DeltaElite
Member
I vote for Brazil, I have seen the topless beaches in Rio and I want to go there to surrender.
Starvation starves the people, not the leaders.I hope we can starve North Korea into submission rather than invade.
I agree. Wouldn't you agree though that, in part, a failing of the existing system of gov't is a failing of the people of N. Korea*? At least to the extent that every person always has the choice to live under their existing gov’t or seek to change it. Granted, N. Koreans have a much more difficult row to hoe when it comes to changing gov’t systems than a more democratic system, but in the end who really bears the responsibility for a nations gov’t, the people of that nation or the people of some other nation?Starvation starves the people, not the leaders.
I agree with that also for the most part. To me that means that it is time for us to help ensure that an option that is acceptable to our survival occurs. Just another step in the path from talk to war while seeking to avoid the last option.The North Korea situation is very unpredictable. There are so many different paths:
China's strategy is multi-pronged. The main strategic aim of the PRC is to become the pre-eminent power in East Asia. This includes subsidiary goals of:With regard to China: China's preferred strategy is to intimidate liberal US presidents.
It can be argued that the Chinese have derived benefits from Republican administrations as well as from Democratic ones. A number of prominent Republican policymakers and power-brokers (including Henry Kissinger) maintain unhealthy commercial relationships with key figures and politico-economic entities in China.With regard to China: China's preferred strategy is to intimidate liberal US presidents. They don't like President Bush, because they can't intimidate him, and they sure don't want the NK's starting some sort of a war right now. I expect them to come down as hard as neccessary to keep the NKs from nuking Japan or some such, at least until we end up with another wimp liberal in the White House.
Our actions are "hypcritical" only if we claim to be consistent. We do not. We are quite open about refusing to be boxed in by a false and dangerous notion of consistency.
We make up the rules for each situation, regardless of whether those rules are 100% opposite in similar situations. That is the logical thing for us to do. That is the ethical thing for us to do.
No it isn't. It is hypcritical only if we claim to be consistent. Hypocrisy is not inconsistency. Hypocrisy is claiming to do one thing but doing another. We are quite open about our inconsistency. We are quite open, for example, about having polar opposite rules for Iraq having WMD vs. England having WMD.I hope you can see that rampant inconsistency is hypocritical in itself.
We are applying the exact same ethic to all situations -- that ethic is doing what is best for the USA, which leads to different responses to different situationsWhy would you defend a policy of pretty much doing whatever you feel like as ethical? At best that sounds like situational ethics to me.