Is any one but me in the least concerned by the North Korean forces that can now justify any attack made outside UN sanction? I don't think that it has really sunk in to many people that there is a HUGE threat to the majority of the Australasian countries. How will the 'Coalition of the Willing' react to an attack made on Japan, or South Korea etc. by the North Koreans? It seems to me like we have a loose cannon and it is one that relly IS armed with WoMD.

You forget that Japan, South Korea, ect have the world's largest WMD arsenal at thier disposal. Ours.

I agree. I think N. Korea is just talking tough to gain diplomatic points and concessions in any upcoming negotiations. We would not stand for any agressive moves by N.Korea.

But we'll see...Their leader does seem kinda crazy.

And what if America just goes for another preventive attack?

Isn't N.K. then "justified", as America was "justified" to invade Afghanistan, to invade and/or attack Japan?

As long as Japan remains "neutral", and doesn't take an active role in any conflict, N.K. has no justification to attack Japan, with possible exception of any US military targets that are being supported there. That said, launching a nuke into a Japanese harbor to take out an American battle group would have to be seen as a bit extreme, but then the French and Russians, and Chinese are in control of the UN, so I wouldn't expect much of a response from it (the UN). Even if N.K. nuked every major city in Japan I doubt the UN would do much. Perhaps after the UN inspectors were given a chance to go into N.K. and prove that the N.K. really were the ones that launched the nukes, and that they hadn't used their entire arsenal up in the attack, the UN might be moved to issue an official condemnation. I am sure that the N.K. are really scared of that! :rolleyes:

I truly feel that the next nuclear weapon used in an attack (anywhere) would pretty much be the end of life as we know it here on the little blue ball.

Let's see the map of the region, next to N.K is China, hardly US best friend. The way I see it the "hey don't mess with me I'm a bad crazy motherf*****" attitude of Kim Jong-il, the nuclear program, the propaganda, etc, are China's moves to discredit the US. After American provocation (like bombing a certain embassy in Belgrade), the Chinese are taking steps to make the world believe America hasn't the balls to take on anything more than a joke like Iraq's military.
Well, it seems to work, a lot of people wonder why the US is feeling so talkative with N.K while acting so aggressively towards Iraq.
China is not crazy and won't start WW3, so as long as N.K remain China's dog, let it bark, it won't launch a nuke on Japan when there are hundreds of nukes in South Korea aimed at Pyongyang.

Axis of evil? No I prefer the axis of weasel. The axis of weasel consists of France, Russia and Germany…

If the North Koreans keep this attitude up, Japan might invade THEM as a precaution. There already have been discussions going on about this in the Japanese government.

But you're right, this is a far more dangerous situation than the one with Iraq. They now have nucleair capabilities, they just don't have the proper rockettechnology (yet).

To think that China is manipulating N. Korea to be hostile is plain stupid. I'm tired of being nice. You are aware that China stopped the oil flow to North Korea for three days a little while back as a way to say, "shape up and negotiate!" right? North Korea would wither without the energy from China and it was a clear message from China.

(He, He, the darkest of all wolves is back :D )

There is no historical precedent to put
Words in the mouth of the president
There's no such thing as a winnable war
It's a lie we don't believe anymore
Mister Reagan says 'We will protect you'
I don't subscribe to this point of view European-Radio-Propaganda

I agree with Belisarius. The guy who orders the next nuclear attack is going to be remembered as the biggest mother****er that ever has been. If there will remain someone to remember.

I don't have a clue about east asia and the pacific. But:

In December, South Koreans elected a president who is openly sceptical of US policy. Roh Moo-hyun sees himself as a mediator between Pyongyang and Washington rather than an instinctive American ally.

But these are awkward times for the US military in Korea. While the North looks threatening, the South is an increasingly reluctant host.
While Americans have fun with France, Russia and German bashing, they stubbornly ignore that other countries going to be their nemesis.

My thoughts: The Americans, if guided by rationality, will of course not dear to touch NK. I know that there are a lot of speculations about a possible war course out. They are scary. 1 million dead on the first day.

And I seriously doubt, that either in Japan or in South Korea would really want to attack NK. There would be no support from the people for any war like this, mainly because there would be giantic causalties. Afaik, in both countries a majority of people even oppose the war in Iraq. And I think they're highly critical of every American move.

But I am sure, Japanese and Koreans would sleep way better, if NK would not threaten them, but threaten to convert NY, LA, Houston and Boston into a wasteland. That would lessen the chance that a narcissistic goverment confuses itself with Shane and John Wayne.

[ April 28, 2003, 20:39: Message edited by: Yago ]

North Korea would wither without the energy from China There you go. China pretty much controls N.K policy, if China says be mean, they're mean; if China says negotiate, they negotiate.
Or maybe N.K is willing to risk a war on Japan and S.K and face US intervention without any backup, that sounds plain stupid.

China doesn't control North Korea. They're too afraid that if the situation there gets any worse, they'll have a flood of refugees illegally crossing the border and have to do something drastic to stop it.

Strangley enough, I agree with BTA.

China does not "control" NK, but it is the country, which has the most means at his proposal to coerce NK.

On the other hand, NK is very important for China and can influence China. I am merely guessing now, but American forces in the near of the Chinese border should be, given the history of China, a giantic annoyance for them. I bet they don't want "white devils" in front of their gates. So, they somehow need NK to keep the Americans at bay.

I wonder, how the USA and China react, when Korea is ready for its reunion.

I have to say, I've noticed BTA batting 1.000 lately. Usually, he's not real talkative. I mean, he's always been more talkative than Shralp, but since Shralp posted 3 or 4 times a week at his peak, anything's an improvement.

NK is hurting right now. Like any good small communist country, they have depleted their resources. Military control costs resources; that's just the nature of it's existance. And NK is at that point.

The idea with negotiating with the US directly has a couple of benefits. Not the least of which is the US recognizing NK as a crediable threat in the internation community. They aren't sweating being recognized by Canada and Columbia, because they don't have planes and satellites and devil-dogs playing games like we do.

North Korea is every bit as bad as Iraq. I really don't know what to do about them. It's been a problem; and it's going to be a problem. The successful parasite does not kill it's host, and NK is not all that successful. Something has to give, at some point or another, either your people or your resources. NK is running out of resources, rapidly...

I don't think that China is any sort of a "puppet master" using NK as a front, but I do believe that if the NK do anything stupid, China will whip them back into shape. NK may talk tough about defying the US, and well they can, as if America tried to get a foothold in the Far East, China would flip -- aside from the fact that every time the US HAS tried to get a foothold in the Far East they've failed miserably!

Failed miserably ? How about Japan, did you forget they have militairy bases there ? And did you forget they also control the waters around Taiwan ? There are nucleair submarines patrolling constantly in that area, carriers are nearby, etc...

You call that a failure ?

You call that a failure ? It's obviously a failure. Those bases your're speaking of, became American after WW2. A war, if I remember correctly, the Japanese have lost. The Americans tried several times to strengthen their position in the far east. Every time they failed.

China used to be a colony, in the end, a colony of Japan. The Americans have no bases on mainland China. China under Mao became a fully indepent state. Guess, for MacArthur, that wasn't quite a success.

Korea. The Korean war ended undecided. Acutally in the same situation that the basis for the crisis today. Undecided. Keeping Korea together, under firm control of the Americans. Failure. All the more that South-Korea seems lately to get quite a will of its own.

Vietnam. No comment.

To say the truth bluntly, except in the Americas, the US-military history isn't quite impressive.

I've always maintained that the US could win a lot more wars if she were more ruthless, but given the fact that democracy and public opinion have such a large influence, they have to be humane! One of the prices for democracy, and IMHO, one worth paying.

None of the western powers - England, France or America - have had much success in trying to control the far east through military means. The best approach any of them can take is a hands-off one in these kinds of affairs. Yet the right in America is not that savvy. They believe that any of the eastern powers that don't demonstrate a desire to be like "us" needs some kind of rehabilatation.

Countries like Japan and Taiwan, who outwardly show a williness to want to Americanize in some fashion, are pointed to as success stories (even though their "Americanized" transformation is a superfical one). North Korea has not been much of a problem until Bush declared them in his Axis of Evil.

Here's the problem: NK has the capability to build nukes. But they don't have to be the ones who use them; they can sell them on the black market to anyone who is willing to pay them, as has been pointed out on this post, they are in a desperate economic situation.

Those on the right should think hard before deciding to do any saber-rattling, for you may be putting millions of lives at risk with your ideas of "Americanized" world cloning.

[ April 29, 2003, 07:29: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

North Korea has not been much of a problem until Bush declared them in his Axis of Evil.That's a bit backward IMO. If they weren't much of a problem, they wouldn't be declared part of the Axis of Evil. :)

Besides, even back when Clinton was president (1993/1994) they tried their hand at nuclear brinkmanship, so this is nothing new for North Korea. Back then certain agreements were made to try to achieve a nuclear free Korean peninsula. Didn't take.

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.

The problem is the North Koreans didn't abide by the framework agreement. Had they done so we would not be having this discussion.

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 ]

I've always maintained that the US could win a lot more wars if she were more ruthless, but given the fact that democracy and public opinion have such a large influence, they have to be humane! One of the prices for democracy, and IMHO, one worth paying.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've always maintained that the US could win a lot more wars if she were more ruthless, but given the fact that democracy and public opinion have such a large influence, they have to be humane! One of the prices for democracy, and IMHO, one worth paying. 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.

None of the western powers - England, France or America - have had much success in trying to control the far east through military means 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. :cool:
Someone in here said the axis of weasels for the UN and USA-GB-Australia axis is what; The axis of bullies; :rolleyes:

@ 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. :D

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.

NK did stop the bulk of their work on WMD program, but they continued, instead working a much smaller scale.My understanding is that they appeared to give up their Plutonium nuclear weapons program (by shutting down the reactors that were producing it), but clandestinely started a Uranium nuclear weapons program in its place.

The framework for a real, lasting agreement was in put in place by Clinton.It would have been a great idea if the North Koreans could be trusted to abide by the agreements, but that is plainly not the case. The agreements as made were far to easy for the North Koreans to secretly violate, and too easily cast aside when caught at their game.

North Korea is eager to put down her nuclear programm as long as she can get something for it.This is plainly not true. North Korea is eager to maintain it nuclear weapons programs in order to try to gain through threats and intimidation what South Korea is willing to give through peaceful means.

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

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 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.

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 ?
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.

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

effective a force as it could beEffecitve? Like the German army in WW2 ?

Depaara,
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. 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 :roll: :spin: 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.
:hmm: 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.

Actually, in a way, Depaara may be right. We could have been rougher in Vietnam. Yago, mentioning LBJ, got me thinking on Barry Goldwater, the grand daddy of present day conservative politics. If he had been elected instead of LBJ, well, all of us know of the famous politcal commercial: Ten...Nine... Eight...Seven.... Ahh, I am lapsing into sarcasm again. Where is Gen. Curtis LeMay when you need him?

Greenlion420,
Some politicians are interested in things other than money - how about power? How about ideology? Like religious motivations, communism, anti-communism, nazism or nationalism, maybe the vision of building an empire even, gaining glory, making history ... - that's what has driven conquerers and warlords over all centuries - it isn't any different today. These are for some people fulminant reasons to kill people, to do politics and to decide for peace or war.

Certainly, simplicity has a striking charme, but "Money, money, money" is just a stereotype, with a grain of truth, but still a naive stereotype: Too simple a theory to get a grip on history and reality.

I fully agree with Ragusa, but I like to counter simplicity with simplicity.

Politics controled by military, wee, duh.
Anynone know what drives generals ? you all know, so fess up. Money, fame, money, power, money. How stupid, what a waste of time, energy, and life in general.

There is only one right in the world and that right is one's own strength. (Adolf Hitler)
If you have the strengh to be ruthless, just be.

[ April 30, 2003, 12:42: Message edited by: Yago ]

Soldiers who place their own judgement and legitimation as "true patriots" over that of their political leaders have been seen frequently over this century. These people became notorious for toppling their democratic governments, as putschists.
Prime example are "true patriots" like Pinochet, Salazar, the greek Colonels and so on. Lacking legitimacy and public support they ruled by force. They all gained a reputation to piss on human rights and to opress their own people.

Militaries generally are anti-democratic by nature. There's not time for a poll in war. They work based on orders and obediance. Even generals have to obey the orders of their superiors, the civilians leading the ministeries of defence.

Politicians are elected in a more or less democratic process. Their legitimacy to decide on war and peace is based on the peoples vote. No general has this legitimacy.

That is the democratic reason why militaries need political guidance. They are dangerous without.

North Korea is eager to maintain it nuclear weapons programs in order to try to gain through threats and intimidation what South Korea is willing to give through peaceful means. I think BTA that you have a very nasty opinion about the North Korea i don't believe that they are a nation of thugs and blackmailers. And i don't think that the South Korea is not willing to give anything for free. Also the NK has demands from the USA mostly, telling them that if they can help them with their energy problem they will abandon their nuclear program. Isn't that right; The Bush administration said that NK belongs to the axis of evil and then decided not to negotiate too hard for a peacefull solution.
The way i see it is that they NK is trying to close an energy hole they have by using a card they used before and worked. (of course it worked with a different president not with Bush). It seems to me that if they could solve their energy problem they would happily exchange this solution with their nuclear weapons program. I don't like this extortion but one gets what he gives. Isn't that right;
And about Vietnam all i can say is that USA may have won the battle (Far more superior arsenal) but lost the war because USA never succeeded in convincing the Vietnamese that they came for their protection (which either way was not true).
And the troops did nothing to help in fact the way the war was going helped them to express their hate for this war in a most nasty way on the backs of the simple civilians.

[ April 30, 2003, 14:09: Message edited by: Mithrantir ]

Mithrantir,

I think BTA that you have a very nasty opinion about the North Korea i don't believe that they are a nation of thugs and blackmailers. And i don't think that the South Korea is not willing to give anything for free. Also the NK has demands from the USA mostly, telling them that if they can help them with their energy problem they will abandon their nuclear program. Are you really stating that Bush should have been more accommodating to the demands of the N. Koreans? That it really isn't blackmail, but that it was just an honest trade. The N. Koreans need energy, and they can't produce it any other way that to use nuclear power, so if the US will just help them out with their energy problems they will dismantle their nukes?

Do you mean kind of like the agreement that Clinton made with them? The one that the N. Koreans never honored? The one where as soon as they got used to what they were getting, they started demanding more?

That my friend is the very definition of blackmail.

I think BTA is right.

North-Korea needs money. Japan and South-Korea would be happy to give it, IF NK would be willing to open up a little. Opening up means in the long run end of the regime.

Now NK searches a way to get the money without being forced to open up. That's by stepping on the Americans toes.

Positve for NK: The diplomatic skills of the US-administration are notorious. (Powell usually has nothing to say). So, there's a second profit for NK, more tensinos between Japan, SK and the USA. That's more time for NK.

NK has the problem, that's the regime is ****ed up. It can not last. The question is, when will it end and how.

Well, looks like most of Mithrantir's points were already answered by others, but there is one more I'd like to address:

And i don't think that the South Korea is not willing to give anything for free.I never said for free; I simply said through peaceful means.

I never said it was not blackmail instead i said it was.
But what you didn't understand is that this blackmail is turned against the nation that has used to blackmail other nations and this was implied by the phrase one gets what one gives.
The way i see it is that they NK is trying to close an energy hole they have by using a card they used before and worked. (of course it worked with a different president not with Bush). It seems to me that if they could solve their energy problem they would happily exchange this solution with their nuclear weapons program. I don't like this extortion but one gets what he gives. Isn't that right;
I don't judge if this is right or wrong i just say that NK is using the exact same politic that USA used on many occasions i.e. Greece.
Greece three or four years ago was thinking of buying tanks the propositions was an american, german and russian tank. The russian tank was equivalent to the american and it was far more cheaper. At first they decided to buy the russian tank but as soon as the US learned about it the US embassador in Greece went to the Ministry of Defence and said that if the russian tank was purchased then the USA would break the 7 to 10 weapons analogy between us and Turkey in favor of Turkey of course.
Now this is blackmail is it not; So if you deal like this why should you expect that noone will deal with you the same way;
And one more thing the reactors the NK had for their nuclear weapons program was shut down until one day the NK administration decided to reopen them with the excuse that there was a demand for energy resources. I don't say this is true but i can't say this is false statement too.

Ragusa,

Those are only the bad examples. There have been examples of generals who have defended the democratic process as well. Many here in this country are unaware, but perhaps you may know of this event: there was a planned coup here after the election of FDR.

The rich and powerful were afraid of his New Deal program and they approached the military with a planned coup to take over the the US the day FDR was to be sworn in as President. They wanted him arrested as he entered the White House!

They were foiled by one of the generals who was a hero of WWI. I wish I could remember the general's name who stopped them from their actions, but I just can't think of it. My only point is that often the military is the last line of defense for a democracy. For every bad expmaple one can probably find a good one.

They were foiled by one of the generals who was a hero of WWI. I wish I could remember the general's name who stopped them from their actions, but I just can't think of it. My only point is that often the military is the last line of defense for a democracy. For every bad expmaple one can probably find a good one. Chandos the red. I have to desagree. I suggest reading the Federalist Papers and it's comment on the second amendment. NOTHING IS MORE DANGEROUS FOR THE STATE THAN IT'S OWN MILITARY. That's the reason my country and your country share the same constitution-article. (Thieves !)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Amendments. The people were afraid of the constituiton and demanded amendments to protect them VERSUS THE STATE -> no establishment of church, right to assemble peacefully, the right to bear arms -> Those arms are meant to protect the Americans versus the federal state. The Federalist Papers are very explicit in that case. Even a calulation that the people will overwhelm the US-Army 20 to 1. (wouldn't be correct today, would it ?)

Secondly. In the Federalist papers you'll also find, that the fathers of the constitution were convinced, that dictatorship ALWAYS connected to the army. Mad King George ruled through his army.

Ironically. The American thought has heavily influenced the Germans. Ragusa is now only repeating, what he has learned because of a process, which other Americans on this board have described as very successfull nationbuilding.

Nothing is more dangerous to a free state than its military and generals.

European and Latin-American history is full of Generals who seized power and installed a dictatorship. Anyway, I just realized, how much time in avarage history classes are spend on "Establishing a military-dictorship, basics". Do you know what a big part in history a certain Ex-General Hindenburg had ?

My favourite General is still Franco. Unlike his contemporaries, he had quite a brain. That's why he lasted so long.

For every bad expmaple one can probably find a good one. I seriously doubt, that you will ever find enough empirical evidence to prove that theory.

[ May 01, 2003, 00:11: Message edited by: Yago ]

Yago -- Mad king? Are you referring to King George III of England, or the current mad King George who runs America?

The greatest danger to a democracy is an uninformed electorate. They are a far worse danger than the military. Americans are currently loosing their rights because they are willingly giving them away. They don't know any better, because the media here keeps them ill-informed. Jay Leno regularly makes fun of people on his program who don't know who the current Vice President is, but I bet they can tell you the brand of every car that passes them by on the street.

Yes, I agree the lessons of history support your argument, but America is not so deep in history as Europe. The situation here is new, because the American experiment is somewhat unique to history. The problem is the more information people have the less they know. This is the age of information, the greatest advances in communications, and what do Americans find of interest? Jerry Springer. And he is talking of running for office. You can add him to the list with Ventura, the former wrestler, of the absurdity of American politics.

Right now there are people being held in Amreican prisons who have not been charged with a crime. They are just sitting there rotting in jails, like in Cuba or former Iraq. Convictions are being reexamined because of DNA evidence and men who were close to being executed are now being found to be completely innocent. Now we say, "Oh sorry for having you locked up for the last 15 years, Ok you can go now."

The constitution that you speak of is being ignored by the Department of Justice and the reprenstatives in congress represent the NRA and other special interest groups that pay them to pass laws that maintain the status quo.

Now, I have nothing but respect for you and Ragusa. You are both smart guys with great depth of knowledge. But the American military is hardly the problem here. Colin Powell may be the most mild of the current bunch of war mongers who currently reside in the white house basement. And he was a former general, the rest of were draft dodgers.

I heard Shrub say that the American military is bringing democracy and prosperity to Iraq. Maybe when they are finshed there they can do the same for us in America.

[ May 02, 2003, 02:00: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Pac Man, the US may be the most advanced military in the world, but that does not necesarily mean that they would win. For one thing, you do not attack a country which can fire a nuclear missle at Hawaii or Alaska, and they wouldn't dare do jack s**t to China, because the US will lose too much money, from the war itself, and from the American Companies in China. Oh and I noticed all the references to the Vietnam war, but what about the Korean War?The Chinese were able to push the technologicaly advanced US military back, thus bringing the war to a stand still. And during the Vietnam War, many of the soldiers were Hmong Rebels, and were trained by the CIA. However, the US abbandoned them to die at the hands of the Communist goverment. To this day the Hmong are still being hunted, and only 800 are living.

Hmmm. Looks like I came across like a raving loonie. I'm not in favor of a military state or military supremecy. I was referring to micromanagement of the conduct of the war by people who had no idea how to win battles -- I'm thinking of the "Hamburger Hill" concept, where the decisions of back room politicos got men unnecessarily killed.

Woah, I didn't expect such a serious and, Big reaction. I hit a couple of nerves obviously. There seems to be a huge problem with the whole China/Korea issue. I think that China has enough to worry about with the media making it to be the new world equivelant of a rat carrying plague. They will be worrying about SARS before they will worry about NK. Really, what need is there for weapons anyway? rhetorical.

At Chandos the Red. Sorry, I may have overreacted a little bit. What I usally always do.

I see your point. By the way, if I would have all that written what you have written, I would be burned as Anti-american.

You're right, Colin Powell is probably the last foundation of Americanism in your Goverment. By the way, interesting how many Generals have lost their job in the Pentagon lately. And have been replaced by whom ?

But there's a another interesting point you raised, the American brain is alive and kicking. But it choses deliberately to remain uninformed, with everything that has something to do with foreing policy. Something does not quite make sense. It must be the Germans, French, Russians, Belgians, South-Koreans and something weird like "Anti-Americanism".

But I have the feeling, that issues concerning East-Asia are dealt with differently than Middle-East issues. I mean through Media-outlets. It's not so easy to ignore East-Asia. Homeland of Sony, Nintendo and a lot of other companies, important to every home in the western world.

Depaara,
you pointed on the superiority of soldiers when judging military action, stating that soldiers alone would fight more efficient. Simplified it is: "Let the soldiers do their job and they will do it better than with political leadership."

You can't have missed that I pointed out what happened when this thinking is used generally and consequently and the dangers related with it - in an abstract strategic dimension, in reference to democracy and to human-rights. So what part of that didn't you understand?