How would a war between N.Korea, China and USA be fought?

[Urwumpe]

But this notion of incpatible values is funny. If it is in ones values to stone an adultress then those values are WRONG. It's not about judging based on my value system, it's about human decency, cultures be damned.

I'm actually in favor of the death penalty done humanely as opposed to barbaricly as they do in Iran and only for the most serious crimes - e.g. first degree murder. Certainly it should never be used against minors. My point wasn't gay rights of the death penalty - it was the barbarism of the Iranian regime. It is my sincere and honest belief that you cannot deal with such regimes without understanding and accepting what they really are. You cannot pretend that they are anything but barbarians of the worst sort. You cannot pretend that they are rational when clearly they are not. You cannot pretend that they have peaceful intentions when their actions and their rhetoric are anything but peaceful.

So you are both willed to say, that people should die and blood should be shed, so you can live without being offended by other cultures?

Also, you are happily calling the Iranians barbarians, but what is your opinion about all other non-democratic countries in the world? For example Saudi-Arabia. Or Malaysia. Are these also barbarians that should be slain and converted to the true faith by the sword?

Lets leave all military away...with which rational arguments could you tell that stoning women for adultery is wrong? How could you explain it without relying on your personal perception of right and wrong?

You are so busy with your emotions, that you actually miss the real point which is barbaric in such countries: There is actually no rule of law or Rechtstaat. The laws are applied by personal gusto of so called judges. The law is often not worth the paper it is written on, and the government mostly exists to leave clerics and tyrants in power, so the medieval status quo can be kept.

That is a real problem, but if you really want to make the world a better place by erasing such governments from the map, you could start smaller and simpler than at Iran or North Korea.

The truth is: Iran is a problem because it is a regional power that is not agreeing with the USA. Egypt or Saudi-Arabia or the new vassal Iraq would be better, but for that Iran has to be made MUCH weaker.

North Korea is a substitute battle with China. It is a Chinese problem that gets out of hands, and now both China and USA position themselves for the day they can change the balance of power.

All the rest about barbarians is just hatred. There is a lot of reason to say that most western countries are barbarians, too. Just look at the channel allocation of a western TV satellite... mostly porn and astrology. :facepalm:

PS: Ahmadinejad did not steal the elections more than GW Bush did. His true crime is the violent suppression of legal protests after the election, which also showed the fear of the opposition, since this movement was deeply grass-roots Iranian (and if you think it was fighting for the same values as you have in the USA... you are naive...they had been really the same kind of Iranians in Green)

 

[SiberianTiger]

We donate more to charities and we provide aid to almost any country that experiances a natural distaster.

I'm not saying you are wrong here, but in case of an Islamic country such a statement has to be proven by numbers. Please read on [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat"]Zakat[/ame] and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadaqah"]Sadaqah[/ame]. I'm not sure if there is a difference between the Sunni and the Shia with regard of these activities.

 

[anemazoso]

So you are both willed to say, that people should die and blood should be shed, so you can live without being offended by other cultures?

Lets leave all military away...with which rational arguments could you tell that stoning women for adultery is wrong? How could you explain it without relying on your personal perception of right and wrong?

On that first section would say that is a gross mischaracterisation. It would not be about us and out level of comfort at all, it would be about helping the people of those countries who desire freedom (not that I advocate US military intervention though).

On the second section I must conceed your point. The only thing I can think of is that punishment should be proportional to the crime and equal among sex, race and religion.

But we have gone way off topic here :threadjacked:

:hello:

 

[Urwumpe]

On that first section would say that is a gross mischaracterisation. It would not be about us and out level of comfort at all, it would be about helping the people of those countries who desire freedom (not that I advocate US military intervention though).

Freedom is just a very strange thing. you don't know what freedom is, before you lost it. Look at Jordan. People have no political freedom there, it is a monarchy, but still, people enjoy many other civil liberties and generally a very high standard of living for the region. You can't say that these people really suffer from the lack of political freedom, though you can be sure that the people desire it.

On the second section I must conceed your point. The only thing I can think of is that punishment should be proportional to the crime and equal among sex, race and religion.

I agree. I also have to say again, that I don't support the penal law of Iran, just like I think that the laws in the Torah, that are known as Sharia in the Islamic world, are written tyranny for justifying the crimes of patriarchal tyrants.

But still, it is too easy to just say it is barbarian, because the people use this as their moral base. we can't force people to use our morals, if we take our own morals for serious. Yes, true barbarians and tyrants would have less problems with forcing their morals on us. But that is not the point. The question is actually, if we really know that our enlightened values are the best that are currently around, how can we spread them in the world and convince people, without becoming like the tyrants. In the past century, we have to say, we definitely failed it. For many of them, we are the tyrants and their tyrants their protectors.

But we have gone way off topic here :threadjacked:

I don't think so... the thread was maybe about how to fare war against North Korea, but still we are discussing if such a war would be needed at all and which goals a war should actually achieve. Or if the USA would even have the duty or just the right to attack North Korea out of the justification of bringing freedom there.

I personally think, if somebody should really have the duty to bring political freedom to the people, this entity should never, at all costs, be a country or be controlled by a committee of governments. Separation of planetary powers FTW.

 

[markl316]

Why do you get to be the arbiter of who makes the world stable?

First of all, you? You live in America, do you not? Are you such a coward and unpatriotic person to refer to your own country as "you"?

Second, it is because no other country is willing to do it, so unfortunately the US needs to. European countries are so pathetic in trying to defeat terrorism that it makes me sick.

And Urwumpe, I'd be very willing to know just what terrorism the US supports. And if this you mean that we support terrorism by buying middle eastern oil, then so does Germany, and every country. Don't go bashing the US so much either. Without us, WWII might not have been won. Unless you like Hitler, of course. And believe it or not, people who live in communist countries, especially ones like Cuba and NK, dream of living in the US.

 

[Mantis]

I don't think so... the thread was maybe about how to fare war against North Korea, but still we are discussing if such a war would be needed at all and which goals a war should actually achieve. Or if the USA would even have the duty or just the right to attack North Korea out of the justification of bringing freedom there.

The idea of the US attacking North Korea isn't very realistic. There would be no reason for such an attack - they're already bottled up and contained and only pose a threat really to themselves. The only realistic scenario that I see for war in Korea would be a second invasion of the south by the north. This time it would be quite different because far from being unprepared as they were last time, this time the south would be ready. It's doubtful that the Americans would even need to get involved unless China foolishly intervened to assist the North in their attempt to conquer the south.

 

[eveningsky339]

The idea of the US attacking North Korea isn't very realistic. There would be no reason for such an attack - they're already bottled up and contained and only pose a threat really to themselves. The only realistic scenario that I see for war in Korea would be a second invasion of the south by the north. This time it would be quite different because far from being unprepared as they were last time, this time the south would be ready. It's doubtful that the Americans would even need to get involved unless China foolishly intervened to assist the North in their attempt to conquer the south.

In all honesty, NK probably would not be able to handle a second invasion of the south. South Korea is very well-prepared for such an event and would probably be drinking saki in Pyongyang before US forces could intervene.

Barring nuclear weapons, of course, which the north is not above using...

 

[Urwumpe]

And Urwumpe, I'd be very willing to know just what terrorism the US supports.

- IRA in Northern Ireland.
- Mujaheddin in Afghanistan (Operation Cyclone)
- Operation Mongoose in Cuba
- Iran-Contra Affair.
- 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état
- Possibly currently the Jundullah in Iran.
- and some many smaller incidents more

And markl316: Only because he lives in the same country as you, he does not have to follow your views. Are you sure you are fighting for freedom? Your freedom is the freedom that allows him to be not in your club.

 

[insanity]

First of all, you? You live in America, do you not? Are you such a coward and unpatriotic person to refer to your own country as "you"?

No, I asked you directly. Don't try and pull the patriot card, because I love America too. We largely created the new globalized world, and now I want us to become responsible members of it. Since the beginning of our unipolar moment, we've tried to boss the world around, and it's no longer in our interests to stand by ourselves and those we like. That means giving up the idea of American hegemony being good for everyone, and accepting both those we can agree with and those we can't.

Second, it is because no other country is willing to do it, so unfortunately the US needs to. European countries are so pathetic in trying to defeat terrorism that it makes me sick.

You can't really defeat terrorism ever. It's an idea, an abstract concept. If you mean the war against Islamic extremists, then we wouldn't be able to fight it without the help and support of our European allies. We use Europe as a staging ground for much of the logistical backbone of our wars in the middle east.

 

[Mantis]

In all honesty, NK probably would not be able to handle a second invasion of the south. South Korea is very well-prepared for such an event and would probably be drinking saki in Pyongyang before US forces could intervene.

Barring nuclear weapons, of course, which the north is not above using...

Agreed. Other than a possible nuclear threat, the North is contained and bottled up. China will try to control them and try to keep them inline because the Chinese are no doubt well aware that the north would be hopeless against the south and a war would be devastating to their economy.

 

[GregBurch]

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

-- General Sir Charles James Napier

... ahh, but we're too civilized for that now, aren't we?

 

[ddom2006]

Also, ya the USA is not perfect but we have done helluva lot more good than bad. We donate more to charities and we provide aid to almost any country that experiances a natural distaster. So you can point to our past (and present) mistakes but that is by no means an indictment of our character and our heart.

Though the $1billion aid the USA promised Haiti after the earthquake still hasn't been approved by Congress... It's okay to use big words to talk about big figures, but the fact is, not a penny of US Governmental Aid has touched Haiti yet, and the people of Haiti need it - desperately...

 

[markl316]

- IRA in Northern Ireland.
- Mujaheddin in Afghanistan (Operation Cyclone)
- Operation Mongoose in Cuba
- Iran-Contra Affair.
- 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état
- Possibly currently the Jundullah in Iran.
- and some many smaller incidents more

Yeah, right. None of those are supporting terrorism. They are the US trying to defeat communism during the cold war, the US giving weapons to people who tried to defeat terrorists, etc. Just because somebody lives in Iran does not mean that he or she is a terrorist. I will say, however, that it was stupid for the US to be involved in the transfer of weapons to Iran. But let's not go there, it could take up an entire thread itself...

And markl316: Only because he lives in the same country as you, he does not have to follow your views. Are you sure you are fighting for freedom? Your freedom is the freedom that allows him to be not in your club.

I never said he did. I misunderstood him, I thought he was referring to the US as "you", not referring to myself as "you".

No, I asked you directly. Don't try and pull the patriot card, because I love America too. We largely created the new globalized world, and now I want us to become responsible members of it. Since the beginning of our unipolar moment, we've tried to boss the world around, and it's no longer in our interests to stand by ourselves and those we like. That means giving up the idea of American hegemony being good for everyone, and accepting both those we can agree with and those we can't.

I have no problem with that and completely agree with you. I strongly disagree with European socialism, however it is their business to run their lives, and so there's nothing wrong with that. Same with communist China; I disagree with communism even more than socialism, but they have a right to run their country the way they want to. American style democracy and freedom is NOT what everybody in the world wants.

Now, let me get to my point. All countries have the right to run themselves the way they want UNLESS they relentlessly murder citizens (Iraq) or keep their citizens trapped in their horrible country with no hopes for escape (Cuba). When another country's government becomes abusive, then it is the right and duty for somebody else to step in and help overthrow the government. Should an American style democracy be set up? Not necessarily, what the people want should be set up.

People think that I somehow want to boss the entire world around and make the entire world one giant United States of America. I don't want that. I want people to have the freedom to choose where they live, what type of government their country has, and if they don't like it, to have the freedom to be able to move to a different country with a government more suitable for them.

 

[Urwumpe]

When another country's government becomes abusive, then it is the right and duty for somebody else to step in and help overthrow the government.

Hey...does that mean we have the right and duty to step in and help overthrow the US government? :facepalm:

BTW: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism"]Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Also, let me quote Kissinger (again) on another incident to show that the right of the people to decide their own fate is not desired at all:

I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d'état

Oh yeah, your USA did it for the freedom of the people. Just like the USA helped the Shah again into power - Why do you think that even moderate people have a grudge against the USA in Iran?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

For decades the USA supported two tyrants that made the lives of most Iranians terrible: Shah Pahlavi and Saddam Hussein. Of course it is pretty hard to like the USA, after the USA did that, and then, right after people took things into their own hands peacefully, moved Iran into the Realm of Evil.

Of course, the Iranians now have their own Shah again, but still, the situation there is not as bad as it was when the US supported Shah Pahlavi was in power.

Then, the USA did their crimes for fighting communism, now the USA do them for fighting terrorism. Don't know which flag the USA will be waving in twenty years. Shouldn't be resistance against the US interventionism be a true citizens duty?

 

[SiberianTiger]

Now, let me get to my point. All countries have the right to run themselves the way they want UNLESS they relentlessly murder citizens (Iraq) or keep their citizens trapped in their horrible country with no hopes for escape (Cuba). When another country's government becomes abusive, then it is the right and duty for somebody else to step in and help overthrow the government. Should an American style democracy be set up? Not necessarily, what the people want should be set up.

Mark, I am sorry: are you sure that this your expressed viewpoint is actually a US politics driver - I mean, helping every idiot country out of their bad situation and establishing a new regime honouring human rights? Without giving a value to it, I have a doubt, because had it be true, the US Army would have already busy in such places as Myanmar, Kongo, Somalia, Darfur, and every other such unhappy place. But it's not what's happening. So probably US government has a certain agenda in which establishing through force a fair and just rule in countries that don't have one, is somewhere way down the list of priorities?

 

[markl316]

Hey...does that mean we have the right and duty to step in and help overthrow the US government? :facepalm:

Sigh...you just don't get it do you. :facepalm: I wouldn't call killing a horrible dictator abusive. I wouldn't call killing terrorists abusive either

When I said abusive, I meant a government relentlessly killing and torturing its citizens. Was it good that the US set up a democracy in Iraq? Perhaps not. Was it good that the US took Saddam Hussain out of power? Definitely.

The US government is NOT abusive. GW Bush declared a war on terror, and we have been fighting Islamic extremism since...hardly abusive.

And Siberian Tiger, there are a lot of countries out there in bad shape that the US would love to help...the US chooses ones that are in bad shape AND are a threat to the world--like Iran. Unfortunately, the US can't help every single country out there with problems.

 

[insanity]

When I said abusive, I meant a government relentlessly killing and torturing its citizens. Was it good that the US set up a democracy in Iraq? Perhaps not. Was it good that the US took Saddam Hussain out of power? Definitely.

Sure, the world is a better place sans Saddam, but is Iraq a better place? The long-term prospects for that countries stability don't really look too promising. I'm afraid that once the US presence dies down, we'll leave a country with sectarian tension bubbling below the surface and the very real possibility that another brutal leader comes to power. It wouldn't be the first time that its happened.

The fact is that unless we want to commit decades and billions, we're never going to leave the region with much more than the hope of a brighter future for the people. 10 years on in Afghanistan almost, and the country is still in terrible shape.

The US government is NOT abusive. GW Bush declared a war on terror, and we have been fighting Islamic extremism since...hardly abusive.

Sadly, we are. Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, Abu Grahib (sp?), WTO, World Bank/IMF, to name a few big ones. We are guilty of betraying our 'core values and laws' to get geopolitical advantages. That happens in the international system all the time, but to pretend we are above it when our fingers are in just as many dirty pies as everyone else's is silly.

And Siberian Tiger, there are a lot of countries out there in bad shape that the US would love to help...the US chooses ones that are in bad shape AND are a threat to the world--like Iran. Unfortunately, the US can't help every single country out there with problems.

We define threats to the world as threats to our interests. We like to talk in moralistic terms, but at the end of the day we don't put boots on the ground all over the world unless there is an intersection with other interests.

How long has the US ignored the warcrimes from Khartoum? Southern Sudan and now Darfur have been under attack from the Islamic extremist government for years now. They have done some of the worst deeds you could do to other humans. Yet, we intervened in the Balkans, because European stability and access to the new markets in Eastern Europe were good for US business.

I'm not saying that taking a warmonger like Milosevic was a bad thing, just that we have to accept that we choose who to fight and who to ignore based upon other interests than purely a desire to help everyone.

On Edit:
While I clearly dislike American Exceptionalism as a worldview, I will say that I'd like to think we've done more good than bad for the world. I just think it's silly to try and ignore the fact that we've also done bad in the world. International politics is sadly a realm where terms like good and bad are irrelevant, and we're nowhere close to being above that reality.

 

[Urwumpe]

Sigh...you just don't get it do you. :facepalm: I wouldn't call killing a horrible dictator abusive. I wouldn't call killing terrorists abusive either

No. I see that you have no ethic problems with killing people for dogma. I just think that you are not better than the horrible dictator or the terrorists, because you speak like them.

Maybe you would also have no problems pointing your thumps down on everybody that your favorite government presents you as horrible terrorist-dictator. Of course the world will be a much better place, if you kill. Hey, maybe your neighbor is an alleged child abuser. Wouldn't killing him, even if you are not sure about his guilt, make the world a potentially safer place?

Just think about the vast possibilities: If you have killed all who are not following the orders of the USA, you rule the world and don't even need police... crime is not following the orders and is solved by death.

Who are the barbarians here?

When I said abusive, I meant a government relentlessly killing and torturing its citizens.

Like the USA? I mean you even did not stop at killing and torturing your citizens, you even abducted some more for the fun of it. And killing alleged terrorists with a drone from a far is a true victory of the US legal system.

Was it good that the US set up a democracy in Iraq? Perhaps not.

If Iraq is still a democracy after the US soldiers left, you can call it one. Currently, it is a war zone with people playing democrats. The government of Iraq is a puppet regime of the USA.

Was it good that the US took Saddam Hussain out of power? Definitely.

Yeah. The terrorists must love you for that. Not even flying hundreds of planes into buildings of the USA would have weakened the USA more and faster than that.

The US government is NOT abusive. GW Bush declared a war on terror, and we have been fighting Islamic extremism since...hardly abusive.

Yes. And that is why you invaded Iraq. A country that had been a really bad place for terrorists and the enemy of many terror groups before the USA invaded and created a power vacuum. A country which currently binds the forces that you need in Afghanistan for getting the work done that you have begun. And a country that binds also all those forces that you would need for even rattling sabers properly with Iran or North Korea.

In the current state that the US armed forces are, they couldn't even send a single soldier to my house to stop me, without making 200 US citizens unemployed at the same time. :tiphat:

And Siberian Tiger, there are a lot of countries out there in bad shape that the US would love to help...the US chooses ones that are in bad shape AND are a threat to the world--like Iran.

You mean with threat to the world: Which don't follow your orders? Tell me... how many countries has Iran attacked since its founding? Yeah, a real threat to the world. How pathetic

Unfortunately, the US can't help every single country out there with problems.

Yes, and starting at home at your own problems would be depressing. I mean, then you would have to actually do something. Not just wag the dog and have a war in a godforsaken foreign exotic place, somewhere far away. I mean, it has really an advantage: All those teenagers that are not smart enough to understand for what they are really fighting there, are no longer hanging around in the malls and ruin the unemployment statistics.

Maybe you can't understand it, because you don't know it better: Once you have the conditions for a war and all goals of a war defined, the ideal is to focus all resources on this war to end it as fast as possible. Not the "We can fight everywhere at once" style of US intervention, which is essentially just vandalizing and running away.

If the USA would really have had the will to fight a war against terrorism and win this war, and concentrate all resources of the USA on that goal, Osama would be caught now and Al-Quaida a legend with which mothers can scare their children.

 

[garyw]

O-F Staff Note: I think we are at the point where this thread is done so it's been closed.