I wrote: > As a Canadian, I really don't care one way or the other about President > Bush. He's just a name on the news, really. But this "Bush Doctrine" of > pre-emptive warfare goes against everything I believe, and it really > frightens me that a gigantic nation like the United States would even > seriously contemplate such a thing, much less actually go to war on it.
Dan M. wrote: > > I'm curious about this. Lets give a simple example, N. Korea without the > > ability to kill hundreds of thousands in Seoul. Would it have been wrong > > to stop their development of nuclear weapons and ICBMs? Why is stopping > > them more frightening than not stopping them?
There's certainly nothing wrong with attempting to stop NK's development of nuclear weapons - and the US did in fact try to stop their development - by peaceful means. And until the current crisis, that seemed to be working. Now they say they still have some nuclear bombs, and they never fully disarmed. But with the US (apparently) preoccupied with Iraq, it looks like Kim Jong Il is trying to aggravate the crisis by making threatening gestures and beginning his nuclear arms program again. So the pre-emptive doctrine has already made international relations worse with one country by invading another. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy, pushing rougue nations towards further aggression because they have nothing left to lose.
I can't predict how history would have happened differently if the US (alone, or with a "coalition") had invaded North Korea in the seventies or eighties or nineties to stop its nuclear weapons program - but, imo, the situation probably wouldn't have improved. That's because there's no such thing as a simple example - invading North Korea would destabilize all of Southeast Asia, upsetting the balance of power there, kill an unknown number of people, and saddle the US with a costly satrapy that would drain its military and economic resources at a time when many other nations (like China, perhaps) would take advantage of the situation by making aggressive moves of their own. One preventive conflict might lead to many more.
But would North Korea be a threat if no one invaded it? Maybe, but then again, maybe not. Almost certainly not if NK wasn't so isolated. I think the better path to follow is economic and political engagement. If Kim Jong Il's government were fully integrated into the world economy the way China is, they would have far less reason to use nuclear weapons or go to war at all. And the same would have true for Saddam's Iraq. Countries that benefit from the status quo have to think very hard before upsetting it.
Kevn Street
Kevin, slow down. Please, 100% I want to engage you in a peaceful discussion, but I want to make sure we are talking about the same situation. We have been engaging NK for years, they give our aid to the military. Everything they do is for the military. This is the first communist country that had a succession follow bloodlines like kings. There is so much hardnosed control by the rulers that the population has nothing. If they have a radio, it must be set to one station and sealed, no radio free Korea. The population is told that the USA gives NK rice and other supplies as a tribute, to keep NK from attacking the USA or Japan.
Your first paragraph is also wrong. The US tried peaceful means and it seemed to be working? Did they build their bombs in the last 18 months?
NK will not go to the UN. They will not talk with SK or China or Japan. They are only making noise because they want more money from the US, while not abiding by any rules we'd like them to follow. The US was supposed to build them a nuclear reactor next year. Do you think we should go forward with that agreement? How can we engage them when they don't act rational?
Kevin T. - VRWC Sorry, it's late
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
