5 ms·

I always appreciate a cynical take on the news, but to be fair there has been plenty of justification for humanitarian intervention in NK for the past 60 years.

I always appreciate a cynical take on the news, but to be fair there has been plenty of justification for humanitarian intervention in NK for the past 60 years. We don't really need more 'reasons'. This is more like titillation wrapped-up in a respectable jacket of 'serious current affairs' to get some clicks.

ainiriand 9y ago
Go to Africa then, you have a lot of market there.
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  There's the question of what humanitarian aid Western nations might be morally obligated to offer to its former colonies. That's one question, with many different opinions. Then there's the question of how history will view the rest of us for looking the other way while the Kims turned an entire country into a concentration camp. That's another question entirely. Imagine if we'd left Auschwitz up and running at the end of WWII.
  - rurban 9y ago
    Happened to Buchenwald. Was a nice KZ for the Russians.
legulere 9y ago
60 years? North Korea used to be more industrialized and further along than the south at the beginning.
- cxspoon 9y ago
  Why does this get downvoted? It is factually 100% correct. People used to flee from South to North in the beginning.
  - jwilk 9y ago
    From the HN guidelines: Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
etiam 9y ago
What's reason got to do with it? This kind of piece is literally about the visceral level. > to be fair there has been plenty of justification for humanitarian intervention in NK for the past 60 years Broadly agree to that. Amazing that we're finally opening our eyes to that at this particular point in history, isn't it.
cxspoon 9y ago
...and while you are at it, there are plenty of other countries that could use some humanitarian intervention. Some of them even US allies (keywords: Saudi Arabia, Yemen) But to be fair, I have no answer to the question if ignoring abuses as "internal affairs" is the better option. A very complex problem indeed.
- timthelion 9y ago
  There are plenty of US counties that could use some humanitarian intervention.
  - HarryHirsch 9y ago
    As usual, the Guardian has the news: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/05/hookworm-lowndes-county-alabama-water-waste-treatment-poverty https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/05/hookworm-low... If you have waterborne disease like that it's always a sign of inadequate infrastructure.
pizza234 9y ago
There's no such a thing as a humanitarian intervention. As sibling posts say, there's plenty of market for it, if a country really wants to do it. Even ignoring this aspect, there are two reasons for not waging a war to NK: 1. NK is under China's protection, primarily for acting as buffer country (this is a valid political reason) 2. NK does have offensive power; even without nuclear warheads, due to geographical positioning, it can do a huge amount of damange to SK.

ainiriand 9y ago

Go to Africa then, you have a lot of market there.

CamperBob2 9y ago
There's the question of what humanitarian aid Western nations might be morally obligated to offer to its former colonies. That's one question, with many different opinions. Then there's the question of how history will view the rest of us for looking the other way while the Kims turned an entire country into a concentration camp. That's another question entirely. Imagine if we'd left Auschwitz up and running at the end of WWII.
- rurban 9y ago
  Happened to Buchenwald. Was a nice KZ for the Russians.

legulere 9y ago

60 years? North Korea used to be more industrialized and further along than the south at the beginning.

cxspoon 9y ago
Why does this get downvoted? It is factually 100% correct. People used to flee from South to North in the beginning.
- jwilk 9y ago
  From the HN guidelines: Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

etiam 9y ago

What's reason got to do with it? This kind of piece is literally about the visceral level. > to be fair there has been plenty of justification for humanitarian intervention in NK for the past 60 years Broadly agree to that. Amazing that we're finally opening our eyes to that at this particular point in history, isn't it.

cxspoon 9y ago

...and while you are at it, there are plenty of other countries that could use some humanitarian intervention. Some of them even US allies (keywords: Saudi Arabia, Yemen) But to be fair, I have no answer to the question if ignoring abuses as "internal affairs" is the better option. A very complex problem indeed.

timthelion 9y ago
There are plenty of US counties that could use some humanitarian intervention.
- HarryHirsch 9y ago
  As usual, the Guardian has the news: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/05/hookworm-lowndes-county-alabama-water-waste-treatment-poverty https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/05/hookworm-low... If you have waterborne disease like that it's always a sign of inadequate infrastructure.

pizza234 9y ago

There's no such a thing as a humanitarian intervention. As sibling posts say, there's plenty of market for it, if a country really wants to do it. Even ignoring this aspect, there are two reasons for not waging a war to NK: 1. NK is under China's protection, primarily for acting as buffer country (this is a valid political reason) 2. NK does have offensive power; even without nuclear warheads, due to geographical positioning, it can do a huge amount of damange to SK.