Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on December 20, 2003, 09:00:07 AM
-
This is kinda confusing.
Libya to dismantle WMD programs (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/12/19/bush.libya/index.html)
Libya's nuclear weapons program was "much further advanced" than U.S. and British intelligence had thought, and included centrifuges and a uranium enrichment program, all necessary components in making a nuclear bomb, a senior administration official said Friday. (Full story)
Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, said Saturday Libya's decision to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction, is "welcome" and surmised the action might have been spurred by Gadhafi's fear over "what he saw happen in Iraq." (Full story)
"I think we have to learn what did they (Libya) have. They say that they will adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty for nuclear weapons. They are already party to that treaty and they have had inspections for years," said Blix, interviewed in Sweden.
How did the Libyan nuke program get so "advanced" if under the UN Non-Proliferation treaty "they have had inspections for years"?
I mean, you can't do stuff like that if you're being inspected right? No way, no how. The inspectors would easily find it, right?
And Blix saying the action might have been spurred by Gadhafi's fear over "what he saw happen in Iraq."?
Does this mean Bliz is a neo-con now? Has he been given the old Vulcan mind control grip or whatever by the present Administration?
Boy, this is all so confusing.
-
Does this mean Bliz is a neo-con now? Has he been given the old Vulcan mind control grip or whatever by the present Administration?
I think he reports what he sees thats all, no bias whatsoever... funny thing eh?
Edit: By the way, how wrong was he about Iraq anyway?
-
Iraq? We don't know yet.
It's clear the UN inspectors were REALLY wrong about Libya though.
Of course, that makes them more credible in your eyes, I guess.
Totally wrong about Libya = Completely right about Iraq?
-
Toad, Toad, Toad.
Don't you know that the UN can NEVER be wrong. They are the true salvation of the world!!!!
DAMN!!! those little white pills are STRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I thought St Josephs Asperin was weaker than that! :p :lol
-
LOL Toad, its because the UN is very efficient of inspections, to the point of getting its palms greesed while cheerfully looking the other way!
-
Originally posted by GScholz
That's a rather harsh accusation. Do you have anything to back it up with?
As is the accusation that Iraq does not or did not possess WMD's before the current war, and that the Bush Administration in concert with Britain's Tony Blair made it all up.....
That door swings both ways GScholz
:aok
-
and proving you didnt make it all up is easy. odd that it hasent happend. thus it is now a safe accusation.
-
:rofl
Libya got away with it for years.. while being inspected. Wonder how long it'd take to find 'em in Libya if they didn't volunteer the info.
-
So what are you Bush haters drowning your dissapointment and outrage in after this horrible week? Whiskey? Vodka? Tequila? Its been a terrible week hasnt it? The economy is strong, the Dow is rocketing past 10,000, Saddam is captured,Gadhaffi has voluntarilly renounced his WMD programs and even your favorite anti-war UN offical the very king of miraculous UN inspections admits that he thinks this is the result of evil unceccesary unwise US policies... Awww heck, whats a good ole USA hater to do? Where were we, oh yes I remember.. Just Beer perhaps? Or Gin?
Whatever you chose my friends, please remember to drink responsibly ....
:lol
-
Does this mean Bliz is a neo-con now? Has he been given the old Vulcan mind control grip or whatever by the present Administration?
Boy, this is all so confusing. ]
Are you talking about a Spock?
(http://www.pink.at/bilder/ffspock.jpg)
Makes about as much sense as your (sarcastic) comment. :D . What goes around comes around.
I mean, it couldn't be that Blix is an intelligent being who understands (like any reasonable person would do) threats?
Even Khadafi got it. Is Khadafi a neocon coz he got the message?
C'mon Toad - your sarcastic posts are usually WAY more subtle than this. You're slipping, just like Grünherz. I saw a post by him where he didn't mention Eurorutabagas despite saying "leftists" and "socialists".
-
Originally posted by GScholz
... where's the evidence?
I haven't seen any so far. It could be that Rip has made a baseless charge at this point. Of course, they now have the big cheese in custody so you never can tell. I think the next 6 months or so may provide a few suprises. But at this point, it's a statement with nothing to back it up.
Thank Cod no one on the anti-American side uses that tactic. :p
-
Santa, even you have to admit the "I'll never say a good thing about Amreeeka" faction has been pretty silent on the Libyan rollover.
I think you're right; Moammar's not as stupid as he looks. I think he figured out his was on the wrong side of the line for himself and his people. Took a while, but hey, he never was the brightest bulb... progress at last?
I've said I won't support Bush if they don't find WMD and now that they have Big Mustache, they've got no excuses. They get more time to break him; that's a reasonable consideration. But in the end, they have THE guy they accused of having WMD. They better produce now; you don't take this nation to war against another sovereign nation and then say "oopsie".
That being said, I think this rollover is linked to the Iraq invasion to some degree. I think any reasonable person would agree with that. I think any reasonable person would think this is a good thing. There's always the possibilty they made an incredbly huge error; that hasn't been proven to my satisfaction as yet. But it appears some good may have come out of it.
But it's pretty hard to find any of the "deth to amreeka" crowd that will admit it.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
When did I accuse the current administration or PM Blair of that? No, that door only swings one way in this case. The US&UK accused Iraq of having banned weapons. Ripsnort accuses the UN for taking bribes to "look the other way" ... where's the evidence?
Apparently you have a short memory:
What evidence? They didn't have any evidence.
You state above clearly that they (Bush administration) had no evidence to support the war on Iraq. Which can clearly conclude you think they made the whole thing up to justify the war.
First of all I wasn't asking you, and second I've never claimed they fabricated anything. I've always claimed they didn't HAVE any evidence. Prove me wrong.
I am looking at your first post, and trying to understand how it is you can justify this second quote?
-
Gsholtz, the "evididence" is the fact that the UN was skimming off of the Oil for Food program. Or does that not count?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Santa, even you have to admit the "I'll never say a good thing about Amreeeka" faction has been pretty silent on the Libyan rollover.
Well, I can't speak for others. I can onyl say that I'm enjoying the side effect of the war very much. it's nice to see dictators and tyrants grovel outta fear :D
I think you're right; Moammar's not as stupid as he looks. I think he figured out his was on the wrong side of the line for himself and his people. Took a while, but hey, he never was the brightest bulb... progress at last?
Yeah. I think seeing one of the more powerful men in the arab world looking like the UNA-bomber made him go "wait a minute.....mebbe there's something here I need to relate to..." :)
I've said I won't support Bush if they don't find WMD and now that they have Big Mustache, they've got no excuses. They get more time to break him; that's a reasonable consideration. But in the end, they have THE guy they accused of having WMD. They better produce now; you don't take this nation to war against another sovereign nation and then say "oopsie".
You and I are then in the same camp! O let's go fight some Eurowus...ehm...some tards.
That being said, I think this rollover is linked to the Iraq invasion to some degree. I think any reasonable person would agree with that. I think any reasonable person would think this is a good thing. There's always the possibilty they made an incredbly huge error; that hasn't been proven to my satisfaction as yet. But it appears some good may have come out of it.
Couldn't agree more. And it's a fantastic feeling to know that those bastards are getting worried. Now THAT is the boot of freedom tapping on the door.
But it's pretty hard to find any of the "deth to amreeka" crowd that will admit it. [/B]
Well, I will. And I am a furriner.
DETH to AMREEKA!
:D
-
He said that in nearly seven years of operation, the Programme had been required to meet "an almost impossible series of challenges", using some $46 billion of Iraqi export earnings on behalf of the Iraqi people. Under the Programme, nine different United Nations agencies, programmes and funds developed and managed humanitarian operations in Iraq, meeting the needs of the civilian population across some 24 economic and social sectors.
Now, show me a UN report that will explain the distribution of those 46 Billion dollars, Mr. Scholtz. There is a a saying around here, 'mongst us Southerners, something about rice bowls to protect, that would lead me to beleive that the UN should not be administering anything that is paid for by the country it claims to be assisting.
In a statement to the Security Council (20 November 2003), he noted that the Programme, which closed on 21 November was the only humanitarian programme ever to have been funded entirely from resources belonging to the nation it was designed to help.
http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/
-
143 million dollars. The UN would have no interest in continuing to shake that money tree would they?
It is not that they stole the money; it is the fact that it is a business, not a charity when the the recipient pays for the service. There is no incentive to solve the problem, savy?
-
I'll butt in here re the UN with a 'ground level ' point of view.
My wife never left Cambodia til she was 23. She lived in Battambang province. She and her mother survived the Khmer Rouge (lost her father and sister). Her attitude towards the UN was that there is widespeed corruption, its a very matter of fact attitude, ie not judgemental, just "oh yeah, they took bribes to look the other way. Some of the UN guys would pay good money for a young virgin" - stuff like that. Considering the corruption in Cambodia most people there regard that as normal behaviour.
The UN is like any other frontline organisation, it has good and bad people. If you think that UN inspectors wouldn't/don't take bribes then you lead a very sheltered life.
-
It is not a charity, but when the same country that supplies the money also recieves the aid, that is a serious confilict of interest. Halliburton could do the same thing more efficiently.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The UN is a huge organization. It has just as many bad apples as any other huge organization, but what is the point of all this?
The point is the UN lacks balls, is falible, its accurarcy in reporting inspections etc is questionable, and isn't really making much of a differfence as it used too. Take away the UN and Austrialia and NZ would still have sent peacekeepers into East Timor for example.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Take away the UN and Austrialia and NZ would still have sent peacekeepers into East Timor for example.
Yep. Because them that do, do. Them that can't..... just talk.
-
Well, it the orders are "guard the warehouse" then the Dutch might be able to handle it.
However, if the orders are "stop the slaughter" everybody knows the Blues should be left on the shelf.
I suspect that's what burns the most.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes, but then it would have been an invasion. The UN flag gives troops a perception of neutrality (real or imagined).
Sorry, but at no time were the peacekeepers in East Timor perceived as 'neutral' by the Indonesians. In fact not many people see the UN as neutral anymore.
-
Show me where it's "ad hominem"?
Do you even know what that means?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Naw it wasn't a personal attack. Just like saying the US army did nothing but kill babies in Vietnam ... to a Vietnam vet.
I bet that would "burn" a bit too.
Not the same at all. More like saying many countries stopped Hussein's reign of terror while some were left on the shelf.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Are you a vet Iron? (I think you are) Have you seen a massacre and been unable to do anything about it?
Yes and no. I can sympathize though. Why were you unable to act?
-
He's not Dutch. End of tearful protest.
BTW, I am a VietNam era vet. Your comment merely makes me laugh; outrageous BS usually does.
-
I thought perhaps you were gonna say it wasn't your mandate as directed by the UN. The same UN you seem to place so much faith in.
-
It wasn't all artillery. Of course, if you were there, you know that, don't you?
So you shouldn't need to read this. Don't worry, it's not from an "evil imperialist Yanqui".
The Betrayal of Srebrenica (http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/srebrenica/BiancaJagger1.html)
"Hundreds of Muslims were killed and many more were wounded. Many were driven berserk by the assault and eye-witness accounts described how people were so horrified that they committed suicide to avoid capture. Many who were captured or surrendered, among them the wounded, were summarily executed. One eyewitness described how more than 100 captive Muslim men, women and children were slowly slaughtered by a group of Serbian soldiers using knives. Witnesses also saw hundreds of Muslim men buried in bass graves, some buried alive."
Indeed, what can one do against knives?
-
I guess this really is no different than his basic inability to admit Libya was in violation of the NPT, despite Libya itself admitting it.
I think I understand the reason he's so touchy on this UN subject and so anti-US.
So, I'll stand down.
Nonetheless, there was no ad hominem if he's really from Norway and not Dutch. Come to think of it, if he were Dutch it still wouldn't be ad hominem as what happened is a simple historical fact.
-
It is useless to argue with his Ilk, because they will never acknowledge facts or accept reality.
You were there? I salute you! Relevancy to this thread? 0%
-
Originally posted by Toad
I mean, you can't do stuff like that if you're being inspected right? No way, no how. The inspectors would easily find it, right?
No, not necessarily. And the implicate comparison to the UNMOVIC inpections in Iraq is unfair. The two programs were different in intent as well as size. I find it interesting though that you are taking Kadaffi's word at face value though.
And it certainly isn't really to surprising a move and no it's some sort of intant turn around for him. Kadaffi's being trying to turn around western opinion on him and his government for quite awhile now. An example is his desire to pay compensation to families that had members die do to Libyan sponsered terrorism. The seat Africa voted Libya to have on the Human Rights Council. And his attempts to help tyr and form a United States of Africa.
This is certainly a fantastic gesture, but I wonder how much of it is just gesture.
To assume because the UN was wrong about Libya it was wrong about Iraq is pretty silly as well. Once again totally different operations.
As fair as the UN Scurity Council being cowards. There's a couple of ways you could look at it. One that they were cowards because they didn't invade Iraq. One wonders what they could so afraid of, especially after seeing the pasting Iraq got in the Gulf war.
Another way is to see as courage for not kow-towing to the US government, it's bribes, or it's blackmail. Especially in light of the manufactured "evidence" poor old Powel had to present to the UN.
The UN is corrupt. Well it must be, some Cambodians sure apparently thought so three decades ago. That's called a fallacy of biased sample. Sure there are problably corrupt people in it, as was said earlier, huge organisation, it wouldn't be surprising. But to then somehow conclude that it's deep systemic problem with no evidence is poor reasoning.
But just remember, the US went to war too stop Libya from making WMD, no wait, it was for Iraqi freedom, no wait, it to stop SH's WMD program. Whatever else, it wasn't because the Bush administration told you and your elected representitives that Iraqi WMDs were an immediate to the US. :aok
-
Somebody quote me on this so Gscholz sees it. I wouldnt care too much except that he mentioned me by name.
Gsholz I never blamed you for srebrenica, you are not Dutch UN betrayer and murderer of civilans.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Somebody quote me on this so Gscholz sees it. I wouldnt care too much except that he mentioned me by name.
Gsholz I never blamed you for srebrenica, you are not Dutch UN betrayer and murderer of civilans.
The Raiders suck.
ok
-
Yes this year the raiders particularly suck... :)
-
The implication is that UN arms inspections are obviously totally dependent on the willingness of the country in question to cooperate.
-
Thrawn summed up Libya's actions quite nicely.
Is libya doing this because of fear of Americas actions, undoubtedly so. I perceive that this is directly related to what I perceive to have been a policy of containment and limited strikes imposed against Libya by the US for Years.
In that case there was a definite link to terrorist activities and training camps.
Khaddafy has been wanting to rejoin the world community for some time now and as a result is willing to turn his back on his evil ways.
Of course not knowing him personaly I have no way of telling if he is legit.
-
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ly.html
Libyan military adventures failed, e.g., the prolonged foray of Libyan troops into the Aozou Strip in northern Chad was finally repulsed in 1987. Libyan support for terrorism decreased after UN sanctions were imposed in 1992. Those sanctions were suspended in April 1999.
Ouch. Kinda says something about UN sanctions eh?
-
I realize that this is going in another direction on this globe here but about the UN's ability to get something, anything done about WMD's.
What about the North Korean's taking out the inspecters cameras and publicly announcing they are starting up their nuclear program? If the UN was a real global cop instead of a paper tiger I think they would have done something other than turn and walk away from the situation and wait for the US to take some kind of action.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
That's a rather harsh accusation. Do you have anything to back it up with?
Maybe not full corruption. But it does stink like it. Looks like they didn't want to bite the hand that feeds it.
Since late 1999, there has been no limit on oil exports. Over nearly six years, more than $50 billion has flowed into the relevant U.N. accounts. There is a formula for how it should flow out into delineated sectors in Iraq, such as education, health, electricity, and agriculture. Fifty-nine percent of the revenue goes to humanitarian goods for south and central Iraq, and is administered directly by the regime in Baghdad. Thirteen percent goes to the three governates of the ostensibly autonomous no-fly zone in the north, known as Iraqi Kurdistan.A little over 2 percent goes to covering the administrative overhead for the 10 U.N. agencies involved . Most of the remainder goes to Kuwait as compensation for the Persian Gulf War. Plug in the numbers, and the riches become embarrassing: There is upwards of $1 billion just to cover the agencies' overhead over these six years. Less than 40 percent of the money designated for Iraqi Kurdistan has been used, and therefore some $4 billion is gathering interest -- and, presumably, dust -- at the Banque Nationale de Paris in New York City while thousands of families are suffering needlessly.
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2002/joct/7_audit.html
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Well, I can't speak for others. I can onyl say that I'm enjoying the side effect of the war very much. it's nice to see dictators and tyrants grovel outta fear :D
Interesting that you'd call this a side effect.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Interesting that you'd call this a side effect.
MiniD
and what would you term it as?
-
Originally posted by Toad
The implication is that UN arms inspections are obviously totally dependent on the willingness of the country in question to cooperate.
Let's consider the logic of the above statement...
Unless you are willing to give the UN the authority to use force whenever THEY feel it is necessary this statement will always be true. For example:
Cop wants to pull you over for speeding you don't wanna stop... what makes you stop? The cop's authority to enforce the law.
So on the one hand we complain that the UN is a bunch of wimps, while on the other hand we really don't want them to have the kind of autonomous authority necessary to enforce the sanctions. Can't have it both ways.
-
So you agree with the statement then?
Come on, come on... step right in there.
;)
-
Isn't that what I said? (in a politically side stepping sort of way)
-
Originally posted by Toad
I've said I won't support Bush if they don't find WMD and now that they have Big Mustache, they've got no excuses. They get more time to break him; that's a reasonable consideration. But in the end, they have THE guy they accused of having WMD. They better produce now; you don't take this nation to war against another sovereign nation and then say "oopsie".
You make some good points, and I agree with you.
What disturbs me the most is that I got the impression this entire Iraq war was started because Bush said had evidence of WMD, and if that evidence isn't found - doesn't that make his entire decision making process suspect?
If he did not have evidence to support his reasons for action, to commit this country to war, what did he use to make his decision?
He also said Iraq would be rebuilt by Iraqi oil, and now that has come to not to be the case.
And several of Bush's anti-terrorism measures, such as holding detainees with out legal representation, have been declared unconstitutional by the courts.
I get the impression Bush makes his decisions in a knee jerk fashion, regardless of the US and international law.
Then again... perhaps this kind of behavior is needed right now to scare the piss out of terrorists and terror supporting nations - such as Lybya, Iran, and North Korea. Interesting how North Korea is all of a sudden wanting to talk.
At the same time it's kind of scary to have a government run amuck of the US constitution.
-
C'mon MT.. dive in there. Talk in absolutes!
You agree with that statement, don't you?
;)
-
It would certainly make the intel gathering and evaluating process suspect at the very least. But we really don't know what evidence was presented do we?
Iraqi oil may or may not pay for the rebuild. It's too early to tell. Maybe once they get the system fully up to speed and modernized it'll be more clear.
Unconstitutional? That's what the courts are there for. Checks and balances, right? Not the first administration to have stuff reversed by the courts, is it?
It's why the Supremes are the "most important" of the three "equal" branches of the government.
-
Sheesh, you're starting to talk to yourself.
So you lost a lousy bet. So what. Let it go.
yowser
-
Actually, I'd rather they DID inspect.
But that isn't the point right now. It's clear they have to have the cooperation of the inspected nation to do any good. THAT'S the point and of course there's something that follows from that, isn't there?
And here I thought you had me on ignore.
So tell me, are you actually Dutch and not Norwegian? Is that why you flew off the handle there?
It's clearly a reply to Nakhui's post. Do try to keep up Yowser. Oh, and if this stuff bothers you, I'm sure you realize you can just not read threads I start? :p
-
Originally posted by Maverick
What about the North Korean's taking out the inspecters cameras and publicly announcing they are starting up their nuclear program? If the UN was a real global cop instead of a paper tiger I think they would have done something other than turn and walk away from the situation and wait for the US to take some kind of action.
Let's see... the U.S. invaded Iraq without U.N. sanction and you think the U.N. should somehow coerce North Korea to give up their weapons program after the U.S. has telegraphed the next punch.
Fat chance. Bush put North Korea on the defense with that idiotic axis of evil statement. Bush will have to find a way to fix it.
-
Historically the UN Forces didn't "stop the slaughter" in Bosnia. The UN, with all it's self-imposed restrictions couldn't do it. It ended up in the lap of NATO which really means the US. It's just a fact, it's history and it's not a personal attack.
It may be offensive to you, but it's not ad hominem.
You say lots of things that I find offensive; but I don't get all worked up and start shouting "ad hominem".
True "ad hominem" would be if you called someone "stupid" or something like that. It's not germane to the discussion and it IS a personal attack. See the difference?
I think you're getting the point about "voluntary inspections" under the NPT. Sounds good doesn't it? Works great with countries that have no intent of developing WMD. In reality, it doesn't work with countries that are indeed trying to hide something. Libya is proof of that, don't you agree? That's the point. Extrapolate from there.
-
C'mon Sand.
NK was in violation of the NPT and in violation of the agreements it signed with the Clinton administration long before Bush showed up at 1600 Pennsylvania.
We put THEM on defense? Nah, don't think so. All they had to do was abide by the agreement they made; the one they admitted to breaking almost before the ink was dry.
-
Originally posted by Rude
and what would you term it as?
A ripple from a splash is not a side effect. It is a direct effect. One that you know is going to happen.
As apposed to a side effect, I believe it to be an anticipated effect. "EXAMPLE" was stamped all over this operation... with "WHO'S NEXT?" stamped on the last page.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Toad
It would certainly make the intel gathering and evaluating process suspect at the very least. But we really don't know what evidence was presented do we?
Thought he made his case before the UN and congressional IC with US Intell. He managed to persuade Britain and several other contries...
I recall Blair coming out and saying that he had seen the US evidence and was convinced.
Ok... it sort of makes one wonder... how the Brits could also be convinced.
Ok say US Intell was totally and utterly wrong. Wow! That's quite an "Oopsie!"
Perhaps kind like the Maine and Cuba.... was it a bomb... or did the boiler just blow?
WWI - and the assaisination in Serbia sparking conflict through out Europe.
Odd how if one were to step out of the situation and emotion of the time, one might see a completely different picture - miscalculations.
For example... do you truely believe Iran, Lybya, and North Korea's current reversal in rhetoric and willingness to co-operate and play well in the national community was forseen and planned by the Bush administration or was it just serendipidy... and now they are seizing upon the opportunity to credit for it.
If you believe the former, then the Bush administrations are sheer political geniuses and advanced thinkers.
If you believe the latter, then they are bumbling fools who got lucky.
What's the pattern? What's their track record in regards to predictions which came true, and predictions which were false?
If the majority of them are true then they are adept at adjusting world politics - influencing other nations.
If the majority of them are false then they are idiots playing a dangerous game with people lives.
I guess tha'st why their prediction that Iraq had WMD becomes important. Because there is a third answer... there were never any WMD and they knew it... and they saw the threat in these other countries (and more)... and this was their ploy to solve them.
What's the evidence?
Everyone admits North Korea was working on WMD, nuclear weapons, and they could do it, and they were close - this wasn't bravado speaking, Saddam and his "scud" missile teachnology - oh wow what a threat... acturate to what plus or minus 300 miles (ok I do exagerate - to make a point at the "real" differences in threats.
North Korea was a greater threat to the sability of Asia than Saddam was a threat to the middle east. His army and Air Force was a joke.
North Korea has the capability to rain death upon millions of people with in minutes. Millions of people. Everyone knows this.
What's the political fall out if America allowed that situation to escalate - and it happened?
there's more...
The question is what country could be use as an example... to convery to the rest of the world this kind of behavior was not tolerable.. and the consequences would be unacceptable?
Lybya? Haven't heard peep with them for a decade... and they were co-operating with the Pam 103 trials.
Iran? It's a toss up.
Compared to Iraq - perfect. A thorn in the side. Constant violations.... already had a military presence - ready - capable.
spins a good story?
Ok back to some metrics
Business use charts - sales, market share, customers, etc - to measure their health as a business - growing, skrinking, gaining market share...etc.
Diplomats do the same and so do "intelligence" agencies by tracking what countries say, what they do, what their capabilities are - and the personalities in power and factoring all of these variables to predict what a country wiill do.
Will NK really attack the USA/Korea/Japan if the US calls for a sanction in the UN?
What's the calculated risk?
Do they mean it?
Check the metrics.
If they always do what they say they will do - it's likely that they mean it.
If the leader is a hot head and has a history of this - it's likely that they will do it.
If they have the techonology and have tested it, - they have the capability of doing what they say.
Would the reprecussions be worth their action?
If they're situation were already dire - their action may be worth the consequences.
The US cut off North Korea's oil shipments. North Korea not have enough energy to power all of it's industry. There for some business will have no power - no power they can not produce their products - no product - no sells - no sells - no revenue, no paychecks - unemployment.... lower economoy - economic ruin.
America is choking North Korea... to death economically by denying them energy.
What do they have to loose?
Nuclear energy would releave the dependence of American oil.
I'm just writing a story here... :rofl
Pretty good fiction?
-
Do I believe this was intended? Yes... I said so in May:
Sheeesh... enough of the "WMD" rhetoric.
Here's a synopsis for those who don't get it:- Saddam Hussein led Iraq invades a sovereign nation.
- Coallition forces push his forces back into Iraq.
- Saddam continues to spout off about the great satan.
- Saddam ran Iraqi government offers rewards to suicide bombers in pallestine
- Suicide "bombers" fly two jets into the world trade center and one into the Pentagon
- Talliban officials dance in celebration
- Iraq officials dance in celebration
- Talliban destroyed
- Iraq government destroyed
- U.S. asks if anyone else wants to dance in celebration of 9/11
Anyone that is playing the "prove it" game with Saddam and state sponsored terrorism is being quite simply ignorant. The French have been hiding behind "prove it" for some time, the Russians just choose to because a) they don't feel anyone cared when state sponsered soldiers were in Chechnia and b) they want oil money.
The rest is just a facade to appease the "court of world oppinion". Everyone knows why we went in... and they just wanted a plausable excuse... not necessarily a good one.
The U.S. picked a country with a dictator that openly sponsored terrorism. They went in and took him out. Too many are arguing that getting rid of saddam did nothing to "reduce the threat", while I maintain it did exactly what it was supposed to do. It sent notice that the U.S. was not going to let world oppinion stop it from fighting terrorism. It was not going to let world oppinion stop it from reacting. Those that hid behind the protection on world oppinion for so long are responding.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Toad
C'mon Sand.
NK was in violation of the NPT and in violation of the agreements it signed with the Clinton administration long before Bush showed up at 1600 Pennsylvania.
We put THEM on defense? Nah, don't think so. All they had to do was abide by the agreement they made; the one they admitted to breaking almost before the ink was dry.
They may very well have been in violation of the treaty. No argument. But, once Bush made his "axis of evil" statement, there is little incentive to shut down the program.
-
Here is an incentive: We will dig you out of your Rat-hole and put you on trial.
As opposed to Clintons incentive: Here, we will give you some nuclear materials, if you promise(no crossing fingers!) to use them for energy production only.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
They may very well have been in violation of the treaty. No argument. But, once Bush made his "axis of evil" statement, there is little incentive to shut down the program.
It wasn't the words "axis of evil" - but you know those aren't just idle words for showmanship.. they can't be. They have to be coded messages to other countries to be used in their metrics.. or to confuse their metrics
However, the action is the oil shipments were stopped.
Where else was NK going to go?
What were their options?
They chose to escalate... I think to get world attention to the situation.
A miscalculation to the response?
How far were they willing to commit until - they converted words to action or what - blinked and back down on the rhetoric.
This has to be part of Bush's calculations.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Didn't the US do the same thing to Japan?
Yes, and Japan chose to go to war with the US... and seize the phillipines.. which were a coaling station for the US...
Not sure if they were a source for coal at that time - any one know?
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Here is an incentive: We will dig you out of your Rat-hole and put you on trial.
As opposed to Clintons incentive: Here, we will give you some nuclear materials, if you promise(no crossing fingers!) to use them for energy production only.
That's all fine and good when you're dealing with a pissant country that doesn't possess WMD.
North Korea isn't Iraq.
-
Sorry for all the posts...
just thought I was seeing an interesting pattern in world events...
Not trying to be a conspiracy theorist... just musing...
There's got to be books on how international diplomacy, how it happens, how national leaders calculate and measure their responses.
Does any one know about this subject of study and may be offer a title that I might read more?
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
Sorry for all the posts...
Screw that... Bring it on, Nakhui. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Screw that... Bring it on, Nakhui. :)
Thanks for the encouragement SBM.
I'm not at all as well versed in these subjects as the rest of you.
So I'll try not be a distraction with my questions and speculations... just a very interesting discussion and I'm curious about those lines of thoughts and wonder if they were a consideration by Bush administration - or perhaps no merit for consideration.
I enjoy listening to the LBJ tapes on NPR... they offer a candid insight into the way the man thought.. how he was connected... and the manner in which people at that level of government interact.
Prior to the telephone/telegraph... many political descisions were discussed via post - so there is in some respects significant record into the thoughts of historic discisions. A teasure trove for historians. Secret discussions of course, found in memoirs.
Kind of would like to be a fly on the wall in the day in the life of a president - with a taperecorder of course.
Think of the million things he has to be aware of... from day to day... had to back down from the steel tarrifs because of the reprecussions of a trade war... not just back down but also save face by saying their goal was accomplished - the steel industry had enough time to refit and modernize so the tarrifs were no longer necessary - in other words, they didn't make us, we chose to end them on our own, and if we needed to we were ready to continue them... (true/not true) look at the metrics.
There's got to be some steel makers who had not had enough time... how were they persuaded to support the decision... a future subsidy promise? A rebuilding contract?
Must be an important constiguency because otherwise why bother with the tarrifs to begin with especially in direct violation of international trade law - an obvious counter response to this action by Europe would be the treat of a trade war - surely the State Department would know this before engaging in such activity.
They also would know it takes time for the Europeans to exhaust all legal measures to prove their case. A year.. perhaps two.. and this time could be used to modernize the steel industry.
When push comes to shove... times up... comply and no penalties. Win-win...
Except a little animosty between business partners... words only.. soon back to business.. on to the next situation.
Times up - however, not all companies made it through and modernized.
Cut throat... or a "bail out deal" to save the rest and their support?
Haven't heard of it yet? Wait 6 months. So the spectre of a connection is remote. Build other stories, independent, many sourced to support the deal. Let the deal come from the outside and ripple in through representives.. the moment will build and a deal made.
Ooops I disgress...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Toad, what was your meaning of the phrase: "I suspect that's what burns the most."
You still have not answered my question: How do you propose anyone can force a sovereign nation to allow inspection if the treaty that calls for such inspections is voluntary?
burns = bothers
Sure I answered it. The answer is obvious anyway. Works great with countries that have no intent of developing WMD. In reality, it doesn't work with countries that are indeed trying to hide something. So, the point is: it's pointless. If they want WMD, they'll hide the development from the inspectors. And, as we've seen this is apparently not too difficult to do.
How do you force inspection? You just saw it happen.
*****
There's one thing I'm pretty sure of in the Intel business. You never tell anyone EVERYTHING. I doubt we told the Brits "everything" and I'm certain we didn't tell the media much at all. I suspect there's members of Congress that know a lot more then they talk about, as well as the Executive branch.
Review what US intel now admits to knowing about Libyan violations. You can bet they know more than they're admitting.
Sure, they may have miscalculated. As I've said before they have SH and in a short while they will either have to "put up or shut up".
I'm not enough of a tinfoil hat wearer to believe the US President was following your "third answer" scenario. He'd be hung if caught at that.
Libya quiet for a decade? What do you base this upon? How do YOU know what they were really up to? Did you KNOW they had the WMD programs they now admit to having? I'm betting you didn't.
NK is being handled quite well, IMO. Bush was presented with fait accompli. CIA estimates were they had nukes already. Choosing between rolling over and giving them everything they ask for basically at gunpoint.. because that's where that road leads..... and putting the ball back in their court by not rolling over under threat is a pretty simple choice for me.
If we'd have kept selling oil to Japan, do you think they'd have stopped their drive to establish the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity union? I sure don't. Sooner or later, you have to confront this stuff. Sooner is usually way better than later. Wait.. maybe if we had just let Hitler go ahead and have Poland.
NK has choices to make now. Also the idea that the US is solely responsible for solving the NK problem is typical. NK is a major problem for all of Asia. I think it's right for Bush to require that others be invovled.
Now, if it so happens that NK chooses to immolate itself rather than take the other road. Well, better now than when they have 1000 nukes. Sorry. I just don't see where dealing with lunatic dictators that threaten you with nukes gets you anywhere.
America is choking North Korea... to death economically by denying them energy.
No, NK is starving itself to death by remaining a pariah. The way out is open to them; they refuse to take it. And it isn't about nuke energy to warm their homes; they HAD that with everyone's blessing. It's the enriching of uranium to make bombs that has folks upset.
******
Sand, the incentive to shut down the program is the resumption of aid and the expansion towards "normal" relations.
*****
The oil shipments were stopped because they admitted they violated their "no WMD" agreement they made with the Clinton administration almost before the ink was dry.
Get the cause and effect right. THEY caused this problem. To continue shipping them oil merely validates their decision to cheat on any and all further agreements.
********
Better to deal with a pissant country with 5-10 nukes than wait until that same pissant country has 100 nukes. And you'll note we're not really doing anything to them. They don't fulfill their side of the contract, the contract is void.
*****
Just who would NK "project power" onto? The only remote possibility is SK and once they kill the ~35,000 US soldiers on the DMZ, they'll lose. No matter what it takes, they'll lose.
********
Yeah, that's politics. Hasn't changed, never will.
-
Gadhafi: Iraq war may have influenced WMD decision (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/12/22/gadhafi.interview/index.html)
TRIPOLI, Libya (CNN) -- Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, in an exclusive interview with CNN, acknowledged Monday that the war in Iraq may have played a role in his decision to dismantle his country's weapons of mass destruction programs.
-
Once again Toad, give context to his statements.
And give context to the question. Does this reconcile the Bush administration lies to the citizens of the US, their representitives and to the representitives of the nations of the world?
-
Originally posted by Toad
burns = bothers
Sure I answered it. The answer is obvious anyway. Works great with countries that have no intent of developing WMD. In reality, it doesn't work with countries that are indeed trying to hide something. So, the point is: it's pointless. If they want WMD, they'll hide the development from the inspectors. And, as we've seen this is apparently not too difficult to do.
What a foolish statement. The announcement by Kadaffi doesn't "prove" ****, except his desire to make such a statement. To some how devine that this proves that UNMOVIC failed in it's goal is completely ****ing retarded. What some how the US intelligence infrusture knew better? The CIA was giving UNMOVIC intel all the time, and every time they followed it up was fruitless. Cripes Toad, you're not dumb. I find it difficult to believe that you would succoe to such poor reasoning so quickly.
Iraq: Has WMD. UNMOVIC can't find it UNMOVIC operating under a UN resolution, backed up by UK and US military forces building up in the region, apparently with the intent to invade.
Libya: Claims to have an advanced (whatever the hell advanced means) programme of developing WMD. And apparently in the face of UN inspections.
Toad, is Canada a signatory of the NPT? How many inspections do we get a year? I know that fat man and skinny boy were made from Canadian uranium
-
Well Canada really is just like Iraq, Iran, Libya and North Korea... :rolleyes:
-
Libya has been gradually coming onside for years, way before Sept 11th. The Lockerbie trials are a good example. Moreover, Libya had plenty of economic reasons to play ball. I would say the recent Iraq 'triumph' might have helped somewhat, but an invasion of Libya has never seemed likely. I'm pretty sure Western intelligence agencies weren't completely blind to Gadaffi's weapons programs either.
To a certain extent, Syria has become more receptive towards the West. The Queen met with their head honcho, for instance. Again, this was all pre-Sept 11th.
-
Context? Read the article.
Lies? IMO, you're merely speculating at this point. If the WMD are found now that they have Saddam, how will you explain the statement you just made?
Unmovic? I believe even the inspectors themselves say they feel their mission was "compromised". Wasn't there an example of UNMOVIC pulling up out front as trucks left from the rear of some site they were inspecting? Intel there may have been; timely, uncompromised intel/missions may not have been possible in Iraq.
As I've pointed out repeatedly. Now that they have SH, we will see. Up until now all the "lies, lies, lies" chants are just premature speculation.
And I think Grun, in his inimitable way, pretty much explained Libya/Canada.
Surely you don't think Canada would get the same scrutiny as Iran or Libya?
I expect much better of you, Thrawn, as well.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm not enough of a tinfoil hat wearer to believe the US President was following your "third answer" scenario. He'd be hung if caught at that.
Agreed.. it does "sound" like tinfoil hat talk...
But dont' dismiss it so readily out of hand because it seems to be non-sequitor.
If you were to tell me in 1982, that the US were selling weapons to the Iranians (who had just held American's hostage) in order to raise funds to support contras in central America... [In direct contradiction to US law] and this went as high as Poindexter and Wineburger and even possibly the President. I would have been pointing at your tinfoil hat too. Yet that did happen.
Certainly in the White House, the State Department, the CIA, the NSA, and DOD, there are analyst who study and are experts on other countries, and their job is to speculate with accuracy and intelligence, the goals and capabilities of other countries.
This means when USA takes action "A" towards Country B, Country B is likely to respond, for the sake of argument, with 5 options. And the likelihood of them employing option A as opposed to option B has some calculated weight, and the response the US would take to that option is also calculated...
Like moving pieces on a chess board... it's a limited board with limited moves... yet the permutations are complex. However not impossible to predict... the country which can predict each move... has the most likely hood of winning the game... or knowing it's out come moves ahead the final move - thus knowning when to concede or when to press on.
It's the game theory. [no I'm not making this up... it's a valid theory for economica and diplomacy]
My point is not all activities in global politics corresponds one-to-one - just like every bill passed in Congress has riders to it which may not be germane to the bill... pork barrel ad ons, emergencey ad ons, quid pro quo compromises are on every bill.
My point... government analysts had to know that their action in Iraq would have certain reprecussions - any leader (such as Bush) would want to at least speculate and prepare for every reasonable consequence - after all it was the assumption and dissmal that US airports and passenger flights were safe from hi-jacking and that co-coperating with hijackers is the way to handle a hijacking - even if the hijackers were only armed with box cutters - that way of limited thinking is what allowed terrorists to hijack passanger jets and use them as guided missiles into the WTC. That thinking has now been changed... sort of extreme to thining a nail clipper could threaten any one... but hey now people are thinking out side of a closed box.
Back to my point... government analysts surely thought that world response to actions in Iraq could have been one or more of the following and certainly more than we're not aware of...
A: UN would impose sanctions against the US for acting "possibly" out side of international law - [like WTO ruling steel tarrifs were not lawful.... trade war very likely! so US backs down... but also saves face]
B: Increased terrorism against US and allied interests
C: Success in Iraq would cause terrorist nations to back down from their rhetoric and be more co-operative. Certainly this seems to be the case with NK, Lybya, and Iran. Did the government see this as a possible outcome? I'm sure it crossed their minds.
D: Success in Iraq may harden terrorist nations resolve to resist American colonialism. This also could be possibility given the religious fanatism of the culture.
The question I have is, NK has nukes... they threatened war.
Are they at the point that they are crazy enough to use them?
Are we crazy enough not to believe them and call their bluff.
Let's go back to the Gulf War I for a moment, Prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. SH had to amass his republican guard on the boarder... this was observed by US and allied intelligence services. A massing of troops along a boarder of contention is paramount to war, it always precedes it, war is predictable.
Iraq has a history of invading neighbors - Iran-Iraq war is an example. There was no doubt in any one's mind in the intelligence service that Iraq was about to invade Kuwait.
Could that war have been avoided by Bush Senior? Supposidly there were diplomatic communications from Iraq to the American embassider about annexing Kuwait... and Bush said that dispute is not in US interest - sort of like the green light of saying we don't care or did Bush sr. just think SH was bluffing?
Well, Bush senior chose to call SH's bluff... however, SH wasn't bluffing.
Iraq is more of a pissant country than NK because SH doesn't have nukes.
Calling SH in Gulf War I - IMO was a miscalculation by Bush senior... not just him, the world community also.
Face is very important in Asia. Asians will do very stupid things - like kill themselves and every one else - to save face. It's an ingrained cultural thing with them.
China never admitted any wrong doing in regards to the EP-3 collision with one of their fighter jets near Hainan island a few years back. In fact China was clearly (from US/European standards) in the wrong.
Yet China admantly would not release the US serivce men and the plane until the US read a statement which sounded like the US admitted fault for the incident (but technically it didn't).
So when governement officials present optiona to President Bush showing him US options and the possible options NK have, and calculating the possibility of their responses to US options.
One must wonder... this is not Texas poker, because not all the players are from Texas, and behave like Texans - American Cowboy stick to your 6 guns... doesn't work in global affairs.
There are other perceptions to the problem.
[/B] NK has choices to make now. Also the idea that the US is solely responsible for solving the NK problem is typical. NK is a major problem for all of Asia. I think it's right for Bush to require that others be invovled.
Now, if it so happens that NK chooses to immolate itself rather than take the other road. Well, better now than when they have 1000 nukes. Sorry. I just don't see where dealing with lunatic dictators that threaten you with nukes gets you anywhere.[/B]
I don't disagree... but remember at one time in history the US and it's best minds had the policy that mutual assured destruction was the best way to deter nuclear war. And there for building enough nukes to destory the world 100 times over was the "rational and sane" course to take.
Krushev was known for pounding his shoe on tables! - Hardly sane behavior.
The oil shipments were stopped because they admitted they violated their "no WMD" agreement they made with the Clinton administration almost before the ink was dry.
Get the cause and effect right. THEY caused this problem. To continue shipping them oil merely validates their decision to cheat on any and all further agreements.
They readily admitted they violated the treaty! that's an important point to consider, because are they stupid? don't they know that the world would condem them for it and there would be reprecussions that may not be in their best interests?
I think Americans assume other country leaders are less intelligent than our leaders.
IMO, their intention is not to become a nuclear power.
They wanted a better oil deal to solve their energy crisis- that was their goal. The amount of oil being shipped wasn't enough. A miscalution on their part on how to handle and re-negotiate a better detail.
Even a larger miscalculation to escalate the situation in this manner.
Yet isn't this the same kind of thinking and bargaining that the US governement has in giving farm subsidies to farmers for not planting a certain crop!
It seems totally irrational!
Yet that's the only clout NK has to bargan with in this game. And those are the rules... they were told to play by - perhaps.
They don't fulfill their side of the contract, the contract is void.
They don't think that way. Americans do... but they don't.
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
I'm just writing a story here... :rofl
Pretty good fiction?
Fiction? Yes. Pretty good? No. Sorry, just not very original.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The UN inspections are not pointless, they make efficient development of weapons very difficult ... or perhaps you think these nations (including Iraq) would not have managed to make nuclear weapons by now regardless of the inspections? No, the inspections are the most effective and really the only option. Invading every country is not an option. If you think the US will invade India or even NK you're a fool. Irak was invaded because it didn't have WMD.
No, the world. Nuclear weapons are the most powerful way to project military power. NK would just need to threaten with the use of WMD like the Soviets and Chinese, and the US have done for decades.
India is no threat to the US or stability in the region. Why would you even compare it to NK? We'll defeat North Korea pretty much the same way we defeated the Soviet Union.
-
Do governments engaged in stupid, shady clandestine activities? Yes. Probably every one has at one time or another. However, the idea that trading arms with contras is on an equal footing with going to war to impress other terrorist nations is a far reach. In fact, it's in a completely different class of speculation.
Obviously, action/reaction are not on a one to one finite basis. There are always many responses to an action; the variables are there, far more than any game with "rules" like chess. There are no "rules" in this current interaction. The difference this makes is that you simply have to evaluate your information and do what you think is BEST. The other side isn't limited in it's reply to your action.
Yes, it takes change to get people to think outside the box. The invention/use of the machine gun made generals "think outside the box" after WW1. So, what's new? It's always been the "better mousetrap" scenario. Someone is always out there thinking of a "better" way to do something...... including terrorism. The idea that you can always be one step ahead of the bad guys is fatuous.
As for threat of war, that's not a new thing either. If it were, "sabre rattling" wouldn't be a stock phrase. Yes, NK is "sabre rattling". Now, you can roll over and give them what they want immediately. What future effect do you think that will have on their behavior. Goes back to what I said earlier. You evaluate your options and do what you think is right.
I think conceding to lunatic dictators that threaten war and have a few nukes is a sure policy for future disaster. You may feel appeasement is the best policy. Historically, that doesn't seem to be true.
Sir Winston Churchill
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Your Iraq scenario falls on the head of April Glaspie. Do you have any evidence that she spoke correctly for Bush or that she simply did not make a diplomatic screw-up of incredible proportions? In short, do you have anything that shows Bush directed Glaspie to say what she said? As you pointed out earlier, lots of wars have started because of stupid "misunderstandings" like Glaspie's extremely poor choice of words.
Face? Well, let's see here. NK is threatening war and that war will primarily affect it's neighbors. SK, Japan, China, USSR for the most part. Should they use their nukes, the resultant problems will be the most serious for these countries. Now, who understands "face" better than the US? I'd suggest SK, Japan and China? Seems to me that if this is a really serious problem, they better get REAL involved.
As I pointed out, the US isn't acting against NK. Au contraire, we're simply not interacting with them. We're handling the situation in the way we deem best, IE: don't submit to blackmail from lunatic dictators. Pretty good policy, IMO.
Any harm that comes to NK from not honoring their treaty is self-inflicted. Again, they violated the treaty almost immediately. So you want to deal submissively to a greater extent with this lying lunatic?
Yah, "sticking to your guns" and expecting people to honor a treaty just doesn't work in global affairs. What works, what really, really works, is allowing people to disregard treaties, is submitting to blackmail from dishonest leaders, is appeasing dictators. Gotcha.
Mutual Assured Destruction? Well, was their a nuke war? Like I said, you evaluate the information, look at your options and do what you think is best. During the "Cold War" years there was a massive buildup of nukes on both sides. Was there a nuke war? Hmmmmmm... must have worked. Then times change, re-evaluation occurs, better mousetraps are built and the party keeps right on going.
If they didn't know there would be repercussions, they WERE stupid. However, I suspect they knew exactly what they were doing. They are testing the limits. They need fuel and food and they need them for free. Can a few nukes deliver the bounty if you rattle them?
Here's a tinfoil hat game theory for you. China is using NK to regain Taiwan. NK is pretty much a client state of China and dependent upon Chinese goodwill. At the last moment China will step in, resolve the NK issue and the quid pro quo is the US removing its guarantee of protection from Taiwan. Just as likely as any of your "maybes" so far.
Yet isn't this the same kind of thinking and bargaining that the US governement has in giving farm subsidies to farmers for not planting a certain crop!
Easy to keep overlooking that one little niggling detail, isn't it?
A farmer gets paid not to plant corn. He takes the money; he plants corn anyway. What do you think happens when he gets caught trying to sell it?
Less intelligent than your leaders? I don't know; I think it's on an individual basis. Who are your leaders? For example, I think the US folks thought the Taliban were incredibly stupid; SH as well. I think we respect the leaders of what, for lack of a better term, are "reputable" countries. Countries that can sign a treaty and keep their word, for instance.
I think we all think KJI in NK is incredibly stupid. This is because while the US may not fully grasp the concept of "face" in Asia, it's also clear that many in Asia do not full grasp the concept of "resolve" in the US. Which is the greater failing?
I've said I think Bush is correct in not giving in to NK blackmail and requiring the "local" nations to be involved in the discussions with NK.
What's your solution? All I see so far is appeasement and you must have more than that.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
We'll defeat North Korea pretty much the same way we defeated the Soviet Union.
They're already on the ropes. The country is bankrupt, the people are starving, they've got a huge refugee problem on the NK/China border. In short, they're SOL.
-
They're pointless if the country does not want to cooperate. Libya is the case in point. Their nuke program wasn't stopped by UN inspections. In fact, it was going on despite inspections. Possibly the inspections make it somewhat more difficult, but it certainly doesn't prevent it.
Well, the NK's are threatening to use their WMD unless the US gives them all the oil and food they want. So they're already "projecting military power".
Your solution is? What? Appeasement? Maybe just Austria? A bit of Czechoslovakia or maybe all of it?
I'm betting your solution is for the US to give NK what it wants?
Because it's solely a US problem, right? This is all our fault? We started the Korean War and covered that fact up? So we have to fix it?
Hey, I've got an idea! Why doesn't NORWAY give NK everything Kim Jong Il desires for the next ten years. They it can be...... FRANCE'S turn!
:rofl
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I don't know the solution. What is your solution? Invasion? :rofl
Still getting you that it worked?
We went after the Talliban in Afghanistan because they were identified as being directly responsible for 9/11. But that really isn't much of a show of force given Afghanistan's poor infrastructure at the time and the Talliban's incapability of defending itself by any means other than hiding. We were picking on a war ravaged people with the biggest military in the world.
Afghanistan was a response, but an example was still needed. To find a country that openly sponsored terrorism (funding palestinian suicide bombers) and celebrated the 9/11 disaster AS WELL AS HAVING A FULLY "CAPABLE" MILITARY. We rolled right over them despite world oppinion, despite debates about validity of "wmd", despite tough talk from Saddam, despite everything. We simply rolled in and kicked ass... completely eliminating a government that was by everyone's admission a psuedo evil dictatorship.
The world is on notice. There are things that simply will not be "tollerated" any longer. No more idly sitting by while being poked with a stick. No more overlooking things to better relations. There's simply a new policy: Behave.
Now all we have to do is figure out how to make that work in Africa. Though... I give that one a "not likely" and a half.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Once again Toad, give context to his statements.
And give context to the question. Does this reconcile the Bush administration lies to the citizens of the US, their representitives and to the representitives of the nations of the world?
The majority of Americans understand that it's not a perfect world....intel is not perfect and WMD's not found within your timeframe does not mean they did not or still do exist. The second term of Bush will prove this out.
BTW.....you always seem so bothered by the US and not so by Iraq, Libya, NK, etc.
I think you're just a left wing apologists for bad folks and you apparently have an innate dislike for the US and her president. You whine alot.
Best to just realize you don't have jack to say about any of it....once again, we will do what is in the best interest of the US, not Canada or Europe.
This hey let's all be pals attitude of the 90's is what brought all of this to a head in the first place....had we dealt effectively with Osama early on, terrorism in it's current form would have been a non-factor.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I don't know the solution. What is your solution? Invasion? :rofl
You spew sharp criticism yet offer no solution...as if you would be qualified in the first place.
Kinda typical.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Mini D, what has retaliation for 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq got to do with nuclear weapons and the problem of inspecting NPT members?
Oh... I'm sorry... is that all this thread was about?
Hehehe... I think it's funny the way you manage to ignore so much in an effort to say so little.
MiniD
-
we did it and do it because it is best for us. you can join us or sit back and whine and be jealous.
Like I said when it started... if nothing else it will make millions of lives better and.... be a great example for the remaining despots around the world.... gold toilet seats or.... spider holes full of their own excrement.
Make it as complex as you want but it really is that simple ... My 468" motor likes premium and I like $1.65 a gallon for the good stuff.
Maybe NK will get the hint and maybe it won't... maybe the UN will get on board and maybe it won't but... The U.S. and possibly GB will take care of the problem..
It will get solved and the pasty little whiny liberals and jealous U.S. envy group will get on here and tell us how it didn't get solved bloodlessly or with 100% honesty and goodness.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Still getting you that it worked?
We went after the Talliban in Afghanistan because they were identified as being directly responsible for 9/11. But that really isn't much of a show of force given Afghanistan's poor infrastructure at the time and the Talliban's incapability of defending itself by any means other than hiding. We were picking on a war ravaged people with the biggest military in the world.
Afghanistan was a response, but an example was still needed. To find a country that openly sponsored terrorism (funding palestinian suicide bombers) and celebrated the 9/11 disaster AS WELL AS HAVING A FULLY "CAPABLE" MILITARY. We rolled right over them despite world oppinion, despite debates about validity of "wmd", despite tough talk from Saddam, despite everything. We simply rolled in and kicked ass... completely eliminating a government that was by everyone's admission a psuedo evil dictatorship.
The world is on notice. There are things that simply will not be "tollerated" any longer. No more idly sitting by while being poked with a stick. No more overlooking things to better relations. There's simply a new policy: Behave.
Now all we have to do is figure out how to make that work in Africa. Though... I give that one a "not likely" and a half.
MiniD
I believe that some of the best to come out of 9/11 is the truth regarding just who are and are not our real friends.....it's a round world, a fact that many of them will soon realize.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yes, it takes change to get people to think outside the box.
Don't have much time for a cogent response... gotta get some work done today.
If appeasement with NK was what you got from what I said, that's not what I meant.
I suspect there is some kind of "ology" which studies diplomatic negotiations and and systems for analyzing repsonses and counter responses.... just like econmics which uses mathematics and models to help decision makers determine what decisions to make - perhaps what I'm searcing for is called Politcal Science. I don't know... I've never studied it.
In any case, we can all agree, the NK situation seems to be on the road to being resolved. Thus, the actions taken must have been the right one - credit is due to US policy and also I think China which acted as the 3rd party negotiator. China has a bigger security interest being that it is NK neighbor!
To one of my original points... IMO, did Bush consider that Iran, Lybya and NK would be influenced by the results of the Iraqi war?
I could fathom that there must have been some thought that it would.
And therefor even if WMD are not found in Iraq, the reprecussions not only changed Iraq but also the situations with the issues with these other "miscreant" nations.
And back to my original thoughts...
Is it possible that Bush and his analysts really think there were WMD because of how they analized their intelligence... and now this analysis or the intel itself may be in error.... and just got lucky that their actions would have this affect.
Or is it possible Bush knew there were no WMD, however, in his analysis he calculated that the results would out way the deceit...
ok sure this is tin hat talk... I admit that! I'm raising my hand... look pointing to the tinhat on my head.
Let me offer another example... related to the conduct of the Bush Administration.
Start with the premise that the goal is to gather intell on the terrorists, in order, to find, disarm, dismantle, and destroy terrorists operating against the US. This is a prime directive for the President.
To do this, certain measures need to be taken, that when vetted with lawyers... are possibilly unconstitutional.
Any lawyer will tell you, that arrestting an American on American soil, that it would be unconstitutional to hold that American with out due process, with out access to a lawyer, etc...
The situation that has been going on for the past two years... and has been making it's way through the courts.
Surely the Bush administration vetted this action with their counsel, and their counsel being bright as they are offered up a scenario that if these people were to be classified as something else - such as "illegal combatants" that this arguement would allow the administartion some time to pursue it's goals of gathering intelligence, and it's possible the court system may even agreen and not seem them as "citizens" and they would not have rights protected by the constitution.
A calculated risk.
Which in any event, even if the court system doesn't agree, buys the Administration 1 or 2 years to interrogate and gather intelligence for their purpose of destroying terrorist networks.
And I think that's just what has happened.
And my point with this example... it is a game - not for fun, obviously... it's life and death... however, there are some rules, and then there are no rules... it's possible to play out side of the "accepted" rules for awhile... to gain an edge towards these goals... just like the steel tarrifs to gain an edge to rebuild and refit US steel industry.
then the checks and balances kick in... and it's time to play with in the rules again.
Don't get me wrong on this... I'm not saying Bush is evil or anything like that...
I'm saying... I think this is the game that HAS to be played... in order to get done what needs to be done!
Which is to bring these rogue nations into the world community playing the rules that promote trade and world peace (as well as elimenate terrorism)
The rules are being bent on purpose because the rules aren't perfect and they do hinder the goals....
So back to my point regarding WMD and Iraq...
Is it fathomnable to think that the US secretly knew there were no WMD.. yet, decided to use WMD as a pretext to eliminate a "bad" player in the global game, and to put all the other miscreants on notice that they too could be eliminated from the game unless they started playing by the rules.
Ok.. yes it sounds like a tinfoil hat theory - just suspend your reaction of disbelief for a moment and think out side of the box.
Isn't Bush bending the rules in many other aspects by his policies to achieve... noble goals [not evil]... and support US interests?
One could build up hype, propoganda, and misinformation to make many believe Iraq had/has WMD, even though it doesn't.
When at the most secret levels of decision making - a few really know there are no longer any WMD in Iraq.
And to do this so that the end (global peace and stability) justifies the means - (ok we lied and started a war with false causes)
Who would know! There's plausable deniability!
When no WMD are found... blame it on faulty intel and faulty analysis. Doesn't matter.... the goal is achieved.
And it would seem... read the papers today... the results... are what this.
No WMD yet found...Lybya, Iran, Iraq, and NK... (the axis of evil)... all now starting to play with in the game that the global community wants to play.
So back to your quote... which seems to appropo to what I've just said above.... it does take change to get people to think out side of the box...
There are Isalmic boxes, chinese boxes, Lybyan boxes, American Boxes... etc...
we all think in a box... and only by observing that the box has changed... do we realize we need to start thinking differently.
Such as the safety of America as a result of 9/11
There's no doubt Bush has affected a change in the world by action (legallity really doesn't matter... if it needed to be done!)... and now all other nations are thinking differently.
Is Bush a genius or did he just stumble upon this by accident?
-
gs... yep... sometimes you have to sacrafice in order to make your country great. Who knows how many lives each one of those dead Americans saved? How much they added to the qauality of life of countless other Americans and people around the world?
nakahui.... for the life of me I have no idea what your point is except that no matter how it all turns out you are oppossed to it. Everything seems to merely be a reason for you to voice your displeasure and "expose" the seamier parts of any opperation.. I think most of us realize that our country is not altogether altruistic... that is the way of the world. Point is... what we have done and are doing is as moral as any war has ever been and does the most good for the most folks.
If you want to pretend to have some special knowledge and insight... that is fine. but for me... it makes boring reading. I have seen better from third rate liberal professors.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
for the life of me I have no idea what your point is
Laz you're putting words into my mouth that I did not say.
Please re-read my posts.
I didn't say I was opposed to US policy or how it did what it did.
I didn't say I was displeased with anything either.
I didn't say I had any special insight.
And I didn't say I was pretending to know anything.
On the contrary, I admitted from the very beginning, I'm offering speculation.
I have absolutely no proof of the speculation that I'm making.
I'm merely pointing out what I observe as patterns.
I do believe there is more to the situation than any of us could possibily know with out being involved in it.
I do think there are rules that are being bent in order to do what needs to be done, and THAT's what I'm speculating is going on.
That's not a judgement of good or bad.
My speculation is that the "thinkers" in government plan for these different scenarios... and know which rules they can bend... how far they can bend them... when to stop bending them.. etc
And that THIS is accepted practice, which is neither good or bad...
It's just how the game is played.
My question is do any of YOU see these patterns?
I'm not painting any of this in black or white... good or evil, republican vs democrat.. france vs America... none of that.
I've tried to point that out also in my comments.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I don't know the solution. What is your solution? Invasion? :rofl
No, of course you don't have a solution. You never do.
All you ever have is criticism of those trying to find a solution.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
More like jealous of being able to accomplish the mission despite the cost; in fact, accepting the cost of doing things that make the world a better place for everyone.
Go ahead, throw it in our faces yet again. US soldiers are dying in Iraq. Feel superior and smug.
-
nakahui... I see nothing different in what you say than any other conspiracy theory. You of course, call it "patterns".
you take selective information that may or may not be the truth but is most certainly..... only a very small part of the picture and then add a bunch of these seemingly related and equally spotty observations up to make up policy or "pattern".
I don't know if you are right or not. the point is that you haven't enough information to make the broad "patterns" that you paint. I haven't enough information to dispute you. It doesn't exist for either of us or anyone else on these boards...there is enough other spotty info however, out there, to make entirely different "patterns" than you portray with your, as you yourself admit, info that is incomplete.
Again... in plain english... what is your point? let us hear your conspiracy theory in it's boiled down form... simply state it. What is the "pattern" that you see?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Let us hear your conspiracy theory in it's boiled down form... simply state it. What is the "pattern" that you see?
Just a second have to adjust the tuner on my foil hat... so I can receive the radio frequencies beaming from Mars.
1. I suspect the policy makers in the government anticipate and make things happen more than just react to situations. I would hope so... I would hope that the world is more ordered than it is chaotic. Yet... the planners are not perfect... and not able to anticipate everything.
That's why I bring up the "game' theory, and nations choosing options, and that the people in power are professionals who like other skilled professionals have developed metrics, analysis, and techniques for determining which options to choose... it's not just knee jerk reactions. [I know in my original post I said knee-jerk reations... rhetorical guestions]
US goals are to eliminate terrorism and nations which harbor terrorists. As well as, promote globalization of trade, open markets, and bring all nations into the global community so that the world is safe, peaceful, and prosperous.
I've heard several US presidents state this philosophy.. Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush jr - there is a common goal even between Dems and Reps.
There are nations which harbor terrorists, don't play within the accepted rules of the global community. Iraq being one of them, NK, Lybya, and Iran.
I speculate that it is accepted practice to bend the rules in order to achieve national/world goals. As an example, I offer the Steel tarrifs, the legality of declaring people as "illegal combatants" and holding them with out due process,
even...
and here this is when I get to wear the big tinfoil hat with the propellar on top...
perhaps fabricating WMD to effect change in the world...
dramatic change - change the box... change the thinking...
Is it possible?
What is the evidence to lead us here?
Where are the WMD in Iraq?
If they are found... alright... screw my theory! I agree it's a tinfoil hat conspiracy!
If they are not found... never found... and it turns out, irrefutably, really did not exist.
How could Bush - no.. How could the intelligence and Washingon analists make such a big mistake?
Or was it a mistake? Could this just be bending of the rules... to make a dramatic change in the world? To achieve the goals?
The US has a history of changing regimes in nations - covertly.. illegally... do I need to point out the CIA operations in Laos, Iran, Columbia, Chile, El Salvador? I'm sure there more!
Is it colonialism? No... it's a globalization policy. These activies are done out side of the rules... as some changes have to be!
Could it be a government run amuck... just running around chaotically doing evil deeds? That's a conspiracy theory!
I'm more inclined to believe the world is moving towards order with a purpose - rather then deteriorating into chaos and selfish purposes.
Not a Big Brother type order of hate and control.
More working to become neighbors... working together... countries with out borders... (NAFTA... EU...WTO, Globalization etc)
Just like a Californian has a common bond with a New Yorker as an American... so will some day a Chinese man may have a bond with a Mexican, or a Canandian...like they were next door neighbors... freely exchanging products, ideas, and good will.
The totalitarians have to go... the closed markets have to be opened... the means to get there is to remove the players from the game who aren't willing to play by the rules.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I know a bad solution when I see one. :rofl
-After more than 8 months Iraq is still not "pacified".
-Iraq is still not a democratic nation.
-More US servicemen have been killed than in GW1.
-More US servicemen have been killed since the US president declared "end of major combat" than in during the invasion itself.
-Casualty rates are increasing rather than decreasing.
-US deficit hits record $374 billion, the highest ever, swamping the previous $290 billion record set in 1992 during the administration of former President G.H.W. Bush.
-US Dollar at an 11 year low.
Yes this sounds like the epitome of success.
Anyone who could expect this effort to be accomplished in 8 months is an idiot.
Next!
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Agreed, but you would expect progress.
Progress reports are published almost weekly with details of power, water, markets, schools, police force, and government services coming on line.
Read a news paper or be lazy and do a google search....
Here's one... I didn't search very hard... if you want an exhaustive list... do the research your self.
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/11/20112003172530.asp
Phenominal progress is being made.
-
nahui... i don't know if there was a mistake or not about the WMD... I don't know if it is possible for the U.S. to be fooled about this but I suspect that it is indeed possible. I suspect that, just as I have been told, the cabinets of every administration get all the same intel and that they are given options for just about any scenario in the world situation. This, all based on the best intel available.. certainly more than you or I get.
GS.. face it... this isn't another vietnam.. things are getting better.. the people are much better off... they don't hate you or your country for abandoning em to that madman sadam.... with our help they will probly surpass your GNP in a couple of years.
Face it... the U.S. and GB did the right thing while you sat on your hands and pissed and moaned and prolonged the iraqi peoples agony... now you are upset that you were wrong and impotent.
lazs
-
Ah, he's grabbing at straws now.
He's just one of those that would choke if a good word about the US forced itself past his lips.
You could point to 100 things that are far better and still improving in Iraq and he'd issue a blanket denial and parrot the "disaster" line despite evidence to the contrary.
Note he sidestepped the "do you have a solution for the NK problem" and pointed out that, in his opinion, the US solution for Iraq doesn't fit his definition of "good".
Still hasn't told us his plan for NK; I'm sure it'll be amazing.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Iraq? We don't know yet.
hehe SH already confirmed he had no any WMD... you werent able to find them in 6 months, a lot of people say tehre were no WMD....
actualy there were a lot of trolls like moving labs and so on....
so basicaly.. you are right... you still dont know... you will probebably never know
Libya ?
well UN didnt find anything... nor US ... so basicaly all that Spy stuff is proper sux... im wondering, that LIbya isnt part of axis of evil.
and what about Iran... US were whnning that its full of WMD and after iran give all papers to Mr. Baradai, is is as quite as small sheep...
ahhh and whats new with N korea, whitch is realy proud on their WMD ?
any progress, any plan ?
ohh im sorry US just cleaning Iraq from evil terrorist, whitch has been controled by SH via telephatic links :D
-
Nakhui, what other name/names have you posted under on this BBS?
Just curious.
-
Orel, if you ever come back into this galaxy, maybe it'll be worth participating in a discussion with you.
But I doubt it; there's no replying to someone lost in a bitter fantasy in a galaxy far, far away.
Cya.
-
well Toad when someone keep ignore reality and all knowen facts and keep saying .. " we still dont know if he had or not WMD" its realy quite funny
... did they check SH private fridge ? :D
i bet they didnt check his pockets, when they arested him :P
baaa abaaaa baaa .. all those evil countries have WMD and they gonna cream out fast foods...
i can not help myself, but official rethorics are realy cheap
any news about Iraqi debts ?
-
IIRC, they withdrew from the NPT and we are letting them do what they want.
We have almost no sanctions against them that matter.
Today, the remaining export restrictions against North Korea include a range of terms related largely to that country’s place on the State Department’s list of state supporters of international terrorism.14
Thus, items that are controlled for national security concerns generally are not available to North Korea. The country is on the most restrictive list – Country Group E – which severely limits its access to computers, software, national security-controlled items, items on the Commerce Control List (CCL), and service or repair of such items.
North Korea also is limited as an end-user by some licenses because it is a communist state, though this problem can be overcome by license exceptions issued by the Department of Commerce.
That's as of a Jan03 report. There was a Senate bill open in September but I don't think it has passed the Congress.
So, welcome aboard. We've been where you think we should go fo a long time. Nice of you to catch up.
-
That's a good question for you. You were the one implying that the US was once again making a mistake in International Relations.
Turns out you think we're doing and have been doing the right thing.
Now THAT'S funny.
-
Actually, Maverick was the first to mention NK. You made the next post concerning that, the UN/Global Cop one. I didn't mention it until Sandman did. Sorry, play again!
BTW, I don't have a problem with NK. I think Bush is doing just fine there. In fact, if I would change anything, I'd have pulled all US troops out after the last SK election when the current Prez was running on "get the evil Amreekans out". I'd have accomodated him in a New York minute. :)
Goodness me! Make up your mind. You want us to work through the UN/SC right? That's what you said. Now you don't want us to work through the UN/SC?
:lol
And look at those SANCTIONS we're considering, will ya?
sanctions that will focus on banned activities like smuggling drugs or proliferating weapons of mass destruction,
Now that's just cruel and heartless of us, isn't it? Surely they should be able to ship nuke technology around to people that hate us, right? After all, GScholz doesn't want the US supporting the NPT fer pete's sake!
And illegal drugs too.. drugs are good for every girl and boy!
You are too dang funny!
You'll stoop to any level to try to get a slam in, won't you?
:rofl
-
Wrong again; sort of a habit with you anymore.
You'll find this right under Mav's post.
Originally posted by GScholz
...North Korea is within it full right to withdraw from the NPT, but I believe they have violated the withdrawal article by restarting their nuke program before the 3-month notification period stipulated in the treaty.
You really do have a problem remembering what you said, don't you? :lol
So in addition to having no clue as to what "ad hominem" means you're just as confused about what constitutes a whine? Let's see what you're calling a "whine".
-
I'll answer, but this will really confuse you.
At this time, I feel my government has acted correctly in BOTH instances.
Unlike some prescient folks here that have already decided that SH didn't have WMD, I'm willing to wait and see what SH himself has to offer on the subject.
So, in the case of Iraq, my government deemed it an "immediate threat" and acted. I expect them to act on "immediate threats". Further, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on that for a few more months. Let them squeeze SH a bit and see what develops.
Now, at a later date, it may be definitively shown that SH had no WMD. If so, I'll have an extremely different view of this administration's actions against Iraq.
In the case of Korea, they've done exactly what I think is correct and the process proceeds. The day may come when it is resolved peacefully..... or the NK's may do something stupid and initiate their own vanishing act from the face of the earth. You never can tell with lunatic dictators. Some give up without firing a shot, some shoot themselves, others try to take the world down with them. So, it's playing out in a positive fashion so far. What's not to like?
-
Originally posted by yowser
Sheesh, you're starting to talk to yourself.
So you lost a lousy bet. So what. Let it go.
yowser
Obviously not.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I'm looking forward to you having "an extremely different view of this administration's actions against Iraq."
That's nothing new; I've said it all along, since before the invasion.
We'll see who gets to say "I told you so" eventually.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes your right, I was the first to mention NK. I must be getting a bit too drunk. I'll better continue this when I sober up, but one thing ... I'm looking forward to you having "an extremely different view of this administration's actions against Iraq."
Why would you be looking forward to that?
-
“…Unlike some prescient folks here that have already decided that SH didn't have WMD, I'm willing to wait and see what SH himself has to offer on the subject.”.
Pretty funny. You painting yourself as the voice of reason and patience, while everybody else is jumping the gun. Not being very honest are you?...or very consistent. At the start of the war you said SH DID have WMD. You sure had your mind made up back then. You didn’t say let’s wait and see back then. Nope. You were so sure SH DID have WMD that you bet on it. You lost.
Maybe you should have just said let’s wait and see from the very start? OR...you could have just shut up about it. You still have that choice by the way.
yowser
P.S. The funny part is, if they do find WMD now, you'll be the first to say "I told you so!". However, to have that right you can't be a fence sitter anymore. You have to state unequivocally right now that you still believe that SH has WMD. (Quick...before they find the WMD!)
-
Review the bet. I lost on a time function. I originally stipulated one year but got no takers. Searching for something deliberately hidden in a large country isn't like checking your desk for a letter. Finally got one at 90 days and another at 120. Note the originally asked for year has not yet expired.
Yes, I did believe the US governement at the beginning. I still do. And for those with reading comprehension, a review of anything I've said on it to date clearly shows I still "believe that SH has WMD."
We'll see. I may end up being wrong. But I'll stick with my original timetable.
And gee, if it upsets you....... guess I'll start a few more threads on this.
:p