Why are you a socialist?

All else doesn’t work for me. And we can’t afford, in this day and age, knowing what we know about increasing inequalities, to not be socialist.

Because I just work here.

I was raised to share…at the vary least I belive the tools of work should be shared… If only to help the group.

You are right about one thing: this debt was accumulated by Baby Boomers. That’s why it’s no surprise to me that the Baby Boomers don’t wanna fix it. If our grandparents were the most beloved generation, I predict @dreamwolf, that ours (born 1981) will be the most hated since we will be the ones that will have to fix it.

I’m wondering, do you hate capitalism, or do you believe in using capitalism to achieve your socialist beliefs?

All my family are and were workers… and… that’s it…
I still am although I have a small “company”...

I think unimaginable creative human potential is being horrifyingly crushed and wasted inside that insidious machinery, which perpetuates the structural inequalities of both wealth and consciousness, on which the capitalist power-system depends.

If we were working together, we could achieve so much more, both as individuals and as a global society.

@cletrans2col You know, its a strange thing with Capitalism. It does in a way keep humans busy from having to hunt, steal, kill and just overall become an animal for survival. We can look at China and see a communist nation that is A-Captilistic and see how well off they are, as an entire nation. But who knows about their individualistic nature. I really love the idea of small businesses. We can look at the great cities in the U.S. like Seattle, San Francisco, New York and see that small businesses can stay put and have a happy society.

@The_Idler Agree, but to that extent not everyone wants to do the same things. As a nation, and a species yes, we should look more forward to science and the future generations… Or should we? That’s what’s great about being a liberal, there’s the general idea of helping everyone, but moving forward, yet other people can also be a bit conservative and stay put and have small business, make a good honest living.

Sharing is caring.

I’m a socialist, because I believe unbridled capitalism simply doesn’t work. It creates an unending cycle of boom and bust. Markets left to their own devices do not regulate themselves.

I also believe that greed is not a virtue. It is an abhorrent trait that humans should rise above.

I believe that private property breeds violence against all people deemed different. Diverse communities that embrace all members are what humans should be evolving towards.

These are all great answers, but I want to know WHY you are a socialist. What touched you personally. I’m much more interested in a what happened to you, like an example of what turned your head, if you have a belief, give an example of a real life situation of something you were involved with or observed.

Small business is great. The best engine for innovation and dynamic growth.
I support free, but not unlimited enterprise.

There is also the problem with some areas of critical national importance, which naturally require or strongly favour monopoly systems to be efficient. The infrastructure systems and their relationships with society and nature mean that some activities – such as railways, public transport, water, electricity, gas, mining, resource extraction, medicine, post, security and defence – work most effectively and efficiently with a monopoly or cartel system. Not only that, but it is incredibly irresponsible and short-sighted to entrust essential/unsustainable/ethically questionable activities to the whims of Big Money.

The privatisation and deregulation of Thatcherist/Reaganist economics was a great blow to democracy. They have taken, from the people of this island, the rights to the coal beneath our feet, to the rain above our heads, and they have given them to unelected entities, which shamelessly admit their own existence is based entirely upon the principles of wealth accumulation.

Electricity is essential to our society. Water is essential to life. How can we entrust these things to gangs of unelected power-mongers, who take pride in the magnitude of their own greed?

Perhaps most alarming is the growth of private ‘security’. Where’s the public mandate for the life-changing actions of trans-national employees? There is none.

There are more examples.

The response of the Establishment to the democratisation of Government has been to progressively separate their means of profit and control from the elected Government, and thereby not only do they disenfranchise the working-classes, but indeed also create a system in which ideology and morals are increasingly diminished in their power to structure society, making way for the new, disturbingly volatile ‘Ultimate Force’: money.

And the people that have all the money… happen to be the Establishment.

The rise of Corporate Power is another way of saying the rise of Political Impotence.
Which is a way of saying our democratic power has been compromised.

Unlimited Capitalism is simply undemocratic.

——————

Why am I acutely conscious of this?
Working in factories and warehouses and offices and seeing people’s creativity and energy stunted and squashed because someone has convinced them that all they can ever be is a cog.
And that, somehow this is a good thing, and they should be proud of it.

@dreamwolf I grew up in two communist countries. Capitalism wasn’t the norm and never became my norm. Nothing specific made me socialist. What I learned as an activist simply reinforced my previous socialist views.

Because I like democracy and equal, just and fair treatment of all.
Capitalism is in opposition to both:
It gives undue economic and indirect/direct political power to a small economic elite. This results in a small elite having the power to direct and define the cultural and economic development and reality of the rest of the population. (In fact, that is the reality right now. Not just the obvious corporate lobbyists in government, but mass media, from TV, and “News” to food, music, fashion and even what is considered beautiful and sexy.
And since the only actual goal in capitalism is maximum profit, it inherently tends to create monopolies and uncaring corporations that exploit their workers and force them into poverty and economically based servitude while they themselves live in luxury. Left unchecked, capitalism results in child labour, long working hours at minimal pay, unsafe, unhealthy and even lethal working environments, right-less workers, right-less customers, destroyed and polluted environments. All that was reality when capitalism really took off. It took state intervention to win all the rights that workers and customers enjoy today.
Socialism by definition requires democracy, as it puts ownership and administration of the means of production into the hands of the population at large.
Workers of a company own and control the company they work for/in in a democratic fashion. This also, almost automatically, results in fair treatment of workers and better pay and benefits, workers become more motivated and connected to the company, because they are directly involved in the grand decisions the company makes. Companies are thus run by the very people that make the products, who take pride in their profession and who care about the quality of the product, unlike an accountant who only cares for the bottom line. This means greater product quality, hopefully less emphasis on profits and therefore lower prices. There is a reason that public healthcare systems are consistently more effective, cheaper and more egalitarian than private insurance systems.

I am NOT a socialist because I am a Christian. God did not direct us to confiscate other people’s money and channel it through a huge governmental bureaucracy to help the poor and needy, he expects his children to provide help on an individual basis.

I was a socialist when I graduated from college. I was penniless and had no job. I couldn’t understand why I had all this education and no one wanted me to work for them. There was a recession on and things were very difficult. I worried that bad things would happen to me and I had no place and no person to turn to if things went down the tubes. I thought the world owed me a job.

35 years later. I’m not a socialist from the “I need help” point of view. Now I’m a socialist from the “I want to help” point of view. I’ve worked steadily over the years and amazingly enough, I’ve done quite well, considering that I have been constantly under-employed given my education. So it’s time to pay forward into the future.

@wundayatta

Do you feel as though you are somehow justified in authorizing the government to appropriate money from people who don’t believe as you do just to salve your feelings? ... or what??

I am a Socialist because there are things that I disagree with @CaptainHarley and those like him on. For instance, I believe that a nation of such great wealth allowing any of it’s citizens to starve on the streets because of greed makes one less than human. That right there marks me as a Socialist.

I am a Socialist because I know enough math and history to disprove many of the things put forth by what passes for “Conservatives” these days. I am even more of a Socialist because I am all too willing to call them on it.

@CaptainHarley I wish I could phrase this nicer, but… that is how we operate in this country, so love it or leave it!
Seriously though, I pay for all sorts of stuff I do not believe in. I think it safe to say that every American does. The alternative is to stop being an American. By your logic, the military should be abolished as many don’t believe in them, _especially_not at taxpayer expense. How about using taxpayer money to put “In God We Trust” on government buildings? How about paying Congress?

You have a lot to learn. The poor cannot possibly provide those things you say Jesus miraculuosly did. Extradite yourself and come back when you are willing to accept the high price of freedom and choice.

@CaptainHarley I have no problem with that. There are a lot of voters out there who feel justified in authorizing the government to take my money to build killing organizations and machines. Defense spending is the least efficient kind of spending there is when thinking about creating jobs. It’s also wasted spending. But I pay my taxes so the people who believe in that crap can waste our money.

At least when create programs that help folks become productive members of society, we aren’t wasting my money, or yours, for that matter, no matter what you might think of it.

I’m not. I see socialists as people who are overly concerned with the money that other people have – money that they think ought to be spread around, given to themselves. It is a slightly more altruistic greed, but wrong all the same. Additionally, It has a tendency to produce people who consume without contributing.

Any system, untempered by goodwill and compassion and myriad other virtues, is abusive to someone. Any system that we might employ will have its flaws, for we are fallible creatures.

Since you seem to be of a Biblical inclination, I’d like to point out that the Mosaic Law – which Jesus came to complete, not destroy – permitted those who were unable to provide for themselves to harvest certain portions of wealthier people’s fields for their sustenance. This suggests that God’s position on the matter is that wealth is not bad, but being a jerk is.

I’m not, I’m naturally a centrist but currently hold myself as an anarchist. Why? Because every government created by man – in my eyes mind you – is just another mask for an oligarchy. If you could create a socialist society (which with modern man is nigh impossible) that is in no way an oligarchy – once again, in my eyes – then I may consider joining.

I’m not a socialist.

I agree that the tax code should be more progressive than it is, and I also agree in universal healthcare, and a basic social safety-net, but I don’t think equalizing everything is a healthy approach. I think once the absolute minimum is provided for (food, medicine, shelter, safety, education) then it’s up to people to do the work, take the risks and to build the futures they want for themselves. I believe we’ve got a long way to go still to meet those basic minimums for all citizens.

I believe strongly in the power of small/medium sized businesses and think we need more protections for them to succeed without being stomped on by the mega-corps. I consider myself a strong capitalist, with the firm belief that having a healthy middle-class and a progressive tax system is the system most likely to produce the highest prosperity for all members of society (including the wealthy).

I don’t have any problem with keeping our military at home to defend our Country, as a matter of fact, it would please me no end to see them ALL brought home from everywhere overseas!

As to providing a minimal income for those unable to provide for themselves, I think that would be a very good idea… do away with the hodge-podge of social services and welfare programs and offer everyone a minimal income on which to survive until such time as they can provide for themselves. Sounds like a good idea to me and one which would waste far, far less money than what we now have.

@Nullo Very well said, and very accurate.
@CaptainHarley Agreed!!
@gorillapaws And agreement here as well…whoda guessed it.

I am clearly not a socialist, and I certainly believe in sharing with the less fortunate. I have minimal, if any, faith in socialistic tendencies achieving anything close to equity. On the contrary, socialism feeds on the inherent selfishness of man and is unfailingly corrupted by it.

I’m not a Socialist, but I do agree with this article about how a mix of socialism and capitalism is optimal for maintaining a working economy.

In theory, socialism/communism is the perfect form of government.

In practice, it tends to be ruined by the greed and evils of man.

Complete socialism is unworkable, as the Chinese discovered. Complete capitalism is brutal, leading to class warfare and widely fluctuating business cycles. A compromise between the two, as practiced in most democratic nations, is what seems to work best.

I am not at all opposed to finding ways to improve the efficiency of the social service system. In fact, I’m totally in favor of it. It is so poorly managed, mostly, that far too many people don’t get the services they need, especially those with mental health issues.

@laureth

I am astounded!

@laureth Very nice!

@CaptainHarley I don’t think you would be nearly as astounded if you had actually take me seriously.

[mod says] This is our Question of the Day!

@gorillapaws framed my personal view very well. Also, @laureth ‘s article (which I read earlier today) is excellent. I don’t think all capitalist nor all socialist are ideal governments. Some sort of hybrid seems best. Capitalism promotes incentives for people to innovate and do many wonderful things. Without some socialism, capitalism puts too much power in the hands of the greedy.

But to answer the question more directly, I’m a believer of this Confucius quote:

“In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of”

@laureth That’s a great article, written by a professor at Millsaps College in Jackson MS. Had not seen it before.

@CaptainHarley You say you aren’t a socialist, but you are a Christian. Put simply, Christ said, “Live as I have.” There’s nothing more, nothing less. And yes you can find that quote in the New Testament. I’m so annoyed with Christians who pick and pull from the New Testament and Old Testament. I’m in annoyed because, the only book that matters is the New Testament. I myself am a Messianic Jew. Which is to say, I’m of Jewish blood and decent, the same blood as my King Christ. Socialism is just the Taxonomic way of saying Christian works, in the political realm.

The “real” answer to this question would be because I have socialist parents and as everyone knows, our parents have a great influence in a lot of thing in their children’s lives (religion, values, politics and so on). The more philosophical answer would be: because that’s the person I am.

As a teacher I am trying hard to teach my students how to behave towards each other, how important it is to be able to work in groups, how each and everyone can help and support other kids in school. To me these are fundamentals in succeeding in school but also in a healthy society. Tolerance, acceptance, empathy, respect, solidarity – five important approaches for every man who wants to be a part of a group and who realize that being a part of a community/society/country/world, is the key and vitals to a healthy life and a healthy world.

In my head, socialism is the best ideology for a healthy society, simply because it focuses on “us” and “we” – not the “I”. Man is a flock animal, when we are together we feel good – when we are alone, we feel sad and deserted. We need each other, we need the people around us and socialism is all that – “The best way to cheer yourself up is to try to cheer somebody else up.”

@dreamwolf

Yes, I understand what a Messianic Jew is. You are to be commended for accepting the fulfillment of prophecy in Jesus.

Christianity was intended to be personal, with group activities confined to the Body of Christ ( i.e. The Church Universal ), not imposed on the body politic by legal fiat.

@CaptainHarley I agree. Unfortunately, religion has been used politically for centuries and for a means of power over others. Even in the U.S.A. it is apparent that this is happening. When Republicans use Christ as a means to political power. It’s why Liberals have pushed the “Pledge of Allegiance” out of public schools. So people can practice whatever worship they wish to, without a proposed gateway to a political opinion. Which is to say that, in the school system, kids were learning, for example. 1. If you attend Church, you’re a Christian, therefore, you want the rest of America to be Christian, you denote yourself a, “Conservative” politically and those two match. This taught Muslims in America 2. Well, the pledge of allegiance just says God, so that can mean Allah, so that is alright with me. Less confusion for a child of Muslim decent in my opinion to pledge alongside a Christian, to our great country of the U.S.A. But for those non believers, who still want to be a part of society, and can be in a positive way, saying something non-heartedly means nothing. My point here being is that, from early on in school, we were taught this religion relates to this politician and so on. Which shouldn’t be the right way to vote, in my opinion, I feel we should vote on the premises on the works promised to be produced, and not by whether or not they are Democrat, Republican, or Independent.

@cruiser I come from the poor. I donate, I volunteer, I give money to poor. And I’m poor myself. I currently have no money to my name. The high price of freedom and choice, comes at this price only: The Oppression of putting other societies down. We see this in our own America, within the gay community, they don’t think the same way as 80% of Middle America, therefore they don’t live in Middle America. They move to a place with diversity, where people are willing to move forward and progress in life. Poor people can give to one another and I have seen this with my own eyes. I grew in the South East region of San Diego so I know about hardship. Look it up on Wikipedia if you want. I don’t know where you have the need to feel like you have to personally attack me, and pass judgement on me. Extradite what? Myself? I am myself, and there is no control over me, and oh, your statement about the high price of freedom and choice. I would kill another for my country, because in America we have the right to our own opinion, and freedom of the press, and the right to vote. I would be damned if anyone threatened to take these liberties away from me, or my future generation of kids. So don’t go telling me to Extradite myself, and come back. I’m as American as they come baby, and you don’t forget that.

@dreamwolf You are holding forth on much of which you know little. Good for you for thinking as deeply as you may, but at this point, it’s not all that deep. Two points: Being a Christian/Messianic Jew says absolutely nothing about the group mechanism by which the society is ordered. There has to be some order some way, and we have a two party system that is not going to be overthrown anytime soon. So we work with it and do the best that can be done.

Secondly: this debt was not accumulated by Baby Boomers. This debt was accumulated by Obama and by George W. Bush. I believe Bush had more justfied reasons to incur it, but it still wasn’t the best thing to do. Where on earth do you the get the idea that Baby Boomers created the debt?

@plethora Who collects Social Security? Who uses more Medicare? What are two of the biggest things in our budget?

@jerv Social Security and Defense Spending.

(Medicare almost reaches their level if you combine it with Medicaid, but the two programs are different….. and also all three combined comes out to roughly ⅔ of our budget)

@plethora Check your debt facts. Nearly half of our current national debt can actually be accounted to Ronald Reagan. Second highest since him is still Bush 2 at the moment (though Obama will overtake him at his current rates). The lowest since Reagan is Clinton, who actually got the annual deficit all the way down to 18 billion in his final year in office.

Reagan lowered the highest tax bracket from ~70% to around ~35% (be that right or wrong), and then failed to cut spending to match the new income levels. No president or congress since has had the balls to fix the problem by either cutting spending, raising taxes, or some combination of the two.

@tedd Defense spending is 23% of the budget. Medicare, Medicaid, and SS make up close to 60% last time I looked.

Reagan did lower the tax rate. It was congress that failed to cut the budget.

@jerv “Baby Boomers” use very little Medicare or SS. They just started turning 65 about about 18 months ago. Besides, it’s not a matter of who uses it, but who established it and repeatedly expands it. Hello, Democrats.

If you talk about Social Security’s outlay, it is only fair to discuss the program’s income.

@tedd but the tax cuts would pay for themselves, because all of that money would magically boost the economy to the point that it offset the costs. It trickles down to the people, that’s why the wealth in the US is distributed so nicely since Reagan… I’m pretty sure Jesus wouldn’t have been a fan of Reaganomics.

@plethora Pulled it up, for 2010:
Medicare and Medicaid – 23% combined (no split total given)
Social Security – 20%
Defense Department – 20%
Discretionary Spending – 19%
Mandatory Spending – 12%
Interest on Debt – 6%

And how do you think Reagan lowered the tax rate? With a wave of his magical Reagan-Wand? He put a bill in front of congress that lowered said tax rate, and they passed it (against vehement protest from a bit less than half of congress mind you). He could have put forth a bill at any point in his 8 year term (he lowered taxes within the first year) to match the tax cut. But he didn’t. Not “He put a bill forth and congress turned it down…”. He simply didn’t.

@tedd You are exactly right on the numbers. I was pulling from memory.

Gosh, and I have such good memories of Reagan. You sure nobody in congress wanted to cut spending? Wish we’d had Obama around then. I know for sure he wouldn’t have put up with such foolishness. Not with Pelosi and Reid constantly on his back to cut spending and balance the darn budget.

@plethora You can point fingers at Obama and democrats all you want. Fact of the matter is this, Reagan put our country on a path of economic insolvency, and no one (in either party) has had the balls to fix the problem. At least Obama and the current crop of Dem’s can point to what was nearly a second great depression and say they had to spend to avert it, even if that’s not true or a flat out lie on their part… they have an excuse. What excuse have Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 got?

@tedd During the Clinton years, the spending trajectory was reversed. Remember “the surplus?” Instead of using it to pay down Reagan’s debt, Bush 2 cut taxes disproportionately benefitting the wealthiest 1%. I agree with what you’ve said otherwise.

@gorillapaws Oh I know it was reversed, but in being fair, he still added to the debt every year. He may have shrunk the deficit every year he was in office until he got it down to 18 billion his last year, but it was still a deficit, and an addition to the debt.

@tedd I think you should have had a TV show back then so you could really bash where it belonged. And don’t stop with the Bushes and Reagan and Clinton, take on Jimmy Carter, Nixon and LBJ and JFK too…..Hell…go after Eisenhower and Truman as well.

@plethora While those presidents may have messed up other things, none of them are responsible for our national debt spiraling out of control. That started with Reagan, and continued thereafter.

I’m a supporter of the social market economy model which most German liberals and conservatives embrace. Most means of production are privately owned. The model succeeds by combining private enterprise with government regulation to establish fair competition, maintaining a balance between a high rate of economic growth, low inflation, low levels of unemployment, good working conditions, social welfare, and public services.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy

@mattbrowne Intriguing indeed! Greatest answer!

Socialism by its self doesn’t work. That’s been proven. Invariably you’ll have people who are willing to work hard and share, and then this crop of lazy bums pop up who are not willing to work and only willing to take what the hard workers give them.

I’m a mix of Capitalism and Socialism. Probably because I was raised in the US of A. I’ve had the opportunity to decide for myself whether I like the system or not, and have the opportunity to try and change it if I want. But I think it’s working just fine for now. I have a feeling we’re leaning a leeetle too far to the left at the moment, but, like a pendulum, it’ll swing back to dead center eventually, where it belongs.

@mattbrowne…Maybe I’ve misunderstood, but I thought that in true socialism the government owned all businesses….

No, in true socialism, the workers own the businesses.

So…it’s communism in which the state owns the businesses. (honestly, I confuse the two)

So….why doesn’t pure socialism work?

No, communism is an extension of socialism with the added features of the abolishment of wage labour and money based economy, free access to goods of consumption, and the dissolution of the state as an entity.
When the state owns businesses, it is called “state capitalism”, where the state acts as one single large corporation. Friedrich Engels, one of the founders of socialism, called it the final stage of capitalism.

To be honest, and I won’t hold it against me if you decide to rip me a new one. I don’t think that the socialistic/capitalistic (it had characteristics of both) economic model that the Nazis set up was half bad… I mean they ( I may be wrong on this) were the first to throw off the great depression.

@King_Pariah
That was mainly because of forced labour (people could not refuse a job, or they were hauled off into the camps, and got to wear black triangles), the massive expansion of the military, incarceration of a lot of undesirables like jews, gays, socialists, and others. Furthermore, women were sent back into the kitchen and were taken out of the unemployment statistics.

@ragingloli it’s mainly the part where the gov’t is like “we want you to make this, but there is no quota for you to make and no certain way you have to make it. If you can make a better, say, tractor than the next guy, go for it.”

@ragingloli, is there, or has there been a “true socialist country” where the workers own the businesses?

@bkcunningham
No, there has not.
The Paris Commune had a good start, but it was crushed by the military from Versailles, because ironically, they refused to take over the banks in Paris and cut off funding to Versailles.

There are however, many socialist companies, called Worker Cooperatives.

Sorta sounds like a union or a corporation or a private business trying to get preferential treatment, @ragingloli.

From WORLD DECLARATION ON COOPERATIVE WORKER OWNERSHIP
4. Governments should ensure access to appropriate financing conditions for entrepreneurial projects launched by worker cooperatives by creating specific public funds, or loan guarantees or covenants for the access to financial resources and promoting economic alliances with the cooperative movement.

http://www.usworker.coop/public/documents/Oslo_Declaration.pdf

Then why hasn’t it worked?

Socialism, @Dutchess_III?

@dutchess
Because it has never been implemented on a national scale.
Every time people tried to implement it, it was hijacked by despots, discarded and replaced by state capitalism, while still maintaining the label of socialism for propaganda purposes.

@Dutchess_III
Also, almost all the most powerful individuals and organisations in the world oppose it, because they want to continue living like the kings of old, and that lifestyle relies upon their control of the financial system and the means of production, just as the feudal lords and kings relied upon their own control of the mint and the land.

The ruling classes today are extremely powerful. Cuba might have turned out a little differently, if the USA hadn’t used naval blockades to destroy its economy. Even Communist Korea might have turned out a little nicer, if the USA hadn’t attempted to destroy them and, in doing so, forced them to spend a huge proportion of their GDP on the military and intelligence services just to survive.

Having the USA as your enemy would make anyone paranoid, right?
From propaganda and assassins, to tanks and wholesale nuclear destruction of civilian population centres, the American government is relentless in its commitment to protect the astronomical fortunes of the obscenely rich, neo-feudal capitalist elites that we all serve.

Oh yeah, because we totally attacked North Korea first, and South Korea totally didn’t ask for our help.

I suppose you’re being sarcastic, considering the “oh yeah” and “totally”, so typical of the American bastardisation of the art, and so I suppose, too, that I should interpret your statement as the opposite of the literal meaning of your words.

I’m thinking about it, but I somehow can’t imagine how this is relevant to the point that: being enemies of the American government is severely detrimental to the quality of life of the residents.

Do you disagree with this, or did you just feel like mentioning a couple of historical facts we all knew anyway?

Please elaborate WRT the actual point you’re trying to make/opinion you actually have, because I’m not very good at determining these things from posts such as the above, and so I find it difficult to reply in a constructive manner.

Apologies.

Sorry, just letting you know I have lectures at 0900 BST, so ima sleep now, I’ll probably be able to reply again in about 12 hours or so,

night, ye…..

If you call North Korea nice for wanting to unite Korea then sure.
But then you have to call South Korea nice as well.
We had very little military presence there at first, Truman was cutting down the military, anyway, North Korea attacked South Korea to force them into unity, no peaceful talks, no attempt at trying to agree on a government to unite, just brute force. We, and NATO, went in both as help (which was asked for), and, I’ll admit, we more or less finally saw the importance of having a military presence on the Asian continent, and swoop, within the first year of fighting, pretty much reclaimed the whole of Korea. Would North Koreans be resentful of us for this? Of course, we just swept from under then what could have become assured victory and “unity” under communism. Hell, that’d be the only way they’d have been “peaceful” and I would not exist to type this all out and whatnot. The problem was that China got involved and thus tada, the 38th parallel DMZ. If China didn’t get involved, it could have ended there, no North and South, just Korea. But we would have probably never “attempted to destroy them” if they hadn’t pulled out a sudden blitz of violence and force.

Anyway, we’ve only kept a single Division there, then because of the Cold War (and the need for a foothold on the Asian continent, Now because South Korea is bipolar, asking us to leave then asking us to stay. And believe me, we’ve been willing to pull out, we almost did earlier this decade except well, south Korea practically begged us to stay. Anyway, after the debacle that was the Korean War (yeah history books call it a police action all you damn well want), we kept a relatively small military presence there, would things between North and South Korea been as hostile as they are now if we didn’t, but who knows? Maybe South Korea would have become just as militant as the North has and things would still be just as bad, if not worse, then they are now between the two.

@King_Pariah ”We totally attacked North Korea first…” What? Are you implying that North Korea attacked us? Are you confusing them with Pearl Harbor? North Korea didn’t attack us. They attacked South Korea which, for whatever reason, were were policing at the time, following WWII.

I was being sarcastic towards the whole communist Korea might have been nicer if… and no I wasn’t implying that Korea attacked the US first. But they did, without even giving peace talks a real chance storm my other home country to which the US + NATO responded in the correct manner but carried it too far perhaps. I just think it’s bull to assume north Korea might have been nicer considering they initiated the hostilities. And why the hell should one be friendly with a dictator anyhow?

In a perfect world… absolutely not. In this one? Meh, sometimes I lean. The wall however is slightly slanted so it cant be helped… It’s a political illusion, like they all are.