THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

You wrote: "Simply put, his intent might not have changed but his ability to act on it had." Perhaps i ought to have gotten a clarification on this, but i read it as meaning that Hussein was not able to act upon a desire to further a weapons of mass destruction program, a statement with which i would disagree. I believe that much as Kim in Korea does, he would have left the nation to suffer in order to divert the blackmarket oil income from Syria and Jordan to his weapons programs. I thought you had meant that he no longer had the ability, and i rather think he was getting more income to put to that end if he so chose. That is why i was so maddened by the administration's bad faith in all of this; a genuine pressure to comply with 686 and 687 would have put a spotlight on him which would have seriously curtailed his ability to get around the sanctions, and would have been a program i would have applauded, despite my contempt for the administration. However, i cannot at all agree with those who contend that he would have, absent sanctions, plunged in to a weapons program with massive warfare in the middle east as a goal. (Note that i am not attributing such a statement to you.) To that extent, i don't think that it mattered whether or not sanctions were in place, they had become an ugly joke perpetrated upon the Iraqi people at any event. Hussein showed a typical politician's sense of what is best for one's own survival--i condider that at a stretch, he might have wished to launch some kind of attack on Isreal in order to play to Muslim world, but i doubt it.

When you wrote: "Why? And if so why does it matter?" in response to Bill's contention that we would have been compelled to lift the sanctions, i took that as a contention that lifting sanctions would not have mattered to us. I agree that sanctions were preferable to war. I despair of the "progress" of nations in international diplomacy when they cannot recognize how much patience is required to make this sort of national ostracism worked. It has worked with Kuh-Daffy, especially after the Chadeans, with laudable French support, handed the Lybian army it's ass. The problem arises, most likely, from the pressure of electoral politics, and the feeling by any nation's national administration that they have to act right away. For all of the flaws of Clinton's foreign policy, i think his approach was to consult with his military advisors on how to keep the pressure up with the "no-fly" policing (a policy with dubious underpinning by the referential SC resolutions), and i consider it to have been the best in a bad situation.

Of all of the reasons advanced for the war, putting him out the Iraqi people's misery is the most justifiable. However, this is a rationale offered after the fact by the administration, and i don't believe that any of those clowns give a tinker's damn about the Iraqi people. It is also a justification of dubious value without UN backing. On the every cloud has a silver lining principle, the only good which i think could come out of this is a close examination of the regimes we support in order to have a source of "light, sweet crude," but i also firmly believe that ramifications of the situation go right over the heads of the electorate, and that there is not yet a general understanding among the American people of the extent to which the view of America in the Muslim world makes us a target. I don't think this administration has done anything worthwhile to address that issue.

When I referred to ability I was talking about his ability to do the type of things he has done in the past to the Kurds, not the WMDs (which I inevitably care about less than others).

Yes, in all of this, it has been the Kurds who stood to lose the most. They have gained the most from his overthrow, as well.

CI

You'll probably have trouble believing this, but; I concern myself more with threats to humans more than with threats to the US. I believe Kim Jong Il to be a threat to mankind.

As for your question; I don't believe North Korea gains anything by bombing South Korea or Japan. Since I don't see the gain, or any legitimate cause for the threat, I consider the threat akin to terrorist demands. Kim is threatening to kill innocent bystanders instead of responding to his aggressors (us).

As for your question: I honestly couldn't say. How many men, women and children are you willing to let Kim kill before you think we should attempt to intervene?

Gozmo,
I understand you completely. Allow me to clarify. I understand North Korean men, women and children will suffer in the event of conflict. I have friend who is South Korean and his eyes practically fill up with tears at the thought of the suffering of the North Korean population right now. Where many have suggested I underestimate Kim's ability to counterstrike, I suggest that, perhaps, you overestimate it. It is only my opinion that the US could deliver a strike sufficient to severely cripple a counterstrike response. I believe Kim's recent concessions for multi-lateral talks are indicative of Kim's own reservations.
Not addressing a criminal because he has threatened to kill even more innocent people, while he continues to kill innocent people does not strike me as just, companionate or even a morally superior point of view. Action or the lack thereof will result in innocent North Korean Deaths. I see no way to avoid both. If we have to choose who will die, I would choose Kim Jong Il and his supporting soldiers over the starving masses. This way, when the dust settles future generations can live with the hope that is utterly lacking in the current generation. 3 generations of rape, torture, murder, brainwashing and being forced to starve to death is too much already. Without help, there is no hope that future generations will live any differently.

Pistoff,
I am weary addressing people that misinterpret my beliefs that action is called for; to mean that I desire to kill people. Believe whatever you wish.

DPRK poses somewhat less military threat than most suppose, IMHO. While her military establishment has been benificiary of a hugely disproportionate expenditure of available resources, the pool of resources itself is narrow and shallow. While some frontline DPRK units do possess reasonable combat readiness, they are far from the norm. The only card they hold is manpower ... cannon fodder. Much military equipment is of '60s and '70s Sino-Soviet design. even though manufactured in the '80s and '90s, and little repair and replacement capability exists for either that equipment or the considerably smaller compliment of more current weaponry. Absent nuclear weapons, DPRK forces, even if they could be assembled surreptitiously, lack the logistic weight required to press territorial gain in the face of determined, competent opposition. Conventional artillery and rocketry likely would wreak horrendous dammage along a band some fo miles or so to the South of the DMZ (which would include most of Metro Seoul), but landforce incursions would face significant inconvenience and incur horrendous cost. In the meanwhile, DPRK's political, administrative, and war-fighting infrasturucture would suffer crippling, if not mortal damage. Given conventional weapons only, DPRK's military capabilities, defensive and aggressive, would be exhausted in a matter of days. If unconventional weapons were to be employed, DPRK's existence as a political entity would be measured in hours from the confirmation of the first use of such weaponry.
Two major sources of funding have been removed; Iraq and now Libya. Libya's rollover well may pressage further financial embarrassment as export of military technology, DPRK's only significant trade item, becomes more difficult. Iran is the sole remaining key customer, and herself is under increasing scrutiny and pressure, to say nothing of being subject to internal unrest. The DPRK's African and Asian market is unlikely to boom (pardon the pun) given the developing geopolitical climate. Without major accommodation on DPRK's part, Kim cannot surive more than a few more months, with or without war. I suspect next summer will see a very much less truculent DPRK, and I expect Bush the Younger will get most of the credit, deservedly or not. The Axis of Evil is wobbling badly.

timber, I cannot believe that we are negotiating with this man. I think of this as our rollover, not Libya's. We are legitimizing the despot whom we know blew up the plane over Lockerbie. When will we ever learn....?

Kara, that's the best question I heard all day.

Calling it like it is ....



Source

Gels, I'm afraid everybody is missing the "point." It's not whether GWBush wins in Iraq or not; the people of this country doesn't give a sh*t. Most people in this country has their "own" problems to contend with; they don't give a hoot what inconvenience the Iraqis are having, or who they can or should vote for. We can't even decide that in this country - for crying out loud. GWBush is a shoe-in, because the democrats are destroying their own chances at any semblance of a contest for president of the US. I give up!

Don't be too sure CI. Since joining A2K I've shifted from expecting to vote for Bush to an inclination to vote for General Wesley Clark. Aside from the partisan nonsense, he strikes me as an extremely intelligent, capable, qualified candidate. I suspect his handlers are just delaying a push to the front of the pack. I'll be interested to see.
Sorry it took me so long to respond to your other comments. I wanted to word that last post to HB as carefully as possible, in an attempt to be understood. And trying to line up all those quotes is a bear!

CI .... I bet on a two horse race once, my horse broke his leg coming out of the chute ..... ain't nothing fer sure except ........... Clark and Clinton in ought four

from:Bill's comment
I'm sorry, I apparently parphrased..


Maybe you just post before you think........

Bob I do not wish to be in a pissing contest with you, but these are not parallel statements.



As for the second statement, yes, I definitely posted before thinking it through. It came up during a post where I was accused of not caring about the people. Passion got the better of me, as a despise violence against women. It was also one of my first posts. I've since learned to word things more carefully, use paragraphs and try to speak as clearly as possible. I won't deny the sentiment. When read in proper context, I stand by it.
I've seen you debate more civilly with other members. Can we put this behind us and try to respect each others views?

Bill,

I was referring to the massive damage of a US attack. You discount casualties that result from US actions. You remind me of those who state 28,000 died in Vietnam, they don't count the 2 million Vietnamese. You are not counting the Koreans.

Good morning gozmo,
I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I don't think you understood me either. The Koreans are my concern. Kim is not about to pick a fight with us. I am suggesting we pick a fight with him, for the sake of the North Koreans. The strike I'm proposing would be on strategic military targets, Yongbyon Nuclear complex, the processing facilities and every launch pad we can identify. I'm not suggesting we target Pyongyang. Kim is killing Koreans at a horrifying pace. You haven't read too many of my posts if you believe my concerns about loss of life takes nationality into account.
Sobering thoughts none the less.

Source

and some here wonder why we are skeptical !!!!

Why would they leave the cash?

Bill,

I've read many of your posts and you don't change beat. You want war, you think your country has a right to start war, you think targets of agression benefit from war and you discount the victims of war. You see yourself as morally superior and you invest that superiority in the US. Explain to me why when the US is the aggressor that's OK but others are criminals. I consider the US has a poor record in International Relations and if it were not for its "wemza" mass destruction it would be irrelevant in these matters. I think you are rationalising your opinions by suggesting koreans will benefit. I'm not surprised by this, you only follow the example of your government.

There are 6Bn people on this earth of whom less than 5% are US citizens. You appear to think that minority's government ought be the arbiter of world affairs.

I understand your statements but disagree most strongly.

Why would they leave the kalisnikovs? Because they were well rewarded for it.

If someone offered me 10bn so long as I left 2bn in a public toilet, I would oblige.