Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 739 posts

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#401

Post by maronato »

kube-system wrote: post #278
vachina wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Help me understand why US should be world police.

Because the world has never been a more peaceful place than when the US was a major dominant superpower. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana

Pax Americana is about the American military and economic dominance over other nations.

> the world has never been a more peaceful place

That isn’t written anywhere in the article you linked, and is provably false. Many places in the Middle East, Africa, South America, Eastern Europe, and Asia have been either invaded by, ignored by, or coup’d by the US during Pax Americana.

It’s only “peaceful” for US & Friends because a lot of people are dying by American bullets in other places.

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#402

Post by excalibur »

card_zero wrote: post #330
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they required to hold the vote within the parliament building itself?

They're apparently (according to BBC) inside the building now anyway and waiting for the speaker to arrive and call a vote. Also special forces are there and landed helicopters on the roof, intent unclear. Edit: vote complete, declaration of martial law is voted down. Now what?

Impeachment? Is that a thing there?

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#403

Post by netsharc »

aurareturn wrote: post #353
brvsft wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, although it is a "real" enemy in the sense that their ascension is a threat to US hegemony or the idea of the USA as the preeminent world superpower. I don't see it as rational, but there is definitely an argument that the USA ought to remain positioned as number one, having the ability to dictate global politics. I don't think we deserve it, but it's certainly 'better' for us in the sense that it gives us a…

Well said. I don't mind that the US is doing what they're doing. It probably even make sense for the US to work against China. What I don't like is the massive "China bad" propaganda campaign when in reality, it's just jostling for power and economics.

> Well said. I don't mind that the US is doing what they're doing.

But with Trumpism again being the winner, how much of the world still view the US positively? Obama's Iran Deal was a USA-EU-Iran agreement, when Trump pulled it, it didn't just piss off "the enemy" (Iran) but also the allies (EU), and it destroyed US's credibility, even with a Democratic president, anyone going to do a deal with the USA will ask for guarantees in case the deal gets wrecked after the next presidential election...

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#404

Post by ronsor »

sneak wrote: post #168
aurareturn wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Orwell being so right about governments using the constant threat of a virtual enemy has got to be one of the all time top on the money predictions ever. Who is that virtual enemy for the US?

The rest of the replies here seem to be personal attitudes and opinions. Objectively, the state-promoted bogeymen in the USA are consistently Iran, China, DPRK, and increasingly Russia. I just spent a month in China and the disparity between what we are told in western media and what is actually going on is substantial, but not in the ways I expected.

Based on how I've seen people describe China, they have a lot of "vertical slicing" going on: the parts that are good look really good and impressive, but the parts that are bad are extremely bad. They will do whatever is possible to hide the latter.

Remember that China is not a "free country" (even as much as Western nations have started to make a mockery of that word) like those of the US or Western Europe. Your experience is highly curated by default. If you're just a tourist or a businessman visiting Shenzhen or Shanghai, it's unlikely you'll have any problems - those are major international business cities!

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#405

Post by kelipso »

dfxm12 wrote: post #149
mschuster91 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine the Western online MRA/redpill/incel vs. radfem circles but as core identities in national politics. I have zero idea about SK, but ... "woke vs not woke" has become very much a core identity part in Western politics. The last US election has proven that, and what's going on here in Germany especially with Markus Söder isn't funny any more either [1], we got elections looming in about three months. [1] http…

In the context of western politics, "woke vs not woke" is just today's name for progressive (or even status quo) vs reactionary politics. What's being referred to in SK is somewhat more specific to incels and the 4B movement (which is more radical than how westerners have been using it).

I've read in multiple places that 4B is just an online thing, maybe a couple of thousand women, that has blown up in western news media and not a real life thing in Korea.

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#407

Post by card_zero »

excalibur wrote: post #402
card_zero wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're apparently (according to BBC) inside the building now anyway and waiting for the speaker to arrive and call a vote. Also special forces are there and landed helicopters on the roof, intent unclear. Edit: vote complete, declaration of martial law is voted down. Now what?

Impeachment? Is that a thing there?

I'm more worried about the immediate matter of tanks on the streets.

If the tanks politely go back where they came from, maybe parliament could consider tweaking the constitution to prevent blockading the assembly building next time.

Edit: "The South Korean military says it will maintain martial law until it is lifted by President Yoon Suk Yeol, despite the nation's parliament voting to block its enforcement". That's a bug. "the government must lift martial law" as a result of the vote, but the government is apparently the president?

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#408

Post by skissane »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #172
pmontra wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A question from the other side of the world: if the opposition is controlling the parliament, isn't that the majority and isn't the opposition controlling the president?

> if the opposition is controlling the parliament, isn't that the majority and isn't the opposition controlling the president? You're confusing prime ministers in parliamentary democracies, e.g. the UK with presidents [1]. [1] https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-betwee...

I think the point is, the term “opposition” only really makes sense in a parliamentary system. In a Presidential system like the US, there officially speaking isn’t an “opposition”. (I don’t even think all parliamentary systems officially have an “opposition” status for the largest party/coalition outside government.) But journalists tend to impose the term on non-US presidential systems, when they wouldn’t do it to the US.

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#409

Post by MisterTea »

kernal wrote: post #362
Ekaros wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far-right, Trump, Incels, White-Males, Patriarchy... Pick your poison...

There it is. I knew Trump and white males would eventually be blamed from the radical far left.

I think that was sarcasm.

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#410

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ANewFormation wrote: post #397
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have an extremely unpopular leader trying to sieze power by force, presumably soon banning opposition parties and more By this logic America won when Assad won the Syrian civil war. In geopolitics, power trumps popularity.

Assad had majority approval prior to the war [1] (can't find any more recent adversarial polls, which may be telling) and his family has been in power for decades. The comparison is inappropriate. It's more akin to saying that states adversarial to the US won after the CIA overthrew a popular secular democracy in Iran, and installed a extremely unpopular puppet monarchy that was obseqious to the US. In general mainta…

> Assad had majority approval prior to the war (can't find any more recent adversarial polls, which may be telling) and his family has been in power for decades

"Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay, motivated by fear of civil war" is not 55% approval rating, it's 55% making the pragmatic choice against civil war.

> maintaining power without relatively widespread support is quite difficult

Strange claim in a thread about the Korean peninsula.

Post reply on HN