Why are China and North Korea considered threats?

[Adam]

Now, several times at least one person has brought up the idea that China and North Korea are possible threats. Personally I can think of another country which has attacked and invaded other countries far more often over the past century or so. But why would these two be considered a threat to any other nation?

 

[member 5645]

I love how you take what I say, and then twist it into WORLD peace.

 

[Nereid]

The question may be badly worded, the choices limited, ... but it's almost axiomatic that the only global 'superpower' is also the ultimate cause of its own downfall, and the only certain source of 'global risk'.

 

[member 5645]

For the remainder of the board who aren't absolutely worthless:
The original statement was that both China and Korea are areas of real possible conflict.

Korea for whatever gain Kim Jung Il has, and for the possiblity of Nuclear expansion that calls the need for Allied force to halt it.

China, for it's open and repeated threats of force if Taiwan declares independence. The security pact we have with Taiwan will pull us into that, despite our want to kiss china's ass on the "one China" policy.


And just some recent articles....

North Korea...
N Korea threatens to scrap truce...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2774003.stm
Korea threatens preemptive action...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,889679,00.html
Koreas new demands...
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/03/08/nkorea.nuclear.ap/



China and Taiwan
China threatens war with Taiwan
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/19/1069027184924.html?from=storyrhs
And they've done it before...
http://www.taiwandc.org/nws-9835.htm
And they've threatened that Los Angeles will be struck if we interfere with their attack on Taiwan...
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=96-D_09 (original NY times article is for members only)


Soooo, yes, I feel the original assertion that China and Korea are fully POSSIBLE areas of conflict is true.

 

[member 5645]

The question may be badly worded, the choices limited, ... but it's almost axiomatic that the only global 'superpower' is also the ultimate cause of its own downfall, and the only certain source of 'global risk'.

Obviously, the heavyweight always poises the greatest threat to the entire pond - we make the most ripples.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know if "threat" is the right word for N. Korea. The word implies they haven't done anything yet. How much of a "threat" can they be to the 10% of the population that has starved to death in the past decade? I mean, they're already dead - you can't threaten them anymore.

As with all loaded questions (that's the whole point of loading a question), this one is based on a false premise.

 

[member 5645]

I also wonder if you consider world peace to be achieved while Tibet is still occupied?


And for that matter, is world peace obtained when nations aren't fighting, but some are starving their populations?

 

[Adam]

North Korea...
N Korea threatens to scrap truce...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2774003.stm
Korea threatens preemptive action...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/art...,889679,00.html
Koreas new demands...
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/a...rea.nuclear.ap/



China and Taiwan
China threatens war with Taiwan
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2...l?from=storyrhs
And they've done it before...
http://www.taiwandc.org/nws-9835.htm
And they've threatened that Los Angeles will be struck if we interfere with their attack on Taiwan...
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy...rs&code=96-D_09 (original NY times article is for members only)

1) USA has made "pre-emptive strike" a core part of their foreign policy.

2) USA is still working on NBC weapons, and has huge stockpiles of such. Here's a recent one: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994318

3) USA has threatened that nuking people again is a possibility. http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/11/bush.weapons.security/index.html

4) USA has used NBC weapons against its own people. (Lose faith in your government, they simply aren't worthy of it.)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2002/t10092002_t1009ha.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/TET210A.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65162,00.html

5) USA has attacked more nations than China has. Generally a new war every presidential term. http://americanpeace.eccmei.net/

6) USA has almost 400,000 soldiers in 135 countries. China doesn't. Nor does North Korea.

7) The USA has indicated recently that Syria, Iran, North Korea, and other nations may face "pre-emptive strikes" (ie. the USA has threatened other nations), as part of their war on error. Remember the "axis is evil" thing?

Once again: Which is the bigger threat?

 

[russ_watters]

Once again: Which is the bigger threat?

The US is the biggest threat to criminal tyranical dictators. China and Korea are the biggest threats to the peaceful/prosperous nations and their own citizens.

World peace? What's that? Never heard of it. I guess if you want to get technical, the modern western world, which the US created (with a little bit of help from our friends), is the most peaceful in the history of mankind.

 

[Adam]

I guess if you want to get technical, the modern western world, which the US created

Are you high?

As for the rest, please READ my previous post.

 

[russ_watters]

As for the rest, please READ my previous post.

Pick one or two which you think are pertinent and explain them/it (in your own words). I have a problem with all 7, but I'd like to hear your opinion. That is, of course, the whole purpose of these forums. Discussion...

Are you high? [re: modern western world]

We've discussed that several times before as well. Its called The Marshall Plan. Its the reason for the paragdim shift in the political forces in the west after WWII (away from nationalism) and the resulting peace and prosperity for the past 50 years, which is unparalleled in the history of the world.

 

[member 5645]

I also wonder if you consider world peace to be achieved while Tibet is still occupied?


And for that matter, is world peace obtained when nations aren't fighting, but some are starving their populations?

I wonder...

 

[ShawnD]

Its called The Marshall Plan. Its the reason for the paragdim shift in the political forces in the west after WWII (away from nationalism) and the resulting peace and prosperity for the past 50 years, which is unparalleled in the history of the world.

Russ hit the nail on the head.

 

[Polly]

Has anyone wondered if the USA can be a deadly threat to the rest of the world through the export of its value and culture (materialism, consumerism and anything-goes-ism etc)?

edit: spelling

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Has anyone wondered if the USA can be a deadly threat to the rest of the world through the export of its value and culture (materialism, consumerism and anything-goes-ism etc)?

edit: spelling

I had a math professor who would absolutely rant about this issue. He was very angry over the export of the US style of marketing; which is what I think you really mean? Conversely, "anything" does not go with most people in the US but it sure seems to if you want to sell something, or if you judge Americans by what you see on TV, doesn’t it? In fact, in the US we find a population that is representative of nearly all of the world’s cultures and beliefs. Like mine, I think your biggest grievance is really with the multinational corporations. These monsters often do not represent “the” US culture, its beliefs, or its attitudes, on the average, in any way. They serve themselves and that’s all. They have no national loyalties.

Examples:
For years they have been shipping our jobs to you and many other parts of the world.

Consider that here in the US we pass strict environmental laws to protect and keep safe, and clean, the water and air that we need to live. The result is that we drive the corporations to deploy to Mexico where laws are much less demanding. This isn't quite the idea guys.

The military industrial complex exists in effect to support a state of war. For this reason this environment of corporations often toes or exceeds the gray line between government and industry. They help to get politicians elected. They create jobs. They often pay big tax dollars to city, state, and fereral agencies. They definitely yield a tremendous influence on policy that in many cases is absolutely not representive of the will or intent of the American people.

From the hopeless second runner up in the presidential election this year - Ralph Nader: "Corporations now occupy Washington"

 

[Polly]

It would be unfair for me to blame every social ill on the USA of course, it takes two hands to clap, we have a mighty and rich super power and and it is almost human nature that other peoples less so want to share her aura/image of success by perhaps dressing in oversized pants and T-shirt, wearing NY caps, imitating the moves in her music videoes and perhaps taking on her lingo/attitude.

I really don't have any quarrel with what you said, and I am sure you are right, big corporations are driven by big profits and all sorts of "professionals" are hired to think up ingenious ways to make profit happen or at least appear to happen. And people are capable of pretty nasty things propelled by greed. We are just as bad, if not worst, with our systematic corruption and graft (if Marx is right, this is a necessary phase of capitialism and it is called the crude accumulation of wealth, anyway).

My lament, actually is more about the moral slip. When I said "anything-goes-ism" I actually had the tv sit-com "Absolutely Raven" (?) in mind. Do you see my point? I mean I am not a prig, but even I found that show "eye-opening". Contrast that to the "Cosby Show" (okay an unrealistic black middle-class show) years ago, and one finds the difference in ethics or aspiration startling. We are talking about "matronly" teenagers dressing and acting like, my most sincere apologies for lack of a better word and no offence intended whatsoever, "tramps". And I saw a couple of years ago an article by a sociologist saying that the beltless oversized clothes indicated two social ills in the USA, 1, obesity and 2. anything goes, because that is the way inmates dress and when teenagers identify with the inmates, the author smelled a degration in aspiration. I truly hope the show is not representative of the Americans, or else we are all in big trouble.

 

[member 5645]

From the hopeless second runner up in the presidential election this year - Ralph Nader: "Corporations now occupy Washington"

Perhaps you can show me where he said this, since you are the only result I have ever found of this statement.

Nader did however state that "what's really in the White House today is a giant corporation disguised as a human being." - not nearly so tactful or mature, if you ask me.

 

[kat]

In fact, in the US we find a population that is representative of nearly all of the world’s cultures and beliefs. Like mine, I think your biggest grievance is really with the multinational corporations. These monsters often do not represent “the” US culture, its beliefs, or its attitudes, on the average, in any way. They serve themselves and that’s all. They have no national loyalties.

Examples:
For years they have been shipping our jobs to you and many other parts of the world.

Consider that here in the US we pass strict environmental laws to protect and keep safe, and clean, the water and air that we need to live. The result is that we drive the corporations to deploy to Mexico where laws are much less demanding. This isn't quite the idea guys.

The military industrial complex exists in effect to support a state of war. For this reason this environment of corporations often toes or exceeds the gray line between government and industry. They help to get politicians elected. They create jobs. They often pay big tax dollars to city, state, and fereral agencies. They definitely yield a tremendous influence on policy that in many cases is absolutely not representive of the will or intent of the American people.

Well, no their not. Mainly because the majority of transnational companies aren't U.S. Based at all. There are more transnational company parents operating out of Denmark then anywhere else in the world (9,356), after Denmark comes Germany (8,492), Sweden (5,118) and Switzerland (5,506). In fact the U.S. has only slightly more then a third of the amt of transnational company parents as does Denmark.

 

[Zero]

Well, no their not. Mainly because the majority of transnational companies aren't U.S. Based at all. There are more transnational company parents operating out of Denmark then anywhere else in the world (9,356), after Denmark comes Germany (8,492), Sweden (5,118) and Switzerland (5,506). In fact the U.S. has only slightly more then a third of the amt of transnational company parents as does Denmark.

Are your numbers representative of the relative size of the corporations, or are they misleading(intentionally or not)? In other words, are the total dollar amounts done by the Danish companies greater than those of America?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps you can show me where he said this, since you are the only result I have ever found of this statement.

He said it on Meet the Press about four weeks ago. The other statement was that "Bush is a corporation masquerading as a human being".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, no their not. Mainly because the majority of transnational companies aren't U.S. Based at all. There are more transnational company parents operating out of Denmark then anywhere else in the world (9,356), after Denmark comes Germany (8,492), Sweden (5,118) and Switzerland (5,506). In fact the U.S. has only slightly more then a third of the amt of transnational company parents as does Denmark.

What does this have to do with my statements? I don't remember starting a contest to see who has more.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Some of our companies have bigger budgets than many countries.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...My lament, actually is more about the moral slip. When I said "anything-goes-ism" I actually had the tv sit-com "Absolutely Raven" (?) in mind. Do you see my point?

Really, no. I don't watch crap TV. Do you see my point? You just turn it off.

And I saw a couple of years ago an article by a sociologist saying that the beltless oversized clothes indicated two social ills in the USA, 1, obesity and 2. anything goes, because that is the way inmates dress and when teenagers identify with the inmates, the author smelled a degration in aspiration. I truly hope the show is not representative of the Americans, or else we are all in big trouble.

Well, even sociologists need to publish. Essentially, "grunge" dress styles come and go with the whims of youth. The names change but it all comes down to rebellion. In this country we value the freedom to express one's independence. This is particulary important to young people who feel the need to rebel, and who try to stand out while still fitting in with one's peers. I don't like a lot of what I see, but I remember the same being said of the 60's, the 70's, the 80's, and the 90's. What happens is that most of these people will get jobs, get married, buy a house, and then buy minivans to transport their kids to soccer games...only to later be shocked by their own kid's rebellion.

 

[Njorl]

One reason people might think that China or North Korea might be a threat to their neighbors is that they claim to be the rightful government of their neighbors, and often practice mock invasions of them. North Korea has the added bonus of a leader who is either insane, or wishes to project an image of insanity. Neither is reassuring.

You must also consider the magnitude of the potential conflicts. A war in Korea would potentially have one million deaths in the first few days, without nuclear weapons.

I actually don't think China will invade Taiwan. They wish to "Finlandise" it. It is worthless to them as a shattered wreck. They want to swallow it whole, and use it as a purely capitalist appendage to support the mainland.

Njorl

 

[Nereid]

One reason people might think that China or North Korea might be a threat to their neighbors is that they claim to be the rightful government of their neighbors, and often practice mock invasions of them. North Korea has the added bonus of a leader who is either insane, or wishes to project an image of insanity. Neither is reassuring.

You must also consider the magnitude of the potential conflicts. A war in Korea would potentially have one million deaths in the first few days, without nuclear weapons.

I actually don't think China will invade Taiwan. They wish to "Finlandise" it. It is worthless to them as a shattered wreck. They want to swallow it whole, and use it as a purely capitalist appendage to support the mainland.

Njorl

Who knows? It's been said many, many times that "state-craft" throughout China's long history involves long term thinking; maybe in 40 years (when China may have overtaken the US as the largest economy, and will be catching up with the EU - maybe) political integration with China will be seen in Taiwan as a small price to pay for the economic benefits that they believe might follow?

It's certainly true that 'neighbourly' conflicts could be horrendously costly in terms of lives - an India-Pakistan nuclear war over Kashmir; a 'Mongol solution' response by an Israel which felt itself with no other alternative; a series of nasty local brutalities somewhere in Africa which coalesce into something much worse; a local, mad Russian general's actions in Chechnia/Abkhazia/Moldova/; ...

But there's only ONE country capable of creating GLOBAL havoc.

 

[Nereid]

to points made by Ivan, Pollly, kat, ... - perceived hypocrisy

The global superpower which insists on democracy ... but refuses to accept the views of the majority when it don't like it (e.g. Kyoto).

... which trumpets 'the rule of law', but denies any law but its own (e.g. ICC), or flounts legal decisions of bodies it happily uses to ram its interests through otherwise (e.g. WTO)

... which insists on 'free trade', but happily denies the benefits of just that to partners and strangers alike (e.g. west African cotton farmers, Australian sugar growers, Korean steel producers, ...)

... cynically changes the 'ground rules' in mid-game on IPR, to exploit ('arbitrage') LDCs' weak IPR infrastructure (many examples).

Of course none of this behaviour is surprising, given that the prime objective of all nations' foreign affairs is national self-interest. However, what's galling is the degree to which the marketing machine has sugar-coated the naked self-interest in fine-sounding phrases and appeals to worthy ideals. Worse, lots of upright US citizens have bought the story and can't see how hypocritical they appear.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Kyoto was a flawed plan that was rightly rejected by the US and the CIS who would have been harmed by it without providing any real benefits to the rest of the world (as their own analysis showed). I am not aware of any existing system of justice under which a majority of countries ratifying a treaty means that other countries are required to obey that treaty. We haven't quite got to global dictatorship of the majority yet.

Likewise the ICC is another treaty which the US has refused to sign. That doesn't mean they are undemocratic, because nations have a perfect right to reject treaties.

In fact what I see from your post is that you believe democracy is the same as bureaucratic tyranny, as is becoming more and more obvious in the EU.

 

[Adam]

Nader said he is jumping into the race to "challenge the two-party duopoly" that is allowing Washington to be "corporate-occupied territory."

...

"The liberal intelligentsia," Nader said, "has allowed its party to become a captive of corporate interests."

Washington is "corporate-occupied territory," Nader said. "We need more political and civic energies inside the campaign to challenge this two-party duopoly that's trending toward one-party districts all over the country."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/22/elec04.prez.nader/

Took about two seconds on a search engine.

 

[Polly]

I actually don't think China will invade Taiwan. They wish to "Finlandise" it. It is worthless to them as a shattered wreck. They want to swallow it whole, and use it as a purely capitalist appendage to support the mainland.

Njorl

The unification has more to do with vanity. Our leaders want to go down in history as the one who units China. Since 10 years ago, Taiwanese businessmen started pulling their expertise and capital away from Taiwan and pouring them into the Southern coastal provinces and that is why Taiwanese economy has been ailing with no prospect of recovery. And Hong Kong, is fast dwindling into the Chicago of China.

 

[member 5645]

Took about two seconds on a search engine.

You know, instead of continuing to make yourself look foolish, why don't you stop TRYING to prove me wrong/stupid/etc. as your sole point for being here?

No where in your post is there even the quote that Ivan and myself are speaking about.