Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Werthead

Rocket Man vs. Orang-Utan: Korean Krisis

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Then why can't China , the US and everyone else  intervene and depose Kim ? That would be one one solution, but that won't happed for practical  and political reasons.

What do principles mean anymore when all we seem to do is compromise them away?  You know  that alot of terrible things and decisions in History were done and justified all  in the name practicality  and expediency.

 

 

Deposing him would likely cost thousands of lives and destroy what infrastructure is there, plus China has has back.  If we tried that he will launch what nukes he has.  

This has been discussed at length in this thread and others.

But hey maybe that's better, tens of thousands dead so you can feel like Justice was served.  I'm sure there wouldn't be any hard feelings on the part of the survivors and their descendants.  Shit we could probably nuke the whole middle east while we're at it just to be safe.

History is also full of people doing terrible things or allowing terrible things to happen in the name of principles.  

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Deposing him would likely cost thousands of lives and destroy what infrastructure is there, plus China has has back.  If we tried that he will launch what nukes he has.  

This has been discussed at length in this thread and others.

But hey maybe that's better, tens of thousands dead so you can feel like Justice was served.  I'm sure there wouldn't be any hard feelings on the part of the survivors and their descendants.  Shit we could probably nuke the whole middle east while we're at it just to be safe.

History is also full of people doing terrible things or allowing terrible things to happen in the name of principles.  

Lives saved as opposed to lives lost.

Yes history choked full of people committing crimes in the name of principles , no kidding Larry.  But there 

What about the SS St Louis and refugees  that no one would take in  most of the  people ended up in the  death camps b

Why didn't Neville Chamberlain of England and Edouard Daladier of France  decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia to buy time to build up th armies for war. Some have speculated that had they showed backbone and backed Czechoslovakians    stood up to Hitler at Munch, Hitlers generals would have deposed him and would been no Second World War  or  Holocaust and  the Nazis  would have been crushed  alot sooner.  Millions of lives would have been saved.  But both chose expediency instead. 

The allies could have bombed the Rail lines in Auschwitz death camp in the later stages of the war could have saved lives, but they didn't do it. 

 

Edited by GAROVORKIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Lives saved as opposed to lives lost.

Yes history choked full of people committing crimes in the name of principles , no kidding Larry.  But there 

What about the SS St Louis and refugees  that no one would take in  most of the  people ended up in the  death camps b

Why didn't Neville Chamberlain of England and Edouard Daladier of France  decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia to buy time to build up th armies for war. Some have speculated that had they showed backbone and backed Czechoslovakians    stood up to Hitler at Munch, Hitlers generals would have deposed him and would been no Second world war and Holocaust ans very the Nazis  would have crushed  alot sooner.  Millions of lives would have been saved. But those  chose expediency

The allies could have bombed the Rail lines in Auschwitz death camp in the later stages of the war could have saved lives, but they didn't do it. 

 

Since we do not have access to a multi-deminsonal we cannot be really certain of any outcome. Hitler could be deposed or we have a war where the UK is way behind air power that it could be signing a treaty by 1940. Backing down will add additional humiliation for Germany and aspect of Nazism have real legitmacy. Someone we do not know of who is far more competent than Hitler and ignite a war by the 1950s that could course hundred of millions of lives on the way to domination. 

Deposing North Korea may cost hundred of thousands, if not millions, of South Koreans lives. A willing China can cost them tens of thousands as a minimum. The U.S has currently over 20,000 forces in South Korea. Even to account for Guam and other areas you are advocating for actions that other will bear most of the cost in lives, property, infrastructure,  and several other areas. You have to convince those who will bear the most of the cost that it is worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Lives saved as opposed to lives lost.

Yes history choked full of people committing crimes in the name of principles , no kidding Larry.  But there 

What about the SS St Louis and refugees  that no one would take in  most of the  people ended up in the  death camps b

Why didn't Neville Chamberlain of England and Edouard Daladier of France  decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia to buy time to build up th armies for war. Some have speculated that had they showed backbone and backed Czechoslovakians    stood up to Hitler at Munch, Hitlers generals would have deposed him and would been no Second world war and Holocaust ans very the Nazis  would have crushed  alot sooner.  Millions of lives would have been saved. But those  chose expediency

The allies could have bombed the Rail lines in Auschwitz death camp in the later stages of the war could have saved lives, but they didn't do it. 

 

Rail lines used to transport prisoners are rail llnes that are not used to ship munitions and food to front-line troops. When fighting a war, don't stop the enemy from being stupid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Why doesn't the criminal seem matter to you ? 

They do, just not nearly as much as the victims.

Let's try a thought experiment. We'll go full cartoon villain here for dramatic effect. Guy's committed a crime, killed a bunch of people, and now he's got a whole bunch other people hostage, with immediate death coming for them that you can stop. But If you don't get him right now he's going to get away, period. Do you save the people and let him escape? Or capture him and let the people die?

I choose the former, from your posts it seem like you would choose the latter.

9 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Then why can't China , the US and everyone else  intervene and depose Kim ? That would be one one solution, but that won't happed for practical  and political reasons.

Well, for one because we're trying to save live, not kill a bunch more in a war.

Quote

What do principles mean anymore when all we seem to do is compromise them away?  You know  that alot of terrible things and decisions in History were done and justified all  in the name practicality  and expediency.

I'm no compromising my principals at all, I'm compromising yours that says the criminal is more important than the victim. Whereas my principals say the victim(s) comes first.

7 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Lives saved as opposed to lives lost.

Yes history choked full of people committing crimes in the name of principles , no kidding Larry.  But there 

What about the SS St Louis and refugees  that no one would take in  most of the  people ended up in the  death camps b

Why didn't Neville Chamberlain of England and Edouard Daladier of France  decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia to buy time to build up th armies for war. Some have speculated that had they showed backbone and backed Czechoslovakians    stood up to Hitler at Munch, Hitlers generals would have deposed him and would been no Second world war and Holocaust ans very the Nazis  would have crushed  alot sooner.  Millions of lives would have been saved. But those  chose expediency

I assume you mean did, and the answer is because they didn't think they had another option. They did not at the time think the war weary armies of France and England could have stood up. This wasn't a matter of expediency. Expediency in this case would have been England allying with Germany. So no not expediency, a pretty cold calculus that may have ended with things going better, or may have made things worse but there's really no way to know. Basically having to choose one of a whole lot of shitty options and no good ones.

But then none of these things are remotely comparable to the hypothetical situation brought up anyway.

Quote

The allies could have bombed the Rail lines in Auschwitz death camp in the later stages of the war could have saved lives, but they didn't do it. 

There's a lot of considerations to make when it comes to bombing those rail lines, let's not pretend it was just a matter of bombing them being only a good and having no negative potential repercussions for all sorts of reasons.

Edited by TrueMetis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Then why can't China , the US and everyone else  intervene and depose Kim ? That would be one one solution, but that won't happed for practical  and political reasons.

Because it will cause even more suffering. 

7 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

What do principles mean anymore when all we seem to do is compromise them away?  You know  that alot of terrible things and decisions in History were done and justified all  in the name practicality  and expediency.

A lot of terrible decisions were done and justified in the name of getting JUSTICE for something - Saddam, Gaddafi, Vietnam, etc. Again, if you favor getting justice for one person at the cost of 2 million people suffering, so be it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2018 at 10:30 AM, GAROVORKIN said:

Then why can't China , the US and everyone else  intervene and depose Kim ? That would be one one solution, but that won't happed for practical  and political reasons.

 

Why would China want to depose Kim? He’s fairly predictable, gives them a buffer between China and an American ally, he is kinda within their sphere of influence, SK is not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dornite said:

Why would China want to depose Kim? He’s fairly predictable, gives them a buffer between China and an American ally, he is kinda within their sphere of influence, SK is not so much.

Because there is the possibility that Kim might impulsively do  something  really dumb , like start a war on the Korean peninsula  which might end up dragging  China into a war with the US.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Because there is the possibility that Kim might impulsively do  something  really dumb , like start a war on the Korean peninsula  which might end up dragging  China into a war with the US.  

 

Kim, for all his posturing, threats, eccentricities and bad hair cut, seems to be rational. I doubt he will start a war, I think China has come to the same conclusion. Also they know and understand Kim, though I doubt they like him much, and China is traditionally a country that desires stability. It’s far more stable to leave in place a status quo you understand, can predict and that provides a buffer between you and a less friendly country (SK) than depose someone and that has unknown outcomes and could lead to chaos in the region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×