----- Original Message ----- From: "Amanda SubbaRao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 10:32 AM Subject: Re: N Korea threatens to 'destroy world'
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Dan Minette wrote: > > > 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. > > Hear hear. I've always been of the opinion that the "pre-emptive" > approach is a slippery slope we REALLY don't want to be sliding on... > Where does the line get drawn? Well, for one thing one can limit it to dictatorships. One can look at the past and present behavior of the regiem involved. One can look risks one is taking by not doing that. > Can I beat my kid because he may hit me someday? Do you really think that is a good analogy? You have control over your kid. You have a wealth of options for setting extremely firm boundaries without resorting to beatings. The US does not have those options. It cannot force Hussain into a corner for a time out, confiscating his weapons while he is there, by picking him up while the other parent goes and gets the weapons. The rule of law assumes that there is a police force that is much more powerful than any group of civilians. If need be, the full might of the nation is behind the enforcement of the laws. Here, there is no police, just a de facto sherrif. > > > So what is the point of dealing with Iraq the way we are if the idea is > > to contain the spread of WMDs? 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: > > And our different approaches to Iraq and North Korea really underscore > this point, IMO. And you'll be hard pressed to convince me that NK wasn't > timing its announcements to make this point as well as any other points > they were trying to make. Did you notice we backed off the harsh war talk on > Iraq right after their first announcement? No, we didn't. We decided to try the UN approach before the announcement. The real heavy duty retoric was more in the August/September time frame. The acknowledgement that there was an ongoing nuclear program wasn't until October. By that time, the US had committed to working through the UN first. >Kind of had to, didn't we? We > didn't > want war with NK, WMD or no... More to lose than to gain on that one. Is it a bad thing that we don't want the people in Seoul killed. That we are willing to take a higher risk of a US city being nuked from N. Korea because a Korean war would have a much higher potential for dead civilians than a war with Iraq? IMHO, its a harsh reality. We may end up going to war in N. Korea. That may be the only way to keep the country from building a nuclear arsonal that would be sufficient for it to overtake the South while the US simply stands by and watches. Or, would you suggest that we fight then, knowing that we'd lose a number of cities. We were _extremely_ fortunate that the USSR was a conservative government. It went gently into that good night. I shudder to think of what would happen if the leadership didn't care if the people lived or died after they lost power. If you look at N. Korea or Iraq, one could argue that the leadership does care about the well being of the people of the country at all. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
