North Korea missile showdown!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
How many countries has he attacked?

If you're acting as an apologist for North Korea, you're an idiot.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
How many countries has he attacked?

two.

North Korea and South Korea.

The best time to have united against the third reich was after it had attacked more than two countries as it was obviously impossible to judge the regime before that point.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
That begs the question:

IF the (presumably dud) missle actually did hit Hawaii, what would be the appropriate response?

Return the favor, of course.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Geronimo
two.

North Korea and South Korea.

The best time to have united against the third reich was after it had attacked more than two countries as it was obviously impossible to judge the regime before that point.

When did he attack either country?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


If you're acting as an apologist for North Korea, you're an idiot.

I'm not, but I don't accept the conventional wisdom that he's a loose canon, just waiting to go off. We've had fifty years without fighting, during much of that time, either his father or he could have attacked again, killing millions of Koreans. There was even a time in which they might have won, given the political situation in the U.S. So the idea that he's bent of world or even just peninuslar domination doesn't stand up to reality.

In any event, the way people are acting is that the DPRK is doing something that is forbidden, rather than it is something we don't want it to be able to do, that it is engaging in something criminal or engaging in acts of war. It is doing neither of those things. The DPRK has every right to develop missiles.

Now here's a little fun fact. During the Clinton administration, the DPRK offered to halt their missile program if the U.S. had regular discussions with them. Not about anything in particular. Just regular discussions. We agreed, and they abided. Secretary Powell said he intended to continue these talks, but was publically overruled by the White House (at which point Powell should have resigned for being *****-slapped by his own President). Guess when the DPRK restarted their missile program.

The DPRK is an exceedingly paranoid country. They think we're out to get them. They want assurances that we aren't. Failing that, they want a deterant capability.

[Kuciwalker]

In any event, the way people are acting is that the DPRK is doing something that is forbidden

It is forbidden by rest of the world. In North Korea's position, developing such weapons in inherently agressive, and even more agressive is firing them over a neighboring country.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No one has yet explained to me why the world is in such a tizzy about this, given that there are no international treaties outlawing the development of missiles.

Well there is North Korea's pledge of a missile moratorium in 1999 and its reiteration of the moratorium in 2002. Along with the fact North Korea also agreed in six-party negotiations not to test long-range missiles. Along with the fact that such provocations would likely force Japan to become a more normal country militarially.

[chequita guevara]

A pledge isn't a treaty, and the Bush administration renegged on the condition to meet with Pyonyang.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

In any event, the way people are acting is that the DPRK is doing something that is forbidden

It is forbidden by rest of the world.

Which treaty is that?

[Kuciwalker]

The one where we all have common sense and don't like it when small, crazy third world dictators get powerful long-range weapons.

[Kuciwalker]

Realism and idealism are both somewhat viable theories of international relations, but quibbling legalism isn't.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
They think we're out to get them.

What's wrong with that? Giving Kim assurances would be like giving Hitler assurances. Morally wrong and naive. I don't think we should be like another Chamberlain.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Vince278
What's wrong with that? Giving Kim assurances would be like giving Hitler assurances.

Really??? What inudstrial powerhouse does Kim run, that he's an imminent danger of overruning all of Asia? The DPRK is the weakest state in NE Asia. They could certainly kill a lot of people, but any war they start with any of their neighbors will result in their destruction.

Their government knows that. What they want is assurances they won't be attacked.

Given that the United States has started far more wars in the post WWII period than the DPRK has, they have far more reason to fear us than we them.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The one where we all have common sense and don't like it when small, crazy third world dictators get powerful long-range weapons.

Yeah, that's what you people said about Hussein. You were wrong then. You're wrong now. Especially since the most aggressive country in the world has powerful long range weapons, and no one advocates disarming them.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
A pledge isn't a treaty,

Well yeah. We know how much the DPRK respects both.

and the Bush administration renegged on the condition to meet with Pyonyang.

Along with the fact North Korea also agreed in six-party negotiations not to test long-range missiles. AFAIK, that pledge wasn't conditional on bilateral talks.

no one advocates disarming them.

I don't believe that anyone is advocating disarming them. You see no talk of them removing the thousands of weapons they have pointed at Seoul. We'd just rather they not destablize SE Asia. You're picking a strange regime to be an apologist for.