China, South Korea and Japan just wrapped up a two-day summit to which they discussed North Korea and the sinking of South Korean ship called Cheonan. The hope of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama that Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao would approve more sanctions on North Korea but that did not happen. Prime Minister Jiabao did say, "Most urgent is to dispel the impact of the Cheonan incident, gradually ease tension and especially avoid a clash." North Korean leader Kim Jong Il strongly believes that the sinking of the Cheonan was the collaboration of South Korea and United State governments to pressure China into imposing further sanctions on North Korea. Why does China continue to safeguard Kim Jong Il?
In 2008 trade between China and North Korea totaled $2.79 billion which was up 41.3 percent from 2007. CFR Senior Fellow Adam Segal stated, "The idea that the Chinese would turn their backs on the North Koreans is clearly wrong" (http://www.cfr.org/publication/11097/chinanorth_korea_relationship.html). To which Selig S. Harrison, Asia program director at the Center for International Policy, stated, the Chinese are "doing just what they have to do and no more" in terms of punishing North Korea (http://www.cfr.org/publication/11097/chinanorth_korea_relationship.html). Even though Pyongyang is heavily dependent on exports of food and energy from China many feel that North Korea understands that serves a greater good for China because they provide a buffer zone. The buffer zone North Korea provides is between China's northeastern border and the democratically led South Korea. By not having to deploy troops to their northeastern boarder, China can focus their military might to dealing with Taiwan's quest for independence.
Combining the economic and buffer zone one can understand why China allows North Korea's antics of nuclear missile testing and defiance of responsibility of the sinking of Cheonan. Kim Jong Il understands that North Korea does aide China thus does not fear sanctions. As Harrison pointed out, see above, China will only do so much as they are heavily invested in the relationship with North Korea. For countries, like the United States, to attempt to impose sanctions or influence onto China to reign in North Korea is no more right than China demanding that the United States allow amnesty for all Mexican illegal immigrants that live within the United States. Do we need to be aware of what is taking place in North Korea? Yes. An unstable Korean peninsula does nothing but create trouble for the Western world. That being said, the Western World has little ground to stand on by demanding that China impose further sanctions on North Korea that puts their $2.79 billion trade in jeopardy.
I don't see failure to condemn as defense. If we had a radical, unpredictable, nuclear armed neighbor who was prone to dangerous moves without provocation we might not make any different decision.
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to sideline quarterback a move when you have nothing at risk.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteIs Kim Jong Il really unpredictable? Is he any different that our CIA? Is it in the best interest of Western States to portray North Korea as a villian?
Huh? You're comparing a man that represses and starves his people to death with the US CIA? Really? I mean seriously?
ReplyDeleteYou're going to have to explain that one. Exactly how is Kim Jong Il the same as our CIA?
There is a lot the public does not know about the CIA. Perhaps in time things will come to light. The comparison I am attempting to make between Kim Jong Il and the CIA is that both regimes have/are done/doing things that many of us would never consider. Does Kim Jong Il have it right that the US (CIA) assisted the South Koreans in blowing up the Cheonan? Or are the South Koreans just not aware that the CIA was involved? Or was the Cheonan really sunk by a North Korean sub as asserted by the South Koreans?
ReplyDeleteOk, I'll bite. What inside knowledge do you have of the CIA's doings, and how did you obtain this knowledge?
ReplyDeleteAre you secretly a spy and are going to pass on first-hand knowledge? Or are you going to pass along things that you read in a book that could either be facts or completely fabricated stories?
Because it sure sounds like in your post you have a lot of FACTS that the "public" doesn't have.
So please, bless us with your knowledge.
Chris, it's a covert agency so your point is pointless - of course there are things we don't know or they aren't very covert are they. Have the overthrown governments? Yes, Iran for starters. Have the been involved in government sanctioned murder? Who knows, probably. Are they the same as Kim Jong Il? Not likely. They aren't repressing 25M of their own people and starving them to death just to maintain their own power.
ReplyDeleteOr have you gone off and bought the idea that the CIA killed Kennedy, blew up the World Trade Center and is behind every evil that america has ever suffered?
Anon
ReplyDeleteI don't claim an wealth of unknown public knowledge but I have encountered a couple of people in my life that have participated in events with the CIA. As time carries on, we will learn more about what the CIA did.
Kevin
I acknowledge they are not repressing 25M of their own people, unless of course you subscribe to the drug trade argument, to maintain power yet it is not beyond the scope of the CIA to create high tensions in the Korean penusila in order to get the Chinese to assist the United States in sanctioning Korea and Iran.
While we all took time off over the weekend, Iran is reported to have enough nuclear grade material to arm two missiles.
Anon
ReplyDeleteAre you the one that issued the challenge? If so, thoughts....
Bravo Viper, you kind of took a contrarian position. But as is clear to other commenters and me, you couldn't resist taking pot shots at U.S. Institutions with which you disagree.
ReplyDeleteYou did forget (or fail to uncover) two more reasons for China's support (tacit or active) of North Korea. The first is the humanitarian crisis that Chima would face if the North fell. China would undoubtedly be faced with a flood of North Korean immigrants coming across it's border. The second reason, and for me perhaps the most interesting, is the idea that if North Korea's regime is ousted and replaced by a more pro-democracy administration, China would be nearly surrounded by pro-democracy countries. They would be more isolated as a communist country and face greater pressure from the West to reform.
By the way, your CIA friends, what events did they participate in with the CIA? or can't you say? Dis they swear you to secrecy?
Anon
ReplyDeleteI draw illegal immigration into the conversation not to take a pot shot at "US Institutions"; rather to draw a comparison of how the US attempts to influence policy outside of it's borders.
You are correct that China could face a mass immigration issue if North Korea were to fall toward a pro-democracy regime. I hinted at it with the comparison and hoped that someone would have inquired more upon that so I could have brought this point up. I did mention the buffer zone the North Korea gives China in the region.
As for the CIA, I cannot talk to specific events. I can tell you that one event took place in Southeast Asia and the other event took place in the Middle East. The former will come to light in a decade or so while the latter will not for 30 years.
Chris, I think Anon has a point. Put the chinese shoe on your foot for a second and forget your CIA argument.
ReplyDeleteYou are the USA and Mexico is a radical, hardline, repressive communist country with 25M starving people, nuclear weapons and no economy. Mexico sinks a Canadian frigate on training exercise in international waters and you know they did it, the evidence is incontrovertible. However, if you destabalize Mexico you have three potential results.
1 - You have a 25B economic tie to the country that would impact you during a downturned economy.
2 - A massive humanitarian crisis that causes refugees to flee across the US border searching for food and shelter.
3 - A desperate and increasingly isolated Mexican government that is prone to fits of violence when backed into a corner and armed with nuclear weapons.
Would you try to provoke them or take a more moderate approach? Common sense says moderate. It's easy for us, 5k miles away to push hard, we don't have a border or economy with N Korea. That's not the case when it's your neighbor.
And for the record, I don't buy into the whole drug trade argument with the CIA and I haven't seen any credible reports about Iran having weapons grade plutonium - cite the source please. And lastly, the CIA has no incentive to destabalize N Korea at this time. We don't have the troops necessary to fight a war there, and we have more pressing matters elsewhere. In this kind of card game, holding your cards without pushing the pot is the best play.
"As for the CIA, I cannot talk to specific events. I can tell you that one event took place in Southeast Asia and the other event took place in the Middle East. The former will come to light in a decade or so while the latter will not for 30 years."
My BS meter is off the charts here Chris. Having been in the military I know that anyone "in the know" about these supposed events would not talk to you about them, let alone let you blog about them. Second, the fact that you are unwilling to post the "events" in detail here makes me question their veracity. Sorry, but if you're going to make this kind of claim about being "in the know" you best be prepared to back it up.
I agree, I don't know what's more BS, that you're claiming to have inside CIA knowledge, or that someone honestly told you about those actvities through FIRSTHAND knowledge.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, the people that do those things DO NOT talk about them. Same as people that have killed people or done some serious shit in the military, it's just not something one talks about.
Also, for someone who (constantly) proclaims to have no allegiance to a party and will simply provide "good debate," you sure do use an awful lot of weasel-words and passive-aggressive phrases to try to get your own point across.
You also claim to not have all the answers, right? Well go look through some of the comments on your old posts and try to count how many times you didn't respond to someones post with an answer of some kind that tries to prove your point.
Lastly, judging by the comments I've seen it seems like a lot of people disagree with your ideas and logic. Now, which of these two circumstances seem more likely: 1. You're smarter than everyone else that has commented on your blog. Or 2. That you might actually be the one that's full of shit and you don't even realize it. Worst part is, is that I actually agree with a lot of your views on these political topics, but your passive-aggressive tone and flawed logic is seriously irritating.
Seriously, I tink you need to take a step back and rethink things. A lot.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteIn your scenario, I'd beef up our wall with additional troops and establish a zone of no return. Blast warnings that anyone found in the zone will be shot on sight. To deal with the destablization of Mexico, I'd use the CIA to its fullest.
We do have a reason to destablize the Korean pensula; Japanese okinawa base. Yesterday the ruling body of Japan set the ball in motion for a vote of confidence over the backing of a US base in Okinawa. To ensure, and back the Pro-American Government, a need for the base is required. If the North Koreans are unstable and threaten South Korean their historical enemy, Japan, is not far behind. So why not use the CIA to assist in sinking the Choenan?
I do agree with you that, typically, people seeing combat or engaged in covert operations do not talk. I do not believe that either person is aware that I do blog nor would I out them either. You can claim BS but I know what I heard. Plus, taking a greater look, as I stated above, with other countries in the region and the role the CIA has played in the past one can make the deduction their were involved. Right now there are two countries doing independant reviews of the sinking and time will tell how it comes out. Personally, if we do not hear North Korea in the next two weeks then I lean toward the CIA.
Anon
ReplyDeleteWhat are these "weasel-words and passive-aggressive phrases" you speak of? I do not claim to have all the answers but I do have opinions and solutions. Now, I have adopted other suggestions and points after making my original solutions while sometimes I have not as well.
Naturally it is those that disagree with my logic or ideas are going to voice more often than those who agree. Yet, there are times when I have noticed Anonymous and others say, "I don't typically agree with you but..."
I find this statement by you a bit ironic,"Worst part is, is that I acutally agree with a lot of your views on these political topics, but your passive-aggressive tone and flawed logic is seriously irritating." If my logic is seriously flawed and you agree with my views then what does that say about your logic? Just asking!
My Bullshit meter is off the charts man, and I'll tell you why.
ReplyDeleteFirst, those who have endured and passed the rigors of an SSBI are not the type of people who will talk. There's a few reasons for this but the two most prevalent are:
A - it's not in their nature to talk about things that are considered off limits to them.
B - they know it's illegal and punishable but life in prison if they do talk, even to their wives.
I know this because I went through an SSBI when I was in high school for the Navy and I have friends who are still bound by their National Security agreements and they DO NOT TALK to anyone about what they're doing. Not even their mom's and wives. Most won't even tell you where they are in the world to any detail more than "africa" or "middle east".
So here's what I think. I think you got BS'd by someone who wants you to think they're "in the know" when they don't know shit. So I don't know what's worse, that they made up crap or that you believed it.
And your "reasoning" for destabalizing NK has one fatal flaw. Even if an anti-US government took power in Japan, it would take years to shut down the Okinnawa base. There would be negotiations and even if those failed, the phasing of redeployment would be years because of the size of that base. So all this talk of needing to destabalize NK to save the Okinnawa base is conspiracy theorist BS based upon highly flawed, horribly thought, and completely uneducated information probably come up with by people who have never served, don't understand the complexity of the issue and like to feel like they know more than they do because it makes them feel special.
As to my scenario and your response - What wall? We have a 2k mile border with Mexico, roughly 1/3 of which is a river. Second, how well does an actual barrier like an ocean stop people from Haiti or Cuba from getting to the US? Third, the CIA cannot and does not operate in on US soil due to it's highly limited mandate as a FOREIGN intelligence agency. And if you used the CIA within Mexico, destabalizing that country would create a massive humanitarian crisis on the border. Are you going to shoot all 25M people that attempt to cross in the hopes of feeding their families? If so, great job Pol Pot, Texas will be the new killing fields.
Chris, I find these arguments elementary in nature. I don't think you've thought them through which makes me think you're regurgitating what others have said without much understanding of the facts behind them. And I'll be honest, that scares the crap out of me.
And to preclue the question as to why I went through an SSBI in 1990, I enlisted in the navy as an OTA (Ocean Systems Technician Analyst). That ratings role was classified until 1991 when the end cold war terminated the need for such secrecy.
Viper,
ReplyDeleteI guess I can't dispute that you heard what you heard, but rather the veracity of what you heard in the first place. Why would people with such knowledge so willingly share it given the potential consequences of leaking classified information? It's all hearsay, which is a dangerous thing to base any opinion on. Don't be surprised that your readers give little credit to statements or opinions derived from what has little factual support to us.
To me, it's an argument built on a foundation of sand and we don't even know where the sand came from. It's something someone would say to try to sound cool and important, which always is a reasons to suspect what they say.
Are you saying that unless their is clear evidence that someone else sank the ship, you will assume the CIA did it? So a lack of evidence of another is sufficient evidence to find the CIA as the cause?
Wouldn't the CIA be smart enough to at least also plant some evidence that North Korea did it knowing that they might be suspected? So now any evidence is suspect.
Again though Anon, the logic behind the argument that the US and therefore the CIA has some incentive to do this is absurd when you actually look at the facts.
ReplyDeleteThere is no immediacy to the risk of losing the Okinnawa base. Second, why would we endanger our relationship with our strongest Asian ally just to keep the base another 5 or 10 years? The US policy has always been if Japan votes to remove the base, we will do so although we'll discuss the strategic ramifications with them too.
Given the rise of China as the asian super power, we have no incentive to risk our relationships over there for something that has little to no long term or short term gains.
It's completely illogical. But then, that's what one should expect from a conspiracist - illogical theories based upon a childish understanding of the complexities of the issue.
There are some great articles out there about conspiracists. I'd recommend reading the following if you're interested:
Goertzel, Ted (1994): Belief in Conspiracy Theories, Political Psychology 15: 733-744).
Available at http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/conspire.doc , accessed June 11, 2007.
In the study he says the following are the primary causes of belief in conspiracies.
1 - anomia, the respondent stated a belief that he/she felt alienated or disaffection relative to “the system;”
2 - a tendency to distrust other people; and
3 - a feeling of insecurity regarding continued employment.
I think the last of those is a driving force in why so many americans today are buying into this BS.
Viper, you're really losing me here. You suffer from so many things in your blog posts and comments, the least of which is poor writing skills (spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure, etc.). But to make claims that you know someone who "participated" in "events" with the CIA is just plain ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteMy own opinion of your rants is that, like Kevin said, they are not well thought out or researched. Your original posts may be not too far afield, but then you just go right off the rails with your theories and, dare I say, opinions. By the time you've made a few comments and lost virtually all support for your "arguments", you've reached the point of no return. Your pride will not allow you to take a step back and consider that you may be off base, or God forbid, just plain wrong. You claim to not have all the answers, but then fail, in every instance, to accept facts as presented or realize that your opinion or position is without merit because it's based on false or highly speculative facts.
So go back to your bunker. Watch Mel in Conspiracy Theory or maybe Enemy of the State with Will Smith. If you're not a fan of those movies, maybe take some time to read a book or two. Log off, unplug and do some real research. Take some time to think about what you write and the plausibility of your arguments.
Do what you want. For now, you're just another crazy rural white male conspiracy theorist.
Oh, for the record, I'm not saying I'm some authority on these issues, but the fact that the anon poster and I can poke holes in the theories in a matter of minutes only goes to proof of their weakness.
ReplyDeleteIt's frustrating too, because I know you're a smart guy Chris. I'm just confused why you put forth these very radical concepts like the CIA sinking the Choenan.
Kevin
ReplyDeletePerhaps I got BS'd, perhaps not. I'd like to believe that I did not. Only time will tell as veil of secrecy is lifted in the upcoming years. Til then I will reserve.
I do not disagree that it would take time to shut down the Okinawa base. Regardless of my lack of military experience, I do understand that it takes time to close a base. Without instability in Korean penisula can Japan's leadership continue to give it's citizens in keeping the base?
As for Mexico. I'd the wall would need to be expanded from its current state and beefing up our military presence as well. I did not say to use the CIA on American soil; rather for them to operate in Mexico to help re-stabilize the country. One can make the argument that Mexico is unstable with all the fighting taking place between the Drug lords and Government.
Pol Pot attempted to keep his killing fields quiet, we would make no bones about it. It be a kill zone similar to what was seen along the Iron Curtain. Our first duty is to keep our citizens safe and secure.
Kevin
ReplyDelete"I'm just confused why you put forth these very radical concepts like the CIA sinking the Choenan."
The challenge of this entry, by Anon, was to defend a position of his/her choice. Do I necessarily believe that the CIA was involved in the sinking of the Choenan? No. Is it possible the CIA played a part? Sure, it is possible.
Anon
ReplyDeleteDon't recall me claming to be an English major. When composing my original entries I do run it through Word and rely on Word to offer suggestions.
I have recoiled a position or two. I have adopted new information into my arguments.
Never said that you claimed to be an English major. You're far from it. Apparently you've turned off both the spelling and grammar checks in your version of MS Word. Whatever happened to just good old proofreading?
ReplyDeleteAnd I love the fact that you're going to wait thirty years for the veil of secrecy to be lifted on the CIA's involvement in an event that took place in the Middle East. That's a long time to have your head in the sand.
Defending a position that one would not normally defend should not require you to make up facts as you go along or create fantastical conspiracy theories. then again, the request by another anonymous poster may have been beyond the realm of possibility for an ideologue like you.
ReplyDeleteAnon
ReplyDeleteAs I said, in my original posts I do run it through MS Word. In my responses, I use Notepad. Not everyone is perfect with their grammar and spelling either but let's not detract from the conversation.
I have not made up any facts here. I have taken events shaping the region and interpretted them. And how does this make me an ideologue?
Chris, I had a litany of responses for you but I'm going to limit it to the quote below:
ReplyDelete"Pol Pot attempted to keep his killing fields quiet, we would make no bones about it. It be a kill zone similar to what was seen along the Iron Curtain. Our first duty is to keep our citizens safe and secure." Chris
I get the feeling you don't realize what you're saying here first of all. But, with this one statement, you unravel all the supposed constitutionalist and small government beliefs you've advocated here.
You are advocating a military state with highly intrusive military operations WITHIN our border. You do this all the while claiming to be an advocate of states rights and smaller government? I hate to point out hypocrisy again man, but your ideals are in direct conflict with one another.
Example, what if California decides they don't want a wall with gun turrets on their border? Are states rights going to override your federal military state? Your comments say no, that the federal objective has supremacy. Don't you see the hypocrisy of this?
I'm not going to lie Chris, you are advocating fascism and totalitarianism here. You are effectively saying the only error Pol Pot made was hiding his crimes against humanity. But if the USA decides to kill 25M people rushing our border with the sole goal of feeding their families we should not only let the world know about it but we should be proud because we're protecting our citizens.
Dude, that's one foot past the border of crazy town man, and you're not on the good side of that border. The pathology required to think that this statement is in any way moral or ethical let alone constitutional is borderline sociopathic.
And that's terrifying to me. Not because someone thinks that way, I knew people did. What's terrifying to me is that someone who I respected for at least trying to have a discourse about sensitive topics said it. It shatters that respect Chris. You may not care, but don't be surprised if your blog readership goes down dramatically when you show these kind of colors.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteI understand your statement that I am unraveling my constitutional and small government beliefs. Right now I am wearing a different hat, one of defending a position that Anonymous has asked me to defend.
As to my response to your scenario under normal circumstances it would be as follows:
If Mexico were to sink a Canadian frigate on training exercise in international waters, my first item to accomplish would be to get the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Canada on the phone in an attempt to defuse the situation. Next, I'd have my Joint Chiefs commission a salvage unit to recover the reckage and determine definitively the cause. While the commission is investigating several high profile Rose Garden and Oval Office meetings, with photo ops, would take place with myself, the Prime Minister and the Preisdent. Other lower level meetings would take place as well.
We would not appease either country;yet we would bring pause and stability to the conversation to ensure rational though prevailed. In the end we discuss tactics and guidelines to operate under next time a similar incident was about to take place.
While I do contend that California does have a right to defend their borders from foreign invaders, the foreign invaders to not include other United state citizens. Now, if California wanted to wall off the boarder to Mexico as an attempt to deter illegal immigration, I am all for that. I acknowledge the wall alone will not stop the flow thus the wall would be just one arm of the plan.
Either you are being genuinely dishonest and answering my fair questions with lies or you are being genuinely honest and rescinding that position only after the fact when you realize what light it paints you in.
ReplyDeleteI suspect it's the latter for one simple reason - your response was to me, not to Anon. And I didn't ask you to play devil's advocate. Therefore, your response is likely genuine.
And that's disconcerting.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteAs I said, I was given challenge to make a convincing argument. To which I believe I laid out a rational reason why China is appeasing North Korea in my original entry. I continued to defend the position based on what I understand about those who would defend such a position.
Once I realized the original challenge notion was being grouped in with other positions and posts I have taken and the obvious change in cores stances I had to pull away the veil. That is why I re-did my answer to your post in order to convey my honest, personal view on the scenario you put forth.
I am bit baffled by your last line.
I knew you would do this Viper! I asked you to take a stance on an issue that you may not normally take (defending China for it's support of North Korea and/or explaining why they would do such a thing). Now you're hiding behind that challenge to defend absolutely ridiculous statements ("Blast warnings that anyone found in the zone will be shot on sight"). THAT WAS NOT THE CHALLENGE!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteSo don't hide behind my request to save yourself from ridicule. Killing fields between the U.S. and Mexico may be your idea of a good immigration plan. Be proud of it if it is what you believe in and want to see. But don't ever pull this crap where you make wholly irresponsible statements and then hide behind a request from a poster. I didn't ask to hear the ravings of a lunatic, but it's becoming clear that I don't have to ask, that's just what I'll get.
Anon
ReplyDeleteI did take a stance and I did defend a position that I do not agree with. I am not hiding behind anything; rather I am clarifying the issue as my defense of China's support of North Korea. My statements are reflective of what one would say when defending the position I was asked to take.
The clarification of my personal view is not to absolve the statements I made in defense of the position. I defended the position based on articles I read over the Memorial Day weekend and other sites I visited to learn more about the importance of North Korea to China. Did you expect that the arguments for China defending North Korea were going to be completely rational from your point of view?
To include the killing fields between US and Mexico parallels the DMZ that exists between North and South Korea. Granted wholesale killing is not going on but tensions are high enough for that possibility.
Lecture away if you must about me voicing my personal view. The challenge you proposed was clearly accomplished by the Viper and that is not sitting well with you. That is okay too. I created this blog to exchange views in an open, honest and respectful manner.
Perhaps I wasn't clear Viper. You did okay on the challenge but then went right out of town to looneyville! Your drawing parallels between the DMZ in Korea and the U.S. / Mexico border is the issue. Just like your comparison of the CIA to Kim Jong Il is completely off base. Or the suggestion that the CIA is complicit in the repression of millions of Americans through the drug trade being so far afield I should start calling you Ted. Or the suggestion that you have some top secret information on CIA operations in the Middle East and Asia that won't come to light for at least 30 and 10 years respectively. Then you throw in the killing fields plan for the U.S. / Mexico border and it's the icing on the cake. But wait, there's more. The CIA apparently was (or could have been) involved in the sinking of the South Korean ship. What's your proof? Well, the CIA hasn't denied it. And it's possible that they were in on it, either conspiring with South Korea, Japan or maybe even North Korea.
ReplyDeleteHow immigration policy in the U.S. relevant to this discussion? It's not.
How is the CIA relevant to this discussion? It's not.
How is establishing killing fields in the U.S. /Mexico border relevant to this discussion? It's not.
I guess I expected too much Viper. I did expect you to make rational arguments. I should have known better.
Why couldn't you stick to rational arguments when discussing China's defense of North Korea?
I'll guess at your response. Rationality is subjective.
Chris, my comment "And that's disconcerting" is in reference to my belief in the paragraph above that your statements about killing fields and Pol Pot's "only" error were truly held beliefs. By disconcerting, I'm saying that I'm extremely disturbed by those comments. And extremely is the understatement of the year for me.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I did not ask you to take devil's advocate. I gave you an analogous scenario to what is happening in NK with China and asked you if your position would be different with that scenario on our border and not 5k miles away. You not only clearly stated that you would not act differently but that you would aggressively subvert the "N Korea" in my example and shoot the citizens of "N Korea" if they approached and attempted to cross our border. As you said, "Pol Pot attempted to keep his killing fields quiet, we would make no bones about it."
That's as borderline sociopathic as someone saying that the only mistake Hitler made was not killing ALL the Jews. It's an inhuman statement on it's face. And like I said above, what horrifies me is that I believe that this is not a devil's advocate position but your true opinion - albeit perhaps exaggerated for effect a step.
But even if it is a step past for effect, it's 5 steps into crazy town man.
Anon
ReplyDeleteImmigration is relevant in so far, as Kevin pointed out, there may be an influx of North Koreans into China if Kim Jong Il was toppled or removed from power.
The arguments I made were rational. I attempted to draw a comparison to the United States to help tie in the importance of the buffer zone. If you can honestly sit there and not suspect that the CIA had a hand in the sinking, from the stand point of those defending the position, then you do not understand the perspective of those that defend China's defense of North Korea. Just because one does not agree with the rational does not automatically make it irrational.
And yes, rationality, like all things, is relative not subjective. Just like, is it barbaric for one to eat the flesh of their enemy after battle? To Western Cultures the answer would be yes. To some it is; relative not subjective.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteWhen listening to arguments for the sanity of Kim Jong Il and rationality, one does have to take the explanation to near sociopathic realms.
Sorry to disappoint you but my response to your scenario was originally intended to be in the light of defending China and North Korea. After noticing that playing devil's advocate was being lost is when I offered my real answer to your scenario.