PDA

View Full Version : Bush Administration to Lift North Korea Sanctions



Perilloux
06-26-2008, 08:58 AM
Bush Offers Carrots in Exchange for North Korea Nukes Declaration (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371944,00.html)
Thursday, June 26, 2008

WASHINGTON ó Pledging "action for action," President Bush on Thursday said North Korea has demonstrated a commitment to dismantling its nuclear weapons program and will be rewarded by being removed from the U.S. list of state sponsors and having trade sanctions lifted.

The president spoke hours after North Korea submitted its long-awaited declaration detailing its nuclear weapons activities. The government said that it would televise the demolition of the cooling tower at its Yongbyon nuclear facility and turned over documents to China about its plutonium core and waste activities.

"Today is a positive day and it's a positive step forward," Bush said from the White House Rose Garden. "My point is this: we'll see. They said they are going to destroy parts of their plant in Pyongyang. That's a very positive step."

But Bush added, "We will trust you only to the extent that you fulfill your promises. I'm pleased with the progress there are no illusions this is the first step."

gator
06-26-2008, 09:32 AM
My son is supposed to come home from Korea in a month.

He said in the next couple weeks he was going to participate in a field exercise to practice defending the approaches to Seoul from a North Korean invasion.

Maybe that exercise is not needed now and he can take it easy the last month he is there.

Goldwater
06-26-2008, 10:56 AM
Maybe we can finally add another one to the list, Libya was getting lonely.

Molon Labe
06-26-2008, 11:03 AM
Good...Sanctions don't do a thing but hurt the people. The leaders stay fat and happy no matter what.
There are much better methods of diplomacy.

dixierat
06-26-2008, 11:11 AM
Good...Sanctions don't do a thing but hurt the people. The leaders stay fat and happy no matter what.
There are much better methods of diplomacy.


I dunno. What would you suggest?

:cool:

Molon Labe
06-26-2008, 12:39 PM
I dunno. What would you suggest?

:cool:


Churchill once said that you should look at results over the beauty of the strategy. Symbolism over substance is for retards. Let the liberals beat their heads against the wall over and over without results.. I would suggest doing something that is "effective" if your going to do anything at all.

How about making the regional nations take responsibility for their own security...for starters.

YupItsMe
06-26-2008, 03:40 PM
I dunno. What would you suggest?

:cool:


Covert political assasinations are fairly successful. ;)

LogansPapa
06-26-2008, 03:48 PM
Covert political assasinations are fairly successful. ;)

You wouldn't want to ask Castro about that.;)

biccat
06-26-2008, 03:50 PM
How about making the regional nations take responsibility for their own security...for starters.
Withdrawing support from South Korea would pressure North Korea to cooperate with U.S. demands?

How does that work again?

asdf2231
06-26-2008, 04:31 PM
Withdrawing support from South Korea would pressure North Korea to cooperate with U.S. demands?

How does that work again?

Welcome to the land of Libertaria. :D

Molon Labe
06-26-2008, 04:36 PM
Withdrawing support from South Korea would pressure North Korea to cooperate with U.S. demands?

How does that work again?

Make no mistake...N.K. isn't going to give up their nukes until they say they are.
We've been "pressuring" them for 5 decades....and how's that working out for getting them to stop their testing in 94 and develop their weapons, or launch their first ICBM several years ago?
And now we go to a Carrot approach and you suggest what we have been doing has worked. That' sdelusional! Sounds like our position is weakened not strengthened.
Did you forget who borders them to their north? Did you forget who is going to be the economic giant this coming century? They are quite safe from us.

You need to get a clue as to how the S.Korean people really feel about U.S troops and just how capable they are at controlling their destiny.

biccat
06-26-2008, 04:48 PM
Make no mistake...N.K. isn't going to give up their nukes until they say they are.
We've been "pressuring" them for 5 decades....and how's that working out for getting them to stop their testing in 94 and develop their weapons, or launch their first ICBM several years ago?
You mean in '94, when Bill Clinton trusted North Korea solely on the word of their leader that they wouldn't develop nuclear weapons, and so lifted all sanctions? You're right, that is stupid diplomacy at work, hallmark of the Democrats.


And now we go to a Carrot approach and you suggest what we have been doing has worked. That' sdelusional! Sounds like our position is weakened not strengthened.
Yes, our position is weakened because of the failed policies of Bill Clinton. No argument there. However, President Bush's approach has not been offering them benefits as Clinton did. Instead, he sanctioned N. Korea when they broke their promise. Now that they have agreed to comply again, he is removing foreign blocks.

Look at this logically: Clinton gave N. Korea something for an empty promise, they broke their promise.
Bush sanctioned N. Korea, they changed their position, now Bush is removing sanctions.

The clear and obvious result? Sanctions worked!


Did you forget who borders them to their north? Did you forget who is going to be the economic giant this coming century? They are quite safe from us.
In the last 4 years the growth of the US economy has exceeded the entire economy of China. Who is going to be the economic giant of the 21st century? The United States. And despite China being such a staunch ally of N. Korea and an economic giant, US sanctions against the country worked. If China is such a friend to N. Korea, why didn't they pour relief into N. Korea and circumvent our sanctions? Because they can't afford to.


You need to get a clue as to how the S.Korean people really feel about U.S troops and just how capable they are at controlling their destiny.
I'm not aware of any animosity towards US troops from South Koreans. In fact, they tend to like Americans over there. Just more myth from the MSM that the rest of the world hates us. Pretty much only a few Western European countries and a couple in the Middle East dislike the United States. We are very well received in the rest of the world.

So again, how does pulling aid from South Korea cripple North Korea's nuclear program? I'm waiting for a straight answer.

Molon Labe
06-26-2008, 04:52 PM
You mean in '94, when Bill Clinton


Biccat...I appreciate your responses and they are well taken....
I hated him too and yes...that was a biggie...It's just not that simple that it was a stupid libtards fault.

Pulling out of N.K does not cripple the program. It is way too late for that. Is that straight enough?

How else were you to stop N.K. from development without interstate warfare?

gator
06-26-2008, 04:56 PM
I'm not aware of any animosity towards US troops from South Koreans. In fact, they tend to like Americans over there. Just more myth from the MSM that the rest of the world hates us.


Back last fall my son went up to the DMZ for a field exercise. He was with the 1/72nd AR. As they were going through a little town the locals threw stuff at them and protested. They shouted "go home, we don't want you". These were regular folk, not college students.

Recently there was a mass anti American protest outside the gates of Camp Casey.

Molon Labe
06-26-2008, 04:58 PM
I'm not aware of any animosity towards US troops from South Koreans. In fact, they tend to like Americans over there. Just more myth from the MSM that the rest of the world hates us. Pretty much only a few Western European countries and a couple in the Middle East dislike the United States. We are very well received in the rest of the world.

I don't get my news from the MSM so I can't relate. I'll provide you with links to just how "popular" U.S. troops are in Korea later when I have time.....and I'll do it from conservative sites if you'd like?

biccat
06-26-2008, 05:05 PM
Biccat...I appreciate your responses and they are well taken....
I hated him too and yes...that was a biggie...It's just not that simple that it was a stupid libtards fault.

Pulling out of N.K does not cripple the program. It is way too late for that. Is that straight enough?

How else were you to stop N.K. from development without interstate warfare?
Weren't you the one that said:
"Sanctions don't do a thing but hurt the people. The leaders stay fat and happy no matter what."
and:
"How about making the regional nations take responsibility for their own security...for starters."

So what alternatives are you proposing for disarming North Korea. The way I see it, sanctions are working. On your second point, I assumed you meant pulling our troops from South Korea. If you meant something else, then my bad. However, you still haven't proposed a viable alternative to sanctions, and how it would work.

There are probably some people in South Korea who don't like us. But like Iraq (as shown in nearly every poll that the MSM releases), our presence is generally well liked and we bring a lot to the country.

LogansPapa
06-26-2008, 05:13 PM
Donít know how true this is - just remember it from a while back.


The Korean Quagmire / February 13, 2003

Meanwhile, many South Koreans were beginning to resent the constant presence of American soldiers, the growing Americanization of their own society, and their pervasive feeling of dependence on a superpower that they felt might simply be using them to some extent as a base for military operations.

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/korea.htm

Odysseus
06-26-2008, 06:32 PM
Weren't you the one that said:
So what alternatives are you proposing for disarming North Korea. The way I see it, sanctions are working. On your second point, I assumed you meant pulling our troops from South Korea. If you meant something else, then my bad. However, you still haven't proposed a viable alternative to sanctions, and how it would work.
There are probably some people in South Korea who don't like us. But like Iraq (as shown in nearly every poll that the MSM releases), our presence is generally well liked and we bring a lot to the country.

Sanctions are usually far more effective against democracies than dictatorships, but even a dictatorship can feel the pinch. North Korea's economy is a shambles, and when a dictator can no longer keep his population fed, he's in danger, especially if his own high-living life-style is obvious to the population.

BTW, the really interesting thing about how the Iraqi people perceive us is that we have become the final arbiter for almost all disputes because we are seen as a genuinely honest broker. Our troops don't loot or steal from the locals or abuse them, while Al Qaeda alienated many Iraqi tribes by demanding food, money and, believe it or not, women (Afghanistan had a very high percentage of widows, which made it possible for Al Qaeda members to marry into clans and cement alliances, while single Iraqi women were far more likely to be promised to someone within their clan, and the demand to marry pissed off a lot of the tribal sheiks). Also, Al Qaeda's means of dealing with disagreements with the tribes would've made Hitler's Einsatzgruppen cringe, while our troops put themselves at risk to protect the locals.

Molon Labe
06-26-2008, 06:38 PM
Weren't you the one that said:
"Sanctions don't do a thing but hurt the people. The leaders stay fat and happy no matter what."
and:
"How about making the regional nations take responsibility for their own security...for starters."

So what alternatives are you proposing for disarming North Korea. The way I see it, sanctions are working. On your second point, I assumed you meant pulling our troops from South Korea. If you meant something else, then my bad. However, you still haven't proposed a viable alternative to sanctions, and how it would work.

There are probably some people in South Korea who don't like us. But like Iraq (as shown in nearly every poll that the MSM releases), our presence is generally well liked and we bring a lot to the country.

Let's try this again. You're the one proposing to "disarm" NK. So let me clarify that I am for the same strategy that worked for 50 years against the USSR.
It's too late to disarm Korea short of interstate war...Are you game for that in order to accomplish it?

The regional powers can stop blood sucking subsidies off the American tax payers back and take control of their own damn security. They are more than capable.

Removing U.S. troops is not a bad future idea, since you mistakenly believe that the poor S. Koreans are somehow weak and dependant on U.S. power. (S.Korean troops are some of the best soldiers on earth)
It also speaks to less money being sucked off the American taxpayer for a country that holds no geopolitical worth nor natural resources to plunder...

The NK has Nukes since 94'....so how again are 50 odd years of sanctions working? Since you think they are.

It's not just "some" of the Koreans that aren't to cuddly with U.S. troops. It's a whole hell of alot of people pissed off over things such as property rights..specifically lease agreements that don't favor Korean citizens. Good thing Koreans don't strap bombs to their bodies...because a damn Muslim would do it over some of what's gone on. Whether we "bring alot" to the Korean's is a moot point since some people forget to ask if they want what we got.

biccat
06-26-2008, 07:01 PM
Let's try this again. You're the one proposing to "disarm" NK. So let me clarify that I am for the same strategy that worked for 50 years against the USSR.
It's too late to disarm Korea short of interstate war...Are you game for that in order to accomplish it?
Sanctions have worked to get them to open up, I don't see why they wouldn't work further. See here. (http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=f430bffe-b30f-4537-b3d3-31d854912cd5&ParentID=29be79ea-bea5-4065-9f9b-36693ecc9b82&&Headline=S+Korea+welcomes+NKorea+nuke+declaration)


The regional powers can stop blood sucking subsidies off the American tax payers back and take control of their own damn security. They are more than capable.
Who are the regional powers here? China isn't going to do anything. South Korea has too much of a history with North Korea to act. Any interference by Japan is going to PO the Chinese, and Japan would have to rebuild their offensive capabilities first. Russia doesn't have much of a presence in the region.

So who's left?


Removing U.S. troops is not a bad future idea, since you mistakenly believe that the poor S. Koreans are somehow weak and dependant on U.S. power. (S.Korean troops are some of the best soldiers on earth)
It also speaks to less money being sucked off the American taxpayer for a country that holds no geopolitical worth nor natural resources to plunder...
I think that we have significant interests remaining in South Korea. And with the threat of China sending military aid to N. Korea, our presence there is a deterrent. An attack on our troops in S. Korea means war with the U.S. An attack on S. Korean troops means war with S. Korea.


The NK has Nukes since 94'....so how again are 50 odd years of sanctions working? Since you think they are.
Nukes since '94? They didn't test a nuke until 2006. I don't see how you figure that one. As for years of sanctions, like I said, the Clinton years are largely responsible because of the lack of oversight of N. Korea's nuclear ambitions.


It's not just "some" of the Koreans that aren't to cuddly with U.S. troops. It's a whole hell of alot of people pissed off over things such as property rights..specifically lease agreements that don't favor Korean citizens. Good thing Koreans don't strap bombs to their bodies...because a damn Muslim would do it over some of what's gone on. Whether we "bring alot" to the Korean's is a moot point since some people forget to ask if they want what we got.
I propose dropping this issue for the time. It seems like a tangent to the actual issue of the effectiveness of sanctions in getting N. Korea to disarm.

Molon Labe
06-26-2008, 07:12 PM
I propose dropping this issue for the time. It seems like a tangent to the actual issue of the effectiveness of sanctions in getting N. Korea to disarm.

And you agree they work and I don't think they're effective...so we just have to agree to disagree...Ican live with that. ;)
I'll read the link you sent about sanctions effectiveness...I just haven't yet.

Here's the link I promised about the little Korean problem....scroll down a bit and read the article US OUT from this blog. And click on any of the links within the story especially about property rights issues....you'll always find the closest truth on alternative news sources...once you sort through the B.S.

I've found some very good, truthful news on this forum....but it's not always accurate. You just have to us the B.S. detector.

http://irdial.com/blogdial/


--------------------------
OK...read the article
1st. I didn't really see any relation to the progress related to the effectiveness of sanctions.

2nd. I think this kind of makes my point that it's up to S. Korean government to work out it's differences with N.K.
The US may actually hurt the process by being a mediator nobody wants. I still believe bilateral talks will be most effective between the two.

marinejcksn
06-27-2008, 01:24 AM
What a suprise....Bush the magic Globalist. I just heard Jerry Doyle talking about this on his radio show...this is flat out disgusting. 2002, they were part of the Axis of Evil, suddenly they're not so bad? :rolleyes:

AmPat
06-27-2008, 04:44 AM
Back last fall my son went up to the DMZ for a field exercise. He was with the 1/72nd AR. As they were going through a little town the locals threw stuff at them and protested. They shouted "go home, we don't want you". These were regular folk, not college students.

Recently there was a mass anti American protest outside the gates of Camp Casey.

These protests are orchestrated by a far left, anti-American mindset that is based on ignorance and extreme nationalism. The Koreans are much in love with all things Korean. This group sets up confrontations with American soldiers and videos the results. The cropped version gets played on Korean TV showin the Big, mean Miguk abusing the poor, meek, mild Korean.

Koreans are anti-American beef not because of a real Mad cow disease but a manufacured one. The internet was flooded with spam and propaganda and the media was a willing accomplice. Sound familiar? 300,000,000 Americans eat beef and not a single case of mad cow. The Koreas were told that they were more susceptible to getting the disease, and they CHOOSE to believe that lie.

The farmers are anti-American beef import because the average price of beef in Korea is about $10.00 for a 100 grams. Why would they want American beef flooding the market that is ten times less? If anything, Koreans ought to worry about the food they eat. The cows spend their lives in a pin slightly bigger than they are. The pins are filthy and would never be allowed in the USA.

Full-Auto
06-27-2008, 08:38 AM
How about making the regional nations take responsibility for their own security...for starters.
That may have been a marginally reasonable request in the 1980's and 1990's... but the day the Norks tested a nuclear weapon it became our problem as the "region" just expanded to a global one. They can now directly threaten us and our interests.

gator
06-27-2008, 09:14 AM
These protests are orchestrated by a far left, anti-American mindset that is based on ignorance and extreme nationalism. The Koreans are much in love with all things Korean. This group sets up confrontations with American soldiers and videos the results. The cropped version gets played on Korean TV showin the Big, mean Miguk abusing the poor, meek, mild Korean.

Koreans are anti-American beef not because of a real Mad cow disease but a manufacured one. The internet was flooded with spam and propaganda and the media was a willing accomplice. Sound familiar? 300,000,000 Americans eat beef and not a single case of mad cow. The Koreas were told that they were more susceptible to getting the disease, and they CHOOSE to believe that lie.

The farmers are anti-American beef import because the average price of beef in Korea is about $10.00 for a 100 grams. Why would they want American beef flooding the market that is ten times less? If anything, Koreans ought to worry about the food they eat. The cows spend their lives in a pin slightly bigger than they are. The pins are filthy and would never be allowed in the USA.

The South Korean spend 4 times as much on the military as the North Koreans.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

Also, each person in the US spends about $2,000 per year per person for military. The South Koreans spend a little over $1,000 each.

Why should should the US provide military aid to a country when the people don't have the same burden for their own security as the US? Especially when we are running a deficit and have to borrow the money in order to give it to the South Koreans.

I really don't understand why we have troops in South Korea nowadays.

Don't you think that the US troops in South Korea could better serve our country protecting the US - Mexico border? For many years the misson of the 4/7th Cav was to protect the border. Now they are in Korea. Don't you think we should send them back to our own DMZ?

biccat
06-27-2008, 10:27 AM
Don't you think that the US troops in South Korea could better serve our country protecting the US - Mexico border? For many years the misson of the 4/7th Cav was to protect the border. Now they are in Korea. Don't you think we should send them back to our own DMZ?
Considering we pulled out (http://newsblaze.com/story/20080602082520tsop.nb/topstory.html) the National Guard from our border, I think that's a pipe dream.

Maybe once we get a government that cares about protecting our borders, we can discuss it. Until then, it's not a ripe issue.

LogansPapa
06-27-2008, 10:34 AM
What a suprise....Bush the magic Globalist. I just heard Jerry Doyle talking about this on his radio show...this is flat out disgusting. 2002, they were part of the Axis of Evil, suddenly they're not so bad? :rolleyes:

Legacy. Thatís the point here. Like chumming up with intense publicly declared interest in the Israeli - Palestinian peace process, after seven years of ignorance. Transparent and childish. He just wants to look good on the way out. Hasnít come to grasps with the reality that any one of us can call up every morsel of his failures for two terms right here on the internet.

Molon Labe
06-27-2008, 10:51 AM
That may have been a marginally reasonable request in the 1980's and 1990's... but the day the Norks tested a nuclear weapon it became our problem as the "region" just expanded to a global one. They can now directly threaten us and our interests.

I don't disagree that Nukes change the game...but we balanced a far more dangerous nuclear threat in the Soviets. Even if we take the worst case scenario of the N.K attacking he S.K ... the South would kick there ass in a conventional war.
And just if...and it's a big if...... the S.K. lost, and the peninsula were unified under communism....then that would no more affect us than when the worst case scenario happened in 1974 in Vietnam. The world still went on. Let the despots starve themselves into oblivion.
And besides..before either would allow themselves to be occupied they would both use their nuclear weapons. There is no reason to believe the standoff won't continue without U.S. troops present.

I'm not really sure I believe the Korean peninsula has much interest value (meaning resources) to the U.S. beyond half of it being a liberal democracy.

My point is that we underestimate the S.K. and Japanese ability to take control of their destiny in the region. And let's not forget the Russians haven't hibranated from the world stage. The security of that region is in their interests as well. IMO...They all can very much handle the Koreans. We give ourselves way too much credit that everybody needs us.

biccat
06-27-2008, 11:40 AM
I don't disagree that Nukes change the game...but we balanced a far more dangerous nuclear threat in the Soviets. Even if we take the worst case scenario of the N.K attacking he S.K ... the South would kick there ass in a conventional war.
We balanced the Soviets by fortifying our presence in Europe. And conventional war might not happen, N.K. has nukles, remember? And they also have military aid from China.


And just if...and it's a big if...... the S.K. lost, and the peninsula were unified under communism....then that would no more affect us than when the worst case scenario happened in 1974 in Vietnam. The world still went on. Let the despots starve themselves into oblivion.
And besides..before either would allow themselves to be occupied they would both use their nuclear weapons. There is no reason to believe the standoff won't continue without U.S. troops present.
South Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons. They certainly have the knowledge and technology, but don't have nuclear weapons.


I'm not really sure I believe the Korean peninsula has much interest value (meaning resources) to the U.S. beyond half of it being a liberal democracy.
So you favor support for Israel and troops in Iraq to protect our strategic resource interests in the Middle East?


My point is that we underestimate the S.K. and Japanese ability to take control of their destiny in the region. And let's not forget the Russians haven't hibranated from the world stage. The security of that region is in their interests as well. IMO...They all can very much handle the Koreans. We give ourselves way too much credit that everybody needs us.
With the current trend in Russian politics, I wouldn't feel comfortable betting one way or the other on which side Russia would support in another Korean war.

gator
06-27-2008, 12:23 PM
We balanced the Soviets by fortifying our presence in Europe. And conventional war might not happen, N.K. has nukles, remember? And they also have military aid from China.


South Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons. They certainly have the knowledge and technology, but don't have nuclear weapons.


So you favor support for Israel and troops in Iraq to protect our strategic resource interests in the Middle East?


With the current trend in Russian politics, I wouldn't feel comfortable betting one way or the other on which side Russia would support in another Korean war.

In 1950 it was in our interest to stop the Sino-Soviet expansion in that part of the world.

Now that the Cold War is over then I don't think we have the security need anymore.

I think by the 1980s the South Koreans were able to handle their own defense without American troops being garrisoned in the country. It was probably that way in the 1970s. I saw the South Koreans kicking ass in Vietnam.

We probably should have removed all American troops by the 1990s.

We can be allies with South Korea and help them out if they get in trouble but I see no reason why we need thousands of American combat troops in South Korea. Especially nowadays seeing the dismayed condition of readiness in the North Korean forces.

I certainly don’t see any massive arming of the North Koreans by the Soviets or Chinese like it was in 1950.

Like Cuba North Korea has been abandoned by the International Communists. Not much of a threat to the US. Let us use our money elsewhere.

Molon Labe
06-27-2008, 12:32 PM
South Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons. They certainly have the knowledge and technology, but don't have nuclear weapons.

Your right about that...but I'm sure if we left...we would remedy that.


So you favor support for Israel and troops in Iraq to protect our strategic resource interests in the Middle East?

No. I don't favor any strategy that requires taking other sovereign nations under control to protect resources. Nor does the majority of the reserve units I know that would be deployed to serve these interests. (Tell me...how are they "our" resources?)

This discussion reminds me of Orwell "All the war-propaganda, comes invariably from people who are not fighting."

biccat
06-27-2008, 12:50 PM
In 1950 it was in our interest to stop the Sino-Soviet expansion in that part of the world.

Now that the Cold War is over then I don't think we have the security need anymore.
There's no pressing need for our presence in Korea, but we've got troops everywhere else ' just in case,' so I don't see what harm there is in retaining troops in South Korea.

While I agree with you in principle that the United States shouldn't be providing for the defense of other countries, I disagree with the practical benefits of having troops stationed worldwide. We are the world's only superpower, and we should ensure that it stays that way, especially considering the alternatives are socialism (Europe), communism (China) or despotism (Middle East).

Molon Labe
06-27-2008, 12:54 PM
There's no pressing need for our presence in Korea, but we've got troops everywhere else ' just in case,' so I don't see what harm there is in retaining troops in South Korea.

While I agree with you in principle that the United States shouldn't be providing for the defense of other countries, I disagree with the practical benefits of having troops stationed worldwide. We are the world's only superpower, and we should ensure that it stays that way, especially considering the alternatives are socialism (Europe), communism (China) or despotism (Middle East).

I agree with your first part that we shouldn't be providing for everyone's defense...but your second is impossible. History doesn't speak kindly on one Superpower inevitability of staying top dog.
I'm eager to hear how you think this is going to be accomplished.

biccat
06-27-2008, 01:06 PM
I agree with your first part that we shouldn't be providing for everyone's defense...but your second is impossible. History doesn't speak kindly on one Superpower inevitability of staying top dog.
I'm eager to hear how you think this is going to be accomplished.
Through means that haven't been tried by any other superpower.

Increasing the American standard of living while increasing the standard of living in other countries.
Exporting American innovation of necessities while developing new innovations within our country.
Providing military support to other regions without the threat of colonization or conquer.
Sustaining a society that is dependent on economic growth rather than physical growth.
Passively extending our might - both economic and military - across the globe.
Discouraging superpower competition through excellence rather than oppression.

Basic things that have kept our country going strong, and hopefully will keep our country strong in the future. I think that while limited displays of force are periodically necessary to reinforce our position, the threat of overwhelming force securely cements us against military competition. On the economic front, the same theory, although our 'force' is in the threat of economic sanctions, and there are obviously varying degrees of that extension of force.

Molon Labe
06-27-2008, 02:31 PM
I don't disagree with much of any of your premise...It sounds like you actually want us to be an example of Democracy and prosperity.
Unfortunately...what if more people than you think see our help as oppressive?
I think you said in an earlier post about S.Korea that you believe most of those protests are left wingers. Not everybody that has a grievance against their government and the U.S. military president is a lefty. Why..even in places such as Okinawa it goes almost unreported that their is dissent that has almost blown up over leasing rights to property and it has hurt Japanese - American relations over the years...and these are our Allies. I would find it hard pressed to believe that the Okinawan's practice the type of leftist marxism our country has.

The U.S. was not designed to save the world.
Here is a link to a great essay written in 1988 by Kirk -- 15 years before the Iraq war...and by one of the most gifted minds of conservatism at the Heritage foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL178.cfm

I'll sum it up:


I believe that the chief enemy of American conservatism has not been the Marxists, nor even the socialist liberals in the Democratic Party, but the Neo-Conservatives, who have sabotaged the movement from within and exploited it for their own selfish purposes."

For the word democracy has come to resemble an old hat that everybody wears and nobody respects. As she observes herself, some of the most oppressive regimes in our world pretend to be democracies. And have not democracies often been unholy alliances between a successful demagogue and a greedy mob?

Is the government of Saudi Arabia - distinctly not democratic - less legitimate than the government of the typical Marxist "people's republic"? Is the government of Israel, a garrison state, illegitimate because it excludes from full civic participation one-fifth of its population on ethnic and religious grounds - scarcely a democratic principle of just government.

A Quasi-Religion. Most of the world never was satisfactorily democratic in the past, is distinctly undemocratic today, and has no prospect of decent democracy in the future. Were the United States to insist upon the attainment of democracy (plus capitalism) by every nation-state with which it has satisfactory relations, before long its principal trading partner might be Switzerland. The United States cannot be forever unsettling the governments of client states, or small countries, or of allies, on the ground that they are not sufficiently democratic in obedience to the doctrines of Rousseau, or that they "discriminate" against somebody or other, or that they prefer traditional economies to a full-blown abstract capitalism. One thinks of the aphorism of Vietnam's Madame Nhu: "If you have the United States for a friend, you don't need any enemies." Successful foreign policy, like political success generally, is produced through the art of the possible - not through ideological rigidity. It will not do for the Department of State to repeat, like an incantation, "Democracy good, all other government bad."

In short, I am saying that a quasi-religion of Democratic Capitalism cannot do duty for imagination and right reason and prescriptive wisdom, in domestic politics or in foreign relations. An ideology of Democratic Capitalism might be less malign than an ideology of Communism or National Socialism or Syndicalism or Anarchism, but it would not be much more intelligent or humane.

biccat
06-27-2008, 02:45 PM
Unfortunately...what if more people than you think see our help as oppressive?
Then we should leave them alone. Don't trade with them, don't accept their goods. Eventually they will stagnate and their government will be replaced with a pro-America. The worst thing we are doing for these third world dictatorships is giving aid to their governments in the hope that it will trickle down. It is seen as propping up a government and favoring the 'bad guys.'

We should have no business meddling in the affairs of countries that do not benefit us. We should support policies that will eventually turn them to our benefit, but not direct money.


I think you said in an earlier post about S.Korea that you believe most of those protests are left wingers. Not everybody that has a grievance against their government and the U.S. military president is a lefty. Why..even in places such as Okinawa it goes almost unreported that their is dissent that has almost blown up over leasing rights to property and it has hurt Japanese - American relations over the years...and these are our Allies. I would find it hard pressed to believe that the Okinawan's practice the type of leftist marxism our country has.
Don't let the Okinawans hear you calling them Japanese.

There are genuine disagreements with our foreign policy in foreign countries. Heck, people in the United States rightly protest our domestic policy (gun rights, abortion, etc.). But while there are grievances against us, it doesn't change that we are widely respected around the world and (generally) well liked wherever we extend ourselves.


The U.S. was not designed to save the world.
I agree. It is not our purpose, nor the purpose of our military to police perceived injustices. However, where injustice harms our economic engine, our government has a duty to step in and rectify the situation.

On Iraq, they were a significant potential threat, with the capacity and willingness to make and use weapons of mass destruction. Further, they had supported terrorists and had contacts with terrorist groups. 9/11 showed that large scale (or at least large-effect) terrorism causes significant national and global economic instability. Combining each of these factors showed that Iraq had at its disposal the means and willingness to provide terrorists with chemical weapons to severely harm our economy. Logic dictated that Saddam Hussein be removed from power quickly, rather than eventually removed through the use of economic isolation.

Of course, we later found out that "economic isolation" was a pipe dream because of the corrupt UN and European countries that insisted on dealing with Iraq despite sanctions. But that's another story.

Full-Auto
06-27-2008, 03:16 PM
I don't disagree that Nukes change the game...but we balanced a far more dangerous nuclear threat in the Soviets. Even if we take the worst case scenario of the N.K attacking he S.K ... the South would kick there ass in a conventional war.
I don't recall saying I gave a hoot what the Norks did with the RoK's or visa versa. What I said is that the Norks playing with ballistic missiles and nukes is a concern for us. You apparently agree, so let's not make assumptions.


And besides..before either would allow themselves to be occupied they would both use their nuclear weapons. There is no reason to believe the standoff won't continue without U.S. troops present.
I don't recall arguing otherwise.


I'm not really sure I believe the Korean peninsula has much interest value (meaning resources) to the U.S. beyond half of it being a liberal democracy.
I don't recall saying Korea, north or south, had any "value" to us. I do recall saying the Norks playing with nukes is a problem for us.


My point is that we underestimate the S.K. and Japanese ability to take control of their destiny in the region. And let's not forget the Russians haven't hibranated from the world stage. The security of that region is in their interests as well. IMO...They all can very much handle the Koreans. We give ourselves way too much credit that everybody needs us.
My point is I don't want to trust our national security to the Japanese (who we are still protecting since WWII by the way), RoK's, Russian's or Chinese. I trust all of them just about as far as I can throw them... and that aint far.

The Norks have nukes. They've detonated nukes in defiance of our requests not to in a move to further cripple peaceful talks. Despite their recent destruction of a nuclear power plant they are still enriching uranium which can, and likely will be, used for nukes. They also proliferate nuclear materials and technologies, or so it's highly suspected.

If you want to trust Japan, China, Russian and S.K. with our national security, that's your right but I think you're f'ing nuts.

That doesn't mean I think we need the military presence we have in S.K., because we don't.

Molon Labe
06-27-2008, 03:54 PM
They also proliferate nuclear materials and technologies, or so it's highly suspected.

If you want to trust Japan, China, Russian and S.K. with our national security, that's your right but I think you're f'ing nuts.

That doesn't mean I think we need the military presence we have in S.K., because we don't.

but so did the Soviets...and we did nothing...and now pandora's out of the box..Isn't it a bit late to since we've let about...what is it....3 -5 nations go nuclear since the end of the cold war. We say we care about proliferation, but the 90's say otherwise.

I don't mean to suggest that we don't have an active interest in what goes on between the N.K. and S.K....I'm just not convinced that we do more good than harm in negotiations between the two. And I see little strategic value of an insiginficant peninsula.
We ultimately agree on the last point you made.

marinejcksn
06-27-2008, 04:40 PM
Legacy. Thatís the point here. Like chumming up with intense publicly declared interest in the Israeli - Palestinian peace process, after seven years of ignorance. Transparent and childish. He just wants to look good on the way out. Hasnít come to grasps with the reality that any one of us can call up every morsel of his failures for two terms right here on the internet.

Exactly. I heard Michael Savage saying a while ago that if people were unhappy with Bush's last 7 years, we haven't seen nothing compared to what he'll do in his last 6 months. Looks like everything is coming to fruition.

Still, how pathetic is it that the U.S. President with the worst recorded approval rating in history is still double digits ahead of the Congressional approval rating?:eek:

LogansPapa
06-27-2008, 04:45 PM
Still, how pathetic is it that the U.S. President with the worst recorded approval rating in history is still double digits ahead of the Congressional approval rating?:eek:

Could it be, after long last, we need to vote directly - electronically - via our cell phones and/or internet?

Do we really need politicians to make our policy decisions? And as for the presidency - that person should have to know and respond to the will of the people. Make lobbying a twenty year federal prison sentence and that might do the trick.;)

biccat
06-27-2008, 05:54 PM
Make lobbying a twenty year federal prison sentence and that might do the trick.;)
So anyone who writes to their Congressman should go to jail for 20 years? Or are you just making a stupid blanket statement without knowing what you're talking about to try to convince others here that you're not a raving liberal.

I'd go for the latter.

LogansPapa
06-27-2008, 06:14 PM
So anyone who writes to their Congressman should go to jail for 20 years?

No, blathering fucktard - I was referring to the slime that slides up and down the halls of Congress, arranging for deep sea fish junkets to the Carribian every time an interstate highway project comes up - so stop with that silly Ďevery little manís letterí bullshit. You know fucking-a-well those get round-filed or shreaded.

:rolleyes:

Odysseus
06-27-2008, 08:34 PM
No, blathering fucktard - I was referring to the slime that slides up and down the halls of Congress, arranging for deep sea fish junkets to the Carribian every time an interstate highway project comes up - so stop with that silly Ďevery little manís letterí bullshit. You know fucking-a-well those get round-filed or shreaded.
:rolleyes:

The problem isn't lobbying. The problem is that the federal government is operating in areas that are none of its business, and that means that everyone, large and small, has to lobby to protect themselves. Classic example: Prior to 1996, Microsoft had no presence in Washington. Then, after one of the Clinton's White House business breakfasts, the CEOs of Sun Microsystems and a few other Microsoft competitors, who had just made hefty donations to the DNC, mentioned how unfair they thought it was that Microsoft had its own browser. The subsequent investigation was an obvious case of the Justice Dept. doing the dirty work for companies that couldn't effectively compete, and the settlement taught Bill Gates that if he wanted to stay in business, he had to maintain the same kind of lobbying effort that his competitors did. When a corporation genuinely feels that another corporation has violated its rights, it takes them to court. When a corporation has screwed the pooch and wants to attack another corporation for being more efficient or effective, it gets federal regulators to do the job.

marinejcksn
06-27-2008, 09:01 PM
Could it be, after long last, we need to vote directly - electronically - via our cell phones and/or internet?

Do we really need politicians to make our policy decisions? And as for the presidency - that person should have to know and respond to the will of the people. Make lobbying a twenty year federal prison sentence and that might do the trick.;)

Your first idea is genius. Maybe if Ryan Seacrest were hosting the presidential voting session more Sheeple would turn out. I shudder at the thought.:p

As for your second statement, I think we level headed conservatives know the policymakers in this country have succumedto the totalitarian temptation a long time ago...after all Fascism wont come to America with Black Shirts and Jackboots. Happy, nice Fascism is the liberal order of the day. Smiley smiley:D

Just look at the recent decisions of San Fransicko DA Kamala Harris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris) and how she decides prosecuting GangBangers isn't such a great idea, then a father and his 2 sons get slaughtered over a roadside dispute by a gun toting illegal alien. Me thinks we should round up a posse and do things how they did in the Old West.

More info on the story here, linked from Dr. Savage's website:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/06/26/BAV711FM4F.DTL

Full-Auto
06-28-2008, 02:01 AM
but so did the Soviets...and we did nothing...and now pandora's out of the box..Isn't it a bit late to since we've let about...what is it....3 -5 nations go nuclear since the end of the cold war. We say we care about proliferation, but the 90's say otherwise.
Here they are broken down.

Declared States:
United States
Russia
Britain
France
China
India
Pakistan
North Korea

Suspected States:
Israel (we know they have them but we don't admit it)
Iran
Libya

States Formerly Possessing or Pursuing Nuclear Weapons:
Argentina
Brazil
Iraq
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Algeria
Former Soviet States
Ukraine
Kazakhstan
Belarus

Other Nuclear Capable States:
Australia
Canada
Germany
Japan
Netherlands

Now, which of these do you claim the Russians armed? Even if the Russians armed them, how does a past wrong negate a present wrong?

The Russians have little to do with the current state of nuclear states... at least they have no more culpability than we do.


I don't mean to suggest that we don't have an active interest in what goes on between the N.K. and S.K....I'm just not convinced that we do more good than harm in negotiations between the two. And I see little strategic value of an insiginficant peninsula.
We ultimately agree on the last point you made.
I don't care what the RoK's and Norks agree to or disagree to either. Hell, for all I care they can kill each other, it's none of my business. What I do care about is the Norks having nukes and threatening to use them against us (which they routinely do).

If direct intervention with a nuclear state that threatens to rain fire on your western seaboard isn't rational, what exactly is?

Sonnabend
06-28-2008, 03:11 AM
Other Nuclear Capable States:
Australia

Nuclear CAPABLE?

We have ONE reactor, used for making nucleonic particles for radiation medicine. We have no delivery systems, no programs, no long range bombers, no missile sites, no research...:confused::confused:

Full-Auto
06-28-2008, 03:20 AM
Nuclear CAPABLE?

We have ONE reactor, used for making nucleonic particles for radiation medicine. We have no delivery systems, no programs, no long range bombers, no missile sites, no research...:confused::confused:

But you have the know-how. That's how you made he list. Are you saying you don't know anything about nuclear fuel or weapons?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction


Australia is not currently known or believed to possess weapons of mass destruction, although it has participated in extensive research into nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in the past.

AmPat
06-28-2008, 04:20 AM
The South Korean spend 4 times as much on the military as the North Koreans.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

Also, each person in the US spends about $2,000 per year per person for military. The South Koreans spend a little over $1,000 each.

Why should should the US provide military aid to a country when the people don't have the same burden for their own security as the US? Especially when we are running a deficit and have to borrow the money in order to give it to the South Koreans.

I really don't understand why we have troops in South Korea nowadays.

Don't you think that the US troops in South Korea could better serve our country protecting the US - Mexico border? For many years the misson of the 4/7th Cav was to protect the border. Now they are in Korea. Don't you think we should send them back to our own DMZ?

That has been my position since 1998 when I frist served over here. I am more fully convinced of it now. When the S.K.s almost got their wish for troop reductions this year, they backed out and asked us to delay drawing down. This benefits ONLY the S.K.s as they don't have to replace us with their own assets. While we are here, the mexican infestation gets worseon our own southern border.

Big Lie 1: It is impossible to deport 12 million illegals.
Easy Answer: The Mexicans did it.

Big Lie 2: It is impossible to secure our southern border.
Easy Answer: We secured the northern border of South Korea for the last 55 years.