NorthKorea Sanctions: Are they fair

[John-The-Biter]

If you've never heard of this problem here it is : North Korea "tested" nucluer wepeons, and now the U.S. and U.N. are trying to stop them. Now, is it fair, that the U.K., U.S., Russia, and Cuba, maybe can have these, but not North Korea. Just because they are "The Axis of Evil" and WE dont trust them, maybe they think we are "corrupt" and evil". Ok, ponder that. I think that any, sensible leader, would relize a launch would cause WWIII. That, is wrong

[Me-Patch]

Your'e right, we should just start handing out Nukes to anyone who wants them.

Afterall no one would ever use them, North Korea is just trying to come up with a new way to burn their garbage.

[Altarus]

At 10/24/06 06:06 PM, John-The-Biter wrote: If you've never heard of this problem here it is : North Korea "tested" nucluer wepeons, and now the U.S. and U.N. are trying to stop them. Now, is it fair, that the U.K., U.S., Russia, and Cuba, maybe can have these, but not North Korea. Just because they are "The Axis of Evil" and WE dont trust them, maybe they think we are "corrupt" and evil".

Yes, but they are corrupt and evil, and an evil and corrupt regime, not to mention an adversary to most of the world, trying to obtain nuclear weapons is a threat to world peace. Therefore, the Security Council has an obligation to discourage them from doing so under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. They might think that we are the evil and corrupt ones, but honestly that is a bit absurd, and anyways, it is up to the Security Council to make this judgement.

[Kev-o]

A threat to world peace? World peace isn't here, at this point. We just want power, that's all. But, we've actually used them, irresponsibly. Overall, it's just about military power, and who's in control. Of course, nuclear weapons are absolutely terrible, no one should have them.

[Neoptolemus]

At 10/24/06 06:06 PM, John-The-Biter wrote: If you've never heard of this problem here it is : North Korea "tested" nucluer wepeons, and now the U.S. and U.N. are trying to stop them. Now, is it fair, that the U.K., U.S., Russia, and Cuba

Cuba doesn't have nuclear weapons.. At present there are 5 countries who legally can have nuclear weapons (US, UK, China, France and Russia) with 4 that illegally have nuclear weapons (India, Israel, Pakistan and DPRK) there are also other countries that possess American Nuclear weapons but this is through NATO

At 10/24/06 06:23 PM, Me-Patch wrote: Your'e right, we should just start handing out Nukes to anyone who wants them.

Actually it does seem that the USA is just handing them out.
As of 2005, it is estimated that the United States still provides between 180 and 480 tactical B61 nuclear bombs for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey under the NATO agreements.

[TheMason]

At 10/24/06 07:09 PM, neoptolemus wrote:

At 10/24/06 06:06 PM, John-The-Biter wrote: If you've never heard of this problem here it is : North Korea "tested" nucluer wepeons, and now the U.S. and U.N. are trying to stop them. Now, is it fair, that the U.K., U.S., Russia, and Cuba

You know...I don't think that I've heard of this problem...

The difference is there is no other country like the DPRK. All the hype about Iran and Iraq is somewhat overblown; not so in the case of the DPRK. Watch TV footage of the Dear Leader and you can see the effect of the famine on the North Korean. Kim is the only one who gets fed well, while even political and military elites are skin and bones. He keeps his military on a constant war footing to invade the South at the expense of his people. Dissenters and political prisoners are sent to savage prison camps on par with Nazi concentration camps. We need to keep weapons out of the Dear Leader's hands...

Cuba doesn't have nuclear weapons.. At present there are 5 countries who legally can have nuclear weapons (US, UK, China, France and Russia) with 4 that illegally have nuclear weapons (India, Israel, Pakistan and DPRK) there are also other countries that possess American Nuclear weapons but this is through NATO

Israel does not have nuclear weapons illegally...they did not sign the NPT (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty) that would make their development illegal. The DPRK is the first and only country to pull out of the NPT, so they are not subject to it. However, by unilaterally pulling out made them a rogue regime.

[SmilezRoyale]

Mr. Ill, is currently facing an economic crises in his country. His economic programs are failing, and the only strong thing in his country is the military, (Which makes sense, since it IS a communistic dictatorship, (Consider russia under stalin))

Therefore, the united states guesses that he is attempgint to aquire wealth by selling weapons to people who need it. Does the united states need nukes? well... not really, since we have our own, can make our own, and ontop of that, it's not like nukes are usefull against terrorists. (unless you plan on blowing up millions of women and childeren pointlessly) On the other hand, they are very usefull to terrorists, since they dont care if they blow up civies, or military men, and they hardly care about other muslims, since they beleive their death will result in their rewarding afterlife.

Terrorists would be optimal customers in the sale of WMD's. And juding by the state of korea's economy, i'm sure they would be optimal sellers.

[Elfer]

At 10/24/06 07:30 PM, TheMason wrote: Kim is the only one who gets fed well, while even political and military elites are skin and bones.

You know, asian people are generally skinny, it's quite possible that he feeds his top advisors without them becoming fat.

[SmilezRoyale]

elfer, asians are skinny because:

Typically chinese diets are composed mainly of grains, such as rice. Japanse diets are typically composed of fish products. some orientals are intollerant (phsyically) to some meat products, like cheese. Korean food is pretty much the same as japanese. (South korean that is, the north koreans dont really have a quizine, much like etheopains i wonder why...)

Similarly to how british culture was, and still is, BIG on tea, some doctors argue that oriental diet excludes fatty / meaty foods, the things that make people large around the waiste.

[Elfer]

Yes, I'm aware. His claim was that his advisors and soldiers were thin due to starvation, I claim that they're thin due to dietary differences inherent in Asian culture.

[TheMason]

At 10/24/06 10:16 PM, Elfer wrote: Yes, I'm aware. His claim was that his advisors and soldiers were thin due to starvation, I claim that they're thin due to dietary differences inherent in Asian culture.

Good try, but simply not true. There is a substantial difference between a S. Korean and a N. Korean. Also, the famines that struck the DPRK in the mid to late 1990s is well documented fact. Furthermore, the geography of the North is so that they cannot grow the same grains that the South can (most notably, rice). That the slight build of the N. Koreans is attributable to famine and starvation is well documented and accepted among those of us who are close watchers of Korean politics...

It could also be that I have a keener eye for it since I spent 27 months stationed over there from '04-'06.

[TheMason]

At 10/24/06 10:06 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: elfer, asians are skinny because:

Korean food is pretty much the same as japanese. (South korean that is, the north koreans dont really have a quizine, much like etheopains i wonder why...)

They have the same cuisine as the South, however due to their isolation and famine conditions their recipies are stagnating while the South's is evolving with access and exposure to different cultures.

Also, Korean food is not the same as Japanese. The Japanese called Koreans "Garlic Eaters" (the usage of which is a racial epitath, much like the N word or Honky). The reason is that the Koreans use garlic heavily in their food, to the point that many sweat garlic, giving them a distinct odor.

Some staples of Korean food are:
Kimchi (fermented cabage)
Bim-be-bop (a seaweed/rice treat)
Seaweed soup (with rice it's not bad)
Ke-gogi (dog)
Fish
Rice (they actually dry it and red peppers in the break-down lanes on their highways)

Under Kim Il-Sung it was decreed that the North Koreans should substitute corn for rice since it was cheaper and could grow in the heavily mountainous North. The problem is now corn is all they have and it is less nutritous than rice. To make different dishes N. Korean cooks will mix corn with sawdust as filler. This coupled with the lack of protein from meat and other sources, has caused many N. Koreans to suffer from the disorder known as Pellegra.

[MagnusTheRed]

North Korea needs nuclear technology. The reasons? North Korea asked two things of America; sell us oil so we can heat our homes ect... and don't attack us. Can you guess America's response? It was no. Who'd have thought? Let's not forget that the whole 'Axis of Evil' thing started BEFORE the North started with the nukes. So they need the power plants to LIVE, and the missiles to defend themselves, because America effectively PROMISED to attack them.

That's not to say North Korea shouldn't be cearfully watched, because Kim IS an asshole, and may well try something stupid. But if a better man was in charge of North Korea, there would be no problem.

So why hasn't Kim Jong Ill been assassinated yet? There are sniper rifles that can fire over 2 miles, wtf is taking so long?!?

[Me-Patch]

At 10/25/06 04:07 AM, KAOS-666 wrote: North Korea needs nuclear technology. The reasons? North Korea asked two things of America; sell us oil so we can heat our homes ect... and don't attack us. Can you guess America's response? It was no. Who'd have thought? Let's not forget that the whole 'Axis of Evil' thing started BEFORE the North started with the nukes. So they need the power plants to LIVE, and the missiles to defend themselves, because America effectively PROMISED to attack them.

Where do you get all of this? America never threatend to attack N. Korea. If N Korea needs oil why would they turn to the U.S. when they could get it from other countries with much more to sell than we do. They are making and testing Nuclear Weapons and the entire U.N is acting against them, where does the U.S. even come into the equation.

That's not to say North Korea shouldn't be cearfully watched, because Kim IS an asshole, and may well try something stupid. But if a better man was in charge of North Korea, there would be no problem.

Fuck that noise. Kim Jong aint the problem the Nukes are, he can be as much of an asshole as he wants as long as he can't blow up an entire city at the push of a button.

So why hasn't Kim Jong Ill been assassinated yet? There are sniper rifles that can fire over 2 miles, wtf is taking so long?!?

Diplomacy.

[Durin413]

At 10/24/06 06:51 PM, Kev-o wrote: But, we've actually used them, irresponsibly. Overall, it's just about military power, and who's in control. Of course, nuclear weapons are absolutely terrible, no one should have them.

^ above is oncerning nukes in case you couldnt tell.

When you say irresponsibly, do you refer to WW2 when we nuked the Japanese? Are you able to comprehend how many Americans would have died had we invaded the main Japanese islands conventionally (1 American is too many). It is estimated that the death toll could be 1000000 americans, and many times that in Japanese. These people were prepared to fight us on the shores with spears if they had too. The atomic bombings saved lives, and ended a war.

[Kev-o]

At 10/25/06 08:46 PM, Durin413 wrote:

When you say irresponsibly, do you refer to WW2 when we nuked the Japanese? Are you able to comprehend how many Americans would have died had we invaded the main Japanese islands conventionally (1 American is too many). It is estimated that the death toll could be 1000000 americans, and many times that in Japanese. These people were prepared to fight us on the shores with spears if they had too. The atomic bombings saved lives, and ended a war.

We bombed civillian areas as a threat. It didn't save many lives, and the Cold War continued. 187,000 people were killed when the bomb hit Hiroshima. Thousands died later from radiation. I can't say the same for Nagasaki (sp?), because I'm unsure. We've also used chemical weapons in Iraq.

[TheMason]

At 10/25/06 09:38 PM, Kev-o wrote:

At 10/25/06 08:46 PM, Durin413 wrote:

We bombed civillian areas as a threat. It didn't save many lives, and the Cold War continued. 187,000 people were killed when the bomb hit Hiroshima. Thousands died later from radiation. I can't say the same for Nagasaki (sp?), because I'm unsure. We've also used chemical weapons in Iraq.

At the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing 187,000 people in a single raid was not impressive. We had raids where that many people died by using conventional weapons. Still the Japanese would not give up having suffered such devestation. It took developing a bomb that could cause the same amount of damage and loss of life using one bomb and one B-29. Had that not happened at least 1Million Japanese would've died and several hundred thousand American troops.

Your point about the Cold War is irrelevent because it had not yet begun (starting to boil, yes...started no). Furthermore, it is a self-defeating argument since one could say that Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) ensured that WWIII did not happen. That the a-bomb made Total war undesirable.

Where do you get that the US uses chemical weapons in Iraq? The US does not engage in Chemical or Biological warfare. Not only is it immoral and wrong; but they have been shown to be very ineffectual and counter-productive. If anything it would be leakage from Saddam's stockpiles...

[TheMason]

At 10/25/06 04:07 AM, KAOS-666 wrote:

So why hasn't Kim Jong Ill been assassinated yet? There are sniper rifles that can fire over 2 miles, wtf is taking so long?!?

If we were to assasinate Kim, we would have the problem of who would succeed him. Assassination would probably trigger an invasion of the South for two reasons:

1) The N. Koreans have been deprived of many of the basic necessities of life because the KPA (Korean People's Army) needs supplied to fight an eventual war of liberation of the South. People in the DPRK are told that S. Koreans are suffering under the Imperial yoke of the US and have it so much worse than in the North. In fact, they are told people in the US suffer more than the people in N. Korea.

2) The people blame the political elite, not Kim Jong-Il, for the current situation; that they (not Kim) have messed up the Juche ideology. So who would replace Kim after an assasination? A member of the political elite who was inclined to work with the world would most likely be overthrown by a true believer mid-level military officer with popular support. Then they would decide to push forward with their war of liberation. The average N. Korean these days think they will die a horrible death anyway, so the horror of war is not that big of a deterent to them.

In short:
"Assassination would be bad; m'kay?"

(Sorry just got done watching South Park!

[MagnusTheRed]

At 10/25/06 02:52 PM, Me-Patch wrote:
Fuck that noise. Kim Jong aint the problem the Nukes are, he can be as much of an asshole as he wants as long as he can't blow up an entire city at the push of a button.

So what's America's excuse? France? Britan? Fuck, all of the countries that can have nukes! They can all commit genocide at any moment. But they're not as bigger asshole as Kim, (close but not quite :P). Shouldn't EVERY contry with nukes be stopped? How long will it take for a REAL asshole to gain control of a nuke? I don't think any country's government would voluntarily do away with their weapons.

FUCK ALL THOSE COWARDS!!!!

[TheMason]

At 10/26/06 04:59 AM, KAOS-666 wrote:

At 10/25/06 02:52 PM, Me-Patch wrote:
Fuck that noise. Kim Jong aint the problem the Nukes are, he can be as much of an asshole as he wants as long as he can't blow up an entire city at the push of a button.

How long will it take for a REAL asshole to gain control of a nuke?

Too late, that's why there is all the anxiety about Kim having it. He would be very willing to use it. Also, Kim is the real problem. Guns don't kill people, people kill people and nukes don't push buttons and blow up cities; people do.

[JMHX]

Bottom line: Don't defy the international community and test rogue nuclear weapons.

[Me-Patch]

At 10/26/06 04:59 AM, KAOS-666 wrote:

At 10/25/06 02:52 PM, Me-Patch wrote:
Fuck that noise. Kim Jong aint the problem the Nukes are, he can be as much of an asshole as he wants as long as he can't blow up an entire city at the push of a button.

So what's America's excuse? France? Britan? Fuck, all of the countries that can have nukes! They can all commit genocide at any moment. But they're not as bigger asshole as Kim, (close but not quite :P). Shouldn't EVERY contry with nukes be stopped? How long will it take for a REAL asshole to gain control of a nuke? I don't think any country's government would voluntarily do away with their weapons.

Nuclear weapons are like the grim reaper looking over our shoulder. Every country that has nukes should be forced to disarm and destroy every nuclear weapon in their possesion. That ain't gonna happen, so I hope you don't live in a city, or if you do I hope youv'e got a nice cabin somewhere.

Either way why would the fact that many countries have nukes a;ready not want you to stop the spread of nuclear technology, particularly to militaristic dictators.

[Mr-Coffee]

At 10/24/06 07:37 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 10/24/06 06:06 PM, John-The-Biter wrote: If you've never heard of this problem here it is : North Korea "tested" nucluer wepeons, and now the U.S. and U.N. are trying to stop them. Now, is it fair, that the U.K., U.S., Russia, and Cuba, maybe can have these, but not North Korea. Just because they are "The Axis of Evil" and WE dont trust them, maybe they think we are "corrupt" and evil". Ok, ponder that. I think that any, sensible leader, would relize a launch would cause WWIII. That, is wrong

I love how you put the word "tested" in quotations, as if we had no proof NK's test was really nuclear.

Well, we do have proof.

Kim Jong Il is a maniac who starves his own people. He does not deserve nuclear bombs, and I'm willing to bet, since he said the sanctions are a declaration of war from the US, that he'll use them in a pre-emptive strike.

Never mind that China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea also supported these sanctions. It's so much easier to just blame the US for the world's problems.

^ That's the most sense I've seen in this thread. Kim needs to get his priorities in line. He doesn't care about his people and he sure doesn't care how offended we are by his foreign policies. The sanctions are fair. Actually, to be honest, they might not be strict enough. Just like you said, the fact that China is supporting these sanctions (limited though they are) is proof enough what a threat North Korea is to global stability.

[Me-Patch]

At 10/26/06 04:13 PM, Mr-Coffee wrote: ^ That's the most sense I've seen in this thread. Kim needs to get his priorities in line. He doesn't care about his people and he sure doesn't care how offended we are by his foreign policies. The sanctions are fair. Actually, to be honest, they might not be strict enough. Just like you said, the fact that China is supporting these sanctions (limited though they are) is proof enough what a threat North Korea is to global stability.

China is the only nation that N Korea will actually listen to in the long run. We need them on our side. Besides they don't want a war either, if theres a war guess where the N Korean refugees are all going.

[MagnusTheRed]

At 10/26/06 03:54 PM, Me-Patch wrote:

At 10/26/06 04:59 AM, KAOS-666 wrote:

At 10/25/06 02:52 PM, Me-Patch wrote:
Fuck that noise. Kim Jong aint the problem the Nukes are, he can be as much of an asshole as he wants as long as he can't blow up an entire city at the push of a button.

So what's America's excuse? France? Britan? Fuck, all of the countries that can have nukes! They can all commit genocide at any moment. But they're not as bigger asshole as Kim, (close but not quite :P). Shouldn't EVERY contry with nukes be stopped? How long will it take for a REAL asshole to gain control of a nuke? I don't think any country's government would voluntarily do away with their weapons.

Nuclear weapons are like the grim reaper looking over our shoulder. Every country that has nukes should be forced to disarm and destroy every nuclear weapon in their possesion. That ain't gonna happen, so I hope you don't live in a city, or if you do I hope youv'e got a nice cabin somewhere.

Well I live in a city many people don't even know, let alone care about, so I think I'm fairly safe. (I know, that's just asking for it).

Either way why would the fact that many countries have nukes a;ready not want you to stop the spread of nuclear technology, particularly to militaristic dictators.

Stop the spread of nuclear technology? Why would anyone want that? The huge amounts of clean(ish) power nuclear technology provides is invaluable. The problem lies with the militaristic dictators, who need to be killed. But yeah, the successor might be worse, or that act might cause war in itself. But let's face it; take the dictator out of the equasion, there is no problem.

Pity it isn't that simple...

[bcdemon]

I'll say the same thing as I did about Iran and thier nuclear program:

When you have a leader of a very powerful country with thousands of nuclear weapons who has called you apart of an "Axis of Evil", and this same leader has already invaded 2 countries, you had better protect yourself and your countrymen, and the only way for them to protect themselves, is nuclear.

North Korea has a right to defend itself against an aggresive military like the USA, and if the only defence against the USA is a nuclear one, then so be it.

[JakeHero]

At 10/26/06 10:05 PM, bcdemon wrote: I'll say the same thing as I did about Iran and thier nuclear program:

When you have a leader of a very powerful country with thousands of nuclear weapons who has called you apart of an "Axis of Evil", and this same leader has already invaded 2 countries, you had better protect yourself and your countrymen, and the only way for them to protect themselves, is nuclear.

North Korea has a right to defend itself against an aggresive military like the USA, and if the only defence against the USA is a nuclear one, then so be it.

Yeah yeah, because one mediocre nuke will help against a country the size of China, not to mention a one with hundreds of hydrogen bombs, which could level Asia ten times over.

Dude, don't be a dumbass. The only reason this asshole is trying to get nukes is because he wants to rock the boat in the Middle-East and have more bargaining headway. By saying he has a right to nuclear weapons is basically admitting to being his bitch.

[bcdemon]

At 10/26/06 10:09 PM, BanditByte wrote:

At 10/26/06 10:05 PM, bcdemon wrote: I'll say the same thing as I did about Iran and thier nuclear program:

When you have a leader of a very powerful country with thousands of nuclear weapons who has called you apart of an "Axis of Evil", and this same leader has already invaded 2 countries, you had better protect yourself and your countrymen, and the only way for them to protect themselves, is nuclear.

North Korea has a right to defend itself against an aggresive military like the USA, and if the only defence against the USA is a nuclear one, then so be it.

Yeah yeah, because one mediocre nuke will help against a country the size of China, not to mention a one with hundreds of hydrogen bombs, which could level Asia ten times over.

Why would North Korea nuke thier longtime ally China?

Dude, don't be a dumbass. The only reason this asshole is trying to get nukes is because he wants to rock the boat in the Middle-East and have more bargaining headway. By saying he has a right to nuclear weapons is basically admitting to being his bitch.

LMAO, dude, why would Kim Jong Il want to to rock the Middle East boat? I said he has a right to defend himself against his enemies, if his enemy possesses nuclear weapons, the he should have nukes. Would you bring a knife to a gun fight?

[erixs]

I don't understand North Korea's plans in this. Why would they obey the world peace and get every country in this world against them just so they can test nuclear, which they don't need in a world peace!

[TheMason]

At 10/26/06 10:05 PM, bcdemon wrote: I'll say the same thing as I did about Iran and thier nuclear program:

When you have a leader of a very powerful country with thousands of nuclear weapons who has called you apart of an "Axis of Evil", and this same leader has already invaded 2 countries, you had better protect yourself and your countrymen, and the only way for them to protect themselves, is nuclear.

North Korea has a right to defend itself against an aggresive military like the USA, and if the only defence against the USA is a nuclear one, then so be it.

You come very close to making a good point and then you loose it. One of the major problems with Kim having a nuke is that he:
1) Pulled out, unilaterally, of the NPT (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty) with no serious consequences.

Now place yourselves in Tehren's position and look at the situation from that position:

1) The President lists you, a neighbor and a country in another region in the same "Axis of Evil" category.
2) This President now has a massive number of troops in two countries that border you.
3) One of those countries was your neighbor who was listed in the "Axis of Evil", and did not have nukes (and we knew he didn't have nukes, it was chem and bio that had us scared). Meanwhile, the third "Evil" country has nukes; hell may even be able to deliver them to the US. Your neighbor is invaded and the nuke power is not.

Thus the calculation of this political math is nukes=continued sovereignty and keeps the US from invading. Thus Iran's position takes on an air of rationality (note I did not say legitimacy).

So the DPRK has backed us into a corner here. If we take Kim down, it could push Tehren frighten Iran away from the nuclear game. But would it be worth the 1-2 million lives lost?

However, where you loose credibility is saying Kim has a right to have nukes to defend himself. The DPRK has not been in such a strong military position since 1950 than it finds itself today. In a little over 50 years, the US has not invaded to instigated violence along the 38th Parallel/DMZ. The DPRK on the other hand invaded the South in 1950, in the 1960s and 70s tried to assasinate the South's President, ambushed US and ROK soldiers along the DMZ, shot down American aircraft and captured an American naval vessel in international waters. Now they defy the world community, and ignore treaty conditions that they entered into. The Kim regimes are not innocent and are agressor governments, as such they cannot be as sanctomonious about their rights to defense...