North Korea attacks and sinks South Korean ship, killing 46 people

[lord of flies]

This attack just proves how ill fate of a leader the NK madman is. Exactly what did NK get out of murdering the 46 people? Nothing. Any smart dicator knows that wanton random killing gives you nothing... unless you actually get pleasure out of it. Sicko.

Actually, this is completely rational behavior on the part of the North Korean government. They can't ever risk establishing even lukewarm relations with their southern neighbor, since that would remove the underlying principles the regime is based upon.

 

This sort of behavior also demonstrates to their people (even though it is not actually true) that the North Korean military is unmatched, since this sort of provocation can happen without serious retaliation.

[Walsingham]

Let me tell you this, some countries are just not ready for democracy and will crumble to dust without some kind of dictarorship. Just take the example of Iraq, I can bet that a civil war will start when the americans will leave. In a sense, they were better off with ol' Saddam...

 

I'm going to take issue with this because it's relevant to a discussion about what to do with North Korea.

 

And the issue I am going to take is how positively disgusting it is to assert that some nations are just not able to cope with democracy. Because to me that sounds like "Bloody wogs don't know what's good for 'em. Only thing Johnny [Turk/Afghan/Arab/German] understands is force." Is that really what you are saying? As for being better off with ol' Saddam, you surely can't be serious.

[Volourn]

"some kind of dictarorship. Just take the example of Iraq, I can bet that a civil war will start when the americans will leave. In a sense, they were better off with ol' Saddam..."

 

You obviously don't know what Saddam's Iraq was like. His dictatorship was a failure for everyone in that country except for him and a chosen few.

 

People like to bring up the fact that at one point early on his rule that Iraq was actually one of the shining example of a modern nation 9along with Isreal) in the ME with a solid level of progession. What these same people forget that it was a multitude of Saddam's decision that led to Iraq being a broken country. HE destroyed Iraq's progress with a wasteful war with Iran that destroy it's economy, and ruining the country's infrastructure. Iraq's downfall is because of Hussein.

 

Saddam's Iraq was not a Happy-Happy place. Sorry to dissapoint you.

 

The main problem with post Saddam Iraq is not that's it's not being run by a dicator is that it is still recovering from his pathetic rule.

[Orogun01]

I'm going to take issue with this because it's relevant to a discussion about what to do with North Korea.

 

And the issue I am going to take is how positively disgusting it is to assert that some nations are just not able to cope with democracy. Because to me that sounds like "Bloody wogs don't know what's good for 'em. Only thing Johnny [Turk/Afghan/Arab/German] understands is force." Is that really what you are saying? As for being better off with ol' Saddam, you surely can't be serious.

There is cultural relativity, some people are just different from what you'd expect a civilized person to be. Not to say that they aren't civilized, they simply aren't of the same mind. China for example has a long history of it's people losing their way and being brought back by a strong figure.

[ramza]

In order to avoid misunderstandings, what I meant to say is that democracy is not the best political system for every country. Some countries have different cultures that do not work well with the concept of democracy as we, western people, understand it. Moreover, it would be presumptuous to claim that democracy is the best system in the world and that every country should apply its principles in their political systems. How arrogant is that? We are far from being superior to those countries so as to tell them what is right and wrong. Just take a look at modern western democracies, and you will notice that they are quite fragile and far from being representative of the peoples' will. As an example, less and less people use their right to vote just because they feel that it's useless and won't make a difference. Something like that is really troubling and shows how successful our democracies are... Do we live happier than those countries that do not have democracy? Certainly not. Take the example of the US, a modern democracy that supports various fundamental rights, among which the right to carry weapons. Do is citizens feel more secure? Does this grant social peace? Hell, no!

All modern democracies are "sick" at the moment as their is an obvious lack of democratic legitimacy. If you ask the elders that have lived under the Italian fascist regime of Mussolini, the Greek Colonels' dictatorship or the Spanish General Franco's dictatorship, they will all say the same thing: they lived under better conditions at the time (except when the warfare began) compare to today. There was social peace as long as you respected some rules and accepted some constraints. So what? We have lost these constraints today but have also lost social peace with rising criminality and increasing social unrest.

 

As for Iraq being better off with Saddam. Yes, I believe that. There weren't as many suicide attacks, or even deaths at his time. When the US came, they brought everything upside down. Iraq wasn't even a menace to begin with. Their army lasted for barely 3 weeks. Yes, Saddam's regime was cruel to its opponents but the rest of the population was really living under more secure conditions than today. I don't eve dare imagine what will happen when the US will leave.

Some countries are simply not ready to implement democracy. Take the example of Palestine. When they held their first free elections, the Hamas got the majority of votes. In a sense, they rejected democracy by voting for them.

Other examples of countries being better off in their semi-democratic or non-democratic regimes: Russia would fall apart if it wasn't governed with as much muscle as Putin and his successor do, and the same would go for China.

 

Finally, don't get me wrong. N.K. is certainly not a good regime as it makes its own subject suffer from starvation and poverty. That does not however allow the US to declare war against them. Curiously, the US does allow some dictators to stay in power (especially in South America) as long as it serves its interests. However, when it comes to other specific countries, the US are more than willing to start a war for more or less obvious reasons (oil in Iraq and Afghanistan). That's hypocritical IMHO...

[ramza]

HE destroyed Iraq's progress with a wasteful war with Iran that destroy it's economy, and ruining the country's infrastructure. Iraq's downfall is because of Hussein.

 

Saddam's Iraq was not a Happy-Happy place. Sorry to dissapoint you.

 

If it wasn't for the US that incited Saddam to declare war against Iran, nothing would have happened.

 

I never claimed it was a Happy place, but they were still better off compared to today's situation. As a matter of fact, there weren't even nearly as many people dying every day.

[213374U]

Just take a look at modern western democracies, and you will notice that they are quite fragile and far from being representative of the peoples' will. As an example, less and less people use their right to vote just because they feel that it's useless and won't make a difference. Something like that is really troubling and shows how successful our democracies are... Do we live happier than those countries that do not have democracy? Certainly not. Take the example of the US, a modern democracy that supports various fundamental rights, among which the right to carry weapons. Do is citizens feel more secure? Does this grant social peace? Hell, no!

1) Western democracies may not be very representative of the popular will, but they are most certainly quite representative of the peoples themselves. ie. I may want to get lean and muscular, but if I never stop eating **** and slacking around, I never will.

 

2) If you believe people in Western democracies aren't generally happier than people that have to walk a few miles every day just to get drinking water, only to see their children die from AIDS or malnutrition, or people that can just get thrown in jail for being caught with the wrong crowd or belonging to the wrong minority, I think you are in dire need of a reality check -- or maybe just therapy. Just don't speak for everyone else.

 

3) The right to carry weapons in the US isn't related to social peace or individual safety at all. It's an inherited tradition in a country with deeply grounded revolutionary roots. You live in Europe. Does an across-the-board guns ban prevent perps from acquiring guns? Does it guarantee that you won't be shot? Inconsistent argument is inconsistent...

Edited May 25, 2010 by 213374U

[Volourn]

"As for Iraq being better off with Saddam. Yes, I believe that. There weren't as many suicide attacks, or even deaths at his time."

 

You should do some research. A lot of people died uner his watch, and those who didn't lived under horriblem conditions. He destroyed the culture when at its height, Iraq was considered a 'beacon of the ME'. Saadam's leadership destroyed that. Nobody else. It's ALL Saddam's doing.

 

 

"If it wasn't for the US that incited Saddam to declare war against Iran, nothing would have happened."

 

Baloney. Don't believe the US (or anyone else) for Saddam's actions. He was a grown man. He chose to go with Iran and in the process destroy his country. He chose to waste his country's coffers and mkake them go broke so they had to borrow money from otyehrs which led to his invasion of Kuwait which led to major sanctions which crippled hsi country even more. This is all Saddam's doing. He was one who chose to be a dicator so he shoulders the responsibility his country's collapse.

 

 

 

"I never claimed it was a Happy place, but they were still better off compared to today's situation."

 

No, they weren't.

 

 

"As a matter of fact, there weren't even nearly as many people dying every day."

 

You believe that silliness all you want. Iraq's war with Iran led to many Iraqis dying not to mention the mass murders, and the starvation. And, a lot of the deaths and troubles in current Iraq are largely due to Saddam's actions.

 

The fact that Iraq's army folded like a cheap violin shows what kind of a piss poor leader he was, and how he completely demoralized his country. Saddam broke Iraq, and it's up to the rest of Iraq and their allies to put the pieces back together. Of course, it's a mess. It's a mess that Saddam made, and messes that big don't get fixed overnight.

 

 

"That's hypocritical IMHO..."

 

No, it isn't. It's self interest, and like all countries, it's about what you can do for yourself first and second what you can do what do you others. Question, outside of giving money to suicide bombers' families, what has Saddam ever done for other countries/ The US has done a lot for others.

 

The problem with Saddam is that his choices were never best for Iraq. Not one. It was all aboutn what was best for him.

[CoM_Solaufein]

Me thinks that Lil Kim knows his time on this Earth is coming to a close and he wants to go out with a bang, considering he's lived a meaningless life in the shadow of his father.

[Oblarg]

This attack just proves how ill fate of a leader the NK madman is. Exactly what did NK get out of murdering the 46 people? Nothing. Any smart dicator knows that wanton random killing gives you nothing... unless you actually get pleasure out of it. Sicko.

Actually, this is completely rational behavior on the part of the North Korean government. They can't ever risk establishing even lukewarm relations with their southern neighbor, since that would remove the underlying principles the regime is based upon.

 

This sort of behavior also demonstrates to their people (even though it is not actually true) that the North Korean military is unmatched, since this sort of provocation can happen without serious retaliation.

 

You still haven't given any opinion on what should be done about it.

[Gorgon]

There is nothing that can be done. UN resolutions, sanctions, for reasons already stated they won't work.

[Masterfade]

Whether democracy is good for a country should be decided by the people themselves, and without the constant Western brainwashing about universal value and such.

 

When people really want democracy, they'll fight and die for it. Otherwise, they value something else higher.

[Gorgon]

The people might well decide that democracy is all well and good, but that they don't want to die for it. If all you have experienced is a procession of 'strong men' you would likely to be right in observing that that would be the outcome.

 

Instead of changing the world you get on with your own life. It's not a mentality that is difficult to grasp I think.

[Volourn]

"Whether democracy is good for a country should be decided by the people themselves, and without the constant Western brainwashing about universal value and such.

 

When people really want democracy, they'll fight and die for it. Otherwise, they value something else higher. "

 

Good to know. iraqis have fought for democracy. In fact, they did so in the original GW but the Western countries led by Bush the first betrayed them because they kowtowed to the other ME countries who wnated to keep propping the pathetic Hussein - in fear that agttention would turn next to them.

 

As for talking about 'constant Western brainwashing'. That's laughable to accuse the West of that when that's one of the main tools of dictators. Heck, in most Western nations there's so many counter voices being heard it's hard to brainwash people. You wanna know why? People tend not to get murdered in most ciivlized countries for voicing opposition to the government.

 

Just ask all the anti Bush people who claimed that he was a dictator in the making... as they still live free and able to speak. or all the anti Obama continghent who are legally allowed to spout some of their insane stuff. You surely wouldn't see that sort of thing in countries like NK... or else the person would 'vanish'.

 

Brainwashing. L0L

 

 

"When people really want democracy, they'll fight and die for it. Otherwise, they value something else higher.

"

 

Nonsense. Soemtimes, people are simply too weak to fight. Sad, but true.

 

Stop living in Fairy tale Land where the goodm side always comes out on top.

[Humodour]

There is nothing that can be done. UN resolutions, sanctions, for reasons already stated they won't work.

 

You know that for a fact? Full-scale UN sanctions (the works - complete trade halt like South Korea has recently done) would be pretty potent. Not even Iran has this.

 

All you really need is China and South Korea to sanction NK. That's enough to make what little is left of NK's economy collapse completely. I'm not sure how the NK government would get by then. As it is the impact of SK's unilateral sanctions will be interesting.

[Hiro Protagonist]

When people really want democracy, they'll fight and die for it. Otherwise, they value something else higher.

 

No, they value their life more than fighting for an ideal like democracy. Might have worked centruries ago, but rarely does it happen in todays society.

[Walsingham]

HE destroyed Iraq's progress with a wasteful war with Iran that destroy it's economy, and ruining the country's infrastructure. Iraq's downfall is because of Hussein.

 

Saddam's Iraq was not a Happy-Happy place. Sorry to dissapoint you.

 

If it wasn't for the US that incited Saddam to declare war against Iran, nothing would have happened.

 

 

What absolute balls. So you're saying that only US aggression prompted Saddam Hussein to want to annex a portion of land containing a vast amount of oil wealth, not to mention a critical slice of arable land, without which his neighbour would be strategically weak, at a time when their military was felt to be in tatters after various purges and a chronic shortage of spares?

 

I don't recall you talking such collossal arse before. Just stop digging.

[HoonDing]

Maybe they didn't incite the war, but the Reagon administration was petty enough to support Saddam in his mad war, perhaps as revenge for the US humiliation at the Teheran embassy hostage crisis at the end of the 80s.

[ramza]

Maybe they didn't incite the war, but the Reagon administration was petty enough to support Saddam in his mad war, perhaps as revenge for the US humiliation at the Teheran embassy hostage crisis at the end of the 80s.

 

Thank you, virumor. That's what I meant to say and I apologize if I wasn't clear. The US told Iraq "go on, attack Iran and we will back you up" but the US never held their word. Oddly enough, the exact same thing happened with Georgia in 2008. The US promised Georgia that it would help it protect its sovereignty but when the Russians invaded, the US immediately withdrew their promises. They wanted to cause prejudice to Russia but their plan backfired.

[Walsingham]

And I apologise for being unnecessarily rude. Sore point, I'm afraid.

[Gorgon]

There is nothing that can be done. UN resolutions, sanctions, for reasons already stated they won't work.

 

You know that for a fact? Full-scale UN sanctions (the works - complete trade halt like South Korea has recently done) would be pretty potent. Not even Iran has this.

 

All you really need is China and South Korea to sanction NK. That's enough to make what little is left of NK's economy collapse completely. I'm not sure how the NK government would get by then. As it is the impact of SK's unilateral sanctions will be interesting.

Another crop failure and the system hoards the food for itself, blaming the mass fatalities on the sanctions. We have been there already.

 

It would appear that outside pressure is not sufficient to bring about radical change.

[Wrath of Dagon]

. Oddly enough, the exact same thing happened with Georgia in 2008. The US promised Georgia that it would help it protect its sovereignty but when the Russians invaded, the US immediately withdrew their promises. They wanted to cause prejudice to Russia but their plan backfired.

Quit lying already, unless you were there.

[Gorgon]

I'm watching the Russian based RT on a stream, and its coverage of Georgia today is pretty telling, it's miles away from how its being reported in the rest of the world. They ask the question 'is Georgia getting ready for military expansion ?'.

 

Do you people actually buy this stuff ?. What is Georgia going to invade...

Edited May 26, 2010 by Gorgon

[HoonDing]

Georgia would invade South Ossetia.

 

Anyway, you gotta hand it to totalitarian states - they do have some amazing propaganda artwork.

 

[ramza]

. Oddly enough, the exact same thing happened with Georgia in 2008. The US promised Georgia that it would help it protect its sovereignty but when the Russians invaded, the US immediately withdrew their promises. They wanted to cause prejudice to Russia but their plan backfired.

Quit lying already, unless you were there.

 

It's common knowledge, man...

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=66208...ionid=351020602

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=9845

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas...4333715324.html

 

The US has kept Russia constantly under pressure with its missile defense system that is being implemented in european countries like Poland, the Czech republic and Romania:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_miss..._Eastern_Europe

 

The US just needed something new to test Russia's vigilance.