I'm not sure if you are just trying to be cute or actually serious. I am saying that without proof, we can assume Saddam has got to be very close. Your last point is sort of off-base. The Gulf War obviously disrupted his abilities....as the did the inspections. Any reasonable person would conclude that Saddam must be within 5 years (at the OUTSIDE) of developing a nuke. I would really like to know if anyone honestly disagrees with this.
EDIT: Really now....if you disagree just say so. But, I'll ask you to state some clear reasons as to why.
And I'm saying that's a really big leap in logic. I'm glad you don't work in a court of law! That's like saying : " Someone from a certain ethnic group hit me so I'm going to assume they're all bad. " Your logic is very flawed ( or at least skewing reality in your favor ). If things are as out of control over there as you say. Then even if the Gulf War slowed him down. If he was that close he still would have had nukes a long time ago. You're baseing this on some pretty week points. More feeling than anything else.
[quote]<strong>We wouldn't have to give or help them design any technology, but they would need our blessings to avoid serious sanctions and what-not. If we gave them our blessings, then we'd be screwed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If the international community lets the North Koreans slide, how can sanctions against Japan be justified? They can't. And if we withhold our blessing from Japan, that doesn't magically mean they are suddenly safe. The threat still would exist. Japan will still need to respond. There's no reason to believe they wouldn't go nuclear anyway. Either North Korea is stopped or the situation will deteriote even further.
[quote]And I'm saying that's a really big leap in logic. I'm glad you don't work in a court of law! That's like saying : " Someone from a certain ethnic group hit me so I'm going to assume they're all bad. " Your logic is very flawed ( or at least skewing reality in your favor ). If things are as out of control over there as you say. Then even if the Gulf War slowed him down. If he was that close he still would have had nukes a long time ago. You're baseing this on some pretty week points. More feeling than anything else.
You see it just doesn't wash.<hr></blockquote>
To assume he is close to a nuclear weapon is a "leap"? How is it a leap to assume that if ten years ago he was within one year of a nuke, he is at least CLOSE to one now? I would respect your disagreeing...but to dismiss my conclusion as a "leap" is ITSELF a leap.
The court of law analogy is very telling of your liberal mindset. The notion that this is some sort of trial, where the United States and company must prove unequivocally that Saddam is in violation is exactly the problem. Thinking like that is what has put the United States at risk concerning terrorism and national security. Liberals like you love to look at national security issues as if they are some kind of trial process. That's the misguided thing here.
Any reasonable, informed person would conclude that Saddam either possesses or will possess nuclear weapons. I honestly do not see how any intelligent person could argue otherwise. I'm not trying to insult you. The facts are clear. He may not have them yet but it is very safe to assume he will.
To assume he is close to a nuclear weapon is a "leap"? How is it a leap to assume that if ten years ago he was within one year of a nuke, he is at least CLOSE to one now? I would respect your disagreeing...but to dismiss my conclusion as a "leap" is ITSELF a leap.
The court of law analogy is very telling of your liberal mindset. The notion that this is some sort of trial, where the United States and company must prove unequivocally that Saddam is in violation is exactly the problem. Thinking like that is what has put the United States at risk concerning terrorism and national security. Liberals like you love to look at national security issues as if they are some kind of trial process. That's the misguided thing here.
Any reasonable, informed person would conclude that Saddam either possesses or will possess nuclear weapons. I honestly do not see how any intelligent person could argue otherwise. I'm not trying to insult you. The facts are clear. He may not have them yet but it is very safe to assume he will.
Ok this is where you always go off the deep end. If you're so sure that he was that close almost 12 years ago now then ( under the logic of speculation that you are useing ) he would have had them a long time ago. Rendering this whole thing moot. But, where are they?
Also if we don't hold up our legal values with other countries ( innocent until proven guilty ) then what are they here? Besides I'm sure you wouldn't want the rest of the world to see us as hypocritical.
The liberal crap as usual is your own personal stuff. So, I guess since you can't adequately reply to this it's " check " again.
There is a very very very strong sentiment against anything Nuclear in Japan . . . and guess why?!?!
I think that the only way they would go nuclear is if a yakuza oriented ultra-right government were to take command.
japan hasn't examined their past guilt in the same way that Germany has, but there is still a lot of knowledge about their Imperialistic militarism, and what suffering it caused in WW2. They didn't see it before or while it was happening, because their public heads were up their arses, but in hind sight they see what they have caused unjustly. There is very strong public opinion against anything military . . . that's why Japan hardly has a military at all.
If the international community lets the North Koreans slide, how can sanctions against Japan be justified?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The international community didn't let it happen, it happened secretly. If they do nothing, then it'll be letting it slide. Sanctions against Japan would be justified regardless, a lack of sanctions against North Korea just wouldn't be.
[quote]Ok this is where you always go off the deep end. If you're so sure that he was that close almost 12 years ago now then ( under the logic of speculation that you are useing ) he would have had them a long time ago. Rendering this whole thing moot. But, where are they?
Also if we don't hold up our legal values with other countries ( innocent until proven guilty ) then what are they here? Besides I'm sure you wouldn't want the rest of the world to see us as hypocritical.
The liberal crap as usual is your own personal stuff. So, I guess since you can't adequately reply to this it's " check " again. <hr></blockquote>
The information that he was within about a year of a nuclear weapon before the Gulf War came from an Iraq scientist who defected. Your argument regarding mootness is not valid. It stands to reason that the War and ensuing inspections disrupted the program significantly. What I am saying is that it has been four years without inspectors. That's four years without any international supervision whatsoever. Once again, how can any reasonable person on this planet say that it is illogical to conclude (given what we know) that Saddam is at least close to acquiring nuclear weapons? I'm not arguing as to what should be done about it (we've had that argument several times). I'm just saying that it is a safe bet he is close.
I know we are dealing with speculation here. I have said that. But it is reasonable speculation. Once again, jimmac, your only real argument is that "I've gone off the deep end".
Let me get this straight: You are saying that Saddam ISN'T close to building a nuke, right? You are saying that I am totally unjustified and radical in my thinking that he is probably quite close to possessing one?
Now, on international law: National security issues can often NOT be considered a legal process as we think of it. I'm sorry, but Iraq, North Korea and other rogue nations are NOT, in any way "innocent until proven guilty". You cannot apply our judicial standards when it comes to certain things, specifically terror and even rogue states. That is EXCACTLY what is wrong with liberal thinking when it comes to national security. I'm so glad you said it, because I couldn't have shown a better example of flawed liberal thinking. I suppose you agreed with those who felt we should have sent in some kind of police force to aprehend Bin Laden afer 9/11.
Oh, and despite the rhetoric to the contrary, we are working with the international community to a high degree. The topic title is simply false. The notion that the US has somehow caused all of the anti-American setiment out there is inaccurate.
No. Looks to me like the UN is still involved and interested in solving the problem (unlike Bush who is unwilling to communicate with them.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Okay so when we're on the next "last chance" then will it be sliding? It's not true that Bush is "unwilling to communicate with them". Just to make sure you're paying attention why don't you relate the conditions under which Bush will communicate with them?
Okay so when we're on the next "last chance" then will it be sliding? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not doing anything would be letting them slide. Forcing the issue is not letting them slide. I know, I know, anything less than complete annihilation of North Korea is appeasement in your eyes....
<strong>I don't know about that. I wish we had him right now....I'll say that. The overall operation in Afghanistan was very sucessful.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's a tough call for me. Do the ends justify the means? Could it have been done better? Yes. We did accomplish most of what we wanted (letting OBL get away is unfortunate) but I do think we could have been more successful.
Not doing anything would be letting them slide. Forcing the issue is not letting them slide. I know, I know, anything less than complete annihilation of North Korea is appeasement in your eyes....
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well no but N. Korea proved to the world that they cannot be trusted, again. So any agreement based on trust is useless.
<strong> The topic title is simply false. The notion that the US has somehow caused all of the anti-American setiment out there is inaccurate.
</strong><hr></blockquote>Its not that simplistic and neither was my thinking when I posted the original topic. . . but somehow it seems natural that you can only interpret things in such a cut and dry simplistic fashion . . . in that way you are not letting me down.
Its not a matter of what we are doing only but of how we do and don't do things and how we strive to relate to the rest of the world. Diplomats are usually chosen because of there unusual diplomacy skills . . . those skills do not come easy . . .negotiations and allignment building and knowing when to and when not to . . . what we need to happen now and in the future is to realize that we should think about diplomacy not from a position of being the most powerful but from a position of one country in a world with other countries.
Our backpedalling when faced with a real military opponent in NKorea, where the peril is real as opposed to simply a matter of secrets held by the administration . . . tells the world something, weather it is true or not, namely,
That we 'Talk a lot of air and carry a soft stick'
I agree with the original phrase: talk softly and carry a big stick.
Its a very real possibility that it is the hyperbolic rhetoric that lumped three countries into an "axis of Evil" that has caused NK to react as they have, after all, Bush seems to be acting on his "axis" rhetoric, so naturally the NKs would think that its only a matter of time . . . so they might as well have the weapons to fight back
that kind of speech act/reaction could have been avoided with sensible diplomacy from the mouths of our leader . . . . .
Here is a good article about exactly this subject. registration is required but it is a long article and worth reading
sure Scott will dismiss it as being from that redical pinko paper the NYTimes . . . but that tells me more about Scott than any supposed biase in the source.
its a good article that almost has me agreeing with teh need for war in Iraq
albiet a war that takes into account a need for serious diplomacy and work with the Palastinians as well . . .
from the article, just to show its not just some lefty rant: [quote] Even at this late date, it is still possible to ask: Why should a republic take on the risks of empire? Won't it run a chance of endangering its identity as a free people? The problem is that this implies innocent options that in the case of Iraq may no longer exist. Iraq is not just about whether the United States can retain its republican virtue in a wicked world. Virtuous disengagement is no longer a possibility. Since Sept. 11, it has been about whether the republic can survive in safety at home without imperial policing abroad. Face to face with ''evil empires'' of the past, the republic reluctantly accepted a division of the world based on mutually assured destruction. But now it faces much less stable and reliable opponents -- rogue states like Iraq and North Korea with the potential to supply weapons of mass destruction to a terrorist internationale. Iraq represents the first in a series of struggles to contain the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the first attempt to shut off the potential supply of lethal technologies to a global terrorist network. <hr></blockquote>
and again
[quote] Yet it remains a fact -- as disagreeable to those left wingers who regard American imperialism as the root of all evil as it is to the right-wing isolationists, who believe that the world beyond our shores is none of our business -- that there are many peoples who owe their freedom to an exercise of American military power. It's not just the Japanese and the Germans, who became democrats under the watchful eye of Generals MacArthur and Clay. There are the Bosnians, whose nation survived because American air power and diplomacy forced an end to a war the Europeans couldn't stop. There are the Kosovars, who would still be imprisoned in Serbia if not for Gen. Wesley Clark and the Air Force. The list of people whose freedom depends on American air and ground power also includes the Afghans and, most inconveniently of all, the Iraqis. <hr></blockquote>
and again [quote] t is unsurprising that force projection overseas should awaken resentment among America's enemies. More troubling is the hostility it arouses among friends, those whose security is guaranteed by American power. Nowhere is this more obvious than in Europe. At a moment when the costs of empire are mounting for America, her rich European allies matter financially. But in America's emerging global strategy, they have been demoted to reluctant junior partners. This makes them resentful and unwilling allies, less and less able to understand the nation that liberated them in 1945.
For 50 years, Europe rebuilt itself economically while passing on the costs of its defense to the United States. <hr></blockquote>
and again [quote] The United States is multilateral when it wants to be, unilateral when it must be; and it enforces a new division of labor in which America does the fighting, the French, British and Germans do the police patrols in the border zones and the Dutch, Swiss and Scandinavians provide the humanitarian aid. <hr></blockquote>
now, more to my way of thinking: [quote]Empires survive when they understand that diplomacy, backed by force, is always to be preferred to force alone. Looking into the still more distant future, say a generation ahead, resurgent Russia and China will demand recognition both as world powers and as regional hegemons. As the North Korean case shows, America needs to share the policing of nonproliferation and other threats with these powers, <hr></blockquote>
and its conclusion:
[quote] The case for empire is that it has become, in a place like Iraq, the last hope for democracy and stability alike. Even so, empires survive only by understanding their limits. Sept. 11 pitched the Islamic world into the beginning of a long and bloody struggle to determine how it will be ruled and by whom: the authoritarians, the Islamists or perhaps the democrats. America can help repress and contain the struggle, but even though its own security depends on the outcome, it cannot ultimately control it. Only a very deluded imperialist would believe otherwise. <hr></blockquote>
Comments
<strong>
I'm not sure if you are just trying to be cute or actually serious. I am saying that without proof, we can assume Saddam has got to be very close. Your last point is sort of off-base. The Gulf War obviously disrupted his abilities....as the did the inspections. Any reasonable person would conclude that Saddam must be within 5 years (at the OUTSIDE) of developing a nuke. I would really like to know if anyone honestly disagrees with this.
EDIT: Really now....if you disagree just say so. But, I'll ask you to state some clear reasons as to why.
[ 01-04-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong>[/
QUOTE]
And I'm saying that's a really big leap in logic. I'm glad you don't work in a court of law! That's like saying : " Someone from a certain ethnic group hit me so I'm going to assume they're all bad. " Your logic is very flawed ( or at least skewing reality in your favor ). If things are as out of control over there as you say. Then even if the Gulf War slowed him down. If he was that close he still would have had nukes a long time ago. You're baseing this on some pretty week points. More feeling than anything else.
You see it just doesn't wash.
[ 01-05-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
Of course they would.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course they wouldn't.
[quote]<strong>We wouldn't have to give or help them design any technology, but they would need our blessings to avoid serious sanctions and what-not. If we gave them our blessings, then we'd be screwed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If the international community lets the North Koreans slide, how can sanctions against Japan be justified? They can't. And if we withhold our blessing from Japan, that doesn't magically mean they are suddenly safe. The threat still would exist. Japan will still need to respond. There's no reason to believe they wouldn't go nuclear anyway. Either North Korea is stopped or the situation will deteriote even further.
[quote]And I'm saying that's a really big leap in logic. I'm glad you don't work in a court of law! That's like saying : " Someone from a certain ethnic group hit me so I'm going to assume they're all bad. " Your logic is very flawed ( or at least skewing reality in your favor ). If things are as out of control over there as you say. Then even if the Gulf War slowed him down. If he was that close he still would have had nukes a long time ago. You're baseing this on some pretty week points. More feeling than anything else.
You see it just doesn't wash.<hr></blockquote>
To assume he is close to a nuclear weapon is a "leap"? How is it a leap to assume that if ten years ago he was within one year of a nuke, he is at least CLOSE to one now? I would respect your disagreeing...but to dismiss my conclusion as a "leap" is ITSELF a leap.
The court of law analogy is very telling of your liberal mindset. The notion that this is some sort of trial, where the United States and company must prove unequivocally that Saddam is in violation is exactly the problem. Thinking like that is what has put the United States at risk concerning terrorism and national security. Liberals like you love to look at national security issues as if they are some kind of trial process. That's the misguided thing here.
Any reasonable, informed person would conclude that Saddam either possesses or will possess nuclear weapons. I honestly do not see how any intelligent person could argue otherwise. I'm not trying to insult you. The facts are clear. He may not have them yet but it is very safe to assume he will.
[ 01-05-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>jimmac:
To assume he is close to a nuclear weapon is a "leap"? How is it a leap to assume that if ten years ago he was within one year of a nuke, he is at least CLOSE to one now? I would respect your disagreeing...but to dismiss my conclusion as a "leap" is ITSELF a leap.
The court of law analogy is very telling of your liberal mindset. The notion that this is some sort of trial, where the United States and company must prove unequivocally that Saddam is in violation is exactly the problem. Thinking like that is what has put the United States at risk concerning terrorism and national security. Liberals like you love to look at national security issues as if they are some kind of trial process. That's the misguided thing here.
Any reasonable, informed person would conclude that Saddam either possesses or will possess nuclear weapons. I honestly do not see how any intelligent person could argue otherwise. I'm not trying to insult you. The facts are clear. He may not have them yet but it is very safe to assume he will.
[ 01-05-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok this is where you always go off the deep end. If you're so sure that he was that close almost 12 years ago now then ( under the logic of speculation that you are useing ) he would have had them a long time ago. Rendering this whole thing moot. But, where are they?
Also if we don't hold up our legal values with other countries ( innocent until proven guilty ) then what are they here? Besides I'm sure you wouldn't want the rest of the world to see us as hypocritical.
The liberal crap as usual is your own personal stuff. So, I guess since you can't adequately reply to this it's " check " again.
[ 01-05-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
I think that the only way they would go nuclear is if a yakuza oriented ultra-right government were to take command.
japan hasn't examined their past guilt in the same way that Germany has, but there is still a lot of knowledge about their Imperialistic militarism, and what suffering it caused in WW2. They didn't see it before or while it was happening, because their public heads were up their arses, but in hind sight they see what they have caused unjustly. There is very strong public opinion against anything military . . . that's why Japan hardly has a military at all.
<strong>
If the international community lets the North Koreans slide, how can sanctions against Japan be justified?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The international community didn't let it happen, it happened secretly. If they do nothing, then it'll be letting it slide. Sanctions against Japan would be justified regardless, a lack of sanctions against North Korea just wouldn't be.
<strong>
... Sanctions against Japan would be justified regardless, a lack of sanctions against North Korea just wouldn't be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a double standard and doesn't make any sense.
<strong>
The international community didn't let it happen, it happened secretly. If they do nothing, then it'll be letting it slide.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can we say they are sliding now?
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Nuclear-Agency-NKorea.html"; target="_blank">U.N. to Give North Korea 'One More Chance'</a>
Loging: aimember
password: aimember
jimmac:
[quote]Ok this is where you always go off the deep end. If you're so sure that he was that close almost 12 years ago now then ( under the logic of speculation that you are useing ) he would have had them a long time ago. Rendering this whole thing moot. But, where are they?
Also if we don't hold up our legal values with other countries ( innocent until proven guilty ) then what are they here? Besides I'm sure you wouldn't want the rest of the world to see us as hypocritical.
The liberal crap as usual is your own personal stuff. So, I guess since you can't adequately reply to this it's " check " again. <hr></blockquote>
The information that he was within about a year of a nuclear weapon before the Gulf War came from an Iraq scientist who defected. Your argument regarding mootness is not valid. It stands to reason that the War and ensuing inspections disrupted the program significantly. What I am saying is that it has been four years without inspectors. That's four years without any international supervision whatsoever. Once again, how can any reasonable person on this planet say that it is illogical to conclude (given what we know) that Saddam is at least close to acquiring nuclear weapons? I'm not arguing as to what should be done about it (we've had that argument several times). I'm just saying that it is a safe bet he is close.
I know we are dealing with speculation here. I have said that. But it is reasonable speculation. Once again, jimmac, your only real argument is that "I've gone off the deep end".
Let me get this straight: You are saying that Saddam ISN'T close to building a nuke, right? You are saying that I am totally unjustified and radical in my thinking that he is probably quite close to possessing one?
Now, on international law: National security issues can often NOT be considered a legal process as we think of it. I'm sorry, but Iraq, North Korea and other rogue nations are NOT, in any way "innocent until proven guilty". You cannot apply our judicial standards when it comes to certain things, specifically terror and even rogue states. That is EXCACTLY what is wrong with liberal thinking when it comes to national security. I'm so glad you said it, because I couldn't have shown a better example of flawed liberal thinking. I suppose you agreed with those who felt we should have sent in some kind of police force to aprehend Bin Laden afer 9/11.
Oh, and despite the rhetoric to the contrary, we are working with the international community to a high degree. The topic title is simply false. The notion that the US has somehow caused all of the anti-American setiment out there is inaccurate.
[ 01-06-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>
That's a double standard and doesn't make any sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. If there's a law then it must be enforced.
<strong>
Can we say they are sliding now? </strong><hr></blockquote>
No. Looks to me like the UN is still involved and interested in solving the problem (unlike Bush who is unwilling to communicate with them.)
<strong>
I suppose you agreed with those who felt we should have sent in some kind of police force to aprehend Bin Laden afer 9/11. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well it certainly couldn't have done a worse job of catching him.
<strong>
No. Looks to me like the UN is still involved and interested in solving the problem (unlike Bush who is unwilling to communicate with them.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Okay so when we're on the next "last chance" then will it be sliding? It's not true that Bush is "unwilling to communicate with them". Just to make sure you're paying attention why don't you relate the conditions under which Bush will communicate with them?
<strong>
Okay so when we're on the next "last chance" then will it be sliding? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not doing anything would be letting them slide. Forcing the issue is not letting them slide. I know, I know, anything less than complete annihilation of North Korea is appeasement in your eyes....
<strong>I know, I know, anything less than complete annihilation of North Korea is appeasement in your eyes....
How about the complete annihilation of the NK government?
<strong>I don't know about that. I wish we had him right now....I'll say that. The overall operation in Afghanistan was very sucessful.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's a tough call for me. Do the ends justify the means? Could it have been done better? Yes. We did accomplish most of what we wanted (letting OBL get away is unfortunate) but I do think we could have been more successful.
Anyway, here is a <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn05.html"; target="_blank">link</a> to a slightly more ontopic article.
<strong>
Not doing anything would be letting them slide. Forcing the issue is not letting them slide. I know, I know, anything less than complete annihilation of North Korea is appeasement in your eyes....
Well no but N. Korea proved to the world that they cannot be trusted, again. So any agreement based on trust is useless.
<strong> The topic title is simply false. The notion that the US has somehow caused all of the anti-American setiment out there is inaccurate.
</strong><hr></blockquote>Its not that simplistic and neither was my thinking when I posted the original topic. . . but somehow it seems natural that you can only interpret things in such a cut and dry simplistic fashion . . . in that way you are not letting me down.
Its not a matter of what we are doing only but of how we do and don't do things and how we strive to relate to the rest of the world. Diplomats are usually chosen because of there unusual diplomacy skills . . . those skills do not come easy . . .negotiations and allignment building and knowing when to and when not to . . . what we need to happen now and in the future is to realize that we should think about diplomacy not from a position of being the most powerful but from a position of one country in a world with other countries.
Our backpedalling when faced with a real military opponent in NKorea, where the peril is real as opposed to simply a matter of secrets held by the administration . . . tells the world something, weather it is true or not, namely,
That we 'Talk a lot of air and carry a soft stick'
I agree with the original phrase: talk softly and carry a big stick.
Its a very real possibility that it is the hyperbolic rhetoric that lumped three countries into an "axis of Evil" that has caused NK to react as they have, after all, Bush seems to be acting on his "axis" rhetoric, so naturally the NKs would think that its only a matter of time . . . so they might as well have the weapons to fight back
that kind of speech act/reaction could have been avoided with sensible diplomacy from the mouths of our leader . . . . .
sure Scott will dismiss it as being from that redical pinko paper the NYTimes . . . but that tells me more about Scott than any supposed biase in the source.
its a good article that almost has me agreeing with teh need for war in Iraq
albiet a war that takes into account a need for serious diplomacy and work with the Palastinians as well . . .
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/magazine/05EMPIRE.html"; target="_blank">The American Empire (get used to it)</a>
from the article, just to show its not just some lefty rant: [quote] Even at this late date, it is still possible to ask: Why should a republic take on the risks of empire? Won't it run a chance of endangering its identity as a free people? The problem is that this implies innocent options that in the case of Iraq may no longer exist. Iraq is not just about whether the United States can retain its republican virtue in a wicked world. Virtuous disengagement is no longer a possibility. Since Sept. 11, it has been about whether the republic can survive in safety at home without imperial policing abroad. Face to face with ''evil empires'' of the past, the republic reluctantly accepted a division of the world based on mutually assured destruction. But now it faces much less stable and reliable opponents -- rogue states like Iraq and North Korea with the potential to supply weapons of mass destruction to a terrorist internationale. Iraq represents the first in a series of struggles to contain the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the first attempt to shut off the potential supply of lethal technologies to a global terrorist network. <hr></blockquote>
and again
[quote] Yet it remains a fact -- as disagreeable to those left wingers who regard American imperialism as the root of all evil as it is to the right-wing isolationists, who believe that the world beyond our shores is none of our business -- that there are many peoples who owe their freedom to an exercise of American military power. It's not just the Japanese and the Germans, who became democrats under the watchful eye of Generals MacArthur and Clay. There are the Bosnians, whose nation survived because American air power and diplomacy forced an end to a war the Europeans couldn't stop. There are the Kosovars, who would still be imprisoned in Serbia if not for Gen. Wesley Clark and the Air Force. The list of people whose freedom depends on American air and ground power also includes the Afghans and, most inconveniently of all, the Iraqis. <hr></blockquote>
and again [quote] t is unsurprising that force projection overseas should awaken resentment among America's enemies. More troubling is the hostility it arouses among friends, those whose security is guaranteed by American power. Nowhere is this more obvious than in Europe. At a moment when the costs of empire are mounting for America, her rich European allies matter financially. But in America's emerging global strategy, they have been demoted to reluctant junior partners. This makes them resentful and unwilling allies, less and less able to understand the nation that liberated them in 1945.
For 50 years, Europe rebuilt itself economically while passing on the costs of its defense to the United States. <hr></blockquote>
and again [quote] The United States is multilateral when it wants to be, unilateral when it must be; and it enforces a new division of labor in which America does the fighting, the French, British and Germans do the police patrols in the border zones and the Dutch, Swiss and Scandinavians provide the humanitarian aid. <hr></blockquote>
now, more to my way of thinking: [quote]Empires survive when they understand that diplomacy, backed by force, is always to be preferred to force alone. Looking into the still more distant future, say a generation ahead, resurgent Russia and China will demand recognition both as world powers and as regional hegemons. As the North Korean case shows, America needs to share the policing of nonproliferation and other threats with these powers, <hr></blockquote>
and its conclusion:
[quote] The case for empire is that it has become, in a place like Iraq, the last hope for democracy and stability alike. Even so, empires survive only by understanding their limits. Sept. 11 pitched the Islamic world into the beginning of a long and bloody struggle to determine how it will be ruled and by whom: the authoritarians, the Islamists or perhaps the democrats. America can help repress and contain the struggle, but even though its own security depends on the outcome, it cannot ultimately control it. Only a very deluded imperialist would believe otherwise. <hr></blockquote>
there is also a reader discussion forum <a href="http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?50@@.f35ae71"; target="_blank">here</a> . .
its a thought provoking article.