theloniusfleabag

Dear August1991, This is all playing out as somewhat similar to the lead up to WWII...'Imperialist Japan' had their assests frozen in the US, and trade was cut off, leaving no (self-evident) alternative for Japan but war with the US. Japan had offered peace in the Pacific if they were left to have a free hand in China, a deal that was certainly not going to be accepted. While awaiting an answer, they set sail for Pearl Harbour.

A couple of questions occured to me... From whom does the DPRK feel threatened? What do they hope to gain versus their losses? As to the first one, the USA... from... http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm As to what they hope to gain, I expect it is a 'de-listing' from the 'axis of evil'. NK has been pushing for bilateral talks with the US, while ignoring the six party talks with their neighbours. I believe that they are pushing for a 'mutual non-aggression pact' with the US, whom they see as the biggest threat, but also the biggest source of credibility. Kim Jong-Il wants fame, (or infamy) and he seems to think that his picture in the post office as '#1 most wanted' is fame. If Kim's favourite movies actually are Rambo and Friday the 13th, he seems to be acting out the fantasy, that of being 'tough and alone'.

Dear August1991, That would be an act of war, and a nuclear war at that. Not much to bargain about after that. The US hasn't much choice. What are the real options? Embargoing the country ala Cuba? It seems that is their next proposal, but it didn't really work there either. They may pressure China to intervene, because China would be about the only one Kim may fear. China might be the only country capable of armed intervention without inflaming the region. However, getting them to leave again might be more difficult. China would have to actually wish to see the South and the North united and not under their control. At this point in time, the US cannot feasibly invade and effect 'regime change', but a coalition might, provided it was made up of primarily non-asian countries.

Dear August1991, I don't believe it would serve their purpose. I don't see Kim Jong-Il as 'out to destroy the Great Satan', nor desiring war with them. Kim wants respect through fear, and while he has it in his own country, he seems to want it globally (well, at least regionally). He is claiming to be under threat, and is purely taking defensive measures. He is either a very bad liar, or he had a nut come loose (or should I say, another nut). A delusional paranoiac is never an asset to society (unless you are a home security salesman) and one in charge of a nuclear armed country is trouble.

Dear Charles Anthony, The 'gun in the air analogy' is a bit different in this case, becasue the issue was whether or not the person should even have the gun. The overwhelming feeling was no, that person should not have a gun, and yet he fired it in the air. Either you respond, "Fine, keep the gun", or the mob rushes him and takes it away. We cannot simply buy off madmen when they appear...in some ways, Kim Jong Il is like Hitler, in that he doesn't really care about the people in his country, only craving personal power and prestige guide his actions. China already 'controls NK' they don't need to expand their borders. They are losing their grip on it's leader, however.

Invasion will be the only thing to 'de-nuke' NK. from... http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...61009-voa03.htm from a related article... http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...009-rferl01.htm Taiwan better keep it's nose out of it until the timing is right. They may be able to wheedle 'independence' out of the deal, but they shouldn' openly side against an ally of China at this point in time. South Korea's words are either harsh or empty, time will tell. The only way to 'not tolerate a Nuclear NK' is to disarm them, which will require force. The whole region is now a pressure cooker, and the biggest problem is how China will respond. If they back NK's right to nuclear arms, everybody might as well sit back down and grumble. However, I just read this... http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...61009-voa02.htm Mind you, 'a call to return to the six-party talks' (which NK has refused to do for about a year now) is really a case of 'shutting the barn door after the horses have bolted'.

Dear Argus, Some might say that these maladies are merely 'growing pains', to be expected when there is such a gigantic shift from something such as the communism that once was is replaced by a new system. It is a massive 'revolution', with no one at the wheel...Putin is trying to put the brakes on, possibly to hold onto power, but also because massive change can occur too rapidly without planning to 'bridge the gaps'.

Dear August1991, from... http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...009-rferl01.htm The problem goes far beyond the USA... (from the above link) geoffrey, Assassinations of foreign leaders are still technically illegal according to the US constitution. A 'regime change' may be needed, but that likely would requre invasion. Aha, forgive me, I just read the other thread in 'the rest of the world' regarding this, so August1991's question should be answered in the context of US response. The US will likely bluster, and possibly impose further sanctions, but they are fairly useless. The people suffer, not the leaders. Further, the sanctions already in place have been labeled by MK as 'provocative', and have done nothin. More of nothing shouldn't really be considered, but if the US isn't actually planning to do anything, then more sanctions will be at the top of the list.

Dear KrustyKid, Actually, Saddam complied (or was in the process of) with the resolution by allowing full inspections, and Blix's report indicates that the UNMOVIC team was not allowed to finish the job. They were told to get out of the way, because the US was invading, and afterward Blix came to the realization that the resolution was really a sham, it was just to buy time to prepare for the invasion. The only thing that was missing on Saddam's part was the paperwork documenting the destruction of the WMD's, which they claimed was destroyed as well. Well, that and the WMD's.

Dear geoffrey, While Remiel's comment may be a bit cryptic, I believe he refers to what the coppers most often hear when someone ends up in the ditch. "I didn't fall asleep at the wheel, officer, I swerved to miss something that ran across the road..."

Dear August1991, Your (unusually lengthy) post above was one of the best I have read from anyone here in a long time. Amen to that. If the gov't (read: lawmakers and/or moral majority) faced the issues as honestly as you did in this post, we would be miles ahead of where we are now. Testify! )))hand clapping syncopation(((Liars on lots of levels. As to your individual points, I'll have to address them later. A quick comment on pt.#!: I expect it was an attack point and I find it both repulsive and typical.

Dear Charles Anthony, Well, if the 'chocolate loonie' becomes worth $1, could you use it as currency? That becomes basically the barter system. I don't see anything wrong with individuals bartering amongst themselves, but gov't issued scrip means (a reasonable amount of) stability. There are too many things in the anarchist system that would lead to total chaos, and I think that this is one of them.

Dear Charles Anthony, Then you must agree that morals have no place in business. Whomever was responsible should then have the option to outbid potential sales to keep the culpability quiet. If we had true 'free enterprise' in an anarchist system, we would lkikely have tragedies like this on a daily basis. The only question to be asked would be 'Was this still profitable for the person who built it'?

Audrey McLaughlin was far more annoying than 'Lexi McDonough' (as sung to the tune of 'Lady Madona')...worse yet was Judy Rebick, former head of NAC...However, this list seems mostly current. I don't watch TV, so I am unfamiliar with a lot of them. Buzz Hargrove (don't know if Bob Goodenow is canuckian) and people of this ilk, willing to sell their loyalty at the drop of a hat )or a dime) is annoying to me. William Shatner has to be up there, too...

Dear Figleaf, I think the answer would be 'all of them'. People don't usually think that their own religion is 'morally inferior' to anyone else's. Otherwise, they'd probably switch to another, or join the agnostic crowd.

Dear Charles Anthony, My sarcastic answer would have to be..."If you ask a silly question...expect a silly answer'. Well, there are, even within religions, moral standards and practices that do not hold up under scrutiny for the majority, so they either become fringe sects or very secretive. For example...( I will have to go through the Koran again to find this verse, but...)The Koran says that "one should not have sex with an animal that they intend to eat'. Leviticus 20 verse 15 says "And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast'. Kooky. (actually, I was looking for the passage where Moses was to sprinkle the blood of a sacrificed bullock on his right big toe, or something similar, but I'll keep looking) btw, Where is the brass serpent? (Numbers 21, 8-9)

Sadly, this story may be true. Recently, (within the last 5 years or so) the vast majority of the violent (shootings or stabbings) altercations have involved asian gangs. Sounds like the bouncers are doing a bit of 'freelance racial profiling' themselves. To combat this, I suggest you all go to a different bar. It probably would have done no good for the asian gents to protest, but if the three white guys said 'this is BS, we'd rather not go to a club with racial profiling", then the issue may come out into the open.

I thought that this poll was rubbish. The answer to this is "that which does be" (or, existence itself) The answer to this is "myself' What 'larger questions'?As a 'pragmatic agnostic', I would answer 'reason', but it is essentially the same question as #2

Dear Charles Anthony, An excellent question. Usually religion. Some of those wish to dictate law too. I'll have to come back to this one... I disagree with Riverwind here, because the 'majority will' does not always translate into law, especially on closely debated points such as capital punishment. The majority may be for it, but usually it is + or - 10% swing. It could also change from week to week depending on what is in the news. The 'petulant child' also looks at the world from this viewpoint . He or she doesn't see the value of cooperation, especially when anything interupts the process of "Gimme, now". The mores and norms that are the most universal in any given area.

Dear Charles Anthony, I have to agree with Riverwind here...there must be maintained a difference between 'coersion' and 'action and consequence'. For example, if someone on the street said that they were going to kill you, and then they came at you with a knife. Would I be exercising unfair 'coersion' if I stopped them? There must be rules to follow when freedoms collide.Just imagine a world with no parents!

Dear kimmy, Indeed, I raced home from work today because I saw a thread about "Horny, cheating housewives looking for group sex" this morning. I was hoping to find a better deal than what I'm paying now, but alas, the thread (actually, all three of them) had been deleted. I guess it's back to my 'fistress'.

Dear Renegade, Almost. No, lowering the minimum performance standards is ok. Becasue the bottom line is sales, not 'life-saving'. No actually justifying discrimination, but justifying the action of refusing someone who doesn't meet set physical performance standards and ignoring cries of 'discrimination'.

Dear August1991, Hilarious. Who do you suppose Louis Riel is going to support this election? The saddest part is that the federal Liberals should have been on their best behaviour, to show Canadians that they have put corruption and 'questionable practices' behind them. But they haven't. And they still stand a chance. Perhaps those 'Hungarios' have got it right...we should be on their doorsteps screaming 'Liar!".

Dear August1991, This is rarely done, because it is a precedent no politician wants set. In the US, the first action undertaken by a newly elected president is to legally pardon the former president of any actions he did or may have done that hasen't yet come to light. Why? Because they expect the next one to do the same for them. Canadian politics is different, to be sure, but not that much. Perhaps the Liberals, at the time, knew the Conservatives were finished and felt a criminal charge against the former PM would be the 'ultimate nail in the coffin', but it is certainly a bold and unusual step.

Dear Renegade, In a way, a double standard, but not really. Professional sports is merely entertainment, meaningless in the long run, really, where a fighefighter job is an actual real job. To compare the two, physical standards should not be lowered regarding life-saving abilities versus 'entertainment marketability'. (sorry, a poorly constructed sentence...I'm tired and ready for beddy-bye time)Those two should not be held up against one another.