[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Heh.
[/QUOTE]
Before laughing perhaps you should have read the rest:
-XT
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
We have an obligation to try.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent! See, I knew we could come to an agreement. Since we DID try, and since the NK’s rejected our attempts, we have fulfilled our moral obligations. Glad we could have this little chat.
Giving food to the kidnappers doesn’t get it to the hostages…it merely gives food and resources to the kidnappers.
-XT
Withholding food does not affect the regime. The embargo is pointless.
We aren’t embargoing them though. As has been said several times, they COULD get food from China…or buy food from other countries willing to sell it to them. Kimmy might have to let a few of the royal concubines go, or perhaps give up that new palace or jet, but they could do it if they really wanted too. We are merely not giving them food until they meet the minimal requirements we have set…namely, that they allow us in to inspect their needs for food and to assure ourselves that the food is actually going to get to the hostages, instead of going to the kidnappers.
-XT
Setting those requirements serves no purpose. We aren’t hurting the regime,. we’re just starving its hostages.
What harm have we done if we give them food and we don’t distribute it? How is that worse than not trying at all?
And sending food does not affect the Korean people. So sending food is pointless.
You are arguing that the US has a moral obligation to do something that is either worthless, or counter-productive.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Setting those requirements serves no purpose. We aren’t hurting the regime,. we’re just starving its hostages.
[/QUOTE]
And you base your assertion that they serve no purpose on what, exactly? Seems to me that they serve the purpose of assuring ourselves that the food is actually getting to the folks who need it, and assuring ourselves that what the NK’s are asking for is what they really need.
And WE aren’t starving the hostages…the NK’s are doing that, if they allow their people to starve over this. For one thing, though you refuse to respond to it, they could ask China for aid. We aren’t preventing China from giving them food, and they are in China’s sphere of influence. And based on recent threads, many around here seem to think that China is an emerging economic giant…surly such a powerful country could spare a bit of food for their good friends in NK, right? Or, again as something you haven’t addressed, they could always buy food…there are countries other than the US who sell the stuff, and we are doing nothing to prevent that.
What good would we do in yet again giving into the NK’s demands if we don’t know that the food actually gets to where it’s most needed? How do we even know they DO need it…or that the NK government won’t just sell it or store it for themselves? Why is it unreasonable for us to ask for transparency on this? Why is it ok for the NK government to balk at this, and then folks like you say that it’s OUR moral issue?
-XT
You don’t know that. You do know that not sending food at all has no chance of helping them. A small chance is better than no chance. There is no moral argument at all for not trying.
The fix all for this is to hand deliver the food of course (to the right people, of course) Just march right in and say “hey, if you are starving, I bring food that your government won’t or can’t give you”
For an ass is an ass of course of course.
the NK governmnt is neither here nor there, xt. We have a choice between trying or not trying. Giving the people a small chance or giving them no chance. Morally speaking, this is a no brainer. What does the least harm?
Much like Professor Farnsworth’s response to the assertion “You can’t own property, maaaan” was “Yes I can, I have a job. Now get lost hippie!”, the response here is of course we know that, because report after report has shown how the NK regime sorts food among its populace and we’ve read those reports. What you do or do not know, however, is another issue.
A small chance is better than no chance. What moral harm is caused by trying?
Providing resources to the kidnappers simply makes them stronger, without helping their victims - thus harming their victims.
The outside world is, in effect, propping up the evil regime that is killing these people.
It tried, out of simple humanity, holding its collective nose and simply handing over food to the regime, just as you and Jimmy advocate - only to see the regime squander that food in making itself stronger, rather than feeding the hungry.
Enough already. The very definition of insanity is repeating what doesn’t work in the hope of a better result. Particularly where you are dealing, not with some blind force of nature, but with actively malicious regimes who care nothing for humanity.
There is no excuse to stop trying.
Would you prefer to send me raw cash, or would you prefer I send you my address so you can begin mailing cat food to me?
I don’t understand the question.
Try reading the cite of the Amnesty International report. NK was using the food aid as a weapon against their own people. Kim isn’t going to suddenly reverse himself and start acting civilized now.
Let’s not be naive here.
Regards,
Shodan
Are you going to starve my cats to death Dio? Are you a cat killer? Or will you send me money/cat food?
I’d prefer the raw cash, to be honest.
So you’re comparing Korean people to animals?
Too funny.
-XT