north koreans doing tests on babies, just like the nazis did Options

[celebritygooner]

Agusto Pinochet of Chile
General Suhuarto of Indonesia
Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam
King Fahd Bin Aziz of Saudi Arabia
Turgut Ozal of Turkey
Pol Pot of Cambodia

The list goes on and on...

Thank you, good list ... I don't know much about Suhuarto, and I disagree about your disapproval of King Fahd, but I generally accept our support to the rest in the context of the larger, idealogical struggle of the cold war. Should we be proud? No. Would Stalin have been worse? Yes. Defeating Communism was all that mattered, and you know what they say about laws and sausages ...

King Fahd was no worse a human rights abuser than any of his potential replacements (or any other Arab despot), and, as king of Saudi Arabia (thus de facto big brother of the entire Arab world) making nice with him made it easier to make nice with the entire region (thus, he was THE despot to hold hands with). Agree with that or not, everybody has to get in bed with somebody for their oil -- and so even if this is a black eye against the United States, Russia and China have ones to match, so it's not really points for or against.

And back to the original point ... what interest is China protecting by keeping North Korea in business? Everybody knows the DPRK is an abomination. If it were stronger, they would have gone on their campaign of triumph -- weaker, it would have collapsed. China keeps the country on puppet strings with just enough rice to keep it alive and with nuclear weapons to keep us out. The reason? A rich, democratic, United Korea on their border would not be helpful to the Chinese Communist party.

What interest was the United States protecting when Clinton went to Somalia and the Balkans and when Bush went to Afghanistan and Iraq? Have we derived any tangible benefits from any of these four campaigns? What interest was China protecting when they did none of the above, when they do nothing in Darfur, when they do nothingand when they keep guns pointed at Taiwan?
Is Cuba an eyesore? Absolutely, we should probably reevaluate our relationship with them. Every generation changes a country, so is Iran still an archenemy? Maybe ... but the situation doesn't hurt Cuba that much and it doesn't hurt Iran at all. Bottom line the United States and China are not moral equivelents. To argue otherwise is insane.

Psyko, dismissing my criticism of China as racist tripe is, essentially, supporting the counter-argument, that China and the United States are moral equivelents, and that Chinese support to North Korea is somehow excusable. Will you stand by either of those statements? Or will you say "oh nos!" and let your Call-Grant-A-Conservative-And-Make-A-Bill-O'Reilly-Joke reflex kick in?

Let's find out ...

[Psykopath]

Psyko, dismissing my criticism of China as racist tripe is, essentially, supporting the counter-argument, that China and the United States are moral equivelents, and that Chinese support to North Korea is somehow excusable. Will you stand by either of those statements? Or will you say "oh nos!" and let your Call-Grant-A-Conservative-And-Make-A-Bill-O'Reilly-Joke reflex kick in?

Let's find out ...

The fact that China and Russia haven't done this is proof that Americans are superior human beings.

So, decisions by the Chinese and Russian governments (poor decisions) imply that the American "race" is superior? Is that what you are getting at?

Or that our government is better than theirs? (I'll agree with that 100%)

To simply say statements implying one group of people is a 'superior group of human beings' in comparison to others is a slipperey slope, Grant. It's a very racially charged statement, in the very least due to your wording. It's dangerous to just declare something such as that as fact and then put words in my mouth. My denial of your statement's legitimacy does not mean I support the opposite (That China/Russia & the U.S. are moral equivalents). That assumption, I'm sorry, is ignorant to believe based off such a miniscule dialogue between us. I consider the Chinese government to be despicable, and Russia is about as shady as they come.

Don't paint everything in the "black or white, with us or against us" text. The world is not that simple. Just because I don't support the use of statements charged with an air of cultural or racial superiority does not automatically imply a die-hard allegiance with the counter-argument. Just because I am not with your side of the arguement doesn't mena I am with the counter to your arguement.

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

I love love how saying your own country is better because they take a moral high ground compared to other countries equals "omg you are racist". He didn't say shit about the american "race" being superior, more our view point on actions to take in the world... would you not say that firemen are better than rapists, honest workers better than dishonest, etc?


lol so awesome to see Grant post in npr again.

[Testm0nkey]

when i was experimenting on chink babies i didnt get nearly as much shit on the boards. all of you are false

im not history scientist but i couldnt name anything north korea ever did to improve anything in my generation. does that = reason to hate them? no but taking all the torture love away from me is enough to ruffle some feathers. war? no but passing them in the hallway with a scornful look

[celebritygooner]

Don't paint everything in the "black or white, with us or against us" text. The world is not that simple.

You're right. Not EVERYTHING is that simple. Like I said, Cuba and Iran aren't that simple.

But North Korea and Cathryn? North Korea and Cathryn are exactly that simple. Look at 'em. With their beaty little eyes ...

It's so easy to dismiss every bold statement with a swift "The world is not that simple!!!" but (apparently) it's much more difficult to talk us through all the complexity. Please ... indulge us.

Cathryn, I'm not suggesting you should hate a country just becuse they're a bad influence on the world ... most are small influences, and most are too busy being inept to really be evil. There is a different standard you have to apply to the third world (Robert Kagan "Of Paradise and Power" is a good read) when it comes to moral expectations, international relations, human rights and the economy. The third world is a harsh, nasty, brutish place full of people just trying to eat and stay out of the cold. It's trivial to demand human rights and representative government when the people are too busy starving to know (or even care) who's in charge.

You can't drop the hammer on everybody -- if we spent the money it would take to change 50 regimes, our economy would have long since collapsed and China would take our place in the sun -- but you CAN be critical of those who help perpetuate the abuse. Does our continued hatred of Cuba have the same effet as Chinese support for North Korea? No, but it's in the same ballpark so I'll use the analogy. Both arrangements should probably change, but look at the legacy:
Cuba is poor, North Korea is starving.
Cuba has political prisons, North Korea has concentration camps and gulags.
Baseball players flee Cuba on rafts, North Korean SOF abduct Japanese fishermen to help train spies and to use them as political poker chips. China and Russia couldn't even bring themselves to condemning North Korea for THAT.

And we still can't acknowledge the moral superiority of the United States?

[FORSAKENR320]