 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Koryo |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| User | Post | ||
Koryo Keese                Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6305 days Last view: 6305 days |
| ||
|
There has been plenty of unpleasant stuff coming out of the northern half of the Korean peninsula of late. On July 4th (purely coincidence, I’m sure), North Korea fired off several missiles in a temper tantrum show of force to gain more attention. One of these missiles was even aimed at Hawaii. This isn’t the first time North Korea has fired off missiles that threaten South Korea, Japan, and the US, not by a long shot. Here’s what I think. Kim Jong Il, or the “Dear Leader” as he prefers to be called, is a bad guy. Joseph Stalin would be proud to call KJI’s accomplishments his own. KJI has starved millions of his own people (in true communist fashion), imprisoned hundreds of thousands of political prisoners in soviet style gulags, executed thousands of so called disloyal families, and tried numerous times to reignite the Korean War. In my opinion, he has no right to rule North Korea. I get more than a little frustrated with people who insist on treating tin pot dictators as legitimate national leaders. The leaders of governments such as the US, Great Britain, Spain, Australia, and South Korea are legitimate leaders. They are leaders who represent their people, to one degree or another. KJI (like Saddam Hussein), is a thug who holds on to power by force. The only reason North Korea exists as a separate country from the South is because the USSR occupied the territory and put KJI’s father in charge. They then, along with the Chinese, supported him during the Korean War. KJI should be thought of as a gang leader. We don’t negotiate with gang leaders. We capture and or kill them. KJI has proven that he has not intention whatsoever of abiding by international treaties or diplomatic agreements. Now he has proven to the world what we already knew: he has nuclear weapons. This makes his situation rather unique among others on the list of “tin pot dictators in need of regime change”. We can’t just drive tanks across the demilitarized zone and drag KJI out of a spider hole, because he could drop a nuclear bomb on South Korea or Japan. He can’t hit the US with nuclear bombs yet, but he will be able to within a few years. For the moment, that he can nuke our friends and allies (South Korea and Japan) is reason enough for us not to invade. We should also resolve the issue before he actually can strike California. I believe that the only way to solve the problem on the Korean Peninsula is to remove KJI from power and unify the peninsula under the democratic government of the South. But how to do it? The problem with North Korea could be easily resolved if China would help, but they won’t. By that I mean the Chinese government, not the Chinese people. The Chinese government sees KJI, not as an ally, but as an enemy of their enemy. North Korea is a thorn in America’s side, and every bit of energy we expend there distracts from other dangers and problems, and weakens us in relation to China. The longer KJI stays in power, the weaker we are, and the happier the Chinese government is. President Bush claims that China cares as much about resolving the North Korean problem as we do, but that’s clearly not true. Without support from China, KJI couldn’t stay in power for long. So, what do I think we should do about it? We should make it clear to KJI (and China) that any nuclear strike on our friends and allies (Japan and South Korea) will be viewed as a nuclear attack on the United States. I would also tell China that, if they don’t stop all aid to North Korea, we will be supplying Japan with nuclear weapons. I’m not at all a fan of nuclear proliferation. In fact, it would be nice if nuclear weapons didn’t exist. But they do, so I won’t be foolish enough to suggest that good nations like the US and Great Britain should give up their nuclear weapons in the name of peace, because then the bad nations, like North Korea, would have ultimate world power. I certainly don’t want to see South Korea and Japan on one side of an East Asian arms race with China and North Korea on the other. But, I believe that the South Koreans and Japanese are innocent and peace loving people. They must be to have gone so long under the threat of Chinese and North Korean nuclear weapons without building their own, and make no mistake, South Korea and Japan could build their own nuclear weapons right now if they wanted to. If I was Japanese or South Korean, I know I’d be demanding that my government go nuclear. But the sad truth is that KJI could drop a nuclear bomb on Tokyo tomorrow, and there’s not a thing Japan could do about it. China would be very happy to see that, by the way. China would not, however, be happy to see a nuclear armed Japan, so that’s what I’d do. China will support North Korea as long as it is beneficial to them. So we should prove to them that the issue is more trouble than it’s worth. The power China will lose by no longer having a nuclear armed mad man at their side will pale in comparison to the power they will lose by having a nuclear armed Japan across the sea. It would be in their best interest to give up North Korea, and countries and people usually act in their own interest. Then, once China has cut off aid to North Korea, we must also demand that China ship all North Korean refuges down to South Korea. The North Korean people are not evil like KJI, they are just indoctrinated and deprived of knowledge of the outside world. But they are also starved and tortured, so many of them try to escape. They can’t escape into South Korea, because KJI has thousands of troops stationed on the southern border who would kill them on sight. So, many North Koreans try to escape the country by way of the Chinese/ North Korean border. Currently, China’s policy is to capture these refugees and send them back to KJI, who executes them for the unthinkable crime of trying to leave the country. This is a crime against humanity by both the Chinese and KJI. We should demand that China send these refugees to South Korea. Lastly, we should begin to support the North Korean people in a way that undermines and weakens the regime of KJI. When the USSR was starving the East Germans, we airlifted in food. Every two minutes an airplane full of food landed in East Germany to feed the poor, starving people. We should do the same in North Korea, and more. There are very few airports to land airplanes, so we should drop food parcels with parachutes. In the past, we’ve tried to give food to the North Koreans by giving the food to KJI and trusting him to distribute it generously. That is unquestionably insane. We should also put a sticker of the South Korean flag on every can and box of food. If we put US stickers on them, the North Koreans, already indoctrinated to hate the US for generations, might refuse to eat it. But they’ll be more warm to their brothers in the south. Along with the food, we should also drop papers telling the North Koreans about what has gone on in the world that they’ve been lied to about. The papers should tell the North Koreans about how good life is for the South Koreans, and how KJI is the only thing standing in their way of an equally good life. We should also South Korean “missionaries” smuggled into North Korea. Americans will stand out like a sore thumb in racially homogenous country like North Korea. These South Korean “missionaries” will spread the “gospel” of democracy and stir up dissent among the North Koreans. With KJI isolated from his Chinese supporters, he will one day fall. Perhaps KJI himself will fall. Or, perhaps, when he dies, his sons will not be viewed as legitimate leaders by the North Koreans, and then the regime will fall. There is no force more powerful than millions of unified people, and there are about 25 million North Koreans. One way or another, his regime will fall. And, when it does, America should be there to prevent Chinese interference, while the democratic government of South Korea peacefully annexes the North to form a unified Republic of Korea. During all of this, the US should stop withdrawing forces from South Korea. North Korea could invade again at any time. Foreseeing his own downfall, KJI might decide to go out in a blaze of glory rather than fade slowly. Or one of the many small hostile events on the demilitarized zone might erupt into something bigger. However it happens, if a Second Korean War begins, the US needs to be there. This would actually expedite the unification of the Korean Peninsula, because we could then remove KJI from his palace by force rather than slowly waiting for his regime to slowly crumble. I think we should do all of this because I care about the Korean people, both in the North and in the South. The South Koreans are free, peace loving, and friendly. The North Koreans are not bad, but they have been lied to and secluded for generations. There is much they don’t know. If a Second Korean War does start, we should seize the opportunity to solve the North Korean problem once and for all. We should avoid the mistake we made 50 years ago of being afraid of China. Many will say that we should back down and capitulate to KJI’s demands if he starts another war, because we don’t want to risk starting a larger war with China. I say, while a war with China would be very costly to both sides, China will not win. So they will not start a full scale (and certainly not nuclear war) right now. China will be stronger in 20 years than they are now. Time will only make them stronger as their economy continues to grow, so they will wait. No mater how much China threatens, we should not abandon the Korean people. That is my opinion. I’m sure many of you will disagree, but that's OK. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6305 days Last view: 6305 days |
| ||
| No one forced you to read the entire thing, Rom Manic. However, I do recommend reading the full thing before replying to it, so congratulations on that.
In reply: Originally posted by Rom Manic That�s close, but I actually said that he should be treated like a gang leader, not a legitimate head of state, such as Tony Blair or Jacques Chirac.
I didn�t say KJI is a �good� dictator, and I hope you aren�t suggesting that, either.
1: The problems in Iraq do not stem simply from America flexing its muscles. The issue is far more complex than that. 2: America would only be flexing its muscles in response to some serious flexing from China and North Korea. Why is America the only country that isn�t allowed to flex?
Really? I would like to think that wanting the Korean Peninsula unified under a democratic government, and preventing KJI from nuking South Korea and Japan would be considered pro human rights. I guess not. I guess the real human rights watchdogs are the ones who sit by while KJI brutalizes his people, while China does similar things to their own people, and while China sends North Korean refuges back to their deaths (in violation of a UN treaty they signed). I guess I�m wrong.
Massive is a bit of an overstatement. In the end, most economic sanctions hurt the people worse than the dictator, because the dictator decides how the resources are allocated within his country. Limiting those resources just means he will take a larger percentage for himself and leave less for his people. Without a strong military presence in South Korea*, without the spread of democracy into North Korea, and without an end to Chinese complicity in KJI�s crimes against humanity, the problem will not be resolved for a very, very long time. *Note that this military presence does not necessarily have to be American. However, neither Japan nor South Korea has the military muscle to stand up to North Korea, and China would sooner help North Korea than hinder it, so the American military is the only remaining alternative. I do thank you for reading the post, though. All comments are welcome, positive or negative. (edited by Koryo on 10-17-06 02:34 AM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese  Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6305 days Last view: 6305 days |
| ||
Why is it idealistic for me to want KJI to stop brutalizing his people and threatening his neighbors? Why is it so wrong to think that everyone, even the North Koreans, desires the same freedoms that you and I take for granted? If that’s idealistic, then I’m proud to be idealistic. As for America-centric, how so? North Korea can’t directly bomb the US right now. If we wanted to, we could turn North Korea into a radioactive crater. So what if North Korea manages to land a nuke on Japan or South Korea in the process, or if the airborne radiation causes cancer in North Korea’s neighbors, so what, right? All I care about is the good old US of A, and everyone else is der untermenche. Obviously not, or I wouldn’t be suggesting containment and a slow weakening of KJI’s regime to be replaced by democracy. I’m sorry that democracy has become a detestable concept for some of you lefties, but I still think it’s the best kind of government the world has yet seen. We may invent something more perfect in the future, but that’s where we are today. If that makes me America-centric, then I guess I’m also proud to be America-centric.
You’re right. We should treat dictators with the respect due them. And not just national dictators. If a powerful mob boss manages to take control of a portion of New York City, we should treat it as a sovereign nation and subject the area to economic sanctions until the mob boss dies. Then we can poll the people of the area in question on rejoining the rest of the country. I can see you shaking your head. “That’s not the same thing, Koryo.” Yes it is. As I said, North Korea is only a separate country because Russia made it so. Technically, the Korea war never ended. We signed a cease fire, but not a peace treaty. There never was a North Korea until the USSR occupied the region and propped up a communist dictator (Kim Il Sung). Some people can be negotiated with. Other cannot. KJI has proven that he has no intention of doing what we ask. When we said “we’ll give you oil, food, and supplies if you stop building a bomb”, he built the bomb anyway. If we don’t have some way of ensuring that he doesn’t build the bomb, then it’s foolish to give him supplies in trade and blindly trust that he’ll uphold his end of the bargain.
So, because the US government (not the US people) did something wrong, I have no place to say we should do the right thing? Since the US government supports the dictators in Saudi Arabia, I can’t say that KJI is a brutal mass murder who should be removed? Because the US was at war with Great Britain in 1776 and 1812, then we should remain bitter enemies to this day? Since the US was allied with the USSR from 1941 to 1945, then we should have remained allied with them throughout the Cold War? I suppose consistency is more important than doing the right thing.
|
|||
|
Koryo Keese  Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6305 days Last view: 6305 days |
| ||
| Conservative and Liberal are such generalized, vague, misused, and inaccurate terms, I’m not sure we should use them.
Also, there is no need to get to get too upset. We have the freedom to calmly debate this subject, unlike the North Korean civilians in question. I understand what you’re saying, and it would be correct if ( if ) I said “America can do no wrong. North Korea must die. The only thing to do is drop nuclear bombs on North Korea!!!” But that’s not what I’m saying, which is why I keep suggesting that you aren’t paying too close attention to what I’m saying. You read the words, but when it comes to the meaning, you interpret what you think I’m saying.
It doesn’t, but that’s not all you’re doing. Calling US intervention in South Korea imperialism isn’t pointing out realities.
Exactly, which is why I don’t think you’re really paying attention to what I’ve been saying. You have it in your head that I’m a jingoist Nazi. Why? Just because I dared suggest that the US can accomplish some good in the world. If you recall, I wanted to put South Korean stickers on the food packages, not US. I also said that the military that protects South Korea from North Korea doesn’t have to be the American army. However, come up with another country both willing and able. China and Russia are able, but most definitely not willing. Australia may be willing, but is not able. So the burden falls to the US. I’m happy to take the burden to prove that the US cares about others. I also object to this claim that regional stability is paramount to freedom. “Regional stability” is a cop out term. You (and the many, many others who use the term) don’t want to get involved in a region or a problem so they claim that the current situation is stable, and if we do anything, it might make the region *gasp* less stable. I object to the idea that dictatorships are more stable than democracies. That is not always the case and, in some cases, the exact opposite is true. I hope you don’t consider KJI’s North Korea to be a stabilizing force in the region. I also hope you don’t consider the democratic South Korea to be a destabilizing force in the region. If the Korean peninsula was unified under a democratic government, there would be only one threat to the region (China).
And if I had said that the only way to solve the problem was with overwhelming force, then you would be right. In fact, I said America should avoid the war, because of the civilian casualties that would follow. If North Korea does attack, however, we should end the issue once and for all by taking the opportunity to remove KJI. There are two things that will cause/ would cause/ are causing civilian casualties on a grand scale: a second Korean War, and the continuation of KJI’s rule. A war would result in many North Korean civilian casualties, many, many South Korean civilian casualties, and possibly some Japanese civilian casualties. The continuation of KJI’s rule would cause more North Korean casualties. Neither of these independently is a happy prospect. The worst case scenario, though, would be for us to have both. If there is a second war, after which KJI remains in power. That’s the only reason I’m advocating the removal of KJI by force if he starts a second war.
Exactly, which is why I said we should only go to war again if KJI invades or starts shelling the South. KJI in power is bad. A war with KJI is worse. The two together is the worst of all options. So, if KJI invades South Korea, I’m saying we should remove him then. But, if he doesn’t invade South Korea, then we just contain him and begin the long and slow process of slowly chipping away at his regime.
Yet again, show me where I’m “gun ho” about an offensive first strike against North Korea. There is such a thing as a one sided war, though, which is what it will be if KJI invades and America doesn’t defend South Korea. For the last time, I’m only advocating war if KJI strikes first.
And here we come to another of the common claims that goes along with “regional stability” (see above). “We can’t provoke terrorists/brutal dictators, it might make them angry.” If I remember correctly (and apparently you’re the only student of history and politics in the room, so I could be wrong), but the first Korean War was completely unprovoked. Hitler invaded Poland because the Poles were undergoing a massive military buildup that threatened Germany’s right to exist, right? Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because his own small country of Iraq was threatened by their massive neighbor Kuwait, right? No, it is weakness that encourages an enemy to attack. Hostile nations attack when they think they have an advantage. Hitler wouldn’t have started WW2 if he didn’t think he could win it. Saddam wouldn’t have invaded Kuwait if he was sure America was going to fight back (event lead him to believe that we would tolerate his aggression). Kim Il Sung attacked South Korea because he thought they were weak (which they were). He thought it would be a quick and easy war to unify the Korean Peninsula under his dictatorial government. KJI is only going to start a second Korean war if he thinks he will survive it. If he thinks China will protect him from America, then he will invade South Korea. If he thinks America is no longer willing to shed blood for South Korea, then he will invade. Only if he knows we will fight back, and only if he views our military as strong enough to defeat his, will he be too afraid to attack. That’s not jingoism, that’s not a cold war view of politics, that’s not naiveté, that’s the truth.
And just what “wider conflagration” are you talking about? As I said, China will not start a world war over North Korea yet. In the future, probably, but not yet.
Are you sure? I guess this changes my whole outlook on the subject, now that I know it’s not just a game. Listen, I’m being various serious and cautious about this. The quick approach would be to invade right now and remove KJI, but I’m advocating the slow method of containment and slowly weakening his government, because I don’t want to cause needless South Korean casualties. But remember that every year KJI remains in power, more innocent North Koreans die. Whose life is worth more in your estimation: the life of an innocent North Korean, or an innocent South Korean?
That and a dollar will get you a sarsaparilla, as they say.
They didn’t attack unprovoked in the 50s, right? And they haven’t tried to reignite the war since then, right? Wrong. Besides, rational actors do use military force sometimes. They use it when they think it is beneficial to them. If he thinks he can benefit from a war or from using a nuclear bomb, he will do it. If he thinks he will get steam rolled, then he won’t. That’s what rational actors do. The word rational doesn’t necessarily imply peaceful. As I said, it doesn’t mater how many nuclear bombs the US has if we don’t use them, and I don’t think the current administration would start a nuclear war in response to KJI’s nuking of South Korea. On a side note, the profanity is getting a bit annoying here. There’s really no need.
No, it’s a leave me alone, as in KJI wants to be left alone so he can go on ruling with an iron fist. It’s not as if he just wants to live out his life peacefully in his little corner of the world.
I disagree. I suppose there’s really no point in arguing this one particular part any further, as there is no way to prove it, but I believe Bush would not nuke North Korea for nuking South Korea or Japan. If they hit the US, probably, but not South Korea or Japan. I also think there would be a serious cry of outrage from the world. China would pretend to be outraged, just so that they could swoop in and take control of the Korean peninsula forever. Half (or more) of Europe would suggest sanctioning the US, even though that isn’t really possible, they would none the less call for it. Bush is too afraid to do anything drastic to Iran. I doubt he’d want to go down in history as the only president in 50 years to use nuclear weapons. Ever since Iraq, he’s been whipped.
Not true.
North Korea’s tension has been ramped up ever since the Korean War. North Korea has never been a peaceful country. And China is not a wild card. China has visions of a world wide Chinese hegemony in the future, and anything that weakens the US (like North Korea) moves them that much closer.
And, yet again, you failed to read that I am not pushing for invasion, either. I don’t know how many times I can say that. If you refuse to read what I’ve written, we’ll keep going in circles.
You misunderstand China entirely. Peace is not what China wants. Peace under global Chinese hegemony, perhaps. China is the largest country in the world. One day, it will surpass the US. When that happens, if the current Chinese government is still in power, people will know what imperialism is. China may not be happy with North Korea, but they none the less support it, as they have proven by exporting the necessary goods to North Korea. North Korea is a bigger problem for the US than for China. North Korea would never attack China, and China would by happy if North Korea attacked South Korea or Japan.
Oh, well, if China has some harsh words, then I stand corrected. Words speak louder than actions, after all.
China does not want peace with Japan. The Chinese hate the Japanese.
If China wanted to control North Korea, they would have. If they could really have made KJI stop his nuclear test just by asking him, they would have. And you’re wrong, I do want a collapsed North Korea. I simply cannot understand why you care so little about the North Korean people. I’m sure you’ll get really indignant about that and say that I’m insulting you. But really, you say the only thing we can do is wait, and you say the stability of the region is more important. More important than what? The North Korean people, obviously.
I guess that’s the difference between us. You view the so called stability of a region as more important than individual freedom. Have you ever lived under a communist government? If you would be happy living in North Korea, the Soviet Union, or Cuba, then I will concede the point, and admit that there is no benefit to bringing the North Koreans into a democratic government.
So we should abandon the East Germans? The West Germans should say “tough luck, you bunch of krauts. It’s your fault for being invaded by the USSR, so we’re not going to let you back into our country anymore.” Also, South Korea has about twice the population of North Korea.
Then the problem lies in the apathy of world leaders today. As I said, people don’t care about Korea. That’s unfortunate. And we Americans are called the immoral ones, while Europeans sit on their high horse claiming to be morally superior because they don’t have the death penalty, and don’t spend as much on military funding. I hope they really feel good about themselves here.
Yet again, that is something the rest of the world should be ashamed of. If the US would be criticized by the world for toppling the KJI regime (and I agree that it would), then I’m not sure I care what the world thinks anymore. If the world says that the North Koreans are so worthless that so called regional stability is the most important thing, then I’m glad American is a unilateralist country. Just because the rest of the people in the room are immoral and disagree with you cause, their majority opinion doesn’t make your cause any less moral. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese  Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6305 days Last view: 6305 days |
| ||
|
Plus Sign Abomination, you have a high post count, so I assume you know how to use the quote tags?
Granted, but there have been no massive body counts from military action on either side for over 50 years, so if the fighting starts again and thousands more people die within a few days, I think we could safely call that a second war. It’s really not important to me what we call it, though.
Hardly. There’s really little point in debating that with you, as I can’t prove to you what’s in my mind, but I’m very happy with South Korea and Japan, neither of which brutalize their own people or are threaten to invade their neighbors. Whether they think America is the schiznit or not is irrelevant. I don’t deny that I would prefer it if people liked us, who wouldn’t, but if they don’t like us, as long as they aren’t actively trying to kill us, that’s OK.
Well, I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying there, because that isn’t a complete sentence. You could be saying that “the installation of friendlies proves that you want American hegemonic control.” If that was what you meant to say, that I would point out that South Korea and Japan are both free countries. Neither of them are “friendly” dictatorships propped up by the US, like Saudi Arabia. The Saudis aren’t great friends, but you understand my meaning. Again I would like to point out that both of you are getting only about 35% of your information about me from the actual text I write, and are assuming the other 65%. As I’ve said already, I don’t want a friendly dictatorship in North Korea. I want a democracy. Preferably the South Korean democracy. I believe that a democratic government is the best practical government that humans have yet invented. In the future we may develop something better, but for the moment, I believe that humans are most free when they live under a democratic government. Please take note (as I’ve said before but you refuse to hear) that this government doesn’t have to be identical to the US government (with a president, vice president, 9 supreme court justices, bicameral legislative branches, etc). There are many, many models that we could look to for the new North Korean government, including the US, Great Britain, France, Germany, and South Korea. One way or another, though, I believe the North Koreans would be happier living under a government that ensured a basic level of economic, political, and religious freedom, a free press, security from street crime, food, employment, etc.
I did not say that the concept of regional stability was false. I only said that the term was a “cop out term”, the definition of which I explained in my previous post. Stability in the region is most definitely important. I was taking issue with the suggestion that the current North Korean regime is more stable than a democracy would be, or has a mores stabilizing effect on the region than a democracy would be. Perhaps in the short term, especially if China tried to dig its claws into North Korea during the transition from dictatorship to democracy (though this can be prevented by the US). In the long run, though, democracies are stable, and have a very stabilizing effect on the region. If every single country in the region was a true democracy (not a semi democracy), would there be any issues as grievous as the North Korean problem? Look at Europe. Great Britain, France, or Germany could try to conquer portions of Europe, as they have in years past, but there are all stable democracies now, and have given up war as their favorite pass time. Look at North America. The US could conquer Canada or Mexico any time it wanted, but we don’t. Now let’s look at North East Asia a few years in the future. Japan could conquer the Korean Peninsula, but a democratic Japan and a democratic, unified Korea would be able to work out their differences peacefully, as the US, Canada, Mexico, England, France, etc do. As the not so old saying goes, when do democracies go to war with each other? Not too often.
Exactly, a destabilizing force, such as North Korea. And a hardly see how North Korea failing to easily transition from a dictatorship to a democracy after KJI’s death or removal would cause any sort of domino affect on China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea. North Korea as it is today is far more destabilizing to the region than a North Korea that has failed to transition cleanly to a democracy.
I agree that pacifying and liberalizing North Korea will increase stability in the region, if that is what you’re saying. However, I don’t agree that KJI can be either pacified or liberalized. Once KJI is dead or hiding in a spider hole, what then? If we leave North Korea alone, one of the top generals may easily take control. If the North Korean people have not toppled KJI and his father on their own by now, what makes you think they are likely to do the same to KJI’s successor? All I’m saying is, when KJI does fall, I think the best option is to try to reunify the countries. Why? Tell me, where will you find a North Korea who is educated enough and popular enough to become the president of a new North Korean democracy? I’m not suggesting that the North Koreans are inferior, but they have been kept uneducated and ignorant by KJI. So, rather than allowing North Korea to flounder in the netherworld between dictatorship and democracy (as you seem very eager to do), or worse, to fall back into another dictatorship, I suggest that we reunify the peninsula and give the government in Seoul control over the North. Why? Because the South already has an established democracy and a strong economy. I think the US and the rest of the world should be willing to help pay the cash required to bring North Korea back from the dark ages (which means just the US, because the rest of the world couldn’t care less).
Really? Try the only countries in North East Asia. 
We come yet again to the same argument: China and Russia are not nearly as concerned with fixing the problem in North Korea as the US is. China and Russia are important, because they are very powerful. But they are not democratic. They are not peace loving. They do not have the interests of the North Korea civilians at heart. China and Russia would solve the problems in North Korea only if it was in their best interests. And the end result of a North Korea “helped” by China and Russia would most definitely not be a stable democracy with a strong economy, like South Korea. 6 party talks will go nowhere. 3 cops and 3 convicted felons can talk to each other all they want, but they will never reach a happy agreement.
Of course not. The US has a strong military and a nuclear arsenal, but we are not a destabilizing force. It is a strong military and a nuclear arsenal coupled with a brutal dictator that makes North Korea a destabilizing force.
And don’t you think it more likely that hawkish Prime Ministers will continue to be elected as long as Japan feels threatened? If KJI was removed and North Korea became a stable democracy, Japan would have far less reason to need a hawk in office or a strong military of their own. For the moment, I can’t say I blame them, though. China is gaining in power every day, North Korea fires missiles at China and now has nuclear bombs to put on those missiles, world opinion is turning against Japan as people behave increasingly more friendly toward China and more conciliatory toward North Korea. Japan could easily decide that the only people they can rely on for security is themselves. The way to prevent an East Asian arms race, though, is to remove the regional threats so everyone would feel more secure. Removing KJI would go a long way toward that goal.
I agree, but once again, we come to the problem of what should happen and what is likely to happen. Just how do you define “constructive sanctions”, for starters. Second, the world is not unified behind any goals regarding North Korea, much less the goals we would like to see. As I’ve said before, China and Russia are not interested in turning North Korea into a stable democracy, which is my goal, at any rate. Much of the rest of East Asia is too weak to effect much change. Much of Europe and the west seem very apathetic to the situation. That effectively leaves the US, South Korea, and Japan. These three, I believe, could agree on a course of action that would eventually turn North Korea into a stable democracy. Their attempts will be greatly hindered if China refuses to cooperate, and they will. Of course, if China, Russia, East Asia, the US, and Europe all worked together in perfect harmony, North Korea could be dealt with peacefully and effectively. But that will never happen. The difference between us is that I recognize that this scenario of cooperation will never happen, and I try to find ways to work around it.
Not overwhelming strength. If KJI believes that the US forces will crush him, he will not start a war.
The comparison is this: Hitler attacked Poland because he believed he could win. Yes, Hitler wanted certain parts of Poland for a host of reasons, but he wouldn’t have attacked if he thought he was going to lose. Dictators intent on perpetuating their own existence do not start wars that they know they are going to lose. Hitler was certain he could defeat the combined forces of France and England (and he was right). He also thought he could defeat Russia, though he was wrong. Saddam Hussein knew he could defeat Kuwait. Of course, because Kuwait was tiny. But he didn’t think he could defeat the US military. What he did think was the US would stand by and do nothing while he invaded Kuwait. He was wrong. A number of things could encourage KJI to start another war. He may think that China will protect him from America, as they did in the first Korean War. He may think that the US will only devote a small number of forces to Korea, because we are over stretched with Iraq and Afghanistan and America lately favors limited wars. He may think that America will not risk starting a larger war, and that we would gladly trade South Korea to avoid a larger conflict. He may think that the UN will prevent the US from joining in the war. He may think that US public opinion for another war would be virtually non existent. We must make it clear to KJI that none of these are true.
Any idiot with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. I’m sure you could see the writing on the wall back in the late 80s. I’m not really interested in dragging up an old debate about the fall of the USSR here. That could fill a dozen threads by itself.
An alliance of weaker countries banding together to defeat a single strong country is different. Each individual is weaker, but together they have a chance.
Hardly. If we had attacked Hitler years earlier, we would have avoided the millions of deaths in WW2. Attacking dictators can lead to problems, especially when there are other dictators nearby who fear the same treatment, but not necessarily. Again, I’ll relate KJI to a mafia boss. Should the FBI make it a policy to stop arresting members of a mafia family, because the rest of the family has pledged to ramp up street violence as a response? None the less, your point is wrong because, yet again, no one has read the many, many times by now that I’ve said a preemptive strike against North Korea would be too costly to South Korean civilians. I won’t say it again. Read it and understand it.
*Cough* Yet again, I didn’t say attack North Korea, whether they are in a state of weakness or not. And that has nothing to do with a cold war mind set.
But you are both ignoring the fact that KJI sitting alone in his corner of the world still results in many North Korean civilians dead and brutalized. So he’s not killing South Koreans or Americans in a direct war, but why are North Koreans any less valuable? You continue to make it sound as if KJI sitting alone in his corner of the world is an acceptable situation. So he’s not bother other countries, but he’s still brutalizing his own people. I don’t care if it’s happening in other places as well, that doesn’t make it any less wrong. I’m also not saying that North Korea is the only place where civilians are being brutalized that I care about, but this thread is about North Korea. We could just as easily talk about Darfur. I care about those innocents as well, but that’s a mater for a different thread.
Wrong. There is a difference between “peace” and “lack of war.” China doesn’t want an open war of the traditional kind. China doesn’t care, however, if North Korea (or Chinese) civilians are being brutalized, of if KJI has nuclear weapons, or if KJI makes South Korea sweat. China doesn’t want open war, but that’s a long, long way from peace in any sense of the word other than simply “lack of war.”
Neither India nor Russia would go to war with China over Korea.
If Bush still had the foreign policy attitude today that he had before the Iraq invasion, he would already have taken military action against Iran. Bush has realized that the war in Iraq was not as easy as he thought it would be, and he has seen how vicious the American opposition and the foreign public are when they are unhappy. So he has opted for relative inaction with Iran and North Korea. He seems to have decided to try to salvage his reputation in the last few years of his presidency instead of doing what needs to be done. More than likely, the next president is going to be even worse.
That makes very little sense, if any. Pardon the pun. The Security Council will likely accomplish little with North Korea. The new Secretary General is a South Korean, but I fear he may be just as ineffective as Khofi Annon. Anything happening in the Security Council must be approved by both Russia and China, neither of which would support a war with North Korea, or the level of sanctions that would prevent him from exporting missiles for cash or importing the things his regime needs to survive, like oil.
As I said before, that is true if your definition of peace is limited to “not war.” Mine is not.
I didn’t say annex North Korea, I said control, as in pulling a puppet’s strings.
Oh, please. You’re not looking for the greater good, your trying to avoid a difficult situation. You know that transition from dictatorship to democracy (and the removal of KJI) won’t be easy, so you don’t want to do it. You’re content to allow KJI to remain in power as long as he’s not upsetting your so called regional stability. I’m not.
You don’t have to settling for saving some lives and not others. We can have both. Obviously, if we start a war and millions die, that doesn’t contribute to the greater good. But KJI can be removed without starting a war.
I asked first.
Sorry, but I thought America was all about shedding blood for freedom. I guess not. I thought freedom was one of the few things worth shedding blood for. I guess not. Besides, I’m not talking about individual freedom as paramount to all else. Obviously, that would be anarchy. But a democratic country like South Korea is massively superior to North Korea in the area of individual freedom.
No, he instead said that bringing a liberal democratic government to North Korea would be too hard, so we shouldn’t try. And I fail to see any way of bringing a democracy to North Korea without destabilizing the regime. KJI will not soften his rule to a semi democracy, and I’d rather not force the North Koreans to wait any more decades than they have to before they get their democracy.
Really? Is three bigger than two? I guess I had that backwards. I’ve already said that other countries (especially the US) should help with the cost, instead of putting the full burden on South Korea. In the long run, though, South Korea will benefit from gaining millions of people. Not right away, but eventually. Besides, my original comment still stands. Just because it won’t be easy, we should just ignore the North Koreans? Just because it will be expensive, they don’t have the same value that we do?
Show me where they have come up with proactive solutions, or any solutions, for that mater.
I disagree. Actions speak louder than words, remember. A diplomat or UN ambassador may say “we want to engaging this issue and end it in the least painful way possible.” But that means nothing. That means the least painful way for them, not for the North Koreans. That means the diplomat or politician in general doesn’t want to work too hard or spend too much, but doesn’t want to appear uncaring. When countries show by their actions that they are willing to spend time and money and political capital to solve the North Korean problem, then I’ll be happy. You and Arwan are perfect examples. ‘Don’t risk regional stability just for the North Korean’s sake.’ After all, 25 million North Koreans is a small price to pay for regional stability, right?
Yes, actually. I am very old, and I was a Roman gladiator in my youth. I killed 3 lions and 12 slaves during my years as a warrior of the coliseum. Apparently I was quite the crowd pleaser.
Hardly. Only Great Britain and France spend more than 2% of the GDP on their militaries. They certainly do not pride themselves on their militaries. What’s more, those militaries are not equipped to fight anywhere anytime, as the US military is. Which is why the US military is the obvious choice if ( if ) KJI starts a second Korean War.
Proclaim that I’ve lost whatever you like, it means nothing. Unilateralism is only bad if the other countries are willing to work with you. But when it comes to Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Darfur, and a host of other places, much of the rest of the world is either content with the status quo, or simply not willing to risk more than a few pennies or a paper cut to change it.
You aren’t the voice of reason. You’re the voice of inaction. I’ve said it before, you’re far too content with the status quo. Unfortunately, the status quo involves quite a few people dying and being starved and oppressed. I’m not willing to start World War 3 over North Korea, but I’m not content to do nothing and hope the problem solves itself. I’m also not foolish enough to think that the world community will come together on their own and solve the problem, or that a world community even exists at the moment. ---The above text refers to Plus Sign Abomination’s post. The text that follows refers to Arwan’s post. ---
Of course. What was that about negative knee jerk reactions to Americans, again? No, liberal and conservative are not good terms to use. Not only is there incredible diversity within the groups, but they are relative to time and place.
Communists, Anarchists, and Amish are also rare in American politics. Does that make them anything special?
Of course, because we’ve all taken international relations 101. I have, but not everyone has. Besides, it matters little what label you give someone. What does matter is what that label means. I’m actually proud to be called a neocon. I could be put in worse company than theirs.
If you don’t like ideology, then think of it as pragmatism based foreign policy. Which countries are the most peaceful in the world? Democratic countries. If you read the first half of this post, you will know that I don’t define peace as simply not starting war with neighbors. Democratic countries are also far less brutal to their own people. Which is worse, the period of hardship in the transition between a dictatorship and a democracy, or a country that remains a dictatorship for another thirty years, and then begins the transition from dictatorship to democracy. Allowing KJI to continue doing his own thing won’t solve any problems in North Korea, it will only postpone them. Whether KJI falls within 10 years because he is forced out, or whether the regime continues on even after his death, North Korea will one day have to make the transition from a dictatorship to a democracy. Why not now when we can help them through it, rather then later when they may have to flounder on their own? I got a little side tracked there, but the pragmatism point stands. It is not only morally right to encourage and help with the spread and growth of new democracies, but it also contributes to world peace, in the sense that democracies rarely fight each other. As for steering countries and the Iraq war: Countries can be steered, it happens often. Though it is not exact, it does happen. Steering people is not exact, either, but we do it. It still comes back to the same thing, you’re not just saying “think twice about this, because it’s going to be hard.” I know it will be hard, but that shouldn’t mean we abandon it altogether. What you’re saying is not to even try to help North Korea but to “wait and see.” If we wait, we will see quite a few North Koreans dying. The longer we wait, the more North Koreans. I believe we should expedite the process as much as possible without starting the Second Korean War. It’s not as if the North Koreans are becoming steadily more democratized as time goes on.
The US put quite a bit of money and effort into rebuilding Europe. I grant that rebuilding is easier than building, but once again, it’s not as if the North Koreans will be worse off for the trying. There would be few governments worse than KJI, so we couldn’t harm the North Koreans in an economic way much more than they already have been.
Exactly, which is why I think the South Korean government should be given control over North Korea. Rather than trying to create a democracy out of nothing, we would only be integrating non democratic people into an already existing democracy. It will be easier than starting from scratch.
Ah, that’s right. I’m only looking foreword to this because I want to see KJI gone. I care nothing for the North Korean people. Let me scroll back up and see if that’s what I actually said. Oh, it’s not. I look foreword to this because I know that the North Korean people will be better for it in the end. I look foreword to it because I hope in 50 years we can look back and wonder what it was like way back when the Korean peninsula was divided and at war, and when the North Koreans were suffering and impoverished. I look foreword to it because I hope that eventually (and it will probably be a couple hundreds years) everyone will have the same political, religious, and economic freedoms that we take for granted in America. I hope that comes sooner, rather than later, for the North Koreans. You, apparently, think they have all the time in the world. I find it very difficult to talk with people who try their hardest to find good points in the former communist system and bad points in a democratic system. It’s like the people who try to point out that Hezbolla gives out “health care.” Both communism and democracy have good and bad points, but communism has a whole lot more bad points, and democracy has a whole lot more good points. And communism is not the way of the future. Former communist nations have to modernize some time. You can’t put it off forever. I agree that the transition is not easy, and that it can be made easier, but that transition will not happen at all with people as apathetic as you. Remember that democracy is not the natural state of humans in large groups. Humans have lived in dictatorships for many years. Democracies take some work to set up and maintain, but they are far better than the dictatorships that came before them. That you even have to add “per se” after “the fall of Communism was a bad thing” kind of annoys me. You speak of job security and health care under communist states. While not all democracies becoming shining examples, no communist state has ever achieved the living standards enjoyed by Americans, Western Europeans, Australians, Canadians, etc. And it is only through democracy and economic liberalization that Eastern Europeans have even a hope of achieving parity with their Western European neighbors. If they go back to the communist system, their livings standards will fall even farther behind the rest of the world.
OK, I think I will.
No, because America treats its own people far better than China does, and America actually has a record of spreading democracy in the world, democracies which are then free to peacefully oppose the US.
That’s nice when your theory is so powerful that is counters the facts of reality. When have democratic countries gone to war with each other? Not often. Theorize all you will about Russia, the facts say otherwise (and a Tsarist monarchy is not a democracy).
If your theory is correct, then the US and the EU will one day start an arms race and have proxy wars. The EU is weak now, but one day it will be an economic rival to the US, and a rival in consumption of oil and usage of space. I believe there may be economic tensions between the US and EU, but we will never get so aggressive as the Cold War.
Do I keenly anticipate the chance to bring the North Koreans up to our standard of living? Of course I do. Do I think the transition will be easy? No. Do I think the best alternative is to leave them as they are? No. Do I think the transition is eventually essential? Yes. And it’s OK for you to caution people who are too reckless, but it’s not OK to suggest that the North Koreans would rather be left as they are.
That’s certainly not true. Democracy has not worked immediately everywhere it’s been tried, but it has worked often.
There we go again. KJI is more stabilizing to the region than a democracy, or even a semi democracy with serious problems? Actually, if North Korea literally falls apart, the region will be more stable, because there will not be a thug with a nuclear weapon threatening South Korea and Japan. Your idea that KJI, though brutal, is still a stabilizing force in the region is entirely false.
As I’ve said dozens of times by now, I’m not looking for a preemptive strike. If you haven’t gotten that by now, there’s little point in continuing this. I said in my very first post that we will have to wait for KJI to fall, unless he starts a war. As for a collapse of his regime, that wouldn’t be a bad thing.
And how exactly does my acting cavalier endanger the Japanese, Chinese, and South Koreans? KJI is not a threat to the Chinese, and I’m not asking the South Koreans or Japanese to go to war with North Korea. I don’t believe that KJI will use a nuclear bomb on South Korea or Japan if he thinks the US will retaliate. You’re treating him as a noble statesman who only wants peace, but will drop nuclear bombs on innocent people if he feels threatened. Some noble statesman. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese  Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6305 days Last view: 6305 days |
| ||
East Europe is a very large region. For all of them to simultaneously convert to democratic countries with strong economies would obviously be much more difficult than just North Korea alone, especially if North Korea has South Korea and America to help in terms of manpower and cash, as well as a stable, democratic government to take over. As I said before, it�s harder to build a democracy out of nothing, as in Iraq or some Eastern European countries, then it is to simply integrate a country with no history of democracy into one with a fully functioning and stable democracy. North Korea will be easier to rehabilitate (or just habilitate, I guess) than Eastern Europe, provided South Korea and America help, and China does not interfere.
The real question is the North Korean military. Without that, KJI has no power. Even if he dies, one of his generals will still control the military and, effectively, the country. What I want is for the South Korean government to take control of the North, not militarily, but politically. This cannot happen if a North Korean general controls the military stationed at the DMZ. It is possible that a general who assumes control after KJI dies (or is assassinated by his own generals of officials) will be a peace minded reformer, in which case we can negotiate a unification with him. This is unlikely, however. It is far more likely that the general in question would be just as bad as KJI. If he was interested in negotiation, he would probably demand that he be given some position of power. All of that is assuming the North Korean people remain as they are today, not actively trying to topple KJI on their own. If KJI dies or is otherwise no longer in power and someone else replaces him who is just as bad, then we are in the same situation we are in today. Nothing has changed for better or worse, except perhaps that the general or whoever takes over might not be as widely accepted, as he isn�t a descendant of the �great leader� Kim Il Sung. If, however, the North Korean people grow tired of KJI�s mistreatment of them, the situation changes drastically. If KJI is no longer in power because the North Korean civilians rebel against him, or because his own army refuses to follow him, the situation is much easier. That isn�t terribly likely, either. Even if the North Koreans unanimously hate KJI, they aren�t likely to rebel (and most rebellions would fail) because KJI would still control the army. If every one of the North Korean civilians rebelled against KJI at the same time, as opposed to very small pockets of resistance one at a time, as is more likely, he wouldn�t stand a chance. Unfortunately, something like that has never really happened. The fastest way would be if KJI starts a second war. Then we could attack his palace and remove him, and destroy the most loyal elements of the North Korean army. I�m not interested in goading KJI into starting a war, because that would be very costly to the South Korean civilians. But, if KJI does start the war and South Korean civilians are already dying by the thousands, then we should take the opportunity. As long as the North Korean army is still under KJI�s control, or the control of whoever takes over the country next, there is little hope of removing the regime. Even if the �regime� or �government� collapses, the military will still be in control. North Korea would only be open to reunification if either the person in control of the army is willing to negotiate for peacefully unification, or the army is no longer as strong as it is now. The former is far less likely. The North Korean army is the key. Without it, KJI is just a weak old man. One thing that will help to weaken the military is feeding the North Korean people, as I suggested in my first post. Right now, there is a very strong incentive to join the North Korea army: the civilians have no food, and the army does. KJI can do this because other governments give him food in exchange for him agreeing not to build nuclear bombs. He then distributes the food only to those loyal to him, and builds his bombs anyway. We need to stop giving food to KJI, and instead give it directly to the North Korean people, as I said. When the situation is inverted so that the army is starving and the civilians are fed, the army will be much less likely to murder civilians for their Dear Leader. We also need to break KJI�s monopoly on information. We can do that by dropping information along with the food. We can also place a satellite right over North Korea and start projecting South Korean TV stations, and smuggle battery powered satellite TVs into North Korea. The older North Koreans will likely refuse to believe anything they hear, because they have grown up knowing only what KJI has told them. Still, people do try to escape from North Korea, which means that not everyone has been successfully indoctrinated. Also, the youngest generation will be more willing to listen, especially when the �evil capitalist propaganda� comes along with the food. That may not be a few sentences, but you try explaining what must be done in Darfur in a few sentences.
China most definitely will do that. I hope South Korea does not. I would work closely with the South Koreans on this, anyway, not go over their heads. If the South Koreans are so opposed to reunification that they would refuse to help the North Koreans, then I will accept that the world no longer cares and will give up all hope of helping North Korea. I don�t think the South Koreans will do that, though. Anyway, in my model, it wouldn�t be �North Koreans� coming into �South Korea�, because, once KJI�s regime has fallen, they should just be regular �Koreans.� I�m not trying to create a North Korean democracy completely separate from the South Korean democracy. I�m trying to create a unified Korea with the same old government and capital in Seoul. As for China, they already refuse refugees. I don�t foresee a way of convincing them to allow North Koreans to settle inside their borders, but that�s not surprising. As I said, the Chinese government has no interest in helping the North Korean people. However, when the Chinese refuse to allow North Koreans entry into China, once KJI is gone, the situation will not be as bad. The North Koreans will not face death as punishment for trying to flee. They won�t need to flee, though. I�m sure many will want to flee, simply because now they can and before they couldn�t, and they will hope to find a better life elsewhere, but their own towns will eventually improve. The North Koreans have very little to lose. There isn�t much harm we could do to them that hasn�t already been done, and there isn�t much we could take away from them that they already don�t have. But, as the US, South Korea, and any other country that is willing to help, continue to put money and infrastructure into the North Korea land, their lives will improve. We don�t have to build everything associated with modern life there. Some things will come on their own once North Korea has achieved a level of functionality. But we can start by building power plants, building farms, building factories, building houses, building schools, and building hospitals. Power plants are essential to building anything else. Homes are also essential. Homes built from modern building materials, even cheap ones, will be better than what many North Koreans currently have. Most of the North Koreans have no job skills, so low skill factory labor will provide a way for the North Koreans to start making a little money for themselves. I�m not talking about slave labor of 12 hours a day, 6 days a week for 10 cents an hour. We should pay them what a South Korean with no jobs skills would get working in a factory (like a high school drop out level job skills). These factories can make anything: shoes, cars, small metal parts, whatever that is simple work such as �insert tab A into slot B.� This will give the North Koreans a little money, which is a lot more than they have now. There will also be opportunities for the North Koreans with no jobs skills to move up within the factories and gain job skills and a higher pay grade. We should build schools so that the next generation of North Koreans will grow up with job skills. They could then more easily move to a South Korean city and find a higher paying job. Hospitals are also important. There are some international groups, like those that complain about the US not giving enough medicine to Africa, who could come and start distributing medicine in North Korea. The US government (and any other government that wants to help) could also encourage medical professionals to spend time in Korea by, for example, granting tax breaks or other goodies to universities that send medical students to North Korea. Obviously, this will be expensive, but no country has more money than the US. Other countries can and should help. Besides, we won�t have to pay for everything ourselves. Many companies will be dying to get their hands on millions of cheap laborers, so they will be able to front much of the costs for the factories.
I don�t think the South Koreans would do that, and I hope not, but, as I said above, if the South Koreans flat out refuse it, then I would give up any hope of helping North Korea in the near future.
China should have no direct role in the rebuilding of North Korea if it hopes to dig it�s claws into the recovering country. Remember, though, that�s yet another reason why we should give control of North Korea to South Korea. China could very easily decide to march troops into a collapsed North Korea, but they will not march troops into sovereign South Korean land. That is yet one more reason why we must make it very clear that this is not building up a North Korean democracy, but unifying the peninsula. With the Chinese government as it is now, I would be skeptical of just about anything coming from China to North Korea. If we�re talking about KJI�s regime falling quite a few years from now, however, and China has become a more democratic country in its own right by then, then they would be welcome to help, and their own massive economy could certainly help. I do not think �they [Eastern Europe] are marginally democratic and everything�s awesome�, as you suggest. However, the two situations are a bit different. In North Korea, there is no �job security� for the North Koreans to regret losing. There is no �universal health care� for the North Koreans to regret losing. In response to �democratic peace theory is suprious bunk.� You suggest that democratic states might avoid war, not because they are democratic, but because they are too similar. I don�t really think this is the case. For one, you provided a counter to your own argument in a earlier post: old Europe. The kingdoms of Old Europe were as similar to each other as Latin America or Asian dictatorships, if not more so, and they went to war all the time. And the Middle East dictatorships are not truly that similar to each other. Iran is a true Islamic republic, and Shiite controlled. Egypt is ruled by a more secular dictator. Saudi Arabia is a hereditary monarchy of the extreme Sunni variety. There is plenty of variation between them. That�s my reply to most of it. There�s a bit more I want to say, but I have to work tomorrow, so I should get some sleep. I�ll finish it tomorrow (edited by Koryo on 10-22-06 03:34 AM) (edited by Koryo on 10-22-06 03:36 AM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6305 days Last view: 6305 days |
| ||
Because, as you would know if you had read it, the current Chinese government would be all to happy to have a puppet government in North Korea, or at least one very dependant on them. I seriously doubt China would be willing to shell out cash without the promise of repayment, anyway. You can call whatever you want “international relations 101”, but that doesn’t make it so. In fact, from now on, I’m going to call it biology 101.
Firstly, there is a bit of a misunderstanding on your part about “stability.” North Korea right now is not “stable” in any positive sense of the word. It is only “stable” in the sense that KJI isn’t going anywhere because his military controls the land. Many North Koreans want to leave right now, even when the country is “stable.” If KJI falls and millions flee the country, it won’t be a newfound desire to leave. They’ve always wanted to, except now they will be able to leave without dying. But here’s the thing. What you guys are saying is that South Korea won’t want to take in North Korean refugees because it would inconvenience them. But no South Koreans would die in the process. On the other hand, North Koreans do die on a daily basis by maintaining your precious “status quo” and “regional stability.” I’m sure you’re glad the region is stable, but I’m sure the North Koreans aren’t.
I make no assumptions about South Korea. As I told you (it’d be really nice if you would, you know, actually read my posts), I would work with South Korea rather than going over their head. Also, I think my optimism is better than your pessimism to the point of inaction. KJI’s regime falling will not in itself cause a regional nuclear war. It will also not be detrimental to the North Korean people. Any inconvenience to the South Koreans will be purely economic, not life threatening. On the other hand, if things remains as they are, North Koreans will die and are dying. You’re arguing as if “the situation is acceptable now, so don’t disrupt the fragile balance.” But the situation is not acceptable now, and KJI losing power would not upset the fragile balance. You also constantly speak of the North Korean government “collapsing.” There is very little North Korean government to collapse. KJI and his military might collapse, but it’s not as if there is an extensive economy currently managed by the government or banking systems or health care systems. If the North Korean government ceased to exist tomorrow, the North Koreans would be better off. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6305 days Last view: 6305 days |
| ||
Oh, I guess you have me there. Up until now, I didn’t see anything wrong with a puppet government. You’re a genius. The South Korean government is not a puppet government and, since I think the South Korean government should become the new North Korean government, then the North Korean government would also not be a puppet of the US.
And explain to me exactly how you are using extra brain cells. You are simply refusing to try anything. You have no alternative answer.
Then I'm proud to get something rare. You can declare whatever you like (I declare that today is armadillo appreciation day). You can also stop posting whenever you like, I'm going to continue. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6305 days Last view: 6305 days |
| ||
| I believe I had already suggested that sanctions wouldn’t and haven’t worked. I understand that North Korea is a much more serious issue than many. When we invaded Iraq, Saddam couldn’t drop a nuclear bomb on his neighbors as a final flip of the middle finger to the world, while KJI can. But I also strongly deny that the current situation is anything remotely resembling stability. North Korea’s existence hasn’t caused another war in 50 years, but KJI hasn’t had a nuclear weapon until the last few years. Japan and South Korea may not be developing nuclear weapons at this moment, but how long do you think that will last? Extremist regimes can come to power more easily when their people have something to fear. South Korea and Japan are behaving very peacefully right now, but it wouldn’t take much to push them toward nuclear armament. A slightly less democratic leader then those two countries currently have now could find it much easier to gain office and order the creation of a nuclear arsenal if the civilians have something genuine to fear, such as North Korea. If you want to see an Asian arms race, leave KJI in control of North Korea and nuclear weapons. I don’t believe that we have to accept the world exactly as it is. For the first time ever on Earth, we have a large number of democratic nations. The future could be almost entirely democratic, or we could slide back to the way the Earth has been for almost as long as nation states have existed. I seriously doubt that any region dominated by a hegemonic China would produce very many democracies, if any at all. As I said earlier, democracy isn’t the natural state of humans in large groups. We have to work hard to create and maintain them. The European Union doesn’t have the political, economic, or military muscle to project its influence all around the world. I firmly believe (call it jingoistic if you will) that the US is the major force for spreading democracy in the world today. If we didn’t exist, I doubt there would be very many democracies, and most of those would probably lose quickly to larger authoritarian countries like Russia or China. Without the US intervention, I see no hope at all for any form of democracy in the Middle East, whether in Iraq or Palestine, because regional powers like Iran will greatly overshadow them. The same is true of East Asia. Without US intervention and “interference” in the region, I think we could easily see South Korea invaded by North Korea, Japan sliding back into a dictatorship, and Taiwan annexed by China. I don’t think North Korea is one of the worst places to try to affect this change (and I take offense at it being called an experiment). In fact, I think North Korea could potentially be the deciding factor in whether the entire region goes toward China (authoritarian with few political freedoms) or the US. You may call US hegemony imperialistic, but I seriously doubt that Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan could resist China politically or economically. While US projected power does not always promote democracy (such as Saudi Arabia), it certainly is one of the few countries that has both the will and the ability. The other world powers, like China and Russia, will not create a single democratic country through their own imperialism, and most of the other democracies don’t have the ability to defend it. Could you see Canada protecting Taiwan from China? Or the Netherlands protecting South Korea from North Korea? Or Luxembourg protecting Kuwait from Iraq? I’m sure you view any discussion about democracy what so ever as more neocon talk, but that really doesn’t bother me. (edited by Koryo on 10-24-06 09:34 PM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6305 days Last view: 6305 days |
| ||
| And people tell me I'm uninformed? | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6305 days Last view: 6305 days |
| ||
| It's really biology 101 stuff, Plus Sign Abomintion.
And Arwan can call me whatever he likes, if it makes him feel good. But the fact is that no one has provided any alternative answers. Arwan and PSA at least are content to do really nothing (a few sanctions at best). North Korea isn't likely to go democratic on its own. Even after KJI is gone, I'm sure some of his military leaders will continue the opressive practices of his regime. This thread has been about 2 points. 1: It will be easier to reform North Korea, because we already have an established democracy right next door to pick up where KJI left off, rather than trying to build a democracy out of nothing. 2: if we can't promote or protect democracy now with the most powerful country in the world, then what position will we be in to do it when the US is no longer the world hegemon? |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6305 days Last view: 6305 days |
| ||
| In response to Young Guru
The US could not possibly accomplish more, and probably not much at all, to spread democracy by leaving dictatorships intact, withdrawing troops from the world, and behaving in a multilateralist way. We can accomplish far more in the long run by destroying a dictatorship government and replacing it with a democratic government (even only a quasi democratic government) than we can by leaving the dictators intact and trying to teach them how to be multilateralists. No mater what we try to do to KJI, he will never behave like Great Britain, Canada, or Sweden. So it cannot be argued that KJI or any other dictator will be encouraged to act more unilaterally than they already do because of how the US is acting. While I oppose excessive heavy-handedness in spreading democracy, a bit of heavy handedness is still better than leaving a dictator in place if there is very little foreseeable hope of that dictator being overthrown. Like in North Korea. I see almost 0 chance of a North Korean democracy springing up on its own. Most likely, KJI will hold on until he dies, then one of his generals will take over, and military men will continue to control North Korea as long as the North Korean army remains so strong. Once the army is too weak to maintain control, the government may actually fall apart, in which case I�m sure that China will send in troops to �secure and protect their friends and allies in North Korea�, and turn the country into a puppet state. That is what will happen without any US intervention. And, yet again, if war to overthrow governments is not the solution, then please suggest one. I have yet to hear it. Originally posted by Arwon Yes, very telling indeed that I think democracy is the best goal for a country. How foolish of me. I should put �regional stability� above all else, like you. Tell us, then, since you�re so into biology 101, what are the other possibilities �worth exploring�? And just how many North Koreans must die while we are �exploring� them, eh? Originally posted by Arwon Show me these false comparisons to WW2. And Iraq has indeed taught me several things that would pertain to North Korea: -It is very difficult to create a democracy out of nothing. -It is important to bring enough troops to maintain order. -It is important to control the borders to prevent saboteurs from coming in. -It is important to keep hostile foreign influences out while reconstruction is underway. -Never start a war without a viable propaganda machine. As for point number 1, as I�ve said countless times already, it will be far easier for North Korea to transition to a democratic country, because we aren�t trying to create a democracy out of nothing, as we are in Iraq. Point number two is important, but more so in Iraq than in North Korea. I don�t anticipate violent crime being quite as extensive as in Iraq, as there is little law an order in North Korea now anyway. We must watch North Korea�s borders to prevent people coming across from China or Russia who might try to sabotage or otherwise hinder North Korea�s transition to democracy (or unification with South Korea, in this case). This is again why I stress the importance of South Korea. China will be more reluctant to try to march troops into sovereign South Korea territory than a collapsed North Korea. And lastly, Iraq has taught me that any cause can fail when all the propaganda is against you. KJI has effectively used propaganda to cloud the minds of the North Koreas so far. If his propaganda machines are allowed to operate while the US and South Korea are rebuilding (or building) North Korea, the population will resist. They will refuse to attend American built hospitals or schools and refuse to work in new factories, if KJI�s propaganda machines continue to run. Most likely China will try to do the same. As for a comment some time ago, I would indeed allow North Koreans to come to the US. We�ve got millions of illegal Mexicans up here. North Koreans can�t be much worse.
It most definitely worked for Communism, Islam, and European Monarchies. It also can and has worked for democracies. Look at Japan and South Korea for two examples (another WW2 reference for you).
You know very well where Russia is lacking in democratic practices. You�re just asking me because you think I don�t know.
According to your own sources, France and Great Britain alone make up 40% of the EU military budget. The budget itself is well below half that of the US, and when two countries (France and UK) make up almost half of that, I still maintain that their military is worth very little for the cause of protecting freedom, democracy, and weak countries around the world. I�m not sure what your claim that their military is �diverse� has to do with anything. I�m also not sure how my statements about the EU�s military budget has anything to do with Russian democracy or lack thereof. Also, when was the last time the EU pooled its entire military power for a common cause? The US military acts as a single unit, as opposed to the EU�s military being split among many, many countries. The US military is also equipped to fight anywhere anytime. I�m not trying to tout the virtues of the American military. I�m trying to show that the EU has very little ability to protect democracy in the world. If China chose to invade South Korea tomorrow (not that it is likely, but play along for a moment), what could the EU do about it? Very little, and certainly less than the US could do. That was my point.
This more than anything else shows how little you actually understand about Biology 101.
China does not have to �toss� any money at KJI. They choose to. China also cares about as much for international order as North Korea does. China also is right next to Russia. What better reminder of Stalinism does one need?
So China has no ambitions toward Taiwan? And Tibet is supposed to be part of China? And China never tried to invade Japan? And whatever China did 2000 years ago means very little to the current Chinese government. I guess your problem is not with Biology 101 but with History.
Because China doesn�t mistreat its people, right? (edited by Koryo on 10-30-06 09:20 PM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6305 days Last view: 6305 days |
| ||
| Arwon
Islam is both a religion and, at times, a political system. You, a student of Biology, should know that very well. Islam draws no distinction between church and state (or mosque and state, I guess). The early Islamic empires were based on� Islam, believe it or not. Not all countries with a majority of the population who practice Islam are the same, as you say. But then, not all countries with a majority of the population who practice Islam are run by an Islamic government. For that mater, not all democratic countries are the same. There is just as much diversity between the US, Great Britain, Israel, France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea as there is between the countries you mentioned with a majority of people who practice Islam. There is also a fair bit of diversity within Islam. Lastly, Islam (or at least the majority of its followers) has changed quite a bit since it was being spread by the old Islamic Empires.
Well, considering that the USSR, Eastern Europe, and North Korea make up a vast percentage of the world�s communist and former communist countries, I�m not sure we have to take this point any further. However, as for the home grown insurgencies, obviously there must be a home grown component of almost any ideological movement. It�s difficult to bring an ideology to a country that is already quite satisfied with their current ideology or regime. It would be almost impossible for the US to bring democracy to North Korea if KJI was actually a great man revered by all of his people. In order for a democratic movement to spread, there must be a home grown dislike of KJI. Likewise, it would be much easier for a communist country to spread communism to a country whose people are already discontent with their current leadership. It is also possible, however, for those communist countries to invade and force communism on the local population. Not that, when I discuss communism, I am referring to the dictatorial way in which virtually every �communist� government has administered it, not the idealized form of communism that pretends everybody can live happily ever after in a magical far away place.
You don�t have to, but it helps. Fortunately, I put emphasis on the moral as well as the practical, so I�m not advocating turning North Korea into a pile of rubble and building a new country on top of it.
While we�re on the subject of ol� Che, you firmly acknowledge that he was a murdering thug, and not a social reformer, right? I just think it�s a fairly important point to establish before we move on. But here�s the bottom line. You�re refusing to accept several basic and obvious truths. First, this term �stability� is really problematic in this case. North Korea is not a stabilizing force in the region. In fact, North Korea is probably the single most destabilizing force in the region. China is not likely to start a war for several more decades, and South Korea and Japan are peaceful. North Korea is the only country that is likely to start a war in North East Asia within the next 10 years. The North Korean government is also not internally good. It may be �stable� in the sense that the regime isn�t going anywhere anytime soon, but that�s hardly beneficial to the North Korean people, or anyone else for that mater. Hence the problems with the term �stability.� It sounds good, but it�s really not. Just because the regime isn�t likely to fall in the near future doesn�t mean anything good. KJI�s existence doesn�t benefit the North Korea people. In North Korea, there is not �universal health care� or �job stability� or �social services� or any other social myth that communist countries claim to posses. If KJI�s regime simply �collapsed� tomorrow, which you seem to view as a bad thing, the North Koreans would be better off than they are now. In fact, the North Koreans can�t really get any worse off than they are now, unless their society becomes engulfed in sectarian violence like Iraq, which I don�t see happening. The only likely negative would be mass emigration from North Korea, which would be a negative thing to the countries into which they flee, but not a negative thing for the North Koreans themselves. I doubt China will allow any North Koreans over the border, but South Korea may. But, as I�ve said plenty of times, in my plan, the North Koreans would already be �in� South Korea, because the South Korean government would be given control of the formerly North Korean government. Obviously, this would inconvenience some of the South Koreans. I tend to think that the very lives of the North Koreans is a bit more important than the inconvenience caused to South Koreans, but I can understand their position and, as I�ve also already said, the US should help pay some of the cost. If the so called �international community� really cares about the civilian populations of former dictatorships, as they claim to, then they will also provide funding. In the end (after some years), South Korea (or just plain Korea by that point) will actually be better off, once the former North Koreans become net producers rather than net consumers. Finally, as I�ve said many times before, I�m not forcing anything on South Korea. If they refuse to reunify with the North, then I won�t press the issue. I will point out, however, that this is the only conceivable plan for reunification for years to come (certainly within KJI�s lifetime), because no amount of �dialogue� with KJI will bring about a unification in any peaceful way. KJI would never share power with a democratic South Korean government. Why? I don�t know, perhaps you simply think that I�m out to set up a puppet government in the north, or that I want to impose some sort of �geopolitical goals�. I�m not talking about geopolitical goals. I�m talking about the future. We are at a unique point in history right now. Currently, a huge percentage of the world�s population lives under democratic or semi democratic governments. We have an opportunity to make that the way of the foreseeable future, or we can let it all slip away and allow the world to revert to the way it has been for centuries: small warring dictatorships because, remember, democracies are not the natural state of humans in large groups. You�ll tell me I�m repeating myself and not presenting any new information, but there are really only a limited number of ways to explain to you concepts that you refuse to accept. Though quite a few countries are democratic or semi democratic now, they have very little ability to maintain that state without outside support, because there are plenty of dictatorships out there to discourage democracy. If the US wasn�t supporting South Korea, do you think it likely that they would be democratic today? Obviously, they would be ruled by KJI if we hadn�t joined the Korean War in 1950, but even after that, if we had completely withdrawn from South Korea, would they have become democratic at all? More likely they would have remained a dictatorship, and the Korean peninsula would have been forever divided among two mutually hostile dictatorships. True, there is an incredible diversity within the structure of democracies, but they all have many things in common. Why? Because democracies don�t spontaneously rise from nothing, not usually anyway. The reason most of the world�s democracies have a similar government structure is because they gain inspiration from existing, successful democracies. If the South Koreans, Japanese, and Taiwanese didn�t know about the success of the democratic system in America and Western Europe, would they be democratic today? I doubt it. All the culture and social progress in the world can easily be trampled by a large number of barbarians. I believe that spreading democracy should be the goal of the current democratic countries and that, if we don�t, large parts of the world will fall back into dictatorships. I don�t think the US, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe are in much danger of sliding back into dictatorships within the next 50 years, but much of the rest of the world is. Without the �intrusion� of the West into the rest of the world, I don�t foresee any major progress toward democracy in Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, East Asia, and South America. In fact, we could easily see the opposite. Whether India will be able or willing to influence democratic movements in the region, I don�t know. Oh, and seriously, what is it with the Economist? Do you get all of your political opinions from there, or are any of these actually your own? |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6305 days Last view: 6305 days |
| ||
| Asking for Rumsfeld's resignation is one of the most foolish things the Democrats have done. As if Bush is OK, but he was mislead by that evil grinch Rumsfeld. Invading Iraq was as much Bush's goal as Rumsfeld's, and his resignation will not change the course of the war. His replacement will do doubt spend about a year getting used to the job, which will put him round about the end of the term by the time he figures out what he's doing. Completely pointless IMHO. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6305 days Last view: 6305 days |
| ||
| Indeed, but we shouldn't be agitating for all of the Bush administration's problems to be shunted squrely onto Rumsfeld's shoulders so that he can be the scape goat. Again, things will not improve in the least now that he's gone. If Bush thinks people will like him more without Rumsfeld, then he's being foolish. If we think the war will take a turn for the better without Rumsfeld, then we're foolish. He's only one man. An influencial man, but certainly not the only pro Iraq war man in the administration. If you oppose the Iraq war, getting rid of Rumsfeld shouldn't make you feel any better. (edited by Koryo on 11-08-06 11:41 PM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6305 days Last view: 6305 days |
| ||
| I don't see why there's any debate about it. I guess you could call it manifest destiny. Humans have a right to expand beyond Earth. As long as we have only one planet, we run a serious risk of losing it all at once. One nuclear war, one meteorite, one global plague, or one massive environmental mishap, and we lose it all. I also firmly believe that humans will never stop fighting each other unless there is something else. As long as Earth is all we know, then Earth will continue to be divided into many countries that compete and sometimes even war with each other. I believe the Earth will only be able to unify if there are other human populated planets. We as a race (and as Americans) have been slacking off for quite a few years. The competition of the Cold War space race lit a fire under us and got the first men into space and the first man on the moon. Since then, what progress have we made? Certainly not as much as we could have. Humans can colonize space 100 yeas from now, or 500 years from now. What we do today has a direct impact on that number.
IMHO |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6305 days Last view: 6305 days |
| ||
| And I maintain that the only way to stop Japan gaining nuclear weapons is to prove that the US is still willing and able to defend them. Without a US umbrella of protection, it's every man for himself (or every nation for himself, in this case). I have no doubt that Japan will build a nuclear weapon (a whole heap of them, most likely) as long as they feel threatened by North Korea and China. If the US proves to the Japanese that it is unwilling to protect them (for instance, if we sacrifice Taiwan or South Korea in the name of "regional stability"), then Japan has every right IMHO to arm itself. How dare we demand that Japan remain disarmed and pacified when China and North Korea directly threaten it? | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6305 days Last view: 6305 days |
| ||
| Yeah, I guess you could say it's purely selfish reasons that the US wants to defend Japan and South Korea. It's purely selfish that I don't want to see a mushroom cloud over Tokyo or Seoul. :p
I'm not sure what you mean by "proliferation" when you say that North Korea can't afford nuclear proliferation, but they already have a nuclear bomb, in case you missed that. So North Korea won't be building 10,000 bombs like Russia has. But do they really need that much? Not at all. North Korea needs only one to blackmail South Korea and Japan, and they need only one to deter the US from invading and Regime-Changing that fat little Kim Jong Il. As for the economic effects, sure nuclear weapons are expensive, but they are also useful. Japan doesn't need 10,000 bombs either. I'm guessing Japan will build a couple hundred at first. That's really all they need. However, if China responds by building more of their own, then Japan will also increase their stockpile just as the US and USSR did back in the day. China's economy is growing, and so is their capacity to maintain a large nuclear stockpile. But Japan has a significant economy as well, and could really give them a run for their money. Both nations could easily end up with a stockpile of several thousand nuclear bombs within a couple decades. Would this have negative effects on both of their economies? Of course it would, but from the Japanese point of view, isn't the expense worth it, when nuclear weapons could be the only thing ensuring their very survival? Nuclear weapons obviously don't destroy your economy, if your economy is big enough. The US has a massive nuclear stockpile, but we also have a massive economy to back it up. Bottom line, more nuclear weapons in the world is always a bad thing. I would much rather see Japan with nuclear weapons than North Korea and China, but I would be happiest if no one had them. The more nuclear weapons there are, the greater the chance that someone sparks off a nuclear war, or that a terrorist gets his hands on a nuclear weapon. IMHO, the only way to stop Japan from developing their own nuclear program is to show them that it is not necessary. Nuclear weapons are indeed expensive and, if Japan thinks they don't need to incur that expense, they they won't. But as long as they fear China and North Korea's nuclear weapons, and as long as the US doesn't look willing to fight a war in the Pacific, I see no scenario in which Japan won't build nuclear weapons. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6305 days Last view: 6305 days |
| ||
If we want cheap goods, China is the way to go. We're not just backing Japan because they give us anime and cars. :p
There isn't that much difference between the US and Japanese economic-military relationships. Japan doesn't have a massive army right now, but they could make up for lost time very easily. I doubt the US would be very squeamish about selling massive amounts of arms to Japan. Israel, France, and even Russia would probably be willing to sell them military technology. Japan even has the industry to build plenty of their own. China's economy will eventually massively eclipse Japan's, but for the moment, Japan could really compete with China.
The US is not behind them 100%, and the next US president is likely to back Japan even less. Bush is about as aggressive as US presidents get these days. I imagine our next president will be, unfortunately, rather like you. He will probably shy away from any conflict in the Pacific for fear of angering China or provoking a childlike nuclear reaction from Kim Jong Il. Answer me this question, if the US populace was faced with the prospect of China nuking New York or Tokyo, don't you think they would willingly sacrifice Tokyo in a heart beat? Way back when France was building nuclear weapons, there was a classic quote. Would the US President trade Paris for New York? Of course he would, and the same holds true with Tokyo. France built their own nuclear weapons, not because we "backed" them 100 percent, but because they knew we valued American lives more than French lives. The same is true with Japan. And by the way, South Africa doesn't have nuclear weapons either. We were not "behind them 100%" when they were delving into the project. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Once North Korea has built their first bomb, then the knowledge, industry, and technology are all in place to build more. I doubt KJI would detonate his only bomb in a quasi-failed test. If he tested one bomb, he probably had at least one more sitting around. He can probably build more within six months to a year. He's not going to be cranking them out by the hundreds, but he could easily sell a handful to other nations. How would you like to see Iran or Syria buy a nuclear weapon? What about Venezuela or Cuba? Iran and Venezuela have plenty of cash and oil to give KJI. Even smaller, poorer countries like Cuba and Syria have more money than North Korea. KJI could get disparate and sell his nuclear bombs to the highest bidder, even if that high bid is relatively low. He doesn't care. It's not like Syria or Venezuela will nuke North Korea.
Hardly. North Korea was researching the bomb all throughout the Clinton years. KJI only finished the bomb during the Bush years because it takes a long time to build nuclear bombs from scratch, especially with a rag tag economy like North Korea's. KJI did not build his bomb because he felt threatened by Bush. The idea that North Korea would just be a nice kitten if we left them alone is completely absurd.
Actually, it's the first thing I want. I didn't say we should rush in with tanks and storm Pyongyang. Do you recall the last four pages we posted a few weeks ago? However, trying to convince KJI to not use his nuclear weapon is much harder than just killing KJI. But if we cannot remove KJI without risking him firing off his bomb in a last one finger salute to the world, or without that bomb falling into the hands of holdovers from his fallen regime, then we shouldn't Regime-Change him. I've said that before. You should know it by now. (edited by Koryo on 12-26-06 02:45 PM) (edited by Koryo on 12-26-06 02:49 PM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6305 days Last view: 6305 days |
| ||
Exactly. That's why the US backed Joseph Stalin against Adolf Hitler. Because Stalin was an advocate of capitalism. Because Stalin's fascism was better than Hitler's socialism.
"These days" is a relative term. I was referring to all of our recent presidents, and any current likely presidential candidates. Carter and Clinton didn't start any large scale wars. Bush 41 went to war, but was only willing to fight Saddam's military, and not willing to occupy the country or Regime-Change Saddam. Even though Reagan was aggressive in his negotiations, he also didn't start any large scale wars. Only Bush 43 has committed over 150,000 soldiers to occupying two countries. Thus, I consider him to be the most aggressive president of recent times, not that that is necessarily wrong. I also can't foresee any of the likely candidates for the 2008 presidency invading any other countries.
I know they had nuclear weapons once (or at least, we picked up "flashes" over the water), but that was not supported or even winked at by the US. I doubt the US would go to war for South Africa. As for Syrian tanks, Israel can handle them by itself. I don't foresee any tank battles in or around Israel in the future. Most likely there will just be a lot of terrorist attacks and rocket attacks against Israel, with occasional large scale responses like the most recent action in Lebanon. As for the other countries you mentioned earlier, like Australia, I think the US should fight for them. Don't you?
The only country whose nuclear program can in any way be attributed to Bush is Iran. North Korea was already working on their nuclear bombs long before Bush came into office, and every other nuclear nation in the world already had the bomb. Only Iran has measurably stepped up its nuclear program since Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq. Obviously, Iran feels threatened because we invaded their neighbor (though a neighbor with whom they had been at war for several years). But imagine a world in which Bush did not invade Iraq. We do indeed have proof that Saddam had just about every WMD besides nuclear bombs (and I can provide the links if you disagree). How long do you think it would be before Saddam had his own bomb? Three years is plenty of time, especially with the corruption of the Oil for Food scandal, for Saddam to make considerable progress toward his own nuclear bomb. This would frighten Iran into stepping up their own program. So, instead of Iraq in chaos and Iran building a nuclear bomb (as is the situation now), we might have both Iran and Iraq racing to build their own bombs before the other. So can Iran's nuclear program really be attributed to Bush?
You don't automatically have to associate Regime Change with Iraq. Invading Germany was a regime change. Invading Japan was a regime change. It's happened plenty of times. And, for the record, my wet dreams have much more attractive people than Kim Jong Il in them. 
No one is keeping you here. I was quiet for weeks until the thread started up again. You didn't have to come back in. You're welcome to stop posting in it whenever you want. It's not as if I'll continue making a dozen posts in a row if you stop responding to them. (edited by Koryo on 12-26-06 09:56 PM) |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Koryo |
/quote]