Oh Shit World War Three Is About To Start

[Xero]

This is going to be very, very large.

What about N. Korea's sale of ballistic missile technology to other countries, including Iran and Syria? Is that in self defense? Will they be selling them nukes too?

By the way, this seems to be a news story every year:

2002: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/10/16/us.nkorea/

2003: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/04/24/nkorea.us/

Everyone forgot about it for a year, and now it's a revelation again.

Well, what about China selling military equipment to the Middle East and South Asia, places of focused "terrorism".

From: http://www.wisconsinproject.org/pubs/articles/1995/cong-digest.html
During the 1980s and 1990s, China supplied billions of dollars' worth of nuclear and missile technology to South Asia and the Middle East. It did so in the teeth of U.S. protests, and despite repeated promises to stop. The exports are still going on today. And while they do, they make it virtually impossible for the United States and the West to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction-a trend that endangers everyone.

Over the last three years, the United States has sniffed out a series of secret shipments of Chinese poison gas ingredients to Iran, but has declined to impose sanctions on Beijing. In addition, China's missile exports to Pakistan have continued.

China has evidently made a cynical calculation. It appears to think that the Clinton Administration is so committed to American high-tech jobs that it will never jeopardize high-tech exports, even to slow the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

As you can see, China hasn't been the white sheep all these years. It's a regime that does not care for the human rights, that has shown violence demonstrations in the past years (Cultural Revolution, Tiananmen, anyone?)

An example:

In 1993, President Clinton decided not to link U.S trade restrictions to China's export policies. This removed the main barrier to Beijing's missile exports to Pakistan and Syria and its nuclear help to Pakistan and Iran. Last year, Clinton refused to punish China for human rights abuses, removing a crucial barrier to prison labor.

Let me remind all of you, not only Clinton refused to punish China severly for their actions, other presidents such as Reagan and George H. Bush have done the same thing, by keeping silence in the moments where they should have talked. However, the economy between the United States and China is not going to be endangered by "little" things such as the human rights (considered like this by Chinese).

Other example of a problem that China represents, which is far deadlier than North Korea:

Today, South Asia is the most likely place on earth for a nuclear war, and China shares much of the blame. China's shocking contribution to Pakistan's nuclear effort was uncovered by U.S. intelligence in the early 1980s: China had supplied Pakistan the complete design of a tested nuclear weapon. [...] Despite all this, U.S. officials initiated a nuclear trade agreement with China barely a year later, based on a White House toast in which Premier Zhao Ziyang declared that China does not "engage in nuclear proliferation ourselves, nor do we help other countries develop nuclear weapons." Washington has never ratified the agreement because China did not live up to its promises.

Even if Premier Zhao Ziyang had declared that, his position on this stance wouldn't survive as he was put on house arrest after supporting Tiananmen students. The leaders of China are all the radicals that want to keep the system going. Most of the moderates were purged after Tiananmen.

Over the years, Washington has watched China make several missile and nuclear deals in the Middle East. China helped Iran develop short-range missiles used against Iraq, and sold Iran Silkworm anti-ship missiles in 1986 and 1987 to threaten U.S. shipping in the Gulf.

And even after all of these, now they are trying to stop North Korea. To me, that is bullshit, specially because they haven't done in the past, and I believe that they are feeding their next enemy.

Human rights violations fall under the jurisdiction of the UN, so does nuclear proliferation (well the realm of international law really). I've said before, and I will say it again, what everyone seems to miss is that the US, despite the power it holds in the international arena, does not have the authority or the right to step in and take control of such issues. Just because something is wrong, does not give anyone the right to take matters into their own hands. International politics is still made up of "nation states" and with this we must adhere the most fundamental of concepts - sovereignty. We cannot interfere merely because morality tells us to, we have to utilise the accepted and legitimised methods. This is the essence of international law and if we are to have peace, we need to understand and accept this as authority.

You say something must be done to stop these HR violations, I agree wholeheartedly. The unilateral approach to international affairs that the US embarks upon, however, prevents any affective measures to resolve these violations, as it undermines and thus, weakens the authority of the UN. If we are trully concerned about human rights (and don't be fooled, this is hardly ever on the agenda in regards to foreign policy) then a collaborative effort needs to be undertaken, once again, using the right procedure.

You are right about sovereignty, however, how much is too much? Let's imagine if there was another Hitler in power. Should we let him have sovereignty? Or should we try to enforce the international law?

Who has the reason? I do not know a lot about International Law, however, there should be a clause for this type of problems, shouldn't it?

Other scenarios are that we base SC votes on the basis of population, i.e. one representative of an area is sent to the UN to make decisions on their behalf (much like the way Parliaments are run here). Or divide the world into regions for the purposes of the SC and have regional representatives, i.e. Europe, North America, Oceana, whatever...

So basically, we divide the world into regions, let's see.. for North America, we have Canada, United States and Mexico. Wonder who will have more power?

By dividing the world into regions we're giving more power to those super-powers in the regions, who can manipulate other nations through use of "diplomacy". I mean, we've seen it with Cuba.

And speaking of Cuba

All these problems are occuring now simply due to the fact that the Bush Administration believe that they are Supermen.I read History books, and watch documentaries on past wars and back then America was a country that basically kept to its' self, only jumping in WWI and II at the end, but then I guess after saving the world from Nazis, I think America feels that it is the Supreme Country in the world [Which I do believe we are probably one of the last Super Powers in the world] and feel it is their right to protect everybody else.
We really just need to go back to minding our business because medling in international affairs is just going to bring us more and more problems.

In WW II, USA jumped on the 2nd year. Before world war I, there was the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War (talking about Cuba). Those two remind me of a similar scheme used later in WWII, Grenada, Iraq, Vietnam, etc..

North Korea is only a threat to the unfortunate North Korean people...The regime is dying slowly and hasn' t got any support from anywhere(not even China)...
If there's a threat of WWIII in that region it'd rather come from a conflict between Taiwan(who's backed by the US) and China and it's not likely to happen at the moment...

North Korea has the support from China, it was shown in an article that it has lost China's favor, however, it was countered by new declarations stating that the ones with most power are still fond of North Korea.

First article:

Chinese foreign economist Wang Zhongwen recently published an article in the influential diplomatic periodical, Strategy and Management, that may signal a change in China’s approach to its international relation with North Korea.

In the article, he attacked North Korea’s patrimonial system and leftist policy. He also mentioned that there is actually an underlying scheme behind North Korea’s intervention in the China-U.S. relationship.

Latest information:

After the authoritative Chinese foreign policy journal Strategy and Management published an article by a Chinese scholar criticizing North Korea, NKzone speculated that China may be getting fed up with its neighbor. Not so fast. Some Chinese officials and policy experts may be ready to get tough with North Korea, but not the most powerful people in China, apparently. The article has been censored and issues of the magazine in which it was published have been recalled.

So far, if we want to stop the problems, we should start attacking the root of them.

Sources:

http://english.epochtimes.com/news/4-8-31/23048.html
http://www.nkzone.org/nkzone/entry/2004/09/chinese_critics.php#more
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/pubs/articles/1995/cong-digest.html

 

[Amara]

You are right about sovereignty, however, how much is too much? Let's imagine if there was another Hitler in power. Should we let him have sovereignty? Or should we try to enforce the international law?

Who has the reason? I do not know a lot about International Law, however, there should be a clause for this type of problems, shouldn't it?

Of course every state is entailed with sovereignty regardless of the nature of their regime, however, there are limitations/restrictions on sovereignty having regard to other international treaties and covenants of which that state is a signatory. For example, if we were to imagine another Hitler, gross human rights violations would call for action on behalf of the international community, with the qualification that it has first received the "green light" from an authoritive body, namely, the UN.

So basically, we divide the world into regions, let's see.. for North America, we have Canada, United States and Mexico. Wonder who will have more power?

By dividing the world into regions we're giving more power to those super-powers in the regions, who can manipulate other nations through use of "diplomacy". I mean, we've seen it with Cuba.

No, not necessarily depending on how the regional representatives are elected...it may work on a rotational basis between states, or perhaps there would be several representatives from within regions. There are endless possibilities that could resolve the current inequity of the Security Council that if not eliminating power structures completely, could at least, make slightly more democratic (for want of a better word).

 

[Xero]

No, not necessarily depending on how the regional representatives are elected...it may work on a rotational basis between states, or perhaps there would be several representatives from within regions. There are endless possibilities that could resolve the current inequity of the Security Council that if not eliminating power structures completely, could at least, make slightly more democratic (for want of a better word).

This being based on the premise that there wouldn't be corruption between governments or pressures, such as calling the topic of the debts or giving "subtle warnings" to the other countries, as some countries have shown previously.

 

[Duke]

Bah, all i'm going to say is that i'm not in the least scared of North Korea.

Who's in power? A power hungry tyrant. And what do power hungry tyrants want?

Power

And every power hungry tyrant knows full well that to start using nuclear weapons will be the end of his little empire.

C'mon, people, Kim Jong Il isn't that stupid. He wouldn't nuke places because he knows he'll be finished.


And if NK sells it to the bad people, too bad. So many other countries do that, NK just gets the heat because the US isn't comfortable standing up to, let's say, China.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

after saving the world from Nazis

False.

America didn't 'save the world'. America didn't defeat the Nazis & win the war. And they definitely didn't 'save the world from the Nazis'.

America didn't even save itself from the Japanese - the country which forced them into WW2.


As for the draft, I'll go to jail rather than compromise my life for principles which are almost the polar opposite to my own.

all i'm going to say is that i'm not in the least scared of North Korea.

You have no need to be. I believe North orea will only use nuclear weapons if sufficiently threatened by the US - at which point America, & possibly the rest of the world, reaps the whirlwind.

US isn't comfortable standing up to, let's say, China.

True, true.

 

[Zero Cool]

False.

America didn't 'save the world'. America didn't defeat the Nazis & win the war. And they definitely didn't 'save the world from the Nazis'.

America didn't even save itself from the Japanese - the country which forced them into WW2.

America may not have single handedly defeated the Nazi's but without their help, in both men and material, final victory would have been impossible.

As for the draft, I'll go to jail rather than compromise my life for principles which are almost the polar opposite to my own.

Don't worry, the chances of a draft being instituted in Britain are minute at best

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

America may not have single handedly defeated the Nazi's but without their help, in both men and material, final victory would have been impossible.

I have explained my view of the US contribution to WWII before - I'm not going to be drawn into a discussion/debate/argument with you when we both know where we stand.

 

[Amara]

I believe North Korea will only use nuclear weapons if sufficiently threatened by the US - at which point America, & possibly the rest of the world, reaps the whirlwind.

Yep. NK has always maintained their weapons were for self defence...purely retaliatory purposes.