#287997 - 11/10/2006 04:18
Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss.
[Re: hybrid8]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Brad, I'll assume you were joking about Afghanistan. You can feel free to let me know when they declared war on the US though.
Ever heard of Bin Laden? He and many other muslims have declared war on us.
Yes, I know most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and lots of terrorists have been hiding in Pakistan. But unlike the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the rulers of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran refused to cooperate with the West in rooting out these terrorist organizations that have attacked us several times. In fact, they openly supported them. Two down, one to go. Good progress in my opinion.
Quote:
Islamofascists? I suppose that's a stark contrast to the plain old regular fascism that's been growing in the US for the past few years. Yeah, our fascism is better than theirs.
Whatever, dude. You must be either truly delusional or sympathetic to the enemy's cause, which is "convert to Islam or DIE".
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287998 - 11/10/2006 07:33
Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss.
[Re: ]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/08/2000
Posts: 2091
Loc: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
Billy, do you honestly think that the 9/11 attack and ongoing issues are not Bush/Clinton's fault? Yes, directly they are the fault of some crazy militants, but do you understand why they got so militant in the first place? I know from the times I have been in the US that the media is completely warped and twisted, but you must at least have the common sense to realise that Afghanistan, Iraq etc were all shat on by the US first and have a fairly justified urge for revenge. Personally I dont't think killing innocents is the way to have that revenge, but the US killed their innocents first...and way more than 9/11 and associated events.
_________________________
Rory
MkIIa, blue lit buttons, memory upgrade, 1Tb in Subaru Forester STi
MkII, 240Gb in Mark Lord dock
MkII, 80Gb SSD in dock
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287999 - 11/10/2006 12:17
Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss.
[Re: frog51]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
Obviously this isn't directed to Rory, just following on to his reply...
Afghanistan and Iraq had nothing at all to do with 9/11. OMG, blind faith in the party. Remember that the unprovoked invasion and war against Iraq was based on the supposition they had weapons of mass destruction. That was a blunder that some seem to be forgetting. Then you have a certain super power not following the convention (rules) of war at any point in the game. And now you just have an unjust occupation. None of this is reason for anyone to be pissed off of course. Every citizen of the US should be in outrage.
I think every terrorist past and present is a total and complete coward. You have to be a totally spineless pussy, beyond any sense of retribution, to become a suicide bomber. Ok, that's out of the way.
Being a critic of the US' actions in no way makes one sympathetic to the "enemy" - the fact is there is no one real enemy, and it certainly is not the muslim world. The US is the aggressor in every case, wake up!
These terrorists have been created and supplied by twisted US foreign policy over the past few decades. And this issue is still a problem. But you can't even say that the foreign policy is self-serving to the country as a whole. It's all monetary-based but only a select few get to profit. Certainly not the average citizen. They're just fodder which is probably the saddest thing of all.
There *is* an axis of evil. But it's made up of key people in the US, not in the middle east.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288000 - 11/10/2006 12:24
Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss.
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
Go look up fascism in the dictionary and then get back to me. Or instead of getting back to me, go down to your local recruiting office and sign up for military service and request to be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan after basic training. Maybe once you've been away from CNN for a little while you'll finally see a bigger/different picture.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288001 - 11/10/2006 13:20
Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss.
[Re: hybrid8]
|
addict
Registered: 11/11/2001
Posts: 552
Loc: Houston, TX
|
Quote:
Maybe once you've been away from CNN for a little while you'll finally see a bigger/different picture.
No, it looks like he watches Fox News, you know, "Fair and Balanced"
/More like fairly unbalanced to me though.
_________________________
--Ben
78GB MkIIa, Dead tuner.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288002 - 11/10/2006 14:45
Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss.
[Re: frog51]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 27/02/2004
Posts: 1900
Loc: London
|
Quote:
Personally I dont't think killing innocents is the way to have that revenge, but the US killed their innocents first...and way more than 9/11 and associated events.
"An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion, according to a survey by a US university."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6040054.stm
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288003 - 11/10/2006 16:27
Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss.
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
While none of the facts in the summary you posted are untrue, many of the editorial comments are leaps of logic, and unsubstantiated by the facts. There are a million details and little wrinkles in the long saga of DPRK's attempts to become a nuclear power, and many of the exact details are not public knowledge. But it basically boils down to the following: (courtesy of Josh Marshall): Quote:
1994-2002 -- Era of Clinton 'Agreed Framework': No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb.
2002-2006 -- Bush Policy Era: Active plutonium production. No international inspections of plutonium stocks. Nuclear warhead detonated.
Talk all you want about DPRK's enriched uranium program and how it violated the original agreement, but Clinton's policies and bilateral agreement led to DPRK being forced to cheat, using the back door to acquire nuclear weapons. Bush's policy of heated rhetoric with no bilateral negotiations and no weapons inspections has led to the reactivation of the plutonium program in addition to the uranium program, leaving both the front doors and back doors wide open for business.
Calling this "blaming ourselves" is such a farce. The blame does, in fact, lie at the feet of the elected leaders who didn't do their jobs, and in this matter, the Bush administration's failure to negotiate bilaterally led to the collapse of the existing agreement, under which weapons inspections gave us at least partial visibility into and control over DPRK's weapons programs. DPRK then reactivated the plutonium program, and now they have bombs.
Is DPRK the aggressor? Of course. Is Kim Jong Il a liar? Without question. Is Bush to blame for abandoning the existing framework and replacing it with empty rhetoric? Absolutely.
I don't know about you, but I believe our elected leaders need to be held accountable for when they fail to protect their citizens.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288004 - 11/10/2006 16:28
Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss.
[Re: ]
|
addict
Registered: 18/02/2002
Posts: 658
|
Quote:
...wacko islamofacists want to forcibly convert the West to Islam
Quote:
...the enemy's cause, which is "convert to Islam or DIE"
This is a fallacy that neocons and loonies like to constantly mention regarding the "war on terror". They want to believe that this is some good vs. evil thing where we have to utterly destory the enemy who wants nothing more than to eat our babies, and convert our men and enslave our women. This is a lie and a very clever tactic. These people do not give a rats ass if you find the path to Allah. They want US troops off the Arabian Penninsula, and they want justice in Palestine. These are their motives. Well at least those WERE their motives, now they are just pissed at the US and hate everything American. It didn't used to be like that. Yes there were factions that were hostile towards the US for the reasons mentioned above, but by and large, the average citizens of most muslim countries pretty much liked Americans. It was funny, cause I remember hearing a lot of people back home who just sort of, admired Americans because of their "movie star looks and exciting lives", they wanted to come here and partake in the american dream and all that nonsense. Now instead of a pissed off minority, you have half the muslim world hating the US. I can honestly again say that it didn't used to be like that.
There is never going to be a Caliphate going from Indonesia to Spain, and you, nor anyone you know is ever going to be forcibly converted to Islam. But keep believing that its what the terrorists want, and keep telling everyone that this is part of the eternal struggle between good and evil, and yet again, America is good, which obviously puts anyone muslim in the evil category.
BTW, I'm sure someone is going to find some quote, or link, or videotaped message where some asshole terrorist is saying something to the effect of, "the US WILL FALL, CHRISTIANS DIE, CONVERT OR DIE", this is about the same as a muslim watching a KKK or Aryan Brotherhood video and claiming that the white man wants to kill minorities and all white people want to create an Aryan empire.
Edited by visuvius (11/10/2006 16:30)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288005 - 11/10/2006 17:20
Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss.
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
Calling me "anti-appeasment" would be accurate. However, I'm not aware of a single prominent author, speaker or commentator who considers sanctions to be a form of appeasment. I don't mind if we disagree, but I feel that's dangerously misunderstanding those whom I agree with on this subject.
You breezed right past the point of Greenwald's post. Let's back off the word "appeasement" for a second, and look at the purpose of sanctions. Sanctions are a way to force another country into accepting an agreement they normally wouldn't accept without the sanctions in place. In the "carrots" and "sticks" parlance, it's a medium-sized stick, larger than "we'll be very mad at you' (the stick currently wielded by the Bush administration) but smaller than "we'll bomb the shit out of you."
Maybe there are no high-profile conservative pundits equating sanctions with appeasement, but there are certainly plenty of them saying that we ought to forget about negotiation. If we don't negotiate, and (as you've alluded to) we don't have the ability to impose sanctions, all we have left is military action. That's exactly what many of "those whom you agree with" are pushing towards.
Quote:
If we don't agree, let's at least be clear about how and what we disagree about.
Okay, I'll make a few statements, and you can give me your take on them.
When a conflict like this arises:
1. Diplomacy should always be the first step.
2. When diplomacy fails, diplomacy is still an option.
3. If you think diplomacy is no longer an option, you'd better be ready to deal with the conflict militarily.
The problem I have with the Bush policy towards North Korea, and the legions of conservatives lining up to say diplomacy with North Korea is dead, is that we have no other options. Even if you impose sanctions, at some point, you have to sit down at the table and get them to agree to something, unless you're willing to use force. It all boils down to either agreeing to something or involving ourselves in yet another war.
Quote:
I think that "skeptical towards diplomacy" is a more accurate description than "anti-dipylomacy". Diplomacy is great between two sane countries but I'm not aware of it ever working with a dictatorship.
Diplomacy can work with any two parties who want to avoid conflict. North Korea doesn't really want armed conflict with us, and we don't really want armed conflict with them. Therefore, we can engage in negotiations.
Quote:
To me, the real fear about North Korea is poliferation.
Agreed. They sold uranium to Libya, there's no reason they wouldn't sell a weapon to $BAD_ACTOR. But what's your solution?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288006 - 11/10/2006 22:16
Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss.
[Re: hybrid8]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Brad, I'll assume you were joking about Afghanistan. You can feel free to let me know when they declared war on the US though. And when they attacked the US or any of its possessions or allies.
As critical as I am of the Bush administration, I find it hard to argue with the conclusion that al Qaeda, who are believed to be responsible, and who have claimed responsibility, for two World Trade Center attacks, the attack on the USS Cole, and two attacks on US embassies, were the (irregular) army of the Taliban, rulers of the vast majority of Afghanistan in 2001. Generally speaking, when a country's army attacks you, multiple times, that's an implicit declaration of war.
Do you claim that al Qaeda were not responsible for those attacks, that al Qaeda was not the army of Afghanistan, or that multiple attacks on US property are not sufficient as a declaration of war?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288007 - 11/10/2006 22:58
Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss.
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
You breezed right past the point of Greenwald's post...
Only because I tended to agree with most of it. I just thought that the one line I singled out was a misrepresentation and unfair. How can we discuss a matter such as this if we don't understand the other side's motives or concerns? I thought most of it was accurate but if you were to really think that people who dislike appeasment (such as myself), also consider sanctions to be a form of appeasment, I don't see how you'd even want to discuss the topic with the other side. (Sanctions = Appeasment) is stupid.
Quote:
"we'll be very mad at you' (the stick currently wielded by the Bush administration) but smaller than "we'll bomb the shit out of you."
I'm not sure that's the US's position on N. Korea. We've never ruled out sanctions but to be honest, Kim is such a nut that he has stated that sanctions would be an act of war. (Sanctions = Military Action) is stupid. Besides this, we do very little trade with North Korea as it is, so how effective can unilateral sanctions be? In my opinion, I think the US sees that the best solution is to encourage China to take action under the threat that Japan will move to militarize itself if they don't. That allows the US to take the non-hostile stance of "We can't promise that Japan won't hit you but we promise not to hit you unless you strike one of our allies."
Quote:
Maybe there are no high-profile conservative pundits equating sanctions with appeasement, but there are certainly plenty of them saying that we ought to forget about negotiation.
Only if negotiations equate to "give them whatever they want as long as they promise to not build a bomb". But that would be appeasment.
Quote:
When a conflict like this arises:
1. Diplomacy should always be the first step.
2. When diplomacy fails, diplomacy is still an option.
3. If you think diplomacy is no longer an option, you'd better be ready to deal with the conflict militarily.
Sounds good to me as long as you have some sticks (sanctions or force) to go along with any carrots. And we can't count on Trust. Everything has to be verified.
Quote:
The problem I have with the Bush policy towards North Korea, and the legions of conservatives lining up to say diplomacy with North Korea is dead, is that we have no other options. Even if you impose sanctions, at some point, you have to sit down at the table and get them to agree to something, unless you're willing to use force. It all boils down to either agreeing to something or involving ourselves in yet another war.
I agree. If Kim wasn't so damned insane maybe I'd feel better about it though. And I'm not aware of any conservatives leaders who are pushing for military action. I have read some blogs and forums where people are calling for this, but they are reacting emotionally and I don't really think they mean it. Some have proposed surgical strikes like Israel did against Iraq back in the day but those people tend to be political people. The military people that happen to be conservative strongly think that will be ineffective.
Quote:
Diplomacy can work with any two parties who want to avoid conflict. North Korea doesn't really want armed conflict with us, and we don't really want armed conflict with them. Therefore, we can engage in negotiations.
Let's hope you're right on the bolded part. If we do so much as mention the weather on the Korean peninsula, Kim announces it as an act of war. He also happens to pull some stunt every time national attention is pointed away from him.
Quote:
Agreed. They sold uranium to Libya, there's no reason they wouldn't sell a weapon to $BAD_ACTOR. But what's your solution?
Team America.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288008 - 12/10/2006 03:19
Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss.
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
We're actually pretty close on a lot of the underlying issues here, and I think if you reread the original words I quoted, you'll realize nobody is saying what you think they're saying: Quote:
Sanctions are intended to pressure a country into capitulating to an agreement on favorable terms. But whether they are viewed as a tool for negotiations or as an option unto themselves, they are scorned just the same by the anti-diplomacy crowd as a form of "appeasement."
You said yourself that you don't consider yourself anti-diplomacy, rather, you consider yourself skeptical of diplomacy. So, the statement doesn't apply to you, nor to those who think like you do.
It does, however, apply to the more hawkish of conservatives who are truly anti-diplomacy, and among those are The National Review's Michael Rubin, whose statements were the inspiration behind Greenwald's blog entry. Rubin stated, in no uncertain terms, that diplomacy with North Korea wasn't an option, and did, in fact, liken anyone who wants to engage them in diplomacy as appeasers.
Anyway, I do think that's our main point of disagreement, but I do want to respond to this:
Quote:
I agree. If Kim wasn't so damned insane maybe I'd feel better about it though.
Yes, Kim Jong Il is insane, much more insane than Parker and Stone gave him credit for. But, if you think about it, that's EXACTLY why we need to keep bilateral diplomatic channels open.
I'm sure you've seen movies where a crazy person is about to do something stupid. Maybe he's going to end his own life jumping off a skyscraper, or detonate a bunch of explosives and kill a lot of innocent people. Sometimes, the situation ends in a bunch of gunfire. Other times, though, it ends because the good guys establish a dialogue with the crazy guy and talk him off the ledge, get him to drop the detonator, or whatever. No true trust relationship is established, but enough talking is done that maybe some common ground is found, or the crazy person has a moment of clarity and realizes what they're doing is, well, crazy.
Now, I'm not suggesting the US start taking foreign policy advice from Hollywood (though, sometimes I wonder if they are.) Nor am I suggesting that every crazy person will respond to being engaged in conversation. But, it seems to me that Kim Jong Il, being the egomaniac he is, just wants someone to listen to him. We don't have to trust him to listen to him, but listening to him may just give us information that helps us make the right decisions with our policies going forward. It may make him just a bit more hesitant to do something stupid if he thinks he might get something (a carrot, perhaps) if he doesn't.
Ultimately, there is NO drawback to establishing bilateral dialogue with ANY other country, no matter how crazy their leaders may be, unless you plan to go to war and destroy them. Anything short of that, and diplomatic channels should be open. Like it or not, people on "your side" (though, I suspect, further to the extremes of your side) are indeed suggesting that the time for diplomacy is over, and unfortunately, one of them lives at 1600 Pennsylvania.
Quote:
Team America.
Fuck yeah!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288009 - 12/10/2006 04:58
Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss.
[Re: hybrid8]
|
addict
Registered: 25/06/2002
Posts: 456
|
Quote:
And I also suppose those atomic strikes at the tail of WW2 weren't pre-emptive either...
OK, everyone else has ignored this because it is somewhat off of the main topic, but I don't think I want to leave this comment hanging out there.
One could perhaps argue that those two atomic bombs were unnecessary or uncalled for. In fact many people have done exactly that and it is very much in fashion now to say "the US knew the war was very nearly over anyway and didn't really need to use those bombs." Well, I believe that point has been argued here before and we could take this back to those threads if people want to argue it again.
HOWEVER, my point is that dropping atomic bombs on a country with which you have been at war for YEARS and have recently been firebombing their major cities on a nearly daily basis hardly constitutes a pre-emptive act.
Perhaps a gratuitous act, perhaps an inhumane act, perhaps a political act of saber-rattling for the benefit of the Soviets, but NOT a pre-emptive act.
The war was well past the point of pre-emption at that point.
...and while I'm off on this tangent I'll point out that the brutal firebombing of Tokyo, a city composed mostly of bamboo and paper at that time, was responsible for much more death and suffering than that caused later by the two relatively low yield A-bombs. [I need a citation for this to make sure that I am not mistaken on this point! Done: See below.]
Edit: According to Wikipedia, the firebombing of Tokyo on Feb. 23, 1945 resulted in 100,000 dead and 16 square miles of the city destroyed. This was possibly the most devastating single raid by aircraft in any war. In retrospect, this was almost certainly a war crime.
The ensuing firebombings on following nights killed yet more.
Also, the earlier firebombings in Kobe killed around 9,000 people but damaged the homes of around 1 million people.
In contrast, the Hiroshima atomic bomb destroyed "only" about 4.5 square miles and may have killed "only" 80,000 people during the explosion. Another 60,000 died later due to aftereffects over the next four or so months. The Nagasaki atomic bomb killed about half as many as the Hiroshima one. Probably 74,000 total.
Anyway, my point is: war is brutal. A large amount of death and inhumanity can be, has been, and will unfortunately continue to be inflicted even without nuclear weapons.
And my other (original) point is, those two bombs were not "pre-emptive." Whether or not they were justified is a completely different question.
Edited by music (12/10/2006 05:37)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288010 - 12/10/2006 10:29
Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss.
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4174
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
As critical as I am of the Bush administration, I find it hard to argue with the conclusion that al Qaeda, who are believed to be responsible, and who have claimed responsibility, for two World Trade Center attacks, the attack on the USS Cole, and two attacks on US embassies, were the (irregular) army of the Taliban, rulers of the vast majority of Afghanistan in 2001. Generally speaking, when a country's army attacks you, multiple times, that's an implicit declaration of war.
Do you claim that al Qaeda were not responsible for those attacks, that al Qaeda was not the army of Afghanistan, or that multiple attacks on US property are not sufficient as a declaration of war?
I wasn't aware that Al Qaeda considered themselves the Afghan army (I thought they felt they acted on behalf of Arabs as a whole). But even if they did, I don't think that it counts if you unilaterally declare yourself to be a country's army, even if you share that country's goals (in this case America out of Arabia, justice in Israel/Palestine) but they don't share your methods (terrorism vs diplomacy). Here in the UK we have, or had[1], a terrorist group who went so far as to call themselves the "Irish Republican Army", but it wouldn't have occurred to anyone to count their attacks as a declaration of war by the Republic of Ireland, or (in modern times at least) that it might be valid or legal to invade the Republic of Ireland as a way of solving that terrorism problem, even though the Irish government shared the goal (Britain out of Ulster), because the Irish government had no truck with using terrorism to achieve that goal. (Quite apart from the fact that such an invasion wouldn't actually have worked.)
So yes, I do claim that Al Qaeda are not the army of Afghanistan, and that their attacks are not a declaration of war, least of all a declaration of war by Afghanistan.
Peter
[1] They still exist, but more as an organised crime ring than as political terrorists.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288011 - 12/10/2006 13:24
Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss.
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
The Taliban ruled 90% of Afghanistan at the time the 9/11 attacks occurred, effectively making them the country's national government. Al Qaeda and the Taliban had very close ties, and many of the same goals. Al Qaeda fighters were, in fact, integrated with the official Taliban army, there is no dispute over this. The Taliban also protected Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan after the US Embassy was bombed in the late 1990s, and then again after the attacks of 9/11.
It is technically true to say that the government of Afghanistan (such as there was) never declared war on the United States, but it's also technically true that the United States never declared war on the country of Afghanistan, rather, they assisted the Afghan Northern Alliance in defeating the Taliban militarily (for a while, at least.) Both of those statements are disingenuous, because the net effect of the United States action in Afghanistan was that of war, and the net effect of the Taliban's complicity in the 9/11 attacks (and their refusal to distance themselves from Al Qaeda afterwards) was that of war.
I'm certainly much more dove than hawk, but I think your argument hinges on a bunch of technicalities about who actually represented the country of Afghanistan or the Afghan army at the time. If it wasn't the Taliban, who was it?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index