Georgeob1
Seems that none of these inter-wreck-tuals wishes to engage you on your last well thought out response to Blatham. Wonder why?
Go sneer at someone else, Perception, no one on this thread has done anything to earn slurs from you . . .
Gee no offense meant Setanta---- but I would have thought you most of all would have wanted to reply to another intellectual.
Alright gang- Let us stick to the issues, and avoid jabbing at one another.
(Before testiness takes over...)
Here's an excerpt from Paul Krugman's "Games Nations Play" from the NYT, along with some commentary at the end from Chris at interestingtimes.blogspot.com:
"What game does the Bush administration think it's playing in Korea?
That's not a rhetorical question. During the cold war, the U.S. government employed experts in game theory to analyze strategies of nuclear deterrence. Men with Ph.D.'s in economics, like Daniel Ellsberg, wrote background papers with titles like "The Theory and Practice of Blackmail." The intellectual quality of these analyses was impressive, but their main conclusion was simple: Deterrence requires a credible commitment to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior.
I know, it sounds obvious. Yet the Bush administration's Korea policy has systematically violated that simple principle.
...
So Mr. Bush thinks you're (North Korea, that is) a bad guy -- and that makes you a potential target, no matter what you do.
On the other hand, Mr. Bush hasn't gone after you yet, though you are much closer to developing weapons of mass destruction than Iraq. (You probably already have a couple.) And you ask yourself, why is Saddam Hussein first in line? He's no more a supporter of terrorism than you are: the Bush administration hasn't produced any evidence of a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. Maybe the administration covets Iraq's oil reserves; but it's also notable that of the three members of the axis of evil, Iraq has by far the weakest military.
So you might be tempted to conclude that the Bush administration is big on denouncing evildoers, but that it can be deterred from actually attacking countries it denounces if it expects them to put up a serious fight. What was it Teddy Roosevelt said? Talk trash but carry a small stick?
...
So here's how it probably looks from Pyongyang:
The Bush administration says you're evil. It won't offer you aid, even if you cancel your nuclear program, because that would be rewarding evil. It won't even promise not to attack you, because it believes it has a mission to destroy evil regimes, whether or not they actually pose any threat to the U.S. But for all its belligerence, the Bush administration seems willing to confront only regimes that are militarily weak.
The incentives for North Korea are clear. There's no point in playing nice -- it will bring neither aid nor security. It needn't worry about American efforts to isolate it economically -- North Korea hardly has any trade except with China, and China isn't cooperating. The best self-preservation strategy for Mr. Kim is to be dangerous. So while America is busy with Iraq, the North Koreans should cook up some plutonium and build themselves some bombs.
Again: What game does the Bush administration think it's playing?"
==============================================
A coward's game is what it is. But Mr. Krugman would never be allowed to say so directly in the pages of the New York Times. So he just says it in a way that is clear to most sentient beings.
We are being led by a blundering coward.
Sleep tight!
Hadn't meant to get nasty with ya, Perception, but that perhaps does not read to others as you intended it . . .
A Korean discussion, if anyone is interested in addressing that subject.
Thank you, rog; my post might be better there, but I thought that the parallels between the twin crises were worth sharing.
Sorry, PDiddie. I did't make the connection. It's a fair tactic if you can do it.
Pdiddie
Thanks for bringing this thread back on track--The Krugman article brings some very valid considerations but one must also be aware of Mr. Krugmans reputation as the most vehement Bush Basher on record. Your remarks in conclusion are also very inflamatory to any Bush supporter so I would ask you to use a little restraint there.
There are many considerations that perhaps you are not congnizant of regarding any forceful response to Jongs militant stance. I invite you to read a fairly thorough and thoughtful discussion of some of those factors on the thread titled "Test of preemptive Strike Against Korea" right here on the Politics forum.
While I am probably the most hawkish participant on this forum I would urge the President use the same careful restraint he is using to avoid being forced into a box that leaves only one option.
We hold the entire box of options as of this moment so why narrow the list by making a foolish decision prematurely. We have several weeks to allow the almost irrelevant UN to take a stab at some solution, we also must allow China to determine which track they will follow since Korea is on their back fence.
Have patience for a few weeks at least and please refrain from calling anyone a coward.
Setanta
Your response is noted-----intent is the most difficult thing to prove---someone said.
Please don't waste your tears on the DPRK. Kim Jong-Il is a dangerous man. He is smart, tough, and eccentric to say the least. Armistice negotiations intended to resolve the war that the DPRK started over fifty years ago have dragged on, and on, and on, largely because of the Kim's negotiating style. These people don't want any resolution of the Korean War that isn't clearly a victory for the Kim regime.
The DPRK fields one of the world's largest armies, and 60-70% of that army is stationed within 50 miles of the DMZ. The DPRK already possesses nuclear devices, and has tested long range missle delivery systems. The DPRK is one of the principle suppliers of weapons to Iraq, and Al Queda. The DPRK can not be relied upon to honor any agreement, and it has violated its promise repeatedly in the past.
When the DPRK was on the point of collapse, it was saved by massive aid from the United States and South Korea, the two States that the head the DPRK's hate list. The aid was first used to replenish the army intended to invade and destroy rok, and only then were famine victims supplied a meager diet. Though the DPRK denied having any nuclear program, they promised to stop what they denied having, and secretly continued their nuclear program. Kim and the DPRK have chosen this time to up their ante in hopes that we will back-down and permit them to continue building a nuclear arsenal without hinderance. They believe that we will wimp out and talk ourselves into believing that we've averted war. We are at war, and no amount of talking and appeasement of a threatening enemy will make the eventual conflict less painful. Kim and the DPRK only respect and respond to credible threats of force, they regard talk as only a sign of weakness. Jong Il is capable of treading very near the line of open warfare, but will backdown rather than risk losing -- and he would lose.
The DPRK is the AGGRESSOR now, and has been the aggressor on the Korean penninsula for over fifty years. Only the presence of UN/American troops have prevented the outbreak of open full-scale conflict on the penninsula.
Now, I'm sure that no one will believe that Perception is the most hawkish poster on this thread.
Spam as a tool of psychological warfare:
(I couldn't make this up if I spent all day...
...hell,
we can't stop it; so let's use it on our enemies)
U.S. e-mail attack targets key Iraqis
PDiddie
Totally hilarious! What ought we to expect now in our own in baskets? "Attention blatham: You RUNNING DOG lackey computer man of Satan. The FINAL FIRE BREATH is up your toilet place FOREVER!!! if YANKEE OIL GREED licks like hyenas at ALLAH WHO IS BIG BIG BIG!!!"
Friedman on why the US, Bush, and why this administration are so disliked in Cairo...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/12FRIE.html
Quote:Then why is George Bush so intensely disliked? In part, it's because people feel the president and his team have stopped talking to the world. They only growl at it now. But the biggest factor remains the Bush team's seeming indifference to making any serious effort to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when so much killing is going on. The administration's refusal to apply any creative imagination to defusing this conflict, and even belittling it while calling Ariel Sharon "a man of peace," has embittered the Arab public. This now clouds everything we do here: Invading Iraq is cast as a war to protect Israel. Democratization is cast as a way to punish the Arabs.
blatham, That article speaks to my very concerns about this administration. Thx for sharing. c.i.
Bush The Younger has made a couple of PR blunders, in my estimation. First, characterizing the dispute as a US vs Iraq Iraq issue dilutes it's global appeal. A more UN/Nato flavor, though far more difficult (but not impossible) to bake up, likely would have been more palatable among a broader spectrum. Secondly, insufficient attention is being paid to, and insufficient acknowledgement made of, the Israeli/Palestinian matter. In The Arab Street, the two matters are seen as indistinguishable. This perception serves to increase polarization, and does nothing to foster sympathy for US action or pronouncement. In typical fashion, The US has marketed itself poorly in the matter.
timber
NOVA a nice sounding name for a Chevrolet car=in Spanish no va means no go. in a global market one needs to pay attention.
timber, It's not only the Arab countries that are increasing the US polarization; most European and Asian countries also see the US as a bully without any consistency in how we identify our 'enemies.' GW is not capable of understanding foreign policy matters, although he has some good resources. His myopia will continue to get us deeper into hot water with most freedom loving peoples of this world. I've said it in other political forums, and I'll say it here; I sincerely hope GW is a one term president. He's doing this country great harm. c.i.
