Bluntly- This is a truly juvenile screed.
Thank you.
Bluntly- This is a truly juvenile screed.
You're correct, I neglected to consider that. Yes, a person with greater life expectancy does have a life that is more valuable because they have more of it left to live. Beyond that and the actions that a person elects to take (ie a rapists life is worth less than a normal persons), I believe everyone's life is equal.1337BeachedWhale1337
The reality is that human lives have different values. A life boat with just one more space, can you make a choice between a 90 year old and a 16 year old using your rational?
I have studied North Korea, and from what I read, this is simply not true. What North Korea wants is for the two Koreas to become one and for South Korea to fall under the regime.What if the new guy wanted to peacefully unify with South Korea or start a war? If so more than likely, ruling elites would have lost power or even be prosecuted for war crimes. So the evil they know, which includes status quo, is better. The same scenario for the latest Kim.
I believe the answer to that is fear. In North Korea, if you say anything bad about the dear leader, you will be sent along with your entire family for three generations, to a political prison camp for the rest of your life. I read one article where a man was sent to life in prison for mopping up a spilled drink with a newspaper featuring a picture of Kim Jong Un. That is the level of support you must have for the regime to survive. It would have been too risky for anyone to go against who the new designated leader was. There are people who may be willing to risk their own life, the life of their entirely family, much less likely. So much to lose, not really that much to gain given they already have one of the top positions in North Korea if they are in any position to possibly overthrow the leader.Why did North Korean elites supported the next Kim?
I don't understand this statement. If that is the case, why are we building missile defense system? After all, missiles being launched at us is a precaution based on "what if they launch missiles at us" or "he or she could launch missiles at us". Should we not build missile defense systems?Hoefully, we don't make national security decisions based on what if or he or she could.
So a few million killed is not an acceptable cost when it saves tens of millions, or potentially even billions of people from being killed( fighting prevents future advanced nuclear attack)? That makes me delusional?
Very confused. Are you telling me that it is best to not allow a few million to be killed even if allowing those people to be killed would save tens of millions of lives?It doesn't necessarily make you delusional, but that one of several possibilities. It could also be that you:
- are a troll.
- have reached heights of self-unawareness that posters have no experience in responding to, so they let it go or actually try to argue with you.
- just discovered the first instance, in your lifetime, of man's inhumanity to man and you want to make sense of it, do something about it and you are too young to put the tragedy in a historical context other than comparing it to the Nazi Holocaust.
If you think my comparison is so ridiculous, why don't you go talk to some people that have actually been in these camps? Don't want to bother doing that? Fine, I'll do it myself:just discovered the first instance, in your lifetime, of man's inhumanity to man and you want to make sense of it, do something about it and you are too young to put the tragedy in a historical context other than comparing it to the Nazi Holocaust.
I don't understand why this has to be the case. If you went on the streets of any city of the United States and asked people, "If the holocaust were taking place again at this very moment, would you support the United States giving every effort to stop it?", I think you would find very few people that would answer "no". Why is it then that we allow something that is arguably worse to take place?
No one gets to choose where they are born, kind of like no one gets to choose what race they are born as. A black person should not be treated differently than a white person, because neither of them got to choose what race they are, it is not their "fault" that they are whatever race they are. Similarly, a person born in North Korea should not have their rights valued less than a person born in the United States, neither of them got to choose where they were born, and it is not their "fault" that they were born wherever they were. Why are people appalled by racism, but they are not appalled by the fact that we grossly discriminate against people based purely off of where they were born? If these actions that are taking place in North Korean prison camps were happening to people who were born in the US, we would do everything in our power to stop this from taking place. So why is it, that when this happens to people who weren't born in the US, we do nothing to stop it from happening? Why is discriminating based off race wrong, but discriminating based off of where someone is born is considered perfectly okay?
The United States Military Academy has taught me to choose the harder right over the easier wrong. Is the harder right not to do something about this gross injustice?
I realize that debating this isn't going to change the outcome of anything, but at the end of the day, debating any topic on this forum doesn't change anything. I have read about the situation in North Korea for years, and a lot of anger and frustration has built up inside of me over this issue. Debating this topic allows me to express some of that frustration, and gives me a chance to see other people's perspectives on the issue. I have been extremely disappointed in a lot of the responses on this thread that I've seen, but it is still valuable to me to see these perspectives and know what other people think about the issue.
That is not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is North Korea. Maybe one day there will be a thread about Syria, and I will talk about my opinion of the issues going on there in that thread. It's not that I'm not concerned about other issues, I'm simply talking about this one right now.Why are you not as outraged by the atrocities occurring elsewhere around the world? There are other cases of mass human rights violations occurring as we speak (cough Syria cough) but you don't seem to be interested in invading on behalf of other suffering peoples elsewhere. What makes you believe that NK deserves special treatment?
I have stated multiple times that I believe this action is best for national security, and I believe I have given at the very least a somewhat reasonable explanation for why I believe that...The United States is not God. This has already been brought up several times by other members. We do not have the resources or the ability to correct every wrong and punish all evildoers in the world. I told you that the US has in fact done the opposite, by supporting despots when it suited our security concerns. What makes you think we will change our policy of doing what is best. for our national security?
I don't know the answer to that question. I think the answer would be "yes" if everyone was aware of the atrocities taking place inside of North Korea, but barely anyone knows.You may be willing to lay down your own life for suffering North Koreans. But do other Americans share your sentiment?
I was aware of this, and never denied this. All I have said regarding Nazi Germany is that I believe most Americans would want the US to stop the US if another holocaust took place today, and that the situation in NK is comparable to the conditions of the holocaust.And you need to learn your history. The holocaust was not the primary reason we went to war in Europe - are you aware that many Americans, including some public figures, were supporters and admirers of Hitler and Nazi Germany pre-1941? We entered the war because our country was attacked and Germany declared war on us. And again, read your history - during the war, we most definitely did not make every effort to stop it.
Quite the opposite is true, the topic of this thread has become morality, but that is not the backbone of my argument for attacking NK.Your reasons for wanting to attack North Korea are purely altruistic.
This is a lot of questions, and I will address them later when I get a chance.Yes, I understand the possibility that this Kim or any other Kim may strike us first later on. But what if you're wrong? Are you willing to sacrifice millions of Korean and American lives to stop an attack that may never even materialize? What about China and Russia? Do you also claim to know how they would react to our preemptive attack? Are you willing to risk bringing us into a third world war? And what of the reunification process following the conclusion of such a destructive and horrible war? How much money should the American taxpayer cough up to subsidize the rebuilding of the Korean economy and reintegration process of tens of millions of North Koreans? Who are you to say that the United States and its people must foot the bill for such an undertaking, in both lives and dollars, or any other similar undertaking for that matter? Have you ever asked these questions to yourself before throwing around your argument?
Says the person writing off the tens of millions that will die horrible deaths should we do nothing....No - foolishly charging at perceived windmills is wrong especially when you callously write off millions of people as incidental casualties!
It's not possible future catastrophe, tens of millions of North Koreans will die even if NK doesn't start nuclear war.... This isn't "possible", this is certainty.Deliberately killing millions in the guise of preventing a possible future catastrophe is just such a decision and it is not a rational one.
So a real West Pointer would care more about something that has already happened and that is impossible to change, than something that will happen in the future and that can change? And he would care more about 3 people dying than tens of millions? I fail to understand your logic. There are real world North Koreans dying out there that deserve our recognition as well, children, babies....I'm done with this foolishness- there are real world American Military personnel dying who deserve our recognition- like 3 SF troopers in Afghanistan yesterday. A real WestPointer would care far more about that then this nonsense. So adios
Ad hominem comments contribute nothing to the discussion, so it would be appreciated if you either left them out, or sent them to me in private message.This is a foolish argument fomented by what is most likely a troll- it is certainly not an intelligent nor an intellectual argument .
That is not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is North Korea. Maybe one day there will be a thread about Syria, and I will talk about my opinion of the issues going on there in that thread. It's not that I'm not concerned about other issues, I'm simply talking about this one right now.
I have stated multiple times that I believe this action is best for national security, and I believe I have given at the very least a somewhat reasonable explanation for why I believe that...
I don't know the answer to that question. I think the answer would be "yes" if everyone was aware of the atrocities taking place inside of North Korea, but barely anyone knows.
I was aware of this, and never denied this. All I have said regarding Nazi Germany is that I believe most Americans would want the US to stop the US if another holocaust took place today, and that the situation in NK is comparable to the conditions of the holocaust.
Quite the opposite is true, the topic of this thread has become morality, but that is not the backbone of my argument for attacking NK.
This is a lot of questions, and I will address them later when I get a chance.
That would depend on whether or not dealing with those other issues with violence benefits the United States. I am not a supporter of the US being the moral police of the world, but I am a supporter of us taking moral actions if they line up with what benefits the United States. If we can spend a dollar and save a million lives in Africas am I a supporter of that? Yes. Do I think we should dedicate all of our resources to humanitarian efforts? No.So, are you as concerned about "other issues" as you are NK? If so, are you willing to send Americans into harm's way for those problems as well? What is your basis for taking action or not?
A catastrophe that no one will ever predict? If that's the case, why are we even building missile defense systems to protect our civilians? NK wouldn't attack, that is never gonna happen... So why dedicate billions of dollars to these missile defense systems to protect our civilians?As many people have already pointed out, your "reasonable explanation" for attacking NK is deeply flawed. You want to attack North Korea because you think doing so will prevent a greater catastrophe later, a catastrophe that no one will ever predict.
People have questioned/argued with me regarding those factors, and I have responded. If people had instead decided to question me about the strategic aspect of fighting NK, I would have talked about those aspects instead. Is the moral aspect a factor? Yes, but it is not the backbone of my argument even though it seems to be what is getting most people riled up. I didn't even bring up the atrocities of the prison camps until someone told me I was insensitive and foolish for comparing NK to Nazi Germany, the moral aspect was not meant to be the main aspect of discussion, because it is not the main argument I'm trying to make.And given all the anecdotes and statistics you've given and the numerous comparisons to the holocaust, altruism seems to be your primary decision-making factor.
"In perhaps the most celebrated of these stories, Night, by Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel, the thirteen-year-old narrator explains his torment with an account of the normal life that existed before he and his family were packed aboard trains bound for Nazi death camps…
What in the hell are you talking about? I just brought up a quote from a book? Why the hell are you bringing up the fact that you've read the book Night? I've read it too, and its 100% irrelevant to the topic at hand. I gave you a freakin quote, and again you pick out one tiny detail, and SAY "ohoho, I've read that book from your quote, which obviously completely invalidates your point".
Congrats dude, you read the book Night. Can I get some more personal anecdotes about your life that I clearly didn't ask for, or can you actually start saying something relevant to the topic?
I assume I know more about what is going on in NK than you based off of the ignorant statements you've made in this thread.
TELL ME what makes the holocaust worse than what is happening in NK. You keeping dodging the damn question. You told me my comparison was ridiculous, yet people that have actually been in the camps, and professional writers agrere with me. ANSWER THE QUESTION. STOP DODGING. What makes the holocaust worse than the situation in North Korea? It's not that complicated. If I'm wrong, tell me why I'm wrong instead of just saying, "Well, you're wrong, and my heart has been beating for more years than yours, so that makes me right".
I'm the one tossing around millions of lives, yet you don't give one flying s##t about the tens of millions of people in NK right now that will die if nothing is done.
If you like quotes, try this one, "Millions of death is a tragedy, but tens of millions of deaths is an even bigger one". You call me out for tossing around millions of lives, when you are the one tossing around TENS of millions.
What makes the holocaust worse than the situation in North Korea?
What makes the holocaust worse than the situation in North Korea?
What makes the holocaust worse than the situation in North Korea?
The person that needs to back up is the one throwing insults at someone over a discussion on the internet. Pegging yourself as mature and wise for being old, then turning around and start insulting another person over what was a civil debate, hypocrisy at its finest.You need to back up and take a deep breath Cadet.
Very true, I appreciate the advice. And with that, I will be leaving this forum. It is clear that some of the members here have a habit of making what I take to be inflammatory comments, and based off of the post I made less than an hour ago, I lack the restraint to react in an amicable manner to these perceived provocations, and therefore the restraint to safely post on this site. I hope no hard feelings remain and I apologize if you took offense to my words, they were said in an emotional state @cb7893Just a suggestion but may want to cut back a touch on the caffeine. Being anonymous might not necessarily equate to being safe from discovery.