[f1000]

Originally posted by roam:
If you don;t like the sound of people asking for US to live up to its responsibilities for its actions, then don't go around fcuknig bombing innocent nations under false pretences.

How dare we assume its ok to go threaten these people, invade them, murder them; and yet baulk at the idea that we are above reproach?

The "innocent" regime in North Korea has murdered or starved to death over 10% of its own people in the past 10 years. That's about 3 million Koreans, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/FA22Dg01.html

North Korea would have collapsed long ago had it not been for the Chinese Communists, and for this reason I consider China to be committing genocide by proxy. "North" Korea is not a legitimate country; it's a vast gulag carved out of the northern half of Korea whose purpose is to act as a buffer state between the Chi-coms and the West.

Sanctions didn't work on Cuba or Iraq, and they won't work on North Korea. We tried to ignore the suffering going on in Afghanistan once before, and now we're making the same mistake by letting this hellhole of a failed state exist.

[macintologist]

I think we should engage in free trade with North Korea. How do you expect democratic western ideas in NK to foster when we refuse to sell them our products?

Look at Lebanon. Could you imagine if there were sanctions on Lebanon? They are well on their way to democracy because of the openness in trade and their liberal ideas concerning Islam and women. Sanctions on Lebanon would shut that down and foster anti-Western hatred.

We should do the same with North Korea and Cuba. Open it up!

[f1000]

Originally posted by macintologist:
I think we should engage in free trade with North Korea.

Good idea. That should help Kim Jong Il modernize his concentration camps to Nazi-like efficiency.

"...I witnessed a whole family being tested on suffocating gas and dying in the gas chamber," said one defector, former military attache at the North Korean Embassy in Beijing and chief of management at the camp. "The parents, son and and a daughter. The parents were vomiting and dying, but till the very last moment they tried to save kids by doing mouth-to-mouth breathing."

His testimony is backed up by Soon Ok-lee, who was imprisoned for seven years. "An officer ordered me to select 50 healthy female prisoners," she said. "One of the guards handed me a basket full of soaked cabbage, told me not to eat it but to give it to the 50 women. I gave them out and heard a scream from those who had eaten them. They were all screaming and vomiting blood. All who ate the cabbage leaves started violently vomiting blood and screaming with pain. It was hell. In less than 20 minutes they were quite dead..."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110004200
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/arti...136483,00.html
http://www.chosunjournal.com/pierrerigoulot.html
http://www.hrwf.net/html/north_korea...s_of_conc.html

I'd no more wish to trade with these monsters than with the Nazis. Thank God Bush has the moral courage to risk war with the North Koreans rather than give them what they want.

[macintologist]

f1000, trade is what fosters peace, not war mongering and violence.

link

Because of the importance of trade, embargos and trade sanctions are often seen as aggression and even acts of war. The punitive embargo on Germany after World War I impoverished the German people terribly, making it impossible for them to meet the demands of the League of Nations that they pay the full cost of the war. This was one of the major grievances the Germans cited in their vengeful desperation as they allowed Hitler to come to power. Trade aggression helped bring about the bloodiest war in world history.

Unless we plan on blowing up yellow people under the guise of liberation, we should encourage democratic ideas through free trade, and not through the barrel of a gun.

[f1000]

Originally posted by macintologist:
f1000, trade is what fosters peace, not war mongering and violence.

Countries that traded with each other for centuries also went to war with each other time and time again. The number of examples that I could cite are endless.

Trade does NOT foster peace; democracy does (or so it seems to so far). And don't even try to make this a race thing. All peoples are capable of racism, and that includes yellow ones.

In any case, for you to criticize the U.S. for warmongering when North Korea spends an eye-popping 23% of its GDP on the military is laughable.

[macintologist]

Originally posted by f1000:
In any case, for you to criticize the U.S. for warmongering when North Korea spends an eye-popping 23% of its GDP on the military is laughable.

They wouldn't have to spend 23% of its GDP if its GDP was bigger, which would happen if countries decided to lift their unprincipled trade embargoes on North Korea. But you're right, let the people starve, they're a bunch of unChristian chinks anyway, so who cares.

[ThinkInsane]

So we should reward their absolutely disgusting human rights atrocities by opening up trade with them? N. Korea knows what needs to be done to get the embargoes lifted, but since they are unwilling to treat their own citizens like human beings, that's some how the rest of the world's fault?

[macintologist]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
So we should reward their absolutely disgusting human rights atrocities by opening up trade with them? N. Korea knows what needs to be done to get the embargoes lifted, but since they are unwilling to treat their own citizens like human beings, that's some how the rest of the world's fault?

NK has a backwards culture. I'm not talking about ethnic, historical or religious culture, but a political culture that submits to government authority and goes hush hush to any wrongdoing and corruption. Slapping more trade embargoes on them won't help to eliminate this culture of fear and submission to government and authority. The only way to eliminate this is to allow democratic ideas to flow in their market. Expose the people to western television and movies. Do this by opening up trade. You may be rewarding the government with free trade policies, but you are rewarding the people of NK more by giving them access to our products. Their food market will also be flooded with goods, and cheap drugs from India will save lives to.

You can't solve this problem by whacking a mole. You have to pull the mole from the rug ie. you have to solve this problem organically. Open trade, open borders.

[f1000]

Originally posted by macintologist:
They wouldn't have to spend 23% of its GDP if its GDP was bigger, which would happen if countries decided to lift their unprincipled trade embargoes on North Korea. But you're right, let the people starve, they're a bunch of unChristian chinks anyway, so who cares.

What a convoluted argument. You do realize that the North Koreans self-embargo...it's called "Juche": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche

The North Koreans don't permit outside ideas to come in on penalty of death.

[f1000]

Originally posted by macintologist:
You can't solve this problem by whacking a mole. You have to pull the mole from the rug ie. you have to solve this problem organically. Open trade, open borders.

What you say is so incredibly fantastic that I don't know where to start. When the Nazis were gassing the Jews, you would have had IBM and Ford continue to sell products to the Germans? When the Japanese were raping and slaughtering the citizens of Nanking, you would have had Standard Oil continue to provide fuel to the Imperial Army?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by f1000:
What you say is so incredibly fantastic that I don't know where to start. When the Nazis were gassing the Jews, you would have had IBM and Ford continue to sell products to the Germans? When the Japanese were raping and slaughtering the citizens of Nanking, you would have had Standard Oil continue to provide fuel to the Imperial Army?

Interesting argument considering your little rant about China's complicity in NK's horrors a few posts back.

Sanctions don't work. Embargo doesn't work. Calling them "evil" and declaring that they must never be allowed to have the bomb in front of Congress didn't work.

So what's the score?

A whole thread full of people raging that NK simply cannot be allowed to have the bomb. They already do. What are you gonna do about it?

Under the circumstances I'm not sure we've got any options other than offering some sort of enticement through trade or talks or non-aggression pacts or something. What other options are there?

[Curios Meerkat]

IBM did business with the nazis - so did ITT.

http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/

http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-ch5.html

[f1000]

I know that, Meerkat. That's why I chose those examples to make a point.

[f1000]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Interesting argument considering your little rant about China's complicity in NK's horrors a few posts back

Under the circumstances I'm not sure we've got any options other than offering some sort of enticement through trade or talks or non-aggression pacts or something. What other options are there?

If it can be shown that North Korea has the intent to sell nukes to third parties, then in my opinion we should strongly consider invading them now whatever the cost (and yes, I realize that means a draft).

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by f1000:
If it can be shown that North Korea has the intent to sell nukes to third parties, then in my opinion we should strongly consider invading them now whatever the cost (and yes, I realize that means a draft).

Um, the draft is hardly the consequent of your proposal that should most concern you.

[Athens]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
So we should reward their absolutely disgusting human rights atrocities by opening up trade with them? N. Korea knows what needs to be done to get the embargoes lifted, but since they are unwilling to treat their own citizens like human beings, that's some how the rest of the world's fault?

Trade emargoes only hurt the people not the governments. Why do you insist on hurting the people further who are already suffering from there government.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Athens:
Trade emargoes only hurt the people not the governments.

South Africa proves you wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aparthe...n_South_Africa


Libya does, too:

The United Nations imposed sanctions against Libya in 1992 following the Pan Am Flight 103 Lockerbie disaster. The sanctions were lifted on September 12, 2003, after Libya agreed to accept responsibility and make payment of US $2.7 billion to the families of those who died in the bombing. In the same vein, on February 26, 2004, the United States lifted their 23-year travel ban to Libya, although many other restrictions currently remain in place, such as economic sanctions and the ban on flights by U.S. airlines to Libya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Economy

[f1000]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Um, the draft is hardly the consequent of your proposal that should most concern you.

Wake up, funky thunder. If a nuke goes off in Manhattan and kills 800,000 or more people, the U.S. is literally going to go ballistic.

No-fault armageddon is the only way to prevent a nuclear proxy war. Sure, it'll be a hot day for all of us, but there is no other option.

[Athens]

Originally posted by f1000:
South Africa proves you wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aparthe...n_South_Africa


Libya does, too:

The United Nations imposed sanctions against Libya in 1992 following the Pan Am Flight 103 Lockerbie disaster. The sanctions were lifted on September 12, 2003, after Libya agreed to accept responsibility and make payment of US $2.7 billion to the families of those who died in the bombing. In the same vein, on February 26, 2004, the United States lifted their 23-year travel ban to Libya, although many other restrictions currently remain in place, such as economic sanctions and the ban on flights by U.S. airlines to Libya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Economy

im sorry but how did imposed sanctions help the people of Libya in there day to day lives again, think you could spend a little time explaining that instead of just posting meaningless links.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Athens:
Trade emargoes only hurt the people not the governments. Why do you insist on hurting the people further who are already suffering from there government.

FYI, this discussion about embargoes is interesting but not especially relevant. North Korea's trade isolation is primarily self-imposed.

North Korea is the world's last Stalinist regime, and it isn't exactly hungering for an injection of Caplitalist enterprise. The official ideology of the DPRK is Juche, which means roughly self-reliance. That translates in the trade area to pretty much no trade with foreigners. They have allowed a couple of very limited joint projects, but that is it. North Korea is suspicious of even Chinese companies. They are not likely to ask Nike to build a factory there, and they don't have anything else that anyone would want to buy.

North Korea has really only one product that it has been willing to export, and which anyone has been willing to buy. That product is weaponry, especially ballistic missiles.

[sugar_coated]

N. Korea will crumble sooner or later.

[Athens]

Originally posted by sugar_coated:
N. Korea will crumble sooner or later.

the question is how many others will they take with them. The US should never have wasted there time and resources on Iraq, the only real threat is NK

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by f1000:
Wake up, funky thunder. If a nuke goes off in Manhattan and kills 800,000 or more people, the U.S. is literally going to go ballistic.

No-fault armageddon is the only way to prevent a nuclear proxy war. Sure, it'll be a hot day for all of us, but there is no other option.

Are you saying if we don't attack NK that a nuke will go off in Manhattan? What really are the odds of that happening? I mean seriously, not election year clap-trap.

Attacking NK almost certainly means nukes landing in Seoul and perhaps even Tokyo.

Wouldn't you agree that the odds of Seoul and Tokyo being nukes as part of a military action against NK are at least several hundred times more likely than the possibility of terrorists planting a bomb somewhere in the US if we don't attack NK?

As for "no other option", how about a good old fashioned stalemate? NK gets to sit there feeling superbad. Everyone in Seoul, Tokyo and elsewhere within reach of NK's nukes (including even my home) get to keep on living and eventually Kim Jong Il's regime goes the way of the Dodo just like every other regime like his left to its own devices.

Time is on our side here. The only reason we have to believe this is some kind of emergency demanding immidiate action is because our dear old president staked the US credibility on something he couldn't deliver.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
FYI, this discussion about embargoes is interesting but not especially relevant. North Korea's trade isolation is primarily self-imposed.

North Korea is the world's last Stalinist regime, and it isn't exactly hungering for an injection of Caplitalist enterprise. The official ideology of the DPRK is Juche, which means roughly self-reliance. That translates in the trade area to pretty much no trade with foreigners. They have allowed a couple of very limited joint projects, but that is it. North Korea is suspicious of even Chinese companies. They are not likely to ask Nike to build a factory there, and they don't have anything else that anyone would want to buy.

North Korea has really only one product that it has been willing to export, and which anyone has been willing to buy. That product is weaponry, especially ballistic missiles.

But even they realize that the Juche is unsustainable, hence their international posturing and demands for talks with the US.

The carrot approach can still work to our advantage, it will just take long term thinking rather than short term posturing. The NK regime cannot last. It cannot. We risk everything by provoking them now rather than simply continueing with patient containment.

Of course, any ongoing containment strategy must include getting international support for tracking and neutralizing NK weapon sales.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
But even they realize that the Juche is unsustainable, hence their international posturing and demands for talks with the US.

The carrot approach can still work to our advantage, it will just take long term thinking rather than short term posturing. The NK regime cannot last. It cannot. We risk everything by provoking them now rather than simply continueing with patient containment.

Of course, any ongoing containment strategy must include getting international support for tracking and neutralizing NK weapon sales.

The last point is obviously correct, and I am glad we agree on that. The problem is that arms sales are North Korea's primary product. In fact, that is all they have to sell. So if you cut off arms sales, which you agree we have to do, you have in fact cut off what they regard as their lifeline. There is no way out of that conumdrum.

Nor can you force them to open their economy up. This regime has taken its people to the point of starvation and beyond into actual starvation. It may be unbelievable to us that any regime would rather starve its people than give up on a hopeless ideology, but they have shown that is what they are willing to do.

This is a gangster regime, and it behaves that way. They are threatening both their own people and their neighbors. It's almost like a police hostage situation. The hostages are North Korea's innocent citizens, and those of the surrounding countries. We do have to negotiate with the madman. We don't want him to kill all the hostages and go out in a blaze of homicidal "glory." What you have to do is slowly talk him down to reality by showing him that he isn't going to get the helicopter and the executive jet and the $50 million in a Swiss account. This guy is nuts, and it doesn't help matters to feed his insanity. In other words, it does indeed take patience, but also firmness. Keep him contained, and don't ever let him out of that box. And keep looking for an opportunity to take him out and free those hostages. Because as long as that insane gangster regime is there, we and the hostages will never be safe.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This guy is nuts, and it doesn't help matters to feed his insanity. In other words, it does indeed take patience, but also firmness. Keep him contained, and don't ever let him out of that box. And keep looking for an opportunity to take him out and free those hostages. Because as long as that insane gangster regime is there, we and the hostages will never be safe.

I think we do agree. I'm at least relieved to see you're not advocating storming the compound like some.

Luckily for everyone, Kim Jong Il is not long for this world. Its depressing that he has so many hostages and we can't save them right now, but unfortunately our opportunities to perhaps prevent that (if we really had any) are past.

Of course, we could perhaps give NK a legit arms market that operates within acceptable parameters. Kind of a "weapon exchange" program. Its NK's black market sales that are most troubling so if we make the white market the path of least resistance perhaps we can diffuse the situation that way.

I criticize Bush for doing so much useless bluffing, but at least he hasn't gone cowboy on this. I do fear that he has staked an ideological rather than pragmatic position which in part to blame for the extent of the "crisis" but that is really here nor there at this point. Starting today, we're stuck with some form of engagement whether we like it or not. The alternative is untenable.

I understand the reasons for not wanting bi-lateral talks, but I don't think we can simply reject that under any circumstances. Seriously, if that is the only way to keep talking, I'm not sure we've got options unless we simply accept open war between nuclear powers erupting on the pacific rim.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Are you saying if we don't attack NK that a nuke will go off in Manhattan? What really are the odds of that happening? I mean seriously, not election year clap-trap.

Prior to 9/11, if you would have said "what are the odds that a coordinated airplane attack would take down two of the largest buildings in the world and destroy a large part of the Pentagon"

I would have said you were nuts and linked to a picture of a guy with a tin foil hat on his head.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think we do agree. I'm at least relieved to see you're not advocating storming the compound like some.

I find the real issue with many liberals/conservatives is that liberals have indicated that direct unilateral talks would be a good thing and conservatives generally agree that they would undermine the multi-lateral approach.

I don't think any of the more rational thinking on both sides are saying storm the compound.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
[B]Luckily for everyone, Kim Jong Il is not long for this world. Its depressing that he has so many hostages and we can't save them right now, but unfortunately our opportunities to perhaps prevent that (if we really had any) are past.

I don't feel like we ever had any. Clinton tried, but NK blatantly lied and continued their nuclear program. I no longer feel as though "paying them off" with money from the West is an option. I feel like NK is a bully that's trying to get our lunch money. Sure we can pay... but that doesn't eliminate the underlying issue.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Of course, we could perhaps give NK a legit arms market that operates within acceptable parameters. Kind of a "weapon exchange" program. Its NK's black market sales that are most troubling so if we make the white market the path of least resistance perhaps we can diffuse the situation that way.

I criticize Bush for doing so much useless bluffing, but at least he hasn't gone cowboy on this. I do fear that he has staked an ideological rather than pragmatic position which in part to blame for the extent of the "crisis" but that is really here nor there at this point. Starting today, we're stuck with some form of engagement whether we like it or not. The alternative is untenable.

And many conservatives criticize Clinton for not following the Reagan doctrine of "trust but verify"

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I understand the reasons for not wanting bi-lateral talks, but I don't think we can simply reject that under any circumstances. Seriously, if that is the only way to keep talking, I'm not sure we've got options unless we simply accept open war between nuclear powers erupting on the pacific rim.

I think the issue is larger then just NK and the USA. MANY hate the "USA World Police" stigma, yet countries like NK want to only walk with the USA... It's a lose lose situation for the USA. We need to let that region take care of the issue as we have no leverage over NK.

[f1000]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Are you saying if we don't attack NK that a nuke will go off in Manhattan? What really are the odds of that happening? I mean seriously, not election year clap-trap.

North Korea has a long history of terrorism. The following are just a few of the more egregious examples:

02/1958 North Korean agents hijacked a South Korean airliner to Pyongyang that had been en route from Pusan to Seoul; 1 American pilot, 1 American passenger, 2 West German passengers, and 24 other passengers were released in early March, but 8 other passengers remained in the North.

01/1968 A 31-member commando team, disguised as South Korean soldiers and civilians, infiltrated within striking distance of President Park Chung Hee's office/residence complex (The Blue House) before they were intercepted by South Korean police; 29 commandos were killed and one committed suicide; one who was captured revealed that their mission was to kill President Park and other senior government officials. Two South Korean policemen and five civilians were killed by North Korean infiltrators.(11)

12/1969 North Korean agents hijacked a South Korean airliner YS-11 to Wonsan en route from Kangnung to Seoul with 51 persons aboard; in February 1970. 39 of the crew and passengers were released. (As of 1998, the remaining 12 were still detained in North Korea, along with some 450 other South Koreans abducted since 1955, according to the South Korean government.

01/1971 A North Korean attempt to hijack a Korean Airline plane F-27 en route from Seoul to Sokcho on the east coast was foiled.

08/1974 South Korean President Park Chung Hee's wife was killed during another attempt on his life. An agent of a pro-North Korean group in Japan who entered Seoul disguised as a tourist fired several shots at Park at a major public function; Park escaped unhurt, but the First Lady was hit by stray bullets and died several hours later. The agent, Mun Se-gwang, was tried and convicted, and executed

10/1983 The explosion of a powerful bomb, several minutes before South Korean President Chun was to arrive to lay a wreath at the Martyr's Mausoleum in Rangoon, Burma (Myanmar), killed 17 senior South Korean officials and injured 14 who were accompanying President Chun, then on the first leg of a six-nation Asian tour. On November 4, Burma broke off diplomatic relations with North Korea.

09/1986 A bomb blast at Kimpo International Airport in Seoul killed five and wounded over 30.

11/1987 A bomb planted by two North Korean terrorists on a Korean Airline Boeing 707, with 20 crew members and 95 passengers aboard, exploded in midair over the Andaman Sea off the coast of Burma. The plane was en route from Baghdad to Seoul. Kim Hyon-hui, one of the terrorists who was arrested in Bahrain and confessed to the crime, was tried and convicted in a Seoul court. The sabotage bombing was reportedly a North Korean warning against those planning to take part in the Seoul Olympics. (In January 1988, Kim, the self-confessed agent, stated that she had been trained for two years to pass as Japanese by a Japanese woman of Korean descent, Yi Un-hye, who Japanese police believe had been kidnapped by North Korean agents).

12/1998 At a Pyongyang rally, North Korean youths and students vowed to turn Washington into "a sea of fire and to crush Seoul and Tokyo."

I haven't listed some of the more insane behaviors of the North Koreans, such as their kidnapping of a movie star because Kim Jong Il admired her, or their dozens of small scale commando incursions that have left hundreds of South Koreans and Americans dead. If you've ever heard of the infamous axe attack, then you know why American GI's are always on their toes at the DMZ.

Kim Jong Il liquidates "undesirable" Koreans under a policy that resembles nothing less than eugenics. He's also constructed deep bunkers in which he believes he can ride out a nuclear attack. I wouldn't be surprised if he's got some Strangelovian plan to repopulate the world with farmers.

This picture should show you just how out of touch N.K. is with the rest of the world:

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Attacking NK almost certainly means nukes landing in Seoul and perhaps even Tokyo.

Things are only going to get worse if we allow NK to build hundreds of bombs instead of the 2-12 that they may have now. Anti-ballistic missile systems could protect Japan in the event of hostilities, but Seoul will definitely be pummeled to pieces (nukes or no nukes).

If North Korea intends to sell bombs, then we simply must invade them now in order to prevent exponentially greater carnage in the future. I would hope that the "bombs" they have are duds, but we certainly shouldn't give them a chance to test and find out.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
As for "no other option", how about a good old fashioned stalemate? NK gets to sit there feeling superbad. Everyone in Seoul, Tokyo and elsewhere within reach of NK's nukes (including even my home) get to keep on living and eventually Kim Jong Il's regime goes the way of the Dodo just like every other regime like his left to its own devices.

Before 9/11, I would have agreed with you, but today we know that there are groups who have no qualms about potentially starting Armageddon by attacking a hyperpower.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Time is on our side here. The only reason we have to believe this is some kind of emergency demanding immidiate action is because our dear old president staked the US credibility on something he couldn't deliver.

G.W. is not the first President to insist on a non-nuclear North Korea. Kim crossed a line in the sand that previous administrations had already drawn.

From Asia Times:

Has President Bush been so much more "hostile" toward Kim - as North Korea insists - than, say, his immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton? Bush hasn't been nice, but at the same time, Bush has never blurted out that he would, in case of North Korean nuclear provocation, "erase North Korea from the map of the world", as president Clinton did in 1993. Neither has Bush, as far as we know, ever seriously toyed with the idea of bombing Kim's magical kingdom, as did Clinton, or with nukes, as did president Dwight D Eisenhower, or really bombed it, as did Eisenhower and president Harry Truman.

[f1000]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Luckily for everyone, Kim Jong Il is not long for this world.

That's what they said about Kim Il Sung. Unfortunately, Kim Jong Il has several heirs as well.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Its depressing that he has so many hostages and we can't save them right now, but unfortunately our opportunities to perhaps prevent that (if we really had any) are past.

Kim will have even more hostages just as soon as he can build more nukes and extend the range of his Nodong missiles.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Of course, we could perhaps give NK a legit arms market that operates within acceptable parameters. Kind of a "weapon exchange" program. Its NK's black market sales that are most troubling so if we make the white market the path of least resistance perhaps we can diffuse the situation that way.

Nobody wants North Korean "products" except rogue nations. You're basically suggesting that the West give North Koreans protection money.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I criticize Bush for doing so much useless bluffing, but at least he hasn't gone cowboy on this. I do fear that he has staked an ideological rather than pragmatic position which in part to blame for the extent of the "crisis" but that is really here nor there at this point. Starting today, we're stuck with some form of engagement whether we like it or not. The alternative is untenable.

The reason we won't engage in bi-lateral talks with NK is because it is a Chinese proxy state. North Korea would've imploded long ago without Soviet/Chinese support.

Let's drop this pleasant fiction that the Chinese are on our side. Like it or not, China is on its own side, and it'll keep North Korea frozen in its current decrepit state just as long as American forces remain in the Far East (and especially Taiwan). We have as much chance of putting a wedge between China and N.K. as China has of putting one between the U.S. and the U.K.

No amount of threatening, negotiations, or sanctions is going to work if China keeps undermining our actions. China remains North Korea's biggest and most important ally.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by f1000:
Holy Japanese revisionism, Batman! So once again it's America that's the cause of all suffering. I think it's your knowledge that needs some more scratching:

...

No, actually, the Russians have harassed the Japanese before, but it was Commodore Perry who forced the opening. It still wasn't an American thing, because, Russians, Dutch, British, and French (among others) followed suit to secure the same rights as the Americans did.

If you read some of my posts really carefully, it was the example of the British and the French who defeated China in the 1840s.

Just a useful word, you can look up in wikipedia, too: sakoku. Read it, and you will understand partly what I'm talking about.

[f1000]

I responded to your claims that Asians are non-confrontational. As Simey said, history doesn't back you up on this. So what if Japan had a closed-door policy or was harassed by Europeans? None of this is news to me, and I don't see how it bolsters your earlier claims.

People change. Cultures change. We must deal with the here and now, and not the once and has been.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by f1000:
I responded to your claims that Asians are non-confrontational. As Simey said, history doesn't back you up on this. So what if Japan had a closed-door policy or was harassed by Europeans? None of this is news to me, and I don't see how it bolsters your earlier claims.

People change. Cultures change. We must deal with the here and now, and not the once and has been.

It does when you compare it to Europe's (or America's) history and even more on a personal level. Which is important when you deal with a regime consisting of a few persons.

But since you would be ok with invading NK at whatever cost (and I don't think you're gonna have to worry about re-introducing the draft), I think we are all glad that you are not part of the current administration.

[Moderator]

unless we lead by example, the answer is yes

this ought to be common sense

[thunderous_funker]

f1000, your risk analysis is still way off base, IMO.

You're talking about a land war in Asia between nuclear powers as a reasonable response to the risk posed by arms sales to 3rd parties.

Even if you're unbelievably and irrationally paranoid about the idea of NK's WMD's ending up in the hands of even Al'Queda, that still doesn't make invading a nuclear power on the asian mainland during peacetime anything even remotely approaching reasonable or justified.

Our national security must be based on sound defensive (and even occasionally offensive) measures that are realistic and justified. There are much simpler and easily defined measures of guarding against WMD being used against our domestic population than adding one more failed state to the list of US occupied territories.

Besides the fact that our military arguably doesn't even have the resources to effectively accomplish what you're advocating. Thanks to Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz our military is stretched to the absolute breaking point. We couldn't occupy Korea if we wanted to.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Moderator:
unless we lead by example, the answer is yes

this ought to be common sense

So now North Korea has to make a CIA of their own and topple foreign governments?