Hacker News Reader

Comment by BorisMelnik | Hacker News Reader

Simply hilarious. Each sentence is more ridiculous than the next. The only reason we (NATO) has not crushed them is because of humanitarian reasons, we feel bad for their people being enslaved and fear that engaging in war would starve their people and send their already weak army into a war they are not equipped to fight.

View on HN

"The only reason we (NATO) has not crushed them is because of humanitarian reasons, we feel bad for their people being enslaved and fear that engaging in war would starve their people and send their already weak army into a war they are not equipped to fight."

There's also the fact that if we actually militarily threatened them there'd be thousands of missiles fired, and Seoul would be ashes. There's also a risk that they could use nuclear weapons or chemical weapons on S. Korea. N. Korea is a state that has sacrificed everything to prop up a military regime, and invests more in its military than any other part of society. S. Korea with the US as an ally would certainly win a conflict, but N. Korea could cause some seriously devastating carnage before it was over.

The only reason NATO hasn't crushed them is the absence of oil in North Korea.

This !

I'm not an expert on this topic, but tried to look up why "we haven't crushed them", i.e. why those poor, suffering people were not given the option for change is that it is against the interests of the USA. If North Korea were liberated then South Korea would almost automatically become an atomic power and that would create new problems. As I said, this is what I found, but there may be other reasons, like oil or who knows. What I'm certain about is that the decision is not based on a moral backbone of some sorts. But would an idealistic approach be any better?

Unleashing an entire nation of uneducated, brain washed and tortured people would wreck havoc on Asia. I'm all for freeing those people, but there needs to be a plan other than bomb the shit out of (freeing) them.

Deleted comment

Such a great question. After 9/11 I was really hoping for a huge humanitarian, economic, and serious political effort in the Middle East along with the inevitable military actions. Didn't happen. No one even talked about such an idea (a Marshall Plan for the Middle East sort of thing), and whatever minor efforts have been made along those lines get no press.

What sources do you have to back that statement? Its quite bold of NATO to say they're not engaging them in war because we feed bad. Remember, there isn't really a good reason to attack. They're minding their own business for the most part, albeit not handling the country in the best regard, and not aligned with our views, but that really isn't reason enough to pursue in combat. If the U.S did, what support could they provide for the refugees? Its fairly common knowledge that the U.S isn't in the best position to be supplying support.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com