Rodman is endangering his life and doing a really dumb thing going over there, so I'm inclined to agree. Kenneth Bae, and any dumbshit who goes over there with a Bible is throwing their life away and should have to waive all their rights before setting foot there. I wouldn't want responsibility for him either.
Unless Rodman has a death wish, hell yes he has to take North Korea's side. Its either that or outright say, "I'm not bringing it up because I want to live."
That shit ain't reasonable. If they were worried about foreign ideas invading their little workers' paradise over there, they would have burned Bae's Bible and had him deported the next day. Bae didn't expect to be sentenced to a life of hard labor for contraband.
its all just political bullshit I'm sure the Korean government doesn't give two shits. if it wasn't the bible they would've made some other excuse. I don't really like the idea of my own government just deciding to not try to help me just because i went somewhere and followed my faith.
Actually the government shouldn't help you out in that case. The Good Lord gave you faith and a brain. He expects you to use both.
There is a difference between faith and hubris. If you walk into a lions den, be prepared to be martyred. And at least have the good grace to act like Saint Lawrence when you are dying.
Edit; I think I once heard it put "The Good Lord gave you free will. That includes the Freedom to take the consequences of your own choices."
This is the part where I explain that Tempting God is blasphemy (such as jumping off a cliff and demanding God catch you.) And yes, if you really want to be Christian, then by all means, go to North Korea, parade a Bible around, challenge a 21st Century Pharaoh and become a martyr.
Instead, the Bae family is pissing and moaning about why the United States isn't sacrificing Seoul and starting World War 3 in the name of Christ.
Look, what happened to Bae is a disgusting and horrific human rights violation. There's no question about that, and as a US Citizen his release - like any US Citizen being detained in a similar manner - should be a bullet point of any negotiation with North Korea.
That should be the extent of the political capital spent on securing his release. If his family or Amnesty International or the Red Cross want to get behind his release, that's fantastic, but our government should not be expending massive resources trying to secure his freedom.
For Bae to go to North Korea means he disregarded many explicit warnings that detailed exactly what would / could happen to him if he continued with his plan. The only reasonable conclusions (not mutually exclusive, mind you) is that he is mentally ill, or wants to be a martyr. I can't blame his family for wanting him released, but his actions were taken with the full knowledge of the potential consequences of those actions.
If Kim Jong Un didn't let the Harlem Globetrotters leave the country after their exhibition game, you'd feel the same way? No, we'd send Carter, Clinton, and H.W. over there to negotiate their release. No expense spared.
If Kim Jong Un didn't let the Harlem Globetrotters leave the country after their exhibition game, you'd feel the same way?
Why were they there? What were the conditions of them entering and departing? Why would you make such a crappy analogy?
I assume the Globetrotters went there to play for the same reason the New York Philharmonic went there to play - to share some culture with a North Korean audience who has no access to American stuff otherwise.
If Kim Jong Un didn't let the Harlem Globetrotters leave the country after their exhibition game, you'd feel the same way?
Why were they there? What were the conditions of them entering and departing? Why would you make such a crappy analogy?
I assume the Globetrotters went there to play for the same reason the New York Philharmonic went there to play - to share some culture with a North Korean audience who has no access to American stuff otherwise.
When the philharmonic went it was an official political event coordinated through and with the approval of the state department.
That you think the situation is the same is baffling.
If Kim Jong Un didn't let the Harlem Globetrotters leave the country after their exhibition game, you'd feel the same way?
Why were they there? What were the conditions of them entering and departing? Why would you make such a crappy analogy?
I assume the Globetrotters went there to play for the same reason the New York Philharmonic went there to play - to share some culture with a North Korean audience who has no access to American stuff otherwise.
When the philharmonic went it was an official political event coordinated through and with the approval of the state department.
That you think the situation is the same is baffling.
It's not baffling. Bae is being held because he grew up American. He crossed into North Korea from China with permission like he had done a dozen times before and he had no trouble leaving until that Bible was found. Assuming there was a Bible found by the North Koreans. No one believes he is a spy and I don't entirely believe someone who regularly traveled into NK was stupid enough to proselytize there.
It's not baffling. Bae is being held because he grew up American. He crossed into North Korea from China with permission like he had done a dozen times before and he had no trouble leaving until that Bible was found. Assuming there was a Bible found by the North Koreans. No one believes he is a spy and I don't entirely believe someone who regularly traveled into NK was stupid enough to proselytize there.
Whose permission?
The State Department sure as Hell didn't give him the okay. In fact I'm willing to bet that if he even bothered to consult them at all he would have been told running multiple tours to the country and trying to spread the word would be a horribly stupid idea.
It's not baffling. Bae is being held because he grew up American. He crossed into North Korea from China with permission like he had done a dozen times before and he had no trouble leaving until that Bible was found. Assuming there was a Bible found by the North Koreans. No one believes he is a spy and I don't entirely believe someone who regularly traveled into NK was stupid enough to proselytize there.
Whose permission?
The State Department sure as Hell didn't give him the okay. In fact I'm willing to bet that if he even bothered to consult them at all he would have been told running multiple tours to the country and trying to spread the word would be a horribly stupid idea.
China isn't the state department you goose. You want to compare this to the New York Philharmonic then you need to give it similar circumstances beyond citizenship.
The Bible was likely planted.
And this is you just making things up regarding topic you apparently don't actually know much about.
And you're still failing to explain why I should feel the same about Bae as I should if NK detained people on an official visit from the U.S.
I can't find information on whether or not the Globetrotters had the State Department's blessing before entering North Korea as guests. Rodman's definitely over there on his own.
Bae was arrested and underwent a sham trial because he was American. He is neither a spy nor was he subverting the State; he is a victim of politics. If an American is arrested for being American, it's up to America to take care of their own.
And you're still failing to explain why I should feel the same about Bae as I should if NK detained people on an official visit from the U.S.
I can't find information on whether or not the Globetrotters had the State Department's blessing before entering North Korea as guests. Rodman's definitely over there on his own.
Bae was arrested and underwent a sham trial because he was American. He is neither a spy nor was he subverting the State; he is a victim of politics. If an American is arrested for being American, it's up to America to take care of their own.
Bae also went over there of repeatedly of his own stupid volition to purposely do something he knew would get him arrested if he was caught.
And yes, while what he was arrested for is a gross violation of rights it is nowhere close to the same situation as the New York Philharmonic's visit.
And if Rodman and his buddies aren't getting approval and cover from the state department I have about as much sympathy if they end up arrested.
It's not baffling. Bae is being held because he grew up American. He crossed into North Korea from China with permission like he had done a dozen times before and he had no trouble leaving until that Bible was found. Assuming there was a Bible found by the North Koreans. No one believes he is a spy and I don't entirely believe someone who regularly traveled into NK was stupid enough to proselytize there.
Whose permission?
The State Department sure as Hell didn't give him the okay. In fact I'm willing to bet that if he even bothered to consult them at all he would have been told running multiple tours to the country and trying to spread the word would be a horribly stupid idea.
Heh, I never noticed that before. That's totally Texas on the big map behind them. Of all the places they could pick to start an invasion of the U.S they pick the one state whose civilians are probably better armed than their military.
And you're still failing to explain why I should feel the same about Bae as I should if NK detained people on an official visit from the U.S.
I can't find information on whether or not the Globetrotters had the State Department's blessing before entering North Korea as guests. Rodman's definitely over there on his own.
Bae was arrested and underwent a sham trial because he was American. He is neither a spy nor was he subverting the State; he is a victim of politics. If an American is arrested for being American, it's up to America to take care of their own.
Had he been a spy for America he'd have been a higher priority to get back. He's a civilian who got in over head and is fucked by politics, and its his own damn fault for getting mixed up with North Korea. This is why you don't go to hostile country's you know will frame you, torture you and kill you for being an American.
yeah but saying that our government shouldn't give two shits about them is wrong. especially when we supposedly champion the rights of fair trial religious freedom and the like.
yeah but saying that our government shouldn't give two shits about them is wrong. especially when we supposedly champion the rights of fair trial religious freedom and the like.
Quote someone saying nothing should be done to help him.
We should flip a coin with china and schedule q joint invasion of north korea, with the puppet government going to whoever won the toss
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
yeah but saying that our government shouldn't give two shits about them is wrong. especially when we supposedly champion the rights of fair trial religious freedom and the like.
Quote someone saying nothing should be done to help him.
I said it. Quote at the bottom of the last page. Well technically I said the government shouldn't do anything to help. And I don't have any objection to the Red Cross and Amnesty International doing what they can.
But I don't think Civus Americanus and the Pax Americana applies to the world. And I don't think the idea should. Its kind of bad and arrogant.
We should flip a coin with china and schedule q joint invasion of north korea, with the puppet government going to whoever won the toss
The South absorbing the North, the withdrawal of US forces from the Korean Peninsula, and aid in rebuilding the North from Russia, China, America, Japan and who ever else wants to help would probably be best.
But knowing the US we would probably try to keep our bases their and see China create North Korea 2.0 as a buffer state.
yeah but saying that our government shouldn't give two shits about them is wrong. especially when we supposedly champion the rights of fair trial religious freedom and the like.
Quote someone saying nothing should be done to help him.
I said it. Quote at the bottom of the last page. Well technically I said the government shouldn't do anything to help. And I don't have any objection to the Red Cross and Amnesty International doing what they can.
But I don't think Civus Americanus and the Pax Americana applies to the world. And I don't think the idea should. Its kind of bad and arrogant.
I think that the release of Bae should be one of many points / initial demands on any negotiations with North Korea. Somewhere below our demand that NK return the Pueblo. No significant capital should be spent on securing his release, but it should be on there as a relatively meaningless term that North Korea could potentially earn a bit of good faith with.
Our government's responsibility for securing Bae's release - in my opinion - is the same as their responsibility to secure the release of the American who got prison time for calling a Singapore judge a whore, or Amanda Knox, or any of a thousand people who have been imprisoned abroad for things that we legitimately believe they should have the freedom to do here.
People travelling outside the United States don't have the same rights they have here. Someone who ignores explicit and repeated warnings that exactly what happened is going to happen shouldn't get any special consideration.
I'll also note that someone saying the Bible was planted clearly hasn't interacted with missionaries or people with a martyrdom complex. With pretty much everyone, even his family, acknowledging that he was a missionary, I find it unlikely that he didn't have a bible and / or otherwise banned (under NK law) literature.
What happened isn't RIGHT, but there is a point where acknowledging utterly reckless behavior is no longer victim blaming. As far as the list of 'things that aren't right in North Korea' go, this is...just another Tuesday.
I'll also note that someone saying the Bible was planted clearly hasn't interacted with missionaries or people with a martyrdom complex. With pretty much everyone, even his family, acknowledging that he was a missionary, I find it unlikely that he didn't have a bible and / or otherwise banned (under NK law) literature.
It's actually very much possible em was literally just making things up since I can find nothing about him having a bible anywhere.
What happened isn't RIGHT, but there is a point where acknowledging utterly reckless behavior is no longer victim blaming. As far as the list of 'things that aren't right in North Korea' go, this is...just another Tuesday.
It kind of exactly still is victim blaming, though. It's saying "if you didn't want to spend years in a North Korean gulag, you shouldn't have gone there and done things to piss off the regime." (assuming the charges are true, if they're not it becomes a lot more awful)
It's true, of course. I agree with you in the "well what the hell did you expect" sense because it's no secret how they do things, but it definitely is blaming the victim for getting fucked disproportionate to his crime
We should flip a coin with china and schedule q joint invasion of north korea, with the puppet government going to whoever won the toss
Wait, the winner has to keep North Korea?
I was reading up on this a few years ago, and economic papers made it sound hopeless for NK, as SK couldn't handle the burden of taking them on and would cause SK to 'drown' from NK's needs. It would take more than 50 years to stabilize and grow a real country(slowly) out of NK if SK were to do it, and SK would go to shit in the mean time.
edit: I feel like that seems off topic, but what I mean is, it would have to be china or the US taking on NK to rebuild, or a 'world coming together' party nonsense.
We should flip a coin with china and schedule q joint invasion of north korea, with the puppet government going to whoever won the toss
Wait, the winner has to keep North Korea?
I was reading up on this a few years ago, and economic papers made it sound hopeless for NK, as SK couldn't handle the burden of taking them on and would cause SK to 'drown' from NK's needs. It would take more than 50 years to stabilize and grow a real country(slowly) out of NK if SK were to do it, and SK would go to shit in the mean time.
Its earlier in the thread, but Escape From Camp 14 puts the price tag of fixing up NK at double what it cost to rebuild East Germany. It would take a big bite out of South Korea's GDP for years.
What happened isn't RIGHT, but there is a point where acknowledging utterly reckless behavior is no longer victim blaming. As far as the list of 'things that aren't right in North Korea' go, this is...just another Tuesday.
It kind of exactly still is victim blaming, though. It's saying "if you didn't want to spend years in a North Korean gulag, you shouldn't have gone there and done things to piss off the regime." (assuming the charges are true, if they're not it becomes a lot more awful)
It's true, of course. I agree with you in the "well what the hell did you expect" sense because it's no secret how they do things, but it definitely is blaming the victim for getting fucked disproportionate to his crime
He's the victim of a sovereign country's laws while he was in that country. He knew what those laws generally consisted of and decided to take the risk anyway. I can find him to be an idiot and the situation to be deplorable and in need of change at the same time.
What happened isn't RIGHT, but there is a point where acknowledging utterly reckless behavior is no longer victim blaming. As far as the list of 'things that aren't right in North Korea' go, this is...just another Tuesday.
It kind of exactly still is victim blaming, though. It's saying "if you didn't want to spend years in a North Korean gulag, you shouldn't have gone there and done things to piss off the regime." (assuming the charges are true, if they're not it becomes a lot more awful)
It's true, of course. I agree with you in the "well what the hell did you expect" sense because it's no secret how they do things, but it definitely is blaming the victim for getting fucked disproportionate to his crime
He's the victim of a sovereign country's laws while he was in that country. He knew what those laws generally consisted of and decided to take the risk anyway. I can find him to be an idiot and the situation to be deplorable and in need of change at the same time.
Honestly, I dont know why we can't stop Typhoid Manny's statement at: "if you didn't want to spend years in a North Korean gulag, you shouldn't have gone there". Even with being ignorant of the laws of the visting country not being an excuse, I hopefully would think you would be hard pressed to find a person who wouldn't think it was a real possibility when entering the country.
What happened isn't RIGHT, but there is a point where acknowledging utterly reckless behavior is no longer victim blaming. As far as the list of 'things that aren't right in North Korea' go, this is...just another Tuesday.
It kind of exactly still is victim blaming, though. It's saying "if you didn't want to spend years in a North Korean gulag, you shouldn't have gone there and done things to piss off the regime." (assuming the charges are true, if they're not it becomes a lot more awful)
It's true, of course. I agree with you in the "well what the hell did you expect" sense because it's no secret how they do things, but it definitely is blaming the victim for getting fucked disproportionate to his crime
He's the victim of a sovereign country's laws while he was in that country. He knew what those laws generally consisted of and decided to take the risk anyway. I can find him to be an idiot and the situation to be deplorable and in need of change at the same time.
That's basically what I was going for. It's a reasonable thing to say "don't fuckin' go to this place if you don't want to get locked up for having a Bible," but it's still an extremely unjust situation and the dude is a victim.
What happened isn't RIGHT, but there is a point where acknowledging utterly reckless behavior is no longer victim blaming. As far as the list of 'things that aren't right in North Korea' go, this is...just another Tuesday.
It kind of exactly still is victim blaming, though. It's saying "if you didn't want to spend years in a North Korean gulag, you shouldn't have gone there and done things to piss off the regime." (assuming the charges are true, if they're not it becomes a lot more awful)
It's true, of course. I agree with you in the "well what the hell did you expect" sense because it's no secret how they do things, but it definitely is blaming the victim for getting fucked disproportionate to his crime
He's the victim of a sovereign country's laws while he was in that country. He knew what those laws generally consisted of and decided to take the risk anyway. I can find him to be an idiot and the situation to be deplorable and in need of change at the same time.
That's basically what I was going for. It's a reasonable thing to say "don't fuckin' go to this place if you don't want to get locked up for having a Bible," but it's still an extremely unjust situation and the dude is a victim.
I just feel like the term 'victim blaming' has connotations that aren't the case here.
Perhaps I should have said '...is no longer just victim blaming'.
I've always understood the problem with 'victim blaming' as it's usually used is that it tries to assign responsibility for a person being victimized when there is no reason they should or reasonably could have expected it. I don't feel that's in play here because it's the outcome that any reasonable person would have expected.
EDIT - i.e. just because I think the drug war is unjust doesn't mean it's 'victim blaming' to say a person arrested for smoking a joint in front of cops is responsible for his own arrest.
I've always understood the problem with 'victim blaming' as it's usually used is that it tries to assign responsibility for a person being victimized when there is no reason they should or reasonably could have expected it.
I think this is a problematic definition because it opens the door for saying things like "well what were you expecting walking down that alley at night?" The point is that if someone victimizes someone else, the aggressor is one hundred percent in the wrong because they could have prevented the whole thing by not victimizing someone. You can do things in an effort to keep you safe, but it never really is anyone's responsibility but the one doing the victimizing.
You're right though, this is kind of an edge case and it's not as simple as chewing someone out for blaming the victim for being sexually assaulted.
it's not in any universe analogous to blaming someone for getting sexually assaulted
If they had kidnapped this guy from a house in California I would expect the US Government to move heaven and earth to get him back, which doesn't mean the bad things being done to him are any more his fault now than they would be in that circumstance. The difference is by taking the risk by going there he's waived some (but not all!) of our responsibility towards him.
North Korea does horrific things every day to people, everybody knows or should know this, and by going there you have to know horrible things could be done to you and there's nothing definitive anyone can do to rescue you without starting a war
override367 on
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
This is also a non sequitur, but Amanda Knox was the victim of a ridiculous corrupt judicial system.
I've always understood the problem with 'victim blaming' as it's usually used is that it tries to assign responsibility for a person being victimized when there is no reason they should or reasonably could have expected it.
I think this is a problematic definition because it opens the door for saying things like "well what were you expecting walking down that alley at night?" The point is that if someone victimizes someone else, the aggressor is one hundred percent in the wrong because they could have prevented the whole thing by not victimizing someone. You can do things in an effort to keep you safe, but it never really is anyone's responsibility but the one doing the victimizing.
You're right though, this is kind of an edge case and it's not as simple as chewing someone out for blaming the victim for being sexually assaulted.
The key here is reasonably expected, if as an American you don't reasonably expect that travelling to North Korea might be bad for your health, you are unreasonably stupid.
It's not like this shit isn't on the news every single week. You would have to have been raised in a cave to be genuinly unaware that NK is risky.
I don't equate this guy to Amanda Knox at all, people have a reasonable expectation of not being accused of being a demon worshiper and run through a kangaroo court when visiting goddamn Western Europe
I've always understood the problem with 'victim blaming' as it's usually used is that it tries to assign responsibility for a person being victimized when there is no reason they should or reasonably could have expected it.
I think this is a problematic definition because it opens the door for saying things like "well what were you expecting walking down that alley at night?" The point is that if someone victimizes someone else, the aggressor is one hundred percent in the wrong because they could have prevented the whole thing by not victimizing someone. You can do things in an effort to keep you safe, but it never really is anyone's responsibility but the one doing the victimizing.
You're right though, this is kind of an edge case and it's not as simple as chewing someone out for blaming the victim for being sexually assaulted.
The key here is reasonably expected, if as an American you don't reasonably expect that travelling to North Korea might be bad for your health, you are unreasonably stupid.
It's not like this shit isn't on the news every single week. You would have to have been raised in a cave to be genuinly unaware that NK is risky.
I would say Bae was naive, not stupid. Less 'running through a lions' den wearing clothes made out of steak' and more 'rich white college student goes to Mexico for Spring Break'.
Quote someone saying nothing should be done to help him.[/quote]
I said it. Quote at the bottom of the last page. Well technically I said the government shouldn't do anything to help. And I don't have any objection to the Red Cross and Amnesty International doing what they can.
But I don't think Civus Americanus and the Pax Americana applies to the world. And I don't think the idea should. Its kind of bad and arrogant.
[/quote]
I think that the release of Bae should be one of many points / initial demands on any negotiations with North Korea. Somewhere below our demand that NK return the Pueblo. No significant capital should be spent on securing his release, but it should be on there as a relatively meaningless term that North Korea could potentially earn a bit of good faith with.
Our government's responsibility for securing Bae's release - in my opinion - is the same as their responsibility to secure the release of the American who got prison time for calling a Singapore judge a whore, or Amanda Knox, or any of a thousand people who have been imprisoned abroad for things that we legitimately believe they should have the freedom to do here.
People travelling outside the United States don't have the same rights they have here. Someone who ignores explicit and repeated warnings that exactly what happened is going to happen shouldn't get any special consideration.
I'll also note that someone saying the Bible was planted clearly hasn't interacted with missionaries or people with a martyrdom complex. With pretty much everyone, even his family, acknowledging that he was a missionary, I find it unlikely that he didn't have a bible and / or otherwise banned (under NK law) literature.
What happened isn't RIGHT, but there is a point where acknowledging utterly reckless behavior is no longer victim blaming. As far as the list of 'things that aren't right in North Korea' go, this is...just another Tuesday.[/quote]
Thats just it though people could call MLK or Mandela idiots and dumb for having a martyrdom complex and going to areas that were overtly hostile to them and saying things that were highly inflammatory and were reckless.
Posts
This is the part where I explain that Tempting God is blasphemy (such as jumping off a cliff and demanding God catch you.) And yes, if you really want to be Christian, then by all means, go to North Korea, parade a Bible around, challenge a 21st Century Pharaoh and become a martyr.
Instead, the Bae family is pissing and moaning about why the United States isn't sacrificing Seoul and starting World War 3 in the name of Christ.
That should be the extent of the political capital spent on securing his release. If his family or Amnesty International or the Red Cross want to get behind his release, that's fantastic, but our government should not be expending massive resources trying to secure his freedom.
For Bae to go to North Korea means he disregarded many explicit warnings that detailed exactly what would / could happen to him if he continued with his plan. The only reasonable conclusions (not mutually exclusive, mind you) is that he is mentally ill, or wants to be a martyr. I can't blame his family for wanting him released, but his actions were taken with the full knowledge of the potential consequences of those actions.
Anyways, Rodman apologized a few hours ago for suggesting Bae deserved the hard labor sentence.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/09/world/asia/north-korea-dennis-rodman-apology/
Why were they there? What were the conditions of them entering and departing? Why would you make such a crappy analogy?
I assume the Globetrotters went there to play for the same reason the New York Philharmonic went there to play - to share some culture with a North Korean audience who has no access to American stuff otherwise.
When the philharmonic went it was an official political event coordinated through and with the approval of the state department.
That you think the situation is the same is baffling.
It's not baffling. Bae is being held because he grew up American. He crossed into North Korea from China with permission like he had done a dozen times before and he had no trouble leaving until that Bible was found. Assuming there was a Bible found by the North Koreans. No one believes he is a spy and I don't entirely believe someone who regularly traveled into NK was stupid enough to proselytize there.
Whose permission?
The State Department sure as Hell didn't give him the okay. In fact I'm willing to bet that if he even bothered to consult them at all he would have been told running multiple tours to the country and trying to spread the word would be a horribly stupid idea.
He had China's and North Korea's permission. He was driving around in Rasun, a place where the North Korean government wants foreigners and their foreign cash. Considering the timing, back when North Korea was drawing up plans to invade Texas, Bae was arrested for being American. The Bible was likely planted.
And this is you just making things up regarding topic you apparently don't actually know much about.
Hint: He wasn't arrested for having a bible.
And you're still failing to explain why I should feel the same about Bae as I should if NK detained people on an official visit from the U.S.
I can't find information on whether or not the Globetrotters had the State Department's blessing before entering North Korea as guests. Rodman's definitely over there on his own.
Bae was arrested and underwent a sham trial because he was American. He is neither a spy nor was he subverting the State; he is a victim of politics. If an American is arrested for being American, it's up to America to take care of their own.
Bae also went over there of repeatedly of his own stupid volition to purposely do something he knew would get him arrested if he was caught.
And yes, while what he was arrested for is a gross violation of rights it is nowhere close to the same situation as the New York Philharmonic's visit.
And if Rodman and his buddies aren't getting approval and cover from the state department I have about as much sympathy if they end up arrested.
Heh, I never noticed that before. That's totally Texas on the big map behind them. Of all the places they could pick to start an invasion of the U.S they pick the one state whose civilians are probably better armed than their military.
Had he been a spy for America he'd have been a higher priority to get back. He's a civilian who got in over head and is fucked by politics, and its his own damn fault for getting mixed up with North Korea. This is why you don't go to hostile country's you know will frame you, torture you and kill you for being an American.
Quote someone saying nothing should be done to help him.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I said it. Quote at the bottom of the last page. Well technically I said the government shouldn't do anything to help. And I don't have any objection to the Red Cross and Amnesty International doing what they can.
But I don't think Civus Americanus and the Pax Americana applies to the world. And I don't think the idea should. Its kind of bad and arrogant.
The South absorbing the North, the withdrawal of US forces from the Korean Peninsula, and aid in rebuilding the North from Russia, China, America, Japan and who ever else wants to help would probably be best.
But knowing the US we would probably try to keep our bases their and see China create North Korea 2.0 as a buffer state.
Exactly.
I think that the release of Bae should be one of many points / initial demands on any negotiations with North Korea. Somewhere below our demand that NK return the Pueblo. No significant capital should be spent on securing his release, but it should be on there as a relatively meaningless term that North Korea could potentially earn a bit of good faith with.
Our government's responsibility for securing Bae's release - in my opinion - is the same as their responsibility to secure the release of the American who got prison time for calling a Singapore judge a whore, or Amanda Knox, or any of a thousand people who have been imprisoned abroad for things that we legitimately believe they should have the freedom to do here.
People travelling outside the United States don't have the same rights they have here. Someone who ignores explicit and repeated warnings that exactly what happened is going to happen shouldn't get any special consideration.
I'll also note that someone saying the Bible was planted clearly hasn't interacted with missionaries or people with a martyrdom complex. With pretty much everyone, even his family, acknowledging that he was a missionary, I find it unlikely that he didn't have a bible and / or otherwise banned (under NK law) literature.
What happened isn't RIGHT, but there is a point where acknowledging utterly reckless behavior is no longer victim blaming. As far as the list of 'things that aren't right in North Korea' go, this is...just another Tuesday.
It's actually very much possible em was literally just making things up since I can find nothing about him having a bible anywhere.
It kind of exactly still is victim blaming, though. It's saying "if you didn't want to spend years in a North Korean gulag, you shouldn't have gone there and done things to piss off the regime." (assuming the charges are true, if they're not it becomes a lot more awful)
It's true, of course. I agree with you in the "well what the hell did you expect" sense because it's no secret how they do things, but it definitely is blaming the victim for getting fucked disproportionate to his crime
hitting hot metal with hammers
I was reading up on this a few years ago, and economic papers made it sound hopeless for NK, as SK couldn't handle the burden of taking them on and would cause SK to 'drown' from NK's needs. It would take more than 50 years to stabilize and grow a real country(slowly) out of NK if SK were to do it, and SK would go to shit in the mean time.
edit: I feel like that seems off topic, but what I mean is, it would have to be china or the US taking on NK to rebuild, or a 'world coming together' party nonsense.
Its earlier in the thread, but Escape From Camp 14 puts the price tag of fixing up NK at double what it cost to rebuild East Germany. It would take a big bite out of South Korea's GDP for years.
He's the victim of a sovereign country's laws while he was in that country. He knew what those laws generally consisted of and decided to take the risk anyway. I can find him to be an idiot and the situation to be deplorable and in need of change at the same time.
Honestly, I dont know why we can't stop Typhoid Manny's statement at: "if you didn't want to spend years in a North Korean gulag, you shouldn't have gone there". Even with being ignorant of the laws of the visting country not being an excuse, I hopefully would think you would be hard pressed to find a person who wouldn't think it was a real possibility when entering the country.
That's basically what I was going for. It's a reasonable thing to say "don't fuckin' go to this place if you don't want to get locked up for having a Bible," but it's still an extremely unjust situation and the dude is a victim.
hitting hot metal with hammers
I just feel like the term 'victim blaming' has connotations that aren't the case here.
Perhaps I should have said '...is no longer just victim blaming'.
I've always understood the problem with 'victim blaming' as it's usually used is that it tries to assign responsibility for a person being victimized when there is no reason they should or reasonably could have expected it. I don't feel that's in play here because it's the outcome that any reasonable person would have expected.
EDIT - i.e. just because I think the drug war is unjust doesn't mean it's 'victim blaming' to say a person arrested for smoking a joint in front of cops is responsible for his own arrest.
I think this is a problematic definition because it opens the door for saying things like "well what were you expecting walking down that alley at night?" The point is that if someone victimizes someone else, the aggressor is one hundred percent in the wrong because they could have prevented the whole thing by not victimizing someone. You can do things in an effort to keep you safe, but it never really is anyone's responsibility but the one doing the victimizing.
You're right though, this is kind of an edge case and it's not as simple as chewing someone out for blaming the victim for being sexually assaulted.
hitting hot metal with hammers
If they had kidnapped this guy from a house in California I would expect the US Government to move heaven and earth to get him back, which doesn't mean the bad things being done to him are any more his fault now than they would be in that circumstance. The difference is by taking the risk by going there he's waived some (but not all!) of our responsibility towards him.
North Korea does horrific things every day to people, everybody knows or should know this, and by going there you have to know horrible things could be done to you and there's nothing definitive anyone can do to rescue you without starting a war
The key here is reasonably expected, if as an American you don't reasonably expect that travelling to North Korea might be bad for your health, you are unreasonably stupid.
It's not like this shit isn't on the news every single week. You would have to have been raised in a cave to be genuinly unaware that NK is risky.
I mean, used to have
I would say Bae was naive, not stupid. Less 'running through a lions' den wearing clothes made out of steak' and more 'rich white college student goes to Mexico for Spring Break'.
Also, 6000 Western tourists visited North Korea in 2013. That's a lot more than I thought.
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/01/09/ctw-north-korea-trip-suzannah-clarke-intv.cnn.html
[/quote]
Quote someone saying nothing should be done to help him.[/quote]
I said it. Quote at the bottom of the last page. Well technically I said the government shouldn't do anything to help. And I don't have any objection to the Red Cross and Amnesty International doing what they can.
But I don't think Civus Americanus and the Pax Americana applies to the world. And I don't think the idea should. Its kind of bad and arrogant.
[/quote]
I think that the release of Bae should be one of many points / initial demands on any negotiations with North Korea. Somewhere below our demand that NK return the Pueblo. No significant capital should be spent on securing his release, but it should be on there as a relatively meaningless term that North Korea could potentially earn a bit of good faith with.
Our government's responsibility for securing Bae's release - in my opinion - is the same as their responsibility to secure the release of the American who got prison time for calling a Singapore judge a whore, or Amanda Knox, or any of a thousand people who have been imprisoned abroad for things that we legitimately believe they should have the freedom to do here.
People travelling outside the United States don't have the same rights they have here. Someone who ignores explicit and repeated warnings that exactly what happened is going to happen shouldn't get any special consideration.
I'll also note that someone saying the Bible was planted clearly hasn't interacted with missionaries or people with a martyrdom complex. With pretty much everyone, even his family, acknowledging that he was a missionary, I find it unlikely that he didn't have a bible and / or otherwise banned (under NK law) literature.
What happened isn't RIGHT, but there is a point where acknowledging utterly reckless behavior is no longer victim blaming. As far as the list of 'things that aren't right in North Korea' go, this is...just another Tuesday.[/quote]
Thats just it though people could call MLK or Mandela idiots and dumb for having a martyrdom complex and going to areas that were overtly hostile to them and saying things that were highly inflammatory and were reckless.
so whats the difference?