interesting, human nature is one of the reasons that lead to corruption and dictatorship for sure, but why do people in many places follow the rules that might contradict their interests and human nature?

I think some fantasize that picking the right 'side' will cause them to trickle down their lifestyle onto them, they believe supporting the ones with the status and power will form an allegiance where by those with the status and power will share it with them,,,,

I think others are fearful of some retaliation that leaves them worse off(possibly dead)

The Right or the Left side

lol, I meant 'right' as in 'correct'

and you are correct,,,

it's hard for a liberal to understand how to deal with a bully besides going to a safe place and hide... sadly for yall, that won't work with "bully" world leaders... brute force is the only way to deal with them... they've proved that talking don't do squat, just makes the drama last longer... to bad south Korea says no to an invasion, they do not want a war on the Korean peninsula... but we can't let a little crazy person dictate policy to the US, because he's just going to get crazier every time we don't retaliate...

Its true. If you choose to support an "evil" dictator, there is a chance he will grant you and your.family care that would not be provided otherwise. Same goes for people that choose to support regime change and revolt. If your side wins, then you will recieve benefits that the losers forfeit.

Especially in poorer countries this is true. Simply wishing for change wont work, if you truly want more for your family you have to play ball with one devil or another.

In democrocies where the standard of living is higher, there is less reason to try and forcefully gain power, but in places like NK, the reward is worth the risk.

don't you believe that the situation in Iraq and Lybia, for example, are worse than it was when they were ruled by the bully leaders they had?

I do not know if that was an open question

but I believe the situation in Libya and Iraq is the effect of not having a logical plan for assistance and just rushing in so quickly

the instability there was not truly addressed, all that happened was a show of physical force


It was like getting in the middle of a fight being the only one with the gun and having NO plan about how to keep the gun out of the other sides hands or what to do if they get it from you

we cannot just RUSH into things, in personal life or elsewhere, logic and planning have to prevail,,,

of course, they are much worse, and syria will be as well... but those are different types of thought processes going on there, with fanatics on all sides trying to take over so they can enforce their rules on everyone else... we should have never destabilized that region... that wouldn't happen in NK, the people there are not fanatics...

Right, it's interesting to understand why it didn't work in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries the same way it worked in Germany and Japan after the WW2.

I think it didn't work in Iraq because they disbanded the police and military instead of controlling them then had a proxy leader put in place who they hated, Libya was a bit different I think, they seemed to have it sorted themselves, just needed a bit of help to get rid of Gaddafi, but, you has a few loyal factions left then an influx of isis!
As for ww2, I've often wondered that, there were the odd pockets of resistance, but as it was a face to face conflict that went on for 6 very hard years I should imagine they were just tired of it. Also if they had of carried on gorilla tactics it's likely they would have been left in the hands of the Russians! This would have meant slaughter for them.

Lets do look at how various countries gained their independence.

India? Did India escape rule by Britain by fighting? Actually, no, not really. Most of the job was done by a combination of the exhaustion of Britain by World War 2, and by international pressure, inspired by Ghandi's movement.

Algeria? Sort of, but again, the Algerians were fighting a long time before France decided to stop trying to hold on to them.

Ireland? Mostly achieved by themselves, but again, they benefited from the cost to Britain of fighting a world war (One, that time), as well as the external pressure of self-determination.

Scotland? Scotland isn't independent.

South Africa? Peaceful independence.

What about the United States? Gained independence through foreign intervention. Specifically, French intervention.


Something else to look at, I suggest, is what used to be known here, as East Germany. After the dissipation of the USSR, lots of "experts" were sure that the East Germans would NOT want to join with the West, but would want to remain independent. They assumed that the German people of the East, having been under Soviet domination for a half century, would want very much to remain separate. The "experts" were just as correct as they had been in predicting the collapse of the Soviet itself.

So. Are the N.K. people similar to the Germans, and would they blossom into normalcy the moment they are freed from oppression? Somehow? Or is there really something to the idea that people have to be "trained" or "prepared" for self-rule?

i think china would install a puppet government for them... they have already told NK they would if they even look like they will detonate a nuke in that area...