Home : Journal

We're at war (duh)

Anglosphere

North Korea says "it would regard harsh sanctions over its nuclear test as a declaration of war".

Shock, horror, eek, panic. Oh wait, isn't this the country that in 1950 was at war with South Korea, the United Nations and through extension, the United States of America? Yup. Well here's a fun fact that apparently even the Koreans are forgetting: it still is. Nothing more than a cease-fire was ever signed - and even from that the DPRK withdrew some time ago.

   

Comments

prutser (#131) on Oct 13, 2006 14:58 CEST (Post reply)

What in your opinion gives the US (and France, China, Russia, etc) more right to atomic weapons than korea and iran for example?

Weren't the US the ones that used "equal rights for everyone" as an excuse to bomb iraq?
Of course by now, even most republicans must realize that forcing countries into democracy as an attempt to eradicate suppression was never the real motivation, but could those who are still willing to bomb populations for the sake of "freedom" and "sovereignty" please explain to me why the UN insist on letting only certain nations have nuclear weapons?

Seems to me we're still living in 1984 where some consider themselves more equal than others..


By the way, it's a little unfair to state:

"...and through extension, at war with the United States of America?"

Is there any country left the US are not yet at war with?

Rob (#1) on Oct 13, 2006 15:35 CEST (Post reply)

North Korea has every right to develop nuclear weapons. But, as long as they openly state that we're the big evil enemy that needs to be purged, it's also my (our?) right to not like it. And possibly our duty to do something about it.

prutser (#131) on Oct 13, 2006 18:44 CEST (Post reply)

"But, as long as they openly state that we're the big evil enemy..."

I disagree for two reasons:
1. Maybe you like the word "evil-do-ers" better than "big bad enemy", but the US has been telling its people the exact same thing.
2. I don't care what they yell at us, as long as there's no bombing involved.

Especially the latter is important. We tend to judge muslims for there tolerance to freedom of speech (remember Jyllands-Posten?), but at the same time we think we have the right to beat the cr*p out of anyone who calls us evil-do-ers!

"...it's also my (our?) right and possibly duty to do something about it."

Such attitude can be a catalyst (or republican excuse) for war.

Rob (#1) on Oct 13, 2006 19:37 CEST (Post reply)

There's a subtile difference. We indeed say they are evil, but we do not consider ourselves in a state of war. North Korea does.

By doing something about it I did not mean going to war ourselves. But how about giving more priority to missile defense?

/wiki/National_Missile_Defense [en.wikipedia.org]

prutser (#131) on Oct 13, 2006 21:50 CEST (Post reply)

There's nothing wrong with a defense mechanism. But korea was not referring to a defense mechanism. It said it was not willing to accept economic sanctions as a response to its nuclear weapon program.
The US is threatening Korea with sanctions, not the other way around.

Think about it. North Korea originally signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This treaty calls for a complete, global nuclear disarmament. Non of the current nuclear powers ever complied to that. This leaves the other countries that signed the treaty frustrated and from that perspective I can understand North Korea's withdrawal and nuclear initiatives.

Rob (#1) on Oct 14, 2006 18:46 CEST (Post reply)

We're threatening with sanctions not just because of their nuclear status, see Pakistan and India. You can't just ignore North Korea's self-proclaimed status as our enemy.
We're not obliged to trade with such a country. And that their claim that sanctions would mean war are irrelevant, because technically we are already at war. That's what my initial post was about, of course.

prutser (#131) on Oct 15, 2006 18:53 CEST (Post reply)

"And that their claim that sanctions would mean war are irrelevant, because technically we are already at war. That's what my initial post was about, of course."

Alright, let's leave it at that then and let's not further discuss the hypocrisy of sanctioning their activities.
If anything, I think France already created a precedent in the 90s, large enough to let iran and north korea go about their business. Instead of being bombing, it was rewarded with a permanent seat in the UN security counsil.

prutser (#131) on Oct 16, 2006 13:31 CEST (Post reply)

Let's discuss the matter further over a beer, how's that? :-)

Post comment