04-10-2003 11:30									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker How is N Korea an aggressor?

Refer once again to their constitutional goals. Refer also to a 50 year history of incursions and confrontations.

quote: China will stomp there butts if they mess with S Korea.

One can only hope that this is correct. Historically, it would be far more likely that China would step in to save their butts.

	04-10-2003 11:40									#62
	Got spare money?

quote: Refer once again to their constitutional goals. Refer also to a 50 year history of incursions and confrontations.

Then the USA is an aggressor based on Manifest Destiny and US history.

quote: One can only hope that this is correct. Historically, it would be far more likely that China would step in to save their butts.

Only when the US entered the Korean conflict.

	04-10-2003 11:57									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Then the USA is an aggressor based on Manifest Destiny and US history.

Manifest destiny is neithier constitutionally mandated nor is it current. Don't ignore the facts with a snappy troll. I am willing to look at the possibility that China may handle the problem. At least be willing to look at the possibility that they won't.

quote: Only when the US entered the Korean conflict.

China did not enter the war when the US entered. China only entered the war when their boarder was approached. This however is not the point. China has a history in almost all of its conflicts of only entering when their territorial integrity has been threatened. They traditionally avoid wars where they get involved on matters not directly threatening them. Korea could be a change in that, no question. The problem is that China would be able to absorb a lot of the markets that evaporate in a new Korean conflict. In other words, war would hurt China, but losing the ROK is a recoverable loss.

	04-10-2003 12:49									#64
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Manifest destiny is neithier constitutionally mandated nor is it current. Don't ignore the facts with a snappy troll. I am willing to look at the possibility that China may handle the problem. At least be willing to look at the possibility that they won't.

You pointed to history, so did I. It doesn't matter if it's constitutionally mandated (btw, it was mandated - the additon of states), it happened. And it continued to happen for more than a century - Hawaii, the Phillipines, Cuba, and our various adventures into Latin America. How you can even compare N Korean history with US history is... well, you know... Yes, N Korea is an aggressor and the US is not... How many countries does N Korea have troops stationed in? Want to compare that with the US?

quote: China did not enter the war when the US entered. China only entered the war when their boarder was approached. This however is not the point. China has a history in almost all of its conflicts of only entering when their territorial integrity has been threatened.

Which means they entered the war after the US entered it (which is what I said). So why would they save N Korea from the S Koreans in a war started by the North?

quote: The problem is that China would be able to absorb a lot of the markets that evaporate in a new Korean conflict. In other words, war would hurt China, but losing the ROK is a recoverable loss.

And why would they willingly suffer that loss when all they have to do is inform N Korea to restrain itself?

	04-10-2003 15:18									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

The only time appeasement of a historical aggressor makes sense is when it buys time to put your forces in order.

	04-10-2003 19:21									#66
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

For everyone making these blanket statements: please give examples other than hitler. Any? Stalin was bought off with Eastern Europe, which is what the Russkies wanted. last time I checked, besides going in to support a pro-them coup in afghanistan, that is where the "expansion" ended, and no war.

Plato: I am sure equal rights and all sorts of social benefits are also part of North Korea' constitution, and that deifying the leader is not: you place inordinate weight on paragraphs writen almost 40 years ago. "The Dear Leader", who is the system, is not bound by a piece of paper. You probably give it more weight than anyone in North Korea. as for their aim being to invade SK korea..until 1970 or so NK was the richer, more powerfull of the Two Koreas. Today it is nothing compared to the South. Even if the US left, and even if NK became nuclear, it has no chance in hell of ever gaining victory under the current regime, and if it tries it is dead, and it knows this. Nuclear weapons make no sense as an offensive weapon: if they did, NK would have gotten them decades ago. If you are a small fry like NK, they make sense as a "don;t mess with me weapon".

quote: The statement that we are "less safe" does not stand up to scruitiny eithier. Just because a danger has been exposed does not make it less a danger. So what do you really think DPRK would have done if they had told us they were making uranium bombs (which they did) and we continued to send oil? Think they would have said "Oh that canges everything. Let's stop these operations right away!" BULLCRAP. Don't be naive...we are talking North Korea here and they have a pretty well established history on just this type of situation.

What history? In 1950 they invaded South Korea..three years later the war was over.....and then? As for the scenerio..the North would have most likely said: give us a non-aggression pact, we cut the uranium as well. Oh, and they were NOT making ranium bombs: we found they were building facilities to enrich uranium, which means, they did NOT have any new enriched uranium of any useful quantity, certainly were not at a bomb making stage, which is why we are less safe: IF you believe the notion that a NOrth Korea with nuclear bombs is a safety threat to the US, what the BUsh amdin. did in letting the framework lapse without putting anything of any sort in its place hastens when (if not as they claim right now) North korea will have a nuclear arsenal and thus, made the opposite of our aims come to fruition faster. So, if we can say: if we had offered NK a deal, that buys us 8 more years of no sigificant porcess by NK of getting nuclear warheads vs. we don;t offere them a deal and within 1 year they have several warheads and have re-activated facilties that will allow them to churn out more radioactive material than they would have with their uranium enrichment program? How is that NOT less safe?

"appeasement" is a nasty word made up to decribe paying the ransom demended by a blackmailer or kidnapper. Now, every leader says "we will not give in to blackmail": heck, that is basically what Saddam did when the US was blackmailing him a few month back: by not appeasing the aggressor, Saddam lost: given some of the por-war rationale out there, somehting makes me think if he had appeased the aggressor he would have stayed in power (unless the aggressor was lying about it's aims) and thus achieved his aim. The fact is tat sometimes you pay the ransom, cause the alternative is worse.

	04-10-2003 21:27									#67
	Remove this text

[q]You pointed to history, so did I. It doesn't matter if it's constitutionally mandated (btw, it was mandated - the additon of states), it happened.[q]

First, it was not constitutionally mandated (it does not say the government should add more states; it says that the government can). Second, it is important, because the North Korean's constitution REQUIRES that they be our enemies.

	04-10-2003 23:15									#68
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus and you have a better idea? Aggravating North Korea only makes them more pissed off and determent. Threathening them clearly isn't working, and providing oposite results. and attacking them? The American military is over-stretched as it is, you can't wage a war against yet another country. And North Korea is better armed than Iraq or Afghanistan was. Also, with an election coming up next year, Bush isn't going to risk it. so now you. what do you propose is done?

is north korea not ur problem? u seem to be smug in saying the world is in a tight spot, before realizing that guess what, u live here too.

	05-10-2003 20:37									#69
	Tired of ads?

quote: And we know the role of the wife in asian culture...That puts it in perspective...

actually, not that different than what it has traditionally been in western culture.