deadr4tz said:
Hah! No. That's totalitarian regimes being totalitarian regimes. That's North Korea being the worst of them. In the entire post-WWII history it's hard to find a regime that has been more bellicose in its rhetoric and behavior, more callous in its disregard for international law, more brazen in its violations of security and sovereignty of other countries. Yes, other countries sometimes commit amoral acts too, even democratic ones, but it's ludicrous to claim that North Korea's barbaric behavior represents some kind of a universal standard.
Do. Some. Damn. Research. North Korea has never aided to depose the leader of another country. North Korea hasn't invaded tens of States since 1951. North Korea hasn't imposed sanctions on those who didn't see eye-to-eye with them. Disregard for international law, you say? Who invaded Irak in 2003 in defiance of those suddendly sacro-saint international laws? Who aided to depose the democratically elected leader of Chile? Of Iran? Who aided the dying South Vietnam semi-dictatorship? I'm skipping a lot of things, and that's only for the US. France has done the same thing in Africa a few times. Great Britain as well. Violation of sovereingty is rich, coming from the country that sends drones to kill hundreds of people in an ''allied'' State
Also, don't think I will allow you to gloss over the innumerable crimes North Korean regime has committed, and continues to commit against its own people, including mass starvation, denial of basic life necessities, denial of fundamental rights and freedoms, political violence and terror, including but not limited to arrests, assassinations, torture and internment in prison camps. Seriously, if you believe North Korea is morally even on the same plane of existence as most of the world's countries, let alone democracies, then there is something profoundly wrong with your own moral compass.
We're talking international policy here. Of course I don't condone the horrible stuff NK does to its own citizens, what the hell kind of stupid strawman is that?
US. France. Great Britain. China. Look dat shit up.
Your belief that countries like North Korea and Iran are being denied nukes only because they aren't part of the exclusive club of countries that got them first isn't completely erroneous, but it is certainly narrow and simplistic. Yes, nuclear-weapon states are naturally suspicious of other countries attempting to gain nuclear weapons, but have in general not intervened to prevent them from doing so. Israel has been allowed to develop nuclear weapons (even if it denies possessing them), as have Pakistan and India.
One of the key reasons why these countries have been allowed to develop and keep their nuclear weapon stockpiles, while the same is denied to Iran and North Korea, is because the former can be trusted with nukes, while the latter two cannot. Iran and North Korea have both repeatedly shown total disregard for international law - Iran with its attack on the US embassy, sponsorship of terrorist groups, and threats of annihilation directed against Israel, and North Korea with all the things TheGM named, and more. Neither of these states has demonstrated political and moral responsibility needed to possess nuclear weapons, which is why even their international allies (including those sitting in the UN Security Council) have generally backed initiatives and resolutions aimed at stopping their nuclear programmes.
BAHAHAHAHA oh that's just priceless. Israel has ''demonstarted responsibility''? You know, those people who have an entire region of the world closed off and starving, and build the Berlin Wall 2.0 around 'em? ''moral responsibility'' has sweet fuck all to do with it, son. They're the US's puppet state, very powerful lobbies back in Washington don't want Israel to be attacked, so they got US-sponsored nukes and now they're safe. Israel has a right to defend itself, of course. But to claim there's anything ''moral'' about it is pure derp. Sorry.
As for Pakistan, they've been an ally of the West for some time. A very on and off ally but still. Now we're ''buddies'' since 9/11, so the US actually helps them protect their nuclear supply. Again, nothing moral, it's pure politics. If the Pakistanis were in the same political position as Iran, you can bet your arse they would have sanctions upon sanctions piled up on them. But instead they get millions of aid. Because their karma meter is in the positive, is that it?
India is in the same ballpark. They're big chums with Great Britain, so nobody complains when they get some nukes. Not like India ever had or will have serious international ambitions anyhow, they're just there because China had nukes and Pakistan has now.
You're very, very naive if you think nukes have anything to do with a nation's ''morals'' (by the way, is that the US moral compass? Should we judge the entire world based on how close to America they are, and they're evil if they're not like them enough?). It's a game of alliances and influence, enforced by those who have nukes and most definitely don't want anybody else to have them save for those they're in bed with.
More importantly, what does it matter? Surely you are not attempting to argue there exists some kind of parallel between a state that spends 5% of its GDP on its military while simultaneously having one of the highest standards of living in the world, and a state that spends 25% of its GDP on the military when it can't even afford to feed its people without international aid.
Wasn't responding to you there, but you're welcome to be offended if it makes ya feel better.
No, no, no. This misguided and cynical belief helps no one and only plays into the hands of totalitarian regimes. A state's moral worth is reflected first and foremost in its treatment of its own citizens, then in the treatment of its foreign partners, and finally its foreign adversaries. A systematic look at the history of democratic states vs. totalitarian states will reveal an indisputable truth - democratic states have consistently shown a firmer adherence to universal moral principles than their totalitarian counterparts. So yes, the United States can indeed take the moral high ground when dealing with North Korea. So can South Korea, and Japan, and most European countries, and a good chunk of the world. To believe otherwise is to show either considerable ignorance or alarming deficiency in personal morals.
Since when does it matter? You think POTUS and his staff sit in the White House and say ''you know, it would be in our interests to broker a secret alliance with X State, but na they're not ''moral'' enough for us, forget it''. They don't give a single shit. Why continue treating with China, then? Their humanitarian record is pretty damn appaling. Or Russia, who is a semi-dictatorship already? Or Saudi Arabia and its numerous (by US ''morals'') abuse of basic human rights? Or Columbia, what with the state of quasi civil war and the sometimes brutal repression? Why keep sending a shit ton of weapons to various dictatorships around Africa and Asia? And I'm not even going into the absoutely ruthless stuff they did during the Cold War, to democratically elected governments no less.
Besides, you know the answer; politics and money. They are viable diplomatic partners, so we let all that shit slide. Maybe complain about it on the international scene once in a while to make us feel better about ourselves, but actually doing something about it? Never, don't wanna lose our precious partner.
North Korea is worse than those countries, yes. But morals don't even enter the calculus. It didn't during the Cold War, and it sure as hell doesn't now, else they would already have invaded NK a long, long time ago. But that would piss off China, so it's a no-no.
This argument is as overused as it is fallacious. Yes, foreign policy of the United States during the Cold War was often amoral and misguided. That doesn't in any way excuse the crimes of totalitarian regimes. Neither does it invalidate any of the good the US has done in international politics before or since.
Yeah, it's not like they've invaded two countries since then and plunged them in a state of constant civil war. Oh wait...
Same goes for the constantly repeated "But US is the only country to have used nukes against civilians, derp!" Yes, I know they did. No, that doesn't mean erratic third-world dictators should be allowed to possess them.
Agreed, but it makes it very, very grating when people then attempt to use the moral high ground in the case of nukes. There is none. The reasons why NK (among others) is denied nukes is purely practical.
I don't know whether this is ignorance or disingenuity at play, but I will assume it's the former and educate you. Gaddafi regime gave up its WMD programme in 2003, some months after the US invasion of Iraq. For the next 7 years, Gaddafi's Libya enjoyed a reasonably harmonious relationship with the West. International military intervention against his regime occurred in 2011, as a response to mass killings of (unarmed) protesters and subsequent bloody quelling of (armed) pro-democracy uprising against his regime. It had fuck-all to do with weapons of mass destruction, nuclear or otherwise.
You do know This wasn't exactly new, right? Lybia has been a long-standing dictatorship since the 70's. it's just that they provided buttloads of oil, so the West simply kept quiet about it. Only when they couldn't ignore it anymore did any action come, and even then things in Lybia have barely improved to this day. And the West would probably have been more cautious if there were serious threats of Lybia having WMDs, which I honestly doubt there ever was. It was mostly posturing.
