[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by The_Rorschach

Respectfully friend, I disagree. There is enough of a culture remaining in Korea that they would eagerly embrace their Northern cousins if not for Kim Jung Il's policies. While many of their traditions seems to be disappearing, I admit, the same is true of most nations which adapt and develope, always changing. Static tendancies bring stagnation.

I think they'd gladly embrace N. Korea, which is great, but that doesn't mean South Korea is retaining its own cultural values. I don't think the demise of culture for "progress" should be termed as the cure for stagnation. Since my former "significant other" is from there, I get a little bit of "insider knowledge" on the matter, and Seoul for example is quickly turning into one big fast food restaurant. Again, better than the daily misery felt by your average N. Korean? Definitely.

Heh, well, thats certainly a different light than I'd looked at it in. You're quite correct, thats exactly what it is, but what else is left? Leaving them to their own devices has done nothing to improve matters. Over the last fifty years things have gotten worse, not better. It's not due to lack of education, or money, or protection. It has to do with the oppressive regimes which have ruled the region with total disregard to the people's will.

But we haven't left them alone. We have in fact aided, benefited, and continue to do both with the very same bad guys you mention (even the "butcher of Baghdad" at one time). I constantly revert to this example, but why not react to a nation such as Iraq the way we do with China? China is an undemocratic nation that has human rights violations up the wazoo, and has likewise shown aggression towards Taiwan and Tibet (similar to Kuwait?). Yet our "solution" for China has been open markets, free trade, cure them with capitalism, etc. Why sanction one oppressive regime and reward another? Why not open up trade with Iraq, lift sanctions, and allow a healthy Iraqi people, with access to internet and global press, why not allow them to emancipate themselves not only physically from that monster, but ideologically as well????

Your man Jefferson was right, ' The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. '(letter to Col. William S. Smith, 1787). And if you doubt that tyranny exists there, despite your philosophical view of what tyranny is, there is justification to show it does exist:

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands ... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." - James Madison

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

Well I'm beginnging to appreciate Madison more and more, too.

I know Locke (which comes out very clearly in Jefferson's words) believed that a king, or any one who would rule over others, in essense is a "terrorist." They are a terrorist to their own people, in the most literal sense. Under that logic, overthrowing Saddam would be very relevant in regards to the war on terror.

But I don't know that John Locke would support this war, and neither do I.

I think if our game plan is to liberate the third world from every terrible regime around, we have a lot of work ahead of us.....

Well. . .I'm not sure. I trust Powell, but Cheney and Bush have had motivations for their actions above and beyond the simplistic tenant of displacing Saddam. It is quite possible the papers were completely contrived. Never forget than many of Bush's appointees are left over from the days of Iran/Contra, and have broken US and International law in the past without hesitation.

Can you say Poindexter?

Unilateral war. . .We do have the combined support of both Britain and Spain, neither of which I believe will retract themselves.

We have Blair, not necessarily Britain, and I'm willing to bet that if this war happens without a UN resolution, we'll se a new PM in England before 2004.

And I think when people say "unilateral," they mean nations of significant miltary and economic clout (or a permanent member of the UN SC). I mean, sure, if it was America and Haiti declaring war on Iraq, it TECHNICALLY isn't unilateral in the literal sense, BUT....