Regardless of how bad Trump is considered to be, and how true that will turn out to be, in my opinion this is the first time that someone is actually doing something that has a chance at ending this horrible situation that we've been just sweeping under the rug for the past few decades. He put a squeeze on their only ally, China, put in meaningful sanctions that are hitting where it hurts, the elite, and is calling out their leader on his bluffing tactics that worked well (for the leader and the elite) so far.
Hundreds of thousands of people, slowly languishing in famine and unspeakable suffering, all ignored because it's an 'inconvenient problem'.
The hard stance you speak of was always simple containment and ignoring, and then when their leader would start shaking sabres and making threats, he would get appeased with free food.
That was exactly my point. The problem was ignored, and at times when it couldn't be ignored, NK would bluff, and the rest of the world would appease them.
I always appreciate a cynical take on the news, but to be fair there has been plenty of justification for humanitarian intervention in NK for the past 60 years. We don't really need more 'reasons'.
This is more like titillation wrapped-up in a respectable jacket of 'serious current affairs' to get some clicks.
There's the question of what humanitarian aid Western nations might be morally obligated to offer to its former colonies. That's one question, with many different opinions.
Then there's the question of how history will view the rest of us for looking the other way while the Kims turned an entire country into a concentration camp.
That's another question entirely. Imagine if we'd left Auschwitz up and running at the end of WWII.
...and while you are at it, there are plenty of other countries that could use some humanitarian intervention. Some of them even US allies (keywords: Saudi Arabia, Yemen)
But to be fair, I have no answer to the question if ignoring abuses as "internal affairs" is the better option. A very complex problem indeed.
There's no such a thing as a humanitarian intervention. As sibling posts say, there's plenty of market for it, if a country really wants to do it.
Even ignoring this aspect, there are two reasons for not waging a war to NK:
1. NK is under China's protection, primarily for acting as buffer country (this is a valid political reason)
2. NK does have offensive power; even without nuclear warheads, due to geographical positioning, it can do a huge amount of damange to SK.
Both of those things are already things that we have and do not need any more of to justify a full-scale nuclear war. I'm pretty sure the thing keeping it from becoming a real war zone is mutually assured destruction. Even mutually assured destruction aside, I think most people realize whatever kind of conflict occurs it won't be pretty for the parties involved.
Of course, letting things go for long enough to actually allow North Korea to produce working nuclear weapons is probably not very smart either, but I guess hindsight is 20:20.
Large tracts of Africa have 10 points shaved off their average IQ because of parasite infestation, if you get bilharziosis in early childhood it really makes you more stupid. Malaria doesn't help either, also because it causes you to miss school.
Fun fact: South Korea had a very serious schistosome problem, too. Merck discovered Praziquantel in the early 1970s, it's the only medication that really works but Merck could not provide doses at a price the country could afford. So South Korean chemists got to work and developed their own process, and it gave the Korean chemical industry a big boost. Shinpoong still produce 50 % of the world's supply of praziquantel. The WHO report is here, btw: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Jwhozip48e/1.html
How can one make the land of milk and honey look bad?
Military invasion, while unlikely (cost, mainly destruction,) would probably be better for 99.99% of North Koreans. Oh, if they are ever attacked it will be because they have threatened to nuke quite a few countries.
Don't get me started. The BBC used to be a flagship for balanced, meaningful and insightful news. I've been reading the BBC news website for at least 15 years.
In the last couple of years I've noticed a stark movement towards clickbait titles and imagery and a movement away from emphasis on balanced news reporting.
Looking now, the home page is in fact littered with click bait titles:
- The degrees that make you rich... and the ones that don't
- How one abuse victim found foster help for her dog Dusty
- The deadly problem with US fraternities
- What you may not have realised about acid attacks
Back in the day, that first headline would have been something much more specific. For example "Computer, maths and science degrees lead to highest paid jobs".
Sadly, I guess just reporting the facts does not bring the visitors, which is a shame.
To be honest I don't think anybody should rely on one single source of the truth for their news. The ideal scenario is that you take your news from a couple of sources, and come to your own conclusions.
Sources I use for news in no particular order:
- Reuters
- Al-Jazeera
- Russia Today
- The Guardian
- Reddit - although admittedly this is less for the news itself and more for the commentary that inevitably follows in various news sub Reddits
Just as I was giving up on the BBC, they published this incredibly in-depth article by star journalist Jim Muir that bought them a reprieve in my books: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35695648
I don’t know if the BBC has ever published anything that even-handed, in-depth, thorough, and expansive prior.
"The BBC used to be a flagship for balanced, meaningful and insightful news."
Take a look at Deutsche Welle.[1][2] It has impressed me with its high quality, relatively in-depth reporting, and very little clickbait. I only wish it had more international coverage.
They now see themselves as a competitor to commercial media and entertainment networks - not sure why other than to justify the very high salaries of their so-called 'talent'?
Other public broadcast RTV (radio & television) such as the Dutch NOS also suffer from this. My theory is: its the intense pressure from the commercial broadcast, as well as the Internet as a whole. It makes public broadcast RTV less relevant, and as the elder pass away they're trying to cater to youth to remain relevant in the longer run. Youth like e.g. clickbait. Clickbait also generates pageviews hence ads or at least statistics showing relevance. Of course, those statistics are manipulated by short-term benefits.
Tapeworm and other parasites are fascinating things.
One of the most interesting cases was when Laurent Fignon, at the height of his powers in 1988 withdrew from the Tour de France (which he'd won in 1984, and would just lose in 1989).
The pundits at first blamed Fignon’s problem on a return of the hypoglycemia that had plagued him in the past but, after the eighth stage in Nancy, he suddenly discovered the real cause of his fatigue when his trainer pulled six feet of a tapeworm out of him.[1]
58 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 137 ms ] threadMotivate military invasion as humanitarian intervention. Check.
Hundreds of thousands of people, slowly languishing in famine and unspeakable suffering, all ignored because it's an 'inconvenient problem'.
Can you justify that opinion? Why did it take the US to sanction a Chinese bank?
That was exactly my point. The problem was ignored, and at times when it couldn't be ignored, NK would bluff, and the rest of the world would appease them.
But then, I'm English so maybe I'm assume more familiarity with the BBC than the average HNer.
This is more like titillation wrapped-up in a respectable jacket of 'serious current affairs' to get some clicks.
Then there's the question of how history will view the rest of us for looking the other way while the Kims turned an entire country into a concentration camp.
That's another question entirely. Imagine if we'd left Auschwitz up and running at the end of WWII.
Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
> to be fair there has been plenty of justification for humanitarian intervention in NK for the past 60 years
Broadly agree to that. Amazing that we're finally opening our eyes to that at this particular point in history, isn't it.
But to be fair, I have no answer to the question if ignoring abuses as "internal affairs" is the better option. A very complex problem indeed.
If you have waterborne disease like that it's always a sign of inadequate infrastructure.
Even ignoring this aspect, there are two reasons for not waging a war to NK:
Of course, letting things go for long enough to actually allow North Korea to produce working nuclear weapons is probably not very smart either, but I guess hindsight is 20:20.
Sounds like a reasonable statement. How do you get from this to "motivate military invasion"?
Thing is, I'm sure Koreans have an average IQ high enough that they should not be a poor country, yet they are.
https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
And with that comment I'm out before I lose all my karma in the followup discussion.
Fun fact: South Korea had a very serious schistosome problem, too. Merck discovered Praziquantel in the early 1970s, it's the only medication that really works but Merck could not provide doses at a price the country could afford. So South Korean chemists got to work and developed their own process, and it gave the Korean chemical industry a big boost. Shinpoong still produce 50 % of the world's supply of praziquantel. The WHO report is here, btw: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Jwhozip48e/1.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Military invasion, while unlikely (cost, mainly destruction,) would probably be better for 99.99% of North Koreans. Oh, if they are ever attacked it will be because they have threatened to nuke quite a few countries.
wrong way to calculate. Sometimes you need to die so others, including your family, have a chance.
Of course, you can say who are we to decide that "John" in North Korea should die for freedom...
Parasites are often closely associated with unusual diets. Here's the CDC page on screening refugees for parasites[1].
There's a vast amount of literature about this[2]
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/guidelines/domest...
[2] https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=parasites+and+diet+r...
Not the EU/UK Not Japan Not China Not South Korea Not Russia
The US possibly but who listens to them anymore?
You won't believe number 6!
What on earth happened to the BBC?
In the last couple of years I've noticed a stark movement towards clickbait titles and imagery and a movement away from emphasis on balanced news reporting.
Looking now, the home page is in fact littered with click bait titles:
- The degrees that make you rich... and the ones that don't
- How one abuse victim found foster help for her dog Dusty
- The deadly problem with US fraternities
- What you may not have realised about acid attacks
Back in the day, that first headline would have been something much more specific. For example "Computer, maths and science degrees lead to highest paid jobs".
Sadly, I guess just reporting the facts does not bring the visitors, which is a shame.
I have too (have been reading bbc for past 5 years). Do you have any recommendations for what to read instead?
Sources I use for news in no particular order:
- Reuters
- Al-Jazeera
- Russia Today
- The Guardian
- Reddit - although admittedly this is less for the news itself and more for the commentary that inevitably follows in various news sub Reddits
I don’t know if the BBC has ever published anything that even-handed, in-depth, thorough, and expansive prior.
Take a look at Deutsche Welle.[1][2] It has impressed me with its high quality, relatively in-depth reporting, and very little clickbait. I only wish it had more international coverage.
[1] - http://www.dw.com/
[2] - http://rss.dw.com/rdf/rss-en-all
One of the most interesting cases was when Laurent Fignon, at the height of his powers in 1988 withdrew from the Tour de France (which he'd won in 1984, and would just lose in 1989).
The pundits at first blamed Fignon’s problem on a return of the hypoglycemia that had plagued him in the past but, after the eighth stage in Nancy, he suddenly discovered the real cause of his fatigue when his trainer pulled six feet of a tapeworm out of him.[1]
SIX FEET OF TAPEWORM!
[1] http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/riderhistories/laurent-fignon.ht...
6 ft ≈ 1.8 m