I see Hawk, you want you post dismantled line by line -- I will oblige:
__________________________________________________________
GST wrote: <<"The nuclear programme now under way in North Korea poses an imminent danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities,">>
Hawk replied: <<How is that different than what we faced for the past 50 years?>>
Hawk then wrote: <<Only if Kim Il Song gives a nuke to a terrorist regime will we likely face an actual nuclear attack from N. Korean uranium.>>
______________________________________
My reply: Not so. The risk of war with North Korea is very high. Terrorism is a real and very significant risk, but the risk of war breaking out at any time is also of grave concern and it is growing by the day.
_____________________________________
Hawk wrote: <<Nuclear weapons are for the purpose of preserving a regime. This is what Saddam sought to achieve.. It is what Iran seeks to achieve. Saddam, in order to intimidate neighboring Arab regimes, and unite the Arab "nation" behind him as a new "Saladin".. The Iranians, in order to preserve their regime from outside interference.
But those two countries are located in a region that is of economic significance to the entire world, while N. Korea is not.
And N. Korea borders China, which seemingly would have little desire to see Kim possess nukes and stir up more turmoil on the peninsula. China knows that Japan and S. Korea feel extremely threatened by Kim's nuclear program.
They also know that these nations will increase their defense spending and potentially "go nuke" themselves in order to possess their own national deterrence. This threatens China's stability, as well as their desire to control and influence the region.
So I say Mr. Perry is wrong. Kim Il Sung is bottled up on a peninsula, with no where to go, no where to expand. His nuclear program will only place an excessive economic burden on his already devastated economy.>>
____________________________________________
My reply: Incorrect. The United States is a direct threat to North Korea. Bush upped the ante by threatening North Korea in the axis of evil speech. North Korea wants nukes to deter the US and to use in the event of war -- an event that is growing far more likely under the Bush Administration.
____________________________________________
Hawk wrote: <<Kim Il Sung is a savvy "poker player", willing to push confrontation to the brink until he gets the other side to cave in and appease his demands. This includes paying "attention" to him in the media, the White House, and the UN. He believes even bad publicity is good since he is able to focus the world's attention upon himself.
Mr Perry said with uncharacteristic bluntness: "The reason we don't have a policy on this and aren't negotiating is the President himself. I think he has come to the conclusion that Kim Jong Il is evil and loathsome and that it is immoral to negotiate with him."
Again.. Mr. Perry is wrong. Our policy is that any talks about N. Korea's nuclear programme MUST BE multi-national, including China, Japan, and S. Korea. Kim Il Sung wishes to force a "one on one" negotiation with the US, who's only presence on the peninsula consists of 37,000 troops (against Kim's 1 million man army)
And Mr. Perry, it would seem to me, is more than willing to play right into the hands of Kim Il Sung by supporting direct negotiations between Bush and Kim.
And that's just plain stupid.. Which thus causes me to question Mr. Perry's claim of being an "expert" on Korea affairs.
He certainly doen't understand the use of power and strategic gamesmanship, or even high stakes poker.>>
_______________________________________________________
My reply: This line of reasoning is typical of the Administration and is borne of ignorance of the region. China and South Korea are far more likely than the US to prop up North Korea for the sake of keeping North Korea from collapsing. North Korea wants direct talks with the US for two reasons: First, the US has more to offer in carrots and the US is the only country currently in a position to attack North Korea, altough Japan is now buidling its military in preparation for that eventuality as well. Second, and more importantly, Bush threatened North Korea with invasion and the North now wants talks to get promises that the US will not invade -- this issue is not a game, it is real. It puts pressure on a hair trigger that we do not want to pull or have pulled on us. Bush made two dumb moves -- threaten the North gratuitously to make one of his speeches more lively and refuse to deal with the situation.
The war with North Korea is as likely to begin as a stupid miscalculation on either side as it is for broader strategic reasons. Perry is right on the money: Bush's failure to comprehend the situation in North Korea, and the ideological blinders of his Administration, prevent Bush from seeing that our interests are best served by direct talks. China and South Korea will be of little use to us in this process. Failure to engage North Korea makes the prospect of war by intent or by miscalculation a grave and immediate threat.
________________________________________________
Hawk wrote: <<Apparently he's never read Sun Tzu.>>
_______________________________________________
My reply: Apparently, Hawk shoots from the hip and assumes that the US cannot lose in a military showdown with anybody -- this is dangerous and ignorant bluster. North Korea has little to lose, and the hair trigger that stands between us and war is now tied to nuclear weapons. While Bush dallies and lets the situation slip out of control, the threat merely escalates. |
