We all see and hear what goes on over there. Kim will execute kids if they don’t cheer hard enough at his birthday party or something? He’s always threatening to nuke countries and is probably has the highest domestic kill count out of any world leader today.
So I ask? Why don’t any other countries step in to help those people. I saw a survey asking Americans and Escaped North Koreans would they migrate to North Korea and to the US if given the chance (hypothetical for the refugees). And it was like <0.1% to 95%. Obviously those people live in terror.
Why do we just allow this to happen in modern civilization? Nukes on South Korea? Is just not lucrative to step in? SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME PLEASE!?
Generally countries in the west only get involved in conflicts if they get something out of it, be it directly via getting wealth from the country, or indirectly like curbing successful non-capitalistic economies before they catch on and their own people start questioning the billionaires. The “we’re there to liberate people” is just marketing speech.
I wonder why you say “countries in the west” and not just “countries”. It’s not like, I don’t know, Banín is shouting about North Korea every day and nobody listens.
I don’t know enough about how the rest of the world runs to generalise further
The US has invested a lot in its capacity to police the world (just look at how many bases we have around the world). So it’s logical to ask why the US would or wouldn’t police something. And usually before the US polices something with force, they start talking about it publicly.
Benin has no such capacity or intentions and so neither polices anything nor telegraphs its opinions.
Generally frowned upon to invade countries.
Ludicrously costly. Your tax payers will want to know why it’s more important than everything else you do with their money.
Immense suffering. Mostly by the people you’re trying to liberate but also your own troops and their families.
They have nukes and could probably blow up at least a few regional cities. If the regime is threatened they will most likely use them.
South Korea or China or Russia are the only countries with land borders. China and Russia find NK useful to have arround to annoy US. Seoul is within artillerty range of the border.
Building up a new state in it’s place is very difficult. Remember how the Taliban took back power about 15 minutes after the US left Afghanistan?
That’s not how it would play out or herw, but even in the best case scenario, you’d end up with a huge area with rampant poverty and discontent that would take generations to develop. We’ve had something similar in Germany. Even after thirty years and vast amounts of money spent, East Germany is still way behind and there are areas that have no perspective at all.
World powers typically let countries do whatever they want to their own citizens, it’s only when they do stuff to people of other countries that they get involved.
Short answer is that NK is pretty much self-contained. Occasional Kim might rattle his sabre but no one is too worried about it. Until they start making serious threats to the stability of other countries it’s just a case of leave well enough alone.
Sure it sucks what the people of NK have to endure but it’s not for other countries to tell them how they should live unless they directly ask for help or start threatening the sovereignty of other countries.
As someone else in the comments mentioned, WW2 wasn’t an intervention to protect the German citizens that were being persecuted, it was a reaction to German invasion of other nations.
Jesus Fucking Christ. Stop trying to “liberate” other countries. Don’t you understand what that entails? Rampant slaughter of civilians followed by propping up a colonial regime. How many times are you gonna try this shit before you learn? When has it ever worked?
At least DPRK minds it’s own business. Imo, the country most in need of a war of liberation is the United States, which not only has a backwards, oppressive regime that’s disappearing people off the streets, but also has been directly involved in multiple wars of conquest and aggression, and indirectly involved in more. Whatever you wish upon Korea, let it happen here, let’s let China or someone bomb our cities and set up a government they like. Will you be greeting them as liberators? Not so fun when the shoe’s on the other foot, is it?
Someday I hope y’all are able to see yourselves for the warmongers you are. I have no idea how liberals are able to convince of themselves as “peace-loving” while saying shit like this.
Liberal has nothing to do with peace loving, or pacifism, that’s a right wing delusion they use to pump their courage before committing more atrocities on them. No different than ‘God forgive me for what I’m about to do’.
Right wing revolutions end with the left in political prisons and slavery. Left wing revolutions end with the aristocrats/oligarchs, and their families, in the ground. It’s really just a question of what flavor of violence is about to happen.
It’s more of a liberal delusion that they’re “usually” antiwar, but the one that’s happening now is always “different.” Liberals are right-wing, and generally their (especially US) meddling with regime change ends up installing a fascist who kills or imprisons the left.
I mean sure, if you want to make up your own meaning for right wing, then go for it.
Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. Capitalism is right-wing. Leftism is defined by anti-capitalism.
In the UK, for example, the “Liberal Democrats” are right-leaning. It’s primarily in the US that “liberal” and “leftist” are used interchangeably, because once there was no longer a substantial (self-indentifying) socialist presence to scaremonger about, the right started scaremongering about liberals by equating them to socialists, and the meaning stuck. But I reject that and stick by the original meanings, which are used internationally.
In the UK, for example, the “Liberal Democrats” are right-leaning.
Depends on the leadership. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren’t. There have been times when they’ve been further left than Labour.
Currently of course, that’s easy because Labour is too busy trying to appeal to Reform voters and Conservatives and are governing like they were the Democratic Party, which is a shame, because the country is desperately needing some wealth redistribution.
Labour are in power because were gasping for some sanity after a succession of Conservative lunatics, but all the Conservative Party needs to do is stump up a leader who can sound like they have a couple of good ideas and have a bit of charisma and they’ll be back in power before you can say “short memory”.
Removed by mod
I’m just going off what has happened historically every time you people have tried this shit. What happened when y’all tried to “liberate” Vietnam? What happened when y’all tried to “liberate” Afghanistan?
I hope you suffer as those who seek freedom from that shithole do. Shame on you.
I hope you get exactly what you want and get to experience foreigners coming to “liberate” you through mass bombing campaigns. Maybe you’ll even get a front row seat to Agent Orange from your “liberators.” Shame on you.
NK could not defeat the US or China militarily but it could do quite a bit of damage to SK before anyone could stop them. This is a big reason the US doesn’t intervene.
China is concerned about the population of NK suddenly becoming millions of refugees they’ll need to recuse and deal with. So they would rather the regime not collapse.
Are you familiar with the Korean war? There was a massive conflict which got drawn out into a stalemate and everybody agreed a temporary ceasefire was preferable to even more destruction.
Trying to topple a regime that has nothing to lose and a highly indoctrinated population is not an easy ask. We can only hope that like most authoritarian regimes they eventually succumb to the weight of their own opression. It’s better than torching the whole continent in the name of freedom.
The difference is that the North Koreans still fight with the same technology as back then while the other side has made some advances.
Nukes baby!
“Step in?” Well, because the world isn’t run by a mom and dad who step in and make governments do the right things.
Feel free to pitch the idea to congress. It will cost somewhere in the realm of trillions of dollars to invade, occupy, and rebuild North Korea. We’re talking an occupation lasting decades. A full time military presence for the foreseeable future as North Korea rebuilds something resembling a functional democratic society.
Don’t get me wrong, their military would get absolutely bodied in a full on shooting war with any sort of NATO-esque military coalition. But they have a sizable entrenched force with more than a few functional nuclear weapons. It would cost A LOT of lives.
So, that’s the bill. If you think you can convince congress to go for it, go nuts.
Countries are not good or bad they don’t have friends they have interests. Is always a good rule of thumb when thinking about Geopolitics.
We see and hear what the US state dept wants us to hear. And nothing more.
As to the core of your question. The answer is nukes. Nukes are the only way to fend off the imperial aggression of the United States and its imperialist partners.
One thing I have not seen brought up yet is that Seoul is within artillery range of North Korea. Even if North Korea didn’t have nukes they could bombard the city with conventional arms or even chemical weapons and kill hundreds of thousands in the first day or two.
No one does anything, because it’s not actually that bad. Most of the quality of life issues are due to western imposed (illegal) sanctions, and not the authoritarian leadership.
You’re sensing the cognitive dissonance between western propaganda vs western actions. Keep going in that direction. You’re close to getting it. Most of what you’ve been told about North Korea is made up bullshit.
Lol what cool aid have you been drinking https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/28/north-korea-execution-man-k-pop-human-rights-report
You say without a speck of irony, as you post a well-known propaganda rag.
Lol the guardian as a propaganda rag? The only people that complain about that are the fascists/right wing. So what would you consider a reliable reporting of the situation? I’m guessing only things that agree with your existing opinions.
Everyone calls the guardian propaganda, outside of those advocating for very narrow pro-imperialist neoliberalism. So yeah, those opposing neoliberalism from both the left and right will obviously point out their agenda and inaccurate reporting.
They also openly coordinate with western intelligence agencies.
So do tell me what reliable sources of information you use?
There’s a link in the post. Can this bot not follow links?
Not a bot sorry. Didn’t realise that a single random source with no cross references constituted reliable information
Because China.
China sees NK as a buffer to the US, sort of a little brother that’s a bit too crazy so they have to tug on the leash to get them to chill every now and then.
We’ve already got bases in SK, but the Yellow sea separates us from China. NK is the land barrier.
