Axis of evil, 1 more contender

I don't agree, the right has always disliked the fact that Clinton struck a deal with NK to avoid the proliferation of nukes. They were squawking about how Clinton "paid them off." Bush is the backward one in wanting to bring all of us back to the days of the cold war, IMO.

 

That is a fair comment, although not altogether accurate. NK did stop the bulk of their work on WMD program, but they continued, instead working a much smaller scale.

Their reasoning is that they were cheated somehow in the arrangement with fuel aid that had been promised by Clinton. But there is little doubt that the program was curtailed.

In the early stages, Clinton had plans to attack the reactors if a deal could not be made. The agreement was a victory for Clinton in the sense that NK abandoned using its two largest reactors for the program, which is thought to now be restarted. The framework for a real, lasting agreement was in put in place by Clinton. IMO if Clinton was still prez we would not be having this debate either, because of much better reasons.

[ April 29, 2003, 16:44: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

If that were to happen, the rest of the world would be more "ruthless" as you call it. It doesn't matter how many fighters or nukes you have, when people do everything they can to take their revenge at your country you'r going down no matter what. You noticed what Al-qaeda (sp?) managed to do without any American intelligence organisations being able to stop it, what's preventing it from happening again? What if several crazy guys drove to Time Square in New York and started shooting at everyone? Thousands of dead withing minutes, and it would be almost impossible to stop. The same goes for if they gas the subway system in a major town, it's impossible to prevent and it kills a lot of people. You DON'T want to make other countries mad at you, because that hurts you'r own country even more than those you attack.

 

Do not concern yourself with Nort Korea. China will take care of North Korea. With it's 1 400 000 000 people, China is the largest nation in the world today. Ofcourse, China has the strongest military might....

 

I disagree Depaara. Ruthleness will not get you any far. The vietnam war is proof of it. The Americans were as ruthless as can be.

They used napalm, that's one of the cruellest wma's that exist. And Agent Orange. 3 million Vietnamese died. The Americans lost 50 thousand soldiers. I think 50'000 versus 3'000'000 show the degree of ruthleness of that war.

And it didn't bring the Americans any success, did it ? Hell, no wonder those "gooks" resisted. To it the Vietnam war proofs, that muscle alone (muscle = military equipement) won't help, if the other side has more brains. That is superior strategical and tacitcal thinking.

That is true and not true. In the 19th century, the European powers masterd the art of colonization. I'd say Hong-Kong and the Opium-wars (wars to sell opium) are proof of it.But since then, times and the world have changed. Occupation of another country, as the 20th century has shown, has become impossible. Besides of beeing morally total wrong. Europeans are out of the colonial business because it has become impossible. Moral insight came afterwards.

 

The Americans were ruthless in Vietnam ? Think again dude, cause if they really were ruthless they would have won the war fairly easy. Ever heard of Tet ? There was a cease fire during those days, but the NVA used it to build up forces. The Americans were just naive to think that both sides would just lay back for a while.

There was also an agreement NOT to bomb Hanoi. Now i ask you... what kind of war are ou fighting if you agree NOT to bomb your enemy's capital ?

So you see ? If America would have NOT respected all those things, It would have ended slightly different.

 

North Korea is eager to put down her nuclear programm as long as she can get something for it. Meaning that NK would love to have some stability in her energy supplies. In fact they said that the reactors were put back to bussines because of the energy supply demand.
But the current US goverment has something else in mind and just keeps the flame burning.
And something else, if the UN sees there is a real need for war he won't hesitate but we won't allow to go to war without trying the peacefull solution first.
Someone in here said the axis of weasels for the UN and USA-GB-Australia axis is what; The axis of bullies;

 

@ Malaqai

China would indeed have the most pwowerful militairy on earth.... if we were still in the days of swordfighting and using bow and arrows.

Have you ever heard of the airforce ? It's known to reduce numbers of footsoldiers VERY fast. He who controls the skies, wins the war. And i'm sorry, but China does NOT control the skies. They're still flying that old Soviet crap, and their own inferior jets. I don't think the average F18 Hornet pilot is having any nightmares about that.

 

Yago -- I was only referring to modern events and not the imperialist movement of the 19th Century. Sorry that I did not make that clear enough.

 

That depends on if you believe that North Korea wants to be recognized by the US and other powers, or if it wants to remain isolated from the larger world community.

Whether the US likes it or not, I'm sure that both NK and SK would like to see their country reunited again and free of foreign influence, and no longer used as a pawn between the super powers.

It must be hard for some of those on the political right -- the white, male, southern protestants in dark suits, who have high-jacked the American political system, to let go of their bigotry and feeling of smug American "superiority" to those who live in the far East, unless of course, they want to be just like "us."

 

Pac Man

If you believe that Americans were not ruthless in Vietnam, how do you define ruthlessness? Your example about Tet does not prove that the Americans were not ruthless, a cease fire agreement means that the opponents do not attack for a certain period of time, not that they are not allowed to build up forces.

It had happened again in WW2. There was an unofficial agreement between Germany and UK, that Germans would not bomb London and cities with historical and cultural monuments like Oxford and English would not bomb Berlin and cities like Dresden. This agreement ceased when Germans bombed London by accident.

 

Pac-man

The Americans have lost that war big-time. They gave all they had and they were ruthless like hell. They tried to win the war with their air superiority. They bombed the north to pieces. In the Vietnam war, more bombs were dropped than in WW2. They even poisoned their own soldiers with pesticide. But they only killed a lot of people (millions), it was not decisive for the war. The whole mass-bombing wasn't able to defeat anyone. LBJ realized, that they lost the war, but the north knew that too. So, the Americans weren't in the position to demand anything. And LBJ, in the position of the weak, failed to get the North to negotiate peace.

Ever heard of the Powell-doctrine. The principle is: You can not win a war only having air-supority. It's based on the Vietnam-war.

You can check what Ragusa wrote concerning the Kosovo-war.

(Imho, LBJ is one of the best Presidents, the Americans had in the 20th century, second only to FDR. Just that Domino-theory-crap.)

 

If I understand my history correctly, the US went into Vietnam with their hands tied -- letting politicians run the war instead of generals. PR was more important to these people than military results.

While they were rough, they certainly could have been rougher. Now maybe in the case of Vietnam it wouldn't have made a difference, but as long as the US military is hedged about by worrying about it's PR, it will not be as effective a force as it could be.

 

Effecitve? Like the German army in WW2 ?

 

Depaara,

I think, as Yago hinted, you are making a deadly and crucial mistake following this line of thought. You're ignoring the essential Klauswitzian principle that war is the continuation of policy with military force. You use force on an enemy to defeat him and to force your will on him. Your will is the political aim the war aimed on.
When you allow the military alone to determine what action has to be done you loose aim on your political goal, even worse, military considerations determine your policy. The fatal effects of that were to be seen recently.

The military needs political guidance to get tasks to do and they need guidelines how to go to war. Why?

Military logic might dictate steps that have consequences disastrous for foreign policy. One fictious example: The US fight terrorists in Afganistan. They are pretty successful and eventually succeed in driving the terrorists out into Pakistan where they seek safehaven. To eventually crush their enemies the US then invade Pakistan Oops, another war.

Unlike soldiers politicians are elected heads of the government. It is their job to determine the way policy has to be executed. They bear the responsibility. Clemenceau said after WW-I: War is too important to allow it to be led by the soldiers. That old bastard was perfectly right.
If Mac Arthur had to decide in the korea war, the US had attacked china and perhaps even used nuclear weapons on them . That's why he was sacked. And the actual president then, Truman iirc, made a perfectly right decision.

When these days Rumsfeld, as their chief commander in peace he decides what the US military does (and as soldiers they obey), enjoys the freedom to steer the recent wars without presidential intervention that's a sign of the naivety, carelessness and myopia in the White House.

Second, when soldiers do their grim job undisturbed some other silly things may happen. Take france and algeria: The french had a foolproof plan to fight the algerian terrorists. They decided to make an organigram of their enemies structure. They needed information and, most of all, names to do that. So they grabbed some suspects and tortured them until they spat out some names. They added the names to the organigram. They then went out to get the people named to tortured them and get more info, repeat ... Once the organigram was ready they killed them.

This procedure was very efficient and rather successful even - from a soldier's point of view and greatly helped "to do the job right". Surprisingly, the french successes didn't prevent them to loose algeria. Or just take US "intelligence gathering" in vietnam. Both armies killed, tortured and crippled a hell lot of the wrong people in their respective conflicts. And the french soldiers just did what they were tasked with: Finding and killing terrorists, with hands unbound.
What about human rights? Is it enough that your land is free and brave and that your cause is just!??? Clearly: Not at all.

If you want it more fancy, watch Bruce Willis in "The Siege". What you suggest is a very, very stupid and undesirable thing.

[ April 29, 2003, 22:13: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

LBJ? That is interesting. He is damned by both the left and the right. The left despise him because of the Vietnam War; the right can't stand his Great Society programs and civil rights agenda.

He certainly came to see the potential of how the government can be a force for moral change and could improve conditions for the disadvantged. He was transformed by the poverty of those who were living in a nation of such wealth. But his presidency is considered by many here to be a failure. I will have to think on that.

The only really great president in the 20th Century was FDR, IMO.

 

Ah, Depaara, always the voice of reason.

millitary controled by politics, well, duh.
anyone know what drives politics? you all know, so fess up. Money, money, money. how stupid, what a waste of time, energy, and life in general.