In a message dated 8/17/01 10:46:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
I don't believe any country should let its people starve. But I also don't
believe in denying a country the right to spend the resources necessary to
defend itself. And yes, I know these two priorities can clash; for any
country, it sucks when you're dirt-poor and at the same time have enemy
forces gathering at your border.
As for the US being a threat: how else could North Korea interpret the
presence of US troops just south of their border? Keep in mind that from a
North Korean point of view, the hated capitalist US is an agressive country,
intend on world domination.
>>
It is more than simply a decision that an independent country has a right to
make. It is a crime against its own citizens. Why is the theoretical risk of
landmines a war crime while the actual harm to the NK citizenry a decision
that a country has a right to make? I don't believe that. You go on about the
US behaving irresponsibly in the world but are unwilling to critize a country
that behaves more irresponsibly. If the US must behave correctly in the
world it is because we owe something to the community of humans who live in
the world not just our country. We must according to this view mitigate our
selfish behavior. I agree with this. So I think this means that I can assert
that countries must treat their own citizens well and when they do not do
this it is a crime against humanity.
