What's the Difference?

[SlowwHand]

I realize fully that you don't agree with any form of patriotism, David.
Not just blind patriotism, patriotism period.
And that's my damned point.
Again, I realize you just don't get it. No surprise.

[SlowwHand]

Here. Read this, maybe again; maybe first time.
It's about North Korea primarily.
It's been circulated on the internet, and sums up perfectly just how I feel.
The U.S. was EXTREMELY restrained in response to 9-11.

I know. You disagree. But that's ok. You are safe in your right to disagree. You live in a free country.



-----------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Krauthammer: U.S. has very few Korean options
01/07/2003

By CHARLESKRAUTHAMMER

When the secretary of state goes on five Sunday-morning talk shows to deny that something is a crisis, it is a crisis. The Bush administration has been downplaying the gravity of North Korea's nuclear breakout, and for good reason. For now, there is little the administration can do. No point, therefore, in advertising our helplessness.

But there is no overestimating the seriousness of the problem. If we didn't have so many of our military assets tied up in the Persian Gulf, we would have carriers off the coast of Korea and be mobilizing reinforcements for our garrison there.

North Korea is about to go from a rogue state that may have one or two nuclear bombs hidden somewhere to one that is in the nuclear manufacturing business. And North Korea sells everything it gets its hands on.

This is serious stuff. And the clock is ticking. We have no idea how far along the North Koreans are on their uranium enrichment program. But we know that when they fire up their plutonium reprocessing plant, they will be months away from creating a real nuclear arsenal.

The problem is that we have few cards to play. Militarily, we aren't even in the position to bluff. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was duty-bound to affirm America's capacity to fight two wars at once. Unfortunately, that capacity went by the boards at least a decade ago, and the North Koreans know it.

Moreover, even if we weren't preoccupied in Iraq, we might find ourselves self-deterred from doing anything militarily against North Korea. Yes, we could bomb the nuclear processing plant in Yongbyon. The problem is, that won't destroy Pyongyang's entire capacity for producing nuclear weapons, the way the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osirak reactor destroyed Iraq's.

And given North Korea's propensity for using special operations, infiltration and sleeper agents (techniques it has used with success against South Korea), we have to imagine it might retaliate with a smuggled nuclear weapon against American facilities or perhaps even against the American homeland.

But even if nukes weren't a consideration, we would be deterred by North Korea's conventional military capacity. Unlike Iraq, it has a serious army, a million strong and possessing thousands of artillery tubes, many hidden in caves, many that can reach – and reduce – Seoul.

In other words, North Korea already may have passed the threshold to invulnerability from American attack. So, the administration has chosen a strategy of economic and diplomatic isolation. The idea is to squeeze the North Korean regime to the point where it no longer can function.

That could be done. China supplies nearly all of North Korea's energy and 40 percent of its foodstuffs. South Korea has significant investments in North Korea. International organizations provide a huge amount of food aid.

The problem with that scenario is that South Korea and China don't want to play ball. They fear the chaos that might ensue. The American containment strategy already was falling apart on Day 1, when both the South Korean president and the president-elect criticized it. The Chinese have been even more recalcitrant. They show no inclination to deny North Korea what it needs to survive.

What to do when your hand is so poor? Play the trump. We do have one, but we dare not speak its name: a nuclear Japan. Japan can't long tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea. Having once lobbed a missile over Japan, North Korea easily could hit any city in Japan with a nuclear-tipped weapon. Japan doesn't want to live under that threat.

We should go to the Chinese and tell them plainly that if they don't join us in squeezing North Korea, we will endorse any Japanese attempt to create a nuclear deterrent of its own.

If our nightmare is a nuclear North Korea, China's is a nuclear Japan. It is time to share the nightmares.


Charles Krauthammer writes for The Washington Post.

[Arrian]

Sloww: we've been discussing that particular idea in the "Japan Card" thread. General concensus: terrible idea. Besides, it has nothing to do with the issue Floyd brought up.

Floyd,

Yes, Iraqis are justified in hoping they win (and thus that the US takes a bunch of casualties). They're Iraqis. They don't want their countrymen to die. If, on the other hand, they wish to be rid of Saddam, they might wish for a quick war, with low casualties. It all depends. But I would not fault an Iraqi for "rooting against us" in the event of war. Even if I thought we were in the right.

-Arrian

[Kontiki]

As something of an aside, I think the author is quite wrong about the US military capability/intent. The US has long maintained the "two-and-a-half" war capability - it hasn't diminished. Rather, it's nearly impossible to have two fronts where you are so overwhelmingly superior in almost every military facet. If the US really wanted to fight Iraq and NK at the same time, it could - it would just have to accept much greater losses. The reason I bring this up is because I seriously doubt that a military build up would occur around NK in the absence of an Iraqi situation, for the simple reasons that the US does not want to piss off the Chinese (not saying China would necessarily get involved in a war, just that the US wouldn't want to risk it), nor does it want to get into a conflict with NK even if the Chinese remained completely neutral.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

ah.. just to note... what in the world would make anyone think that the government setup by american would be any better than Saddam...

Besides Iraquis were the best of the ME bunch (of course those who did not stand on Saddams way) until after the Kuwait war. After 10 years of isolation they seem to be materially destroyed. However what makes you think that new governmet US installed will refrain from purposefull killings and executions Saddam style to keep itself in power? All other dictators that US supported did that. Well you might say it will be a democracy. Let me see what happens when Iraqis elect some "very anti-US" candidate in the elections.

Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, El Salvador, Chile... thik of US involments in the past and how can you imagine that the US lead government will bring anything better than Saddam is for the Iraqis themselves. US is doing this war for itself, and a few hundred thousand possible victims (but more probably much less, depends on resistance) is not something the US government cares really about. It cares about it just as an marketing afterthought. In the past they had to throw the "unfriendly" dictators or democracies discretly, as USSR would not allow direct involment. These days even that is not neccessary anymore as US is allowed to flex its superpower muscles. Actually there is noone to stand in the way that thinks it is worthwile their effort.

But to be fair to US... neither do others care for people... we still have to wait for that to happen to a major power. It is just that the west is the biggest hypocryte of all because of long term democracy. The population have developed some sense of what is a "just war". So the administration has to present it as such, whatever the case, just to aviod being unpopular. Still it is just a marketing trick.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


Three things :
1) No one rattled your cage, Tandee
2) Maybe he should consider not being so insulting.
3) Maybe if you had remained in service, you'd have a clue to what I'm saying, rather than running your mouth in ignorance.

What a lame attempt at a comeback.

[SlowwHand]

So unlike yours.


Here's what I meant to post in regard to Iraq.
I guess I figured I'd just meet David at his next whine stop. That being Korea. So, don't worry Arrian.

http://globalspecops.com/pro-america.html

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hmmm, I have to agree with Albert Speer.

Also, I find it interesting that Floyd would rather see the troops of a dictator trimph over the troops of a republic. Does this say something about his underlying political beliefs?

I really get tired explaining to people that in the past, and continuing today, the United States has supported and supports some dictatorship regimes.

Also, why does the United States ally itself with Saudi Arabia, when that country has beheaded some of its people for being gay?

And why does the United States still operate that notorious School of America, where the American military and intelligence trains Latin Americans into terrorist activities.

School of America is an American version of the Taliban or Al-Quieda.

[SlowwHand]

And Mr Fun makes his comeback in an anti-American thread. Well, of course.
What do you think Hussein thinks of Gays?

[Graag]

And why does the United States still operate that notorious School of America, where the American military and intelligence trains Latin Americans into terrorist activities.

School of America is an American version of the Taliban or Al-Quieda.

Yup. All those pious Americans who want to end terrorism, learn more about the SOA and what your own government does.

http://www.soaw.org/new/type.php?type=8

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Graag

Yup. All those pious Americans who want to end terrorism, learn more about the SOA and what your own government does.

http://www.soaw.org/new/type.php?type=8

Now that is fun, how come that CNN doesn't report on it

[Arrian]

Sloww,

I read your link. It is nice to know that there are some people out there in the rest of the world who don't blame the USA for everything, but they are the minority. Of course, he ignores several other causes of anti-American sentiment besides the jealousy he mentions (which I do think plays a part, especially in Europe). Those reasons being a number of foreign policy ****ups, stupid comments by various US officials that give the impression that we're arrogant, callous SOBs, and hypocrisy on a number of issues.

-Arrian

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Arrian
Sloww,

I read your link. It is nice to know that there are some people out there in the rest of the world who don't blame the USA for everything, but they are the minority. Of course, he ignores several other causes of anti-American sentiment besides the jealousy he mentions (which I do think plays a part, especially in Europe). Those reasons being a number of foreign policy ****ups, stupid comments by various US officials that give the impression that we're arrogant, callous SOBs, and hypocrisy on a number of issues.

-Arrian

The problem is that because of US behaviour nowdays even more are likely to die in the future from similar attacks as US seems to be putting fuel on the fire and not estinguising it.

Well I guess I elaborated a few times questioning the US policy in former threads.

Check this out http://www.eatthestate.org/07-07/UndeclaredWar.htm

In such a context--with, as background, a massive gap in relative wealth and the steady invasion of Western brand names, pop culture, and social values--the idea that an undeclared war is afoot makes an awful lot of sense. Moreover, it's exactly the apocalyptic vision Osama bin Ladin himself was quoted as desiring when the 9/11 attacks were unleashed. Remember bin Laden? The whole post-9/11 War on Terror, including an invasion of Afghanistan, ousting of its government, indefinite imprisonment of soldiers defending their country against foreign invaders, imprisonment or deportation without charges of thousands of Muslim non-citizens within the United States, and passage of freedom-eroding bills like the USA PATRIOT Act and (most recently) the Homeland Security bill were all ostensibly about bringing bin Laden to justice and ensuring that such attacks wouldn't happen again.

Last month came word that bin Laden was still afoot, and both then and after the Kenya attacks, an astonishing thing happened in response: Nothing.



No vows of capture or bringing to justice, no renewed efforts at apprehension, no demands that the country "harboring" bin Laden (that phone call came from somewhere, right?) either hand him over or face the fate of the Taliban. It simply was, to all DC appearances, no big deal.

Hello? Is bin Laden a threat to the United States or not? If he is, then he and Al-Qaeda should be the country's top security concern, not Easter egg hunts in Iraq or Warlord mediation programs in Nangarhar. If groups like Al-Qaeda and the threat they pose are of no military consequence, and simply a matter for criminal investigators ala the FBI, then can we start, oh, I don't know, pulling our military out of a few dozen countries and chopping a few hundred billion out of their budget next year?

Either way, the last thing the Bush Administration should be doing is waging, or even being perceived as waging, a war against 1.2 billion of the world's people. That perception--and, in many ways, reality--is out there. It is the perception that the United States and Israel (seen, by many Muslims, as effectively interchangeable) are out to not only apprehend a small number of violent criminals who happen to be Muslim, but to subjugate the entire Muslim world, with those criminals as the convenient pretext for its actions.

Judged in that light, US actions in Afghanistan and in its obsession with invading Iraq make a lot more sense. So does the seeming lack of concern at bin Laden's whereabouts. Oddly enough, the United States would at the moment have a lot more credibility in the Islamic world if it actually seemed serious about wanting to apprehend or thwart bin Laden. Instead, it is inspiring thousands of Osama imitators, and at the moment it's hard to imagine many of the world's Muslims using "United States" and "credibility" in the same sentence.

The Kenya attacks and their aftermath are reminding Muslims that the United States is not simply threatening war. It is already waging war; its targets are much, much broader than a few well-organized terror groups; and the people willing and inclined to fight back are also much, much greater in number than they were 15 months ago.

In any war each sides invariably claims victimhood; they insist that the enemy started it and is at fault. And so it is in this war, undeclared or not. Americans remember 9/11, and attacks like last week's; Muslims draw upon the whole of American foreign policy for the last 15 months, overlain on decades of American abuses during the Cold War and centuries of Western colonial barbarism.

The Bush Administration seems intent on pouring massive amounts of gasoline onto this fire.

that I already posted in this thread

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70394

That is the resason US policies are not universally loved. I'd like to love them but they (the policies and actions) don't seem right.

And not to make it an US bash thingy... I don't like the actions and "given reasoning" from Blair either. Who seems to be just a puppet soldier that Bush coordinates. What about finishing the Afghanistan job first, sorting out the new bases od Al Quaeda in Afghanistan, catch Bin Laden... and start with some country rebuild program where you can do it - namely Afghanistan. And show with that its "finally good" intentions. A good example liike that would do wonders to make the US reputation better in the eyes of the Euros and Muslims too. (Help from Euros wouldn't be shunned I am sure for rebuilding of the country). Still what does US do with the opportunity - ah it costs too much, it is better to spend 100 bn on military and bash Iraq next.

What US is doing is overthrow a regime... deal half-heartedly with the terrorists (well pursuing them, those who were caught and "convicted" are dealt with inhumanely on the other hand).

Where is Afghanistan starting ot be build up, investment, creation of some order and peace a few miles further from Kabul? And now the same victor comes to you and says we will conquer and reorganise Iraq, and you buy the story.


Where are WOMDs where are Nukes? Nowhere... so far... or if they found them what about disarming the nation first before attacking. No... of course not, now the wish to free the Iraquis from Saddam is enough to start the war... Noone had that wish 15 years ago while Saddam was US boy... but still killed all the Iraqi opposition nevertheless.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Drogue

Why is inaction so bad. He is opnly evil in your opinion. I am much less hasty to brand anybody as evil or not.

If you don't consider the widespread use of nerve gas on an unarmed civilian population as evil then I really don't give much concern for your moral standards because you're clearly mad.

[Arrian]

In such a context--with, as background, a massive gap in relative wealth and the steady invasion of Western brand names, pop culture, and social values--the idea that an undeclared war is afoot makes an awful lot of sense.

Bull****. If the author said that foreign policy decision such as our support for Israel, our backing of sanctions vs. Iraq, our demonization of Iran, etc. are indications of an undeclared war, that would make more sense. It's still a bit of a stretch, but it's a helluva lot more concrete than "a massive gap in relative wealth and the steady invasion of Western brand names, pop culture, and social values." I'm sorry, but when I go down the "international food" isle at the local Stop&Shop, I don't think my country is being invaded.

I agree with the author that most Muslims buy into the "America + Israel against us" argument, but I reject the idiotic statement that it's because of McDonalds, Brittney Spears and the concept of equal rights for women. No, it's based on an entirely different combination of factors:

1) US foreign policy
2) The policies of their (Arab/Muslim nations) goverments. This includes political repression, corruption, and poverty, and of course propoganda to blame it on someone else (US/Israel)
3) Lack of education: this of course goes for Americans who don't understand what's going on either, but the fact of the matter is that the "Arab street" is not an educated bunch of people. What they "know" comes from the local Mosque, and we know what they think of the US. That's worse than someone who forms their opinions by watching "The O'Rielly Factor" (*shudder*)
4) The "David vs. Goliath" syndrome. We're bigger, stronger & richer, so we're assumed to be the bully (and if we really are acting like a bully, it's even worse).

OFITG, I don't believe you for a second when you say:

I'd like to love them but they (the policies and actions) don't seem right.

Sorry, but your posts just don't jive with that statement.

-Arrian