well right, but i think that goes along with what JIC just said---it's less about "humoring lunatics" like yr patting them on the head oh you, and more about understanding fully that they ARE lunatics and that everyone is better off if let them lunatic themselves into an early grave. nb the everyone in the previous sentence explicitly does not include the people that actually live there, who are getting the short end in pretty much any scenario that doesn't involve the immediate dissolution of the DPRK and a massive influx of supportive services from around the world
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 19:59 (thirteen years ago) link
I guess the other thing is I just don't see any winning scenarios for the PRK here - I agree obviously the ideal solution is to manage their collapse with the least possible bloodshed but otoh I think they are a bit of a paper tiger. they can't nuke seoul without fucking over themselves as well, and I'm kinda dubious that a starved, oppressed, ignorant populace makes for a dangerous and efficient military. but what do I know...
xp
― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 19:59 (thirteen years ago) link
Shakey, NK should certainly be shown "respect". (NB: This is not the same thing as respect.)
The reasons for this are myriad. NK has a duly constituted government. It may be constituted of shitheels and thugs, but it is a government all the same and international law, such as it is, "respects" such entities. Look how well it worked to decide to impose regime change in Iraq, for no better reason than its government was constituted of shitheels and thugs, and we imputed they had nuclear ambitions.
Beyond this, the practical reasons why a war there would be an utter disaster compared to maintaining the status quo would fill a book.
So, please refrain from knee-jerk reactions that wouold serve you better in a barroom brawl than in diplomatic relations. It's just such instinctive disdain that lets people like neo-cons whip up a nice little war for us with 85% favorable polling -- before the first shot is fired, of course -- that turn into "long slogs" that cost a trillion dollars or more.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 19:59 (thirteen years ago) link
Iraq not really the same scenario here, Dubya's "Axis of Evil" nonsense notwithstanding
― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:01 (thirteen years ago) link
well it IS in the int'l relations sense. like, the DPRK actually is a country with some semblance of administrative unity. it isn't somalia, you know? so unless you actively want to provoke someone with an army, you should probably toe the literal and figurative line
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:02 (thirteen years ago) link
It's entirely possible that a war would result in the rapid collapse of the PRK, and the North Korean's love of the Great Leader (and willingness to fight) would instantly evaporate. The whole thing could tumble like a house of cards.
On the other hand...
xxxposts
― Super Cub, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:03 (thirteen years ago) link
Surely a government that willfully neglects its people in favor of military build-up forfeits some of its claim to international legitimacy.
― Super Cub, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:04 (thirteen years ago) link
btw I'm not advocating for invasion or anything here I just thought Shasta was being a bit OTT with his implication that the US/SK deliberately provoked NK here. the DRP is CRAZY, they will and have used ANY LITTLE THING as a provocation. trying to avoid provoking them is like tryign to keep the sun from coming up.
― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:04 (thirteen years ago) link
of course i should add that even tho i'm "against killing" and wars and all, i occasionally wonder why the US doesn't just ace ppl like kim jong il. i mean, i KNOW why, but i've been conditioned by movies to assume that the assassination of a despot is a walk in the park, diplomacy be damned.
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:05 (thirteen years ago) link
lol NK probably WOULD use the sun coming up as a pretext for shooting something somewhere
― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:05 (thirteen years ago) link
not sure what shasta was thinking, but i think that it's precisely BECAUSE the DPRK is so easily provoked that it seems a little foolish to involve US forces with any provocation (and certainly to encourage it).
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:06 (thirteen years ago) link
The whole thing could tumble like a house of cards.
Echo of the infamous "they will welcome us as liberators" nonsense, pre-Iraq war.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:07 (thirteen years ago) link
oh come on we have what 50K troops there, we're all over everything
― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:07 (thirteen years ago) link
I dunno how much I need to emphasize this but Iraq /= NK
Echo of the infamous "they will welcome us as liberators" nonsense, pre-Iraq war.― Aimless, Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:07 PM (16 seconds ago) Bookmark
― Aimless, Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:07 PM (16 seconds ago) Bookmark
ok, now you're pushing it a bit. iraq may have been dysfunctional and bad, but the DPRK is literally a million times worse, if we're going to conjure up a spectrum of Bad To Live In.
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:09 (thirteen years ago) link
1023: The BBC's John Sudworth in Seoul says there has been no sense of panic in the capital
― James Mitchell, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 21:33 (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
After 50+ years of having a billion DPRK rockets pointed at them they're probably inured to the threat of annihilation.
― Friday: vuvuzela club meeting (Autumn Almanac), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:10 (thirteen years ago) link
I just think humoring lunatics is a fool's game, tbh. you will never win. they will still BE LUNATICS
― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:56 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
feel like this is a pretty know nothing pov
― ice cr?m, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:11 (thirteen years ago) link
please to spell out course of action wherein DPRK doesn't see "provocation" in every little goddamned thing
― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:14 (thirteen years ago) link
especially because those "provocations" are used for domestic audience and win points in internal power struggles.
― Super Cub, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:17 (thirteen years ago) link
I mean it's pretty obvious that NK orchestrates these mini-crisis for whatever reason.
― Super Cub, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:18 (thirteen years ago) link
love how you can be all THERES NOTHING YOU CAN DO ITS JUST NUTJOBS and then demand a detailed policy proposal in response, are you sure youre not the lunatic xp
― ice cr?m, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:19 (thirteen years ago) link
NK is like a needy, violent kid - if you don't pay attention to it, it will ensure you pay attention to it. This has been the country's negotiation strategy for years. Demand crazy stuff, get mired in determining a compromise, establish a default detente, then do it over again. The relationship between NK and the USA has largely been one of extorter and patient extortion victim - they threaten to go nuke, we offer them food and fuel to not go nuke. Whatever advantage NK has in actually going nuke seems less than what is has threatening to go nuke, but who knows what makes these dudes tick.
Also, the relationship between the US and SK is a weird one as well. S Koreans seem to resent the US presence in their region, but at the same time recognize why we're there. I have no idea what would happen if we just left, though. Would NK consider that a victory? Does it matter?
In some ways NK reminds me a bit of Albania. Crazed despot isolates country, convinced an invasion is imminent. (Hoxha severed ties with ostensible Communist allies China and Russia, I think, because he was so paranoid). Albania is even littered with tens of thousands of bomb shelters, one in virtually every backyard. But of course, Albania didn't even pose a hypothetical threat to its neighbors.
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:20 (thirteen years ago) link
I don't have a shiny uniform and a population to oppress so yeah I'm pretty sure
― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:20 (thirteen years ago) link
love how you can be all THERES NOTHING YOU CAN DO ITS JUST NUTJOBS and then demand a detailed policy proposal in response, are you sure youre not the lunatic
but maybe I am a lunatic because I don't see how these are mutually exclusive positions. I DON'T think there's anything we can do because yes lol nutjobs. You seem to think there IS something we can do. Burden of proof is on you.
― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:21 (thirteen years ago) link
this thread: only just now hilarious
― buzza, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:24 (thirteen years ago) link
point is you make the laziest possible argument, one clearly not based on any particular knowledge of the situation, and then demand that people humor and educate you, in conclusion you must be a crazy person
― ice cr?m, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:27 (thirteen years ago) link
I think it is so, therefore it is so. A contrary conclusion constitutes an extraordianry claim, which therefore requires extraordinary proof.
^_^
― Aimless, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:28 (thirteen years ago) link
lol clean hit from the ice man
― caek, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:29 (thirteen years ago) link
S Koreans seem to resent the US presence in their region
younger S Koreans more than older. people that grew up in the 50s there have a more understanding viewpoint towards US bases on their soil
― con suelo, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:36 (thirteen years ago) link
NK has a duly constituted government. It may be constituted of shitheels and thugs, but it is a government all the same and international law, such as it is, "respects" such entities. Look how well it worked to decide to impose regime change in Iraq, for no better reason than its government was constituted of shitheels and thugs, and we imputed they had nuclear ambitions.
this is a stupid parallel in any case, but the logic of 'they have a duly constituted government' is pretty awful in its implications
not endorsing invasion btw, just saying that the terrible disaster of iraq has made people crazy
― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:40 (thirteen years ago) link
only awful in that it might suggest that a "duly constituted government" can do what it wants with its citizenry, right? cf nazis
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:43 (thirteen years ago) link
"only"
iraq may have been dysfunctional and bad, but the DPRK is literally a million times worse
also fucking ridiculous, "literally a million times worse", get a grip, or maybe read some about iraq
― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:44 (thirteen years ago) link
I make no claims to having any specialized knowledge. If there is some rational basis (as Shasta implies) driving the DPRKs never-ending cries of provocation, by all means please elaborate. As far as I can tell, they use the flimsiest of pretexts to rattle their sabres and bare their teeth - whether or not the US actually DOES anything seems largely immaterial.
― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:46 (thirteen years ago) link
also fucking ridiculous, "literally a million times worse", get a grip, or maybe read some about iraq― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:44 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark
― rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:44 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark
also fucking ridiculous: taking something like "literally a million times worse" at face value. my only point is that, from what i've read (clearly not a lot), it seems like the situation in NK for a given NK citizen is likely much worse than that of an average citizen in iraq under saddam.
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:52 (thirteen years ago) link
the logic of 'they have a duly constituted government' is pretty awful in its implications
Agreed. But the logic of "we don't like their government, so we may use military force to whatever extent we desire in order to change it to one more to our liking" is, if anything, worse. The problem is creating clear criteria that will be fairly and universally applied. There's always a loophole, always a disagreement, and always a case to be made on each side.
As for Iraq/NK being a stupid parallel, I can't agree. The details of every conflict in every region will naturally be different, but where the parallel does exist is at the point where arguments are made that an aggressive war is justified by the behavior of the opponent. Those claims and counter-claims always sound hauntingly familiar, whether it is Iran vs. Iraq or the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:54 (thirteen years ago) link
the point where arguments are made that an aggressive war is justified by the behavior of the opponent
FYI no one is making this argument
― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:57 (thirteen years ago) link
The argument is indeed being made. Calling the opponent "lunatics" is integral to the argument for war. Saying, for instance, "iraq may have been dysfunctional and bad, but the DPRK is literally a million times worse" is also a fundamental part of the argument.
What is lacking here is not the argument but the conclusion the argument leads to. Once the argument is well constructed in the public mind, the final step is a very short one. Many of us seem to be properly primed for taking that step, when called upon to do so.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 21:03 (thirteen years ago) link
you are being silly.
and fwiw I didn't mean no one's making that argument just on this thread. I have literally never seen anyone seriously advance the argument that NK should be invaded on grounds similar to those used as a pretext for Iraq.
otoh this entire thread DOES pretty clearly illustrate the lunacy of the DPRK. They are not rational actors.
― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 21:05 (thirteen years ago) link
I really don't understand the POV you're advocating here - that we should treat NK with the attendant dignity and respect that they demand, regardless of their actual behavior, policies, and public demeanor? gtfo
― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 21:06 (thirteen years ago) link
/FYI no one is making this argument/The argument is indeed being made. Calling the opponent "lunatics" is integral to the argument for war. Saying, for instance, "iraq may have been dysfunctional and bad, but the DPRK is literally a million times worse" is also a fundamental part of the argument. What is lacking here is not the argument but the conclusion the argument leads to. Once the argument is well constructed in the public mind, the final step is a very short one. Many of us seem to be properly primed for taking that step, when called upon to do so.
wtf dude leave me out of this.
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 21:07 (thirteen years ago) link
actually wait I've never seen anyone advance the argument that NK should be invaded on ANY grounds now that I think about it
― in a style known as "Early Cleveland" (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 21:11 (thirteen years ago) link
You all are bickering like North and South Korea.
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 21:12 (thirteen years ago) link
anyway is yr point that concluding that Iraq/DPRK is so bad and hated is a necessary condition for mounting popular support for war? yes duh.
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 21:12 (thirteen years ago) link
but as shakey said: no one is concluding that war is a good idea. could you? sure go ahead
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 21:13 (thirteen years ago) link
calling opponent "lunatics" is literally a million times less serious than making an agument for war.
― Vanpire Halend (kkvgz), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 21:16 (thirteen years ago) link
aimless being somewhat hyperbolic but yes concluding that the situation is unworkable because yr adversary is omg crazy wont listen to reason is a fairly universal rational for war
― ice cr?m, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 21:22 (thirteen years ago) link
Disrespecting them isn't going to add anything useful to the mix, Shakey.
There do not seem to be any constructive actions available to us at present that we are not already taking. Dehumanizing them, disrespecting them, or demonizing them is not productive of anything but a mindset that makes it easier to demand action, even when that action makes matters worse, and a sense of superiority that clouds one's judgment.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 21:23 (thirteen years ago) link
none of us are making any decisions re nk iirc
― BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Tuesday, 23 November 2010 21:24 (thirteen years ago) link
can't believe shakey mo collier just nuked n korea
― buzza, Tuesday, 23 November 2010 21:26 (thirteen years ago) link