5 ms·

This is complete and utter media hype. The most that will happen is we will continue sanctions, and NK will develop a nuclear deterrent. They will not actually

This is complete and utter media hype. The most that will happen is we will continue sanctions, and NK will develop a nuclear deterrent. They will not actually use it to bomb anyone, but just so they can be safe in the knowledge they will not get invaded because of said deterrent. Like any other country with nukes (there is a lot of us). I do not support their regime, but I also do not support everyone ganging up on them and deciding that military invasion and mass slaughter is somehow the solution. Like with any country, change is slow and has to come from within.

s17n 9y ago
It could come quickly and from without if the rest of the world (eg, China) cut off oil supplies. Regime would be gone in a matter of years.
- hacker_9 9y ago
  That is not the change I mean, that is short sighted and how we would end up with a humanitarianism crisis where people die by the million.
- ben_w 9y ago
  If you were leading NK, and your options were either 1) step down and probably get put on trial and die in prison for warcrimes, or 2) have an insufficient army and be hanged or die in a sewerpipe like Hussein or Gaddafi, or 3) have a really good army that will allow you to conquer enough farmland and natural resources to stave off 1 and 2, and possibly make any attempt to put you back in your box a phyric victory, which would you choose?
  - polotics 9y ago
    Gaddafi prolly wished he died in a sewer pipe when he was dying. Do not look it up.
    - ben_w 9y ago
      "Sewer pipe" was the story that got in the news I saw.
rhapsodic 9y ago
>Like with any country, change is slow and has to come from within. That wasn't the case with Japan and Germany during WWII. They both went from militaristic, imperialistic societies to pacifist ones in a relatively short amount of time. And that change was the result of their being utterly and completely defeated in a bloody war, and the occupations that followed.
- hacker_9 9y ago
  That's because change didn't come from within, it came from external forces in the shape of bombs and weapons that killed millions.
  - rhapsodic 9y ago
    >That's because change didn't come from within, it came from external forces in the shape of bombs and weapons that killed millions. Uh, yeah, that was pretty much my whole point. I was refuting your statment, "change is slow and has to come from within." Major changes in a country are not necessarily slow, and do not have to come from within.
    - hacker_9 9y ago
      So you argument is we should kill millions of people, if their country is not changing quickly enough for us?
      - rhapsodic 9y ago
        >So you argument is we should kill millions of people, if their country is not changing quickly enough for us? I don't see how any intelligent person could think that I am arguing that based on what I wrote. I think it is obvious what I was arguing, however I'll try to make it as clear as possible. I was arguing that your statement, to wit: >Like with any country, change is slow and has to come from within Is simply false.
        9y ago

s17n 9y ago

It could come quickly and from without if the rest of the world (eg, China) cut off oil supplies. Regime would be gone in a matter of years.

hacker_9 9y ago
That is not the change I mean, that is short sighted and how we would end up with a humanitarianism crisis where people die by the million.
ben_w 9y ago
If you were leading NK, and your options were either 1) step down and probably get put on trial and die in prison for warcrimes, or 2) have an insufficient army and be hanged or die in a sewerpipe like Hussein or Gaddafi, or 3) have a really good army that will allow you to conquer enough farmland and natural resources to stave off 1 and 2, and possibly make any attempt to put you back in your box a phyric victory, which would you choose?
- polotics 9y ago
  Gaddafi prolly wished he died in a sewer pipe when he was dying. Do not look it up.
  - ben_w 9y ago
    "Sewer pipe" was the story that got in the news I saw.

rhapsodic 9y ago

>Like with any country, change is slow and has to come from within. That wasn't the case with Japan and Germany during WWII. They both went from militaristic, imperialistic societies to pacifist ones in a relatively short amount of time. And that change was the result of their being utterly and completely defeated in a bloody war, and the occupations that followed.

hacker_9 9y ago
That's because change didn't come from within, it came from external forces in the shape of bombs and weapons that killed millions.
- rhapsodic 9y ago
  >That's because change didn't come from within, it came from external forces in the shape of bombs and weapons that killed millions. Uh, yeah, that was pretty much my whole point. I was refuting your statment, "change is slow and has to come from within." Major changes in a country are not necessarily slow, and do not have to come from within.
  - hacker_9 9y ago
    So you argument is we should kill millions of people, if their country is not changing quickly enough for us?
    - rhapsodic 9y ago
      >So you argument is we should kill millions of people, if their country is not changing quickly enough for us? I don't see how any intelligent person could think that I am arguing that based on what I wrote. I think it is obvious what I was arguing, however I'll try to make it as clear as possible. I was arguing that your statement, to wit: >Like with any country, change is slow and has to come from within Is simply false.
      - 9y ago