Not every subject that can be separated into 2 positions (like creationism or evolution) deserves to be treated with a “fairness doctrine” when the evidence is overwhelming against one of those positions.
My position continues to be that regardless of the excuses North Korea can invent for the bombing of the SK island, that the reply from North Korea was totally uncalled for as they did not care that civilians (and even soldiers should not be ignored IMO) where there.
And it is history where I base the idea that it is the say so of North Korea that does not deserve attention, North Korea should allow some basic freedoms of the press at least for me to consider their say so as valid.
Keeping with in the rules of the forum I will simply note that this is laughably, blatantly, obviously false. You have never once addressed a single one of my questions, you have instead avoided addressing them, used strawmen, tried to change the subject, etc. Here, assuming that your claim is accurate, quote where in post 419 you address a single one of the questions you’ve been avoiding
-Found that cite yet to prove your claim that under international law or custom, NK’s military response was “justified” or “appropriate”, seeing as how that was your claim and you’ve never provided any proof for it?
-Found that cite yet to prove that North Korea routinely (or ever) refers to territories that are claimed by SK as “disputed” rather than simply North Korea’s territory?
-Found that cite yet to prove that I have made assertions, that I did not then cite, about any of the things you’ve invented and claimed I’ve said?
It’s very clear that you’ve never once cited international law or custom showing that NK had a valid casus belli, never once cited referring to disputed territories as disputed rather than theirs, and never once cited any of the strawmen you made up and claimed I’ve said. That is why, of course, the best you can cite ispost 419 where everybody can see what you do is change the subject and demand that someone prove a claim that they’ve never made, while you steadfastly refuse to prove your own.
In keeping with your generally Orwellian argument “i refused to answer the questions, changed the subject and made some stuff up and demanded that someone prove it as if they’d said it themselves.” means “I answered the question.”
It’s clear that your nonsense about “proving your assertions” was just a cover for your vacuous argument, since as soon as you’re asked to provide proof that NK’s actions were “justified” and “appropriate” your response is “Nope, and you can’t make me!”
Yet again you showcase your ignorance. No, nations cannot simply engage in acts of war without a valid casus belli. And no, you still have no idea that international treaties are a subset of international law, not the other way around. The conditions under which a nation may engage in violence against another nation are quite clearly spelled out. Not starting a war doesn’t have to be justified, starting a war does. Now provide a cite in international law or custom for how NK had a valid casus belli.
I kid, I kid, we all know that you can’t, since you’re wrong.
Okay, this is the best unintentional comedy of the thread.
I was wrong. This is the best unintentional comedy of the thread.
“The [del]children[/del] fascists, won’t someone think of the [del]children[/del] fascists?!?”
Show me where I said that NK was relying on international law or where I excuse their behaviour. Show me where countries are not allowed to use terms and phrases that are not defined by international law.
And then, tell why you think that NK is using a definition of self defense that is clearly inaccurate? NK was clearly not responding to exigent circumstances and they couldn’t possibly hope that people would believe they were so why would they cry self defense (as you understand how they are using the term)? Isn’t it more likely that they are using the phrase self defense in some other sense? Or are you just going to go with the reading that makes them seem the most irrational?
So the comment that made me ask was “Further explain why North Korea outlawed people procuring their own food when the state couldn’t provide.”
It seems like your link is saying that NK outlawed private markets after they were once again able to provide food. They permitted some markets while there was scarcity and then abolished them when the scarcity disappeared not when the state couldn’t provide. With that said this makes it clear that the NK government wants to control food whenever it can.
A quarter of the people in NK are “hostile”? Geez, how many are wavering?
I haven’t been to North Korea in a while so I’m not really up to date on everything that has happened there. My knowledge is based on current news sources and conversations with people. I haven’t done a thesis on the subject.
Are you under the impression that I don’t view the NK regime as evil? I think they are one of the worst regimes on earth. If there was some way to get rid of it without flattening Seoul, I think we should do it but we can do without the hyperbole because I have seen this movie before. We make wildly hyperbolic statements about a regime that is greatly deserving of criticism. Noone says anything to set the record straight and before you know it the folks on fox and friends are repeating the hyperbole as if it were documented fact as they beat the drums of war.
Short of actually watching footage of the whole thing from beginning to end, what could convince you to believe what the rest of the world (including NK’s allies) believe? That they torpedoed that SK navy ship a while back and they retaliated against SK’s shelling of open water with a shelling of a military base?
The current NK president is like George W Bush and Dick Cheney. He spent his whole youth dodging compulsory military service and has to prove how tough he is by rattling his sabre.
We have a pretty high degree of certainty about most of the facts surrounding the events of that morning.
Well there are videos that are pretty compelling. SK shot into open water and NK responded by shotting at a military base.
Together with your previous post reply to FinnAgain, this last bit shows to me that so far what you said could **not **set things straight.
Incidentally, I do not agree that we should go to war even with the dastardly recent act from NK. SK should roll with the punches and wait for the next move from NK. Just like before, I do think that it will be the NK leadership the one that will decide where to go from here.
You’re not saying that live fire military drills are a form of self defense are you? I thought self defense meant something very specific in your lexicon.
What you dismiss as a “fairness game” happens to be of some importance to me. That is what initially prompted me to join this discussion - unfair allegations regarding the Korean peninsula by a handful of uninformed posters.
However, since you would like my take on the Amnesty International opinion piece… Overall, I am not convinced. In my experience, anecdotal accounts provided by dissident refugees tend towards hyperbole, if not outright misrepresentations. Who knows? Perhaps there is a kernel of truth there; if so, that would be worrying. However, I see no compelling reason to blindly accept a second-hand account from a clearly biased source as gospel. I would like to see more, not to mention better, evidence first.
It seems to me that you may, perhaps, be unclear on the concept of “law” in general. Contrary to your apparent position, law is a human invention that derives from actual human sources. When invoking law, it helps to be actually able to point to a statute, treaty, or some other document, and proclaim, “Here is the law.”
Instead, you appear to take the position that you, personally, can mandate what the law is with no reference to any written authority. I do not find this persuasive. You have, so far, utterly failed to reference anything approaching international law. You made one attempt to do so (citing a non-binding non-governmental manual of proposed codes of conduct) and then gave up. I’m still waiting for you to openly state which specific international laws you believe are applicable here, and why you believe that North Korea violated them.
So far, you have gone out of your way to avoid providing any answers to these questions. Instead, you have given meaningless statements such as the following:
“It’s very clear that you’ve never once cited international law or custom showing that NK had a valid casus belli…”
Law doesn’t work that way. If I cross the street, it is unreasonable for you to run up to me and demand to know what legal authority I have for crossing the street. If you believe that the act was illegal, then state which law I violated, and I can then provide defenses if needed.
“No, nations cannot simply engage in acts of war without a valid casus belli.”
I need a cite to applicable international law.
“And no, you still have no idea that international treaties are a subset of international law, not the other way around.”
If you cannot find a treaty to support your position, feel free to look for other sources. But I do need to see an actual source, rather than hear you repeat unsupported statements ad nauseum. Let’s see that source.
“The conditions under which a nation may engage in violence against another nation are quite clearly spelled out.”
Where? If it’s clearly spelled out, let’s see it.
And so on and so forth. I’ll wait for your cites, but I won’t hold my breath. So far, you have dodged all my requests to support your allegations, all while ironically accusing me of doing just that. The problem is that you will find no support for what you claim in international law. The few documents that actually exist and apply here, were you to read them, would quickly show that North Korea did nothing wrong here under the scenario it outlined.
Feel free to prove me wrong. With an actual international law, please, not with your personal opinion of what the law ought to be.
I would be satisfied with any proof that crosses the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold. Unedited footage would be good. An admission of guilt would also work. Failing that, I would settle for an official finding presented by a clearly disinterested party, along with the evidence used to reach that finding. For purposes of this determination, a “disinterested party” is one that has not previously demonstrated a political, economic, social, or philosophical preference for either party to the dispute.
Ah yes, North Korea wouldn’t say things that they couldn’t possibly hope that…
…oh.
Duly noted though Damuri. Faced with what NK actually said and what they rather clearly meant to imply in regard to their unprovoked act of naked and indiscriminate aggression, you’ve got the powerful and persuasive Argument From Nuhn Unhn!!!
…
Yes, self defense means defending one’s self. As opposed to how you’re using it, which you still haven’t clarified except you’re using to somehow make NK’s insane propaganda kinda rational.
Here, you’ve managed to misunderstand a very clear statement that using defensive air strikes against NK if NK attacks civilians again is self defense and not “belligerence”… and you’ve somehow morphed that into a comment about the live fire exercises.
And this after trying to take XT to task? No… what actually happened was that NK shot, indiscriminately, using unguided rockets, at an Island that happened to have a military base on it.
NK claims that its actions were in accord with the principle of self defense, which I’ve pointed out is pretty much the only bit of international law which would allow a strike of its nature in these circumstances, and you claim that it meant something else but you can’t explain what or why that was used so that it would make any sense as a casus belli.
And despite claiming that the ‘something else’ was being used to stand in for “self defense”, a term that NK was cleary using to justify military action as if it was a casus belli, you can’t explain how it’s got anything to do with self defense as it’s understood in international law or international custom.
We can, of course, safely ignore your nonsense about how countries “are not allowed to use terms and phrases that are not defined by international law”.
Your argument is twisted in a Gordian Knot so you can try to claim that “self defense” doesn’t mean “self defense”.
That’s right, you haven’t.
Going to provide it any time soon?
Soon, right? I mean, it’s your assertion, you hate when people make assertions and don’t support them. So you’re going to support it, right?
Not like that hypothetical theist who says: “North Korea’s actions were justified and appropriate and if you disagree, it is your duty to prove that they weren’t.”
Oh, no, sorry, that’s you. The hypothetical theist says: “God exists, and if you disagree, it is your duty to prove that he doesn’t.”
Which is totally different from what you’re saying. Totally.
A strawman, plus changing the subject? Unexpected!
Here, to remind you again:
-Found that cite yet to prove your claim that under international law or custom, NK’s military response was “justified” or “appropriate”, seeing as how that was your claim and you’ve never provided any proof for it?
-Found that cite yet to prove that North Korea routinely (or ever) refers to territories that are claimed by SK as “disputed” rather than simply North Korea’s territory?
-Found that cite yet to prove that I have made assertions, that I did not then cite, about any of the things you’ve invented and claimed I’ve said?
And so on, and so on, and so on.
And you have yet to provide one single, solitary scrap of international law or international custom that says that shells falling in the open ocean is a valid casus belli. It’s almost like your argument is absolute nonsense that you cannot possibly support, so you have to change the subject, distort the facts, and do whatever you can to avoid providing proof for your most basic of claims, and you’ll fling dishonest analogies all day to the point where you’re likening crossing the street to raining artillery down upon the citizens of a sovereign nation.
What a coincidence, eh?
Haven’t read the entire thread, so I may be missing something, however, it’s quite clear there are rules for when a country may or may not use force (**FinnAgain **has covered this already, I did read that).
Basically, war is illegal. You can only go to war in two situations: (1) if the UN authorizes it (they did not). (2) Self-Defense (I’m guessing the claim is NK attacked SK unprovoked).
Duration/Scope of war doesn’t matter. Firing a bunch of missiles against another country is definitely an act of war that needs to be authorized or in self-defense (or at least perceived self-defense).
**FinnAgain **is claiming there wasn’t a valid caus belli (basically a valid reason) to attack SK. Meaning there isn’t a legitimate claim for self-defense. However, NK’s actions would provide SK with a legitimate claim for acting in self defense.
I’m generally unsure of what exactly transpired, and more importantly, what led up to NK’s attack (I’m sure it’s been covered in this thread, I’ll go have a look), but you’d want to be clear that the attack was indeed unprovoked. Given the recent escalation of things between these countries, perceived self-defense (thinking military exercises are actually an imminent threat) might be credible here. Again, I really don’t know.
Awwwww, I’ve been trying to get him to provide proof for his claims without letting him try to find something else to talk about. Ah well. I cited Article 51 already but Commissar didn’t catch it, so I figured it could slide as I pointed out, again, that he refused to provide any proof at all for his claim while demanding that people disprove it… while complaining about people who make claims and refuse to provide proof for them while demanding that people disprove them.
Technically, my claim is that Commissar has not provided a valid casus belli, which was his claim after all since he said that NK’s attack on SK was “justified” and “appropriate”.
As that was his claim, it’s really not my responsibility to prove that there wasn’t a valid casus belli, but he’d rather shift the burden of proof because he’s got no argument, at all.