Would you support a Gay Intervention?

[Maineiacs]

No, this is not a thread about a reality tv show on that gay channel, CBS I think. It's not about forcing treatment on gay people, because gay people aren't sick.

This is about this: We've bombed the shit out of countries for all kinds of reasons. Because they attacked an ally, harbored a terrorist, had a resource, and on occasion, because they represented a threat to us. It may be possible that we've bombed countries for shittier reasons than any of that.

So, suppose 2020-2028 was eight years of President Tim Gunn and VP George Takei, and shit was made to work, motherfuckers, and America solved all of it's economic problems, had android soldiers with cyborg officers, and could, without significant risk or cost to itself, more or less impose it's will on any other country militarily.

And let's say the North Koreans are torturing and killing people for being gay. And they're openly saying it. And Kim Jon Kardashian-Bieber asks us, "We don't like fags and we're gonna impale them up the ass next to roadsides, what are you gonna do about it?"

So Tim Gunn hold Takei back while Japanese words meaning "you have offended my honor and imma kill you" (there are many ways to say this in Japanese, I'd guess, conjugated for the age, rank, family, gender/sex Yeah, I know, okay, just please and class of the people speaking or being sliced across the torso) are flying through the air, and they get back on air force one, and on the way back they decide doing this means invading a sovereign country, and one of the ideas that Gunn and Takei brought to the White House was the idea that you should only do that with a sound reason.

And so they ask you, NSG, the Secretary of Ride or Die N***a's Who Will Roll Up Anywhere On Erf and Fuck E'Erbody's Shit Up If It Be Time To DO 'Dat Shit, Knamean (Formerly the Department of Defense) whether an invasion is justifiable or wise?

I say yes. Because humans.

What say you, NSG?

(The Radio Play Act 2 is being finished, I've written it, I just haven't written it down)

Let me guess: you live in either Denver or Seattle, right? I really need to move there. It looks like you guys are growing some intense shit out there.

[Lydenburg]

I'd say restrictions on homosexuals are the least of North Korea's problems right now.

[Pandeeria]

The North Koreans have nuclear weapons.

All we can do is embargo them, fund insurgents, and offer full refuge to though that escaped North Korea.

[Sanctus Byzantium]

Now I am just going to give my two cents here. I may support the American Armed Forces in everything they do, my family being military, but I will not say that we should waste the lives of American sons and daughters on a invasion of North Korea, no matter what the reason.

[Divitaen]

I hate homophobia but....this solution seems strangely simplistic and a huge overreaction.

I mean, honestly, America has invaded North Korea before (well, sort of an invasion) and millions of North Korean civilians died. I don't think an atrocity from Pyongyang justifies an even bigger American atrocity. Look at Iraq. Homosexuals were oppressed there too, I don't think any LGBT rights activists would honestly say homosexuals are living a better life in Iraq now. Very few people in Iraq are living a better life now.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

There's very little grammatical gender in Japanese, actually.

[Grenartia]

I hate homophobia but....this solution seems strangely simplistic and a huge overreaction.

I mean, honestly, America has invaded North Korea before (well, sort of an invasion) and millions of North Korean civilians died. I don't think an atrocity from Pyongyang justifies an even bigger American atrocity. Look at Iraq. Homosexuals were oppressed there too, I don't think any LGBT rights activists would honestly say homosexuals are living a better life in Iraq now. Very few people in Iraq are living a better life now.

Well, do you have a better solution to the problem?

[Dejanic]

I don't support Neo-Conservatism, regardless of whether it's straight Neo-Conservatism or Gay Neo-Conservatism.

[Skinia]

I would be awkward for one leftist state to invade another leftist state over leftist ideology.

North Korea is far right.

[Divitaen]

I hate homophobia but....this solution seems strangely simplistic and a huge overreaction.

I mean, honestly, America has invaded North Korea before (well, sort of an invasion) and millions of North Korean civilians died. I don't think an atrocity from Pyongyang justifies an even bigger American atrocity. Look at Iraq. Homosexuals were oppressed there too, I don't think any LGBT rights activists would honestly say homosexuals are living a better life in Iraq now. Very few people in Iraq are living a better life now.

Well, do you have a better solution to the problem?

Military intervention is always tricky because not intervening and not starting a war, or imposing sanctions that kill innocent children, will always lead people to wonder "what about all the people being massacred". It's a terrible situation, sure. And I get that if we "stand by and do nothing" people are going to die in this theoretical scenario, but let's be realistic. It's one thing to recognise a situation for being terrible, like LGBT citizens being massacred in a country, it's another thing to propose a solution to make things worse. I would want the international community to pressure the North Korean government to change its policies, but that will probably not work, and every other solution is only likely to worsen the violence.

[Socialist Tera]

What the fuck is this? Look at this graph:

There are countries that do the same thing that you wouldn't support the invasion of, I call hypocrisy.

[Grenartia]

Well, do you have a better solution to the problem?

Military intervention is always tricky because not intervening and not starting a war, or imposing sanctions that kill innocent children, will always lead people to wonder "what about all the people being massacred". It's a terrible situation, sure. And I get that if we "stand by and do nothing" people are going to die in this theoretical scenario, but let's be realistic. It's one thing to recognise a situation for being terrible, like LGBT citizens being massacred in a country, it's another thing to propose a solution to make things worse. I would want the international community to pressure the North Korean government to change its policies, but that will probably not work, and every other solution is only likely to worsen the violence.

I don't think "stand by and do nothing" is much of a solution. I mean, we intervened in WWII (a bit too late, methinks), and ended up saving countless people from the gas chambers.

[Divitaen]

Military intervention is always tricky because not intervening and not starting a war, or imposing sanctions that kill innocent children, will always lead people to wonder "what about all the people being massacred". It's a terrible situation, sure. And I get that if we "stand by and do nothing" people are going to die in this theoretical scenario, but let's be realistic. It's one thing to recognise a situation for being terrible, like LGBT citizens being massacred in a country, it's another thing to propose a solution to make things worse. I would want the international community to pressure the North Korean government to change its policies, but that will probably not work, and every other solution is only likely to worsen the violence.

I don't think "stand by and do nothing" is much of a solution. I mean, we intervened in WWII (a bit too late, methinks), and ended up saving countless people from the gas chambers.

Well, that's debatable. The historical debate on whether Nazi Germany would have fallen with or without US intervention is still ongoing, but there is a lot of evidence that the "belief" that the Nazis were defeated because of swift US action originated as a result of the jingoism of American historians, and the British and Soviets were well on their way on the job without American aid.

Anyway, that's not the point. Aside from the contested historical debate on WWII, looking at the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Libya, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, there seems to be strong evidence that wars not only inevitably involve excessive civilian death, but often prolong or escalate conflict rather than resolving it. I mean, intuitively, I can't imagine sending bombs over North Korea, in this theoretical scenario, would cause it to cease the killing of homosexuals. If anything, the oppression of the civilian population is bound to escalate in response.

[Socialist Tera]

Military intervention is always tricky because not intervening and not starting a war, or imposing sanctions that kill innocent children, will always lead people to wonder "what about all the people being massacred". It's a terrible situation, sure. And I get that if we "stand by and do nothing" people are going to die in this theoretical scenario, but let's be realistic. It's one thing to recognise a situation for being terrible, like LGBT citizens being massacred in a country, it's another thing to propose a solution to make things worse. I would want the international community to pressure the North Korean government to change its policies, but that will probably not work, and every other solution is only likely to worsen the violence.

I don't think "stand by and do nothing" is much of a solution. I mean, we intervened in WWII (a bit too late, methinks), and ended up saving countless people from the gas chambers.

Then you will have to invade Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Benin, Mauritania, Iran and Somalia as well to not be a hypocrite. Pressuring North Korea alone is also stupid, why aren't you also pressuring South America, Middle Eastern, Asian and African countries as well as North Korean?

[Sphermenia]

I am straight
I support gay rights

BUT, invading North Korea could cause so many problems and make the situation worse.

[Arlenton]

No, this is not a thread about a reality tv show on that gay channel, CBS I think. It's not about forcing treatment on gay people, because gay people aren't sick.

This is about this: We've bombed the shit out of countries for all kinds of reasons. Because they attacked an ally, harbored a terrorist, had a resource, and on occasion, because they represented a threat to us. It may be possible that we've bombed countries for shittier reasons than any of that.

So, suppose 2020-2028 was eight years of President Tim Gunn and VP George Takei, and shit was made to work, motherfuckers, and America solved all of it's economic problems, had android soldiers with cyborg officers, and could, without significant risk or cost to itself, more or less impose it's will on any other country militarily.

And let's say the North Koreans are torturing and killing people for being gay. And they're openly saying it. And Kim Jon Kardashian-Bieber asks us, "We don't like fags and we're gonna impale them up the ass next to roadsides, what are you gonna do about it?"

So Tim Gunn hold Takei back while Japanese words meaning "you have offended my honor and imma kill you" (there are many ways to say this in Japanese, I'd guess, conjugated for the age, rank, family, gender/sex

Yeah, I know, okay, just please

and class of the people speaking or being sliced across the torso) are flying through the air, and they get back on air force one, and on the way back they decide doing this means invading a sovereign country, and one of the ideas that Gunn and Takei brought to the White House was the idea that you should only do that with a sound reason.

And so they ask you, NSG, the Secretary of Ride or Die N***a's Who Will Roll Up Anywhere On Erf and Fuck E'Erbody's Shit Up If It Be Time To DO 'Dat Shit, Knamean (Formerly the Department of Defense) whether an invasion is justifiable or wise?

I say yes. Because humans.

What say you, NSG?

(The Radio Play Act 2 is being finished, I've written it, I just haven't written it down)

Avoiding the obvious fanciful part about a democratic administration fixing the economy...

I would support it, ONLY if the totalitarian communist fascist wackos in NK would be gone and the whole country would be liberated from them.

[Arlenton]

No, this is not a thread about a reality tv show on that gay channel, CBS I think. It's not about forcing treatment on gay people, because gay people aren't sick.

This is about this: We've bombed the shit out of countries for all kinds of reasons. Because they attacked an ally, harbored a terrorist, had a resource, and on occasion, because they represented a threat to us. It may be possible that we've bombed countries for shittier reasons than any of that.

So, suppose 2020-2028 was eight years of President Tim Gunn and VP George Takei, and shit was made to work, motherfuckers, and America solved all of it's economic problems, had android soldiers with cyborg officers, and could, without significant risk or cost to itself, more or less impose it's will on any other country militarily.

And let's say the North Koreans are torturing and killing people for being gay. And they're openly saying it. And Kim Jon Kardashian-Bieber asks us, "We don't like fags and we're gonna impale them up the ass next to roadsides, what are you gonna do about it?"

So Tim Gunn hold Takei back while Japanese words meaning "you have offended my honor and imma kill you" (there are many ways to say this in Japanese, I'd guess, conjugated for the age, rank, family, gender/sex Yeah, I know, okay, just please and class of the people speaking or being sliced across the torso) are flying through the air, and they get back on air force one, and on the way back they decide doing this means invading a sovereign country, and one of the ideas that Gunn and Takei brought to the White House was the idea that you should only do that with a sound reason.

And so they ask you, NSG, the Secretary of Ride or Die N***a's Who Will Roll Up Anywhere On Erf and Fuck E'Erbody's Shit Up If It Be Time To DO 'Dat Shit, Knamean (Formerly the Department of Defense) whether an invasion is justifiable or wise?

I say yes. Because humans.

What say you, NSG?

(The Radio Play Act 2 is being finished, I've written it, I just haven't written it down)

Let me guess: you live in either Denver or Seattle, right? I really need to move there. It looks like you guys are growing some intense shit out there.

Top lel

[Sanctus Byzantium]

Military intervention is always tricky because not intervening and not starting a war, or imposing sanctions that kill innocent children, will always lead people to wonder "what about all the people being massacred". It's a terrible situation, sure. And I get that if we "stand by and do nothing" people are going to die in this theoretical scenario, but let's be realistic. It's one thing to recognise a situation for being terrible, like LGBT citizens being massacred in a country, it's another thing to propose a solution to make things worse. I would want the international community to pressure the North Korean government to change its policies, but that will probably not work, and every other solution is only likely to worsen the violence.

I don't think "stand by and do nothing" is much of a solution. I mean, we intervened in WWII (a bit too late, methinks), and ended up saving countless people from the gas chambers.

I wouldn't call getting bombed by Japan and then having war declared on the United States by Germany and Italy "intervention". I believe that is called war. Intervention would be if Roosevelt had said something along the lines of "You know what? I have decided that we should do our part to sort out those Japanese, Germans, and Italians so I should march our armies over there right now." Instead of what he really said which was "I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire." Just saying.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

What the fuck is this? Look at this graph:
(Image)
There are countries that do the same thing that you wouldn't support the invasion of, I call hypocrisy.

Invading Brunei and the ISIL controlled territory are the most feasible options, but nobody wants to do that.

Invasion of Mauritania, Nigeria, Sudan, Yemen and Somalia would do harm to your reputation and their country's very populace, aside stability in the whole region.

Invasion of Saudi Arabia and Iran would have catastrophic global consequences.

If Myanmar had death penalty rather than life imprisonment, though, it'd be something.

[Great-Bohemia]

No, I think that nobody should invade North Korea

[Purpelia]

North Korea says they are communist. Thus they are communist. Thus they are glorious and I would newer support anything against my fellow communists. It does not matter what they potentially do. They are my comrades and that's all that matters.

[The Nihilistic view]

What the fuck is this? Look at this graph:
(Image)
There are countries that do the same thing that you wouldn't support the invasion of, I call hypocrisy.

Well that map needs updating........ It's at least 9 months out of date.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

What the fuck is this? Look at this graph:
(Image)
There are countries that do the same thing that you wouldn't support the invasion of, I call hypocrisy.

Well that map needs updating........ It's at least 9 months out of date.

"May 2012".

[Washington Resistance Army]

North Korea says they are communist. Thus they are communist. Thus they are glorious and I would newer support anything against my fellow communists. It does not matter what they potentially do. They are my comrades and that's all that matters.

No actually, they don't.

[Ostroeuropa]

Bit of a clusterfuck out there.
We'd need the chinese on board for an invasion, they may come around eventually as NK spirals ever downward into more and more of a clusterfuck.

I'm getting the sense that China is pretty sick of their shit too.
Wouldn't invade for just the gays, but because it's a tyranny.