<strong>N.Korea's main threat is not in their ability to attack U.S.
it's as Nuke Dealer to the world.
With clients including terrorists and disgruntled nations hostile to the U.S. ,
THAT is the main point.
Secondarily,
it is U.S. strengthening it's Asian position as China continues to emerge as an economic power.
China continues to evolve with a changing of the guard from the old communist leadership to the new generation about to take power there. That region of the world needs to be "handled".
<strong>And how would you do that? The same way we " handled " Vietnam or the way we " handled " the Korean war?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
oh, jimmac, that's obvious. the U.S. are The King Of The World, they have to put their dirty hands into everything which doesn't look right. They have to! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
oh, jimmac, that's obvious. the U.S. are The King Of The World, they have to put their dirty hands into everything which doesn't look right. They have to!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not one to vote in favor of the US jumping into conflicts, but when we sign agreements with countries and they back out illegally I do think we can take action. The stakes of this problem are high enough that a military attack might be warranted. At least starting the process towards a legal military act might jar the region into responding positively (or maybe negatively....)
we all know that modern warfare is largely waged on the economic front and in that respect Switzerland's hands are as blood red as anyone else's.
Switzerland was about 18 months away from being re-named Soutern Germany in WW2. The only way they staved off that moniker was by U.S. intervention. "Intervention" = young American lives spent saving your country's ass. Your Welcome.
Meanwhile Switzerland was biding their time tending to their responsibilities as the First National Money Laundering Bank of the 3rd Reich.
get off your high horse Defiant.
you don't like hearing the way it is, the truth.
well, i guess if the truth is not "cool" then neither am i.
we'll see how pompous and removed you'll be when the banking instituion is dragged to it's knees by terrorism. and i wonder who you'll come crying to then ?
we all know that Switzerland will step up to the plate and protect the world.
I'm not one to vote in favor of the US jumping into conflicts, but when we sign agreements with countries and they back out illegally I do think we can take action. The stakes of this problem are high enough that a military attack might be warranted. At least starting the process towards a legal military act might jar the region into responding positively (or maybe negatively....)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Constantly surprised on this board...I totally agree with bunge's post here.
I really don't understand how anyone can try and blame Bush or the US in general for this mess. Yes, he called N. Korea a part of an axis of evil. This gave them the justification to totally disregard a treaty? As far as I can tell, the only reason N. Korea opened this can of worms is to try and negotiate a treaty that offers them more goodies for being 'good'. The current treaty gives them free oil from the west, as their economy, as all communist econimies do, sux. So, here they were, getting free oil and all they had to do is not develop the bomb. They figured, if they take steps to ensure that the US believes that are willing and able to develop the bomb and break the treaty, Bush will cave and offer them more consessions and more freebies (increased free oil). Some on this board constantly scream that Bush is threatening Iraq solely because of oil..I don't hear those same voices condemning N. Korea for threatening to develop the bomb (and then sell it) in order to get more oil.
come on! I made a <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> .
We all know that the U.S. saved some ass in WWII, but I was more complaining about how it is now.
You make some good points about switzerland; I don't know about "southern germany" but I do know about our banking institution.
But I myself couldn't really care about our "Banking secrecy", because honestly, I don't have much money. It's more interesting for rich people.
I mean, hey, we all know that switzerland made sooo much money in WWII, and I'm not the one who is proud about that, but I'm also not the one who denies it.
And we also all know that we couldn't fight any war. But who's going to attack his own bank anyway ? Osama himself ? Jeez, he has his money here too.
I really don't understand how anyone can try and blame Bush or the US in general for this mess.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know enough of the details yet, but I do know North Korea has been complaining because we [Clinton] have withheld some of the parts to the reactors that keep them from being useful. Also, we [Bush] have withheld oil we [Clinton] agreed to give them (I'm supposing it's because North Korea is now part of the Axis of Evil.)
I can't say who is right and who is wrong. Neither country has lived up to expectation, although both Clinton and Bush probably had reasons to withhold the good.
Really, the biggest legal problem I see is that North Korea has withdrawn from our legal treaty without six months notice. Remember when Bush backed out of the treaty with Russia? We had to give six months notice. I assume North Korea would have to follow the same 'rules' of international diplomacy. Second, after withdrawing, they threatened us.
Had they just waited six months after announcing they were backing out (and of course didn't threaten us) I don't think we'd have a leg to stand on. Only the UN would, since they're also breaking their signature on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they signed with the UN.
Does anyone have anymore details about how the US has failed to live up to our end of the bargain? I think we played this one by the books, and not surprisingly North Korea messed up.
Some on this board constantly scream that Bush is threatening Iraq solely because of oil..I don't hear those same voices condemning N. Korea for threatening to develop the bomb (and then sell it) in order to get more oil.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think it's because we offered them free oil and Nuclear Reactors so they could make energy. If we never offered them the oil, they would have continued to build their energy producing Nuclear Reactors with the unfortunate "side effect" of being able to produce Nukes.
i.e. They legitimately needed energy for their country and the world had no legal means to stop them from producing a Nuclear Reactor, even though we all "knew" they'd abuse the privilege.
we all know that modern warfare is largely waged on the economic front and in that respect Switzerland's hands are as blood red as anyone else's.
Switzerland was about 18 months away from being re-named Soutern Germany in WW2. The only way they staved off that moniker was by U.S. intervention. "Intervention" = young American lives spent saving your country's ass. Your Welcome.
Meanwhile Switzerland was biding their time tending to their responsibilities as the First National Money Laundering Bank of the 3rd Reich.
get off your high horse Defiant.
you don't like hearing the way it is, the truth.
well, i guess if the truth is not "cool" then neither am i.
we'll see how pompous and removed you'll be when the banking instituion is dragged to it's knees by terrorism. and i wonder who you'll come crying to then ?
we all know that Switzerland will step up to the plate and protect the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Man these outdated references to WW II are not just getting old they are positively rotten.
Get this straight.......that was a very long time ago. The world was a very different place. If you want make reference to ancient battles why not talk about Napoleonic battles which have just about as much relevance these days.
Man these outdated references to WW II are not just getting old they are positively rotten.
Get this straight.......that was a very long time ago. The world was a very different place. If you want make reference to ancient battles why not talk about Napoleonic battles which have just about as much relevance these days.</strong><hr></blockquote>
?? It was a little over 50 years ago. We each know at least a dozen people still alive at the time. 'A very long time ago'? What are you, 8?
?? It was a little over 50 years ago. We each know at least a dozen people still alive at the time. 'A very long time ago'? What are you, 8?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I'm 49. I'll be 50 in May. It was a long time ago. Closer to 60 years ago ( 58 years ago this coming year ). The world is now a very different place trust me.
Take a look at a map of the world from 1945 sometime. Boarders have shifted. Some have been erased. Alot of countries have different names.
And think of all the history that's come and gone since then. We landed on the moon. Kennedy was assasinated. The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. The Japanese make the best electronics. And who would have guessed back then Ronald Reagan would become president!
All in all many changes since then. Too many to make constant comparisions relevant.
I don't know enough of the details yet, but I do know North Korea has been complaining because we [Clinton] have withheld some of the parts to the reactors that keep them from being useful. Also, we [Bush] have withheld oil we [Clinton] agreed to give them (I'm supposing it's because North Korea is now part of the Axis of Evil.)
I can't say who is right and who is wrong. Neither country has lived up to expectation, although both Clinton and Bush probably had reasons to withhold the good.
Really, the biggest legal problem I see is that North Korea has withdrawn from our legal treaty without six months notice. Remember when Bush backed out of the treaty with Russia? We had to give six months notice. I assume North Korea would have to follow the same 'rules' of international diplomacy. Second, after withdrawing, they threatened us.
Had they just waited six months after announcing they were backing out (and of course didn't threaten us) I don't think we'd have a leg to stand on. Only the UN would, since they're also breaking their signature on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they signed with the UN.
Does anyone have anymore details about how the US has failed to live up to our end of the bargain? I think we played this one by the books, and not surprisingly North Korea messed up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is all false. This notion that the US did not live up to it's end of the deal is leftist anti-US propaganda. N. Korea on the other hand has failed to meet many of the agreements it's signed with other countries. One example is a rail line they agreed to build to allow families in both countries reunite. Another example is the Japanese citizens they kidnapped, tortured and killed.
But you know, it's all the US's fault This all started with Bush Jimmy Carter isn't a complete failure
Ahem...originally posted by me and quoted by scott:
"I think we played this one by the books, and not surprisingly North Korea messed up."
That's false? I guess we didn't play this one by the books and North Korea didn't mess up. Scott, are you saying that the US screwed this up and North Korea is correct to restart their Nuclear Reactor program?
[quote]That region of the world needs to be "handled". [bluesigns]
And how would you do that? The same way we " handled " Vietnam or the way we " handled " the Korean war? [jimmac ]
<hr></blockquote>
i would say it would be a solution crafted of all we've learned from when we "handled" East Germany and "handled" the Soviet Union with consideration for the failures and mistakes of the Vietnam and Korean Wars and the successes of WW2.
Contrary to what has been stated - WW2 is but a blink of an eye in the past. there are law suits that are being fought in the courts over stolen assests and war crimes to this day. The Arab/Isreali conflict is a direct offspring of WW2 agreements. Modern Geo-politacal structure of the world is a direct result of WW2. To deny WW2's impact on current events is to deny the plainly evident.
In historic terms "Modern Time" has not resolved itself yet. We are still in the flux of absorbing technical, scientific, political, social, and medical advancements of modernity into the fabric of what is now a global society.
Arguably this modern global society will evolve a single global idealogy of sorts.
Disruptive technologies such as commercial aviation, containerized shipping, telecommunications, are all still shaping the political and social landscape of the world. They are all relatively new advancements to the world.
There are nations on earth right now that are still by and large living in ancient societies. The inevitable cultural clashes that will occur now have the potential to be catastrophic with modern weaponry. As we all play catch-up we will either homoginize each other, learn to tolerate one another or kill one another. or we will suffer some complex combination of all these things.
Political and Social volatility [just like electrical energy] needs to be "handled", "contained", "monitored", "predicted", "managed" , "considered", "guided", "determined", "engineered", "channeled", "controlled", if we are to have a beneficial end product of that energy .
i would say it would be a solution crafted of all we've learned from when we "handled" East Germany and "handled" the Soviet Union with consideration for the failures and mistakes of the Vietnam and Korean Wars and the successes of WW2.
Contrary to what has been stated - WW2 is but a blink of an eye in the past. there are law suits that are being fought in the courts over stolen assests and war crimes to this day. The Arab/Isreali conflict is a direct offspring of WW2 agreements. Modern Geo-politacal structure of the world is a direct result of WW2. To deny WW2's impact on current events is to deny the plainly evident.
In historic terms "Modern Time" has not resolved itself yet. We are still in the flux of absorbing technical, scientific, political, social, and medical advancements of modernity into the fabric of what is now a global society.
Arguably this modern global society will evolve a single global idealogy of sorts.
Disruptive technologies such as commercial aviation, containerized shipping, telecommunications, are all still shaping the political and social landscape of the world. They are all relatively new advancements to the world.
There are nations on earth right now that are still by and large living in ancient societies. The inevitable cultural clashes that will occur now have the potential to be catastrophic with modern weaponry. As we all play catch-up we will either homoginize each other, learn to tolerate one another or kill one another. or we will suffer some complex combination of all these things.
Political and Social volatility [just like electrical energy] needs to be "handled", "contained", "monitored", "predicted", "managed" , "considered", "guided", "determined", "engineered", "channeled", "controlled", if we are to have a beneficial end product of that energy .</strong><hr></blockquote>
We really didn't handle the Soviet Union. They simply over spent on their military and collapsed. When the economy doesn't work for the betterment of the people nothing works. The same thing with East Germany. These places just didn't work. It's nothing we did.
As far the modern world being a result of WW II well if you use that logic it's also the result of wars and politcal changes that have taken place for the last 2,000 years. See my post above about WW II.
I'm for a world government but, when you talk about " handling " people you sound like you're talking about cattle. I'm not so sure people ( both occupations I've had since I was 21 have dealt with people all the time ) with even more of their own minds are quite so pliable.
One rule applies when you're dealing with people : the chaos effect is in full swing.
1. NK already HAS nuclear weapons, according to the CIA (estimated 3-5 small fission bombs)
2. NK can cause enormous damage and civilian casualties to our very close allies, South Korea and Japan
- NK has several thousand artillery and rocket tubes within range of Seoul (the city which houses half of South Korea's population and economic production)
- NK can surely deliver a nuclear weapon by aircraft or infiltration anywhere in South Korea
- NK has test-fired ballistic missles over Japan, which might well be able to carry nuclear warheads
Disarming the North immediately isn't worth the risk of nuking Tokyo and reducing much of South Korea to rubble, with thousands upon thousands of civilian casualties. No one in their right mind thinks anything good could come from a war on the Korean penninsula. There is too much to lose, and almost no conceivable strategic gain.
In contrast, Iraq DOESN'T yet have nuclear weapons, and is near-imponent in its ability to threaten our friends. The potential strategic benefits to the US are enormous (remodeling the middle east). We need to pick our battles, and Iraq is the right battle now.
<strong>Why North Korea is different from Iraq... </strong><hr></blockquote>
What you're essentially saying is that North Korea is a genuine and immediate threat so we should appease them while Iraq is not a threat so we should attack.
There's a reason why we didn't attack the USSR in 1948 or 1961, despite very cognizant arguments by very intelligent people that a preemptive war would be a good idea. The cost/benefit just didn't add up, because the war would be too bloody and destructive to justify the mere prevention of a potential threat.
War on Iraq adds up. War on North Korea does not.
Of course, if NK were to attack us, or our allies, you throw the economics theory out the window, and you blow them and their maniac leader to kingdom come, whatever the cost may be to us or our allies. They start a war, they reap the whirlwind. But if we start the war, we have to make damn sure we reap only a gentle breeze.
On a more practical level, keep in mind that South Korea has faced an imminent threat from the North for 50 years. Those 10,000 artillery tubes can do far more damage to Seoul than a 5kT suitcase nuke would do to Manhattan. Yet noone in their right mind there ever called for a preemptive war to remove Kim Il Sung. Nukes or not, noone is calling now for a war to remove Kim Jong Il. And South Korea is not Saudi Arabia - in any war with NK, they will do 90% of the fighting and 99% of the dying, and they know it. They have no interest in starting a war with the North, and neither should we. When a child throws a tantrum, you ignore him, you don't blow up the neighborhood.
Comments
<strong>N.Korea's main threat is not in their ability to attack U.S.
it's as Nuke Dealer to the world.
With clients including terrorists and disgruntled nations hostile to the U.S. ,
THAT is the main point.
Secondarily,
it is U.S. strengthening it's Asian position as China continues to emerge as an economic power.
China continues to evolve with a changing of the guard from the old communist leadership to the new generation about to take power there. That region of the world needs to be "handled".
[ 12-29-2002: Message edited by: bluesigns ]
[ 12-29-2002: Message edited by: bluesigns ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
And how would you do that? The same way we " handled " Vietnam or the way we " handled " the Korean war?
[ 12-29-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>And how would you do that? The same way we " handled " Vietnam or the way we " handled " the Korean war?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
oh, jimmac, that's obvious. the U.S. are The King Of The World, they have to put their dirty hands into everything which doesn't look right. They have to! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
defiant: stop the personal attacks !
[ 12-30-2002: Message edited by: Defiant ]</p>
<strong>
oh, jimmac, that's obvious. the U.S. are The King Of The World, they have to put their dirty hands into everything which doesn't look right. They have to!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not one to vote in favor of the US jumping into conflicts, but when we sign agreements with countries and they back out illegally I do think we can take action. The stakes of this problem are high enough that a military attack might be warranted. At least starting the process towards a legal military act might jar the region into responding positively (or maybe negatively....)
we all know that modern warfare is largely waged on the economic front and in that respect Switzerland's hands are as blood red as anyone else's.
Switzerland was about 18 months away from being re-named Soutern Germany in WW2. The only way they staved off that moniker was by U.S. intervention. "Intervention" = young American lives spent saving your country's ass. Your Welcome.
Meanwhile Switzerland was biding their time tending to their responsibilities as the First National Money Laundering Bank of the 3rd Reich.
get off your high horse Defiant.
you don't like hearing the way it is, the truth.
well, i guess if the truth is not "cool" then neither am i.
we'll see how pompous and removed you'll be when the banking instituion is dragged to it's knees by terrorism. and i wonder who you'll come crying to then ?
we all know that Switzerland will step up to the plate and protect the world.
Man, no wonder they discountinued FC. This is some hostile grounds here-abouts!
<strong>
I'm not one to vote in favor of the US jumping into conflicts, but when we sign agreements with countries and they back out illegally I do think we can take action. The stakes of this problem are high enough that a military attack might be warranted. At least starting the process towards a legal military act might jar the region into responding positively (or maybe negatively....)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Constantly surprised on this board...I totally agree with bunge's post here.
I really don't understand how anyone can try and blame Bush or the US in general for this mess. Yes, he called N. Korea a part of an axis of evil. This gave them the justification to totally disregard a treaty? As far as I can tell, the only reason N. Korea opened this can of worms is to try and negotiate a treaty that offers them more goodies for being 'good'. The current treaty gives them free oil from the west, as their economy, as all communist econimies do, sux. So, here they were, getting free oil and all they had to do is not develop the bomb. They figured, if they take steps to ensure that the US believes that are willing and able to develop the bomb and break the treaty, Bush will cave and offer them more consessions and more freebies (increased free oil). Some on this board constantly scream that Bush is threatening Iraq solely because of oil..I don't hear those same voices condemning N. Korea for threatening to develop the bomb (and then sell it) in order to get more oil.
come on! I made a <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> .
We all know that the U.S. saved some ass in WWII, but I was more complaining about how it is now.
You make some good points about switzerland; I don't know about "southern germany" but I do know about our banking institution.
But I myself couldn't really care about our "Banking secrecy", because honestly, I don't have much money. It's more interesting for rich people.
I mean, hey, we all know that switzerland made sooo much money in WWII, and I'm not the one who is proud about that, but I'm also not the one who denies it.
And we also all know that we couldn't fight any war. But who's going to attack his own bank anyway ? Osama himself ? Jeez, he has his money here too.
<strong>
I really don't understand how anyone can try and blame Bush or the US in general for this mess.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know enough of the details yet, but I do know North Korea has been complaining because we [Clinton] have withheld some of the parts to the reactors that keep them from being useful. Also, we [Bush] have withheld oil we [Clinton] agreed to give them (I'm supposing it's because North Korea is now part of the Axis of Evil.)
I can't say who is right and who is wrong. Neither country has lived up to expectation, although both Clinton and Bush probably had reasons to withhold the good.
Really, the biggest legal problem I see is that North Korea has withdrawn from our legal treaty without six months notice. Remember when Bush backed out of the treaty with Russia? We had to give six months notice. I assume North Korea would have to follow the same 'rules' of international diplomacy. Second, after withdrawing, they threatened us.
Had they just waited six months after announcing they were backing out (and of course didn't threaten us) I don't think we'd have a leg to stand on. Only the UN would, since they're also breaking their signature on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they signed with the UN.
Does anyone have anymore details about how the US has failed to live up to our end of the bargain? I think we played this one by the books, and not surprisingly North Korea messed up.
<strong>
Some on this board constantly scream that Bush is threatening Iraq solely because of oil..I don't hear those same voices condemning N. Korea for threatening to develop the bomb (and then sell it) in order to get more oil.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think it's because we offered them free oil and Nuclear Reactors so they could make energy. If we never offered them the oil, they would have continued to build their energy producing Nuclear Reactors with the unfortunate "side effect" of being able to produce Nukes.
i.e. They legitimately needed energy for their country and the world had no legal means to stop them from producing a Nuclear Reactor, even though we all "knew" they'd abuse the privilege.
<strong>Defiant,
we all know that modern warfare is largely waged on the economic front and in that respect Switzerland's hands are as blood red as anyone else's.
Switzerland was about 18 months away from being re-named Soutern Germany in WW2. The only way they staved off that moniker was by U.S. intervention. "Intervention" = young American lives spent saving your country's ass. Your Welcome.
Meanwhile Switzerland was biding their time tending to their responsibilities as the First National Money Laundering Bank of the 3rd Reich.
get off your high horse Defiant.
you don't like hearing the way it is, the truth.
well, i guess if the truth is not "cool" then neither am i.
we'll see how pompous and removed you'll be when the banking instituion is dragged to it's knees by terrorism. and i wonder who you'll come crying to then ?
we all know that Switzerland will step up to the plate and protect the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Man these outdated references to WW II are not just getting old they are positively rotten.
Get this straight.......that was a very long time ago. The world was a very different place. If you want make reference to ancient battles why not talk about Napoleonic battles which have just about as much relevance these days.
<strong>
Man these outdated references to WW II are not just getting old they are positively rotten.
Get this straight.......that was a very long time ago. The world was a very different place. If you want make reference to ancient battles why not talk about Napoleonic battles which have just about as much relevance these days.</strong><hr></blockquote>
?? It was a little over 50 years ago. We each know at least a dozen people still alive at the time. 'A very long time ago'? What are you, 8?
<strong>
?? It was a little over 50 years ago. We each know at least a dozen people still alive at the time. 'A very long time ago'? What are you, 8?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I'm 49. I'll be 50 in May. It was a long time ago. Closer to 60 years ago ( 58 years ago this coming year ). The world is now a very different place trust me.
Take a look at a map of the world from 1945 sometime. Boarders have shifted. Some have been erased. Alot of countries have different names.
And think of all the history that's come and gone since then. We landed on the moon. Kennedy was assasinated. The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. The Japanese make the best electronics. And who would have guessed back then Ronald Reagan would become president!
All in all many changes since then. Too many to make constant comparisions relevant.
[ 12-31-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
I don't know enough of the details yet, but I do know North Korea has been complaining because we [Clinton] have withheld some of the parts to the reactors that keep them from being useful. Also, we [Bush] have withheld oil we [Clinton] agreed to give them (I'm supposing it's because North Korea is now part of the Axis of Evil.)
I can't say who is right and who is wrong. Neither country has lived up to expectation, although both Clinton and Bush probably had reasons to withhold the good.
Really, the biggest legal problem I see is that North Korea has withdrawn from our legal treaty without six months notice. Remember when Bush backed out of the treaty with Russia? We had to give six months notice. I assume North Korea would have to follow the same 'rules' of international diplomacy. Second, after withdrawing, they threatened us.
Had they just waited six months after announcing they were backing out (and of course didn't threaten us) I don't think we'd have a leg to stand on. Only the UN would, since they're also breaking their signature on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they signed with the UN.
Does anyone have anymore details about how the US has failed to live up to our end of the bargain? I think we played this one by the books, and not surprisingly North Korea messed up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is all false. This notion that the US did not live up to it's end of the deal is leftist anti-US propaganda. N. Korea on the other hand has failed to meet many of the agreements it's signed with other countries. One example is a rail line they agreed to build to allow families in both countries reunite. Another example is the Japanese citizens they kidnapped, tortured and killed.
But you know, it's all the US's fault
<strong>
This is all false. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahem...originally posted by me and quoted by scott:
"I think we played this one by the books, and not surprisingly North Korea messed up."
That's false? I guess we didn't play this one by the books and North Korea didn't mess up. Scott, are you saying that the US screwed this up and North Korea is correct to restart their Nuclear Reactor program?
And how would you do that? The same way we " handled " Vietnam or the way we " handled " the Korean war? [jimmac ]
<hr></blockquote>
i would say it would be a solution crafted of all we've learned from when we "handled" East Germany and "handled" the Soviet Union with consideration for the failures and mistakes of the Vietnam and Korean Wars and the successes of WW2.
Contrary to what has been stated - WW2 is but a blink of an eye in the past. there are law suits that are being fought in the courts over stolen assests and war crimes to this day. The Arab/Isreali conflict is a direct offspring of WW2 agreements. Modern Geo-politacal structure of the world is a direct result of WW2. To deny WW2's impact on current events is to deny the plainly evident.
In historic terms "Modern Time" has not resolved itself yet. We are still in the flux of absorbing technical, scientific, political, social, and medical advancements of modernity into the fabric of what is now a global society.
Arguably this modern global society will evolve a single global idealogy of sorts.
Disruptive technologies such as commercial aviation, containerized shipping, telecommunications, are all still shaping the political and social landscape of the world. They are all relatively new advancements to the world.
There are nations on earth right now that are still by and large living in ancient societies. The inevitable cultural clashes that will occur now have the potential to be catastrophic with modern weaponry. As we all play catch-up we will either homoginize each other, learn to tolerate one another or kill one another. or we will suffer some complex combination of all these things.
Political and Social volatility [just like electrical energy] needs to be "handled", "contained", "monitored", "predicted", "managed" , "considered", "guided", "determined", "engineered", "channeled", "controlled", if we are to have a beneficial end product of that energy .
<strong>
i would say it would be a solution crafted of all we've learned from when we "handled" East Germany and "handled" the Soviet Union with consideration for the failures and mistakes of the Vietnam and Korean Wars and the successes of WW2.
Contrary to what has been stated - WW2 is but a blink of an eye in the past. there are law suits that are being fought in the courts over stolen assests and war crimes to this day. The Arab/Isreali conflict is a direct offspring of WW2 agreements. Modern Geo-politacal structure of the world is a direct result of WW2. To deny WW2's impact on current events is to deny the plainly evident.
In historic terms "Modern Time" has not resolved itself yet. We are still in the flux of absorbing technical, scientific, political, social, and medical advancements of modernity into the fabric of what is now a global society.
Arguably this modern global society will evolve a single global idealogy of sorts.
Disruptive technologies such as commercial aviation, containerized shipping, telecommunications, are all still shaping the political and social landscape of the world. They are all relatively new advancements to the world.
There are nations on earth right now that are still by and large living in ancient societies. The inevitable cultural clashes that will occur now have the potential to be catastrophic with modern weaponry. As we all play catch-up we will either homoginize each other, learn to tolerate one another or kill one another. or we will suffer some complex combination of all these things.
Political and Social volatility [just like electrical energy] needs to be "handled", "contained", "monitored", "predicted", "managed" , "considered", "guided", "determined", "engineered", "channeled", "controlled", if we are to have a beneficial end product of that energy .</strong><hr></blockquote>
We really didn't handle the Soviet Union. They simply over spent on their military and collapsed. When the economy doesn't work for the betterment of the people nothing works. The same thing with East Germany. These places just didn't work. It's nothing we did.
As far the modern world being a result of WW II well if you use that logic it's also the result of wars and politcal changes that have taken place for the last 2,000 years. See my post above about WW II.
I'm for a world government but, when you talk about " handling " people you sound like you're talking about cattle. I'm not so sure people ( both occupations I've had since I was 21 have dealt with people all the time ) with even more of their own minds are quite so pliable.
One rule applies when you're dealing with people : the chaos effect is in full swing.
1. NK already HAS nuclear weapons, according to the CIA (estimated 3-5 small fission bombs)
2. NK can cause enormous damage and civilian casualties to our very close allies, South Korea and Japan
- NK has several thousand artillery and rocket tubes within range of Seoul (the city which houses half of South Korea's population and economic production)
- NK can surely deliver a nuclear weapon by aircraft or infiltration anywhere in South Korea
- NK has test-fired ballistic missles over Japan, which might well be able to carry nuclear warheads
Disarming the North immediately isn't worth the risk of nuking Tokyo and reducing much of South Korea to rubble, with thousands upon thousands of civilian casualties. No one in their right mind thinks anything good could come from a war on the Korean penninsula. There is too much to lose, and almost no conceivable strategic gain.
In contrast, Iraq DOESN'T yet have nuclear weapons, and is near-imponent in its ability to threaten our friends. The potential strategic benefits to the US are enormous (remodeling the middle east). We need to pick our battles, and Iraq is the right battle now.
[ 01-01-2003: Message edited by: Towel ]</p>
<strong>Why North Korea is different from Iraq... </strong><hr></blockquote>
What you're essentially saying is that North Korea is a genuine and immediate threat so we should appease them while Iraq is not a threat so we should attack.
That's backwards to me.
War on Iraq adds up. War on North Korea does not.
Of course, if NK were to attack us, or our allies, you throw the economics theory out the window, and you blow them and their maniac leader to kingdom come, whatever the cost may be to us or our allies. They start a war, they reap the whirlwind. But if we start the war, we have to make damn sure we reap only a gentle breeze.
On a more practical level, keep in mind that South Korea has faced an imminent threat from the North for 50 years. Those 10,000 artillery tubes can do far more damage to Seoul than a 5kT suitcase nuke would do to Manhattan. Yet noone in their right mind there ever called for a preemptive war to remove Kim Il Sung. Nukes or not, noone is calling now for a war to remove Kim Jong Il. And South Korea is not Saudi Arabia - in any war with NK, they will do 90% of the fighting and 99% of the dying, and they know it. They have no interest in starting a war with the North, and neither should we. When a child throws a tantrum, you ignore him, you don't blow up the neighborhood.