|
|
COMMENTS:
Even though I am not a neocon, I will also answer the question.
First of all, the first thing I want to make very clear is that just because one does not agree with one form of diplomacy it does not mean that they reject all forms of diplomacy. That is a cheap shot and/or a naive assumption. When I oppose appeasement, it is not that I am pushing for war. Instead, I push for a different kind of diplomacy- one in which aggressive behaviour is at least not rewarded.
Now, as for war with either North Korea or Iran? I would oppose both because I am a pacifist. I would like to see both come under international sanctions. North Korea more so.
cranky: Don't even joke about this ... you know they can't discern sarcasm, and they may like the idea!
No now that N.Korea has gone nuclear war must truly be a last restort.Only if the North attacks the South,Japanese or even us then and only then may we go to war.I am not a neocon cranky but I think even they know that a war with a nuclear power would be absolute insanity.
cranky- "So, should we plan an invasion of this country, since allowing them to do what they want, on their soil, with their resources, constitutes appeasement by the West?"
- There is international law. Or are do you suddenly think that the UN is imperialistic for interfering in another country's internal affairs? Besides the UN, there are alos other international treaties against the spread of nuclear proliferation. North Korea signed the NPT for example.
No you fool! We must embrace the great peace loving people of North Korea and their illustrious leader, the magnificant Kim Jong Il, who was annointed by Heaven to be the grand-exalted political, spiritual and cultural leader of the freedom loving nation of North Korea.
^I thought that was Bush, vis a vis the United States.
Socrates:
North Korea withdrew from the NPT.
And, I was commenting on the neocon redifinition of the word "appeasement" from "capitulating to direct aggression" to "allowing a nation to control what it does within its own border."
Are you suggesting that the U.N.'s inaction on Sudan is a form of appeasement?
We shouldn't talk if acting on threats is impracticle.
cranky- "North Korea withdrew from the NPT."
- I know, and it was unacceptable. The NPT is a binding agreement.
"And, I was commenting on the neocon redifinition of the word "appeasement" from "capitulating to direct aggression" to "allowing a nation to control what it does within its own border." "
- The simple fact is that North Korea getting nuclear weapons destabilises the region. It is provocative. It will encourage others in the region to follow. It clashes with international norms. It is aggressive to regional stability and status-quo peace. But no, allowing North Korea to get nuclear weapons was not appeasement. Giving in to their demands everytime they THREATENED to get nuclear weapons, while simultaneously launching misslies over Japan, IS indeed appeasement. For example, helping build up and develop North Korea's nuclear sector for it (as Clinton did), REDUCING sanctions, offering economic benefits, etc if it promises not to make nuclear weapons. So doing nothing about it is not appeasement, but rewarding them everytime they are provocative on the basis that they promise not to continue their provocation if they are given the benefits they demand. Giving into blackmail is indeed appeasement.
"Are you suggesting that the U.N.'s inaction on Sudan is a form of appeasement?"
- No. Doing nothing is not appeasement. Giving into blackmail is.
Voted : No, Iran getting nukes is not the same as North Korea getting nukes
for the nth time, north korea has no oil!
we want to invade countries that pays for their own reconstruction with the oil money remember?
by LCD on Mon Oct 09, 06 2:41pm
[+]
{cranky- "North Korea withdrew from the NPT."
- I know, and it was unacceptable. The NPT is a binding agreement.
by Socrates on Mon Oct 09, 06 10:06am}
Only for as long as the nation agrees to it.
Afterall, it's not like you can boss a nation around that already has nukes, is it? They can just say "Get lost!" like all the other nuke armed nations.
{The simple fact is that North Korea getting nuclear weapons destabilises the region.
by Socrates on Mon Oct 09, 06 10:06am}
They already them though, and said so many times. The only difference now is that they've publicly announced and performed a test. They probably did others before without saying a thing about it.
{ It clashes with international norms.
by Socrates on Mon Oct 09, 06 10:06am}
Weird idea. What international norms? Are you saying that any nation with nukes simply should give them up because most nations don't have them, and if so, then so should the other nuke armed nations such as the USA and Israel.
{There is international law.
by Socrates on Mon Oct 09, 06 8:08am}
Which the USA and Israel flout openly. They don't seem to care about International Law in regards to use of cluster bombs, Depleted Uranium ammunition, and calling POWs "illegal combatants" as thin and unbelievable excuse to allow torturing prisoners of war.
When North Korea hits Hawaii with a low yield nuke missile strike in 8 years all the limousine liberals will be blaming Bush for not invading N. Korea back in 2007/2008.
|
|
JUST IN : Colin_B from bestandworst.com -
comment : I'd feel almost the same way as you, Rubber. ... (3 minutes ago) 
