Actually, I think our policy of non-proliferation dates back much further than GWBush...non?

And Chase, I actually think that you don't want to respond because I bested you in this argument.

The 'Why do you hate America' thing was a joke, but just like you people know nothing about geo-politics, you also apparently know nothing of humor.

MIKE JONES!!

I think the response was more aimed to Dalen, who didn't appear to be joking.

No, because if they were in a super power status they would be telling us the same exact things. Everyone always argues that it's hypocritical for us to tell other nations to disband their nuclear weapons programs but if the US was to disband theirs, would any other nations really follow suit? We would just be in their shoes now, and they would use the same reasoning we would. So no, you are wrong.

I promise the US isnt the only country on the planet with self interest.

It's the only one with most of the people on this board's self interest in mind, though. And it's not in any of our interests that regimes like N. Korea and Iran have nuclear weapons that they WILL, per their aforementioned statements, help terreroists organizations or other countries acquire the same technology.

There should be a clear distinction between disagreeing with a specific administration (Democrat or Republican) and hating America.

It gets blurred when someone hates....er, disagrees with an administration so much they take a position that really is anti-American (which I am defining as a position which would intentionally impair or threaten the security of the United States or the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of its citizens) solely because of the current leadership.

There needs to be consistency in an honest individual's policy regardless of current political party in charge. If it's bad policy under a Republican, it's bad policy under a Democrat too. But in politics today, this is rarely the case.

If Kerry were president, would people on this board still defend North Korea's right to nuclear weapons? Isn't the political left supposed to be in favor of global nuclear disarmament?

Remind yourself that it was Bill Clinton who helped broker a deal where we were basically bribing NK to not pursue nuclear weapons. And then it turned out North Korea took the bribe, and pursued nuclear weapons anyway.

This was before Iraq, mind you.

Just because NK only now admits to having nukes doesn't mean they were built last week.

Our aggressive response? Well, we're going to stop bribing you. And we'll label you as a member of the axis of evil. Plus, you really ought to talk to us AND four other of your geographical neighbors about disarming. Your nuclear weapons capability is of great concern to China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea, too--they should have some say on this.

Regardless of how one feels about Iraq, I don't believe it is in any American's interest for NK to have nuclear arms. Arguing otherwise may be coming from the perspective of slamming the current Republican leadership, but it can create an appearance of anti-Americanism.

i don't think that we had an argument. i made my points and you screamed mike jones. however, in the spirit of discourse i'd like you to educate me about geopolitics because i know so little about it. there are some things that i can't seem to make fit in this paradigm, like china- they've had nuclear weapons for 50 years and committed far greated human-rights tragedies that n. korea, and yet we're not insisting that they disarm. why is that?

Well, just to make it clear I am in no way comfortable with Iran or N. Korea having nukes. My only point was that if other countries began to apply the same logic as the current US administration we'd be in some deep shit.

Steve

Do we really think that N. Korea developed nuclear weapons soley as a deterent of invasion? I mean the KNCA reported this, it's the propaganda machine of the DPRK. I trust that about as far as I can throw the Senator Loogar.

This looks like an argument to me, but we can use the friendlier term of 'discussion' if you want. It makes a fuck to me, I'm high on Dust Remover.

As to China, when was the nuclear non-proliferation treaty signed? I don't know, but I guess it was after 1957. China has also never claimed that they would develop nuclear weapons, just so they could sell them, to countries like Pakistan, and people like Bin Laden. Also, in case you don't know, we are actually still at war with N. Korea. We have a truce dating from the 1953 end of the Korean Conflict, but technically this bitch ain't over. I'm saying that our policy hasn't changed toward NKorea in years. Was bush smart to yell MIKE JONES!! at them over this axi of evil shit? No. Does that make it right for them to pursue these tyeps of weapons in what is obviously an offensive manuever? No. S. Korea doesn't want war with NKorea, because after it's over, Seoul wil be levelled and they'll have however many backwards cousins to look after. N. Korea is run by a crazy person, who spends most of his country's money on Hennessy, Whores and Movies, with a little left over for Nukes and whatever else.

Either way, I don't see how you, as a (seemingly) rational person can think that this is in any way a good or even tenable situation.

oh i definitely wasn't.

of course i'd be happier if no one had nuclear weapons, but i don't see how we can put that genie back into the bottle. my point is that we're (on a national level) engaging in a bit of moral relativism so tenuous that our actions make reactions like North Korea's understandable. the NPT was signed in 1964 but we've proven time and time again that treaties are for those without significant arms, not us. as usual, we've decided to point and yell "don't do that!" but with no motivation to comply other than reciprocated violence, and it never works anymore than making murder illegal makes it go away. no i don't want crazy people to have access to nukes, but that's the situation in this country, with our leadership addicted to some sort of dungeons and dragons mythology, and it works for us so why shouldn't it work for n. korea.

in short:

USA: Don't build nukes. we're afraid that you'll use them against us.
N. Korea: but you have them, how do we know that you're not going to use them?
USA: we promise not to.
N. Korea: ok then.

i mean, come on.

Just to make sure my statements are completely clear, I think North Korea is allowed to protect itself if it being threatened by another nation and the only way to protect itself from a nuclear state is to actually build nuclear weapons. Based on the Iraq War, it is clear that the current administration is not interested in talks that would result in peace; therefore, North Korea has no other option at this point but to develop nukes. Bush has made it clear that if you don't have WMD, you will be invaded.

Yes, I want to live in a world where there are no nuclear weapons, or at least no nukes in countries led by "colorful" dictators. Our policies do not reflect an effort to live in a world such as that. I'm fine with being labeled anti-American or people saying I hate America, because I honestly have no idea what those words and phrases mean. In my opinion, things would be a lot different right now if Gore or McCain were president. The Clinton administration was a breath of fresh air if only because it was a period where the neoconservatives did not have direct control of the federal government. We can do a lot better than almost every president in our history, but Bush is a huge step backwards.

Like I said in one of my first posts, you guys are taking NORTH KOREA's side in this argument, and seemingly are OK with that. This makes no sense to me, but if you can sleep at night, go for it.

It's a nice excuse (deterrent of invasion) but here is a quote attributed to the Korean Central News Agency (courtesey of NYT) in reference to Japan's threat of economic sanctions:

"Japan stands to gain nothing from economic sanctions that run counter to a mood of peace between DPRK and Japan. The Korean Army...are hating and cursing the crafty and wicked Japanese reactionaries. We have too many accounts to settle with Japan."

North Korea has warned the world that it considers economic sanctions a declaration of war.

Last December, over 75% of the Japanese public wanted to invoke economic sanctions against North Korea according to the Kyodo News poll.

Calling a nuclear warhead a deterrent against US aggression will probably garner favor with much of the world. What it will likely be used as, however, is blackmail. Or more accurately, a hostage situation.

***Forgot to note, Japan's call for sanctions was in regard to NK kidnappings of Japanese citizens in the 1970's.

You're truly an idiot if you believe N. Korea is only developing weapons for defensive purposes.

Well, it sounds like the hostage situation is in North Korea's self interest, so I'm OK with it.

*Hides Head in Sand, pulls out some Chomsky, whistles Kumbaya*

come on dude, no one's trying to make this into insults.

You're right, but it's ridiculous to me that anyone would believe the words of a murderous dictator. It's propaganda and he took it hook, line, and sinker.

It's hard to take sides with they both tend to proliferate nuclear weapons.



Governments lie, including my own. I'm only guessing what the motivates of these people are.

and apparently you have no problem with that.

murderous dictator or not, he's in charge of that country and he has made a decision based upon his own motivations. call me unamerican as many times as you want, but i say that we have to look at those motivations and change those if we want him to stop, not just wish that everyone would do as we say and not as we do. disagree with their possession of nukes but it's easy to see why they decided to build them.

seriously, they both have the same side.

I take Greece's side. A country where it's okay to be gay, hairy, and smelly. God forbid you walk around with smelly pits in the good ol' US of A.