Well, I am pretty sure China only acts against NK because the US always threatened to go into North Lorea themselves if China does not handle the situation.
On that note, no one wants the USA to handle NK, except for those who want to advance the geo-political standing of the US.
I heard North Korea was on a huge uprise with modernisations and allowing limited private trade/ownership. But well, we rarely talk about what is actually happening in the country, do we?
The government of NK has allowed a "black market" to develop in response to it's inability to feed the country. Like any communist country, rich people find it easier and easier to bribe local authorities with Western products that are hard to get your hands on.
Bingo. Allowing a black market != allowing private trade/ownership
Yeah I don't know where you heard about modernisation or private trade/ownership, that sounds like a crock of shit. The elite class has always been allowed to own property, and I'm sure small markets for the poor are perfectly allowed because they would starve too quickly otherwise. But to say they are becoming a burgeoning economy and we're just trying to cover that up because military industrial complex... that's a bit too far into the tin foil for my taste, sorry m8.
Read and weep
https://www.efe.com/efe/english/life/pyongyang-s-modernization-defies-tough-sanctions-against-north-korea/50000263-3239550
On wiki you can find under North Korea economy the sentence "Experimentation in small scale entrepreneurship took place from 2009 to 2013, and although there continue to be legal uncertainties this has developed into a significant sector.[37] By 2016 economic liberalisation had progressed to the extent that both locally-responsible and state industrial enterprises give the state 20% to 50% of their output, selling the remainder to buy raw materials with market-based prices in akin to a free market.[38]"
Sry to break it to you but your media has been lying about everything they possibly can.
Okay but reading that article itself seems like a very thinly veiled propaganda push.
If the streets are so beautiful and the businesses so bustling, where are the pictures? When Vice was allowed into NK, they were shown fake storefronts and what were pretty clearly actors set to seem like businessmen. That's not just from The Interview, that actually happened. If you want me to believe that a country that has some of the toughest sanctions in history, that spends an exorbitant amount of very limited money on nuclear funding, and sells drugs out of the back of their embassies is "bustling", you're going to have to show me some irrefutable evidence.
Small scale liberalization is easy as hell and is not a good indicator that the nation as a whole is being liberalized. And a 20-50% product tax? That's draconian, and hardly a sign of liberalisation.
I have seen the Vice Docu, at least the one with Rodman.
But you know what, you convinced me. The US should really bomb NK, the country will finally be prosperous and free again. Look how well that worked in the middle east.
It seems you are one of the few people who still believes in the warmongering mainstream media. Just stay on the internet for a while and your soul might be cleansed.
I repeat, once again for clarity, I am not supportive of war after war. The war in the middle east is/was a shitshow. Period. That does not mean that ending a nuclear war before it begins is a bad idea. Those two aren't connected.
Because the US never made that very same argument against the Iraq?
The argument was not made against "the Iraq".
The chemical weapons threat was a threat against innocent people. Regardless of whether or not there ever was any legitimate threat of chemical weapons in the area, there is a HUGE difference between the use of chemical weapons in small, defenseless villages and nuking San Francisco or Tokyo.
You're still using the same broken argument. Iraq/Afghanistan is not the same as Korea. This is a global, existential threat. There is a difference between a global, existential threat and some religious extremists that pissed off the wrong, oil hungry government.
You and I agree on more than you think, but for you to say that because of Iraq and Afghanistan, a war with a nuclear megalomaniac is inherently illegitimate is illogical.
Also, sincerely doubt anyone besides the US will handle this. Nobody wants bloody hands in it. The US is better equipped and better prepared to deal with NK.
OK, the whole Asian continent will retaliate, Russia will jump to Asias aid and I hope that so will we.
Just do it! I can't wait to free the world from the American leech.
Guess you struck a nerve. Sry for getting so triggered, but you guys really should think about how even your "friends" are looking at your actions atm.
Haha okay edge lord.
The Asian continent will retaliate because a nuclear global hegemon isn't good for ANYONE. Someone who holds the world hostage to get what they want is a global threat. That's not a hard battle to pick a side on.
So you are also in favor of removing America as a world power? I knew Odin would be on my side :)
I think the nuclear weapons of a state that is currently invading and infiltrating countries all around the world is more dangerous than the ones of some asian micro-state.
You're right. Because a country that regularly pushes propaganda videos that depict San Francisco in nuclear flames is just some Asian micro-state. A non threat really.
We're not talking about the US here. I could dedicate my entire blog just on how badly the US wars have fucked up the world. BUT. Instead I'm writing on the only ACTUAL nuclear threat to the world we have. Currently, there is ONE nation threatening to begin a nuclear holocaust. That is what this post was about.
You are talking about the US again. They are the ones having a-bombs positioned in my country. NK would never attack us, while America planned to blow up Germany with nuclear weapons if the Red Army ever decided to make a move.
"Blowing up Germany was better than the commies invading all of Europe" is the same twisted way of thinking that you show when you say I just want to prevent a nuclear war by bombing NK.
Nobody is threatening to bomb Germany. That is absolutely preposterous. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that America is even mentioning bombing Germany.
I'm not saying a pre-emptive strike is the best choice. It might still be, but it wouldn't be my first option. I am saying that, at present, the only country pumping out state-sponsored propaganda videos depicting a burning sea of fire in the place of San Francisco happens to be ruled by the Kim regime, not the Trump administration.
oh and my position is not edgy at all. Being against invasiv wars and american imperialism is kind of common in the thinking community.
The clearly edge lord comment I was referring to.
Again, nothing in my post indicated I'm pro invasive war. But generally speaking, the thinking community also tends to be against nuclear war as well. Myself included.
Maybe edgy in the states, but common table talk everywhere else in the world ;)
China acts against NK because if they don't, their economy is fucked. Also, having a nuclear neighbor isn't great PR.
So you are saying: China will obey because the US is threatening them with sanctions?
Absolutely. Reign in your neighbor or it will hurt your economy. That seems pretty basic. Also, I repeat, having a nuclear neighbor isn't great PR.
It never hurt us to have the nuclear power France as a neighbour but if you really want to we can conquer them again to get rid of their nuclear arsenal. Avec plaisir :).
France is not threatening to glass Tokyo. France is not launching missiles over Germany. France is not a Hermit kingdom ruled by a psychotic emperor known for putting political enemies on islands and blowing them away with artillery fire.
Again, entirely illogical comparison.
The good old Psycho Dictator meme. If it was not true for Saddam and Assad, what makes you believe it is true for Kim? Don't you see the method? Are you really that blind?
As I said, I don't believe this discussion is getting anywhere. Your only arguments are all based around the illegitimacy of the war in the Middle East, which we seem to agree on, but the comparison is entirely invalid. Saddam had no method of reaching out and hitting any sovereign nation outside of his immediate neighbors, besides radicalization online. Kim successfully tested an ICBM. The US was set to gain big time from a war in the Middle East, both through the military industrial complex and via control over the oil market. The US does not gain anything from nuclear war with a close to broke Asian micro nation. That war would be expensive, in terms of lives lost, public relations, and economically. An occupation of the Middle East was easy: there weren't many Middle Eastern nations that could really combat our forces once we dug in. A long-term excursion in NK would require combatting local forces as well as other Asian nations who would also want stake in the NK power vacuum, or at least would want to make sure the US weren't the occupiers.
Again, I understand your belief in the illegitimacy of the war in the middle east. I agree with you there. But North Korea is an entirely different narrative.