This is the point I was making in the Daily Show thread by the way. Don't argue, just score points.

Ethan brought up Iraq, and its invasion. When I respond to it, I want you to tell me why its unrealistic to mention WMD's?

Is the existence (or non-existence as it were) a humanitarian issue without the threat? If we can own said weapons why shouldn't non-allies? Either nuclear weaponry is fair play or its not. Make up your mind.

I'm sure you'd be shocked by this, mainly because you say things like "darwin forbid" (is that cool these days?) but people can say "i wish we'd just take the guy down" and not actually advocate for it to be our foreign policy or to make it our national position legally.

But I was a young activist once too before I grew up and dealt with the world so i'll indulge the argument.

You said "Now despite Saddam being a mass murderer you accused Kim Jong Il, because of his cruel negligence, of being genocidal and said that was justification for assassinating him". At no point have I justified anything.

I brought up the point that you're in favor of action with Darfur, and not with North Korea. The simple question here is, why one and not the other?

I think its because one was suggested by Bush (North Korea) and one has been the talking point for George Clooney (Darfur) and thats the only difference. Are you in favor of a country (any country) defending Tibet from Chinese Imperialism?

I have a tough time going forward here because I never presented any serious position. You made a couple terrible comparisons; North Korea and Iraq, and North Korea and the United States as far as who should own intercontinental weaponry, and I responded to them.

My problem with your positions is that you're hedging your bets. You want to say that these guys are horrible people, but we shouldn't do anything because we don't have the right.

Most people aren't in favor of doing nothing while other people die. Myself, i'm an advocate of severe divestment and unilateral diplomacy to deal with these people. But in the end, if people are still starving, the world needs to say that we're better than that.

Having a non-interventionist policy period is ghastly. It means that no matter whats going on in any country, you don't feel a need to get involved. We can't solve the worlds problems, thats certain, but don't you think theres a time to step in eventually?

On the micro-level, how much don't you get involved? So maybe you don't take a bat to someone’s knees when he beats his wife, fine. But do you still hang out with the guy, or pretend nothing’s wrong.

And yes. it is exactly the same thing philosophically.

You're saying theres no difference between the way our Nukes are handled, and the way their nukes are handled?

Edit: Owning them isn't ultimatly the problem. And Jong-Ill is displaying the exact issue we had concerns about, horrid misuse.

I know the Fed doesn't want people to own them, where I take umbridge is its misuse. I don't think Isreal should go after Iran for having weapons either.

No, I'm saying that until they do something that warrants invasion we shouldn't invade. Falsifying documents to make it seem like they have something which we had no proof of is not the way to go about doing things.

Iraq or North Korea?

Iraq.

Oh yeah absolutly. I agree with that. In the current situation, its a tough call. We invaded for a fake reason, and now it seems there wasn't even a reason.

It reminds me of the JFK position where the had an issue invading Vietnam, because if the communist threat was that troubling, why didn't they invade Cuba.

If you wanted to go into Iraq for a legit reason, then you'd have to conclude that there were many countries to come before it on the list. As Ethan has so accutely pointed out.

But North Korea is actually doing that which we accused Iraq of doing and it binds a lot of liberal platitudes that once were. They covered their silence in protesting the war by saying "well we thought the threat was real." Now there is a real threat, and they believe they'll lose their base (the left) if we invade or they support it.

As someone who is a leftist at least 80% of the time I don't think attacking a threat is a rightist thing.

Well you know how it goes, the last admin went to war, and we needed to demonize them so we get "Strength through Peace" platitudes.

I don't think its a rigthy-thing either, but thats the way the Democrats painted themselves, which is why in '02, '04 they got swept out, and we needed a new breed in there.

Do you even read my posts? I've stated several times my positions on Tibet and Darfur already and addressed basically that entire post in previous statements. I never said I was in favor of the United States going and invading Darfur and dealing with the problem themselves. In the same way I wouldn't be in favor of them going into North Korea or Iraq. I've already explained why I've made the comparison all you've said was "it's a terrible comparison." If you want to talk about arguing to score points or "snarkifying" look at your own methods.

What I find interesting here though is you try and make me out to be a hypocrite because you think I favor action in Darfur (which I don't - not United States action anyway) but that I'm against any action in Iraq or North Korea. Which has been my point I've been trying to make all along. The difference is I'm not the one with the hypocrisy issues.

Now as for your point about domestic abuse and it being the same philosophy. You're completely right. If I knew someone was beating his wife I wouldn't go in with a bat and start beating the shit out of him. I would call the police - the same can be said about my foreign policy seeing as I don't think the United States is the world police.

You expect me to answer a question when I disagree with the assumption the question makes? If you want a simple answer then yes I do believe a fresh start would be better than the status quo.

We shouldn't do anything because we're not the world police, but when we see preventable tragedies going on we should call the police who are...

The United Nations

No. These guys:

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/im...ce-Posters.jpg

And they'd both do as much good.

What do you propose the U.N. do? In case you're wondering, I don't think this idea works. I haven't seen any case where the U.N. has done anything that stopped rogue states from doing whatever they want.

When it comes to Foreign Policy, nations operate within their best interests. in many ways its like a legislative body (the U.N. for example) but unlike the U.N. dealing with ech country individually prevents a security council rejection, and you can craft your pitch to appeal to the country at large.

The legislative body in this case, the U.N. is a set of rules preventing intervention when people need it most.

Look harder.

I just did. nothing.

Ugh. I have to leave right now but when I get back I don't plan to give a history lesson. If you think that the United Nations has done nothing google "United Nations Security Council decisions" or something along those lines. They've done far more diplomatically and militarily then sit on the side lines and vote. I think the United Nations is fundamentally a good idea.

It is a good idea. In practice I don't think it cuts mustard and I guess that may have to do with what we see as the possible achievements.

And that might be the problem. But the U.N. has stopped short of calling Darfur a genocide and from my position thats ridiculous. In fact I think whats going on there is the exact definition of a genocide.

For the hell of it: (from wiki) Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

If we won't acknowledge something, we don't have any way to fix the issue. And the way I see it, the U.N. is not only not acknowledging it, their giving an excuse to those who would be happy to sweep it under the rug.

I think thats irresponsible and not helping the situation. I'm sure there are countries within the U.N. that don't agree, but we've got this world body now, who comes out with a statement and by proxy all these countries have to go along with a majority opinion.

The death of a people because they're different is wrong, and how its addressed should not be left up to countries with political interests demanding they vote another way. The U.N. should be doing a lot more, but the bureaucracy has killed a brilliant notion.

Edit: I googled what you wrote and I'm not seeing anything thats defending your point.

The United Nations is a good idea that is horribly executed. It's dealings with Hussein were pathetic. Not to mention the US pays a ton more than any other permanent member. Ugh, don't get me started on the UN.

That about sums it up as good as you can.

First off the situation in Darfur isn't technically a genocide. It is inhumane (as the UN has said) but it's a civil war over land. If you're going to come up with a strategy to deal with the problem calling it genocide and deploying the troops is ignorant. The United States invaded a country and ignored some of the internal events that turned out to be explosive; look how well that worked out for them. The irony of that undermines almost your entire post. It isn't genocide the UN has already acknowledged that made attempts to deal with the problem.

Now as for the UN doing something about it...I agree it's been disappointing but what do you expect them to do? The situation has barely changed (in regards to how much force they have.) A UN force in Darfur would be whatever the African Union has and maybe help from a some country like India. They don't have the military force to effectively end it. They've had to use diplomacy and send all the aid they could - which is difficult when Khartoum isn't letting peacekeepers in. I agree the UN for the most part sucks but saying "oh they're doing nothing about Darfur and they're not even willing to acknowledge it's genocide" is just ignorance on your part.

:laughing:

This is a silly thread, I'm glad Darkest Hour is not President of America, or we'd be in for another pointless war, which might not end the way America might hope.

I have a friend who's travelling to south korea soon to work in a lab for 5 weeks. She's a bit nervous with the current situation .. :p

I agree with Ethan that I don't think intervention by America is the way to go as it is now. Not to offend guys, but I don't fully believe in USA's ability to set things right in North Korea. USA as a nation with democratic elections every four years is not really that stable either and I don't believe that "peace and good stuff in North Korea" is gonna win enough votes or support in the american people. There are deep lying problems between North and South Korea and killing Kim Jung-Il won't fix all that, someone could replace him. It'll take more time, possibly years which may span new presidential elections in USA with a change in political winds.

It's a nice idea perhaps, but as I said, I think that could be a long and costly process. I don't think USA has the resources to do that and I don't think it's in the interest of the american people, at least not for the years it might take to do the job so that it's worthwhile.

why is it everyone wants to **** with america...?
i mean like why not england..
america is always involved with a war or something i mean the british people are *******s....lol [no offense to anyone british]
but i mean like seriously

Well, after WWII, North Korea was to be managed by the Soviet and South Korea was supposed to be managed by the United States. There were plans to unify, but an escalating cold war put an end to that and separate governments formed. Then USA were involved in the Korea war of course ..

There's a reason for it like there is with everything.

To calrify, Ethan took a comment made in passing and tried to paint us as Neo-con's.

I don't think one person here has actually suggested, and stood behind a decision to invade North Korea, Iraq, or Sudan.

That being said, if Darfur isn't a genocide would you care to comment on why the State department has labeled it as such? Is our State Department well otu of line? The UN as I understand it thinks that the killings are random, but that the intent isn't there. That sounds to me like a lawyer trying to get first degree murder down to manslaughter, not sound policy. The Sudanese government is at the very least backing Janjaweed forces.

I had to sit through a semesters worth of Genocide discussion when I was going for my political science degree. If I took nothing else from the course it was that we shouldn't shrink the concepts or the experiences down to something we can understand. To do so allows us to rationalize them, and if we're in the market to stand against government backed mass murder, then we really ought to not limit it with our definitions.

I think when we're talking Genocide, people tend to go to the Shoah and compare it. Few genocides are comparble to Nazi Germany (and we keep finding out new things as well, so its tough to compare), but if you look at the Bosnian genocide, where you had mass graves in soccer stadiums and its up front masking of whats really going on, I think theres little difference save for semantics between Darfur and what happened in Bosnia.

But honestly, for the record, no ones suggesting the US invade N. Korea. I believe i've posted before in this thread that we need to divest, even with Aide, to the region.

I had assumed when you made the statement that Kim Jong-Il should be assassinated by the United States killed then you to justify your statement with "rationale" you had meant it. It's especially confusing, after so much debating, that it's only now that you've started saying it was a joke.

In regards to the United States labeling it genocide I have no idea why they've done it I can only speculate. As a whole it is a tribal conflicting; though if it helps you feel better the UN did specifically charge the Sudanese President, al-Bashir, with three accounts of genocide for slaughtering three tribes. The thing is though, the conflict as a whole, is a brutal (the brutality is mostly on the part of the Sudanese government and Janjaweed) civil war, semantically. While the atrocities (e.g. rape, mass graves) can be comparable to the Stalinist purges or Nazi Germany the problem the UN has with labeling it genocide is the lack of a genocidal motive, even if the conflict is between tribes divided by ethnicity. The African Union, the United Nations, Amnesty International all of them realize this and I think they'd be more familiar with the conflict and more of a place to judge it then the United States.

I think a lot of the reason it's considered genocide in America is because...well look at when it was declared genocide. During the 2004 election by George W. Bush and John Kerry backed him. This is all semantics but you said yourself you can't deal with the conflict if you're in denial (or deluding yourself) to the reality of it. Treating this internal conflict as merely genocide when there could be something more going on could be a mistake in bringing about a solution. For instance there's a structural inequity in the way the government operates, it doesn't meet all the rights of citizens (the rebellion this inspired probably has more to do with why the Sudanese government decided to back the Janjaweed) and there were also problems dealing with agriculture. To ignore these and treating it like a racially motivated dispute is again, ignorant. At this point I do think the only solution would be mass graves for the Sudanese army and Omar al-Bashir's head on a platter.

And again you blantantly bull**** to get your point across. Like I said, tremendous republican.

All the Best,
Big3

Yeah and well before that you'd responded saying Kim Jong-Il was committing genocide and deserved to be taken down because of it. Then you continued responding to my posts offering counter-arguments. Really it's only now that you've decided to argue a non-interventionist stance that I've been arguing for all along. It's also interesting because of the domestic abuse comparison you made to me when I stated the opinion you restated here:

Maybe before lashing out at me for being a "Republican" you need to make sure you at least have an opinion to be lashed out at.

Don't get bent out of shape because I made it painfully obvious you don't care what you say, you just want to be right.

You take up literal meanings or intent depending solely on what suits you best. You make catty, thoughtless one-lined responses constantly and when someone else does it, you attempt to paint them as morons.

Not one person on here thought I would support a policy or a politician that would want to invade North Korea and you know it. It was disingenuous to argue in the way you did and as I've said prior in this post, you likely did it to score political points. Or did you not read that one either?

Not sure where this thread is going, but the best thing for the US would probably be for NK to go absolutely ape**** and attack somewhere lie Japan or South Korea.

China semi-appreciates NK being a thorn in our side. Though they too are getting worn down by Jong-Il's act...and might be in favor of supporting a coup which would probably lead to new leadership under the same sort of system they are in now. Also, Jong-Il's want to forgo older son's in favor of putting his third son as the successor. This as well could ruffle feathers and lead to a potential coup.

If they go ape****, China can't really have their back and the international community would have the reasoning to end the regime.

Though in the end, it's not that big a deal. Jong-Il's game is out there, he rattles the saber and we are slowly realizing we shouldn't come answering with concessions every time he does.

Fun fact: They've got the 5th largest military in the world.

Fun fact #2: Iraq had the 4th largest in 1991. Big load of good it did them. So lol at Jong-Il still.

China doesn't appreciate Kim Jong Il anymore than we do. his anti-humanitarian policies have contributed to an enormous exodus of North Koreans across the river Tumen. and the economic burden of these migrants is something which the PRC wants to contain. if that could be achieved by deposing Kim Jong Il i'm sure the PRC would have no problems with it.

North Korea isn't a threat, even with nuclear weapons. The media just cooks this **** up to scare people. You really think they're capable of launching a nuclear assault? We have the most advanced missile defense system in the world and the best airforce.

I stated they don't appreciate him and are tired of his act, they just enjoy the country being a thorn in our side.

And who do you believe will be responsible for a lot of the human aid effort if Jong Il is disposed of? Hint: It's China. That's just another reason they'd rather see just a regime change and the same system than a complete change of political nature in the country.

"North Korea has said it would fire an intercontinental ballistic missile if the U.N. Security Council did not apologize"

http://www.reuters.com/article/world...BrandChannel=0

Anyone who has the capability to put a wmd into internationally capable flight IS a threat. No question. While we do have an excellent defense system. I'm here to tell you, the shear launching of the missle would spur world-wide panic. Regardless if it touched down anywhere. Even if the missle were shot out of the sky, it would still have an intense aftermath.

You bring up the media spin-machine, but not in regards to the missle defense system you mention later?

i'm no military expert, but missle defense systems are generally a massive crap shoot. To my understanding you have a better chance of winning powerball than the U.S. shooting out out of the sky.

More than likely target with a high-powered satellite and disable the arming device. The North Korean missile technology is old. It's like an MIT student disecting a commodore 64. We can pretty much control anything by satellite these days. Which is actually very accurate, not much of a crap shoot at all. Unless you were alking multiple missiles at once, then it would be a problem. The biggest aftermath would be calming everyone down and of course neutralizing the North Korean chain of command after the incident.

That assuming we're sure we know what they've got.