im not even suprised of what NK is doing. First of all if they were even thinking about making nukes who is US to tell them they cant. There are many other countries that have nukes and have leaders that will use them or sell them to countries that will do us harm, so NK would feel like they are being pushed around. Also, they have no reason to be scared of the US because if the US does something about it with military action China will intervene. It's funny how i heard on news when bushed replied "We do not have to solve this militarily, it can be solved politically", he said that because he knows if he puts in military action China would kick our ass on their turf. I think Bush needs to stop trying to be the super power.

___________________
"Saying you understand trance by listening to commercial crap is like saying you understand hip hop by listening to 'Who let the dogs out'" - unknown

I don't think that the timming of North Korea's attempt to build a nuke is by accident. I'm betting they feel that georgey is too busy warmongering with iraq, to deal with them now. And while the U.S says it can fight 2 wars at once, in 2 diffrent area's, many experts believe they can't, and there just bluffing.

quote:

Originally posted by gOOD-tRiP im not even suprised of what NK is doing. First of all if they were even thinking about making nukes who is US to tell them they cant. There are many other countries that have nukes and have leaders that will use them or sell them to countries that will do us harm, so NK would feel like they are being pushed around.

sorry buddy but this just goes to show that there's a few other things you need to know. have you heard of the Non-Proliferation Treaty? it basicly answers all your questions. basicly this treaty, which was signed by most the world's countries (including that of the US and NK), was intent on just putting a 'freeze' on all nuclear programs and keeping the status quo as long as possible. techincally it a signatory would not be allowed to build more nukes, only maintain those it has. the treaty bans selling of nukes and its technology. also non-nuke countries would not seek the technology and in case of attack by a nuclear powered country would have the defense of the world behind it (1968, UN Security Council Resolution 255). now NK has just backed out of the treaty (the very first one to do so) and the UN is being slow to react agian, damn i hate the UN....


edit:
and i forgot to mention about the treaty signed soley between the US and NK, it was signed in 1994 under clinton's presidency. the NK's agreed to not continue their nuclear military technology and in return the US would supply them with two nuclear energy reactors and cheaper oil.... NK just broke off that treaty too, meaning to me they can NOT be trusted to hold true to their word and are just 'using' people to get what they want.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

Last edited by Izzy on Jan-01-2003 at 19:16

Still recovering from NYE, but I think I can still add a thing or two.

quote:

now NK has just backed out of the treaty (the very first one to do so) and the UN is being slow to react agian, damn i hate the UN....

I agree that the UN is often slow to resolve diplomatic issues like this one, but you have to appreciate why. When you have a look at the countries that have veto power in the SC, and how different the ideologies are, the UN is in a very difficult situation. The UK and US tend to side with each other, as do Russia and China (not sure why though to be honest?) and France tends to sit somewhere in the middle, but either way, it's difficult for the UN to unite the globe when the super-powers tend to eschew the need for a more "united" globe, and instead tend to follow their own interests, largely ignoring the international community. This applies more to the US and China than the other three though.

George Bush's war mongering in the past few months, in complete defiance of the UN, has made the entire organisation look farcical, not necessarily through any fault of its own. Both China and the US have ignored human rights treaties established by the UN, and voided many of the international treaties they have instigated, much less merely signed. The fault is not so much with the UN as with the super-powers who wish to take it upon themselves to usurp it's authority. The UN and the methodolgy behind it has the potential to do more for this globe (in its entrity rather than just small pockets within it) than any other initiative before it, but so long as the nations so integral to it are not able to agree with each other on seemingly basic issues of global morality, then the UN is hand-tied. It's not the fault of the organisation, but the autonomous, incompatible components within it who abuse it for their own personal benefit, but then do their best to subvert it when some element of sacrifice is called for to make it work properly.

With regards to the North Korea situation, it smells of shit-stirring to me. I think that the decision made by North Korea to announce the re-opening of their nuclear program was timed quite well to coincide with Bush's push for a war on Iraq. It poignantly identifies the hypocracy in Bush's foreign policy, and calls into question his real motive for a war on Iraq. Both countries are a part of the "axis of evil", both house governments antithetical to the American cause, yet only one has nuclear weapons and the potential to cause a lot of damage should they stupidly decide to attack the US unprovoked. Similarly, only one country has a lot of oil and only one country sustains a president who severely pissed off another certain president's father. Why attack Iraq and not North Korea? Why attack either at all?

Without wanting to seem as though I'm once again jumping on the "US are the real evil" bandwagon, the foreign policy coming from this country seems confused, suspiciously clandestine and woefully inconsistent. If anyone thinks they can, I would very much like this to be clarified. :-/

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Still recovering from NYE, but I think I can still add a thing or two. I agree that the UN is often slow to resolve diplomatic issues like this one, but you have to appreciate why. When you have a look at the countries that have veto power in the SC, and how different the ideologies are, the UN is in a very difficult situation. The UK and US tend to side with each other, as do Russia and China (not sure why though to be honest?) and France tends to sit somewhere in the middle, but either way, it's difficult for the UN to unite the globe when the super-powers tend to eschew the need for a more "united" globe, and instead tend to follow their own interests, largely ignoring the international community. This applies more to the US and China than the other three though. George Bush's war mongering in the past few months, in complete defiance of the UN, has made the entire organisation look farcical, not necessarily through any fault of its own. Both China and the US have ignored human rights treaties established by the UN, and voided many of the international treaties they have instigated, much less merely signed. The fault is not so much with the UN as with the super-powers who wish to take it upon themselves to usurp it's authority. The UN and the methodolgy behind it has the potential to do more for this globe (in its entrity rather than just small pockets within it) than any other initiative before it, but so long as the nations so integral to it are not able to agree with each other on seemingly basic issues of global morality, then the UN is hand-tied. It's not the fault of the organisation, but the autonomous, incompatible components within it who abuse it for their own personal benefit, but then do their best to subvert it when some element of sacrifice is called for to make it work properly. With regards to the North Korea situation, it smells of shit-stirring to me. I think that the decision made by North Korea to announce the re-opening of their nuclear program was timed quite well to coincide with Bush's push for a war on Iraq. It poignantly identifies the hypocracy in Bush's foreign policy, and calls into question his real motive for a war on Iraq. Both countries are a part of the "axis of evil", both house governments antithetical to the American cause, yet only one has nuclear weapons and the potential to cause a lot of damage should they stupidly decide to attack the US unprovoked. Similarly, only one country has a lot of oil and only one country sustains a president who severely pissed off another certain president's father. Why attack Iraq and not North Korea? Why attack either at all? Without wanting to seem as though I'm once again jumping on the "US are the real evil" bandwagon, the foreign policy coming from this country seems confused, suspiciously clandestine and woefully inconsistent. If anyone thinks they can, I would very much like this to be clarified. :-/

Your posts are very well written, true, and articulate.... i always enjoy reading them Renegade.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade blH BLAH BLAh UN sux... but its not their fault.. Without wanting to seem as though I'm once again jumping on the "US are the real evil" bandwagon, the foreign policy coming from this country seems confused, suspiciously clandestine and woefully inconsistent. If anyone thinks they can, I would very much like this to be clarified. :-/

Ok a few points:

First give the USA time, it might after all go to war with NK. Who knows? Then they won't be hypocritical or inconsident.

Second, just because the USA can't do something against ONE bad nation, does not justify it in doing nothing if it can against another bad nation.

This would be saying, you can't attack one country in the axis of evil unless you attack them all. In the case of Iraq, the USA can acutally do something. If it does go after Iraq now it can stop it from possessing or obtaining in the future WOMD and detering a very horrible future scenario.

In Korea it is more complicated. An artilery shell from the north DMZ takes 53 seconds to travel to downtown Seoul. And NK has 1000 of barteries right above the DMZ line ready for such an opprotunity. As you can see, acting in this type of scenario is considerbaly much harder. Something you can't do much about. Altough they may find a work around in future, or in the end decide the sacrifise is worth the for the greater good of the world.

Anyway. My point was your using a flawed argument by saying that since the US isn't presistent with the approach to all members of evil, it has no right to exert force on one evil without the same right of force on another evil. But you have to understand each scenario is unique, and so is america's approach. I believe, just because you fail to stop one criminal, does not mean you should give up hope and stop trying to stop criminals.

bah.... anwyay hope you got it.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Still recovering from NYE

happy new year renegade

quote:

I agree that the UN is often slow to resolve diplomatic issues like this one

you're right. i wasnt asking for a quick resolution, i was just saying i feel it is very important that some sort of action be taken asap, or as i orginally said at least a reaction of any kind, because this whole NK thing is or could be a very serious incedent. maybe a call for an emergency session. or at least some way to conviene and let all the countries have an outlet to express thier views so that sometime in the future one can more accurately decide what resolution needs to happen.

i too agree with you about the UN as an ideal. i agree with everything it strives to achieve in a global sense and the values it stands for. however in reality, as based on its current state, it is not doing a good job of attaining it, maybe even hurting it. this is caused by a plethora of reasons, but that being probably a topic for another thread.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

My point was your using a flawed argument by saying that since the US isn't presistent with the approach to all members of evil, it has no right to exert force on one evil without the same right of force on another evil.

Yep I understand completely, and agree to a point. I never said that they should bomb North Korea if they bomb Iraq (or not bomb Iraq if they don't bomb North Korea), I was merely asking why Iraq are perceived as such a threat (to the extent that it is worth a war over) but North Korea aren't, when you have a look at what a similar "threat" they each pose.

To go back to your "criminal" analogy, you have two people in the docks: one is guilty of committing a crime (and freely admits to it), the other is accused of committing the same crime desipte a notable absense of quality evidence supporting this accusation, to the point where he is really only being accused of "planning" to commit this crime. One criminal gets the book thrown at him, the other doesn't. Now there is an undeniable inconsistency here, and one can only wonder what the real reasons for this are.

I'm not saying that neither should be condemned (and certainly not that they should both be condemned) I'm simply pointing out that an inconsistency does exist, and that there is presumably some reason why the same law is applied so differently to two different states. All I'm asking for is some possible ideas as to what this reason may be.

quote:

happy new year renegade

You too mate.

quote:

i wasnt asking for a quick resolution, i was just saying i feel it is very important that some sort of action be taken asap, or as i orginally said at least a reaction of any kind, because this whole NK thing is or could be a very serious incedent.

But at the same time a hasty reaction may only inflame the situation. That's why I rarely agree with the principle that states any action is always better than none at all. Just because we are often compelled to believe that we must do something when faced with a situation like this, it doesn't necessarily mean that we should.

And I can only hope that this doesn't make me sound like a stereotypically incorrigible pacifist.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade ..yatta yatta yatta... I'm not saying that neither should be condemned (and certainly not that they should both be condemned) I'm simply pointing out that an inconsistency does exist, and that there is presumably some reason why the same law is applied so differently to two different states. All I'm asking for is some possible ideas as to what this reason may be.

Well a few possible reasons other then conspiracy theories:

1) It takes NK artillery shells 53 seconds to land in downtown Seoul. NK has 100s, even 1000s of these artillery batteries right above to the north of the DMZ. Iraq has no comparable situation
2) The USA believe Iraq might be an a) easier or b) more important target strategically in its war on terror, and therefore decided it would wage war against it to take advantage of its defeat. As opposed to addressing the NK issue before the Iraqi one.
3) World pressure would be up in flames if the USA would actually try and not be hypocritical by going to war in both theatres.

These are just a few reasons. Honestly I don't think the USA is soley attacking Iraq for its oil as your theory alludes to. Using the same logic we can conspire that the USA then made up the NK crises so it could stop valuable oil shipments to NK.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The UK and US tend to side with each other, as do Russia and China (not sure why though to be honest?)

Russia and China are both former Communist countries, that's all I can think of right now

___________________
Alsof Het G*dverdomme Himmel Niks Kost!!!

nah, they used to hate each other in the Soviet era.

Now they have many common things, for example rebelling minorities and they are both emerging powers, thats why they tend to stick together.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]