We all see and hear what goes on over there. Kim will execute kids if they don’t cheer hard enough at his birthday party or something? He’s always threatening to nuke countries and is probably has the highest domestic kill count out of any world leader today.

So I ask? Why don’t any other countries step in to help those people. I saw a survey asking Americans and Escaped North Koreans would they migrate to North Korea and to the US if given the chance (hypothetical for the refugees). And it was like <0.1% to 95%. Obviously those people live in terror.

Why do we just allow this to happen in modern civilization? Nukes on South Korea? Is just not lucrative to step in? SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME PLEASE!?

    • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
      24·
      3 days ago

      If you read the previous comment more closely you’ll realize that the commentor wasn’t comparing today’s NK to Gaza, but Korea during the Korean War to Gaza. That is a reasonable comparison, as nearly every standing structure was bombed.

              • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
                12·
                1 day ago

                If Donbas was at the time part of Russia it would be like that. So it’s not really like that. Since North Korea actually went into South Korea with the intention of taking it over.

                • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
                  1·
                  14 hours ago

                  If Donbas was at the time part of Russia it would be like that.

                  You think South Korea was part of the USA?

                  Since North Korea actually went into South Korea with the intention of taking it over.

                  No, that’s like saying “Ukraine went into Donbas with the intention of taking it over.”

                  • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
                    11·
                    14 hours ago

                    No, South Korea was South Korea. North Korea was North Korea. They had been divided since 45 and had their own governments. Both claimed the whole area but that wasn’t the actual situation.

            • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
              2·
              1 day ago

              You can’t really “invade” your own country. North and South Korea were two sides in a civil war, with both sides claiming each other’s territory and aiming towards unification. It’s like saying that George Washington “invaded” Yorktown or that Lincoln “invaded” Virginia.

              • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
                11·
                1 day ago

                The South did invade the North though in the US civil war.

                The Maryland campaign (or Antietam campaign) occurred September 4–20, 1862, during the American Civil War. The campaign was Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s first invasion of the North.

                And if you don’t want to use the word “invaded”, I guess you could just say that North Korea attacked the South, kicking off the war

                • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                  21·
                  1 day ago

                  Sure, the North attacked the South. In fact, the North also attacked the North. That’s generally how revolutions work, after all.

                  None of this really pertains to foreigners coming in and levelling the country and dropping chemical weapons everywhere and slaughtering a ton of civilians.

                  The campaign was Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s first invasion of the North.

                  From the Confederacy’s perspective, the Union was a separate country.

                  • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
                    11·
                    1 day ago

                    North started the war and US and other UN troops only came in to help the South after that. The whole thing could’ve possibly been avoided had the North not attacked.

            • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
              4·
              2 days ago

              What war? The Korean War from 70 years ago? Because they’ve been at peace since then, but some loonies in this thread want to go over and start trouble with them.

                • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                  2·
                  2 days ago

                  The difference between peace and an indefinite ceasefire is a scrap of paper. For all intents and purposes, they’re at peace.

                • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                  5·
                  2 days ago

                  "Koreans started the Korean War by invading Korea, so naturally the US had no choice but to drop a ton of chemical weapons on civilian targets, to defend itself.

                  Also, I’m an anarchist."

                  Cool.

    • Krono@lemmy.today
      15·
      3 days ago

      You have obviously misunderstood me.

      I was comparing the United States actions in the Korean War(1950s) to Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. The mass civilian bombing campaigns, complete destruction of civilian infrastructure, manmade famine, widespread preventable disease, and imposed economic isolation are very similar between the two cases.

      I am not comparing current-day North Korea to current-day Gaza, and I agree with you that would not be a good analogy.

        • SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world
          5·
          2 days ago

          The issue as you see it:

          clings on to a pseudo-scientific economic ideology

          The prescription you suggest:

          pseudo-scientific economic ideology

        • Krono@lemmy.today
          8·
          2 days ago

          So your thesis is that the 1950s war was inconsequential, and then you lay the entire blame on the Kim regime and their policies?

          My dude, how do you think the Kim regime became a dictatorship?

          Before the 1950s war, Kim was a weak puppet leader propped up by the Soviet Union. By the end of the war, the Kim regime had dictatorial power, which persists to this day.