 |
|
My Wife Hates CIV
|
|
Michigan
Jan 1970 time: 05:24
|
|
I bet we're doing a lot more than most think to protect the good countries. We have AEGIS ships between Japan/NK. Of course we might miss. Of course NK might miss. Again, same as above. but i would again bet on US hardware.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:24
|
|
Dino:
Depend how much good faith one wants: Lets take the '94 agreement. In 1994, we were on the verge of war, since the DPRK had, at that point, enough material for several bombs in just a few months. We negotiated. The reactor was shut down, the fuel rods put away and under monitoring. War was avoided, as was the immidiate nuclear threat. Now, come Late september, early october, the White house confronts N.Korea over a much smaller Uranium processing -plant that might produce enough material for a bomb in a year or so. What do we do? We demand they stop, offer nothing, state the last dela is dead, and then? The N.Korea call our bluff, and they are now much closer to many more nukes than they were before we called them out. What was gained? Are we better of with a hard line stance than we were before? I don't think so. N.KOrea is a deperate state, with only a few assets, their ability to make trouble being the main one. Now, people may want to say: "hey, we want an honest partner" but we won't get that from N.Korea. What we will get is a state that is willing to hagle. Will it be a good deal? Well, it will be far cheaper than a war and the aftermath, now won't it?
So no, I don't think N.Korea is a very trustworthy actor, but they are willing to be bought a few years at a time, and right now, the US really can't , politically or economically, afford a war in North East Asia.
Ned:
So what's the problem with negotiating under cohersion? we demand it of other all the time. Plus DPRK is very independent of China; China has little leverage on the situation, plus they don't want a war: foreign capital would flee china, and a flood of Korea refugees would stream in. Negotiations have to be with Pyongyang: that or we start preparing for war.
Imran:
Bush is no Wilsonian. His behavior towards the Cnetral asian dictatorships, Musharraf, Saudi Arabia, so forth and so on show that he does not give a damn about democracy. I don't see calls for democracy in Myanmar, or his giving a damn about problems in Africa, and countless other issues (Would a wilsonian support the Israeli occupation, Imran?). Again, read what people like Perle believe. They are neo-conservative Manicheans, the bearers of light against a world of evil (and I would add Imran that in the view of much of the admin, if not Bush and ****, Arabs and muslims are part of that "evil", specially between Israel and the rest of the ME). War with Iraq was predetermined, but war with N.Korea is just a bit more than anyone wants to chew right now. If the White House remains silent, its because they are at a loss. Rummy may say the military can handle it (and he is probably right, sicne S.Korea will provide the bulk of land forces in such a war) but it would be politically terrible. If a war were to start in the Korean penninsula before we attacked Iraq, then support for such a second war, a key policy of this admin,. would fall apart.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Graag
|
 |
London
Nov 1999 time: 05:24
|
|
GePap:
quote: So no, I don't think N.Korea is a very trustworthy actor, but they are willing to be bought a few years at a time, and right now, the US really can't , politically or
economically, afford a war in North East Asia. |
How long will the US be willing to postpone action against DPRK? Until they lend a couple of scientists and nukes to Iran? I don't see how the US can dig itself out of the big fat nuclear hole it is now in, without taking pretty decisive action pretty damn soon.
[edited for stupidity]
Last edited by Graag on 28-12-2002 at 05:38
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Imran Siddiqui

|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970 time: 00:24
|
|
quote: Indeed but would not you call the indefinate detention without trial of anyone at any time fitting with the US' great democratic tradition? Remember the bill of rights? The PATRIOT act was Bush wiping his ass with it. |
And how is that going against DEMOCRACY? You fail to answer this. The Patriot Act was very democratic. The Congress voted on it, and Bush signed it.
quote: Bush is no Wilsonian. His behavior towards the Cnetral asian dictatorships, Musharraf, Saudi Arabia, so forth and so on show that he does not give a damn about democracy. |
The ends justify the means. And Wilsonianism wasn't really about democracy. Wilson didn't care about Asia and Africa being under colonialism (that isn't democracy for those regions, btw). Wilsonianism is simply believing that the United States is the beacon of morality in the world, and should spread its message to make the world a better place.
In short it is kind of paternalistic (and religious a bit), but basically believes in spreading its values.
Btw, Bush pushed for Musharraf to have elections (which happened), and has been pushing the PLA to have elections in January. Except for Saudi Arabia, I don't see where Bush has been not pushing for democracy.
And yes, a Wilsonian would back Israel. He would believe a democratic government based on American ideals is justified in defending itself against a dictatorship.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:24
|
|
Graag:
The question should be, what kind of action can the US afford as far as North korea is concerned? A simple series of airstrikes won't achieve much. And they may set of a general war anyway. Any war with N.Korea might be short (a few months) but it would be far more destructive, not only to the US, but in general, thn any war in Iraq, even if the worst possible outcome (nukes against Tokyo) didn't come true. If the worst possible outcome did come true, then things would be realy bad. i mean, at the least you could expect a few days of tremendous drops on all Asian markets (and thus, most world markets) that such a war woudl start, and the worst the daamge, the lower the ticker goes.
And whats wit Iran? The North doesn't sell nukes, it sells missiles (Pakistan sells nuke info, oif reports are true and it was from Pak. that DPRK got a lot of it's designs) and Iran already has a nuclear program, which the Russians are helping along and the Iranians have invited the IAIE to come and inspect.
The fastest way for the US to dig itself out of its hole is to end this idiotic "no negotiationg line" and start talking to the NOrth Koreans, and find out what their current price is. My guess: cheaper than a war would be.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:24
|
|
quote: The ends justify the means. And Wilsonianism wasn't really about democracy. Wilson didn't care about Asia and Africa being under colonialism (that isn't democracy for those regions, btw). Wilsonianism is simply believing that the United States is the beacon of morality in the world, and should spread its message to make the world a better place.
In short it is kind of paternalistic (and religious a bit), but basically believes in spreading its values.
Btw, Bush pushed for Musharraf to have elections (which happened), and has been pushing the PLA to have elections in January. Except for Saudi Arabia, I don't see where Bush has been not pushing for democracy.
And yes, a Wilsonian would back Israel. He would believe a democratic government based on American ideals is justified in defending itself against a dictatorship. |
A few things:
Bush did not push very hard in Pakistan for elections, and Mussharaf had stated before hand he would eventually hold them. As for the PA, that Buh using democracy as a weapon. After all, its not very democratic to demand elections but set rules about acceptable winners, and again, he has done nothing in Central Asia.
As for Wilson: he was also a racist, so that he did not give a damn about blacks is no surprise. I assume modern Republicans aren't racist, or maybe I am wrong?
And it was Wilson who first ebgun to make 'self-determination" a big deal, and as the PA is not even a ful government, comparisns between a war of states does not apply to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:24
|
|
As I said elsewhere, beyond rhetoric, this admin has don nothing to advance democracy anywhere in the world (hey, look the Pal's postponed the elections, and Bush does what?), and I don't particularly care for simply rhetoric. I await results (Bush would never have intervened in the Balkans, from what I have seen this admin do) , and Iraq after the coming war will be a very nice test for them.
As for Bush beign the first to call for an independent Palestinian state: the one and ONLY worthwhile thing he has done as far as the ME conflict goes, and that's not saying much, since as for now, he has postponed the roadtrip, at the behest of Sharon.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24. Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|