|
Post by juju on Aug 10, 2017 11:41:26 GMT
Haven't been on here in a while *waves at everyone* so I thought I'd come back and post something serious and depressing, heh. Anyway, thoughts on the US v NK situation?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 10, 2017 12:24:43 GMT
Kim Jong-un says he's going to fire four missiles just outside Guam's territorial waters. Very provocative but not actually attacking the US colony because they would fall in international waters. It's difficult to see how Trump could respond. Dropping a missile into international waters near North Korea would be childish tit-for-tat, whilst attacking Korea itself would mark the US as the instigator of a war. And they can't take any military action without South Korea's agreement. So Kim Jong-un has nothing to lose by firing the missiles. On the other hand, he's publicised it so much on state TV, he would be showing his hand before the event, and that doesn't make military sense. So, in my opinion, it's 50-50 whether he will do it. And if he does, America will just complain loudly and appear impotent.
*waves to juju*
|
|
|
Post by juju on Aug 10, 2017 12:40:42 GMT
I hope it's all bluster on both sides. However, I've read a number of political opinion articles recently that suggest that the only way Trump can recover as a president (given the ongoing investigations and his falling approval ratings) is a war - it's a proven phenomenon and certainly worked for Bush, Thatcher and many more. His supporters would certainly egg him on, if their comments on Facebook and other articles are anything to go by. I'm not saying he'd instigate one, but he would certainly wouldn't turn down the opportunity of a show of strength, probably without thinking of the consequences. Both leaders have proved to be petulant, impulsive and narcissistic. And no sane person has hairstyles like that...
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 10, 2017 12:45:33 GMT
And no sane person has hairstyles like that... lol
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Aug 10, 2017 13:19:34 GMT
I think the FB pic I saw covered it best: Trump and Un with missiles for dicks having a measuring contest. Unfortunately while the little kiddies play with their thingies, real people die.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Aug 10, 2017 15:28:19 GMT
Trump is the wildcard. Yes, he will be motivated to go to war not just to protect his fragile presidency but to protect his superfragile ego. America now has a crazed lunatic to match Kim Jong-un.
Nobody wins from escalating the conflict though, and China, South Korea, Japan and half of America realise this, so while it could get tense, nothing is likely to happen.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 11, 2017 11:44:22 GMT
O-k-a-y.
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Aug 11, 2017 12:24:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 11, 2017 13:58:00 GMT
For the past several decades, America's aim has been to convert North Korea to Western ideology. During that time, China has continued to support North Korea because it wants to stop America's creeping ideology. It's not unlike the religious crusades of the Middle Ages, except that it's ideology instead of religion that is the motivation. Hence, there would be no world crisis and no threat of nuclear war if, 30 years ago, the US had stopped its drive for Western ideological government and had left North Korea to live peacefully without any threat of subversion.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 11, 2017 18:54:35 GMT
If China would support NK against a strike first attack by the US it would be suicide for Trump to do any such thing. NK might be a joke. China really are not.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 11, 2017 18:56:00 GMT
It IS, frankly, quite unnverving that the US wants to dictate to the whole world which tune they should dance to - especially since a lot of American ideology is frankly not very likable (I have no more desire to live under a Christian theocracy than I do any other). Maybe we should all just live and let live? Though I sense that that is no longer an option .
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 11, 2017 20:52:51 GMT
... especially since a lot of American ideology is frankly not very likable (I have no more desire to live under a Christian theocracy than I do any other). (Methinks American ideology is about capitalism, freedom of speech and power, not religion.)
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Aug 11, 2017 22:24:51 GMT
So what were we supposed to do? Just let North Korea take South Korea? Haven't you considered that this might be more about what South Korea wants than "spreading American ideology"? Do you see South Koreans desperately trying to cross the demilitarized zone so they can live in North Korea, too, because North Koreans are so darn happy?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 12, 2017 10:12:47 GMT
My comment was perhaps a bit indiscrete, I'm sorry. The situation can be viewed either as protection or aggression on all sides and no one party is to blame.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 12, 2017 13:21:39 GMT
I think an internal coup is probably the best thing to hope for but it doesn't seem all that likely.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 12, 2017 16:20:54 GMT
There was some thought that Kim Jong-un's uncle was plotting a coup but he was found out and executed.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 13, 2017 15:41:26 GMT
I wonder if he'd have been any better though. They need a democracy
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 13, 2017 16:31:03 GMT
I believe he was more moderate.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 13, 2017 18:08:43 GMT
But if he intended to rule without being elected he was still a despot
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 13, 2017 20:12:54 GMT
Was there ever a king who didn't intend to rule without being elected?
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 13, 2017 21:11:25 GMT
No. But I'd like to think that the world can move on from that.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 13, 2017 21:57:18 GMT
My point is that ruling without being elected does not necessarily make a person a despot. In fact, history suggests that virtually no king (or queen) was a despot. Your objection to Kim Jong-un's uncle ruling does not appear, therefore, to be valid.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 14, 2017 18:15:34 GMT
Um are you serious Steve? You can't think of any Kings and Queens who were despots?! I have literally nothing to say to that
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 14, 2017 18:53:10 GMT
Um are you serious Steve? You can't think of any Kings and Queens who were despots?! I'm serious. Virtually no king (or queen) was a despot, is what I said. That means only a very small proportion were despots. In order to prove me false, you have to show that a goodly proportion of kings and queens were despots, which I don't think you can do.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 14, 2017 19:50:22 GMT
I COULD but you could also do it for yourself . Do you think Henry VIII was a despot, for instance?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 14, 2017 20:19:26 GMT
No, he was in fact, one of the most cultured and sophisticated monarchs ever to sit on the throne, according to this webpage, Henry VIII.
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Aug 15, 2017 0:51:38 GMT
This gives me hope:
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 15, 2017 15:24:37 GMT
He also had countless hapless people beheaded or burned alive if they displeased him.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 15, 2017 20:30:06 GMT
Par for the course in those days. It's wrong to judge people by today's standards when they lived in such a different social climate.
In other words, that doesn't make him a despot. Society, at the time, would not have judged him a despot.
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Aug 15, 2017 22:44:09 GMT
Society, at the time, would not have judged him a despot. The people with their heads lobbed off would have.
|
|