Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Dec 31, 2003.
I will have to read the book, but I wonder if there is any discussion of the cost to our nation in the amount of lives, dollars, and damage to our anti-colonial legacy that must be lost in pursuit of this neocon wet dream? Not to mention the continued sacrifice of our liberties on the altar of neoconservative ambition.
Richard Perle has been an advocate of war and confrontation from his earliest days and is one of the most rabid of the neoconservatives. I had hoped when his sweetheart deals had been exposed by Seymour Hersh at the New Yorker we would be rid of his own particular virulence. I see that along with David Frum (from whose poisoned pen we have the famed "axis of evil" speech) he has made a comeback. It feels like being trapped in a horror movie when just when you thought the monster destroyed, it jumps out at you from a new dark corner.
I guess that I should be thankful that in Perle at least we have a open advocate for empire. Can it be more obvious that the plans to reorder the middle east are an ideologically driven power grab?
that guy (pearle) watches too many movies.
That is flat out ****ing scary.
Wow if we followed those policies we will really be in deep S%^#. Pissing off North Korea is the last thing the South Koreans want, don't forget they can be hit with at least 2 Nukes from the North. Texas style diplomacy will not work here.
well appeasement diplomacy didnt work either, Clinton sent in the food,supplies,oil and they still kept building the bomb. behind his back. Bottom line dont trust a dictator no matter how many times he lies to you.
This is "foreign policy" for domestic consumption. Tweak the French, threaten to punch-out everybody in the bar and the wacko-bloviating talk-radio conservative ditto-head vote will come out this November. Morons.
The West has tried to impose its will on Middle-East culture, religion, economic or political structures since the 11th century and Asia since the 17th.
Don't Hurt Me,
how come anything short of military confrontation is appeasement? Should we accuse Bush and Blair of appeasement because Libya is voluntarily giving up their nuclear ambitions and the troops aren't landing in Tripoli?
Ah yes, the appeasement policy.
Feel free to insert the word of your choice if appeasement bothers you so, this guy is a killer just as bad or worse then Saddam and we gave him the time to build the bomb on Clintons watch. They made a fool out of the U.N. and Clinton. im sure this will be spinned into other things now like what about this what about that it still doesnt change the fact that we got a crazy N korean dictator/killer/murderer who now has the bomb because we played nice.
Thomasjefferson i guess you forgot or perhaps were not yet born when Iran was holding our hostages, at this time the U.S was needing to keep Iran in check. Iraq allready hated these guys. Just more spin, keep focus on N Korea.
You and I have been in this discussion before concerning North Korea. I'm all for ending their nuclear program. I just don't want to do it at the cost of millions of South Korean lives, and the lives of countless thousands of US soldiers. That is the likely outcome of Perle's approach. In this case, the use of diplomacy in the form of the negotiations that have taken place between the US, N. Korea, S. Korea, Japan, China, and Russia seems like not only the safest option for everyone, but also the most likely to succeed.
Let me ask, does it concern you that our already stretched thin military will be asked to possibly invade and occupy Syria, Iran, and North Korea? That on top of the current actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. What do you think would be the consequences if we do everything that Perle is advocating? Does it bother you that our nation, born in a battle against a colonial power, could find itself as the new de facto colonial power of the middle east? While I agree with you that Kim Jong Il is a dangerous man and we should work to disarm him of WMDs it doesn't follow that I have to agree with Perle's program. Do you?
I like you dont want to see our guys killed, nor do i want to start a war. we do have to be ready though in case this guy does afterall he has been threating S.Korea ,the U.S and Japan over and over. I think we have to engage everyone in the region that nukes can not be allowed in N.Korea. Bush is doing this. China has a very large role in this since them and the Soviet Union have helped this guy. but we cant just sit back and think it will all work out as Clinton and his team did. If the U.N cant get together on this then like usual it will be up to the U.S and its Allies to come up with a solution. I would like to make a very good point sayhey and that is Dictators seem to have a big problem understanding anything but the big stick. ask Saddam, ask Hitler, ask Kadafi, ask Stalin, and this list goes on and on. this has nothing to do with the mid east except the fact like you mention we have a lot of troops there. Diplomacy first,second and third then the big stick.
Actually, the article mentions a bit more than just N. Korea. So I addressed what I choose too.
I hate to throw water on those worked into a hot lather by the new conservative "manifesto" for confronting all the bad guys, but .. doesn't North Korea have 10,000 artillery pieces in range of downtown Seoul (urban population +11 million). And, haven't they been there just a wee-wee bit longer than Clinton? Oh well, who needs facts when you have a "manifesto".
Sounds like the usual political bloviating by conservatives in an election cycle.
Yes, Don't Hurt Me", I do remember the hostage crisis. I was in college at the time. But, I do wonder about Rumsfeld's visit in 1983. Since Reagan/Bush-Daddy were "appeasing" Saddam then, in order to contain Iran, does that mean his use of biological and chemical weapons was "not" a war crime? I mean, since Reagan/Bush looked the other way .. was it ok then? Now, this is not a defense of than naughty little Iraqi boy, but ... Johnny Cochran would love to twist that one in court...
the geneva convention prohibits chemical and biological weapons does it not. but when you are dealing with dictators they do as they want since they answer to no one. At the time keeping Iran in check was a good idea but i doubt very much Rumsfeld or Reagan were telling Saddam to go gas people. The biggest threat to world peace are the dictators and terrorist. untill 911 we were very complacent with these guys. Not anymore. Lets hope that common sense will prevail but have you heard the Crazy N Korean utter anything that indicates he has common sense? his country is starving, people are in goulags, it has almost no economy, yet it can squander its resources on weapons when they are the last thing it needs. we have never threatened them since the Korean war yet he continues to threaten his neighbors. Him and Saddam have a lot in common but now thanks again to a complacent Clinton administration they have the bomb.
First, here's the rub about North Korea, it is true that the Bush administration is engaged in these negotiations, but Perle's statements represent a sabotage of those efforts. There has long been a split within the administration with Powell on one side and the neoconservatives, like Perle, on another. This manifesto is a broadside against Powell. I'm for supporting the negotiations not giving in to the fear mongering that Perle is spewing forth.
A short note, I have a very different view of what the Clinton administration did and would recommend a Frontline special for information concerning those years. It's at PBS' website and can be viewed online.
Secondly, as to dictators, I'm all for promoting democracy. As I've said before, I don't think it can be done with bayonets and bullets. There are times when war must happen, but I believe they are few and represent a failure of other efforts that should be tried first. I would note that neither your position or mine is one that is advocated by Perle. The proposal as laid out in the article would be a disaster.
Perle position is not mine, i dont think he would be advocating this if he was stationed in the DMZ. but it would have been better to do something before they had the bomb then doing it now. however you want to look at this it was a Clinton failure for not following up more closely and doing more or getting more nations involved. The Clinton administration didnt have to many hawks and Clinton was most definitely a nice guy. sometimes you need more then a nice guy when dealing with Dictators.
Don't Hurt Me,
If the Geneva Convention prohibits the use of chemical or biological weapons, why did our government look the other way when Saddam used them? For that matter, why did we sell him the stock to produce them in the first place?
You say the biggest threat to world peace are dictators and terrorists. I disagree. Dictators can kill, yes, but their scope is limited. North Korea could do some serious damage, but only the US has turned the idea of "world peace" on its head by destablizing the international law system and invading two nations in the name of "security". Of course our first reaction is to lash out against those who hurt us (and in the case of Iraq, those who didn't) but in the end, using force to preclude the use of force is kinda oxymoronic don't you think?
You also say that until 9-11 we were complacent towards dictators and terrorists. Bush himself was complacent until he saw an opportunity to work the situation to his political and economic advantage. And we still are complacent. The particular people we have focused on have been easy targets, and our actions so far have not made us popular with those we are trying to win over, and have inflamed the passions of those who already didn't like us. There are many more dictators left, and we support many of them.
"yet it can squander its resources on weapons when they are the last thing it needs" - an very insightfull statement. I only wish it was applied to ourselves as well. We spend more on the military in this country than almost anything else. Who exactly are we guarding against? Did our military make a difference when the planes hit the world trade center? Has our huge military budget stopped guerilla fighting in Iraq? Has our awesome military might stopped Kim Jong Il from producing nulear weapons? Maybe they're there to protect us from invasion by Canada, who knows? I certainly can't figure it out. Statecraft is what is needed these days, not bombs. They destroy, they don't build. Unfortunately the neoconservative movenment in this country has not yet figured out the difference between genuine agreement and arm-twisting.
N Korea could have built the bomb years ago and it wasn't until Bush included them in the axis of evil speech that they declared their bomb program restarted. So you see, they felt threatened and the only thing that could protect them was a nuclear arms program. So get off your Clinton bashing.
If you really want to make a go of it the why not wonder why N Korea is making noises now and why did the 9/11 attacks happen under the Bush watch. Huh? Huh? In fact, there first bomb will probably be built while Bush is in office. What about them apples?
My point is that diplomacy never ends and is better than the alternative.
also, diplomacy isn't "doing nothing"
Worry you are so wrong, they never stopped working on the bomb, i know there are a lot of Democrats here but lets be honest they snowballed the Clinton administration. lets be honest again dont you remember the first attack on the trade center? it didnt work so they came back and did it again with planes, i guess you want to blame Bush for that to. stop spinning history to suite your democratic only agenda. Diplomacy never ends? why dont you ask all those Brits who were assured Germany would never attack England? you know while they were rolling threw Poland,France, and all those other countries. there is a time to swing the Big stick when all else fails. the time is not yet. Please take off those Democratic only Glasses because the reflection is nearly blinding me.
Pig-headed politician rule no. 15:
War is fun when you know you won't die.
Perhaps if 125,000 of our troops weren't in Iraq we would be in a better position to "negotiate" with North Korea.
Even more then that, it's the opening of a public front in the campaign to win President Bush's blessing for a sustained macho foreign policy. The timing of its release at the start of the campaign season hardly seems coincidental.
While I doubt Rove is unhappy about this, I think it is more indicative of a push back from the recently sidelined neocons than a campaign strategy from KR.
Well, yes, that's what I mean. The neo-cons appear to be attempting to consolidate their hold on the Bush foreign policy.