Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - It's Official, N. Korea has an uranium enrichment program

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

It's Official, N. Korea has an uranium enrichment program
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Captain Corea

Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:00 pm Post subject:

RufusW wrote:

Yes, I would say countries don't have the 'right' to impinge on another country's territory (maybe even with regards to genocide).

I've asked this once already indirectly, but I'm going to ask you it again.

Has the DPRK ever 'infringed' on another country's territory??

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:16 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

RufusW wrote:

I'm not talking about physical rights or current international laws, but rather, more like meta-physical rights.

Interesting. I'm not sure I'd ascribe nations any metaphysical rights, at least in the sense that one might be inclined to ascribe them to a person. I see national rights very much as tools; a nation having a given right is "good" insofar as it benefits mankind, and is "bad" insofar as it is detrimental to mankind. Saying nations have the sovereign right to abuse their people and other nations don't have the right to intervene is very much in my estimation like saying a parent has the right to brutally beat their child bloody and their neighbors don't have the right to intervene; it may have been commonly accepted once, but in the civilized world we've largely moved past that.

RufusW wrote:

Fox wrote:

Do you really think it's overall better for the world if we merely watch on while openly malicious nations torment and kill their people, develop incredibly dangerous weapons while constantly threatening war, and so forth?

Well nobody in SK or the US is truly affected by NK's actions.

Even discounting the citizens of South Korea and the United States that North Korea has imprisoned and the affect that has on their families, even discounting the fact that North Korea has the stated objective of eventually successfully invading the South and that every day it's military is refined towards that end, and even discounting the fact that North Korea is openly and actively creating weapons which it could use either directly or indirectly against South Korean or United States citizens, even discounting all of that, I don't think that's a reasonable assertion to make.

Our fellow men are suffering in North Korea. An uprising is almost impossible due to the military situation, and citizens trying to escape resulted in North Korea working to build a wall along China's boarder to prevent it. I am affected by this, and I think at heart you are too, because you're a good person that isn't apathetic towards his fellow man.

RufusW wrote:

This rule would have stopped a huge amount of imperialism, unjust wars and state-sponsored terrorism (such as bombing Afghan villages).

It also removes any chance many people might possibly have of freedom from oppression within their lifetimes, though. We don't need to ban the good to prevent the bad, we need to be good to prevent the bad. One can be against imperialism and unjust wars while being for positive, humanitarian intervention.

RufusW wrote:

State involvement played a big part in the creation of the Korean conflict.

Definitely true. I make no excuses for the numerous unjust actions various nations have taken. However, I include within those unjust actions turning a blind eye to this sort of ridiculous suffering in our midst.

RufusW wrote:

I understand the NK people are suffering and it could be justifiable, as with genocide, to intervene... but I find the precedent within international relations actaully more important.

I think historically nations have proven they'll do whatever they want if they can get away with it anyway. I suppose we simply disagree with how much of a meaningful factor precedents really are. Countries have been launching arguably unjust wars against one another for ages, maybe it's time for some genuinely just ones, with world-wide support, for the benefit of mankind.

So the constitution of the USA is in North Korea and further we ought to get on with it and invade Iraq.

You'd have been really popular at The Project for the New American Century in 2003. You totally could have gotten some neo-con ass at a convention.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:29 pm Post subject: Re: It's Official, N. Korea has an uranium enrichment progra

Fox wrote:

It's time for an "anything goes within the bounds of your own country" attitude to end for the sake of everyone.

Outstanding.

Given that the US has 3% of the global population and 25% of the prison population, many (most?) of whom are locked up on non-violent (political) charges, I assume you support the invasion of the USA to liberate these political prisoners post haste.

RufusW

Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:03 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

...like saying a parent has the right to brutally beat their child bloody and their neighbors don't have the right to intervene

But how are they allowed to intervene? They're not allowed to break the law. They should resort to the universal power, the police (the UN). If the police were forced to/accidnetly kill the parent while saving the child it'd be okay. Now, as you say, there aren't any real international laws. But what's the result of there being no accepted standard of territorial sovereignty (the same as individual sovereignty)? Vigilantism and maybe anarchy. It becomes accepted for one actor to influence another without recourse to common values (the police/the UN). Preemption is even worse, you get to act on what a state (individual) may do in the future.

Furthermore, with intervention you are certain to reduce some citizens' human rights (at the extreme, by killing them). This still happens even when survivors have a net increase in rights in the long term. But what effect does the external state have on the human rights of the citizens if it doesn't get involved? None. I believe certain universal laws (like Locke's) are a necessity before any perfect society is created. One of them might be - "states are never allowed to hurt a person's human rights". While this would stop international interference it'd also ensure their own citizens are taken care of.

The net effect of intervention may be positive, but the only way to guarantee you don't do harm is to not intervene.

If the UN represented the majority of the world it acts like a national government and is justified in the same way the police are - a democratic monopoly of force. Self-serving states are less likely to produce a fair judgment.

Fox wrote:

RufusW wrote:

nobody in SK or the US is truly affected by NK's actions.

..citizens.. that North Korea has imprisoned... the affect that has on their families... the stated objective of eventually successfully invading... openly and actively creating weapons which it could use either directly or indirectly against South Korean or United States

I take your first point, yes individuals and those connected have been affected. The psychological torment of NK's actions is also clear. Maybe these things are grounds for war but the per capita effect on SK is very very low. And future possibilities are very different to current affects.

Fox wrote:

Our fellow men are suffering in North Korea... I am affected by this

Of course people (and me) have feelings towards others. If you can guarantee nobody would be hurt... sure attack. But otherwise people will be sacrificed to improve the psychological feeling for millions of people not directly involved. Would the people who'll be killed accept this trade? Maybe they'd sacrifice themselves for their countrymen, their family, but the psychological well being of millions of people miles away?

Fox wrote:

...removes any chance many people might possibly have of freedom from oppression within their lifetimes...

The USSR collapsed peacefully, but yes, it took a long time.

Fox wrote:

...maybe it's time for some genuinely just [wars], with world-wide support, for the benefit of mankind.

If there's world-wide support maybe it would be just, but if it doesn't involve a majority of world opinion (which it may have right now) then 'just' is relative. We can't give power to individuals or states to decide the relativity of just for themselves.

[The logical conclusion of such arguments is the hypothetical argument - would you kill one person to save thousands? Or more interestingly for the anti-abortionists, would you have Hitler aborted if it stopped the holocaust? My answer in both cases is no.]

Last edited by RufusW on Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:16 pm; edited 1 time in total

RufusW

Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:10 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

So the constitution of the USA is in North Korea and further we ought to get on with it and invade Iraq.

The exceptionalism of America was one reason it was founded, the founders did believe the constitution was universal for all human-kind.

You'd have been really popular at The Project for the New American Century in 2003.[/quote] Neo-Cons are more about American power for self-interest. Fox is obviously making his case based upon protection of universal human rights. Whatever Bush may say now that wasn't why his administration (Cheney) attacked Iraq.

Captain Corea wrote:

Has the DPRK ever 'infringed' on another country's territory??

Yes. So?

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:11 pm Post subject:

RufusW wrote:

[The logical conclusion of such arguments is the hypothetical argument - would you kill one person to save thousands?

Like all of this ilk, he won't actually do jack. The argument is about somebody else doing his ideological dirty work. The war in Iraq (according to one Johns Hopkins study) has a million strong trail of dead. Those who supported it are for the most part doing just fine.

Quote:

Our fellow men are suffering in North Korea... I am affected by this

Fox, sign up for the army and ship off to Afghanistan. Put your arse where your mouth is. Leave me, my people and my tax dollars out of your crusade.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:20 pm Post subject:

Quote:

The exceptionalism of America was one reason it was founded, the founders did believe the constitution was universal for all human-kind.

Are you sure? That's a pretty big statement on a rather large topic. Seems to me they wanted to be left alone.

Anyways, something can't be exceptional before it exists, and that it is exceptional before it exists can't be a reason for it being created. And the whole slavery thing puts the "all" in question.

Quote:

Fox is obviously making his case based upon protection of universal human rights. Whatever Bush may say now that wasn't why his administration (Cheney) attacked Iraq.

The first reason (WMD) failed. The second reason was "democracy" and "freedom" for the Iraqi people. Did you not follow the debate in 2003 at all?

Though, you might be right. Bush et al attacked Iraq for a variety of reasons. They sold the war to the public on a whole different set of reasons. And the "universal human rights" aspect was loud.

The NYT has a great search function. You can pick a key word and date to search. In case you missed it, go read up on the debate before the invasion. Fox would have fit in very nicely with the pro-war crowd. Idealists are easily manipulated.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:28 pm Post subject: Re: It's Official, N. Korea has an uranium enrichment progra

mises wrote:

Given that the US has 3% of the global population and 25% of the prison population, many (most?) of whom are locked up on non-violent (political) charges, I assume you support the invasion of the USA to liberate these political prisoners post haste.

I could certainly see a case for it. I certainly support massive revision of the United States criminal justice system.

I know you've got an "It's not our problem" attitude (except when it comes to Muslims). I don't have much to say about such an attitude, though, so I'm sorry for not having a lot of response for you on this issue.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:32 pm Post subject: Re: It's Official, N. Korea has an uranium enrichment progra

Quote:

I know you've got an "It's not our problem" attitude

Yup.

Quote:

(except when it comes to Muslims).

How so?

Quote:

I don't have much to say about such an attitude,

Why would you? All the pseudo-academic happy talk about universal human rights is fun. Isn't it? Now, go join the army and put your arse where you mouth is. ESL won't liberate jack and or sh!t.

RufusW

Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:33 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

Quote:

The exceptionalism of America was one reason it was founded, the founders did believe the constitution was universal for all human-kind.

Are you sure?

Yes.

Delaration of Inderpendence wrote:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

mises wrote:

They sold the war to the public on a whole different set of reasons. And the "universal human rights" aspect was loud.

The majority of the argument was WMD, Bush may have mentioned gassing the Kurds, but it was part of the overall WMD narrative. If he strongly pushed the human rights aspect before the war the invasion would have been shown up as what it was, social engineering.

mises wrote:

go read up on the debate before the invasion.

Thanks for the condescension, please do it yourself and prove me wrong.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:35 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

RufusW wrote:

[The logical conclusion of such arguments is the hypothetical argument - would you kill one person to save thousands?

Quote:

Our fellow men are suffering in North Korea... I am affected by this

Fox, sign up for the army and ship off to Afghanistan. Put your arse where your mouth is. Leave me, my people and my tax dollars out of your crusade.

Saying "If you really support this sort of intervention, join the army!" is like saying, "If you really support the enforcement of law, join the police force!" You can support your countries resources being used for <activity x> without directly participating in <activity x> yourself, there's nothing invalid, unreasonable, or cowardly about it.

Why are you knowingly and intentionally making this sort of faulty argument?

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:52 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Why are you knowingly and intentionally making this sort of faulty argument?

Why are you arguing for conflicts you lack sufficient bravery to fight in?

Anyways. The empire is dead.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090614_the_american_empire_is_bankrupt/?ln

There shall be no more wars of liberation or whatnot. It's over. The one you got ruined the country for ever.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:53 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Yes.

I don't think you've really studied the issue. Have you? The first Americans were upset about representation. The republic was founded on independence from the UK.

Delaration of Inderpendence wrote:

And what? How can something be exceptional before it exists?

Quote:

How old were you during the debate? High school, right? I don't mean to be too rude, but I think you missed it. WMD was used to scare the easily scared American and "freedom" and "democracy" were used to inspire the easily inspired American. Worked pretty darn well.

Quote:

Thanks for the condescension, please do it yourself and prove me wrong.

Prove what wrong? You are actually going to challenge that "freedom" and "democracy" were part of the pre-invasion propaganda? Were you at all paying attention in those days? Entire forests were sacrificed for discussions of the "just war theory".

Quote:

"My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

...

We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

Bush and Fox could have had a very jovial tea party.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:54 pm Post subject:

RufusW wrote:

Fox wrote:

...like saying a parent has the right to brutally beat their child bloody and their neighbors don't have the right to intervene

But how are they allowed to intervene? They're not allowed to break the law.

Exactly. Rather than having a strict no-intervention system, we have a reasonable framework for what determines situations where intervention can be undertaken and by what means. And that is exactly how international law should look: not a "anything goes within your own borders" system, but a system where if substantial human rights abuses are happening, meaningful action is undertaken to rectify it.

RufusW wrote:

The net effect of intervention may be positive, but the only way to guarantee you don't do harm is to not intervene.

Well, I agree with this, it's fairly obviously true because you use the term "do harm." However, there's another factor I feel should be considered: whether or not you allow harm to be done. Not invading a nation like North Korea may ensure your nation does no direct harm, but it also allows continuous harm to befall the citizens of North Korea, and substantially increases the likelihood of devestating future harm befalling the citizens of other nations.

RufusW wrote:

If the UN represented the majority of the world it acts like a national government and is justified in the same way the police are - a democratic monopoly of force. Self-serving states are less likely to produce a fair judgment.

I agree with you, and that's what I want from the U.N.

RufusW wrote:

Fox wrote:

Our fellow men are suffering in North Korea... I am affected by this

Of course people (and me) have feelings towards others. If you can guarantee nobody would be hurt... sure attack.

Obviously impossible, unfortunately.

RufusW wrote:

But otherwise people will be sacrificed to improve the psychological feeling for millions of people not directly involved.

Well, I assert it extends beyond that. In trade for the people who would die in such an action, we gain not just psychological benefit but the chance (I can't say the certainty, unfortunately) for political freedom for millions of future people, and the chance for a higher standard of living for those people. In addition, we dramatically reduce the odds of highly devestating attacks (particularly nuclear attacks).

In short, I think we gain more than you describe.

RufusW wrote:

Fox wrote:

...maybe it's time for some genuinely just [wars], with world-wide support, for the benefit of mankind.

If there's world-wide support maybe it would be just, but if it doesn't involve a majority of world opinion (which it may have right now) then 'just' is relative.

Well, remember, one thing I feel I've been very clear about from the start is that I'm proposing this only with broad international support, and what I've repeatedly condemned is a world in which that broad international support is not forthcoming. This isn't something, say, the United States can or should just up and do on its own.

RufusW wrote:

[The logical conclusion of such arguments is the hypothetical argument - would you kill one person to save thousands? Or more interestingly for the anti-abortionists, would you have Hitler aborted if it stopped the holocaust? My answer in both cases is no.]

If I'm being honest, I think I would kill one person to say thousands. Perhaps my conviction would fail me and I'd be unable to go through with it -- I've never even seriously harmed someone before -- but I suspect I'd do it.

Regarding Hitler, I'd need more information about what the alternative future would involve to know. If it stopped the Holocaust, but the war was immensely more devestating or had a different and worse outcome, I'm not sure it'd be better.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:59 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

Quote:

Why are you knowingly and intentionally making this sort of faulty argument?

Why are you arguing for conflicts you lack sufficient bravery to fight in?

Why do you advocate laws that you lack the bravery to enforce yourself? Or do you not advocate the enforcement of any laws what so ever?

See how silly it sounds?

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe