BREAKING: North Korea launches four missiles toward Sea of Japan

  1. I already said that I dont support the DPRK and that they are my enemy:

2.-I already said that I know the DPRK isnt communist:

Read the thread.


I do read the thread. but I reply post by post and read as I go along :slight_smile:

But my point still stands up for the DPRK saying we don’t have the moral high ground but we don’t starve our people on purpose, we don’t threaten other nations, we don’t oppress the rights of our people. We certainly do have the moral high ground and the moral high ground to invade if the DPRK continue their research into nukes.

  1. I already said, that when I said that the West doesnt have the moral highground, I was referring to international policy, not internal policy: [quote=“Alexandrovich, post:20, topic:110444, full:true”]when I said that the West doesnt have the moral highground I was talking about how the countries (DPRK and the West) act towards eachother rather than their own internal policies.[/quote]

2- I can not believe that anyone truly believes that the West doesnt threaten other countries. EVERY country threatens other countries. I have already pointed to an example of the West threatening the DPRK in this thread:

You realise that the West and the DPRK have been in all out war against eachother before and are still officially at war? How can anybody say that these countries, who are enemies, dont threaten eachother??

Please, dont make me quote myself back at you again.


They may be officially (I would need to verify that for my self) but they are not in a actual war in real terms. But as I say below it does not matter if u are at war or not nuclear weapons are not to be used as threats (empty or real) its time we invade the country as a libertarian war to give them a democratic government who wont starve their people.

The west threaten the DPRK because of their action on internal and foreign policy. Every country does threaten each country but what give us the moral high ground is that most western countries do not threaten to nuke other countries evne Russia and USA dont make credible nuke threats (war threats yes but not mass destruction they don’t). Threaten to use a weapon of mass destruction and u loose the moral battle there.

u dont need to quote back to your self if your answer is the same as before just say read back to my previous post :slight_smile:


Your definitions of what is and what is not acceptable for a country to do and say to another country is arbitrary and biased. The USA threatens, invades, divides and occupies Korea… and drops two nuclear bombs on Japan and yet you say that they have a the moral highground against the DPRK? The DPRK - a country surrounded by a coalition of enemies led by the greatest and most ruthless imperial power this world has ever seen.
To me, your arguments seem petty and ignorant of reality, so, I am not prepared to continue on on this subject, with you, any more. You can have the last word, anyone else watching can read through the thread and decide for themselves.
I wish you well.


Though social conditioning and whatnot is obviously a factor in forming people’s opinions, you’d be wise to assume that people do have some agency, especially when talking to them on an individual basis. Otherwise you’re likely to just be scoffed at and rejected for being pompous, taking a moral high ground while perceiving everyone else to just be ignorant.


I was responding in the same vein as I was spoken to. He was dismissive and so was I… I’m sure we both got over it. I dont feel the need to defend my ideology against pseudo-intellectual attacks in a thread where that is not the intended topic of discussion.


Don’t get me wrong. He’s equally guilty and is like this on a lot of threads, portraying strawman arguments of socialism and communism in favour of pretty basic and rudimentary ideas of capitalism. But, y’know, I find that actually going out of your way to educate people – when you’re on a civil platform like a debating forum – is better than putting them down as having been indoctrinated. I wouldn’t call it indoctrination, rather a lack of formal understanding of political concepts, which we all start out with, and we all develop at different rates too. The forum’s a nicer place when people respond by trying to be constructive rather than abusive, though if it doesn’t work then yeah, just give up and hope for better luck next time.


I dont see your issue. I’m arguing I believe the west have the moral ground as our wars fights against evils (some times and sometimes not I’m not a fan on war my self). I’m arguing the way we treat our people is much better. And yes I agree threatening another country gets you no where but I do believe the administration in north korea has to go to give their people the freedom and food they deserve and need

I support CND (campaign for nuclear disarmament) so dont assume u think you have a single clue on what I support in what a country did in the past as you dont know me.


That means fuck all at this point.

No one who was responsible for that is even still in charge.


That’s how war works. A war, I remind you, which was initiated by Japan. Heck, we only did it because the Japanese had been indoctrinated into believing they were better people, and refused to surrender, even when they were already losing.


While I agree with you guys that the USA’s dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki doesn’t reflect on whether the US government is moral today, I dislike the narrative that the atomic bombs were wholly necessary to end the war, and that Japan was ‘refusing to surrender’. To quote myself from another thread some time ago:

[quote]Conventional arguments claiming that it was a necessity fail to convince me. Japan would’ve accepted a conditional surrender provided that the “condition” was that the monarchy remained in tact, something which later happened anyway. Both the Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, and the President’s Chief of Staff, Admiral William D. Leahy, stated that the usage of the atomic bomb was unnecessary when it came to forcing Japan to surrender.

“The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender… In being the first to use it, we… adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.” - William D. Leahy.

“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.” - Chester W. Nimitz.

Shigenori Tōgō, the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, sent a telegram to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow, Naotake Satō, in June 1945 instructing him to send the following to the Soviets, and the Americans were well aware of this given that they had already cracked the Japanese encryptions:

“His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland.”

Whether or not the rest of the Japanese government was supportive of Togo’s proposals is up for debate, but I’m firmly of the opinion that a peace settlement could’ve been achieved without the need for either a full-scale American invasion of Japan or the dropping of the atomic bomb on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[/quote]
Now, that doesn’t explain everything and I could go into more detail on how the Japanese would have reacted to an offer of conditional surrender rather than unconditional surrender, but i cba. I would also add to this that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 9th 1945 probably had more of an impact on Japan’s decision to submit to an unconditional surrender than the dropping of the atomic bombs. An American unconditional occupation was easier to stomach than a Soviet unconditional occupation.


werent we already firebombing the shit out of japan to great success anyway?



the night of the black snow absolutely devastated tokyo for instance. the atomic bombs were more of a “lets scare the shit out of the USSR” tactic than anything else.

on the brightside though, dropping them on hiroshima & nagasaki probably did help to stop their usage during other conflicts, i.e. the korean war. it’s a silver lining to it all, i guess


That is true, but it also did speed up their surrender. I mean, they should have surrendered a lot earlier but didn’t, and they probably would have been tougher negotiators.


Hello everyone, I have actually written an article regarding China’s recent constitutional amendments. I hope this will further your interest and knowledge on this topic: