Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carragher who wrote (64116)	1/2/2003 7:34:36 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

No Room for Logic in Bush Foreign Policy Darn, but those weapons of mass destruction keep turning up in the wrong places. thenation.com Forward air bases, Army infantry units, a hospital ship and docile yet combat-trained reporters are all being readied for a "regime change" war against Iraq promoted as a way to rid the world of an arsenal Saddam Hussein doesn't seem to have. That United Nations inspectors, even after American intelligence briefings, are coming up empty-handed is embarrassing enough, but then North Korea had to steal the show by taking the wraps off its far more advanced nuclear weapons program. That's pretty scary because American intelligence agencies believe that bizarre, unpredictable North Korea already has enough plutonium and tested bomb technology for one or two functioning nuclear warheads that can easily be lobbed at our ally South Korea, home base of 37,000 US soldiers. Pyongyang in 1998 fired one of its long-range Taepodong missiles over Japanese territory. American intelligence officials believe that the regime is working on missiles capable of reaching Hawaii and beyond. Yet we have made it clear we are not planning to go to war with North Korea. "We have no hostile intent toward North Korea, and we hope they will come to their senses," Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday. He later added that "nobody is mobilizing armies, nobody is threatening each other yet." Powell went on to say: "Let's take this patiently. Let's take it with deliberation. Let's work with our friends and allies." Perhaps not surprisingly, it's the one proven warrior in the Bush White House who seems to understand that peace is worth fighting for and that diplomatic finesse is not a sign of weakness; war is. Were it not for Powell, the chicken hawks in the Administration--warmongers who have not themselves experienced battle--already would have us invading Iraq without giving U.N. inspectors a chance. Led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, these strident cheerleaders for so-called preemptive action are obviously disappointed that the Iraq inspections have turned up nothing more then the rusting remnants of a deadly weapons programs originated--and used--with the full knowledge of the US government to punish fundamentalist Iran. Now, however, Iran, still in Bush's putative "axis of evil" along with Iraq and North Korea, may have a much more advanced nuclear weapons program than Iraq. In fact, the Shiite fundamentalists must be high-fiving in Tehran over the costly American makeover of Central Asia. These fundamentalists would be the biggest benefactors of any takedown of neighboring Iraq, as they were when the United States installed Iran's longtime puppets, the Northern Alliance, as top dogs in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the nuclear nonproliferation regime is a shambles, with President Bush publicly derisive about existing arms control pacts. Bush insists that we will be just fine relying on a cockamamie missile defense fantasy that is arguably the biggest defense contractor boondoggle in the nation's long history of such deals. Feeling safe yet? You shouldn't be. Washington's foreign policy is now less logical than Pyongyang's. A starving dictatorship's clumsy blackmail attempts at least make some twisted sense in that the Bush Administration has refused, from its very first days, to even discuss North Korea's persistent request for a nonaggression pact with the United States. The Administration plan is to isolate this paranoid excuse for a nation, as if it isn't already the most isolated place on Earth. If we can't make peace with an utterly defeated nation like North Korea, we're in trouble. From Columbine to Weimar Germany, humiliating those with nothing to lose is always a recipe for disaster. South Korea and Japan understand this, and both countries are making major moves in an attempt to bring the North Koreans back into the world community. The United States, which unleashed the nuclear monster and is still the only nation to have used this deadliest weapon of mass destruction against innocent civilians, should also understand why other nations want one. It's a sick and ultimately suicidal obsession, but who are we to talk when we are designing ever more efficient nuclear weapons for preemptive use, underground "bunker busting" and God knows what else? We are the ones who continue to give legitimacy to the weapons of mass destruction, threatening devastating preemptive strikes, including possible use of nuclear weapons, against those who defiantly refuse to bend to the will of Washington. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration remains detached from the destabilizing Israeli-Palestinian nightmare, is struggling to gain footing against Al Qaeda and is apparently indifferent to the successes of Muslim fundamentalism in Chechnya, Lebanon, Yemen, Palestine and Pakistan. Instead, we are mobilizing our massive forces against a weakened secular dictator 6,000 miles away who doesn't seem to have had anything to do with a series of devastating terrorist attacks. What is happening here? Certainly not the construction of a coherent foreign policy aimed at increasing the security of the United States or our allies. This is an Administration that in two years has so mucked up our approach to the world that merely applying the demands of logic is made to appear unpatriotic.

To: John Carragher who wrote (64116)	1/2/2003 8:40:00 PM
From: James F. Hopkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think we removed them, some time ago, or at least the cores. Where; when and what type of weapons we deployed over the years has always been cloaked in much secrecy, and even when & if you do get info tahts been de-classified it's full of ( blacked out lines ). Some of the countries that accepted our nukes would only do it in secrete as they didn't want to become targets. Our nuke programs have always been highly secrete, and it follows that the current status would still be. ------ But back to the troops on N. Korea bring them home and as soon as we do; a push to get rid of them altogether will be the next step just as sure as night follows day. In more cases than not it cost more to maintain troops on our own soil than it does to station them some where else. At least some people see it that way and they also fear if we bring them all home congress down size the armed forces until we have next to nothing. --- There is a lot taht don't get said or explained and I'm almost to old now to even guess about. My reason for posting is that I may get some feed back that could let me make a guess. I'm not personally taking either side of( should they come home or not.) but my gut feel is maybe we could take them out of Korea..and put them somewhere else..which could happen fast enough if we get tangled up in Iraq. I personally don't have any real love for Koreans north or south. Hell China don't like them and makes no bones about it, but would prefer to have them camping on their door step with out us being there. Jim

To: John Carragher who wrote (64116)	1/2/2003 8:54:38 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

JC< In Korea we have a Quartet that will make the attempt to solve this problem regionally. US troops have been used in Korea, exactly as in Berlin, as a trip wire. If the North attacks we have plenty of dead and are at war whether we like it or not. But having a tripwire assumes almost and identity of interest between allies. We had that with germany and korea. Now SK is embarked on a different course. We need to either reverse our position and play the game of saving face between these asian nations or go our own way. If we adopt a more conciliatory stance, with the North and adopt the Souths position which some would label appeasement, we should keep the troops there for at least awhile longer. If we go separate ways with the south, we need to get them out. I am still leaning to keeping them at this time and allowing the Quartet to make policy. Appeasement may be more of a european no no that Asian. This saving face/perceived insults thing may have some legitimacy in Asia. It perhaps is a way to prevent war and keep the balance of power. I would be interested in views from any Asian specialists out there. mike