redxavier posted:Alpha-Red posted:No, sanctions are not a declaration of war. Sanctions classify as police action. If North Korea wishes to make a war out of this well then that's their problem. North Korea very much has the right to exist, but it does not have the right to threaten its neighbors with nuclear weapons, and it does not have the right to continue starving its people or to leech off them for their leaders' comfort. If North Korea were to meet these conditions, then we would gladly keep our fingers out of their affairs, but until then.... If sanctions were imposed on the United States or the UK by a consortium of foreign powers I'm certain that we wouldn't take it lying down. One man's police action is another's act of war. I hardly find such a hostile stance surprising in light of 1930s American-Japanese relations. You are correct that it's their problem, but that doesn't mean that the countries that impose sanctions are therefore bereft of responsibility. I'm not sure which neighbours have been threatened with nuclear weapons. There is after all a distinction between saying 'give us food or be nuked' and 'if you want us to stop developing nuclear technology then you've got to us something to make it worth our while'. But I'm just a North Korea-sympathiser.
Alpha-Red posted:No, sanctions are not a declaration of war. Sanctions classify as police action. If North Korea wishes to make a war out of this well then that's their problem. North Korea very much has the right to exist, but it does not have the right to threaten its neighbors with nuclear weapons, and it does not have the right to continue starving its people or to leech off them for their leaders' comfort. If North Korea were to meet these conditions, then we would gladly keep our fingers out of their affairs, but until then....
yankee8255 posted:HOw quickly we forget NK's firing missles past Japan, a quintessential 'shot accross her bow'. But hey, I'm sure Kim was just joking.
ShaneP posted:If you lived in Japan, would you feel that way? Think of it from their perspective.
Mr44 posted:So, sanctions voted on, and imposed by the UNSC, are to be considered acts of war against North Korea (from a North Korean perspective) but when NK fires missiles across a neighboring country, it represents nothing more than "sabre-rattling?" Setting aside the argument about how the UN is supposed to work, I can accept your point about the sanctions, but it seems like your overriding theme is to remove all responsibility from NK, no matter what they do.
Mr44 posted:I hadn't forgotten actually. We're just differing on our interpretation of the tests. NK are never provocative just for the sake of it, it's sabre-rattling at most. Except I think you're being terribly inconsistant here, especially as it relates to your overall point. So, sanctions voted on, and imposed by the UNSC, are to be considered acts of war against North Korea (from a North Korean perspective) but when NK fires missiles across a neighboring country, it represents nothing more than "sabre-rattling?" Setting aside the argument about how the UN is supposed to work, I can accept your point about the sanctions, but it seems like your overriding theme is to remove all responsibility from NK, no matter what they do.
dizfactor posted:The situation with NK is kind of like a hostage standoff, where an escaped mental patient is holding a bunch of people at gunpoint. You don't sternly lecture him on his bad behavior, or treat him like a rational adult - you just say whatever you need to say to get him to put the gun down and come out with his hands up before things get really ugly.
redxavier posted:If sanctions were imposed on the United States or the UK by a consortium of foreign powers I'm certain that we wouldn't take it lying down. One man's police action is another's act of war. I hardly find such a hostile stance surprising in light of 1930s American-Japanese relations. You are correct that it's their problem, but that doesn't mean that the countries that impose sanctions are therefore bereft of responsibility.
redxavier posted:Jong-Il is no more crazy than most world leaders. He pales in comparison to Quaddafi. But I think people are less concerned with painting a picture of a reasonable man and more with thinking about the Team America puppet. It's easy to fall into the trap of dehumanising an enemy than actually trying to see things from his perspective - regardless of the validity in that perspective. Everything NK does is for two things; their security and reunification. They divert money and aid away from the people into their military not because they are an aggressive people but because the top echelons live in fear, of the US, of Japan, even her supposed allies, and especially of their own people. It's a fear that borders on paranoia, but it is to a certain extent justified with what the US does - there's no denying that since Bush came into power relations between the two have taken a down turn.
Alpha-Red posted:We wouldn't take it lying down, but we don't go invading other countries when it happens. When OPEC did their little embargo on one of our country's most valuable resources, we didn't all go "ZOMG DECLARATION OF WAR!!"
Alpha-Red posted:I'm not dehumanizing Kim Jong Il. Rather look at the guy and I see that he's no different from certain other leaders of the past in that he's interested in self-glorification and comfort. Now I have no problem with any person who thinks he's some sort of demigod, but when this attitude starts to become harmful to everyone around him, then he's gotta go.
dizfactor posted:The NK regime is incredibly unstable, totally desperate, and acting irrationally. The situation with NK is kind of like a hostage standoff, where an escaped mental patient is holding a bunch of people at gunpoint. You don't sternly lecture him on his bad behavior, or treat him like a rational adult - you just say whatever you need to say to get him to put the gun down and come out with his hands up before things get really ugly.
redxavier posted:Regardless of the veracity of such claims, who are we to decide that he's got to go? Once we start imposing our will and values then at what point does it stop?
Alpha-Red posted:North Korea is definitely a sovereign nation, but only to a certain extent. That means no nukes. That is a perfectly reasonable condition, because we don't even trust sane people to have nukes, much less madmen.
Alpha-Red posted:I think.....it's not so much about us imposing our will as much as it's about preserving our security and that of South Korea and Japan. Now it's true that we picked a scuffle with North Korea to begin with, but that's because they were oppressing their people. So we start off with a little humanitarian aid, a little criticism, some ugly words from the Bush Admin. etc....and somewhere there they decide they're being threatened and start to build nukes.
RedXavier posted:And the beef with the US goes far back beyond Clinton even, to 1945.
Mr44 posted:RedXavier posted:And the beef with the US goes far back beyond Clinton even, to 1945. Um yeah, that's what I said... Let me highlight some key points
Mr44 posted:Review that last sentence of mine again, and point out where I even mentioned Clinton, a specific political party, or started to be obtuse regarding any obligations.
