Three issues against North Korea.

Ok thank you, Notes For clarity: I have based my argument on my opponent's argument using his order. They have been named accordingly with a quote from that that section. Please assume the quote continues from the Ellipsis ( dot dot dot) to the next quote. PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS ON THE COMMENTS PAGE. I also urge Pro to "clean up" his argument in future rounds, Rebuttals, resolve ect; and to redirect his argument to the original clauses. [Round1, Pro, Paragraph one] ________ Argument ________ -->Clause A "technically the war is not over…" It ended in Armistice which is more or less Combat end. It's an agreement to stop fighting that's almost as good as peace. You said it yourself it's only "technically" not over unless; you left no argument to why this was a bad thing, do you wish for a continued warfare? Armistice --Dates-- 17 July 1953 – Wikipedia [Citation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War] 17 July 1953 – Korean War Fan Site [Citation: http://www.korean-war.com...] 17 July 1952 – BBC [Citation: http://www.bbc.co.uk...] ------- -->Questionable Vibrant of Clause A? Defection – "The BBC documentary, Access to Evil, contained the accounts of several North Korean defectors…" Question of reasoning, is this a proposed argument or rebuttal, and is it the succeeding text: "The problem with this is obvious. Negotiation" justified by the preceding one? My answers: Rebuttal and No. Notice I never once said that this Treaty would, as you put it, "tame" North Korea. If you can start official talks with North Korea, It would be a start, the treaty was never meant to "tame" Kim Jong-Il or create support for North Korean citizens it's resolve was stated in My First round. A state of Open negotiations is better than a state armistice. If you disagree, the only possible rejection would be on the grounds that you deny diplomatic relations with North Korea unless it's on the grounds of Human rights and removal of the Dicators. Surely you prefer Peace to Armistice? Citations: [http://www.theaustralian.com.au...] [http://www.nowpublic.com...] [http://en.wikipedia.org...] ------- --> Economics ( Fraction of Clause C) Rebuttal to A) Starting with: "More on that in a moment. First, since you brought up economic action, let's think about this." Ending with: "…whether or not the rationing system will be fair is currently unknown.)" I am aware of current Food-Aid, do you use the information as justification of Economic Sanctions? To: http://www.flatrock.org.nz... The First like you gave me about Korean cannibalism gets it's eveidence form testimoniese from the North Korean Refugees Assistance Fund (NKRA). This is Not the Direct Human rights regulation given to the government of Kim-Jong-Il. After all its North Korea(NKRA) against the Black Market. North Korea is aware and is not oblivious to the issue it is trying to fight this disgusting practice and those who supply it. To: http://www.dailynk.com... I doubt the reality of that? 900 Million? Even if North Korea had money like that they'd buy New Missiles. It doesn't even cost that much. Nelson's Column Refurbishment I: ï¿½600,000. Refurbishment II: ï¿½420,000 Statue of Liberty: $530,300 + Misc refurbishments another $500,000. To http://en.wikipedia.org... I see nothing on Japanese exports on the link, besides if this is true attacking or Blockading a North Korea's Cargo is More or Less a declaration of war. War will lead to South Korea's immanent destruction. That's a bad thing. Conclusion – "economic sanctions make little difference to the people." Are you for real? This is the only reason they're not going "UN" on North Korea and doing the Economic Boycott* now? *That's what it is. Citations: Above 4 + [http://news.bbc.co.uk...] [http://www.amnestyusa.org...] ----------- -->Clause B also fraction of Clause C ICC and Crimes against Humanity: "While North Korea currently has not accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC, a peaceful, and reasonably civilized way to bring North Korea to justice is to arrest them…" ICC, as Pro and Instigator you have the burden of proof everything you say must be argued and backed up otherwise I have nothing to attack see: http://ddofans.com... Human Rights(Rebuttles) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court said that a crime against humanity MUST BE A SYSTEMATIC PRACTICE BY THE STATE WITH FULL INTENTION. See list [http://untreaty.un.org...] Article 7 (a) ---Non Systematic, I reject. See Yodok CC below. (b) ---Reject. (c) ---Reject. (d) ---Reject. (e) ---Reject. Possibly, Yodok CC. (f) ---Done but not illegally (g) ---No, You misunderstand see Yodok CC below (h) ---Reject. Paragraph 3 here: http://untreaty.un.org... (i) ---Nope (j) ---Reject. (k) --- Below> You used Yodok concentration camp, so it would be best you realised want is actually is. The Yodok concentration camp or Aquariums of Pyongyang to Pro, is an reeducation for Political undesirables. Now NONE of the above actions are significantly systematically done to the state. All the State does is teach and "employ" the prisoners it's not kill the workers directly; now, I'm not going to say rape, inhuman beatings and murder do not occur but It's not a Crime against humanity to charge against the State or by Kim Jong-Il. It's a fact that is why Leaders in countries like Sudan, Central African Republic and Serbia* cannot be questioned as such, it may be sad, but thus is the Law and the law stands. Examples of the ONLY MAJOR Past perpetrators [http://en.wikipedia.org...]: Nazi's - Nuremberg trials - Holocaust Imperial Japanese - Tokyo trials – Nanjing massacre Apartheid's – SA Trial – Black Prisons As you can see only the obvious cases, with written evidence and full intent can be taken to court. The ICC isn't like a normal court. Equation: HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE evidence. + Armed Nation, able to defend Eg. not a push over. (like others) + = Rejection. ------- -->War (Fraction of Clause C) This Section I take is Pro - Korean War II. I will extend from Round 1 Con Last Section: --Military action-- To Paragraph 1: My Proposition is that the Second Korean War will be a war of the Rich, or at least to the US it will be. Peace keeping wars and Anti Terror wars are was when you have the time, money and public happiness to fight. To Paragraph 2: I repeat, If the is a Second Korea War it will be the first Nuclear war of the "rich". WWII was a war of Necessity*, Vietnam a War of Convenience*. One Equal side the other as One sided as you can get. To Paragraph 3: You call the Regime a crime gang; well I haven't seen a Crime Gang with Nuclear Arms before. No Argument in this Paragraph… just a message. Thank you; good luck.