|
It depends, whether this is the case with NK as well. As it is, they are indeed subject to a fair amount of our interference, Ideas, or whatever you call it. But the fundamental issues of a country are poverty, education, shelter, etc. Why? Well, if you are hungry, a lifetime of servitude to psychological brainwash, would not turn the millions of years of instinct. If that situation worsens, people across North Korea would have been angry, even if they don't express it immediately. This anger, increases overtime based on atrocities caused by the government. But imagine, America coming in to NK, in the name of liberalizing the people, and causing more death, famine, and stuff in the process, which is not avoidable. It would be too easy for the great leader to propagate, and even easier for the people to accept, that all fault lies with America and its allies, thus causing a failure of attainment of objective, i.e to provide people a way to better life. The war against NK, if it exist, is at the base level. Organizations like RedCross, UNESCO, and others have to be pressed upon. Not more economic sanctions, and threats to a society, that understands very little about your intention. |
Ugh, this dichotomy of America as world police vs. cultures it doesn't really understand is juvenile at best.
The US drone strikes on Pakistani civillians are horrible, but if you want a lesson in brutality towards non-combatants, look no further than Pakistan during partition or the Bangladeshi independence war. The U.S. dropped nukes on Japan, but the atrocities carried out by the Japanese military at Nanking and Unit 731 are about the most terrible you'll read about outside of the Third Reich.
Morality, especially in terms of the actions of nations over time is complex and nuanced. Pointing out that the North Korean regime is fucking insane does not imply that you think the U.S. should roll in guns blazing.
> Organizations like RedCross, UNESCO, and others have to be pressed upon.
Pressed upon to do what exactly? Provide even more aid to the North Korean regime who will distribute it to citizens it deems fit to eat?
I applaud the sentiment here, but this belies either naivete about the complexities and long-term effects of supplying aid to developing countries (especially dictatorships) or a complete lack of knowledge about the North Korean track record.
The grim western consensus on the North Korean problem has always been to sit-tight and let the country implode and hopefully unify with the South, though whether this is likely to happen soon is anyones guess.