Time for a regime change? N. Korea....
Discussion
Witchfinder said:
Come off it. They want nukes, and they fire missiles over Japan. Given half a chance they'd invade and conquer Sourth Korea (and more besides). They hate the West and see us as an enemy. Indulging them would be foolish.
Do they? They are an isolationist nation. They couldn't give a hoot what others did, as long as it does not effect them. All this sabre rattling from the west has brought this on. Exactly where does it say NK hate the west? Where do you get the idea that they would go on a conquering spree??
Andy Mac said:
Witchfinder said:
Come off it. They want nukes, and they fire missiles over Japan. Given half a chance they'd invade and conquer Sourth Korea (and more besides). They hate the West and see us as an enemy. Indulging them would be foolish.
Do they? They are an isolationist nation. They couldn't give a hoot what others did, as long as it does not effect them. All this sabre rattling from the west has brought this on. Exactly where does it say NK hate the west? Where do you get the idea that they would go on a conquering spree??
NK were given aid on the condition that they didn't develop nuclear technology, they broke that condition, aid was stopped, and somehow the West are the bad guys?
You tell me why an isolationist nation are building weapons of mass destruction?
tinman0 said:
Andy Mac said:
Witchfinder said:
Come off it. They want nukes, and they fire missiles over Japan. Given half a chance they'd invade and conquer Sourth Korea (and more besides). They hate the West and see us as an enemy. Indulging them would be foolish.
Do they? They are an isolationist nation. They couldn't give a hoot what others did, as long as it does not effect them. All this sabre rattling from the west has brought this on. Exactly where does it say NK hate the west? Where do you get the idea that they would go on a conquering spree??
NK were given aid on the condition that they didn't develop nuclear technology, they broke that condition, aid was stopped, and somehow the West are the bad guys?
You tell me why an isolationist nation are building weapons of mass destruction?
Same reason we (UK) have them - deterrent. NK want a piece of that action.
Again we are at the old chestnut, we can have them, but others can't. The US, and Russia had the Cold war for many years, and were on the brink at one point, yet no-one says lets destroy them, or they are the enemy, and lets invade/sanction, etc. The hypocricy we have nowadays is unreal.
ewenm said:
tinman0 said:
Andy Mac said:
Witchfinder said:
Come off it. They want nukes, and they fire missiles over Japan. Given half a chance they'd invade and conquer Sourth Korea (and more besides). They hate the West and see us as an enemy. Indulging them would be foolish.
Do they? They are an isolationist nation. They couldn't give a hoot what others did, as long as it does not effect them. All this sabre rattling from the west has brought this on. Exactly where does it say NK hate the west? Where do you get the idea that they would go on a conquering spree??
NK were given aid on the condition that they didn't develop nuclear technology, they broke that condition, aid was stopped, and somehow the West are the bad guys?
You tell me why an isolationist nation are building weapons of mass destruction?
Same reason we (UK) have them - deterrent. NK want a piece of that action.
amazing isn't it.
on PH if someone suggested giving thugs a brand new gun with ammunition, you'd all be jumping up and down saying "you can't do that". but here we have a thug of a country wanting to get nuclear weapons - but thats OK.
heaven forbid the argument that there is no real reason for them having nuclear weapons in the first place - i mean - who exactly are they going to protect themselves against? did anyone actually give a f*ck about this insignifanct back water in the world in the first place?
Andy Mac said:
Again we are at the old chestnut, we can have them, but others can't. The US, and Russia had the Cold war for many years, and were on the brink at one point, yet no-one says lets destroy them, or they are the enemy, and lets invade/sanction, etc. The hypocricy we have nowadays is unreal.
I am not sure that "fairness" is relevant when it comes to nuclear weapons ownership....
tinman0 said:
ewenm said:
tinman0 said:
Andy Mac said:
Witchfinder said:
Come off it. They want nukes, and they fire missiles over Japan. Given half a chance they'd invade and conquer Sourth Korea (and more besides). They hate the West and see us as an enemy. Indulging them would be foolish.
Do they? They are an isolationist nation. They couldn't give a hoot what others did, as long as it does not effect them. All this sabre rattling from the west has brought this on. Exactly where does it say NK hate the west? Where do you get the idea that they would go on a conquering spree??
NK were given aid on the condition that they didn't develop nuclear technology, they broke that condition, aid was stopped, and somehow the West are the bad guys?
You tell me why an isolationist nation are building weapons of mass destruction?
Same reason we (UK) have them - deterrent. NK want a piece of that action.
amazing isn't it.
on PH if someone suggested giving thugs a brand new gun with ammunition, you'd all be jumping up and down saying "you can't do that". but here we have a thug of a country wanting to get nuclear weapons - but thats OK.
heaven forbid the argument that there is no real reason for them having nuclear weapons in the first place - i mean - who exactly are they going to protect themselves against? did anyone actually give a f*ck about this insignifanct back water in the world in the first place?
Why are they a thug of a nation? What thuggish actions have they perpetrated? Currently thuggish nations in the world are USA, UK, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, perhaps Iran.
Also, why do we (the UK) need nuclear weapons? Who are we going to protect ourselves against? I don't see why the same argument doesn't apply to NK.
I'd happily leave NK alone, as long as I don't get Bob Geldorf on my telly at some point in the future telling me it's my fault that millions of NK citizens are starving and will I please send my money.
Ditto parts of Africa etc etc etc etc. If its in humane to let people starve due to drought then its inhumane to leave them to starve and suffer in the way they do now under these brutal dictatorships. You cannot have it both ways. Either sort it all out, or get out of my face and stop telling me to feel guilty when it all goes pete tong.
Andy
Ditto parts of Africa etc etc etc etc. If its in humane to let people starve due to drought then its inhumane to leave them to starve and suffer in the way they do now under these brutal dictatorships. You cannot have it both ways. Either sort it all out, or get out of my face and stop telling me to feel guilty when it all goes pete tong.
Andy
ewenm said:
Also, why do we (the UK) need nuclear weapons? Who are we going to protect ourselves against?
the soviet union only collapsed in the last 15 years. hardly an eon of peace now is it.
we've learned the lesson of being unprepared once in the past, and we got away with it. we really don't need to learn the same lesson again.
tinman0 said:
ewenm said:
Also, why do we (the UK) need nuclear weapons? Who are we going to protect ourselves against?
the soviet union only collapsed in the last 15 years. hardly an eon of peace now is it.
we've learned the lesson of being unprepared once in the past, and we got away with it. we really don't need to learn the same lesson again.
So why can't NK learn the same lesson?
ewenm said:
tinman0 said:
ewenm said:
Why are they a thug of a nation?
look at the way they treat their own people for a start.
and please don't start comparing their dejected peoples to the west.
So internal then, not threatening other countries.
Do you think we should show no solidarity with the people of North Korea simply because Kim has sovereign status?
Do you regard "sovereignty" as a carte blanche to abuse human rights?
idlehands said:
ewenm said:
tinman0 said:
ewenm said:
Why are they a thug of a nation?
look at the way they treat their own people for a start.
and please don't start comparing their dejected peoples to the west.
So internal then, not threatening other countries.
Do you think we should show no solidarity with the people of North Korea simply because Kim has sovereign status?
Do you regard "sovereignty" as a carte blanche to abuse human rights?
Human rights is not the issue. Nor was it the issue in Iraq.
idlehands said:
ewenm said:
tinman0 said:
ewenm said:
Why are they a thug of a nation?
look at the way they treat their own people for a start.
and please don't start comparing their dejected peoples to the west.
So internal then, not threatening other countries.
Do you think we should show no solidarity with the people of North Korea simply because Kim has sovereign status?
Do you regard "sovereignty" as a carte blanche to abuse human rights?
No, but what would you do about it? Practically, how can you make their lot in life better? We (the West) tried the military route in Iraq and it doesn't appear to have improved the general life of average Iraqis.
ewenm said:
tinman0 said:
ewenm said:
Why are they a thug of a nation?
look at the way they treat their own people for a start.
and please don't start comparing their dejected peoples to the west.
So internal then, not threatening other countries.
Hmmm, kidnapping S Korean citizens on a grand scale, blowing-up the entire S Korean cabinet, shooting at S Korean personnel across the DMZ, funding (anti-US) terror groups around the world.
Not strictly isolationist.
NK does not want nuclear weapons to protect itself. It wants nuclear weapons so that it can hold its neighbours to ransom.
ewenm said:
It'd be at least as difficult as Iraq and we/they haven't managed to effect regime change there yet.
The situation is rather different because the Koreans are a fairly homogeneous people and there is a ready made state to absorb the North Koreans (South Korea).
The problem is that even without Nuclear weapons the North Koreans would be able to inflict massive damage on an American ally, South Korea, should it come to armed conflict.
It is a tricky situation with no easy answers; but I think at the very least the west should not prop up the evil North Korean regime with aid, no matter what threats are made. They should also try and ensure that the North Koreans are unable to make money through crime and WMD proliferation.
Andy Mac said:
idlehands said:
ewenm said:
tinman0 said:
ewenm said:
Why are they a thug of a nation?
look at the way they treat their own people for a start.
and please don't start comparing their dejected peoples to the west.
So internal then, not threatening other countries.
Do you think we should show no solidarity with the people of North Korea simply because Kim has sovereign status?
Do you regard "sovereignty" as a carte blanche to abuse human rights?
Human rights is not the issue. Nor was it the issue in Iraq.
I never said it was, i would be happy for the UN to deal with NK on that basis but it is too divided. It seems only nuclear armed nutcases are able to unite the world - and then only barely
You will also note that i was replying to comments made about internal repression.
Edited by idlehands on Thursday 5th October 14:46
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff