Aardvark

That maybe because you tend to associate with humans more than animals. If you were a gibbon you would probably be in a position to complain about being pushed around by the older, bigger gibbons. I don't think it is possible to argue that animals have superior virtue or morality to humans. Yes, humans are destructive but they are also creative. They are the first species to develop technology and consciousness. Without humans life on this planet will simply exist and then end. With humans there is the possibility of life being spread in the universe, of there being some kind of purpose. Isn't that worth something?

Jokers to the left of me, jokers to the right, here i am, stuck in the middle with you.

Firstly the Chinese and Koreans do not have similar ancestry. The Koreans are descended from Tungusic tribal peoples, they are a distinct racial and cultural and linguistic group. I don't understand what you mean by 'take back Korea' Korea never was Chinese so how could it be taken back? China has fought many wars against Korea, wars of brutal aggression and expansionism. If you want references then check http://myhome.shinbiro.com/~mss1/history.html or http://myhome.shinbiro.com/~mss1/history.html The only time China can be said to have stood by Korea was in the Korean war. Not an act of brotherlyness. A powerplay between communism and capitalism. Yes, China has had great influence on Korea, that does not make them brothers, rather Korea has had to struggle to survive and maintain its distinct identity. You make note that Koreans are recognised as an ethnic minority in China and that China has repeatedly mlitarily intervened in Korea. Quite how this evidence is supposed to back up any claim of brotherly feelings between the two nations is, at best, highly obscure. You say that you provided historical evidence and that i did not. Well, you did not, you simply stated an opinion. If you look at the history of Korea you will see that it is one of struggle against larger more powerful neighbours, esp China. If China has such feelings of solidarity with Koreans why are Koreans in China so badly treated? http://www.cecc.gov/pages/roundtables/041904/index.php http://www.unrefugees.org/archives.cfm?ID=1375&cat=Archives http://www.unrefugees.org/archives.cfm?ID=1362&cat=Archives http://www.unrefugees.org/archives.cfm?ID=1255&cat=Archives http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/asa/china?Open

You've already introduced the idea to the forum where it was fully discussed. I don't believe anyone was impressed.

And i'm the pedant who ignores context? Their existing secret programme was caught out in 2002.

I'm hoping they're just being ironic in a very subtle way.

Then what are we disagreeing about?

Actually it was pretty secret. In 2002 NK was found to having been continuing with its nuclear weapons programme in secret and in violation of its agreements on the matter. Here is an informative link http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.asp

I prefer to think of it as remaining focussed on the essentials. Funny how perceptions can vary.

Ok. But you've still left me confused about the semantic pedantry bit. We seem to have crossed wires somewhere?

True, but in his defence he does have to deal with a lot of idiots which would probably led to anyone having a shortened fuse. Trying to reason with some creationists is impossible, as such a dismissive attitude towards fools would, at the very least, save an awful lot of wasted time.

And people look to Eastern philosophies for enlightenment?

True, unfortunately the North Korean regime is known for being paranoid and unpredictable. Where another nation would be extremely reluctant to use these weapons we can not be sure that the NK regime is that rational. Esp as the regime might collapse, in which case the leaders might consider that they have nothing left to lose. (ps, good summation of the pledge of allegiance debate, but probably wasted on the trolls )

You, personally, are probably quite safe. But considering how volitatile the NK regime is millions of people in Asia are at risk. The NK regime might decide on an aggressive foriegn policy to divert attention from internal collapse. Or the NK regime might collapse, either into bloody feuding or anarchy. Either way nuclear bombs in one of the most densely populated areas of the world makes for big problems. A collapsing NK attacking SK would mean American troops fighting and the possibility of cities like Tokyo or Seoul being hit by nuclear weapons. An eventuality worth trying to avoid.

As i am not misrepresenting your position there is no strawmanning. You argued that promises were made that were not kept. I argued that only minimal promises were made and these have been kept. What promises are you refering to? If you actually came out with any examples it might shed some light on this discussion. According to my reading of the Bonn Agreement those promises made have been kept. You could justly argue that more should be done, that more should have been promised. I am pointing out that very little was promised in the first place. That the war in Afghanistan never had any humanitarian disguises, it was a naked power play.

It's a case of the North Koreans trying to play divide and rule. Not a matter of negotiating in good faith.

North Korea was busily developing nuclear weapons when Clinton was President. Therefore, when they say they are only responding to a threat from Bush they are lying.

I called it a USA invasion because the token nature of other nations contributions completely minmal. Having a few dozen UK and Australian special forces attached to the USA iinvasion doesn't make it a multinational force. This was a US operation with all that that implies. It does make a complete difference to the moral responsibility. When the daisy cutters were being dropped the Americans were clear and honest in their intentions. They stated that this was a matter of hitting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, that any benefits for Afghanistan were good, but not the main point. The war in Afghanistan was never a matter of bringing democracy or freedom from tyranny or any of those lovely justifications used for the war in Iraq. It was simply a war to hit enemies. You can point to cynicism, brutality, arrogance, but not to breaking of promises.

That sounds very good in itself but i can't help feeling that a commitment to end world hunger and corporate exploitation isn't going to do much to help with North Koreas regime. These people are not humanitarians. Do you think that there is a chance you are a bit over-idealistic?

What suggestions do you have for dealing with North Korea?