North Korea

[vfem]

Does anybody know what they want?

It just hurts me so to think about all those people who have never had enough good food to eat, who are treated much worse than we treat even our unwanted animals, who are punished for not idolizing their "surpreme leader," and who think the US citizens are evil. As a nation, we probably throw away enough food daily to feed the whole of North Korea. There is something dreadfully wrong with this picture.

They don't know what they want! lol

Seriously, they're the introvert little brother who doesn't get attention so he acts up. Yeah, that country needs to learn to play with people on the play ground nicely and share if they'll even be actually noticed on this planet. But whatever!

 

[OldGuy43]

Does anybody know what they want?

It just hurts me so to think about all those people who have never had enough good food to eat, who are treated much worse than we treat even our unwanted animals, who are punished for not idolizing their "surpreme leader," and who think the US citizens are evil. As a nation, we probably throw away enough food daily to feed the whole of North Korea. There is something dreadfully wrong with this picture.

Certainly a noble idea. Do I feel sympathy for the people of North Korea? Certainly! However, at the end of Korean War they could have joined South Korea and embraced capitalism. Instead, they chose Communism.

Don't misunderstand, I understand why Communism is attractive to people who have little or nothing. It promises a "Robin Hood" approach of robbing from the rich to give to the poor, something for nothing, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, everyone is equal world.

While this ideology will work in microcosm with a small, carefully selected group of like minded individuals, (Amish communities provide a good example) it does not work in the macro. The reason is simple. There are always those who believe that their needs are greater than others. North Korea provides us with a perfect example;

While most of his countrymen are starving he doesn't look to me as if he's been missing many meals.

 

[hoodat]

Of course, there is one glaring fault in that theory. The conscientious objector does not object to someone else risking his life so that he, the conscientious objector may continue to object. There will always be those who wish to rule others and are willing to use force to do so. Fortunately, for the conscientious objector there will also always be those who, though they find war repugnant are willing to risk "life, fortune and sacred honor." to resist tyranny.

Well said Oldguy, well said! Your previous post was right on the mark too.

Thank you. The last line of the Declaration of Independence I consider to be the most telling as to how dedicated they were to the cause of liberty:

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor."

That is exactly what the signers of that document were risking, everything. In English law, in 1776 high treason was punishable by being hanged, drawn and quartered (men) or burnt at the stake (women), or beheading (royalty and nobility). Treason was the only crime which attracted those penalties (until they were abolished in 1814, 1790 and 1973 respectively).

Kinda makes you proud, doesn't it?

There isn't enough emphasis placed on the Declaration of Independence. It set up the principles on which the Constitution was written. You really can't understand the Constitution without first understanding the Declaration of Independence.
Both were well written and well thought out. The Constitution is the "how" but the Declaration is the "why".

 

[seedcorn]

If we learned anything from Korean and Vietnam wars (they were wars in spite of redefinetions) you can't beat them with conventional war tactics. It's either negotiate with them, leave them ALONE, or make them glow in dark. Glow in dark would start WW3. They don't listen to reason. Only other option is leave them alone--but greed wont let that happen. So greedy ones will wave the "freedom" flag. Every war since WW2, was $$$$$ motivated.

 

[OldGuy43]

If we learned anything from Korean and Vietnam wars (they were wars in spite of redefinetions) you can't beat them with conventional war tactics. It's either negotiate with them, leave them ALONE, or make them glow in dark. Glow in dark would start WW3. They don't listen to reason. Only other option is leave them alone--but greed wont let that happen. So greedy ones will wave the "freedom" flag. Every war since WW2, was $$$$$ motivated.

You're right about one thing, "you can't beat them with conventional war tactics." The American Revolutionary War was won not because there were more of us or because we were better equipped. We weren't. The colonial's used gorilla tactics, plain and simple.

Do you really believe that any war in history was started over ideological differences? That's just been the scapegoat. It's always been about the money.

 

[seedcorn]

While Germany started WW2 over $$$$ and power, I may be simplistic but I think we entered WW1 and WW2 for idealistic reasons. Lately it's been about USA greed, sticking our nose where it doesn't belong. And we wonder why people of other beliefs hate us. If Arabs weren't sitting on oil, think we care about them?

To combat the Asian countries, we can't make a large enough military. If we could win through military, Vietnam would have been a W.

While we need military to protect us, an offensive military won't work, never has in history of mankind.

While Revolutionary War was aided by gorilla tactics, we won because we were willing to do things that British weren't. They were not as committed as we were.

 

[OldGuy43]

Let me rephrase that; All wars in history were started for economic reasons.

I'm not saying that we should have a strong military to win wars. What I'm saying is that the presence of a strong military is a deterrent to those who would start trouble.

Why are we there? OldGal and I have this discussion regularly.

She: It ain't our ox that's being gored.
Me: A man gets into the habit of goring oxen, he just might take it into his head to come after yours next.

 

[seedcorn]

Let me rephrase that; All wars in history were started for economic reasons.

I'm not saying that we should have a strong military to win wars. What I'm saying is that the presence of a strong military is a deterrent to those who would start trouble.

Why are we there? OldGal and I have this discussion regularly.

She: It ain't our ox that's being gored.
Me: A man gets into the habit of goring oxen, he just might take it into his head to come after yours next.

I hear you. Crusades might be only exception.

I'm more on your wife's side as at some point, people have to stand up for themselves. USA being police man of world is doomed for failure. But I do want a well supplied defensive military. I just have faith that our leaders will do what is best for their interests-both private, government and military.

 

[OldGuy43]

The so-called "Holy" Wars? To easy. They started out over control of the "Silk Road" and the lucrative trade with the orient. Later they became about looting and treasure. How did you think the Knights Templar became so wealthy? There is one possible exception, Children's Crusade of 1212 if it even existed.

 

[seedcorn]

The so-called "Holy" Wars? To easy. They started out over control of the "Silk Road" and the lucrative trade with the orient. Later they became about looting and treasure. How did you think the Knights Templar became so wealthy? There is one possible exception, Children's Crusade of 1212 if it even existed.

Don't know anything about knights Templar. I bow to your history knowledge.....