OCCOM BILL wrote:
Some 10 million families are believed separated by the border between North and South, according to the South Korean Red Cross. As of 2002, a mere 5,402 families had met with their North Korean relatives. To this day, telephone and mail communication between the two states does not exist. A $500,000,000 bribe to get a party to sit down at a table doesn't strike me as an honest negotiation.
Yes, the progress has been slow, what I sought to point out is that said progress has only been made under certain lines of policy.
I know it's not satisfactory to you but the families you just used in the statistics
overwhelmingly prefer the sunshine route to that which you propose.
As to the "bribe" I'd like more info on that. I think it's a bit of a distortion to label much of the aid given to North Korea as "bribes". I've long considered that a rhetorical description.
The aid given to North Korea is more along the lines of a purchase. They have a legitimate need for cheaper energy and our wishes are such that we tried to get them not to pursue it.
We agreed to provide energy aid in several forms.
Secondly our economic pressure is placing North Korean lives at risk, and we therefore grant humanitarian aid.
That the humanitarian aid is tied to certain benchmarks is not something I consider a bribe. The economic warfare being waged is a large reason they need the aid in the first place.
But this is a quibble, I don't mind if you call it a "bribe" but because it is a payment in return for North Korean concessions that they are under no obligation whatsoever to comply with I see it as a natural method through which we try to achieve our goals.
Since our goals are not in their self-interest it is natural that we try to make it so.
Since our goals would cost them significant amounts of money it is natural for us to offer to make up some of the difference.
Since our actions (economic sanctions) help keep the North Korean people in dire need during a severe series droughts I do not consider it a bribe to offer "humanitarian" aid.
Quote:Okay Craven, you busted me.
I may very well of formed my opinion of Kim's intentions from excerpts from Pyongyang Times, or elsewhere. I'm not sure why quoting him would make much of a difference since he has no credibility in my book, anyway
It's not a matter of his credibility but yours. ;-)
You said you disagree with his "stated" reasons and I am wondering what statements you refer to and doubting their existence.
Quote:Anyway, I would be very interested in reading what you have, if you have it handy.
Actually my point was that i do not believe the statements you referenced exist.
I can vaguely cite what some participants in US/NK negotiations have said but not Kim.
What I remember was along the lines of "of course we are pursuing nukes, you are threatening us with nukes".
That's the only "stated reason" I am aware of and do not know how you intend to portray it as an act.
Quote:First of all; you answered your own question. Second; Agreeing to inspections and multi-lateral talks, without some kind of carrot, is not part of a "longstanding trend". How hard are you trying to believe that?
NK has agreed to negotiations many times in the past, in fact negotiations seem to be their favorite pastime. It's not hard for me to "believe" or assert that agreeing to negotiations is not a huge deal.
I base this on their incessant call for negotiations.
Do you think they plan to negotiate without a "carrot" in their sights? Do you think that they do not want the lifting of the economic warfare?
I find it hard to believe that they'd negotiate for any purpose other than carrots. That is in many ways what negotiation is all about.
In the past I have criticized mataphoric approaches to geopolitics and I'll illustrate why.
It's popular and sounds good to say that they refuse to negotiate without "bribes" and "carrots".
Yet this can be applied to either side, do we not seek our own goals (i.e. carrots) with them?
And in recent history our willingness to merely negotiate has had more strings attached than theirs.
For example, we have refused to negotiate at all with them for a period in which we demanded the nuke issue on the table of said negotiations.
Simply put if anyone is negotiating without a goal (i.e. "carrot") in mind they are a fool. That is the main purpose of negotiations.
Quote:Damn, did I strike a nerve?
Relax my friend.
Not at all Bill, you simply said something that made me type a lot. These discussions almost never elicit
any form of emotional response from me.
Quote:Okay, ready? You said yourself:
Craven de Kere wrote:Kim has long acted paranoid about the US and has always overrated the US threats to him.
Therefore you can't possibly think the idea of Kim "perceiving a threat" is half as far-fetched as that long diatribe would lead one to believe.
You asserted that our "threats" to him caused certain progress. I noted that we have not threatened him and that we have gone out of our way to make clear that we had no plans for military action against them.
Yes, Kim, by my estimation, has always overrated the US beligerence.
But as I note none of said beligerence has occured of late. So I am asserting that the "softening" has far more to do with the period of calm between the nations than "threats" which have been absent in recent months.
Quote:The "timing" being consistent with my "prediction" is a matter of fact, not fallacy.
What is a fallacy is not the timing, but the
false cause you asserted based on the timing.
Saying that the events coincided is not fallacious, trying to assert causative effect merely on the basis of coincidental occurance
is a fallacy.
It is called a
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, translated that roughly means "after this, therefore because of this".
When you tried to connect the naval point to the "softening" you commited precisely that fallacy for the reasons I cited.
Quote:Now, I was either right; or coincidence shined on me. Which would you believe if you were me?
I would not have made the prediction in the first place as i see them as wholly unrelated events.
Quote:Personally, what I think Kim fears most is that his terrorist threats aren't going to be rewarded anymore. Since we are flexing our military muscle lately, instead of handing out cash, he may very well feel like he's walking a tightrope.
It's popular to say his "terrorist threats" were "rewarded". I do not consider this to be a reality for some of the same reasons I do not think the use of the word "bribe" accurately reflects reality.
Quote:(By the way, I took the liberty of re-assembling the point you shamelessly chopped up in your tirade.
I do hope you won't make a habit of that.)
Bill you often complain that people don't quote you entirely. I respond to specific statements that i wish to address and have no intention of including the portions of your post that I am not talking about or that I agree with.
If I had made your meaning different by quoting the portion I was addressing I'd agree with your complaint. But I did not do so and I think that when you request that more defensible portions of your post be included you are neglecting that my main qualms usually lie within the less defensible portions. Such is the nature of debate.
Nested quotes are ugly, so much so that many forums have rules against them and some forums use software solutions to make them impossible. I quote only for the purpose of highlighting specific portions of the post that I am addressing at the time and unless the meaning of the segment i am addressing is altered I do not think you have a legitimate reason to request that I quote in the manner you'd like.
If you can tell me how an exclusion has altered your point in any meaningful way I will consider rectifying it. But I will otherwise continue to quote the specific portion I am currently addressing.
Quote:Was that tantrum really necessary, just because I didn't know a blockade was an act of war according to international law?
The point wasn't the legality of the act. I'm not sure if you considered that we are officially at war with Korea. That makes the legality moot.
The point was that I think you do not consider the majority of the implications of your proposals. I am trying to say that what you suggested was not subtle provocation at all.
Quote:The whole point of that paragraph was an example of how the action could be pitched to the public. I have faith our hawks could conjure up a scenario more realistic (or make one up for that matter).
They have, and since they are far less attractive that you seem to think invading NK would be they are more cautious.
Quote:I can tell. I'm detecting very little laughter.
I believe we have the military wherewithal to eliminate their nukes and debilitate a decent percentage of their conventional weapons on our first strike. I further believe if we knock out their leader we might just knock out their will to fight. I may be overestimating our military potency; but certainly no more than you underestimate it.
You misunderstand me. I am not underestimating the military. I am commenting about political capital and war weariness.
Let's skip to an easy portion of the above. We do not even know how many nukes they have. They had nukes for what some estimate was a year before we knew.
You are confident that we can pre-emptively take them out but there mere chance of not doing so is a prospect that precludes viability of the war as it lacks sufficient political capital.
We'd need another 9/11 to even begin to save up enough political capital to begin to bang that drum. That is the point.
The mentions of how many ways it can go wrong and in ways that can cause massive casualties is a reference to the cost in terms of political capital.
You think we can get the nukes. But do you think Japan is willking to gamble on that? Do you think they'd let us use their sea and land? Do you think South korea would be as confident with gampling with millions of their lives as you are?
I don't think so. I don't think even the hawks are anywhere near as confident as you are about avoiding catastrophic casualties.
Winning the war would be easy. The prospect of a nuclear exchange is a lot graver to most than to you.
Quote:Careful
you just said you didn't want to debate about the usefulness or lack thereof of the UN. However; if you'd like to tackle that next; I'm game.
Perhaps in another thread on another day. This could go on forever so I'll be winding down my participation soon.
Quote:My fabled scenario was in blitzkrieg fashion. No invasion. We weren't seeking consensus before hand.
It would take months to move troops into position. Blitzkrieg implies an element of surprise that would not be possible.
Quote:I don't think you really believe any ally would take up arms against us. And if you really consider the ramifications of doing so, I think you'll concede China would definitely not nuke anyone
and probably stay out altogether.
You're right. But the point was about possibility.
When people string together a sequence that they find probable they usually do not note that even if each even has a high probability as long as they are contingient on each other the overall likelihood is vertually nothing.
For example, you seem to be treating the situation like there are a string of, say, 90% likelihoods and the result is a 90% likelihood that things will go your way.
But if the 10% events are points of failure the probability is very different from what you alledge.
Teens frequently do the "then I'd do this.." game when choreographing their fights. Then being in one almost nothing goes as planned.
The complex scenarios you describe do not reflect the simple realities of the laws of probablity.
It is, indeed unlikely that China would take arms against the US. But that is just a reference to a point of failure and I bring it up because your scenarios have little to no reference to points of failure and are of the type that leaves little alternative for contingiency.
For that reason (basically the scenarios not reflecting reality in the form of basic probability calculations) I am saying that they will remain in the realm of imagination.
Quote: Interesting insight about the mustache.
Thanks, but my use of the word "alliteration" did not make a bit of sense.
Quote:As for attaching horns; I think that's actually a lot easier than you think. Especially after watching morons pouring fine "French" wine into the street
and proudly eating freedom fries.
There has always been great animosity between Americans and the French. That is not true of the average American and Koreans unless we are discussing 60-year-old males.
To them it'd be an easy sell indeed. To most of apolitical America it will be a "huh?".
Without the strong symbolic leader it'll be more like the vietnam justifications. There will be less opportunity to make it a theatrical showdown because Kim's a recluse.
What I'm saying is that the play would be more difficult since the villain has stage fright.
Quote:I'll get back to you with my nuke sources.
Chinese nuclear testing is documented. I have no idea how you plan to suggest that they do not have nukes but I am suggesting that this will be a futile effort.
