Oh, so the UN decided that DPRK nationals aren’t allowed to work abroad. That seems fair. Like, if Israelis worked abroad, sent money home, and then that money was used for genocide. Or if US citizens worked abroad, sent tax money home, and that tax was used for genocide. Kinda like that. Or any country that maintains a nuclear arsenal, that isn’t part of the the nuclear non proliferation treaty. Like Israel. Or Pakistan.
Israel is not sanctioned by the UN. They don’t need to send nationals to work abroad to patriate funds… they can just sell goods and services on the free market. Same as the US and Pakistan.
I’m confused what you’re arguing for. More nuclear weapons?
What I’m arguing for? Logical consistency. Moral consistency.
If the reason to sanction DPRK is that they acquired nuclear weapons without the consent of the current nuclear powers, then all states which do the same should be sanctioned.
If the reason to sanction DPRK is because they might wreak havoc with massive weapons, then countries that are already wreaking havoc with massive weapons should be sanctioned.
Your argument is that Israel and the US should not suffer the consequences of sanctions because they aren’t sanctioned.
My argument is that there is not logical or moral consistency in sanctions.
And no, I don’t accept that this is an argument for nuclear weapon proliferation. Those countries that developed nuclear weapons pulled the gate shut behind them, forbidding any other countries from getting them. We can see the hypocrisy in that. But then when a US ally like Israel, or a strategic partner like Pakistan acquires nuclear weapons it is ignored. Only DPRK or Iran could possibly be dangerous because… well because they aren’t cooperating with the US.
Oh, so the UN decided that DPRK nationals aren’t allowed to work abroad. That seems fair. Like, if Israelis worked abroad, sent money home, and then that money was used for genocide. Or if US citizens worked abroad, sent tax money home, and that tax was used for genocide. Kinda like that. Or any country that maintains a nuclear arsenal, that isn’t part of the the nuclear non proliferation treaty. Like Israel. Or Pakistan.
Israel is not sanctioned by the UN. They don’t need to send nationals to work abroad to patriate funds… they can just sell goods and services on the free market. Same as the US and Pakistan.
I’m confused what you’re arguing for. More nuclear weapons?
What I’m arguing for? Logical consistency. Moral consistency. If the reason to sanction DPRK is that they acquired nuclear weapons without the consent of the current nuclear powers, then all states which do the same should be sanctioned. If the reason to sanction DPRK is because they might wreak havoc with massive weapons, then countries that are already wreaking havoc with massive weapons should be sanctioned. Your argument is that Israel and the US should not suffer the consequences of sanctions because they aren’t sanctioned. My argument is that there is not logical or moral consistency in sanctions.
And no, I don’t accept that this is an argument for nuclear weapon proliferation. Those countries that developed nuclear weapons pulled the gate shut behind them, forbidding any other countries from getting them. We can see the hypocrisy in that. But then when a US ally like Israel, or a strategic partner like Pakistan acquires nuclear weapons it is ignored. Only DPRK or Iran could possibly be dangerous because… well because they aren’t cooperating with the US.