution is a military invasion of NK

      1. The DPRK has nuclear weapons

      2. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the People’s Republic of China have a treaty going back to 1961 which in Article II clearly states that: “The Contracting Parties undertake jointly to adopt all measures to prevent aggression against either of the Contracting Parties by any state. In the event of one of the Contracting Parties being subjected to the armed attack by any state or several states jointly and thus being involved in a state of war, the other Contracting Party shall immediately render military and other assistance by all means at its disposal.”

      Aggression on them is aggression on China, good luck! 😄

    • Addfwyn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      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”.

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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.

      • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        Could’ve, would’ve, should’ve. The US has had a long and sordid history of downright fucked-up foreign policy decisions.

        But, removed 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.

    • ShadowPouncer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Your perspective being shared by bloodthirsty us officials is why the drpk has and is justified in having nukes

    • freagle
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      11 months ago

      Jesus. And people think I exaggerate when I call the West a death cult

      • patchymoose@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        11 months ago

        Well yes, you are definitely exaggerating if you are suggesting that half the planet is a ‘death cult’. Maybe if you want to say that the foreign policy establishment in certain countries is, then it would be a more reasonable statement.

        I don’t think that “the West” is even a useful term.

        • Krause [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          half the planet

          I think you overestimate your importance, try 14% of the planet instead.

          • patchymoose@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Maybe “The US and its allies”?

            I mean Japan is typically included as part of The West, and it is to the east of China. Cuba is in the western hemisphere, but it is Marxist-Leninist. I don’t think directional terms of the globe make as much sense in the 21st century as they did in the premodern world.

            • ghost_laptop@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              The term “The West” is not to mean something geographical but rather countries that value the Western culture. That’s why the US, Australia, New Zealand and even more notably Israel, Japan and South Korea are fitted into that category. Even though none of these countries are European they all follow along with western traditions or have been westernised in some way or another. If you look at maps of policy decision taking and such (there is even a community dedicated for this in Reddit and I think also here called /alwaysthesamemap) you will see how most of the time “The International Community” is the set of Europe plus the aforementioned countries.

              That is also why the term “Global South” doesn’t really need to be taken literally since for example colonised States such as Hawai’i, or imperialized countries such as Mexico or certain parts of northern Africa are technically above the equator. It is more a symbolic allegorical representation of the people on top (the ruling classes) and the ones below (the oppressed masses).

        • freagle
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          11 months ago

          Lol, news flash. Western white people are not half the planet. Never have been. They are a significant minority.

          You don’t get to decide if the West is a useful term. You have to listen to the global majority on that. And they demonstrate it’s utility by using it.

          The foreign policy establishment is tiny. There are millions of people screaming at their TVs, lynching black people, shooting protestors, buying guns, watching and producing military propaganda movies, watching and producing TV shows about hero white people killing Asiatic hordes, celebrating the European genocide against indigenous people, calling water protectors terrorists, baying for the blood of Iranians, Russians, Chinese… Millions who thinks dropping nukes on population centers was the best course of action. That vacation in Vietnam and marvel at how backwards they are and don’t think Kissinger is that bad.

          It’s not like you and your family and friends and countrymen are just normal people who weren’t raised for 20 years on genocidal indoctrination by your parents, grandparents, teachers, books, TVs, movies, politicians, historians, memorials, and religions. You just don’t think you were.

          It’s not the foreign policy establishment. It’s the entire European project for the last 600 years. You don’t get out of it by just saying “it’s only the power elite”. If the US had a popular revolt, I guarantee you that it would result in major mass killings of the marginalized, because despite your fantasy, the majority of Americans are part of the death cult.

        • krimsonbun@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          well the government is doing a pretty bad job at that considering it is run by the rich and poweful

        • krimsonbun@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Anarkiddies have and are fighting on the frontlines. Only issue is, it’s hard to remain anarchist when the people you’ve allied with are trying to execute you (26 July movement, for example)

            • krimsonbun@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              There are examples of anarchists fighting by themselves, most notably the Free Territory of Ukraine (for the most part, though it did fight alongside the red army on multiple occasions) there’s also the AANES which isn’t inherently anarchist but does have a lot of it’s libertarian characteristics, there’s the zapatistas which you could argue that they are anarchists and I’d say they’re definitely fighting alone, and of course Revolutionary Catalonia, which created a (functional?) society while still facing the much stronger fascists to the west and a lot of internal repercussion from republicans/marxists.

              This is also ignoring the fact that most anarchists would rather fight for a lesser evil when possible instead of sitting around doing nothing.