North Korea Admits it Lied...

By way of digression, JFK was a fool and a warmonger who plunged the whole world to the brink of disaster, by risking nuclear disaster over cuba.
Bush is merely following in the well worn path of previous US presidents, albeit in a more dangerous international situation and in possession of a lower IQ.

 

I'll certainly repeat my argument. The US is a pathetic bully, well equipped in this technocratic age to massacring third world citizens, a la the Basra road without recourse to risking their own troops. However, where an appalling regime, such as NK, has the wherewithal to inflict any serious damage on the US what we'll witness is endless diplomacy, the exact form of "appeasement" despised by warmongers, until they face the limits of their own Kissingerian realpolitik, and have to accept the consequences of their glib irresponsibility.

That's an argument? Reads more like an attack.

Speaking of insults...

By way of digression, JFK was a fool and a warmonger who plunged the whole world to the brink of disaster, by risking nuclear disaster over cuba.
Bush is merely following in the well worn path of previous US presidents, albeit in a more dangerous international situation and in possession of a lower IQ.

Ah, yes, the old chesnut about Bush being an idiot... though I am surprised about the animosity toward JFK.

And I'm equally surprised that, apparently, Kruschev and Castro aren't the least bit responsible for the Cuban Missle Crisis.

 

Oh don't even suggest they [Khruschev/Castro] are! Let's look at this; the US supports Fulgencio Batista, then tepidly supports the Fidelistas (who were not communist until 1960) when Batista is an embarrasment. They then try to cut the throats of the Revolution, launch an attack aimed at undermining their sovereignty (Bay of Pigs) and their security. They threated to depose Castro; burn the sugar fields, Cuba's only source of income; and destroyed two ships containing arms in the harbour in Havana BEFORE Castro asked the Soviets for missiles.

So, yeah, maybe Castro had a reason for asking the Politburo for nukes. And they had a reason for supplying them; mainly to threaten America in a relatively similar proximity to the American threat from Turkey.

Just because the US was threatened doesn't mean what happened wasn't in reaction to something the US did. That's such a massive problem with the US - this complete and utter rejection of responsibilty. There are some things the US is blame free on - for example, the US officials murdered in Greece and Italy in the 1970's was just silly Marxist terrorists with a gripe against NATO, and that is in no way the US' fault - or, to a degree, their involvement and attack in Beirut (though Iran is supposed to have been involved there).
But, there are some things the US did wrong - overthrowing a democratic government in Guatemala for a ******* fruit company, pushing Castro to the communists in this ranks (El Che and his brother, Raul), causing a backlash in Iran which legitimised Khomeni. Part of accepting this is avoiding similar mistakes. It just bugs so many people that the US sees itself as completely nice, innocent and blame free!

E_S

 

Ah, yes, the old chesnut about Bush being an idiot...

He certainly is not an idiot; more correctly, he certain is not intelligent. As I understand it from pundits, his appeal is his [relatively] "normal" character. Compared to his father, though, his understanding of the international system is woeful.

There are two Presidents whom, for their foreign policy, I admire. George Herbert Walker Bush and John Fitzgerald Kennedy. If you want to mock either on foreign policy (Don't give a toss about domestics), then you're going to have to back it up. So, SCOTSITHLORD, you said JFK was a warmonger and a fool who plunged the world to the brink of extinction. I say to you; PPOR.

E_S

 

But, there are some things the US did wrong - overthrowing a democratic government in Guatemala for a ******* fruit company, pushing Castro to the communists in this ranks (El Che and his brother, Raul), causing a backlash in Iran which legitimised Khomeni. Part of accepting this is avoiding similar mistakes. It just bugs so many people that the US sees itself as completely nice, innocent and blame free!

Just to add to the point about Guatemala. Since the democratic government was overthrown the CIA have supported endless military dictators who have been responsible the deaths of around 200,000 innocent civilians.

 

Bill Clinton at least admitted it was wrong. Gotta get something right, eh Bill?!

It all boils down to a few simple factors. Dwight D Eisenhower trusted the Dulles Brothers. The Dulles Brothers were friends with Sam "The Banana Man" Zemurray. Zemurray was a total (most nefarious of words beginning with the letter after "b" but before "d"). People's freedom thus took a second place to a god damn fruit company. That is a black mark. I can understand most Cold War acts in the context of the Cold War - even Nicaragua. (Except the mining). But Guatemala was WRONG.

Has anyone read the excellent Bitter Fruit by Schlessinger and Kinzer?

E_S

 

Unfortunately it is impossible to validate a value judgement, so I'm unable to post proof that JFK was a fool, but a warmonger... Well it was during his administration that the US were drawn into Vietnam, I appreciate there were US troops in Vietnam from the 50's onward, nevertheless under JFK the build up of troops intensified. I can't recall the name, but it was also under JFK that the stooge leader of south vietnam was assassinated, not of course for his brutality or corruption, but because of his tentative moves toward a peace deal with Ho chi minh. There is ample evidence that the CIA and US embassy knew that their former friend was for the chop and their silence makes them complicit in the murder. I also believe that JFK had met this figure, Dienh or something similar I think was the name, and was regarded as a friend and ally. Yet he willingly sacrificed him in pursuance of US foreign policy. LBJ was in many ways an unfortunate figure. He takes the blame for Vietnam, but where is the evidence that JFK would have behaved any differently or pursued a separate foreign policy. It's always been a mystery to me exactly why JFK is so revered. His popularity appears not only to span the decades but the political divide, with even die hard republicans unwilling to have a pop at him. Yet he was a speed freak, a reckless womaniser, and was elected in somewhat shady circumstances. It's now a given that his nazi appeasing father, whose fortune rested on bootlegging called in favours from the mafia to help Kennedy secure a narrow victory over that snakeoil salesman extraordinaire, Nixon.
Kennedy's legacy is an area I'll just have to disagree with most liberals over. Although I'll say one thing for him, if there hadn't been a JFK, there couldn't be a Diamond Joe Quimby as mayor of springfield so at the very least he's served as a template for one of my favourite Simpsons characters.

 

I thought Vietnam intensified after Kennedy's death, when Johnson took power.

 

So did I, Che... ?

E_S

 

My knowledge of the Vietnam War is pretty hazey but I think that it was mostly 'Military Advisors' sent while JFK was in office. The build up started under his presidency but it intensified far more rapidly under Johnson's leadership.

I don't vouch for the accuracy of the above so if anyone can correct me then feel free.

 

I just thought I'd mention that North Korea has been and is working on an ICBM capable fo reaching the continental US.

While I realize that people will just point out the US already has ICBM's, I'd also point out that any Korean ICBM that could hit San Fansisco could also hit Sydney.

Does Australia have ICBM's to deter them or is it relying on the US? What about Japan whose cities are packed and well within the range of any nuke from Pyongyang.

If you're going to be dependent on another country for defense perhaps it's not the best to critisize the nature of that defense.

 

I just thought I'd mention that North Korea has been and is working on an ICBM capable fo reaching the continental US.

Not that I don't nessacarily believe that they are...BUT link or source? PPOR.

 

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20021101-11616336.htm

"North Korea is continuing to develop long-range missiles that threaten the United States and a basic defense system against them is about two years from deployment, the Pentagon's missile-defense chief said yesterday."

How is that for starters?

 

Thank you.

Regardless, I don't see it as any real greater threat. They know if they launch anything in our direction, that part of Asia will be erased. Mutally assured destruction IS a deterent. Sad world will live in.

 

ferelwookie:

I advise you pick up the book "Reagan's War" by Peter Schweizer. One thing Schweizer pointed out in that book was that Reagan understood the FEAR that the missiles caused, and that the Soviets USED that fear to their advantage.

A missile defense program (derided as "Star Wars") neutralizes that. That is one of the reasons Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders wanted to get rid of it.

 

It isn't mutually assured destruction though.

I don't care how much money Pyongyang pours into ICBMs they could never reach MAD with the USA.

Depending on their own stability they may very well think that the US is bound to fire at them so they might as well get off thier shot first.

 

I haven't seen or read anything that says that Regan's SDI plan was actually feisable or would protect anyone. "Let's put up a big shield around ourselves" sounds pretty far-fetched, more importantly, it's more costly and less logical than saying "Let's get rid of nuclear weapons and prevent their poliferiation around the globe."

Of course, I can understand how some would say that BOTH statements are idealistic, but not very REALISTIC.

 

ferelwookie:

I think that the book might be worth the time.

Apparently, the Soviets figured we WERE capable of it. Schweizer's books may be the tip of the iceberg, and for "Reagan's War" he got access to the archives of former communist governments.

It was a very spell-binding read.

 

It isn't mutually assured destruction though.

I don't care how much money Pyongyang pours into ICBMs they could never reach MAD with the USA.

Depending on their own stability they may very well think that the US is bound to fire at them so they might as well get off thier shot first.

For NK to actually use nukes would be Self Assured Destruction.

 

For NK to actually use nukes would be Self Assured Destruction.

Of course. And that's why we really don't need a "defense sheild" to guard us from countries like China, Russia, Cuba, or North Korea. The REAL threat would be from a small very well organized terrorist group obtaining a nuclear warhead and a ICBM. Because a terrorist group doesn't really represent a "nation" per-se, they make thing they can strike without fear of reprisal, because surely the U.S. can't nuke all of Indonesia, just to get back at a few individual terrorists. <----(Their whacked-out thinking, of course.)

 

ferelwookie:

Yeah, it'd be cold comfort for those caught in a nuclear attack to know that their deaths were avenged in less time than it would take to order pizza from Domino's.

OTOH, if you can blast the incoming missile out of the sky before it reaches the target zone...

 

Theoretically. Mind you, there were many scientists/researchers that said SDI was immpractical and basically "unrealistic".

Of course, there's only one way to really "test" it, but I wouldn't advise that.

 

ferel as a liberal I'm sure you're against guns. The common arguement for guns is the same as you're using for nukes. That if everyone ahd them no one would dare use them ebcause they'd get killed immediately.

Unfortunately this relies on the mental status of the least stable person with a gun. and I'm not sure the fact he's dead comforts anyone caught in the crossfire.

 

If North Korea has lied about it's nuclear program, and George W. Bush has included them in the axis of evil, then why aren't the USA going as hardball against them like they are against Iraq?

 

ferel as a liberal I'm sure you're against guns. The common arguement for guns is the same as you're using for nukes. That if everyone ahd them no one would dare use them ebcause they'd get killed immediately.

Unfortunately this relies on the mental status of the least stable person with a gun. and I'm not sure the fact he's dead comforts anyone caught in the crossfire.

Any reason why you're so quick to judge and label others? I don't consider myself a "liberal" personally. And no, I believe in the second amendment, the right to bear arms. (I don't think hunters need high-powered assault weapons to shoot DEER, but that's another issue.)

I'm also for the death penalty. I suppose that doesn't fit with your narrow definition of what "liberal" is. Check some of my posts in the death penalty and rapist, murders, etc. threads. I know, because I'm against fighting a specific war that I do not believe in makes me a hippie-tree hugger, and "UnAmerican". Personally, I don't believe in following "party lines" and I try not to label and group people, but that's probably because I'm a rabid peacenik.