South Korea is in BIG trouble now!

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I think you're giving yourself too much credit.

I think you missed the cleverness and irony in my mocking my thread title by calling it "oh so clever and ironic".  

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by Thrawn
To DPRK perhaps.  But perhaps not Iraq.  

I was thinking more along the lines of Iran, hence my oh so clever and ironic thread title.

How can you compare a prosperous peaceful democracy like ROK to a fanatical muslim theocracy that sponsors global terror?

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
How can you compare a prosperous peaceful democracy like ROK to a fanatical muslim theocracy that sponsors global terror?

Heheh, the answer is in the topic.


Iran and SK are the same in that they both persued the creation of nuclear material that they agreed not in the non-proliferation treaty.




PS:  For Gunslinger...


"Listen children, to a story, that was written long ago. About a kingdom, on a mountain, and the valley folk below.

On the mountain, was a treasure, burried deep beneath a stone and the valley people swore they'd have it for their very own.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor, go ahead and cheat a friend, do it in the name of Heaven, you can justify it in the end. There wont be any trumpets blowing, come the judgement day. On the bloody morning after, One Tin Soldier rides away.

So the people of the valley, sent a message up the hill, asking for the buried treasure, tons of gold for which they'd kill. Came an answer, from the kingdom, with our brothers, we will share, all the secrets, of our mountain, all the riches buried there.

Now the valley, cried with anger, mount your horses, draw your swords, and they killed the, mountain people. So they won their just rewards. Now they stand, beside the treasure, on the mountain, dark and red. Turned the stone, and looked beneath it... "Peace on earth" was all it said.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor, go ahead and cheat a friend, do it in the name of Heaven, you can justify it in the end. There wont be any trumpets blowing, come the judgement day. On the bloody morning after, One Tin Soldier rides away."

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Heheh, the answer is in the topic.


Iran and SK are the same in that they both persued the creation of nuclear material that they agreed not in the non-proliferation treaty.[/i]"

And that's where the comparison ends.  They should both be dealt with diplomatically, but obviously Iran is a much bigger problem and should face more pressure.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
And that's where the comparison ends.  They should both be dealt with diplomatically, but obviously Iran is a much bigger problem and should face more pressure.

Indeed, people keep talking about how the UN doesn't have any balls.  I would lay out automatic systems of punishment so who is friendly and who isn't does not matter, but the level of WMD developement does.

First time it is discovered that the nation is/was persuing WMD, they must immediately comply with massive and persistant inspection regime.  If they don't comply an automatic total sanction is placed on the country.  

If that doesn't work...well war would have to automatically follow, but I would have to think more about the time frame and escalation for that some more.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Thrawn
I think you missed the cleverness and irony in my mocking my thread title by calling it "oh so clever and ironic".  

Being clever and Ironic about being clever and ironic....I get it now.

how clever and Ironic  

PS:  That's a good story who wrote it?

[FUNKED1]

Thrawn, I can see how the UN should treat them equally.
From a US point of view, our Constitution charges the government with ensuring American security, not the collective security of the membership of the UN.  And obviously Iranian nuclear weapons would represent a much greater threat to the safety and security of the US than RoK nukes, and therefore the US government should deal with the Iranian problem much more firmly than the (yet to be confirmed) RoK nuclear issue.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Indeed, people keep talking about how the UN doesn't have any balls.  I would lay out automatic systems of punishment so who is friendly and who isn't does not matter, but the level of WMD developement does.

First time it is discovered that the nation is/was persuing WMD, they must immediately comply with massive and persistant inspection regime.  If they don't comply an automatic total sanction is placed on the country.  

If that doesn't work...well war would have to automatically follow, but I would have to think more about the time frame and escalation for that some more.

the only problem with that is this little issue of sovereignty.  IMHO when a country does what you mention they no longer members of the UN but subjects to it.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Thrawn, I can see how the UN should treat them equally.
From a US point of view, our Constitution charges the government with ensuring American security, not the collective security of the membership of the UN.  And obviously Iranian nuclear weapons would represent a much greater threat to the safety and security of the US than RoK nukes, and therefore the US government should deal with the Iranian problem much more firmly than the (yet to be confirmed) RoK nuclear issue.

Sure, but the only thing that will make the US safer in this respect is the non-proliferation of WMD.  Heck Iraq has certainly shown that your friend can be come your enemy in a decade.

Take Pakistan, all we need is for some Islamic fundies to take control of that country, and bam, suddenly your ally is a nuclear armed enemy.


Gunslinger,

PS: That's a good story who wrote it?"

It was a bleeding-heart liberal anti-war song.

It was realsed 1971, along with the film  “One Tin Soldier (The Legend of Billy Jack).

the only problem with that is this little issue of sovereignty. IMHO when a country does what you mention they no longer members of the UN but subjects to it.

They would be subject to treaty that they voluntarily (hence the exercise of sovereighty) agree to, just like the UN charter.


And remember sovereignty only extends to ones borders.  Outside one is subject to the various systems of treaties they have agreed to.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Sure, but the only thing that will make the US safer in this respect is the non-proliferation of WMD.  Heck Iraq has certainly shown that your friend can be come your enemy in a decade.

Take Pakistan, all we need is for some Islamic fundies to take control of that country, and bam, suddenly your ally is a nuclear armed enemy.


Gunslinger,



It was a bleeding-heart liberal anti-war song.

It was realsed 1971, along with the film  “One Tin Soldier (The Legend of Billy Jack).




They would be subject to treaty that they voluntarily (hence the exercise of sovereighty) agree to, just like the UN charter.


And remember sovereignty only extends to ones borders.  Outside one is subject to the various systems of treaties they have agreed to.

The main problem I have with the UN is I see it or a spin off of it one day being the true one world police force  making the countries of the world subject to it's demands.  Just the way you worded your previous statement smacks of it.

[Thrawn]

We want to be able to tell other countries what they can or can't do with fissle material, we got to be subject to the same thing...or least we must all follow the tenets of the treaties that we agreed to in the first place.

[Seeker]

Originally posted by B17Skull12
hum im going to attempt at this but since i have no clue what you mean i will be wrong.

we whine "So and So has nukes!!!!"
but yet someother country points out our allies have them.  "Bah it is ok, since they are friends"  is a reply.

I don't often agree with you; but you hit it right on the head with this one.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Thrawn
We want to be able to tell other countries what they can or can't do with fissle material, we got to be subject to the same thing...or least we must all follow the tenets of the treaties that we agreed to in the first place.

sure but the simple fact of the matter is most countrys we apose don't have the best track records.  That to me takes precidence over hypocracy or fairness.  I guess that's the only argument I'm making here.

[Otto]

Pull ALL US troops out of South Korea and let China and Japan handle North Korea.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Otto
Pull ALL US troops out of South Korea and let China and Japan handle North Korea.

Sounds good to me.  chances are 70/30 that I'll be doing a year over there in the next 3 years and have ZERO desire to do so.