North Korea Admits to having Nukes

[Edric O]

Edric, I think the issue with re-legalizing the Ba'ath party is that, if once legalized, old ex-Ba'athists would go back to their own ways and run entire towns like mafia families; terrorizing and threatening to get themselves into office. They would be democratically elected, but only out of fear.

The old power structures have been torn down, and re-legalizing the Ba'ath Party doesn't mean giving anything back to the old Ba'athists. It just means allowing them to rebuild their party from scratch (if they wish to do so).

[Wolf]

I'm not so sure. I do think that there are some ex-Ba'athists out there who would use the reinstitution of their party as a means to bring back the old power structures that kept them in power. If the ideals of the Ba'ath party were good, then they can run under a new party; I don't think that banning the party necessarily precludes their voice from society, if that voice had any redeeming qualities in the first place. Even then, it's not like I've seen too many Iraqis shedding a tear over their political annihilation.

[GUNWOUNDS]

As for Gunwounds...you can't balance out evil acts with good acts

actually you can.... its called compensation, amends, indemnification, restitution, redress, redemption, reparations, pick whatever synonym you want.

And you can't say that North Korea doesn't do anything good...

I will say it until someone proves me wrong.

Who are WE to define what good is?

Who are WE?

[Megashrap]

And you can't say that North Korea doesn't do anything good...cause who are you exactly do define what good is?

Well it doesn't take much research to see what "good" that has come from NK lately, Major illicit drug exporting, military vehicles and arms selling via the black market, not to mention one of the main reasons that food aid and other goods world wide are often confiscated by NK military and sold. One of the main reasons for stopping aid to NK was due to world aid orginisations not being able to oversee that aid was distributed in the manner it is meant for. Now you bring nukes into the equation of a very unstable, impoverished country it truly does not equal 'a good thing'. Not to mention the black market now has a gold bar commodity.

[VigilVirus]

actually you can.... its called compensation, amends, indemnification, restitution, redress, redemption, reparations, pick whatever synonym you want.

I will say it until someone proves me wrong.

Who are WE?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Compensation doesn't erase past evils. I hope you realize that. Throughout history the compensations for such events as the japanese internment camps in the US have been considered to be a joke and an insult by those who receive them.

Thats silly... who said anything about erasing evils?

[Megashrap]

it most certainly is balanced out when they feed millions and save milllions from starvation, malaria, etc.

I guess what bothers me is just how meaningless or feeble it is to some, that actually feeding, giving medical supplies, and other means to certain places in the world is useless somehow.

[Dragoon Knight]

Or lets say the United States starts a war and kills 150,000 people... it most certainly is balanced out when they feed millions and save milllions from starvation, malaria, etc.

Actualy from a Utilitarian standpoint the U.S. actually does more good than bad.

Perhaps a utilitarian view is needed here to comprehend what i am saying... but it is accepted throughout the global community nonetheless.... else the US would be liked even less.

You can't seriously mean that.  Utilitarianism as a theory is flawed in many ways.  By your reasoning, the U.S. could go around killing as many people as it wanted, as long as it 'compensated' by 'helping' more than they destroy.

You may say that the U.S. couldn't do anything morally objectionable, like killing for the sake of it... but considering that there are some that could argue that they are doing that right now, there's not much weight to that argument.

Basically, there is no way that you can justify killing a man with different views to yours by simply 'compensating' by helping two people who share your views.  Therefore, the U.S. cannot possibly compensate by 'sending aid' or whatever.

[Khan]

Or lets say the United States starts a war and kills 150,000 people... it most certainly is balanced out when they feed millions and save milllions from starvation, malaria, etc.

Of course there's no compensation for the dead civilians, but who cares?

[VigilVirus]

When it comes to destroying and saving lives, you can't value life quantitatively. Utilitarianism does this, which is morally wrong. Utilitarianism values old people the same way it values worn out socks. It certainly is a philosophy, but I don't suggest you use it to back up argument for morality. 

[GUNWOUNDS]

On the contrary... all governments value life quantitatively.

[VigilVirus]

Maybe governments do, but the majority of /people/ don't. And wasn't this all about the contributions to the people?

[Dante]

On the contrary... all governments value life quantitatively.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Maybe governments do, but the majority of /people/ don't. And wasn't this all about the contributions to the people?

well actually i think the majority of people DO quantify life.... its the whole reason why people categorize certain wars as being worse than others...not because of what the war stood for... but merely/mainly

[Dante]

well actually i think the majority of people DO quantify life.... its the whole reason why people categorize certain wars as being worse than others...not because of what the war stood for... but merely/mainly

[Dragoon Knight]

Gunwounds, you're ignoring the points that both Dante and I have made... just because the U.S. is saving lives, it doesn't give them the right to kill.

So i can turn the tables on you and say that  "no good deed can be erased"

Are you simply dodging the argument or do you really believe that?  Good deeds can be 'erased', in the same way that bad deeds can... by MAKING UP for them,  It's doing both at the same time that makes the U.S. exempt from praise or glory.  Let me put it this way...

Situation 1

Country goes around killing people -- BAD DEED.

Country stops killing people and starts giving aid, never to kill needlessly / unjustly again -- BAD DEED 'ERASED'.

Situation 2

Country goes around giving aid -- GOOD DEED.

Country stops giving aid and starts killing people -- GOOD DEED 'ERASED'.

Situation 3

Country goes around giving aid -- GOOD DEED.

Country goes around killing people -- BAD DEED.

As you can see, the country it Situation 1 would be forgiven EVENTUALLY in the international community for their constant aid giving etc.  They would be excused for their previous crimes.  There would be no proverbial man in a suit standing there saying "Come along, chop chop!  Still 1,043 lives to save before you're back in the black!"

The country in Situation 2 would be condemned entirely, however; their deeds would be remembered, but forgotten and invalid in light of their new actions.  There would be no-one who said "Don't worry.  They saved 100 people before they broke out the tactical nukes.  We can't call them murderers yet."

The country in Situation 3 is the U.S.  It goes around saying "Look, we're helping people!  Ignore the fact that we're killing them as well!".  By constantly doing a bad deed, they are erasing the effect of doing a good deed to 'erase' it.  It would be like the country in Situation 1 becoming the country in Situation 2.  If you don't understand what I mean, just say, and I'll try to explain it in simpler terms... the wording for this is difficult. :)

...and SAVING millions of lives every day.

Millions?  I think not.

[VigilVirus]

To me, the value of a life is relative. I value the lives of my parents more than I value the lives of millions of people. I wouldn't hesitate to murder those millions of people if that's what it takes to prevent the death of a loved one. Most people value the lives of their loved ones well over the lives of people they never even met. This is why saving lives doesn't cancel out taking lives. Death is always personal. A little boy whose parents a government murdered will not hate them any less when they save hundreds of lives in a nearby village. You always need to consider, who exactly are you trying to justify death to with your quantitative reasoning?

[ken124578]

So what does this have to do with north korea?  /=|

[Dante]

To me, the value of a life is relative. I value the lives of my parents more than I value the lives of millions of people. I wouldn't hesitate to murder those millions of people if that's what it takes to prevent the death of a loved one.

Valid and justifiable point.

So what does this have to do with north korea? /=|

The question right now is whether giving aid, food, etc to countries like North Korea can morally balance crimes elsewhere. Thus establishing what a 'good' country is, and what a 'bad' country is, and therefore which ones should be allowed to have nuclear capability. ... Personally I think it's all a load of octopus eyes, but that's the debate nevertheless.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Dragoon your erasing assumptions dont make any sense to me.

[nemafakei]

Out of interest, and given that we can generally take North Korea's internal policy to be dire (but leaving it aside for a minute), what negative effect does such a country have on the world as a whole?

[Dragoon Knight]

Yeah, I thought the wording of my last post was a bit awkward.  I agree that 'balanced' would be a good term to use in place of erased.  The point I'm trying to make is that the U.S. is not achieving a balance.  Here's when it becomes difficult to phrase.

If the U.S. were just doing good deeds (in this case, aid etc.) then they would obviously be praised.  It's the fact that they're killing people at the same time that makes people ignore this fact.  True, the U.S. should have recognition for the aid it gives and the people it saves, but this does NOT give it the 'right' to kill an equal number of terrorists etc.  Even though the 'balance' would technically make the U.S. 'good', this utilitarian way of looking at things is ridiculous.  By this logic, you could save 10 people's lives and then kill 9 of them... yet still be praised.

I agree with Devil's Advocate when he says that life is subjectively qualitive rather than objectively quantative, if you will... but I also agree with Dante when he says that (at least in the case of war) one life is worth the same another.  A person's life cannot have a price tag put on it... it's worth more or less to different people.  But either way, there is no justification for saying that the U.S. is doing 'good' overall.  It's not; not by a long way.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Out of interest, and given that we can generally take North Korea's internal policy to be dire (but leaving it aside for a minute), what negative effect does such a country have on the world as a whole?

Hmm well suppose a country like N. Korea started to grow in power...enhanced its economy.... enhanced its nuclear arsenal.....developed nukes capable of reaching the furthest countries.... and decided to become imperialistic.

[nemafakei]

Ok, so, to clarify, North Korea is not having any particular negative effect on the outside world today; your complaint against them is that they might invade another country, yes? (I certainly agree that such an eventuality would indeed be dire).

[GUNWOUNDS]

Ok, so, to clarify, North Korea is not having any particular negative effect on the outside world today; your complaint against them is that they might invade another country, yes? (I certainly agree that such an eventuality would indeed be dire).

Yes i think the world has learned from past lessons that developing countries with dire internal policies need to comply with the wishes of the Democractic Majority or else forced regime change and restructuring will occur.  And one of those wishes is de-nuclearization.