-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 477)
  2. (for post and file deletion)
/civ/ - Civics
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 398 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2011-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /gardening/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Anonymous 17/11/27(Mon)00:25 No. 477 ID: ee2f87
477

File 151173870933.jpg - (101.57KB , 1067x600 , NKKILLAMERICA.jpg )

Just remember, anybody who doesn't want to go to war is gay.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/27(Mon)01:32 No. 478 ID: 2d9e04

I'm curious how they'll roll out the social part of the propaganda.

You realize the Trump administration is pushing for an armed conflict, not the DPRK?

I've already read a half dozen articles about how a pre-emptive strike is (not) necessary. Whether the articles are for or against, the fact that they are talking about it is evident that they want the american public to become comfortable with the idea; it is a stepping stone toward actually getting it done. Sooner or later the hard rhetoric will start in Congress, and then they're going make a push to dupe the american people into thinking they actually wanted this all along. It is precisely what they tried and failed during Vietnam and the second Iraq War.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/27(Mon)03:15 No. 479 ID: 979e29

It worked during the Iraq War too, right up until the body count kept rising. And the end of the war was nowhere in sight. And it was clear that the administration started the war without any adequate idea of how to end it. And more and more and more stories came out about how it was simply a war of opportunity for Dubya, which is why he started it based on bullshit instead of a justified action backed up by actual evidence.

At that point his support dwindled and no amount of harpies shrieking that anyone who didn't march in absolute lock-step with Dubya was a traitor could convince the public otherwise. At least in most of the country. In Texas they still think Iraq had WMDs. Texas breeds their stupids extra stupid.

Right wing media keeps talking about DPRK that way. But if you're depending on right wing media in the age of Trump you deserve to be sent off to die.


>>
Anonymous 17/11/30(Thu)15:05 No. 484 ID: 159d5f

>>479
>Right wing media keeps talking about DPRK that way
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I don't pick and choose media outlets; I let the internet do that for me. Both left-leaning and right-leaning sources have been fielding the idea of a preemptive attack. For once, it's not how they say it, but what they say, which is generally along the lines of "a preemptive attack has been proposed and is being considered, not that you need to worry because [reason spins differently by political alignment]".

Both sides are trying to make the American people comfortable with the idea that the US is going to unilaterally start a war with North Korea, and that they should not be interested in hearing about things like the mutual defence treaty with South Korea that does not permit the US to take any action on the Korean Peninsula without their participation or approval.


Off topic:

Most of this "anything other than conservative leftist snowflakes and their liberal mainstream media" vs "alt-right racists based bros and their oppressed conspiracy theorist truth-taking media" is a myth. I'm not saying it's an insidious conspiracy, more like an unintended confluence of what the current administration wants and the constraints of for-profit news.

The government needs the people divided, helpless, and tacitly in approval of whatever it might do, while the media needs to get ratings and turn a profit--which demonstrably cannot be achieved by being honest or fair. So the media, in an industry-wide effort, made a game out of it--spinning every story both ways in order to turn people against each other who would otherwise be able to have a conversation because fighting about it keeps them interested. This also happens to keep them divided, helpless, and tacitly in approval of whatever their government might do. Creating an illusion of conflict between the current administration and the media has also been of mutual benefit, preventing the stupid masses from realizing what's going on and more firmly establishing a false dichotomy that keeps the stupid masses divided, helpless, and tacitly in approval of all the shit being fed to them.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/06(Wed)06:54 No. 488 ID: 95f4ef

>>484
>I let the internet do that for me
You stupid, stupid boy. The internet doesn't do that for you. The internet feeds you news that confirms your preconceived bias. That's why you only see news that confirms what you already knew to be true all the time.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/07(Thu)01:29 No. 490 ID: b9b59e

>>488
You don't know who you're talking to; I'm not your average dupe. This is why I block tracking cookies and delete all cache on exit, limit sending HTTP referer to clicked targets only, Adblock (EasyList+EasyPrivacy), NoScript, MVPS hosts file, DNSCrypt, etc etc, and I don't log in. Sites don't remember me; I get the default output of whereever I go.

Of course, there are some things that are harder to avoid. I've caught sites profiling my flashplugin (font list), there's some bias from geoip, and occasionally my ISP gives me an address I've used before.There's also the possibility that site's default output itself is biased, so I check a lot of different sites.

As proof, I'd like you to try and find any source that supports my point of view. Go ahead, look. Find anyone talking about the false alt-right/snowflake left dichotomy that's been sold to you and the disenfranchisement of the people by both "sides" for a common purpose.

I wish it were just my paranoid delusion.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/08(Fri)07:06 No. 491 ID: 15ac11

>>490
>I'm not your average dupe
No, you're the other kind of dupe, the kind who thinks he's too clever to fall for tricks but is obviously well down the path to Idiocracy.

Vote for Trump again in 2020 just to show us all how smart you are.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/08(Fri)16:39 No. 494 ID: 13e15e

>>491
I will not be held responsible for Trump. I voted for Gary Johnson. I'm not saying I did anything of value, but I didn't vote for Trump.

...and did you just skip right over my whole spiel about the non-existence of the alt-right and snowflake left and make some comment about how I must be a supporter of one of those two sides?

You can not kill yourself fast enough. Hurry, there's no time.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/12(Tue)08:53 No. 499 ID: 15ac11
499

File 151306519313.png - (613.32KB , 810x662 , Do You.png )

>>494
>I voted for Gary Johnson
You clearly know what you have to do then...

>You can not kill yourself fast enough


>>
Anonymous 17/12/12(Tue)14:25 No. 500 ID: 019eec

>>499
Tell you what, lets race; I'll even give you a head start--I won't slash my wrists or overdose on anything until you're already dying.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/16(Sat)10:32 No. 501 ID: 3b055f
501

File 151341673466.png - (595.84KB , 2977x3654 , You_gotta_do_what_You_gotta_do.png )

>>500
But I'm not the one who voted for Gary Johnson.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/17(Sun)00:48 No. 505 ID: 5bb159

>>501
I was faced with this choice:
1 Vote for a total buffoon; who everyone knew was a buffoon years before he ran for office.
2 Vote for a scheming, conniving, corrupt bitch, who (most) everyone knew was corrupt years before her second attempt.
3 Vote for a relatively unknown (outside of New Mexico), somewhat stoned nerd, who nobody really knew much about other than he doesn't do well on camera.
4 Vote for one of the other, even less known, third-party candidates, none of whom supported anything resembling my interests.
5 Run myself, which would have been quite a challenge, given that I live outside of the US and don't have millions of dollars to spend campaigning.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/17(Sun)18:58 No. 507 ID: 32d179
507

File 151353349167.jpg - (325.77KB , 1024x768 , korean-battle-flags.jpg )

The latest propaganda: The US has been at war with the Kim family and North Korea for decades longer than North Korea has existed.

What a fucking con-job. Are dupes actually going to buy this shit? The US has been trying to sell its people on making a preemptive strike against the DPRK for months now. I for one, don't buy it.

War is not what the people want. War is not going to make the situation better. The United States should be ashamed of its war-mongering.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/18(Mon)21:49 No. 508 ID: 53a252

>>507
I feel sorry for North Korea. Their people are starving, get afflicted with diseases that have long been eradicated in the developed world, live in virtual isolation with little education or entertainment, frequently shipped off to prison camps to die for minor violations (typically trying to feed themselves), all so the DPRK can be used as a pawn by China against the western world. Just wait until DPRK starts launching nukes against them because they didn't bow and scrape to Tubby Kim.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/19(Tue)01:20 No. 509 ID: 076607

>>508
Best Korea is BEST!

But seriously, I know it's horrible and the people are suffering, but that doesn't entitle the United States to intervene. The best thing that could happen would be a genuine internal uprising (not the kind where the CIA trains local guerillas to install a fresh dictator). If the US unilaterally attacks the DPRK, it's likely to start a war with China and Russia on the other side. The terms of the mutual self-defense treaty with South Korea mandate that the US needs their permission to operate on the Korean Penninsula; ignoring it could bring them into the conflict against the US as well.

A lot of people, perhaps even the president, seem to think we'll just bomb them to oblivion in an afternoon or strategically steal their WMD and assasinate Kim Jong Un, but it only works if the international community backs it. The UN is going to remember how the US bypassed it to make a war of agression on Iraq that sent the Middle East swirling down the toilet.

Of course we can just ignore international condemnnation again, and we can possibly negotiate with South Korea, China, and Russia if we do succeed in bringing down the Kim regime in a week or less, but I for one doubt it will be either as easy or as clean as people think. The DPRK is likely to use nuclear weapons in actual combat--it doesn't really matter who they hit, those people would forever hold the US responsible for initiating hostilities.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/19(Tue)02:03 No. 510 ID: 53a252

>>509
Technically the US is still at war with DPRK, because they refused to sign a peace treaty. An armistice has been signed but that's not the same thing as a peace treaty.

China is unlikely to get involved in DPRK, they only want DPRK as a foil, they really don't give a shit whether they live or die.

Similarly Russia is trying to use the DPRK like they use Snowden, as a cheap way to piss off the US, but they'd think twice about committing their limited military budget and aging equipment to a legitimate conflict. Remember, their only aircraft carrier is on the other side of the continent and hasn't left the Black Sea and Mediterranean since before the cold war. Even flying planes over undefended Syrian airspace strained their resources with planes literally falling out of the sky due to widespread equipment failure.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/21(Thu)13:39 No. 511 ID: a4a5f0

>>510
I could swear I already wrote this reply..

>Technically the US is still at war with DPRK
Technically the US was never at war with any Korea, we simply provided troops and funding to enact a UN resolution. Congress approved the budget, but never declared War. Most of our wars since have been undeclared; it's beginning to make declaring war irrelevant. Anyway, most of the time when people say we are or were "at war" these says, we technically were not.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/23(Sat)10:18 No. 513 ID: ae8f36

>>511
True, South Korea and North Korea are the ones technically still at war with one another, which is why the North firing in the South all the &*(#@$&*( time hasn't led to WW3. Of course all it would take is SK calling for UN help and the entire thing would go hot again in an instant.

Did you hear about China's primary press organ publishing a story about how China will move more troops and materiel to the DPRK border region? China's relationship with NK has degraded to the point that they want to be in a position to respond to NK belligerency after China ratchets up sanctions in a few weeks.

A lot of crazy-ass assumptions about China and DPRK have ignored the actions of DPRK in the past two generations of Kim towards China. They are not on friendly terms.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/23(Sat)14:13 No. 514 ID: 40a667

>>513
>China's relationship with NK has degraded
Yeah, last I was in China (2015), people were already looking down on NK like you would look down on a little brother with autism and ADHD. The media was making Kim look like a buffoon like just about anywhere else--not that there's anything dishonest or manipulative about that, because the dude is either nuts or strawberried.

Still, they won't let the US unilaterally invade; moar like they are planning their own takeover. China has been trying to claim the Korean Peninsula for approximately a millennia. Asians don't get over shit.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/23(Sat)14:45 No. 515 ID: ae8f36
515

File 151403673647.jpg - (45.44KB , 500x416 , Alleged.jpg )

>>514
I very much doubt the US will invade, Trump has done exactly jack & shit in his first year and will continue blathering on to distract everyone from the fact that he's an incompetent rube who does nothing except blather on like an idiot.

China expects NK to do something really fucking stupid very soon that will force everyone's hand. You could look at the troops massing on their border as a plan to grab what land (AKA resources) they can once NK goes too far. Otherwise they would just be giving it to South Korea, who has the money and technology to exploit it.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/25(Mon)01:44 No. 516 ID: 8f166d

>>515
>That's forever.
Lol, it's only Tuesday and no one gives a fuck anymore (would it have been different if Moore won?).

>>515
>China expects NK to do something really fucking stupid very soon that will force everyone's hand.
It's possible, and that's very likely what China would do with the situation. To be honest though, I'm really not sure who to blame if things get worse. The UN et al are not willing to come to terms with the fact that Best Korea is a nuclear state, while the DPRK is unwilling to give up on weapons development. Both sides have their reasons, but I can't entirely refute Best Korea's point of view: Other countries have and develop nuclear weapons; all of them are wealthy and powerful countries with seats or strong allies on the Security council--they have a say in what direction the world takes and none of them really respect the non-proliferation treaty; the only way to join the club seems to be posing a threat of global annihilation. Only one country has ever used nuclear weapons in combat and it used them on an Asian country with no resources and a militaristic, authoritatian regime--then rebuilt that country as a western democracy and filled it with McDonalds and Starbucks; the Kim family's worst nightmare.

I'm not saying we let them have what they want--it would be great if the North Korean people could have human rights and food and things; but I get it if they're a little paranoid.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/25(Mon)01:55 No. 517 ID: 8f166d

>>515
>That's forever.
Lol, it's only Tuesday and no one gives a fuck anymore (would it have been different if Moore won?).

>>515
>China expects NK to do something really fucking stupid very soon that will force everyone's hand.
It's possible, and that's very likely what China would do with the situation. To be honest though, I'm really not sure who to blame if things get worse. The UN et al are not willing to come to terms with the fact that Best Korea is a nuclear state, while the DPRK is unwilling to give up on weapons development. Both sides have their reasons, but I can't entirely refute Best Korea's point of view: Other countries have and develop nuclear weapons; all of them are wealthy and powerful countries with seats or strong allies on the Security council--they have a say in what direction the world takes and none of them really respect the non-proliferation treaty; the only way to join the club seems to be posing a threat of global annihilation. Only one country has ever used nuclear weapons in combat and it used them on an Asian country with no resources and a militaristic, authoritatian regime--then rebuilt that country under its military and cultural hegemony; the worst nightmare of the Kim family.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/25(Mon)17:12 No. 518 ID: ae8f36

>>516
>>517
Try only replying once.

It makes you sound like less of a rube.

>no one gives a fuck
The Senate gave a fuck, which is why they didn't follow procedure and hold up the vote on their massive wealth transfer plan until he was seated.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/27(Wed)04:56 No. 519 ID: ae8f36

Spoiler: China is going to invade NK so they can control the land on their border rather than the US.

They'd rather not have their citizens look upon a united Korea, as prosperous as SK, and realize the shit sandwich their corrupt leaders are making them eat.


>>
sage 17/12/29(Fri)13:15 No. 521 ID: f3c4a7
521

File 15145497192.jpg - (29.08KB , 375x279 , _99400303_9ed3b9c5-3023-40b2-9e3e-aec0e7dc20f8.jpg )

>>518
You don't think shit's real, so let's have a demonstration.

A Hong Kong ship leased to a Taiwanese company gets busted shipping oil into Best Korea. Duck tweets that China is caught red handed. He's probably right, in fact I don't dispute it--the double proxy is an obvious scam--but this argument is predicated on agreeing that both Hong Kong (which is) and Taiwan (which isn't) are China, People's Republic of. It's really Chinese to throw in that reinforcement that Hong Kong is never going to be on the Western countries' side, and doublly Chinese to find an excuse to simultaneously make Taiwan look bad and assert that it is part of, working for, and indistinguishable from China.


>>
Anonymous 18/01/10(Wed)13:48 No. 532 ID: 9e0a69
532

File 15155885313.jpg - (134.97KB , 1080x1383 , _20180110_213935.jpg )

Japan's about to pay $133 million for the first volley of missiles to arm the two Ageis Ashore systems it spent $2.8 billion on last year. Meanwhile, Best Korea is starting to play nice again and South Korea is thanking the US president for his "role" in changing their rhetoric.

It's all fake, all of it. No one's going to really do anything about the oppression of the people of North Korea, North Korea has no intention of attacking anyone; Japan has no need for the weapons and will never use them. The whole thing has been a gambit to boost the international military-industrial complex.

Once the big sales of the season go through, all the players will take a break until the next economic crisis. Just watch it happen. You'll see.

I have never been more certain that we already live in a de facto one-world government and that it gives no shits about the life, liberty, or happiness of its citizens.


>>
Anonymous 18/01/12(Fri)19:03 No. 538 ID: 7fd13b
538

File 151578021623.gif - (59.82KB , 400x200 , 200_s.gif )

>>532

Really? You are just now realizing this? well...


>>
Anonymous 18/01/13(Sat)03:19 No. 539 ID: e448c5
539

File 151580994498.jpg - (46.28KB , 640x480 , a great relationship.jpg )

>>538
To be honest I've felt this way for a long time, I just don't talk about it because people accuse me of paranoia.

I'm not sure how anyone else doesn't notice at this point.


>>
Anonymous 18/03/03(Sat)16:52 No. 560 ID: 4089f6

>>539
It's even worse than not noticing. It's noticing, but dismissing it as one of those things that can't be changed by anyone who wants it different and won't be changed by anyone who can. The most effective tactic to maintain the steady chug of the status quo is to preemptively kill off all hope for something different.


>>
Anonymous 18/03/06(Tue)11:55 No. 562 ID: d0677f

>>539
You're paranoid.
>>538
Why do the most stupid always feel like they're in on something and somehow smarter than everyone else?
Your smug faggory speaks volumes.
>>519
I believe you are correct, except it's the opposite of the spoiler. It's been Russia's goto strategy since the 50's and generally works well.


>>
Anonymous 18/03/21(Wed)14:07 No. 572 ID: a77f7d

>>562
>You're paranoid.
We'll see. I am very curious how the proposed "talk" between Jong Un and Donald will go, if it ever happens. I see a few options for them:

1. They never actually have the talk for whatever reason; a fine and common strategy to gain the public's trust: express one's willingness to do something without ever actually doing anything. Works just about every time and keeps the status quo.
2. Best Korea promises to end its nuclear program and disarm if the US and other signatories will make good on their commitments to the Non-Proliferation Treaty or otherwise end their nuclear programs and disarm, which none of those countries will actually do, so the talks will fail and things go back to status quo.
3. Trump and Jong Un find they like each other, but don't make any promises to do anything; pretty much the same as option 1. The people are stupid, and will be as happy about this status-quo outcome as if it had achieved something.
4. The talk goes badly, leading to a pre-emptive strike by the US against Best Korea; China sends "reinforcements" as a prelude to annexation; the possiblity of WWIII becomes very real.

Note: I do not see any possibility that the DPRK unilaterally disarms or gives up on developing nuclear power and weapons. The only reason they are in a position to negotiate with the US, as they have often pointed out, is that possession of nuclear weapons is required to negotiate at the big-boy table.


>>
Anonymous 18/03/21(Wed)16:24 No. 573 ID: 812a61

>>572
The status quo and everyone's willingness to uphold it in no way means that all the state leaders involved are "in" on anything or that it's some ploy to bolster international arms sales or the "military industrial complex".

It just means the status quo has worked out so far, so why change it?

The western factions(US, Japan, SK) don't want anything to disrupt trade.
China doesn't want chaos on it's border.
NK wants to continue to exist.

None of leaders have any reason to disrupt it.

NK is posturing, while the US prepares itself and it's allies for the worst.
There's no conspiracy to it.


>>
Anonymous 18/03/22(Thu)01:18 No. 574 ID: 04ee6f

>>573
>There's no conspiracy to it.
This is the status quo: China and the US vie for dominance in Southeast Asian trade; Japan does what it can to hurt China and benefit the US but China is gradually winning; the DPRK stris things up with "strategic provocations" (breaking promises, making threats, and conducting weapons tests).

China gains ground, Japan loses profitability, the US feels economically threatened. At the same time, the DPRK revs up a weapons development program and anti-west rhetoric; Japan feels threatened, and purchases large amounts of military hardware from the US and debates repealing of Article 9 of their pacifist constitution. As soon as the check clears, the DPRK calms down, China continues to slowly gain ground, the US gets complacent, and the Japanese government puts the remilitarization campaign on hold. Rinse, repeat.

This is not a zero-sum game. The US profits by selling military equipment to Japan; China takes advantage of the instabilty to establish trade dominance; Japan inches ever closer to the remilitarization its right-wing has always wanted. Only the DPRK does not profit, because they are being used as a tool by all three governments.

Is it coordinated? I honesty don't know. It may not be a conspiracy so much as each involved nation acting selfishly and assuming the gambit will always go the same way. What scares me is that this would be the truth, and that no one is really taking the possibility of armed conflict seriously.

There are limits to posturing, although the DPRK has greatly expanded them over the years. Sooner or later one has to make good on their threats, or no one will ever take them seriously. Best Korea has been skating the edge of this, firing missiles into the sea over Hokkaido when it promised to fire on Guam, etc. If their puppeteers lose control, things could get very ugly very fast.


>>
Anonymous 18/03/22(Thu)12:52 No. 575 ID: bf3618

>>574
It's only coordinated in the sense that their all playing the game.

Worst case scenario is Japan gets a little more nuclear radiation(they're used to it by now), everyone nukes nk(china loses a pawn, but keeps it's border proxy exchanging a hostile state for a nuclear wasteland), and then it's back to the status quo.


>>
Anonymous 18/03/22(Thu)14:31 No. 576 ID: c69d68

>>575
I have to thank you for this reply. It restores my faith in humanity, to a small degree, that at least one place exists where people who do not necessarily agree about political issues can talk about them and find common ground.


>>
Anonymous 18/03/26(Mon)06:19 No. 581 ID: 6636d3

>>576
Anytime. I try not to be a polarized idiot.



[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason