No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
If Koreans wanted the South Korean government, they could've fought for it. On their own. Without Americans coming in and dropping bombs and chemicals and slaughtering civilians in pursuit of their own interests, in defense of their propped up comprador regime.
Again, it was an internal matter for Koreans to settle among themselves. I have yet to see you provide any reason for the US to get involved. And even if they did have a valid reason, it certainly doesn't justify the way they conducted the war.
The only thing close to resembling a justification that you've said is "the North attacked first." But that doesn't really matter to me. Revolution is inherently aggressive and revolution is not always bad, therefore, being the aggressor doesn't always make a side bad. But even if I did consider the North to be in the wrong, we're not the fucking world police. We had no business getting involved there. Why on earth should we send soldiers, ordinary people, to go off and fight and die on a completely different continent just to further the geopolitical influence of the US government, and the billionaires that control it?
Tell me, who were the beneficiaries of our intervention in Korea? Ordinary Koreans? The ones we dropped chemical weapons on even if they weren't involved in the war? Ordinary Americans? What the hell did we get out of it? No, the beneficiaries were the Korean bourgeoisie and fascist collaborators and the American bourgeoisie, and no one else. Just like every other military conflict the US has ever been involved in, post WWII.
They did fight for it. North Korea was just much better armed and stronger thanks in large part to USSR's help. South asked for UN help and got it, much of it provided by the US. And later on China got directly involved.
It doesn't feel like you're against getting involved in this type of stuff but specifically angry at the US
The UN at that time was a fairly new institution, and China's seat was denied to it and given to Taiwan, leading to the USSR to boycott it. The UN that invaded Korea was mostly just the US and Western Europe, it doesn't provide the moral cover you want it too. Hell, the only reason the UK supported it was because in exchange the US agreed to overthrow Iran's democratic government that stood in the way of BP's profits.
Ideally, neither the US nor the USSR and China would have been involved. But if you're justifying US imperialism by arguing that the USSR and China were being imperialistic, then I see no reason why their positions wouldn't be justified on the same logic by pointing to the US. It's nonsense. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Again, it's a simple question, so go ahead and answer it. Who actually benefitted from the US bombing the hell out of Korea and deploying chemical and biological weapons on its people? And if no one benefitted, then why the hell do you support it?
And yes, for the record, I am "specifically angry at the US" because of the whole "chemical and biological weapons on civilians" thing in this instance and the "global campaign of bourgeois world domination and systematic overthrow of democratic governments" thing more broadly. I don't understand why you people act like I'm not allowed to hate America.
South Korea benefited from UN (and I'm using that since it was UN who was the participant, not for "moral cover") driving North Korea back after they had invaded.
All of the casualties could've been avoided had both governments stayed behind their respective borders. Like how happened in Germany. In this case it was North Korea who attacked into South, kicking things off.
"South Korea" isn't a person. Who actually benefited?
Seeing how things are now, South Koreans
Oh yeah, you really helped those South Koreans lol. Just like Iraqi
Who is "you" in this case?
Well then, I hope you get to experience the same kind of "help" that the Korean people received. Maybe if someone drops chemical and biological weapons on you and your family, it'll cause people to be wealthier 70 years from now. Sound good?
I mean Soviet Union did attack us and cause destruction and deaths in name of helping the Finnish people during Winter War. War reparations after the following Continuation War helped us industrialize. And we're now pretty wealthy. So I guess we already experienced some of it?
Maybe the US should pay the DPRK war reparations, then.
Maybe they should've just done that without dropping chemical and biological weapons on innocent civilians first.
If only the Soviets had won, maybe monsters like you wouldn't exist. No wonder you take the side of the Korean fascists, fascist collaborators gotta stick together, huh?
I mean we paid reparations because USSR won. If you wanted to compare Finland and NK then the situation would be that USA won and forced NK to pay the US.
Monster? You're getting a bit emotional
Oh, am I getting emotional? Over the dropping of chemical and biological weapons on civilians? Oh dear!
Maybe you should get more fucking emotional. Like what the fuck is wrong with you? You know the US literally recruited Unit 731 to help them commit atrocities, right? Maybe dropping the fucking plague and smallpox onto civilians shouldn't be treated with fucking "poise and rationality!"
Anyone who defends that shit is too far gone to be reeducated.
I meant emotional to a degree that's preventing you from actually understanding what I've been saying. I've been agains the whole Korean War. It was a complete waste.
Right. You """oppose""" the war in the sense that you oppose the North, in the sense that you support sending troops in. So when you say you """oppose""" the war, what you're actually saying is that you support it.
Why do you fascists always play these word games? We both understand that your position of "giving kids smallpox is good, actually" is completely abhorrent and indefensible, but that's not going to change just because you twist some words around.
I think it would've still been bad if it wasn't the North who started it. Whoever started it of course the other side is going to fight back. So best not to start wars.
It's my hot take that's making you fume and rant about fascists hah.
"I only support infecting children with smallpox, and this crazy leftist called me a fascist over it!"
Maybe try not supporting biological warfare if you don't want to get called a fascist, fascist.
"I don't think North Korea should've started that war, nothing was gained and many horrible things happened because of it"
"You are a fascist who supports infecting children with smallpox!!"
lol
You support UN/US intervention. UN/US intervention included infecting children with smallpox. You know this, I've told you repeatedly and you have neither denied nor condemned it, you haven't even acknowledged it. Because you support it. In the same way someone who defends Nazi Germany and goes mysteriously silent whenever the Holocaust is brought up supports the Holocaust. You are fascist scum.
I didn't say I supported it though. You just assumed that because I thought North Korea shouldn't have started the war.
You said that the Koreans "benefitted" from UN involvement, now you're saying you don't support UN involvement? Would you deprive Koreans of the benefit of being infected with smallpox?
Or is this another one of your word games, where I correctly understood your position, but because you didn't technically explicitly say it it doesn't count? The classic "motte and bailey" tactic?
You asked who benefited and I answered that. It's not an endorsement lol. North Korea benefited from China entering the war. Do I now support Chinese involvement?
Like said, you're getting too emotional to actually consider what is being said...
Can I just get a straight answer? Do you or do you not support UN intervention in the Korean War? Yes or no, no more evasion, no more word games.
Ask direct questions, receive direct answers. No I don't support it. I think none of the war should've happened.
In that case I return to my original statement. "Damn, maybe we should stop doing them then." I don't have any control over what North Korea does or did, but I do, at least theoretically, have influence as a voter and a citizen over what the US does, so I'm going to focus on the things within my ability to influence. And your response that "North Korea started the war" seems largely irrelevant.
I don't have any control over either action so I'm just sad that North Korea started the whole thing, especially in hindsight when we know it achieved nothing but caused so much bad.
Well, your country is part of the UN and as you've emphasized it was a UN intervention so I'd say it's pretty clear which side of the war you have a greater ability to influence and therefore a greater responsibility to critique.
Not members of the Securit Council though who made the decision or the United Nations Command. So not any more say over the matter than any other country that was part of the UN (which at the time and still is pretty much every country, but not all).
But it also happened before I was born, so my possibilities on affecting the outcome are pretty limited.
Which returns to my previous point that "the UN" at the time was essentially just the US, the UK (whose support was bought with the coup in Iran), and France (who got US support in Vietnam in exchange).
Then why are we even talking about it? Because it provides an opportunity to learn from mistakes and avoid repeating them.
Pretty much every country was a member. This was the makeup of the security council at the time. Yugoslavia abstained, Soviet Union was boycotting the UN.
"Don't start wars" is a lesson we'll hardly need opportunities to learn about, no matter how many there are people are still going to start them again and again.
"Every country was responsible for the invasion of Korea because everyone was in the UN."
"Finland has no influence over the UN because we're not on the security council."
Choose one.
"Don't start wars" is not the only lesson to learn, also, "Avoid getting involved in wars unless you have a very good reason, even if you didn't start it."