TheBig3

he starves the country. The aide thats given for them isn't given to them.

Why isn't that genocide?

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Darkest Hour

let's just hope that they don't come over here if we piss them off. Am i the only one who is moving to canada after they threaten us?

__________________

sleepy jack

If ending Genocide is your concern (though starvation is hardly genocide which is far more murderous) then why don't we get involved in Sri Lanka or Darfur or Tibet or basically every country ruled by a cruel dictator? Why don't we start feeding Africa on a serious governmental level? North Korea isn't the only country with problems of that nature to treat it like it is and somehow deserves special United States attention is ridiculous. Besides weren't you against the invasion of Iraq?

__________________

TheBig3

I was. You asked for rationale. Aren't you for intervention in Darfur?

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Freebase Dali

This reminds me of that economic hitmen thing I heard about.

__________________

The Unfan

Morality is subjective.
Genocide requires active killing. This is more like wide scale neglect.

CAPTAIN CAVEMAN

hahaha youre kidding

sleepy jack

I don't believe it's the role of the United States to intervene in Darfur nor do I believe it's they're role to be the world police which is what you seem to think.

I have a question for you though. Why were you against invading Iraq and removing a brutal dictatorship but now you're for removing Kim Jong Il? You think taking him out of the picture would result in a better situation? Honestly? The only way it could possibly do so is launching what would essentially be another Iraq war against North Korea. The United States would invade and then attempt to build a democratic country. They don't have the resources or the right do that though.

__________________

TheBig3

I can't believe you're trying to make this bigger than the flip comment it was. You've become the Zach de la Rocha of MB.

Also, I can't be certain, but off the top of my head I'd assume North Korea now is a world away from Iraq in March 2003.

Iraq was a relatively stable region in an otherwise unstable region. I'd say the opposite is true with North Korea.

Iraq was at least functioning within the Kurdish region, I'm not sure any portion of N. Korea functions well. At least what we'd call "well."

And unlike Iraq, its very evident at this point that North Korea actually has "WMD's."

__________________
I've moved to a new address

sleepy jack

The Weapons of Mass Destruction point is completely irrelevant. Every United States alley is developing/has nuclear technology. The only difference between North Korea and those countries is North Korea isn't a United States ally and apparently only the West and it's friends are allowed to have the big guns. This is a humanitarian argument.

Iraq was only stable in the sense that Saddam would torture, threaten, imprison or murder any dissenters. All dictatorships are stable in that sense. You don't consider that as offensive as starvation; which is happening all over the world including United States streets?

__________________