PDA

View Full Version : North Korea plans nuke test


Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 01:58 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/14/world/main568267.shtml

Great. So, how do we as a country deal with this, and moreover, how does the world deal with it.

I personally think it is 100% unacceptable to allow them to maintain a nuclear arsenal.

xpormac
Aug 28, 2003, 02:02 PM
Their leaders should all be shot at close range in the middle of the head. They aren't mature enough to have these kinds of things. Only the U.S. and other major powers :D

Mr. Anderson
Aug 28, 2003, 02:02 PM
Ah, delving into the political threads, I feel dirty...;)

Its a bit hypocritical to be saying we shouldn't let them. Sure, its going to cause problems and there's no easy solution here.

And how would we stop them? War isn't a very good option, you know?

D

simX
Aug 28, 2003, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/14/world/main568267.shtml

Great. So, how do we as a country deal with this, and moreover, how does the world deal with it.

I personally think it is 100% unacceptable to allow them to maintain a nuclear arsenal.

So what do you think about the UNITED STATES' nuclear arsenal? Do you find it acceptable that we have our own nuclear weapons? Why doesn't the U.N. send inspectors to OUR country? If you think that North Korea's actions are unacceptable, then you have no choice but to believe that the U.S. retaining its own nuclear arsenal is also unacceptable.

xpormac
Aug 28, 2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by simX
So what do you think about the UNITED STATES' nuclear arsenal? Do you find it acceptable that we have our own nuclear weapons? Why doesn't the U.N. send inspectors to OUR country? If you think that North Korea's actions are unacceptable, then you have no choice but to believe that the U.S. retaining its own nuclear arsenal is also unacceptable.

One reason: Because we are not unevolved morons.

edesignuk
Aug 28, 2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
Ah, delving into the political threads, I feel dirty...;)

heh :)

Its a bit hypocritical to be saying we shouldn't let them. Sure, its going to cause problems and there's no easy solution here.

Exactly, why should "we as a county" (the Americans) "let them"? What are you? Global police? My god I hope not! :eek: Nothing against the US, or it's people, but no one/nation has the right to decide what other nations can and can't do.

And how would we stop them? War isn't a very good option, you know?

Again, I have to agree here. We cannot just go to war with anyone who has or is developing weapons that we don't think they should have. It's just not right.

Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 02:08 PM
Well, we had the weapons that we have for a reason. MAD. Remember. Still, we have not developed weapons since the treaties were signed that stopped the development of them. Korea with them means that Russia, China, and even Japan may be forced into an arms race.

So, morally, yes we are on the high road with these weapons.

mactastic
Aug 28, 2003, 02:11 PM
There are no good options with North Korea. This sounds like more brinksmanship designed to wrest concessions from us. North Korea is very good at these tactics. We'll see if Bush goes the same route Clinton did. Problem is that he has pretty much pooped on that idea as appeasment, so he's gonna be looking for a different solution. Military is out, even if we could take out the govenment ala Iraq, we wouldn't be able to occupy the country.

simX
Aug 28, 2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, we had the weapons that we have for a reason. MAD. Remember. Still, we have not developed weapons since the treaties were signed that stopped the development of them. Korea with them means that Russia, China, and even Japan may be forced into an arms race.

So, morally, yes we are on the high road with these weapons.

So just because we were technologically able to make thousands of nuclear weapons before any treaty was signed allows us to retain those same nuclear weapons? After all, WE could take the world hostage with our nuclear arsenal! I don't see how MAD has anything to do with this discussion -- we have nuclear weapons that could threaten the world, yet we don't allow others to have them.

This is hypocrisy at its best.

mactastic
Aug 28, 2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by xpormac
One reason: Because we are not unevolved morons.

Oh this isn't good. Let's not go there.

edesignuk
Aug 28, 2003, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Oh this isn't good. Let's not go there.
Yeah, I do hope there are no Koreans (sp?) browsing the boards :rolleyes:

xpormac
Aug 28, 2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Oh this isn't good. Let's not go there.


come on.... :D

xpormac
Aug 28, 2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by edesignuk
Yeah, I do hope there are no Koreans (sp?) browsing the boards :rolleyes:


Talking about that government.

Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by simX
So just because we were technologically able to make thousands of nuclear weapons before any treaty was signed allows us to retain those same nuclear weapons? After all, WE could take the world hostage with our nuclear arsenal! I don't see how MAD has anything to do with this discussion -- we have nuclear weapons that could threaten the world, yet we don't allow others to have them.

This is hypocrisy at its best.

No, they are defensive. There are other countries that still have thousands of nukes. I would rather have them then them have the ability to whipe us off the face of the earth.

edesignuk
Aug 28, 2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by xpormac
Talking about that government.
Then maybe you should word it better, because it sure doesn't sound like that. If I were Korean I would take great offence to you calling me and my people "unevolved morons".

simX
Aug 28, 2003, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No, they are defensive. There are other countries that still have thousands of nukes. I would rather have them then them have the ability to whipe us off the face of the earth.

Oh, so magically, because we're Americans, our nuclear weapons are automatically "defensive". So magically, just because we're the United States, we're not going to wipe everyone off the face of the earth even though we have the ability.

Right. That makes a lot of sense. :rolleyes:

mactastic
Aug 28, 2003, 02:19 PM
Being American means never having to say you're sorry. :rolleyes:

Dont Hurt Me
Aug 28, 2003, 02:49 PM
lets please not forget where the know how, the material and the plants came from-----CHINA & USSR (russia) we should tell them to take care of it since they gave it to them and have supported this sorry excuse for a govt. How about you guys take care of this problem or we stop free trade that would wake those sorry communist up and help the trade imbalance.

bobindashadows
Aug 28, 2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by simX
Oh, so magically, because we're Americans, our nuclear weapons are automatically "defensive". So magically, just because we're the United States, we're not going to wipe everyone off the face of the earth even though we have the ability.

Right. That makes a lot of sense. :rolleyes:
Magically, because we were in an arms race for 50 years, we happened to accumulate these weapons. Only a fool would have trusted the USSR to actually stop developing new weapons and destroy their current ones during the Cold War. We developed our current nuclear arsenal as a form of combination offensive/defensive arsenal - we didn't know whether we would have to be offensive, or if we would have to be defensive until the time came.

The nuclear weapons we have are still that way. It's up to our leaders (i can see all you "I hate Bush" people going "Oh God" right now) to decide whether they are defensive or offensive. Up until recently (correct me if I'm wrong) no U.S. president has threatened a country with the use of nuclear weapons. I think President Bush was just trying to scare the Iraqis when he said that - at least his advisors know that using Nuclear weapons on a probably 99% innocent country would be a bit of an international incident.

Personally, I think the North Korean gov't is ********** crazy, and I wouldn't trust them with a butter knife (apparently, according to OS X spell check, butterknife isn't a word). But that's my Oh So Humble Opinion that everyone is now going to tear to shreds and pee on.

simX
Aug 28, 2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
Magically, because we were in an arms race for 50 years, we happened to accumulate these weapons. Only a fool would have trusted the USSR to actually stop developing new weapons and destroy their current ones during the Cold War. We developed our current nuclear arsenal as a form of combination offensive/defensive arsenal - we didn't know whether we would have to be offensive, or if we would have to be defensive until the time came.

The nuclear weapons we have are still that way. It's up to our leaders (i can see all you "I hate Bush" people going "Oh God" right now) to decide whether they are defensive or offensive. Up until recently (correct me if I'm wrong) no U.S. president has threatened a country with the use of nuclear weapons. I think President Bush was just trying to scare the Iraqis when he said that - at least his advisors know that using Nuclear weapons on a probably 99% innocent country would be a bit of an international incident.

Personally, I think the North Korean gov't is ********** crazy, and I wouldn't trust them with a butter knife (apparently, according to OS X spell check, butterknife isn't a word). But that's my Oh So Humble Opinion that everyone is now going to tear to shreds and pee on.

*sigh* Did you not read what I said before? The arms race with USSR has *NOTHING* to do with this discussion -- the point is that we have nuclear weapons with which we could decimate the world. How can you realistically justify trusting the U.S. not to use its nuclear arsenal while simultaneously NOT trusting North Korea to use its nuclear arsenal.

Whether it is North Korea or the U.S. that decides to actually use nuclear weapons (if they do), it will be an "international incident" either way. The actual country that is in question has no bearing on whether this will be an "international incident" or not -- OF COURSE it will be.

I just don't see from where the implicit trust with regards to the U.S. comes. How can we trust Bush (this is JUST AN EXAMPLE since he's the current President) to not use nuclear weapons when he's pooh-poohed other international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol?

Rower_CPU
Aug 28, 2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by xpormac
One reason: Because we are not unevolved morons.

Playing the devil's advocate...

That's a very subjective statement.
http://www.bushorchimp.com/ ;)

xpormac
Aug 28, 2003, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Playing the devil's advocate...

That's a very subjective statement.
http://www.bushorchimp.com/ ;)



Sorry, this site is temporarily unavailable!

bobindashadows
Aug 28, 2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by simX
*sigh* Did you not read what I said before? The arms race with USSR has *NOTHING* to do with this discussion -- the point is that we have nuclear weapons with which we could decimate the world. How can you realistically justify trusting the U.S. not to use its nuclear arsenal while simultaneously NOT trusting North Korea to use its nuclear arsenal.

Whether it is North Korea or the U.S. that decides to actually use nuclear weapons (if they do), it will be an "international incident" either way. The actual country that is in question has no bearing on whether this will be an "international incident" or not -- OF COURSE it will be.

I just don't see from where the implicit trust with regards to the U.S. comes. How can we trust Bush (this is JUST AN EXAMPLE since he's the current President) to not use nuclear weapons when he's pooh-poohed other international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol?
Well, to be honest, I know nothing about the North Korean laws, or anything of that sort. However, I have a strong feeling that if Bush said "let's nuke somebody", even if he's the commander-in-chief, it would have to go through somebody else's judgement. Would it have to go through Congress? Would anyone have to OK it? Just my question. I honestly don't know the answer. But I bet that Kim Jong-Il just has to give the order.

And the reason I can trust the U.S. over North Korea is this, it's actually quite simple if you think about it:

They are run by different people.
They are run in a different manner.
They are different countries with different philosophies, and I happen to agree with democracy and trust our democratic system with nuclear weapons moire.

And my post was clarifying how and why we have the nuclear arsenal, and why we never eliminated it, and why we won't eliminate it.

mactastic
Aug 28, 2003, 06:29 PM
Of course I trust our government with nuclear weapons more than I trust the North Koreans. That's not the point. THe point is how do we go around asking others to either not go nuclear, or to dismantle their nukes when we won't get rid of ours? I'm sure the answer is that we won't give up our right to self defense, but why should any other country feel they need to give up what the US won't? People here are always saying we need to act in our own self interest even at the expense of other nations, but then those same people get all worked up when another country acts in its interests when those interests happen to conflict with ours.

Sayhey
Aug 28, 2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
Well, to be honest, I know nothing about the North Korean laws, or anything of that sort. However, I have a strong feeling that if Bush said "let's nuke somebody", even if he's the commander-in-chief, it would have to go through somebody else's judgement. Would it have to go through Congress? Would anyone have to OK it? Just my question. I honestly don't know the answer. But I bet that Kim Jong-Il just has to give the order.

And the reason I can trust the U.S. over North Korea is this, it's actually quite simple if you think about it:

They are run by different people.
They are run in a different manner.
They are different countries with different philosophies, and I happen to agree with democracy and trust our democratic system with nuclear weapons moire.

And my post was clarifying how and why we have the nuclear arsenal, and why we never eliminated it, and why we won't eliminate it.

To answer your question, it is totally up to the President if and when to launch nuclear missles. Assuming a "defensive" launch there is no time to consult anyone. That is why an aide always accompanies the President with the nuclear launch codes with him. If the President were to decide to use Nuclear weapons "offensively" then it would be interesting if any in the chain of command would resist such an order, but there are not built in safeguards to prevent such an action.

We have an opportunity to eliminate these weapons altogether with the reduction planned with Russia as a first step, but conservatives in the administration would oppose such a move at every step. If you doubt that look what almost happened at the Reagan-Gorbachov summit in Iceland and the response of folks like Richard Perle.

mactastic, you raise a great point. I don't think it is possible to win others to the position that it is alright for the US to have these weapons and not for others to have them as well. Lastly, it should be remembered that only one country has ever used these weapons in war - the US. The rest of the world remembers.

Oh, and just in case - none of this means that I don't think North Korea should divest themselves with these weapons. I do think the price of a non-aggression pact and recognition is not too high to pay to accomplish the verified disposal of their nuclear arsenal. I know that in the eyes of some right-wingers that makes me an appeaser.

zimv20
Aug 28, 2003, 07:43 PM
idiot foreign policy has landed bush in trouble. his "axis of evil" comment has pushed KJ Il into a corner. he knows he hasn't the military to take on the US (though he could do a lot of damage to S. Korea) so his only option is to raise the stakes. and that means nukes on missiles.

KJ Il isn't a fool. he's seen what's happened to iraq, he sees iran surrounded on two sides. he's got no guarantee from this administration that he's not next. he _does_ have a responsibility to his people, no matter how misguided his implementation of that may be.

one of his biggest demands is a non-aggression pact w/ the US. i'm w/ sayhey -- is that really such a big deal? of course the US would make stipulations (disarmament, inspections, etc) and if anything is violated, the non-aggression pact is null. it costs the US almost nothing, but i'd be willing to bet it's too much for the neocons.

and i'll remind everyone of my old prediction: if bush gets a second term, he will nuke something.

Pinto
Aug 28, 2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No, they are defensive. There are other countries that still have thousands of nukes. I would rather have them then them have the ability to whipe us off the face of the earth.

In what way are the "Bunker-Busting" nuclear weapons that the US is going to develop defensive?

Only the US is allowed to drop out of the treaties and give "the bird" to the rest of the world.

Lets all learn how to talk "US" style.

THEM______________U.S.

WOMD_____________Nuclear Deterrent
Faceless Terrorist____Freedom Fighter
Unprovoked Attack___Pre-emptive Strike

zimv20
Aug 28, 2003, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Pinto
In what way are the "Bunker-Busting" nuclear weapons that the US is going to develop defensive?

be prepared for some orwellian double-speak.

Sayhey
Aug 28, 2003, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Pinto
In what way are the "Bunker-Busting" nuclear weapons that the US is going to develop defensive?

I think the plan is to make them so they only kill the "bad guys." Oh, and in anticipation of the next question, those are the guys we are against. Works out nicely, doesn't it?

Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by simX
*sigh* Did you not read what I said before? The arms race with USSR has *NOTHING* to do with this discussion -- the point is that we have nuclear weapons with which we could decimate the world. How can you realistically justify trusting the U.S. not to use its nuclear arsenal while simultaneously NOT trusting North Korea to use its nuclear arsenal.

Whether it is North Korea or the U.S. that decides to actually use nuclear weapons (if they do), it will be an "international incident" either way. The actual country that is in question has no bearing on whether this will be an "international incident" or not -- OF COURSE it will be.

I just don't see from where the implicit trust with regards to the U.S. comes. How can we trust Bush (this is JUST AN EXAMPLE since he's the current President) to not use nuclear weapons when he's pooh-poohed other international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol?

There is a massive difference between not joining a treaty that would cost the US Billions in dollars, plus thousands of Jobs, vs, maintaining a nuclear arsenal for deterence.

Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Pinto
In what way are the "Bunker-Busting" nuclear weapons that the US is going to develop defensive?

Only the US is allowed to drop out of the treaties and give "the bird" to the rest of the world.

Lets all learn how to talk "US" style.

THEM______________U.S.

WOMD_____________Nuclear Deterrent
Faceless Terrorist____Freedom Fighter
Unprovoked Attack___Pre-emptive Strike

LOL. THat is funny. Sorry if that offends you, but I find massive humor in that insult towards the US.

So, to answer your question. I personally would say develop a low yield tactical weapon that could penetrate a mountain, cave, or serious bunker complex to rid ourselves of someone like Bin Laden. As for NK having nukes. No, sorry. It is a direct threat to the safety, and national security of the United States. And, mind you, NO ONE in the world wants them to have them. They sell weapons to third world countries, and could do so with a nuke. They themselves are a 3rd world country. They have no economy, and rule by murder, and evil. They are part of the axis of evil, whether you like Bush or not.

They snookered Clinton, and now they have to be delt with. Clinton wanted to go to war with them in the early 90's but Madaline talked him out of it. If they won't back down, the only thing that I can see is using stealth fighters and bombers to remove the plants. But then they will invade South Korea. It is a mess, and is a Kobioshi Maru.

zimv20
Aug 28, 2003, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Clinton wanted to go to war with them in the early 90's but Madaline talked him out of it.

i'd not heard that. where'd you learn it?

Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
i'd not heard that. where'd you learn it?

Dick Morris was saying that in an interview with Alan Colmes about a month or two ago. It was really a great interview. Said that Hillary was a bitch, and that bill really was a good guy that always wanted to help people.

bobindashadows
Aug 28, 2003, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
LOL. THat is funny. Sorry if that offends you, but I find massive humor in that insult towards the US.

So, to answer your question. I personally would say develop a low yield tactical weapon that could penetrate a mountain, cave, or serious bunker complex to rid ourselves of someone like Bin Laden. As for NK having nukes. No, sorry. It is a direct threat to the safety, and national security of the United States. And, mind you, NO ONE in the world wants them to have them. They sell weapons to third world countries, and could do so with a nuke. They themselves are a 3rd world country. They have no economy, and rule by murder, and evil. They are part of the axis of evil, whether you like Bush or not.

They snookered Clinton, and now they have to be delt with. Clinton wanted to go to war with them in the early 90's but Madaline talked him out of it. If they won't back down, the only thing that I can see is using stealth fighters and bombers to remove the plants. But then they will invade South Korea. It is a mess, and is a Kobioshi Maru.

Yes, I have a strong feeling that the bunker buster they are developing isn't going to be like current nuclear weapons - low yield, enough to break through the mountain, and then kill the bast... er.. "Freedom Fighters" inside... I don't think they plan for it to be nearly as radioactive, since that isn't the goal. Believe it or not, President Bush isn't just sitting in office saying "let's figure out plans to kill people, then make bigger bombs to kill more people at once! Hehehe, then make the bombs leave radioactivity so they can't go back... hahah nyanyanya!!! KILL!!!".. it's not like that.

I found that comparison quite funny as well... however I think your statement is just going to incite the people who disagree with using the "world" system to classify how similar countries are to our own.

Sayhey
Aug 28, 2003, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
So, to answer your question. I personally would say develop a low yield tactical weapon that could penetrate a mountain, cave, or serious bunker complex to rid ourselves of someone like Bin Laden. As for NK having nukes. No, sorry. It is a direct threat to the safety, and national security of the United States. And, mind you, NO ONE in the world wants them to have them. They sell weapons to third world countries, and could do so with a nuke. They themselves are a 3rd world country. They have no economy, and rule by murder, and evil. They are part of the axis of evil, whether you like Bush or not.

Kim Jong Il is easy to demonize. However, Bush's "axis of evil" speech is both counter productive and inaccurate. The use of the term "axis" implies a coordination between Iraq, Iran, and North Korea and is totally unfounded. It is no accident the Bush speech writers use a term that harkens back to the Anti-Comintern Alliance of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Militarist Japan. Such terms strike a nerve in the receptive audience of American listeners, but it also served to put Iraq, Iran, and North Korea on notice that the Bush administration was coming after them. Unfortunately, such niceties as the truth got waylaid in the use of the rhetoric. In this case the macho rhetoric set back any attempt to resolve the issue of North Korea's nuclear program.

They snookered Clinton, and now they have to be delt with. Clinton wanted to go to war with them in the early 90's but Madaline talked him out of it. If they won't back down, the only thing that I can see is using stealth fighters and bombers to remove the plants. But then they will invade South Korea. It is a mess, and is a Kobioshi Maru.

Not my understanding of why Clinton did not bomb the North's nuclear program. It had to do both with the consequence of those actions for the US soldiers and the civilians in South Korea combined with the opening by Jimmy Carter's visit.

Now if my memory of Star Trek serves me right, "Kobioshi Maru" is a no win situation. That doesn't have to be the case in these negotiations if we are willing to deal with some assurances to the North that we are not going to invade. If Bush can get out from the corner his rhetoric has painted him in it is possible to reach a peaceful settlement.

zimv20
Aug 28, 2003, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
the bunker buster they are developing isn't going to be like current nuclear weapons - low yield, enough to break through the mountain, [...] I don't think they plan for it to be nearly as radioactive, since that isn't the goal.


every report i've read on them suggests the boring mechanism won't go deep enough and the radioactivity will still affect a wide area on the surface.

if you want to see one used, vote for bush in '04. he's just dying to try one.

Pinto
Aug 29, 2003, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
LOL. THat is funny. Sorry if that offends you, but I find massive humor in that insult towards the US.

Sorry, I didn't realise I was insulting anyone, just pointing out some obvious truths.

I personally would say develop a low yield tactical weapon that could penetrate a mountain, cave, or serious bunker complex to rid ourselves of someone like Bin Laden.

Wow, Nukes for killing individuals. Now that's progress!!

As for NK having nukes. No, sorry. It is a direct threat to the safety, and national security of the United States. And, mind you, NO ONE in the world wants them to have them. They sell weapons to third world countries, and could do so with a nuke. They themselves are a 3rd world country. They have no economy, and rule by murder, and evil. They are part of the axis of evil, whether you like Bush or not.



I'm in full agreement, the problem is that these are all the same reasons that were used to justify the Iraqi invasion. And it all turned out to be a load of lies. Have you heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?

NK is a real threat, but recent events have shown us that it doesn't have to be a real threat for "Mad Dog" Bush to jump in boots and all.

Parroting on about "axis of evil" is as pathetic as some calling the US "The Great Satan".

You should listen to yourself.

Sayhey
Aug 29, 2003, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
every report i've read on them suggests the boring mechanism won't go deep enough and the radioactivity will still affect a wide area on the surface.

if you want to see one used, vote for bush in '04. he's just dying to try one.

Don't know if they can work out the technical problems, but the attempt to develop "tactical" nuclear weapons is a disaster. These things are a oxymoron. The use of nuclear weapons in any form has ramifications far beyond the battlefield. Perhaps that is just what the Bush administration is looking for; a low yield weapon that can be used on the battlefield and simultaneously tell the rest of the world - "we are still willing to use these, so watch out!" The neoconservative wonder weapon. If so, zimv20, your prediction may come true. Heaven help us!

simX
Aug 29, 2003, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
There is a massive difference between not joining a treaty that would cost the US Billions in dollars, plus thousands of Jobs, vs, maintaining a nuclear arsenal for deterence.

Way to get hung up on the details. Funny that you just ignored my other questions. :rolleyes:

Let's try this again.

Modified original post
*sigh* Did you not read what I said before? The arms race with USSR has *NOTHING* to do with this discussion -- the point is that we have nuclear weapons with which we could decimate the world. How can you realistically justify trusting the U.S. not to use its nuclear arsenal while simultaneously NOT trusting North Korea to use its nuclear arsenal?

Whether it is North Korea or the U.S. that decides to actually use nuclear weapons (if they do), it will be an "international incident" either way. The actual country that is in question has no bearing on whether this will be an "international incident" or not -- OF COURSE it will be.

I just don't see from where the implicit trust with regards to the U.S. comes.

mactastic
Aug 29, 2003, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
As for NK having nukes. No, sorry. It is a direct threat to the safety, and national security of the United States. And, mind you, NO ONE in the world wants them to have them.

Ok, but now put yourself in the position of the North Korean government. They must look at this in the same terms, namely that the US nuclear arsenal is a direct threat to the security of their nation. Somehow you think that those in North Korea won't reach the same conclusion that you just have. Your line of reasoning seems to conclude that they'll look at the situation and say, "ya know, we really don't need nukes, the US isn't a threat to us, even though we are still technically at war with them." That's just assuming your opponent is stupid.

Backtothemac
Aug 29, 2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
Ok, but now put yourself in the position of the North Korean government. They must look at this in the same terms, namely that the US nuclear arsenal is a direct threat to the security of their nation. Somehow you think that those in North Korea won't reach the same conclusion that you just have. Your line of reasoning seems to conclude that they'll look at the situation and say, "ya know, we really don't need nukes, the US isn't a threat to us, even though we are still technically at war with them." That's just assuming your opponent is stupid.

I understand your point. But as an American, the opinion of the NK government doesn't matter to me one bit. What does is if they have the ability to kill 10 million people in LA in a 30 minute time frame.

That is unacceptable to me.

mactastic
Aug 29, 2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I understand your point. But as an American, the opinion of the NK government doesn't matter to me one bit. What does is if they have the ability to kill 10 million people in LA in a 30 minute time frame.

That is unacceptable to me.

To me as well. But how do you expect to solve the problem if you want all other nations to essentially bow down to US military might? This "After me, you're number 1" attitude is what fuels these problems. That and the paternalistic "Father knows best" kind of attitude we throw around these days.

IJ Reilly
Aug 29, 2003, 12:26 PM
Why is this always made to be all about US interests? Certainly the vast majority of the world has as much invested in not allowing a rogue nation like North Korea to become a nuclear power as we do. The nations in their more immediate neighborhood have an even more critical interest. They hold the keys to these negotiations, especially China, which supplies North Korea with something like 75% of their food. The US should fade into the background on these talks for a time, and push Russia and China into the forefront. They have the interest, and the leverage. We can only threaten military action, which everyone knows full well would be a massive calamity, and only drives the dangerous paranoia of the North Korean leadership. The Bush administration held out for regional talks with North Korea -- and this IMO was the right decision. Now we need to use that leverage wisely, and making it "all about us" is not the way to demonstrate wisdom.

mactastic
Aug 29, 2003, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Why is this always made to be all about US interests?

Sarcasm Alert!!

Because we are so much better than the rest of the world. We're not "unevolved morons" so we obviously have more rights than others.

shadowfax
Aug 29, 2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Being American means never having to say you're sorry. :rolleyes: hahahahahaha!

it's SO true! sheesh, that's hilarious.

to turn over an old issue in this thread, maybe, i think that it's perfectly fine for the US to maintain its arsenal while stopping others. picture this:

you have a gun in your hand, and a friend by your side. there is another man in the room with you; he is unarmed. there is a gun by his feet. he has repeatedly expressed his intention to kill your friend, and clearly has no love and a lot of resentment for you too. he bends over to pick up the gun.

Do you: wonder if he'll shoot you and your friend, and decide to let him get it and see; shoot him; or threaten to shoot him if he doesn't get away from the gun?

that's a hard one, isn't it? it makes me curious that people find it illogical to say that if i have something, you can't have it. that's certainly true for commodities and things like that. but weapons aren't commodities, and it's foolish to think of them as such.

i would be PISSED at the US for stopping North Korea from joining some kind of Space race or other tech races. but this is fundamentally different.

the only grounds on which i would want my country to disarm is on the grounds that nuclear weapons could not be produced. the only grounds on which i would want to allow a professed enemy of my country or my country's allies to acquire nuclear technology is in the event that i hated my country and allies. why would you ever let your enemy pick up the gun? oh, you've got one, so he should be able to have one too? mommy, mommy, that policeman has a gun! why can't I have one! that's not fair! what a #$%@ing hypocrite!

patrick0brien
Aug 29, 2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by xpormac
One reason: Because we are not unevolved morons.

-xpormac

Another reason: We invented them. We get defacto ownership and naming rights.

mactastic
Aug 29, 2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
hahahahahaha!

it's SO true! sheesh, that's hilarious.

to turn over an old issue in this thread, maybe, i think that it's perfectly fine for the US to maintain its arsenal while stopping others. picture this:

you have a gun in your hand, and a friend by your side. there is another man in the room with you; he is unarmed. there is a gun by his feet. he has repeatedly expressed his intention to kill your friend, and clearly has no love and a lot of resentment for you too. he bends over to pick up the gun.

Do you: wonder if he'll shoot you and your friend, and decide to let him get it and see; shoot him; or threaten to shoot him if he doesn't get away from the gun?

that's a hard one, isn't it? it makes me curious that people find it illogical to say that if i have something, you can't have it. that's certainly true for commodities and things like that. but weapons aren't commodities, and it's foolish to think of them as such.

i would be PISSED at the US for stopping North Korea from joining some kind of Space race or other tech races. but this is fundamentally different.

the only grounds on which i would want my country to disarm is on the grounds that nuclear weapons could not be produced. the only grounds on which i would want to allow a professed enemy of my country or my country's allies to acquire nuclear technology is in the event that i hated my country and allies. why would you ever let your enemy pick up the gun? oh, you've got one, so he should be able to have one too? mommy, mommy, that policeman has a gun! why can't I have one! that's not fair! what a #$%@ing hypocrite!

I would picture it more like being in a room where you have a gun pointed at someone who is pointing one back at you, with other people with guns pointed at each other. The only way everyone gets out alive is if everyone verrrrrry slowly puts down their guns, with everyone verifying that the other guy has complied. Otherwise, sooner or later someone pulls the trigger and everyone dies except maybe one person. And that's not guaranteed. More likely everyone dies.

shadowfax
Aug 29, 2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
I would picture it more like being in a room where you have a gun pointed at someone who is pointing one back at you, with other people with guns pointed at each other. The only way everyone gets out alive is if everyone verrrrrry slowly puts down their guns, with everyone verifying that the other guy has complied. Otherwise, sooner or later someone pulls the trigger and everyone dies except maybe one person. And that's not guaranteed. More likely everyone dies. the only problem is that north korea doesn't have a gun, yet, and there is no way to verify disarmament. it's like everyone is in so many folds of clothing that you could never see for sure... for most countries. N. Korea though, doesn't seem to be hiding that (a) it doesn't have its gun ready yet, and (b) it's working on it, the logical conclusion being that maybe we should stop them.

i think that the idea of nuclear disarmament, at the basic level, is absurd. you can't be sure that anyone else has--not really sure, especially in an administration like ours. superpowers are not kids, and whatever you think of bush, they aren't run by kids (think: bush doesn't seriously run our country like this; he can't just push a button). further, superpowers can't control eachother, generally. this is obviously not the case with smaller countries. my point is, a country is obligated to use the means at its disposal to protect itself. if it is threatened by a nation which it is more powerful than, there is something wrong. that could be called international masochism.

granted, i do agree with you that it would be great if we could just get rid of all weapons, not ever have conflict, not have to worry about the bad guy; i would love to always be at peace. the problem is that this is not possible, and disarmament is not a step towards peace. it's a step towards more pain when you realize you were the only idiot that actually meant it when you signed the treaty.

RobVanDam
Aug 29, 2003, 04:37 PM
you have a gun in your hand, and a friend by your side. there is another man in the room with you; he is unarmed. there is a gun by his feet. he has repeatedly expressed his intention to kill your friend, and clearly has no love and a lot of resentment for you too. he bends over to pick up the gun.

Do you: wonder if he'll shoot you and your friend, and decide to let him get it and see; shoot him; or threaten to shoot him if he doesn't get away from the gun?

that's a hard one, isn't it? it makes me curious that people find it illogical to say that if i have something, you can't have it. that's certainly true for commodities and things like that. but weapons aren't commodities, and it's foolish to think of them as such. Lets think of it like police then.

They see someone go for a gun, that person is going to get shot, probably repeatedly.

I would picture it more like being in a room where you have a gun pointed at someone who is pointing one back at you, with other people with guns pointed at each other. The only way everyone gets out alive is if everyone verrrrrry slowly puts down their guns, with everyone verifying that the other guy has complied. Otherwise, sooner or later someone pulls the trigger and everyone dies except maybe one person. And that's not guaranteed. More likely everyone dies.Everyone dies? Actually a good deal would survive unless someone arranged it so that everyone was pointing their gun at the next person in line in one big circle and everyone is holding the gun improperly with their finger on the trigger. Then when the first shot is fired, everyone else reacts without thinking and pulls their trigger.

Then, yes, everyone would die.

In any other case, probably not.

mactastic
Aug 29, 2003, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
the only problem is that north korea doesn't have a gun, yet, and there is no way to verify disarmament. it's like everyone is in so many folds of clothing that you could never see for sure... for most countries. N. Korea though, doesn't seem to be hiding that (a) it doesn't have its gun ready yet, and (b) it's working on it, the logical conclusion being that maybe we should stop them.

i think that the idea of nuclear disarmament, at the basic level, is absurd. you can't be sure that anyone else has--not really sure, especially in an administration like ours. superpowers are not kids, and whatever you think of bush, they aren't run by kids (think: bush doesn't seriously run our country like this; he can't just push a button). further, superpowers can't control eachother, generally. this is obviously not the case with smaller countries. my point is, a country is obligated to use the means at its disposal to protect itself. if it is threatened by a nation which it is more powerful than, there is something wrong. that could be called international masochism.

granted, i do agree with you that it would be great if we could just get rid of all weapons, not ever have conflict, not have to worry about the bad guy; i would love to always be at peace. the problem is that this is not possible, and disarmament is not a step towards peace. it's a step towards more pain when you realize you were the only idiot that actually meant it when you signed the treaty.

I thought the Bush admin was claiming N. Korea has at least one or two nukes? Those could be used against S.Korea or Japan and it might as well be dropped in the US.

I am not naive about other countries intentions about nuclear weapons. I know others will lie about their arsenal. The one thing we don't need is a rouge state making weapons to sell to terrorists. The question is, how do we create a world with fewer nukes rather than more?

Dont Hurt Me
Aug 29, 2003, 04:46 PM
North Korea has everything to loose by continuing this path, or everything to gain by loosing its atomic weapons. the problem is the crazy korean and his brain washed followers.

shadowfax
Aug 29, 2003, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by RobVanDam
Everyone dies? Actually a good deal would survive unless someone arranged it so that everyone was pointing their gun at the next person in line in one big circle and everyone is holding the gun improperly with their finger on the trigger. Then when the first shot is fired, everyone else reacts without thinking and pulls their trigger.

Then, yes, everyone would die.

In any other case, probably not. wow. i think you just rewrote the book on "taking analogies a little too far and too literally" ;)

zimv20
Aug 29, 2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
North Korea has everything to loose by continuing this path, or everything to gain by loosing its atomic weapons.

from their viewpoint, it's the opposite. the nukes are their only leveraging tool.

shadowfax
Aug 29, 2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
I am not naive about other countries intentions about nuclear weapons. I know others will lie about their arsenal. The one thing we don't need is a rouge state making weapons to sell to terrorists. The question is, how do we create a world with fewer nukes rather than more? the answer is, at the very least, stop more countries from getting them... i'll leave US disarmament as an issue that must be dealt with, but regardless, if you want less nukes in the world, the answer in this case is not to let them maintain an arsenal. by force? by all means, IMO. their contract of government is based on the use of force.

shadowfax
Aug 29, 2003, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
from their viewpoint, it's the opposite. the nukes are their only leveraging tool. in which case, we need to give them a new pair of glasses.

they can't have leverage over a free country, south korea. The United States has no obligation to allow them to get such leverage, because we already have it.

mactastic
Aug 29, 2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
the answer is, at the very least, stop more countries from getting them... i'll leave US disarmament as an issue that must be dealt with, but regardless, if you want less nukes in the world, the answer in this case is not to let them maintain an arsenal. by force? by all means, IMO. their contract of government is based on the use of force.

Unfortunately, force is not even an option. We can't even credibly threaten N.Korea anytime soon with anything other than a nuclear strike. Almost our entire deployable military is already in theater somwhere in the world. N.Korea knows this very well, and IMHO is using the opportunity to gain concessions from the US that it wouldn't have had a chance of getting if we had a credible military threat. We are left on the defensive with regard to their saber-rattling. N.Korea is very practiced in the art of brinksmanship, and because of their political structure they can take things to extremes that our government cannot do. I worry that our being in Iraq gave Kim Jong Il the opportunity to do this kind of thing.

shadowfax
Aug 29, 2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Unfortunately, force is not even an option. We can't even credibly threaten N.Korea anytime soon with anything other than a nuclear strike. Almost our entire deployable military is already in theater somwhere in the world. N.Korea knows this very well, and IMHO is using the opportunity to gain concessions from the US that it wouldn't have had a chance of getting if we had a credible military threat. We are left on the defensive with regard to their saber-rattling. N.Korea is very practiced in the art of brinksmanship, and because of their political structure they can take things to extremes that our government cannot do. I worry that our being in Iraq gave Kim Jong Il the opportunity to do this kind of thing. that's an interesting observation, and i definitely agree that korea is using the fact that we are preoccupied to its advantage.

we need to hurry and get them on our appointment book, if you ask me. this is such a needless problem. another reason to second guess the war in iraq...

Sayhey
Aug 29, 2003, 05:37 PM
Folks seem to forget both history and the obvious imbalance of power. For almost 50 years the Soviet Union and the United States coexisted with nuclear weapons at the hair trigger and did not go to war with each other because they each knew to launch a nuclear attack meant the annihilation of each other. If North Korea launches a nuclear missle at the US or its allies the Government of Kim Jong Il knows there will be nothing left of their country. It would take a madman to do that, but I don't believe even Kim is crazy enough to do that. He is crazy enough to see nuclear weapons as a defense.

The greatest danger to the US is in the escalation of tensions to the point that war could breakout and the North Koreans would, in desperation, see the launch of a missle as the only means to deter the overthrow of their government by US forces. Is that risk dangerous enough to try and force the North Koreans to give up their weapons - YES!

The current negotiations must be given every chance to work. And for the record, in 1962 when Kennedy negotiated the removal of missles from Cuba he pledged that the US would not invade. We are confronted with a similar situation (though not nearly as dangerous to the US) and cool heads must prevail. Just as we had folks like "Bombs Away" LeMay advising the President to bomb Cuba we now have folks both inside the adminstration and out trying to bring about a confrontation. If that occurs we may be able to eliminate the nuclear weapons of the North, but it will come at the price of an all out war on the Korean peninsula. Not only would that mean the lives of ten of thousands of US military personnel, but of countless civilians. Militant macho rhetoric is not what is needed.

shadowfax
Aug 29, 2003, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Folks seem to forget both history and the obvious imbalance of power. For almost 50 years the Soviet Union and the United States coexisted with nuclear weapons at the hair trigger and did not go to war with each other because they each knew to launch a nuclear attack meant the annihilation of each other. If North Korea launches a nuclear missle at the US or its allies the Government of Kim Jong Il knows there will be nothing left of their country. It would take a madman to do that, but I don't believe even Kim is crazy enough to do that. He is crazy enough to see nuclear weapons as a defense.

The greatest danger to the US is in the escalation of tensions to the point that war could breakout and the North Koreans would, in desperation, see the launch of a missle as the only means to deter the overthrow of their government by US forces. Is that risk dangerous enough to try and force the North Koreans to give up their weapons - YES!

The current negotiations must be given every chance to work. And for the record, in 1962 when Kennedy negotiated the removal of missles from Cuba he pledged that the US would not invade. We are confronted with a similar situation (though not nearly as dangerous to the US) and cool heads must prevail. Just as we had folks like "Bombs Away" LeMay advising the President to bomb Cuba we now have folks both inside the adminstration and out trying to bring about a confrontation. If that occurs we may be able to eliminate the nuclear weapons of the North, but it will come at the price of an all out war on the Korean peninsula. Not only would that mean the lives of ten of thousands of US military personnel, but of countless civilians. Militant macho rhetoric is not what is needed. the only problem is, what does "every chance" mean? well, not the only problem, but one that occurs to me.

pseudobrit
Aug 29, 2003, 06:27 PM
Were I the leader of a nation falling under the scope of Bush's war machine, I'd take an obvious lesson from Iraq:

Having potent WMD keeps Bush from invading your country.

Dont Hurt Me
Aug 29, 2003, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
from their viewpoint, it's the opposite. the nukes are their only leveraging tool. exactley, this country has one thing a military meanwhile its people are starving, with no economic base or anything and has been supported by communist nations, russia & china please lets not forget who gave them this stuff boys & girls.

Sayhey
Aug 29, 2003, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
exactley, this country has one thing a military meanwhile its people are starving, with no economic base or anything and has been supported by communist nations, russia & china please lets not forget who gave them this stuff boys & girls.

Nobody gave them the weapons; they developed them themselves. The reactor they have used to manufacture the plutonium is another question. They are not forbidden for transfer from other countries under any treaty. Problem is there needs to be agreement among the nations of the world about the consequences for withdrawal from the NPT. It would make sense to have automatic trade sanctions from the rest of the parties to the treaty.

By the way, if the US wants to get new countries to participate in the NPT we should ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It would go a long way to convincing others we don't just want nuclear hegemony over other nations. But then that would be counter to Bush's policy.

Sayhey
Aug 29, 2003, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
the only problem is, what does "every chance" mean? well, not the only problem, but one that occurs to me.

For one thing it means that we shouldn't go into the negotiations with the stance that North Korea give up their weapons and we are unwilling to give anything.

shadowfax
Aug 29, 2003, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
For one thing it means that we shouldn't go into the negotiations with the stance that North Korea give up their weapons and we are unwilling to give anything. yes. we should compromise so we can secure "peace for our time!"

zimv20
Aug 29, 2003, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
russia & china please lets not forget who gave them this stuff boys & girls.

the US built some light water reactors (to replace the heavy ones) under the clinton deal.

guess who was a director of the company that built the reactors? rumsfeld!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html

Dont Hurt Me
Aug 29, 2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Nobody gave them the weapons; they developed them themselves. The reactor they have used to manufacture the plutonium is another question. They are not forbidden for transfer from other countries under any treaty. Problem is there needs to be agreement among the nations of the world about the consequences for withdrawal from the NPT. It would make sense to have automatic trade sanctions from the rest of the parties to the treaty.

By the way, if the US wants to get new countries to participate in the NPT we should ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It would go a long way to convincing others we don't just want nuclear hegemony over other nations. But then that would be counter to Bush's policy. you are so mistaken if you think N Korea just developed them on their own, they have been supported both economicaly and military by russia and china and the reactors, the know how , and even material came from CHINA & RUSSIA along with all their other weapons such as jet fighters,tanks,guns etc. wake up and read about who supported these guys the past 50 years during and after the korean war.

zimv20
Aug 29, 2003, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
the reactors, the know how , and even material came from CHINA & RUSSIA

i'm guessing you posted before seeing my post above. the US had a hand in it.

Dont Hurt Me
Aug 29, 2003, 10:15 PM
clinton again are you sure ? what the ....?

zimv20
Aug 29, 2003, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
clinton again are sure ?

?????

Sayhey
Aug 29, 2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
yes. we should compromise so we can secure "peace for our time!"

Ah, the old Neville Chamberlin reference anytime someone suggests negotiations instead of military solutions. Shadowfax, may I ask what would be the terrible crime if the US promised to not invade North Korea and opened diplomatic relations with that country? That is what they are asking. Now, I don't trust Kim Jong Il anymore than you do, but if a deal can be worked out that would include a verifible elimination of their weapons with the US only "giving" being some sort of compromise on these two demands, what would be your problem with that outcome? Or do you support the neoconservative goal of regime change through the preemptive use of military force? If you have some other option that could bring about the elimination of these weapons without war breaking out all over the Korean peninsula, I for one, would love to hear it.

Sayhey
Aug 29, 2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
you are so mistaken if you think N Korea just developed them on their own, they have been supported both economicaly and military by russia and china and the reactors, the know how , and even material came from CHINA & RUSSIA along with all their other weapons such as jet fighters,tanks,guns etc. wake up and read about who supported these guys the past 50 years during and after the korean war.

Of course they have supported them since the end of the Second World War. That was never the question. The actual development of the nuclear weapons is a North Korean project. Nobody, even the Bush administration, suggests otherwise.
I was responding to your statement that, "lets not forget who gave them this stuff boys & girls." I took that to mean the nuclear weapons themselves. The reactors (the original ones) were built with Soviet help if my memory serves me correctly. The deal with the Clinton administration was to replace those with ones with which it is much, much harder to produce weapons grade plutonium.

If you actually want to learn the history of this stuff, I would suggest watching a Frontline documentary, that is viewable on line, entitled "Kim's nuclear gamble" at:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kim/

edit: after looking at some of the new links provided at the PBS site, it appears the North Koreans may have had help in the actual development of the weapons after all - from our dear friends the government of Pakistan. Check out this link:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030127fa_fact

Durandal7
Aug 30, 2003, 01:01 AM
It's amazing how the bulk of the posts have little to do with North Korea and more to do with the petty Bush/Clinton debate. :rolleyes:

North Korea will most likely be dealt with by a series of airstrikes. In the event it looks like they are about to do something stupid we will probably resort to OPLAN 5030 and attack with little to no warning followed by a disinformation campaign and a tageting of what little infrastructure they have. If it looks like they are just going to sit on their nukes we will probably continue ignoring them and let the UN and China deal with Kimmy.

9/09 looks like a probable date for a nuclear test based on the DPRK's comments and the fact that the 9th is the anniversary of the DPRK's founding.

zimv20
Aug 30, 2003, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by Durandal7

North Korea will most likely be dealt with by a series of airstrikes. In the event it looks like they are about to do something stupid we will probably resort to OPLAN 5030 and attack with little to no warning followed by a disinformation campaign and a tageting of what little infrastructure they have.

NK has a million soldiers ready to march across the DMV who can reach seoul in an hour. they also have artillery in place that can hit seoul. you want to tell its residents that they'll bear the brunt of your airstrikes? how about the 40k US troops that'll get run over?

Durandal7
Aug 30, 2003, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
NK has a million soldiers ready to march across the DMV who can reach seoul in an hour. they also have artillery in place that can hit seoul. you want to tell its residents that they'll bear the brunt of your airstrikes? how about the 40k US troops that'll get run over?

Hey, I'm making no statement as to whether or not it's a good idea, I'm just stating what the military might do. If NK does show up on South Korea's doorstep then I gurantee that nukes will fly. What they are hoping for is that NK will be bright enough not to try an invasion after their nuclear and military facilities are taken out.

shadowfax
Aug 30, 2003, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Ah, the old Neville Chamberlin reference anytime someone suggests negotiations instead of military solutions. Shadowfax, may I ask what would be the terrible crime if the US promised to not invade North Korea and opened diplomatic relations with that country? That is what they are asking. Now, I don't trust Kim Jong Il anymore than you do, but if a deal can be worked out that would include a verifible elimination of their weapons with the US only "giving" being some sort of compromise on these two demands, what would be your problem with that outcome? Or do you support the neoconservative goal of regime change through the preemptive use of military force? If you have some other option that could bring about the elimination of these weapons without war breaking out all over the Korean peninsula, I for one, would love to hear it. well, for one, it's a joke. i suppose that, as long as we come to the negotiation table with the expectation that we are not obligated to abide by any negotiations we make, negotiations are favorable. but oh, i've made a washington faux pas, i'm not supposed to be blunt about that which we all know but fear saying out loud. damn!

i, for one, don't think kim jong IL wIL have anything but IL WIL tIL he gets what he wants, namely control of a unified Korea. i guess it's really cynical, but i don't think we will make a preemptive strike. but there will be conflict before the situation changes, unless we wait it out tIL jong IL dies/loses power that is not then given to another jong IL type. i wish i were wrong. or rather, i hope i am. when BOTH SIDES or ALL SIDES at a diplomatic table all have faith in diplomacy, rock on. it will always work. but mark this; Kim Jong IL has no faith in it. he sees it as a way to get something he wants that we don't want to give him, whether we agree to give it to him or not. it's foolish for us to trust diplomacy. and i don't think verifiable results fly. look at Iraq. whether they had WMDs or not, they weren't cooperative about it at all. the lesson from that is that they could have had weapons and we might never have known.

we'll see how it pans out, though. oh yes.

Sayhey
Aug 30, 2003, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
well, for one, it's a joke. i suppose that, as long as we come to the negotiation table with the expectation that we are not obligated to abide by any negotiations we make, negotiations are favorable. but oh, i've made a washington faux pas, i'm not supposed to be blunt about that which we all know but fear saying out loud. damn!

i, for one, don't think kim jong IL wIL have anything but IL WIL tIL he gets what he wants, namely control of a unified Korea. i guess it's really cynical, but i don't think we will make a preemptive strike. but there will be conflict before the situation changes, unless we wait it out tIL jong IL dies/loses power that is not then given to another jong IL type. i wish i were wrong. or rather, i hope i am. when BOTH SIDES or ALL SIDES at a diplomatic table all have faith in diplomacy, rock on. it will always work. but mark this; Kim Jong IL has no faith in it. he sees it as a way to get something he wants that we don't want to give him, whether we agree to give it to him or not. it's foolish for us to trust diplomacy. and i don't think verifiable results fly. look at Iraq. whether they had WMDs or not, they weren't cooperative about it at all. the lesson from that is that they could have had weapons and we might never have known.

we'll see how it pans out, though. oh yes.

Shadowfax,

I'm not sure just what you find a joke other than the IL in Kim Jong Il's name. Is it the very idea of negotiations or just being cynical about the chances of a positive outcome? You may not like the lack of certainty in diplomacy, but it sure beats the hell out of the alternative. I have to say, right now I'm not too hopeful either, given the rhetoric from both sides. The BBC is reporting that the North Koreans "see no point" in continueing negotiations and the US seems very determined to rattle its saber at every opportunity. My hope is the other countries participating in the multilateral talks maybe able to talk some sense into both sides. If not we are in for a war that will make Iraq look like a cakewalk.

If we really want to get rid of this regime we should work to bring down every trade barrier and structure of isolation surrounding the North. The South has an economy that would overwhelm the North Koreans. That's the approach of many in the South and seeing that it will be mostly their lives on the line, maybe we should listen to them.

shadowfax
Aug 30, 2003, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Shadowfax,

I'm not sure just what you find a joke other than the IL in Kim Jong Il's name. Is it the very idea of negotiations or just being cynical about the chances of a positive outcome? You may not like the lack of certainty in diplomacy, but it sure beats the hell out of the alternative. I have to say, right now I'm not too hopeful either, given the rhetoric from both sides. The BBC is reporting that the North Koreans "see no point" in continueing negotiations and the US seems very determined to rattle its saber at every opportunity. My hope is the other countries participating in the multilateral talks maybe able to talk some sense into both sides. If not we are in for a war that will make Iraq look like a cakewalk.

If we really want to get rid of this regime we should work to bring down every trade barrier and structure of isolation surrounding the North. The South has an economy that would overwhelm the North Koreans. That's the approach of many in the South and seeing that it will be mostly their lives on the line, maybe we should listen to them. perhaps that is the answer. free trade.

but like i said about diplomacy, if one side has no faith in it, and we know at least one, NK, does not, then it will be useless. and pretending that such is not the case is a good way to become like old neville. i am not saying war is pretty. the world is not pretty. you can't just gloss over the product of grave evils like saddam hussein or Hitler. Of course i would like to avoid war, and i agree with you at least that the Bush admin is not dealing with this right, and has not from the outset. the man has no talent for dealing with people he doesn't understand. as such, i don't bear hope for the situation, but neither do i think that a better situation could have been produced by trying to be "nicer" to jong il, about anything, including diplomacy. but that's speculation, i admit.

Sayhey
Aug 30, 2003, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
perhaps that is the answer. free trade.

but like i said about diplomacy, if one side has no faith in it, and we know at least one, NK, does not, then it will be useless. and pretending that such is not the case is a good way to become like old neville. i am not saying war is pretty. the world is not pretty. you can't just gloss over the product of grave evils like saddam hussein or Hitler. Of course i would like to avoid war, and i agree with you at least that the Bush admin is not dealing with this right, and has not from the outset. the man has no talent for dealing with people he doesn't understand. as such, i don't bear hope for the situation, but neither do i think that a better situation could have been produced by trying to be "nicer" to jong il, about anything, including diplomacy. but that's speculation, i admit.

A couple of things. Chamberlin sold out the people of Czechoslovkia in order to not have to confront Hitler. What I'm proposing is only promising to not invade North Korea and possibly opening up diplomatic relations with them in exchange for the elimination of nuclear weapons in a process that can be verified. Again, that is a very similar path to what JFK did in eliminating the missiles in Cuba. I see two very different paths in those proposals, and certainly don't see anything approaching Chamberlin's capitulation to Hitler in what I and others are advocating.

Second, it has nothing to do with being nicer. I think the US should have as its policy goal a unified democratic Korea. I think it should be our policy to have a Korean peninsula devoid of nuclear weapons. I think we should have a goal to accomplish that with as little loss of life as possible. None of that is based on a need to be nice to Kim Jong Il. I just don't have a problem with being nicer to him if it accomplishes those goals. It would seem that some in the administration have a problem with anything but confrontation as a policy.

shadowfax
Aug 30, 2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
A couple of things. Chamberlin sold out the people of Czechoslovkia in order to not have to confront Hitler. What I'm proposing is only promising to not invade North Korea and possibly opening up diplomatic relations with them in exchange for the elimination of nuclear weapons in a process that can be verified. Again, that is a very similar path to what JFK did in eliminating the missiles in Cuba. I see two very different paths in those proposals, and certainly don't see anything approaching Chamberlin's capitulation to Hitler in what I and others are advocating.

Second, it has nothing to do with being nicer. I think the US should have as its policy goal a unified democratic Korea. I think it should be our policy to have a Korean peninsula devoid of nuclear weapons. I think we should have a goal to accomplish that with as little loss of life as possible. None of that is based on a need to be nice to Kim Jong Il. I just don't have a problem with being nicer to him if it accomplishes those goals. It would seem that some in the administration have a problem with anything but confrontation as a policy. 1. my point about diplomacy is not that we are acting in the same token as chamberlain (i.e. selling someone out), it's that we'd be dealing with the same type of situation, that is, one in which the other side does not have faith in diplomacy, just like hitler. i don't think Jong Il will abide by any promises or agreements he enters that he doesn't really want to. this is much different from the JFK situation, where we were dealing with a much more delicate situation, and both leaders knew that very well, and it meant something to them.

2. i think that is the administration's goal as well, except that they are very confrontational about it. i think they are confrontational about it because they do not trust Kim Jong Il. perhaps that's wrong, but i can certainly see where they are coming from.

zimv20
Aug 30, 2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
we'd be dealing with the same type of situation, that is, one in which the other side does not have faith in diplomacy

i see no evidence that bush has any faith in diplomacy.

shadowfax
Aug 30, 2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
i see no evidence that bush has any faith in diplomacy. that's true too. i think the man has a real problem with doing so, and it's one of the main reasons i dislike him while being overall a conservative myself, but i can't help but think that his mistrust is well-placed in this case.

pseudobrit
Aug 30, 2003, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
that's true too. i think the man has a real problem with doing so, and it's one of the main reasons i dislike him while being overall a conservative myself, but i can't help but think that his mistrust is well-placed in this case.

But don't you agree there's a big difference in where to place your mistrust and how you then handle that mistrust?

That is, just because you don't trust North Korea doesn't mean you automatically stop dealing with them and hope they just as easily stop being a problem.

The sqeaky wheel's supposed to get the grease. Bush is just ignoring the noise until the wheel falls off instead.

IJ Reilly
Aug 30, 2003, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
that's true too. i think the man has a real problem with doing so, and it's one of the main reasons i dislike him while being overall a conservative myself, but i can't help but think that his mistrust is well-placed in this case.

By definition, diplomacy is a process of negotiation which takes place between parties who don't trust each other. So trust is not an issue. What is an issue is hammering out an agreement which both sides will agree to abide by, because both sides gain by doing so. The failure of this process is called "war."

shadowfax
Aug 30, 2003, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
By definition, diplomacy is a process of negotiation which takes place between parties who don't trust each other. So trust is not an issue. What is an issue is hammering out an agreement which both sides will agree to abide by, because both sides gain by doing so. The failure of this process is called "war." "gain" is a loaded term. what does "gain" mean, anyway? i think in most diplomacy, the "gain" is often too positive a term. more like, "not lose."

that said, what i mean by not trusting the other country is "not trusting it to abide by any agreement made. sure, we may get them to promise something like a cessation of their nuclear program. we could give them a lot of aid and all sorts of stuff. NK would eat that up, maybe. but they wouldn't stop the program. they would only say they did. we could verify it, but how do you find a well-hidden nuclear plant? there are always ways of evading things like that, and i trust people like Jong Il to find them.

pseudobrit
Aug 30, 2003, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The failure of this process is called "war."

And the triumph is peace, which isn't nearly as easy or intersting to portray on TV for the drooling masses. It's a non-event.

No one remembers peace; it doesn't even make it into the history books except as the last sentence in a story of war. There'l never be a Hollywood movie about a period of peace and harmony in pre-colonial Vietnam or post-WWII Western Europe, but every year sees another war movie released from a major studio.

And besides, no one wants a peace-loving hippie president with flowers in his hair when they can have a kick-ass cowboy with two six-shooters instead.

pseudobrit
Aug 30, 2003, 11:19 PM
If the failure of diplomacy is war, then to triumph in war is a fallacy, for it is the celebration of defeat.

shadowfax
Aug 30, 2003, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
And the triumph is peace, which isn't nearly as easy or intersting to portray on TV for the drooling masses. It's a non-event.

No one remembers peace; it doesn't even make it into the history books except as the last sentence in a story of war. There'l never be a Hollywood movie about a period of peace and harmony in pre-colonial Vietnam or post-WWII Western Europe, but every year sees another war movie released from a major studio.

And besides, no one wants a peace-loving hippie president with flowers in his hair when they can have a kick-ass cowboy with two six-shooters instead. hmmm. did you ever see the movie "13 Days"?

i'm sure you never heard about the cuban missile crisis, since no one remembers successful diplomacy :p

shadowfax
Aug 30, 2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
If the failure of diplomacy is war, then to triumph in war is a fallacy, for it is the celebration of defeat. what? that's full of philosophical holes.

the end of world war II was a triumph. it was, if with imperfections on the sides of the victors, a triumph of good over great evil.

saying stupid things like that, man, reflects a lack of understanding for other human beings (if you can call them that). there are evil men in the world who will not compromise, who will get their way and kill those who stand in their way. to go to war with such men and defeat them is a triumph.

a WWII veteran would slap you in the face for saying that. and i would pat him on the back.

pseudobrit
Aug 30, 2003, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
hmmm. did you ever see the movie "13 Days"?

Yes, and I loved it.
IIRC, it flopped.

shadowfax
Aug 30, 2003, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Yes, and I loved it.
IIRC, it flopped. it certainly didn't go off as well as good war movies, heh. but still, everyone knows about the cuban missile crisis.

pseudobrit
Aug 30, 2003, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
what? that's full of philosophical holes.

the end of world war II was a triumph. it was, if with imperfections on the sides of the victors, a triumph of good over great evil.

saying stupid things like that, man, reflects a lack of understanding for other human beings (if you can call them that). there are evil men in the world who will not compromise, who will get their way and kill those who stand in their way. to go to war with such men and defeat them is a triumph.

a WWII veteran would slap you in the face for saying that. and i would pat him on the back.

How so? The very fact that we go down the path to war is a failure of humanity.

Celebrating victory in that war is celebrating your victory within that failure. We should focus our jubilation on the triumph of peace, as most veterans, I'm sure, would agree.

Can you do without the slapping in the face and the patting on the back part? It's kind of belittling and immature.

shadowfax
Aug 30, 2003, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
How so? The very fact that we go down the path to war is a failure of humanity.

Celebrating victory in that war is celebrating your victory within that failure. We should focus our jubilation on the triumph of peace, as most veterans, I'm sure, would agree.

Can you do without the slapping in the face and the patting on the back part? It's kind of belittling and immature. well, most veterans i know would do just that. call it belittling and immature if you like. what you fail to understand is that there are men in this world, great, brave men, who gave their lives so that you could have the freedom you have now and not live under the oppression of police states like Nazi Germany.

No reasonable person can count the actions of a group of man as the failure of mankind. Hitler's evil is not mine. it's not our fault as a race that evil men exist. not every human being is evil and domineering. and blaming the faults of those that are on everyone is... well, a little belittling and immature.

IJ Reilly
Aug 31, 2003, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
"gain" is a loaded term. what does "gain" mean, anyway? i think in most diplomacy, the "gain" is often too positive a term. more like, "not lose."

It isn't a loaded term in the least. Gain is defined by the negotiating parties as getting something they desire but don't have. In the case of North Korea, it might be a nonaggression pledge from the US; and for the US, the end of North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

Yes, of course the terms of any agreement have to be abided by, otherwise the diplomacy will have failed, and the sides move closer to war. This is why war is often called "diplomacy by other means."

IJ Reilly
Aug 31, 2003, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
the end of world war II was a triumph. it was, if with imperfections on the sides of the victors, a triumph of good over great evil.

Yes, the end of the war was a triumph. That it happened in the first place was the tragedy.

RobVanDam
Aug 31, 2003, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
How so? The very fact that we go down the path to war is a failure of humanity.

Celebrating victory in that war is celebrating your victory within that failure. We should focus our jubilation on the triumph of peace, as most veterans, I'm sure, would agree.

Can you do without the slapping in the face and the patting on the back part? It's kind of belittling and immature. So, our failure of humanity caused us to be attacked by Japan, a part of the axis of evil. We should have just given up Hawaii and the entire United States because that would be the humane thing to do.

pseudobrit
Aug 31, 2003, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by RobVanDam
So, our failure of humanity caused us to be attacked by Japan, a part of the axis of evil. We should have just given up Hawaii and the entire United States because that would be the humane thing to do.

Ugh. I give up. You're approaching it from a much more literal level than I am.

Oh, and yes, I do see Pearl Harbor as a failure of humankind, unless either side was not human somehow.

pseudobrit
Aug 31, 2003, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Yes, the end of the war was a triumph. That it happened in the first place was the tragedy.

Which is my point. Too often the celebration of victory in war is not a celebration of the peace that comes from the victory but a celebration of the violence itself.

It shouldn't be a "yay, we kicked their ass and now we can kick anyone's ass" celebration.

It should be a "thank God the fighting is over and may our children never have to experience the horrors we've just been through."

I'm afraid that too often, the triumph of war emphasizes the former rather than the latter sentiment.

pseudobrit
Aug 31, 2003, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
Hitler's evil is not mine.

Then original sin is not ours either, if you want to think that way.

Sayhey
Aug 31, 2003, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by RobVanDam
So, our failure of humanity caused us to be attacked by Japan, a part of the axis of evil. We should have just given up Hawaii and the entire United States because that would be the humane thing to do.

No, there are, IMO, things worth fighting and dieing for. Fighting against the Nazis and the Japanese Militarists was a great triumph for humanity. It should be celebrated. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do everything we can do to struggle for the principles of those who fought against fascism in the most peaceful way possible. Will there be a time when we must again fight like those before us did? I don't know, but I know looking to invade other countries to make our country more powerful and reordering the world to our own liking has nothing to do with the cause of that previous generation.

shadowfax
Aug 31, 2003, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Which is my point. Too often the celebration of victory in war is not a celebration of the peace that comes from the victory but a celebration of the violence itself.

It shouldn't be a "yay, we kicked their ass and now we can kick anyone's ass" celebration.

It should be a "thank God the fighting is over and may our children never have to experience the horrors we've just been through."

I'm afraid that too often, the triumph of war emphasizes the former rather than the latter sentiment. see, now you're making sense to me. i can agree to that completely. a celebration of violence is foolish and evil. i've never met a veteran who celebrated the violence of war. i am sure they're out there.

as ayn rand said, the use of force is irrational. it absolutely is. but to those who use force against rational people, the rational response is to use force in return. it is, in fact, the only option. this is a terrible thing, and no rational person takes pleasure in it, but every rational person should take pleasure in its end.

quite frankly, i really haven't seen much of the first sentiment you exemplified. america is often arrogant about its military capabilities--especially those in the military who know it's not actually arrogance--but i don't think that we as a nation are a bunch of sword-swingers who are looking for a fight. i mean, i don't think the last few wars we have waged have been done against innocent people, or people who did not threaten the US and the world. but let's not get into that.

i think this disagreement just got semantic, now that you've clarified your position thus. but i hope you realize that the first thing you said did much more than imply that you did not believe that there could be triumph in war.

there is such a thing as a just war. it requires that the assailant be unjust... and when the defending party, waging the just war, wins, then there is victory. that is the triumph in war. thus, if the Nazis had won the second world war, it would not be a triumph.

shadowfax
Aug 31, 2003, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Then original sin is not ours either, if you want to think that way. that's different. the idea within original sin is that man is born with the tendency to sin. he does sin, and he pays for those sins. not Adam's sin. so, even given the doctrine of original sin, you cannot blame the sin of one man on another without the consent of both.

shadowfax
Aug 31, 2003, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Yes, the end of the war was a triumph. That it happened in the first place was the tragedy. dare i pose the suggestion that the only way one can know triumph is through suffering? the good things in life are made so by having to deal with the bad. look at america today. it's unhappy with its luxury, because it only knows luxury.

zimv20
Aug 31, 2003, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
there are evil men in the world who will not compromise, who will get their way and kill those who stand in their way. to go to war with such men and defeat them is a triumph.


"world war 2004 election"

pseudobrit
Aug 31, 2003, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
that's different. the idea within original sin is that man is born with the tendency to sin. he does sin, and he pays for those sins. not Adam's sin. so, even given the doctrine of original sin, you cannot blame the sin of one man on another without the consent of both.

But that assumes that we are all only individuals. I would say that we as individual as we are collective. The idea of original sin is that no one is born innocent. We all share in that sin, even though we ourselves have done nothing.

When we think about man on the moon, we think about mankind on the moon, not one specific guy named Neil. Of course it was one guy, but what he did he did for all mankind.

That was an acheivement for all mankind.

If we're going to collectively accept the good, would it not follow that we collectively accept the bad in a similar fashion?

Not "I gassed 12 million people" but perhaps, "one of us has committed unspeakable evils"

When we separate the individual evil from men (collectively), we become blind to the evil potential of our very selves, which is how evil takes root.

shadowfax
Aug 31, 2003, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
But that assumes that we are all only individuals. I would say that we as individual as we are collective. The idea of original sin is that no one is born innocent. We all share in that sin, even though we ourselves have done nothing.

When we think about man on the moon, we think about mankind on the moon, not one specific guy named Neil. Of course it was one guy, but what he did he did for all mankind.

That was an acheivement for all mankind.

If we're going to collectively accept the good, would it not follow that we collectively accept the bad in a similar fashion?

Not "I gassed 12 million people" but perhaps, "one of us has committed unspeakable evils"

When we separate the individual evil from men (collectively), we become blind to the evil potential of our very selves, which is how evil takes root. beautiful. we certainly do act collectively, but also very much so individually. neil armstrong being on the moon was just as much a triumph for mankind as "the fall" was a failure for us. and just as i don't expect to take credit for neil's being on the moon, i don't expect to be blamed for what adam did however many thousands of years ago.

this is not denying the evil that is inside me or other men--which, to do so, i agree, would be a grave fault and lead to a number of undesirable things.

but just as there are men who give in wholly to the evil that brews in their hearts, there are those men who stow it and give their lives to stop the men who have been consumed by evil, and to laud such men is not wrong, nor is it wrong to call their victory over both the evil in their own hearts and the evil manifested by other men in deeds a triumph. that's what i am saying. and i think you agree... you just don't like it when you see people glorifying the violent acts required to right the wrongs of others. i agree with you on that though.

pseudobrit
Aug 31, 2003, 02:11 AM
That's about what I'm getting at.

And I really do consider Armstrong's walk on the moon to be a triumph for all mankind and a testament to man's greatness.
I know that my fellow man, with the help of his fellow man, has stepped foot on soil not of Earth. That includes not just Neil, but you, me and everyone else who lives, will live or has lived on this Earth. Likewise, I consider the sins of men to belong to mankind too.

Credit and blame are for individuals.

For mankind collectively, there's something that transcends such trivial notions of possession, such trifles as death and time.

Sayhey
Aug 31, 2003, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
...there is such a thing as a just war. it requires that the assailant be unjust... and when the defending party, waging the just war, wins, then there is victory. that is the triumph in war. thus, if the Nazis had won the second world war, it would not be a triumph.

I would agree with Gorbachov that there is no such thing as a "just" nuclear war. In general, if a nation is defending itself the world recognizes that, in the UN charter and elsewhere, as a just war. However, the use of nuclear weapons raises whole new ethical questions in our times. One, can a nuclear war be limited? If not we run the risk of a war that could destroy humanity. Nothing justifies such a war. Two, such weapons by their nature cannot be limited to military targets. Massive causalties and deaths of civilian non-combatants is the inevitable result of these weapons use. The campaign must start toward the elimination of these weapons first. In that regard, I agree with the Bush administration that as a first step North Korea must be forced to give up there weapons. I just think we can't stop there - the thousands of warheads in US, Russian, Chinese, and other hands must also be dealt with.

shadowfax
Aug 31, 2003, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
I would agree with Gorbachov that there is no such thing as a "just" nuclear war. In general, if a nation is defending itself the world recognizes that, in the UN charter and elsewhere, as a just war. However, the use of nuclear weapons raises whole new ethical questions in our times. One, can a nuclear war be limited? If not we run the risk of a war that could destroy humanity. Nothing justifies such a war. Two, such weapons by their nature cannot be limited to military targets. Massive causalties and deaths of civilian non-combatants is the inevitable result of these weapons use. The campaign must start toward the elimination of these weapons first. In that regard, I agree with the Bush administration that as a first step North Korea must be forced to give up there weapons. I just think we can't stop there - the thousands of warheads in US, Russian, Chinese, and other hands must also be dealt with. can a nuclear war be limited? it's possible, i think, but unlikely. the thing that doesn't bother me about Russia and the US and Chinese having nuclear warheads is that i have considerable faith that our systems of government does not support their use as first strike weapons, ever. it's not going to happen. i also know that none of those countries will ever trust the other two enough to get rid of their own. so i don't worry about them. they can keep them for all i care, they aren't going to use them. i don't hold the same faith for countries like Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, India... so many extremists in positions of power...

but hey, we can agree on removing them from North Korea, so we could at least do that. or must you be all or nothing? where's your spirit of compromise? ;)

pseudobrit
Aug 31, 2003, 02:41 AM
I'm afraid Bush is developing "tactical" nuclear weapons for use in so-called "bunker busting" nukes.

I'm afraid that such a misrepresentation of these weapons (you cannot get a bomb to penetrate nearly enough to not have a considerable amount of energy and fallout hitting many civilians) will make their use acceptable as a "conventional" weapon.

Of course, it will still be a nuke, still vaporise people and spew fallout like a nuke, but with a new name and some spin about how safe they are, we can use them as a first strike but never call it a nuclear first strike.

Presto! Now you know: How to spin a first-strike nuclear attack as a "practically conventional," "less powerful than MOAB" little incident. CNN's probably got the illustrations ready to go.

zimv20
Aug 31, 2003, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
the thing that doesn't bother me about Russia and the US and Chinese having nuclear warheads is that i have considerable faith that our systems of government does not support their use as first strike weapons, ever.

the russians have (and did have, as the USSR) a policy of no-first-strike. the US does not have such a policy.

i don't know the policy of china.

Sayhey
Aug 31, 2003, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
can a nuclear war be limited? it's possible, i think, but unlikely. the thing that doesn't bother me about Russia and the US and Chinese having nuclear warheads is that i have considerable faith that our systems of government does not support their use as first strike weapons, ever. it's not going to happen. i also know that none of those countries will ever trust the other two enough to get rid of their own. so i don't worry about them. they can keep them for all i care, they aren't going to use them. i don't hold the same faith for countries like Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, India... so many extremists in positions of power...

but hey, we can agree on removing them from North Korea, so we could at least do that. or must you be all or nothing? where's your spirit of compromise? ;)

No, it doesn't have to be "all or nothing", IMHO. That is why I called the need to disarm the North Koreans a first step. As I said before, it just needs to be done as peacefully as possible.

I agree that some countries are more likely to use these weapons than others. The India/Pakistan scenario is perhaps one of the most deadly. However, it is very disturbing that the Bush administration floated the idea of the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq (not as a response, but as a preemptive measure) and as pseudobrit and others have pointed out their development of these "bunkerbuster" tactical nukes as weapons, which are much more likely to be used. I share zimv20's worry that there are some in this administration that are looking to use these weapons. If we want to make a "new world order" - us against everyone else - all we have to do is to be the first to again set off one of these weapons in anger.

As long as these weapons are not outlawed the world will face the terrible danger of their use. I don't think any administration will likely lead the way on this issue. Any real change will have to come from folks outside the government through building the kind of political pressure to make it happen. The US ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty and a taking a no first use pledge would be a few very good first steps along the way to a safer world.

mactastic
Aug 31, 2003, 10:00 AM
Did we trust the Soviets when we negotiated with them? Diplomatic negotiations take place between parties who don't trust each other. At all. If they trusted each other, there would be no reason to negotiate, it would be a business deal-type situation. The idea that we have to trust someone before we sit down at the negotiating table is ludicris. Do we think for a second that the Palestinians and Israelis trust each other? Indians or Pakistanis? Come on. It's all about hammering out a framework that all sides can verify as the steps are taken.

And I think it's pretty hard to hide a nuclear reactor! Even Saddam couldn't get away with that, the Israeli's blew his up a long time ago remember? Those things aren't small and they aren't mobile. You can't make them look like anything else, and you can detect a certain chemical in the air if the process is under way. In fact that's what got the US in such a tizzy right now, they found traces of the chemical in the air just offshore. Now the question is, was it for real, or was it faked to make us think they are making weapons. They can fake us to think they are making weapons, but there is no way to fake us the other way and actually be making weapons while saying they aren't.

IJ Reilly
Aug 31, 2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
dare i pose the suggestion that the only way one can know triumph is through suffering? the good things in life are made so by having to deal with the bad. look at america today. it's unhappy with its luxury, because it only knows luxury.

You can pose it, but that's a whole 'nuther line of reasoning. If you're asking me, the answer is no, we shouldn't need to kill a few million people here and there to appreciate the times when we're not killing a few million people. If you are saying that it's humanity's fate to constantly visit death and destruction on ourselves, and we won't be "happy" any other way, then you are in fact saying we are ultimately doomed. You can keep that philosophy; I want no part of it.

shadowfax
Aug 31, 2003, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
You can pose it, but that's a whole 'nuther line of reasoning. If you're asking me, the answer is no, we shouldn't need to kill a few million people here and there to appreciate the times when we're not killing a few million people. If you are saying that it's humanity's fate to constantly visit death and destruction on ourselves, and we won't be "happy" any other way, then you are in fact saying we are ultimately doomed. You can keep that philosophy; I want no part of it. yeah, i was just messing around. i believe in objective values as well. happiness does not require unhappiness to be felt. experiences speak for themselves.

simX
Sep 1, 2003, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
look at Iraq. whether they had WMDs or not, they weren't cooperative about it at all. the lesson from that is that they could have had weapons and we might never have known.

we'll see how it pans out, though. oh yes.

As others have pointed out, diplomatic negotiations are between two parties who don't trust each other. But I just wanted to point out the fallacy of the above statement: Iraq WAS COMPLYING with weapons inspectors; Hans Blix himself said that they needed more time, because he believed that Iraq was complying and the U.N. weapons inspectors were verifying the destruction of what weapons of mass destruction Iraq had. But Bush decided to invade Iraq anyway, despite the protestations of Hans Blix and the U.N.

Originally posted by shadowfax
beautiful. we certainly do act collectively, but also very much so individually. neil armstrong being on the moon was just as much a triumph for mankind as "the fall" was a failure for us. and just as i don't expect to take credit for neil's being on the moon, i don't expect to be blamed for what adam did however many thousands of years ago.

this is not denying the evil that is inside me or other men--which, to do so, i agree, would be a grave fault and lead to a number of undesirable things.

but just as there are men who give in wholly to the evil that brews in their hearts, there are those men who stow it and give their lives to stop the men who have been consumed by evil, and to laud such men is not wrong, nor is it wrong to call their victory over both the evil in their own hearts and the evil manifested by other men in deeds a triumph. that's what i am saying. and i think you agree... you just don't like it when you see people glorifying the violent acts required to right the wrongs of others. i agree with you on that though.

Like the concept of original sin, doesn't that imply that people are inherently evil? I don't believe that for one second. I believe that humans are inherently good creatures, and that there are a few that let themselves get over-infatuated with power and money, which causes them to be evil.

To think that people are inherently evil, to believe in the concept of original sin, or to pose the suggestion that we need to experience suffering before we can truly experience happiness are all basically the same concept, and they propose a morbid future for mankind. Like IJ Reilly, I want no part in that.

Back to the original topic, though. Negotiating when dealing with nuclear weapons is a very tricky situation, as the Cuban Missile Crisis definitely shows. Whether we're dealing with Kim Jong Il of North Korea, or Saddam Hussein of Iraq, we have to make one assumption: that they're not stupid. Why do you think that North Korea is attempting to build nukes? Because that's their only bargaining chip! They're a small country, and we have tons of nuclear weapons with which we can totally decimate them. We probably don't even have to deploy a single troop. The only way that North Korea can get us to think about our actions is by being able to threaten us with something, which (at this time) happens to be a nuke.

Kim Jong Il is not an idiot. He knows that launching a nuclear weapon against another country is a SURE death sentence. While, at this point, countries can waffle and have opposing opinions on whether North Korea poses a threat or not, there is no doubt once a nuke has been launched by North Korea. At that point, all countries will participate in eliminating the threat, no questions asked. Launching a nuke would be the stupidest thing to do, and I'm sure Kim Jong Il knows that.

The problem with negotiations is when you can't possibly deal with the threat. What happens if the U.S. decided to go on a rampage... the other countries of the world would be hard-pressed to stop us. While they would probably eventually succeed, it would be a far cry from dealing with a small country like North Korea that has limited resources. And this comes full circle to my original point: why should the U.S. be allowed to keep its stockpile of nuclear weapons? We pose a significant threat to the world, and yet, no one makes a peep about us. And here we go making "bunker busters" -- supposedly, U.S. citizens "elected" the current administration which is pursuing this line of activity. So apparently democracy is allowing this behavior. Something is definitely wrong with this picture.

Just something to chew on.

Sayhey
Sep 1, 2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by simX

...What happens if the U.S. decided to go on a rampage... the other countries of the world would be hard-pressed to stop us. While they would probably eventually succeed, it would be a far cry from dealing with a small country like North Korea that has limited resources. And this comes full circle to my original point: why should the U.S. be allowed to keep its stockpile of nuclear weapons? We pose a significant threat to the world, and yet, no one makes a peep about us. And here we go making "bunker busters" -- supposedly, U.S. citizens "elected" the current administration which is pursuing this line of activity. So apparently democracy is allowing this behavior. Something is definitely wrong with this picture.


I think the problem is that the US is going on a rampage. Iraq is only the start of that rampage. North Korea and Iran are obviously within the crosshairs of Bush and his neoconservative friends. Syria and Cuba will follow shortly.

I don't agree that there hasn't been a "peep" about the US; that was what all those millions of people in the streets of London, Madrid, and yes - San Francisco and Washingtion were doing. I take heart with the polls showing that more and more Americans are questioning this madness.

While nuclear weapons stockpiles are a critical component of the problem, the basic problem is an administration that believes it has the right to reorder the world in whatever way it sees fit.

xpormac
Sep 1, 2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
I think the problem is that the US is going on a rampage. Iraq is only the start of that rampage.


Saddam was crazy, he deserved to be taken out. The US should do this with the rest of the crazy leaders out there, because no one else will. :rolleyes:

Sayhey
Sep 1, 2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by xpormac
Saddam was crazy, he deserved to be taken out. The US should do this with the rest of the crazy leaders out there, because no one else will. :rolleyes:

There are an awful lot of crazy leaders out there. Where does it stop? Why does the Bush administration get to appoint itself as the arbiter of who is fit to lead other nations? Because with our military might we can? That is no different than the reasoning of any other of history's empires. Excuse me for believing my country should not act in the same way.

xpormac
Sep 1, 2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
There are an awful lot of crazy leaders out there. Where does it stop? Why does the Bush administration get to appoint itself as the arbiter of who is fit to lead other nations? Because with our military might we can? That is no different than the reasoning of any other of history's empires. Excuse me for believing my country should not act in the same way.


Why should it stop? The bush administration gets to appoint itself because its the only one not chicken..... to step up. Our military might can't, would cost too much to take care of all the idiot leaders out there. Were not trying to become an empire, we are taking care of the world, because it can't take care of itself.

IJ Reilly
Sep 1, 2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by xpormac
Why should it stop? The bush administration gets to appoint itself because its the only one not chicken..... to step up. Our military might can't, would cost too much to take care of all the idiot leaders out there. Were not trying to become an empire, we are taking care of the world, because it can't take care of itself.

Right, and all we'd need to do to accomplish this "goal" is to triple our national military budget, start a draft, and avoid reading any history books.

Sayhey
Sep 1, 2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by xpormac
Why should it stop? The bush administration gets to appoint itself because its the only one not chicken..... to step up. Our military might can't, would cost too much to take care of all the idiot leaders out there. Were not trying to become an empire, we are taking care of the world, because it can't take care of itself.

So according to you the limit is only the limit of our military resources. It should stop now because international law and the principles on which our nation was founded cry out for each nation to have the right to determine their own future.

As to becoming an empire, I know the Bush administration says "no, no, no" but the reality of their actions say "YES." Ten years of occupation in Iraq is the latest projection and who knows how long troops will be in Afghanistan. Do you think we will not have to have troops in other countries to "pacify" the population. It sounds remarkably like an empire to me.

xpormac
Sep 1, 2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Right, and all we'd need to do to accomplish this "goal" is to triple our national military budget, start a draft


Reason why I said we can't.

xpormac
Sep 1, 2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey

As to becoming an empire, I know the Bush administration says "no, no, no" but the reality of their actions say "YES." Ten years of occupation in Iraq is the latest projection and who knows how long troops will be in Afghanistan. Do you think we will not have to have troops in other countries to "pacify" the population. It sounds remarkably like an empire to me.


:rolleyes: we are giving the people their the ability to set up their own government. You think this only takes a year or 2? come on.

shadowfax
Sep 1, 2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by simX
As others have pointed out, diplomatic negotiations are between two parties who don't trust each other. But I just wanted to point out the fallacy of the above statement: Iraq WAS COMPLYING with weapons inspectors; Hans Blix himself said that they needed more time, because he believed that Iraq was complying and the U.N. weapons inspectors were verifying the destruction of what weapons of mass destruction Iraq had. But Bush decided to invade Iraq anyway, despite the protestations of Hans Blix and the U.N.I don't think Iraq was complying, even when they appeared to be. there is no question that they were behaving fishily about the whole issue.Like the concept of original sin, doesn't that imply that people are inherently evil? I don't believe that for one second. I believe that humans are inherently good creatures, and that there are a few that let themselves get over-infatuated with power and money, which causes them to be evil.beautiful. that's why every single person anyone has ever known has done something to hurt others, why they make mistakes--if everyone is good (and good is perfection), how can anyone do anything bad? it's impossible, because the potential to do wrong is in itself an imperfection that taints one's goodness.To think that people are inherently evil, to believe in the concept of original sin, or to pose the suggestion that we need to experience suffering before we can truly experience happiness are all basically the same concept, and they propose a morbid future for mankind. Like IJ Reilly, I want no part in that.why compare original sin to such vile cynicism (which i was getting from Agent Smith in the Matrix)? original sin is very different from the idea that there are no objective values and that experience is defined by contrast. i am not makinng the connection. but good for you if you do.Back to the original topic, though. Negotiating when dealing with nuclear weapons is a very tricky situation, as the Cuban Missile Crisis definitely shows. Whether we're dealing with Kim Jong Il of North Korea, or Saddam Hussein of Iraq, we have to make one assumption: that they're not stupid. Why do you think that North Korea is attempting to build nukes? Because that's their only bargaining chip! They're a small country, and we have tons of nuclear weapons with which we can totally decimate them. We probably don't even have to deploy a single troop. The only way that North Korea can get us to think about our actions is by being able to threaten us with something, which (at this time) happens to be a nuke.this is stupid reasoning on NKK's part, if that is what they think. building nukes to threaten a bigger nation is not a good idea; it's stupid. they aren't going to make us stop and think. is that what you do when someone puts a gun in your face? no, you take it from him, if you can, or comply with him. the only thing about this is, which you will surely point out, we have a gun pointed at NK. i defy you to suggest to me that such ill will towards them is not well-placed.Kim Jong Il is not an idiot. He knows that launching a nuclear weapon against another country is a SURE death sentence. While, at this point, countries can waffle and have opposing opinions on whether North Korea poses a threat or not, there is no doubt once a nuke has been launched by North Korea. At that point, all countries will participate in eliminating the threat, no questions asked. Launching a nuke would be the stupidest thing to do, and I'm sure Kim Jong Il knows that.he's not an idiot, of course, so let's follow his logic:
1. nothing in this world is ever going to make North Korea a world power. not in Jong Il's Lifet time, and not in his distant descendants'.
2. The US is a world power, a supoerpower.
3. Jong Il wants something: power, certainly, South Korea, definitely, to put the US "in its place," more than likely.
4. North Korea doesn't have the resources to do this; in fact, it's a rather poor nation.
5. Jong Il decides that it's necessary to make Nuclear weapons. this makes sense, because everyone now knows what a good idea it is to make things you can never use without killing yourself, because everyone else already has enough to plaster your entire hemisphere many times over.
6. Jong Il decides to undertake this at the expense of the people. in the guns and butter argument, he's given the butter to the dogs to enter a gunfight which, even after sacrificing the butter, will not yield him a big enough gun to do anything at all.

wow. no, he's not an idiot. i guess you're right. but he's certainly sadistic and evil. i don't know which is worse.The problem with negotiations is when you can't possibly deal with the threat. What happens if the U.S. decided to go on a rampage... the other countries of the world would be hard-pressed to stop us. While they would probably eventually succeed, it would be a far cry from dealing with a small country like North Korea that has limited resources. And this comes full circle to my original point: why should the U.S. be allowed to keep its stockpile of nuclear weapons? We pose a significant threat to the world, and yet, no one makes a peep about us. And here we go making "bunker busters" -- supposedly, U.S. citizens "elected" the current administration which is pursuing this line of activity. So apparently democracy is allowing this behavior. Something is definitely wrong with this picture. OK, so the US should have its stockpile taken away from it. you're right. YOU take it from them. just try.

it's a different story with NK, isn't it?

Sayhey
Sep 1, 2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by xpormac
:rolleyes: we are giving the people their the ability to set up their own government. You think this only takes a year or 2? come on.

Right now the majority of the people of Iraq would likely vote for an Islamic republic like Iran, do you think Bush would allow this expression of the democratic will of the Iraqi people? All one has to do is read the writing of the neoconservative policy makers in the administration to know this has nothing to do with freedom for the people of Iraq or anyplace else. This is not some global version of "High Noon," regardless how much Dubya likes to play cowboy. This is about global geopolitics and the strengthening of US influence in different regions of the world.

IJ Reilly
Sep 1, 2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by xpormac
:rolleyes: we are giving the people their the ability to set up their own government. You think this only takes a year or 2? come on.

Well that is certainly a debatable point, and it's been long debated here -- but the real question is: was this bill of goods sold to the American people as a minimum ten year, half-trillion dollar commitment, or an easy bump-off operation?

mactastic
Sep 1, 2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by xpormac
Why should it stop? The bush administration gets to appoint itself because its the only one not chicken..... to step up. Our military might can't, would cost too much to take care of all the idiot leaders out there. Were not trying to become an empire, we are taking care of the world, because it can't take care of itself.

This whole "might makes right" line of reasoning is giving me the creeps. I thought we had evolved beyond that.

xpormac
Sep 1, 2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
This whole "might makes right" line of reasoning is giving me the creeps. I thought we had evolved beyond that.


might kills idiots...brings freedom... ;)

Sayhey
Sep 1, 2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by xpormac
might kills idiots...brings freedom... ;)

Might kills whoever the mightiest wishes, idiots and saints alike. As to freedom it is won by people determined to have it, not as a present of invaders.

shadowfax
Sep 1, 2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Well that is certainly a debatable point, and it's been long debated here -- but the real question is: was this bill of goods sold to the American people as a minimum ten year, half-trillion dollar commitment, or an easy bump-off operation? mmmmmm..... 3 words: "VIET-F---IN'-NAM!"

shadowfax
Sep 1, 2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Might kills whoever the mightiest wishes, idiots and saints alike. As to freedom it is won by people determined to have it, not as a present of invaders. tell that to West Germany. To Japan. Maybe the Philippines? i am rusty on that one.

it is possible for invaders to bring freedom. it depends on their goals, of course.

not to say that the US holds the right goals in this invasion (let's be honest. he's a nice guy, bush. he wants to give them freedom, his perception of it at the very least. but the big talker here is the oil, that's the only reason the country would let him do something like this, and that's the only reason that he would convince himself that he is doing this for the good of the Iraqis), but i think that we could possibly, in a better world, have better intentions.

but this all depends on your definition of "invader," i guess, and the connotations you project on it.

mactastic
Sep 1, 2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by xpormac
might kills idiots...brings freedom... ;)

So the innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilians are idiots now? What kind of hogwash is that? You are really bordering on some seriously ignorant racism there buddy.

shadowfax
Sep 1, 2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
So the innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilians are idiots now? What kind of hogwash is that? You are really bordering on some seriously ignorant racism there buddy. you are bordering on some seriously mean throwing out of your knowledge of what he means so you can make your point look better in your eyes, if you ask me.

he's not talking about innocent afghans or iraqis; he is talking about the people in oppressive power over those innocent people, like saddam and the Taliban. you knew this. why must you insist on ignoring it?

mactastic
Sep 1, 2003, 12:54 PM
Cause he sure could have said it in a more appropriate fashion. I don't like might makes right arguements. What knowledge was I throwing out that was so mean?

shadowfax
Sep 1, 2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Cause he sure could have said it in a more appropriate fashion. I don't like might makes right arguements. What knowledge was I throwing out that was so mean? you interpreted "idiots" as "innocent iraqis/civilians" rather than what you knew he meant, the deranged former leaders/oppressors of said innocent people. i'm sorry if i'm being harsh. i do realize that your opponent is making very poor arguments, which is why i don't see the need for you to patronize him by misinterpreting him. ;)

xpormac
Sep 1, 2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Cause he sure could have said it in a more appropriate fashion. I don't like might makes right arguements. What knowledge was I throwing out that was so mean?


saying I was bordering on racism and twisting my post around. Your reading it the way you want to.

mactastic
Sep 1, 2003, 01:07 PM
I thought we already established that Kim Jong Il is not an idiot. Calling those we kill idiots asserts your superiority over them.

mactastic
Sep 1, 2003, 01:08 PM
So just who are the idiots? Can we name a few just to see who you are talking about?

shadowfax
Sep 1, 2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
So just who are the idiots? Can we name a few just to see who you are talking about? people who think they have the right to control innocent people by threatening their lives and suppressing them, for starters. at that level, every dictator is a fool.

mactastic
Sep 1, 2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
he's not an idiot, of course, so let's follow his logic:
wow. no, he's not an idiot. i guess you're right. but he's certainly sadistic and evil. i don't know which is worse.

I thought this was already established?

Sayhey
Sep 1, 2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by xpormac
... Were not trying to become an empire, we are taking care of the world, because it can't take care of itself.

This statement is at least paternalistic in the extreme. I don't like to throw the term "racism" out there because it often gets in the way of any discussion, but the idea that we must take care of the world by making the decisions for others who should be their leaders is way out there from any point of reference. However, it just so happens to coincide with the neoconservative ideology.

shadowfax
Sep 1, 2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
I thought this was already established? that comment was tongue in cheek, to some extent. but sure, they aren't logistical idiots. Hitler was a genius too. but they're idiots to think that they can control people like that. it doesn't truly work. it's the reason why the countries either buckle like germany did, or never become as prosperous as they should, like the PRC, like NK (compare to SK), like the Middle East itself...

zimv20
Sep 1, 2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by xpormac
might kills idiots...brings freedom... ;)

just like the american revolution, when the brits had the greater might, and killed us american idiots, then granted us our freedom.... oh, wait.

Sayhey
Sep 1, 2003, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
just like the american revolution, when the brits had the greater might, and killed us american idiots, then granted us our freedom.... oh, wait.

How people (not you, zimv20) can wrap themselves in the American flag and then forget that this nation was founded on the basis of every nation's right to determine its own destiny, is totally beyond me.

zimv20
Sep 1, 2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
How people (not you, zimv20) can wrap themselves in the American flag and then forget that this nation was founded on the basis of every nation's right to determine its own destiny, is totally beyond me.

you can be sure that, had the term existed then, US freedom fighters would have been labeled terrorists.

IJ Reilly
Sep 1, 2003, 02:29 PM
Everybody knows this song by now, I'm sure. It's enjoyed quite a revival lately -- so much so, LA Times ran an article about it over the weekend. In the article, Randy Newman says for a long while he was embarrassed to play it, thinking it too silly or obvious. But now he admits to being shocked (and disappointed) by its continued relevance more than 30 years after he wrote it. In fact what seemed like satire at the time looks closer to reality today. He pointed specifically to the line "Europe's too old," which sounds hauntingly similar to the remark made earlier this year by Donald Rumsfeld. I guess this is the penalty for a satirist living too long -- the attitudes they satirize might just come true. Anyway, the direction this thread was taking made me think of it again...

Political Science

No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too

Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now

Randy Newman

Sayhey
Sep 1, 2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Everybody knows this song by now, I'm sure. It's enjoyed quite a revival lately -- so much so, LA Times ran an article about it over the weekend. In the article, Randy Newman says for a long while he was embarrassed to play it, thinking it too silly or obvious. But now he admits to being shocked (and disappointed) by its continued relevance more than 30 years after he wrote it. In fact what seemed like satire at the time looks closer to reality today. He pointed specifically to the line "Europe's too old," which sounds hauntingly similar to the remark made earlier this year by Donald Rumsfeld. I guess this is the penalty for a satirist living too long -- the attitudes they satirize might just come true. Anyway, the direction this thread was taking made me think of it again...

IJ, you think the satire might be lost on some? I'm afraid there are folks who would listen to Newman's song and say "Damn right." I've always loved this song and the whole "Sail away" album (wasn't that the title track?). I'd hoped that such efforts would force some folks to rethink some things where reasoned arguments might not. Anyway, thanks for reminding me of the song.

shadowfax
Sep 1, 2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Everybody knows this song by now, I'm sure. It's enjoyed quite a revival lately -- so much so, LA Times ran an article about it over the weekend. In the article, Randy Newman says for a long while he was embarrassed to play it, thinking it too silly or obvious. But now he admits to being shocked (and disappointed) by its continued relevance more than 30 years after he wrote it. In fact what seemed like satire at the time looks closer to reality today. He pointed specifically to the line "Europe's too old," which sounds hauntingly similar to the remark made earlier this year by Donald Rumsfeld. I guess this is the penalty for a satirist living too long -- the attitudes they satirize might just come true. Anyway, the direction this thread was taking made me think of it again... hmmmm.... i don't see it. maybe minorly, but i can't see us dropping the bomb. the number one question: will bush be elected in 2004? god, i hope not. the number 2 question: will there be a democrat around who's any better? you wish.

maybe that makes me a "moderate" like tazo, heh. (shiver!)

i don't think that anyone has suggested, in this thread, the use of nuclear weapons. i sure would be appalled by such a suggestion. the US will not. will not. the only response to this is that someone will say, "well, you never know," but then turn around and say "Kim Jong Il isn't crazy. he wouldn't do it!" no one is going to use these things. the issue is, why should we let them push us around like this? it's a joke. the US is not pushing NK around. it is protecting SK and east asia in general.

a simple situational question: if all the countries around NK, namely SK, stood down their military, and the US stepped out of SK as a military presence, would NK just sit there and let them stay independent and democratic?

if, on the other hand, north korea stood down its military, its secret police... would the nations around it simply invade, without cause?

IJ Reilly
Sep 1, 2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
IJ, you think the satire might be lost on some? I'm afraid there are folks who would listen to Newman's song and say "Damn right." I've always loved this song and the whole "Sail away" album (wasn't that the title track?). I'd hoped that such efforts would force some folks to rethink some things where reasoned arguments might not. Anyway, thanks for reminding me of the song.

Sure, it wouldn't be satire if everybody got it. Newman says the narrator in this song seemed like such an unbelievable jerk when he wrote it (must have been around 1970), even in the days of Curtis "bombs away" LeMay -- but now, well... he's (dare I say it) the Secretary of Defense. Newman also said that he recently played the song for an audience in Switzerland to a hushed silence. Hey, I guess that means somebody gets it.

Yes, "Political Science" appeared on "Sail Away" in 1972. You can probably tell, Randy Newman is my hero. Has been since I discovered his stuff when I was a teenager, right around the time Sail Away was released. Very few people deserve to be called a genius, but Newman is one.

IJ Reilly
Sep 1, 2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
hmmmm.... i don't see it. maybe minorly, but i can't see us dropping the bomb.

It's a song, so it doesn't need to interpreted quite so literally. Think of it as an expression of American chauvinism, and you'll get the point.

shadowfax
Sep 1, 2003, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
It's a song, so it doesn't need to interpreted quite so literally. Think of it as an expression of American chauvinism, and you'll get the point. oh, i think i got the point that we have turned into chauvinists, largely since the end of WWII, but i was just saying i think that the thing is a bit extreme, which i guess is it's goal, and it's funny as such, but also as such it must be taken with a grain of salt, a really really big grain of salt when you start to apply it to a serious discussion, which is what i thought you were doing.

Code101
Sep 1, 2003, 05:27 PM
Along with North Korea and the terrorists in the middle east, I would rank the UN evil as well. They want to control America in every way possible. They long for Americas Power and Wealth. I'm greatful for President Bush not giving in to them.

If war is what it takes to stop North Korea, that may be the decision President Bush has to make to protect us as, well as the rest of the world even though they are ungreatful. Action is what President Bush is about, talk and jokes is what the UN is about.

mactastic
Sep 1, 2003, 06:51 PM
So anyone who seeks to control another country is evil eh? Or does that just go for seeking to control America? :p

Sayhey
Sep 1, 2003, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by Code101
Along with North Korea and the terrorists in the middle east, I would rank the UN evil as well. They want to control America in every way possible. They long for Americas Power and Wealth. I'm greatful for President Bush not giving in to them.

If war is what it takes to stop North Korea, that may be the decision President Bush has to make to protect us as, well as the rest of the world even though they are ungreatful. Action is what President Bush is about, talk and jokes is what the UN is about.

Why don't we make it simple and say that anyone who disagrees with Bush is evil? Seriously, on what basis is the UN evil? Because the Security Council wanted to hold the US to the international treaties it has signed and stop it from launching a preemptive (and illegal) action in Iraq? You may admire the fact that Bush is willing to take action, but so have many leaders throughout history. Some of those leaders and their actions were wrong. Give me talk and diplomatic solutions over unnecessary death and destruction anytime.

xpormac
Sep 1, 2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Give me talk and diplomatic solutions over unnecessary death and destruction anytime.

Read up on Saddam and what he did to his people. Unnecessary death and destruction was taking place. What we did was not unnecessary.

IJ Reilly
Sep 1, 2003, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
oh, i think i got the point that we have turned into chauvinists, largely since the end of WWII, but i was just saying i think that the thing is a bit extreme, which i guess is it's goal, and it's funny as such, but also as such it must be taken with a grain of salt, a really really big grain of salt when you start to apply it to a serious discussion, which is what i thought you were doing.

It's an exaggerated expression of a serious observation, which is how satire works. No grains of salt are required. When Jonathan Swift suggested in his famous essay slaughtering children to address hunger and overpopulation, it was a deliberately over-the-top idea (or in his words, "a modest proposal"). It was not meant to be taken seriously in and of itself, but was intended to point out where certain modes of thinking lead when extrapolated to their logical conclusions. Newman is doing precisely the same thing in his lyrics, and the very fact that they seem less absurd today then they did 30 years ago points out how well he understood the trend-line of America's attitude towards the rest of the world.

Sayhey
Sep 1, 2003, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by xpormac
Read up on Saddam and what he did to his people. Unnecessary death and destruction was taking place. What we did was not unnecessary.

I've not only read up on what Saddam did to his people, but I've supported people in Iraq trying to oust him long before Bush or his father gave a damn about them. If what Bush was doing was supporting democratic forces for change without an invasion I would have supported him. This invasion has nothing to do with the aspirations of the Iraqi people for democracy and the intended stationing of US forces there on a long term basis proves that. Perhaps it is you who need to do a little reading on the subject.

xpormac
Sep 1, 2003, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
. Perhaps it is you who need to do a little reading on the subject.


Don't feel I need to. I've read up on what he has done enough. I believe the war was called for. I believe Pres. Bush did the right thing.

IJ Reilly
Sep 1, 2003, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by xpormac
Don't feel I need to. I've read up on what he has done enough. I believe the war was called for. I believe Pres. Bush did the right thing.

And will continue to believe it no matter what else happens?

xpormac
Sep 1, 2003, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
And will continue to believe it no matter what else happens?


What else is going to happen? :confused:

mactastic
Sep 1, 2003, 07:38 PM
Lots of things could happen.

xpormac
Sep 1, 2003, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Lots of things could happen.


like?

mactastic
Sep 1, 2003, 07:46 PM
Those pesky WMD's might never materialize.... Or they might have wandered off into terrorist hands because of our actions... Or the ethnic violence could flare up... Or we could end up walking away from Iraq without making anything any better... Or it could become a financial black hole for America... Or it could become another Vietnam type war that we are unwilling to apply sufficient force to win and unable to back out without looking silly... Or it could turn Iraq into a modern version of '80's Afghanistan with new jihadis arriving from throughout the world to defend Islam... Or we create the next bin Laden by our actions here... Or we install a democratic regime and it goes fundamentalist Islamic... Or we install a dictator who ends up being like the Shah in Iran... Or I could just keep going, but you should get the point by now. I'm not saying any of these is likely/will happen. You asked for possibilities.

xpormac
Sep 1, 2003, 07:49 PM
dang, one or two would have been fine. thanks mactastic, lol

mactastic
Sep 1, 2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by xpormac
dang, one or two would have been fine. thanks mactastic, lol

Hehe... sorry, got carried away!

Code101
Sep 1, 2003, 08:04 PM
There is times when Peace needs to be defended. The war with Iraq was against Sadam and his Killer friends. The war in Afganistan was against Killers. If there is a war with N. Korea, it will be because we are stopping Killers. We have never atacked any country just to attack them. Only a few leaders make the rest of these poor people suffer in these countries. We attack only in defence, regardless of it's a first strike or not. Iraq is doing much better despite the attacks it has suffered by killers. The liberal media like CNN, NPR, BBC, PRI, ABC and many others would have you believe that everything is just going bad bad doom and gloom over there and that the UN is the only light of the world that can "heal the wounds." Try watching Fox News for once. They get it right with out putting a liberal twist on it.

The fact is that the USA is a sovern nation. We practice US law, not UN law. If need be, the US will protect her people and others from killers. Let the UN and all their other socialist buddies sit at their little round table and figure out how to get food and medical aid to people. At the end of the day, the US has to end up taking care of that part of it as well. The UN is a joke.

N. Korea will get rid of their nuke program one way or the other or there will be trouble, that's all there is to it! The US will not sit on it for long. In the end, the world and the USA will be a safe place because of it.

mactastic
Sep 1, 2003, 08:06 PM
And yet we now need the UN to provide financial backing to finish what we started.

Sayhey
Sep 1, 2003, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by xpormac
Don't feel I need to. I've read up on what he has done enough. I believe the war was called for. I believe Pres. Bush did the right thing.

Why? If it was to get rid of those WMDs, then where are they? It seems evident that Bush and Blair exaggerated the threat and that it was far from the imminent danger to the US with weapons that could be deployed in 45 minutes. Given the level of the threat to the US why couldn't any real threat have been dealt with through the peaceful process of the very intrusive (and justifibly so) inspections regime.

Perhaps you think Bush did this to end human rights abuses and promote democracy in Iraq. If so then you must explain what is the reasoning for the long term occupation and the fact that the same ideologues in the administration who now cry crocodile tears over the abuses helped arm and support Saddam in the Reagan/Bush years.

Or perhaps you think it correct on the basis of what the neoconservatives actually say this is about - the projection of US military force in order to change the balances of forces in the region and serve as notice to the rest of the world. Our traditions of support for the rights of nations to determine their own future be damned.

Only you can say why you think what Bush did was right, but to me there are many, many obvious reasons he was wrong.

Code101
Sep 1, 2003, 09:03 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sayhey
[B]Given the level of the threat to the US why couldn't any real threat have been dealt with through the peaceful process of the very intrusive (and justifibly so) inspections regime.


You mean those people sent from the UN that looked like a group of University students over there on a field trip with their backpacks in little buggie cars with the mighty UN on the sides? What a joke. They were like a mouse in Sadam's maze of tricks. It should have been done by the US Military if anyone.

Even if that would have succeded, Sadam would still be in power today if people like you had your way. Try telling the Iraqi people that! There would still be Rape rooms, gas rooms, mass murder and much fear.

Peace Peace Peace! I don't believe you understand the principle that says, peace is not without cost. Peace is not brought by sitting at the campfire and singing "Heel the World." It has a price today just as it did back over 200 years ago when the USA came to be.

IJ Reilly
Sep 1, 2003, 09:18 PM
Does anybody have the patience to argue this entire thing from scratch with a noob? I sure don't. All I can say is, grab a gun and head over there yourself, if you think this is such a noble cause. Be sure to call us when you get back.

mactastic
Sep 1, 2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Does anybody have the patience to argue this entire thing from scratch with a noob? I sure don't. All I can say is, grab a gun and head over there yourself, if you think this is such a noble cause. Be sure to call us when you get back.

Maybe tomorrow.

Code101
Sep 1, 2003, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Does anybody have the patience to argue this entire thing from scratch with a noob? I sure don't. All I can say is, grab a gun and head over there yourself, if you think this is such a noble cause. Be sure to call us when you get back.


And what is a Noob? I thought we could not call each other names here. Is that how you end a Debate you have lost in due to lack of common sence? Do you call people names?

If it weren't against the rules here and I was less Mature or even at the same maturity level as you, I might have some good words to label you with as well. I'll stay up at my level.

Code101
Sep 1, 2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
All I can say is, grab a gun and head over there yourself, if you think this is such a noble cause. Be sure to call us when you get back.


All I can say is that it is a noble cause and you can't stop it.

Thank Heaven!

shadowfax
Sep 1, 2003, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
It's an exaggerated expression of a serious observation, which is how satire works. No grains of salt are required. When Jonathan Swift suggested in his famous essay slaughtering children to address hunger and overpopulation, it was a deliberately over-the-top idea (or in his words, "a modest proposal"). It was not meant to be taken seriously in and of itself, but was intended to point out where certain modes of thinking lead when extrapolated to their logical conclusions. Newman is doing precisely the same thing in his lyrics, and the very fact that they seem less absurd today then they did 30 years ago points out how well he understood the trend-line of America's attitude towards the rest of the world. i'm quite familiar with satire, and have indeed read a modest proposal several times. it's not meant to be taken with a grain of salt, but is not meant to be taken seriously? sounds like doublespeak to me. that's what i was trying to say.

Sayhey
Sep 1, 2003, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by Code101
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sayhey
[B]Given the level of the threat to the US why couldn't any real threat have been dealt with through the peaceful process of the very intrusive (and justifibly so) inspections regime.


You mean those people sent from the UN that looked like a group of University students over there on a field trip with their backpacks in little buggie cars with the mighty UN on the sides? What a joke. They were like a mouse in Sadam's maze of tricks. It should have been done by the US Military if anyone.

Even if that would have succeded, Sadam would still be in power today if people like you had your way. Try telling the Iraqi people that! There would still be Rape rooms, gas rooms, mass murder and much fear.

Peace Peace Peace! I don't believe you understand the principle that says, peace is not without cost. Peace is not brought by sitting at the campfire and singing "Heel the World." It has a price today just as it did back over 200 years ago when the USA came to be.

First, a noob is a newbie. Second, if people like me had their way Saddam would have been overthrown long before Reagan/Bush helped to make him into the ruthless power he became. That was in an administration with Cheney and Wolfowitz advising Bush's dad and Reagan.

Code 101, you have no idea what I think or have done in my life, but if you feel the need to lump me and others in somekind of stereotype of your definition of a liberal or leftist or whatever you think I am - knock youself out.

I think peace comes at a very high cost. Sometimes it comes at the cost of people who lay down their lives to make it happen. Sometimes it is just a constant struggle against those who view themselves as righteous and with all the answers that others must follow.

Right now, IMO, we have an administration that is a threat to peace and justice in the world. I and many people in this country will organize to safeguard peace by working to vote out Bush in 2004.

We could discuss the realities of the situation in Iraq before the invasion or now, if you really want to have a discussion. If all you want to do is tell me about how I sing for peace around the campfire - don't bother.

pseudobrit
Sep 1, 2003, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
you interpreted "idiots" as "innocent iraqis/civilians" rather than what you knew he meant, the deranged former leaders/oppressors of said innocent people.

Why are Saddam and Osama still alive and thousands of innocents dead then? We're not quite killing the "idiots" he's talking about.

I think his point was dead on. We've killed a share of the supporters of the despots for sure, but we're also mowing down civilia... er, "collateral damage."

pseudobrit
Sep 1, 2003, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by xpormac
Don't feel I need to. I've read up on what he has done enough. I believe the war was called for. I believe Pres. Bush did the right thing.

Did you also read the retractions that came out after the accounts were printed?

xpormac
Sep 1, 2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Did you also read the retractions that came out after the accounts were printed?


Nope.

pseudobrit
Sep 1, 2003, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Code101
There is times when Peace needs to be defended.

Now come clean with us, are you really G.W. Bush? 'Cause I swear I heard him say those exact words the other week.

pseudobrit
Sep 1, 2003, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by xpormac
Nope.

Well, that says it all then.

xpormac
Sep 1, 2003, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Well, that says it all then.

links please.

pseudobrit
Sep 1, 2003, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by Code101
And what is a Noob? I thought we could not call each other names here. Is that how you end a Debate you have lost in due to lack of common sence? Do you call people names?

If it weren't against the rules here and I was less Mature or even at the same maturity level as you, I might have some good words to label you with as well. I'll stay up at my level.

Go right ahead and call him whatever you like. He didn't insult you.

It might be a good idea to find out what words mean before going ape**** on someone, just like it might be a good idea to find out if the nation you're about to invade actually has weapons of mass destruction.

pseudobrit
Sep 1, 2003, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by xpormac
links please.

Search, please.

This stuff has been covered extensively here over the past several months, and you're not likely to find someone willing to sit down and go over the same arguments again.

Saddam was bad, for sure, but he was no Hitler.

Code101
Sep 1, 2003, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Right now, IMO, we have an administration that is a threat to peace and justice in the world. I and many people in this country will organize to safeguard peace by working to vote out Bush in 2004.

I and many many more people will work to make sure President Bush will stay in office. God help this country the day someone like Dean gets in office. We won't be around much longer if that comes to pass. Clinton did enough damage.

I don't think a Noob has much to do with what we are talking about. I don't care if your a Noob or someone who has been here since the begining of Mac Rumors. I have no more respect ether way.

pseudobrit
Sep 1, 2003, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by Code101
God help this country the day someone like Dean gets in office. We won't be around much longer if that comes to pass. Clinton did enough damage.

Yeah, because the nation was in such bad shape with Clinton. :rolleyes: Why, the economy was horrible, rapid job loss and high unemployment shook the foundations of our society, we were at war with several different nations at once, and our deficit from that big-government Democrat was almost half a trillion dollars.

Now that Bush came along with his tax cuts for the rich (whodathunk that was the problem all along!), the economy's better, unemployment is dropping, we've got peace in the Middle East and there's a budget surplus!

Seriously, did you just step out of a parallel universe or something?

I don't think a Noob has much to do with what we are talking about. I don't care if your a Noob or someone who has been here since the begining of Mac Rumors. I have no more respect ether way.

I think it does. Old timers have been around and have proven their ability to argue a point coherently and stand their own, with facts, logic, good arguments and a fairly even temper. People who can't argue well leave quickly rather than be soundly beaten in debate after debate, or they get pissy about it and say something extremely ignorant or personal and end up banned.

Rower_CPU
Sep 2, 2003, 12:07 AM
Regarding the "noob" comments:

The subjects being broached by Code101 and xpormac have been discussed ad nauseum and are OT for this discussion. If you want to discuss the Iraq conflict or Hussein or Clinton, you may find an older thread on the subject or start a new one.

While the term newbie isn't offensive in and of itself, it might appear that way to someone who is new to online forums. Let's all drop the name-calling of any sort and move on. :)

Code101
Sep 2, 2003, 12:12 AM
Thank you

Sayhey
Sep 2, 2003, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by Code101
I and many many more people will work to make sure President Bush will stay in office. God help this country the day someone like Dean gets in office. We won't be around much longer if that comes to pass. Clinton did enough damage.

I don't think a Noob has much to do with what we are talking about. I don't care if your a Noob or someone who has been here since the begining of Mac Rumors. I have no more respect ether way.

It doesn't seem that you want to discuss the situation in Iraq, North Korea, or anyplace else for that matter.

We obviously have very different opinions about Bush and I doubt if you would listen to anything I said on the matter given your already seem to know what I will say and believe on every question.
So my only advice (though I doubt you will accept it) is to try and discuss things in these forums rather than use ad hominem arguments and pejorative labels for other posters.

Code101
Sep 2, 2003, 12:30 AM
Well, the Moderator spoke. Lets just leave it at that. We started talking about N. Korea. It seems that the politics of it go much deeper though.

Will both fight the fight and stand for what we believe in. This is best left wher it lies. Back to N. Korea, what do you say:)

Sayhey
Sep 2, 2003, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by Code101
Well, the Moderator spoke. Lets just leave it at that. We started talking about N. Korea. It seems that the politics of it go much deeper though.

Will both fight the fight and stand for what we believe in. This is best left wher it lies. Back to N. Korea, what do you say:)

I have no problem with a discussion of the issues on North Korea. I have already stated my views quite a few times in this thread. If you want to go back and read them and have something you want to discuss - post it and we will go from there.

IJ Reilly
Sep 2, 2003, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Regarding the "noob" comments:

The subjects being broached by Code101 and xpormac have been discussed ad nauseum and are OT for this discussion. If you want to discuss the Iraq conflict or Hussein or Clinton, you may find an older thread on the subject or start a new one.

While the term newbie isn't offensive in and of itself, it might appear that way to someone who is new to online forums. Let's all drop the name-calling of any sort and move on. :)

Fair enough. Just to be clear, no insult was intended. I was referring to "newbie" under the poster's name, and expressing my personal lack of interest in rewinding the discussion back to January and starting over. If somebody else wants to that's fine with me, but I'd hoped we'd moved on to more interesting territory.

Code101
Sep 2, 2003, 01:04 AM
Politics can be a hoot sometimes:)

Will just keep going with the N. Korea talk. I'll have to pick it up tomorrow. It's past my bed time and labor day is over;)

Back to work.

Later

IJ Reilly
Sep 2, 2003, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
i'm quite familiar with satire, and have indeed read a modest proposal several times. it's not meant to be taken with a grain of salt, but is not meant to be taken seriously? sounds like doublespeak to me. that's what i was trying to say.

Um, no. Satire, as in "A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit." (American Heritage) IOW, satire is a literary, not a literal, device. To take something "with a grain of salt" is to call it trivial, and one thing good satire can never be called is trivial.

shadowfax
Sep 2, 2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Um, no. Satire, as in "A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit." (American Heritage) IOW, satire is a literary, not a literal, device. To take something "with a grain of salt" is to call it trivial, and one thing good satire can never be called is trivial. once again, you are using a narrow definition of my phrase to say that i am wrong.
Salt. n.
7. Fig.: That which preserves from corruption or error; that which purifies; a corrective; an antiseptic; also, an allowance or deduction; as, his statements must be taken with a grain of salt. here, there is no mention of it making something trivial, but rather, to guard yourself from error in interpretation. so, to take satire with a grain of salt, assuming that by default you would take it literally, is to take it figuratively, rather, though that's not the right word, really. there are lots of literary techniques in satire. the most common, probably, and the one that sticks out in your Newman song as well as in A Modest Proposal, is hyperbole--Newman is talking about a problem, but to illustrate it vividly, he is dramatically overstating it. to take this with a grain of salt is not to brush it of lightly and call it trivial, but to acknowledge that he is not making a fool of himself, he is being sarcastic, and what he really means is not so extreme.

seriously man, i think you're patronizing me and i don't like it.

IJ Reilly
Sep 2, 2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
seriously man, i think you're patronizing me and i don't like it.

No, I am not patronizing you. Sorry if it came off that way -- it was certainly not intentional.

I'd use the expression "take it with a grain of salt" to mean something which could be disregarded as possibly wrong or unimportant. Maybe you meant something else by it.

Hyperbole is the right term, I think. A work of fiction is going to employ some form of exaggeration to make its point, by definition, because it's not "true." What I'm saying here is that doesn't mean it is wrong or unimportant.