That we point out their human rights violations?
That we are instrumental in applying sanctions for UN violations?
That we were instrumental in keeping S Korea free?
That we embrace a way out life outside their control?
That we are a block in any expansion of their control over others?
Lots of reasons.
Hi peoplepower73, Since one country can't hate, (or love) another country, but, the people of a country can hate another country, is it safe to assume you were asking why the North Korean people hate America?
If so, how do you know they hate America? Obviously I am hoping you won't offer the government's statements and actions as your reasons.
I'm sure your historical research must have touched on points that show the contrasts between N. Korea's urban and rural population life styles would almost fit right into the story-lines of those 'The Hunger Games' movies.
When I consider that, and some recent reads about the demand for 'outside-world' info media smuggling, (USB sticks, CDs, cellphones...), into N. Korea, and, combined with a lack of recall of any notice of N. Korea's people's hatred of America - that didn't come from the government, I didn't get the impression that the N. Korean people do hate America. So what makes you think they do?
ps. here's a Google link to some of those "smuggling" stories, if you are interested: Smuggling into North Korea **Note that the search terms did not specify what kind of smuggling, yet all first page results were about outside-world information smuggling.
Why are we in a situation, that makes North Korea want to attack us with Nuclear ICBM's? I have asked myself this question and then I did the research. It all has to do with the Korean war of the 1950's. President Truman declared a U.N. "police action" when the North Korean's came across the 38th parallel to attack South Korea. To make a long story short, we bombed the North with huge bombs and napalm to the point we sent them and their infrastructure back to the stone age. Twenty two percent of their population was wiped off the map. We were even considering using nuclear weapons.
We as a nation have mainly forgotten about the Korean war, but from one generation to the next, the leaders of North Korea have not forgotten. An armistice was declared at the end of the conflict by President Eisenhower and it was over for us. But the North Koreans are reminded every day about how they won that war and how the evil Americans ruined their country and their people.
They have museums that their people are mandated to see that shows how we massacred their people and destroyed their country. In over 60 years, the people are reminded every day that they are still at war with us. By definition, a war is won when the enemy has given up their will to fight and peace is declared. North Korea has not given up its will to fight and peace was never declared. We never declared war, only a "Police Action was declared by Truman and an Armistice was declared by Eisenhower. As far as North Korea is concerned, it is open-ended and they are still at war with us.
That's really deep people! I remember vaguely that there was a war. I would think that NK would be good to its own people if the US is the enemy. I know the ruling family has hatred for the US but do the people feel that strongly.
Slavery was evil but I can't blame anyone alive now for it. I did not experience the extent of the horrendous atrocities my ancestors felt.
A person's hatred does more to harm that person than it does other people.
Just my thoughts because I can't contribute any facts or insight.
You left out one essential fact: This all started under Communism which had promised to take over the world, especially the United States. Krushchev stomped around in an Iowa cornfield threatening to "bury us within." At the same time, we had no friend in Mao Zedong in China. After we gave Cuba its independence, Castro took it over and in the 1960s had Russian nuclear missiles parked 90 miles from our coastline and threatened to unleash them on us. Our aggression in North Korea sprang from this world background and is probably a product of the Cold War. This is not a defense of our actions, but just more background information.
Someone did make a point about holding grudges. Remember we devastated Japan during WWII and they, too, could have hated us into eternity, but when we helped to rebuild them afterward, Japan became one of our staunchest allies.
Wilderness: I can appreciate your comments, but you are looking at it from our viewpoint, not theirs. Understanding your enemy is key in getting conflicts resolved. Why don't we ask them what they are so upset about? Maybe we could prevent their ICBM launches and having to attack them.
Yet I very plainly offered the Korean war as a reason. Now it should be obvious that our recollection (NK attacked SK, we defended them) will not be shown in the same light - if I had to guess, that they were the aggressors is likely not even known to the average citizen, let alone given as a reason for what happened. Not that "changing history" has much to do with why they hate us - that comes from a lifetime of indoctrination, and it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. One has only to witness the terrible success of Nazi Germany and the Jews to understand that.
As far as asking why they are upset, They are under total control of a madman and we are the scapegoats, just as the Jews were, just as we are to the Taliban. The roots may or may not be far deeper, but that is the current reason. And it's NOT because of a war they started, whether the people there know who did what or not. Though that war is very likely a part of the hate-producing rhetoric.
Wilderness: They started the war, but in their mind set, it was never finished. That's where I believe they are today. The more they are sanctioned, the more upset they get. The problem is our sanctions do not have a red line for them to cross. Again, it is open ended.
We and the UN forces did destroy their country and they have the right to blame us. I know all is fair in love and war, but from the perspective of those being bombed and napalmed, those are atrocities, especially if it is passed from generation to generation.
I bet the average person today knows nothing about the Korean war. It is called the "forgotten war." All they know is Kim Jung-Un is a wack job and we are afraid he is going to launch nuclear tipped ICBMs that can reach Alaska. A little history and understanding your enemy, never hurt anybody.
Of course they have the right to blame us; if a bully takes a punch at you and you swing back his broken nose is all your fault. That's how indoctrination works.
But listening to the people that grew up and lived there, the war is not the problem. The madman at the helm is - there seems to be massive fear and hatred of the government there. Could be wrong (it's real easy to get only one side of a story that is shut down by government), but I don't think so.
You are dealing with a despot. Tyranny is usually easier to maintain if an imminent threat is perceived. Creating hate towards us is a means to an end
North Korea hates pretty much everybody who's not North Korea.
I think most of the reasons for the animosity towards America have been discussed, and I can understand them - I guess it's partly a response to the meddling of America (from their point of view) in their affairs in the mid 20th century, and partly a dictator's response to anyone who threatens to put an end to their dictatorship in the 21st century. I can't contribute more on that.
But Mike (peoplepower73) said at one point 'Why are we in a situation, that makes North Korea want to attack us with Nuclear ICBM's'. I would perhaps try to allay a few American fears about that, because I don't think N.Korea has any intention of initiating an attack against America.
Now what I'm going to say next may sound sympathetic towards N.Korea. It's not. That country is ruled by one of the most evil despotic regimes in the world, and the sooner that regime is gone, the better. But let us consider this from N.Korea's point of view. They know what happened to Japan - a country without the atomic bomb, in WW2. They also know that America has waged conventional war in Afghanistan and Iraq and been involved in other conflicts against countries which lack ICBMs. N.Korea is isolated, with no friends apart from an increasingly lukewarm relationship with China. They probably believe with some justification that without nuclear weapons, they may well be attacked by America. For this reason I actually think they are absolutely genuine in their declaration that they have nuclear weapons for defence NOT offence.
Now don't get me wrong, N.Korea is an aggressive nation and would dearly love to invade South Korea. I merely say that I think the reason they developed a nuclear capability rather than even more extensive conventional capabilities, was for its value as the ultimate deterrent.
If they developed ICBMs for deterrence, would they nonetheless use them against America? Perhaps if they were themselves attacked and the regime was in imminent danger of falling, but in any other circumstance, I think not. Why? Because the N.Korean leadership may be brutal, but it is not a fanatical religious sect like ISIS. If he dies, Kim Jong-un does not think he is going to Paradise to be attended to by 100 virgins (or is it 1000? I'm not sure how many virgins look after Islamist fundamentalists when they blow themselves up!) The N.Korean leader is more like an old-fashioned dictator - like Hitler or Stalin. All such people really want is territory and absolute power. Kim doesn't want to die, and he knows full well that if he launches just one ICBM against America, not only will it almost certainly be intercepted and destroyed, but a few minutes later he will be dead and N.Korea will have been obliterated in retalliation. He knows that will also apply if he launches a nuclear attack against South Korea.
So reprehensible as N.Korea is, I honestly don't think they intend initiating an attack against America - or anyone else - with nuclear weapons. I think in that respect you can sleep easy! The danger is that conventional war with S.Korea will break out. If so, it will of course go badly for N.Korea because America will rightly intervene, and then maybe things would escalate to the point where Kim Jong-un feels he has nothing left to lose.
You seem to contradict yourself here. NK looks at America attacking Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries that do not have nuclear capability...but only with conventional weapons and decides they must have ICBM's because we might attack them. Doesn't make sense.
On the other hand, they might be looking at the same thing and deciding America will never use atomics again, so if they have them and strike first there can be no harm. Or perhaps it is as you say, Jong-un fears the day he will have nothing to lose, so why not loose that evil once more?
On the contrary, it does make sense. The point is that nuclear weapons are seen as the ultimate deterrent. From N.Korea's point of view (which may well be misguided), would America have risked attacking these other countries with conventional weapons if there had been a danger of them retaliating with nuclear weapons? As far as N. Korea is concerned, they think they are safer with their own nuclear capability because America maybe would not dare attack them for fear of how Kim Jong-un might respond - the possible consequences might be too great.
Your second point is surely wrong. The N.Korean leadership are evil - not stupid. If N.Korea were to initiate an attack on America with ICBMs, they know that in those circumstances America would surely respond in kind.
Do they know that (that we would respond with ICBM's of our own)? I don't, and have serious doubts that we would. There are millions of people in this country, I think, that share the opinion that all nuclear weapons should be dismantled regardless of what other countries do, and that would never, under any circumstances, condone using them.
I watched Fareed Zakaria this morning on CNN, GPS. To me he has given the best explanation that I have heard. The mind set in this country and many other countries is that North Korea is evil and needs to go away, by regime change or by other means. But, they have been surviving from one Kim dynasty to the next for over six decades, through all types of world conflicts, threats, and sanctions. But they are still here.
They have been in survival mode, for over 60 years. They see their nuclear ICBMs as a means of survival for their protection. It is a defensive weapon that they feel will help ensure the survival of the dynasty.
They also view the armistice at the end of the Korean war as an open issue for not only them, but for us. I don't believe any amount of sanctions will cause a regime change or change of Ideology that would be in our favor. As a matter of fact, I think it will have the opposite effect and cause them to dig in even harder and create more conflict. I think our unspoken ultimate goal is regime change and I don't think that will ever happen.
I would largely agree Mike, certainly about the ICBMs. I'm sure they don't really want to use them and then have to face the repercussions of an American response.
I'd also agree that if they're sensible enough not to attack South Korea, then the Kim dynasty will probably remain in place for some considerable time yet because - as you say - the people are used to putting up with sanctions and hardships. What's more, faced with unending regime propaganda, a lot of N.Koreans probably genuinely fear America, more than they fear their own leader.
But hopefully it won't last another 60 odd years. Dictatorships are inherently weak in the sense that they do not even trust their own population to vote for them, so most usually fall eventually. Maybe the Chinese will one day withdraw all support, or maybe the people - despite censorship - will gradually become more aware of the difference in living conditions between North and South Korea, leading to widespread disenchantment. Or maybe N.Korea will just run out of Kims?
American businesses cannot make money in North Korea. Any country where America cannot make money is an enemy of the US and likely to be destroyed.
Really? It's as simple as that? Funny how freedom of speech can give people freedom to say the most ridiculous things. Sometimes, I wonder if they bother to think before they type.
Check out the way the US forced Japan to open its markets.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/18 … g-to-japan
'Perry arrived in Japanese waters with a small squadron of U.S. Navy ships, because he and others believed the only way to convince the Japanese to accept western trade was to display a willingness to use its advanced firepower.'
Yes. That happened in 1853. Out of curiosity, what was Europe doing throughout the world in that time frame?
I do understand that blaming corporate America for everything bad in the world is the current fashion. I blame them for much, also. But your statement American businesses cannot make money in North Korea. Any country where America cannot make money is an enemy of the US and likely to be destroyed. is so ill thought as to cause me to question your motives. The only animosity the U.S. harbors toward North Korea revolves around its military threats and our support of South Korea's rights not to be over run by that country. And, the human rights violations within North Korea. As a Brit, I can completely understand why human rights violations would not bother you, in the least.
Britain and France were engaged in various imperial adventures, including the Opium Wars. During the Opium Wars, they bombarded Chinese coastal cities to force China to accept Western trade. The UK was especially keen on selling opium, a substance they had aplenty, given their ownership of Afghanistan at the time.
This was all about making themselves rich and this is what modern warfare is all about. Opening markets.
Syria, Iran and Libya were all closed to Western companies. They have all been destroyed.
Well, it appears you proved my point by your comments. Human rights don't mean much to you.
My first interest is reality.
Why did something happen?
To answer that question, it is wise to put aside personal beliefs and ideologies. After the facts have been established, you can allow yourself the luxury of making judgements.
I agree on facts. People interpret facts differently but facts must be irrefutable.
When I was a child in Catholic school, we were taught that Columbus discovered America so that people could practice their religion.
When I taught in a public school, in a heavily Jewish community, the principal stated that immigrants came to America to force Christianity on people.
These are two biased opinions based on the fact that immigrants did come to America. "Discover" applies to people who did not know that this continent existed. The people who lived here already strongly disagree.
When there are facts, they should be stated.
I don't get that your first interest is reality. We have a despot whose iron fist keeps a population of tens of millions in poverty. We have a government who kills at will; even sending assassins out of the country to kill family members of that despot. We have a nation to the south who has lived under the ranting threats of that nation for so long that the current generation assumes that it is natural state of affairs. Let's hope it is and the nuclear aspirations of the north do not include using their bombs against their southern neighbors.
The threat of sending nukes over to our shores has been made again and again. I don't really take the threat as a real one but neither do I think corporate America is in any way responsible for North Korea. I, personally, don't think anyone who says it does has any interest in reality. I see it as a bizarre mish mash of America bashing.
As long as the money supply- our owners, own you and almost everything else our equality will decrease. The Rothschild's have only a few countries they do not have their bank gangsters and North Korea is one of them. Secretly China needs North Korea nuclear threat to keep Americans invasions at bay wail china buys up America.
Trump may do something very stupid in the west but first he wants to : Bomb sh*t out of the Middle East and take their oil. That would delay the vanishing American dollar and petro dollar. Fight starts in the east and finish's in the west. The bully always starts with the weakest target then ends up alone. BRICS is awaiting their take over.
I'm not defending North Korea, it has an abysmal human rights record.
I am merely pointing out that the big issue in regards to North Korea is the refusal to take part in the world economic system.
The West waited for an opportunity to destroy Syria, Iran and Libya because they too, refused to allow western businesses to make money within their borders.
I disagree, although I see that you are now backing up and not saying 'American' but 'the west'.
Sure, corporations want more markets. But I don't think the west lies in wait of the opportunity to pounce so that corporations can have more markets. Nor do I think you can compare the problems with North Korea with the problems of the Middle East. I also think North Korea would be tickled pink to partake in the world economy. It isn't their desire to do so which has caused so many sanctions to be leveled against them.
Kim il Jon knows that Saddam Hussein was caught hiding in a hole (literally) and hung by the neck until he was dead.
That is the fate that Kim is most trying to avoid. Hence the mad dog belligerence and the development of nuclear weapons.
I ain't taking sides, here. The deal that America offers the world is not a bad one as far I am concerned. But if you want to understand why things happen the way they do, you cannot afford a sentimental world view.
LOL. No one from the West was responsible for the ultimate fate of Hussein. It was his own people (or, more accurately, the people he had kept subjugated under his rule) who did that to him.
I'm afraid my personal opinion isn't driven by sentimentality. I've spent time in South Korea, have talked to the people who live there, so part of my opinion has been forged by their attitudes and sentiments. I don't think any of us has enough information about the people of North Korea to know how they feel. But, I do know that no one in the West or in America is actively considering sending nukes over there. If we obtain credible evidence that they do not feel the same and there is reason to believe they are capable of acting and willing to act on any nuclear threat they make I don't think it will be 'corporate interests' which determine our response. Were the threat made against any other nation I would't begrudge them any act in response to protect innocent lives within their own borders.
Will: I think you are right, but it all comes under the guise of democracy. If they are the "others" then we have to have regime change and convert them to a democracy. It may have worked with our founding fathers because it was organic. But I have seen too many times where forcing democracy after regime change just plain backfires. I can give many examples if you so request it.
It is absolutely true that many peoples are not ready for democracy.
But the whine that any place where America cannot make money is their enemy is just that: whine stemming from hatred, nothing more.
US foreign policy is relatively complex given that it is a democracy.
There are those within government who genuinely believe in American exceptionalism and the benign, worldwide promulgation of democratic values, simply as a good in itself.
There are isolationists.
There are the hard-nosed, realpolitik operators, for whom it is always about making the US richer, more powerful and ultimately achieving world hegemony.
I reckon the latter usually win out, but the do-gooders have saved an awful lot of lives.
It is worth remembering that if the US was not top dog, you would either have a mess of regional powers constantly at war, thirties style, or another nation would be gradually re-shaping the world to suit its interests, as the US has been doing since WW2. That nation might not have any do-gooders at all.
The United States dropped a whole lot of bombs on them during the Korean War.
I don't think it matters who tied the rope. Decisions taken primarily in Washington sealed Saddam's fate and the fate of his country, too.
Saddam should of gotten a 20 year US agent pension rather than a hanging. Another country who refused the Rothschild's banking disservice.
Been to South Korea myself, they have been well manned & equipped ever since the Korean war. The resistance will happen 1st in the Middle east, follow the money. North Korea are not friends of America, and RICHES they want.
If your not friends the US OR US CORP, you are not allowed nuclear weapons to protect yourself from NWO.
These comments seem particularly delusional to me.
Iran, with a clearly stated policy of the annihilation of Israel is being challenged in its nuclear aspirations by the West. North Korea, with its consistent threats of sending nukes over the water to other countries, is being challenged in its nuclear aspirations by the West.
Nuclear capability, coupled with undying hatred, is too potent of a mix to allow to proceed. Hatred of America, or any country, should not cloud one's judgment where nuclear war is concerned. If it does, you can guarantee few will consider your reasoning rational.
Don't know what part is delusional, other than war and terrorism is what US is number no. at it. Remember Iraq and Iran war backed by US.
Doesn't really matter to you what Hussein did to his people. As I stated previously. Human rights violations don't really factor into your opinions on anyone. If they are anti American just let them gas and murder their citizens willy nilly. They are OK with you. Got it.
But, I do find it interesting since I always saw Bush as a Tony Blair puppet. I remember Blair giving a speech saying something to the effect that it was our moral obligation to wage war with Iraq. Although I was initially touched with how quickly Blair rushed across the Atlantic after 9/11 it soon became obvious he wasn't too upset about the incident. It appeared to give impetus for American policy to be steered in a direction of his making.
A few of the reasons that people cannot see reality for what it is:
Nationalism. If your country is always right, simply because it is your country, you are obviously in no position to reflect on its actions.
Over-identification with leaders. If your leader is always right, simply because he/she is your leader, you are in no position to make judgements about their judgements.
Not listening to politicians. Mostly, they tell you the truth in the West, even if they do not spell out the details. In the case of foreign policy, 'protecting US interests abroad' means going to war (if necessary) for the sake of US business.
Denial. Ordinary people are usually decent creatures and do not want to be part of the slaughter of ordinary people elsewhere. Hence, a great deal of understandable denial when their country pursues its 'interests' with full rigor.
Will, it is interesting that you ignore reality and claim others are in denial.
I don't quite see where you come up with your first item in your list of reasons why I may not see reality. Sure, I have disdain for foolish comments from a foreign national which are no way related to reality. This is not indicative of nationalism on my part. I have never commented that America is always right, or even often times right. I did comment that if a nuclear threat is credible I would not begrudge the officials within that government their actions to protect innocent lives. That statement would include any nation. Take Israel and Palestine. Although all can sympathize with both sides in this matter sympathies give way to pragmatic reality when missiles start flying across borders. Any response to such, which obtains a level of security for citizens of the nation attacked in this way, does not imply one doesn't still see and sympathize with the frustrations of the other side. It simply shows that missiles are not a long term answer or a short term one.
Your second item is equally perplexing. I don't know that I have ever made any comments to the effect that our leaders are always right. I do remember commenting that corporations push public policy many times, in directions which are not in line with the will of the people. However, again, when we move into the realm of nuclear missiles I think all people involved (whether corporate representatives or Joe in Minnesota) would agree that is a bad thing. One would certainly hope one's leaders would feel the same.
I do agree with you on your third item. I remember listening to some official during the Bush administration. He was asked why we didn't step in during some genocide in Africa. His response? The public wouldn't have backed it since there was no visible gain in it for us. I was appalled because protecting human life, in my mind, is the only reason for boots on the ground in a foreign land. I also think this belief that fighting terrorism at its source is flawed. Europe, from what I have read, is particularly despised because of their policies within those areas during their occupation. We are only setting ourselves up, later down the road, for the same types of hatred which is causing so much terror within your borders.
I will say that I think America has followed in the footsteps of Europe; in that we think we can solve other people's problems. It can't be done. People have to solve their own problems. I realize calls for aid from people within tyrannical regimes are compelling but action should probably be resisted, although it is hard to maintain such a stance when chemical weapons are used and genocides are occurring. But, as you know, it is difficult to believe that concern for citizens of those nations is what compels politicians to move forward with military action. I don't think concern for the populace was in any way in the back of the minds of politicians when Europe cut up the maps of nation states by taking over most of Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia. The world, as a whole, has been grappling with the ramifications of these military actions for all of our lives. But, no one learns from history. Look at Afghanistan. When we went in my first reactions was 'you have to be kidding me.' Only the Ottoman Empire was able to have that area function with some semblance of civilized behavior. England sought the opium. With Russia; perhaps it was fear of a weak country vulnerable to allowing Islamic extremism to seep across their border. Who knows what compelled our politicians to wallow into the mire.
Either way. I have never made any comments in favor of regime change, nor have I seen evidence that our government is interested in pursuing such a course in North Korea. I have consistently stated that the Chinese will have to resolve this dilemma for the rest of the world. North Korea would prove a powder keg if any western country attempted to step in.
by TheWorldNow 2 years ago
Why do so many Americans hate America? And if they hate it so much why don't they just leave?One thing that really bothers me is the way some Americans seem to hate everything about America. I'd just like to ask them: "If you hate everything about the country you live in then why are you...
by flacoinohio 8 years ago
Do you think North Korea would risk a nuclear attack on the US or one of its allies?North Korea for what ever reason is flexing its military muscle and directing it towards the United States. The United States claims it will remain strong in its stance to use nuclear power as a deterrent to a...
by Jack Lee 4 years ago
It is a delemma for me. As a conservative and one who does not like wars unless absolutely necessary, I am just not sure what we can do in this case.You have a dictator who is treated as a god by his own people, almost like a cult.They have been brainwashed to hate us and the west.They also possess...
by Useful Knowledge 12 years ago
North Korea is threatening to "wipe the Us off the map." Do they have the weapons to do this? Do you think we can intercept thier missiles?
by lesliebyars 5 years ago
What should we should about North Korea? Invade?
by lesliebyars 7 years ago
If North Korea really does launch a missile that hit America, what should our response be? I'm not a war monger and in most cases I am against war to solve the issue. But when you say your going to attack a country and try to do it then you have to be proactive. I believe we should treat them like...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|