10-02-2005 18:47									#31
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat This just proves that if we were going to take preemptive action, we should have done back in the Clinton Admin when NK did not have nukes yet.

You forget the 40,000 artillery peices pointed at Seoul.

	10-02-2005 18:49									#32
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara You forget the 40,000 artillery peices pointed at Seoul.

I'm always forgetting them, especially at Christmas time.

I'll put them on my shopping list, and tie a knot in my handkerchief too.

	10-02-2005 19:03									#33
	Put an end to popups!

wow

he has a nuke!!!

hm...

he can't do anything with it or he ends up being glass himself.
but he has ensured his survival this way. so no more bullying by the USA.

oh and cybershy, you do have to explain me sometime on which trees sadam could have grown his WoMD.

	10-02-2005 19:53									#34
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by DRoseDARs Hold judgement until they provide verifiable proof, preferably not in the form of a mushroom cloud...

all they gotta do is test one, and the evidence will be all over every seismograph in the world.

	10-02-2005 20:08									#35
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by dannubis oh and cybershy, you do have to explain me sometime on which trees sadam could have grown his WoMD.

The same trees he had grown the WMD that hitted Iran and the kurts with on pherhaps?

quote: They agreed to stop plutonium processing and researching plutonium bombs, which they did, until Bush's announcement in 2001 that they weren't going to continue working with the DPRK and then the 2002 SoU speech.

Nope, after that speech Kim decided to let the world know that he stopped stopping while he actually had already stopped at that very moment.
The Bush speech came at the very right moment to make it public, since the world would blame Bush.

Apparantly you're a good Kim Jon Il puppy

	10-02-2005 20:15									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I think until they test one, their claims should not be taken at face value. That said, this was to be expected- this admin. was utterly unwilling to use carrots, and simply could not countenance using the military option (neighbors were not interested, and they would bear the full brunt of a heavy retaliation).

The question is, what we do now. NK had left the NPT so for all intents and prusposes, they are like India, Israel and Pakistan now. and asking for UN sanctions has no legal basis, nor again are the Chinese going to agree anyways. I wonder how Kim thinks this helps him as a barganing tool?

The lesson from this, I think, is that the US should get off its ass and start talking directly to Tehran-maybe even restart diplomatic relations. The military stick vs Iran will most likely fail, and even if we "succeeded", asll we would do is slow Tehran, not stop them, just like Israels attack vs Iraq slowed them down, but never stopped Iraq. Strict sanctions are unlikely given the worlds need for Oil (you can just see China again saying no- they can;t afford oil being more expensive and its not like Iranian nukes mean a damn to them). So what do we have left, specially since Iran has the power to make our two local experiments go sour.

This country would gain a alot more from talking with Tehran than just sitting calling them names-its counterproductive and won't lead anywhere. Trying to wait out the clock for a new Revolution in Iran is not particulalry the wisests course, even if one sooner or later is likely.

	10-02-2005 20:16									#37
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy Nope, after that speech Kim decided to let the world know that he stopped stopping while he actually had already stopped at that very moment. The Bush speech came at the very right moment to make it public, since the world would blame Bush.

Typical conservative, takes a bit of information, and invents a whole new reality to fit his preconceptions. Yes, I know you conservatives think the DPRK snowed the U.S., but they didn't. They followed the agreements to the letter, meaning that they pursued the technology that was still open to them.

Let me put this in a simple expression, to see if you can understand it.

US + DPRK agreement = no plutonium processing & no plutonium bombs

US + DPRK agreement != no uranium processing and no uranium bombs

So, DPRK stops processing plutonium and plutonium bombs.

The DPRK continues to process uranium and researching uranium bombs.

This means the DPRK was adhering to the agreement.

Conservatives, however, did their typical bait-and-switch, i.e., OMFG, the DPRK are teh suxors, they are buidling teh nuclear bombs, which they said they wouldn't do!

But you are wrong, they only agree not to pursue a type of nuke tech.

After the Bush statements of 2001-2, the DPRK resumed its plutonium research and completed its bombs . . . with help from our ally Pakistan.

	10-02-2005 20:25									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Actually Che, NK did break its 1994 agreement, in so far as in 1994 it agreed to honor its 1992 aggrement with South Korea not to seek any nuclear technology, including the enrichment of Uranium.

Currently it seems both SK and NK broke that agreement to diferent degreees, but NK was still in violation of the 1992 agreement with SK, which it had reaffirmed in 1994.

That said, the Uranium program was years away from achieveing anything- was it the best of all solutions to bargain with the NK to make them give it up? NO, but the admin. refused all neogtiations, thought it defeat of Iraq and its rhetoric would scare NK into complying, but all it did was scare NK into moving forward, and we went from them being in the NPT and years away from a bomb as long as its plutonium stocks remained under active IAEA inspections to them leaving the NPT, kicking out the IAEA, taking it plutonium out for reprocessing, which would give them bomb materials for several bombs in a few months, not years, AND they retained their Uranium program.

So can anyone explain to me what actually we gained by refusing to negotiate with NK, when attacking them militarilly was always the least plausible and probable action??

	10-02-2005 20:51									#39
	Full PM-box? Change here!

It's amazing how some people are able to reason in such a way that Kim Jon Il apparantly was made to start his nuclear programm by evil Bush, and how Kim would have never done anything like that without Bush his speach, and after that coming up with phrases like: "Let me put this in a simple expression, to see if you can understand it."

I'm sorry, but you apparantly are living in some theoretical world in which everything works according to your ideas. So, tell me, Iraq was a nice place to live before Bush invaded it, right? And the Dear Leader actually IS a dear leader? Right?

It's because of people like you that NK has nuclear weapons right now.

	10-02-2005 20:58									#40
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by GePap So can anyone explain to me what actually we gained by refusing to negotiate with NK, when attacking them militarilly was always the least plausible and probable action??

How could the DPRK pull out of talks if we weren't talking with them?

quote: That will (Hopefully) be a major blow to the Sunshine Policy

Why on earth would you think that? It isn't as if this is the first, second, or even the third time the DPRK has spit on them. They always keep coming back.

	10-02-2005 21:04									#41
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker **** has hit the fan!!!!!!

No, I don't think so. They periodically do this because they want to throw temper-tantrums to get more aid. The problem is we give aid then they reneg on agreements. The logical solution is to stop playing ball with them and give them nothing. We get nothing for our aid anyway and the balance of forces insures they won't launch a war and will instead just keep ranting and raving.

	10-02-2005 21:06									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

1. We have agreed to negotiate with them, but insisted on doing so multilaterally rather than unilaterally as they insisted - so that it wouldnt be a "What bribes can the US give them to get them to stop" but a "this is a regional problem and all these guys want you to stop". Giving bribes to nuclear seeking states that you wouldnt give to other states sets a bad precedent, and incentivizes borderline countries to seek nukes. If such bribes must be given, its preferable that they come from locals, not the US, to avoid setting global precedents.

2. They announced this in private earlier. This is only the first time theyve said it in public. They seem to think making announcements like this will get concessions.

3. Sanctions against Iran will certainly not be focused on oil exports - oil is fungible and difficult to sanction, short of a blockade that I think is MOST unlikely. More likely would be sanctions on investments in Iran, which Iran needs to combat its unemployment problem - a problem that threatens the regime. If they are really rational, as some have said, the choice there should be fairly clear. OTOH it may be difficult to get such sanctions passed - even if the EU3 support it, Russia and China might veto.

4. A meaningful US-Iran deal would have to go beyond nukes - if we're going offer them diplo relations, trade, etc theyre going to have to drop support for terror groups that are attempting to derail the Israeli-Pal peace process. I have a hard time seeing the Iranians doing that for anything we'd offer them. I presume we'd have to drop any insistence on human rights reforms inside Iran - which I would find troubling - and from a realpolitik perspective, could harm our relations with the regime that succeeds the Mullahs. Havent we been down that road before?

5. WRT to Nkor - at some point China has to decided whether whatever it gets by supporting NKor is worth a nuclear armed Japan. IF China decides to take on Nkor that regime would go down very fast. So far China, like SKor, has preferred Kim to chaos. Time for China to relook. (Time also for Rice to go to China, and to look at a grand bargain of some kind there - much more valuable than a grand bargain with Iran)

	10-02-2005 21:17									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Gatekeeper Now if only America could get a missile defense shield that actually worked.

There is zero need for one for the same reasons there was no need for one against the USSR. The NK has 1-5 nukes and we know their return address so we'd strike back with thousands of nukes. They are silly but not stupid.

	10-02-2005 21:19									#44
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc How could the DPRK pull out of talks if we weren't talking with them?

Eventually the administration agreed to inderect discussions with NK, after it had pulled out of the NPT and kicked out thye IAEA. That is a bit too late.

	10-02-2005 21:36									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark 1. We have agreed to negotiate with them, but insisted on doing so multilaterally rather than unilaterally as they insisted - so that it wouldnt be a "What bribes can the US give them to get them to stop" but a "this is a regional problem and all these guys want you to stop". Giving bribes to nuclear seeking states that you wouldnt give to other states sets a bad precedent, and incentivizes borderline countries to seek nukes. If such bribes must be given, its preferable that they come from locals, not the US, to avoid setting global precedents.

Global precendent? As oposed to the current global precedent, that if you are scary enough, you get to have nukes anyways? Our bribes to them in 1994 do not seem to have pushed anyone towards getting nukes, which remains a singulalrly expensive and diffciult task- only countries that are rich enough or advanced enough even have a chance, and the fact is, once you are in a position to get nukes anyways, by buying or making them locally, you are already more than just some tin pot dictatorship. As for it being preferable for it to come from "locals" (powers like Japan, China, and SK hardly seem just "locals") have their own interests, None of them called NK evil and said them getting nuclear weapons was an utter no-no they would never allow it. It was the US that said that. Essentially you are saying we can speak our ass off and demands others pony up for OUR actions? Not a very wise mode of international relations.

quote: 2. They announced this in private earlier. This is only the first time theyve said it in public. They seem to think making announcements like this will get concessions.

Private and public are different things. Private secret, public scandal.

quote: 3. Sanctions against Iran will certainly not be focused on oil exports - oil is fungible and difficult to sanction, short of a blockade that I think is MOST unlikely. More likely would be sanctions on investments in Iran, which Iran needs to combat its unemployment problem - a problem that threatens the regime. If they are really rational, as some have said, the choice there should be fairly clear. OTOH it may be difficult to get such sanctions passed - even if the EU3 support it, Russia and China might veto.

China and Russia both have reason to invest in Iran. More importantly, sanctions are likely to fail, in the sense that if they are placed, it just gives the regime a bigger reaosn to speed up its program. Hoping for a counterrevolution in Iran is a poor strategy at best. Its also counterproductive to our aims in the region- I doubt greater Iranian poverty is a boon in any way to Iraq or Afghanistan.

quote: 4. A meaningful US-Iran deal would have to go beyond nukes - if we're going offer them diplo relations, trade, etc theyre going to have to drop support for terror groups that are attempting to derail the Israeli-Pal peace process. I have a hard time seeing the Iranians doing that for anything we'd offer them. I presume we'd have to drop any insistence on human rights reforms inside Iran - which I would find troubling - and from a realpolitik perspective, could harm our relations with the regime that succeeds the Mullahs. Havent we been down that road before?

Why drop the HR speak? We have relations with China and we criticize them all the time for humans rights abuses. Our talking about Chinas attorcious HR record has done nothing to make it impossible to work with them. As for what the Iranians are willing to do, you know what? You learn only from asking in the first place. And on your final point- as I said, I find no reason to drop our ciritcisms of their regime or their laws, and there is a huge difference between being the arms dealers and main international backers of a regime (as we are with KSA and Egypt and were with Iran under the Shah) as having an embassy and trade. Do you honeslty think the people of Iran will be anti UK or Anti-German because they trade with the Mullahs as they did with the Shah?

quote: 5. WRT to Nkor - at some point China has to decided whether whatever it gets by supporting NKor is worth a nuclear armed Japan. IF China decides to take on Nkor that regime would go down very fast. So far China, like SKor, has preferred Kim to chaos. Time for China to relook. (Time also for Rice to go to China, and to look at a grand bargain of some kind there - much more valuable than a grand bargain with Iran)

Why would China ever chose chaos? Freedom and democracy in NK mean nothing to them- as for a remilitarized and nuclear Japan, well, NK makes a handy trobulemaker and scapegoat, plus, that is great news for the Chinese in the sense that it reoppens the Japanese menace, against which the brave Chinese people must rally around the Party and not rock the boat and endanger national security when it comes to the Japanese. Besides, on that end SK is also opposed to a nuclear Japan, so a remilitarized Japan if anything might help to break the togetherness of the US northwest Asian allies, and make it easier in a sense for China.

And what can we offer China that is more valuable than keeping Korea quiet? Drop support for Taiwan perhaps, or sell them arms?

	10-02-2005 21:54									#46
	Support Apolyton

it's interesting

I was just talking to my freind, from South Korea

she thought that NK needed nukes, to protect itself against the US (and other big countries)

when I asked her about the point that we were in SK to protect it from NK, she said that it was to defend itself economically, and in case the US creates some issue (like in Iraq)

she was also very sure of the fact that SK and NK should join back up

Jon Miller

	10-02-2005 22:26									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Global precendent? As oposed to the current global precedent, that if you are scary enough, you get to have nukes anyways?

LOTM - theres a difference between allowing, and offering a bribe.


Our bribes to them in 1994 do not seem to have pushed anyone towards getting nukes, which remains a singulalrly expensive and diffciult task- only countries that are rich enough or advanced enough even have a chance,

LOTM - NKor is advanced? Rich?


and the fact is, once you are in a position to get nukes anyways, by buying or making them locally, you are already more than just some tin pot dictatorship. As for it being preferable for it to come from "locals" (powers like Japan, China, and SK hardly seem just "locals")

LOTM - by contrast to the US.


have their own interests,

LOTM- of course.

None of them called NK evil

LOTM - so its all about word choice in that damned speech? I dont buy it.

and said them getting nuclear weapons was an utter no-no they would never allow it.

LOTM - theyre hardly in a position to "not allow it"

It was the US that said that. Essentially you are saying we can speak our ass off and demands others pony up for OUR actions? Not a very wise mode of international relations.


LOTM - pushing for multilateral talks was hardly demanding others pony up. In fact the neighbors all supported multilateral talks. It was NKors resistance that delayed them, not resistance from Japan or Skor.



China and Russia both have reason to invest in Iran. More importantly, sanctions are likely to fail, in the sense that if they are placed, it just gives the regime a bigger reaosn to speed up its program.


LOTM - or to drop the program. Depends on how much they value the investments.


Hoping for a counterrevolution in Iran is a poor strategy at best.


LOTM - thats really difficult to say. Public source info on the situation within Iran is limited. I hope someone in the US govt has info that is better.

Its also counterproductive to our aims in the region- I doubt greater Iranian poverty is a boon in any way to Iraq or Afghanistan.

LOTM - the value of Iran as an engine for growth in Iraq and Afghanistan is marginal compared to our other issues wrt to Iran. Economic growth in Iraq is largely constrained by security - Iraqs principal export is oil, of which Iran is NOT an importer.



Why drop the HR speak? We have relations with China and we criticize them all the time for humans rights abuses. Our talking about Chinas attorcious HR record has done nothing to make it impossible to work with them.


LOTM - i wasnt referring to talk, but to insistence on HR improvements as PART of a deal. I dont think theyd agree to THAT.



And on your final point- as I said, I find no reason to drop our ciritcisms of their regime or their laws, and there is a huge difference between being the arms dealers and main international backers of a regime (as we are with KSA and Egypt and were with Iran under the Shah) as having an embassy and trade. Do you honeslty think the people of Iran will be anti UK or Anti-German because they trade with the Mullahs as they did with the Shah?


LOTM - depends on the situation. If they think theyre on the point of a revolution, and are counting on our continued encouragement, they could well be very concerned.



Why would China ever chose chaos? Freedom and democracy in NK mean nothing to them- as for a remilitarized and nuclear Japan, well, NK makes a handy trobulemaker and scapegoat, plus, that is great news for the Chinese in the sense that it reoppens the Japanese menace, against which the brave Chinese people must rally around the Party and not rock the boat and endanger national security when it comes to the Japanese.

LOTM - or the Chinese people could ask why the leadership screwed up and followed a path that led to a rearmed Japan in the first place. I think the domestic effects in China are probably awash. Certainly not worth the REAL costs to China of a rearmed Japan.


Besides, on that end SK is also opposed to a nuclear Japan, so a remilitarized Japan if anything might help to break the togetherness of the US northwest Asian allies, and make it easier in a sense for China.


LOTM - except Skor is not a threat to China. And if Nkor goes nuclear, they may decide to live with a nuclear Japan.


And what can we offer China that is more valuable than keeping Korea quiet? Drop support for Taiwan perhaps, or sell them arms?

LOTM - I presume we have a range of issues. Some kind of more explicit arrangement over Taiwan would be one thing, assurance of Chinese interests in other places, would be another.

In any case China has to face the possibility that Nkor will end in chaos anyway, whatever we or they do. If so, better not to first have a rearmed Japan, and then NKor chaos later - thats the worst of both worlds.

	10-02-2005 22:42									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

usual reactions, not surprised:

the right blames clinton for this
the left blames bush.

meanwhile, the dear leader is living it up and having a grand old time with his party's party.

	10-02-2005 23:12									#49
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed usual reactions, not surprised: the right blames clinton for this the left blames bush. meanwhile, the dear leader is living it up and having a grand old time with his party's party.

	10-02-2005 23:16									#50
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by GePap Besides, on that end SK is also opposed to a nuclear Japan, so a remilitarized Japan if anything might help to break the togetherness of the US northwest Asian allies, and make it easier in a sense for China.

Not just RoK but from South Korea all the way down to probably Australia. All these countries are against Japan remilitarising.

If Japan want to make nuclear weapons they have to first amend their peace time constitution. If they try that it will surely lead to an uproar so huge that Uncle Sam probably would try its best to pressure Japan into dropping the idea.

	10-02-2005 23:23									#51
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Hoping for a counterrevolution in Iran is a poor strategy at best.

AFAIK, no dissidents in Iran want a regime that resembles the pre-79 regime. We're not talking about a COUNTERrevolution, but about a democratic revolution. Only the Mullahs categorize the opposition to them as COUNTERrevolutionary. And those who sympathize with the mullahs.

	11-02-2005 00:19									#52
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark LOTM - theres a difference between allowing, and offering a bribe.

Yes, one shows you are weak, the other might work.

quote: LOTM - NKor is advanced? Rich?

NK is certainly advanced- how many states make and export ballistic missiles? As for Rich, until the collapse of the USSR NK did not do that badly-and it was then that the foundation of this nuke program were set.

quote: LOTM - so its all about word choice in that damned speech? I dont buy it.

Yes, that and the actions that followed, like Invading a country we also called Evil. Cause, Effect- I am sure you know how it works.

quote: LOTM - theyre hardly in a position to "not allow it"

Ditto for the US, but it was still Bush who did say it, not them.

quote: LOTM - pushing for multilateral talks was hardly demanding others pony up. In fact the neighbors all supported multilateral talks. It was NKors resistance that delayed them, not resistance from Japan or Skor.

We accepted multilateral talks after our stance of not talking failed utterly. But you point is that if a bribe is to be paid, it should be other people's money.

quote: LOTM - or to drop the program. Depends on how much they value the investments.

Regime survival> money. Every time.

quote: LOTM - the value of Iran as an engine for growth in Iraq and Afghanistan is marginal compared to our other issues wrt to Iran. Economic growth in Iraq is largely constrained by security - Iraqs principal export is oil, of which Iran is NOT an importer.

Iraq's south gets a lot of Iranian tourism now, and Herat is one of Afghanistan's richest cities thanks to trade over the border, which happens to be through Iran.

quote: LOTM - i wasnt referring to talk, but to insistence on HR improvements as PART of a deal. I dont think theyd agree to THAT.

I am sure they wouldn't, but then, we shouldn't even ask-that is not the point.

quote: LOTM - depends on the situation. If they think theyre on the point of a revolution, and are counting on our continued encouragement, they could well be very concerned.

They will revolt one way or another- I see few ways in which any future regime might be even more anti-Americans, but that is besides the point because if you believe that the regime that would follow a new revolution would be democratic, then there should not be any serious and dangerous problems with it and US, now will there?

quote: LOTM - or the Chinese people could ask why the leadership screwed up and followed a path that led to a rearmed Japan in the first place.

Re-arming is a Japanese decision- why on earth would people in China blame their leaders if those people who won't apologize for raping nanking decide to get nukes? They won't.

quote: I think the domestic effects in China are probably awash. Certainly not worth the REAL costs to China of a rearmed Japan.

What "real cost"? Two nuclear armed states cancell each other out. China alreayd plans miliatry modernization- a nuclear Japan just means a more convinient reason for military modernization.

quote: LOTM - except Skor is not a threat to China. And if Nkor goes nuclear, they may decide to live with a nuclear Japan.

SK hates Japan more than anyone else- I bet many in SK would have no problem if NK nukes Japan. The issue here is the US position in NE Asia, and even greater chilliness between SK and Japan does not help.

quote: LOTM - I presume we have a range of issues. Some kind of more explicit arrangement over Taiwan would be one thing, assurance of Chinese interests in other places, would be another.

Asking to help with NK is a big ask, a VERY big ask.

quote: In any case China has to face the possibility that Nkor will end in chaos anyway, whatever we or they do. If so, better not to first have a rearmed Japan, and then NKor chaos later - thats the worst of both worlds.

Why? China expects it economic ascendency to make up for everything else. If in 40 years the Japanese economy is tied essentially to China's, then who cares if NK collapeses and Japan is nuclear? For their own good the Japanese would not do anything anti-Chinese. That is what China is counting on, and keeping the lid down as long as possible is their main aim.

	11-02-2005 00:20									#53
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark quote: Hoping for a counterrevolution in Iran is a poor strategy at best. AFAIK, no dissidents in Iran want a regime that resembles the pre-79 regime. We're not talking about a COUNTERrevolution, but about a democratic revolution. Only the Mullahs categorize the opposition to them as COUNTERrevolutionary. And those who sympathize with the mullahs.

Oh, yes, Ayatollah Gepap! Don't make me go fatwa on your heiny!

	11-02-2005 00:37									#54
	Suffering from ads?

I think this is good news. Now Japan and Taiwan can declare themselves nuclear powers without consequence.

	11-02-2005 00:41									#55
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GePap NK is certainly advanced- how many states make and export ballistic missiles? As for Rich, until the collapse of the USSR NK did not do that badly-and it was then that the foundation of this nuke program were set. LOTM - if NKor pre 91 was rich enough, then theres no shortage of countries that could follow its example. Yes, that and the actions that followed, like Invading a country we also called Evil. Cause, Effect- I am sure you know how it works. LOTM - except that the crisis started BEFORE we went into Iraq. Hard to seperate cause and effect from chronology. Im sure you know that. Ditto for the US, but it was still Bush who did say it, not them. LOTM - if the US is NOT in a position to not allow it, then they dont have much to be afraid of, now do they. Cmon, either the US is capable of an invasion or its not, you cant have it both ways depending on which supports a particular point. We accepted multilateral talks after our stance of not talking failed utterly. LOTM -and Nkor continued to resist that idea. But you point is that if a bribe is to be paid, it should be other people's money. LOTM - cmon, like we havent done enough monetarily for Japan and SKor over the years? the issue isnt the money, its precedent. Regime survival> money. Every time. LOTM - not every time. But in Iran unemployment seems to be driving the widening of discontent with the regime. So for Iran, yes, trade and investment ARE connected with regime survival. Iraq's south gets a lot of Iranian tourism now, and Herat is one of Afghanistan's richest cities thanks to trade over the border, which happens to be through Iran. LOTM - Herat was also one of the last places to retain warlord rule, hardly a good thing for Afghanistan or the US agenda there. And I doubt that tourism in Najaf will disappear if there are sanctions on investment in Iran. Glad to hear youre aware of the economic boom in Najaf, though. quote: LOTM - depends on the situation. If they think theyre on the point of a revolution, and are counting on our continued encouragement, they could well be very concerned. They will revolt one way or another- I see few ways in which any future regime might be even more anti-Americans, but that is besides the point because if you believe that the regime that would follow a new revolution would be democratic, then there should not be any serious and dangerous problems with it and US, now will there? LOTM - gad, you love strawmen. Even strongform democratic peace theory doesnt hold there will be no serious problems between two democracies. See France. quote: LOTM - or the Chinese people could ask why the leadership screwed up and followed a path that led to a rearmed Japan in the first place. Re-arming is a Japanese decision- why on earth would people in China blame their leaders if those people who won't apologize for raping nanking decide to get nukes? LOTM - if it happens in response to Nkor nukes, and the Chinese leadership did nothing to stop Nkor nukes, why wouldnt they? Are they like stupid, in your opinion? They won't. LOTM - Its just magnificent that you know with certainty what will happen in so many different places. What "real cost"? Two nuclear armed states cancell each other out. China alreayd plans miliatry modernization- a nuclear Japan just means a more convinient reason for military modernization. LOTM - i dont for a minute believe that the Chinese leadership is indifferent to a nuclear Japan. Any actual evidence, aside from the fact that this is needed to support your other arguments? SK hates Japan more than anyone else- I bet many in SK would have no problem if NK nukes Japan. LOTM I doubt anyone in a position of responsibility in Skor feels that way. Why? China expects it economic ascendency to make up for everything else. If in 40 years the Japanese economy is tied essentially to China's, then who cares if NK collapeses and Japan is nuclear? For their own good the Japanese would not do anything anti-Chinese. That is what China is counting on, and keeping the lid down as long as possible is their main aim.

LOTM - everything ive read about them indicates the PRC leadership is cautious - I simply dont believe theyre indifferent to a nuclear Japan, or that they expect their economic size to protect them in every conceivable eventuality.

	11-02-2005 00:45									#56
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by GePap Oh, yes, Ayatollah Gepap! Don't make me go fatwa on your heiny!

Obviously not everyone who thinks an overthrow of the mullahs would be bad thing is an islamist. There are other possible motives, among them a desire for a counter to Israel, and for the frustration of US power in the region.

	11-02-2005 01:01									#57
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin There is zero need for one for the same reasons there was no need for one against the USSR. The NK has 1-5 nukes and we know their return address so we'd strike back with thousands of nukes. They are silly but not stupid.

I tend to agree, but having spent an ungodly amount of money on the existing missile "shield," it sure would've been nice had it actually worked.

Going on memory alone, isn't missile defense research getting a hefty *cut* in Bush's proposed budget? Heh. If so, too little, too late. All the funds spent so far on this fiasco probably would've had more impact had it gone to more "mundane" security matters, such as further securing our borders and ensuring ports are properly vetted.

Gatekeeper

	11-02-2005 01:05									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

CS Monitor, August 15, 2003.

'In some foreign policy circles in Beijing, however, old worries are ending. "The Chinese are a lot more rational about Japan these days," says a Japanese specialist with a Beijing think tank. "We understand they aren't any longer a threat." Should Japan use North Korea as a pretext to develop nuclear weapons, however, "that would be a problem."'

	11-02-2005 01:09									#59
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

RFE/RFL March 2004

'Iran: Unemployment Becoming A 'National Threat'
By Golnaz Esfandiari

According to official estimates, some 3.5 million working-age Iranians are currently unemployed. The jobless rate is particularly high among the women and youth of the Islamic Republic. Authorities are calling unemployment a national threat and one of the country's most pressing priorities.


Prague, 12 March 2004 (RFE/RL) -- Ali, a 24-year-old Iranian, has spent the past four years looking for work. He has a high-school degree and is qualified to work as a make-up artist, but has never been able to find work suited to his interests.

A month ago, he finally relented and accepted a job as a taxi driver. It was, he says, his last choice.

"In fact I [had] to look for a job to make a living even if it is in no way connected to my interests and expertise. The main thing which is clear to everyone in Iran is that is that there are no jobs. There are very few job opportunities and when there is one, there are so many applicants that you can get that job only if you're lucky enough or you have good contacts. For every job opportunity, there are hundreds of applicants," he says.

"I don't think things will get better. I mean, considering how things are moving here, I would say this is it."Iran's official unemployment rate is about 13 percent. But economists estimate the real figure is more than 20 percent.

According to official estimates, unemployment is especially rife among Iran's youth and women, where jobless rates can soar as high as 30 percent.

The rise in unemployment comes as more and more young women are pursuing university degrees, despite the lack of jobs. The Planning and Policy Affairs Ministry says the female unemployment rate is twice that of men.

Economists say Iran will have to create more than a million new jobs every year in order to accommodate its young population. But only about 300,000 new jobs are created each year, leaving the country's youth frustrated and disillusioned.

Observers say the rising unemployment rate is behind many of Iran's emerging social ills, such as drug addiction. There are currently more than 2 million drug addicts in the country. Young people like Ali say unemployment is also causing deep rifts in family relationships.

"I've noticed that no matter how open-minded and intellectual [the parents] are, and no matter how much understanding they have for their children, they come to the point where they have only one question for their children and that is 'Why don't you work?'" Ali said.

Ali Rashidi is a leading economist based in Tehran. He says the roots of Iran's unemployment crisis date back to the early 1980s and the country's policies following the start of the Iran-Iraq War.

"[Iran] wanted to have an army of 20 million. And as a result, they encouraged pregnancy and the rate of population increased from something like 1.7 to 4, 4.5. As a result, the population of Iran has doubled during the last 25 years. So this increasing population is far from what the economy can absorb, and at the same time the policies that have been followed since the end of the war have nothing to propose in terms of absorbing this extra population," Rashidi said.

Furthermore, he says, Iran's investments in industry and agriculture have not been planned to produce the greatest number of jobs possible.

"In other words, the industrial policy has been concentrated in industries absorbing a lot of capital with little labor. For example, you spend a lot of money for steel production or the metallurgy industry and the rate of employment does not go as far as the capital is concerned. So the policy in industry, agriculture has not been conducive to absorb this extra population," Rashidi said.

Rashidi says that most new jobs are being created in the private sector or on the grey market, and therefore do not contribute to reducing overall unemployment rates or raising production rates.

Most of Iran's jobless population is classified as unskilled labor with a high school education or lower. But unemployment is also growing among university graduates, pushing many of them to seek opportunities abroad. According to the International Monetary Fund, Iran has the world's highest rate of brain drain.

Iranian officials have also expressed concern about the growing rate of joblessness among physicians. Nearly 10,000 doctors in Iran are currently unemployed.

Unemployment is also a major problem for educated young Iranians who cannot find suitable jobs in line with their level of education.

Economists say in order to tackle the growing unemployment rate, Iran should push through economic reforms that will increase production and investment.

"We have to revitalize the economy by changing the planning system, the decision makers, and also the sectors of the economy which could produce more productive jobs rather than relying on the service sector or illegal, black market, and things of that sort," Rashidi said.

Meanwhile, 24-year-old Ali says there is little hope among Iran's youth that things are likely to improve anytime soon.

"We all know that we live our life day by day, always hoping that things will get better on their own. I don't think things will get better. I mean, considering how things are moving here, I would say this is it. Many things will never change but humans always keep hoping," Ali said.

The International Labor Organization in a recent report urged countries to tackle youth unemployment in order to avoid what it called "the creation of a huge cadre of frustrated, uneducated or unemployable young people that could have a devastating impact on long-term development prospects."'

	11-02-2005 01:11									#60
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: SK hates Japan more than anyone else- I bet many in SK would have no problem if NK nukes Japan. The issue here is the US position in NE Asia, and even greater chilliness between SK and Japan does not help.

There has been a thaw, you know, between SK and Japan. Why, Sony flat panels are now being made from Samsung parts, and you can get Japanese pr0n in SKorea!