3 ms·

I'm actually not interested in the effectiveness, because as you say that's kind of a bad foundation to base a moral / retribution story off. I'm just honest h

I'm actually not interested in the effectiveness, because as you say that's kind of a bad foundation to base a moral / retribution story off. I'm just honest here, I have to assume we've been meddling in each other's leadership and civil directions for a long long time. Like forever. And I just can't believe that the USA is somehow unique either as a perpetrator or a victim. I could believe that there was a time when the USA was more effective and that time may not be right how, but the "coming back to bite you" argument doesn't ring true.

dylan604 3y ago
To me, the difference is the type of government. The US attacking the internet of North Korea seems strange since it is so closed off, but it is very effective for DPRK to use against the US. The fact that the internet is so open to the US citizens means that directly influencing the population via the source of their addiction is just very humorous to me. Maybe it's just part of my disdain against the socials, but you got to admit, there's just a bit of chef's kiss about it
blackoil 3y ago
The difference is earlier method were costly and based on power balance. No other country apart than USSR could afford to manipulate regimes like US did in Iran, Central America, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan etc. Now with Internet the power is "democratised".