If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
North Korean: Morons
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
What do these guys want? Does anything they do make sense? They are determined to make enemies of all of their neighbors by testing misscles and building weapons. Their reasoning is completely fucked. I mean, they are upset with Japan for not returning the abductees as planned. They also view their contract with the U.S. concerning nukes void after being labeled axis of evil so they can defend themselves. What, like they just constructed those weapons in the last year after being labeled? They are starving their people who escape to China in desperation all the time. What do they have to gain from all this? What are they protecting themself from? fear of democracy I suppose. Control is more important than the lives of their people and their economy. Maybe they are evil.
0
Comments
They are an oppressive regime, as Aladdin said. They are an oppressive regime that doesnt give a flying fuck about their own people that are starving. The people in power simply want to stay in power.
Iraq named as an axis country - Iraq is about to be invaded
What does that make NK think with them being next on the hit list? Whether or not the US will actually attack NKorea is irrelevent(they wont btw), its what the NK govt thinks that matters.
The revealing of their nuclear program does a number of things. First of all it rubs Americas nose in the fact. NK know full well that America wont do a thing about them, not until they pose a direct threat. Secondly it gives the US something serious to think about with regard to any invasion or attack on NK. Throwing nuclear weapons into the pot will make even the USA hesitate. Thirdly it gives them a hell of a lot more influence in the region. While nuclear weapons may be just a symbolic threat given the amount of military hardware in korea, it still has that symbolic meaning to others.
Especially coming from the country with the biggest nuclear weapon arsenal in the world.
And the only country to have actually used those weapons in time of war.... Or to put it another way : The only country to have used those weapons against civillians.
Incedentally, they are also the only country to have officaily threatened antoher with nuclear weapons.... Which they have done on more than 50 occasions since the tech was invented.
You can see why they may be worried about other countries having them.... They wont be free to threaten and scare other nations shitless if they are not the only ones with the nukes
With that infomation your first post was not very well worded.
V
cokefreak: Ok, I couldn't have worded it better, but how would you compare the intellect of N. Korean vs S. Korean government as a whole morality not included. I guess I still ask that in a biased manner b/c I come from a point of view that understands morality. Maybe N. Korea doesn't want their country to prosper as a whole as long as they have a large military and complete control and fear from superpowers and neighbors. It just hard for me to understand that way of thinking so I choose to attach the term morons so blindly. I guess that makes me the one who is ignorant.
I imagine they are actually pretty intelligent.
I imagine if they were not they would not still be in power.
I think that after they have decided they want to have a nuclear stockpile they have gone about it the right way.
By testing the weapons in the way they have they have effectivly announced to the world that they have the weapons without having to threaten, or appear to threaten any other 1 nation.
And to be frank, after they were branded as part of the "axis of evil", and now other parts of that "axis" look like they are about to have war brought to them, i understand why they feel the need to have the weapons in the first place.
America claimed to need their stockpile to defend their way of life against a legitimate threat.... If you can accept that you cannot deny N. K. the same freedom.
Incedentally, there is no need to be so self depreciating. I understood you were speaking with your feelings the first tiem around.
Well, I am ignorant to a degree when it comes to understanding the mentality of those without morals. Thats not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion.
Its worth remembering that these people (probabily) hold some things in very high moral regard that you don't even think about.
Not every culture's morals are the same.
In fact, most of the great civilisations that came before us (the giants whos shoulders Newton stood on, if you like) had vastly different moral values to us, and I don't think any of them fell due to lack of morality (possible exception of Rome, but i can blame that on lead piping rather than massive inbreeding).
Morals are tricky like that, same as GCSE art... There is no diffinitive right or wrong answer to either of them.
In case you have forgotten, the USA was subjected to a deliberate and unprovoked attack by the forces of Imperial Japan on 7th December 1941. They may have won that war, but they did not start it. The war was begun by the Japanese, even as they spoke of peace, and was eventually carried back to their own home islands. Because the USA was an agressive, expansionist power? No -- because taking the fight back to the enemy is the only way one can win any conflict. He who always defends always loses.
Now, by the time the USA had nuclear weapons, the only lands of any significance left to attack were the Japanse home islands. The military targets there were intermingled with civilian infrastructure. The number of nuclear bombs available was highly limited. The casualty estimates for a land invasion of Japan were in the region of one million American troops dead -- plus essentially every Japanese man, woman and child on the way. Do you seriously think Truman wasn't going to order the use of the bomb? And how do you think they could have avoided causing civilian casualtes with such a weapon? Be thankful that what you would have considered the greatest massacre -- the bombing of Tokyo -- was not carried out, was averted by Japan's surrender.
Care to list those occasions, or give a link to them?
Or, perhaps, they quite sensibly don't want their enemies to be well-armed. If I had an enemy in front of me and was given a choice of him being armed with a gun or not, I know I'd prefer the latter -- irrespective of whether or not I was, myself, armed.
Or, perhaps, they quite sensibly don't want their enemies to be well-armed. If I had an enemy in front of me and was given a choice of him being armed with a gun or not, I know I'd prefer the latter -- irrespective of whether or not I was, myself, armed.
Unfortunately what one wants and what one has a right to do are two completely different matters. The USA can wish and wish until hell freezes over that other countries don't arm themselves with nuclear weapons- but other than that there is nothing it can do.
In any event, your reasoning works both ways. I cannot blame
any country in the world for trying to equip themselves with nuclear weapons, if you consider that the USA has enough nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to kill every man, woman and child on earth hundreds of times over. And when you also consider that since the end of WWII the United States government has bombed 21 countries:
China 1945-46, 1950-53
Korea 1950-53
Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-69
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-61
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Lebanon 1983-84
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Bosnia 1985
Sudan 1998
Former Yugoslavia 1999
Iraq 1991, constant sorties since
Afghanistan 1998, 2001-02
and when you count how many of those countries were bombed by the US in self-defence...
it is not surprising that countries are trying to acquire nuclear weapon capability. From some nations' point of view the US is the biggest rogue state of them all, and bound sooner or later to launch more attacks. And when one looks at the list above, it's not difficult to see why they think that way.
Interesting that you don't mention why those bombings occured:
China 1945-46, 1950-53 - I'd like to actually see some proof of this allegation.
Korea 1950-53 - As part of a UN force to defend Korea.
Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-69
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-61 - Again, I'd like to see proof of this allegation. The Bay of Pigs was not US Forces.
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73 - Originally at the request of the Lao government, later as part of the defense of Vietnam.
Vietnam 1961-73 - In defense of S. Vietnam in accordance with SEATO.
Cambodia 1969-70 - As part of the defense of Vietnam.
Lebanon 1983-84 - In response to the bombing of the US Marine barracks.
Grenada 1983 - At the request of the OEC and to ensure the safety of US Citizens.
Libya 1986 - In response to terrorist attack.
El Salvador 1980s - Once again, I'd love to see proof of this. Lot of my friends were there, but bombs? Don't think so.
Nicaragua 1980s - Same as El Salvador, actually more so. No US advisors in Nicaragua.
Panama 1989 - In order to extract a criminal and protect US Citizens.
Bosnia 1985 - NATO/UN
Sudan 1998 - In response to a terrorist attack.
Former Yugoslavia 1999 - NATO/UN
Iraq 1991, constant sorties since - UN responding to defend Kuwait and the area.
Afghanistan 1998, 2001-02 - In response to terrorist attacks.
A few I didn't address because I am unfamiliar with them, but if they have the same basis in fact as the listings for El Salvador and Nicaragua, I won't be surprised.
Of course, as long as you are making stretches, why not add Somalia in 1993? At least US aircraft actually fired missiles there.
Originally posted by cokephreak
Especially coming from the country with the biggest nuclear weapon arsenal in the world.
Commented on by MacKenZie
And the only country to have actually used those weapons in time of war.... Or to put it another way : The only country to have used those weapons against civillians.
In case you have forgotten, the USA was subjected to a deliberate and unprovoked attack by the forces of Imperial Japan on 7th December 1941. They may have won that war, but they did not start it. The war was begun by the Japanese, even as they spoke of peace, and was eventually carried back to their own home islands. Because the USA was an agressive, expansionist power? No -- because taking the fight back to the enemy is the only way one can win any conflict. He who always defends always loses.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say...
I never said, thought, insinuated or implied that they bombed randomly without cause, reason or provocation (regardless of how slighty).
All I said was that other countries seem to find other options before threatening other countries with Nukes.
Also I understand this
Or, perhaps, they quite sensibly don't want their enemies to be well-armed. If I had an enemy in front of me and was given a choice of him being armed with a gun or not, I know I'd prefer the latter -- irrespective of whether or not I was, myself, armed.
but you have to agree that if they have a gun you would be a little happier with a gun yourself.
This is how many countries feel : They know their enemy, the USA (if not an enemy today then they maybe tomorow) has these weapons, and want to at least look like they will defend themselves if bombs do start being droped.