Kevin: I think they'd gladly embrace N. Korea, which is great, but that doesn't mean South Korea is retaining its own cultural values. I don't think the demise of culture for "progress" should be termed as the cure for stagnation. Since my former "significant other" is from there, I get a little bit of "insider knowledge" on the matter, and Seoul for example is quickly turning into one big fast food restaurant. Again, better than the daily misery felt by your average N. Korean? Definitely.
You're a lucky guy, always found myself attracted to Koreans as well. Korean was my target language in the Navy, and I took the credits for it here at Uni as well. I'm not exactly ignorant, though I admit to terrible blind spots. . .The world is changing, and America makes up a large portion of the force which promotes that change. Isolationism is nearly impossible, and because of that, every nation must give up a bit of itself simply to be compatible with the world at large. Traditions, such as celebrating one's sixtieth birthday in Korea, are being lost, but why? Because sixty is no longer seen as an advanced age anymore. When celebrating the new year do they still burn their ornamental masks created just for that occassion to ensure demons don't wrack havok on the crops for the next year? No, because in light of scientific progress, such beliefs are seen as superstitious. Knowledge of their past isn't lost, it's just been set aside. I don't think thats so terrible really.
Kevin: But we haven't left them alone. We have in fact aided, benefited, and continue to do both with the very same bad guys you mention (even the "butcher of Baghdad" at one time). I constantly revert to this example, but why not react to a nation such as Iraq the way we do with China? China is an undemocratic nation that has human rights violations up the wazoo, and has likewise shown aggression towards Taiwan and Tibet (similar to Kuwait?). Yet our "solution" for China has been open markets, free trade, cure them with capitalism, etc. Why sanction one oppressive regime and reward another? Why not open up trade with Iraq, lift sanctions, and allow a healthy Iraqi people, with access to internet and global press, why not allow them to emancipate themselves not only physically from that monster, but ideologically as well????
I can't tell you why for sure, only what I believe. There are a number of reasons really: The Chinese, despite being Marxist, have had a history of bad blood with Russia (which, when Mao usurped imperial rule, during the height of Stalin's power, was beneficial to the United States) also because China was once a great ally, up until world war two. Finally, even though there have been tensions between they and us, the Chinese have never tried to close themselves away from the United State's influence, always having kept communication lines open. . .And having a massive army helps too
Regardless of political differences, the mentality isn't that different between us really. Their system now is almost capitolistics really.
Kevin: Well I'm beginnging to appreciate Madison more and more, too.
We'll make a believe of you yet!
Kevin: I know Locke (which comes out very clearly in Jefferson's words) believed that a king, or any one who would rule over others, in essense is a "terrorist." They are a terrorist to their own people, in the most literal sense. Under that logic, overthrowing Saddam would be very relevant in regards to the war on terror.
But I don't know that John Locke would support this war, and neither do I.
Hopefully neither, which is where I stand. It's an illegal and unjust war. Those whom promote it do so without the support of those they rule over and have had to convince their constituants to trust them, which is not how it should be. I only hope, and may our progeny forgive us for it, that the eventual rights will out weigh the great injustice we perform now.
Kevin: I think if our game plan is to liberate the third world from every terrible regime around, we have a lot of work ahead of us.....
And then he'd have to inspire a civil war. By Jeffersons definition of terrorism, our current government is certainly unsatisfactory.
Kevin: Can you say Poindexter?
Aye, and I can continue on as well:
this is fun
(re-nominated to the Asst. Secretary of State post)
(currently Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations at the National Security Council)
(Deputy Secretary of State )
Kevin: We have Blair, not necessarily Britain
Kevin: And I think when people say "unilateral," they mean nations of significant miltary and economic clout (or a permanent member of the UN SC). I mean, sure, if it was America and Haiti declaring war on Iraq, it TECHNICALLY isn't unilateral in the literal sense, BUT....
In that case, it will be unilateral until we get either China or Russia to side with us.[/url]