North and South Korea vow to end the Korean War in historic accord - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14914113
How does a society like in DPRK flourish with huge poverty and oppression? Please show me a society that flourished under extreme poverty and oppression and how it was soooo good for them.


The United States and the Soviet Union?
The rest of your comments are just distractions from my point. Why do you think unification is necessary for cooperation? The rest of the world including South Korea will gladly buy North Korea’s natural resources without requiring unification with the South. Their poverty is not due to them being a separate country. It is due to oppressive governments, both their own and those isolating them. They just need to be freed of oppression and this does not require unification.
#14914114
one Degree wrote:The United States and the Soviet Union?
And... ? These countries were not divided then reunited.

You still have no argument.

You have no point.

One Degree wrote:They just need to be freed of oppression and this does not require unification.
How is it going to change if they don't reunite? You present no argument... just nonsense.

Just admit you know fucking nothing about this topic, and go back to your racist and rape threads, where at least you give good examples of what not to do.
Last edited by Godstud on 12 May 2018 14:33, edited 1 time in total.
#14914116
Well shock that One Degree can't see the benefits of unification for NK people. Does he even understand logic? But what does it matter? It won't ever be on the table, ever. So whether North Koreans want to be united with the south or not is totally irrelevant. The actions Kim is taking is to cement his countries sovereignty, not to diminish it. He does after all want his dynasty protected. What he is offering is cooperation, friendship and de-nuclearising the Korean peninsula. Not a country.
#14914123
Really, @Godstud can’t you make a post without attacking the poster?

@B0ycey I never said reunification would not help North Koreans. I said it is not a requirement to improve their lives. You are correct it is not something that is even being considered, so those saying my arguments are not based upon reality is rather ironic.
#14914128
Godstud wrote:@One Degree Really, can't you make an argument?

You have still presented no rational argument. You just said stuff. That's all. :lol:


No, you just pretended not to see my arguments. I am still waiting for you to tell me what unification will accomplish that cooperation can’t. You just keep repeating North Koreans are too stupid to help themselves and must rely on unification as their only hope. Just more ‘victim mentality’ that displays your belief others are inferior to you.
#14914130
Show me the argument, then and present some sources that support it. You have not done so. Your "argument" is simply opinion, and nothing more. There's nothing to suggest that reunification will not help Korea, and you have presented nothing to support the alternative.

One degree wrote:You just keep repeating North Koreans are too stupid to help themselves and must rely on unification as their only hope. Just more ‘victim mentality’ that displays your belief others are inferior to you.
Please quote me or stop fucking lying. Your choice.
#14914134
One Degree wrote:@B0ycey I never said reunification would not help North Koreans. I said it is not a requirement to improve their lives.


You have a funny way of saying that, but ok, I will agree that unification isn't needed to improve their lives, as sanctions and lack of international trade partner have been a much bigger factor in their current economic state today. But don't let your city state ideology cloud actual logic. South Korea is technologically advanced, modern and wealthy. Unification would improve the North much faster than even removing sanctions and trade barriers. And I doubt there is much difference in ideological thinking from both nations either. It wouldn't be like Saudi Arabia and Iran becoming a unified state for example. So don't bring ideological differences as an excuse for these to nations to become one.
#14914135
Godstud wrote:Show me the argument, then and present some sources that support it. You have not done so. Your "argument" is simply opinion, and nothing more. There's nothing to suggest that reunification will not help Korea, and you have presented nothing to support the alternative.

Please quote me or stop fucking lying. Your choice.


DPRK is incapable of improving its conditions. This is self-evident to all but the most stubborn and ignorant. DPRK has stagnated and has a trivial GDP. It's under continued sanctions that would be lifted under unification.
#14914138
B0ycey wrote:You have a funny way of saying that, but ok, I will agree that unification isn't needed to improve their lives, as sanctions and lack of international trade partner have been a much bigger factor in their current economic state today. But don't let your city state ideology cloud actual logic. South Korea is technologically advanced, modern and wealthy. Unification would improve the North much faster than even removing sanctions and trade barriers. And I doubt there is much difference in ideological thinking from both nations either. It wouldn't be like Saudi Arabia and Iran becoming a unified state for example. So don't bring ideological differences as an excuse for these to nations to become one.


California and Texas have a great deal in common, but the people still benefit from governments that represent their different views. No matter how alike, smaller cooperating governments benefit more people than a large centralized government. It is simply a mathematical fact.
#14914139
@One Degree That doesn't support your argument, nor the lies you said about me.

They are incapable of changing because of their leadership, of which they have no control. History supports this, as well, seeing as they aren't much more advanced than they were 50 years ago. What's your argument, old timer?

Oh right... you haven't one.
#14914143
One Degree wrote:California and Texas have a great deal in common, but the people still benefit from governments that represent their different views. No matter how alike, smaller cooperating governments benefit more people than a large centralized government. It is simply a mathematical fact.


Are you aware NK is not a democracy. Who do you believe benefits the most in NK? Do you think the NK poor would prefer the 38 parallel to remain so they have less people within their nation? A more centralised government? Please don't be naive.

In life we all enter a social contract. We adhere to the laws of the land we live in or become outlaws. Every single person will disagree with some laws of their land. There is no perfect empire. So the size of the nation does not matter. What people want is freedom. I suspect SK is more free than the north. So how have you come to the conclusion that the North wants to remain secular? Only Kim and the wealthy would want this as they have much to lose in a United Korea. Power.
Last edited by B0ycey on 12 May 2018 15:36, edited 1 time in total.
#14914149
B0ycey wrote:Are you aware NK is not a democracy. Who do you believe benefits the most in NK? Do you think the NK poor would prefer the 38 parallel to remain so they have less people within their nation? A more centralised government? Please don't be naive.

In life we all enter a social contract. We adhere to the laws of the land we live in or become outlaws. Every single person will disagree with some laws of their land. There is no perfect empire. So the side of the nation does not matter. What people want is freedom. I suspect SK is more free than the north. So how have you come to the conclusion that the North wants to remain secular? Only Kim and the wealthy would want this as they have much to lose in a United Korea. Power.


I have repeatedly said unification is a choice for Koreans to make. This has no effect on the reality that larger centralized governments must increase the number of people who have their choices denied. You simply say size does not matter while ignoring that it is inherent in the very nature of democracy. Freedom means the ability to pursue your choices. The larger the government, the fewer choices that dominate.
Take abortion for example. One country must decide whether to allow it or not. Two countries, or state’s rights, allow both abortion and banning abortion to be accepted without denying the possibility they both reach the same decision. Smaller government allows for more choices, but does not limit choices as much as a larger government must simply to the number of people. The more autonomous areas the earth has, the more choices available but this does not exclude any choice from becoming widely accepted. A few large autonomous areas or a world doctrine (human rights) eliminates all other choices. They never have a chance to prove their worth. You effectively eliminate any further societal advance through competition.
#14914151
One Degree wrote:I have repeatedly said unification is a choice for Koreans to make. This has no effect on the reality that larger centralized governments must increase the number of people who have their choices denied. You simply say size does not matter while ignoring that it is inherent in the very nature of democracy.


This an opinion that is both illogical and not in the slightest factual. You are saying here that the North Korean populous has less choices denied to them than the United States because they are smaller! I will be happy to agree with you as you have Trump but...

Freedom means the ability to pursue your choices. The larger the government, the fewer choices that dominate.
Take abortion for example. One country must decide whether to allow it or not. Two countries, or state’s rights, allow both abortion and banning abortion to be accepted without denying the possibility they both reach the same decision. Smaller government allows for more choices, but does not limit choices as much as a larger government must simply to the number of people. The more autonomous areas the earth has, the more choices available but this does not exclude any choice from becoming widely accepted. A few large autonomous areas or a world doctrine (human rights) eliminates all other choices. They never have a chance to prove their worth. You effectively eliminate any further societal advance through competition.


So according to this statement anarchism is ultimately the only state of freedom. You would be correct of course, as within such a society there is no social contract to protect you or limit your actions. Nonetheless the size of the nation does not affect anarchism in the slightest. Before borders existed there would have been just one nation. Planet Earth. Every single person was ruled by the law of nature. They were free in one large society. So size does not matter. Period.
#14914156
B0ycey wrote:This an opinion that is both illogical and not in the slightest factual. You are saying here that the North Korean populous has less choices denied to them than the United States because they are smaller! I will be happy to agree with you as you have Trump but...



So according to this statement anarchism is ultimately the only state of freedom. You would be correct of course, as within such a society there is no social contract to protect you or limit your actions. Nonetheless the size of the nation does not affect anarchism in the slightest. Before borders existed there would have been just one nation. Planet Earth. Every single person was ruled by the law of nature. They were free in one large society. So size does not matter. Period.


Yes, my ideology is a compromise as I reject autonomy on too small of a level to be beneficial to society as a whole. I see the need for people to sacrifice some freedom for greater mutual benefit. My view is to find the balance point between the two. I see no need for an autonomous area to have more than a million people except for military power. The lower limit is determined by technology in part. Definitely no smaller than 10,000 and probably 50,000 or 100,000 as minimum currently. The US has a power plant for each 50,000. This is a reasonable measure of technology versus population. If 50,000 people is enough to support a power plant, hospital, small college, etc. then what else do you need. The current ideal would probably be 100,000 to a million depending on how much you felt we needed to cooperate with others and how much we should be self sufficient.
1000 autonomous areas can agree and cooperate on 90% of things while enjoying their own choices on the other 10%. Larger autonomous areas reduce the 10% down to nothing with acceptance of universal norms.

Edit: North Korea and South Korea can cooperate on the 90% they agree on or they can unify and their focus will be on their 10% disagreement.
#14914168
Godstud wrote:@One Degree The only problem here is that this thread is not about your personal ideology. It's about a real place occupied by real people, not your personal utopia.


I will assume you did not see my edit. I realized belatedly I did not show the connection to my ideology and it’s relationship to real Koreans.
#14914282
B0ycey wrote:Knowing Trump only has two terms max at least gives me some hope for America, but then I think of the Lobbyists and that hope fades a little but anyway...

Currently, as things stand, Europe has been over reliant on America -especially in terms of defence. Today this is changing. Do you honestly believe Europe wants to side with the devil? They will continue to do the right noises to keep America happy until they are able to speak out and remove themselves from their foreign policy. Pesco is the start of good things for Europe. They are already looking East for trade. That's the next step. Then it will be making the Euro a viable alternative to the Dollar. Iran for example now trades in Euros for foreign exchange. Then it will be international diplomacy and affairs through cooperation with new partners and finally freedom. America is only a more superior partner to both Russia and China today because they have decided to make the rules up so they are. But things are changing due to how Trump has reacted to international diplomacy today (from tariffs to threats). And when they do ultimately change, they won't be a more superior partner any longer.

America are making allies turn away from them by being selfish. It's not the other way round. I for example don't hate Americans. I hate their foreign policy. And with Brexit and our government sucking up for America for trade (as they know they need to as we have decided to remove ourselves from our most viable trading partner), we will become a vessel US state and Air Strip One soon. I have been resigned in the knowledge my nation are going to slaves for the foreseeable future for a while now, but I see Europe being liberated from US imperialism nonetheless. That doesn't mean that they are going to become Russian or Chinese vessel states. A United Europe is more than capable of looking after themselves. They have the capital and military to defend themselves. They will look after their own affairs and be truly liberated. They won't need to surrender their will as they will indeed be a superpower themselves. And I have faith they won't become an imperialist nation such as America when they do.

Europe being freed from American imperialism? Don't make me laugh please. This is even worse than the somewhat cute American founding myth of their fight against British tyranny. It seems that victimhood culture is truly everywhere today.

I welcome Europe becoming more independent in terms of defence, as I suspect they will be busy in Africa in the future. And of course, once they have the military power they'll use it to back up their diplomatic efforts and economic power projection. Believing anything else is beyond naive. It's going to be incredibly hard work though, not least because not all militaries in Europe are created equal and many have a long way to go to reach British or American levels not only in terms of technology and equipment but also professionalism and ethos. So far all we've seen is grand announcements. Next, I suspect they'll create a massive bureaucracy to coordinate their efforts and squabble about the details of the implementation. After that, the actual work starts. I won't hold my breath but let's hope they make some real progress over the next few years.

Most of the developments you describe above have started long before Trump took office. This is a good showcase of motivated reasoning. Don't like Trump? Just attribute everything bad that's currently happening to him even if it was already happening before he announced his election campaign. Whatever Trump contributes to the shift towards a multi-polar world is negligible.

B0ycey wrote:Apart from creating new islands from international waters or arguing for sovereignty of islands between nations, they have yet to threaten 'fire and fury' or sent troops to illegal wars. Their international affairs are local and trade is international. Comparing them to America is stupid. If you do, you know who the true devil is. Nonetheless, America by your own admittance is playing under different rules. They don't want nations to have nuclear weapons or threaten other sovereign nations - but do just that anyway and possess nuclear weapons themselves because they can. They are hypocrites and as such are hated globally for it. And that is fair. Practice what you preach or be called upon it.

I have not compared China to America. Could you please ease off on the straw men a bit? It seems I need to tell you what I haven't written more often than any other user. You claimed that China was not threatening or aggressive and I provided you with evidence to the contrary. Obviously, China's actions are constrained by the circumstances, such as the alliance of countries which the US is part of and which oppose its actions in the South China Sea. In the absence of this, I suspect China would be even more assertive.

B0ycey wrote:So why even bring up Reagan? His words did nothing but provoke conflict and so did Trump's. The fact that the other nations (USSR and NK) showed restraint fron such words is not evidence that aggression works. It doesn't. Diplomacy works. As shown when NK offered an olive branch to SK without having to fire a single bullet or shout out on Twitter with aggression.

I brought it up - and I think I've already explained this - because the refrain of the commentariat and sequence of events was very similar. Reagan upped his rhetoric and people went into a frenzy claiming a nuclear war was imminent. They were wrong. Rather the USSR disintegrated. Note how the confrontational tone had no negative effect, much less that anticipated by Reagan's detractors.

I'm not sure where you get your news from, but I'm baffled how you came away with the impression that NK has shown restraint, e.g.

CNN wrote:(CNN) Donald Trump sarcastically responded to North Korea's insults that described him as a "destroyer" who "begged for nuclear war" during his tour of Asia. In a statement lashing out at Trump on Saturday, North Korea also referred to him as a "dotard," a word meaning a very old person, and one the reclusive nation has used on him in the past.

Trump fired back hours later. "Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me 'old,' when I would NEVER call him 'short and fat?' Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!" Trump tweeted.

Asked about the possibility of becoming friends with the North Korean leader during a Sunday joint news conference in Vietnam, Trump did not rule it out. "Strange things happen in life. That might be a strange thing that happens. But it is certainly a possibility," Trump said. "If that did happen, it would be a good thing for, I can tell you, for North Korea. But it would also be good for lots of other places, and it would be good for the world."

[...]

Also note Trump's more conciliatory tone during a conference at the same time.

I'd have to look up how the USSR publicly responded to Reagan, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they had verbally fired back too.
Last edited by Kaiserschmarrn on 13 May 2018 03:58, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@JohnRawls Why do you think that? If you wer[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]