N. Korea Admits it has Nukes

[Sleeping Dog]

Enough is enough! North Korea with the Bomb?

I want a strongly-worded UN resolution!

That'll teach the little freak a lesson.

All sort of tongue-in-cheek. But, Korea was IIRC a UN war, or still is since it never ended. Do we need to take on every bad guy single-handedly?

There's a few other UN countries with weapons and money that could help with some of this nonsense.

Or, give the UN another chance to prove its irrelevance.

Regards.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

No, by that logic, only participatory governments have national sovereignty. Everything else is a joke.

The problem is that you must define "participatory government," and that is where the sliding scale comes into play. By "participatory" you could conceivably be talking about everything for true direct democracy, to democratic republics, to parliamentary monarchies, to whatever else.

You either have to explain why if "participation" is the key to legitimacy, there is great variation in the degree of "participation."

Or, you must set some arbitrary standard for "participation" in government, else the nation becomes illegitimate. And of course, it is easy to set this standard higher than the US can meet, thus the US becomes illegitimate.

Pablo Escobar nearly came close to controlling Columbia, through bought elections, assassinations, bribes, private armies, etc. Had he succeeded, would the country have had a legitimate government worthy of national sovereignty?

The concept of worth has nothing to do with this. If you accept the ability of the nation-state to exist as an entity, you must accept the national sovereignty and legitimacy of all nations. Else, what you are saying is that the concept of the nation-state is invalid.

While you can't please everyone, participatory government is just that. If some folks don't like it, they can opt to try to change it.

That is true of any government. And of course, often those who "opt to try to change it" in a participatory government are suppressed just as brutally as in a dictatorial government.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Vladimir, it's like this:

Perhaps North Korea thinks it has the "right" to build nuclear weapons. And maybe some misled Americans use a moral relatvism to defend them ("Well! The U.S. has them SOOOOOO....it must be ok for every other country to have them!) But the fact remains that we have the right and duty to defend our citizens and chosen allies as we see fit no matter what philosophy you want to subscribe to. North Korea, if it could, would take the U.S. out in the blink of an eye if they could. So preventing their attempt to get the means to do so presents a compelling self-interest in survival on the part of the United States. The events of 9/11 show that we cannot afford to wait for enemies to come to us first. We have to assess the threats and deal with them preemptively.

I also daresay that many of the people defending the "rights" of despots to own NBC have never attended a U.S. military NBC class with a trip to the CS gas chamber, too. Many have probably never even read extensively about NBC weapons.

And I'm sure that there would be plenty of time for philosophy in a fallout shelter.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

North Korea, if it could, would take the U.S. out in the blink of an eye if they could.

Any evidence at all to back up this absurd claim?

The events of 9/11 show that we cannot afford to wait for enemies to come to us first.

No, we already knew that for a long time prior to 9/11. What 9/11 did was instill a sense of mass hysteria among the American people, and a great need in the government to do something to stop terrorism and prevent future attacks. Thus, we have the unending, intrusive and unconstitutional legislation coming out of Washington, and a new empire being built overseas.

We have to assess the threats and deal with them preemptively.

No, pre-emptive is the wrong word. We are dealing with potential threats in a preventive manner. At least, that is true for the war with Iraq.

 

[Zander]

I'm against all gun control.

I reckon it's about as absolute in North Korea as it can be.

The regime headed by a "leader" of questionable mental stability has been summarily directing humanitarian aid to maintain his control of the military while starving his subjects. The North Korean population has been decimated [ref: the true definition].

Kim Jong-Il is, deservedly, an international pariah; that some, for political reasons, cannot bring themselves to condemn his nuclear-brinkmanship is despicable...to be polite.

The Red Chinese had better step up and control him or face the inevitable result of nuclear weapons deployed in every nation in the immediate region, Japan included. In the interim, Kim is not only willing to continue to export ill-gotten technology around the globe but insists upon it.

If that doesn't give you pause, it should...

 

[MeekandMild]

Its pretty clear to me. Kim Whazzizname is China's monkey. Let China put him on a leash.

 

[Bruce H]

If you want to defend Kim why don't you emmigrate to his paradise? I'm sure you will be very happy in his land of sweets and honey.

 

[Sir Galahad]

All the evidence you need is in the news, Vlad. I can't help it if you're spending all your time getting your information from Mother Jones.

 

[SteelyDan]

A lot of folks can't seem to accept it, but there really are such things as "good" and "bad" in the world. When a totalitarian regime threatens to begin exporting nuclear weapons, presumably to the highest bidder, it's not too hard to figure out which side of the line it falls on. North Korea's security concerns would be eliminated tomorrow if it decided to play by anything approaching international norms.

 

[HBK]

When it comes right down to it, you have to pick a side. You have to choose between good and evil. I pick the side of the United States becase that is my country and I love my country enough to be willing to give my life for it. If other countries believe the US to be the bad guy or evil, that's their tough luck. Quit the sanctimonious debate and pick your side.