this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
102 points (91.1% liked)
World News
32045 readers
742 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They also have every right to pursue nuclear technology. Same goes for Iran and etc. Who the fuck are we to tell them what they can or can't do as a nation of human beings?
Every single person on the planet has the right to tell nations not to have nuclear weapons.
North Korea and similar nations hold power thru the use of force and intimidation. What makes the government legitimate and recognized? Or better put, if another person or entity use force and intimidation to take control of that nation, what makes that less legitimate? After all they are following the rules of the previous government.
Absolutely. The US allows to to gain control via a democratic system. Flawed like all systems but still democratic. If you can gain power thru that system then you are the legitimate government.
North Korea is thru violence and forces that they maintain power. If you have the means to take control by their rules, then why is that less legitimate and unacceptable by many people? Is there a reason you think only Kim Jong Un alone should be able to use force to hold power?
So all they do in south america and elsewhere are all democratic ?
A country's right to nuclear weapons is equivalent to their ability to make other countries fuck off. No more, no less.
And they do. But the US uses its political and economic influence to make it difficult to get anything to be able to explore nuclear tech for countries that aren't totally stable. We can and should exercise that power when they threaten us, despite them being mostly empty threats.
Now guess who destabilized Iran in the first place... The US of course.
The whole 2 Koreas situation is directly caused by the US as well
Not really, it was agreed to as a treaty after WW2 (so US, China and USSR were all responsible) then the China-supported north invaded the US-supported south and it led to a stalemate
If anything the current unstable situation was caused by China, but there's no way the US were the direct cause
Who instated the genocidal anti-communust dictator Syngman Rhee in South Korea? Who supported and armed him? Who has maintained a military presence in the south constantly threatening the north?
Don't get me wrong, N. Korea has since become a brutal dictatorship as well, but in the 50s the south was even worse. The north didn't just invade for fun - they were constantly provoked and threatened by the south.
I'm talking about the leadup to the war, I'm not denying that the north invaded but it didn't happen unprovoked or even unjustified.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeju_uprising
Just because you're korean and have some personal connection doesn't mean youre immune to propaganda or that your countrys history hasn't been misrepresented for propaganda purposes.
Re. your first point, 100% the USA.
However, that's one hell of a goalpost shift from "directly caused" to supported half... Also the North were provoked and threatened by the South as much as the South were by the North... The North invading was largely because they thought they could take the South though, not because they were scared by the South into doing it.
This is tankie garbage. Syngman Rhee was certainly horrible. But he was not instated. He was voted in. He had a very long history of being in Korean politics. He was certainly given a boost by the Americans. But he was also given a boost by Kim refusing to participate in the elections.
And let us not pretend that the soviets and Chinese involved were just liberators. They had their own political games they were playing and boosted Kim just as much. The elections in the north were completely controlled by the soviets. And you gripe about the presence of American troops, but support the Chinese troops in the north.
The north didn't invade for fun. The north invaded because Kim thought he could have even more power and that the US would not intervene. He was wrong. He would have been completely removed had it not been for the Chinese.
Both sides had imperialistic outside support from corrupt governments. Both sides used totalitarianism to maintain control. One side is currently the most inhumane country on the planet and the other has a modern standard of living. To say the south was worse in a very short time period is ridiculous. In reality, due to the harsh restrictions and cult of personality in the north we do not even really know how bad the north was. The standard of living may have been better, but concerning totalitarian governments it is impossible to say.
I actually agree with you about NK being a brutal dectatorship. I'm not a tankie or a dictator apologist. Far from it. You're misreading my comment through a biased lens, making personal assumptions about me.
I just wanted to point out that the US had a primary role in creating and worsening the divsion of korea for decades. Even if the USSR and China and their form of imperialism was also to blame. That's just a historical fact that is purposefuly obscured by propaganda and it's important to remember.
I would agree.
Also a certain US general has larger war ambitions that created a clusterfuck. They had easily repelled the offensive and pushed the north basicallly to the Yalu river. But then the general straight defied orders and started a full scale invasion and wanted to push further, into china.
That attarmpt triggered china to actually respond and push everything back got the 38th.
Had MacArthur not been such an ego driven maniac Korea may look quite different today.
Except no.