http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...0&u=/ap/20040318/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear_3 So, basically, the war on Iraq has had the exact opposite effect on the "axis of evil" than we'd hoped. Oops.
Not only that, but you can bet that almost everyone (I bet this also includes Libya) is secretly scrambling to get nukes or other WMDs because Bush has proven that they're now a necessary (but not 100% sufficient) condition of national sovereignty. In short, Bush has made us all even more insecure than we were before. Thanks, Dumbya!
So basically North Korea is espousing the exact same rhetoric that it has for the past 50 years -- citing the supposed threat of an American invasion to justify turning the place into an armed camp at the expense of its citizens -- and is using the Iraq War as only its latest excuse. Only interesting thing here is that some people on this board take Radio Pyongyang at its word, which says a hell of a lot more about them than the Bush Administration.
Except that suddenly, Bush has made the NK line a lot more believable to other countries. Which says a lot more about Bush than about the Dear Leader. As scum as the NK regime is, I think they're only saying out loud a conclusion that a lot of other countries have already long since come to.
Interesting theory, but where is the supporting evidence? Keep in mind that since the Iraq War that Libya has agreed to surrender its WMD materials and Iran has opened itself up to inspections of its nuclear facilities.
Same place as Bush's evidence of Iraqi WMDs and evidence that Bush's tax cuts have created jobs. Only interesting thing here is that one person on this board takes Radio Tehran at its word, which says a hell of a lot more about him than his opponents. Anyway, I specifically included the words "Libya" and "secretly" in my original post here because I anticipated this exact argument. I bet both Libya and Iran are secretly pursuing nukes and/or biochem, regardless of any public moves they're making. Iran in particular would be stupid NOT to be pursuing WMDs as long as Bush is in office. They just have to keep Israel from finding out about them. I will give you that the desire for WMDs and the ability to actively and successfully pursue acquiring them are, of course, two different things. But Bush has now taught everyone that unless you have WMDs, you're a potential sitting duck for the first US administration that wants your natural resources.
Only thing that is interesting is that an actual freakin' agreement was signed: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2003/12/18/291012-ap.html So in sum, you admit that you have no evidence to back up your assertion, which means that by definition you are engaging in conjecture. Which to me is pretty worthless.
Dear Colin, Yeah, tell us about the value of signed agreements. Love, Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse Which is why you were out protesting against the conquest of Iraq while Bush was refusing to provide valid evidence of his assertions about Iraqi WMDs. Of course you were. You couldn't possibly believe anything based on conjecture.
But... wait, lybia is not a democracy and gheddafi is a dictator. (sure, his ppl is wealthy but lacks freedom and democracy) I hope that the spreader of democracy isn't going to become friend of a dictator. Making contracts and so on. That would sadden all the american idealists ( the neocon way). In the photo: Italian PM Berlusconi bashes gheddafi for being a dictator and for denying freedom and democracy to lybians.
Fair enough. I am personally quite skeptical that Iran will be fully forthcoming with their nuclear activities, but their agreement to do so at least is a step in the right direction. Certainly it would not seem to be indicative of the Axis of Evil working even harder to attain WMD. Well, since you elected to change the subject rather than respond directly, I guess that is a tacit admission that you have absolutely nothing in the way of evidence to back up your assertion that "Dumbya" has made us all more insecure. In fact, the only signs we can see -- Libya and Iran -- in fact point towards the opposite. Now, you may yet be right, but available evidence doesn't seem to support it.
You mean like the original topic of this thread - North Korea? We had agreements with them, too. Well, that's why I said "secretly". If even a jamoke on a soccer yapfest like me can prove that Iran is pursuing nukes, then almost by definition they're nuke program ain't so secret, is it? At the very least, I should have recruiters from the CIA and NSA camped out on my front porch, n'est-ce pas? Anyway, my argument is based on the following assumptions, none of which should be terribly controversial: 1) The governments of most nation-states wish to remain as sovereign as possible. 2) Most governments, especially ones even remotely likely to be found in an "Axis of Evil", don't necessarily tell the truth about what they're up to - even if they've signed an agreement promising otherwise. 3) The way Bush has treated potential/probable terrorist-harboring or at least hostile states that have nukes/WMDs (NK, Pakistan) is different from the way he has treated states that didn't (Iraq, Afghanistan). And some Bushies made noises about invading Iran, who does not, AFAAK, have WMDs. True, we haven't invaded Libya. Then again, now that Libya has supposedly stopped supporting terrorism (before Bush came to power) it has little strategic value to us compared to, say, Iraq. I think that given the above, it is more probable that nation states in general would find it more advantageous to whatever sovereignty they currently enjoy to pursue WMDs if they are in any position to do so (thus increasing the amount of WMDs out there and decreasing everyone's security) than it is to believe that evil, terrorist-supporting states will honor any signed agreements with us to avoid obtaining a necessary condition for the maintenance of their sovereignty. But then, I'm a "liberal" and, according to Karl Keller, will therefore be "cynical" and not naive.
I'm aware of that. We basically bribed NK for the right to monitor their nuclear activities. I'm not sure that there was a similar payoff with Iran, which leads me to believe that maybe they are attempting to pull a Libya -- i.e. act like good boys and girls in exchange for a greater openness. Then again they could still be building nukes. Nevertheless, I would say that agreeing to open themselves to inspections is certainly not a bad thing and possibly even a good thing. All of that is entirely probable. However, since there is no evidence of it, I'm not ready to declare that Bush has made us all less secure. Indeed, the only signs we can see point towards the opposite. Now, if you want to claim that "Bush has possibly made us all more insecure than we were before" then go right ahead. But to assert it as a clear fact, as you did, would seem to me to be unjustified given your lack of facts to substantiate it.
JoePak's heart: I hope Colin is right. JoePak's brain: I think Colin is wrong. *sigh* Asking for "proof" of secret programs is a bit disengenuous unless I specifically claimed to have same. Fair enough. Only I'd substitute "immensely more probably" for "possibly", especially given the evidence that NK reneged on its agreement once they felt secure enough to do so. Also, I don't have "proof" that AQ is planning to hit the US with a terror attack. But I sure hope that our national security apparatus isn't going to wait for a signed memo from OBL stating such before working to prevent one.
I didn't ask for proof, merely evidence. There is a difference. If, for example, Syrian opposition groups were to start claiming that Damascus has accelerated work on WMD programs, then that would give you some ground to stand on. But right now all I can see is speculation. Hey, I don't have proof either, but given last week's attack in Spain and continued buzz about AQ threatening to rock our world, that's enough for me.
Not to beat a dead horse and leave it with the dinner check, but we pretty much based our evidence of Iraqi WMD programs on Iraqi opposition groups (Chalabi, the finger points at you), so I may be a little cynical about using that kind of "evidence."
You see a reasoned argument the flows logically from uncontroversial supporting premises based on historical experience as I listed above. This is different from what you seem to be hinting that I'm doing - just making stuff up with no underlying reasoning or fact. Hopefully, you see the difference. If you care to state your reasons for disagreeing with my supporting presumptions, please do so. If you agree with the supporting presumptions but still disagree with my argument and if you can base your disagreement on something other than blind hope at odds with the historical record of governments, especially "evil" ones, not keeping their word, please elaborate on why you think countries like North Korea and Iran can be trusted to keep their word. Anyway, I'll amend my previous post by saying that asking for "evidence" of secret programs is a bit disengenuous unless I specifically claimed to have same.
Basically, on the scale of "Nuttiness of Things That North Korea Has Publicly Uttered," this ranks pretty much lower than the usual fare from Kim Jong-Il's Swingin' Worker's Paradise and Pancake House. After all, they're right in that as long as they have nukes, there's pretty much a zero chance that we'll do anything to them other than ask them nicely and ask China to ask them nicely to stop building nukes. If they were to get rid of those nukes, who knows? After all, Kim Jong-Il is a bad man who represses his people, much like Saddam Hussein.
I doubt it. Unlike the Iraq War in which the US was able to use Kuwait as a base to launch the invasion, I doubt South Korea, Russia or China are really ready to offer themselves up as a launching pad.
From the 2002 State of the Union address: Now, presumably, it was "necessary" (chortle) to attack Iraq to ensure our nation's security. If we're not willing to attack either Iran or North Korea, either because they're already armed or we aren't willing to find a country willing to let us use them as a base of operations, then the above statement is a bunch of hooey.
Don't forget, only thing Bush, as a cowboy, understands is force. Also remember, in USSR's good old days, the world is quite peaceful despite the so called "cold war". So NK has got it right, imo. As you can recall on school playground, if you look too weak, you basically invite bully to bully you.
Joe, nothing stops a discussion on this board deader than actual political science. Besides, that's just conjecture and theorizing by us ivory tower types, and doesn't matter in the 'real world' - never mind that the great extent to which American foreign policy and grand strategy is influenced by realpolitik and realist international relations theory is obvious to anyone who knows what those are.
This is the second ridiculous thread of the day. We shouldn't invade NK because they have nukes. We all agree on that. I think. If they had no nukes but were sitting in the center of the Middle East, were threatening their neighbors and preventing progress in the region then we would invade. So Kim is right. As long as he wants to threaten his neighbors, he'd better keep his nukes. Kim seems to understand the mixture of idealism and realpolitik that is American foreign policy. If he didn’t have the nukes then he should get them as quick as he can. Like Iran is doing. Who here thinks that Bush will let Iran develop nukes?