Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

America's foreign policy with North Korea....

Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 12:35:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
.... is absurd.

Does it make any sense that we send food aid to North Korea, seriously? Why not just let the North Koreans deal with their own problems? I'm not even necessarily against the idea of food aid, but giving it North Korea seems perverse. There are plenty of other needy (and peaceful) countries in the world in dire need of food aid.

We're pouring over a billion dollars in food aid every year into a country whose regime structure appears to have been taken out of the pages of 1984. They have money to feed their people, and they would have more if they actually got their priorities straight.

All of their money, literally almost all of their money, goes into weaponry and the military. That's how they make money, by selling missiles and what not to other nations. And in the meantime their own people are starving. We're perpetuating a system of decadency that puts our own national security and the security of our allies at risk. This I believe is morally reprehensible.

Maybe we should let the people of North Korea starve to death. It seems like a better option than empowering a regime that could potentially start a nuclear war with one of our allies.

Bottom lime, this would truly isolate North Korea. And history has something to tell us about regimes whose own people are starving in the streets. They don't last very long.

- Policy Objective (regime change in North Korea) completed
- Price for policy objective (Annual savings of 1.3 billion). Or, more preferable 0 if the money were diverted to peaceful nations.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 12:41:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 12:35:56 AM, Freeman wrote:
.... is absurd.

Does it make any sense that we send food aid to North Korea, seriously? Why not just let the North Koreans deal with their own problems? I'm not even necessarily against the idea of food aid, but giving it North Korea seems perverse. There are plenty of other needy (and peaceful) countries in the world in dire need of food aid.

We're pouring over a billion dollars in food aid every year into a country whose regime structure appears to have been taken out of the pages of 1984. They have money to feed their people, and they would have more if they actually got their priorities straight.

All of their money, literally almost all of their money, goes into weaponry and the military. That's how they make money, by selling missiles and what not to other nations. And in the meantime their own people are starving. We're perpetuating a system of dependency that puts our own national security and the security of our allies at risk. This I believe is morally reprehensible.

Maybe we should let the people of North Korea starve to death. It seems like a better option than empowering a regime that could potentially start a nuclear war with one of our allies.

Bottom lime, this would truly isolate North Korea. And history has something to tell us about regimes whose own people are starving in the streets. They don't last very long.

- Policy Objective (regime change in North Korea) completed
- Price for policy objective (Annual savings of 1.3 billion). Or, more preferable 0 if the money were diverted to peaceful nations.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 1:10:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 12:41:21 AM, Freeman wrote:
At 5/10/2013 12:35:56 AM, Freeman wrote:
.... is absurd.

Does it make any sense that we send food aid to North Korea, seriously? Why not just let the North Koreans deal with their own problems? I'm not even necessarily against the idea of food aid, but giving it North Korea seems perverse. There are plenty of other needy (and peaceful) countries in the world in dire need of food aid.

We're pouring over a billion dollars in food aid every year into a country whose regime structure appears to have been taken out of the pages of 1984. They have money to feed their people, and they would have more if they actually got their priorities straight.

All of their money, literally almost all of their money, goes into weaponry and the military. That's how they make money, by selling missiles and what not to other nations. And in the meantime their own people are starving. We're perpetuating a system of dependency that puts our own national security and the security of our allies at risk. This I believe is morally reprehensible.

Maybe we should let the people of North Korea starve to death. It seems like a better option than empowering a regime that could potentially start a nuclear war with one of our allies.

Bottom lime, this would truly isolate North Korea. And history has something to tell us about regimes whose own people are starving in the streets. They don't last very long.

- Policy Objective (regime change in North Korea) completed
- Price for policy objective (Annual savings of 1.3 billion). Or, more preferable 0 if the money were diverted to peaceful nations.

It's difficult to dispute any of this, so the question becomes WHY do we do this? My answers in order of importance:

1) Sunshine policy. SK is going to do this, whether or not we care or approve. Do we want to be seen as opposing South Korean efforts to feed family that they still have up there?

2) The NK military is not much of anything. The most important aspect of the NK military is that it is an expression of that country's sentiment towards us and the rest of the world. Its actual potency is laughable.

3) ANY saber rattling against NK will be taken as saber rattling against China.

4) There's a reason why the NK/SK issue is discussed under the 6 party talks approach...there are major players bordering NK that simply do not want to see that situation spiral out of control.

For all of these reasons, we are on our own best behavior in regards to the NK issue.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 1:10:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
America sends food aid to North Korea? Holy sh1t this is something I've nvr heard before. And most of their education consists of coming up w/ reasons to hate the US and North Koreans basically talk about how much they want to bomb us.

That ungrateful little b@stard.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 1:13:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 1:10:38 AM, darkkermit wrote:
America sends food aid to North Korea? Holy sh1t this is something I've nvr heard before. And most of their education consists of coming up w/ reasons to hate the US and North Koreans basically talk about how much they want to bomb us.

That ungrateful little b@stard.

Many of the common people do not get the food aid as it is controlled by the authorities. Nth Korea got in a spot of trouble over this, but the people don't know who to blame, so blaming someone who isn't them is somewhat understandable.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 2:10:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 1:10:38 AM, darkkermit wrote:
America sends food aid to North Korea? Holy sh1t this is something I've nvr heard before. And most of their education consists of coming up w/ reasons to hate the US and North Koreans basically talk about how much they want to bomb us.

That ungrateful little b@stard.

This has been ongoing for decades.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 7:10:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 12:35:56 AM, Freeman wrote:
.... is absurd.

Does it make any sense that we send food aid to North Korea, seriously? Why not just let the North Koreans deal with their own problems? I'm not even necessarily against the idea of food aid, but giving it North Korea seems perverse. There are plenty of other needy (and peaceful) countries in the world in dire need of food aid.

We're pouring over a billion dollars in food aid every year into a country whose regime structure appears to have been taken out of the pages of 1984. They have money to feed their people, and they would have more if they actually got their priorities straight.

All of their money, literally almost all of their money, goes into weaponry and the military. That's how they make money, by selling missiles and what not to other nations. And in the meantime their own people are starving. We're perpetuating a system of decadency that puts our own national security and the security of our allies at risk. This I believe is morally reprehensible.

Maybe we should let the people of North Korea starve to death. It seems like a better option than empowering a regime that could potentially start a nuclear war with one of our allies.

Bottom lime, this would truly isolate North Korea. And history has something to tell us about regimes whose own people are starving in the streets. They don't last very long.

- Policy Objective (regime change in North Korea) completed
- Price for policy objective (Annual savings of 1.3 billion). Or, more preferable 0 if the money were diverted to peaceful nations.

I agree, but North Korea is a lose-lose situation for us

-Ignore their threats completely, play nice and still give aid makes the administration look soft, passive and cowardly.

- Respond to their saber rattling with our saber rattling, gets old after a while when both sides know that they aren't going to do anything anyways.

- Go all out and invade them/confiscate their nuclear weapons and missiles, too risky in case we fail and they fire missiles at SK and the US