http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021016/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_north_korea_8 hmm...does that mean bush will wanna invade north korea now too? i mean they signed an agreement in 1994 to allow inspectors in and are not abiding by it, nor have they ever abided by it...and now they admit to having a program which goes against the signed agreement. how many countries are we gonna have to invade? just wondering...
US is naive Does America really think, in a world where WE have been the only people to use nuclear weapons to annihilate civilians, in a world where WE have grouped together disparate nations as an "Axis of Evil," that North Korea would NOT pursue this path? Wouldn't that be self-defense on thier part, at a minimum? Wouldn't their leaders, given the statements and past behavior of the US, be patently direlect in duty if they DIDN'T pursue that course of action (nuclear) that would deter US aggression as is being prepared for in Iraq? Indeed, if Iraq were presently capable of sending the Middle East, at a minimum, back into the Stone Age, would we be having discussions in Congress and the White House about whether or not to exercise force over anoter sovreign nation, an approach that, BTW, 130 non-aligned nations of the world rejected today at the UN? Let's not be naive...
North Korea has mitigating factors. 1) China has some degree of sway over them. They really can't invade the South without plunging the United Staes and China into a shooting war that neither side wants at this time. 2) They have a very large military, although lord only knows how well their economic system would be able to support that military in a real fight. 3) No oil. You liberals can go around with this "No blood for oil," crap, but that's what fuels the economy and is the central resource of the western world. It's messy and you may not like it, but that;'s the fact of the matter. Throwing slogans at it won't change that fact. Having an antagonistic, trigger-happy tyrant with a nuclear device sitting just north of the major oil supply of the western world is unacceptable. NOrth Korea is the most difficult of the axis of evil. Iraq cn be handled, and is frankly about to be. Iran will fall or change with time.
Financial-crats... Is this your short-term vision, long-term vision, or both? In the long-term, even America will "fall or change with time." To submit that regarding Iran is risking very little. I think that the financial-crats in office (and that's defined as the singular Dem/Rep cash-whore structure) exhibit the same type of quarterly vision they use for their corporations as they use for life and death domestic and global policies. Our politicians are not statesmen; they lack any vision but a fiscal one, and through that lens all their perceptions are shaped...
Re: US is naive So is North Korea justified, in your view of starving its population in order to field a giant military and acquire nuclear weapons in order to forcibly unite Korea under its power,which is the stated aim of the government?
Does anyone think this is just plain crappy diplomacy on both sides? From the looks of things it seems like the North korean diplomat spoke glibly, almost flippantly, about having nukes. It seemed like a spontaneous comment. Also, Ambassador Kelly may have verbally provoked the N. Korean diplomats somehow, since the N Korean media was complaining this entire past week about Kelly's "arrogance" (the remarks occurred 12 days ago). Well that's what I'm hoping, because this situation really freaks me out. This seems really strange especially since N Korea was about to cut the military down to 600,000 men from 1.1 million and was coming clean about incidents with the South and Japan.
Re: Re: Re: US is naive Not stated explicitly, but your spirit seems to be that the expansion of nuclear weapons among dictatorial regimes seeking to destabilize their regions is a reasonable reaction to American nuclear power. We have them, why shouldn't they? These two regimes in particular, Iraq and North Korea, one has actively sought war against its neighbors, and the other has starved its population in a headlong pursuit of its stated goal of invading its neighbor. It's reasonable not to trust their reasons for trying to acquire these weapons. Perhaps I'm completely misreading the implications of your argument.
Re: US is naive Yeah, exactly, let's not be naive. You make it sound as though North Korea developed nuclear weapons in the last few months just because GW labeled them part of the "Axis of Evil". Hardly. Instead, GW included them BECAUSE they ALREADY HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS and were constantly a threat to their neighbors. Me? I personally think North Korea came clean on their nuclear weapons because they saw that the axe was about to fall on one of their triumvurate compadres, the Iraqis. The North Koreans are on a rapid pace to normalizing relations with SK and relaxing their incompetent brand of communism. Communism is dead and they know it. Now, if only we can get the Republic of Berkeley to realize this.
Re: Re: Re: Re: US is naive No no, you are reading it right, I just want acknowledgement that you spring from a wholly American frame of reference, and have not yet stepped outside it. The question is whether or not you think that North Koreans and Iraqis in leadership positions see themselves only as players in our drama, or as independent actors operating in self-interest, as we do. If you believe that America hates you, and you know that the only country to kill civilians with nuclear weapons is America, and you know that the only thing America respects is nuclear strength (what would China have to do for us to talk invasion with them like we are with Iraq? Nothing, b/c there is literally nothing they could do for us to invade...we'd end the known world first...), and you know that America is calling you "evil" incarnate, what else would be a rational actor's course of action? It comes down to initial asumptions...North Korea and Iraw - rational actors, or dictator-driven "regimes"? Can a nation be both? I'm not submitting that North Korea or Iraq are "good"...just that to submit that they are not rational actors out of hand is to operate in a way that is irrational, and drives others to respond irrationally...
Re: Re: US is naive Ian, given Bartleby's definition of Communism, you are indeed correct: Communism - A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. But Marx's definition has yet to be appraoched, I think, because part and parcel of it is a "whithering AWAY of the state," something that never took place in the USSR and will never take place in North Korea, because of their totalitarianism, their building up and holding onto "the state," but not IMHO b/c of their "communism," in which the state ceases to be... BTW, Bartleby defines "totalitarian" thus: Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed Now, if we agree that the Financi-crats (most Reps and Dems) are political authority for economic capitalist power in America, and that corporations have centralized and absolute control over our lives (e.g., name an aspect of your day today that wasn't manifested by a corporation), and that you and I are subordinate to the corporate state, and that through the corporate media opposing political and cultural opinion is really suppressed, then maybe it is reality that we live in a totalitarian capitalist state, a totalitarian corporate state... And in the end analysis, in the true long-term view, is one totalitarianism really better than another?
Funny how nobody has a problem with Israel's official "undeclared nuclear nation" status as reported on cnn.com. That region, their traditional enemies would not allow for the use of any such use of weapons of mass destruction. And that term the Bush boys always play says nothing about the possible environmental damage that would follow and affect more that that region for many years to come. And, no, tactical nukes are pure theory.
Congratulations for being honest. That's what I want my leaders to tell me. Enough with the self-righteous rhetoric about democracy. We want the oil and we want it now. We are just like any other great empire of the past. Let's see if the American people can handle the unvarnished truth.
Well our President makes it very simple in his speeches: 1. North Korea/Iraq are members of the axis of evil. 2. Both nations support terrorism. 3. Both nations have initiated aggressive wars in the past. When does the invasion of North Korea start? My problem with Bush's foreign policy is its hypocrisy. Come out and say why there are differences (ie. oil and heavy casualties in a North Korea war) and I would have more respect for the man.
Big difference here. China. If we get into a war there again, like last time, China will get involved as they will be concerned about a US attack on their border. Iraq has no such superpower patron to support it. It is that simple.
This is hilarious to me. Bush was excoriated in the domestic and international press for his get tough stance on North Korea, and it turns out that his policy is exactly dead on. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37481-2002Oct16.html Joseph Cirincione, director of the non-proliferation project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the administration faces two very distinct choices. "They either play 'gotcha' " and cut off relations, he said, "or they can justifiably claim that their tough approach produced exactly the change in North Korean behavior we had been seeking." And that's from a left-leaning group! Seldom have I seen so much unjustified hand-wringing. "That damn Bush, he is a one-man wrecking crew, destroying our relations with Kim Dae-Jung, upsetting the Japanese with his Axis of Evil crap and his hard-line against Pyongyang," said Bush's ever-present gang of detractors. The difference in policy from the Clinton Administration, which agreed to build nuclear power plants for the North Koreans, sent Madeleine freakin' Albright to snuggle with Kim Jong Il, seriously contemplated sending Bill, and begged and pleaded with the North Koreans to come to the negotiating table, is astounding. Instead we've got an administration that finally decided that it's not in the US's best interest to coddle Stalinist dictators, took flack for it, and is now reaping the benefits. Now the North Koreans are coming clean not only about the nukes, but also about kidnapping Japanese citizens, and are begging the US to come to the negotiating table. Sure is nice to have the adults in charge.
I think bert covered this under his "heavy casualties" statement. There ain't diddly squat the US can do about NK until China stops supporting them and China won't stop because they don't want US troops on their border so close to Beijing. We can squawk all we want but nothing is gonna happen unless we can convince China to drop their support - or take it over and make it part of China. Maybe we can offer them NK in return for recognizing Taiwanese independence.
Nobody wants NK. It's like taking over Albania. People are dropping dead from starvation, there's no industry, no economy, nothing. NK would become a massive welfare state for either SK or China. Colin -- The fact that NK has openly admitted that it has a nuclear program doesn't make Bush any better than Clinton, it just means that they admitted it. The Bush administration has done nothing with regards to the Korea issue other than call NK evil. Do you honestly think that that call has made Kim Jong Il weep with guilt? The reason why NK is slowly normalizing relations with SK is because the alternative leaves them poor and hungry. The better question is, what happens now? Diplomacy, invasion or do nothing? In many ways this is the issue by which the Bush Admin foreign policy could be judged for decades, since there's no chance that someone could say it's a family issue or retaliation for 9/11. It's completely stand-alone as a problem. Kinda ironic though that so far the only real reaction from the Bush camp is to reiterate the 1994 agreement that conservatives find so appalling.
The BBC is speculating that they really don't have nukes. Go figure. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2336313.stm
Funny, but the west Germans seemed to want the east Germans despite similar problems. I bet most South Koreans wouldn't mind reunification despite the financial consequences. China could afford to subsidize NK for a few years. Just think of it as a new market in which to expand and build up some industry.