> All other parties involved (US,China,Japan,South Korea, Russia) are all to be blamed for suffering of 25 millions of people living in an artificial skansen of communism.
> US and SK should have invaded and liberated the NK long time ago. They are as much part of the problem as the NK's leadership is.
I'm glad you're so high on your own morality that you're willing to condemn thousands of people that aren't you to death in starting a war. There's the possibility that economics and the changing international climate will bleed over and convince the populace to change. That's what people have been hoping for - a chance for change with a minimum of bloodshed. A chance to convince rather than force.
Yes, there's debate over whether a long-term peaceful approach or a short-term decisive strike would cause the least "suffering". I get that. But it's not as simple as the US going over to free the shit out of them. China has previously committed to at least partial protection of NK in an armed conflict. And while NK's military power is relatively anemic compared to most of the world, throwing down with China isn't exactly an attractive opportunity. Plus, there's already a lot of negative perception about US intervention in other countries. It doesn't always go well, and it's certainly rarely perceived well.
And then there's all the naive kids that would be dying because you think it's their fault for not doing something about every single thing that goes wrong on the planet. Exactly why should those kids get embroiled in a war as opposed to living their own lives? Even the ones who survive likely won't be able to integrate and function well in society afterwards. Not to mention the harsh effect on the NK and SK populace. Yeah, you can think of it as being like quickly pulling off a band-aid until you realize all the dead people and ruined lives it costs to take the shortcut.
Maybe you should try not condemning other people for ignorance when you're asking thousands to die for your naive internet opinion of global politics. If war's the solution you want, go do it yourself instead of trying to get the rest of us to do it for you.
Are you perhaps joking ? My naive view of global politics is as naive as your moral standard towards poor NK's children.
US is a superpower and if it wants to keep its allies alive it needs to do something for them as well. Your double standards really surprise me.
US cannot afford to loose SK but if the US keeps ignoring the NK/China problem that will push SK more and more to the hands of Chinese.
Sooner or later you will realize that koreans are the bffs of China, Japan feels threatened and there is nothing you can do about that boiling hot pot that formed in the Pacific.
It's not about NK's suffering population at all. Nobody cares about them and that is what's scary.
> My naive view of global politics is as naive as your moral standard towards poor NK's children.
The problem is that you're asking us to kill people in order to "save" people. You're asking us to choose who lives and who dies while imposing a different standard of government and living upon others. That's what's naive - the idea that you and others are somehow so moral that you're allowed to pick when it's right to go kill people.
The last few invasions where the US stepped in to do this went rather poorly, and it has received mostly negative feedback for this in international politics. It's a bit unrealistic to believe that we're doing the right thing in forced liberation operations when everyone is so upset about it. Us stepping in is just asking for another international gripe session of "who's the US bullying today?" Thanks, but no. We'll wait until we're officially asked.
> It's not about NK's suffering population at all. Nobody cares about them and that is what's scary.
People care. Just not enough to die and make others die for them. Which was the exact level of consideration you exhibited towards everyone who would die in the war you want to start. We want NK to change, but to force them to do so with munitions isn't really the best idea.
We don't particularly like the way things are going over there, but we've got enough of a warmongering reputation as is. Everything suggests that while we can maintain the peace, we should. At least until the situation is conducive for intervention without a significant loss of life. The real question isn't why someone halfway around the world doesn't want to send people over there to die, but why the countries right next door think it's somehow our job to do it when any one of them could do it easier and cheaper. They could probably even do it alone, given NK's anemic economy, but they could also start and then ask for help. Waiting for us to do it seems like people want the results without having to get their hands dirty.
> US is a superpower and if it wants to keep its allies alive it needs to do something for them as well. Your double standards really surprise me.
SK has gotten plenty of support in the face of potential attacks _targeting them_. That's what allies do. Supporting the invasion of a completely separate country to "free" them of a dictator and killing thousands in the process is a totally different story. NK and SK were once one. And there are still families across both borders. But they are _separate_ countries. And thus have separate political relationships.
NK is not our ally. SK is. They happen to be in conflict, though not actively. We can help protect SK without engaging in proactive slaughter of all conflicting parties.
> Sooner or later you will realize that koreans are the bffs of China, Japan feels threatened and there is nothing you can do about that boiling hot pot that formed in the Pacific.
Yeah, no. Korea, China, and Japan all have hundreds of years of history between each other. Many of it is not pleasant, such as Japan's mass slaughter of millions of Chinese and Korean people in WWII, forced prostitution, etc. And there is plenty of conflict even today around shared resources such as international waters, islands, Taiwan, etc. Korea's tech industry and China's rampant disregard of corporate IP also make for uneasy international meetings. Even modern fictional literature contains racist and nationalist messages that causes conflict. At the end of the day, they manage not to shoot each other, but they're hardly all BFFs. At most, they have strategic peace treaties to help deal with more volatile relationships.
Asking a third party to jump in the middle with weapons is just asking for problems. Especially when the largest superpower which lives right next door has already said not to, because it would retaliate.
> US and SK should have invaded and liberated the NK long time ago. They are as much part of the problem as the NK's leadership is.
I'm glad you're so high on your own morality that you're willing to condemn thousands of people that aren't you to death in starting a war. There's the possibility that economics and the changing international climate will bleed over and convince the populace to change. That's what people have been hoping for - a chance for change with a minimum of bloodshed. A chance to convince rather than force.
Yes, there's debate over whether a long-term peaceful approach or a short-term decisive strike would cause the least "suffering". I get that. But it's not as simple as the US going over to free the shit out of them. China has previously committed to at least partial protection of NK in an armed conflict. And while NK's military power is relatively anemic compared to most of the world, throwing down with China isn't exactly an attractive opportunity. Plus, there's already a lot of negative perception about US intervention in other countries. It doesn't always go well, and it's certainly rarely perceived well.
And then there's all the naive kids that would be dying because you think it's their fault for not doing something about every single thing that goes wrong on the planet. Exactly why should those kids get embroiled in a war as opposed to living their own lives? Even the ones who survive likely won't be able to integrate and function well in society afterwards. Not to mention the harsh effect on the NK and SK populace. Yeah, you can think of it as being like quickly pulling off a band-aid until you realize all the dead people and ruined lives it costs to take the shortcut.
Maybe you should try not condemning other people for ignorance when you're asking thousands to die for your naive internet opinion of global politics. If war's the solution you want, go do it yourself instead of trying to get the rest of us to do it for you.