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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He's saying that action against the pre-nuke-capable nation has a high benefits-to-cost ratio (in keeping them that way) while the same against a post-nuke-capable nation potentially has extremely low benefits-to-cost ratio (quite likely high penalties). It's not a matter of "threat" alone. The dynamics and strategies change radically once nuke capability threshold has been exceeded. In your simple analogy, the better operand would be "concern" rather than action. The greater threat of a nuke-enabled nation certainly deserves greater attention.
<strong>The greater threat of a nuke-enabled nation certainly deserves greater attention.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well that makes a lot of sense (hence my original post), but doesn't explain really well why we're bothering with Iraq (not having anything to do with my original post.)
North Korea could be a serious threat. In hindsight, it seems clear that Bush's "Axis of Evil" threat was careless. Either he should have taken the type of action then that he's advocating for now in Iraq, or he should have been giving North Korea more attention and less rhetoric.
It seems more like he antagonized them, and left them to stew. He hasn't made a positive step in that conflict yet.
Catholic are you? You know not everyone likes subsidizing pedophiliacs dressed in silk robes..<hr></blockquote>
I am, although I don't like to think of myself as one. Anyway, you make a good point - none of those either.
[quote]So they can violate the aforementioned agreement, just as the N. Koreans did. And now they have the bomb and you don't. That's very clever. You thought of this all by yourself?
<hr></blockquote>
Who is "you" as in "you don't". The Irish? We don't need nuclear weapons mate. No one is going to attack us. The Americans love us because the Irish did a great deal for building the U.S and we have a strong Irish lobby in their government (just like you guys). The Russians have no beef with us because we never belonged to NATO. The Arabs have no problem with us because they, as one of the few people in this world, understand the Irish cause. The Chinese probably don't even know where Ireland is. All the others are insignificant.
See, that's the good thing about not being aggressive ever in history - nobody has a reason to hate you.
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In that case why attack anyone?
Or are we right to think that the U.S just has to attack someone?
"We're just a country whose intentions are good, oh Lord, please don't let us be misunderstood"
Seriously though, the "attack" on North Korea isn't really equivalent to the attack that looks to be inevitable in Iraq. I suggested taking steps towards bombing the reactor that's going to be producing nuclear fuel for weapons, not a full fledged attack of the country.
I suggested it because of a combination of factors, including North Korean threats to use their Nuclear capabilities against the US. I also suggested it because the threat of US intervention would probably light a fire under China and Russia and get them to act before we would have to bomb.
After reading this at NYT I think the US should pull out of these countries. It seems the world does want us to be isolationist. Just so long as we keep buying their crap and handing over all our money in the form of "aid".
<strong>After reading this at NYT I think the US should pull out of these countries.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You, Osama and Jimmy Carter...bosom buddies!
It's a tough balance. If we want to keep our influence high, and reduce the threat of an expanding China, then the troops probably need to stay. Call it silent imperialism I guess, but it's how the US wants to expand our economic markets and influence around the world.
given that the north koreans are 0 for the decade against centrally planned famine, let alone lucky maintain electric power for more than 7 hours consecutively (despite being a nation of bicyclists - no hamsters to get the clue from), the solution to proliferation blackmail doesn't require the rapid oxidation of fiery bombs... if its typical, that reactor is so shoddily built it'll rust or collapse from assisted entropy.
just "donate" (rewarding blackmail to some) a shiny new uranium separator that they'd be too tempted not to use for critical parts in their reactor... extremely delicate and finicky parts that require precision power and support... parts that don't react well to entropy in a country struggling to stay out of industrial-revolution chaos on a daily basis... parts that might spontaneously degrade into volatiles.
first bad maintenance, hello pseudo-meltdown.
not only will it teach Bad Hair Leader Kim a lesson about extended warranty, but his hordes of soldiers will glow brightly as they sneak into the DMZ
It's a tough balance. If we want to keep our influence high, and reduce the threat of an expanding China, then the troops probably need to stay. Call it silent imperialism I guess, but it's how the US wants to expand our economic markets and influence around the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course my wish is that they fall flat on their face. When they do they'll blame us and fly a plane into something.
I also like the way the anti-Bush US media (eg NYT) spun this thing out of control.
Comments
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He's saying that action against the pre-nuke-capable nation has a high benefits-to-cost ratio (in keeping them that way) while the same against a post-nuke-capable nation potentially has extremely low benefits-to-cost ratio (quite likely high penalties). It's not a matter of "threat" alone. The dynamics and strategies change radically once nuke capability threshold has been exceeded. In your simple analogy, the better operand would be "concern" rather than action. The greater threat of a nuke-enabled nation certainly deserves greater attention.
[ 01-03-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>The greater threat of a nuke-enabled nation certainly deserves greater attention.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well that makes a lot of sense (hence my original post), but doesn't explain really well why we're bothering with Iraq (not having anything to do with my original post.)
North Korea could be a serious threat. In hindsight, it seems clear that Bush's "Axis of Evil" threat was careless. Either he should have taken the type of action then that he's advocating for now in Iraq, or he should have been giving North Korea more attention and less rhetoric.
It seems more like he antagonized them, and left them to stew. He hasn't made a positive step in that conflict yet.
Catholic are you? You know not everyone likes subsidizing pedophiliacs dressed in silk robes..<hr></blockquote>
I am, although I don't like to think of myself as one. Anyway, you make a good point - none of those either.
[quote]So they can violate the aforementioned agreement, just as the N. Koreans did. And now they have the bomb and you don't. That's very clever. You thought of this all by yourself?
<hr></blockquote>
Who is "you" as in "you don't". The Irish? We don't need nuclear weapons mate. No one is going to attack us. The Americans love us because the Irish did a great deal for building the U.S and we have a strong Irish lobby in their government (just like you guys). The Russians have no beef with us because we never belonged to NATO. The Arabs have no problem with us because they, as one of the few people in this world, understand the Irish cause. The Chinese probably don't even know where Ireland is. All the others are insignificant.
See, that's the good thing about not being aggressive ever in history - nobody has a reason to hate you.
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In that case why attack anyone?
Or are we right to think that the U.S just has to attack someone?
"We're just a country whose intentions are good, oh Lord, please don't let us be misunderstood"
<strong>
In that case why attack anyone?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bloodlust?
Seriously though, the "attack" on North Korea isn't really equivalent to the attack that looks to be inevitable in Iraq. I suggested taking steps towards bombing the reactor that's going to be producing nuclear fuel for weapons, not a full fledged attack of the country.
I suggested it because of a combination of factors, including North Korean threats to use their Nuclear capabilities against the US. I also suggested it because the threat of US intervention would probably light a fire under China and Russia and get them to act before we would have to bomb.
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/weekinreview/05JDAO.html"; target="_blank">Why Keep U.S. Troops in South Korea?</a>
Special AI login for NYT web site
name: aimember
password: aimember
<strong>After reading this at NYT I think the US should pull out of these countries.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You, Osama and Jimmy Carter...bosom buddies!
It's a tough balance. If we want to keep our influence high, and reduce the threat of an expanding China, then the troops probably need to stay. Call it silent imperialism I guess, but it's how the US wants to expand our economic markets and influence around the world.
just "donate" (rewarding blackmail to some) a shiny new uranium separator that they'd be too tempted not to use for critical parts in their reactor... extremely delicate and finicky parts that require precision power and support... parts that don't react well to entropy in a country struggling to stay out of industrial-revolution chaos on a daily basis... parts that might spontaneously degrade into volatiles.
first bad maintenance, hello pseudo-meltdown.
not only will it teach Bad Hair Leader Kim a lesson about extended warranty, but his hordes of soldiers will glow brightly as they sneak into the DMZ
$0.02 with one stone
<strong>
You, Osama and Jimmy Carter...bosom buddies!
It's a tough balance. If we want to keep our influence high, and reduce the threat of an expanding China, then the troops probably need to stay. Call it silent imperialism I guess, but it's how the US wants to expand our economic markets and influence around the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course my wish is that they fall flat on their face. When they do they'll blame us and fly a plane into something.
I also like the way the anti-Bush US media (eg NYT) spun this thing out of control.