Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

New Korean War?

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2009 12:42:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://www.cbc.ca...

I don't think anyone that has watched the news lately has missed this story.

North Korea has set off three new nuclear devices underground, believed to be about the size of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs. They're test firing new short-range missiles that can definitely hit South Korea and possibly hit Japan. China and Russia are now pulling back their support for North Korea, and the North Koreans just announced that if South Korea joins an international program to intercept ships suspected carrying nuclear/chemical/biological weapons, it is an "act of war", and North Korea will no longer abide by the 1953 ceasefire and all-out attack South Korea.

Russia and China are pulling back their support for the country and Obama has said he will defend South Korea and Japan if they are attacked. The situation looks very tense and it is very possible that this could lead to war.

Personally, I think South Korea will back down before any hostilities occur, but if it does lead to war, the "Allies" as I'll call them (meaning US, Japan, South Korea, etc.) will most likely be in contention with a Chinese-led offensive, and both sides will face somewhat of an uphill battle against the North Koreans, though because a lot of them are inexperienced and poorly equipped, it may not be so uphill. Ever played the game Mercenaries? We could be looking at a situation reminscent of that.

What does everyone else think though? What situation will arise out of this?
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2009 12:49:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2009 12:42:13 PM, Volkov wrote:
http://www.cbc.ca...

I don't think anyone that has watched the news lately has missed this story.

North Korea has set off three new nuclear devices underground, believed to be about the size of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs. They're test firing new short-range missiles that can definitely hit South Korea and possibly hit Japan. China and Russia are now pulling back their support for North Korea, and the North Koreans just announced that if South Korea joins an international program to intercept ships suspected carrying nuclear/chemical/biological weapons, it is an "act of war", and North Korea will no longer abide by the 1953 ceasefire and all-out attack South Korea.

Russia and China are pulling back their support for the country and Obama has said he will defend South Korea and Japan if they are attacked. The situation looks very tense and it is very possible that this could lead to war.

Personally, I think South Korea will back down before any hostilities occur, but if it does lead to war, the "Allies" as I'll call them (meaning US, Japan, South Korea, etc.) will most likely be in contention with a Chinese-led offensive, and both sides will face somewhat of an uphill battle against the North Koreans, though because a lot of them are inexperienced and poorly equipped, it may not be so uphill. Ever played the game Mercenaries? We could be looking at a situation reminscent of that.

What does everyone else think though? What situation will arise out of this?

Firstly: Do you mean a Chinese-led offensive against North Korea? Or an offensive against anyone opposing North Korea with arms?

It is difficult to say at this time what will come of the current situation. I doubt it will come to arms. What I am hoping for is a strong opposition within North Korea should the current NK regime become too hostile.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2009 12:54:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
An opposition within NK?

Far as I know the brainwashing's been far too successful for that.

And I think he means a Chinese offensive against NK. "Contention" meaning "It kinda sucks to work with the West" :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2009 1:10:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2009 12:49:18 PM, JBlake wrote:
Firstly: Do you mean a Chinese-led offensive against North Korea? Or an offensive against anyone opposing North Korea with arms?

Chinese-led offensive against North Korea, as R_R stated.

It is difficult to say at this time what will come of the current situation. I doubt it will come to arms. What I am hoping for is a strong opposition within North Korea should the current NK regime become too hostile.

Again, as R_R stated, there is no opposition. The best chance for any moderation coming out of North Korea is when Kim dies and his son takes over - there is a chance for some difference, maybe. Like Fidel and Raul Castro.

In the mean time, I suspect that this whole situation is Kim's way of trying to leave a legacy before he dies. So far, he's presided over mass poverty and starvation and disgusting relations with other countries, and when he dies people are going to ask, "why did we even bother?" That undermines the credibility of his successor, his third son I believe, and the entire state will most likely collapse on its own. By starting up this "war" and proving that he is a tough guy against the big mean US, he'll inspire more confidence and leave a good legacy.

Unfortunately, he is relying on the fact that SK doesn't want a war. This is sort of the same situation with Georgia when the decided to invade South Ossetia last summer - they expected NATO to come in and Russia to back off. Well, that didn't happen and now Mikhail Saakashvili is staring down the face of a revolution by his own people. If SK doesn't back down, North Korea and Kim are toast.
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2009 1:42:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I don't like NK kicking around international "law" and basically playing by their own rules. However, I also don't like wars. I'm undecided on the issue of what we should do and if any of you want to try and persuade me in one way or another, I would like to hear it.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2009 1:45:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I personally am also on the fence of what to do, I'm just suggesting the situations that can happen one way or another.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2009 3:16:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2009 1:42:07 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
I don't like NK kicking around international "law" and basically playing by their own rules. However, I also don't like wars. I'm undecided on the issue of what we should do and if any of you want to try and persuade me in one way or another, I would like to hear it.

We tell North Korea to play nice. We carry on like always. We warn North Korea that they will be completely and utterly obliterated if they attempt to engage in warfare. If they do, we set up a military perimeter around their country, isolate them from the outside world, and carpet bomb all of their military and industrial institutions. Even the ones in populated areas, so that the surrounding populace wakes up and realizes they either need to depose their glorious leader or die for him. This is the jack*** we should have gone after instead of Saddam when Bush was president. It's terrible that the cost will probably be many lives, but we can not allow fear to dictate foreign relations any more than it already does.

I doubt China would throw itself into the ring. China has far better allies right now and a distinct disincentive to stay uninvolved: economic superiority so long as it continues to play the game of civilized nations. Not many nations would consider North Korea's actions to amount to following the rules of this game, so I doubt they would support China if it chose to support NK. Their support is money in China's pocket, and NK's support is mud, so I think the choice will be obvious.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2009 4:11:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2009 1:42:07 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
I don't like NK kicking around international "law" and basically playing by their own rules.
Do you like the United States, Crackofdawn?

Always be careful, even when someone is worthy of criticism, to criticize them for the right reason.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2009 5:51:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2009 4:11:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/27/2009 1:42:07 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
I don't like NK kicking around international "law" and basically playing by their own rules.
Do you like the United States, Crackofdawn?
I also don't like the U.S. most the time in the international department but I do like it as a whole. However, I also tend to think the idea of international law is humorous.
Always be careful, even when someone is worthy of criticism, to criticize them for the right reason.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2009 6:42:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2009 1:10:00 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/27/2009 12:49:18 PM, JBlake wrote:
Firstly: Do you mean a Chinese-led offensive against North Korea? Or an offensive against anyone opposing North Korea with arms?

Chinese-led offensive against North Korea, as R_R stated.


Erm, I seem to have misinterpreted that last post according to NK expecting Chinese support. Yeah, wouldn't happen. But I doubt China would want to get involved directly in an offensive against NK, either, for cultural and historical reasons.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2009 10:23:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2009 6:42:55 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
Erm, I seem to have misinterpreted that last post according to NK expecting Chinese support. Yeah, wouldn't happen. But I doubt China would want to get involved directly in an offensive against NK, either, for cultural and historical reasons.

I wouldn't be so sure. There is a lot of benefits in pacifying North Korea for the Chinese. Though there is a lot of downsides as well.

For instance, if China captures part of the country, they're then expected to support that population. If China has influence over the new government, they'll have to help support it. China really doesn't want to do that, seeing as how they have enough of a poverty problem in their own country. There is also the problem of the population's beliefs itself, as I guarantee a good portion is indoctrinated and once the semi-capitalist, trade-dependent Chinese roll on in, there will be problems. With problems comes reactions, and with reactions comes international condemnation. But, I don't see them not attacking for cultural or historical reasons. A lot has changed since the days of Mao.

The biggest threat to the Chinese is the same threat that is sparking all of this - nuclear weapons. North Korea would be just as willing to use a nuke on China as it is South Korea. If any opertation is to work, China has to be involved, and the best way to get them involved is to remind them that there is about six major cities within reach of North Korean missiles.
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2009 1:20:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Shouldn't the Chinese just do with North Korea what they are doing with countries like Angola? Just basically wait for them to go to he!! and for their governments to weaken. When that happens, they can then play "Father China" and help them out to a more stable economy. This would secure good relations for a long time and create an easier access to resources.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2009 4:55:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2009 1:20:08 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
Shouldn't the Chinese just do with North Korea what they are doing with countries like Angola? Just basically wait for them to go to he!! and for their governments to weaken. When that happens, they can then play "Father China" and help them out to a more stable economy. This would secure good relations for a long time and create an easier access to resources.

Problem is that North Korea has no real resource potential to speak of. As well, since they're both side-by-side, China is going to have to deal with all those refugees and starving people. China doesn't want to deal with them.

What China wants is a little despotic society that doesn't have nuclear weapons aimed at them. They don't want the American moving in either. Best situation for China is to have North Korea sitting there, but minus the nukes.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2009 5:40:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/27/2009 3:16:14 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
...and carpet bomb all of their military and industrial institutions. Even the ones in populated areas, so that the surrounding populace wakes up and realizes they either need to depose their glorious leader or die for him...

I like to think I am the greatest uninformed informed person on here. As such, I wield no opinion on this issue, and think that I am far too stupid to even form a good one. That said, I highly, highly object to the above quoted text.

Our goal should not be to bomb, slaughter, and kill innocent civilians; they haven't done anything. One must always be careful not to carry a chauvinistic sense of national pride. Their lives are lives -- just like yours and mine. It is folly to believe that bombing civilians is OK. Just imagine if they bombed us. You could argue that we aren't as bad as "them", but consider these two points -- first, that civilians have little control over what you apparently loathe; and second, that no matter how sure you are, you can never know if you're correct.

I've ventured off my intended topic. Case in point: Slaughtering civilians be bad. You can haz better solutions.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2009 5:58:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2009 5:40:58 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 5/27/2009 3:16:14 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
...and carpet bomb all of their military and industrial institutions. Even the ones in populated areas, so that the surrounding populace wakes up and realizes they either need to depose their glorious leader or die for him...

I like to think I am the greatest uninformed informed person on here. As such, I wield no opinion on this issue, and think that I am far too stupid to even form a good one. That said, I highly, highly object to the above quoted text.

Our goal should not be to bomb, slaughter, and kill innocent civilians; they haven't done anything.
They provide material support to the enemy regime. And the majority of them, political support too. Even in a non-democracy, you have to find some way to get support.

It is folly to believe that bombing civilians is OK. Just imagine if they bombed us. You could argue that we aren't as bad as "them", but consider these two points -- first, that civilians have little control over what you apparently loathe
They cooperate with it, without them present, that thing loathed is less powerful. And those who truly object to their regime would rather take the risk of being bombed and have a chance to be free from it, than have no bombs and be certainly enslaved.

I've ventured off my intended topic. Case in point: Slaughtering civilians be bad. You can haz better solutions.
We killed Saddam. The civilians kept fighting.

In some countries, they might not. It depends on the situation. A universal prohibition on killing those who provide material support to evil, whether they are "civilians" or not, is counterproductive.

No one is truly a civilian, unless they have perfectly successful tax evasion, and do not act as a human shield against strategic targets (i.e., do not live within the bombing radius of one :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2009 6:13:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2009 5:58:37 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They provide material support to the enemy regime. And the majority of them, political support too. Even in a non-democracy, you have to find some way to get support.

That doesn't mean we should kill them. This logic is along the same lines that we should kill off all communists just because they support that political ideology.

They cooperate with it, without them present, that thing loathed is less powerful. And those who truly object to their regime would rather take the risk of being bombed and have a chance to be free from it, than have no bombs and be certainly enslaved.

They may prefer being bombed and have a chance to be free rather than the alternative, that doesn't mean we should. Carpet bombing cities does nothing more than help push people into the arms of the regime - strategically bombing the areas where there will be minimal civilian casualties will help them realize we're not so bad. We want the regime gone, not them.

We killed Saddam. The civilians kept fighting.

That doesn't give us a right to kill off the civilians. Not all of them have continued fighting, a majority don't want to. It doesn't make sense to kill off a majority to stop a minority.

In some countries, they might not. It depends on the situation. A universal prohibition on killing those who provide material support to evil, whether they are "civilians" or not, is counterproductive.

"Evil"? Aside from the fact that is a Bushism, it doesn't mean we still kill them. They may have no choice or they may do it because they see it as a way to help their families or themselves. A lot of the current Taliban recruits are joining because the Afghan police don't pay as much as the Taliban do. Does it make them "evil"? No, it just makes them desperate, and we can use that desperation to lure them to our side so they stop supplying material to the enemy. We don't have to kill them.

No one is truly a civilian, unless they have perfectly successful tax evasion, and do not act as a human shield against strategic targets (i.e., do not live within the bombing radius of one :).

They can't choose to live outside of a bombing target. The citizens of Hiroshima couldn't choose to live outside of the city when the bomb hit. The fact of the matter is that they don't know where the bomb will hit. Are they supposed to have supernatural foresight of this? Besides, often times the attacking force may not even hit the right target. Is this still their fault for living in the radius of the wrong target?
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2009 6:14:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2009 5:58:37 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/28/2009 5:40:58 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 5/27/2009 3:16:14 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
...and carpet bomb all of their military and industrial institutions. Even the ones in populated areas, so that the surrounding populace wakes up and realizes they either need to depose their glorious leader or die for him...

I like to think I am the greatest uninformed informed person on here. As such, I wield no opinion on this issue, and think that I am far too stupid to even form a good one. That said, I highly, highly object to the above quoted text.

Our goal should not be to bomb, slaughter, and kill innocent civilians; they haven't done anything.
They provide material support to the enemy regime. And the majority of them, political support too. Even in a non-democracy, you have to find some way to get support.

It is folly to believe that bombing civilians is OK. Just imagine if they bombed us. You could argue that we aren't as bad as "them", but consider these two points -- first, that civilians have little control over what you apparently loathe
They cooperate with it, without them present, that thing loathed is less powerful. And those who truly object to their regime would rather take the risk of being bombed and have a chance to be free from it, than have no bombs and be certainly enslaved.

I've ventured off my intended topic. Case in point: Slaughtering civilians be bad. You can haz better solutions.
We killed Saddam. The civilians kept fighting.

In some countries, they might not. It depends on the situation. A universal prohibition on killing those who provide material support to evil, whether they are "civilians" or not, is counterproductive.

No one is truly a civilian, unless they have perfectly successful tax evasion, and do not act as a human shield against strategic targets (i.e., do not live within the bombing radius of one :).

Exactly. Just as democracy can not develop where it is not wanted, so too does a dictatorship not flourish where it is unwelcome. Each of us is but one person, but each decision we make is a decision that moves others to act as legion. If civilians don't want to be targeted because their country has run amok, they need to take control of their country. You can't say diplomacy hasn't been tried in the past. The civilians have done nothing. That is their folly.

That being said yes of course if someone came up with a better solution, I would be ecstatic. And if it could be shown that under international pressure a faction had formed in North Korea willing and able to overthrow the old regime, more power, and weapons, to them.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2009 6:17:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2009 6:14:15 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
Exactly. Just as democracy can not develop where it is not wanted, so too does a dictatorship not flourish where it is unwelcome. Each of us is but one person, but each decision we make is a decision that moves others to act as legion. If civilians don't want to be targeted because their country has run amok, they need to take control of their country. You can't say diplomacy hasn't been tried in the past. The civilians have done nothing. That is their folly.

As I stated before, sometimes they have no choice but to live with it and support it. Those that try to escape have, but other times it is almost impossible. You can't go around killing someone because they have no means of overthrowing what they don't want, or what they are forced to do. This would be akin to giving reason for a country to bomb the US simply because of the war in Iraq - clearly not everyone supports it, but because they pay taxes and contribute to the government, they're automatically targets?
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2009 6:34:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
... so, because a civilian doesn't fight a government that would kill him if he rebelled against it, we should kill him anyway? Huh? Additionally, you can't be sure that you're always right.

Also, I found it curious that Ragnar -- who typically extracts every line one by one -- did not respond to: "One must always be careful not to carry a chauvinistic sense of national pride. Their lives are lives -- just like yours and mine."
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2009 6:36:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2009 6:17:09 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/28/2009 6:14:15 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
Exactly. Just as democracy can not develop where it is not wanted, so too does a dictatorship not flourish where it is unwelcome. Each of us is but one person, but each decision we make is a decision that moves others to act as legion. If civilians don't want to be targeted because their country has run amok, they need to take control of their country. You can't say diplomacy hasn't been tried in the past. The civilians have done nothing. That is their folly.

As I stated before, sometimes they have no choice but to live with it and support it. Those that try to escape have, but other times it is almost impossible. You can't go around killing someone because they have no means of overthrowing what they don't want, or what they are forced to do. This would be akin to giving reason for a country to bomb the US simply because of the war in Iraq - clearly not everyone supports it, but because they pay taxes and contribute to the government, they're automatically targets?

Not quite how the argument works. You gave an example of people turning to the Taliban in desperation. You argue that acting at the behest of those who seek to cause harm out of desperation is not wrong. I disagree. The value of one's morals is not that they keep you civil when times are easy, but that they remind you of your responsibilities when times are difficult. A brave person should not shirk responsibility for one's actions out of a conceit that one has no choice.

As for the war in Iraq, I agree. That is why, from the moment the war was announced, I rejected it, called upon friends and family to reject it, and spoke out vociferously against it, even in places not very receptive to the idea. I 'm sure others did as well. Nearly got into a few nasty scrapes over it. I'm sure some honestly did get into a few. I did my share of social involvement too, working for the other party to remove any traces of the organization that led us into war. I know it's not the same as being able to step forward and speak up knowing you will likely die, though I have incited people to the point where they were nearly ready to kill me before (literally as in hands around throat, many times my size). Arguably all that stayed their hands was fear of the repercussions. That's the benefit of living in a free society and being willing to die to keep it free. Tyranny by way of brute force is not rewarded, because people will not cower before tyranny. Without people to support you, you are not a tyrant. You are alone.

For every soldier who marches in North Korea, there is a family that wishes that soldier well while he does so. Social acceptance is the measure of a society's responsibility for its nation's crimes. Until the families of North Korea turn their soldier sons away for using force of arms to oppress their people, they collude in the crimes of their nation.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2009 6:50:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2009 6:17:09 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/28/2009 6:14:15 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
Exactly. Just as democracy can not develop where it is not wanted, so too does a dictatorship not flourish where it is unwelcome. Each of us is but one person, but each decision we make is a decision that moves others to act as legion. If civilians don't want to be targeted because their country has run amok, they need to take control of their country. You can't say diplomacy hasn't been tried in the past. The civilians have done nothing. That is their folly.

As I stated before, sometimes they have no choice but to live with it and support it. Those that try to escape have, but other times it is almost impossible. You can't go around killing someone because they have no means of overthrowing what they don't want, or what they are forced to do. This would be akin to giving reason for a country to bomb the US simply because of the war in Iraq
No, it would be akin to bombing the US because of being ruled by tyrants, which would be valid if there were any country significantly less tyrannical than the United States. As it stands that is not the case.

clearly not everyone supports it, but because they pay taxes and contribute to the government, they're automatically targets?
Yup, pretty much. They are conscripts in the cause, but one has the right to defend oneself even from conscripts.

... so, because a civilian doesn't fight a government that would kill him if he rebelled against it, we should kill him anyway? Huh?
Not because he "doesn't fight--" because he contributes. If he goes to a desert island somewhere, by all means. If a government chooses, essentially, to use human shields, conscripted or otherwise-- they hold moral responsibility for what happens to those shields.

Additionally, you can't be sure that you're always right.
What can't I be sure I'm right about?

"
Also, I found it curious that Ragnar -- who typically extracts every line one by one -- did not respond to: "One must always be careful not to carry a chauvinistic sense of national pride. Their lives are lives -- just like yours and mine.""
Because "National pride" had nothing to do with my argument. The fact that the US happens to be the country that in this case is most moral is incidental. If North Korea became a libertarian country tomorrow, I would not be indignant if it bombed the US. I'd highly advise against it as a practical matter (it would be, in short, suicide), but I would defend it's position on principle.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Nik
Posts: 552
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2009 6:54:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2009 5:40:58 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 5/27/2009 3:16:14 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
...and carpet bomb all of their military and industrial institutions. Even the ones in populated areas, so that the surrounding populace wakes up and realizes they either need to depose their glorious leader or die for him...

I like to think I am the greatest uninformed informed person on here. As such, I wield no opinion on this issue, and think that I am far too stupid to even form a good one. That said, I highly, highly object to the above quoted text.

Our goal should not be to bomb, slaughter, and kill innocent civilians; they haven't done anything. One must always be careful not to carry a chauvinistic sense of national pride. Their lives are lives -- just like yours and mine. It is folly to believe that bombing civilians is OK. Just imagine if they bombed us. You could argue that we aren't as bad as "them", but consider these two points -- first, that civilians have little control over what you apparently loathe; and second, that no matter how sure you are, you can never know if you're correct.

I've ventured off my intended topic. Case in point: Slaughtering civilians be bad. You can haz better solutions.

I agree with PoeJoe with the idea of 'carpet bombing NK'. In my opinion North Korea will never start a war, they are but merely flexing their military muscle.
As Russia and America did many a time during the cold war.

the difference is in this case, the country in question, while undoubtedly militarian, would be absolutely crushed by the 'greater powers' If they but dared fire one bullet. Such is the paranoia of the super powers. NK have to be absolutely stupid to engage any military action against south Korea. The border is absolutely packed with not only SK troops but American troops, any attack would be absolute suicide.

Mr Kim maybe a weird character, dictator, arrogant tw@t, but He's not an a sycopath. He wants to prove his country is 'great, almighty, world power, nuclear power' he's patriotic! Stop preparing for world war three and just humour the b@stard!
"If you could tell the world but one truth, I could convince it of a thousand lies"
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2009 7:44:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2009 6:36:27 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
Not quite how the argument works. You gave an example of people turning to the Taliban in desperation. You argue that acting at the behest of those who seek to cause harm out of desperation is not wrong. I disagree. The value of one's morals is not that they keep you civil when times are easy, but that they remind you of your responsibilities when times are difficult. A brave person should not shirk responsibility for one's actions out of a conceit that one has no choice.

We shouldn't kill based on whether or not someone is "brave" or not, that is not our choice to make. We cannot punish someone for not stepping up to a plate they do not wish to step up to, whether through fear of death or safety of their families. Society wouldn't condone the murder of draft dodgers during Vietnam based on a "lack of bravery" - why should we enforce that on others?

For every soldier who marches in North Korea, there is a family that wishes that soldier well while he does so. Social acceptance is the measure of a society's responsibility for its nation's crimes. Until the families of North Korea turn their soldier sons away for using force of arms to oppress their people, they collude in the crimes of their nation.

You're only asking for people to sacrifice what they do not wish to sacrifice, on pain of death! Such a proposition is no better than what Kim or Saddam may have asked.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2009 7:54:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2009 6:50:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Yup, pretty much. They are conscripts in the cause, but one has the right to defend oneself even from conscripts.

That is justification for murder of millions based on the fact that they have paid taxes - faulty judgement.

Not because he "doesn't fight--" because he contributes. If he goes to a desert island somewhere, by all means. If a government chooses, essentially, to use human shields, conscripted or otherwise-- they hold moral responsibility for what happens to those shields.

The government does, but not the people being used as shields. You're just trying to shirk responsibility onto the government, and then making it OK for us to harm them because the government is an enemy combatant. It doesn't work that way, at least not in a society that values the lives of people. This is why during hostage situations, police aren't rolling in and destroying everything in their path - there is no reason to murder innocent people, even if it means stopping the criminals.

Additionally, you can't be sure that you're always right.
What can't I be sure I'm right about?

About the intentions of people in combat situations. But as I realize, you don't exactly care, so it doesn't matter.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2009 8:00:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2009 7:54:24 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/28/2009 6:50:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Yup, pretty much. They are conscripts in the cause, but one has the right to defend oneself even from conscripts.

That is justification for murder of millions based on the fact that they have paid taxes - faulty judgement.
Not murder, self-defense. The murder lies with the government that got them in that situation, if they were indeed conscripted :).


Not because he "doesn't fight--" because he contributes. If he goes to a desert island somewhere, by all means. If a government chooses, essentially, to use human shields, conscripted or otherwise-- they hold moral responsibility for what happens to those shields.

The government does, but not the people being used as shields.
Not the point. Point is the people bombing to stop the government don't hold responsibility for the fact that they have to defend themselves.

You're just trying to shirk responsibility onto the government, and then making it OK for us to harm them because the government is an enemy combatant. It doesn't work that way, at least not in a society that values the lives of people. This is why during hostage situations, police aren't rolling in and destroying everything in their path - there is no reason to murder innocent people, even if it means stopping the criminals.
So, if someone is holding hostages to delay stopping them from arming a nuclear bomb, and the only available path to stopping them from arming a nuclear bomb results in the death of the hostages, the people stopping the bombers are guilty of murder?
I'd lay that all on the bomber instead :)

Additionally, you can't be sure that you're always right.
What can't I be sure I'm right about?

About the intentions of people in combat situations. But as I realize, you don't exactly care, so it doesn't matter.
Indeed, the intentions of the civilian were not my justification :).

But it was Poejoe's quote, I wanna be sure that's what Poejoe meant by it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Nik
Posts: 552
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2009 8:05:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
R_R, I feel a bit bad (not much) about rail roading the topic, but I dont think a new topic is required for my question, can you explain your signature? I mean If you look at all socialist governments throughout the 20th century, it prettey much answers it. But Im sure you have a good argument against that! :)
"If you could tell the world but one truth, I could convince it of a thousand lies"
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2009 8:16:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2009 8:00:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Not murder, self-defense. The murder lies with the government that got them in that situation, if they were indeed conscripted :).

The 'self-defense' argument does not work if you carpet bomb an area based on the fact that they have payed taxes to the government. I am not talking about conscripted soldiers - I am talking about civilians who have not taken up arms.

Not the point. Point is the people bombing to stop the government don't hold responsibility for the fact that they have to defend themselves.

Again, defending themselves against unarmed civilians? Why not just focus on the targets that matter and won't drive en masse people to the regime's side.

So, if someone is holding hostages to delay stopping them from arming a nuclear bomb, and the only available path to stopping them from arming a nuclear bomb results in the death of the hostages, the people stopping the bombers are guilty of murder?
I'd lay that all on the bomber instead :)

That sort of situation is extreme, which is much different from what I am talking about. As well, what about those hostages that have been killed? Where does their voice go? This is sounding more and more collectivist by the minute.

The responsibility still remains in the hands of the police as well. If they do not exhaust all other options to stop the bomber, then the deaths of those hostages still stains their hands. If they have another way to take out the bomber but choose not to do it, the death of the hostage is on their hands.

Prime example would have been the Air France Flight 8969 incident. Instead of bombing the plane to smithereens, killing all of the passengers as well as the hijackers, the GIA instead decided to board the plane and kill the hijackers head on, with zero civilian casualties. Had they not done this, the death of the passengers would have stained the French government for years.

When they no longer have any choice, it comes into a gray area, where you have to decide between the hostage lives and those of the rest of the populace. That I am not disputing - when it comes down to zero, you do what you have to do to save those that can be. Otherwise, there is no excuse.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2009 8:40:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2009 7:44:51 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/28/2009 6:36:27 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
Not quite how the argument works. You gave an example of people turning to the Taliban in desperation. You argue that acting at the behest of those who seek to cause harm out of desperation is not wrong. I disagree. The value of one's morals is not that they keep you civil when times are easy, but that they remind you of your responsibilities when times are difficult. A brave person should not shirk responsibility for one's actions out of a conceit that one has no choice.

We shouldn't kill based on whether or not someone is "brave" or not, that is not our choice to make. We cannot punish someone for not stepping up to a plate they do not wish to step up to, whether through fear of death or safety of their families. Society wouldn't condone the murder of draft dodgers during Vietnam based on a "lack of bravery" - why should we enforce that on others?

For every soldier who marches in North Korea, there is a family that wishes that soldier well while he does so. Social acceptance is the measure of a society's responsibility for its nation's crimes. Until the families of North Korea turn their soldier sons away for using force of arms to oppress their people, they collude in the crimes of their nation.

You're only asking for people to sacrifice what they do not wish to sacrifice, on pain of death! Such a proposition is no better than what Kim or Saddam may have asked.

It's not a matter of punishment so much as it is necessity and the propriety of acting. I am not arguing that because North Koreans support their government through fear and complacency, they should be destroyed. Nor am I arguing that because they did not, as you put it, step up to the plate, they should be destroyed. At least, I am not arguing that in a vacuum.

I am arguing that: (1) We have a right, or realistically a basic need, to protect ourselves and those we care about, (2) when such right becomes necessary to exercise, we must determine the lengths to which we must go to ensure appreciation of the benefits of the right, (3) when such lengths include an action that would harm non or indirect offenders, we must warn the offenders of their proximity to the focus of our action and the means by which they might avoid the impact thereof, (4) when such individuals do not heed the warning, we must act, or inaction will become the expectation of our enemies.

North Korea became the threat that it did because the international community allowed them to "flex their muscles" until their atrophied limbs became dense with nuclear biceps. We are now being tested with threats to ourselves and our allies, and the expectation is what it always has been: inaction. With sufficient warning to the population of North Korea, we have fulfilled our duty to minimize the harm of our actions by presenting them with the opportunity to void the harm by taking control of, or arguably fleeing, their country.

In a perfect world, we would never have to act, but we must and the action must be as sensational as Kim's behavior has been outlandish if it is to discourage our enemies from goading us into complacency and transforming us into a paper tiger. For this reason, I call for a dramatic and complete act to discourage any nation from ever taking such a path again. The bombings would cease, of course, if NK surrendered, or its people pulled off a coup. I do not want death. I want life for the greatest number of people that it can be fought for. I just recognize that such a wish must come with a cost.

Because the people of North Korea would be faced with death in support of their nation, and by extension its current actions, or death in opposition to their nation (and its current actions) the morality of the choice comes down to which way it is better to die. They now have the choice of two potential deaths: one in the pursuit of freedom or patriotism, one in obligation to duty or fear. I would hope that most would choose the former.

Of course, North Koreans would not be in such a state if the majority of them had chosen a more peaceful and diplomatic path and had been willing to stand up for it. Therefore I am a proponent of acting to discourage ever allowing tyranny to take hold in any society in the first place. To that end was directed the text you quoted. To that end, I accept that some bravery is required of all people, if they wish to truly live and not merely be used to support the lives of others. It could be as little as the bravery to flee a tyrannical regime, at least for a time ... but the world is only so large. At some point, people must fight.

The draft dodgers, by the way, were fleeing violence, not supporting it. I doubt anyone would claim that being unwilling to fight is the issue. Its the support and encouragement of the regime that makes its citizens complicit enough in its actions to bear the burden of the consequences thereof. A person given a choice of serving a regime that the person knows will antagonize others must be prepared to bear, as I have outlined above, the response to that antagonism. I have gone a step further than necessity and argued a moral compulsion to warn those involved in providing such aid what the consequences will be for it. If they choose not to heed that warning, and understand the consequences of their actions, then I have asked nothing of them. They have chosen for themselves.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2009 9:07:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/28/2009 8:40:21 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
I am arguing that: (1) We have a right, or realistically a basic need, to protect ourselves and those we care about,

So to do the North Koreans, which is why the may choose to aid a despot in order to protect their lives or their family's lives.

(2) when such right becomes necessary to exercise, we must determine the lengths to which we must go to ensure appreciation of the benefits of the right,

So to must the North Koreans, which is why the may choose to aid a despot in order to protect their lives or their family's lives.

(3) when such lengths include an action that would harm non or indirect offenders, we must warn the offenders of their proximity to the focus of our action and the means by which they might avoid the impact thereof,

Rarely does that happen, but if it did then that would be completely different than what we are talking about.

North Korea became the threat that it did because the international community allowed them to "flex their muscles" until their atrophied limbs became dense with nuclear biceps. We are now being tested with threats to ourselves and our allies, and the expectation is what it always has been: inaction. With sufficient warning to the population of North Korea, we have fulfilled our duty to minimize the harm of our actions by presenting them with the opportunity to void the harm by taking control of, or arguably fleeing, their country.

The problem is that it is almost impossible to do either of those things without the support of the North Korean military or China and South Korea, both of which don't want millions of refugees flowing over their borders in an instance.

In a perfect world, we would never have to act, but we must and the action must be as sensational as Kim's behavior has been outlandish if it is to discourage our enemies from goading us into complacency and transforming us into a paper tiger. For this reason, I call for a dramatic and complete act to discourage any nation from ever taking such a path again. The bombings would cease, of course, if NK surrendered, or its people pulled off a coup. I do not want death. I want life for the greatest number of people that it can be fought for. I just recognize that such a wish must come with a cost.

A cost that can be minimized if bombers didn't blow up entire neighborhoods. If you really think that bombing the civilians of a country would help force a coup d'etat, you're dreaming. It would only push them further into the arms of the regime. The only people that can feasibly force a coup would be the military itself, not the civilians. Killing the civilians will do nothing productive and save zero lives.

Because the people of North Korea would be faced with death in support of their nation, and by extension its current actions, or death in opposition to their nation (and its current actions) the morality of the choice comes down to which way it is better to die. They now have the choice of two potential deaths: one in the pursuit of freedom or patriotism, one in obligation to duty or fear. I would hope that most would choose the former.

Again, you can't reasonably expect them to choose that. You're trying to force a populace one way or another - how about trying to help the populace escape the regime without forcing them to put their lives in the line on the name of your safety.

Of course, North Koreans would not be in such a state if the majority of them had chosen a more peaceful and diplomatic path and had been willing to stand up for it.

Korea was divided up between the Soviet north and the American south after the peninsula was freed from Japanese control in WWII. Those two sides, instead of uniting the country, decided to divide it in two and install their own governments in each place. They didn't have a choice from the start.

Therefore I am a proponent of acting to discourage ever allowing tyranny to take hold in any society in the first place. To that end was directed the text you quoted. To that end, I accept that some bravery is required of all people, if they wish to truly live and not merely be used to support the lives of others. It could be as little as the bravery to flee a tyrannical regime, at least for a time ... but the world is only so large. At some point, people must fight.

Only if they are forced to fight. If you don't force such a choice on them and instead allow them to escape the regime, you will see that they'll be a lot happier and a lot more co-operative and they will install a government that is just as equally co-operative.

A person given a choice of serving a regime that the person knows will antagonize others must be prepared to bear, as I have outlined above, the response to that antagonism.

North Koreans don't have the choice, just as the draft dodgers didn't.

I have gone a step further than necessity and argued a moral compulsion to warn those involved in providing such aid what the consequences will be for it. If they choose not to heed that warning, and understand the consequences of their actions, then I have asked nothing of them. They have chosen for themselves.

Again, how do you know what is willing aid and what is forced aid? You can't just draw the line and tell them that if they cross it, no matter how they've crossed it, they're now enemies. It is unreasonable to say that because they're forced to do it, and because they didn't fight it, they're complicit. Once again, you're just asking them to put their life, or their family's lives, on the line for it. It isn't reasonable and it won't gain you any friends.