At 04:30 PM 3/13/2005 -0800, Dr. Brin wrote: >Then they invaded and occupied Iraq (a country with NO nuclear >weapons program)
False. Iraq had a stagnant nuclear arms program - although nobody could have verified that it was stagnant at the time..... something about them not complying with UN inspections.... >on the pretext of pre-emptive arms control. You suggest that there was only one pretext. How about 12 years of violations of UN Resolutions, as well as the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War before taking Baghdad - a cease-fire that I believe you opposed, no? So, after 12 years of violations of that cease fire, you conclude that we shouldn't take out Saddam Hussein after all. Uh huh...... > In the case of Iran, our military now >occupies its neighbors on both sides, This is highly misleading. Iran shares land borders with seven countries. The US now has troops in two of them. >which has strengthened the >position of the hard-line clerics and essentially eliminated any >drift toward moderation in that country. False. Khatami and the so-called "moderates" had been marginalized by hard-line clerics prior to September 11th. >And in the case of North Korea, the administration walked >away from the Clinton agreement that had North Korea's reprocessed >nuclear fuel rods under international seal and around-the-clock >monitoring. (The US had already failed to uphold its end of that >agreement when Republicans in Congress refused to fund the aid that >had been promised as a quid pro quo.) I think this had something to do with Bill Clinton being completely snookered by the North Koreans, resulting in the DPRK building plutonium-based nuclear weapons. Only you, Dr. Brin, could manage to blame the Bush Administration for one of Clinton's Top 5 failures as President (we can quibble about whether or not having his Cabinet lie for him and commit perjury or whether standing on the sidelines during Rwanda were more egregious failures, but this one was pretty bad.) >If you are Iran and North Korea in this situation, what do you do? >Duh. Develop nuclear weapons as fast as you can, while the US >military is overstretched and tied down in the Iraq quagmire. As DPRK, India, Pakistan, Iraq, and others have demonstrated, however, this logic prevailed long before September 11th. >Great work, Bolton. Non sequitur. > Bolton unexpectedly showed up in Seoul for a speech >where he referred to North Korean leader Lil' Kim as a "tyrannical >dictator", heading up an "evil regime", with life in that country a >"Hellish nightmare." That prompted the North Koreans to denounce him >as "human scum" and refuse talks with him. So what exactly was >accomplish by that juvenile exchange (I have to admit, I actually >agree with what BOTH sides said)? How tasteful of you. >The >result, of course, is that North Korea now has nuclear weapons. False. The DPRK assembled weapons during the Clinton Administration, and presented the Bush Administration with statements to this effect very early on in 2001. >Great work, Bolton. Non sequitur. > Too bad Bolton's approach to non-proliferation >has been a total failure. This would be, of course, as opposed to Clinton's approach, right? You know, the one that resulted in us paying bribes to the DPRK while they built nuclear weapons anyways? >How about war with China? Bolton has advocated diplomatic >recognition of Taiwan, saying such a move, "is just the kind of >demonstration of U.S. leadership that the region needs and that many >of its people hope for... The notion that China would actually >respond with force is a fantasy ..." Damn right! Let's go mano a >mano. Let's just SEE what China wants to do about it! In the meantime, the lack of diplomatic recognition for Taiwan, has, among other consequences, resulted in the World Health Organization not being able to respond with full effectiveness to the outbreak of SARS in that country. But - who would possibly want to save Taiwaneese lives when the sensibilities of the sort of people who run over peaceful demonstrators with tanks is at stake? > Who >needs China, anyway! As noted above, two can play that came. Or in other words, who needs Taiwan anyway? >This is the guy who once told the Federalist >Society (a group of right-wing lawyers), "there is no such thing as >the United Nations." (This raises an interesting metaphysical >question: Can you BE the ambassador to an entity whose very >existence you deny? Actually, Mr. Bolton did pose a metaphysical question here, but apparently it flew right over your head. Think about it for a moment, and I am sure you will get it, though. Does that somehow abnegate your own existence? >What IS reality?) He went on to say, "If the U.N. secretary building >in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." >(Excuse New Yorkers if they find that particular choice of words >unsettling.) He said it many years before 9/11, so the above is about as cheap a shot as it gets. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
