PDA

View Full Version : Korea Nuke Hyprocisy



antichrist
10-10-2006, 07:27 PM
Why all the brahouha about Nth Korea getting the bomb? The US has had about 30,000 warheads for generations and has been the only country to use such, and then when not under any attack and no foreign forces on her soil.

North Korea has been branded as evil by the US along with Iran and Iraq. Iraq has been invaded and maybe the nuke is Nth Korea's little stopper to US attacking her. Sounds reasonable to me. I also consider the US to be evil yet she can keep hers so why the hypocrisy on Korea.

The nuclear powers were all supposed to get rid of their weapons generations ago, they have done not so their hypocrisy is finding them out.

Basil
10-10-2006, 07:33 PM
I was waiting for this thread! The yanks (the evil bastards :doh:) have deliberately kept a low profile on this issue.

They did and said very little and waited for:
- The Chinese to condemn Korea
- The Japanese to condemn Korea
- The French to condemn Korea
- The Aussies (both major sides) to condemn Korea
- The Russians to condemn Korea

etc et - forking - cetera. The whole developed world condemned Korea. But now, after everyone has slotted in, the yanks speak out as well. Nothing more, nothing less.

Have another go elsewhere, mate. The yanks have outplayed you this time :hand:

antichrist
10-10-2006, 07:41 PM
I don't really agree with all the worry about IBMs when they can just transport the nuke in a ship and blow the Christ out of anywhere. I know that now sanctions are considered to search every ship but I don't consider that foolproof at all. There are so many underhanded methods they could transport that bomb.

I can remember in first US invasion of Iraq that Sen Evans, our foreign minister at the time, stated that Australia would not condemn the US if it used nuke bombs in Iraq. So that means that the US was considering using them and Australia is not necessary against use of nuke weapons, just as long as it is by their mates.

paulb
10-10-2006, 07:53 PM
What amazes me, in relation to North Korean nukes, is the continual insistence that *acquiring nukes* is somehow insane behaviour.
It seems to me that it's perfectly rational for N Korea - or Iran for that matter - to make haste to acquire nuclear bombs. They only need to look at what happened to Iraq. If you were the leader of a country recently condemned as evil by the US, would you not feel nervous about a potential invasion? Particularly with the republicans sinking in the polls, and the eternal conservative tendency to create external dramas in pursuit of domestic political gain.

This is not to say that nuke proliferation is good news for us, of course. Nor is it to claim that North Korea is well-governed in other respects.

Southpaw Jim
10-10-2006, 08:09 PM
I appreciate the hypocrisy involved in a bunch of developed, nuclear armed nations, some of whom having displayed a rather vigilante-esque attitude in recent years, telling another nation that they aren't allowed to have nukes.

However.

There are some people you don't want having the access codes to these things.

Obviously Geo. W. Bush is one of them.

Kim Jong Il is another. I mean, the facking guy spends money on making Western movies, starring himself, for his own edification, whilst his people starve and die of basic diseases.

:hmm:

antichrist
10-10-2006, 08:13 PM
I reakon if Kim Jong Il was not given the job on a platter they would not let him in charge of the kindergarten. A complete fake and loser and is taking his country down with him.

Axiom
10-10-2006, 09:15 PM
AND try this for further hypocrisy, the nth koreans are a 'real' (according to the mainstream rationale)threat (ie. they have and are testing the bomb!)and iran is at least 5yrs away ,ive heard 9,from attaining the bomb...........yet,..just simply watch the next year or 2 maximum,and see who is actually brought to task and militarily attacked.....just watch...

nth korea 'scare' is being hypocritically used as a smokescreen cover for the almost certain impending attack on iran

test my forecast.

firegoat7
10-10-2006, 09:23 PM
nth korea 'scare' is being hypocritically used as a smokescreen cover for the almost certain impending attack on iran

test my forecast.
Unfortunately this is most probably true. I mean really what the hell is happening in Australia. Everyday the papers keep attacking Muslims. What is the propoganda for? What is wrong with the Western world? Why do we need enemies to be pure?

cheers Fg7

Axiom
11-10-2006, 01:26 AM
Unfortunately this is most probably true. I mean really what the hell is happening in Australia. Everyday the papers keep attacking Muslims. What is the propoganda for? What is wrong with the Western world? Why do we need enemies to be pure?

cheers Fg7oh my god!, how long have you got!? :)
briefly:
1)corporate controlled govt
2)corporate /govt controlled media
2)military industrial complex
3)the 'political need' for an 'enemy'
4)the ease to which the masses can be conditioned
5)truly informing the public is a 'security risk'

Arrogant-One
11-10-2006, 09:04 AM
Why all the brahouha about Nth Korea getting the bomb? The US has had about 30,000 warheads for generations and has been the only country to use such, and then when not under any attack and no foreign forces on her soil.
The United States has shown itself to be a responsible member of the international community in its handling and use of nuclear weaponry for more than half a century. North Korea has not.

Moreover, the USA having been the first nation to have developed nuclear technology also has an inherent right to use such technology on that basis as well.

Desmond
11-10-2006, 10:17 AM
What amazes me, in relation to North Korean nukes, is the continual insistence that *acquiring nukes* is somehow insane behaviour.
It seems to me that it's perfectly rational for N Korea - or Iran for that matter - to make haste to acquire nuclear bombs. They only need to look at what happened to Iraq. If you were the leader of a country recently condemned as evil by the US, would you not feel nervous about a potential invasion? Particularly with the republicans sinking in the polls, and the eternal conservative tendency to create external dramas in pursuit of domestic political gain.

This is not to say that nuke proliferation is good news for us, of course. Nor is it to claim that North Korea is well-governed in other respects.
So, are you saying that North Korea hava acquired nukes as a prophylactic measure to ensure that they can do whatever they want to do in future?

Arrogant-One
11-10-2006, 12:36 PM
I reakon if Kim Jong Il was not given the job on a platter they would not let him in charge of the kindergarten. A complete fake ...
So you're saying he's kind of like Mark Latham?

antichrist
11-10-2006, 07:05 PM
The United States has shown itself to be a responsible member of the international community in its handling and use of nuclear weaponry for more than half a century. North Korea has not.

Moreover, the USA having been the first nation to have developed nuclear technology also has an inherent right to use such technology on that basis as well.

The USA proved it irresponsible when it bombed Japan twice when itself was not under attack nor any foreign troops on it's soil. It only has not used for half a century because it did not consider it had to. It was certainly considering using during the first Iraq war as I pointed out earlier as Sen Evans did not condemn them when they mentioned using them.

Just because USA was first means nothing. Because Russia was secoand does it mean that it is Russia's turn next?

EZBeet
11-10-2006, 07:06 PM
I wouldn't want a person like Kim Jong Il to possess nuclear weapons for the same sort of reasons that I wouldn't want a six year old boy to have a loaded shotgun.

antichrist
11-10-2006, 07:12 PM
I wouldn't want a person like Kim Jong Il to possess nuclear weapons for the same sort of reasons that I wouldn't want a six year old boy to have a loaded shotgun.

Well the nuke capable nations had fifty years to disarm like they were supposed to, they have lost the moral ground by not disarming and by supporting imperialism, capitalism, exploitation and colonalism around the world, and some brands of socialism.

Axiom
11-10-2006, 09:31 PM
Well the nuke capable nations had fifty years to disarm like they were supposed to, they have lost the moral ground by not disarming and by supporting imperialism, capitalism, exploitation and colonalism around the world, and some brands of socialism. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Basil
11-10-2006, 09:43 PM
So eeer "all good in the hood"? Is that where we're at? Carry on Kim. Welcome aboard!

Kevin Bonham
11-10-2006, 10:26 PM
I agree completely with paulb's post 4 and hold Bush and the other dumb-hawks in his administration largely responsible for what has happened.

That said, there are claims about that the test could well have been a fizzer.

bergil
11-10-2006, 10:29 PM
Well the nuke capable nations had fifty years to disarm like they were supposed to, they have lost the moral ground by not disarming and by supporting imperialism, capitalism, exploitation and colonalism around the world, and some brands of socialism.And we need more of this? :hmm:

Basil
11-10-2006, 10:31 PM
Kevin and Paul - well done! Perfect logic. Excellent deductive rationale. 100%. Gold star. Morally sound too!

Now, as a couple of world leaders (yup, the real one) what would you elect to do? :hmm:

bergil
11-10-2006, 10:32 PM
I can remember in first US invasion of Iraq that Sen Evans, our foreign minister at the time, stated that Australia would not condemn the US if it used nuke bombs in Iraq. So that means that the US was considering using them and Australia is not necessary against use of nuke weapons, just as long as it is by their mates.Can you provide the statement?

bergil
11-10-2006, 11:15 PM
I agree completely with paulb's post 4 and hold Bush and the other dumb-hawks in his administration largely responsible for what has happened.No Clinton can have his share as well but that doesn't help anything.

That said, there are claims about that the test could well have been a fizzer.There is a report that it didn't detonate properly but even if that isn't the case, where is the upside of North Korea having the bomb? Japan militarising again? Australia, a potential target? The North Korean people being able to eat? Anyone with enough money to buy themselves a bomb?

I donít give a fig for all the scare mongering but what is the good in North Korea having a weapon of mass destruction?

I love laying the slipper into the US as much as anyone but its the North Koreans who are at fault, unless someone has compelling reasons they and anyone else should have the bomb.

Arrogant-One
12-10-2006, 08:46 AM
The USA proved it irresponsible when it bombed Japan twice when itself was not under attack ...
World War II was transpiring at the time which justified the use of force by both sides.

Arrogant-One
12-10-2006, 08:49 AM
I agree completely with paulb's post 4 and hold Bush and the other dumb-hawks in his administration largely responsible for what has happened.
This requires further explanation Kevin, because as it stands you might as well hold the Wiggles responsible. There is no discernible nexus.

antichrist
12-10-2006, 05:28 PM
World War II was transpiring at the time which justified the use of force by both sides.

Wrong it justified use by neither side, don't you remember Einstein's words "the splitting of the atom has changed everything except our mode of thinking".

The European war was already over, the Japs were already cleaned up except their surrender, or that is roughly how it was. It had already had the Hirohito and Christ bombed out of it because Nagasaki was the most "Christian"city. They were already starving. The second bomb was only dropped to test it - or so some scientists claimed.

The radiation is still affecting people now, and hundreds of thousands were advised not to have children. It is wrong to vaporise people no matter who - the enemy or otherwise - kids as well.

May the atom be upon you.

antichrist
12-10-2006, 05:31 PM
Can you provide the statement?

Of course, I have the clipping in my back pocket. But it was such a simple issue and therefore a simple statement sufficed. I left the ALP over it so I remember it very well.

Arrogant-One
12-10-2006, 05:31 PM
Wrong it justified use by neither side, don't you remember Einstein's words "the splitting of the atom has changed everything except our mode of thinking".

The European war was already over, the Japs were already cleaned up except their surrender, or that is roughly how it was. It had already had the Hirohito and Christ bombed out of it because Nagasaki was the most "Christian"city. They were already starving. The second bomb was only dropped to test it - or so some scientists claimed.

The radiation is still affecting people now, and hundreds of thousands were advised not to have children.

May the atom be upon you.
Okay, but perhaps it could be said that the use of the bomb hastened the end of the war, and thereby saved lives in that sense (on both sides, which is a good thing).

antichrist
12-10-2006, 05:35 PM
Okay, but perhaps it could be said that the use of the bomb hastened the end of the war, and thereby saved lives in that sense (on both sides, which is a good thing).

It is reputed to have saved about 10,000 yankee lives if they had invaded Japan to force them to surrender in the shortest time. But then it came out about 8 years ago that the US had intelligence reports that Japan was already on it's knees and the bombs were unnecessary. Looking back with airforce superiority, probably unchallenged, they could have done the same with conventional weapons which is not quite so bad and also lost miminal men.

Strictly speaking nuke weapons can never be justified unless in circumstances where nuclear-weaponed states are threatening non-nuclear states.

Kevin Bonham
12-10-2006, 09:48 PM
No Clinton can have his share as well but that doesn't help anything.

Clinton's share is debatable. It is true that under him, the USA delivered poorly on agreements they made with NK thus giving NK a propaganda excuse to carry on, but this was partly because Republicans got control of Congress, and deeming Clinton's deal to be appeasement, actively obstructed it.


There is a report that it didn't detonate properly but even if that isn't the case, where is the upside of North Korea having the bomb?

The reason I'm curious about whether it worked or not is that the concept of NK having the materials but being too incompetent to actually make an effective bomb, yet potentially trying to hold the world to ransom with claims that it has the bomb, is interesting.

Some nations are taking a wait-and-see approach because of this. No need to hurry back to the table if they cannot actually deliver.


I donít give a fig for all the scare mongering but what is the good in North Korea having a weapon of mass destruction?

If they do have a bomb and know how to use it I don't think there is anything good about it at all.


I love laying the slipper into the US as much as anyone but its the North Koreans who are at fault, unless someone has compelling reasons they and anyone else should have the bomb.

The "and anyone else" is what it comes down to.

I actually think that it is probably a good thing that a few superpowers have the bomb, because despite the risk of catastrophe, nukes can also be a powerful deterrent to all-in horrors like the two World Wars. But making an argument to say why A should have the bomb and B shouldn't is slippery territory.

horrid
12-10-2006, 10:59 PM
The USA proved it irresponsible when it bombed Japan twice when itself was not under attack nor any foreign troops on it's soil. It only has not used for half a century because it did not consider it had to. It was certainly considering using during the first Iraq war as I pointed out earlier as Sen Evans did not condemn them when they mentioned using them.

Just because USA was first means nothing. Because Russia was secoand does it mean that it is Russia's turn next?


are you mentally handicapped or just plain ignorant? see, the fact is... the united states WAS under attack. while the USA was trying to save all of europe from hilter, the japanese (unprovoked) attacked pearl harbor (UNITED STATES SOIL). granted, no troops landed, but japan bombed the USA first.

open a book sometime. it might help you sound less like a dumbass on public forums.

bergil
12-10-2006, 11:55 PM
are you mentally handicapped or just plain ignorant? see, the fact is... the united states WAS under attack. while the USA was trying to save all of europe from hilter, the japanese (unprovoked) attacked pearl harbor (UNITED STATES SOIL). granted, no troops landed, but japan bombed the USA first.

open a book sometime. it might help you sound less like a dumbass on public forums. Sept 1, 1939 Nazis invade Poland

Sept 3, 1939 Britain, France Australia New Zealand declare war on Germany

Sept 10, 1939 Canada declare war on Germany

December 7, 1941 "A date that will live in infamy" Japan attack Pearl Harbour

Dec 8, 1941 US and Britain Declare war on Japan

Dec 11, 1941 Germany declares war on US

Jan 26, 1942 First American Troops in Britain

:whistle:

Desmond
13-10-2006, 12:13 AM
Sept 10, 1939 Canada declare war on GermanyGeez, Hitler must have been shaking in his boots.

paulb
13-10-2006, 01:06 AM
So, are you saying that North Korea hava acquired nukes as a prophylactic measure to ensure that they can do whatever they want to do in future?

No.

What I'm saying is that North Korea really does believe itself to be in danger of being attacked by the US, and that it is rational for it to acquire nuclear weapons to deter such an attack. (Note: Rational does not mean nice, or friendly, or convenient, etc. It means: behaving in a way that serves one's perceived interests)

Why does N Korea fear a US attack? Chiefly because Bush has nominated them as one of three nations on a supposed axis of evil, and then proceeded to attack one of the others (Iraq), leaving tens of thousands dead, and threatened to attack the otherr one (Iran). The US has also been consistently aggressive towards North Korea for many years. (It is not widely known that Kim has persistently sought a non-aggression treaty between North Korea and the US). There's also the small matter of a million people killed during the last Korean War (with the US) in the early 1950s. The North Korean fear of the US is genuine.

Note that all this is not to deny that nukes give N Korea greater power in the region, and allow it to behave with a certain impunity, as you suggest. (That's also true of all the other nuclear powers, of course). This is an added incentive to acquire nuclear arms.

paulb
13-10-2006, 01:15 AM
Sept 1, 1939 Nazis invade Poland

Sept 3, 1939 Britain, France Australia New Zealand declare war on Germany

Sept 10, 1939 Canada declare war on Germany

December 7, 1941 "A date that will live in infamy" Japan attack Pearl Harbour

Dec 8, 1941 US and Britain Declare war on Japan

Dec 11, 1941 Germany declares war on US

Jan 26, 1942 First American Troops in Britain

:whistle:


I'm glad someone pointed this out. The US likes to claim that it is a great defender of freedom etc. And it's true that they played a big role in "saving Europe" at the end of WWII. But it's also true, as your chronology reveals, that they were quite happy to let Europe fall to Nazism and only became involved in the war after they were attacked, several years into the conflict.
What would have happened if the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbour, and Germany had not declared war on the US? Would the US still have saved Europe? Maybe not.

Equally, can Australia rely on the US to defend us? I think we can if the opponent is, say, Indonesia, but maybe not if it's, say, China. And I fear that we may very well live to find out the answer to this question.

Basil
13-10-2006, 01:24 AM
Paul. Your commentary is of a high quality if you don't mind me saying. However, I'll ask again; what action would you take on the world stage?

There is no trap, as such. I would be happy for you to purport any action, or at all. My motivation in asking is that as I have pointed out peviously, what is righteous by all logical standards is not necessarily one's preferred course of action.

Berg, that goes for you too, mate. You've got the good 'ol boys by the balls. You've pointed out the inequities and busted the myths - now its time to step up to the plate and tell us what you would do - not what you wouldn't.

You may recall that this line busted a few turkeys in the CAQ thread. The only difference here is that I respect you both to a high degree.

paulb
13-10-2006, 01:51 AM
Kevin and Paul - well done! Perfect logic. Excellent deductive rationale. 100%. Gold star. Morally sound too!

Now, as a couple of world leaders (yup, the real one) what would you elect to do? :hmm:

OK. First, lower the volume on the whole dispute. Offer Kim a non-aggression treaty, food aid and (heating) fuel aid in return for a suspension of nuclear development. Offer this in direct US-N Korea talks.

Encourage the S Korean "Sunshine policy" of links within korea. And encourage N Korean involvement in world forums, etc.

Then, wait.

Eventually, the regime in N Korea will collapse by its own weight, particularly when China's growing prosperity, thanks to its relentless quasi-capitalist advance becomes apparent to its neighbour. Ideally, N Korea will have a face-saving exit from the communist debacle: namely, China's path of pretending to be Marxists while growing rich from capitalism. They may accept that ruse, but they'll never accept an overt capitulation to the US (remember, a million koreans died in the 1950 war).

Ideally, I would have done all this years ago, when it was more likely to be effective. But it's still the best course now.

This will be attacked as touchy-feely by Bush supporters, of course. I'm unmoved. The fact is that the Bush-Howard-Blair hyper-aggression policy of the last few years has been an unmitigated disaster. It's been a disaster in Iraq, in Iran and in North Korea. The world is far more dangerous, thanks to the neo-cons, not less so.

xxx

A few broad points..

1. N Korea getting nukes isn't great news for us, but it's not as bad as some claim. Or rather, there are far worse problems to worry about.

The first is Pakistan's nukes - that's a regime quite likely to fall at some stage, or quite likely to come to blows with India and its nukes.
Another big worry is US-Russia. Has anyone else noticed that Putin has been giving Bush the middle finger for a couple of years now?
Worse still: has anyone noticed the scramble to tie-up resources, with Latin America and Russia nationalising energy fields, and China buying 30-year contracts and whole mines, etc. I can see a huge row looming in a decade or so when oil and gas shortages etc start to hit.

2. There are already a lot of nukes in Asia. China has about 100. India and Pakistan have lots. Japan has plenty of the raw materials (by its own admission) and (almost certainly, I'd suggest) has some bombs, too. N Korea joining the party isn't great news, but the situation was already bad. Or rather, we're still relying on the old principle of mutual assured destruction that we relied on during the Cold War.

The principal concern is east Asia generally, I'd suggest, is that the Japanese are still hated for their disgraceful behaviour in the first half of the 20th century. They butchered the Chinese and they occupied Korea for a couple of decades. I was in China last year for month (fascinating) and I was stunned to see how excited the otherwise stoic Chinese get about Japanese atrocities in WWII. It's still very touchy over there, and Japan-China is as big a worry as N Korea-others.

3. How mad is Kim? Not at all, I'd suggest. For one thing, a madman wouldn't survive 5 seconds in a tough regime like that.
Flighty? yes. Infuriating? Absolutely. Difficult to negotiate with? Sure.
But mad? Only in the sense that every politician who clings to power is mad.

For that matter, how sane is Bush et al?

4. Never forget that the conservatives love their bogy men. Make a hawk shadow and all the chickens run back into the coop and elect you to another term. And the right-wingers are always much better liars than the lefties. Remember the frenzy about how dangerous old Saddam was with that massive arsenal of weapons and his links to al Q'aida?

Arrogant-One
13-10-2006, 09:20 AM
Sept 10, 1939 Canada declare war on Germany
In history classes taught in Canadian high schools, at least the two I went to, they teach you about the significance of Canada not entering the second world war at the same time as England (like it did for WWI) because this evidenced, supposedly, Canada maturing as a nation and becoming less dependent on the England.

Its not very much to crow about, granted. What they should perhaps emphasize is the tremendous loss of life of all nations, including Germany and Japan, and the sacrifices made by soldiers and civilians alike.

I also believe that the contribution made by nations like Canada, New Zealand, and Australia during those two wars is not as inconsequential as some have suggested. They were smaller nations simply doing their part to try and slam the brakes on a runaway train in Europe.

Arrogant-One
13-10-2006, 09:26 AM
I'm glad someone pointed this out. The US likes to claim that it is a great defender of freedom etc. And it's true that they played a big role in "saving Europe" at the end of WWII. But it's also true, as your chronology reveals, that they were quite happy to let Europe fall to Nazism and only became involved in the war after they were attacked, several years into the conflict.
This is not entirely true. The US smuggled planes and other weapons over the border to Canada with the intention that they would be used against Germany in the war, as Canada was already formally at war. This was done quietly of course, and is not common knowledge.


Equally, can Australia rely on the US to defend us? I think we can if the opponent is, say, Indonesia, but maybe not if it's, say, China. And I fear that we may very well live to find out the answer to this question.
Thats because you're paranoid. What most Australians don't realise is that to the rest of the world, not just North America, we are basically out of sight - out of mind.

Thats why its not such a great idea to become embroiled in conflicts in Iraq and elsewhere as it draws unecessary attention to this country which is ultimately adverse to our best national interest.

bergil
13-10-2006, 02:10 PM
OK. First, lower the volume on the whole dispute. Offer Kim a non-aggression treaty, food aid and (heating) fuel aid in return for a suspension of nuclear development. Offer this in direct US-N Korea talks.

Encourage the S Korean "Sunshine policy" of links within korea. And encourage N Korean involvement in world forums, etc.

Then, wait.

Eventually, the regime in N Korea will collapse by its own weight, particularly when China's growing prosperity, thanks to its relentless quasi-capitalist advance becomes apparent to its neighbour. Ideally, N Korea will have a face-saving exit from the communist debacle: namely, China's path of pretending to be Marxists while growing rich from capitalism. They may accept that ruse, but they'll never accept an overt capitulation to the US (remember, a million koreans died in the 1950 war).

Ideally, I would have done all this years ago, when it was more likely to be effective. But it's still the best course now.Been there done that.
Copy of Agreements
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB164/EBB%20Doc%206.pdf
http://www.armscontrol.org/documents/af.asp
Doing the waiting thing.
State Department Talking Points [in re North Korean economic situation and food aid], ca. May 1996
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB164/EBB%20Doc%2010.pdf



A few broad points..

1. N Korea getting nukes isn't great news for us, but it's not as bad as some claim. Or rather, there are far worse problems to worry about. Sure but lets nip this one in the bud.

Sure but lets not have this to worry about.
The first is Pakistan's nukes - that's a regime quite likely to fall at some stage, or quite likely to come to blows with India and its nukes.
Another big worry is US-Russia. Has anyone else noticed that Putin has been giving Bush the middle finger for a couple of years now?
Worse still: has anyone noticed the scramble to tie-up resources, with Latin America and Russia nationalising energy fields, and China buying 30-year contracts and whole mines, etc. I can see a huge row looming in a decade or so when oil and gas shortages etc start to hit.:hmm:

2. There are already a lot of nukes in Asia. China has about 100. India and Pakistan have lots. Japan has plenty of the raw materials (by its own admission) and (almost certainly, I'd suggest) has some bombs, too. N Korea joining the party isn't great news, but the situation was already bad. Or rather, we're still relying on the old principle of mutual assured destruction that we relied on during the Cold War.No proof of that on Japan and there's no real support for it either. Mutual assured destruction is the best you can do, who really want to see their whole country die or the world for that matter?


The principal concern is east Asia generally, I'd suggest, is that the Japanese are still hated for their disgraceful behaviour in the first half of the 20th century. They butchered the Chinese and they occupied Korea for a couple of decades. I was in China last year for month (fascinating) and I was stunned to see how excited the otherwise stoic Chinese get about Japanese atrocities in WWII. It's still very touchy over there, and Japan-China is as big a worry as N Korea-others. Rightly so considering the Nanking massacre happened upwards of 400,000 people slaughter and 80,000 women and girls raped before they were killed. Thenthere's the 200,000 women who were forced into prostitution as "comfort women"

3. How mad is Kim? Not at all, I'd suggest. For one thing, a madman wouldn't survive 5 seconds in a tough regime like that.
Flighty? yes. Infuriating? Absolutely. Difficult to negotiate with? Sure.
But mad? Only in the sense that every politician who clings to power is mad.He could end his countries suffering by upholding the 1994 framework agreement, instead he keeps up the extortion racket he's running. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB164/EBB%20Doc%207.pdf


For that matter, how sane is Bush et al?Goallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll. :P


4. Never forget that the conservatives love their bogy men. Make a hawk shadow and all the chickens run back into the coop and elect you to another term. And the right-wingers are always much better liars than the lefties. Remember the frenzy about how dangerous old Saddam was with that massive arsenal of weapons and his links to al Q'aida?Can't argue against that one either. ;)

paulb
13-10-2006, 04:10 PM
What most Australians don't realise is that to the rest of the world, not just North America, we are basically out of sight - out of mind.

Thats why its not such a great idea to become embroiled in conflicts in Iraq and elsewhere as it draws unecessary attention to this country which is ultimately adverse to our best national interest.

I agree with this!

antichrist
13-10-2006, 04:34 PM
are you mentally handicapped or just plain ignorant? see, the fact is... the united states WAS under attack. while the USA was trying to save all of europe from hilter, the japanese (unprovoked) attacked pearl harbor (UNITED STATES SOIL). granted, no troops landed, but japan bombed the USA first.

open a book sometime. it might help you sound less like a dumbass on public forums.

The point I was relying on, though did not think it necessary to spell it out, was by the time of the US nuking of Japan the European was was already completely over and soldiers were making love to their wives again. So the big powerful USA was completely unhindered in attacking the mainland of Japan which was already on the brink of collapse, that I have pointed out in an earlier post, that US intelligence was aware of - SO THE BIG CRIME OF THE ATOMIC AND HYDOROGEN BOMBING OF JAPAN WAS RELATIVELY UNNECESSARY, THEREFORE CREATING A SHOCKING PREFEDENT ON WHEN TO USE NUKE WEAPONS

antichrist
13-10-2006, 04:36 PM
..............
Thats why its not such a great idea to become embroiled in conflicts in Iraq and elsewhere as it draws unecessary attention to this country which is ultimately adverse to our best national interest.

Especially considering when they have been out best trading customers for ages in live meat and wheat. Our cockies love them.

ElevatorEscapee
13-10-2006, 11:34 PM
Ironically, the atomic bombing of Japan by the United States helped to stop the war from progressing further, and probably saved a lot more lives than it ruined.

At that stage in the war, Stalin had the largest army ever to have existed, which occupied half of Europe.

Many years later, it came out that his plans at the time were to:

i) invade northern Japan when the Americans were fully engaged in a costly land battle with the 'death before surrender' Japanese.

ii) invade the USA through Canada via Siberia.

Were it not for the atomic bomb, WWII could have gone on, and on, and on (just like some of the postwars here)... :uhoh:

Basil
14-10-2006, 01:44 PM
Offer Kim a non-aggression treaty, food aid and (heating) fuel aid in return for a suspension of nuclear development.
The West (and possibly broader) has been supplying food aid for years.


Eventually, the regime in N Korea will collapse by its own weight, particularly when China's growing prosperity, thanks to its relentless quasi-capitalist advance becomes apparent to its neighbour.[QUOTE]
For God's sake don't tell fg. I agree withy your premise, but not necessarilly with your overall conclusion.

[QUOTE=paulb]This will be attacked as touchy-feely by Bush supporters, of course.
Perhaps. Not by me. I'd disagree for other reasons


The fact is that the Bush-Howard-Blair hyper-aggression policy of the last few years has been an unmitigated disaster.
It appears your leftist sympathies are getting in the way of the salient facts.
1) The BHB aggression has not been hyper aggression. Murdering the Kurds was hyper aggression. The BHB at least gave warning and had dialogue and whether you like or not had consensus, and at least attempted to avoid civilian casualties etc etc.. But we digress.
2) The BHB, even if you are right, has nothing to do with the Korean situation. 'They' (probably purposely) let the rest of the world, including Putin condemn Korea first, to purposely defeat this style of debate.


It's been a disaster in Iraq, in Iran and in North Korea. The world is far more dangerous, thanks to the neo-cons, not less so. There isn't a person alive who can argue this or even the contrary.


Never forget that the conservatives love their bogy men.
Paul, seriously. The lefties (many of them, anyway) love their bogeymen too. The authoritarians, the capitalists, the 'winners', the greedy. The lefties too have a rich vein of satirising, and I would offer, vilifying to an even greater degree than you suggest of the other side.

In summary, I can't say your plan is a bad one. There is merit. However, as is the case with many nay-sayers, it's not so much the counter plan with which I disagree, it is the vehemence with which you asset that the existing plan is so bad.

bergil
14-10-2006, 02:38 PM
It appears your leftist sympathies are getting in the way of the salient facts.
1) The BHB aggression has not been hyper aggression. Murdering the Kurds was hyper aggression. The BHB at least gave warning and had dialogue and whether you like or not had consensus, and at least attempted to avoid civilian casualties etc etc.. But we digress.
2) The BHB, even if you are right, has nothing to do with the Korean situation. 'They' (probably purposely) let the rest of the world, including Putin condemn Korea first, to purposely defeat this style of debate.

There isn't a person alive who can argue this or even the contrary.
General Weslely Clark outlined a good plan against Iraq on Sept 26 2002. Coalition invaded Iraq on March 20 2003 without any plan other than killed the bastards. :doh:
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

General Sir Richard Dannatt stated explicitly that the continuing presence of British troops "exacerbates the security problems" in Iraq. He also went on to say "moral and spiritual vacuum" has opened up in British society, which is allowing Muslim extremists to undermine "our accepted way of life."

Sir Richard, who took up his post earlier this year, warned that "our presence in Iraq exacerbates" the "difficulties we are facing around the world."

He lambasts Tony Blair's desire to forge a "liberal democracy" in Iraq as a "naive" failure and he warns that "whatever consent we may have had in the first place" from the Iraqi people "has largely turned to intolerance."

Basil
14-10-2006, 03:02 PM
General Weslely Clark outlined ...
Shane, just because someone has stated an opinion that supports yours, doesn't defeat my position. Regardless, we're off topic. I said as much when I was responding to Paul when he opened the door on BHB policy.

paulb
16-10-2006, 05:50 PM
it's not so much the counter plan with which I disagree, it is the vehemence with which you asset that the existing plan is so bad.

I would have thought that Republicans would have been deeply unhappy with the result (and the plan) ... that's it's a failure by Bush's lights, as much as mine.

I agree with the stuff about left-wing bogymen. But it's important to give right-wingers a kick in the shin as often as possible, since right wingers are either a) evil, and deserving of punishment; or b) confused, and in need of direction. :)

Regarding the policy to adopt, I agree with Bergil and Howard that food and fuel aid has long been provided (mostly by China/South Korea, but some from US). This should continue.

The non-aggression treaty is the critical point. Why not agree to this? N Korea has been seeking this for ages. It's not obvious to me what the US stands to lose here (other than its hairy-chested image, which counts for a lot of votes in the US)

antichrist
18-10-2006, 05:30 PM
The biggest hyprocisy could be that the USA may not be part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty yet is putting poop on North Korea, I suppose it would be more hyprocritcial if they had joined with their 30,000 nuke warheads.