Bullshit. Al-Qaida is at best indifferent to innocent Muslims killed in their various attacks, and equally indifferent to their “interests”, choosing instead to pursue political goals that would, if fulfilled, put all Muslims and non-Muslims under their total power.
Holding up Al-Qaida as a defender of Muslim interests is much like describing the Nazi party as defenders of German interests. You might have been okay if the party decided you were a “good” German, but if were undesirable in any way, it was off to the trains for you.
And truth be told, I don’t consider such a comparison to be a Godwin violation.
Go back to my database cite for a comprehensive list of Dick Cheney misleading statements.
Maybe I should change that to “lazy readers”…
Back to the OP - I’ve been thinking about this, and while I agree that Kim Jong Il is horrible for the people of North Korea, how do you make the case that he is the world’s worst leader? As the OP states, there should be “global significance”. He might win on the domestic front, but beyond that, where is your case for him as a contender?
I also wouldn’t put George Bush in the same category as Kim, but let’s face it - he’s definitely on the list of contenders for this prize. What makes it difficult to assess objectively is that he is “Leader of the Free World”, so his global significance is pre-eminent by default.
I’ve also considered the OP’s choice of Ariel Sharon, and I think he’s a contender too, but I would ask: What is he doing that George Bush isn’t doing on a global scale? They share a neoconservative right wing ideology, and both believe that “the ends justify the means”. As far as “national security concerns”: Which country’s security was most threatened by Iraq, the US or Israel?
Musharraf must be mentioned, but a lot of the condemnation for him (on the nukes issue) can also be attributed to George Bush - the ISI (Pakistani intelligence) was always a CIA go-between - it’s incredible to assume that the ISI and the CIA (and therefore Musharraf and Bush) were completely unaware of Khan’s activities. In general I’d ask: How much corrollary blame do we assign to the Leader of the Free World for the actions of those leaders under his influence?
Can anyone here dispute that if this question was asked worldwide that George Bush wouldn’t come out on top, or at least in the top 3? Out of curiousity, I googled “world’s worst leader”. I’m sure you can guess the majority of the results. Saying that you “don’t give a shit” about the world’s opinion is beyond lazy reading, and certainly not helpful to the interests of the US in the long run. There is a worldwide negative consensus regarding the Bush admin., in addition to about half of US citizens. Are they all crazy tinfoil hatters???
Sorry, couldn’t resist the smartass comeback, although I dislike spelling and grammar nitpicks in general. FWIW, english isn’t my first language either. Your posts are highly understandable to me; agreement on all your views is the variable
Let’s start with the fact that Kim is the leader of the only country to have been opposed by a UN supported multi-national force. I do not claim that if the 38th parallel heated back up to a fighting war tomorrow, the various UN forces from the 50’s would return, but it’s not impossible, either. And the current stand off is only a cease-fire, not a peace. It’s never been reported much in the US, but there are approximately 50 KIA’s a year along that front.
Then there’s the whole issue of the Japanese abductees. First, I find the whole concept of using children as hostages to be abhorrent. When doing it as a means of trying to control people stolen from a foreign country and forced to train spies is even worse. Even today, North Korea has only admitted to (IIRC) 12 abductions, and of that number only 5 were reported as being still alive. The Japanese are convinced that there are still more that haven’t been reported.
Then there’s the reactor that is at the root of the current diplomatic scuffle. It is, IIRC, of the same design as the reactor that is behind the contamination of large tracts of the Ukraine today. Kim strikes me as being far enough from sanity to be willing to use it as a weapon to poison a large portion of the Korean penninsula, if he so chose. Not only would that further devastate his own country’s agriculture, but also that of South Korea, and possibly poison the fishing in the Yellow Sea as well.
This is ignoring the allegations about a North Korean nuclear program, and their missile experiments. I think that while Kim isn’t able to immediately affect anyone but his neighbors, it is unjust to claim that his only claim to the ‘title’ is for what he’s done and is doing to those poor schmucks within his own borders.
Okay, but the bulk of your case is based on speculation of what Kim might do. As you say, the immediate effect isn’t there. As I’ve said before, only time will tell who the “current worst leader” turns out to be in retrospect. But a few points of my own:
So again I ask, what corollary blame do we assign to the Bush admin. as to excaberating the North Korea/Kim Jong global problem?
Well, the “Kim Jong is insane” meme is another thing I question. What are we basing it on? This from Wikpedia:
I’m not defending Kim as an angel by any means, but what of those more credible charges qualifies as insanity? As with the"Axis of Evil" diatribe, these soundbites are meant for western consumption. Easy to swallow, combined with Kim’s eccentric appearance and foibles - he’s a casting director’s dream of a dictator - but eccentric doesn’t equal insanity to the degree you and others use as a basis for speculation.
I think you’re correct about the numbers. AFAIK, many Japanese were optimistic about the fact that Kim finally admitted and publicly apologised for the situation.
Again, let me stress that I’m not proposing this guy for the Nobel Peace Prize. I’m trying to figure out which , of all these proposed “worst” leaders, bears the most responsibility for more negative global consequences.
The problem is that North Korea in 1994 recieved a pretty damned hefty bribe in order to keep their reactor (and nuclear program) shut down. The idea of negotiating in good faith again with Kim strikes me as a very poor choice. To criticize the Washington negotiators for being ‘hardliners’ without acknowledging that from the prospective of those same persons, Kim has already reneged on a very beneficial deal seems again one-sided.
True. However, what little I’ve seen in the US press and online has shown growing frustration in Japan over the continuing treatment of the abductee’s families. It’s not a ‘completed’ situation.
Don’t worry, I’m not accusing you of doing that. Nor am I all that much of a Bush booster. I think he’s made a great number of mistakes. I don’t think that going into Afghanistan was one. Nor am I all that upset about the war in Iraq. I’m furious that he and his administration were so eager to fabricate casus belli that they were willing to lie, or simply accept unsubstantiated claims of WMD. Especially since it was all so unnecessary: With the games that Hussein was playing to keep Hans Blix from being able to certify that Iraq had no WMD, Hussein was in clear violation of the terms of the cease fire for the original Gulf War.
I know I’m being somewhat one-sided in my view of this, but IMO, the Bush admin. has zero credibility at this point, and it seems too obvious that they are actively working against any kind of diplomatic solution. Tell me something: If you were Kim Jong, would you believe that they have “no intention of invading or attacking North Korea”? Is he crazy for feeling insecure in this situation?
Thanks for the cites. I think it’s a horrible situation. Unfortunately, I believe it’s being used as “a political football”, as your cite says.
Tell me, what do you see as the best approach here? And considering what has come out about Iraq, how can you justify trusting the Bush admin. statements re intelligence and working with the UN inspections process?
First, I’d like to remind you that this situation has not played out along a stable and peaceful border. As I stated in my previous post the average is approximately 50 US servicemembers killed each year on the 38th parallel. I don’t know the number of South Koreans killed, but I assume it’s at least equal to that. Stories of North Korean mini-subs trying to get infiltrators to the south that are caught or destroyed by shipping are almost an annual or biennual event. Given this background it would be irresponsible for the US military to NOT have contingency plans drawn up for attacks on the North, or to launch counter-attacks in response to the North.
As for the proliferation of nuclear weapons on the Korean penninsula. In my (Not So) humble opinion the blame for that lays with the blame for most of the people killed in the Korean Conflict: right at the feet of Douglas MacArthur. His public requests for permission to use nuclear weapons to destroy ‘strategic’ targets in the North, and in China meant that when the UN forces reached Inch’on, the Chinese were compelled by their fears to push the borders back south. To that end they used human wave attacks where their fantastic superiority in numbers sufficed to overcome the qualitative superiority of the US and UN troops. In the light of how effective such human wave attacks were, the military in South Korean came to accept that the only way to stop such if they begin pressing on towards Seoul is the use of nuclear weapons. Whether you or I like it, at this point a nuclear arsenal in South Korea is a political necessity, and will remain one until both Koreas agree to set aside their goals of unifying the penninsula under one government.
Remember, at the moment, the only agreement with regards to the 38th parallel is an armistice. There is no formal peace treaty. At this point, I don’t see how a recognizable North Korean or South Korean government could work for one.
Now, reading your first cite from The Bulletin I agree the US could have been better about avoiding playing the ‘Nuclear’ card. However, when the same article you cited says:
This just three years after the 1994 deal. A case can be made that there is more than a little reason to view P’yongyang’s return to working on a nuclear arsenal as predating the Bush administration by three years. Obviously neither you nor I knows exactly when the CIA first heard about this particular deal, but it does make the current administration’s hostility towards North Korea seem reasonable in my mind.
I don’t see how North Korea building any kind of nuclear arsenal will make it more secure vis-a-vis a US attack: Their missile technology is, so far, barely able to target Japan. Which is why Japan is supporting the US’s hardline approach, reluctantly, but still supporting it. That leaves only three scenarios for a North Korean nuclear weapons program: First, solely as a deterrent - which only affects South Korea and Japan, not very effective if their concerns are a US attack; Second, a terrorist-style attack by putting a bomb into a container timed to destroy a US port, which guarantees that there would be a nuclear conflagration on the Korean Penninsula; or Third, selling North Korean bombs to the highest bidders. Given the relative impotence of a North Korean deterrance (at this time) I cannot help but feel that those two other possibilities are VERY scary and hardline bargaining isn’t really out of line. The fact that China is not supporting North Korea to the hilt on this leads me to believe that the Chinese leadership is concerned about the stability/sanity of the North Korean leadership.
Frankly, given what is known (and estimated) about the number of people who have starved in North Korean since the famine there began in the early-mid nineties, I have a hard time accepting any arguments about why I should be outraged by Bush calling North Korea one of the ‘axis of evil’. 20 million people are estimated to have starved under Kim Jong Il. 20 million. That’s almost as many as Josef Stalin is believed to have killed. The massacres in Bosnia and Rwanda combined don’t count even 10% of that total. That’s twice the number of people of all backgrounds who were killed in the Nazi’s final solution. And if Bush wants to ‘loathe’ Kim Jong Il, he has my blessings.
I’d also like to point out, the job of the staff in the Pentagon is to plan for all contingencies. Even unlikely ones. Considering that North Korea is the only nation that I can think of where we are still co-belligerents in a war that has never been concluded with a formal peace treaty they’d be guilty of criminal negligence if they had no plans for a nuclear attack on North Korea. To pick an example from history, during the 1920’s the advesary of most of the War Department’s plans had been England. Just because one has plans for a contingency doesn’t mean that they will be used.
I agree, and worse, it’s not one being used by the US government. The US seems to be completely ignoring the issue of other abductees, and the abductees’ children. The American electorate is too bloody provincial to actually pay attention to human rights abuses either here or abroad until their noses are rubbed in it. After being motivated by mule training methods.*
I’ll admit that my views are a bit of a ‘but since we’re the 500 lb gorilla, you have to what we say, and trust us.’ What I’d like to propose would be the following: A return to the status quo posited in the 1994 agreement, with the following addendum: All nuclear weapons will be removed from South Korea. To provide the nuclear capability that Seoul requires, a short squadron of SSBN’s would be moved to home port in Yokohama, and one of those boats will be on patrol in the Yellow Sea at all times. I don’t know that it would work, (The Japanese would be sure to have great galloping fits about it.) but it’s the best I can come up with at 3 AM.
Given the history in The Bulletin’s article, how can you justify any proposal that does not require North Korea to give up on its nuclear weapon program?
*Mule training: Mules are easily trained once you get their attention by breaking a two by four across their foreheads.
Where are you getting this kia number from? I haven’t found anything to verify that. AFAIK, there have been less than 100 US deaths since 1953 and none in 2003 (S. Korean deaths are higher though). Also, didn’t US pull back from DMZ in 2003? I understand the need for a contingency plan; just not sure how this prevents engagement and negotiations to your mind.
True about the treaty, but AFAIK S. Korea has been more willing to improve inter-Korean relations than US, Russia, China, and Japan. Certainly a unified Korea would not be in China or Japan’s best interest right now.
True we don’t know. But I’m sceptical of any previous intel info right now. CIA has recently (in light of Iraq) ordered a “review” of N. Korean intelligence. However, I still believe there is no reasonable reason for hostility if you are sincere about a diplomatic solution. Why no hostility towards Pakistan? You or I can “loathe” Kim but coming from G. Bush - who couldn’t even name most world leaders 3 years ago? I can’t see it as anything more than western spin, to ease the way for the desired regime change.
There are various views of their missile capability and rationale for the nukes. IMO, it’s more important to try to understand Kim’s rationale rather than put forth your own logic. The other Asian nations have been saying this but US is either ignorant or apathetic or both. I agree that China is probably fed up with Kim, but they are still not at the point where they will support a regime change or any action that leads to a mass exodus of refugees.
Again, I don’t believe Kim is insane, although the situation is certainly unstable. There haven’t been any terrorist attacks so I’m discounting that scenario for the moment. What makes it more unstable (and gives incentive to your sell to the highest bidder scenario) is economic sanctions. I think trade and economic reform is more likely to trigger an internal revolution - let the N. Korean people take him out themselves.
Again I ask where you are getting your numbers. I’ve seen estimates ranging from half million to 3 million. Certainly bad enough for outrage, but 20 million? And again, that “axis of evil” comment was meant for you (western citizen you) so I’m not surprised you don’t mind. But how does it help with negotiations? Unless you have no desire to negotiate the “moral indignation” routine is disingenuous. The reality is, if you’re going to sit down at the table you’ve got to be prepared to deal. Consider the Japanese abductions problem. S. Korea has had more abductions, but so far they’re not putting it on the table in these multilateral talks. Horrible as it is, the reality is that abductions are small potatoes for the “big 3” when nukes are on the table.
Well, I think that if you are a 500 lb gorilla, you don’t need to resort to bluster and hardline rhetoric. The implied threat is more valuable. China knows this. As for “trust us” - it would be hard to argue that Kim is paranoid for not trusting the US at this point. Who does?
Not sure what to think of your proposal. I’ve read something similar on Asia Times but can’t find it now. Too much going on right now to predict anything: Roh’s impeachment, elections coming up this year, etc. I know Kerry’s said he would agree to bilateral talks but remain pretty much hardline. What Cheney would do if re-elected is too scary to think about, IMO.
As for N. Korea not giving up the nukes - well, it wouldn’t be ideal, but if the other Asian countries are willing to negotiate without that proviso, it might be the only realistic way to make any kind of progress (or at least get back to the pre-Bush admin. level).
For the person that mentioned the “googled” world’s worst leader and got Bush as the result…do you even realize the number of things wrong with that statement and why this absoulutely cannot be used as proof for anything?
Obviously. Opinions aren’t proofs. The OP was asking for opinions. Every post on this thread is an opinion. My google comment pointed to opinions found on the internet (not all of them alluded to Bush, nor did I say that).
No, Google is a search engine, and a biased search engine based on what websites pay money to it, so Google is hardly an unbaised source of information. That is my point.
First of all, you seem to have this idea that opinions on other sites are automatically more biased than any of the opinions expressed in this thread, and are therefore invalid as part of this discussion. Perhaps you would like to defend your own opinion as being less biased than any of the others, either posters here or those listed in the google results?
Second, here is an explanation of how google ranks search results. If you consider that “biased” (because it comes from google), I ask you to defend your premise and explain how this site -
managed to pay for the honour of being the first result when you type in “world’s worst leader”. The second result is a personal blog.
Of course you’re entitled to your own opinion, but it seems obvious you are simply pissed off that others are ranking someone you intend to vote for as the “world’s worst”. Understandable, but no basis to argue your “no biased opinions allowed” stance.
