----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 2:06 AM Subject: Re: N Korea threatens to 'destroy world' >The people of today's world have tasted freedom and autonomy and are unlikely to allow >themselves to be pushed and shoved around no matter how large the stick is.
Huh? There is a fraction of the world that has tasted freedom and personal autonomy: Europe, Japan, Israel, S. Korea, Tawain, and India comes to mind. South America is emerging as a place where people have growing freedom and atonomy. But, outside of Israel, the people in the Middle East have not tasted freedom and autonomy. Unless local brutal dictatorships qualify for freedom and autonomy. The people of Tibet are still being pushed around. The Musilims in the Balkins were slaughtered while the UN peacekeepers stood aside and let the Serbs kill them, US was vilified at the time for stopping the slaughter in the Balkins. It got no bad press for allowing hundreds of thousands in Rwanda to die in a genocide. Yet, I know that my Zambian "daughter" faults the US for not intervening militarilly. Was the US wrong to stop the slaughter in the Balkins? Was is right to ignore the slaughter in Rwanda? Did the atonomy of the government of Serbia include the right to rape and kill Bosnians? Did the atonomy of the government of Rwanda give it the right to commit genocide? There is no doubt that a number of governments are strongly opposed to outside interference in "internal affairs." But, that does not mean the people feel the same way as unelected governments. Yet, I acknowledge that the US cannot right all wrongs. >Using violence and intimidation will create (has created) enemies not just in > the middle east but everywhere in the world including here. We created enemies in the Middle East because: 1) We upset the natural order of things. Since Mohammad is the greatest prophet, it stands to reason that the natural order of things is a) Musilims on top b) Christians next c) Jews next d) Athiests and agnostics as untouchables. 2) We are not willing to look the other way while the Jews in Israel are overrun. > What Bush is doing in the Middle East has a very real chance of escalating into a > much wider conflict. I believed that statement 11 years ago. Subsequent data has tended to contradict that. The Mid-East did not blow up the first time that happened. Instead, there was the first movement towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians ever. > > > > > >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. > > > But it is the very thing we are moving towards right now. Huh? We are talking about two dictatorships that have the potential to blackmail the rest of the world. If the US were to do that, it would force favorable trade relations with the threat of force. Instead, the US has a balance of payments deficit because other developed countries, Oz excepted, have higher trade barriers than the US. The US has had three significant armed engagements since the end of the Cold War: Gulf War 1, the Balkins and Afganistan. The first was repealing an invasion, the second ending genocide, the third overthrew a government that gave safe harbor to Al Quida. Were they mistakes? > > > > > >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. > > > May not??? How can any American that understands what his country > stands for even consider that a brutal system is anything but an > abomination? As far as the limited question of stability goes. Dictatorships have a strong > > > 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. > > > OK > > >>> > >>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. > > > Iraq is isolated, inspected, flown over, intimidated and as thoroughly > controlled as is possible form the outside. The threat it presents is > minuscule compared to NK or even Saudi Arabia's elite. > > > > > > >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. > > > This is why we should keep working diplomatically for an internal change > without letting our guard down. We would have had all the reasonable > people in the world behind us if we pressed for change in a peaceful > manner. Are the French and Russians reasonable people? Remember, they pushed hard to end sactions back in the late '90s. The only reason they aren't ended is the US and UK veto at the UN. Remember when the US was accued of killing 200,000 children in Iraq with the criminal sanctions? Indeed, Bush has had more sucess pushing for war with Iraq than Clinton had pushing for effective UN action in the Balkins, or for a reasonable fine tuning of the sanctions against Iraq. I think that the Dutch report on the massacre in the Balkins is telling: they faulted the US for going to Europe listening and asking for ideas instead of telling the Europeans what they will do. > > > > > >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. > > > If you are saying that we should deal with NK diplomatically I couldn't > agree more. But think about it. If the more difficult problem can be > dealt with in a peaceful manner, why can't we deal with the less > difficult problem in the same manner? Because dealing with it diplomatically is an acceptance of the fact that our options are limited. We are in a very scary position with N. Korea. What do we do if the N. Korean government threatens to level Japan unless they give them $50 billion/year? What if we are told to bug out, and then the north invades the south? Do we risk LA in order to protect S. Korea? If N. Korea sells nuclear weapons and missles to other countries, what do we do? Clinton was ready to start a new Korean war back in '94, by bombing their nuclear plant to prevent this risk; knowing full well that Seoul would probably be attacked. > >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. > > > The line we cross when we make a preemptive strike is the casualty. > Don't you see that we are giving people the world over a _cause_? Can > you see how potentially dangerous that is? There are risks involved with that. There are other risks in allowing our advisaries to portray us as inherently weak and decadent; unwilling to fight. Further, the nuclear weapons technology is such that it still takes billions to process weapons grade material. Thus, a small group such as Hamass will not be able to make a nuclear weapon on its own. However, N. Korea, Iraq, and Iran can. The new reality is that nuclear proliferation is starting to extend to countries that have leaderships that don't seem to worry about the welfare of their own people at all. I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I don't think waiting until all the governments in the world favor the US is not one of them. > But one of the bullets is a blank. But, you would have argued that both were blanks 3 months ago, right? It is probable that Iraq does not have a nuclear weapon. A reasonable arguement could be made for using containment instead of a regiem change in Iraq now. Indeed, I tend to favor that until we can figure out a good course of action for the time period after the war is won. But, that's a whole lot different than wild accusations that Bush is trying to steal the oil from Iraq. My view is that the adminstration is naieve about the difficulties in estabishing a truely representative government in Iraq, where the people are soverign and benefit from the wealth of oil owned by Iraq. If we could magically do that, we would have an overwhelming foreign policy victory. A free, self-governing Iraq, with the people running their country and selling their oil to promote their own self interest would be of overwhelming strategic and ecconomic benefit to the US. Given all those benefits, why in the world would the US try to do something it has not done, at least, since WWII, out and out steal the national resources of another country? That would frighten a lot of folks, and would not sit well with most Americans. Part of the realism is that, in a couple of years, there will be a big international push for an end to the sactions on Iraq. In reality, Hussein does ensure that the sactions hurts his people as much as possible, and the military as little as possible. It is very possible that keeping the sactions until Hussein is close to having a deliverable A-bomb is the best option. However, the only way to be sure he has one is when he tests one. > > > >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. > > > The point is that the admin _admits_ it will have control, not what it > says it might do with it. Where? Where does the administration say that the US will take over the oil fields? >With control of the second largest reserve in > the world, they have more control over distribution and prices. Not to > mention that they have a large standing army adjacent to most of the > worlds oil reserves. How heroic do you think the Saudis are feeling? > Not to mention the smaller sultanates. Your point (in a previous > discussion) was that we wouldn't have control over the oil fields but > the administrations own statement negates that argument. Where are those statements? All I saw in your reference is the obvious ecconomic result from an end to sanctions. > > > > > >There are good reasons against going to war against Iraq now; but I do not > >consider these arguments good. > > > I don't disagree with your reasons either, but I don't think you are > seeing the big picture. What big picture? If the US withdraws from the world, all will be well? The US was vilified worldwide for insisting on keeping the sections. Remember marchers worldwide calling the US a country of war criminals for killing 200,000 children? Should we have let them drop? Should Hussein have 50 billion/year to spend on his military? Should the US abandon Israel? Should it help the Arabs overtake Israel? Should the US regulate the content of its media according to the dictates of Al Quida? Should it stop promoting the evils of the modern world? Should it take is proper role as a lesser nation, under an Islamic world order? I'm sure you would say no before the last paragraph. However, I'd guess that nothing less than that would satisfy Al Quida. Further, I think that a withdrawal would also have negative consequences. Look at what the first reason for the attacks on the US given by AQ is: US troops on Saudi soil. They are needed to ensure the sovereignty of Saudi Arabia as long as Hussein is in power. So, the more peaceful option is fodder for attacks on the US. The US has done precious little to interfere with the governments of Islamic countries, especially compared to its actions in South and Central America. Yet, the source of terrorists is not South America. If US interference is the source of terrorism, shouldn't there be a stronger correlation? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
