Atheists & The War On Terror

decimatio

gvn wrote: »

To use N.K. as an example, and it's a very good example, I don't believe a "revolution by an external hand" would be successful.

It would be extremely difficult and costly but not impossible, as well as reliant on some amount of internal support after the fact.

A revolution internally is almost impossible to concieve in such a state. Try to imagine an internal revolution in Orwell's 1984 for example.

A successful revolution, the successful overthrow of a despotic governing oligarchy, has to come from the people; the people have to will the overthrow.

Not necessarily.

Supplanting a new government for an old without the effort and will of the people is a pointless exercise, I believe.

Pointless in what regard ?

I do agree, however, that the government of N.K. needs to go. I disagree that it is our duty to initiate such an overthrow. Such decisions are not ours to make.

I disagree.

I respect and empathise with that point of view. My objection lies with the method: one country (or two countries, as with Iraq) deciding to invade another, solely on "pre-emptive" or "humanitarian" grounds, to rid that country of a so-called terrible tyrant, causes, I suspect, as many problems as it solves.

Forget for a second why the Allies invaded Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and instead think about the concequences of said invasions and the aftermath.*

Is Germany not better off for it ? Is Japan ?

*Please do not accuse me of comparing WW2 to the invasion of Iraq.

Such occurrences, if allowed to become standard practice, would also set dangerous precedents.

I will partially agree and instead say could also set dangerous precedents.

If I were in a position of power in, say, the U.S., and I knew what was happening in Cambodia in the late 1970s, would I have invaded? (Ignore the ridiculousness of this proposed situation, considering U.S. actions greatly helped in the Khmer Rouge's ascent to power.) Yes, I probably would have — not on my own, though, I'd have sought some kind of consensus among world leaders, if such an option would have been at all feasible. I understand that in stating this I'm being inconsistent with my previously stated views; this is an uncomfortable inconsistency to hold and, more importantly, be aware of.

Indeed. Just how exactly do you come to the decision that you would have invaded Cambodia but not North Korea ?

Are you under the impression that the Khmer Rouge were somehow worse ?

Here's a lovely description of one of N. Korea's reeducation facilities where you can also find human experimentation. One of the best parts of these camps is that if one member of your family commits some crime then the whole family will go to the camp. If your grandfather commits a crime then your parents, you and all your siblings will go to the camp. All prisoners are kept in the prison until they die. No one is ever released. Oh and a really fun fact is that if you have the misfortune of being pregnant or getting pregnant in the camp (the guards commit rape regularly) then if you manage to survive childbirth and the child manages to survive then he will be raised there forever, until he dies as he is also guilty by association.

Here's a video of a 23 year old girl picking grass to eat. Notice how fully grown and healthy she looks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGR0BD2e1Ok

Even the best fed of North Korea citizens, the soldiers, suffer from malnutrition to such an extent that they are on average 3 inches shorter than South Koreans.

Is it a matter of numbers ? The amount of people killed by the Khmer Rouge is less than the amount who starved to death in 4 years in the 90's in N. Korea.

decimatio

decimatio wrote: »

It would be extremely difficult and costly but not impossible, as well as reliant on some amount of internal support after the fact.

A revolution internally is almost impossible to concieve in such a state. Try to imagine an internal revolution in Orwell's 1984 for example.

I understand that, and don't get me wrong — North Korea is one of the most, if not the most, unfortunate countries on this planet, governed by a dynasty of tyrants and a ruthless oligarchy, whose current situation, in an ideal world, would be consigned to the tragic pages of history and prevented from continuing into the future. DPRK (thanks, Robin!) is an unusual case. You've far greater knowledge than I, but the impression I get from what I've read and seen of the country is a population (a majority of which, at least) who would be opposed to a foreign intervention with a stated aim of removing the current leadership. Would that be a correct presumption? Perhaps I've fallen prey to propaganda — just like the majority of the population I speak of. I've no doubt that a change would be, with hindsight, welcomed by the people, but would a change without popular support encounter more resistance than assistance, resulting in some modern reincarnation of the Vietnam war? This, I feel, is why popular support, the effort and the will of the people is necessary.

Pointless in what regard ?

I answer this in the very next line, which you failed to quote. I said, "You can't "gift" freedom like that; freedom has to be earned, and earned the hard way, or it won't be respected, and if it's not respected there's nothing stopping a new elite eventually ascending to power and returning to ways of old."

Of course supplanting a new government for an old one is pointless without the effort and will of the people. This is not a contentious statement. If the people will a change then this statement is redundant; if they don't then it's true.

I disagree.

Whose decision is it to determine what government rules in North Korea? Yours? Mine? The United State's? The EU's? The UN's? If you believe it's ours (or somebody else's), then how to you determine whose decision it is to make? Who decides to overthrow the government of another state? How can they justify their doing so?

Forget for a second why the Allies invaded Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and instead think about the concequences of said invasions and the aftermath.*

Is Germany not better off for it ? Is Japan ?

I don't know. I don't have access to an alternative reality where the Allies failed to wage war against Germany or Japan so I cannot determine which reality, the current one or this fabled alternative one, would be better. Obviously, I suspect our current one — but our current one is not without its horrors: 60 million died as a result, most of which due to the war that was waged between the nations.

I will partially agree and instead say could also set dangerous precedents.

When I said "would" I, of course, meant "could." I do not know that such activities would set dangerous precedents, but I believe that they would. The whimsical overthrow of one country's government by another cannot be a good thing; it undermines the idea and ideals of sovereignty and grants one country the power to decide who rules in another. I cannot see this as a good precedent.

Indeed. Just how exactly do you come to the decision that you would have invaded Cambodia but not North Korea ?

Are you under the impression that the Khmer Rouge were somehow worse ?

I do not know which regime is worse — that can only be told with hindsight — nor do I care for comparing two regimes to determine this fact. I brought up Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge to highlight to you my own inconsistencies — I'm not trying to conceal them.

Description of the horrid reality in N.K. (I've removed this to remove the size of the quote. I hope you don't mind.)

Indeed. It's a horrible place — a true hell on Earth. I won't argue with you about that. I'm not trying to justify or legitimise the current North Korean government — I want to see it disposed of just as much as you do. I disagree that other nations have the right to decide what government rules in another, independent nation. That's my sole objection.

Is it a matter of numbers ? The amount of people killed by the Khmer Rouge is less than the amount who starved to death in 4 years in the 90's in N. Korea.

It's not about numbers, which I stated in my first reply to you — I said it could be 6 or 6 million, and so on. I suppose I view the Khmer Rouge as one of the greatest forces against civilisation and humanity of the last century. I'm not trying to say it was worse than the current government in N.K. or anything of the sort. I did say that, if I were in a position of power in a powerful state in the late 1970s, and I knew what was happening in Cambodia, I'd have tried to do something. What would that something have been? I don't know. I realise this is inconsistent with my other stated views. The determination of when it is just for one state to rightfully overthrow the government of another is my sole qualm and it's our only point of argument. So, if you'd like to nip this multi-quote nightmare at the bud before it becomes ungodly you can reply to that one statement (every other argument we've been having stems from it).

gvn

gvn wrote: »

I understand that, and don't get me wrong — North Korea is one of the most, if not the most, unfortunate countries on this planet, governed by a dynasty of tyrants and a ruthless oligarchy, whose current situation, in an ideal world, would be consigned to the tragic pages of history and prevented from continuing into the future. DPRK (thanks, Robin!) is an unusual case. You've far greater knowledge than I, but the impression I get from what I've read and seen of the country is a population (a majority of which, at least) who would be opposed to a foreign intervention with a stated aim of removing the current leadership. Would that be a correct presumption? Perhaps I've fallen prey to propaganda — just like the majority of the population I speak of. I've no doubt that a change would be, with hindsight, welcomed by the people, but would a change without popular support encounter more resistance than assistance, resulting in some modern reincarnation of the Vietnam war? This, I feel, is why popular support, the effort and the will of the people is necessary.

The impression I get is that there would be little popular resistance to a liberating force and that while large parts of the political ranks may be loyal the army would be less so. As for comparisons to Vietnam, I can't see any other country going against a NATO or UN force. Unfortunately there's no organisation who can "legally" go in and topple the current government so it's all very much pie in the sky.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Unfortunately there's no organisation who can "legally" go in and topple the current government so it's all very much pie in the sky.

Indeed. My objection lies not so much the illegality — a fact rarely considered and often blatantly ignored — but in the repercussions of such actions on the very integrity of the concept of sovereignty.

I think this is a fascinating discussion. Does one state ever have the legitimate right to overthrow the government of another, especially when the latter did not provoke the former in any way whatsoever? I don't think so — in principle, at least. But this is an uncomfortable principle to accept — when you're confronted almost daily with images of slaughtered innocent Syrians, killed by the al-Assad regime, for example, you cannot but feel an intervention is justified, and that an overthrow of the al-Assad regime would be rightful. There's an element of cognitive dissonance in this: an internal battle between principle and reality, between what's right with respect to sovereignty and what's right with respect to humanity.

gvn

gvn wrote: »

Indeed. My objection lies not so much the illegality — a fact rarely considered and often blatantly ignored — but in the repercussions of such actions on the very integrity of the concept of sovereignty.

Sovereignty can be taken from the people within a country, it doesn't have to be taken by outsiders.

I think this is a fascinating discussion. Does one state ever have the legitimate right to overthrow the government of another, especially when the latter did not provoke the former in any way whatsoever? I don't think so — in principle, at least. But this is an uncomfortable principle to accept — when you're confronted almost daily with images of slaughtered innocent Syrians, killed by the al-Assad regime, for example, you cannot but feel an intervention is justified, and that an overthrow of the al-Assad regime would be rightful. There's an element of cognitive dissonance in this: an internal battle between principle and reality, between what's right with respect to sovereignty and what's right with respect to humanity.

I don't like states and statism and the like but if we're talking in practical terms then given the right circumstances I'm happy to see one state interfering in the interests of another even if the reasons given aren't correct. I'm also under no illusions about "The West" and the self-beneficial interfering they generally do but in the case of Iraq the overthrowing of Saddam was justified in my opinion and the same in NK would be and would be met with very little resistance.
In terms of the philosophical thing of states and sovereignty, I don't really like the viewing of the world as being made up of discrete units or states. I feel as "American" as I do "Irish", I just happen to have been born on the soggy rock described as Ireland. A government or state that looks after the interests of some people could be seen as a more legitimate embodiment of sovereign power than an autocratic regime that someone happens to be born under.
Also the "freedom isn't free" thread all falls from pretty mythical versions of most civil wars and uprisings. How would America have done without the French helping them? How popular was the 1916 uprising among the general population?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Sovereignty can be taken from the people within a country, it doesn't have to be taken by outsiders.

I agree. I view the former as a legitimate action and the latter as an illegitimate one.

I don't like states and statism and the like but if we're talking in practical terms then given the right circumstances I'm happy to see one state interfering in the interests of another even if the reasons given aren't correct. I'm also under no illusions about "The West" and the self-beneficial interfering they generally do but in the case of Iraq the overthrowing of Saddam was justified in my opinion and the same in NK would be and would be met with very little resistance.

This is troublesome, and I'll describe why below.

In terms of the philosophical thing of states and sovereignty, I don't really like the viewing of the world as being made up of discrete units or states. I feel as "American" as I do "Irish", I just happen to have been born on the soggy rock described as Ireland. A government or state that looks after the interests of some people could be seen as a more legitimate embodiment of sovereign power than an autocratic regime that someone happens to be born under.

I agree with the first sentiment you express, but I disagree with your choice of words. Nationalism is foolish, I believe; that I'm Irish and another is American, or British, or Nepalese, or an inhabitant of any other corner of the world is an irrelevancy. Partially deriving one's identity from their place of birth is a folly; being born on a rocky, wet island in the Atlantic, or on the plains of Montana, or the Himalayan highlands is nothing but a chance of birth.

Having a state, on the other hand, is vitally important, and the state, as a concept, is something worth defending. A state guarantees the lives and liberty, among other rights, of its citizens. Without the state to guarantee such rights, the rights of individuals essentially become meaningless — there would be no basis for the existence of such rights, unless you'd like to incorporate god into the equation :pac:. If one state can whimsically remove an other, then it can whimsically remove the rights of the other's citizens, too. If a state is the guarantor of the rights of the people, it's of paramount importance to argue against the possibility of aggressive, unprovoked action against other sovereign nations, action that intends to remove what is, essentially, the state. This is why I view this as an important argument: if you think it's okay for, say, the U.S. to overthrow the Iraqi government, then the inviolability of sovereignty, and consequently, the state, and, following the thread of thought into the rabbit hole, the rights of persons, is removed. This is less of an issue in our ever more incorporated world, where international bodies become the guarantor of rights, but I still find it to be a troublesome line of argument.

To tie in a theological thread (this is the atheism forum, after all!) the religious have it easier in this regard. In their case, god can be said to be the guarantor of the rights of men and women. We don't have that: we only have arbitrarily defined guarantors. (Though you can then say that the religious are arbitrarily defining god as their guarantor.)

Also the "freedom isn't free" thread all falls from pretty mythical versions of most civil wars and uprisings. How would America have done without the French helping them? How popular was the 1916 uprising among the general population?

Well, freedom has to have a value otherwise there's no reason to hold it in such high regard. Both the American Revolution and the 1916 uprising were events carried through to fruition (it took a little longer in our case) by the people of each respective country; not by an external hand, nor by a foreign government, but by the people. It was the will of the people — it was their decision, their work and their effort. This is different to the U.S. and U.K. invading Iraq to "liberate" the Iraqi people.

decimatio

gvn wrote: »

Would that be a correct presumption? Perhaps I've fallen prey to propaganda — just like the majority of the population I speak of.

It's a common belief that NK citizens are not aware of what goes on outside their borders. For the majority that's more or less true but you'd be quite surprised how well informed many of them can be.

Would they support a foreign intervention in NK? Impossible to answer and even a good guess would require you to provide much more detail.

I'd imagine that no they probably wouldn't, they meaning the majority of course.

Even NK refugees who have escaped the north broke down in tears when Kim Jong-il recently passed. It's not for any love of the man, it's simply so hard coded into them they can't help it.

I've no doubt that a change would be, with hindsight, welcomed by the people, but would a change without popular support encounter more resistance than assistance, resulting in some modern reincarnation of the Vietnam war?

I'd have to say no it wouldn't. For the same reason they would fight so hard if anyone invaded makes them incapable of fighting a guerilla war. They are too reliant on the state for everything including what to think.

This, I feel, is why popular support, the effort and the will of the people is necessary.

Which is impossible in a state like NK.

Who decides to overthrow the government of another state? How can they justify their doing so?

You said the UN in your invasion of Cambodia no?

How can they justify it? Through history.

Obviously, I suspect our current one — but our current one is not without its horrors: 60 million died as a result, most of which due to the war that was waged between the nations.

If hitler hadn't invaded anyone and simply decided to start gassing jews, brainwashing germans et al would you have left him alone?

It's not about numbers, which I stated in my first reply to you — I said it could be 6 or 6 million, and so on. I suppose I view the Khmer Rouge as one of the greatest forces against civilisation and humanity of the last century. I'm not trying to say it was worse than the current government in N.K. or anything of the sort. I did say that, if I were in a position of power in a powerful state in the late 1970s, and I knew what was happening in Cambodia, I'd have tried to do something. What would that something have been? I don't know. I realise this is inconsistent with my other stated views. The determination of when it is just for one state to rightfully overthrow the government of another is my sole qualm and it's our only point of argument. So, if you'd like to nip this multi-quote nightmare at the bud before it becomes ungodly you can reply to that one statement (every other argument we've been having stems from it).

Rightfully? What exactly does that mean to you?