I hear from pretty much everyone in the political threads here and in my daily life that we should get out of the Middle East and stop policing the world. My question to those is how many human's rights repressive regimes with nuclear capabilities are you willing to put up with for this exchange? And, are you willing to sacrifice Israel?
How many North Koreas do you want in the world?
- Thread starter franklin
- Start date
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
The key is to take over the world. Team up with England, Germany, Canada, etc. to make the axis of awesome. Trump is the first step.
fallenchicken
Well-Known Member
Well, i mean, it's kind of hard to imagine there being more than one "north korea." It's sort of limited by geography. It's in the title.
If we can get one here in the US, and get the commitment from So. Korea to blast some K-Pop at us non-stop, then I'm in in. I love that ****.
What a seriously dumb thread. So much for the nuance that franklin always preaches. How about we stop supporting repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia? Or stop creating more chaos and terror like we did in the disaster that is the Iraq war?
North Korea's impact on the rest of the world is negligible. The cluster**** that the US helped create in the Middle East? Not so much.
North Korea's impact on the rest of the world is negligible. The cluster**** that the US helped create in the Middle East? Not so much.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
Response from N. Korea:
The lightbulb is a primitive relic of outmoded feudal society. Socialism demands its replacement by the progressive fluorescent tube. Under the Five Year Plan we shall make millions. Eventually.
b_line
Well-Known Member
At least three. They are short.
So if we carefully untangle ourselves from worldwide interventionism the result will be more repressive regimes and they will all automatically gain nuclear capabilities? I'm not so sure.
I feel like much of what's wrong with the world today is the fallout of the cold war in which the U.S. was willing to get into bed with all types of dictators, repressive regimes, extremists, and on and on, just so long as they would at least temporarily make life harder for the Soviet Union. We propped them up, we trained them how to fight, we armed them. What we have now is an attempt to mitigate the damage WE caused. And we're getting into bed with a new batch of dictators, repressive regimes, extremists, etc. in the hopes that they'll help us stop our last batch of bitter ex-lovers.
You feel like our interventionism has gone past the point of no return and now we have no option but to double down and intervene some more?
I feel like nukes are the trump card that everyone pretends doesn't exist in this discussion.
We also got into bed with all types of dictators and repressive regimes to win WWII. An enemy of your enemy is your friend. You think societies shouldn't pragmatically do what they need to do in the moment? Where's the diplomacy in your scathing of our previous foreign policy? Nations have dealt this way since the beginning of society.
You're also being extremely assumptive of the outcomes that those nations would be in today had the US not been involved. Who's to say they wouldn't have been every bit as extreme? They were for 1000's of years previously.
My question is about nukes only. It always comes back to that for me and I'd like to hear what others think. Including you, nuanced SirOmar.
The U.S. has control issues. We're so scared of the unknown or that which we cannot force to abide by our will.
I think, had the U.S. not gotten involved the way we did post WWII, then the nukes that other nations may or may not have developed would be pointed at someone other than us.
That's not to say it's cool if there had been half a dozen nuclear weapons exchanges around the world since WWII, but would that have been any worse than where we're at right now.
If the U.S. wanted to control the way the rest of the world acted we should have nuked both China and Russia relentlessly post WWII while we were still the only nation who had them, not to get their submission, but to completely wipe their nations and civilizations out. Then create a single world government. But we didn't do that.
Having not done that, I feel like we should accept that there are other independent nations and peoples throughout the world and we need to do our best to maintain good relations with them. They should have the freedom to do what they want to do, even if it isn't good for us, so long as they are not infringing on our right to do the same.
I think, had the U.S. not gotten involved the way we did post WWII, then the nukes that other nations may or may not have developed would be pointed at someone other than us.
That's not to say it's cool if there had been half a dozen nuclear weapons exchanges around the world since WWII, but would that have been any worse than where we're at right now.
If the U.S. wanted to control the way the rest of the world acted we should have nuked both China and Russia relentlessly post WWII while we were still the only nation who had them, not to get their submission, but to completely wipe their nations and civilizations out. Then create a single world government. But we didn't do that.
Having not done that, I feel like we should accept that there are other independent nations and peoples throughout the world and we need to do our best to maintain good relations with them. They should have the freedom to do what they want to do, even if it isn't good for us, so long as they are not infringing on our right to do the same.
The only country with "hidden nukes" in the Middle East is Israel. The repressive regime in Pakistan has had nukes for decades, and it hasn't been a threat to Israel or the US. A diplomatic solution like the one reached with Iran is sufficient in preventing certain countries from possessing nukes. What matters is that US intervention in the ME has been a disaster thus far. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Also nukes is not the end of the story. What will happen when in 20 years, a small group with modest resources gains the ability to engineer a pandemic virus? Perhaps a less shortsighted policy that pushes the world toward more open and democratic societies is a better form of intervention than destabilizing regions and creating enemies for some delusional short term self-interest.
Good POV. Yes, we do have control issues. That's actually one of my biggest econ pet peeves regarding China and other places lifting themselves out of poverty (on our backs). How is this not a good thing?
And how are we supposed to push a third world nation toward a more open and democratic society?
I'm not in favor of nation building. I wasn't for the Iraq War. These things don't work without the will of the people behind it. The only other way is to completely demolish and put them under your boot, then force them to sign what you want them to agree upon (like we did with Japan). That takes a loooooong time with a religion-based society.
There are no easy answers. What I'm getting at is I don't like dangerous nations ran by psychos having nukes. You are avoiding that point, which has been the bottom line of our neo-con foreign policy for what, 40 years now?
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Great response
my grandfather's cousin is (not sure if he is still alive) in north korea. sad how they can't even communicate 
Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
Kim Jong Un has no *******. All of the U.S. Presidential candidates are assholes. I sense the opportunity for a symbiotic relationship...