North Korea Admits it Lied...

I apologize for characterizing you as liberal, but your rant comes from your own mind, not anything I said.

You can imply I called you a treehugging anti-american peacenik all you want6, however since I didn't, thats your own prejudice at work, not mine.

In any case, I'll cut my arguement down to it's basis. If everyone is armed equally the peace is only kept by whichever person is least stable.
Frankly, that isn't a very comforting thought.

 

Difference is...gun someone down, even kill them, with our legal system, you have a pretty good chance on not getting the death penalty or life in many states. Launch a first-strike of NUKES towards another nuclear power, rest assured that all of your citizens will be vaporized in return.

 

And what makes you think some dictators give a rats ass what happens to their citizens?

I won't claim every President or Prime Minister does, but atleast they have to pretend to.

 

I won't claim every President or Prime Minister does, but atleast they have to pretend to.

I'm glad you said that, because that's right where I would've gone if you didn't.

Honestly, I don't disagree with you (gasp!) at all about "dictators" not caring about their citizens. I do however, believe that SOME of these tyrants certainly do not want to see their own wealth and their "way of life" destroyed.

 

The Gatherer:

One rogue state at a time might be the approach Bush is taking. At this point, Saddam has to come first, based on the closeness he has to certain American interests, and his track record.

 

And I say soem of those dictators are megalomaniac sadists who would rather be Emperor of the ashpile then a leader of a third world country.

And since there are few to no international reprocussiosn for creating a nuclear arsenal, why shouldn't they try for one?

 

How the hell is SDI gonna save the USA from terrorist attacks? ? Rogue states won't launch, because they'll be dustbowls thereafter; and there's still MAD as an effective deterrent against the major nations. 9/11 proved how cunning terrorists are: take a fuelled up plane and turn in into a giant missile. If they want to get a nuclear device into the USA, they're going to attempt it with or without an SDI program.

Cold War's over, no need to pursue Cold War political agendas.

E_S

 

Surely this is of no suprise, really? I had another thread out once, about the disasters on foreign policy that the democrats advocated under the Clinton Administration? Why would Korea be any different? DO you think the North Korean's were ever impressed or intimidated by Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright?

 

MAD does not apply unless both sides have overwhelming nuclear force. The calculus of international relations, and blackmail, and threatening, and detterence changes in a situation where a small state (Iraq, NK) is in conflict with a large nuclear State (Russia, US, China?). The large state has the capability to destroy the smaller one, but can only be hurt very badly by the small state. Additionally, they may be cornered into the morally difficult position of the legitimacy of slaughtering citizens of a dictatorship who may or may not have been complicet in the attacks. Etc.

Removing the ability of rogue states to project power and coerce other nations through nuclear threats is a good thing.

 

All I can say is
Communist Dictator to Chic Magnet

E_S

 

Does anyone else miss the "SecState Albright Days"?


No? Didn't think so.

 

Well the way she pronounced Iraq made me laugh but apart from that I doubt that many people miss her much.

 

Neither do many people outside the US

 

And in case anyone has forgotten I will just remind you of this quote from 1996 by Albright.

When asked the following question about sanctions against Iraq

"We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean thats more children than died in Hiroshima, And, you know, is the price worth it?"

She repied

"I think that this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it"

 

You've just pointed at the reason why we prefer Powell to Albright here

 

You've just pointed at the reason why we prefer Powell to Albright here

Now lets not get carried away with all this Powell is great guy crap. Heres a quote from Powell responding to a question about civilian casualties in the Gulf War.

"It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in"

 

Powell is no great guy, but he's not a guy in an administration we expect to be great

 

Powell is no great guy, but he's not a guy in an administration we expect to be great

Speak for yourself. Over the years, I have come to expect very little from the leadership of this country.

 

I think Colin Powell is an excellent Secretary of State, and almost based my vote in the Presidential election on the fact that he and Rice would be leaders of influence.

That Powell quote is provided without context, in his defense.


I do not think the current State Department, nor the current administration, would be as badly duped as badly as North Korea managed to succeed in doing.

 

It does take at least a little overcuriosity to spot things that are intended to stay unseen. Intelligence is not a luxury and its exploitation isn't either.

 

I like Powell. Except, he started off as being anti-war with Iraq, (like Norman Schwarzkopf)and suddenly changed his mind. Seems like he's a moderate in a sea of conservatives and is being forced to tow a line. Emphasis: seems.

E_S

 

That's the prevelant opinion, but I think it is wrong...or at least, wishful thinking. I do not think there have been many serious ideological differences within the administration, and find his positions have remained consistent.

If others abroad want to view him as the peacenik among the warmongers, that's fine with me. Makes it easier to play 'good cop, bad cop'.

 

So why the 180 on Iraq, 7?

E_S

 

Can you link some articles where he clearly expresses different opinions?

 

Can you give me time to unearth them? And do you want them PM'd or what?

E_S