LA Times Poll Majority in US Not Convinced Iraq War Necessary

Carter in Chile.

Although it wasn't necessarily a 'human rights' issue, Eisenhower supported Egypt against France and England in the Suez Canal crisis.

Somalia and Bosnia are great examples where we did not have strategic or commercial interests and acted for humanitarian interests.

Sanctions against China after Tianamen Square were clearly against our commercial interests, and our criticism of their human rights record continues to work against our commercial interests.

There are many more examples than you would admit, glynch. And it is also true that democratization has closely followed alignment WITH our commercial interests in the last twenty years, so the issues are intersecting in a way you are not accounting for.

 

as is our support for Taiwan.

Good points, HS.

 

Until he actually uses one of the weapons on our people living overseas. I was in support of taking Baghdad 11 years ago.

It is on record that al-Qaeda wasn't a problem until we had bases in Saudi Arabia...which were UN mandated.

Anybody else have a hard time believing this?

 

glynch you don't seem to make the connection that 'corporate interests' are us. you know, 'we the people?' oil for your car? ring a bell? fruit for your grocery store? hello? rubber for your tires and your...well, we won't go there... those mao pj's I'm sure you're wearin' weren't made in the USA, buddy. i seriously doubt you put 'human rights' above 'corporate interests' personally. correct me if I'm wrong and you've thatched your own hut, and don't own a car, and grow your own food etc etc...

corporate interests are some faceless entity. they've got your face too, glynch. unless you're some kinda mountain man that made his laptop and dsl connection out of recycled campbell soup cans.

the US military was created to protect us and our interests. Saddam is no more than a barbary pirate. leave him alone and he's going to continue harming our national interest. he's already doing that. saddam = US troops in Saudi Arabia. US troops in Saudi Arabia = Osama bin crackhead. ObC = 9/11. HE IS ALREADY MORE THAN A THREAT.

 

North Korea is a prime example of why letting things slide is a bad idea. The Korean Peninsula has had troops faced off against each other for better than five decades and it looks like that trend will continue for the forseeable future.

Nice reads on North Korea:
<A HREF="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/DL20Dg03.html">Pyongyang: A blot on the map</A>

<A HREF="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/DL19Ad01.html">North Korea: Alone again, naturally</A>


An older article, but a nice read:

<A HREF="http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/94-470f.htm">NORTH KOREA'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM:
U.S. POLICY OPTIONS</A>

<i>..........U.S. Policy Approaches And Options
Option 1: Wait out North Korea on the assumption that the
regime will not survive long enough to seriously threaten
U.S. or allied interests with its nuclear capability
Option 2: Seek a "comprehensive settlement" of Korean
peninsula issues, primarily through diplomacy
Option 3: Seek economic sanctions under the United Nations
Security Council
Option 4: Military augmentation
Option 5: Counterproliferation strikes against North Korea's
nuclear installations
Option 6: Negotiated reduction of the U.S. military presence
in South Korea...........

<b>OPTION 2: SEEK A "COMPREHENSIVE SETTLEMENT" OF KOREAN PENINSULA ISSUES, PRIMARILY THROUGH DIPLOMACY </b>
........This option assumes that the North Korean program is dangerous, but views that problem in the context of the threat posed by possible misunderstanding and conflict on the peninsula, as well as the burden on South Korea from a sudden North Korean economic collapse. <b>It puts a premium on the need to maintain close consultations and cooperation among the U.S., South Korea, Japan, China and others with a direct interest in the peninsula, and defers as far as seems prudent to the reluctance of these Asian powers to press North Korea on this matter. It also accepts the generally held view of Asian countries that the most feasible solution to the North Korean problem involves efforts to promote change in North Korea's isolated and extremist policies and related political repression in favor of a more open and interdependent approach to the outside world</b>......

<b>OPTION 5: COUNTERPROLIFERATION STRIKES AGAINST NORTH KOREA'S NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS</b>

The confrontation over inspection of North Korea's nuclear facilities comes at a time when the Defense Department has just begun to consider counterproliferation as a potential mission. Counterproliferation, in this context, means military attacks to destroy or neutralize another nation's nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons capabilities.

With North Korea's recent intransigent and sometimes bellicose posture regarding its nuclear program, the possibility of mounting a counterproliferation mission has been raised, but generally considered a last resort. Because counterproliferation missions are a unique concept with little historical precedent, it is difficult to assess what threshold, short of imminent North Korean attack or threatening deployment of nuclear weapons, should be set for the decision to undertake them.(43) Though the United States and its allies targeted some suspected Iraqi weapons facilities in the Persian Gulf War, these strikes were part of a larger overall war effort and no nuclear weapons facilities were struck.

That the intended targets would be nuclear reactors or weapons facilities would appear to rule out airstrikes alone, and require the insertion of special operations-type forces and nuclear specialists for whatever time is required to neutralize the weapons or facilities -- assuming North Korean defenses could be breached.(44) In order to avoid the widespread contamination that could arise from attacking the operating reactor or reprocessing plant, the attack presumably would be aimed at support equipment such as power systems. Much of the equipment connected with the Yongbyon reactor and reprocessing facility is not hardened, so in theory the operations could stopped without creating a "meltdown" or radiation threat. However, it can also be expected that subsequent extraction of U.S. forces would prove considerably more difficult than the initial assault.

Though counterproliferation missions are described as limited military missions in terms of objectives, duration, and forces involved the targeted country would presumably consider the attacks an act of war. The tactical success of counterproliferation mission could be lost in the consequences of another war on the Korean peninsula. Hence, in the North Korean case, such a mission would probably have to be considered not as an isolated military operation, but rather as part of a larger regional military strategic plan.

A counterproliferation mission in North Korea would also raise constitutional and international legal questions. First, what basis would President Clinton use to order such attacks, apart from his powers as Commander-in-Chief? Would defense of U.S. forces stationed in Korea be sufficient? What form of congressional approval or consultation would be required in advance for a military action that could result in a larger-scale conflict? Second, it is not clear what basis in international law exists for counterproliferation missions. They are not included as enforcement measures in the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, or any other arms proliferation agreement. Though, theoretically, United Nations Security Council support or authorization could be sought, the likelihood of receiving it appears low, especially given China's ability to veto such a resolution. The UN's recent reticence about taking military action in Bosnia also does not augur well for a decision to support the use of force. Without such sanction, the United States could find it difficult to justify its actions to the international community and perhaps a significant segment of the American public.........</i>


What scenario do you feel most comfortable with in regards to dealing with North Korea?

 

That unless Saddam invades Iran again.

Invading Iran == GOOD.

Invading Kuwait == BAD.

 

Would you like to hazard a guess about what our batting average is here? How many countries have we ignored?

 

glynch,

You need to drop those preconditions before you can become the true liberal everybody wants you to be.

 

If the South Koreans elect some more anti-American politicians and continue to protest our presence there, I'm all for unilateral withdrawal and let South Korea, Japan and China handle it themselves.

 

No Worries,

If I recall correctly, glynch was a 'conscientous objector' in the Vietnam era. Is that the stance of a MODERATE?

 

If I recall correctly, glynch was a 'conscientous objector' in the Vietnam era. Is that the stance of a MODERATE
At the beginning of the Vet Nam War, this would definitely be liberal.

By the end of the war, this would be less so.

BTW, I could see an ultra-right Christian Conservative being a conscientous objector. You know the bible does say "Thou shall not kill".

 

I'm pretty sure you would have a hard time finding any historical reference to "moderates" during the Vietnam era opting out of the draft on (so-called) ideological grounds. You're just being absurd. Glynch would not fall under any political definition of a moderate. His views are much to far left of the center for that.

 

HayesStreet,

I (born in 1960) was still a kid when the Viet Nam war was over. But I do know that the war was very unpopular, more so very year it went on. It is not a far stretch to say that moderate, middle-of-the-road Americans did not support the war.

I realize that not supporting the Viet Nam war and being a "conscientous objector" are not the same thing. I do not know glynch or his reasonings for being a conscientous objector. But the View Nam war was a time when a lot young men ran to Canada, got a very thorough education, joined the National Guard, purposely failed their physical, etc. to avoid the war. Our current President avoided the war and I would not say that he was a liberal for doing so.

Finally, the Viet Nam war was a very long time ago. People do change over time. Today's glynch whose posts I have read is a not a hard core liberal. Maybe he was during the Viet Nam war, but today he is not.

 

Can I borrow your reading glasses?

 

I don't know why this thread is going there, but whatever...

Which of glynch's opinions indicate that he's a moderate?

 

Which of glynch's opinions indicate that he is a hard core liberal?

 

All of them so far.

 

No problem on the time lag. We don't all live with this bbs open ...

Re: Haig - "Peace through Strength" pretty much caught me as an appropriate sentiment. Haig's foreign policy was pretty much spot on for me at the time. He got a bum wrap for the "i'm in control" controversy. He meant to reassure the public by letting them know there was someone in Washington that was on top of things. If I recall correctly Bush was in the air at the time Reagan got shot and out of DC. In addition, there was still a Cold War on and there was still a lot of concern over the US looking like there was no one in charge vis-a-vis the Soviets. The media latched onto it and crucified him for it. Although if one were to examine his service for the government, they would see that he was not a warmonger, despite his military background (see his shuttle diplomacy between Argentina and the UK during the Falkland War). At the time I was generally on board with Republicans domestically because Mondale and then the likely Democratic candidate Dukakis were so pathetic.