----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:55 AM Subject: Re: N Korea threatens to 'destroy world'
> Dan Minette wrote: > > > > >There is a great deal of difference between the situation with N. Korea and > >Iraq. At the present time, the government of Iraq has minimal ability to > >inflict casualties on the citizens of other countries, while North Korea > >has a tremendous ability. Just with conventional weapons alone, they can > >kill tens of thousands in a few hours. They have thousands of pieces of > >artillery trained on Seoul, ready to kill if attacked. Further, they > >probably have 1-2 nuclear weapons, and IIRC, their missiles can now reach > >Tokyo. > > > > > > > Which suggests to me that the Bush administrations approach to the > problem of WMDs is fatally flawed. Of course you know that I think it > is not only flawed but that the Bush policy's long term effect will be > more enemies more terrorists and more WMDs. > > Violence and intimidation might be successful short term measures, but > they will ultimately fail. Well, everything ultimately fails. If you are talking about pure practicality, the Roman empire lasted through brutal means for over 1500 years. Yes, the brief experiment in Western European civilization failed after a bit over 500 years, but Constantinople fell after over a millelium. Earlier civilizations were also brutal and long lived. IIRC, the Egyptian government lasted a So, historically, violence and intimidation works over the long term, if "works" means that one is able to exert the will of the organization on numerous individuals and keep a given government/civilization existing for a prolonged period of time. Now, there are a couple of cavaets to that. First of all, there is the though of morality. Even though a system based on brutality can be stable long term, it is not a desireable system. It might have very well been possible for the US, early in the '50s, to dominate the world with the threat of massive H-bombing of any country that stepped out of line. But, it would have been wrong, and the US did not do that. The second thing is that such a brutal repressive foreign policy would have repressive reprecussions at home. It would be hard to not have the attitudes needed for that kind of brutality not affect the internal actions of the government. Third, even though brutality may be internally stable, it may not be the best system. A system that allows for the freedom for other countries to pursue their best interests, within broad boundaries, seems reasonable. Especially, one that gives added weight to countries where the people are soverign. The advantages of this system is that the folks in those countries tend to be more likely work for the general good, and thus the good of the most powerful country of their own free will, because it benefits them too. The benefits that the US reaped from the Marshal plan, and by the way it set up the Japanese government is the classic example of this. > >>I was talking about being hypocritcal about Iraq. After all, Bush > >>did include NK in his "axis of evil", but until/unless they drive him > >>to it by forcing their WMD down his throat, he has no obvious intention > >>of starting a war in NK. > >> > > > >In a real sense, it's been too late for North Korea for years. We'd have > >to accept tens of thousands of civilian casualties in South Korea at a > >minimum. IIRC, Doug quoted some estimates of up to a million casualties in > >a war. > > > > > So what is the point of dealing with Iraq the way we are if the idea is > to contain the spread of WMDs? There are a couple of reasons. 1) Iraq has invaded another country only about 10 years ago; North Korea only did it 50 years ago. 2) If the sanctions are ever lifted, Iraq will have a very significant disposable income. North Korea's present government's best chance of significant foreign exchange is blackmail money. 3) N. Korea has had patrons that has made it much harder to deal with than Iraq. In dealing with N. Korea, one has to factor in the response of the Chinese government to a regiem change on its doorstep. I'm sure China does not want a unified democratic Korea. 4) War with Iraq can be fought quickly, with relatively few casualties. War with N. Korea will be a mess, with many civilian casualties. The N. Korean army is in much better shape than the army of Iraq. 5) There is a rule of thumb that makes sense: you do what you can do without worrying about what you cannot do. We may be forced to do something about N. Korea, but the price that will be paid in human suffering is much worse. Having Iraq and N. Korea with WMD is worse than just having N. Korea. Its like playing Russian Roulette with two bullets instead of one. >In fact its not much of a puzzle at all > because the motivation isn't WMDs or terrorism, its oil. Nothing else > makes any sense whatsoever. You can go on all you want about how we > wouldn't control the oil fields if we conquer Iraq. Hooey. The Bush > admin is even saying that oil prices will be lower post conquest: Doug, I don't consider hooey a strong arguement at all. Basically, it says to me that you know you are right, independant of data or reasoning. > "The Bush Administration's only attempt to quantify the economic costs > of war was provided by White House economist Larry Lindsey. Mr Lindsey > said the liberation of Iraqi oil fields would drop the oil price by > boosting oil production by 3 to 5 million barrels a day." > > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/26/1040511133257.html > Think about your statement Doug. Is Bush supposed to be for or against the US oil patch? While there are some oil companies that could benefit from lower prices, by and large, higher prices favor the oil patch. Look at how stock prices have fallen when oil prices have fallen, and have risen when oil prices have risen. Everyone in the oil patch dreads falling prices, because it means lower profits and layoffs. Are you now arguing that Bush, Cheney, etc. hate oilmen? There are good reasons against going to war against Iraq now; but I do not consider these arguments good. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
