Canada imposes its own brand of sanctions on North Korea...

[nicky10013]

Morality isn't.

You bet it is. By not dealing with the government for what they're doing to those people, you're condemning those same people to years more of harsh life under that same regime. With that kind of activity, ironically, you're helping those governments you don't want to talk to for "moral" reasons.

On the other hand, if you deal with governments and can provide economic benefit to it's citizens, it gives them a base on which to stand to fight for their own rights. 20-30 years ago people would've been arguing the same over China and what it was doing to it's citizens, especially over what happened at Tiananmen Square. We've dealt with the Chinese government since then. Not only has western FDI helped Chinese citizens (in the past 30 years, 300 million have been taken out of abject poverty, the largest shift in history) economically live better lives, but that new found economic power is giving them more say over their own society. There are 70,000 anti-government protests in China per year. In 2008 just before the Olympics there was an uprising in Tibet against communist authority. The fact that they failed shouldn't condemn the movement to the dustbin of history. The fact that they even tried and that there are still protests shows that there's a broad movement for democracy within China which will most likely eventually succeed and it wouldn't be possible without the western money that pours into Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Tianjin and many many others.

Our involvement makes people's lives better. That's where the morality really lies. If dealing with a bad government is a part of that, so be it. It'll take many decades for North Korea to get where China is, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

[Wilber]

You bet it is. By not dealing with the government for what they're doing to those people, you're condemning those same people to years more of harsh life under that same regime. With that kind of activity, ironically, you're helping those governments you don't want to talk to for "moral" reasons.

On the other hand, if you deal with governments and can provide economic benefit to it's citizens, it gives them a base on which to stand to fight for their own rights. 20-30 years ago people would've been arguing the same over China and what it was doing to it's citizens, especially over what happened at Tiananmen Square. We've dealt with the Chinese government since then. Not only has western FDI helped Chinese citizens (in the past 30 years, 300 million have been taken out of abject poverty, the largest shift in history) economically live better lives, but that new found economic power is giving them more say over their own society. There are 70,000 anti-government protests in China per year. In 2008 just before the Olympics there was an uprising in Tibet against communist authority. The fact that they failed shouldn't condemn the movement to the dustbin of history. The fact that they even tried and that there are still protests shows that there's a broad movement for democracy within China which will most likely eventually succeed and it wouldn't be possible without the western money that pours into Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Tianjin and many many others.

Our involvement makes people's lives better. That's where the morality really lies. If dealing with a bad government is a part of that, so be it. It'll take many decades for North Korea to get where China is, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

China is very different. China has decided to join the rest of the world and is doing so in a most impressive way. We may not be completely in agreement with their policies but they are a forward looking nation. In case you haven't noticed, power in China has not been handed down from father to son.

In contrast, the North Korean regime is completely insular and relies on the ignorance and poverty of its people to remain in power. The Kim regime is not based on ideology, it is merely a bunch of thugs living off the backs of others. It's time you learned the difference.

By your reasoning, we should be doing business with every tin pot dictator and psychopath who can maintain control of a country by whatever means they see fit.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Wilber

[nicky10013]

China is very different. China has decided to join the rest of the world and is doing so in a most impressive way. We may not be completely in agreement with their policies but they are a forward looking nation. In case you haven't noticed, power in China has not been handed down from father to son.

In contrast, the North Korean regime is completely insular and relies on the ignorance and poverty of its people to remain in power. The Kim regime is not based on ideology, it is merely a bunch of thugs living off the backs of others. It's time you learned the difference.

By your reasoning, we should be doing business with every tin pot dictator and psychopath who can maintain control of a country by whatever means they see fit.

Yeah pretty much. Though, we should be dealing with them in a certain way. As for the Kim regime as opposed to China, there wasn't that much difference only a few scant years ago. Much more similar situation than you'd probably ever give credit for.

[Wilber]

Yeah pretty much. Though, we should be dealing with them in a certain way. As for the Kim regime as opposed to China, there wasn't that much difference only a few scant years ago. Much more similar situation than you'd probably ever give credit for.

That is where we differ, I don't see it as similar. The Kim regime is closer to Mugabe's than Mao's even. Chretien initiated a boycott on Mugabe's regime as well.

[Wilber]

Yeah pretty much. Though, we should be dealing with them in a certain way. As for the Kim regime as opposed to China, there wasn't that much difference only a few scant years ago. Much more similar situation than you'd probably ever give credit for.

That is where we differ, I don't see it as similar. The Kim regime is closer to Mugabe's than Mao's even. Chretien initiated a boycott on Mugabe's regime as well.

[nicky10013]

That is where we differ, I don't see it as similar. The Kim regime is closer to Mugabe's than Mao's even. Chretien initiated a boycott on Mugabe's regime as well.

Mao killed 30 million people. I also don't agree with Chretien's boycott. Dealing with the problem rather than ignoring produces results. Not the other way around.

[Wilber]

Mao killed 30 million people. I also don't agree with Chretien's boycott. Dealing with the problem rather than ignoring produces results. Not the other way around.

Looking the other way and doing a Sgt. Schultz imitation is not dealing with the problem. Not dealing with these people like there is nothing wrong, is.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Wilber

[nicky10013]

Looking the other way and doing a Sgt. Schultz imitation is not dealing with the problem. Not dealing with these people like there is nothing wrong, is.

Have I ever argued that dealing with people like there isn't a problem is the way to go? Furthermore, cutting off relations and sanctions can't be viewed as anything other than dealing with it in the sgt. schultz way you described. Cutting off trade solves no problems. North Korea has been sanctioned on just about everything. It still produced nuclear weapons. The regime really is quite stable. So, your solution is really just more of the same? What about Cuba? The US has run a blockade against Cuba since 62. Please, enlighten me, when did communism fall in Cuba? In the international sense, just cutting off trade is the same thing as closing our eyes and pretending it isn't happening.

[bush_cheney2004]

....What about Cuba? The US has run a blockade against Cuba since 62. Please, enlighten me, when did communism fall in Cuba?

There is no US "blockade" of Cuba....perhaps you meant "embargo". In fact, the United States is now Cuba's 5th largest trading partner.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1447847620080814

[Wilber]

Have I ever argued that dealing with people like there isn't a problem is the way to go? Furthermore, cutting off relations and sanctions can't be viewed as anything other than dealing with it in the sgt. schultz way you described. Cutting off trade solves no problems. North Korea has been sanctioned on just about everything. It still produced nuclear weapons. The regime really is quite stable. So, your solution is really just more of the same? What about Cuba? The US has run a blockade against Cuba since 62. Please, enlighten me, when did communism fall in Cuba? In the international sense, just cutting off trade is the same thing as closing our eyes and pretending it isn't happening.

All you are doing is rationalizing dealing with a thuggish regime that oppresses it's own citizens.

[Bonam]

Why would we NOT have sanctions on North Korea? Not like Canada's economy is hurt by not getting exports from that dump.

[nicky10013]

There is no US "blockade" of Cuba....perhaps you meant "embargo". In fact, the United States is now Cuba's 5th largest trading partner.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1447847620080814

Blockade, Embargo...semantics. They deliberately changed the name because a blockade is an act of war. An embargo, not so much. Still the same thing.

[nicky10013]

All you are doing is rationalizing dealing with a thuggish regime that oppresses it's own citizens.

No, I just understand how international economics and international relations affect domestic political fortunes. Show me a system of sanctions that works, that brings down governments and spurs democracy. I'll be waiting forever, I know, but it's a good question. Like I said, if we're going to do the moral thing, which I think we agree is the well-being of the people who populate countries like North Korea, tell me how not dealing with the government makes things better for them. No, of course it doesn't because in the end sanctions are easy and morally self-fulfilling despite the fact that they accomplish nothing, which I assume you all have ceded since I really haven't heard an argument that has actually said they work. Shouldn't we stop stroking our own egos by only implementing nominal policy rather than something that will actually change things for the better? If we can change things for the better without talking to the governments, I'm all ears. Something, though, tells me I won't be hearing any arguments to that effect.

[Wilber]

No, I just understand how international economics and international relations affect domestic political fortunes. Show me a system of sanctions that works, that brings down governments and spurs democracy. I'll be waiting forever, I know, but it's a good question. Like I said, if we're going to do the moral thing, which I think we agree is the well-being of the people who populate countries like North Korea, tell me how not dealing with the government makes things better for them. No, of course it doesn't because in the end sanctions are easy and morally self-fulfilling despite the fact that they accomplish nothing, which I assume you all have ceded since I really haven't heard an argument that has actually said they work. Shouldn't we stop stroking our own egos by only implementing nominal policy rather than something that will actually change things for the better? If we can change things for the better without talking to the governments, I'm all ears. Something, though, tells me I won't be hearing any arguments to that effect.

It's not about making things better for them, it's about who you sleep with.

[bush_cheney2004]

Blockade, Embargo...semantics. They deliberately changed the name because a blockade is an act of war. An embargo, not so much. Still the same thing.

Guess again...the terms are clearly not the same. But that never stops you from using them incorrectly anyway...carry on.

[nicky10013]

It's not about making things better for them, it's about who you sleep with.

Ahaha and you're claiming to have the moral position? Your entire moral position is not dealing with people who make people's lives bad, right? Yet, at the same time it actually isn't about making those people's lives any better. Wow. How contradictory.

Edited November 5, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

Guess again...the terms are clearly not the same. But that never stops you from using them incorrectly anyway...carry on.

In this case they are.

[Wilber]

Ahaha and you're claiming to have the moral position? Your entire moral position is not dealing with people who make people's lives bad, right? Yet, at the same time it actually isn't about making those people's lives any better. Wow. How contradictory.

Making who's live's better, Kim and his henchmen? Yes it is about not dealing with people who make peoples lives bad. You finally got it.

[nicky10013]

Making who's live's better, Kim and his henchmen? Yes it is about not dealing with people who make peoples lives bad. You finally got it.

I made it abundantly clear that we should be endeavouring to make the people's lives better. Apparently you have no use for that, despite the fact that you have the urge to punish the people who make those people's lives bad in the first place.

You clearly don't understand, or do and are just to proud to cede the point, that by just not dealing with governments like the North Koreans, those people will be just as bad off anyway. Frankly, the fact that you don't even care about the well being of the people involved says something dark about you. The fact that you know what could work to make these peoples lives better but you won't because of the optics is complicity in the very crimes of these regimes committ on a daily basis. Dealing with them isn't, because at least in dealing with them, we make the people's lives better which will eventually give them a platform from which to foment change and perhaps even democracy. That's doing something.

What you're doing is nothing and calling it ice cream.

Edited November 5, 2010 by nicky10013

[xul]

How much trade existed before that?

This is why this time Canada's "economist" boss was so political

If N.K. had some gold mines so Kim had enough money to buy million tons of Alberta oil, you would see a more economical Harper.

Maybe there were other causes, like Harper needs S.K. president to sign an order importing million tons of Alberta oil to prop Canadian economy. And these days Harper can hardly find some issues, either political or economical, that he could agree with Obama heartily. And thanks heaven there was one, so he acted without any hesitate to show Obama the rumor is false that he always disagree with him....

Edited November 5, 2010 by xul

[Wilber]

I made it abundantly clear that we should be endeavouring to make the people's lives better. Apparently you have no use for that, despite the fact that you have the urge to punish the people who make those people's lives bad in the first place.

You clearly don't understand, or do and are just to proud to cede the point, that by just not dealing with governments like the North Koreans, those people will be just as bad off anyway. Frankly, the fact that you don't even care about the well being of the people involved says something dark about you. The fact that you know what could work to make these peoples lives better but you won't because of the optics is complicity in the very crimes of these regimes committ on a daily basis. Dealing with them isn't, because at least in dealing with them, we make the people's lives better which will eventually give them a platform from which to foment change and perhaps even democracy. That's doing something.

What you're doing is nothing and calling it ice cream.

I do understand and I do care about those peoples well being. Dealing with Kim will not improve those peoples lives.

Going back to the stolen goods analogy. I may not be able to stop the thief from stealing or help his victims but I can stop doing my part to maintain his lifestyle.

[nicky10013]

I do understand and I do care about those peoples well being. Dealing with Kim will not improve those peoples lives.

Going back to the stolen goods analogy. I may not be able to stop the thief from stealing or help his victims but I can stop doing my part to maintain his lifestyle.

It's not even close to being an analogy and us dealing with them DOES improve their lives. I say again, look what FDI has done in China. 300 million in the last 30 years brought out of poverty.

So what, you're denying the power of trade to transform society?

Edited November 5, 2010 by nicky10013

[Wilber]

It's not even close to being an analogy and us dealing with them DOES improve their lives. I say again, look what FDI has done in China. 300 million in the last 30 years brought out of poverty.

So what, you're denying the power of trade to transform society?

How is it going to transform that society? Feed the country while Kim uses the rest of his resources to maintain his mega army and build nukes? North Korea has the largest number of both active military personnel and reservists on the planet in relation to its population. Unlike the Chinese regime, he is not interested in lifting his people out of poverty.

[nicky10013]

How is it going to transform that society? Feed the country while Kim uses the rest of his resources to maintain his mega army and build nukes? North Korea has the largest number of both active military personnel and reservists on the planet in relation to its population. Unlike the Chinese regime, he is not interested in lifting his people out of poverty.

Considering the amount of corruption in China, neither are the Chinese. They're interested in power which in terms of geopolitics means bigger cities, bigger militaries, mor production. More wealth for the every day person was merely a byproduct.

[M.Dancer]

Blockade, Embargo...semantics. They deliberately changed the name because a blockade is an act of war. An embargo, not so much. Still the same thing.

Clearly you are an objective observer with a high degree of intellegence, your ability to deftly use the word semantics is a wonderous thing. And cover a wide latitude of obfucscation. You may say that water is blue and someone says no, water is colourless, you counter corrrectly, that it is semantics, because for sure, the last time you looked at a post card from florida, the water was blue.

Yes of course an embargo is a blockade....if anyone dares to try to run an blockade, they can be boarded, arrested or even sunk...while running an embrago is exactly the same thing, except without the loss of property or life