A horrific train wreck in North Korea has killed or injured "A large number of people". North Korea will need assistance dealing with this tragedy. It seems like an opportune time to smooth relations.

Should the US be the first and loudest nation to offer unconditional support to North Korea in their time of need?

Do you catch more bees with honey or fire?

Yes. i think we should help them. it would not only ease the tentions between us and them but it might even get us on their good side.the tentions are tight and the world is holding its breath we need to help them and let everyone give a sigh of relief.

Should the US be the first and loudest nation to offer unconditional support to North Korea in their time of need?


Absolutely, it would help to smooth relations and it is the moral choice. Whether or not a society as closed as N. Korea will allow aid workers from the "evil capitalist empire" into their country or not is another story, but I do believe that they would at least accept our supplies.

Not no but HELL NO. I do not want a single penny of my tax money going to them or any other country. Let them deal with their own problems. I pay taxes for my country to make my life better. Last I checked my life was far from perfect.

Sharing is caring and I don't.

It doesn't matter if you use fire or honey with bees, the end result is getting STUNG.

I don't want my tax money going to them or care to help that regime.

Any regime that spends almost all their budget on the military and starves the people, can provide for this accident by taking some money from the military.

Well... no wonder the rest of the world hates us. It's an attitude like that that makes us the "arrogant and selfish Americans". I don't mind if you don't want your tax money to go outside the country, but be reasonable. This is one of the most impoverished nations on the face of the Earth; it is also one of the most dangerous. We can completely ignore a humanitarian disaster and make the rest of the world hate us even more, or we can step up and do the right thing: help out a nation in crisis. In the process we can also smooth out relations which are strained at best and keep Seoul from becoming, as Kim Jong Il himself put it, a "sea of fire". I think we owe it to the world and ourselves to make the moral choice and help out our fellow humans, regardless of nationality, etc. because we're better than to just sit idly by while people suffer.

LOL @ Looms. I thought I leaned towards isolationist. Da-yamn!

Should the US be the first and loudest nation to offer unconditional support to North Korea in their time of need?

Unconditional support is too strong a term for me. Humanitarian assistance is more like it. It can be cost efficient as well.

However beneficial the offer could be to both sides I think N. Korea won't take us up on it for the same reason Japan didn't accept aid after the Kobe earthquake. That would be... ...pride and a suspicion factor in N. Korea's case.

I got a great idea, those who are all for helping them, send your next paycheck to Kim Jong Il, and leave the rest of us out of it. Quite honestly, it *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** me off to no extent that next month, when I get out of the military, I have to perform financial acrobatics to get health insurance for my wife and 4 month old baby. Meanwhile, people who contributed NOTHING to this country deserve our tax money more than I do? My life got flipped every which way you can think of after 9/11, and I am one of the ones who had it GOOD, I'm not a member of a combat unit. We are cutting our frikkin' veteran benefits, but we should help North Korea?

And I really do think that our meddling in foreign affairs contributed us being disliked a lot more than our selfishness. Look at all the other selfish countries, nobody seems to hate them. When was the last time anyone dedicated themselves to the destruction of Switzerland?

looms- i understand your position is rough but think outside the box if we help them it may prevent another war. now how good would that be for your family? you got to help others sometimes it always helps a hostile situation...

This is the same guy who let his people starve while he built nukes and fed his army. We might as well give him weapons, any aid that goes to North Korea will be spent on exactly that. He clearly demostrated that he could give a rat's gluteus maximus about how many of his people die.

Perhaps you equate humanitarian disaster assistance (medical supplies, plasma, blankets, burn victim expert advice, or things that are needed to medically help the survivors of the accident) with something like a blank check to Kim Jong Il, which he will pocket or spend on weapons as you suggest? That is not, however, what anyone here has suggested. When manypaths used the term unconditional support, I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about money, but instead offering assistance without conditioning it on anything, i.e., withholding medical supplies unless North Korea agrees to makes concessions on the nuclear arms issues, or some other like-minded quid pro quo.

Perhaps you feel that any medical assistance (supplies and experts, for example) provided to the North Korea victims by our government would have to cost taxpayer dollars, and that as a taxpayer, you resent that our money would be spent to benefit injured and burned North Korea civilians, when we could be spending that money here in the U.S. on Americans. I could understand that point of view better.

I guess when it comes to life and death survival matters, people often base their willingness to help on the basis of how close to home the victims are.

My own personal opinion is that regardless of distance or nationality, people in need are still people in need.

Ever heard of the International Red Cross? Possible the most well known and respected humanitarian organisation in the world. Its Swiss.

No one hates Switzerland because, despite its wealth and neutrality, it still provides large amounts of humanitarian aid.....the Swiss do not want to get involved in other people's wars, sure, but they won't turn away from a disaster.

However, I agree with Looms in this case, because of the practicalities of giving aid to North Korea.

1) They will let in very few foreign aid workers, or NGOs to come in. It is the worlds most secretive regime for the simple reason that they hardly ever let people (anyone) in. Aid money will have to be given to the government.

2) Kim Jong Il will then not spend the money on the North Korean people, he doesn't care about them. The money won't go on aid, it will be spent on the N Korean army.

It is a tragedy, but we cannot do anything for North Korea until either China forces KJI to open up his country or there is some sort of regime change. Until then, it will be a waste of tax payers money.

I'm not against humanitarian aid at all, but if it isn't going to be used for humanitarian purposes, but for propping up a despotic regime, then I have a problem.

The U.S. should offer to help just as it did when Iran suffered a massive earthquake this year.

North Korea will however rebuff any and all efforts by the U.S. to aid them. This is a country run by a paranoid nut and even now I'll bet Kim Jung II is trying to find a way to blame this on the U.S.

This is a place that has taken The Diary of Anne Frank and turned it into an anti-Western piece of propaganda. It is unfortunate that its the innocent civilians that must suffer the criminal stupidity and idiocy of Kim Jung II.

But that's the way of the world...

I surprise myself by finding myself on the fence on this one.

Normally I am entirely for humanitarian aid in times of crisis. Siomething big goes wrong and the world has always been pretty good at responding with emergency help, even during the Cold war often the only common ground was that both the US and the USSR would respond with emergency aid if a third party was injured in some kind of disaster. My inclination here would be to send aid to North korea: food medicine, specialists, potable water... the usual post disaster relief. In the end, this is not about the leader of the country, but about the thousands of casualties.

However, I do have one problem. Those who say Kim will refuse the aid or will turn around and use it on weapons are wrong, kim will acceopt the aid, and I am unclear on how you can use fireproof blankets and plasma as weapons.

However what Kim WILL do, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is never credit the West for its aid, and in fact probably blame the West for not offering to help. The fact that the aid and supplies come from outside will be entirely concealed by the national propaganda. They MIGHT be willing to admit a small amout of aid came from China, but the rest they will pretend it was all internal. Aid the west sends will be used as a propaganda tool by the regime. That sticks in my craw.

In the end, I fall slightly on the side of sending aid, in the final measure without plasma and burn treatment there are people , probably a lot of people, who are going to die. But I`m still not entirely sure...

We've been sending DPRK a lot of food aid through the years. Kim takes off the American labels, puts on the Korean and pretends he fed his people....unless there's a real urgent famine, and then he just feeds his army.

I think we should help them out. He won't allow us in, but we can send the supplies and appease our conscious a bit instead of looking the other way. It will probably go where it is needed, even if we receive no credit.

Edited to add: Incidentally, for those who are angered about giving aid and receiving no credit. Is that worse than giving aid, having it accepted, and then told that it is meaningless? That is the feeling I have had lately when reading the 'anti-American sentiment' threads, and some others. We've done a lot of good things in the world, and given much... and they are basically ignored with the 'Americans are greedy, selfish imperialists' mantra mostly because of Iraq.

Should the US be the first and loudest nation to offer unconditional support to North Korea in their time of need?

We should and more than likely, we will. We always help people who are suffering, because it is the right thing to do - it is a big part of what the US is all about.

In reflecting on the question raised in this thread and the international community’s anti-American attitude, I am reminded of a commentary that I first heard right after 9/11. Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator wrote it, in 1973.

Here is an excerpt:



It is amazing that 30 years later the anti-American sentiment is still the same. I have no hopes that it will ever change. I also worry the "Gordon Sinclair’s" of this world are no longer.

God speed to those who are suffering in NK. They can rest assured; US assistance of some kind is on its way.

Do you catch more bees with honey or fire?

The rest of the world expects the US to assist when a natural disaster strikes or when a horrific accident occurs, like in NK. The US government and citizens want to help, but it will not matter if we use honey, fire, or just do it selflessly. We will either be accused of not doing enough, of not doing it the right way, or of doing it for our own gain.

Edited for spelling.

It disgusts me how many people are in support of mandatory charity. This is even 1000 worse than welfare, at least welfare go to our own citizens, this is welfare for other countries. I don't want my money going to other countries. Period. I don't care if they live forever or grow mushrooms. Doesn't affect me one way or another.

As a canadian, I am well aware of, and in many cases agree with the sentiment expressed by Dr. Sinclair in his 1973 statement, it certainly has been oft repeated.
However, though you may agree with many of his sentiments, you must also agree that the US (and the world) of 1973 are very different from the US (and the world) of 2004.Sinclair wrote thisspeech in response to the international outcry following the US pullout from Vietnam. He did not approve of the Vietnam war, nor of the US's handling of it, but he felt that the masses were allowing the ugliness of that conflict obscure the many great things the US had done.

Would Sinclair have approved of the US and the invasion of Iraq? Well the obvious answer is who knows, but given his centrist leanings for a Canadian (which makes him very Liberal in the US) and his lifelong search for truth and integrity in politics and journalism, the odds are no.


Let me put it this way: Sinclair's point was we should not let the bad things the US has done prevent us from seeing the good things the US has done. He was correct.

But the opposite also applies, the many great things about the US should not blind us to the fact that even the best of us can do wrong.

In my opinion, there are two probelms in the world view regarding the US.

The first is that in the eyes of many non-Americans, the US can do no right. This is of course biased and false.

The second is, that in the eyes of many Americans, the US can do no wrong. This is just as false.

As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle...

Why do you have so little care and so much contempt for people of other countries? Is it because you do not and will never know them? because their lives have no effect on your life? Because what happens to them has no direct effect on you at all?

Interesting.

What about people from other states? I mean, who cares about Maine really, if you are from Florida? You will never know these people or meet them, so why should your tax dollars go to a charity to help them out?

Or, different cities in your state? I mean some hick town gets hit by a tornado, what do you care? It has no direct impact on your life at all, if the media had not told you about it, you probably would never even know it happened.

What about the next county, or the next street? Or that guy three houses over you do not like very much?


Like it or not, you have drawn a completely arbitrary line as to who you will and will not 'care' about. That,s hypocracy, unless of course your stated intent is to help nobody at all unless their suffering directly influences your life in some way or another. Then thats just petty self-centeredness.

I will stand up for Looms here, as I respect what is being said and it is entirely valid. Although I am willing to have my tax contribution (although as a student with part time work that is not a whole lot of contribution) go partly towards foreign aid, I can totally understand why people would demand they and their family be put first. I have often read people saying they were liberal when they were young, but learned the error of their ways as they grew older and became more conservative. Looking out for my own in terms of what my government uses tax money for is something I probably will care strongly about when I have a family of my own to care for, so you have my support there Looms

The matter at hand, I think the gesture would be nice, regardless of whether any aid given is received gratefully, or in fact if the North Korean people ever learn that it was foreigners who helped them. However, North Korea is a different kettle of fish compared to Iran. Iran is open to relations with the rest of the world for a start, and was grateful to those who did come to help out.

I don't think we should give North Korea any aid. North Korea has been given aid by the US for years and it has never improved the lives of the North Koreans and it might just go into Kim Jong's military, so why bother?

We gave to Iran. That was fine with me. North Korea is way different

Well since I posted the question, I feel that it might be time to add my 2 cents:

Well, I am a human being, and I happened to be born to 2 wonderful American citizens in the great state of Texas. I have had the privilege of living within the United States for all of my 33 years. To me, humanity has no borders. For anyone to see anyone else in pain and in need and then turn their heads is anti-human. I guess that we can't all be humane.

Of course we should offer assistance. Of course NK will refuse. But it is the thought that counts. And if we offer and they refuse, then I think we all win, even Looms. Think about it Looms, we could do what is right and it STILL won't cost YOU a dime.

I have a similar response to both these sentiments, which is that our foreign aid is not always (or even usually?) given out of charity, but rather out of practicality. For North Korea, the question is then this: Would giving them aid in this situation materially improve our relations with them. I would think it would, primarily be helping to remove the 'axis of evil' moniker and letting them know we are willing to work with them. As such, looms, it is really saving us money, as we aren't having to spend as much money (lives, even?) resolving the current diplomatic situation.

It would seem that the NK goverment has already asked for international help in this matter.

BBC-

I too, am conflicted on this issue. I think the US Government should stay out of it, though, and funnel support through the Red Cross. But, then I saw this item in the Toronto Star:

and it makes me wonder how those 3 months worth of medical supplies were used up so quickly. Granted, it could happen, but with Il's track record of diverting supplies to suit his own whims, it does make you wonder.

And file this under "bad timing":

OK, so it's bad karma to wish death upon anyone, even a tyrant, but the world would be a better place without Il.

[quote=DaffyGrl,Apr 26 2004, 10:03 AM] The Red Cross distributed a three-month supply of antibiotics, anesthetics and bandages to North Korean hospitals over the weekend, but "according to the hospitals, they have already used these medical supplies and have requested more," said Niels Juel, an official for the agency who is based in Beijing. North Korea Refuses Entry to Aid Convoy[/QUOTE]
and it makes me wonder how those 3 months worth of medical supplies were used up so quickly. Granted, it could happen, but with Il's track record of diverting supplies to suit his own whims, it does make you wonder. [/quote]
Exactly why i am against sending aid to North Korea. It's just gonna go to his military. His people are not on his list of priorities. Him trying to look like some bigshot is


[quote]And file this under "bad timing":
[quote]The blast happened nine hours after North Korean leader Kim Jong Il passed through the station, en route to Pyongyang after a recent visit to China, Yonhap reported. CNN[/quote]
OK, so it's bad karma to wish death upon anyone, even a tyrant, but the world would be a better place without Il.[/quote]
Too bad he wasn't in the area. Get rid of the madman and the world would be better without him. Although it might start a severe power vaccum like the one we saw in Iraq

[QUOTE=GoAmerica,Apr 26 2004, 05:57 PM][QUOTE=DaffyGrl,Apr 26 2004, 10:03 AM] The Red Cross distributed a three-month supply of antibiotics, anesthetics and bandages to North Korean hospitals over the weekend, but "according to the hospitals, they have already used these medical supplies and have requested more," said Niels Juel, an official for the agency who is based in Beijing. North Korea Refuses Entry to Aid Convoy[/QUOTE]
and it makes me wonder how those 3 months worth of medical supplies were used up so quickly. Granted, it could happen, but with Il's track record of diverting supplies to suit his own whims, it does make you wonder. [/QUOTE]
Exactly why i am against sending aid to North Korea. It's just gonna go to his military. His people are not on his list of priorities. Him trying to look like some bigshot is


[QUOTE]And file this under "bad timing":
[QUOTE]The blast happened nine hours after North Korean leader Kim Jong Il passed through the station, en route to Pyongyang after a recent visit to China, Yonhap reported. CNN[/QUOTE]
OK, so it's bad karma to wish death upon anyone, even a tyrant, but the world would be a better place without Il.[/QUOTE]
Too bad he wasn't in the area. Get rid of the madman and the world would be better without him. Although it might start a severe power vaccum like the one we saw in Iraq[/QUOTE]
I agree that any resources provided to North Korea need to have a bunch of conditions attached including inspectors and auditors to ensure that they are being used properly.

My concern is the rumour on BBC that Kim was the target of the train wreck because he was returning from Beijing at about the time the calamity occurred.

This may indicate that there may be an insurrection building that we may want to:

Assist
Avoid
Be prepared to address

Well, the Administration is right on this time. It is always a good thing to seize the moral high ground, even if it's just a gesture. Plus if real aid is needed, it won't cost us taxpayers much. A million bucks may not be a lot here, but it goes a long way in a place like North Korea. Good karma people, good karma.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/04/2....aid/index.html

Depends how its spent. If N Korea doesn't allow independent aid companies in, then the money will have to go to government controlled groups. In which case the money will go direct to supplies for the army. Blankets and food would be redistributed amongst troops, rather than disaster victims.

So long as aid is guaranteed to go to those who need it, then it should be given. But in this case I think it is guaranteed NOT to go to those who need it.

I'd say that we should help them. While others would argue that it would just prop up the regime and allow them to remain in power longer, it actually doesn't have to be that way. Providing doctors, medicines, tents & other shelter equipment, as well as food are some ways that we could help the people of North Korea, and not the leadership of North Korea. We need to do this so that when the time comes( and it will come) the people of North Korea will think of us as genuine, compassionate people who they want to forge close relations with.

I have never bought into the argument that by holding back aid from a civilian population, that it will inspire them to overthrow their leaders(i.e.-Iraq, etc.) I would be more for the opposite. Provide humanitarian aid, as well as "democracy aid" in the form of printing presses, cell phones, and other items and viola!-a recipe for regime change that is actually-(1)legitimate; (2)homegrown; (3) friendly to us.

I agree that we should provide whatever aid we can if for no other reason than it's the right thing to do. The US has a rich history of providing humanitarian aid to victims of disasters.

However, I don't think anyone should be fooled for one second into believing that anything the US does is going to be recognised by the people of North Korea. They live in quite possibly the most closed society on earth and if you think boxes of food and medicine are going to come in with American flags stenciled on them, forget it. Kim won't allow that to happen. As far as the people of NK are concerned, any assistance we give to them will be coming from Kim. So, there won't be any "winning hearts and minds" thing going on here. Still though, I think we should help because that's what we do in such situations.

As far as cell phones, printing presses and the like, you gotta be kidding, right? Do you really believe that Kim would allow any kind of freedom to break out under him? The chances of that happening are less than me winning the lottery - 10 times in a row.

You have GOT to be kidding me. Do I really need to explain the difference? Very well...

People from Maine and Florida and New York, and Oklahoma, and even Texas all contribute to this country, in some way shape or form. We have ONE military, full of people from all 50 states. If there is ever a draft, people from everywhere will be drafted, even "some hick town". Furthermore, even hick towns pay federal taxes, which go, in part, to support FEMA, and other disaster relief agencies.

So my line is not completely arbitrary, it is based on cold, hard facts. People that contribute nothing to my country, that in no way have any loyalty to it, should NOT be getting my tax money. Like I said before, I hate any sort of welfare to begin with, but this is worse by 1000 fold.

And yes I am self-centered. My world is myself and those important to me. Not sure how that is supposed to be an insult. Maybe if more people were self-centered we'd have less nanny laws.