[ | ]
April 24, 2003 3:19 PM Subscribe
North Korea do not act logically, whether for money, power or ideology. They are unpredictable because they are a government of insanity. You can't assume anything about their behavior.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 3:29 PM on April 24, 2003
posted by Pretty_Generic at 3:29 PM on April 24, 2003
The United States of America do not act logically, whether for money, power or ideology. They are unpredictable because they are a government of insanity. You can't assume anything about their behavior.
posted by bureaustyle at 3:34 PM on April 24, 2003
posted by bureaustyle at 3:34 PM on April 24, 2003
OoOOoOhoOohhhh makes ya think.
posted by luckyclone at 3:34 PM on April 24, 2003
posted by luckyclone at 3:34 PM on April 24, 2003
No, I think the US acts logically when it comes to gaining money and power.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 3:36 PM on April 24, 2003
posted by Pretty_Generic at 3:36 PM on April 24, 2003
North Korea doesn't have a choice.
If any country that is not a freind of the US wants to remain with it's soverignty intact, it needs nuclear weapons, as a defence against a US pre-emptive attack.
posted by Blue Stone at 3:36 PM on April 24, 2003
If any country that is not a freind of the US wants to remain with it's soverignty intact, it needs nuclear weapons, as a defence against a US pre-emptive attack.
posted by Blue Stone at 3:36 PM on April 24, 2003
If any country that is not a freind of the US wants to remain with it's soverignty intact, it needs nuclear weapons, as a defence against a US pre-emptive attack.
You've all lost your minds.
posted by Witty at 3:38 PM on April 24, 2003
You've all lost your minds.
posted by Witty at 3:38 PM on April 24, 2003
I agree with Blue Stone. Bush and his flappy mouth labeled them the axis of evil, and effectively put them on the hitlist. They have no other choice but to defend themselves.
"The United States says that after Iraq, we are next, but we have our own countermeasures. Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US."
- Ri Pyong-gap, North Korean Foreign Ministry
posted by banished at 3:41 PM on April 24, 2003
"The United States says that after Iraq, we are next, but we have our own countermeasures. Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US."
- Ri Pyong-gap, North Korean Foreign Ministry
posted by banished at 3:41 PM on April 24, 2003
Is there a word for government by the insane? Lunacracy?
I too agree with Blue Stone. If I were running Iran right now, I'd be funneling all of my resources into the development of nuclear weapons. It'll probably take at least a year for the US to build up the necessary political and military resources to invade Iran; if nuclear weapons can be developed in that time, the invasion can be averted. Disarmament is certainly not an option for the Iranian leadership, as recent events in Iraq demonstrated.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:15 PM on April 24, 2003
I too agree with Blue Stone. If I were running Iran right now, I'd be funneling all of my resources into the development of nuclear weapons. It'll probably take at least a year for the US to build up the necessary political and military resources to invade Iran; if nuclear weapons can be developed in that time, the invasion can be averted. Disarmament is certainly not an option for the Iranian leadership, as recent events in Iraq demonstrated.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:15 PM on April 24, 2003
As long as we're all playing copy editior, I'll take my turn in the slot: Norh Korea boasts it has vast nuclear weapon program.
posted by planetkyoto at 4:26 PM on April 24, 2003
posted by planetkyoto at 4:26 PM on April 24, 2003
"North Korea boasts it has a vast nuclear weapons program."
possibly missing a "that"
posted by inpHilltr8r at 4:37 PM on April 24, 2003
possibly missing a "that"
posted by inpHilltr8r at 4:37 PM on April 24, 2003
crazyy crazy crazy good good good axis axis axis evil evil evil nuke nuke nuke attack attack attack Kim Kim Kim Il Il Il Jong Jong Jong Bush Bush Bush Chicken Chicken Chicken Hawk Hawk Hawk blah blah blah woof woof woof yak yak yak I'm So Bored With The USA...
posted by y2karl at 4:50 PM on April 24, 2003
posted by y2karl at 4:50 PM on April 24, 2003
planetkyoto: Bad Copyed! You've changed the sense of the sentence, which is not a copyeditor's job.
The Bush doctrine says that if you are suspected of possibly having WMD, you are subject to preemptive attack by the US.
How do you defend? Can you afford the conventional forces needed to stop a determined attack by the US? For all countries, the answer is clearly "no" -- even alliances of countries might have problems.
So, you can't use conventional forces. You have two choices.
1) Completely renounce WMD. Which means that now, you are completely defenseless against US attack. If the US wants you, you lose.
2) Build the one weapon that can, and will, stop the US in it's tracks. Chemical and Biological weapons are a joke. Nuclear weapons, however, are a compelling argument. Fling one at a Carrier Battle Group, and it's gone. Fling one at an offloading army division, and it's gone. Fling one at San Francisco, and it's gone.
So. The Bush doctrine has only two outcomes.
1) Give up sovereignty
2) Get nukes.
North Korea chose 2. Pakistan chose 2. I'm betting Saudi Arabia is doing everything it can to choose 2. Ditto Iran. Ditto Syria. Ditto, well, everyone with a clue. Everyone saw what happened to Iraq. Everyone understands.
Why do you think North Korea chose now to expose this?
posted by eriko at 4:59 PM on April 24, 2003
The Bush doctrine says that if you are suspected of possibly having WMD, you are subject to preemptive attack by the US.
How do you defend? Can you afford the conventional forces needed to stop a determined attack by the US? For all countries, the answer is clearly "no" -- even alliances of countries might have problems.
So, you can't use conventional forces. You have two choices.
1) Completely renounce WMD. Which means that now, you are completely defenseless against US attack. If the US wants you, you lose.
2) Build the one weapon that can, and will, stop the US in it's tracks. Chemical and Biological weapons are a joke. Nuclear weapons, however, are a compelling argument. Fling one at a Carrier Battle Group, and it's gone. Fling one at an offloading army division, and it's gone. Fling one at San Francisco, and it's gone.
So. The Bush doctrine has only two outcomes.
1) Give up sovereignty
2) Get nukes.
North Korea chose 2. Pakistan chose 2. I'm betting Saudi Arabia is doing everything it can to choose 2. Ditto Iran. Ditto Syria. Ditto, well, everyone with a clue. Everyone saw what happened to Iraq. Everyone understands.
Why do you think North Korea chose now to expose this?
posted by eriko at 4:59 PM on April 24, 2003
possibly missing a "that"
We're talking headlines here, not necessary.
posted by planetkyoto at 5:02 PM on April 24, 2003
We're talking headlines here, not necessary.
posted by planetkyoto at 5:02 PM on April 24, 2003
God I feel like a spastic colon having idiot...Are we allowed to connect dots yet?
posted by aaronscool at 5:03 PM on April 24, 2003
posted by aaronscool at 5:03 PM on April 24, 2003
So. The Bush doctrine has only two outcomes.
1) Give up sovereignty
2) Get nukes.
North Korea chose 2. Pakistan chose 2.
Considering that Pakistan had it's first nuclear tests in 1998, and Korea has been considering going nuclear since at least 1994, unless they both nations were able to predict the content of the 2002 State of the Union Address, not to mention that Bush would be present years from it actually happening, I fail to see how the so-called Bush doctrine has promoted nuclear weapons programs among the countries you mention.
posted by Snyder at 5:21 PM on April 24, 2003
1) Give up sovereignty
2) Get nukes.
North Korea chose 2. Pakistan chose 2.
Considering that Pakistan had it's first nuclear tests in 1998, and Korea has been considering going nuclear since at least 1994, unless they both nations were able to predict the content of the 2002 State of the Union Address, not to mention that Bush would be present years from it actually happening, I fail to see how the so-called Bush doctrine has promoted nuclear weapons programs among the countries you mention.
posted by Snyder at 5:21 PM on April 24, 2003
North Korea is not believed to have carried out any nuclear tests, which could be detected by other countries.
If they do underground testing at some point in the future, _would_ that be detectable?
posted by slipperywhenwet at 5:30 PM on April 24, 2003
If they do underground testing at some point in the future, _would_ that be detectable?
posted by slipperywhenwet at 5:30 PM on April 24, 2003
Yes. Seismic monitors (usually for detecting earthquakes around the world) detect the massive explosion, even if it's underground.
posted by jengod at 5:36 PM on April 24, 2003
posted by jengod at 5:36 PM on April 24, 2003
Pakistan went nuclear to counter India, but they then helped North Korea develop their nuclear program.
posted by homunculus at 5:37 PM on April 24, 2003
posted by homunculus at 5:37 PM on April 24, 2003
If they do underground testing at some point in the future, _would_ that be detectable?
Here is a good overview of using seismic monitoring to detect nuclear tests (Lawrence Livermore labs). According to this, a kiloton warhead detonation in the center of an underground cavity would be similar in magnitude to a typical mine explosion.
posted by eddydamascene at 5:59 PM on April 24, 2003
Here is a good overview of using seismic monitoring to detect nuclear tests (Lawrence Livermore labs). According to this, a kiloton warhead detonation in the center of an underground cavity would be similar in magnitude to a typical mine explosion.
posted by eddydamascene at 5:59 PM on April 24, 2003
it's a little specious to compare pak's nukes to nk's. pak's nukes only exist to counter india's. it's a strictly localized pissing contest.
nk, on the other hand ... i dunno. i hope they don't prematurely ejaculate all over sf and la. that would blow.
[more random cock imagery]
posted by donkeyschlong at 6:13 PM on April 24, 2003
nk, on the other hand ... i dunno. i hope they don't prematurely ejaculate all over sf and la. that would blow.
[more random cock imagery]
posted by donkeyschlong at 6:13 PM on April 24, 2003
To add to ERIKO's post, some way up, I'd say that it's even worse than that.
With the US building the rainbow shield of nuclear-free harmony and love, or whatever the fsck they're calling it, to stop nuclear bombs getting to America, these countries building nukes will have to make sure they build better and better missiles to be able to get through that Umberella of Almighty Protection
posted by Blue Stone at 6:54 PM on April 24, 2003
With the US building the rainbow shield of nuclear-free harmony and love, or whatever the fsck they're calling it, to stop nuclear bombs getting to America, these countries building nukes will have to make sure they build better and better missiles to be able to get through that Umberella of Almighty Protection
posted by Blue Stone at 6:54 PM on April 24, 2003
North Korea do not act logically, whether for money, power or ideology. They are unpredictable because they are a government of insanity. You can't assume anything about their behavior.
Complete nonsense.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:15 PM on April 24, 2003
Complete nonsense.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:15 PM on April 24, 2003
Well, how about this translation?
"North Korea's leadership does not act logically, whether for money, power or ideology. The leader of the government is insane and not a rational actor, and the "yes-men" cult of personality around him kills anyone who speaks critically of the regime. You can't assume anything about North Korea's behavior - because insane people don't act rationally."
And even the Guardian's got doubts about him.
JB
posted by JB71 at 7:42 PM on April 24, 2003
"North Korea's leadership does not act logically, whether for money, power or ideology. The leader of the government is insane and not a rational actor, and the "yes-men" cult of personality around him kills anyone who speaks critically of the regime. You can't assume anything about North Korea's behavior - because insane people don't act rationally."
And even the Guardian's got doubts about him.
I have in front of me a booklet, published in Pyongyang, entitled Kim Jong Il: The Genuine People's Leader. It is a book of worship. The Great Leader, the author exults, "is a genius. I cannot find other expression for his intellect, talent and leadership than genius".You can bash Bush all you want - but at least if he fucks up he'll get kicked out of office. Kim Il Jong is certifiable if he believes his own press, and criminally liable for the poverty of his country if he doesn't - and the people of North Korea are stuck with him with no way out short of escape to China or S. Korea.
And this, as Kim worship goes, is pretty tame stuff. The writer, Tapani Keskinen, a former vice-chairman of the Socialist party of Finland, is a model of Nordic sobriety compared to the kind of jubilations that North Koreans are subjected to on a daily basis. Not only are they meant to believe that Kim Jong Il is a leader of genius, but also a great soldier, a peerless film-maker, movie critic, philosopher, scientist, miracle worker, and holy man.
North Korean communism is more a religious cult than a political ideology. Like all modern Korean cults (think of the Moonies), it contains a mish-mash of animism, Confucianism, and even Christian elements. The Great Leader was in fact born in Russia during the war. But his official nativity story is set on Mount Paekdu, a sacred spot for all Koreans who believe that their country was founded there more than 4,000 years ago by a divine bear-man. When the Great Leader was born, a star shone brightly above Mt Paekdu, and his coming heralded the start of spring."
JB
posted by JB71 at 7:42 PM on April 24, 2003
I know you have much more experience than me, stavros, but I don't feel I need to be in a neighbouring country to call this dictatorship insane and unpredictable. The North Korean government tells its people that BMW is a North Korean brand. That doesn't seem like sane behavior from a world government, to me.
Here's a previous post of mine.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 7:53 PM on April 24, 2003
Here's a previous post of mine.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 7:53 PM on April 24, 2003
Neither insane, nor unpredictable. Lying, evil, criminal, sure. But utterly cold and calculating, and totally predictable to anyone who takes the time to read a bit of history, and watch carefully what goes on.
This 'he's insaaaaaane' business is precisely the same sort of shit that's shoveled down the throats of willing TV-babies everytime the American government begins a drive to demonize their latest enemy (and it's been shown that the American public will only get behind military aggression if it's directed at a single, Blofeld-like personification of madness and evil), and it's rarely, if ever, true.
JB71's quote is naturally interesting, but it is a symptom of a culture not 'gone mad' but of one brainwashed and terrified, and is nothing new, as is shown by the confusion between "Dear Leader" (used to refer to Kim JI) "Great Leader" (exclusively used to refer to his father), who was also not insane, and also required to be worshipped as a god.
Reducing things in this way - 'he's just nutty! there's nothing we can do but resort to force to eliminate him' - is a dangerous oversimplification, but one that keeps working over and over again (see also, Hussein, Saddam), and is therefore trotted out again and again. It helps no-one but those who either are unable or unwilling to think a little about difficult realities.
Blatant lies to the gullible are not madness, Pretty_Generic. Although I'm not trolling the way someone did upthread, if that were the case, then surely you could accuse the Bush administration (and most other governments in the world) of madness. It is abundantly clear that they tell baldfaced lies, all the damn time, to advance their agendas.
Buying into it is no help at all in understanding what is actually happening, and what to do about it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:09 PM on April 24, 2003
This 'he's insaaaaaane' business is precisely the same sort of shit that's shoveled down the throats of willing TV-babies everytime the American government begins a drive to demonize their latest enemy (and it's been shown that the American public will only get behind military aggression if it's directed at a single, Blofeld-like personification of madness and evil), and it's rarely, if ever, true.
JB71's quote is naturally interesting, but it is a symptom of a culture not 'gone mad' but of one brainwashed and terrified, and is nothing new, as is shown by the confusion between "Dear Leader" (used to refer to Kim JI) "Great Leader" (exclusively used to refer to his father), who was also not insane, and also required to be worshipped as a god.
Reducing things in this way - 'he's just nutty! there's nothing we can do but resort to force to eliminate him' - is a dangerous oversimplification, but one that keeps working over and over again (see also, Hussein, Saddam), and is therefore trotted out again and again. It helps no-one but those who either are unable or unwilling to think a little about difficult realities.
Blatant lies to the gullible are not madness, Pretty_Generic. Although I'm not trolling the way someone did upthread, if that were the case, then surely you could accuse the Bush administration (and most other governments in the world) of madness. It is abundantly clear that they tell baldfaced lies, all the damn time, to advance their agendas.
Buying into it is no help at all in understanding what is actually happening, and what to do about it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:09 PM on April 24, 2003
*believe them, believe them not, believe them, believe them not*
Believe it or not?
posted by hama7 at 8:40 PM on April 24, 2003
Believe it or not?
posted by hama7 at 8:40 PM on April 24, 2003
Someone should tell North Korea that slashing someone's tires will not make them love you.
posted by solistrato at 10:32 PM on April 24, 2003
posted by solistrato at 10:32 PM on April 24, 2003
stavros is 110% correct on this insane maniac demonizing bullshit. Their economy's in the toilet and the country is on the edge of collapse--it's their own fault plus they got kicked off what was left of the Soviet teat when the USSR went south. Right now, neither South Korea nor China want to deal with the refugees if it does cave in completely. Kim and the ruling elite know all this, too. They live like kings and Kim is a god king: when they send out for pizza, well--while out in the country the people starve. Oh, they're terrible people but so's the president of Uganda. Except he ain't got the bomb.
They're in this for survival--not nuclear destruction. However, they also happen to intensely paranoid, chauvinistic militarists who happen to be good at making missiles and perhaps warheads. The threat of using them or selling them is the only cards in their hand.Kim's crazy all right--crazy like a fox. Kim, and by extension, the ruling circle, are playing a weak hand very well.
Unless, we're nuts, the military option is off the table. This isn't some punched out, spent shell of a former army weakened by 11 years of sanctions like we fought in Iraq. They may not have as new of model airplanes as we do but they're a lot tougher and meaner man to man than anyone we've faced since we faced their grandparents or the North Vietnamese. They are paranoid as hell and have built shelters and bunkers as atom bomb proof as possible to build. They're convinced we will attack them with nuclear weapons and have built to withstand them. Plus, they have the bomb.
Missiles, by the way, don't mean shit until you can count on them hitting their targets. The only way you can make sure of that is testing the damn things, a number of times. They haven't tested anything that can hit us.
Forget this missile crap and worry about cargo container bombs on a freighter or the launched from a submarine and snuck ashore on a rubber boat bomb. And what's the defense against that? Homeland Security--which ain't funded seriously. It ain't Kim Jong Il who's the crazy person on that one.
posted by y2karl at 10:38 PM on April 24, 2003
They're in this for survival--not nuclear destruction. However, they also happen to intensely paranoid, chauvinistic militarists who happen to be good at making missiles and perhaps warheads. The threat of using them or selling them is the only cards in their hand.Kim's crazy all right--crazy like a fox. Kim, and by extension, the ruling circle, are playing a weak hand very well.
Unless, we're nuts, the military option is off the table. This isn't some punched out, spent shell of a former army weakened by 11 years of sanctions like we fought in Iraq. They may not have as new of model airplanes as we do but they're a lot tougher and meaner man to man than anyone we've faced since we faced their grandparents or the North Vietnamese. They are paranoid as hell and have built shelters and bunkers as atom bomb proof as possible to build. They're convinced we will attack them with nuclear weapons and have built to withstand them. Plus, they have the bomb.
Missiles, by the way, don't mean shit until you can count on them hitting their targets. The only way you can make sure of that is testing the damn things, a number of times. They haven't tested anything that can hit us.
Forget this missile crap and worry about cargo container bombs on a freighter or the launched from a submarine and snuck ashore on a rubber boat bomb. And what's the defense against that? Homeland Security--which ain't funded seriously. It ain't Kim Jong Il who's the crazy person on that one.
posted by y2karl at 10:38 PM on April 24, 2003
As a sidebar, I do love that film and film critique make the top ten list for Kim's CV.
They're listed above being a scientist, philosopher, and even a miracle working holy man. That's tops! Stand aside Ebert.
posted by jazzkat11 at 10:55 PM on April 24, 2003
They're listed above being a scientist, philosopher, and even a miracle working holy man. That's tops! Stand aside Ebert.
posted by jazzkat11 at 10:55 PM on April 24, 2003
Witty rules. Absolutely, totally, fucking rules. Let me be the first to tell ya brother, I completely agree. And you really made me laugh too. Really. Not a laugh of mockery, but a comfortable belly laugh. Really.
I completely feel as though I have gone insane.
In fact. . .
Whadya know?
I am!
AAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
posted by crasspastor at 11:10 PM on April 24, 2003
I completely feel as though I have gone insane.
In fact. . .
Whadya know?
I am!
AAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
posted by crasspastor at 11:10 PM on April 24, 2003
It is easy and valid to question the US' abuse of superpower prerogatives, but the case of North Korea had to come up sooner or later. Their leadership has built an economy out of blackmailing their neighbors with the threat of attack in hopes of getting money from the US to keep Kim Il Jong supplied with $650 bottles of cognac while their people starve.
The North Koreans have Japan very worried - a preemptive strike against the US most likely means lobbing a bomb against a Japanese target (perhaps a US base near Tokyo?) in order to get the US to retaliate before the US forces have a chance to fully mobilize for a conventional Iraq-style invasion.
Yes, very insane, very nasty, very stubborn. You don't want a drunk maniac to play with nukes, especially when he's taunting an ex-drunk maniac with them.
posted by zaelic at 1:35 AM on April 25, 2003
The North Koreans have Japan very worried - a preemptive strike against the US most likely means lobbing a bomb against a Japanese target (perhaps a US base near Tokyo?) in order to get the US to retaliate before the US forces have a chance to fully mobilize for a conventional Iraq-style invasion.
Yes, very insane, very nasty, very stubborn. You don't want a drunk maniac to play with nukes, especially when he's taunting an ex-drunk maniac with them.
posted by zaelic at 1:35 AM on April 25, 2003
Calm down.
Don't worry.
There's no oil in NK.
"Diplomacy" will "prevail" in this situation.
posted by nofundy at 5:38 AM on April 25, 2003
Don't worry.
There's no oil in NK.
"Diplomacy" will "prevail" in this situation.
posted by nofundy at 5:38 AM on April 25, 2003
I've always wondered how much of the "insane" business was a carefully-contructed act intended to fuck with US game-theory calculations in dealing with NK....
posted by COBRA! at 8:05 AM on April 25, 2003
posted by COBRA! at 8:05 AM on April 25, 2003
Y2Karl, do you even know anything about international politics?
First, Uganda is one of the more progressive countries in Africa, it boasts a high rate of economic growth, and the president came to power after leading a popular uprising agains a horrible despot in the late 1980s, early 1990s. It also boasts one of the best HIV prevention programs in sub-Saharan Africa, and is one of the few African countries who's industrial (not raw material) output is growing not decling. Don't quote the Onion for your international news.
There is probably no regime on earth (now that Hussein is gone) more terrible than North Korea. Here is a country that deliberately starves its own people, blackmails the rest of the region repeatedly to make up for its own incompitance, and fuels most of its foreign exchange through the drug trade. If anyone has access to Wednesday's Wall Street Journal, check out this fascinating article on the government sponsored hard-drug trade in North Korea "Pg. 1, Heroin Busts Point To Source Of Funds For North Koreans. By Jay Solomon and Jason Dean, Staff Reporters Of The Wall Street Journal."
When you all say "these poor countries have no choice but to aquire WMD" your creating a false argument. Of course they have a choice: stop proliferating, stop vastly abusing their own people, open up their societies to democratic reforms and the free flow of information, and stop harrassing their neighbors. That's the choice, US pressure or behave responsibly. Its not like the US is threatening Finland of Uruguay. The US is taking issue with horrific regimes that cause global and regional instability.
Argue about the merits of that policy, not some fanatasy world were the US is oppressing valient worker's paradises.
posted by pjgulliver at 8:35 AM on April 25, 2003
First, Uganda is one of the more progressive countries in Africa, it boasts a high rate of economic growth, and the president came to power after leading a popular uprising agains a horrible despot in the late 1980s, early 1990s. It also boasts one of the best HIV prevention programs in sub-Saharan Africa, and is one of the few African countries who's industrial (not raw material) output is growing not decling. Don't quote the Onion for your international news.
There is probably no regime on earth (now that Hussein is gone) more terrible than North Korea. Here is a country that deliberately starves its own people, blackmails the rest of the region repeatedly to make up for its own incompitance, and fuels most of its foreign exchange through the drug trade. If anyone has access to Wednesday's Wall Street Journal, check out this fascinating article on the government sponsored hard-drug trade in North Korea "Pg. 1, Heroin Busts Point To Source Of Funds For North Koreans. By Jay Solomon and Jason Dean, Staff Reporters Of The Wall Street Journal."
When you all say "these poor countries have no choice but to aquire WMD" your creating a false argument. Of course they have a choice: stop proliferating, stop vastly abusing their own people, open up their societies to democratic reforms and the free flow of information, and stop harrassing their neighbors. That's the choice, US pressure or behave responsibly. Its not like the US is threatening Finland of Uruguay. The US is taking issue with horrific regimes that cause global and regional instability.
Argue about the merits of that policy, not some fanatasy world were the US is oppressing valient worker's paradises.
posted by pjgulliver at 8:35 AM on April 25, 2003
First, Uganda is one of the more progressive countries in Africa, it boasts a high rate of economic growth, and the president came to power after leading a popular uprising against a horrible despot in the late 1980s, early 1990s. It also boasts one of the best HIV prevention programs in sub-Saharan Africa, and is one of the few African countries who's industrial (not raw material) output is growing not declining. Don't quote the Onion for your international news.
I should have known better than to trust the Onion--however since everyone was throwing around Human Rights watch on Iraq, here's their Uganda page. I don't disagree with what you say--especially on the HIV prevention--and the Onion writer has obviously conflated and over-simplified a complex situation on which I am no expert but... Uganda is not quite that squeaky clean.
By the way, here's a report of Human Rights Watch entitled Colombia Fails Rights Test - U.S. Releases Funds While Links Between Military and Paramilitaries Remain .
We have never had a problem dealing with the militaries of Latin American countries with right wing paramilitary death squads. The FARC are a bunch of thugs but there are plenty of thugs on the other side. I don't see the wisdom in turning a blind eye to them.
The US is taking issue with horrific regimes that cause global and regional instability.
(Like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? But that's another day's discussion...)
Hey, if we want to play who's the worst country by government in the world--North Korea is probably the most heinous country there is right now. The big boys are slurping up the cognac while their people starve--not that this is a trait reserved to communist countries alone--and they don't keep their agreements ever and, yes, I heard about the drug trade. Jesus, that's what's scary about the nuclear weapons thing--they could be smuggling plutonium out in those diplomatic pouches, by the way.
But apart from extremely paranoid, insane is not the best word to use to describe them. They are bad actors who are grasping at straws. And they have nuclear weapons. I think they honestly believe we are out to get them and have been to get them from day one. I have no answers--I just think the military option is a nonstarter. Nor do I think regime change by any other means is the short term answer. I honestly don't know what we can do apart from talk to them and talk to them seriously.
I know what the consensus among the specialists was only recently--I posted on it. Here, from Foreign Affairs, is the main link again: How To Deal With North Korea.
Argue about the merits of that policy, not some fanatasy world were the US is oppressing valient worker's paradises.
I really would prefer you didn't put words in my mouth, but if you must paint me with the broad brush of right wing talk radio cliches, please proofread or use spell check.
You know, the People's Republic of China isn't the nicest country in the world--but compare them to the People's Republic of China of the 50s, the 60s or even Tiananmen. We stopped demonizing them and started talking to them just as the Soviets were seriously contemplating doing to them what we are talking about doing to North Korea. We aren't talking about changing China's regime. Yet. (The way they've fumbled SARS may be their undoing but.. pandora's box: I bet the administration wouldn't want chaos in China right now.)
I'm not crazy about people who dream Tom Clancy reveries about all the wonderful precision weapons systems and surgical strikes promoting foreign policy concepts where they are most likely to be used. I would like to be the last option, at the bottom of the list rather than right on top.
I don't like us being bully to the world either--I don't see how that makes us safer. I guess I'm not crazy about the US conducting its foreign policy primarily by using weapons on bad nations we don't like while selling them to bad nations we call friends. I do wish we would sign on to the International Criminal Court. We aren't in very good company on that one.
I don't have a clue as to what we can do about North Korea in the long term. I don't think we have much choice in the short term. I don't think that making war is the answer--there are too many unforeseen consequences, too many possible horrible outcomes.
Oh, we will prevail--but South Korea and Japan will quite likely pay a horrible price if we and North Korea fight a war where both sides quite likely use nuclear weapons. We will prevail but I shudder to think what such a war will do to Korea, Japan, China or the world economy. I don't want to live in the world that comes out of a war where nuclear weapons are used--I don't think I'm in a small select group on that.
posted by y2karl at 12:56 PM on April 25, 2003
I should have known better than to trust the Onion--however since everyone was throwing around Human Rights watch on Iraq, here's their Uganda page. I don't disagree with what you say--especially on the HIV prevention--and the Onion writer has obviously conflated and over-simplified a complex situation on which I am no expert but... Uganda is not quite that squeaky clean.
By the way, here's a report of Human Rights Watch entitled Colombia Fails Rights Test - U.S. Releases Funds While Links Between Military and Paramilitaries Remain .
We have never had a problem dealing with the militaries of Latin American countries with right wing paramilitary death squads. The FARC are a bunch of thugs but there are plenty of thugs on the other side. I don't see the wisdom in turning a blind eye to them.
The US is taking issue with horrific regimes that cause global and regional instability.
(Like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? But that's another day's discussion...)
Hey, if we want to play who's the worst country by government in the world--North Korea is probably the most heinous country there is right now. The big boys are slurping up the cognac while their people starve--not that this is a trait reserved to communist countries alone--and they don't keep their agreements ever and, yes, I heard about the drug trade. Jesus, that's what's scary about the nuclear weapons thing--they could be smuggling plutonium out in those diplomatic pouches, by the way.
But apart from extremely paranoid, insane is not the best word to use to describe them. They are bad actors who are grasping at straws. And they have nuclear weapons. I think they honestly believe we are out to get them and have been to get them from day one. I have no answers--I just think the military option is a nonstarter. Nor do I think regime change by any other means is the short term answer. I honestly don't know what we can do apart from talk to them and talk to them seriously.
I know what the consensus among the specialists was only recently--I posted on it. Here, from Foreign Affairs, is the main link again: How To Deal With North Korea.
Argue about the merits of that policy, not some fanatasy world were the US is oppressing valient worker's paradises.
I really would prefer you didn't put words in my mouth, but if you must paint me with the broad brush of right wing talk radio cliches, please proofread or use spell check.
You know, the People's Republic of China isn't the nicest country in the world--but compare them to the People's Republic of China of the 50s, the 60s or even Tiananmen. We stopped demonizing them and started talking to them just as the Soviets were seriously contemplating doing to them what we are talking about doing to North Korea. We aren't talking about changing China's regime. Yet. (The way they've fumbled SARS may be their undoing but.. pandora's box: I bet the administration wouldn't want chaos in China right now.)
I'm not crazy about people who dream Tom Clancy reveries about all the wonderful precision weapons systems and surgical strikes promoting foreign policy concepts where they are most likely to be used. I would like to be the last option, at the bottom of the list rather than right on top.
I don't like us being bully to the world either--I don't see how that makes us safer. I guess I'm not crazy about the US conducting its foreign policy primarily by using weapons on bad nations we don't like while selling them to bad nations we call friends. I do wish we would sign on to the International Criminal Court. We aren't in very good company on that one.
I don't have a clue as to what we can do about North Korea in the long term. I don't think we have much choice in the short term. I don't think that making war is the answer--there are too many unforeseen consequences, too many possible horrible outcomes.
Oh, we will prevail--but South Korea and Japan will quite likely pay a horrible price if we and North Korea fight a war where both sides quite likely use nuclear weapons. We will prevail but I shudder to think what such a war will do to Korea, Japan, China or the world economy. I don't want to live in the world that comes out of a war where nuclear weapons are used--I don't think I'm in a small select group on that.
posted by y2karl at 12:56 PM on April 25, 2003
I quite agree, y2karl, but North Korea is one of the few governments that likes to make military provocations against all and sundry just to make sure that the world knows that they are the ones who decide when the button will be pushed. It's a mad power game on the part of their leadership. Remember Jamestown, Guyana? It sickeningly springs to mind.
The North Koreans have been stepping up the pressure on the US ever since they perceived that US military might was spreading thin. They have not been actively pressuring South Korea as hard as usual because this is a beef that the North wants to pick with the US directly. The consequences are terrifying.
posted by zaelic at 1:15 PM on April 25, 2003
The North Koreans have been stepping up the pressure on the US ever since they perceived that US military might was spreading thin. They have not been actively pressuring South Korea as hard as usual because this is a beef that the North wants to pick with the US directly. The consequences are terrifying.
posted by zaelic at 1:15 PM on April 25, 2003
Y2karl....I was only criticizing you about the Uguanda thing...and that was more from personal interest (I've travelled in Central Africa an without a doubt Uguanda was the most free, progressive, and prosperous nation in that incredibly troubled region.) The rest of the post was a more general reply to a bunch of comments that had been made, so I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. Apologies.
BTW, I don't think a military solution for NK is remotely possible. And that country scares the crap out of me. I have no idea what the best way to proceed with this situation is, though I hope for all concerned that we find some way to get NK to liberalize (probably extremely gradually) and give up their nukes. Its really up to China I think, and what sort of pressure they put on their client.
posted by pjgulliver at 1:20 PM on April 25, 2003
BTW, I don't think a military solution for NK is remotely possible. And that country scares the crap out of me. I have no idea what the best way to proceed with this situation is, though I hope for all concerned that we find some way to get NK to liberalize (probably extremely gradually) and give up their nukes. Its really up to China I think, and what sort of pressure they put on their client.
posted by pjgulliver at 1:20 PM on April 25, 2003
Considering that Pakistan had it's first nuclear tests in 1998, and Korea has been considering going nuclear since at least 1994, unless they both nations were able to predict the content of the 2002 State of the Union Address, not to mention that Bush would be present years from it actually happening, I fail to see how the so-called Bush doctrine has promoted nuclear weapons programs among the countries you mention.
Who was President of the United States from 1993 till 2001 when both Pakistan and North Korea were developing Nuclear weapons? Oh wait... Nevermind... It was all that scary talk from that dumb hick...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:48 PM on April 25, 2003
Who was President of the United States from 1993 till 2001 when both Pakistan and North Korea were developing Nuclear weapons? Oh wait... Nevermind... It was all that scary talk from that dumb hick...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:48 PM on April 25, 2003
North Korea doesn't need to worry about being the next Iraq, Cuba is next!
posted by homunculus at 11:13 PM on April 25, 2003
posted by homunculus at 11:13 PM on April 25, 2003
Who was President of the United States from 1993 till 2001 when both Pakistan and North Korea were developing Nuclear weapons?
Selected excerpts from Nuclear History In India, Pakistan, New York Times, May 28, 1998:
--1983: China reportedly supplies Pakistan with bomb design. U.S. intelligence believes Pakistani centrifuge program intended to produce material for nuclear weapons.
--1986: Pakistan, China sign pact on peaceful use of nuclear energy, including design, construction, operation of reactors.
--1987: Pakistan acquires tritium purification and production facility from West Germany.
--1989: A 27-kilowatt research reactor is built with Chinese help and comes under international monitoring.
--1990: Fearing new war with India, Pakistan makes cores for several nuclear weapons. Bush administration, under Pressler amendment, imposes economic, military sanctions against Pakistan.
--1991: Pakistan puts ceiling on size of its weapons-grade uranium stockpile. It enters into agreement with India, prohibiting the two states from attacking each other's nuclear installations.
--1998: Reacting to fresh nuclear testing by India, Pakistan conducts its own atomic explosions.
Selected excerpts from Washington Post History of India-Pakistan Conflict:
1983: China reportedly provides Pakistan with a bomb design.
1987: Leading Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan says Pakistan has nuclear bomb.
Who were the Presidents of the United States of American from 1983 until 1990, when Pakistan had already developed nuclear weapons to the extent of what North Korea had done to present?
Selected excerpts from The Wisconsin Project's North Korea: Nuclear/Missile Chronology:
1975: North Korea produces first plutonium -- a few grams.
1976: In return for military aid during the 1973 Middle East war, Egypt sends Soviet Scud-B missiles to North Korea.
1977: North Korea agrees to international inspection of Soviet-supplied equipment.
1977: Kang Song-San, a high party official, visits China's Lop Nur nuclear test site.
1979: Starts to build 30-megawatt thermal reactor that can produce enough plutonium for one bomb a year.
1983: A terrorist bomb linked to North Korea kills four South Korean cabinet members in Rangoon.
1984: North Korea successfully tests its first reverse-engineered Scud-B missile.
1989: Secretly unloads, according to CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), enough plutonium-bearing fuel to make one or two nuclear bombs.
1989: Begins to process plutonium into nuclear-ready form.
1989: Starts to build 800-Mwt. reactor that can produce plutonium for 30 to 40 bombs a year.
1989: Proposes talks with South Korea on denuclearizing the peninsula.
1989: Two Japanese companies reportedly ship spectrum analyzers to North Korea, which can be used to improve missile accuracy.
1990: Threatens to drop out of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty unless U.S. removes all nuclear weapons from the peninsula.
1990: 70 to 80 high-explosive tests in North Korea of bomb components are reported by South Korean press.
1990: Tests large plutonium processing plant, showing it is operational.
1990: Starts up new plant to process uranium for reactor fuel.
1990: Continues to produce plutonium and process it into weapon-ready form.
1991: Continues to produce plutonium and process it into weapon-ready form.
I suppose we can blame Jimmy Carter for everything prior to 1980 but 1990: Continues to produce plutonium and process it into weapon-ready form. didn't happen during the Carter administration.
--1998: Reacting to fresh nuclear testing by India, Pakistan conducts its own atomic explosions
This incident--excerpted from India's Nuclear Weapons Program - The Momentum Builds: 1989-1998--happened in 1990:
Then in late spring U.S. intelligence intercepted messages indicating that the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), the custodian of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, had assembled at least one nuclear weapon [Perkovich 1999, p. 308]. There was additional evidence of suspicious activity detected, such as convoys traveling from nuclear storage sites, and F-16 aircraft on runway alert suggesting they were already armed [Burrows and Windrem 1994; pp. 83-85]. This prompted the George Bush administration to send a high-level team, headed by Deputy National Security Adviser Robert Gates, to meet with leaders of both governments.
Who was President in 1990, when a nuclear confrontation with India that required the then President send the then head of the CIA to defuse the situation?
Obviously, it being 1990, the fault was all Clinton's.
Nuclear weapons? Oh wait... Nevermind... It was all that scary talk from that dumb hick...
Why do you even write these pathetic little things, Steve? To demonstrate how clueless you are? If so: mission accomplished.
Man, you have such a boner for Clinton. I suppose the space shuttle crash and SARS are his fault, too...
posted by y2karl at 6:59 PM on April 26, 2003
Selected excerpts from Nuclear History In India, Pakistan, New York Times, May 28, 1998:
--1983: China reportedly supplies Pakistan with bomb design. U.S. intelligence believes Pakistani centrifuge program intended to produce material for nuclear weapons.
--1986: Pakistan, China sign pact on peaceful use of nuclear energy, including design, construction, operation of reactors.
--1987: Pakistan acquires tritium purification and production facility from West Germany.
--1989: A 27-kilowatt research reactor is built with Chinese help and comes under international monitoring.
--1990: Fearing new war with India, Pakistan makes cores for several nuclear weapons. Bush administration, under Pressler amendment, imposes economic, military sanctions against Pakistan.
--1991: Pakistan puts ceiling on size of its weapons-grade uranium stockpile. It enters into agreement with India, prohibiting the two states from attacking each other's nuclear installations.
--1998: Reacting to fresh nuclear testing by India, Pakistan conducts its own atomic explosions.
Selected excerpts from Washington Post History of India-Pakistan Conflict:
1983: China reportedly provides Pakistan with a bomb design.
1987: Leading Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan says Pakistan has nuclear bomb.
Who were the Presidents of the United States of American from 1983 until 1990, when Pakistan had already developed nuclear weapons to the extent of what North Korea had done to present?
Selected excerpts from The Wisconsin Project's North Korea: Nuclear/Missile Chronology:
1975: North Korea produces first plutonium -- a few grams.
1976: In return for military aid during the 1973 Middle East war, Egypt sends Soviet Scud-B missiles to North Korea.
1977: North Korea agrees to international inspection of Soviet-supplied equipment.
1977: Kang Song-San, a high party official, visits China's Lop Nur nuclear test site.
1979: Starts to build 30-megawatt thermal reactor that can produce enough plutonium for one bomb a year.
1983: A terrorist bomb linked to North Korea kills four South Korean cabinet members in Rangoon.
1984: North Korea successfully tests its first reverse-engineered Scud-B missile.
1989: Secretly unloads, according to CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), enough plutonium-bearing fuel to make one or two nuclear bombs.
1989: Begins to process plutonium into nuclear-ready form.
1989: Starts to build 800-Mwt. reactor that can produce plutonium for 30 to 40 bombs a year.
1989: Proposes talks with South Korea on denuclearizing the peninsula.
1989: Two Japanese companies reportedly ship spectrum analyzers to North Korea, which can be used to improve missile accuracy.
1990: Threatens to drop out of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty unless U.S. removes all nuclear weapons from the peninsula.
1990: 70 to 80 high-explosive tests in North Korea of bomb components are reported by South Korean press.
1990: Tests large plutonium processing plant, showing it is operational.
1990: Starts up new plant to process uranium for reactor fuel.
1990: Continues to produce plutonium and process it into weapon-ready form.
1991: Continues to produce plutonium and process it into weapon-ready form.
I suppose we can blame Jimmy Carter for everything prior to 1980 but 1990: Continues to produce plutonium and process it into weapon-ready form. didn't happen during the Carter administration.
--1998: Reacting to fresh nuclear testing by India, Pakistan conducts its own atomic explosions
This incident--excerpted from India's Nuclear Weapons Program - The Momentum Builds: 1989-1998--happened in 1990:
Then in late spring U.S. intelligence intercepted messages indicating that the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), the custodian of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, had assembled at least one nuclear weapon [Perkovich 1999, p. 308]. There was additional evidence of suspicious activity detected, such as convoys traveling from nuclear storage sites, and F-16 aircraft on runway alert suggesting they were already armed [Burrows and Windrem 1994; pp. 83-85]. This prompted the George Bush administration to send a high-level team, headed by Deputy National Security Adviser Robert Gates, to meet with leaders of both governments.
Who was President in 1990, when a nuclear confrontation with India that required the then President send the then head of the CIA to defuse the situation?
Obviously, it being 1990, the fault was all Clinton's.
Nuclear weapons? Oh wait... Nevermind... It was all that scary talk from that dumb hick...
Why do you even write these pathetic little things, Steve? To demonstrate how clueless you are? If so: mission accomplished.
Man, you have such a boner for Clinton. I suppose the space shuttle crash and SARS are his fault, too...
posted by y2karl at 6:59 PM on April 26, 2003
« Older Digital Afghanistan | Erotic. Not erotic. Erotic. Not erotic. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by The Jesse Helms at 3:25 PM on April 24, 2003