And the standard penalty for invading another country is being bombed into the stone age? Nothing you said justifies what happened. Were NK bad? Fuck yes! Does that justify killing a quarter of their people? I hope you don’t think so, or you are at least are willing to massacre close to a hundred million Americans for consistency sake.
The standard penalty for starting a war is being in a state of war, during which your opponents will try to kill you. Until the war is over your opponents will keep trying to kill you.
Its worth noting that armestice wasn’t reached until Stalin died and the new soviet leaders weren’t interested in prolonging the war, which suggests that the belligerents in the conflict were happy to continue it as Koreans continued to die in order to support their territorial and idiological designs.
In my opinion the US shouldn’t have crossed the 38th parallel north, doing so brought china into the war and ended the possibility of a quick end to the war and fewer deaths, but that sin pales in comparison to starting the invasion in the first place.
The real tragedy is the same as it ever is in wars, innocent civilians and young soldiers die in droves because someone in power wanted more land, more subjects, more resources more power and made the decision to take it at the cost of these lives.
And let’s not pretend that if the ROK and the US didn’t fight there wouldn’t have been massacres of civilians, purges of intellectuals and “political dissidents” and forced migration.
The community we are in is somewhat appropriate when you are advocating that “war is bad” so people shouldn’t fight back when they are invaded because people die or powerful nations shouldn’t militarily support victims of invasions because that “prolongs the war” during which yes; people die. I see enough of that from the various anti-ukraine/pro-russia shills, it’s nice to see that logic gets applied to other cases where a country with red in it’s flag tries to annex its neighbour too.
It sounds to me like you think anything is fair in war. Provide as much random background as you want, none of it justifies the scale of destruction. Just look it up on Wikipedia and tell me again that it’s just war and it was all necessary to prevent the undoubtedly awful things NK had planned.
Way to disengage with every point made and assume I am a warmonger.
I did almost include a paragraph on the morality of the bombing of Pyongyang, but after some thought I realise it wasn’t even a decade after ww2 and area bombing cities was part of how America and its allies won that conflict.
Would you say bombing Germany was necessary or justified to stop facism in Europe? Was the bombing of Japan necessary or justified to end Japanese subjugation of Asia?
I’m not sure I have a consistent position on this, it feels like the bombing of Korea was excessive but the bombing of Germany was necessary, but I can’t find a good justification for that split.
Either way I’m not particularly interested in defending the US’s conduct, but the original commenter presenting the invading country as being innocent and laying all the blame for the war at the feet of the US is gross.
This isn’t even getting into the fact that NK has one of the worst human rights records in the world.
But you made no good points. The only consistent root position for your arguments to me was “everything good guys do is okay” and “war isn’t nice”. That’s why I decided to cut to the chase and ask the only relevant question. Tangential historical waffle for vague justification, without addressing the point, doesn’t interest me. Either it’s okay to kill 20% of a country, while claiming the moral high ground, or it isn’t.
Bombing of Germany and Japan was necessary sure, but the degree and targets are in question. Did they need to level Dresden or nuke Japanese cities? Did they have to target civilians en mass? No, they were just barbarians invoking “turnabout is fair play” and offering mealy-mouthed “war isn’t nice” canards in their own defence. Japan, in particular, was just a test of their new toy, perhaps one of the most disgusting things ever done. Notably in neither of these cases did the allies destroy 85% buildings for an entire country and kill a such a large fraction of the population.
Perhaps the undoubtedly vile Kim regime has been so hard to dislodge because the “good guys” inflicted such unnecessary mass destruction and trauma. It’s very easy to sell a narrative that the world is out to get you when the world was actually out to get your parents.
And the standard penalty for invading another country is being bombed into the stone age? Nothing you said justifies what happened. Were NK bad? Fuck yes! Does that justify killing a quarter of their people? I hope you don’t think so, or you are at least are willing to massacre close to a hundred million Americans for consistency sake.
The standard penalty for starting a war is being in a state of war, during which your opponents will try to kill you. Until the war is over your opponents will keep trying to kill you.
Its worth noting that armestice wasn’t reached until Stalin died and the new soviet leaders weren’t interested in prolonging the war, which suggests that the belligerents in the conflict were happy to continue it as Koreans continued to die in order to support their territorial and idiological designs.
In my opinion the US shouldn’t have crossed the 38th parallel north, doing so brought china into the war and ended the possibility of a quick end to the war and fewer deaths, but that sin pales in comparison to starting the invasion in the first place.
The real tragedy is the same as it ever is in wars, innocent civilians and young soldiers die in droves because someone in power wanted more land, more subjects, more resources more power and made the decision to take it at the cost of these lives.
And let’s not pretend that if the ROK and the US didn’t fight there wouldn’t have been massacres of civilians, purges of intellectuals and “political dissidents” and forced migration.
The community we are in is somewhat appropriate when you are advocating that “war is bad” so people shouldn’t fight back when they are invaded because people die or powerful nations shouldn’t militarily support victims of invasions because that “prolongs the war” during which yes; people die. I see enough of that from the various anti-ukraine/pro-russia shills, it’s nice to see that logic gets applied to other cases where a country with red in it’s flag tries to annex its neighbour too.
It sounds to me like you think anything is fair in war. Provide as much random background as you want, none of it justifies the scale of destruction. Just look it up on Wikipedia and tell me again that it’s just war and it was all necessary to prevent the undoubtedly awful things NK had planned.
Way to disengage with every point made and assume I am a warmonger.
I did almost include a paragraph on the morality of the bombing of Pyongyang, but after some thought I realise it wasn’t even a decade after ww2 and area bombing cities was part of how America and its allies won that conflict.
Would you say bombing Germany was necessary or justified to stop facism in Europe? Was the bombing of Japan necessary or justified to end Japanese subjugation of Asia?
I’m not sure I have a consistent position on this, it feels like the bombing of Korea was excessive but the bombing of Germany was necessary, but I can’t find a good justification for that split.
Either way I’m not particularly interested in defending the US’s conduct, but the original commenter presenting the invading country as being innocent and laying all the blame for the war at the feet of the US is gross.
This isn’t even getting into the fact that NK has one of the worst human rights records in the world.
But you made no good points. The only consistent root position for your arguments to me was “everything good guys do is okay” and “war isn’t nice”. That’s why I decided to cut to the chase and ask the only relevant question. Tangential historical waffle for vague justification, without addressing the point, doesn’t interest me. Either it’s okay to kill 20% of a country, while claiming the moral high ground, or it isn’t.
Bombing of Germany and Japan was necessary sure, but the degree and targets are in question. Did they need to level Dresden or nuke Japanese cities? Did they have to target civilians en mass? No, they were just barbarians invoking “turnabout is fair play” and offering mealy-mouthed “war isn’t nice” canards in their own defence. Japan, in particular, was just a test of their new toy, perhaps one of the most disgusting things ever done. Notably in neither of these cases did the allies destroy 85% buildings for an entire country and kill a such a large fraction of the population.
Perhaps the undoubtedly vile Kim regime has been so hard to dislodge because the “good guys” inflicted such unnecessary mass destruction and trauma. It’s very easy to sell a narrative that the world is out to get you when the world was actually out to get your parents.