NK: Going the way of Libya? (In Bush's column?)

That's sort of tired, these days, hobit. You've used it several times.

I say I'd like peaceful relations in the ME, and you bring out your prejudiced anti-Christian propaganda. Do you have something against peace?

0 Replies

No, I'd prefer peace. I have something against bloodthirsty right wingers. It was in response to your comment "Dominoes are falling," a favourite comment of the fundies who are so eager for signs that "rev'lashuns is comin' to payuss!"

0 Replies

Then save your insipid response for when they say it.

I am not in the least bit hurried for the end of the world, no matter what horse it rides in on.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Hmmm. So the Bush Doctrine hasn't had anything to do with it-- Yet, these things keep happening--

Things will always be happening. How the trends are perceived (positive/negative) is very fickle. The trends are a lot more steady. One example is that when the NK nukes were "outed" lots of people were swayed to the negative side of the column even though the situation realky hadn't deteriorated that badly at all. NK was still showing the signs of wanting out from their dog house.

Much of what I spoke of, both blunders and positive developments, predated Bush.

For example, moving nukes across the Korean border was not Bush's idea, it happened before he became president.

In addition the trend toward North Korean reconciliation predated Bush. For example, the nukes were removed in previous talks with NK.

My personal take is that a president has to take very drastic measures to really make a personal difference. Lots of the metaphorical talk about nations does not reflect the fact that the multitude of factors in nations self-interest that cause the trends is not so easily swayed.

Take Bush's hard line towards North Korea for example. While South Korea and Japan did not appreciate it and North Korea became more beligerent the trend toward North Korean reconciliation will ultimately continue.

Kim's getting older, and the economic cost of the paraiah status is taking its toll. The economic cost alone brings a breaking point and NK has realized this for some time, though they don't move on a pace or tone that the US would like. They have long been moving toward the "one Korea" dream, with very big steps like transportation connections being built between the nations at war.

If I had to pinpoint Bush's effect on the Koreas I'd say he made it a bit more volatile, which is, IMO, a good and bad thing.

He undid some of the progress in the tone of the exchanges between the Koreas, South Korea has frequently expressed concern and subtly hinted that they prefer the "sunshine policy" to the "axis of evil" one.

But pushing Korea towards beligerence might have hastened the revealing of NK's cards in regard to the nukes. And Bush has made moves to take a harder economic line as well, which can be argued to move the economic breaking point a bit closer.

So I really don't think Bush made a huge difference one way or another. I think his hardline helped 'out' the nukes but I think it hurts the chances of negotiating their riddance since they really view the nukes as a deterrent and the hardline makes them think they need it more.

Ultimately I think that the economic pressure and aging of the ideology will eventually take it's toll and produce the results. Next generation NK will reconcile if not this one.

And unless really drastic moves are made I don't think much will change. NK might cave in to the pressure anytime, but the key is the solidarity in economic sanctions.

That is the one reason NK is moving toward eventual reconciliation. The economic pressure is brutal and effective (though slow).

HB,

You do that derisive act a lot. But often in threads where not a single participant is saying anything like the characature you are mocking.

I too think it's getting old, and is incongruous when you are spoofing a non-existent character in a thread. 2 Cents

0 Replies

Noted, apologized to sofia off thread. In a bad mood.

0 Replies

You know how I hate to do so, Craven, but I have to disagree with you. I think Kim laughed his ass off at the Sunshine policy. Right or Wrong, Bush has definitely demonstrated that there is a credible threat in the U.S. of A. NK toyed with Clinton and ultimately got him to agree to a deal that should never have happened. The precedent set in paying off Kim to shelve his nuclear ambitions was a dangerous one (not to mention one he violated in spirit anyway). When Bush took over, he almost immediately let Kim know the jig was up. It is factual that Kim has backed off of his demand for unilateral talks... and now he even seems anxious to have even multi-lateral talks. I'm no big fan of Bush, but IMO he is sending exactly the right message to NK. One-Korea will never be governed by Kim. Treating him like a distinguished sovereign leader is wrong, because the man's very regime is the definition of a crime against humanity.

0 Replies

Well Bill, in the theater of global politics "laughing one's ass off" is used as a descriptor very frequently but seldom means much.

For example, I do not think NK poses much of a threat at all to the US beyond regional volatility. Said volatility was increased by the hardline.

Simply put I am young enough that nukes are not the be-all end-all specter of horror that they are to some older generations.

At this stage of the relationship their nukes only elicit a small yawn from me.

You call the "precedent" of "paying" NK to give up nukes "dangerous" but that's odd given that the very principle of the non-proliferation treaty is, in effect, to pay nations to shelve the nukes.

See, we have no more right to nukes than anyone else. And the nuclearized nations that wish for de-nuclearization of other nations have only a carrot and stick to use.

The carrot can be called "payment" but so is the stick. The stick is largely trade access related so it too is economic payment.

Beyond that there is no legal basis for demanding de-nuclearization. This is unlike the situation in Iraq, where they signed a treaty to end a war of their initiation that proscribed said weapons.

So you can call it "paying" for de-nuclearization because that's exactly what it is and that's exactly the only legal method of coercion that is available.

Agreeing to build light water reactors for North Korea was a smart move. North Korea has a very acute need for the cheaper energy and it was to our interest (and not NK's) to have them use reactors that are kinder to our non-proliferation goals.

Now the talks broke down, we neither built said reactors and NK did not fulfill their obligations to our liking.

You can fault either side, I think NK is more at fault but either way it is simply a negotiation between two sides that broke down with neither side fulfilling its obligations.

North Korea pursues nukes as a direct response to the USA moving nukes within minutes of their capital. Our ICBMs would have reached them anyway but we made a point of moving tactical ones onto the peninsula as a warning.

It's a warning that they took to heart and decided to ape. Now they have their own deterrent.

Now while it's true that Clinton's presidency was one in which the goals of de-nuclearization were not reached it was one in which the reconciliation of the Koreas progressed.

Bush has not achieved de-nuclearization either. In fact while his hardline can be contrued as "outing" the nukes (frankly I credit US intel that found them and took evidence to a meeting with them, and said intel was the product of years of effort) it can also be said to have occasioned the withdrawal from all treaties that NK signed about nukes.

So yeah, the agreements with North Korea did not result in the de-nuclearization we wished for. But what Bush has done hasn't either. In fact they withdrew from all treaties (shortly after Bush withdrew from nuclear treaties with Russia) and now pursue them openly.

What they state as their desire to ameliorate the situation is two-fold.

1) They want a non-agression treaty with the US. This is a no-brainer, they are officially at war with the US, and the US has moved nukes onto their peninsula as a direct threat.

2) They want economic relief in the form of easing of trade restrictions. They frequently demand a cessation of "all" US "hostilities" and by this they mean the delibating sanctions.

Now whether those demands are reasonable or not (frankly I think it should be tiered and I'd not cede economic relief just yet) said negotiation is all the legal basis we have to achieve de-nuclearization unless they do something daft (like attack South Korea).

It might seem inadequate to you, but consider this parable.

You want your neighbour to stop painting his house pink and yellow. You offered to pay him in cash and favors to not do so.

The negotiations can break down, and you might curse the fact that you tried to "pay" for his "compliance" but he "laughed his ass off".

But it is important to realize that since it's not legal to burn his hosue down getting what you want will inevitably include some of said negotiations that may or may not be successful and that you find so ineffective.

Sure, the negotiations haven't got us all we want. But when you realize we have no inherent "right" to things going our way it put it in perspective.

North Korea has a right to nuclear weapons. They have a choice to relinquish them to fall on our good graces and ease our economic warfare against them (which is our right).

Now you can bemoan the failure of the negotiations all you want, on the nuke topic they ahve indeed failed.

But to credit Bush as suddenly having done something to improve it is a bit of a stretch.

This is what he has accomplished:

1) They withdrew from all nuke treaties and agreements and pursue nukes openly.

2) They are more beligerent and South Korea's years of "sunshine policy" and the subsequent results (as they relate to reconciliation of the koreas, not "doing what the US wants") have atrophied.

Now I too, prefer the cards on the table but in other areas we have taken steps backwards with them.

So when the reconciliation finally takes place, I will credit the policy of all administrations in regard to their economic position on North Korea.

I will also credit the Bush administration for convincing the region to cease certain humanitarian aid. While that helps kill more of the population it also hastens the end through the increased economic pressure and brings the end game closer.

Little details like the unilateral talks are just North Korean spontaneity. They correctly note that the country they need to negotiate with is the US.

Since they know this our refusal to negotiate with them individually would ultimately result in their abandonment of that demand.

Since all we did was refuse and wait out a change in their mind I do not credit any special move by this administration for this. Heck a unilateral talk wouldn't have been a big deal for us and this is a victory only to those predisposed to thinking it is.

0 Replies

As an aside I don't like the NK government at all either. And the best way to deal with similar regimes in the future is to have an international body that gives the mandate for their removal.

Unfortunately the US government is not in favor of said institutions (World Court, US...) and does all they can to undermine them because solidarity and justice undermines unilateral military might.

So until there are such institutions, the mighty will wring their hands at the ineffectiveness of negotiations and wish they could stomp despite not having the legal basis to do so.

You'd think they'd like the legal basis (World Court etc) but apparently the mere possibility of having their military power undermined by a superior justice system makes them fight it.

A damn shame. Simple to avoid having a superior court, we disallow the institutions that could forever change the future dealings with such regimes and maintain a status quo in which there is little recourse when a government harms its pwn people.

0 Replies

Craven, I agree completely that Bush's hardline stance has increased the volatility in the region. You seem to downplay that said volatility is more dangerous now than it was a decade ago. Clinton had an opportunity to face this threat and chose to delay the inevitable. I don't think I'm playing Monday Morning quarterback in believing that fulfilling NK's demands only postponed the problems we now face, once again. NK's system of government will forever leave them struggling behind their brothers in the South and sooner or later the water will boil. I also think you have understated the difference between the benefits of joining the non-proliferation treaty, and demanding assistance from individual countries. One is an act of good faith The other is blackmail.

I agree that agreeing to assist in building light water nuclear power plants is in our best interest. I object to the manner in which we agreed. The "wrong message" that I refer to is that if a country develops a military that is some form of a credible threat, it will thus gain an advantage and be able to deal with the United States from a position of strength. NK's arsenal may make them a marginal threat at best. Their weapons are firecrackers compared to the ones that put the US and Russia in the "M.A.D." club. Possessing the most powerful military in the world along with the largest economy should put the United States in the enviable, but not achievable, position of always dealing from a position of strength. Succumbing to the demands of terrorist states like DPRK undermines the authority that is inherent to that kind of strength and wealth. If a man knocks on my door and tells me he's hungry; I'll feed him. If he knocks on my door and demands something to eat he'll go hungry. If he starts threatening my neighbor or me with a bat; I'll threaten him with a gun. If I believe he will harm my neighbor or me; I'll use whatever force necessary to render him impotent. I will not feed him for fear of what will happen if I don't.

1) A man who is responsible for the deaths of millions is not someone I would consider signing a non-aggression treaty with. That is akin to negotiating amnesty with a terrorist who has already started killing hostages.
2) I think we agree the terms under which we will end our trade restrictions should be ours alone. I do business with those I chose to do business with. It is the DPRK that needs to prove worthy of any favor from the United States.

As for your example of my neighbor painting his house pink and yellow I think the rules change if you can see he is murdering his children. I'd kick in his door, armed to the teeth. I disagree with your assessment that we have no inherent "right" to things going our way. Kim is guilty of crimes against humanity Our constitutional "right" to bear arms doesn't apply to felons.

I am very predisposed to thinking multi-lateral talks are a small victory, because it correctly shifts the position of power back to the country that should never have lost it.

As for your "aside", I have lost faith in the United Nations. I believe it is time for it to take its place in history beside the League of Nations. France with veto rights? Rolling Eyes

Please. I would like to see the US champion a new Multi-National body that rewards members with free trade in exchange for abiding by strict human rights standards. I am optimistic enough to believe world peace can be accomplished, but pessimistic enough to believe it is impossible with our current institutions. I'll stop there, before I go waaaaaaaaaay off topic. I will add that I do not believe the United States is morally superior to all Nations. I agree with you that the world needs to unite to effect the changes that need to take place. In the mean time; I'll continue to applaud aggressive stances against the Kims of the world. :wink:

0 Replies

Well, I think the basis of our differences is that I do not see NK as much of a threat to the US and not even much of a threat to the region as long as the status quo (economic pressure coupled with military deterrent) is maintained.

I don't think Clinton "postponed" much. The difference between the policies of the two administrations has almost entirely been rhetorical.

In short Bush's actual policy toward NK has not changed from Clinton's, the policies are nearly identical aside from rhetoric.

There is one single difference this administration has seen (besides increased rhetoric). And that is that the humanitarian aid has ceased.

But this was not a different approach to NK at all either, but simply a response to intel about the nukes that surfaced during Bush's presidency. Had they surfaced in the past I think an equally symbolic move would have been made.

I do not credit this administration for that find, as the intel would have surfaced under any administration.

So what exactly did Bush do? I know many appreciate a harder line and Bush's more abrasive rhetoric plays into that. But what did Bush DO that you like?

The closest thing I can think of to an actual policy decision was the decision to cease delivery of humanitarian aid. But that was a move that was based on political capital gained through the discovery of nukes.

So other than tough talk what is the difference? Do you know of a single policy change that Bush can take credit for? If so, we can discuss it.

As to not negotiating with Kim I see three main choices. Either we negotiate with him, ignore him, or invade North Korea.

Invading North Korea has both logistic and legal problems, namely that there is not even the WMD legal leg to stand on (because NK has no obligation not to have WMDs).

Frankly, I wish there were a way to get a legal mandate. But absent that I still don't think we are willing to actually go to war, especially when Kim is going to be gone soon and the trend is toward amelioration.

So if we are not going to invade we can either ignore or negotiate.

If we want to achieve what we want we will have to conduct at least some negotiation.

0 Replies

Good morning Craven. Our opinions are not as far apart as they seem. It is precisely Bush's rhetoric that I applaud in this theatre. I know you don't approve, or perhaps even agree, but attacking Iraq with gusto and the tough talk that accompanied it; has sent a message to Kim and others like him. Before the war, Dennis Miller once referred to Iraq as "East Korea" and I see wisdom in the humor. If (when?) Bush is reelected I have to assume the Kim's of the world will know; that not only is the leader of the most powerful enemy he could have both reckless and dangerous, but that he is so; with the approval of the richest constituency on earth. Wise men and fools alike would have to fear such an enemy. At the same time; our track record for forgiving our defeated foes isn't that bad. Kim himself is the biggest enemy to North Korea. Perhaps we are just laying the groundwork for negotiating with his successor? Fear can be a tremendous ally. I credit fear for keeping the cold war from escalating, don't you?

I'm somewhat surprised to hear you say that you too wish we could get a legal mandate to invade. I've been attacked for holding that view and frankly, I was starting to think I was alone in feeling that way. And that brings me to the only real beef I have with your last statement: If you don't see him as a threat to the region, why would you want to invade? Rhetorical questionI think? I assume it is the many millions of corpses he's responsible for and the certainty that they'll continue stacking up as long as he's in charge. That is the result of Clinton's postponement. Kim's existence creates a grave danger to at least 22,000,000 people in the region. At that's just counting North Koreans. Sad

As for the liking of the rhetoric, I give you:

Theodore Roosevelt wrote:

We can laugh at Bush's ineptitude all we want. We're not staring down the barrel of his gun.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I know you don't approve, or perhaps even agree, but attacking Iraq with gusto and the tough talk that accompanied it; has sent a message to Kim and others like him.

I definitely don't agree. Kim has long acted paranoid about the US and has always overrated the US threats to him.

We coulda just said "boo". Fear hasn't helped us much over there, it has thus far only made them pursue nukes.

Quote:

Before the war, Dennis Miller once referred to Iraq as "East Korea" and I see wisdom in the humor.

I don't. It's a simplistic association.

Quote:

If (when?) Bush is reelected I have to assume the Kim's of the world will know; that not only is the leader of the most powerful enemy he could have both reckless and dangerous, but that he is so; with the approval of the richest constituency on earth. Wise men and fools alike would have to fear such an enemy.

I think you overrate fear of the US very much in the geopolitical scene. Many people talk of wanting to strike the "fear of the Lord" into other nations. I've long maintained that it has far more to do with the individual's personality than geopolitical reality.

Quote:

Perhaps we are just laying the groundwork for negotiating with his successor?

Very much so.

Quote:

Fear can be a tremendous ally. I credit fear for keeping the cold war from escalating, don't you?

No, I fault what you are calling "fear" for the cold war in the first place.

I think you have it backwards. When the fears subsided much more progress was made.

Quote:

I'm somewhat surprised to hear you say that you too wish we could get a legal mandate to invade.

I'm surprised too, because I did not say that. I said I wish there was a way. In other words I wish there was a venue through which regime change could obtain a legal mandate. Thus precluding unilateral "pre-emption".

It's just as much wishing there were laws to govern the vigilante (USA) as the rouges.

Quote:

If you don't see him as a threat to the region, why would you want to invade? Rhetorical questionI think?

I don't. I see no benefit whatsoever in invading.

Quote:

I assume it is the many millions of corpses he's responsible for and the certainty that they'll continue stacking up as long as he's in charge. That is the result of Clinton's postponement. Kim's existence creates a grave danger to at least 22,000,000 people in the region. At that's just counting North Koreans.

You cite these millions a lot, and do so very casually. If the your standards can lead you to that accusation you should also fault the drought and the harsh weather in addition the America's delibating sanctions.

Quote:

As for the liking of the rhetoric, I give you:

Why? That just sounded like Teddy being an idiot.

Quote:

We can laugh at Bush's ineptitude all we want. We're not staring down the barrel of his gun.

Like I said before, this type of metaphor is not compatible with the geopolitical reality I follow.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I know you don't approve, or perhaps even agree, but attacking Iraq with gusto and the tough talk that accompanied it; has sent a message to Kim and others like him.
I definitely don't agree. Kim has long acted paranoid about the US and has always overrated the US threats to him.

We coulda just said "boo". Fear hasn't helped us much over there, it has thus far only made them pursue nukes.

We tried just saying "boo" with the tactical nukes remember? It's not paranoia when everyone really is out to get you. In this case; with good reason. "Kim has long acted paranoid" I think the operative word in this sentence is "acted" because it serves his purpose. Our admitted military budget is more than 10 times the GDP of North Korea. His pursuit of nukes or any other military hardware could never make him a worthy adversary of the US. Thus, there must be other motivation for pursuing nukes (blackmail perhaps?).

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Before the war, Dennis Miller once referred to Iraq as "East Korea" and I see wisdom in the humor.
I don't. It's a simplistic association.

Pity. There is some validity to the assessment. Do you think the timing of Kim's uni/multi-lateral concession is coincidence?

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
If (when?) Bush is reelected I have to assume the Kim's of the world will know; that not only is the leader of the most powerful enemy he could have both reckless and dangerous, but that he is so; with the approval of the richest constituency on earth. Wise men and fools alike would have to fear such an enemy.
I think you overrate fear of the US very much in the geopolitical scene. Many people talk of wanting to strike the "fear of the Lord" into other nations. I've long maintained that it has far more to do with the individual's personality than geopolitical reality.

I don't understand how you can believe this. All out war with the United States is geopolitical suicide, in every meaning of the word. With our recent demonstrations of our willingness to go to war; threats of this nature have to be recognized.

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Fear can be a tremendous ally. I credit fear for keeping the cold war from escalating, don't you?

No, I fault what you are calling "fear" for the cold war in the first place.

I think you have it backwards. When the fears subsided much more progress was made.

Touché. Fear played a big role in the beginning for sure. The end was caused by the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union not the subsiding of fear.

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:

As to not negotiating with Kim I see three main choices. Either we negotiate with him, ignore him, or invade North Korea.

Invading North Korea has both logistic and legal problems, namely that there is not even the WMD legal leg to stand on (because NK has no obligation not to have WMDs).

Frankly, I wish there were a way to get a legal mandate. But absent that I still don't think we are willing to actually go to war, especially when Kim is going to be gone soon and the trend is toward amelioration.

So if we are not going to invade we can either ignore or negotiate.

I'm somewhat surprised to hear you say that you too wish we could get a legal mandate to invade.

I'm surprised too, because I did not say that. I said I wish there was a way. In other words I wish there was a venue through which regime change could obtain a legal mandate. Thus precluding unilateral "pre-emption".

It's just as much wishing there were laws to govern the vigilante (USA) as the rouges.

I think you are back peddling here. You are certainly welcome to retract the statement, but I think it is inappropriate to pretend you never said it. I've re-read the comments several times and the meaning is pretty clear.

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
If you don't see him as a threat to the region, why would you want to invade? Rhetorical questionI think?

I don't. I see no benefit whatsoever in invading.

The ability to feed starving humans and free the public from a repressive (not a strong enough word) monster is the benefit. Our exit would be simple compared to Iraq. One Korea would be the result with all Koreans benefiting.

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I assume it is the many millions of corpses he's responsible for and the certainty that they'll continue stacking up as long as he's in charge. That is the result of Clinton's postponement. Kim's existence creates a grave danger to at least 22,000,000 people in the region. At that's just counting North Koreans.

You cite these millions a lot, and do so very casually. If the your standards can lead you to that accusation you should also fault the drought and the harsh weather in addition the America's delibating sanctions.

I don't shout at the rain. I shout at the guy stealing the "hurricane relief". I've long considered economic sanctions a peripheral attack, as they harm the masses more than the leader. Not too effective when the masses have zero control over said leader.

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
As for the liking of the rhetoric, I give you:

Why? That just sounded like Teddy being an idiot.

True, Teddy never did sound all that bright. But that too made him all the more credible. It was very difficult to doubt his resolve in that you were not likely to change his mind. Even stupidity has its virtues. The dumber a man is; the less time he is likely to spend in deliberation.

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
We can laugh at Bush's ineptitude all we want. We're not staring down the barrel of his gun.

Like I said before, this type of metaphor is not compatible with the geopolitical reality I follow.

Really, Craven; having just deposed a Dictator it is impossible for other Dictators not recognize our threats as legitimate. How could you believe otherwise?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

As an aside I don't like the NK government at all either. And the best way to deal with similar regimes in the future is to have an international body that gives the mandate for their removal.

Craven, you and Bill have been having a stimulating discussion and I was not about to engage until I was backreading and found this statement of yours. I posit that this is the perfect example of intellectual denial of reality.The UN IS THE International body that is SUPPOSED to give the mandate for the removal of ROGUE regimes. The UN is one of your favorite institutions-----why then would you in your next statement below suggest that the world court should be used against Rogue regimes. Suppose the world court tried Kim Jong IL in abstentia and found him guilty. Who would they send to arrest him and bring him to jail? This is the sort of absurd idealistic naivete that you and other idealists indulge in constantly and the pragmatists find disgustingly flawed thinking.

The way it should work is thus: A political refugee(escapee) from North Korea would initiate a complaint to the UN thru diplomatic channels that Kim was actively causing genocide of his citizens. The UN should immediately suspend all diplomatic, and economic privileges( but all the while providing humanitarian aid) of NK while they investigated the charge. If the investigation proved true the UN would initiate legal action against Kim in the world Court to give legal legitimacy to further action. The UN security council should be convened to discuss action required under the UN charter. They would decide what actions to take to prevent further genocide. Due to NKs formidable military capability the Security council could only reasonably authorize sanctions and embargos. They should in addition authorize military action by a vote but hold the authorization to wage war, to only be activated if NK invaded South Korea. This would send a msg to Kim that military action on his part would be suicidal. Unfortunately the UN could never operate in this manner and you know it-----this is probably the reason you are searching for another route. The way the UN charter is written, the very rogues and oppressive dictators the UN was created to deal with, can block any corrective actions against one of their brother rogues, by simple procedures already tested and proven. The UN is thus rendered helpless for anything except humanitarian aid and they quite often bungle that by allowing the aid packages to be stolen and sold to the citizens that were supposed to receive them free of charge. Check what happened in Somalia.

I consider the remaining statements in this post of similar idealistic smoke.

Unfortunately the US government is not in favor of said institutions (World Court, US...) and does all they can to undermine them because solidarity and justice undermines unilateral military might.

So until there are such institutions, the mighty will wring their hands at the ineffectiveness of negotiations and wish they could stomp despite not having the legal basis to do so.

You'd think they'd like the legal basis (World Court etc) but apparently the mere possibility of having their military power undermined by a superior justice system makes them fight it.

A damn shame. Simple to avoid having a superior court, we disallow the institutions that could forever change the future dealings with such regimes and maintain a status quo in which there is little recourse when a government harms its pwn people.[/quote]

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

We tried just saying "boo" with the tactical nukes remember? It's not paranoia when everyone really is out to get you. In this case; with good reason.

Yes, and like I said fear doesn't seem to have done as much to achieve North Korean reconciliation as has South Korea's sunshine policy.

Quote:

"Kim has long acted paranoid" I think the operative word in this sentence is "acted" because it serves his purpose. Our admitted military budget is more than 10 times the GDP of North Korea. His pursuit of nukes or any other military hardware could never make him a worthy adversary of the US. Thus, there must be other motivation for pursuing nukes (blackmail perhaps?).

I think you are not giving appropriate recognition to the deterrent power of nuclear weapons given the low numbers of US casualties that can get war weariness up.

Quote:

There is some validity to the assessment. Do you think the timing of Kim's uni/multi-lateral concession is coincidence?

Yes, in fact I had not even thought you meant to connect them, despite knowing your predisposition to such a connection.

Like I said, the multilateral concession was a negligible development to me as it was just typical NK flip-flopping on one of their pootly thought positions.

Quote:

I don't understand how you can believe this. All out war with the United States is geopolitical suicide, in every meaning of the word. With our recent demonstrations of our willingness to go to war; threats of this nature have to be recognized.

You have to be very stupid to allow the US to go to war with you.

The US military is contrained by many things.

To give one example, unless North Korea changes the status quo or there is another terrorist attack there is very little chance of US military action against them.

Not even Bush would start banging that war drum.

I think you underestimate the difficulty of making a case for war. Even for the US.

Iraq was an easy domestic sell. The same would not be the case in NK right now.

Quote:

Touché. Fear played a big role in the beginning for sure. The end was caused by the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union not the subsiding of fear.

Subsiding of fear as well. Initially the cold war featured levels of paranoia that simply precluded any meaningful dialogue.

When the tensions and paranoias abated the end came swiftly (fueled by economic concerns as you note).

Quote:

I think you are back peddling here. You are certainly welcome to retract the statement, but I think it is inappropriate to pretend you never said it. I've re-read the comments several times and the meaning is pretty clear.

I have no reason to backpeddle on that. If I supported an invasion of North Korea I would say so.

A search of extensive comments of mine in the past will clearly show that I have never supported military action there and that I consistently downplay the alleged threat they pose.

What I wish for is a mechanism for the global community to deal with rogues and sanction invasions if neccessary.

In this case I don't think it neccessary or even worth imagining for more than a few minutes. But absent a global body there would have to be a dire sense of urgency to get something done.

Quote:

The ability to feed starving humans and free the public from a repressive (not a strong enough word) monster is the benefit. Our exit would be simple compared to Iraq. One Korea would be the result with all Koreans benefiting.

True, but selective. South Korea would expell us from their soil beforehand. South Korea has already espressed dissatisfaction at the US rhetoric from this administratuion and would be very vocally opposed to war.

So would Japan, Russia and China in the status quo.

It's a nice plan (South Korea doing post-war) but neglects the fact that South Korea would actively oppose your idea. It's important to note that they have family members in the area (on both sides) and what you propose could easily be the bloodiest war of this century.

I find it a very foolish and outlandish scenario given the status quo and sufficiently so that I have no worries that anyone would be stupid enough to try it.

Quote:

Really, Craven; having just deposed a Dictator it is impossible for other Dictators not recognize our threats as legitimate. How could you believe otherwise?

Because there isn't a legally valid casus belli to seize upon.

Because they do not have mustaches (I am dead serious).

Because they have not been sufficiently villified domestically. Saddam was an easy domestic sale because he was the most infamous man alive to Americans. That gave huge amounts of political capital.

In short Iraq was a rare chance for an easy sell to the US public, another unprovoked invasion is very unlikely.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

Craven, you and Bill have been having a stimulating discussion and I was not about to engage until I was backreading and found this statement of yours. I posit that this is the perfect example of intellectual denial of reality.The UN IS THE International body that is SUPPOSED to give the mandate for the removal of ROGUE regimes.

Shoulda followed your first instinct perc.

Quote:

The UN is one of your favorite institutions-----why then would you in your next statement below suggest that the world court should be used against Rogue regimes. Suppose the world court tried Kim Jong IL in abstentia and found him guilty. Who would they send to arrest him and bring him to jail? This is the sort of absurd idealistic naivete that you and other idealists indulge in constantly and the pragmatists find disgustingly flawed thinking.

Sigh, this is tedious perc.

1) The world court is supported by the UN

2) Without the military support of the US and other military powers the World Court's function will be less ambitious.

I wish the US would throw their weight behind it and make it more ambitious that it currently is intended to be.

Now as to the rest of your rant I have answered it countless times elsewhere (you probably know that you post variations of it frequently) and would rather discuss NK will Bill than the old bone you have to pick with the UN.

0 Replies

Craven wrote:

Shoulda followed your first instinct perc.

Sigh, this is tedious perc

Now as to the rest of your rant I have answered it countless times elsewhere (you probably know that you post variations of it frequently) and would rather discuss NK will Bill than the old bone you have to pick with the UN.

The above responses are hypocritical (you constantly reprimand other posters for the same) and shallow.
You are correct about one thing though----there is a depressing lack of originality on this forum which was evidenced by your inane prattle and has made further discussion "tedious". Thanks for pointing out to me that I have been here too long. Good luck with all the crowd that has suddenly appeared----the standard has sunk to a new low. Where the hell did you dredge up Pistoff, and John Webb et al-----my guess is the same place you found Wilso and Hobit.
I'm off in search of new horizons and I never look back.
Sincerely
Perception

BTW---regarding my signature-----it is original and remember you first saw it here :wink:

0 Replies

Perc,

Get a grip, I simply don't want to discuss your hatred of "intellectuals", the UN and whatnot when there is a discussion about NK that is much more interesting being held.

I sincerely hope you find your new horizons, may they share the burden.

0 Replies

Craven, I've used many of your arguments when explaining "why Iraq" instead of NK.

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
We tried just saying "boo" with the tactical nukes remember? It's not paranoia when everyone really is out to get you. In this case; with good reason.

Yes, and like I said fear doesn't seem to have done as much to achieve North Korean reconciliation as has South Korea's sunshine policy.

The sunshine policy may very well have been reconciliatory, but ultimately it was doomed from the start. It was a one way street benefiting only the leaders of the North while ignoring ongoing human rights violations. Didn't you once say; not threatening or attacking someone is not a reward? Other than that; what did the sunshine policy really do for South Korea? I think it was a facade that only served to prolong the suffering of North Koreans at the hand of Kim Jong Il.

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
"Kim has long acted paranoid" I think the operative word in this sentence is "acted" because it serves his purpose. Our admitted military budget is more than 10 times the GDP of North Korea. His pursuit of nukes or any other military hardware could never make him a worthy adversary of the US. Thus, there must be other motivation for pursuing nukes (blackmail perhaps?).

I think you are not giving appropriate recognition to the deterrent power of nuclear weapons given the low numbers of US casualties that can get war weariness up.

I don't mean to understate our fear of nukes. I just don't believe they constitute any real defense against our forces. His stated reasons are more of an excuse.

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
There is some validity to the assessment. Do you think the timing of Kim's uni/multi-lateral concession is coincidence?

Yes, in fact I had not even thought you meant to connect them, despite knowing your predisposition to such a connection.

Like I said, the multilateral concession was a negligible development to me as it was just typical NK flip-flopping on one of their pootly thought positions.

NK was talking a lot tougher while we were fully engaged in Iraq. As we drew nearer to victory, Kim began softening his stance. I predicted the change would take place when we started removing our navy and it did. I can't believe you don't see the correlation. When NK's policy changes coincide with perceived threats by the US it lends additional credibility to us when dealing with other dictators. However negligible the development may be; a brutal megalomaniac making concessions in the face of American threats sends the appropriate message to other would-be villains.

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I don't understand how you can believe this. All out war with the United States is geopolitical suicide, in every meaning of the word. With our recent demonstrations of our willingness to go to war; threats of this nature have to be recognized.

You have to be very stupid to allow the US to go to war with you.

The US military is contrained by many things.

To give one example, unless North Korea changes the status quo or there is another terrorist attack there is very little chance of US military action against them.

Not even Bush would start banging that war drum.

I think you underestimate the difficulty of making a case for war. Even for the US.

Iraq was an easy domestic sell. The same would not be the case in NK right now.

No, not right now. But I do not believe it would be as difficult as you think. What if:
We declare an embargo and set up a blockade completely surrounding him with our mighty navy. Let Bush do his Texas Cowboy routine to instill pride in Americans while aggravating Kim. National addresses and shift the propaganda machine into high gear about the living conditions of NK's population, the hideous treatment they receive (Just think he wouldn't even have to lie!) and the global weapons sales from North Korea. (Americans have never seemed to care that we're #1 in that department). In the mean time; I'm pretty sure Kim would be barking out terrible threats and painting a nightmarish prediction of the outcome of any military action. How long do you really think it would take before Kim made the mistake of attacking one of our planes for an airspace violation or some such thing? (casus belli) Do Americans want revenge? I'm betting they do.

Craven de Kere wrote:

What I wish for is a mechanism for the global community to deal with rogues and sanction invasions if neccessary.

In this case I don't think it neccessary or even worth imagining for more than a few minutes. But absent a global body there would have to be a dire sense of urgency to get something done.

Here we are in complete agreement, save one thing. Absent that global police force, I applaud the actions of the vigilante. If the police didn't respond to my neighbor's perilous situation, I would feel compelled to myself.

Craven de Kere wrote:

True, but selective. South Korea would expell us from their soil beforehand. South Korea has already espressed dissatisfaction at the US rhetoric from this administratuion and would be very vocally opposed to war.

So would Japan, Russia and China in the status quo.

It's a nice plan (South Korea doing post-war) but neglects the fact that South Korea would actively oppose your idea. It's important to note that they have family members in the area (on both sides) and what you propose could easily be the bloodiest war of this century.

I find it a very foolish and outlandish scenario given the status quo and sufficiently so that I have no worries that anyone would be stupid enough to try it.

Because there isn't a legally valid casus belli to seize upon.

Because they do not have mustaches (I am dead serious).

Because they have not been sufficiently villified domestically. Saddam was an easy domestic sale because he was the most infamous man alive to Americans. That gave huge amounts of political capital.

In short Iraq was a rare chance for an easy sell to the US public, another unprovoked invasion is very unlikely.

Foolish scenario; I'll give you a foolish scenarioJust for fun: After the above mentioned plane is shot down; Bush, in an unprecedented approach, foregoes the proportional response and hits every military base in North Korea along with Kim's residence, Yongbyon, and every other known danger. North Korean airwaves are crowded with appropriate messages about our goals and promising that anything short of surrender is suicide. Just north of the DMZ receives a constant pounding to prevent ground fighting there. Meanwhile, Bush goes live and announces North Korea has attacked us without provocation and he is doing what must be done, to keep us safe. Keep in mind, our laws grant him 48 hours to do anything he pleases for national security with no approval whatsoever. He tells the world it was a retaliatory attack and claims the right of self defense. The world is shocked, appalled, angry and ultimately powerless to do a damn thing about it. Just like in Iraq; the ousted leader needed getting got, so they get over it. South Korea publicly condemns the brutal attack and sends mountains of humanitarian aid. Soon after, the South is placed in charge of rebuilding with an enormous loan package from the United States. Unification is the ultimate result, and secretly; everyone knows the unconscionable actions of the US saved untold millions of people from their true enemy Kim Jong Il. (Urgent message to other dictators: Listen and "Don't tread on me!")

Seriously though, what do you mean about the mustaches?

0 Replies

Acenario PT. 2: After the attack on N. Korea, China acts upon its treaty agreements with its ally, N. Korea. Do you really want that to happen?

0 Replies

NK: Going the way of Libya? (In Bush's column?)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know