Discussion That I Had-North Korea/Pakistan

Well, let me start by saying that I am no stranger to Debates, especially those of a Political Nature. I have long been Deeply Involved with, & Studying History, Politics, & likewise areas of Interest since as early as I can recollect. Not to mention the fact that One of my Major Focuses in University Studies happens to be Political Science, & International Relations. Also, I have had the Fortunate opportunities throughout my young life to experience Overseas Travel, a Multitude of Cultures through Friendships, & a Deep understanding of the Political Process through my Area of Residence.

Now, with the aforementioned having set a tone of sorts in regards to who I am, & how I have been involved in the field of Political Discourse, I would like to openly discuss a conversation I had as of recent with an acquaintance of mine.

This entire conversation began with a discussion of the United States Military, & my Family members who happen to be currently Serving/Have Served. I am from a Deep Military Family, which by all accounts runs Generations deep (As far back as Records can account for). My family has a History as well in regards to Explorers, Statesmen, & so forth.

Anyways, my Acquaintance, as well as His Wife, & a Family Member of mine were discussing this subject matter. He was talking about how he had never had experience with anything of a Military Nature, & it was so new to him to discover individuals with such a strong connection to such (He is originally from India, & he moved here in 1993 (To The Washington, D.C. Area) ). As this conversation was drawn out, I made mention of a coincidence in the News where an Admiral had recently agreed with my Father on a certain action which might be taken in the Next Week or So (My Father is a Retired USN Captain, & Dartmouth Pre-Med Graduate). This action involves the Readiness of the United States Navy in performing an Intercept of the Long-Range Missile which North Korea is about to Test-fire. I found this Public Statement by the Admiral to not only be the Correct Course of Action, but also Politically Wise in Nature (CYA Anyone?).

As we discussed this, my Acquaintance, an individual who is usually extremely chill, laid back, & agreeable with me on any number of subject matters, began to start shooting off with Opinionated Partisan sounding Rhetoric. I must say that I was a little taken back by his constant barrage of discontent with the Action being discussed, & I was hardly able to manage complete sentences without being cut-off multiple times. I appreciate a Good Debate, but I do not like a one sided "Jabber fest" if you will. I seek quality based Points of Fact, but not Rhetoric emanating from a Lack of Thought.

As we were (Attempting) to debate the issue, I could not believe my ears in what I perceived as an upmost amount of Hypocrisy, & Naivety as well. The conversation became so jumbled, but recollecting it in the best order which I can, he began early in the conversation by stating that: "The United States has no right to interfere with another Nation's Weapons Testing". I essentially told him that: "It is a matter of not only sending a message to the Regime of Kim Jong Il that we should Intercept their test, but it also serves to undermine his own Authority amongst his peers; in that it displays his Incompetence & Inaptitude at successfully flaunting & carrying out threats against the United States". In other words, the more embarrassed Kim Jong Il becomes over a long period of time, the more that his Authority & Decisions become undermined within the eyes of his peers (Think of a Frustrated Military Commander, or Political Party Member, & the shifting tide which can allow for them to take a Grab at Power (away from Kim Jong Il) ).

So this progressed forth, & he even made the claim that: "We cannot Intercept their Missile because then we will spill Radiation everywhere". I told him: "It is Not a Nuclear Weapon, as it is a Test Maneuver, & therefore we have no such Concerns". He then (I will relate the rest of this later on) began discussing how we need to focus on Pakistan, where the: "Real Terrorists Are", & how North Korea is: "Not a Real Threat to us". I said that: "North Korea has the Capability with the Missile in the upcoming test, to in fact hit Alaska." He stated that: "Well, so what, so does Russia, & many other Nations, but what can we do to stop it?” I then said: "If we can stop it, or at the very least slow down their ability to do so, then why would we not take the opportunity to do such?” He said: "We cannot stop people from obtaining Nuclear Weapons, & we do not have the right to do it either". I then declared that: "We have every right as the reigning International Power, to take whatever actions we deem as necessary in order to secure OUR Future."

He then went on about how: "We have no right to tell others what they can or cannot do, we need to just leave everyone alone, we have no right to interfere". I then told him that: "This is a Dog Eat Dog World, & Survival of the Fittest has been a proven fact of life throughout History. Any Nation who has it in their Power will see to it that they not only Survive & Prosper, but that they also remain Secure in their Existence for as long as possible."

He then repeated his Position on North Korea, & about our need to: "Focus on Pakistan Only". I then told him that: "Taking such a narrow approach will do nothing but allow for our backdoor to remain wide open for attack by an enemy of ours such as North Korea". He then said that: "North Korea is so far away, let South Korea & China worry about them", to which I replied: "China is an ally of theirs, & as such, who do you think is providing them with Logistical support?". He then repeated his idea of North Korea being: "So far away", and I responded by stating: "Yes, go ahead & remember that when a Nuclear Warhead ends up obliterating Anchorage, AK wiping out half of the State's Population in One Attack".

Then he went back again to the idea that the: "United States has no right to interfere in their [North Korea's] Weapons testing, as it poses no threat to us", to which I again replied: "If this Weapon was solely being tested over their Nation, then I could agree, but it will leave their boundaries & take flight over International Waters. The moment this occurs, North Korea loses any & all Sovereign Jurisdiction, & we can take whatever action which we so deem necessary in the preservation of our National Security, & the Security of the High Seas".



So, let me take a breather now folks, as I understand there is a rash attack of quoting & quipping present throughout my aforementioned account of the "Debate" which I had with an acquaintance.



Anyways, this conversation went ALL over the place, & eventually my Acquaintance began discussing his deep contempt for Pakistan. He then said: "India complained about Pakistan for years, they told America about the Terrorist problem, Kashmir, & of the attacks which took place on Indian soil. Yet no actions were taken". I then said: "Well, according to you we should not interfere in others affairs". He then went ON, & ON, AND ON about how we need to go after Pakistan. (NOTE THE EXTREME HYPOCRISY BASED UPON HIS OWN CONTEMPT). I told him quite frankly that: "We cannot simply attack the Nation of Pakistan, if for any reason, the simple fact remains that they have amassed an impressive Nuclear Arsenal. If their Government succumbs to a Fatal Structural Collapse due to our Direct Attack upon it, then can you imagine the free for all which would allow the Nuclear Weapons to come into the possession of Terrorists?” He then said: "Well, the Nuclear Weapons are already not secure, & the Government has already collapsed". I then replied: "Hardly, they still have a functioning Intelligence Agency, Counter-Terrorism Division, & Military. A true Collapse would appear worse than you are obviously able to comprehend".

Then, to simply go all out, I said: "We should strike the Taliban held Frontier Region of Pakistan with Tactical Nuclear Warheads". Then he replied: "No, no, we cannot do that, too many children & women will die", to which I replied "Hey, you wish to go to war with them, what are you expecting? Innocent casualties are a sad yet factual reality of ANY War, & they cannot be prevented; unless you wish to follow the likes of Vietnam & parade around while committing to no effective battle plan".

So this went on for quite a while, with my Acquaintance continuing his idea that the United States should stick to Isolationism, yet we should somehow Attack Pakistan at the same time.

Then we went back to North Korea, & he said that we need to: "Simply talk to our enemies in order to sort things out". He said that Kim Jong Il told President Bush that: "Hey, I wish to talk you, what do you want from us, & how can we accommodate you?", & that President Bush simply said: "I don't want to talk to you". I retorted: "Kim Jong Il never made ANY Such proposal, & President Bush simply demanded for Pre-Conditions to bet met, such as the dismantling of an Enrichment Facility". I told him that: "You cannot simply sit down & talk to an egomaniac, without accepting Pre-Conditions, as this further inflates their Status & Aura of Legitimacy amongst their peers". Yet he went ON & ON about: "Talking to our enemies".

So, I could most likely type a HUGE page with the entire transcript of this "Debate", but bottom line, this is the portion of the conversation which I wish to at least put forth for now.

As you can see, I was struck by what I perceive as my Acquaintance's Naivety, Hypocrisy, & downright Ignorance when it comes to World Affairs. I simply wonder, why do so many from this Generation (Both My Acquaintance’s & Mine), the "College Aged Generation" as I call it, believe in such Idealistic yet Non-Realistic Views of the World as we Know It? Is this the Future of America & the "Free World"?

Perhaps a refresher course on the Nixon era India, (Russian backed) and their little war that caused the US some discomfort at the time.What if we were to invade India then, full force? Our restraint is well documented since the two Japanese bombings.

I concur that engaging NK's test missle would damper their intent quite persuesively.

I do however have concerns of the Navy's purported plan to release undisclosed agents in Wa, Or, Ca, Id, and offshore Pacific.

Any inside info or comments on this recent news?

I salute your family's historical service to our nation, and wish you and yours safe journey and long healthy lives.

Please take out that test missle.
God Bless

Let me sum it up for you.

North Korea has never attacked the USA, nor has harboured people who have attacked the USA, nor has concrete plans of attack against the USA.

Pakistan has attacked Americans around the world, harboured Al Qaeda's eastern cells and the Taliban for the past 7 years, created the Taliban (Hamid Gul) 30 years ago, has nationals who are actively involved in 75% of all current terror plots against the West etc etc etc.

The difference between the two is "moral permission" to attack other nations based on the concept of hot pursuit. Only if another nation directly attacks you can you go after them.

Afghanistan was a moral war.

Iraq was not.

Pakistan will be a moral war.

Iran or North Korea will not.

Just because another country has the capability to attack you is not cause for concern in itself. However if another country attacks you, then you can do as you wish in retaliation.

Hope that clears it up.

Hi
1st post...
long time lurker etc
I am totally agreeing with soulslayer here...and the OP's Indian friend.
I really dont get this whole "Yippekayay git Iran git NK sort of attitude" I mean historically how many people have Iran and NK nuked to a either firey or slow painful death? When was the last time either Iran or NK invaded another soverign country?

I've just started posting here and I fell like giving up already
(sadface)

edit 4 typo

[edit on 27-2-2009 by bakedfresh]

Pakistan has the ways and means to take us out in one day . They have for ten years .You wont hear this on cnn but its true.

I agree that there should be international pressure and leadership in those rogue nations who make attempts in developing and growing their own nuclear arsenal. At the same I would also further state that the United states cannot be the police of the world. We cannot confront every nation and her issues, and further more we have no right to... power or not. This was pushed forth by the founding fathers themselves, this is written in the original principals of the conservative ideology itself. We have not business to be the police of the world, but we do have a duty as do the other nations around the world to put pressure on those who intend to cause instability with nuclear weapons.

And what said here got me the most:

We have every right as the reigning International Power, to take whatever actions we deem as necessary in order to secure OUR Future

So long as america keeps her superpower status, so long as america keeps her hands deep in places around the world, there will never be a sercure future, the possibility of a totally stable world with any superpower for that matter is unrealistic... and history has taught us this time and time again with the Roman empire, the British empire and the Soviet Union. This is also what many have to get through their thick skulls regarding "policing the world", so long we are a superpower with such influence there will always be issues.

reply to post by bluemooone2


Who is this "us" you refer to? And I truely doulbt Pakistan has the ability to wipe YOU out they seem to have pretty 3rd world low yield capabilities...are they not not more concerned with India? or is their government hellbent on destroying the US? maybe offended by that Team America movie?

reply to post by TheAgentNineteen


So let me get this straight,

You live in a street with different types of families, to ensure that you don't get burgled mugged or raped, you keep a very big gun in the house.

You, for whatever reason don't like guy who lives at the end of the street, although you have never spoken and he has not tried to burgle rape or mug you.

The guy at the end of the street has less money than you, but has finally saved enough to buy a big gun like yours, to ensure he doesn't get burgled raped or mugged just like you.


You now decide that, if he gets a big gun like yours he may decide to try and burgle, rape or mug you. So you decide, your best course of action is to go to his house with a few of your friends and fire off a few rounds in his garden, just to let him know if he does decide buy a gun like yours then he will be outgunned.


Not much hope of humanity ever evolving then is there ?

reply to post by moocowman


Precisely.

Whereas you have a "friend" across the street who you supply with big guns and even a car or two in order to help him in his dispute with a neighbour over their adjacent gardens.

This "friend" across the street has a large family, and his sons have attacked you and your people mercilessly, over many times. He even harbours a man who demolished the nice statue you had built (no sensible analogy for twin towers!). And yet you still call him a friend, while you bully randomers at the end of the street.

Makes no sense does it. Its time for the US to stop playing realpolitik and start defending real national security.

reply to post by 44soulslayer


a excellent post , soulslayer

kudos

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen

 

So let me get this straight,

You live in a street with different types of families, to ensure that you don't get burgled mugged or raped, you keep a very big gun in the house.

You, for whatever reason don't like guy who lives at the end of the street, although you have never spoken and he has not tried to burgle rape or mug you.

The guy at the end of the street has less money than you, but has finally saved enough to buy a big gun like yours, to ensure he doesn't get burgled raped or mugged just like you.


You now decide that, if he gets a big gun like yours he may decide to try and burgle, rape or mug you. So you decide, your best course of action is to go to his house with a few of your friends and fire off a few rounds in his garden, just to let him know if he does decide buy a gun like yours then he will be outgunned.


Not much hope of humanity ever evolving then is there ?

Not saying I disagree with your post, but I believe this interpretation results in humanity still evolving and "the guy at the end of the street" getting shafted. Is it the correct thing to do? I guess that depends on how much of a threat "the guy at the end of the street" really is.


- Strype

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Strype]