And half the American Army is tied down in Iraq? Great. I said a long time ago that Iraq could wait. That we should apply great pressure on North Korea when they first made hints at restarting their nuke program. That they were a much higher priority for our security. That they were a far greater danger to us and our allies. I hate being right.
In our time? Our time is now. I don't give a damn what happened even 20 years ago. Even so, we never propped up madmen like Kim or his father and sat by for decades while people suffered. ...and yes, you and Major are completely off topic, though I recognize your need to self flagellate.
Well, you aren't again. We needed to hit Saddam first because he, unlike Kim, had limitless resources. Kim sees the writing on the wall, imo. If he doesn't get cash and food to sustain his military and people, his time as leader may come to an end soon. North Korea is using the nuclear weapon issue to blackmail the world. We will call his bluff, and Kim will either fold, or the world will make him fold.
I disagree, jh. And I don't make a habit out of posting things to crow about whether I was right or not about something. There were more reasons than North Korea for my wanting to wait to do something about Saddam, but that's another topic. What I thought we should have done at the first hint of NK ramping up their nuke program again was to send a couple of carrier battle groups off their coast, reinforce our people in South Korea and the near region, and get damned bellicose with them. Bush had other priorities. I think he was wrong.
In our time? Our time is now. I don't give a damn what happened even 20 years ago. Even so, we never propped up madmen like Kim or his father and sat by for decades while people suffered. Ummm, in Iraq, we supported and empowered a regime that gassed their own people. We supported the Taliban just 3 years ago. We support quite a few brutal dictatorships in the Middle East today as well. What exactly is the limit of where a country should be ashamed of themselves? Only if they support the absolute worst dictator? What about 2nd worst? 3rd worst? Were you ashamed of the US 20 years ago? How about 3? Today? and yes, you and Major are completely off topic Let's see ... you lambast a country for supporting a brutal dictatorship. People point out that we do the same and we're off-topic?
Be more specific Major. Tell me how we supported Saddam after he gassed his own people, and tell me how we supported the Taliban three years ago. Then, compare that to China and North Korea killing MILLIONS of their own people through Communist purges and starvation. I can't wait to be enlightened about how the United States is as bad as China, and how since we are imperfect, we have no right to criticize anybody else.
We have tremendous military assets in the area now, and if Kim attempts a move, he is a dead man. Kim's reign is slowly coming to an end, and there isn't a damn thing he can do about. China, Japan, and Russia will join us in forcing North Korea to give up its nukes, or the international community will crush him financially. When this occurs, you will know that you were wrong.
Be more specific Major. Tell me how we supported Saddam after he gassed his own people, and tell me how we supported the Taliban three years ago. Iraq gassed its own people in the early 80's, right? And we then supported it against Iran throughout the 80's, right? Draw your own conclusions. We gave millions of dollars in financial aid to the Taliban just a few months before 9/11. They cut opium production, we gave them money. We didn't care one bit how they treated the women in the country, as long as they were cutting opium production. Then, compare that to China and North Korea killing MILLIONS of their own people through Communist purges and starvation. I can't wait to be enlightened about how the United States is as bad as China, and how since we are imperfect, we have no right to criticize anybody else. No one said we were as bad as them - you made that up in your attempt to skew the argument. You stated that China should be ashamed of supported a horrible regime. We support our own share of horrid regimes. Maybe not individually as bad, but we support a hell of a lot more of them, covering a hell of a lot more people. Should we be ashamed of supporting them? Are you?
On the flip side, I guess I don't exactly understand this long-standing US policy of getting something from the other side first before we give anything back. They call it not succumbing to blackmail but how is giving a security guarantee succumbing to blackmail exactly? That's just saying we won't attack you and, in return, you will verifiably dismantle your nuclear weapons. I mean...the argument is we are enemies so they need these weapons to defend themselves. I'm sure if the positions were reversed the US government would be doing the same thing to defend our country. The difference as I see it is we were there first and have the advantage. So, I can partially see why NK would feel they need these weapons. We are enemies aren't we dating back to the 1950s? The problem I see is if we don't want them to have weapons we should have never let them go this far but we did and now it's almost too late to advert building and/or use of nuclear weapons from them. Clinton would have been better off taking the approach of bombing their nuclear facilities rather than making that frivolous pact which didn't mean s-h-i-t and they admittedly were breaking the entire time with hidden nuclear activities. So, give them their damn security guarantee. Don't give them anything else until they dismantle. If they don't dismantle, then we take it to them I guess because they would have been lying about the security guarantee only to gain further concessions. We will be proving our point and then we can escalate saying we did all we could. If you recall the Cuban Missile crisis...our unwillingness to waver over that situation almost led to a nuclear war. So, what did we do? We made an under-the-table concession which averted a potentially catastrophic war which would have most definitely had serious repurcussions for both sides. It's almost like we're repeating that same process here. So, where is our under-the-table concession here? Are we going to be that pig-headed about this whole thing that were willing to possibly have a nuclear-based conflict because we were unwilling to give a security guarantee? We do have a hostile policy and we want everything our way or no way. That is a recipe for a bad conclusion. The longer this drags on without a solution...the more probable a horrible result will occur. I'm no atomic scientist but...could somebody explain exactly why a security guarantee is such a big deal? Are we really that hell bent on keeping open the option of invading or attacking NK? Wouldn't we rather have a verifiable and unreverseable dismantlement of their nuclear programs. I'm not saying conceed to all their demands. But, if we are unwilling to conceed to anything on our side, then why the hell would they be willing to conceed to anything on their side? The way I see it now is we are enemies who don't agree on anything which puts us in the unenviable position of neither side making concessions and an eventual war to resolve this situation. God help us. And we attacked Iraq?
i don't know this for sure....but i'm guessing it's because when you're the toughest kid on the block, you don't sign away your ability to kick some ass. but i'm no political scientist!
You should be ashamed of your incredible analogies. We gave money to Iraq to help stop radical Islam from spreading to Iran. We helped stablize the region. What was the net effect if countries did not help Saddam during that war? That is the real question. We can't predict the future (although your hindsight is amazingly accurate), nor should we stand by and do nothing when evil presents itself. We saw two evils, and made a judgement call. Once the Iranian threat was contained though, we certainly DID NOT prop up Saddam as China has protected Kim. The same goes for Afghanistan. We saw two evils, and attempted to curb the one we could influence first. In both cases, we tried to be a positive influence on our world. Our intent was benevolent. China has allowed the North Koreans to live and die like dogs for completely selfish reasons. For you to compare our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan to the rape of the North Korean people is mind-boggling.
i hate to contradict you. but the reality is more like: "we have tremendous military assets in the area now, but if WE attempt a move, all OUR men would be dead men." even without the nukes, North Korea has the ability to overrun South Korea and the tens of thousands of U.S. forces near the DMZ in under a week. i kid you not. just pick up any respectable military or intelligence source (Janes, Rand, whatever). they can turn the DMZ and Seoul into one 1000-square mile blazing inferno.... and on top of that, they've got one staunch ally China itching for some payback, backing them up, and now they have nukes too (so i guess you can add Los Angeles to that list of potential graveyards)... there's a reason Bush is treading so lightly with North Korea. they are definitely a force to be reckoned with! especially with the U.S. military strained as it is now with Iraq.
We gave money to Iraq to help stop radical Islam from spreading to Iran. We helped stablize the region. What was the net effect if countries did not help Saddam during that war? That is the real question. We can't predict the future (although your hindsight is amazingly accurate), nor should we stand by and do nothing when evil presents itself. Iran had a <i>populist</I> revolution. As much as we did not agree with it, the people at the time wanted that kind of country. We propped up Iraq to benefit ourselves - certainly not to benefit the Iraqi people or anyone in that region. We wanted to protect our sources of oil and did not want their people to decide what kind of government they had. Defend it all you want - it certainly was good for us - but it was by no means a policy designed to benefit the Iraqi people. We also currently support some cruel regimes in the ME for the exact same reason. At no point in our history, as far as I know, have we made Middle East decisions on the basis of benefitting anyone other than ourselves and our national security. There's nothing wrong with that - but it can't be described as altruistic. The same goes for Afghanistan. We saw two evils, and attempted to curb the one we could influence first. What was the other evil in Afghanistan? I'm not talking about the 1980's. I'm talking about mid-2001. We propped up a regime that knowingly treated their people cruelly and knowingly harbored and supported terrorists. The alternative was worse? In both cases, we tried to be a positive influence on our world. Our intent was benevolent. In both cases, we did what benefitted us the most. China is no different. They believe Communism is the ideal government. They believe that propping up North Korea keeps the dangers of democracy away from their borders. They are doing what they feel is in the best interests of themselves. Re-coloring American foreign policy as guided by benevolence is silly - especially THESE foreign policy decisions which purposely supported ruthless dictators primarily due to benefits they brought & bring us. At no point did we show concern for the people of these countries.
the reason we're hesitant on giving guarantees to N.Korea is because it is one of the worst arms proliferators in the world. biological, chemical, and now potentially nuclear weapons all carried on advanced ballistic missiles and jets (which they sell too). they are totally indiscrimate in terms of customers (Libya, Iraq, even rebel movements in third world countries). North Korea is the ULTIMATE ROGUE STATE. if we sign a non-aggression treaty with North Korea, there is no guaranteeing they'll stop proliferating sarin, anthrax, ballistic missiles, or whatever else is in their current and future arsenal. There's also no guarantee they won't mount a conventional assault on S. Korea or Japan. Nor is there any guarantee they won't maintain a passive nuclear capability (like Japan, i.e. nuclear warheads ready on 3 months notice). until we get similar guarantees on these issues, we likely cannot grant them one either. of course, ideally, they'd be hammering all these details out at the meeting today. but i seriously doubt it. most likely a bunch of posturing and little substance. and before you know it, boom! a mushroom cloud goes up in Korea, and we'd all be "shocked" by the "evil" north koreans...
In fact, About half a year, I have seen a documentary film which was about NK was produced by PhoenixTV of HongKong, in which I felt North Korean people's state of mind looks good. Though they do not have honourable clothes and fashionable food. Though the main responsibility lies in NK itself. western countries have some responsibility too. Because the thinking of the western countries is still in the state of cold war. In fact, The development of China benefits from giveing up the dispute of ideology in 1972. But NK not, because it had been following the Soviet Union all the time. But the Soviet Union is unable even to protect or fend for itself. I not merely hope to see peace hope to see that understand even more in the world.
Because the diplomatic principle of China is never the interference to internal affairs of other countries , but international things should obey UN.
Interesting. I saw a 60 minutes episode last month in which a German doctor secretly filmed what was going on in NK and it wasnt a pretty sight. It appeared the people had no food, as it all went to feeding the army and water was VERY limited. They showed an intresting satelite pic showing the continent at night and NK was pitch black compared to SK which was lit up like a star. The film was smuggled back out of the country after the doctor finished helping the little kids..........very sad
