Trump says 'only one thing will work' with North Korea

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Capitalism, as applied in the West (for example), does not prevent citizens from exploring other options or criticizing the existing system. In contrast, real world applications of communism (and obviously, totalitarian regimes) generally do not allow the same, and in the long run, might degrade the capability to imagine alternatives. 

 

 

 

 

 again the lesser of two evils argument.

I agree that Capitalism as applied in the west is more conducive to creativity compared to Other systems as applied else where, but in it's defencive pasture it does provide limitations

I would liken democracy in the west to Henry Ford's statement concerning the  model T

You can have any color car as long as it's Black

[Morch]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

 again the lesser of two evils argument.

I agree that Capitalism as applied in the west is more conducive to creativity compared to Other systems as applied else where, but in it's defencive pasture it does provide limitations

I would liken democracy in the west to Henry Ford's statement concerning the  model T

You can have any color car as long as it's Black

 

Again, the difference between theory and practice. In theory, there could be, just perhaps, a perfect political system. In real life terms, the various political systems existing in the West represent the pinnacle of human freedom and liberties. That's without ignoring them falling short of the ideal, or denying their obvious flaws. Simply not deriding them for being the best application to date.

 

It is not even the lesser of two evils argument, really. There is no applicable fail proof, fault free political system waiting around the corner. More an ongoing process with its ups and downs. Other than procedural improvements on existing democratic systems, there are relatively little applicable ideas relating to an altogether different (and presumably, better) political systems.

 

Ford's comment doesn't even fit. It's not about the paint job, but the engine. There are many superficial variations ("colors") of democratic and capitalistic systems, but essentially they come down to the same core elements. When a new, reliable, and better "engine" will be invented, things will move on.

[sirineou]

56 minutes ago, Morch said:

Ford's comment doesn't even fit. It's not about the paint job, but the engine. There are many superficial variations ("colors") of democratic and capitalistic systems, but essentially they come down to the same core elements. When a new, reliable, and better "engine" will be invented, things will move on.

It certainly fits

You can elect any government as as long...............

Democracy is tolerated as long as it produces the results desired by the ruling elite.

Case and point , Egypt where where the Muslim brotherhood was democratically elected and was promptly  overthrown by a military coup with the support of the west.

Many more examples exist elsewhere. 

[Morch]

47 minutes ago, sirineou said:

It certainly fits

You can elect any government as as long...............

Democracy is tolerated as long as it produces the results desired by the ruling elite.

Case and point , Egypt where where the Muslim brotherhood was democratically elected and was promptly  overthrown by a military coup with the support of the west.

Many more examples exist elsewhere. 

 

Well, were digressing a bit, and non of that applies to North Korea anyway.

 

The "ruling elite" bit does get a lot of mileage. IMO, more than it merits. Egypt would be an example of a society not meeting basic conditions for a functioning democracy, judging all countries by the same standard is not fair. If there was a Western, well established democracy, which could be used as a reliable example, the case would be stronger.

[sirineou]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Well, were digressing a bit, and non of that applies to North Korea anyway.

 

The "ruling elite" bit does get a lot of mileage. IMO, more than it merits. Egypt would be an example of a society not meeting basic conditions for a functioning democracy, judging all countries by the same standard is not fair. If there was a Western, well established democracy, which could be used as a reliable example, the case would be stronger.

Italy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Italy 

Greece

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgios_Papadopoulos

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Italy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Italy 

Greece

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgios_Papadopoulos

 

Are these case of "ruling elites" or national interests?

Dodgy practices are not denied, just the argument that this is the norm or an underlying concept.

[sirineou]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Are these case of "ruling elites" or national interests?

Dodgy practices are not denied, just the argument that this is the norm or an underlying concept.

"national interests" ? as defined by whom, If not the people of that nation? 

 

[Morch]

Just now, sirineou said:

"national interests" ? as defined by whom, If not the people of that nation? 

 

 

This goes back to the ideal vs. real point. Under them Western capitalist democratic regime, the people got more of a say compared to those living under communist systems or totalitarian regimes.

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

This goes back to the ideal vs. real point. Under them Western capitalist democratic regime, the people got more of a say compared to those living under communist systems or totalitarian regimes.

Perhaps, but I noticed that you did not answer my question. 

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Perhaps, but I noticed that you did not answer my question. 

I think I have, perhaps not the answer expected. People's participation is greater under one set of political systems, much less so on others. It isn't prefect, it's not quite the ideal. It's the best we've come with to date. 

[sirineou]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

I think I have, perhaps not the answer expected. People's participation is greater under one set of political systems, much less so on others. It isn't prefect, it's not quite the ideal. It's the best we've come with to date. 

You are deflecting because you see where I am taking you, By definition the Democratic Process requires the participation of the people , they are the Nation.  If the National  process is not defined by the Nation , then who is it decided i by ,and for what purpose.  So we go full circle, and I submit to you, and  as you have indicated by your replies, that defencive measures compromise the process at both ends of the political spectrum and do not allow the systemd to stand or fall on it's own merits.    NK is in part a product of the West , and the West  is in part compromised by NK and the like. As always I have enjoyed our conversation and i thank you for engaging me, but that's all I am going to say on the subject I fear the moderators will be waking up soon and I don't think they will be kind.

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

You are deflecting because you see where I am taking you,

By definition the Democratic Process requires the participation of the people , they are the Nation.

If the National  process is not defined by the Nation , then who is it decided i by ,and for what purpose.

So we go full circle, and I submit to you, and  as you have indicated by your replies, that defencive measures compromise the process at both ends of the political spectrum and do not allow the systemd to stand or fall on it's own merits. 

 NK is in part a product of the West , and the West  is in part compromised by NK and the like.

As always I have enjoyed our conversation and i thank you for engaging me, but that's all I am going to say on the subject I fear the moderators will be waking up soon and I don't think they will be kind.

 

 

Not deflecting at all, simply not into playing with loaded questions.

Your points are about an ideal, mine have to do with real (or pragmatic) conditions.

There is nothing in your post which explains what are the merits of Kim's totalitarian regime, or what is the imperative to accept it. Making North Korea's totalitarian regime the West's responsibility, partial or otherwise, is over the top - especially considering how long it's been in place.

 

Yeah, bit to the side, but at least no poked eyes - getting rare on these topics.

[Publicus]

15 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

               The N.Korean people are an amazing study in group think.  When in NK, they all act the way they're required to act.   Whether they all think the same way is debatable.   If a survey taker were to ask them, that person would get all the same answers.  Yet people can say things which are different than what they really think.   It's called lying.  It's easy.   Trump and Pence do it every time they emit noises from their mouths.

 

                     Personally, I think the real thoughts of the N.Koreans fall into two categories;   Those who genuinely like the group-think structure they're saddled with, and those who secretly yearn to think freely.   I could even go so far as to compare them to Americans; Those who genuinely want Trump to give them direction, and who want to believe all he says. ......and those who are able to think freely.

 

Things are more polarized in N.Korea.   .....or are they?

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed and I offer an illustration from when I was university faculty in China.

 

I put an essay question on a final exam asking the differences between the Republican party and the Democratic party in USA. This was in a course on native English speaking society, culture, political and economic systems; civilization -- each of the six countries that we populate.

 

I expected the same-same 'no' answer but I had been wondering if any one or a few PRC learners might vary. I not only got the fully predictable 'no' answer, but I got it word for word. From every paper.

 

That's the CCP-PRC. All indications are NK is far worse. I read a piece and watched a  CNN video interview of Suki Kim who taught English in Pyongyang to the children of the elites. Her experience sounds like zombie land. 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/12/politics/undercover-reporter-north-korea-cult-cnntv/index.html

 

 

I'd just emphasize the bottom line of history about Korea to include the three kingdom period, i.e., the Korean people don't rebel nor do the Korean people fight hard to resist invaders. The Korean people are docile and they submit. Korea has no actual military heroes. They'd rather switch than fight. It is only since Since World War II for the NK rulers, and the Korean War for the SK elites, that a warrior class has developed on each side. The people themselves submit no matter who or what.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Publicus
Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter There