RoR: Forum

And the N-ort-h Kore-an di-ct-ato-rship is sure to violate the agreement

It broke its own promise less than 24 hours after it had promised to obey the agreement.

Post 1

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 3:23am

It is not so easy to make dealings with countries like N-or-th K-ore-a. Because their cit-ize-ns are always taught that they are at the righteous side, and the go-ver=nm=ent is identical to the state. If these pathetic se-rfs heard something other than the official pro-paga-nda, they would probably boycott them instinctively. Besides, North Korea never permitted its citizen to listen to short-wave broadcasts. Distributing leaf-lets is not practical either. Because N-orth K-ore-an has developed the mutually-monitoring culture. If someone dear read or even keep the le-aflets, even their intimate relatives would exp-ose them.

Post 2

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 5:52am

The answer is to open North Korean society. Agreements should be geared toward promoting tourism and access for the foreign press.

Post 3

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 6:20am

Tourism in North Korea? It would be so dangerous I can't imagine most people wanting to go there as it is now.

Post 4

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 7:48am

Appeasement never works.

George Bush and the US are not utterly unprincipled and as evil as this author describes. But our North Korean strategy is ridiculous on its face, so I can empathize with the author's hyperbole.

What moral right does the US have to influence how other countries develop technology? What business is it of ours, until and unless they do something that is a concrete steps towards using it against us or our allies? Wouldn't we be better off saving the pointless bribe money or spending it on more effective and rapid military response to those who do take such steps? How can we morally justify ANY "aid" to a Communist dictatorship?

So far, history has shown that we pay these clowns bribe money, and they go about doing what they want anyway. Fuck 'em. Let North Koreans get democracy like we did--by personal effort. ANd if they are stupid enough to use a nuke, we roll in and beat their asses. And if China wants some, they can have some, too.

Post 5

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 9:19am

In the case of North Korea, nothing less than taking this regime down can be justified. There is a huge difference between a country even as authoritarian as Iran and North Korea. The people in North Korea have been systematically starved to a point where humans there are practically "devolving" due to malnutrition. About 1 million died in his famine - perhaps as non-altruists, why should we care? The reason is that he poses a security threat, developing nukes, missiles, selling weapons, and preventing any security arrangements in the area that could lead to lasting peace. The US should work with China and figure out a way to topple him. China and the US are becoming inexorably intertwined economically, to such a point that any problems between the USA and China will soon become MAED - Mutually Assured Economic Destruction - but the security/politics are lagging behind the economic reality. I would note that this reality is primarily driven by private business interests - something Objectivists should support - which in this case (and many others now) are taking the lead ahead of politics, as they should.

I also feel that articles like this should skip the hyperbole - are you not supposed to be an Objectivist? Bad policy decisions, especially those that can still be fixed, do not make for an "enemy of freedom." You can make your point better without that.

Post 6

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 9:47am

Bush's disastrous failure to use America's best weapons - Capitalism and Civilization - in Iraq has our military forces bogged down in a quagmire, propping up a nascent theocracy. The United States does not have enough forces in reserve to deal with emergencies at home, much less a third foreign war. Compared with Iran, and a possible Iran-Pakistan linkup, Korea is very much the lesser threat.

A defeated general once asked Napoleon what the latter would have done in his situation. Napoleon is said to have replied, "The reason why I win is that I don't get myself into situations of this kind." Unfortunately, our president got into a situation in which the United States no longer has any acceptable alternatives.

Post 7

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 9:53am

A clear reminder of the lack of principles undercutting our defense and emboldening our enemies!

Most likely, a feeble attempt to delay the problem until it erupts during another administration.

Post 8

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 10:17am

I agree with Adam's points. We are at this level, of having to negotiate. And, don't forget, they have a very, very large army. They should, that's all they do.

I fully expect this agreement to collapse. This is a negotiation, and a timely one for the president, as well, from a PR standpoint. The worst part of it is pumping money into anywhere but here right now.

Post 9

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 1:40pm

I see, the total US quagmire in Iraq:
Except it's the Middle East that's in the turmoil of civil strife and political change.
Except we have been quite successful in nation-building in both Shiite Iraq and Kurdistan (two out of three is not only not bad, it's awfully good).
Except we're likely to be pulling troops out of both Iraq (as Iraqi forces continue to step up) and Afghanistan (NATO back-fill-still to be negotiated but looking okay) over the course of next year.
Rest assured this will all be described by some as "defeat," "failure," "retreat," and so on.
Except Saddam is gone.
Except the Taliban won't be coming back to power.
Except women are experiencing unprecedented freedom in Afghanistan.
Except Pakistan is moving toward peace and economic integration with India.
Except Saudi Arabia has a new king promising reform after the first local elections in seven decades.
Except Syria's army is out of Lebanon.
Except Israel is out of Gaza and getting out of the West Bank.
Except Egypt's new PM is radically reforming their economy.
Except Turkey is learning to live with Kurdistan.
Except the Iraqi Shiites have deferred from civil war with the Sunnis-for now.
Except moderate regimes in the region have never been more stable.
Except oil flows without interruption (which is good, given the constant demand pressure from rising Asia).
Except foreign direct investment into the region has roughly doubled from its pre-Iraq war levels.
Except Al Qaeda has managed no direct attacks against the homeland, being restricted to the geographic reach pattern of Middle East terrorists from the 1970s and 1980s (blow up stuff at home, reach into Europe).

Other than that, I guess you are right.

Note - I took that quote from Thomas Barnett - it was just too good to pass up. Bottom line is that no, Iran is not as much of a threat as North Korea is. Also, you can't have a good army, no matter how big, when the average man is 6 inches shorter than any other country with about 40 less IQ points, due to mal-nutrition. They would fall apart faster than Saddam did - the threat is the fact that they could end up with nukes and have even less reason not to use them than Iran does. This is also NOT an excuse for the fact that Bush is blundering the aftermath in Iraq - but there is still enough time to fix the situation and many opportunities remain to get it right.

Post 10

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 1:54pm

I think that some action in the Middle East was necessary. We can argue whether that meant just Afghanistan or Iraq as well til we are blue in the face. We are there now, so what are we supposed to do? Just leave? Doesn't that play RIGHT into the hands of the the wanna-be theocratic dictators? A flegdling, imperfect, theorcratic-influenced democracy is still loads better than an unapologetic dictatorship.

Bush didn't exactly ask for the Twin Towers to be attacked. Just like Napolean did not ask for Waterloo. Sometimes, life throws you a curveball. I prefer those who at least swing, trying to hit the curveball, than those who stand idly by, AFRAID to swing at the curveball, for fear of looking foolish or being criticized.

I remain VERY skeptical about establishing a stable democracy in the Middle East. I think you need the spirit of individualism BEFORE you can really do democracy/capitalism.

Post 11

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 3:12pm

Kurt Eichert and Adam Reed are both right: they just see opposite sides of the same picture. Iraq is an utter fiasco -- but probably a modest net plus in terms of advancing world freedom.

I think North Korea is the most challenging problem in foreign policy today. It's even a bit harder and trickier than Iran. But I certainly don't think either ARI or TOC is up to the task. Both fail to distinguish between the leaders and citizens of Western enemies -- which is something I at least tried to do in today's article.

When it comes to North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc., ARI basically says: "Kill'em all!" This includes the tyrannical leaders and their suffering citizens. TOC, in contrast, basically says: "Ignor'em all!"

But reality is more subtle. Justice requires more. The braindead, amoral approach of ARI and TOC just doesn't cut it. The anti-Western dictators may well all be evil and worthy of death and then some -- but the citizens are both victimizers (of the quasi-civilized West) and victims, both sinners and sinned-against. The key here, I think, is to recognize their semi-innocent, morally-grey status and then go after the tyrants relentlessly while making a moderate attempt to spare the citizens and, especially, the civilians. I said "moderate" -- no more, no less.

...Of course, still another point where I depart from current Objectivist theory is in believing that the liberating state should be fairly compensated for men and money expended. This assumes, of course, that in "liberating" another people and nation, the liberators actually do something right for the first time in the history of man! I think these social heroes deserve a reward for the virtuous, noble act of breaking the chains of tyrants. Maybe 10% of the land or 25% of the oil for many years to come -- which is a great deal for both!

Post 12

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 5:28pm

I am disgusted with this deal. It would have been preferable to remove all 35,000 of our troops from South Korea, encourage the South and the Japanese (and Taiwan) to go nuclear, and let the Chinese deal with the mess.

Jon

Post 13

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 2:47am

Both fail to distinguish between the leaders and citizens of Western enemies

I think this distinction is very important. If you fail to avoid their sentiment about their nation, they may accept your standpoint no matter how reasonable it is.

Post 14

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 11:11am

I remain VERY skeptical about establishing a stable democracy in the Middle East. I think you need the spirit of individualism BEFORE you can really do democracy/capitalism

Agree. I don't think they want it. What they want is to definitely have strong fundamentalist influence, whether it sits in the government directly, or not.

Post 15

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 12:41pm

Of course!!! If you had power, especially of a religious nature, would you give it up, or be willing to lessen the influence?

Post 16

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 1:46pm

It is possible to have connectivity, which will bring about change, but no, it won't happen overnight in the middle east any more than it does/did anywhere else. The key is, however, that the more connected a Nation becomes economically and culturally, the more it undermines the control of regimes - even in someplace like Iran. Once they let the Genie out (or in, as it were), they are done. Unfortunately, this can't happen in North Korea without getting rid of Kim. I read more of this so-called agreement. In reality, it is an agreement to make an agreement! It is almost meaningless, just a "punt" by Bush to the next presidency. Not good.

Post 17

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 1:09am

Jon Letendre writes:

It would have been preferable to remove all 35,000 of our troops from South Korea, encourage the South and the Japanese (and Taiwan) to go nuclear...

If America were to withdraw her troops from malicious, undeserving, anti-American Japan and South Korea -- especially suddenly -- those two nations would probably quickly grow a spine and develope a brain. This means: they'd stop appeasing North Korea, China, Russia, OPEC, etc. near so much and then -- quite ironically -- become much more anti-communist and pro-American.

The same for America withdrawing from NATO and Europe. Even the cheese-eating surrender monkeys might turn semi-respectable!.

And back in the Far East: I think a nuclear-armed military coalition or Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia would be truly formidable. This Western Pacific new-NATO really could hold in check the Chinese hordes -- and vigorously and competently deal with Kim Jong-Il.

Post 18

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 9:00pm