North Korea
That_Annoying_Kid
Sire of Titles Join Date: 2003-03-01 Member: 14175Members, Constellation
Sire of Titles Join Date: 2003-03-01 Member: 14175Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">your take</div> Hello all
first thread in the reopened discussion forums
what is your take on the recent talks and the events that surrounded them that recently ended in Beijing, where North Korea stated that they indeed have multiple nuclear devices and the capablity to deliever them, and that they inteneded to test one. <a href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&edition=us&q=%22north+korea%22+nuclear+weapons' target='_blank'>when it comes to sources, google news is your friend</a>
in the talks Pyongyang is demanding that the US not invade North Korea and that they give substancial aid to the country in return for stepping down the nuclear weapons program...
[MY PERSONAL BIAS INCOMING!]
I see this as saying, were going to start a hostile action (the reactivation of the nuclear weapons program) and then say "sure we will stop, but firsy you have to promise to not invade and give us financial help"
when cleary the United states should be saying, you started it and then you expect us to give you help and promises in exchange for stopping something that was created and controled by you in the first place
North Korea and the generation that lives their have grown up under the communist rule and are probably so doused in propaganda and nationalism that they will believe what they tell themselves, and the reactivatoin and threating of testing a nuclear weapon etc is just to push the other nations around
[/bias]
yea
that sounds about right, I hope my post makes sense
well get some discussion in the muh!
first thread in the reopened discussion forums
what is your take on the recent talks and the events that surrounded them that recently ended in Beijing, where North Korea stated that they indeed have multiple nuclear devices and the capablity to deliever them, and that they inteneded to test one. <a href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&edition=us&q=%22north+korea%22+nuclear+weapons' target='_blank'>when it comes to sources, google news is your friend</a>
in the talks Pyongyang is demanding that the US not invade North Korea and that they give substancial aid to the country in return for stepping down the nuclear weapons program...
[MY PERSONAL BIAS INCOMING!]
I see this as saying, were going to start a hostile action (the reactivation of the nuclear weapons program) and then say "sure we will stop, but firsy you have to promise to not invade and give us financial help"
when cleary the United states should be saying, you started it and then you expect us to give you help and promises in exchange for stopping something that was created and controled by you in the first place
North Korea and the generation that lives their have grown up under the communist rule and are probably so doused in propaganda and nationalism that they will believe what they tell themselves, and the reactivatoin and threating of testing a nuclear weapon etc is just to push the other nations around
[/bias]
yea
that sounds about right, I hope my post makes sense
well get some discussion in the muh!
Comments
/ends bias and unintelligent reply.
Now, I don't lose sleep at night over the thought of a nuclear armed North Korea. If they do develop these weapons I see no reason why they would be anything other than a defensive measure. Look at it from their perspective: if they use them against anyone in the region they would be nuked back to the Stone Age in retaliation. All the surrounding possible targets: (China, South Korea, Russia, Japan, Taiwan, Australia) either have their own nukes or come under the US's protective umbrella. Using those nukes would be suicide for North Korea, so I see no reason why they shouldn't have them.
North Korea and the generation that lives their have grown up under the communist rule and are probably so doused in propaganda and nationalism that they will believe what they tell themselves <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
T-H-E-Y A-R-E N-O-T C-O-M-M-U-N-I-S-T. Let the media tell you what they want you to hear but their nowhere near communism. Communists wouldn't be giving other countries ultimatums. They swing that word around just to use it as an "excuse" for their actions. They're no more communist than Russia was under _STALINS_ rule. Lenin was a different story. Read about him, he was actually a very good human. Anywho, I don't blame them for defending themselves against our hypocritical stance. "YOU CANT HAVE NUKES BUT WE CAN HAHAHA" And if they can deliver one straight into D.C....good for them, but they would be ending the world. Literally.
I am really saddened that so many obvious power hungry dictators call themselves communists. They're nothing more than that. Power hungy.
Maybe they would be doing the world a favor by ridding it of the human race <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
That's about it. I just hope everyone stays reasonable and understands that N-Korea is not going to be the one to start WW3. Nuclear weapons are only for defending. It's just good for N-Korean people to have nukes because after that they can reduce their military budget enormously and use it for, say, public health care or new winter palace for Kim Chong-il <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
the intersting thing is that they stay defensive by being unused and waved around, but when they are used then it screws everything over
maybe I should start a thread on the topic of nuclear deterance and why it does doesn't work....
or maybe I will go play NS
The North Korea dictator doesnt give shizen about his people. People who prevent elections, and spend up big on military to the complete expense of the people (ie not providing decent health care/education) are not going to stop.
They want power - power comes with more military. If they turned around and said - lets have free elections and so forth, then they would have nothing to fear from the Americans. But they arent going to do that.
When I was younger I saw a short film of North Koreans that had somehow got to near the South Korean border or embassy. And they were THROWING their kids over this really high wall. It seemed to me that they rather risk their childs health and a few broken legs rather than have their kids grow up in their country.
The leaders of North Korea ARE evil. It wasnt smart of Bush to label them so - but its the truth.
They are building nukes so they can bully the nations around them and specifically the US into giving it aid money. I for one have absolutely no doubt as to where the money will be going - and im not envisioning hospitals and schools. Goose marching soldiers keeps going through my head.
I'm not so sure about that. He did commission a twenty volume encyclopedia on his greatness.
I'm not so sure about that. He did commission a twenty volume encyclopedia on his greatness. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's only insane, not suicidal.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Posted on Aug 31 2003, 06:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Posted on Aug 31 2003, 06:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Lol Dread - do you really think that if they get nukes they are going to start looking after their own people? I think we must be living in separate worlds.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's why I wrote "or new winter palace for Kim Chong-il". However I believe that it would make peoples lives a lot easier if their government would lessen the huge military budget, and that would happen if they would get nuclear weapons. The leaders of N-Korea wouldn't have to be afraid of US invasion because they have a nuclear missile/bomb. Like Ryo said, they are not suicidal. One nuclear missile replaces a whole army. They know they couldn't resist USA's military with conventional weapons, so they are preventing you from attacking in the first place. Smart move if you ask me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The North Korea dictator doesnt give shizen about his people. People who prevent elections, and spend up big on military to the complete expense of the people (ie not providing decent health care/education) are not going to stop.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Follow this line:
N-Korea gets nukes -> no use for normal army -> lots of money to be used on something -> at least a small part of money goes for the people
N-Korea is not going to attack anyone. They are only trying to defend themselves in this situation because they know they would lose a war if one would be started.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They want power - power comes with more military. If they turned around and said - lets have free elections and so forth, then they would have nothing to fear from the Americans. But they arent going to do that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the current situation they know they can't get more power, so all they can do is try to hold on to that last bit of power they have. That is by defending themselves with the most fearsome and powerful weapon in the world.
i dont know how korea are expected to trust the US. US has said sanctions against Korea will only be lifted once 'irreversable' steps have been taken to dissmantle the nuclear program. and if Korea were to follow the wishes of the US and dissmantle the arms, they would have no deterrent against another US invasion.
It seems Korea has learnt its lesson from the recent events in Iraq, its the same situation again, even if Korea were to dismantle its arms and cooperate with the UN (as Iraq did) theres still a good chance theyll be accused of hiding them and invaded in the name of libberation and justice anyway.
North Korea is a military dictatorship. Military dictatorships are traditionally aggressive and unstable. The US is a democracy. Democracy, once established, is very stable. Democracies have a natural aversion to war, since it hinders trade. That is why the US can have nukes, and NK can't.
To sum it up: No US president could survive an offensive nuclear strike politically. N. Korea could, at least before our missles hit.
Ryo brings up the idea of N. Korea using them as a defensive measure, like the US has them. The problem with that argument is you assume that N. Korea has a moral imperative and a right to defend itself. It does not. Governments exist to protect inalienable rights. A military dictatorship does not do that, and therefore does not share the right that legitimate governments have: the right to self defense.
Also, try to consider the US' position. You have a very senstive area of the world with a rogue state (read: unstable, irrational government), who just happens to have been developing nukes against there word. They can now attack your populace. Just as NK does NOT have the right to defend their citizens, the US has the moral obligation to protect theirs. The US has many reasons to attack: spread democracy and capitalism, free an enslaved people, remove a regional threat. It also has a moral obligation to attack should certain things happen.
The US has the moral obligation to attack if:
1. NK Tests a weapon. It has demostrated that they are a credible threat.
2. They openly threaten the US. If they say "we shall rain fire down on your cities".
3. They mess with Texas.
I'm not saying we rush headlong into NK. Our military is under enormous pressure right now. However, the Bush admistration must finish up Afghanistan ASAP and then let Iraq take care of itself, freeing up room for a military engagment of North Korea.
<span style='color:white'><i>Yet</i> another blanket remark ...</span>
A nuke is not a "deterrant", it is a chuck of radioactive mass, designed to reach critical mass, turn a small portion of it's mass to energy, and create temeratures in the millions of degrees. It's no firecracker, and it's no sheild. It's designed to kill. Millions.
Granted, NK doesn't have the missiles to get a warhead much father than the Alaskan islands furthest from the mainland, but Seoul is an easy target.
A nation based on hostile takeover, then plunged into a dictorship should not weild that kind of weapon.
Anyways, I think it is bad that every South Korean male is drafted to the army for 2-5 years during their life. If South Korea and North Korea could become one, that would be so great for both sides. If America attacks North Korea, that is for legitimate reasons, then I am all for it. I just hope things can be done peacefully rather than you know what, a full-scale-who-cares-what-the-U.N says-campaign.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->North Korea is a military dictatorship. Military dictatorships are traditionally aggressive and unstable. The US is a democracy. Democracy, once established, is very stable. Democracies have a natural aversion to war, since it hinders trade. That is why the US can have nukes, and NK can't.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah the US has been stable for all it's history. Oh wait, there was that little background tiff called the Civil War. Germany was a democracy as well after the Great War. Oh wait, then there was the stock market crash and the rise of Nazism. China was a democracy once. Oh then it fell into utter corruption and the hands of a virtual dictator in Chiang Kai Shek. Russia was a democracy, then it collapsed with the Bolshevik revolution. England had the Cronwellian revolution in it's democratic early days. Greece, the very first democratic state, collapsed as well.
Democracies are no more stable than any other government type. In fact they're inheriently unstable because whenever things turn bad, democracies are weak to internal pressures. Similarly by trying to satisfy everyone democracies often end up angering everyone. This occured in the US with the question about slavery and in turning to Iraq it is very likely to come up in relation to the Shites and Sunni muslims. Democracy fares poorly in many situations, and even once it's established if sufficient pressure is placed upon it, it will fall apart.
Democratic nations will go to war just like any other nation (let's list the wars of that most famous democracy, America: War of Independance, War of 1812, The Mexican War, the Civil War, The Spanish American War, The First World War, The Second World War, the Korean War, Vietnam, The First Gulf War, the Second Afghani War, the Second Gulf War) when it is in their national interest to do so. Trade doesn't stop them; indeed the American economy only truely recovered from the Great Depression with the onset of WWII. Despots trade as well btw, they don't exist in isolation. Saudi Arabia for example is ruled by an absolute dictator yet he is very interested in trade. So is China. Thus trade provides everyone with a reason not to go to war, not just democracies. But even then, it's not a sure fire way to prevent conflict. What has been shown as a sure fire way to prevent conflict is nuclear deterance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, try to consider the US' position. You have a very senstive area of the world with a rogue state (read: unstable, irrational government), who just happens to have been developing nukes against there word. They can now attack your populace. Just as NK does NOT have the right to defend their citizens, the US has the moral obligation to protect theirs. The US has many reasons to attack: spread democracy and capitalism, free an enslaved people, remove a regional threat. It also has a moral obligation to attack should certain things happen.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US has a tendancy to label any state that doesn't tow the official line as "rogue". A true rogue state would already have attacked, using whatever weapons were at their disposal to inflict as much damage as possible before going under. North Korea hasn't done that. It's not irrational from the position of North Korea. They look across the border and see 40,000 US troops backed up by 25,000 nuclear warheads. Now the US can attack the citizens of North Korea with impunity. It makes perfect rational sense to try and deter that by developing your own nukes. Every nation has the right to protect their people from attack, regardless of if they treat their citizens well or not. In the same way that it's not our place to tell other people how to dress or worship, it is not our place to tell them how to run their government. Thus the US has no "right" to invade.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
1. NK Tests a weapon. It has demostrated that they are a credible threat.
2. They openly threaten the US. If they say "we shall rain fire down on your cities".
3. They mess with Texas.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan and Britian have all tested devices as well. Are they credible threats as well? By your reasoning, yes. Hence, the US should be immediatly invading Russia. Come on man they have 35,000 nukes! That's one heck of a threat!
2. The former USSR threatened America more times than anyone could count. So did China. What did it all amount to? Exactly the same as what North Korea says: saber rattling. Note that they only said they would "rain fire down on your cities" in response to an attack. Seeing as the US has a pretty clear doctrine as well of "raining fire down upon enemy cities" if they are invaded I hardly see the threat posed by North Korea in this case.
3. Where the heck did that come from? If North Korea went ahead and attacked Texas, bizzare though the notion may be, the US would defend itself. Same as if Russia or China attacked it. Yet these nations arn't seen as credible threats to Texas.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ryo brings up the idea of N. Korea using them as a defensive measure, like the US has them. The problem with that argument is you assume that N. Korea has a moral imperative and a right to defend itself. It does not. Governments exist to protect inalienable rights.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. That is a view held by the US, that the US government exists to protect the rights of it's citizens. Government is:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->gov·ern·ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gvrn-mnt)
n.
The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.
A governing body or organization, as:
The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.
The cabinet in a parliamentary system.
The persons who make up a governing body.
A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.
Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.
Political science.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Governments govern countries. How they go about that is their own buisiness. But they do not exist to protect inallianable rights. If you think they do, send an open communique to the Chinese Premier telling him that he does not have the right to defend his country or people. I'd say that hundreds of millions of Chinese would take a dim view to a US invasion. Now the US itself believes that it's government is there to protect the rights of it's people. Good for them. What the US believes does not hold hold true for everyone else. And every nation in the world does have the right to defend itself. If you think they don't, just ask them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->they will most definetly try thier hardest to sell them nuclear weapons for money without being caught <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why spend billions in much needed currency developing such weapons if you're going to sell them? Nuclear material can be traced, and it's not in North Korea's interests to sell weapons to terrorist groups any more than it is in Russia's interests. Sell such weapons to terrorists, and not only does your nation lose a valuable defensive weapon, but you run the risk of having such a weapon traced back to you. No nation would want the consequences of that raining down on them.
Ryo- chill out. Sorry for the blanket statement, but it reflects the logic I've found in this thread. Was it over the top? Sure, but it was done that way to prove a point. Don't be mad Ryo <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
And I'm not the redneck from South Park.
First, note the key phrase 'Once established'. An established democracy is stable with expansive rights and a free press. With established rights, citizens are offered the ability to change leadership without resulting to violence. While the US has had a checkered past in regards to war (early democracies were the most imperialist), modern democracy (1940+) does not like wars because a free press will keep citizens alerted and informed of it. People don't like body counts, and the media can destroy any government war effort, ala Vietnam. I have even more support: In Civilization II, if you keep military units outside of a town, towns get unhappy. <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo--> This argument isn't as solid as I'd like, but its 8am and I can't think :-)
As for democracies instability as you mention, that simply isn't the case. Whereas dictatorships offer no mode of change to their citizens, democracy does. If you get an enraged populace in a democracy, they vote. In other governments, you get a revolution.
Next is the North Korea/Rogue State issue. Rogue States are rogue in the sense that they have not embraced modern political theory in some form or another. This means personal rights, a respect for human rights, etc. (the US is not flawless in this area, I should preemptively point out. We need changes too). You bring up the argument that N. Korea has the right to use nukes to protect its citizens. It does not have that right, as I demonstrated above. Under true Capitalism (Ayn Rand's version), the only soverign government is one made up of soverign individuals. N. Korea does not recognize the individual, and therefore it is not a soverign state. It does not exsist, in a sense.
So then I have my 3 reasons the US should attack.
1. China and Russia may have nukes. Russia is a new democracy (kinda sorta) and China... well, the US cannot afford a war with China right now. China also has the potential to lean too far and topple into democracy.
2. There is a difference between NK and Soviet Russia. NK is small, and overall unimportant to the world. Russia was big and very important. In the cold war, neither country could survive a war. With N. Korea, the US would survive while NK dies. This makes the North incredibly dangerous. the US must pick wars with other critera, such as public image, logistics, and politics. I'm speakingly only in the moral/philosophical sense.
3. It was a joke. Lighten up please. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Next is the idea that a military dictatorship is a legitimate form of government. It is not. You can draw a moral equivalence between the US and North Korea because the US is legit (Democracy) and N. Korea is a military dictatorship. My proof? Modern political theory and a beleif in absolute right and wrong. Democracy is the only real form of government, if you consider why governments exist: they exist not to further the lifestyle of a few, but to allow people to set the rules and regulations for their society. THAT is why man forms governments. Man does not create governments so he can be abused.
And yes, it is in North Korea's interests more than Russia's interest. Why?
1. Russia values aid and trade from the US.
2. North Korea sees the US as a major threat to itself, and would like to see it destroyed while not being blamed for its destruction.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Honestly and humbly, America is no better since they have thousands of more nukes than N. Korea do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And why is that? A nation with the ability to keep and _PROTECT_ their stockpile is not the same as a nation on the economic and militarilistic brink building a small stockpile that is inherently difficult to maintain and protect. A small stockpile under uncertain rule is dangerous. Period. Even if the leader has the best of intentions, things happen when the course of events in an unstable country goes sour. With such a stockpile, you are in danger of LOSING your insurance policy against invasion in a pre-emptive strike. You are now faced with a use it or lose it situation and that too is dangerous (even moreso than the cold war crisis). In other words, it's no longer purely defensive because you cannot wait for an attack to use them or you might not ever get a chance to. Nuclear weapons are used as an insurance policy or as leverage; such a stockpile they are building is not a viable insurance policy given the reasons stated in this paragraph, so North Korea is looking for leverage.
How is that different from america and the soviet union? We have large, reletively well protected stockpiles which, even if one side pre-emptive striked another, garunteed that both sides would still have enough to annihilate each other. Our governments chose the wise action of standing down as there would be no winner. We were the first; and the cold war was a sobering wake up call about the problems with ownership and we know this from experience.
I general, I'm not worried about the nations leader using nuclear weapons. He wants to keep his power and thus wouldn't DIRECTLY use them most likely. (BUT don't make the mistake of thinking that he is looking out for the best interest of his people). No... I'm worried about that nutso rogue general who has the real control of the weapon and has some sort of vendetta against western culture, especially America. Or the radicals the leader SELLS the weapon to- if they nuke america he can "officially" say he didn't do it.
Now, KNOWING that America is attempting to keep the number of "rogue" nations building nuclear weapons down (with good reason I might add), North Korea has decided to build some for the sole purpose of blackmailing the United States into giving them economic aid. And if we don't? If we invade? Those nukes will dissappear, the leaders pockets will get fatter, and it no longer matters- the stuff is out on the black market and <b>thats</b> is what we're trying to avoid by saying "you cannot have nuclear weapons". Being inherently unstable (yes, unstable compared to democracys, I said it), they are not capable of coping with the responsibility involved with nuclear weapons.
In any case, if you think democracy isn't stable (reletive to some other governments out there) you should try living in one of the countries who's government is REALLY not stable. We have a revolution essentially every 4 years. Leaders, regardless of who they are, step up, and step down in a cycle. We take it for granted, but in some countries ladies and gentlemen, it takes a war to change the leadership. A lot of blood (innocent blood) to get one guy out of office and another in. Strange things happen during such times. Throw in nuclear weapons and it's not difficult to lose track of where they go, and who really controls them. I'm glad you think north korea should have the right to defend itself. But if I asked "would you want radicals to get their hands on nuclear weapons?" You'd probably say no. It's a logical answer- North Korean leaders may be nutso militiristic dictators; but even that is better than a radical who already gave his life, just being a matter of when. It's not an issue of weither or not North Korea should have the right to own them; it is an issue of weither or not North Korea, who can't even get their **** together when it comes to running their own country, is capable of handling the responsibility that comes with ownership. Average Joe citizen sees the issue as black and white; they should be able to defend their country and the united states doesn't have the "right" to say they can't. But as you can see there will likely be effects that are not so apparent at first that may become big issues later.
Under normal circumstances (pre-9/11), the US would never invade them. We would guard the South Korean border with the South Koreans, and it would continue until something either snapped, or smoothed out. Until North Korea did a rash action (ruh roh!), or until North Korea's government gets more stable. So WHY is North Korea blatently calling attention to themselves when america is already cleaning up house after 9/11 (something that should have been done long ago)?
Because the government of North Korea wants leverage, and that is why they're building nuclear weapons. Not to help their people, not to defend their country from any perceived threats. "But they want economic aid! They want to help their people!". No, they want economic aid alright, but how much of that is going to get to the citizens, and how much is going to go directly into the pockets of the powers that be? The people in the government there want to retain their power, they don't ever want to get kicked out- if they control the economic status of their country, they control their people.
The decision to aquire nuclear weapons is a huge responsibility, a step which North Korea is not ready to take. Regardless of all the people saying "They have a right to defend themselves" and "The US has no right to tell people who can and can't have nuclear weapons!". I understand your initial reaction, but thats just the way it is.
Since both our arguements hinge on the right, or from your point, lack of right, for a nation to defend itself, I think we should both withdraw from this debate. Otherwise we'll just have 10 pages of us saying the same things over and over <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Thankyou for your apology about the blanket statement.
so logically, you would call the US a 'rogue state' aswell?
can we strear clear of trying to say a country should be attacked because its a rogue state, the term is pretty meaningless, its simply a way of engineering concent for future wars, its another way of saying "these are the bad guys folks".
"a 'rogue state' is not simply a criminal state, but one that defies the orders of the powerful - who are, of course exempt."
- Chomsky.
...There is a difference between NK and Soviet Russia. NK is small, and overall unimportant to the world. Russia was big and very important. In the cold war, neither country could survive a war. With N. Korea, the US would survive while NK dies. This makes the North incredibly dangerous. the US must pick wars with other critera, such as public image, logistics, and politics... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I'm reading this right, you decide the need for war depending on how important it's for USA's benefit? Not how important it's for the people you are liberating in the "rogue-state" or the people that rogue-state is threatening? Yeah, that's fine with me but don't you ever come and say that you want to help people in foreign countries and you are not doing it completely for yourself.
N-Korea = small and useless, but a threat -> destroy
Russia/China = powerful and useful allies, but threats -> negotiate and trade
Do you see something wrong with this? You want to kick small countries arses but when it comes to big countries that could actually hurt you, you just close your eyes? Selective liberation I might say.
Yes, I do decide the need for war based on the US' benefit. The US government is there to protect the rights of its citzens. The military is used when protection is needed from other nations. The US does not have formal relations with N. korea, like we do with China and Russia. North Korea has also proven on the international stage that it cannot be trusted (made nukes against word), which creates moral implications. Should the US risk the lives of its citzens hoping that a country which broke an international contract?
The world isn't perfect. As much as I wish we could turn every country in the world into a capitalist democracy through force, its just not possible. We can't take on the world (at least in the political and economic arena... we could do it militarily :-P) the US needs to pick and choose its battles. those that take precidence should serve US interests, but also the people's interests. While attacking China and making it a democracy would be good, its political suicide and international faux pau. The US should use all its resources to further a democratic world. Many times, political and economic pressure can work. Other times, force is neccesary. The goal is the preservation of lives while still acheiving the goal. Why attack a nation which and be part of a war with enormous casualties when you can use economic and social pressure to acheive the same thing?
im gunna have to pick you up on this again, time and time again the US (i thought ide pick an example which you can relate to, since you cant seem to empathise with anyone who isnt american) has broken countless international agreements, international LAWS, lied on an international stage and has generally acted in a pretty nasty way to much of the globe.
should the korean government risk the lives of its people hoping that a country which has broken so many international laws will stay true to its word out of ... *ahem* honour?
[this is not bashing america. i am talking about Jammer]
the reason i hate your arguments jammer is that they are so self centred, you just dont care for anyone who isnt american (if you ask me, its pretty pointless to love people upto a certain geographical and past that point just not care). and at the same time you expect the world to love america back. its blatant double standards.
Take another angle on this thing and check both sides of the coin <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Take another angle on this thing and check both sides of the coin <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So... Jammer's opinion isn't valid or objective because he doesn't agree with you?
I must be missing something here. If Jammer's opinion is so irrelevant then why bother replying to it?
/me goes to re-re-read the forum FAQ.
<span style='color:white'>Cheap shot. He was obviously asking him to look at it from another perspective, not to adopt it.</span>
So... Jammer's opinion isn't valid or objective because he doesn't agree with you? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please don't twist my words. I am just suggesting to Jammer that he could try to see this thing from another angle too. I used to be rather extremist myself back in the days before discussion forum was locked and I know that it doesn't make a good discussion when one debates only with his heart and not his mind(like I used to).
I bet you get a whole different view of things if you forget your countrys/your best intrest for a while and try to relate to Korean people/government for a while.
Peace <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
You're also acting as if it is in N. Korea's best interest to stay a communist dictatorship, which I disagree with. Though I don't want to have anyone die, is it worth sacraficing their lives for a better North Korea? I think so, though I really don't have the right to choose that. Its a very hairy moral issue. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
A government runs, or governs, a country. A military dictatorship runs a country. Dictatorship = Government. Sorry, but that's how it goes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
gov·ern·ment
n.
1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
3. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
4. The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.
5. A governing body or organization, as:
1. The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.
2. The cabinet in a parliamentary system.
3. The persons who make up a governing body.
6. A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.
7. Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><i>Taken from <a href='http://www.dictionary.com' target='_blank'>http://www.dictionary.com</a></i></span>
Nowhere, does it state that a government exists to protect rights. It exists to govern a country. Also, just because a country is run different doesn't mean it hasn't got the right to defend itself. That's like saying "The overweight kid shouldn't be allowed to fight back if someone attacks him."