There is no inconsistency in what I said. I never once said before the invasion that Iraq had no WMDs, I only said that Bush had failed to prove it. I also thought he was lying when he said that he knew there were “thousands” of WMDs and I was right. I thought it was possible that Iraq had some left over nerve gas or something and that whatever they did have would be used on the invading troops or perhaps launched into Israel. I was also sure that Bush had failed pathetically to prove that Iraq posed anything close to an “imminent threat” to the US.
Who said there would be “tens of thousands” of casualties, btw? Cite?
You don’t have to take my word for it that GWB lied, just turn on the news. Do you actually still believe that iraq ever possessed “thousands” of WMDs? If so, where are they?
Iraq was killing people right up to the beginning of the war. Any peace activists who helped delay the start of the war contributed to a greater number of executions.
I didn’t mean first shot in a literal sense - I regret if that could be misunderstood. Try this: If the US government orders the action that turns a cold war into a very hot one - onr that would incur severe losses to a (supposed) ally - the responsibility rests on their shoulders. We’re not talking about the sort of skirmishes that happen when two opposing armies are maneuvering close to each other, we’re talking about a planned assault on an important strategic asset. This isn’t something that a nation can just brush off.
It should be bloody obvious that it doesn’t whether the hypothetical US attempt at destroying the reactor is carried out by cruise missile or demolition team.
Any country that possesses the military means of backing up their policy is (quite explicitly) threatening “mass murder” - that’s war for you. It seems to me that a lot of countries would be guilty of blackmail by that definition. NK is sure as hell guilty of not living up to its end of a bargain, but dishonesty isn’t blackmail.
That’s no way to treat an ally. South Korea lost the right to decide its own course of action when ? When NK developed the capability to go after US cities instaed of just SK ones?
To go with the “hostage” metaphor (and what a nice metaphor it is, carefully assigning the hero/crook/victim roles), it seems to me that the “police” is considering resolving the hostage crisis by lobbing a grenade into the building. Which certainly makes life nice and easy for the police, but it does leave the hostage holding the bag. Would you condemn the hostage for trying to strike another deal to save his life in that situation ?
Of course, metaphors aren’t exact. SK isn’t a hostage, it’s a frontline ally. It seems as if the US is considering an action that could lead to drastic disadvantages for the ally (i.e., good-bye Seoul) in return for an advantage to the US (reduced threat level for US cities).
That’s not just an indecent way to act, it’s bad statesmanship, to boot. Treat your allies like vassal states, and they’ll start looking around for other alliances.
North Korea is responsible for the proliferation of missile technology. This alone has helped to destabilize other regional conflicts. The thought of Kim Jong Il having nuclear weapons should be enough to give anyone pause. The man is smoking kim chee, plain and simple.
South Korea will only stand in greater danger if North Korea goes nuclear.
North Korea has repeatedly shown not just bad faith, but the very worst of intentions and blackmail style diplomacy.
Even communist China is backing slowly away from this madman. North Korean refugees are fleeing into the PRC, that’s how bad it is.
The threat is not just to South Korea. Japan is also in the crosshairs. We cannot afford to ignore the dire implications of damage to either economy. Japan feels so threatened by these developments that there is open talk of nuclear armament.
While I agree that Shrub’s administration is fairly gun-happy, North Korea has not responded to diplomatic reason. Kim Jong Il’s continued aggressive posturing is cause for extreme concern.
Consider for one minute what would happen if North Korea began exporting nuclear weapons or materiel to bolster their cash starved economy. The nukes would not be sold to our friends. Look at where their Nodong missile technology has been sent to.
Finally, North Korea has sufficient reserves to keep their military fully mobilized for all of about fifteen seconds. They routinely issue orders to their outer provinces advising that geriatrics, the disabled and the retarded all be allowed to starve during famines. They must not be allowed to obtain strategic high ground by manufacturing nuclear weapons. This would give them the trump card they so desperately desire in the absence of a functional non-nuclear military.
Do you for a single second think that once North Korea is in possession of atomic weapons these hostilities are going to subside into one big peninsular love fest? North Korea is a more substantial threat to world peace than Iraq ever was.
Bullshit. You won’t find a single time that I said Iraq had WMDs. I said I didn’t know, but that if they did they would use them on invading troops. That’s not even close to the same thing.
In the first post you think you have me nailed on, I just said I was afraid he would throw some bio/chem weapons around if he had them. It was not a prediction. The only reason Iraq didn’t use WNDs during the invasion is because they never fucking existed. My only poor judgement was in giving Bush more credibility than he deserved. I thought Iraq may have had something (although I never, at any point, believed they had enough tp pose an imminent threat). I underestimated Bush’s capacity to lie. I won’t do that again.
You’ll notice that my name is absent from the last thread you linked to (I’ve never even seen it before). So some people on a message board predicted a lot of casualties. I wasn’t one of them.
Ad hominem and strawman.
I guess that’s what passes for a logical argument in your world.
Seeing as how the DMZ is not a line, and no one lives in it, you are incorrect.
HBby
Holding someone hostage implies that one has the power to kill the, but having the power to kill someone does not imply holding them hostage.
Spiny Norman
But it’s the North Koreans that are turning this into a hot war. The US is OK with the status quo. It’s NK that’s destabilizing the situation by developing WMD.
NK has attacked US ships, kidnapped foreign nationals, and violated treaties against developing WMD. I don’t see why the West is expected to brush off all this, but NK wouldn’t be able to brush off a strike against a US funded facility. The USSR was a lot more powerful than NK, and they backed down from a US blockade. We have a cease fire with NK. Not a peace treaty, a cease fire. I don’t see what’s so unthinkable about saying that the cease fire does not protect NK’s attempts to completely upset the balance of power.
My point was that, if necessary, it would probably be possible to force NK to fire the first literal shot. As you have clarified your position, that point is no longer relevant.
There’s a huge difference between having the ability to inflict massive casualties, and threatening its use. Do you really think that the US has threatened Canada with mass murder? I don’t think anyone here would seriously claim that if China were to invade Taiwan, the US attacking Canada would be a likely result. Yet it’s commonly accepted that if the US attacks NK, it’s likely that NK would inflict massive casualties on SK. And I think that it’s clear that NK has fostered this belief. AFAIK, Kim hasn’t explicitly said that any interference with his nuclear program will result in massive SK deaths, but saying that he therefore isn’t blackmailing the US is like saying that someone who walks into a bank, points a gun at the teller, and says “I’d like $100,000” isn’t guilty of armed robbery.
Huh? SK has the right to not participate in a strike against NK. We aren’t discussing SK’s course of action, we’re discussing the US’.
I think a better analogy would be that they’re shooting the guy that’s putting together the RPG (presumably to shoot the cop cars) and hoping that the hostage takers won’t respond by shooting the hostages.
Of course not.
So the US should take any risk it takes to help SK? It seems to me that you’re asking the US to be a vassal of SK.