To me this makes sense. You raise issues here concerning the value of democracy that don’t get discussed.
This is another example of Trump disrespecting another ally because he’s unable to find any value in the alliance. Trump is poorly informed either by choice or not. The war with Iran is a case in point.
Online comments seems to invite contrarian views, so I apologize that my post today is challenging, whereas I usually agree and don't comment at all. Here goes the challenge: I don't see a point to this article. Of course democracy is important. But North Korea does not pose an existential threat to South Korea's democracy in anything but words. The moral argument is therefore moot as presented. The transactional impact on strategic alliances touches superficially on something interesting, but no more. What could make this article more interesting for learners is extrapolating real consequences of this latest action. Or a more macro-view of alliances and threats to world order and democracy, especially as it concerns morality.
Ii don't understand; how is it not an existential threat? DPRK's long range artillery just north of the DMZ, aimed at Seoul (population just under 10 million, ~20% of the total population of the ROK), capable of killing a quarter million people in under an hour, is an existential threat to South Korea's existence, period. That's even without the nukes. Sure, their military may be inferior in every conventional sense, but they have terror as their strategy. The list of aggressive moves and attacks is too long to list. Every generation of the Kim dynasty has longed to reunite the entire peninsula under their cruel rule, at a massive cost to lives (not to mention bye-bye South Korean manufacturing and tech). The joint exercises deter that kind of madness. (Sorry for this garbled comment.)
Let’s ignore the nuclear weapons. DPRK has enough artillery systems and MRLS to pulverize anything along the DMZ. Seoul is likely to be turned into a parking lot. The DPRK has made its singular goal the reunification of the peninsula.
How does this person dress himself in the mornings?
It might be that the only way to survive until January 2029, for countries that can't unilaterally stand up to the US, will be to enrich Trump personally.
It is incredibly Sad! but with this President, we can forget about any traditionally Washingtonian principles other than always looking out for number one. (This is also true of literally everybody - an unselfish person is a contradiction in terms - but leaders also need to take to heart the interests of those they lead. That kind of thing is how you earn the privilege of leadership in the first place.)
To me this makes sense. You raise issues here concerning the value of democracy that don’t get discussed.
This is another example of Trump disrespecting another ally because he’s unable to find any value in the alliance. Trump is poorly informed either by choice or not. The war with Iran is a case in point.
Voltaire memorably said that the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, Roman, nor an Empire.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is an autocratic family monarchy.
Online comments seems to invite contrarian views, so I apologize that my post today is challenging, whereas I usually agree and don't comment at all. Here goes the challenge: I don't see a point to this article. Of course democracy is important. But North Korea does not pose an existential threat to South Korea's democracy in anything but words. The moral argument is therefore moot as presented. The transactional impact on strategic alliances touches superficially on something interesting, but no more. What could make this article more interesting for learners is extrapolating real consequences of this latest action. Or a more macro-view of alliances and threats to world order and democracy, especially as it concerns morality.
Ii don't understand; how is it not an existential threat? DPRK's long range artillery just north of the DMZ, aimed at Seoul (population just under 10 million, ~20% of the total population of the ROK), capable of killing a quarter million people in under an hour, is an existential threat to South Korea's existence, period. That's even without the nukes. Sure, their military may be inferior in every conventional sense, but they have terror as their strategy. The list of aggressive moves and attacks is too long to list. Every generation of the Kim dynasty has longed to reunite the entire peninsula under their cruel rule, at a massive cost to lives (not to mention bye-bye South Korean manufacturing and tech). The joint exercises deter that kind of madness. (Sorry for this garbled comment.)
Let’s ignore the nuclear weapons. DPRK has enough artillery systems and MRLS to pulverize anything along the DMZ. Seoul is likely to be turned into a parking lot. The DPRK has made its singular goal the reunification of the peninsula.
How does this person dress himself in the mornings?
It might be that the only way to survive until January 2029, for countries that can't unilaterally stand up to the US, will be to enrich Trump personally.
It is incredibly Sad! but with this President, we can forget about any traditionally Washingtonian principles other than always looking out for number one. (This is also true of literally everybody - an unselfish person is a contradiction in terms - but leaders also need to take to heart the interests of those they lead. That kind of thing is how you earn the privilege of leadership in the first place.)