TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Destabilization of the Korean Peninsula
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by DJBARON who wrote the bible?

People from various cultures whose works and ideas ended up scrambled together in a single book known as the Bible written by several self proclaimed prophets.

In retrospect, I wouldn't worry about the whole Korea thing ... I mean, we do have the UN to resolve and avoid any crises that develop! And they are ALWAYS on the ball! And considering their staggering omnipotence in forseeing developing crises I'm sure they're doing SOMETHING to mitigate any future hostilities, right? Right?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider In retrospect, I wouldn't worry about the whole Korea thing ... I mean, we do have the UN to resolve and avoid any crises that develop! And they are ALWAYS on the ball! And considering their staggering omnipotence in forseeing developing crises I'm sure they're doing SOMETHING to mitigate any future hostilities, right? Right?

The UN is only as strong as it's leading members want it to be. It is not the world ubergovernment, it is a joint project of all the nations in the world to have a single council where the differences are to be resolved, and therefore it does rely upon the good will of major powers, especailly the US to function properly.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 The UN is only as strong as it's leading members want it to be. It is not the world ubergovernment, it is a joint project of all the nations in the world to have a single council where the differences are to be resolved, and therefore it does rely upon the good will of major powers, especailly the US to function properly.

Ok, so what has kofi annan said about Korea? How is the US inhibiting in any way the UN's efforts to ward off a crisis in Korea? The UN never proactively does anything to prevent crises, they only step in to react after the crises have occurred, much often after all the damage has been done, and therefore at a position of weaknesses. So, I'm still waiting for UN pressure to bear down on N. Korea after all these threats. Is the US, Japan, China, and S. Korea the only states concerned about their threats? It certainly appears to be as no other nation seemingly cares to speak up.

Well, for the UN to get involved, a member country should ask it to do so. But what can the UN do in this situation anyway except to support negotiations that are already taking place? Besides, US is a member of the security council, it may well ask for economic sanctions or something like that.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, for the UN to get involved, a member country should ask it to do so. But what can the UN do in this situation anyway except to support negotiations that are already taking place? Besides, US is a member of the security council, it may well ask for economic sanctions or something like that.

Well the UN could start with a global trade embargo, backed by a global flotilla....

Or then again if that doesn't work it could also authorize an attack on the NK recator's by the Americans, and responde in diplomatic wording that the UN would have no problem if the US would nuke NK if they aggrevated the conflict.

I think that would be its proper function. Just with a UN threat of accepting a nuclear attack as reciprical for the elevation of conflict, you will have a very good threat, and very small risk you would actually have to use them (which nobody wants...).

Oh wait.. sorry, we were talking about the UN right? I must of had to much to drink..

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Well the UN could start with a global trade embargo, backed by a global flotilla.... Or then again if that doesn't work it could also authorize an attack on the NK recator's by the Americans, and responde in diplomatic wording that the UN would have no problem if the US would nuke NK if they aggrevated the conflict. I think that would be its proper function. Just with a UN threat of accepting a nuclear attack as reciprical for the elevation of conflict, you will have a very good threat, and very small risk you would actually have to use them (which nobody wants...). Oh wait.. sorry, we were talking about the UN right? I must of had to much to drink..

Let's see what would be more effective ... A UN resolution condeming North Korea's actions and bringing the entire weight of the world down on its shoulders with a possible embargo? Or the US, China, Japan, S. Korea, and Russia trying desperately to avoid a nuclear N. Korea? Oh yea, the latter because the former would never happen ...

Well, for the UN to be functional its member states must agree with what it says. Since the primary UN nation blatanltly showed it doesn't care at all about the UN opinion, how can you expect UN to still have the authority of telling its member countries what to do?

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, for the UN to be functional its member states must agree with what it says. Since the primary UN nation blatanltly showed it doesn't care at all about the UN opinion, how can you expect UN to still have the authority of telling its member countries what to do?

Ah, and why do you think the primary UN nation doesn't care about its opinions? The UN has been committed to inaction since its inception. It's inevitable that over time, its members begin to consider it an ineffective, bureaucratic institution. Perhaps if it actually took measured, proactive steps in situations such as this (and actually grew a backbone) its member states wouldn't regard it as an obsolete organization.

Edit: This reminds me of U Thant's decision to immediately remove the UNEF from the Sinai. Yes great foresight there in avoiding war.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ah, and why do you think the primary UN nation doesn't care about its opinions? The UN has been committed to inaction since its inception. It's inevitable that over time, its members begin to consider it an ineffective, bureaucratic institution. Perhaps if it actually took measured, proactive steps in situations such as this (and actually grew a backbone) its member states wouldn't regard it as an obsolete organization. Edit: This reminds me of U Thant's decision to immediately remove the UNEF from the Sinai. Yes great foresight there in avoiding war.

Ok, so let's examine the UN decision of being opposed to the war in Iraq, and more so the results of the war. No WMD's have been found, people of the country are far worse off than they were before, the american temporary government is unable to stop violence and terrorist attacks. Even more worrying is that fundamentalist organizations are thriving more and more each day. Considering the fact that shiites are a majority in Iraq, and that they're not quite a secular bunch, it is very likely Iraq will turn into an Iran-like state sooner or later. All the events point to the war as being a complete failure. UN made the right decision in being opposed to it in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Ok, so let's examine the UN decision of being opposed to the war in Iraq, and more so the results of the war. No WMD's have been found, people of the country are far worse off than they were before, the american temporary government is unable to stop violence and terrorist attacks. Even more worrying is that fundamentalist organizations are thriving more and more each day. Considering the fact that shiites are a majority in Iraq, and that they're not quite a secular bunch, it is very likely Iraq will turn into an Iran-like state sooner or later. All the events point to the war as being a complete failure. UN made the right decision in being opposed to it in the first place.

I'm not speaking with respect to the most recent UN decision. I'm talking about the long term history of the UN. The UN is nothing more than the League of Nations with more countries and a more modern name. Simply because it made the "right" decision with respects to this most recent event does not validate it as an effective institution historically or in the present.

Historically looking, I think Vesa summed it up pretty well. It is more of an institution whose purpose is to support and propagate negotiations in order to avoid major conflicts than it is an armed intervention force.

But I am glad we agreed UN made the right decision about Iraq

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 But I am glad we agreed UN made the right decision about Iraq

Well, it wasn't so much decision as indecision

That's because UN knows when it is best to remain undecided

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 That's because UN knows when it is best to remain undecided

LOL, well they've taken quite a liking to that tactic for a long time now!

Maybe it's because that way they can't be accused of making wrong decisions. See what happened to the US with the Iraqi attack.

Is it just me or is this thread starting to look like an irc chat?

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 That's because UN knows when it is best to remain undecided

Or just doesn't know how to decide

As for vesa - if you read the UN charter, and understand the idealisim of FDR which was the prime mover for its establishment you will see that the UN was not established to create a status quo in the post-WWII war, it had very specific meassures for self-determination, and repersentation for growing powers (China), the stiff-stance on self-determination actually lead about the tormoil and revoultions in present and cold-war days by basically aboloshing colonialisim, a conecpt that changed the status quo.

As for neo-cons they're objective is not to "change" things, but to bring what they belive are realistic solutions to problems facing us today. Many times they repersent views that are concurrent with the status quo but are opposed with the growing change movement - such as being opposed to political correctness.

/back on topic

And the initial effects of option number 3, doing nothing, begin to have an impact:

Japan feels N. Korea's long-term threat
From CNN Tokyo Bureau Chief Rebecca MacKinnon
Tuesday, September 2, 2003 Posted: 0816 GMT ( 4:16 PM HKT)

GOTENBA, Japan (CNN) -- They are constitutionally forbidden from waging war overseas, but Japan's self defense forces are among the best equipped -- and best funded -- in the world.

The annual exercises that take place in Gotenba are open to the public, in part to show off how their taxes are being spent.

But North Korea gave new ammunition to Japan's defense spenders last week in Beijing when it repeated a threat to test a nuclear weapon or long-range missile.

Such threats have reinforced a growing sense of vulnerability in Japan despite the presence of 47,000 U.S. troops on Japanese soil.

"This has been a great concern for the Japanese people," Masashi Nishihara, President of the National Defense Academy told CNN.

"And this has contributed to the change in Japanese consciousness of the need to defend their own nation," he said.

"I'm not sure if the U.S. and Japanese forces can really defend us properly," carpenter Masayuki Munakata says.

In the eyes of most Japanese, North Korea remains a long-term military threat. So Japan's military planners are pushing to increase defense spending, especially on new, more effective technology.

"Since they have long range missiles that can reach Japan, we have to, you know, speed up, to have our own system which can cope with such threats from North Korea," Nishihara says.

Japan's defense chief has just requested a new $1.2 billion missile defense system. That price would include a Patriot PAC3 system to protect major cities, and a sea-based system as well.

Japan's defense agency also wants close to a billion dollars to buy a helicopter carrier ship which would be Asia's biggest military vessel.

That means more yen to defend the homeland in case a neighbor's threats turn real.


The arms buildup of Southeast Asia begins ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The arms buildup of Southeast Asia begins ...

It began a while ago

But yes, Japan has the most to fear from North Korea. The North still sees the South as part of the same people, but the Japanese caused a lot of suffereing when they occupied the peninsula.

On a SE Asia military buildup note:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/natio...53_china02.html

Seems that the Chinese are interested in an arms race with the US now. At least on some level.

MrS

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa However, I believe that the US could have had a Security Council resolution pass on Iraq (or North Korea for that matter) any day it wanted ... as long as it had a clause to the effect that Neocons are booted out of the US Administration. This manifested in the wording of a rivalling proposal from Germany: "UN peacekeepers will be deployed and weapons inspectors tripled to disarm Iraq".

Well I simply understood this from a realist perception - look at the UN peacekeeping missions history, and tell me if you think they can handle any situation?

UN Peacekeepers, simply would not up the ante, and are unqualified. I did not read this as a suggestion to boot the Neocons.. thats quiet a stretch. As I recall the only government changing that resolution was reffering to was Iraq.

quote:

Ironically, the same "UN indecision" is currently happening again. European Proposals for UN to take over the occupation insist: "UN will take over Iraq occupation, as long as there's a set exit date of troops leaving Iraq". An international force and a set exit date would imply there's no chance the US could put pressure on Syria and Iran.

I think you also misread this, although you do open the argument that the US wants a precense in Iraq (and I believe it should have one, such as is present in Germany or Japan) in the long run, a date for UN exit is simply dumb, no matter what side of the spectrum you are on. Having an exit strategy is one thing, but a date.. thats ridicilous.

A bit of real politik here: The US wants the UN, I think the UN would be dumb to exit Iraq when it says so, the US will simply then not invite it in as you mentioned. The parties of the UN (namely France, Germany, Russia) will then be the losers regardless if they do not follow the US plan for Iraq. Here let me explain a bit:

The options:
1) The US polices Iraq with its army with no UN aid, Iraq crumbles and becomes rouge again.
2) The UN polices Iraq with its "forces" on its on mandate, leaving prematurely, Iraq crumbles and becomes rouge again.
3) The US and UN co-operate, ensuring that Iraq survives as a nation. Both sides get to share in the spoils.

Oh well thats a bit off though.... if it made sense good, if not so be it...

quote:

Thanks for refreshing my memory about this one I had actually forgotten FDR's decisive role and the idealistic early goals of UN. I suppose it was NATO which was meant more as a vehicle to maintain status quo than UN, whose goals included replacing the ineffective League Of Nations.

Well I guess you can say NATO wanted to preserve the status quo (that the Russians don't invade Europe mainly was its purpose, so in thatI see status quo, yes), but it did not aim to replace the League of Nations, it was, and still is soley a military alliance between members.

You might be confusing yourself actually with The Leauge of Nations itself, which was HIGHLY idealisitc. These high ideals led to its realisitc and sudden demise. Afterall, nations such as the Germany and Japan, had the same voice say as Switzerland. And every decision had to be unanimous... how often does that happen between 100+ members of a congress, let alone repersentatives of nations?

quote:

However, idealism and moral views may sometimes rule politics even more than money, so UN was probably founded on that basis.

Ya after WWI, "The Great War" ideals were so high to found the League of Nations. After WWII again they wanted to prevent such great wars, and so a UN was established in an idealisitc spirit, however this time they incorporated some of the lessons learned by the League.

quote:

Anyway, I can't help suspecting that the enormously wealthy financial supporters of US parties later made UN to serve their own agenda, which was less idealistic and more about maintaining the US role in the world.

Actually no, for some reason the West initally never had that much control. Afterall the Security members such as France, and UK were completely against many of the self-determination appeals of the UN charter (as they were colonizers), Russia was extremely pro-self-determinate (but mainly because of their communist notions, and the new revolutions, and new states - the more of which to join the commie empire - were to be created by this), the US was pro-self-determination, basically from pure idealistic reasoning. China didn't give a shit

But latter on in the UN, during the Cold War you would see that actually it was a fairly balanced vechile for both parties at the secuirty council level (as no one could do anything), but at the general assembly level it was true commie (as the majority of nations were pro-commie dictators as we recall).

Today the UN is vehmently anti-US, it has been so I believe since 1993, right when Clinton took office and Bush's (I) "new world view" came to be realized as an undefined blurb.

quote:

Neocons have a long history addressing a variety of causes. I was here referring specifically to their foreign policy visions of the last five years, which can be summed up as an American Empire - certainly a historically decisive change to the world status quo. When Neocons say they want an American Hegemony, and then prove it with concrete actions (defense budget, arms development, bringing down UN before the Iraq War, Bolton's hostility towards North-Korea), I can't help thinking they are the biggest threat to the world status quo since communism.

See again, you say they want change, I say they want status quo.

Let's examine so perhaps we may agree;
You said, "Neocons say they want an American Hegemony".
I completely agree with this statement. However, I believe America is a Hegemon. It has been a hegemon since the end of WWII. So I say, "Neocons say they want to keep American a hegemon".

I mean to say the US has not been a hegemon is tantamont to blasphamy and severe denial, they are. Neocons simply want to remain it as such. You perhaps might not want the US to remain a hegemon (and from here I sense the opposition to Neocon philosophy), but then you are starting to sound like the Europeans and the rest of the world. They say No to US hegemony, but they do not say what they ARE for.

And from my histroy books, I know the US is better then whatever else the Europeans, Arab-fanatics, or rest of the world have planned for the world, despite the fact that the US is no where near perfect, they are still the best at hegemon.

quote:

they seem to have got drunk with success, and crashed head on against reality which resists attempts to change the status quo - as can be currently seen both in Iraq and North Korea.

See I read this differently, you don't have to agree with me here as this is both simply speculation on our parts but these are my thoughs;

I don't think the Neo-cons are indeed to blame for this "re"action of resistance. I believe this action had already existed and the Neo-cons are the ones indeed reacting.

The world, after the fall of the Cold War failed to realize the dream of George Bush Sr.'s "new world order" where co-operation and union would bind the world together as one world good against evil, using the vechile of the UN as it was but a pipe dream.

When the world woke up from this dream they noticed this; Everything is back as it used to be alla - 18th centuary pre WW... nobody to tell them what to do, and everybody now had an equal chance to gain power and gain dominance. The Europeans with the newly established European movement came to spearhead this campagian. The EU sees itself as a counterweight to the US, it sees itself as being the hegemon. China, now awoken (see they were planning to pull the stunt of rivaling the US for hegemony when all there plans are ready and set, in 40 or so years but the EU beat them to the punch).

The world binded to the cry of the Euros in hopes of winning more power for their own environments and thought this condition would help them CHANGE the status quo so they may gain better influence and position. They seized upon plights of the wrong, the terrorist, the massacraists, so long as they were on the opposite side of the US. Not because they necissarily support those wrong phlights, but because they feel that the US is the cause of all wrong, and that by supporting an enemy of the US you eventually support its destruction.

Here is the problem. The world is trying to undermine the US, it wants more influence, and better position for its own petty good. They bind together not so much directly, but through an indirect bond of wanting in their hearts to see the US lose its significane. Someone how the US in the past decade has had attached to it a stigma as the cause of all that is wrong with the world, I don't know why this is, after all I think the world is in its best shape ever and its due to the helm of the US... but that stigma none the less exists.

The neocons are simply the US re-action to those forces. The US has sat idle during the Clinton years letting "changing" forces determine the fate of the world, and willfully giving up hegemonic powers and influence away increasing the world feeling that such powers or influence are their rights. Now with the new Bush, the neocons are incontrol and they come to encounter a world that operates under real politika and a world that has been conditions to accept the US as giving up its power and influence.

... bah that came out long.. it was meant to be short

sorry occrider
guess we are...

/back off topic

You know, now I understand why I had this whole feeling of deja vu with this North Korean crisis...

Its simply your basic Cuba-crisis rerun.

First the blockade.. then the threat of nuclear war.. yatta yatta..

I just watched a VERY interesting show on the DiscoveryTimes Channel (one of their digital networks I get with digital cable) about the Korean "Nuclear NIghtmare". It was a very well done piece about the history of the nuclear program in North Korea with a lot of background on the regime going back to before WWII.

If you have the channel I recommend you watch this show. It was originally on a couple weeks ago but I missed it, so I would guess it will be on again. If things continue to be escalating I would guess they will run it on the regular Discovery channel too.

They are running a block on the channel covering the Korean War and the history of N. Korea including an hour long piece talking about living under the regime with some people who have successfully escaped in the past. I am taping them now so I will can watch them tomorrow during the day when I am more awake.

MrS

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel I just watched a VERY interesting show on the DiscoveryTimes Channel (one of their digital networks I get with digital cable) about the Korean "Nuclear NIghtmare". It was a very well done piece about the history of the nuclear program in North Korea with a lot of background on the regime going back to before WWII. If you have the channel I recommend you watch this show. It was originally on a couple weeks ago but I missed it, so I would guess it will be on again. If things continue to be escalating I would guess they will run it on the regular Discovery channel too. They are running a block on the channel covering the Korean War and the history of N. Korea including an hour long piece talking about living under the regime with some people who have successfully escaped in the past. I am taping them now so I will can watch them tomorrow during the day when I am more awake. MrS

Discovery Times Channel is awesome. I just saw a special on the development of the MIG-29 and the SU-27 (two of the greatest soviet fighter jets of all time), then I saw a special on the IL-2 Sturmikov (a superb air to ground fighter in ww2). Right when it's time to head out to the bars they have the most interesting shows on . The bar wins out of course . At any rate, I'll try to catch this korean special if it's on again.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Discovery Times Channel is awesome. I just saw a special on the development of the MIG-29 and the SU-27 (two of the greatest soviet fighter jets of all time), then I saw a special on the IL-2 Sturmikov (a superb air to ground fighter in ww2). Right when it's time to head out to the bars they have the most interesting shows on . The bar wins out of course . At any rate, I'll try to catch this korean special if it's on again.

Ahhh they are runing many of the "Wings of the Red Star' programs on that channel too?

/me is a Discovery Wings addict. The Tu-95 bear show is very nice, as well as the retrospectives on Andrei Tupolev and Soviet Helicopters.

I pay a lot of money a month for digital cable but it is the only ay I can watch the Dicovery and HIstory channels. I think the only non-digital cable channel I watch regularly is Vh-1. (I Love the 80's rocked )

MrS

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.