Bush sure taught North Korea an important lesson

[orange]

Iraq ---> Syria ---> Turkey ---> Iran ---> (afganistan) ---> Pakistan ---> China ---> North Korea

I'd like to see you defeat Turkey, Pakistan, China, and Iran at 3 weeks a pop. Hell, I'd like to see them done at a rate of 3 years each!

[Sava]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Yavoon :
In my previous post, it is not actions taken against repressive governments that I criticized. It was hostile action. Something needs to be done, I agree on you with that.

But the course of action taken by the Bush admin wasn't the right course.

Congratulations! Somebody gets it!

[yavoon]

k=P

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Are you going to quote me out of context?

No. I just answered the question. It seemed like a major concession to me given how long they had been harping on thier desire for talks only to be between the US and themselves.

[Dinner]

I'd have to agree with Spiffor on this one. Bush's policy does make short term gains since "rogue" states are forced to change their tone or get the big stick but the long term effects of this policy will be for a great many third party states will want to develop a larger military in order to be to bad a$$ to be invaded.

Sadly most of the countries which will try to gain nukes (Iran, Syria, maybe Vietnam) just don't have the money to invest in social programs and a large military. That means they're going to be armed with deadly weapons as well as remaining poor, uneducated, and unstable. That can't be good for the future.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sava
I think that NK would have nukes regardless.

Kim Jing-Il is a hard man to second guess.

From his embracing RoK's "Sunshine Policy," it seems to me that he wants to go down that path. He also wanted to kick start DPRK's economy, if his earlier efforts in econmonic "special regions" (that failed unfortunately) is any indication.

As far as I can tell, nuclear weapons is just another bargaining chip on the table, the most valuable one for the North Koreans, for it will be the one that forces most concessions.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
No. I just answered the question. It seemed like a major concession to me given how long they had been harping on thier desire for talks only to be between the US and themselves.

Let me refer you to the last sentence in my post:

They know that playing hardball all the time is counterproductive.

[yavoon]

oerdin so ur saying that if we didnt sanction them and we didnt threatan them they would be spending their money on education and democratization?

uhhhh ok.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
From his embracing RoK's "Sunshine Policy,"

Embracing?

North Korea has so far shown and used force by test-firing ICBM missiles and sending [submarines]. North Korea has no intention to change. They regard our efforts as a means to topple their regime.

http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/99/0226/cs4.html

[Sava]

Originally posted by yavoon
oerdin so ur saying that if we didnt sanction them and we didnt threatan them they would be spending their money on education and democratization?

uhhhh ok.

Threats only work when people fear you more than they are proud.

[yavoon]

how is that a response to my post?

[Sava]

Originally posted by yavoon
how is that a response to my post?

I'm sorry, but if you can't see the relevance, I will be unable to educate you.

[yavoon]

wow now ur condescending to me?

i frankly dont see where I made a comment about the effectiveness of threats. so u making some random comment about pride vs fear hardly is a reply to me.

and then going and condescending me when if u really had a pt it would have taken 2-3 lines is frankly sad.

[Spiffor]

Remember that Rogue States' power do not all depend on pure fear. In Saddam's Iraq and NK, the leader's power is based on pure fear exerted on the populace. But in Iran and Syria, it is based on the apathy of the populace (somehow comparable with Cuba) : political repression is used only against people that could mobilize the population against their rulers, barely against individual and discreet dissent.

My point is : in these countries, the population has to be satisfied to some extent, and the leaders cannot ignore it. The public opinion is something the leaders have to take into account.
If the population doesn't feel threatened at all, it will be difficult for the ruling elites to spend everything on nukes rather than tap water systems. If the population feels threatened, the increased military spending will happen without resistance.
For example, Cuba is one of these "soft" authoritarian regimes. It became clear Castro's regime couldn't be threatened by the US again after the 1962 incident. I hardly see Cuba actively looking to develop nukes.

Sanctions can have some efficiency in slowing down the nuclear research (not stopping it). But threats have no positive effect whatsoever on these countries' research programs, except if there is a strong resolve to back them.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Let me refer you to the last sentence in my post:

Then what does this accomplish other than putting the planned talks in jeopardy? It certainly doesn't make thier bargaining position anymore desirable for them than it already is.