Pacifists...don't watch History Channel right now...

Achebe, where did you get that Rumsfeld quote?

 

1. not this republican...i'm with you...let's take jackasses like that out.

2. so do you favor attack on iraq then?? i mean, if they're doing all the awful things talked about, aren't they deserving of an ass-whipping?

3. i don't see n.korea openly inviting war with us...they can be bought. ...and there are other countries in the region who are taking a role in resolving the issue diplomatically. we don't have that in the mideast, unfortunately.

 

I guess I'm a little puzzled, Cohen. The second part of your reply to Timing lists all the reasons why our carrier battle groups, fleets of Air Force fighters and bombers, and tens of thousnds of Army and Marine troops should be going to the Korean region... not the Middle East to invade Iraq... at least not now.

What's the point of comparing terror techniques? Is what Saddam doing worse than starving 2 MILLION people to death to feed the elite and massive military that North Korea has RIGHT NOW?

Is it in our interest to have a Japan with nuclear weapons? Is it in the interest of other countries, like China and Russia, for that to occur? Is it in OUR long-term interest? Because Japan will build them quickly if North Korea keeps building nukes and the missles to carry them great distances. And they are busy doing that NOW, not some years down the road by a country whose military has been eviscerated and is partially "occupied" by the U.S. and some of our friends and surrogates already. Because, in a sense, that's what we've done with the no-fly zones.

The rulers of North Korea are mad.. Saddam is mad. Who is the greater threat to US??

I think the answer is clear.

 

I hope you're not seriously advocating military action against the DPRK. Please understand what that will entail - a shooting war (with a 75+% chance of going nuclear) involving the US, China, both Koreas, Taiwan and possibly Japan. Diplomacy is the only course of action in regards to the DPRK because military action would create a much more horrific set of circumstances.

Here's an interesting article on the Korea situation:

http://www.rhinotimes.com/greensboro/osc2.html

Why We Won’t Invade North Korea
By Orson Scott Card

We’ve been hearing it from a lot of anti-Bush commentators – including some who should know better:

“Why are we preparing to invade Iraq, which has no nukes yet, when we’re using diplomacy with North Korea, which actually has them?”

Of course, you can take that as a self-answering question. Let’s see – which is safer to invade, the country that almost has nukes, or the country that already has them? But the real answer is much more complicated.

First, let’s keep in mind what we’re actually trying to accomplish in Iraq. We aren’t preparing to invade because Saddam Hussein’s been a bad boy, or because we want to have an America colony in Mesopotamia. It’s not a punishment, it’s not retribution. It’s prevention. You can’t fight a war to prevent something that’s already happened. Preventive war to keep North Korea from getting nukes is impossible. At the same time, it is absolutely imperative that North Korea’s nukes be neutralized. But how is that to be done?

For some Americans, the first thought is, “Send in the Marines!” But military action should never be the first resort. Every time you use military force, you teach your enemies how to defeat you the next time. The best use of military force is to create the impression of invincibility – and then avoid testing it. Conventional military action is not quite the last resort, however. I would put “nuking them back to the Stone Age” even farther down the list. Even lower than “sending Bill Clinton to negotiate another great treaty.”

Most people don’t understand what President Bush means when he says that we will pursue a “diplomatic solution.” He doesn’t mean that we’ll negotiate with North Korea. What would be the point of that? They don’t keep their treaties anyway. The diplomacy that will solve the problem is happening right now – between us and China.

That’s right, China. Because this is China’s problem as much as it is ours.

The only reason North Korea exists as a separate political entity is because in the early ’50s, when UN forces had virtually overrun all of North Korea, China sent a huge army that flung us back south. Only when each army held roughly the territory that had been North or South Korea before the war did the Chinese agree to an armistice. This was a huge victory for China, and it remains one of the proudest moments in their history. Never mind that it has meant 50 years of desperate poverty and utter lack of freedom, while being forced to virtually worship a couple of megalomaniacal dictators. China beat the US-led allies and kept North Korea safe for communism.

Do you think there’s even the slightest chance that China would let the US conduct any kind of military action against North Korea without massive retaliation? At the very least, there would be a prompt invasion of Taiwan. At the worst, it might mean some level of nuclear war – certainly against South Korea, and quite possibly against Japan and even the US.

Foreign policy is conducted in the real world. In the real world, madmen like Saddam Hussein respond only to credible military force – and sometimes not even then. For the safety of our friends and allies in the region (notably Israel, Turkey, Jordan and Kuwait), and to protect the First World’s vital oil supplies from domination by a ruthless enemy, it is reasonable to strike that enemy before he wreaks devastation again.

In that same real world, however, there are opponents whom it is simply too dangerous to fight, unless you are forced into it. If China or Russia attacked us, of course we would defend ourselves. But we would have to be insane to provoke either of them into war. That’s why we left Russia to deal with Chechnya without our interference while using military force to protect Bosnia and Kosovo from the Serbs.

Does this mean that we’re like bullies, picking on the little guys while leaving really dangerous enemies alone? Not at all. It means that while we have a moral responsibility to prevent truly dangerous or evil actions wherever it is within our power to do so, we can’t do it where it is not within our power without unleashing worse evils on the world. Militarily challenging Russia over Chechnya would almost certainly have plunged the world into a massive war, to no good end. Likewise, taking military action in North Korea would lead to immediate war with China. And sane people don’t want that.

So what do our negotiations with China consist of? Cutting through all the diplomatic niceness, here’s what we undoubtedly said to them:

“You’re the ones who kept us from getting rid of the Kim dictatorship 50 years ago. So now it’s your responsibility either to take away their nukes, or get rid of the Kim government and replace it with a sane one.”

To which the Chinese almost certainly replied, “Perhaps we can work something out. You can take the first step by withdrawing all military support from Taiwan. After all, why should we be responsible for North Korea, which isn’t part of China, while you won’t let us take responsibility for Taiwan, which is an integral part of China?”

Our reply: “We will not discuss Taiwan.”

Their reply: “Then we will not discuss North Korea.”

All this was absolutely predictable and led nowhere. Here’s how we raised the ante: “All right. Since you have allowed North Korea to develop and build nuclear weapons, while we have prevented the much-more-technologically-advanced South Koreans from doing so, we have no choice but to level the playing field so that North Korea will not be able to threaten our allies.”

Those options would include:

(1) Stationing tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea ... with the option of placing them under the control of the South Koreans.

(2) An embargo – or even a blockade – of North Korea’s ports, so that China becomes the sole supplier of all goods to North Korea.

(3) Holding China economically responsible by cutting back – or cutting off – trade between the US and China.

None of these options would be tolerable to the Chinese. Putting nukes in South Korea would humiliate the Chinese leadership. Putting them under South Korean command would terrify them. Economic sanctions against North Korea would force China, whose economy is not all that robust, to assume the huge burden of keeping North Korea afloat the way the USSR did with Cuba for so many years. As for sanctions against China itself – its economy has become significantly tied to trade with the US. America could trigger a major recession or perhaps even a depression in China, even if we couldn’t persuade other economic powers to join with us.

Now, the Chinese know that none of these options would be painless for us. Stationing nukes in South Korea would provoke massive anti-American demonstrations in that country and in Japan as well. An embargo against North Korea would be slow and sievelike, while a blockade would be casus belli and lead to confrontations between us and friendly powers. And a cutback in US-China trade would hurt our economy, too, and there are those who think our own highly-evolved economy is less resilient than China’s more primitive one. (I think, however, that they are wrong.)

But even though the Chinese know that we are reluctant to use any of these options, they also know that President Bush means what he says, and, because he is his father’s son, they believe he will act on his threats even if it means political risks.

And there is another factor that the Chinese leadership always has to keep in mind: the possibility that any of these events might trigger domestic disturbances, a coup or even a revolution within China. Dictators live in constant terror of a mob of civilians swarming through their palaces or office buildings, dragging the dictators out into the streets, and killing them. The Chinese have very clear memories of what happened when communism fell in Romania. That’s why they ordered soldiers to fire on their own people in Tiananmen Square. But they’d rather avoid any possibility of this. So at some point, if they believe that we are sufficiently earnest about the urgency of neutralizing North Korea’s nuclear threat, they will decide that it is in their best interests to do something about North Korea.

And here’s what they’ll do. They’ll talk to Kim and let him know that he has two choices.

(1) Kim lets the Chinese come in and take away his nukes and run his nuclear reactors and make sure he never gets nukes again. In exchange, the Chinese will make loud public guarantees that North Korea is now under their nuclear umbrella, so that there is no need for North Korea to have its own nuclear program.

(2) The Chinese cut him off from all economic and military aid from any source, and let it be known that they very much want a new, anti-nuke government in Pyongyang. Kim knows he wouldn’t last a week before one of his enterprising generals – perhaps one of those already in the pay of Beijing – decided that a change of government was in order.

One way or another, North Korea would be de-nuked. And it would all be done through diplomacy.

The reason none of this could work with Iraq is that there is no power in the Middle East comparable to China’s situation vis-à-vis North Korea. We are the only nation that can put a stop to Saddam’s ambitions.

But the key, of course, is that none of these conversations would take place in public. China can only bend to US pressure when they are not seen to be bending to US pressure. In other words, if President Bush openly threatened China, then China could not cooperate with us without losing face – with the risk of a coup. That is why President Bush cannot answer his critics. There is no answer he could give that would not wreck the diplomatic process.

When an American pundit or politician criticizes President Bush for being a hypocrite or a bully because he’s using diplomacy with North Korea and the threat of war with Iraq, it tells us one of two things: either the critic is hopelessly ignorant about geopolitical and diplomatic realities … or the critic knows that President Bush cannot respond to his criticism, and therefore the critic can make political profit at the expense of American foreign policy.

In other words, those who make this particular accusation against the president are either squirrels or snakes: either chattering stupidly or poisonously biting the president while he’s trying to protect us and our friends from a serious danger. I prefer to think that these critics simply haven’t thought things through. And I’m happy to point out that few of those who have made this particular accusation are responsible officeholders.

You don’t throw rocks at the guy who’s trying to tame the tiger.

And what about me? Haven’t I just made all those private negotiations public?

Of course not. The Chinese don’t care what I say. I don’t speak for the government. I don’t have any contacts in the White House or the State Department.

I’m just a guy who knows how to read a map.

 

pacifist - adj : opposed to war [syn: pacifist(a), pacifistic] n : someone opposed to violence as a means of settling disputes

 

So today we get dueling authors??

I'm a big fan of the writing of John le Carre ("The Spy Who Came in from the Cold") and Orson Scott Card ("Ender's Game"). Both are very good at expressing their opinions. I agree more with le Carre than Card as far as the opinions go.

Do I seriously advocate military action against North Korea? No, although it may come to that at some point, if we're not careful or the North Koreans and their friends miscalculate our resolve.

What I DO advocate is a military buildup to put pressure on North Korea and China. China no more wants war in the Korean Peninsula than we do. But do we want North Korea officially "under China's nuclear umbrella", as Card advocates? With the same mad government and massive military... and the same millions of starving people? This would be good for the region? Japan with nuclear missles would be good for the region?

I don't think so. And if we don't show our resolve then we are a paper tiger. We need to focus their attention. I just wish we had a different fellow in charge. I wonder what John McCain would be doing?

edit- having just read your post, Cohen, I'll be sure to take you as seriously in the future as you take me.

 

Cohen, I think it is time for one of your token posts proclaiming compassion for the suffering of Palestinians, while shooting down any action on the US's part that would pressure Sharon and Israel off the status quo.

It is interesting how you claim to want war to help the Iraqis, but oppose limiting economic aid to Israel, a reduction of weapons sales, international peacekeepers or virtually any other tough meaningful nonviolent action, to help resolve the Palestinian impasse.

Your own double standard in the region is why most of the world doubts the claim of conservatives in the US that they are invading Iraq because they are so concerned about the state of human rights in the Middle East and Iraq.

 

Cohen, you assume too much. I am simply tired of disingenuous people who simply use human rights violations to "pile-on". The president is incredibly anxious about Iraq, when he would never use your sympathy based intuitions to wage war upon other peoples. Call a spade a spade. And don't criticize humanitarian efforts in Somalia when those times come upon us (there's a genocide going on in Zimbabwe, right now, btw... please correct your knowledge vacuum ; my quote was funny in and of itself when you're like me {aware of the dichotomy in reports} but convinced that we'll be cowboys w/ Iraq regardless... ). Since the president is obviously not going to break international laws everytime a humanitarian need arises, why do so now? What is the litmus test Cohen? The ads say 'democracy' Cohen. Let's be honest with ourselves. Are we going there to free the Iraqi people? Of course not. Are we going there for oil? Well, it most definitely helps. Are we going there for Israel? You betcha. Its a hell of an exit strategy, even if its 200 years in advance. You bring democracy to the sand people, and maybe everything will pan out within a millenia.

We are doing a lot of things behind the flag right now, and the President is ****ing lying to the American people. You guys won the midterms b/c the President ran on the friggin' flag. Are we fighting a war because it protects American interests? Insofar as New York is considered "Jewish", I guess. Insofar as we support a tiny little colony in the middle of hostile neighbors, I guess. Insofar as we will appease the Saudi Arabians by not holding them to the same bar, in the 'war against terrorism', I guess.... or placating them by regime change of their b*stard cousin, I guess.

There are a lot of upsides to a war in Iraq, Cohen, but don't delude yourself into thinking that it has much if anything to do with humanitarian efforts. Kissinger nailed that quote 20+ years ago when we turned our back on the Kurds in one of many times.

ps, The reservation that people with common sense express is simply the balancing act between obeying international law (lest another powerful country, ie China, do whatever the hell it wants to in preemptive strikes "hey lookie there... they, err... are... er, they have weapons, war-sorb them!!") and the alternative wins one can incur (longterm peace in the middle east, and perhaps one of the largest oil reserves in the Middle East -- don't buy the Saudi news releases... Iraq is speculative (in our eyes, I'm starting to sound like Christopher Columbus "hey I discovered you"), but the ichnologists/petrologists I've queried suggest that it will perhaps dwarf Saudi Arabia)

ps2, heyp... that quote was on cnn last night

ps3, madmax, let's go to Zimbabwe! The president there, (I'll get the tnr link later) essentially said "uhhh... we have too many people (12 million), we'll do better with, about 6 million". They now only sell grains to people of a certain dialect.

 

-lost my connection-
bravo glynch.

Cohen,
N. Korea is very much a tyrant that shot missiles over friggin' Japan a few years ago. They mock US policy and only further anti-US sentiment, as we focus in on Iraq, furthering the point in many eyes that this is a war on Islam (which I suppose it must be).

Iraq cowers before us, N. Korea is asking for war. Get a clue. Iraq's acquiescence isn't noble in the eyes of those who will attack us, they look to N. Korea, who is a bastion of strength in their eyes. Anybody that fights the bully is the hero. And hell, look at the plan laid before you! Get nuclear weapons and the US backs off.

ps, N. Korea has prison camps, they enslave people, yadda yadda yadda. Since it's Asian on Asian violence rather than Muslim on whomever violence it doesn't spur your compassion. Pity.

ps2, Honestly, listening to McCain this weekend... w/ a bunch of other research... it seemed rather clear that N. Korea needs to be dealt with in a severe manner. What is the foreign policy? War w/ N. Korea increasingly becomes a just war...

 

Bush needs a big flag waving inspiring easy victory over Iraq.

The Far East tends to breed a much tougher soldier than the middle east and the terrain in Korea does not favor a quick paced easy victory over an outgunned and outskilled opponent.

Let me break it down real fast.

The Korean terrain only favors a quick offensive in the winter months while the rice paddies are frozen. Winter is the worst time for America to go to war with North Korea because it takes a great deal of time to move our Armor divisions from the U.S. North Korean armor units would have a great advantage during the 4-6 weeks it would take for us to get a significant heavy force on the korean peninsula. Needless to say the south korean and u.s. military would take some pretty heavy casualties holding back the north korean army during this time period, not to mention the civilian losses in a war like this would be unacceptably high from a political standpoint.

So for now we stall for time waiting for the ice to melt because it's easier to defend the worlds most fortified border during the summer.



Iraq can be rolled up any time of the year because the climate between winter and summer doesn't change the terrain obstacles very much.