Have you tried? Or do you have an excuse for not doing so?
I guess I’m also curious why the US and SoKo are being singled out. Are these the only wealthy nations that are not sending food to NK? I assume that China still provides them a lot of food aid. What about, say, Japan or the EU? Are they providing aid?
Have I tried what? Feeding millions of people with all my vast resources? This is an asinine tactic.
I didn’t think that Dio, murderous murderer of cats, was advocating a coherent principle. I didn’t expect him to go straight to not understanding metaphor, though.
I just hope that in his murderous cat murdering heart, he can forgive himself for the deaths of all the cats that he is planning on murdering.
Feed as many as you can.
No, it’s not.
You got a facetious answer to a facetious question.
By what means? This remains an asinine tactic.
In addition to murdering cats, Dio also is engaged in starving an entire family of North Koreans, to death. Mother, father, and two sweet little children.
I wonder if he rubs his hands and laughs maniacally or merely cackles while contemplating the cats and people he is murdering due to his embargo on both North Korea and my cats.
Any means you can. Have you even tried? If there is “no excuse to stop trying”, there is no excuse not to start trying.
No, it isn’t.
I’m not going to play games. I’m out.
I’d suggest cans of chili sent to
“Dear Leader
Pyongyang, North Korea.”
That is, if Dio is tired of murdering cats and Korean children.
Jimmy Carter is a shmuck.
I wonder if he feels the same way about the sanctions that he placed on Rhodesia during his own administration in the name of “human rights”, leading to the collapse of this stable and prosperous nation and the rise of one of the most horrific and barbaric leaders Africa has ever seen, Robert Mugabe. Jimmy Carter, shmuck, presided over this travesty - and now he has the nerve to preach piously about human rights?
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
I’d suggest cans of chili sent to
“Dear Leader
Pyongyang, North Korea.”
[/QUOTE]
Might I suggest a compromise? Perhaps DtC can send some cat BASED chili to NK? I mean, can’t we all just get along?? 
-XT
I notice that other rights in this Covenant include the human right to Labor Rights (Article 6), Social Security (Article 9), an adequate standard of living (Article 11), health (Article 12), free education (Article 13), among others.
Do these rights also transcend international borders, too? In other words, can NK demand that the US provide jobs for NK’s people (in effect, build a viable economy)? Provide health care? Education? Standard of living? (Wii’s for all!)
I guess we, collectively, have a moral duty to never stop trying to feed the NKs. We must try and try and try. No excuse to stop trying.
But each of us, individually, don’t have a moral duty to lift a finger to even try to feed the same NKs, even if it’s just one family.
Learn something new everyday!
Pure win. I’m trying to hold back the laughter so my coworkers don’t think I’m crazy.
In all seriousness: yes, Carter’s an idiot, no, it’s not a human rights abuse, and no, not giving food freely is not equivalent to an embargo.
If we are serious about helping our Korean breatheren across the Armistice Line, it might be actually easier to topple the Kim Jong-Il and his cronies and send them packing off to Beijing.
Basically, according to Mr. Carter “Right-wing dictatorships bad, left-wing dictatorships good”.
Ian Smith was not a dictator. The country of Rhodesia had racial inequality but so did America until the '60s and nobody would call any of the pre-Civil Rights presidents “dictators.” I don’t consider Kim Jong Il to be a left wing dictator, I think he is essentially an absolute monarch who has set up a very old fashioned feudal state in a country that, at one time, was communist.
Well, Kim Jong-il’s power is from hereditary ascension, which negates the possibility of the title ‘dictator’ according to the unassailable Wikipedia.
But then there are never enough irrelevant hairs to split here on the Dope. :rolleyes:
Article 2.1 of the Covenant commits states to helping achieve *all *the Covenant rights “individually and through international assistance and cooperation”.
There’s no more reason to go from “standard of living” to “Wiis for all” than there is to go from “right to a fair trial” (which also imposes positive duties on states) to “right to OJ Simpson’s defence team”. Nor is there any reason to go from “states that have been providing food aid to the starving, and are capable of still doing so, should not withdraw that aid” to “states must provide jobs, health care and Wiis to other states”. The extent of obligations under the Covenant depends to a very large degree on the particular circumstances. Mass starvation is an exceptional circumstance.