North Korea declares entering 'state of war' with South Korea

[Lights]

North Korea has said it is entering a "state of war" with South Korea in the latest escalation of rhetoric against its neighbour and the US.

A North Korean statement released on Saturday said: "From this time on, the North-South relations will be entering the state of war and all issues raised between the North and the South will be handled accordingly.

A statement promised "stern physical actions" against "any provocative act".

North Korea has threatened attacks almost daily after it was sanctioned for a third nuclear test in February.

However, few think the North would risk full-blown conflict. It has technically been at war with the South since 1953 as no peace treaty has been signed.

Many analysts believe that all-out war with South Korea and its ally the United States would be suicidal for the North, says the BBC's Lucy Williamson in Seoul.

North Korea has made multiple threats against both the US and South Korea in recent weeks, including warning of a "pre-emptive nuclear strike" on the US and the scrapping of the Korean War armistice.

On Thursday, North Korean state media reported leader Kim Jong-un "judged the time has come to settle accounts with the US imperialists".

US mainland and bases in Hawaii, Guam and South Korea were all named as potential targets.

North Korea's most advanced missiles are thought to be able to reach Alaska, but not the rest of the US mainland.

Full story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21979127)

The situation seems to be deteriorating every day and I can't help but wonder how this is going to end up. We know North Korea are known for talking themselves up but not actually doing anything - but the way things are developing I think there could be some big problems coming. The fact it's believed North Korea could hit Alaska with nuclear missiles is cause enough for concern if you ask me. Even though we can be almost certain that South Korea and the US combined can crush North Korea, the real predicament is how much destruction is going to be caused and how many innocent lives are going to be lost.

[Iron Man]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/200/420/BRTky.jpg?1321408042

And that's all I have to say, about that.

[Fiction]

It's scary tbh. I'm from the UK so we're at very little risk but our government has a habit of getting us into trouble by just following the US.

Although at least there is no way Korea should be able to reach us...

Although maybe this anger by Korea is good. They'll release their nuclear bombs. They'll be intercepted. They will no longer have nuclear bombs. It'll be safe for the US to make sure there are no nuclear bombs left through missiles etc. it will destroy the country, yes. Innocent lives may be lost, yes. But if we've tried our best to minimise these innocent lives lost, and it solves a huge problem for international security, then it's just something that had to be done :/

[Ryhanna]

North Attentionseeka amirite?

[Foamy]

Honestly, once they go to war and get their asses whooped, there will not be a north or South Korea. Just Korea.

[tovaris]

This whole situation was caused by privocationc from the south and USA. Im not saying i suport any kind of totalitarium rejim but I think that Korean maters are Korean maters not to be interfered with by the South or US if they would yust leve the Koreans alone everione would be happy but now the uited statians are pussing the peoples of the world near a nother larger scale nuclear contamination of the northen hemosphere. Thay deserve a slap in the face that has now com in the form (NOT a wery good oposite example, i might add) of Korea.

[Human]

probably empty threats, but we can't underestimate north korea.

[Gandalf]

It's scary tbh. I'm from the UK so we're at very little risk but our government has a habit of getting us into trouble by just following the US.

Although at least there is no way Korea should be able to reach us...

Although maybe this anger by Korea is good. They'll release their nuclear bombs. They'll be intercepted. They will no longer have nuclear bombs. It'll be safe for the US to make sure there are no nuclear bombs left through missiles etc. it will destroy the country, yes. Innocent lives may be lost, yes. But if we've tried our best to minimise these innocent lives lost, and it solves a huge problem for international security, then it's just something that had to be done :/

I'm enclined to agree with this, all be it for slightly different reasons....

Not that I advocate war, (quite the opposite in reality) maybe finally a state of limbo will come to an end. The 1953 armistace, as the OP BBC article also states:


However, few think the North would risk full-blown conflict. It has technically been at war with the South since 1953 as no peace treaty has been signed.
An armistice at the end of the Korean War was never turned into a full treaty.


I also hope the residents within the DMZ (demilitarized zone) are able to choose which side/nationality they wish to remain part of. -Although that decision really isn't the most pleasant to make.

Will they be evacuated? Or will the UN be forced to send in peace keepers? This may seem too far at this point but it is interesting to consider.

[Jess]

Hmm I wonder what will happen now :/

[Aajj333]

North Korea is full of talk. If they are smart enough to build a nuclear missile then they are smart enough to know that if they send a Nic at Alaska that they will get hit by a million missiles from us, china, Britain, South Korea, Canada, ect.

[Donkey]

Although maybe this anger by Korea is good. They'll release their nuclear bombs. They'll be intercepted. They will no longer have nuclear bombs. It'll be safe for the US to make sure there are no nuclear bombs left through missiles etc. it will destroy the country, yes. Innocent lives may be lost, yes. But if we've tried our best to minimise these innocent lives lost, and it solves a huge problem for international security, then it's just something that had to be done :/

Such a strange and almost psychotic comment. Hold on for a moment - why isn't North Korea allowed nuclear weapons according to the UN? Oh, yes, they are too irresponsible. Tell me about responsibility after seeing the actions of both the US/USSR in the Cold War. No one should have nuclear weapons, to say that you should kill millions of North Koreans to avoid them having nuclear weapons is the wrong solution - as much as the North Koreans have, you have been guided by the propaganda and culture of your own country.

Let's be clear: there is no way a risk to American, Japanese, South Korean etc. citizens should be allowed. But humans are humans, and so North Koreans should be subject to the same rights - it's not just a country of evil people; besides, there are international laws on war that would render that more or less impossible (still, Iraq was fundamentally an illegal war). Obviously negotiations are not easy, but China is the real key player in this. As North Korea's biggest and only ally, they have a lot of leeway in helping cool the tensions - America had previously been successful in stopping NK nuclear development by providing food rations. However, if the USA knew anything about Communist ideology they would know self sufficiency is pretty close to the top of priorities, as is a separation from Western (or rather, imperial) powers. We need to end the trade blocs on North Korea that only harms relations and citizens. We need to take a more rational rather than either vote-winning or testosterone fuelled approaches.

China should be at the forefront; Western powers should encourage trade with North Korea; the South should stop retaliating as soon as North Korea makes threats. There should be more time for Google bosses to visit North Korea, as too North Koreans should visit Western countries. Anyway, these threats are not new - North Korea is very unlikely to strike, they know only too well that the USA is the only world superpower and is supported by all the other countries with real military force. Perhaps we should see it as an opportunity to build relations rather than quash them further.

[Ajmichael]

It's all just posturing really. There's doubt that the north has actually managed to create a nuclear warhead small enough to fit onto a long rate missile. There's even doubt that their long range missiles actually exist. I think that the UK will stay out of the conflict as much as possible, the most we would do would be to deploy Trident to the region as a deterrent. But even China, the norths main ally has been telling them to calm down. I doubt it will actually come to much, and if it comes to anything at all, it will be as short-lived as the Falklamds War in 1982, but much more one sided...

[kayleethegray]

My theory is that if North Korea attacks South Korea or the US, it depends mostly on if Russia would join up with North Korea or the US. The 2 closest diplomatic relationships for North Korea are China and Russia, and if China joins with North Korea, their economy will shatter, whose going to buy their plastic crap? So, if Russia joins with North Korea, it will probably be the Nuclear World War, US and friends vs. Russia and friends. But if they don't, North Korea, if they choose to attack, will be off the face of the planet.

[Magus]

Whatever it might be. I am rooting for the South. If it declares war with SK, it is declaring War with Japan and America.

No one will protect North Korea.

[Donkey]

My theory is that if North Korea attacks South Korea or the US, it depends mostly on if Russia would join up with North Korea or the US. The 2 closest diplomatic relationships for North Korea are China and Russia, and if China joins with North Korea, their economy will shatter, whose going to buy their plastic crap? So, if Russia joins with North Korea, it will probably be the Nuclear World War, US and friends vs. Russia and friends. But if they don't, North Korea, if they choose to attack, will be off the face of the planet.
Russia would not support North Korea. Support for UN sanctions against them was unanimous.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/30/russia-north-korea-restraint-threats_n_2983660.html

http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_03_05/Russia-may-back-tighter-UN-sanctions-against-North-Korea/

[kayleethegray]

Russia would not support North Korea. Support for UN sanctions against them was unanimous.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/30/russia-north-korea-restraint-threats_n_2983660.html

http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_03_05/Russia-may-back-tighter-UN-sanctions-against-North-Korea/

I'm not saying they would, but if some country were to side with North Korea, it would be Russia.

[TheBassoonist]

I think North Korea just wants to be taken seriously internationally. The problem is that their way of being taken seriously is by threatening nuclear war. Kim Jong-Un doesn't see anything wrong with that.

I think they're willing to launch a missile, or all of their missiles, against the US and its allies. But it'd take many more missiles than what the North Koreans have to wipe the West from the map. Nobody will ally themselves with North Korea. China has serious economic interest. Russia has absolutely nothing to gain by joining on either side. The Koreans are alone. A war would be very brief and very one sided.

[Shadow]

North Korea would not be able to hit Alaska even if they could there bombs would probably only reach the extreme western part of Alaska. They could probably hit Hawaii but they wouldn't risk full scale nuclear war with the US. Kim Jong Un isn't crazy like his father Kim Jong Il

[Guillermo]

Such a strange and almost psychotic comment. Hold on for a moment - why isn't North Korea allowed nuclear weapons according to the UN? Oh, yes, they are too irresponsible. Tell me about responsibility after seeing the actions of both the US/USSR in the Cold War. No one should have nuclear weapons, to say that you should kill millions of North Koreans to avoid them having nuclear weapons is the wrong solution - as much as the North Koreans have, you have been guided by the propaganda and culture of your own country.

Let's be clear: there is no way a risk to American, Japanese, South Korean etc. citizens should be allowed. But humans are humans, and so North Koreans should be subject to the same rights - it's not just a country of evil people; besides, there are international laws on war that would render that more or less impossible (still, Iraq was fundamentally an illegal war). Obviously negotiations are not easy, but China is the real key player in this. As North Korea's biggest and only ally, they have a lot of leeway in helping cool the tensions - America had previously been successful in stopping NK nuclear development by providing food rations. However, if the USA knew anything about Communist ideology they would know self sufficiency is pretty close to the top of priorities, as is a separation from Western (or rather, imperial) powers. We need to end the trade blocs on North Korea that only harms relations and citizens. We need to take a more rational rather than either vote-winning or testosterone fuelled approaches.

China should be at the forefront; Western powers should encourage trade with North Korea; the South should stop retaliating as soon as North Korea makes threats. There should be more time for Google bosses to visit North Korea, as too North Koreans should visit Western countries. Anyway, these threats are not new - North Korea is very unlikely to strike, they know only too well that the USA is the only world superpower and is supported by all the other countries with real military force. Perhaps we should see it as an opportunity to build relations rather than quash them further.

It's too bad that your approach is more idealistic than realistic.

[PinkFloyd]

image (http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/200/420/BRTky.jpg?1321408042)

And that's all I have to say, about that.

Pretend I just gave you positive rep!!! ;)

[Donkey]

It's too bad that your approach is more idealistic than realistic.

If one sentence with absolutely no supporting evidence is your argument, I don't see that warranting a particularly serious response. It is realistic, but the US is an militaristic state that cannot heed to rationality over patriotism and domination. Those are its foundations, as they are North Korea. Patriotism will be the death of us all, unless we change our values. Labelling other people as idealistic only stagnates a rationalist renaissance in an information rather than spiritually led age.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Not surprising with NK's instability.

[Sir Suomi]

Psh, America and it's allies would squish North Korea like a bug. Majority of their weapons are Cold-War era surplus arms for either China or Russia, and neither of those two powers now would back up North Korea. They're just like the kid in class who acts up in class, and instead of getting in huge trouble, is just simply put in the corner and ignored.

[Bethany]

North Korea (most likely) wouldn't dare to launch a major strike - it would be the country's annihilation once the US, SK, and allies responded. But if North Korea decided to act extremely irrationally, it could do major harm to Seoul.

But I am concerned for what "minor" (not sparking huge international response) attacks NK may be able to get away with in South Korea.

[Guillermo]

If one sentence with absolutely no supporting evidence is your argument, I don't see that warranting a particularly serious response.

Sometimes saying very little can send across a very big message. That was my plan. Honestly, your approach was more laughable than my response to you.

It is realistic, but the US is an militaristic state that cannot heed to rationality over patriotism and domination.

No; it's idealistic. Something can't be both realistic and idealistic. It's a two way street. Right now, your approach is far from realistic and still more of a notion than anything. Once military funding is cut about halfway, then it will start being a reality. In other words, with the way change has been in the U.S., your approach would be better kept on paper rather than stone.

Those are its foundations, as they are North Korea. Patriotism will be the death of us all, unless we change our values.

Patriotism also brings people together, and you know that. Why do Western people only care about Western things? That's patriotism. Once these values are instilled in great societies, it's difficult to extinguish them. Why would a nation turn their backs on the ideas and principles that made them great? And about patriotism being the death of us all, well, history has only shown us that it's not a matter whether or not nations will fall but rather only a matter of time.

Labelling other people as idealistic only stagnates a rationalist renaissance in an information rather than spiritually led age.

I wrote that your approach is more idealistic, not you. And by idealistic, I mean on the drawing board and not yet perfected so that it can move its way into being an achievable, realistic goal. The U.S. is not a politically progressive nation, and has shown to be less so as time goes on.

I'm by no means against your approach, but I do also like to be a realist. Besides, the whole idea of North Korea being a menace is a fucking joke. Threats are not actions and their actions have proven to be failures.

[RedRaider03]

And the beginning of WWIII is here I have a feeling it's going to be nk communist countries maybe china and Russia maybe because yes chinas communist but they are also UN and then sk and the UN

[Castle of Glass]

If WWIII starts(as if will, if war breaks out) i know that my family will be taking the first flight to finland or gonna border jump till we get there.


but currently, nothing most likely will happen/

[Donkey]

Sometimes saying very little can send across a very big message. That was my plan. Honestly, your approach was more laughable than my response to you.

No; it's idealistic. Something can't be both realistic and idealistic. It's a two way street. Right now, your approach is far from realistic and still more of a notion than anything. Once military funding is cut about halfway, then it will start being a reality. In other words, with the way change has been in the U.S., your approach would be better kept on paper rather than stone.

Patriotism also brings people together, and you know that. Why do Western people only care about Western things? That's patriotism. Once these values are instilled in great societies, it's difficult to extinguish them. Why would a nation turn their backs on the ideas and principles that made them great? And about patriotism being the death of us all, well, history has only shown us that it's not a matter whether or not nations will fall but rather only a matter of time.

I wrote that your approach is more idealistic, not you. And by idealistic, I mean on the drawing board and not yet perfected so that it can move its way into being an achievable, realistic goal. The U.S. is not a politically progressive nation, and has shown to be less so as time goes on.

I'm by no means against your approach, but I do also like to be a realist. Besides, the whole idea of North Korea being a menace is a fucking joke. Threats are not actions and their actions have proven to be failures.

Don't split my post. I didn't give you 4 arguments so you don't need to chop my post up. Your ability to put forward a good argument is not particularly evident thus far, with 1 sentence answers and splitting my argument up. When you write an essay, do you answer every word separately? It is bad practice for making cohesive and meaningful comment.

The problem is that you are being too pragmatic in your thinking. No country works in this way. You can't simply say "if you cut military spending in half" without acknowledging a reason for doing so: the reason for doing so it already creeping upon us. In a time where the Internet has created cyber-activism and direct democracy on a scale never seen before, the government cannot simply enter wars in a dogmatic way. Information is more free than it has ever been and governments are consequently being held to account more and more. Take WikiLeaks, or more broadly discussion forums, Wikipedia, online journals, online blogs. There is simply an amass of content available to almost everybody.

What is the result? US government propaganda as seen in the Vietnam War and Cold War simply cannot be seen so spread in the same way. Americans wouldn't simply hate Communism because their government tells them to; movements like the wall street sit ins and so on demonstrate that the government is no longer seen to be on the side of the people in so many cases. Ideological propaganda to justify shelling North Korea simply won't work: the beatniks and hippie generation of the 1960s have not lived on, but the fundamental basis in a postmodern age of information availability will lead to the same result and in the end ultimately distance the state from the people further. I can promise you that we will see more referendums, petitions, people-power and cyber-democracy in the coming years as people doubt the validity of the War on Terror, the War on Drugs and the seeming war against Communism. This is not idealism, it is genuinely happening: politics as a whole is changing.

It will not be the US government that slashes military spending in half, it will be the people. And that is the key point. Patriotism is waning, let me explain why before I explain why it is a good thing. There has been a decline of patriotism, shall we say, since 1945 or at least since the reminiscence of the Cold War. There was perhaps an upsurge after 9/11 in the United States, as there was too in 2005 when Britain won the Olympic Games, and the day afterwards the 7/7 attacks on London followed (should be noted that in 2012 there was a surge of patriotism due to the Games). However, as noted, there has been an overall decline in patriotism in our countries. It is part of living in a postmodern age; it is a product of secularisation, changing values and an information-led generation. There is no longer a cohesive binding of Christianity amongst Europeans and Americans; the UK sees almost no Christianity. American values are now seldom associated with those of the American Revolution in 1776 or indeed the American Civil War; the right to bear arms is seen by many to be anachronistic and legalistic, as so too is the dogmatic ban on gay marriage as seen in the popular Facebook movement to set one's profile picture as a symbol to support gay marriage (reinforcing the point above).

There is a reason why patriotism is a bad thing. It is in truth radical and harmful. While it may bind nations together, it is for this very reason that it can be so harmful. (you are clearly far more right wing than me so I might just be talking to a wall) Adolf Hitler's reign was based entirely on German patriotism; the rightist, racist and anti-multiculturalistic British National Party in the UK is based on British patriotism. This is not to say patriotism is universally ethnocentric, but by asserting that a country is for some reason superior to others or the greatest - feeling proud of belonging to a specific group of people - consequentially racism, prejudice and elitism comes hand-in-hand. What's more? It is the basis for so much warfare, not limited to the potential for warfare in North Korea. World War 2 was fundamentally dragged on by patriots on all sides (much as it was started by the same). In fact patriotism is very much based on violence: the French Revolution provided the basis for national patriotism where it was otherwise an unseen concept. Not to say that the French Revolution was truly negative, but that it was incredibly violent and largely a symbolic movement (Napoleon I took over only 15 yrs afterwards) that French people now study on the basis of national patriotism. It should be noted that racism and sexism in France, perhaps somewhat associated with their right-wing attitudes and patriotism, is very extreme when compared to the UK or Germany.

I am not saying that a little patriotism is not a bad thing, but that too much is too much. The US is showing its muscles against North Korea rather than being pragmatic to try to solve the issue with as little harm as possible. It wants to show it is the global superpower and thus its respond to defence issues is always testosterone rather than rationally based. As I have explained, in the age we live in, this will come to an end. The US is not politically progressive, indeed, but it will be and is being forced to be - people will not tolerate being run by an elite where information is just as widely available amongst the masses.

[Cicero]

I think the US should do a modern day blitzkrieg on NK. Get them out of office, they are to dangerous. I do not take this as a joke, especially when millions are at risk.

China won't let anything happen to the US because we owe so much money to them, were like chinas bitch.

[Professional Russian]

I think the US should do a modern day blitzkrieg on NK. Get them out of office, they are to dangerous. I do not take this as a joke, especially when millions are at risk.

China won't let anything happen to the US because we owe so much money to them, were like chinas bitch.

We have no reason to go in. NK doesn't have the balls to launch a nuke at us

[Sir Suomi]

We have no reason to go in. NK doesn't have the balls to launch a nuke at us

Even if they did, they'd never hit the mainland U.S, just parts of Alaska... Unless maybe they somehow managed to sneak a sub to our coast, then I think we'd have some troubles. Do they have any subs with nuclear capabilities?

[Harry Smith]

I think the US should do a modern day blitzkrieg on NK. Get them out of office, they are to dangerous. I do not take this as a joke, especially when millions are at risk.

China won't let anything happen to the US because we owe so much money to them, were like chinas bitch.

That's a war crime mate, unless you get the UN security council to all agree to it. You sound like a hawk from the 1960's, you cannot simply invade north Korea without both mass protest around the world and domestically.

[Cicero]

That's a war crime mate, unless you get the UN security council to all agree to it. You sound like a hawk from the 1960's, you cannot simply invade north Korea without both mass protest around the world and domestically.

Technically, the US can do anything it wants. But it would cause an uproar.

[Harry Smith]

Technically, the US can do anything it wants. But it would cause an uproar.

Technically the US can't. Technically that would be going against the 1948 United Nations charter. I'll leave you with a quote from the Nuremberg Trial where the former Nazis were charged

essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

[Cicero]

Technically the US can't. Technically that would be going against the 1948 United Nations charter. I'll leave you with a quote from the Nuremberg Trial where the former Nazis were charged

essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

Actually it can. But there would be repercussions.

[crepesuzette]

Hmm I wonder what will happen now :/

yeah, me too. I have been scared to death since I heard the news.

[BpOlson]

The way I see it is that they are threatening us so we do go to war and blame ia for their mistakes.

[Guillermo]

Don't split my post. I didn't give you 4 arguments so you don't need to chop my post up. Your ability to put forward a good argument is not particularly evident thus far, with 1 sentence answers and splitting my argument up. When you write an essay, do you answer every word separately? It is bad practice for making cohesive and meaningful comment.

If my ability to put forth a good argument is merely hindered by your imaginary guidelines on writing a cohesive essay, then I’m only going to heed for you to get your head out of dreamland. Not everyone is going to please your ‘organized conduct’.

The problem is that you are being too pragmatic in your thinking. No country works in this way. You can't simply say "if you cut military spending in half" without acknowledging a reason for doing so: the reason for doing so it already creeping upon us. In a time where the Internet has created cyber-activism and direct democracy on a scale never seen before, the government cannot simply enter wars in a dogmatic way. Information is more free than it has ever been and governments are consequently being held to account more and more. Take WikiLeaks, or more broadly discussion forums, Wikipedia, online journals, online blogs. There is simply an amass of content available to almost everybody.

And you’re not looking at technological information in a much too hopeful outlook? Yeah, the internet is an outstanding way to obtain information. But there are even problems with this. Even with all this technology and information, a majority of people (here in the U.S.) are still apathetic about politics and political expression as a whole. Why? Because they’d much rather be watching Honey Boo Boo or Keeping up with the Kardashians. Misinformation is also a hurtful aspect of information technology. During presidential elections, it’s sickening to find kids, teens, and adults ‘mudsling’ each other over who the better candidate is by using false information. Information technology does not come without its detrimental flaws.

What is the result? US government propaganda as seen in the Vietnam War and Cold War simply cannot be seen so spread in the same way. Americans wouldn't simply hate Communism because their government tells them to; movements like the wall street sit ins and so on demonstrate that the government is no longer seen to be on the side of the people in so many cases. Ideological propaganda to justify shelling North Korea simply won't work: the beatniks and hippie generation of the 1960s have not lived on, but the fundamental basis in a postmodern age of information availability will lead to the same result and in the end ultimately distance the state from the people further. I can promise you that we will see more referendums, petitions, people-power and cyber-democracy in the coming years as people doubt the validity of the War on Terror, the War on Drugs and the seeming war against Communism. This is not idealism, it is genuinely happening: politics as a whole is changing.

It will not be the US government that slashes military spending in half, it will be the people. And that is the key point. Patriotism is waning, let me explain why before I explain why it is a good thing. There has been a decline of patriotism, shall we say, since 1945 or at least since the reminiscence of the Cold War. There was perhaps an upsurge after 9/11 in the United States, as there was too in 2005 when Britain won the Olympic Games, and the day afterwards the 7/7 attacks on London followed (should be noted that in 2012 there was a surge of patriotism due to the Games). However, as noted, there has been an overall decline in patriotism in our countries. It is part of living in a postmodern age; it is a product of secularisation, changing values and an information-led generation. There is no longer a cohesive binding of Christianity amongst Europeans and Americans; the UK sees almost no Christianity. American values are now seldom associated with those of the American Revolution in 1776 or indeed the American Civil War; the right to bear arms is seen by many to be anachronistic and legalistic, as so too is the dogmatic ban on gay marriage as seen in the popular Facebook movement to set one's profile picture as a symbol to support gay marriage (reinforcing the point above).

Politics are changing, yes, but it’s not enough so far. Political efficacy in the U.S. is not what it once was generations ago and is furthermore declining. Voting is not far up on an average American’s priorities. And is the U.S. being a dominant world superpower with a militaristic iron fist changing? So far, there has been very little change. Oh, and you know what else isn’t changing? Other Western nations’ support for America and its always ‘glorifying decisions’. Yeah, that’s a problem. That’s part of what makes your approach idealistic.

There is a reason why patriotism is a bad thing. It is in truth radical and harmful. While it may bind nations together, it is for this very reason that it can be so harmful. (you are clearly far more right wing than me so I might just be talking to a wall) Adolf Hitler's reign was based entirely on German patriotism; the rightist, racist and anti-multiculturalistic British National Party in the UK is based on British patriotism. This is not to say patriotism is universally ethnocentric, but by asserting that a country is for some reason superior to others or the greatest - feeling proud of belonging to a specific group of people - consequentially racism, prejudice and elitism comes hand-in-hand. What's more? It is the basis for so much warfare, not limited to the potential for warfare in North Korea. World War 2 was fundamentally dragged on by patriots on all sides (much as it was started by the same). In fact patriotism is very much based on violence: the French Revolution provided the basis for national patriotism where it was otherwise an unseen concept. Not to say that the French Revolution was truly negative, but that it was incredibly violent and largely a symbolic movement (Napoleon I took over only 15 yrs afterwards) that French people now study on the basis of national patriotism. It should be noted that racism and sexism in France, perhaps somewhat associated with their right-wing attitudes and patriotism, is very extreme when compared to the UK or Germany.

I never even once said that patriotism was a good quality for a country to have, because I find it to be quite the opposite. You know, I’ll bet you that more people have died because of politics than religion - which seemingly is a more blamable cause. I also find it hilarious that you find me more right wing than yourself, when in reality, you've yet to learn a goddamn thing about my politics.

I am not saying that a little patriotism is not a bad thing, but that too much is too much. The US is showing its muscles against North Korea rather than being pragmatic to try to solve the issue with as little harm as possible. It wants to show it is the global superpower and thus its respond to defence issues is always testosterone rather than rationally based. As I have explained, in the age we live in, this will come to an end. The US is not politically progressive, indeed, but it will be and is being forced to be - people will not tolerate being run by an elite where information is just as widely available amongst the masses.

And here you are saying that a little patriotism is not a bad thing when up above you stated that ‘patriotism is a bad thing.’ Make up your damn mind. Also, I like how you stated above that I was too pragmatic, but you’re so confident that the U.S. being a dominant superpower will come to an end due to the age we live in. Is that not too pragmatic as well? Countries don't work like that, you say. But you see, there again, it’s the people. It all comes back around. Revolutions. Who starts revolutions? The government? No. The people. But that’s the problem, though. So many people - adults and teens alike - are extremely apathetic to even care about any of the governments doings here in America. It’s sad, it really is. The part that’s even more saddening is that when a nation’s people are disinterested in being politically active, the government has more opportunity to override decisions. Yeah, American politics are fucked. We've handled being ruled by elitist for over 200 years - who is to say that it couldn't be 200 more with increasingly apathetic Americans?

[PinkFloyd]

I'm really sick of North Korea to tell you the truth. I wish there was a way to show the civilians of the country that the US isn't their enemy and that we really just want to help, but can't if they're going to attack our allies. I have accepted that we may end up bombing NK.

[Stronger]

I'm really sick of North Korea to tell you the truth. I wish there was a way to show the civilians of the country that the US isn't their enemy and that we really just want to help, but can't if they're going to attack our allies. I have accepted that we may end up bombing NK.

Its really just the government, they brainwash their citizens to believe they are the perfect country, etc.

[Donkey]

If my ability to put forth a good argument is merely hindered by your imaginary guidelines on writing a cohesive essay, then I’m only going to heed for you to get your head out of dreamland. Not everyone is going to please your ‘organized conduct’.

And you’re not looking at technological information in a much too hopeful outlook? Yeah, the internet is an outstanding way to obtain information. But there are even problems with this. Even with all this technology and information, a majority of people (here in the U.S.) are still apathetic about politics and political expression as a whole. Why? Because they’d much rather be watching Honey Boo Boo or Keeping up with the Kardashians. Misinformation is also a hurtful aspect of information technology. During presidential elections, it’s sickening to find kids, teens, and adults ‘mudsling’ each other over who the better candidate is by using false information. Information technology does not come without its detrimental flaws.

Politics are changing, yes, but it’s not enough so far. Political efficacy in the U.S. is not what it once was generations ago and is furthermore declining. Voting is not far up on an average American’s priorities. And is the U.S. being a dominant world superpower with a militaristic iron fist changing? So far, there has been very little change. Oh, and you know what else isn’t changing? Other Western nations’ support for America and its always ‘glorifying decisions’. Yeah, that’s a problem. That’s part of what makes your approach idealistic.

I never even once said that patriotism was a good quality for a country to have, because I find it to be quite the opposite. You know, I’ll bet you that more people have died because of politics than religion - which seemingly is a more blamable cause. I also find it hilarious that you find me more right wing than yourself, when in reality, you've yet to learn a goddamn thing about my politics.

And here you are saying that a little patriotism is not a bad thing when up above you stated that ‘patriotism is a bad thing.’ Make up your damn mind. Also, I like how you stated above that I was too pragmatic, but you’re so confident that the U.S. being a dominant superpower will come to an end due to the age we live in. Is that not too pragmatic as well? Countries don't work like that, you say. But you see, there again, it’s the people. It all comes back around. Revolutions. Who starts revolutions? The government? No. The people. But that’s the problem, though. So many people - adults and teens alike - are extremely apathetic to even care about any of the governments doings here in America. It’s sad, it really is. The part that’s even more saddening is that when a nation’s people are disinterested in being politically active, the government has more opportunity to override decisions. Yeah, American politics are fucked. We've handled being ruled by elitist for over 200 years - who is to say that it couldn't be 200 more with increasingly apathetic Americans?
The reason I say that splitting posts is bad is that points are simply taken out of context: you fail to deal with the overall argument, rather nitpicking at mostly irrelevant details as to what the debate is really about. If you do not have the academic rigor to write in continuous prose that is also fine; I found it quite charming that you described my message as an essay. Regardless:

You have failed to understand my argument through the above. You are making points about Americans being apathetic towards voting and existing political institutions, whereas this is exactly my point: governments will not have legitimacy if they cannot be held accountable to and can be said to represent the people. If governments begin to lack legitimacy and general public support, the political institutions of said state begin to collapse naturally; this is happening on a new scale with the introduction of technologies that reinforce the principles of direct democracy that is informed and legitimated through the consent of the peoples. What we are seeing is new politics; Americans are apathetic toward anachronistic institutions that do not represent their interests. As you yourself have implied in your descriptions in the elitist nature of federal governmental institutions.

This by no means implies the following:

a) that Americans are apathetic, or
b) that the USA will no longer be a world superpower

However, its consequences are that patriotism will wane as the state's propaganda for ideological national supremacy is reconsidered through information-led masses. Therefore military commitments are not so prioritised in the grand scheme of things, but rather social democratic and libertarian policies are favoured - as we have seen in recent years. When governments appear to restrict the rights of their peoples for national interests (terrorist legislation,) people call for more libertarian policies on the basis of the information they now have wide-reaching access to.

I am quite determined in my view in this area, please do not feel as if I haven't made up my mind. My descriptions of a 'little bit of patriotism' were indeed misled. I will explain more clearly for you to understand. The cohesive binding of a national interest in terms of culture and traditional values that reinforce the values of which legitimate the political institutions of that country, for example support for the Monarchy and collective belief that the NHS is a positive force in the UK is a positive force of patriotism. The belief in national supremacy and ideological patriotism leads to the disasters of imperial liberalism as demonstrated in Iraq and so on as much as it does the disasters of the Second World War. My belief is that in the context of the 21st century "Age of Information" the latter will no longer be so relevant, and hence so too direct democracy will become more important. I could list you many examples of ways in which it has already in the UK; through referenda, e-petitions and so on.

[PinkFloyd]

Its really just the government, they brainwash their citizens to believe they are the perfect country, etc.

I don't understand why the citizens can't stop and just look around and see all the poverty and realize that there must be a better place to live.

[Lights]

I don't understand why the citizens can't stop and just look around and see all the poverty and realize that there must be a better place to live.

They don't see anything from the outside world, so they know no better. Anything the Government do tell them about the outside world is vicious propaganda which leads them to believe their society is the supreme one. The North Korean way of life is a patriotic one; those who are not patriotic pay the consequences.

[Stronger]

They don't see anything from the outside world, so they know no better. Anything the Government do tell them about the outside world is vicious propaganda which leads them to believe their society is the supreme one. The North Korean way of life is a patriotic one; those who are not patriotic pay the consequences.

Pretty much this, no other way to really put it.

[Ryhanna]

Getting real tired of your shit, North Korea.

[UnknownError]

North Attentionseeka amirite?

mfw
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8ojy7MboU1qcwr8xo2_500.gif

I wanted to give you rep but then I remembered.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Keep an eye out, but it'snot TOO MUCH of a threat...

[HowlingSnail]

Honestly I want North Korea to actually try something, so that we have an excuse to invade them and shut them up.

[Haydenn3]

Honestly I want North Korea to actually try something, so that we have an excuse to invade them and shut them up.

Us as the UK i doubt would do anything unless USA is attacked or USA attack north Korea and then it probably would be a world war 3 situation aha