Like, the only justification for war has generally been accepted as repulsing attack/invasion or at minimum just before such an attack is lauchned. You base just about all of your thought on that statement of fact, but I do not believe it matches the historical reality of either word or deed.

When you couple this with a claim that no wars have ever been fought with morals or ethics in mind, you push the discussion further from any real relavence.

Or, that wars of liberation are being lined up for nations all over the globe. In fact, this is specifically shows a bad understanding of the situation with North Korea to begin with. The North’s deterent, even without nukes, has given it cover for its activity for a long time.

As for being a staunch anti-communist, well, I would guess from the few comments you have written recently that I’ve read, that is a remarkably easy position to defend, since you don’t believe you have seen communists or people on the “progressive” side that have caused problems in South Korea.

It’s sad that your positions are too typical. (which also means that though I argue against them, I do see you have ample support for them among other people - which should take any sting out of my stikes against them).

You are more than ready to see A Bush as moving the US toward fascism, but you are equally ready to come out swinging in defense of a Bruce Cumings and against any idea that pro-North Korea direct operatives or influenced people had anything much to do with a Kwangju Uprising/Massacre or other troubled times in South Korea’s past.

What I am saying is that in previous times, invading Iraq, or North Korea, would be seen as very strange, since these countries haven’t engaged in an act of war against the US. In contrast, the war in Afghanistan was a classical defensive war, since the US was attacked by Afghan-supported terrorists. But today, people are much more willing to consider war as a routine matter of policy in debates. I totally agree that leaders have always used war as a routine matter of policy with no regard to any morals. But in debates and discussions, people used to almost universally talk of all war as a great evil to be avoided. This has changed in the past decade or so, on both the left and right.

I assume that usinkorea has the lowest opinion on “Asian Studies” departments, or he wouldn’t be so enthusiastic about my chances for getting a scholarship to one. We totally agree on that at least, as anyone with the slightest sense should run screaming from any field with “Studies” in its names. The students and professors in Asian studies are usually not serious about what they are doing, at least in the US.

To be honest, I’m surprised by all the negative reaction to my comments. I don’t think I’ve ever said anything sympathetic about North Korea, and I certainly have no sympathy for Communism. I’m probably the most fervent anti-Communist you can find.

But I am just as fervently anti-fascist, and some of the right-wing elements in Korea today are totaly unreformed fascists, dreaming of the good old military dictatorship days. Worse, the US government seems to prefer these right-wing forces to the democratic “progressives”, whose left-wing associations makes them unacceptable to the US. It is a very dangerous habit for the US to shun democracies that disagree with American policy (like France, Germany and South Korea). America has to promote democracy and find a way of promoting its interests while respecting other nations’ points of view.

That is why I am so critical of the North Korea human rights debate. I see it as a smokescreen to advance right-wing electoral chances in South Korea, and to promote the Bush agenda for confrontational world politics.

“It was once universally held (in word if rarely in deed) that war was only acceptable as a means of self-defence. Imminent invasion was the only time a war was ‘justified’.”

Can you show me a time period in which this “universally held” position was put into practice?

I also recommend you apply for graduate school in Asian Studies. You are a lock for a full scholarship….

http://www.time.com/time/asia/.....50,00.html

“War is so horrible that the South Koreans are justified in overlooking North Korea’s unenlightened and brutal behavior to preserve peace.” Yes war is horrible, but S. Koreans are not justified in overlooking nork misbehavior simply because Roh and his cronies deem it hasn’t affected S.K. that much. Would a war break out if S.K. voted on a UN measure condemning N.K.’s human rights violations? Doubtful.

Don’t know if Californians produce more drugs than the norks, but on the consumer side….

Anyway…Seoul has repeatedly said “nukes first, human rights later”–that’s practically Chung Dong-young’s mantra. I hope U.S. officials say in a chorus, “No, human rights, nukes, counterfeiting our dollars, drugs, etc., all stop now with UN sanctions, or…” Some of the recent statements from U.S. officials suggest some sort of unified policy is coming together–maybe not one you’d like, and maybe you needn’t worry because it will evaporate later, but it’s the closest thing to building a case for “regime change” I’ve heard yet, and far more truthful than the BS about Iraq. I’m not saying the U.S. should nuke the Dear Midget, just lay out a plain, convincing case for sanctions and don’t let S.K. or China off the hook.

So you see “all over the map” where I see (hopefully) a nascent policy. We’ll see.

As I said, there is no doubt in my mind that the regime is involved to some degree in illegal drug trafficking. However, it is the degree that is in question. There’s a difference between a few small patches here and there and someone transporting a few dozen kilos on each of the few boats that leave the country, and massive plantations geared toward output that would rival that of Colombia’s coca crop or Afghanistan’s poppy crop.

And if they really are doing it, they deserve to be called on it, BUT that doesn’t necessarily mean it serves our interests to do so. We have far bigger fish to fry.