The US Is Pushing North Korea to the Brink
Nes
North Korea are totally misrepresented in the US national media. Here's an
attempt to analyze the important events leading to the crisis and
consequently apportioning blame where it belongs, with the Bush
Administration and its unconscionable short-sighted, unilateral, and
hegemonial policies.
The US Government's numerous public allegations that the North Korean
Government is in violation of the international treaties and deals it has
signed on to prior to November 18th, 2002 (a very important date to
understanding the wellspring of the crisis), are hereby vigorously denied as
US propaganda, spin-doctoring, and outright lies.
All right, here goes, in three paragraphs:
"The US Is Pushing North Korea to the Brink."
1) First of all were GW Bush' speeches post 9/11 where he said N-Korea was
directly responsible for the attacks in some unspecified way (though
offering no proof, naturally). The President's decision to accuse N-Korea of
being a member of an "Axis of Evil" (whatever that means, but to an
international audience the only way it can be interpreted, despite its lose
and unfocussed formulation, is as a historical reference to the Tri-Partite
Alliance of Germany, Italy, and Japan [the Iron Pact] during WWII) was
crucially important. In other words, the N-Korean Government was put into a
category of historical US enemy nations - like Germany, Italy, and Japan of
WWII who were all potential targets for the first use of a nuclear weapon
in history. That MUST have made it impossible for the N-Korean Government to
interpret the intentions and plans of the US Government in any other way
than regarding it as actually threatening a pre-emptive US nuclear
strike/war against North Korea itself. ["I'll beat you up, just like
Japan!" - Any schoolyard bully knows this technique.]
Links:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/30/ret.axis.facts/
Fact sheet: Bush's 'axis of evil'
January 30, 2002 Posted: 8:04 p.m. EST (0104 GMT)
In his first State of the Union speech Tuesday night, President Bush said
his goal was "to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening
America or our friends with weapons of mass destruction." He singled out
Iraq, Iran and North Korea, claiming these states "and their terrorist
allies constitute an axis of evil arming to threaten the peace of the
world."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2) That automatically brings forth the next point: The adoption of the US
Government of a general pre-emptive military stance. To do so was a
milestone in US foreign policy, because for the first time since before WWI,
the US Government and the US national political establishment have formally
renounced multilateral relations and adopted "War of Aggression" or "War of
Pre-emption" as the general US strategic doctrine. By the way, such
strategies are illegal according to the UN Charter and international law,
and the mere fact that the US Government could decide to implement this
doctrine [the "Doctrine of Nuclear Pre-emption" or simply "Bush Doctrine"]
without parliamentary opposition is an indication of the degree to which US
foreign and war (no, can't say defence any longer, not with pre-emption as
the main US doctrine) policies are at the present beyond parliamentary
control or oversight. This unilateral change in US foreign policy of
adopting a pre-emptive military stance, promising or threatening first use
of nuclear (and other) weapons (of mass destruction) against a number of
different targets around the World, N-Korea included, undoubtedly had grave
import on the N-Korean leadership in impressing upon them how earnest and
factual were and are the intentions of the current US Government in carrying
out in practise its warlike policies and threats regarding declared and
undeclared enemies.
Links:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-News/message/6627
____________________________
Excerpts: Bush's National Security Strategy / Full Text: Bush's National
Security Strategy
(New York Times, 20 September 2002)
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
____________________________
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/international/20CND-STRA.html?pagewanted=p
rint\&position=top
September 20, 2002
Bush Outlines Doctrine of Striking Foes First
By DAVID E. SANGER
WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 - The Bush administration published today its first
comprehensive rationale for shifting American military strategy toward
pre-emptive action against hostile states and terrorist groups developing
weapons of mass destruction
<article cut short>
*************************************************
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:1WksCu36AuQC:www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss
.pdf+nss.pdf&hl=da&ie=UTF-8
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America
September 2002
[Quoting from page 4, the Introduction]
"The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism
and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking
weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so
with determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to
succeed.We will build defences against ballistic missiles and other means of
delivery. We will cooperate with other nations to deny, contain, and curtail
our enemies' efforts to acquire dangerous technologies. And, as a matter of
common sense and self-defence, America will act against such emerging
threats before they are fully formed.We cannot defend America and our
friends by hoping for the best. So we must be prepared to defeat our
enemies' plans, using the best intelligence and proceeding with
deliberation. History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger
but failed to act. In the new world we have entered, the only path to peace
and security is the path of action."
[Quoting from page 6, Multinational Strategy]
...defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at
home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches
our borders.While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the
support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone,
if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defence by acting pre-emptively
against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people
and our country; and government reorganization since the Truman
Administration created the National Security Council and ...
No matter the linguistic gloss, this is a true pre-emptive stance, it's an
open declaration of potential aggression against everybody "out there".
**************************************
http://www.inesap.org/bulletin20/bul20art26.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/boylenukes.html
March 14, 2002
Bush Nuclear Policy Violates International Law, Again
By Francis Boyle
"Writing in the March 10, 2002 edition of the Los Angeles Times, defence
analyst William Arkin revealed the leaked contents of the Bush Jr.
administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that it had just transmitted
to Congress on January 8. The Bush Jr. administration has ordered the
Pentagon to draw up war plans for the first use of nuclear weapons against
seven states: the so-called "axis of evil" - Iran, Iraq, and North Korea;
Libya and Syria; Russia and China, which are nuclear armed.
This component of the Bush Jr. NPR incorporates the Clinton administration's
1997 nuclear war-fighting plans against so-called "rogue states" set forth
in Presidential Decision Directive 60. These warmed-over nuclear war plans
targeting these five non-nuclear states expressly violate the so-called
"negative security assurances" given by the United States as an express
condition for the renewal and indefinite extension of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty by all of its non-nuclear weapons states parties in
1995."
[There it was, repeating: ]
"The Bush Jr. administration has ordered the Pentagon to draw up war
plans for the first-use of nuclear weapons against seven states: the
so-called "axis of evil": Iran, Iraq, and North Korea; Libya and Syria;
Russia and China, which are nuclear armed."
<article cut short>
*************************************************
http://www.rosalux.de/Ausland/rb/pdf_symp_beij/w_zhonchun.pdf
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:ibLPgeAQ4YAC:www.rosalux.de/Ausland/rb/
pdf_symp_beij/w_zhonchun.pdf+%2B%22nuclear%22+%2Bus+%2Baggression+%2B%22firs
t+use%22&hl=da&ie=UTF-8
Readjustment of U.S. military Strategy and the security in Asia-Pacific
by Wang Zhongchun
[Quoting from page 48]
1, expand the sphere of nuclear strike targets
The Nuclear Posture Review reiterates the establishment of the deterrence
system of strategic defence and strategic offence, and underscores that the
U.S. is determined to change the original military structure, shift the
build-up of offensive military power from traditional countering "threats"
to deterring and defeating various "capabilities" that can possibly pose
threats to the U.S. Accordingly, nuclear weapons are no longer simply for
nuclear retaliation or counterattack, they can be directly used to strike
conventional military targets. Moreover, the report takes those countries
that have possessed or try to possess weapons of mass destruction and are
hostile to U.S. as the targets of nuclear strikes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
3) The current US Government claims that the N-Korean leadership are in
violation of international law - not living up to its obligation under the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] - and of an agreement made with the
US Government during Clinton's first term of office, where some minor deals
over construction of new and decommissioning of old nuclear reactors were
formalized. The N-Koreans have simply pulled out of the NPT, claiming that
if the US Government could do that, which it has, so can they. And - this is
probably not widely known in the US - the current US Administration have
simply refused to join this most important of the historic multilateral
agreements which have, along with other important treaties, succeeded (more
or less) in keeping the World free of the chaotic proliferation of nuclear
weapons and technologies and other WMD for the last half century. As to the
deal with the Clinton Administration, the N-Koreans didn't pull out of that
one. No, that was one of the programmatic foreign policy items on the new
Bush Administration's agenda when it came to power two years ago. That the
US would callously, without even paying compensation, or even admitting to
reneging on a vitally important deal (to the N-Korean Government and to the
people of N-Korea all this is a matter of life and death) was probably the
determining fact in persuading the N-Koreans into trying their risky bit of
defiance, in spite of overwhelming US superiority, militarily and
economically. It's paying off, isn't it? And the Bush Administration is
again experiencing a major foreign policy debacle, just like the times when
India and Pakistan were on the brink of nuclear war last year.
Links:
http://www.wpunj.edu/cohss/polisci/faculty/jmCIRPES1199.htm
Novembre 1999
Le Debat Strategique:
Neo-Isolationism in Washington?
by John G. Mason
William Paterson University of NJ
Ever since the Senate vote October 11th where the republican majority
refused to ratify the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in a straight party
line vote; anxiety over the future direction of American foreign policy has
been mounting in world capitals and first and foremost in Washington itself.
Not content with just defeating the treaty, Jesse Helms and other Senate
Conservatives have now taken aim at the funding for the Global Monitoring
System meant to make future enforcement of the treaty possible. At the same
time, funding for foreign aid, the State Department, and an appropriation to
settle America's 1.2 billion dollar debt to the UN have become the focus of
bitter partisan negotiations between the White House and the Republican
leadership. This raises the possibility that not only the US might lose its
vote in the UN General Assembly this January for non payment of its arrears,
but that the UN might have to vacate its New York headquarters which have
become unsafe due to the UN's inability to pay for routine repairs to roofs
and stairways or a reliable sprinkler system for fire control. A more
fitting symbol for America's fading commitment to the Wilsonian ideal of
collective security than the current state of dilapidation of General
Assembly Building would be hard to invent.
<article cut short>
*************************************************
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20021118-21016878.htm
November 18, 2002
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
North Korea gets low-key brushoff of treaty
By Nicholas Kralev
North Korea is about to lose all its benefits under a 1994 nuclear
agreement with the United States, including two light-water reactors
currently being built in the North. But a senior U.S. official says
Washington is in no hurry to resolve its dispute with Pyongyang because it
might interfere with the Iraq conflict.
*************************************************
Some other important treaties the US current Government have unilaterally
withdrawn from or refused to sign since taking power in 2000:
the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
the Biological Weapons Convention;
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;
and the process of strategic arms reductions with Russia.
The treaty signed with Russia - the Sort Treaty - is a treaty without
content and has no operative provisions.
The Kyoto Protocol
The International Criminal Court
*************************************************
4) Finally, as a sort of executive summary for those who do not care to busy
themselves with the irksome details of international diplomacy and
relations. Here' an analysis by Paul Krugman, based on game theory:
____________________________
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/010303.html
Originally published in The New York Times, 1.3.03
Games Nations Play
SYNOPSIS: Excellent article showing how the Bush administration's idiotic
Korean non-policy is actually giving North Korea incentives to build nuclear
weapons and become even more dangerous to the world
... here's how it probably looks from Pyongyang [quoting from the last two
paragraphs]:
The Bush administration says you're evil. It won't offer you aid, even if
you cancel our nuclear program, because that would be rewarding evil. It
won't even promise not to attack you, because it believes it has a mission
to destroy evil regimes, whether or not they actually pose any threat to the
U.S. But for all its belligerence, the Bush administration seems willing to
confront only regimes that are militarily weak.
The incentives for North Korea are clear. There's no point in playing nice -
it will bring neither aid nor security. It needn't worry about American
efforts to isolate it economically - North Korea hardly has any trade except
with China, and China isn't cooperating. The best self-preservation strategy
for Mr. Kim is to be dangerous. So while America is busy with Iraq, the
North Koreans should cook up some plutonium and build themselves some bombs.
Again: What game does the Bush administration think it's playing?
*************************************************
As an afterthought, I shall say simply what I think the "big picture" is.
The Bush Administration is trying to set up the US as a World Hegemon where,
in principle, the rest of humanity are subservient colonial dependants.
Those nations who're militarily weak will possibly be turned into outright
colonies in the old 19th century tradition of Manifest Destiny. Those who
have the military or economic capability to hurt the US if threatened or
encroached upon will get a shot at retaining their liberties and
independence. But only if they're willing to pay the price of deterring the
US and its Big Stick military.
The "American" century has now begun...
Nes
Trakar
<nmorph...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>The present crisis in relations between the US and the People's Republic of
>North Korea are totally misrepresented in the US national media. Here's an
>attempt to analyze the important events leading to the crisis and
>consequently apportioning blame where it belongs, with the Bush
>Administration and its unconscionable short-sighted, unilateral, and
>hegemonial policies.
>
>The US Government's numerous public allegations that the North Korean
>Government is in violation of the international treaties and deals it has
>signed on to prior to November 18th, 2002 (a very important date to
>understanding the wellspring of the crisis), are hereby vigorously denied as
>US propaganda, spin-doctoring, and outright lies.
>
I would say that the seeds of the current situation can be dated back
further, to the initial phases of this administration's assumption of
power. I reference State Dept. papers to illustrate this here, and if
my schedule allows, I will go back and correlate these same points
with White House memos and documents.
Reticent tendencies to fulfill the US portions of the "agreed
framework" date back to early 2001 (about the same time that N K.
restarted their weapons development program.
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/ea/easec/nkorpol.htm
Text: Lawmakers Urge Bush to Be Wary of Commitments on North Korea
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/ea/easec/kimpwll.htm
Powell Says U.S. Reviewing Relationship with North Korea
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/ea/easec/hydenk.htm
Hyde Says Verification Key to Dealing with Pyongyang Regime
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/ea/easec/cia.htm
Remarks by the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence John E.
McLaughlin to Texas A&M Conference
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/ea/easec/bushdprk.htm
Bush Statement June 6 on Undertaking Talks With North Korea
(U.S. to pursue talks on missile, nuclear programs)
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/ea/easec/brtrdprk.htm
Bereuter Advises Bush Administration on North Korea Policy
(June 12 Bereuter speech in the House of Representatives)
These demonstrate a steady erosion among US law and policy makers
support for the US side of the agreed framework. Of course,
immediately after the infamous "axis of Evil" state-of-the-union
address, such disregard and open US measures of breech flooded
throughout our government, all of this prior to NK's announcement of
the resumption of their nuclear program in the summer of 2002
Accompanied by the actual slowdowns and halts of the promised
light-water reactors and threats upon the fuel-oil and food shipments,
as well as attempts to revise the original terms of the agreed
framework, it is of little doubt that NK would feel the US in breech
of it's commitments and take actions to strengthen their hand in any
such "re-negotiations".
As I stated, given the time, I'll try to go back and pull up similar
WH positions that further illustrate this argument.
>
Nes
Thanks for the very informative reply. I really appreceate the time and care
you've taken with links, documentation et al, and I look forward to reading
what further materials and ideas you can come up with. It would be
interesting if you could find it in yourself to present your own point of
view on these matters and what, if anything, can be done to repair the grave
damage done by the crisis itself and the belligerent parties. That last bit
may sound as wishful thinking, especially since a new US War of Aggression,
this time against Iraq, is in the making. But the peaceful parts of the
international community, the nations of the Earth who would rather cooperate
to solve their problems than fight each-other, they need a plan, a stance, a
way to work themselves through this dark period of international relations.
They cannot and will not all react like North Korea.
Nes
Brandon Van Every
"Trakar" <Tra...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:6ln82vci8ipih092f...@4ax.com...
> all of this prior to NK's announcement of
> the resumption of their nuclear program in the summer of 2002
NK didn't *resume* their program in summer 2002, they were confronted with
the reality of their clandestine program, which they'd been at for a long
time. This puts this whole public saber rattling vs. private intelligence
argument in a new light. What's wrong with calling someone an "Axis Of
Evil" if you suspect they're probably developing nuclear weapons, and a year
later you're vindicated on that point?
Of course NK feels threatened. They've been doing stuff worthy of threats!
NK is also currently winning the political showdown. That jury is still out
though.
--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
Brandon Van Every
"Nes" <nmorph...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:avv19q$jfc1r$1...@ID-130862.news.dfncis.de...
>
> 3) The current US Government claims that the N-Korean leadership are in
> violation of international law - not living up to its obligation under the
> Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] - and of an agreement made with the
> US Government during Clinton's first term of office, where some minor
deals
> over construction of new and decommissioning of old nuclear reactors were
> formalized. The N-Koreans have simply pulled out of the NPT, claiming that
> if the US Government could do that, which it has, so can they. And - this
is
> probably not widely known in the US - the current US Administration have
> simply refused to join this most important of the historic multilateral
> agreements which have, along with other important treaties, succeeded
(more
> or less) in keeping the World free of the chaotic proliferation of nuclear
> weapons and technologies and other WMD for the last half century.
As far as I and http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nptfact.asp are aware,
the USA is a signator of the NPT. Please explain how the USA doesn't adhere
to the treaty.
Trakar
<nmorph...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>Thanks for the very informative reply. I really appreceate the time and care
>you've taken with links, documentation et al, and I look forward to reading
>what further materials and ideas you can come up with. It would be
>interesting if you could find it in yourself to present your own point of
>view on these matters and what, if anything, can be done to repair the grave
>damage done by the crisis itself and the belligerent parties. That last bit
>may sound as wishful thinking, especially since a new US War of Aggression,
>this time against Iraq, is in the making. But the peaceful parts of the
>international community, the nations of the Earth who would rather cooperate
>to solve their problems than fight each-other, they need a plan, a stance, a
>way to work themselves through this dark period of international relations.
>They cannot and will not all react like North Korea.
Though I am of the opinion that our current administration bears some
responsibility in initiating/contributing to the events that have
culminated in the current N Korean "crisis", and I feel that their
portrayal of events is very one-sided, from the tone of your request
above, I doubt that you would find my opinions in regards to potential
or desirable remedies to the situation acceptable. While I feel that
much more efforts need to be placed into diplomatic and negotiated
resolutions, I am not opposed to the usage of military force in the
pursuit of national security and/or strategic economic interests. Such
should not be used lightly, nor in a cavalier manner, but, nor should
the reluctance to use such be so great as to make potential targets of
such force doubtful as to our will to utilize them.
FRED WELLMAN
Fact sheet: Bush's 'axis of evil'
> January 30, 2002 Posted: 8:04 p.m. EST (0104 GMT)
>
> In his first State of the Union speech Tuesday night, President Bush said
> his goal was "to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening
> America or our friends with weapons of mass destruction." He singled out
> Iraq, Iran and North Korea, claiming these states "and their terrorist
> allies constitute an axis of evil arming to threaten the peace of the
> world."
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf
>
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:1WksCu36AuQC:www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss
> .pdf+nss.pdf&hl=da&ie=UTF-8
>
> The National Security Strategy of the United States of America
> September 2002
>
> [Quoting from page 4, the Introduction]
> "The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism
> and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking
> weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so
> with determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to
> succeed.We will build defences against ballistic missiles and other means
of
> delivery. We will cooperate with other nations to deny, contain, and
curtail
> our enemies' efforts to acquire dangerous technologies. And, as a matter
of
> common sense and self-defence, America will act against such emerging
> threats before they are fully formed.We cannot defend America and our
> friends by hoping for the best. So we must be prepared to defeat our
> enemies' plans, using the best intelligence and proceeding with
> deliberation. History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger
> but failed to act. In the new world we have entered, the only path to
peace
> and security is the path of action."
How many lives would have been saved had Britain and France stopped Germany
when they first appeased Hitler. I got news for you if the US was going to
Nuke Korea it would have been during the 50-53 war.
Second, other then Pol Pot any leader would be an improvement. Any country
that put weapons ahead of food when the are no at war is evil. Why would
anyone want North Korea? The US would not want the casualties that would be
incurred in Seoul, unless we nuked them as a first strike. While the
younger generation Koreans dislike the US a majority do like us. Several
years ago college students wanted to march from the south to the north for
peace. The Korean Government stopped them. I think they should have let
them go. I doubt many would be alive today. North Korea is a paper tiger
with no Major Allies. China would not come to their aid again if they
attacked first. If the US had wanted to reunite Korea we would of during
the war. China had no nukes and Russia was far behind the US and was
already afraid we would have a first strike. I doubt they would trade
Moscow for North Korea or China. Fred
Trakar
<vane...@3DProgrammer.com> wrote:
>"Trakar" <Tra...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:6ln82vci8ipih092f...@4ax.com...
>> all of this prior to NK's announcement of
>> the resumption of their nuclear program in the summer of 2002
>
>NK didn't *resume* their program in summer 2002, they were confronted with
>the reality of their clandestine program, which they'd been at for a long
>time.
Read what I said, "announcement" of the resumption of their nuclear
program. Intel indicates that it probably resumed activities in this
direction more than a year earlier. About the same time that various
US officials and administration representatives started making noises
about revising the agreed framework, delaying delivery of light-water
reactors, and threatening fuel-oil and food aid shipments over the new
issue of ballistic missile development.
>This puts this whole public saber rattling vs. private intelligence
>argument in a new light. What's wrong with calling someone an "Axis Of
>Evil" if you suspect they're probably developing nuclear weapons, and a year
>later you're vindicated on that point?
>
>Of course NK feels threatened. They've been doing stuff worthy of threats!
Read the state dept. links, and news articles of the time period
concerning NK by US officials, the threats and break-down occurred
over here first, NK's response should have been rather predictable.
>NK is also currently winning the political showdown. That jury is still out
>though.
Currently there are revised statements coming out of NK, that they
have not yet resumed their weapons program, that they were
misunderstood, rather, they are now saying, they intend to resume
their program if the US does not resume their obligations under the
agreed framework, (sounds weak, but, it's their dime).
willia...@earthlink.net
=>
=> "The US Is Pushing North Korea to the Brink."
=>
=> 1) First of all were GW Bush' speeches post 9/11 where he said N-Korea was
=> directly responsible for the attacks in some unspecified way (though
=> offering no proof, naturally).
I do not believe our President ever said North Korea was directly responsible for the 9/11
attacks and challenge you to provide a cite.
=> of any such accusation The President's decision to accuse N-Korea of
=> being a member of an "Axis of Evil" (whatever that means, but to an
I believe he made his meaning very clear. The axis he drew was that these three states
were unique in developing weapons of mass destruction AND supporting terrorists. As to
North Korea specifically, just before he made the "axis of evil" accusation, he said
"North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while
starving its citizens."
=> international audience the only way it can be interpreted, despite its lose
=> and unfocussed formulation, is as a historical reference to the Tri-Partite
=> Alliance of Germany, Italy, and Japan [the Iron Pact] during WWII) was
=> crucially important. In other words, the N-Korean Government was put into a
=> category of historical US enemy nations - like Germany, Italy, and Japan of
=> WWII who were all potential targets for the first use of a nuclear weapon
> in history. That MUST have made it impossible for the N-Korean Government to
=> interpret the intentions and plans of the US Government in any other way
=> than regarding it as actually threatening a pre-emptive US nuclear
=> strike/war against North Korea itself. ["I'll beat you up, just like
=> Japan!" - Any schoolyard bully knows this technique.]
=>
Wow. While "axis of evil" may be more alliteration than anything else, I think the
definition of "axis" ("a straight line or structure with respect to which a body is
symmetrical") conveys an image the President's wanted.
Besides, threatening nuclear war is hardly an appropriate response to name calling, if
that's what the North Korean's thought the President was doing.
You realize, of course, that if North Korea is being truthful that it is not trying to
develop nuclear weapons itself, the only possible other reason it could have for producing
nuclear bomb fuels is to sell them on the black market as they now sell missile
technology. That is a chilling thought. Do you suppose they have any customers waiting?
=> Links:
=>
=> http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/30/ret.axis.facts/
=> Fact sheet: Bush's 'axis of evil'
=> January 30, 2002 Posted: 8:04 p.m. EST (0104 GMT)
=>
=> In his first State of the Union speech Tuesday night, President Bush said
=> his goal was "to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening
=> America or our friends with weapons of mass destruction." He singled out
=> Iraq, Iran and North Korea, claiming these states "and their terrorist
=> allies constitute an axis of evil arming to threaten the peace of the
=> world."
=>
Are you saying our President was wrong in that assessment? Why?
=> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
=>
=> 2) That automatically brings forth the next point: The adoption of the US
=> Government of a general pre-emptive military stance. To do so was a
=> milestone in US foreign policy, because for the first time since before WWI,
=> the US Government and the US national political establishment have formally
=> renounced multilateral relations and adopted "War of Aggression" or "War of
=> Pre-emption" as the general US strategic doctrine.
Again, I challenge you to cite where the United States has ever said anything at all about
a policy of "War of Aggression" or "War of Pre-emption." I believe the phrase from which
you are distorting those words is "pre-emptive action against hostile states and terrorist
groups developing weapons of mass destruction" which not the same thing.
=> strategies are illegal according to the UN Charter and international law,
=> and the mere fact that the US Government could decide to implement this
=> doctrine [the "Doctrine of Nuclear Pre-emption" or simply "Bush Doctrine"]
=> without parliamentary opposition is an indication of the degree to which US
=> foreign and war (no, can't say defence any longer, not with pre-emption as
Cite. Again, I challenge "Doctrine of Nuclear Pre-emption" and do not believe there is
any such US policy. The "Bush Doctrine" most commonly references "ending states that
sponsor terrorism" - how are you are getting "Nuclear Pre-emption" out of that?
=> the main US doctrine) policies are at the present beyond parliamentary
=> control or oversight. This unilateral change in US foreign policy of
=> adopting a pre-emptive military stance, promising or threatening first use
=> of nuclear (and other) weapons (of mass destruction) against a number of
=> different targets around the World, N-Korea included, undoubtedly had grave
=> import on the N-Korean leadership in impressing upon them how earnest and
=> factual were and are the intentions of the current US Government in carrying
=> out in practise its warlike policies and threats regarding declared and
=> undeclared enemies.
=>
That's a gross distortion.
=> Links:
=>
=> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-News/message/6627
=> ____________________________
=>
=> Excerpts: Bush's National Security Strategy / Full Text: Bush's National
=> Security Strategy
=> (New York Times, 20 September 2002)
=> Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
=> ____________________________
=> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/international/20CND-STRA.html?pagewanted=p
=> rint\&position=top
=>
=> September 20, 2002
=> Bush Outlines Doctrine of Striking Foes First
=> By DAVID E. SANGER
=>
=> WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 - The Bush administration published today its first
=> comprehensive rationale for shifting American military strategy toward
=> pre-emptive action against hostile states and terrorist groups developing
=> weapons of mass destruction
=>
=> <article cut short>
=> *************************************************
=> http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf
=> http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:1WksCu36AuQC:www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss
=> .pdf+nss.pdf&hl=da&ie=UTF-8
=>
=> The National Security Strategy of the United States of America
=> September 2002
=>
=> [Quoting from page 4, the Introduction]
=> "The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism
=> and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking
=> weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so
=> with determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to
=> succeed.We will build defences against ballistic missiles and other means of
=> delivery. We will cooperate with other nations to deny, contain, and curtail
=> our enemies' efforts to acquire dangerous technologies. And, as a matter of
=> common sense and self-defence, America will act against such emerging
=> threats before they are fully formed.We cannot defend America and our
=> friends by hoping for the best. So we must be prepared to defeat our
=> enemies' plans, using the best intelligence and proceeding with
=> deliberation. History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger
=> but failed to act. In the new world we have entered, the only path to peace
=> and security is the path of action."
=>
Sounds good to me. What's wrong with that? You don't like "America will act against such
emerging threats before they are fully formed"?
=> [Quoting from page 6, Multinational Strategy]
=> ...defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at
=> home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches
=> our borders.While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the
=> support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone,
=> if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defence by acting pre-emptively
=> against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people
=> and our country; and government reorganization since the Truman
=> Administration created the National Security Council and ...
=>
=> No matter the linguistic gloss, this is a true pre-emptive stance, it's an
=> open declaration of potential aggression against everybody "out there".
=>
How is acting pre-emptively against such terrorists" a threat "against everybody?"
=> **************************************
=> http://www.inesap.org/bulletin20/bul20art26.htm
=> http://www.counterpunch.org/boylenukes.html
=>
Fortunately, some authors telegraph their prejudices by using diminutive terms like "Bush
Jr." and we don't have to waste our time further analyzing their claims.
Your problem in these and other cites below is you are pointing to what other people have
to say about a document, not the document itself. And many of the people and sources you
pick are hostile to the Bush administration.
Please cite the original documents and/or exact quotes.
\
=> March 14, 2002
=> Bush Nuclear Policy Violates International Law, Again
=> By Francis Boyle
=>
=> "Writing in the March 10, 2002 edition of the Los Angeles Times, defence
=> analyst William Arkin revealed the leaked contents of the Bush Jr.
=> administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that it had just transmitted
=> to Congress on January 8. The Bush Jr. administration has ordered the
=> Pentagon to draw up war plans for the first use of nuclear weapons against
=> seven states: the so-called "axis of evil" - Iran, Iraq, and North Korea;
=> Libya and Syria; Russia and China, which are nuclear armed.
=>
=> This component of the Bush Jr. NPR incorporates the Clinton administration's
=> 1997 nuclear war-fighting plans against so-called "rogue states" set forth
=> in Presidential Decision Directive 60. These warmed-over nuclear war plans
=> targeting these five non-nuclear states expressly violate the so-called
=> "negative security assurances" given by the United States as an express
=> condition for the renewal and indefinite extension of the Nuclear
=> Non-Proliferation Treaty by all of its non-nuclear weapons states parties in
=> 1995."
=>
=> [There it was, repeating: ]
=> "The Bush Jr. administration has ordered the Pentagon to draw up war
=> plans for the first-use of nuclear weapons against seven states: the
=> so-called "axis of evil": Iran, Iraq, and North Korea; Libya and Syria;
=> Russia and China, which are nuclear armed."
=>
=> <article cut short>
=> *************************************************
=> http://www.rosalux.de/Ausland/rb/pdf_symp_beij/w_zhonchun.pdf
=> http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:ibLPgeAQ4YAC:www.rosalux.de/Ausland/rb/
=> pdf_symp_beij/w_zhonchun.pdf+%2B%22nuclear%22+%2Bus+%2Baggression+%2B%22firs
=> t+use%22&hl=da&ie=UTF-8
=>
=> Readjustment of U.S. military Strategy and the security in Asia-Pacific
=> by Wang Zhongchun
=>
Who is Wang Zhongchun and why do we care what he says on page 48 of anything?
=> [Quoting from page 48]
=> 1, expand the sphere of nuclear strike targets
=> The Nuclear Posture Review reiterates the establishment of the deterrence
=> system of strategic defence and strategic offence, and underscores that the
=> U.S. is determined to change the original military structure, shift the
=> build-up of offensive military power from traditional countering "threats"
=> to deterring and defeating various "capabilities" that can possibly pose
=> threats to the U.S. Accordingly, nuclear weapons are no longer simply for
=> nuclear retaliation or counterattack, they can be directly used to strike
=> conventional military targets. Moreover, the report takes those countries
=> that have possessed or try to possess weapons of mass destruction and are
=> hostile to U.S. as the targets of nuclear strikes.
=> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
=>
=> 3) The current US Government claims that the N-Korean leadership are in
=> violation of international law - not living up to its obligation under the
=> Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] - and of an agreement made with the
=> US Government during Clinton's first term of office, where some minor deals
=> over construction of new and decommissioning of old nuclear reactors were
=> formalized. The N-Koreans have simply pulled out of the NPT, claiming that
=> if the US Government could do that, which it has, so can they.
The Agreed Framework requires North Korea to remain in the non-proliferation treaty and to
allow IAEA inspectors to assure they do. The United States has not pulled out of the
non-proliferation treaty so again you are wrong. Bein g wrong about basic facts like
these discredits your entire post.
=> probably not widely known in the US - the current US Administration have
=> simply refused to join this most important of the historic multilateral
=> agreements which have, along with other important treaties, succeeded (more
=> or less)
Well, again, we were leaders in getting the non-proliferation treaty in place and we are
active members now.
-> keeping the World free of the chaotic proliferation of nuclear
=> weapons and technologies and other WMD for the last half century.
Let's see: START I (Bush/Gorbechev) reduced nuclear warheads from about 75,000+ to about
25,000, START II (Bush/Yeltsin) reduced warheads from 25,000 to around 12,000 and SORT
(Bush/Putin) takes us down to about 5,000 over the next 10 years. Seems like we're doing
a damn good job ending chaotic proliferation.
=> deal with the Clinton Administration, the N-Koreans didn't pull out of that
=> one. No, that was one of the programmatic foreign policy items on the new
=> Bush Administration's agenda when it came to power two years ago.
I believe President Bush reluctantly certified that North Korea was in compliance in order
to keep the food and fuel aid humanitarian aid flowing.
=> US would callously, without even paying compensation, or even admitting to
=> reneging on a vitally important deal (to the N-Korean Government and to the
=> people of N-Korea all this is a matter of life and death) was probably the
=> determining fact in persuading the N-Koreans into trying their risky bit of
I believe the friction during the Clinton administration over North Korean violations of
the Missile Technology Control Regime (treaty) and sanctions imposed on them for that.
=> defiance, in spite of overwhelming US superiority, militarily and
=> economically. It's paying off, isn't it? And the Bush Administration is
=> again experiencing a major foreign policy debacle, just like the times when
=> India and Pakistan were on the brink of nuclear war last year.
=>
=> Links:
=>
=> http://www.wpunj.edu/cohss/polisci/faculty/jmCIRPES1199.htm
=> Novembre 1999
=> Le Debat Strategique:
=>
=> Neo-Isolationism in Washington?
=> by John G. Mason
=> William Paterson University of NJ
=>
Who is John G. Mason, what is the William Pateson University of NJ and why should we
listen to them?
=> Ever since the Senate vote October 11th where the republican majority
=> refused to ratify the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in a straight party
=> line vote; anxiety over the future direction of American foreign policy has
=> been mounting in world capitals and first and foremost in Washington itself.
=> Not content with just defeating the treaty, Jesse Helms and other Senate
=> Conservatives have now taken aim at the funding for the Global Monitoring
=> System meant to make future enforcement of the treaty possible. At the same
=> time, funding for foreign aid, the State Department, and an appropriation to
=> settle America's 1.2 billion dollar debt to the UN have become the focus of
=> bitter partisan negotiations between the White House and the Republican
=> leadership. This raises the possibility that not only the US might lose its
=> vote in the UN General Assembly this January for non payment of its arrears,
=> but that the UN might have to vacate its New York headquarters which have
=> become unsafe due to the UN's inability to pay for routine repairs to roofs
=> and stairways or a reliable sprinkler system for fire control. A more
=> fitting symbol for America's fading commitment to the Wilsonian ideal of
=> collective security than the current state of dilapidation of General
=> Assembly Building would be hard to invent.
=>
=> <article cut short>
Good decision.
\
\=> *************************************************
=> http://www.washtimes.com/world/20021118-21016878.htm
=>
=> November 18, 2002
=> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
=>
=> North Korea gets low-key brushoff of treaty
=> By Nicholas Kralev
=>
=> North Korea is about to lose all its benefits under a 1994 nuclear
=> agreement with the United States, including two light-water reactors
=> currently being built in the North.
Sounds right to me. North Korea violated their agreement by pulling out of the
non-proliferation treaty so why shouldn't they lose their "benefits?"
=< But a senior U.S. official says
=> Washington is in no hurry to resolve its dispute with Pyongyang because it
=> might interfere with the Iraq conflict.
That's a dumb thing to say but since no source is identified, I assume somebody made it
up.
=> *************************************************
=>
=> Some other important treaties the US current Government have unilaterally
=> withdrawn from or refused to sign since taking power in 2000:
=>
=> the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
=> the Biological Weapons Convention;
=> the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;
You're playing word tricks with treaty titles. The United States has signed the test ban
treaty and treaties prohibiting chemical and biological weapons.
=> and the process of strategic arms reductions with Russia.
=> The treaty signed with Russia - the Sort Treaty - is a treaty without
=> content and has no operative provisions.
=>
I quote from the SORT treaty:
"Each Party shall reduce and limit strategic nuclear warheads, as stated by the President
of the United States of America on November 13, 2001 and as stated by the President of the
Russian Federation on November 13, 2001 and December 13, 2001 respectively, so that by
December 31, 2012 the aggregate number of such warheads does not exceed 1700-2200 for each
Party. Each Party shall determine for itself the composition and structure of its
strategic offensive arms, based on the established aggregate limit for the number of such
warheads. "
How is that without content and operative provisions?
=> The Kyoto Protocol
In 1998, the Senate voted unanimously against the US entering the Kyoto treaty. Every
Republican, every Democrat, every Liberal, every Conservative.
=> The International Criminal Court
=>
No right to a lawyer, no right to know the charges against one, no right to confront
witnesses, no right to an independent jury, to right to a public trial, appointed judges
also acting as prosecutors - that treaty is so seriously flawed it's a wonder it gets any
attention at all.
=> *************************************************
=>
=> 4) Finally, as a sort of executive summary for those who do not care to busy
=> themselves with the irksome details of international diplomacy and
=> relations. Here' an analysis by Paul Krugman, based on game theory:
=>
OK but Dr. Krugman is a political columnist with a decided leftist point of view. You're
not presenting this as objective thought, are you?
____________________________
=>
=> http://www.pkarchive.org/column/010303.html
=>
=> Originally published in The New York Times, 1.3.03
=>
=> Games Nations Play
=>
=> SYNOPSIS: Excellent article showing how the Bush administration's idiotic
=> Korean non-policy is actually giving North Korea incentives to build nuclear
=> weapons and become even more dangerous to the world
=>
=> ... here's how it probably looks from Pyongyang [quoting from the last two
=> paragraphs]:
=>
=> The Bush administration says you're evil. It won't offer you aid, even if
=> you cancel our nuclear program, because that would be rewarding evil. It
=> won't even promise not to attack you, because it believes it has a mission
=> to destroy evil regimes, whether or not they actually pose any threat to the
=> U.S. But for all its belligerence, the Bush administration seems willing to
=> confront only regimes that are militarily weak.
=>
=> The incentives for North Korea are clear. There's no point in playing nice -
=> it will bring neither aid nor security. It needn't worry about American
=> efforts to isolate it economically - North Korea hardly has any trade except
=> with China, and China isn't cooperating. The best self-preservation strategy
=> for Mr. Kim is to be dangerous. So while America is busy with Iraq, the
=> North Koreans should cook up some plutonium and build themselves some bombs.
=>
=> Again: What game does the Bush administration think it's playing?
=>
=> *************************************************
=>
=> As an afterthought, I shall say simply what I think the "big picture" is.
=> The Bush Administration is trying to set up the US as a World Hegemon where,
=> in principle, the rest of humanity are subservient colonial dependants.
=> Those nations who're militarily weak will possibly be turned into outright
=> colonies in the old 19th century tradition of Manifest Destiny. Those who
=> have the military or economic capability to hurt the US if threatened or
=> encroached upon will get a shot at retaining their liberties and
=> independence. But only if they're willing to pay the price of deterring the
=> US and its Big Stick military.
=>
Who cares what you think when your opinion is obviously drawn from so many wrong facts and
distorted viewpoints?
=> The "American" century has now begun...
=>
=> Nes
=>
-- Bill
Nes
That naturally depends very much on what those remedies would entail...
> While I feel that much more
> efforts need to be placed into diplomatic and negotiated
> resolutions, I am not opposed to the usage of military force
> in the pursuit of national security and/or strategic economic
> interests.
But you know well the essense of the legal case of the US-North Korean
standoff. (This I base on your intimate familiarity with the recent history
of the changing relations of the two nations displayed in your last message
in this thread.). One nation, the North Korean Government, has stuck (as far
as information available in the public domain is able to indicate) with
correct legal behaviour and has acted in accordance with its specific and
very important (to it, N-Korea) trade deals with the US, with international
law, and the UN Charter. The other nation, the US Government, has violated
special trade aggreements with North Korea without offering any explanation
(except publicly circulated unverifiable and unverified gossip and inuendo)
or villingness to pay damages, it has blatantly acted in open breach of
international law and of the UN Charter.
Which nation is the aggressor? And if military force is to bring a nation
security, does that nation not have to abide by the rules of international
jurisprudence? Otherwise that nation cannot but become known as an
international pariah, every hand will be turned against it. And if the
nation in breach of its solemn agreements and of basic common international
principles of jurisprudence, how can anybody ever trust that nation - and
where there is no trust, how can there be security? Not even "the usage of
military force in the pursuit of national security and/or strategic economic
interests", even the currently overwhelming military strength which the US
momentarily possesses, can ever succeed in creating security under such
adverse conditions.
> Such should not be used lightly, nor in a cavalier
> manner, but, nor should the reluctance to use such be so great
> as to make potential targets of such force doubtful as to our
> will to utilize them.
Unilaterally or in accordance with international law and the UN Charter?
Nes
bob
>I believe he made his meaning very clear. The axis he drew was that these
three states
>were unique in developing weapons of mass destruction AND supporting
terrorists. As to
>North Korea specifically, just before he made the "axis of evil"
accusation, he said
>"North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass
destruction, while
>starving its citizens."
what terrorist organizations does NK support?
Nes
I don't believe that President Bush and his advisors agree with you that the
US won't or shouldn't use atomic/nuclear weapons in a firste strike scenario
against North Korea (and other nations). Actually, the current US Government
has openly, expressly, and unmistakingly said thay would do exactly that, in
so many words.
> Second, other then Pol Pot any leader would be an improvement.
> Any country that put weapons ahead of food when the are no at
> war is evil.
I fail to se the relevance of your argument. The world is full of evil
people (and good ones, too, fortunately) but it's an absolutely impractical
proposition to go around imagening that you can bomb your fellow man, just
because you percieve him to be evil. It's highly, hilariously impractical,
and if it weren't for the deathwish sentiments hiding behind such a
nefarious concept, it would also be eminently usable as slapstick material.
> Why would anyone want North Korea?
One man's nightmare may be another man's wet dream. You as an "American"
cannot possibly appreciate other nations, cultures, and ways of life which
you because of your narrow outlook percieve to have no human value or right
of existance. That's says a lot about who you are, and the fact that
"Americans" are a lot like you has not gone unnoticed around the World.
> The US
> would not want the casualties that would be incurred in Seoul,
> unless we nuked them as a first strike.
If you don't want the casualties of war, don't engage in war - simple. By
the way, what is that strange undefined abstract "we" you use all the time
in your arguments. Who are "we"?
> While the younger
> generation Koreans dislike the US a majority do like us.
Again, I fail to see the relevance of that argument. What does it matter to
you "Americans" whether Koreans like you or not? You've just threatened to
use nuclear weapons on them, the populations of the north as well as the
south, for the radioactive fallout would not respect any local borders,
naturally. You "Americans" don't like Koreans, you don't give a flying f*ck
whether they live or die, they're just supposed to do as the US Government
tells them to do, otherwise they'll be burned to a radioactive slag, right?
> Several years ago college students wanted to march from the
> south to the north for peace.
No relevance to the discussion at hand...
> The Korean Government stopped
> them. I think they should have let them go. I doubt many
> would be alive today.
No relevance to the discussion at hand...
> North Korea is a paper tiger with no
> Major Allies. China would not come to their aid again if they
> attacked first.
No relevance to the discussion at hand...
> If the US had wanted to reunite Korea we
> would of during the war. China had no nukes and Russia was
> far behind the US and was already afraid we would have a first
> strike. I doubt they would trade Moscow for North Korea or
> China.
Sorry, but can't discern any relevance to the discussion at hand.
Nes
Unknown
cocksucker. You still think the Nazi's won the war don't you - stupid
German fuckhead.
Trakar
<nmorph...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>But you know well the essense of the legal case of the US-North Korean
>standoff. (This I base on your intimate familiarity with the recent history
>of the changing relations of the two nations displayed in your last message
>in this thread.). One nation, the North Korean Government, has stuck (as far
>as information available in the public domain is able to indicate) with
>correct legal behaviour and has acted in accordance with its specific and
>very important (to it, N-Korea) trade deals with the US, with international
>law, and the UN Charter.
Now, I feel, you read too much into my previous post. While I feel
that our current administration has promoted a one-sided argument
demonizing N. K. actions and ignoring their own culpabilities that
have led up to this current crisis, I do not feel that N. K. is a
wronged innocent. And if you are going to complain about nations
failing to utilize diplomacy and negotiations in settling disputes, I
hardly feel that the severest criticism should be leveled solely at
the nation who does, predominantly, utilize such practices, while
ignoring violations/actions and failure of the other side to attempt
these same touted procedures.
>The other nation, the US Government, has violated
>special trade aggreements with North Korea without offering any explanation
>(except publicly circulated unverifiable and unverified gossip and inuendo)
>or villingness to pay damages, it has blatantly acted in open breach of
>international law and of the UN Charter.
I'm sorry, but before I can respond to these, you'll have to clarify
exactly what you are referring to. Which special trade agreements are
you talking about? What damages should the US have paid, and exactly
which international laws and what portion of the UN charter has the US
breached?
>Which nation is the aggressor? And if military force is to bring a nation
>security, does that nation not have to abide by the rules of international
>jurisprudence?
International jurisprudence?! Surely you jest. Please define such and
reference. "international law" is oft quoted, but, is actually mostly
an illusory phantasm. The only law between nations exists within the
framework of treaties and concords and the signatories of such, and
which are null and void upon the whims of these same signatories. Even
the UN is a voluntary club, with no more real authority or standing
than it's most powerful members cede to it.
>Otherwise that nation cannot but become known as an
>international pariah, every hand will be turned against it.
This actually has little to do with the accord "international law",
and much more to do with popular and national perception.
>And if the
>nation in breach of its solemn agreements and of basic common international
>principles of jurisprudence, how can anybody ever trust that nation -
Again, the usage of terms like "solemn agreements" and "basic common
international principles of jurisprudence", in this context, is
ridiculous. The best way to gain insight into international affairs is
to realize at the outset, that at their core, they are based upon the
principle that each nation acts in their own self-interest (and in
most cases, this means the self-interest of the nation's leaders)
regardless of the constraints they (or others) feel restrict their
actions. In large part, this too, again resolves back to perception
and interpretation on all sides.
>and
>where there is no trust, how can there be security? Not even "the usage of
>military force in the pursuit of national security and/or strategic economic
>interests", even the currently overwhelming military strength which the US
>momentarily possesses, can ever succeed in creating security under such
>adverse conditions.
Sure it can, in fact one of the only things that keeps the US from
establishing a open global empire at this time is our own internal
moral conflicts concerning such.
>> Such should not be used lightly, nor in a cavalier
>> manner, but, nor should the reluctance to use such be so great
>> as to make potential targets of such force doubtful as to our
>> will to utilize them.
>
>Unilaterally or in accordance with international law and the UN Charter?
As I stated before, all nations ultimately, always act unilaterally
and in their own perceived self-interests, whether they do so in
concert with other nations (who are doing the same thing) or not.
;-)
willia...@earthlink.net
=>
=> >I believe he made his meaning very clear. The axis he drew was that these
=> three states
=> >were unique in developing weapons of mass destruction AND supporting
=> terrorists. As to
=> >North Korea specifically, just before he made the "axis of evil"
=> accusation, he said
=> >"North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass
=> destruction, while
=> >starving its citizens."
=>
=> what terrorist organizations does NK support?
=>
Any of them. It's own little terrorist organization, the "Red Army" kidnaps citizens off
the streets in Japan and South Korea and enslaves them in North Korea. They're active in
the middle east. North Korea regularly sells controlled technology in violation of the
Missile Technology Control Regime (treaty) to countries that sponsor terrorism.
They sell their Scud missiles all over the world. Israeli intelligence says both Hezebola
and Hamas have Scuds in Lebanon right now.
While they haven't named a customer for the fissile materials they are currently making,
they have said they will not be building their own nuclear weapons. All other nations
are members of the non-proliferation treaty so they can't be the customers. Who do you
suppose North Korea is making nuclear bomb fuels for if not themselves or another country?
-- Bill
Nes
> =>
> => "The US Is Pushing North Korea to the Brink."
> =>
> => 1) First of all were GW Bush' speeches post 9/11 where he
> said N-Korea was => directly responsible for the attacks in
> some unspecified way (though => offering no proof, naturally).
>
> I do not believe our President ever said North Korea was
> directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks and challenge you to
> provide a cite.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/30/ret.axis.facts/
"In his first State of the Union speech Tuesday night, President Bush said
his goal was "to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening
America or our friends with weapons of mass destruction." He singled out
Iraq, Iran and North Korea, claiming these states "and their terrorist
allies constitute an axis of evil arming to threaten the peace of the
world."
The United States must act against these regimes by denying them the
"materials, technology and expertise" to make nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons and provide them to terrorists, Bush said.
"All nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our
nation's security," he warned, although he did not give specifics as to what
actions that pledge might entail.
All three nations Bush identified quickly and vehemently condemned his
comments."
[Only N-Korea's response cited:]
NORTH KOREA:
"STATUS: U.S. officials have long accused communist North Korea of
developing biological and nuclear weapons. Officials in Pyongyang repeatedly
have declined U.S. offers for talks and inspections to determine whether
North Korea produces weapons of mass destruction. North and South Korea
signed an accord in 1991 not take up nuclear arms against each other, and
South Korean President Kim Dae-jung has urged U.S. and North Korean
officials to resume talks. But in December, North Korea warned Washington
that it will build up its military might to counter what it called a
"strong-arm policy" towards the communist state."
[End quote]
Oh no, this short but very important speech by President Bush was in no way
sloppy or indefinite of meaning. "Axil of Evil" has historically of late
only referred to the Iron Pact, nothing else is grand enough for the
occation, the President's speech to the nation, the longed for response by
the political establishment to the attacks of 9/11.
Besides, the international audience around the World watching this speech
would know what this phrase entails, no two ways about it!
> Besides, threatening nuclear war is hardly an appropriate
> response to name calling, if that's what the North Korean's
> thought the President was doing.
You're right, it is not an appropiate response, but that's what happened...
> You realize, of course, that if North Korea is being truthful
> that it is not trying to develop nuclear weapons itself, the
> only possible other reason it could have for producing nuclear
> bomb fuels is to sell them on the black market as they now
> sell missile technology. That is a chilling thought. Do you
> suppose they have any customers waiting?
I couldn't tell, having no paranormal abilities. Certainly, I wouldn't like
it if the nations of this Earth, including the US, could trade openly in
fissile materials or do with those materials just as they saw fit. But there
is a right way to go about minimizing the dangers of nuclear technologies.
That's the road of multilateral cooperation, mutual respect, and
trustworthyness, where violence or the use of military force is only the
last resort after all other solutions and possibilities have been tested and
tried - and failed. There's also a wrong way, of course. It's the one the US
is currently using, attempting to bully a weaker nation into compliance,
showing total disregard for the international community, for the law, and
for the populations in question, acting with extreme cynicism and
forethought of malice. That will make for a very uncertain and violent
future, no doubt about it, and the one to be in the wrong will be...
> => Links:
> =>
> => http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/30/ret.axis.facts/
> => Fact sheet: Bush's 'axis of evil'
> => January 30, 2002 Posted: 8:04 p.m. EST (0104 GMT)
> =>
> => In his first State of the Union speech Tuesday night,
> President Bush said => his goal was "to prevent regimes that
> sponsor terror from threatening => America or our friends with
> weapons of mass destruction." He singled out => Iraq, Iran and
> North Korea, claiming these states "and their terrorist =>
> allies constitute an axis of evil arming to threaten the peace
> of the => world." =>
> Are you saying our President was wrong in that assessment?
> Why?
"Axis" in politics, especially foreign politics, has a specific meaning. It
refers to an special kind of agreement between at least two independant
souvereign nations, whereby each nation surrenders part of its souzerainty
with the purpose of furthering economic, military, whatever cooperation
between the said nations or work for the common good of the member nations.
A pact or an allience - like the Iron Pact between Germany, Italy, Japan
during WWII, or the Entente Cordiale and the Tripple Allience during WWI -
is not a rare historical phenomenon.
Now what did President Bush claim - that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea (AND
other nations) are members of? He claims, or claimed on the 30th of January
30, 2002, in his first "State of the Union"-address that those three nations
are (secretly) in an allience, a pact, comparable to the historical one
between Germany, Italy, and Japan. Naturally, this claim is without any
foundation in reality, since the nations in question are in no way allies or
bonded by mutual agreements except the multilateral treaties they've signed
on to under the auspices of the UN, common to nearly every nation on Earth.
Actually, naming N-Korea, Iraq, and Iran as the members of an "Axis of Evil"
in this way is a slick means of threatening those nations with nuclear
weapons without saying so in that many words, for Japen was a member of an
"Evil Axis" and it was subject to the first two nuclear bombardments in
history.
> =>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> => => 2) That automatically brings forth the next point: The
> adoption of the US => Government of a general pre-emptive
> military stance. To do so was a => milestone in US foreign
> policy, because for the first time since before WWI, => the US
> Government and the US national political establishment have
> formally => renounced multilateral relations and adopted "War
> of Aggression" or "War of => Pre-emption" as the general US
> strategic doctrine.
>
> Again, I challenge you to cite where the United States has
> ever said anything at all about a policy of "War of
> Aggression" or "War of Pre-emption." I believe the phrase
> from which you are distorting those words is "pre-emptive
> action against hostile states and terrorist groups developing
> weapons of mass destruction" which not the same thing.
No, that isn't true, the sentence you refer to is a general strategic
doctrine of pre-emption, an illegal one in the eyes of the World. War of
Aggression is the legal name for wars which are waged by nations that do not
abide by the rules of law governing pernissible or impermissible behaviour
in nation states during times of war. There is no measure of distortion in
seeing in the phrase, "pre-emptive action against hostile states and
terrorist groups developing weapons of mass destruction" as a general
doctrine of pre-emption, and the sentense is exactly equal to the central
meaning of a pre-emptive stance in national military matters, as defined
under international law or in the UN Charter.
Think it through. What is "hostile", what is "pre-emptive action", what and
who are "terrorists groups", and what does "developing" mean, and what are
"weapons of mass destruction". Examining all these questions, putting the
widest most inclusive meaning onto these words, terms, and phrases, would
unerringly result in the conclusion, that the "pre-emptive action" which a
nation's government might take along the lines, defined as per this official
US Government document, include ALL military options, also and most
certainly the ability to pre-empt percieved enemies (= potentially everybody
in the World, for in the eyes of the beholder perception apperantly
overrules every other concern, no evidence needed) in whatever way deemed
necessary, and exclude none!
> => strategies are illegal according to the UN Charter and
> international law, => and the mere fact that the US Government
> could decide to implement this => doctrine [the "Doctrine of
> Nuclear Pre-emption" or simply "Bush Doctrine"] => without
> parliamentary opposition is an indication of the degree to
> which US => foreign and war (no, can't say defence any longer,
> not with pre-emption as
>
> Cite. Again, I challenge "Doctrine of Nuclear Pre-emption"
> and do not believe there is any such US policy. The "Bush
> Doctrine" most commonly references "ending states that sponsor
> terrorism" - how are you are getting "Nuclear Pre-emption" out
> of that?
See above. The term is already widely in use among foreign correspondents
and it has long since become part of established vocabulary among foreign
policy professionals in foreign capitals around the World, where the
established fact is that this really IS the new US strategic doctrine. The
best phrase to look for on the Web is "Bush Doctrine", but "Doctrine of
Nuclear Pre-emption" or "Nuclear Pre-emption" might also bring a hit or two.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,728870,00.html
http://www.salon.com/news/col/scheer/2002/09/25/doctrine/
http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/092602.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3652
These a just a few of the links thrown up by a Google search.
> => the main US doctrine) policies are at the present beyond
> parliamentary => control or oversight. This unilateral change
> in US foreign policy of => adopting a pre-emptive military
> stance, promising or threatening first use => of nuclear (and
> other) weapons (of mass destruction) against a number of =>
> different targets around the World, N-Korea included,
> undoubtedly had grave => import on the N-Korean leadership in
> impressing upon them how earnest and => factual were and are
> the intentions of the current US Government in carrying => out
> in practise its warlike policies and threats regarding
> declared and => undeclared enemies. => That's a gross
> distortion.
Why? Did President Bush or the US Government not want to be taken seriously?
Did or do you doubt for a minute that he would or will hesitate to make
"good" on his promise to bomb North Korea, attack it with nuclear weapons on
a first strike basis, pre-emptivily? If you do, you have to accept as fact
that you disbelive the earnestly expressed promises of your most exhalted
national leader and the entire national political leadership!
Yes, though personal likes and dislikes do not figure into this, at least
not for my part. But that is exactly what's wrong in a legal sense. How
would you know that a threat is of consequense or substance if you eradicate
it before it has fully matured? An impossibility. So what the US Government
is really saying is that the US will bomb or take out or eradicate whatever
or whomever take their fancy and afterwards claim that the ones who were
killed or the real estate that was destroyed posed a national security
threat. The proof of the matter will be that the US Government says so,
because the threat has now ceased to exist, hasn't it?
>
> => [Quoting from page 6, Multinational Strategy]
> => ...defending the United States, the American people, and
> our interests at => home and abroad by identifying and
> destroying the threat before it reaches => our borders.While
> the United States will constantly strive to enlist the =>
> support of the international community, we will not hesitate
> to act alone, => if necessary, to exercise our right of
> self-defence by acting pre-emptively => against such
> terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people
> => and our country; and government reorganization since the
> Truman => Administration created the National Security Council
> and ... => => No matter the linguistic gloss, this is a true
> pre-emptive stance, it's an => open declaration of potential
> aggression against everybody "out there". => How is acting
> pre-emptively against such terrorists" a threat "against
> everybody?"
Tell me, who is ON PRINCIPLE excluded from being the target of US military
(or other official) violence, according to the quoted document? What -
noone? Well, everybody is a potential target, then, no destinctions are made
between official enemies, in the sense of the Geneva Conventions, and
non-combetants. The US is again violating long standing international legal
principles, nothing new. And it is certainly a traditional part, a
distinguishing mark, of any strategic pre-emptive doctrine from history.
Models include Germany and Japan during WWII, where both nations were
definitely acting from a basic strategic stance of pre-emption.
> => **************************************
> => http://www.inesap.org/bulletin20/bul20art26.htm
> => http://www.counterpunch.org/boylenukes.html
> =>
>
> Fortunately, some authors telegraph their prejudices by using
> diminutive terms like "Bush Jr." and we don't have to waste
> our time further analyzing their claims.
No, not any more than referring to the elder Bush as Bush Senior, right?
> Your problem in these and other cites below is you are
> pointing to what other people have to say about a document,
> not the document itself. And many of the people and sources
> you pick are hostile to the Bush administration.
That makes them neither more nor less believable. Hostility or other feeling
are not of interest or at least not to me. Facts and their interpretation
are. If interpetrations or analysis result in a certain view that a reader
might not like, that's just too bad, for the truth will out! And it is not
"bad" per se to be hostile to the Bush Administration, is it? Is it "bad" to
be hostile to Aurangzeb or Atahualpa?
> Please cite the original documents and/or exact quotes.
Sorry, but you might just as well do that. I assure you that the quotes I've
cited are quite enough to convince me. But I'll never say no to reading or
understanding further evidence.
The North Koreans have withdrawn officially from the NTP. They regard this
action as legal and within their rights as a souvereign action. Are they
right or are they wrong, in your view?
> => probably not widely known in the US - the current US
> Administration have => simply refused to join this most
> important of the historic multilateral => agreements which
> have, along with other important treaties, succeeded (more =>
> or less)
>
> Well, again, we were leaders in getting the non-proliferation
> treaty in place and we are active members now.
No, the US has withdrawn or, if you prefer, let its never-never "membership"
lapse (in 2000). The NPT has not been ratified by Congress and it is thus
not legally incumbent upon US Governments to abide by its strictures. The US
stance towards North Korea is extremely strange, since the US "laspe" or
"refusal" to sign on to the NPT gives iy no legal claims or holds on nations
like North Korea which have in fact signed on to the treaty, even if they
legally or illegally decided to withdraw from it, later.
http://www.wpunj.edu/cohss/polisci/faculty/jmCIRPES1199.htm
[Quoting again:]
"The political maneuvering over the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty in
Washington have taken on a sinister meaning in Paris, Beijing and Moscow
because it coincided with two successful tests of ABM systems: one by the
Americans in October and the other by the Israelis in November. Successful
demonstrations of working ABM technology gave recent proposals by the
Clinton Administration to renegotiate the terms of the 1972 ABM treaty with
Moscow a new importance and plausibility. Taken together the treaty vote and
the ABM tests could suggest that an important fraction of the American
foreign policy elite was opting for a national/technical response to the
spread of weapons of mass destruction and intermediate delivery systems
among Third World Regional powers such as India and Pakistan and giving up
on any multinational, collective approach to these issues.
The proposed solution a deployment of a scaled-down "Star Wars" shield for
the American Heartland suffers from the twin disadvantage of being
vulnerable to simple counter measures even while it degrades the credibility
of the nuclear deterrent forces of the other major nuclear powers with whom
we are presumably at peace or allied. An American decision to breaking with
the current ABM regime would encourage not only a renewal of nuclear testing
but inevitably nuclear build-ups by Russia, China and France. While the
technical arguments against ABM deployment are well known in the US, for now
they seem to be losing out to the core belief among American conservatives
that it's safer to trust in a technical fix for political problems than to
rely on governmental institutions a distrust which begins with our own
political elite but quickly extends to include everyone else's. "
[End quote]
> -> keeping the World free of the chaotic proliferation of
> nuclear => weapons and technologies and other WMD for the last
> half century.
>
> Let's see: START I (Bush/Gorbechev) reduced nuclear warheads
> from about 75,000+ to about 25,000, START II (Bush/Yeltsin)
> reduced warheads from 25,000 to around 12,000 and SORT
> (Bush/Putin) takes us down to about 5,000 over the next 10
> years. Seems like we're doing a damn good job ending chaotic
> proliferation.
Sorry, but right now proliferation of nuclear weapons is at a very high
level, much higher than was common during the Cold War years. The behaviour
displayed by the US since 9/11 has invalidated many international treaties,
laid waste to the NPT and other nuclear non-proliferation regimes, ended
cooperation with the Russians on START I+II etc. The US is activily arming
allied nations all over the World, in some cases even with nuclear weapons,
and the general security environment of the World at large has never in all
the years since the end of WWII been in such a threatened and fragile
condition as today, after two years of bludgeoning US unilateralism.
http://www.clw.org/control/sort/philinquirer.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/05/24/bush.europe/?related
http://infomanage.com/nonproliferation/najournal/israelinucs.html
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2000/0704-Nucsub.html
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/495/495p24.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1230-06.htm
http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/2000/8/25_5.html
http://www.dalitstan.org/journal/recthist/nuclear/hcnwisl.html
Well, I'll stop now, for I imagine you'll catch the drift, though I could
have gone on for much longer. Do you believe that the US will end all this
proliferation, stop the threat of a global nuclear holocaust, all on its
own? Do the present encumbents in Washington D.C. imagine they can go it
alone? Well, the more they try that, the more the World will get out of
control (just like North Korea!), the more the US will feel threatened, put
upon, misused, and the less secure it and the World will become. Only a
multilateral approach where the US, as the main nuclear power also agrees to
disarm, will ever end nuclear arms proliferation and keep the World safe
from the dangers of nuclear war.
> => deal with the Clinton Administration, the N-Koreans didn't
> pull out of that => one. No, that was one of the programmatic
> foreign policy items on the new => Bush Administration's
> agenda when it came to power two years ago.
>
> I believe President Bush reluctantly certified that North
> Korea was in compliance in order to keep the food and fuel aid
> humanitarian aid flowing.
Not a change. He's come off looking like an amateur, ignoring solid advice
from some of his own most knowledgeable people. A real debacle. It was all
done in the arrogance of someone who's completely convinced of his own good
and absolutely blind to the World as is - and who's careless and sloppy, to
boot.
> => US would callously, without even paying compensation, or
> even admitting to => reneging on a vitally important deal (to
> the N-Korean Government and to the => people of N-Korea all
> this is a matter of life and death) was probably the =>
> determining fact in persuading the N-Koreans into trying their
> risky bit of
>
> I believe the friction during the Clinton administration over
> North Korean violations of the Missile Technology Control
> Regime (treaty) and sanctions imposed on them for that.
Perhaps, certainly a good deal of friction between the North Korean
Government and US officials go back to 1993 or perhaps earlier. But that is
really of no consequence in the present circumstance, for the North Koreans
can creditably claim, based on the record in the public domain, that they
did not end official cooperation with the US until the US Government had
formally told them it would renege on their common contract and before the
US had openly, before a World forum, threatened the North Korean Government
with War of Aggression.
> => defiance, in spite of overwhelming US superiority,
> militarily and => economically. It's paying off, isn't it? And
> the Bush Administration is => again experiencing a major
> foreign policy debacle, just like the times when => India and
> Pakistan were on the brink of nuclear war last year. =>
> => Links:
> =>
> => http://www.wpunj.edu/cohss/polisci/faculty/jmCIRPES1199.htm
> => Novembre 1999
> => Le Debat Strategique:
> =>
> => Neo-Isolationism in Washington?
> => by John G. Mason
> => William Paterson University of NJ
> =>
> Who is John G. Mason, what is the William Pateson University
> of NJ and why should we listen to them?
Look them up if you want to know...
Which decision is "good"?
Yes, but the US has formally withdrawn and is no longer bound by that
treaty - and will probably never again be bound by such a treaty or any
treaty forbidding or limiting the use of WMD. The US is "going it alone".
> => and the process of strategic arms reductions with Russia.
> => The treaty signed with Russia - the Sort Treaty - is a
> treaty without => content and has no operative provisions.
> =>
> I quote from the SORT treaty:
>
> "Each Party shall reduce and limit strategic nuclear warheads,
> as stated by the President of the United States of America on
> November 13, 2001 and as stated by the President of the
> Russian Federation on November 13, 2001 and December 13, 2001
> respectively, so that by December 31, 2012 the aggregate
> number of such warheads does not exceed 1700-2200 for each
> Party. Each Party shall determine for itself the composition
> and structure of its strategic offensive arms, based on the
> established aggregate limit for the number of such warheads. "
>
> How is that without content and operative provisions?
Because there is no call for reducing the number of warheads in service. It
least as long as the object is to limit and possibly even to ban nuclear
weapons, this treaty is of no consequence. It just freezes the threat of
nuclear holocaust in place.
> => The Kyoto Protocol
>
> In 1998, the Senate voted unanimously against the US entering
> the Kyoto treaty. Every Republican, every Democrat, every
> Liberal, every Conservative.
Yes, so?
> => The International Criminal Court
> =>
> No right to a lawyer, no right to know the charges against
> one, no right to confront witnesses, no right to an
> independent jury, to right to a public trial, appointed judges
> also acting as prosecutors - that treaty is so seriously
> flawed it's a wonder it gets any attention at all.
Can't say where you get those notions, but it doesn't matter. The point is
that the US does not want to have allies or work with other nation to
promote a common good or achieve a common goal. This is after all the age of
US unilateralism and exceptionalism, the new "American" century, Manifest
Destiny...
> => *************************************************
> =>
> => 4) Finally, as a sort of executive summary for those who do
> not care to busy => themselves with the irksome details of
> international diplomacy and => relations. Here' an analysis by
> Paul Krugman, based on game theory: =>
>
> OK but Dr. Krugman is a political columnist with a decided
> leftist point of view. You're not presenting this as
> objective thought, are you?
Yes, I think his description is pretty accurate, his analysis right on, for
the ability to be objective is not connected to a person's political point
of view. I would be much more leary of the views of an "unpolitical" person
or of somebody who won't disclose his own point of wiev or tries to hide it.
Nes
zolota
<willia...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:u8p82voom6jt4mhr2...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:26:13 GMT, "bob" <nom...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> =>
> => >I believe he made his meaning very clear. The axis he drew was that
these
> => three states
> => >were unique in developing weapons of mass destruction AND supporting
> => terrorists. As to
> => >North Korea specifically, just before he made the "axis of evil"
> => accusation, he said
> => >"North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass
> => destruction, while
> => >starving its citizens."
> =>
> => what terrorist organizations does NK support?
> =>
> Any of them. It's own little terrorist organization, the "Red Army"
kidnaps citizens off
> the streets in Japan and South Korea and enslaves them in North Korea.
They're active in
> the middle east. North Korea regularly sells controlled technology in
violation of the
> Missile Technology Control Regime (treaty) to countries that sponsor
terrorism.
The kidnappings were 20 years ago. So far I've heard nothing about NV
involved in the Middle East, do you have a credible reference? When the
contras were placing mines in the harbours of Nicaragua, were they not
terrorists? It was the CIA that was funding them. State terrorism is just
another form of terrorism, the only difference being that the powers in
control of the local government are also the terrorists. As two examples,
juntas in Chile and Argentina, where both sets of leaders were trained by
the US at the School of the Americas.
>
> They sell their Scud missiles all over the world. Israeli intelligence
says both Hezebola
> and Hamas have Scuds in Lebanon right now.
Approximately half of all arms sales in the world are of US manufacture. Do
you believe that none of them are used against civilians? Hint, helicopters
sold to Turkey for "NATO" purposes are used routinely to attack it's Kurdish
minority.
> While they haven't named a customer for the fissile materials they are
currently making,
> they have said they will not be building their own nuclear weapons. All
other nations
> are members of the non-proliferation treaty so they can't be the
customers. Who do you
> suppose North Korea is making nuclear bomb fuels for if not themselves or
another country?
North Korea is not making fuels, it is dusting off the equipment in a
negotiating position. There is a difference. Meanwhile Israel has been
building weapons for years, and rather than being embargoed for that is
actually a preferred recipient of US technology. Israel has consistantly
refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty so it is NOT a member.
Pot, kettle
Z
Hobbs
> definition of "axis" ("a straight line or structure with respect to which a body is
> symmetrical") conveys an image the President's wanted.
>
> Besides, threatening nuclear war is hardly an appropriate response to name calling, if
> that's what the North Korean's thought the President was doing.
>
> You realize, of course, that if North Korea is being truthful that it is not trying to
> develop nuclear weapons itself, the only possible other reason it could have for producing
> nuclear bomb fuels is to sell them on the black market as they now sell missile
> technology. That is a chilling thought. Do you suppose they have any customers waiting?
The U.S. should shoot thoese NK soldiers moving into the DMZ with heavy
machine guns. That's how you deal with somebody who is probing you
for weaknesses.
-McDaniel
Carey Sublette
nom...@nospam.com says...
It hasn't been active in this field recently, but North Korea is the
clearest case of actual state terrorism. That is, terrorism actually
carried out by organs of the state itself as part of official policy.
The "Blue House Raid", an attempt to assassinate the South Korean
president, was a particularly notable case in 1968; and there were
bombings of an airliner, of South Korean cabinet ministers in a
successful assassination plot; the infamous kidnappings of dozens of
Japanes; etc.
It is hard to be confident, given the DPRKs erratic behavior, that it
had permanently abandoned these schemes.
Trakar
<care...@earthling.net> wrote:
>It hasn't been active in this field recently, but North Korea is the
>clearest case of actual state terrorism. That is, terrorism actually
>carried out by organs of the state itself as part of official policy.
>
>The "Blue House Raid", an attempt to assassinate the South Korean
>president, was a particularly notable case in 1968; and there were
>bombings of an airliner, of South Korean cabinet ministers in a
>successful assassination plot; the infamous kidnappings of dozens of
>Japanes; etc.
>
>It is hard to be confident, given the DPRKs erratic behavior, that it
>had permanently abandoned these schemes.
Other than a high success rate, this is dramatically different from
western espionage efforts how?
willia...@earthlink.net
get into it. Hope to come back in a day or two.
-- Bill
Nes
TricksterŠ wrote:
> We can't possibly appreciate other nations? You are one dumb
> cocksucker. You still think the Nazi's won the war don't you -
> stupid German fuckhead.
There it is again, the strange indefinete abstract "we". Are "we"
'Americans', or what?
Well, whoever "we" are you seem to include yourself in the collective
reference. And you/"we" feel that it is absolutely a matter open for
discussion to ask a question like, "Why would anyone want North Korea?" Can
you/"we" possibly mean that is any positive sense? Isn't it a total
rejection of the people living in North Korea, their lives, their very
existance? The people you/"we" want to burn to a radioactive cinder? And
you/"we" want to theatrically, using abusive language, bring forth imbecile
utterances, pretending to act as if you're the offended part. Well, you
think you can dish it out, but you sure as Hell can't take it! Typical!
By the way, I don't communicate with those who can't abide by the rules of
polite civic intercourse, so this is adieu...
Nes
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Howard Berkowitz
> "Trakar" <Tra...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:6ln82vci8ipih092f...@4ax.com...
> > all of this prior to NK's announcement of
> > the resumption of their nuclear program in the summer of 2002
>
> NK didn't *resume* their program in summer 2002, they were confronted
> with
> the reality of their clandestine program, which they'd been at for a long
> time. This puts this whole public saber rattling vs. private
> intelligence
> argument in a new light. What's wrong with calling someone an "Axis Of
> Evil" if you suspect they're probably developing nuclear weapons, and a
> year
> later you're vindicated on that point?
While I won't get into the political judgement of Douglas MacArthur, he
was at least reasonably competent as an operational commander,
especially in the Southwest Pacific during WWII. One of his operational
trademarks with the Japanese was to pressure them, but to leave them
just enough room that they didn't go into suicidal charges, but made a
tactical retreat and let the jungle and his air forces further attrit
them.
There's no question that the US rendered impotent any anti-Nazi groups
in Germany with FDR's offhand "Unconditional Surrender" proclamation. I
look at Bush's "Axis of Evil" catchphrase as something that played well
to a domestic constituency, but unnecessarily inflamed nations that are
definite opponents of the US (although to varying degrees--I think a
policy of cautious engagement with Iran is wise).
The point is that rhetoric to a domestic audience doesn't do anything
positive in international relations. Let's assume Bush had absolutely
confirmed information about NK's nuclear activity -- indeed, he might
have. A more sensible approach would have included concentrating on
developing a limited coalition approach with (not that they love one
another) SK, Japan, China, and Russia, quietly deploying military
resources (e.g., strike and ABM), etc., and having more ducks in place
before the pronouncement.
The Axis of Evil was an invitation to the Axis members to start being
provocative without an apparent American plan to deal with that
not-unexpected consequence. I'm not saying that the countries involved
aren't "evil," although linking them on an Axis is rather silly -- they
have very little in common with one another, especially Iran and Iraq.
The US may very well have needed to do something. But, to borrow from
football, GWB made a false start.
>
> Of course NK feels threatened. They've been doing stuff worthy of
> threats!
>
> NK is also currently winning the political showdown. That jury is still >
Nes
Trakar wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:17:41 +0100, "Nes"
> <nmorph...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>> But you know well the essense of the legal case of the
>> US-North Korean standoff. (This I base on your intimate
>> familiarity with the recent history of the changing relations
>> of the two nations displayed in your last message in this
>> thread.). One nation, the North Korean Government, has stuck
>> (as far as information available in the public domain is able
>> to indicate) with correct legal behaviour and has acted in
>> accordance with its specific and very important (to it,
>> N-Korea) trade deals with the US, with international law, and
>> the UN Charter.
>
> Now, I feel, you read too much into my previous post. While I
> feel that our current administration has promoted a one-sided
> argument demonizing N. K. actions and ignoring their own
> culpabilities that have led up to this current crisis, I do
> not feel that N. K. is a wronged innocent. And if you are
> going to complain about nations failing to utilize diplomacy
> and negotiations in settling disputes, I hardly feel that the
> severest criticism should be leveled solely at the nation who
> does, predominantly, utilize such practices, while ignoring
> violations/actions and failure of the other side to attempt
> these same touted procedures.
I apologize if I've read to much into or misunderstood your previous
messages. That was not my intent. I agree that N-Korea is not a wronged
innocent, just wronged. The concept of innocense is not very useful in the
political world, and neither is it in the sphere of jurisprudence. The whole
show is about what can be proven by the "rules of the game". In any court of
law, pertaining to criminal cases, at least, the presumption of innocense is
the prime directive, and guilt must be proved by the accuser(s) in such a
way as to negate reasonable doubt.
In the present case of N-Korea versus the US are often, at least in the US
media, included references to past crimes, deeds, war, likes and dislikes
that the US public and Government may have for N- Korea, it's political
system, it economic system, its leaders. But those are all beside the point,
IMHO, for each case must be judged on its own merits - at least as long as
the current system of nation states exists, and as long as the nation state
is the legal entity that it has historically become. Either the nation state
is a respected entity, enjoying approximately the same benefits under the
law as an individual or corporation, or the entire concept of the nation
state must be replaced or reworked. That, at least, will be far beyond the
powers of the US Government to affect unilaterally, it would be a revolution
that would change the World in extremely radical ways, a negation of nearly
all historical developments since the Westphealian Peace of 1648 (in
Germany).
>> The other nation, the US Government, has violated
>> special trade aggreements with North Korea without offering
>> any explanation (except publicly circulated unverifiable and
>> unverified gossip and inuendo) or villingness to pay damages,
>> it has blatantly acted in open breach of international law
>> and of the UN Charter.
>
> I'm sorry, but before I can respond to these, you'll have to
> clarify exactly what you are referring to. Which special trade
> agreements are you talking about? What damages should the US
> have paid, and exactly which international laws and what
> portion of the UN charter has the US breached?
Well, it's no big deal. The deal called the "Agreed Framework" that the
first Clinton Administration made with the North Korean leadership in 1994.
A copy can be read online here:
http://www.kedo.org/pdfs/AgreedFramework.pdf
[Quoting:]
AGREED FRAMEWORK BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Geneva, October 21, 1994
Delegations of the governments of the United States of America (U.S.) and
the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) held talks in Geneva from
September 23 to October 21, 1994, to negotiate an overall resolution of the
nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.
Both sides reaffirmed the importance of attaining the objectives contained
in the
August 12, 1994 Agreed Statement between the U.S. and the DPRK and
upholding the principles of the June 11, 1993 Joint Statement of the U.S.
and the
DPRK to achieve peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. The
U.S. and the DPRK decided to take the following actions for the resolution
of the
nuclear issue:
[End quote]
The "Agreed Framework" is here:
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/koreaaf.htm
[Quote:]
U.S. - DPRK Agreed Framework
Delegations of the Governments of the United States of America (U.S.) and
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) held talks in Geneva from
September 23 to October 17, 1994, to negotiate an overall resolution of the
nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.
Both sides reaffirmed the importance of attaining the objectives contained
in the August 12, 1994 Agreed Statement between the U.S. and the DPRK and
upholding the principles of the June 11, 1993 Joint Statement of the U.S.
and the DPRK to achieve peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean
peninsula. The U.S. and the DPRK decided to take the following actions for
the resolution of the nuclear issue:
[End quote]
>> Which nation is the aggressor? And if military force is to
>> bring a nation security, does that nation not have to abide
>> by the rules of international jurisprudence?
>
> International jurisprudence?! Surely you jest.
Well, I get your drift, but it really depends on what the viewpoint or
object under discussion is. In a debate over the current factual breakdown
of the "old" multilateral World Order, established in the aftermaths of the
two World Wars of the last century, resulting amongst other in the creation
of the League of Nations and the UN, I'm always a strong supporter of those
heavily besieged international institutions and regretful that they haven't
yet, due to the failing political will of member nations, managed to live up
to the high expectations their creators had for them.
On the other hand, if the object under debate is how inadequate and lacking
in proper powers the international institutions are, I'm all too often in
agreement. But I don't happen to think that doing away with or sidelining
the international institutions, the only political creations to come out of
the last violent century, that promise or have the potential for dealing
constructivily with the many fundamental and serious problem that confront
man globally. My firm opinion is that the international institutions ought
to be strengthened, and I also believe that the current foreign policy of
the US Administration is working directly contrary to that view.
The general public in the US are not aware of how far the US has already
gone down the unilateral road, what damage has already been done, and how
dangerous that is both to the US and to the World at large! But the current
N-Korean crisis is a good and simple case in point, where a proper
presentation of the facts of the case might clear up a lot of misconceptions
and misunderstandings.
> Please define
> such and reference. "international law" is oft quoted, but, is
> actually mostly an illusory phantasm.
I would say the essense of international law is contained in the UN Charter,
in the Geneva Conventions, and in the multilateral treaties which most of
the nations of the World have signed on to. Together they make up a
disjointed and flawed "system" in need of more powers, a lot of reform, and
proper funding, but at the moment it's the only one available. Better than
nothing...
> The only law between
> nations exists within the framework of treaties and concords
> and the signatories of such, and which are null and void upon
> the whims of these same signatories. Even the UN is a
> voluntary club, with no more real authority or standing than
> it's most powerful members cede to it.
That is true, and your view that the proper funcitioning of international
cooperation can only be based on the free cooperation of nations is very
accurate. That's a strenght and a flaw at the same time. To make use of the
strength, you have to show trust, act honestly, show and act from the
principle of solidarity, be willing to cooperate, and be ready to surrender
some national souzerainty. Then it will work. If you try to use force, the
"system" will just buckle or break down. Nothing will get done then. And
what will happen? A new era of nationalism, and national self-sufficiency,
and probably even general detente will likely emerge, for in international
politics there is either cooperation for the common good, or there's
stagnation or degeneration: war and more war.
>> Otherwise that nation cannot but become known as an
>> international pariah, every hand will be turned against it.
>
> This actually has little to do with the accord "international
> law", and much more to do with popular and national perception.
Yes, that is true enough. But most of the time the general public do not
notice stuff happening in foreign policy. But when alliences break down, war
is on the horizon, friends turn into enemies etc., at least some people
start to notice. Then they will want to know who are responsible, either as
public "heroes" or "villans", right? So international relations are a matter
of morality to the general public, and the politician who ignores that fact
can look forward to a defeat in the next election.
>> And if the
>> nation in breach of its solemn agreements and of basic common
>> international principles of jurisprudence, how can anybody
>> ever trust that nation -
>
> Again, the usage of terms like "solemn agreements" and "basic
> common international principles of jurisprudence", in this
> context, is ridiculous.
No, don't agree, for in the context of public perception of foreign policy,
the view of insiders, government officials, politicians etc., is legalistic,
focussed on the technicalities at hand (at least if they're professionals).
The public sees the whole matter of diplomatic exchange in socialized, more
personal terms, like Fritz talking to Froggy, Germany talking to France, and
they always judge the exchange on moral grounds, like they would any other
human interaction.
That is a naive way of looking at the political developments and events of
the World, naturally, but that same public is the receptable of the messages
emanating from its national political leadership. A fictive one may sound,
"The US always honours its foreign policy obligations." Now, that is simply
untrue (and it's also untrue of (nearly) every other nation of Earth) but
will the public believe it, nevertheless? Yes, they will, unless they are
told the truth by those who have the ability or opportunity to see through
the false message, which can ONLY have been uttered for propaganda purposes.
So the US has made solemn agreements with North Korea which the US has
broken. Most certainly did the US sign up to a bilateral agreement with
North Korea according to quoted documents. The US reneged on that deal while
levelling all kinds of accusations at North Korean, its people and
government, but when asked, refused to substantiate those same accusations.
The US also threatened the nation with unprovoked nuclear attack, accusing
it of harbouring terrorists, being an "Axis of Evil" and whatnot. These
accusations were also never substantiated by the US Government, at least
till this day.
> The best way to gain insight into
> international affairs is to realize at the outset, that at
> their core, they are based upon the principle that each nation
> acts in their own self-interest (and in most cases, this means
> the self-interest of the nation's leaders) regardless of the
> constraints they (or others) feel restrict their actions. In
> large part, this too, again resolves back to perception and
> interpretation on all sides.
You're right again. The principle of national souzerainty rules supreme in
international law (since 1648) and from that is mostly assumed that nations
are mainly driven by a form of collective self-interest (or collective
egotism). I would hesitate to accept that as the unqualified truth, for a
nation is naturally a profoundly complex human social construct, possessing
a great range of abilities and potentials for actions, which are beyond
narrow generalization. The nation state may be a bastion of class warfare
and imperial warmongering. It may also be a peacemaker and a do-gooder. It
all depends on the internal social dynamics at work inside the nation.
Even the concept of self-interest allows for a broader understanding than is
common in everyday language, when the nation state is involved. It may be
that the leaders of the nation state interpret national interest as being
equal to their own personal interest, so they abuse the powers and the
mighty maschinery of the modern state to enrich themselves, exploit others,
make wars etc. On the other hand, a national leadership may understand that
in order to truly serve national interest, it is useless to entice hostility
against the own nation, that cooperation is the way to go in international
relations, and that prospects for general social improvement at home as well
as abroad are much more effective means of creating a safe and flourishing
human environment than the blunt (and ineffective) recourse to war and
oppression.
It all depends on the social interactions, the processes of life, inside the
state or nation in question and on the process of politics. Anything is
possible!
>> and
>> where there is no trust, how can there be security? Not even
>> "the usage of military force in the pursuit of national
>> security and/or strategic economic interests", even the
>> currently overwhelming military strength which the US
>> momentarily possesses, can ever succeed in creating security
>> under such adverse conditions.
>
> Sure it can, in fact one of the only things that keeps the US
> from establishing a open global empire at this time is our own
> internal moral conflicts concerning such.
Well, the US as a whole may doubt the desirability of such a move. But, at
least to me, it seems that the current US Administration and the entire
national establishment have made up their minds - it's going to be US
hegenomy and US unilateralism. Do I belive that is a sustainable policy for
the US to embark upon? No, not at all, my conviction is it that the more the
Beltway insiders indulge their unilateral tendencies the shorter will last
the current period of US hegemonial pretense. There's no way the US can pull
it off - it'll be 4,6% of the World against 95,4%. No contest.
>>> Such should not be used lightly, nor in a cavalier
>>> manner, but, nor should the reluctance to use such be so
>>> great as to make potential targets of such force doubtful as
>>> to our will to utilize them.
>>
>> Unilaterally or in accordance with international law and the
>> UN Charter?
>
> As I stated before, all nations ultimately, always act
> unilaterally and in their own perceived self-interests,
> whether they do so in concert with other nations (who are
> doing the same thing) or not.
All right! But that just pushes the question one step further along. How
does the nation state decide, collectivily, that something is in the
national self-interest (and what IS self-interest? Se above.) Will a proper
answer to that question not entail the definition of what the (said) nation
is, what it's 'good for', so to speak? Does it not have to find its "role"
in the World?
willia...@earthlink.net
=> willia...@earthlink.net wrote:
=> > =>
=> > => "The US Is Pushing North Korea to the Brink."
=> > =>
<..snip..>
=> > I do not believe our President ever said North Korea was
=> > directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks and challenge you to
=> > provide a cite.
So I'm right. The President never did say North Korea was directly responsible for the
9/11 attacks and your cite does not show differently. My objection to your post in
general is that, as is the case here, you twist words and phrases far beyond reason to
support claims of sinister plots.
<..snip..>
=> > Wow. While "axis of evil" may be more alliteration than
=> > anything else, I think the definition of "axis" ("a straight
=> > line or structure with respect to which a body is
=> > symmetrical") conveys an image the President's wanted.
=>
=> Oh no, this short but very important speech by President Bush was in no way
=> sloppy or indefinite of meaning. "Axil of Evil" has historically of late
=> only referred to the Iron Pact, nothing else is grand enough for the
=> occation, the President's speech to the nation, the longed for response by
=> the political establishment to the attacks of 9/11.
=>
My understanding from newspaper columns and (IRC) Woodward's book, is that "axis of evil"
was coined by speech writers purely for alliterative and pacing purposes but the
President seized on it, perhaps, in my view, with visions of Reagan's "evil empire"
dancing in his head. The phrase was in and out of the speech a half dozen times amid much
yelling and screaming over the next few days. My opinion is that it never had the dark
nuclear first strike overtones you imply.
=> > You realize, of course, that if North Korea is being truthful
=> > that it is not trying to develop nuclear weapons itself, the
=> > only possible other reason it could have for producing nuclear
=> > bomb fuels is to sell them on the black market as they now
=> > sell missile technology. That is a chilling thought. Do you
=> > suppose they have any customers waiting?
=>
=> I couldn't tell, having no paranormal abilities. Certainly, I wouldn't like
=> it if the nations of this Earth, including the US, could trade openly in
=> fissile materials or do with those materials just as they saw fit. But there
=> is a right way to go about minimizing the dangers of nuclear technologies.
=> That's the road of multilateral cooperation, mutual respect, and
=> trustworthyness, where violence or the use of military force is only the
=> last resort after all other solutions and possibilities have been tested and
=> tried - and failed.
And I say that's exactly what we're doing. No nation is allowed to trade in fissile
materials. The non-proliferation treaty is an example of the multilateral cooperation you
correctly want and the United States is pursuing a diplomatic solution to the current
problem. North Korea is the one using threats like "firestorm". "Word War III" and
"nuclear war.
=> is currently using, attempting to bully a weaker nation into compliance,
=> showing total disregard for the international community, for the law, and
=> for the populations in question, acting with extreme cynicism and
=> forethought of malice. That will make for a very uncertain and violent
=> future, no doubt about it, and the one to be in the wrong will be...
=>
I just can't see that. In my view, North Korea is the bad guy threatening war and
violence and the United States is working to a peaceful resolution.
<..snip..>
=>
=> Think it through. What is "hostile", what is "pre-emptive action", what and
=> who are "terrorists groups", and what does "developing" mean, and what are
=> "weapons of mass destruction". Examining all these questions, putting the
=> widest most inclusive meaning onto these words, terms, and phrases, would
=> unerringly result in the conclusion, that the "pre-emptive action" which a
=> nation's government might take along the lines, defined as per this official
=> US Government document, include ALL military options, also and most
=> certainly the ability to pre-empt percieved enemies (= potentially everybody
=> in the World, for in the eyes of the beholder perception apperantly
=> overrules every other concern, no evidence needed) in whatever way deemed
=> necessary, and exclude none!
=>
Well, again, I say you are bending words and phrases way out of proportion. I say the
United States is overall a source of good in the world, the oldest democracy on the planet
and the model, cause or protector of all other democracies that followed, all to often
with American blood.
=>
There is no US "Doctrine of Nuclear Pre-emption" and your efforts to draw that from
defense policy statements is unreasonable.
<..snip.>>
=>
=> Why? Did President Bush or the US Government not want to be taken seriously?
=> Did or do you doubt for a minute that he would or will hesitate to make
=> "good" on his promise to bomb North Korea, attack it with nuclear weapons on
=> a first strike basis, pre-emptivily? If you do, you have to accept as fact
=> that you disbelive the earnestly expressed promises of your most exhalted
=> national leader and the entire national political leadership!
=>
Absolutely. No thinking person can believe the United States, George Bush or not, would
ever launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against any country. Such an act would be a
horrible war crime. You're going to say we considered the idea in the 50's which is true
but not today.
<..snip..>
=> > => [Quoting from page 6, Multinational Strategy]
=> > => ...defending the United States, the American people, and
=> > our interests at => home and abroad by identifying and
=> > destroying the threat before it reaches => our borders.While
=> > the United States will constantly strive to enlist the =>
=> > support of the international community, we will not hesitate
=> > to act alone, => if necessary, to exercise our right of
=> > self-defence by acting pre-emptively => against such
=> > terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people
=> > => and our country; and government reorganization since the
=> > Truman => Administration created the National Security Council
=> > and ... => => No matter the linguistic gloss, this is a true
=> > pre-emptive stance, it's an => open declaration of potential
=> > aggression against everybody "out there".
=> How is acting pre-emptively against such terrorists" a threat "against
=> > everybody?"
=>
=> Tell me, who is ON PRINCIPLE excluded from being the target of US military
=> (or other official) violence, according to the quoted document?
Well, it says "terrorists." I suppose you'll argue the US could define "terrorist" as any
person, place, group or nation and then everybody would be a potential target.
=> Well, everybody is a potential target, then, no destinctions are made
=> between official enemies, in the sense of the Geneva Conventions, and
=> non-combetants. The US is again violating long standing international legal
=> principles, nothing new. And it is certainly a traditional part, a
=> distinguishing mark, of any strategic pre-emptive doctrine from history.
=> Models include Germany and Japan during WWII, where both nations were
=> definitely acting from a basic strategic stance of pre-emption.
=>
There you go again stretching "exercise our right of self-defence by acting pre-emptively
against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people" into a threat
to attack anyone anywhere. If you use language that loosely, there's no counter-point I
can make.
=> >
=> > Fortunately, some authors telegraph their prejudices by using
=> > diminutive terms like "Bush Jr." and we don't have to waste
=> > our time further analyzing their claims.
=>
=> No, not any more than referring to the elder Bush as Bush Senior, right?
=>
No. It is pejorative in nature and telegraphs the author's bias in this particular
article. I suppose it's a matter of opinion but the structure and feel of the opening
sentences in the article you posted discourage me from reading or considering it. We both
know good and serious critics don't use words that way to belittle their subjects with
pin-prick insults.
=> > Your problem in these and other cites below is you are
=> > pointing to what other people have to say about a document,
=> > not the document itself. And many of the people and sources
=> > you pick are hostile to the Bush administration.
=>
=> That makes them neither more nor less believable. Hostility or other feeling
=> are not of interest or at least not to me. Facts and their interpretation
=> are. If interpetrations or analysis result in a certain view that a reader
=> might not like, that's just too bad, for the truth will out! And it is not
=> "bad" per se to be hostile to the Bush Administration, is it? Is it "bad" to
=> be hostile to Aurangzeb or Atahualpa?
=>
Of course not. I'm not thrilled with the Bush administration either but by twisting facts
and words as you do, you tell me you don't have valid points to make.
<..snip..>
=>
=> The North Koreans have withdrawn officially from the NTP. They regard this
=> action as legal and within their rights as a souvereign action. Are they
=> right or are they wrong, in your view?
=>
They are right.
North Korea has every right to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty as per the terms
of that treaty. Technically, although it doesn't much matter, they have to give 90 days
notice. They did that in 1993 when they withdrew but did not do that when they withdrew
in 1994 or this month. However, in the Framework Agreement, they promised not to
withdraw anymore - they promised to stay in the NPT and to allow IAEA inspectors in return
for US aid.
The reactors were promised for a date in 2003 that hasn't arrived yet. (Yes, it's obvious
construction cannot be completed in time but the deadline isn't here yet.) The United
States has funded KEDO as per our end of the deal and we've delivered the promised food
aid and fuel.
The friction is mostly over sanctions imposed by both the Clinton and Bush administrations
against North Korea for violations of the Missile Technology Control Regime. North Korea
violated the Framework when they began enriching uranium in 1998 in violation of the
non-proliferation treaty. Recall that all fuel for the reactors was to be supplied and
controlled by KEDO so they have no reason to enrich uranium.
<..snip..>
> >
=> > Well, again, we were leaders in getting the non-proliferation
=> > treaty in place and we are active members now.
=>
=> No, the US has withdrawn or, if you prefer, let its never-never "membership"
=> lapse (in 2000). The NPT has not been ratified by Congress and it is thus
=> not legally incumbent upon US Governments to abide by its strictures. The US
=> stance towards North Korea is extremely strange, since the US "laspe" or
=> "refusal" to sign on to the NPT gives iy no legal claims or holds on nations
=> like North Korea which have in fact signed on to the treaty, even if they
=> legally or illegally decided to withdraw from it, later.
=>
Now here's one I can really knock out of the park.
The United States ratified the non-proliferation treaty in 1970 and is still an active and
leading member. I ridiculed your reference to John G. Mason and William Pateson
University because it so strongly predicated a whole analysis on wrong information. My
view of goggle results on this point is that many left-leaning sites are dead wrong on the
point when they say the US has not ratified the NPT. My pick for most credible site on
the matter is http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/.
My wise crack about "good decision" was in response to your note "<article cut short>"
following a long rambling about how the United States had failed to ratify the
non-proliferation treaty. That's also what I meant when you said your facts are wrong.
It doesn't escape me that you and your fellow leftists are talking about the
"Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty" and not the "Non-Proliferation Treaty" but you've got to
get stuff like that right. Your analysis and basic facts are so far wrong I get to make
fun of your post.
Them's the rules.
=> > -> keeping the World free of the chaotic proliferation of
=> > nuclear => weapons and technologies and other WMD for the last
=> > half century.
=> >
=> > Let's see: START I (Bush/Gorbechev) reduced nuclear warheads
=> > from about 75,000+ to about 25,000, START II (Bush/Yeltsin)
=> > reduced warheads from 25,000 to around 12,000 and SORT
=> > (Bush/Putin) takes us down to about 5,000 over the next 10
=> > years. Seems like we're doing a damn good job ending chaotic
=> > proliferation.
=>
=> Sorry, but right now proliferation of nuclear weapons is at a very high
=> level, much higher than was common during the Cold War years.
My numbers are approximations if that's what you mean but I still say we're doing a damn
good job.
=> The behaviour
=> displayed by the US since 9/11 has invalidated many international treaties,
=> laid waste to the NPT and other nuclear non-proliferation regimes, ended
=> cooperation with the Russians on START I+II etc.
START I is complete, START II is obsoleted by SORT. I
=> The US is activily arming
=> allied nations all over the World, in some cases even with nuclear weapons,
=> and the general security environment of the World at large has never in all
I vigorously dispute that the United States has armed any allied nations with nuclear
weapons.
<..snip..>
=> >
=> > I believe President Bush reluctantly certified that North
=> > Korea was in compliance in order to keep the food and fuel aid
=> > humanitarian aid flowing.
=>
=> Not a change. He's come off looking like an amateur, ignoring solid advice
=> from some of his own most knowledgeable people. A real debacle. It was all
=> done in the arrogance of someone who's completely convinced of his own good
=> and absolutely blind to the World as is - and who's careless and sloppy, to
=> boot.
=>
Well now we're coming a little closer to agreement. I believe US policy now is too often
defined by whoever talked to the President last but I do not ascribe to him the evil
motives you imply.
=> > => US would callously, without even paying compensation, or
=> > even admitting to => reneging on a vitally important deal (to
=> > the N-Korean Government and to the => people of N-Korea all
=> > this is a matter of life and death) was probably the =>
=> > determining fact in persuading the N-Koreans into trying their
=> > risky bit of
=> >
I do not agree this happened because the US "reneged" on the deal. North Korea violated
the agreement by enriching uranium. It admitted doing so (but I don't recall if it was us
or them who said it has been going on since 1998.) I also note they recently denied they
had ever admitted "developing nuclear weapons" when that was never charged.
We charged and they admitted uranium enrichment in violation of the NPT and, hence, of the
Agreed Framework.
<..snip..>
=> >
=> > Good decision.
=>
=> Which decision is "good"?
=>
My wise crack about "good decision" was in response to your "<article cut short>"
following a long rambling about how the United States had failed to ratified the
non-proliferation treaty. That's also what I meant when you said your facts are wrong.
<..snip..>
So now we get down to where you I said "You're playing word tricks with treaty titles.
The United States has signed the test ban treaty and treaties prohibiting
chemical and biological weapons."
You said "Yes, but the US has formally withdrawn and is no longer bound by that
treaty - and will probably never again be bound by such a treaty or any
treaty forbidding or limiting the use of WMD. The US is "going it alone"."
Since the US has not withdrawn from that treaty, your conclusion is wrong and we are not
"going it alone."
As to the SORT treaty, you say "Because there is no call for reducing the number of
warheads in service. It least as long as the object is to limit and possibly even to ban
nuclear weapons, this treaty is of no consequence. It just freezes the threat of
nuclear holocaust in place."
The usual objection to the SORT treaty is that there is no schedule. The treaty calls for
a reduction in nuclear warheads as of the date the treaty expires so it is effectively a
"no-op" While that's true, I give President Bush credit for saying he would do this
during the campaign and for doing it, unilaterally at first, when he got into office.
I don't think it's useful to get partisan about disarmament issues but I do admit some joy
in pointing out to my left-leaning friends that all nuclear arms reduction treaties have
been signed by a Republican (a Bush, in fact.)
> The Kyoto Protocol
>
> In 1998, the Senate voted unanimously against the US entering
> the Kyoto treaty. Every Republican, every Democrat, every
> Liberal, every Conservative.
> Yes, so?
So don't blame President Bush. The Senate voted that way because Kyoto exempts the 3
soon-to-be greatest polluters on earth - China, India and Mexico. President Bush's
counter proposal that all nations be included with advanced nations like the United States
being allowed to meet their pollution reduction quotas by curing problems in those nations
is a good one. The hard "no" and refusal to negotiate that point is no way more
unreasonable than the US Senate's hard "no" in 1998.
This treaty discussion raises an issue overshadowing other treaties the US refuses to sign
including those that control nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Legal scholars
still can't agree if the treaty clause in the constitution gives the US Senate authority
to override the bill of rights. That's going to be a long and difficult problem for us.
You asked where I got the idea the proposed International Criminal Court treaty was
fatally flawed because it do not provide a defendant with even the most basic rights. I
got the idea by reading the treaty: http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm
Can the Senate ratify a treaty that gives a UN inspector an absolute right to search
anytime, anyplace without notice or warrant? Can the Senate ratify a treaty that strips
US citizens of their rights in court?
Say you wake up at 3:00AM to some guy going through your dresser drawers. He handcuffs
you and takes you off to jail in a foreign country, does not tell you why, does not let
you communicate with anyone or see a lawyer.
I say the supreme authority in the United States, the people, have established their
government to protect their basic and natural rights as defined in the constitution and
have not authorized their government subordinate itself to any higher authority that would
deny those rights.
-- Bill
Tamas Feher
DPRK is right on several issues.
1., USA cheated them on the issue of construction of modern nuclear-electric powerplants, in exchange for their abandoning of old soviet graphite
reactors. The project is more than 5 years late beyond schedule, which means it became unrealistic to complete. This is at western fault, one can
guess the USA was never honest in its intention to finish the project.
2., The USA quit supplying the 1/2 million tons of crude oil, which it promised in a treaty, until above mentioned reactors are fully operational. The
USA claimed DPRK admitted having built nukes, but offered no fair or even dirty evidence (wiretap soundtrack, etc.) about this and DPRK has
denied such allegations.
3., The N-N-P-T treaty contains that nuclear powers will never use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear signatory states, no matter peace or war
looms. Consider that USA has been stationing nukes in South Korea ever since ages (mid-1960's?). Consider that South Korea has no common
border with any country, except DPRK. Who is the one, those nukes could get used against? Only the DPRK. Thus, USA does not act in good
faith regarding NNPT and the peninsula. Consequently DPRK is well justified, if it is actually building nukes. I guess they don't, they can just borrow
some from China, if needed.
4., The US of America has abandodned its bound duties of regulating Japan, which is quickly militarizing, and has semi-secretly violated its
mandated 1% max. defence spending since the mid-80s (up to 1,5% actually spent in some years, a huge sum considering their economic might).
Re-introducing the old imperial Rising Sun flag and the prime minister's repeated endorsements of a war criminals' memorial shrine disturbed peace
in the region. The Korean Peninsula and China has suffered tremendously from pre-WWII and wartime imperial suppression, such ardeous crimes
that will never be forgotten or paroled.
---------------------
Solution 1: USA must transfer its reactor-building duty to some honestly commited party and provide the funding in advance (say russians with their
own light-water reactors. The analog-controlled 440MW blocks are really reliable, especially when augmented with Japanese-made digital backup
control. They are in continued operation in several soon-to-be EU member countries)
Solution 2: USA pay someone, who can ship the oil, maybe at a cheaper price (Russia <--> DPRK is quite a short distance). As soon as first portion
arrives, DPRK needs to seal reactors and readmit inspectors.
Solution 3: Internationally guaranteed talks with fixed deadlines for nuke-free peninsula and peace accord / reunification of the country. Latter is
only possible, if USA withdraws troops, because Red China cannot accept US troops and bases at its own border. Don't forget they are responsible
for 1.25 billion people! This step would bring soon German-style reunification, provided DPRK leaders are given immunity. Russia, France, UK and
India could guarantee that no foreign troops can enter the peninsula in the coming 50 years.
Solution 3./b.: USA shall pay compensation to DPRK for not exporting missile technology. Their current export is not against any treaties, as
evidenced by the latest ship pirating / releasing incident. Yankees, you just can't demand them to quit for free, when USA sells more and more
advanced missiles to cruel ones (like Israel) and also gave nukes to them.
Solution 3/c.: Give DPRK free or peas access to some space launches, so that they do not need to fly their own ELV. Then US FUD attempts on
"whether an ICBM or ELV" could end and there is no need for missile tests, meaning that stabilty enhances in the region.
Solution 4: USA and Russia (as the heir to USSR) must solemly swear to safeguard demilitarized japanese constitution and quit the peace accord /
armistice if it is broken (currently planned by ultra-right hawkish PM Koizumi). Japan must also pay compensation for its mid-20th century war crimes.
Sincerely: Tamas Feher.
Tamas Feher
Regards,
>an attempt to assassinate the South Korean president
The USA (CIA) also tried and did kill heads of states, too much of them to count on fingers of six hands.
>there were bombings of an airliner
The USA has shot down airliners, including as part of a failed plot to assassinate Gaddhafi while en route from USSR back to Lybia.
>kidnappings of dozens of Japanes
The japs had kidnapped, killed, enslaved, prostituated exactly 100,000 times more korean people during their colonial rule over the peninsula. I
really cannot fault the DPRK for a mere dozen missing japanese. Eye for eye, teeth for teeth.
Sincerely: Tamas Feher.
willia...@earthlink.net
=> Regards,
=>
=> DPRK is right on several issues.
=>
Not to confuse the issue with facts but --
=> 1., USA cheated them on the issue of construction of modern nuclear-electric
powerplants, in exchange for their abandoning of old soviet graphite
=> reactors. The project is more than 5 years late beyond schedule, which means it became
unrealistic to complete. This is at western fault, one can
=> guess the USA was never honest in its intention to finish the project.
=>
The promised date hasn't arrived yet. While it's obvious construction will not be
completed in time, there is no default. The 2003 date was originally set by President
Clinton to keep the North Koreans in check until he was out of office. The United Sates
is not building the reactors - it has funded KEDO to do that and delays to date have been
bureaucratic in nature.
=> 2., The USA quit supplying the 1/2 million tons of crude oil, which it promised in a
treaty, until above mentioned reactors are fully operational. The
=> USA claimed DPRK admitted having built nukes, but offered no fair or even dirty
evidence (wiretap soundtrack, etc.) about this and DPRK has
=> denied such allegations.
=>
Nobody ever claimed North Korea was building nukes. The North Koreans themselves admitted
enriching uranium in violation of the non-proliferation treaty and they have announced
their withdrawal from that treaty in breech of the Framework Agreement which requires them
to stay in the npt.
=> 3., The N-N-P-T treaty contains that nuclear powers will never use nuclear weapons
against non-nuclear signatory states, no matter peace or war
=> looms. Consider that USA has been stationing nukes in South Korea ever since ages
(mid-1960's?). Consider that South Korea has no common
There are no US (or any) nuclear weapons in South Korea. They are banned by the Korea
Denuclearization Treaty of 1992.
> border with any country, except DPRK. Who is the one, those nukes could get used
against? Only the DPRK. Thus, USA does not act in good
=> faith regarding NNPT and the peninsula. Consequently DPRK is well justified, if it is
actually building nukes. I guess they don't, they can just borrow
=> some from China, if needed.
=>
=> 4., The US of America has abandodned its bound duties of regulating Japan, which is
quickly militarizing, and has semi-secretly violated its
What bound duties are you talking about? Since when do we "regulate" Japan?
=> mandated 1% max. defence spending since the mid-80s (up to 1,5% actually spent in some
years, a huge sum considering their economic might).
=> Re-introducing the old imperial Rising Sun flag and the prime minister's repeated
endorsements of a war criminals' memorial shrine disturbed peace
=> in the region. The Korean Peninsula and China has suffered tremendously from pre-WWII
and wartime imperial suppression, such ardeous crimes
=> that will never be forgotten or paroled.
Hogwash.
=>
=> ---------------------
=>
=> Solution 1: USA must transfer its reactor-building duty to some honestly commited party
and provide the funding in advance
First, since North Korea violated the agreement, there is no "reactor building duty."
Secondly, that "duty" has always been with KEDO, not the US, and the US has funded KEDO as
promised.
> own light-water reactors. The analog-controlled 440MW blocks are really reliable,
especially when augmented with Japanese-made digital backup
=> control. They are in continued operation in several soon-to-be EU member countries)
=>
=> Solution 2: USA pay someone, who can ship the oil, maybe at a cheaper price (Russia
<--> DPRK is quite a short distance). As soon as first portion
=> arrives, DPRK needs to seal reactors and readmit inspectors.
=>
We've been delivering the oil all along, right up to North Korea's announced withdrawal
from the agreement.
=> Solution 3: Internationally guaranteed talks with fixed deadlines for nuke-free
peninsula and peace accord / reunification of the country. Latter is
Such a treaty is already in place and has been since 1992..
=> only possible, if USA withdraws troops, because Red China cannot accept US troops and
bases at its own border. Don't forget they are responsible
=> for 1.25 billion people! This step would bring soon German-style reunification,
provided DPRK leaders are given immunity. Russia, France, UK and
=> India could guarantee that no foreign troops can enter the peninsula in the coming 50
years.
=>
We are still at war. While the cease fire has been in place about 50 years, it is only
temporary and the Korean War is still going on.
=> Solution 3./b.: USA shall pay compensation to DPRK for not exporting missile
technology. Their current export is not against any treaties, as
The yasked for a billion dollars a year and both Presidents Clinton and Bush have said no.
=> evidenced by the latest ship pirating / releasing incident. Yankees, you just can't
demand them to quit for free, when USA sells more and more
They are violating the Missile Technology Control Regime. TheUS is in compliance with
that treaty and North Korea isn't.
=> advanced missiles to cruel ones (like Israel) and also gave nukes to them.
=>
We gave nukes to Israel?
=> Solution 3/c.: Give DPRK free or peas access to some space launches, so that they do
not need to fly their own ELV. Then US FUD attempts on
=> "whether an ICBM or ELV" could end and there is no need for missile tests, meaning that
stabilty enhances in the region.
=>
President Clinton considered their request for space launch assistance and may have
offered it had North Korea not continued biolating the MTCR during the talks.
=> Solution 4: USA and Russia (as the heir to USSR) must solemly swear to safeguard
demilitarized japanese constitution and quit the peace accord /
=> armistice if it is broken (currently planned by ultra-right hawkish PM Koizumi). Japan
must also pay compensation for its mid-20th century war crimes.
=>
Again, the hog is being washed.
=> Sincerely: Tamas Feher.
=>
-- Bill
Nes
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:16:05 +0100, "Nes"
> <nmorph...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> => willia...@earthlink.net wrote:
> => > =>
> => > => "The US Is Pushing North Korea to the Brink."
> => > =>
> <..snip..>
>
> => > I do not believe our President ever said North Korea was
> => > directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks and challenge
> you to => > provide a cite.
> =>
> => http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/30/ret.axis.facts/
> =>
> So I'm right. The President never did say North Korea was
> directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks and your cite does
> not show differently. My objection to your post in general is
> that, as is the case here, you twist words and phrases far
> beyond reason to support claims of sinister plots.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/30/ret.axis.facts/
Don't agree. Bush' very formal speech to the nation, a "State of the
Union"-address, of January 30th, 2002, was clear and cogent. It threatened
nuclear first strike against a range of nations, primarily Iraq, Iran, and
North Korea. The speech was the first official US Government response to the
tragic events of September 11th, 2001, and as such must be seen as the
fundamental definition by the US Government of the enemies responsible for
that outrage, naming those enemies, and of the proposed general strategy for
dealing with those enemies. Indeed, in the speech the affore mentioned
nations were accused as being members of an "Axis of Evil", forming a
(secret) "evil allience" actively threatening the US, a clear historical
reference to the Iron Pact of Germany, Italy, and Japan during WWII, against
whom the US fought its last declared war, which was characterized by its
opening event, the Japanese pre-emptive strike at a US naval base in the
Hawai Islands, just like the present war, the "War on Terrorism", was
declared by the US Government after a pre-emptive attack by the Al-Qaida
against targets in the US mainland. Appropiately, from the point of view of
historical precedent, the naming of the nations belonging to the "Axis of
Evil", make those same nations the "legitimate" targets - in the eyes of
most of the ordinary US public - of a US first use of nuclear weapons, just
like Japan was such a target historically.
To further substantiate the point of US intensions of using nuclear and
other weapons (of mass destruction) in a first strike scenario and of the
radical shift in strategic military doctrine decided upon by the US
Government since then I'll quote Bush' graduation speech at West Point on
June 1st, 2002:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html
President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point
Remarks by the President at 2002 Graduation Exercise of the United States
Military Academy
West Point, New York
[Quoting the two most significant paragraphs:]
"For much of the last century, America's defense relied on the Cold War
doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies
still apply. But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence -- the
promise of massive retaliation against nations -- means nothing against
shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend. Containment
is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction
can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist
allies.
We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot
put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation
treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully
materialize, we will have waited too long. (Applause.)"
[End quote]
Official US Government publications formulating the new US doctrine of
nuclear pre-emption:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:1WksCu36AuQC:www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss
.pdf+nss.pdf&hl=da&ie=UTF-8www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf+nss.pdf&hl=da&ie=U
TF-8">http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:1WksCu36AuQC:www.whitehouse.gov/n
sc/nss.pdf+nss.pdf&hl=da&ie=UTF-8</A>
A standard article from the US domestic media regarding the general national
shift to a doctrine of pre-emption.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22374-2002Jun9?language=printer
Bush Developing Military Policy Of Striking First
New Doctrine Addresses Terrorism
By Thomas E. Ricks and Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 10, 2002; Page A01
"The Bush administration is developing a new strategic doctrine that moves
away from the Cold War pillars of containment and deterrence toward a policy
that supports preemptive attacks against terrorists and hostile states with
chemical, biological or nuclear weapons..." [End quote]
"If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long",
hmm? Containment, deterrence are "dead", long live pre-emption and "War of
Aggression", can there be any doubt? Then, to substantiate further, I can
show how military planning of pre-emptive use of US military assets has
become an everyday occurence with Pentagon officials. Quoting again:
http://www.inesap.org/bulletin20/bul20art26.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/boylenukes.html
March 14, 2002
Bush Nuclear Policy Violates International Law, Again
By Francis Boyle
[Quoting the essential sentences:]
"The Bush Jr. administration has ordered the Pentagon to draw up war plans
for the first use of nuclear weapons against seven states: the so-called
"axis of evil" - Iran, Iraq, and North Korea"
[End quote]
> <..snip..>
>
> => > Wow. While "axis of evil" may be more alliteration
It IS an alliteration. A historical one, at that, quite slick, a good use of
a propaganda opportunity to hide outward national aggression in a cloak of
patriotic righteousness. But a real and substantial threat, nevertheless,
one which was unerringly picked up and understood perfectly around the
World.
> than
> => > anything else, I think the definition of "axis" ("a
> straight => > line or structure with respect to which a body is
> => > symmetrical") conveys an image the President's wanted.
> =>
> => Oh no, this short but very important speech by President
> Bush was in no way => sloppy or indefinite of meaning. "Axil
> of Evil" has historically of late => only referred to the Iron
> Pact, nothing else is grand enough for the => occation, the
> President's speech to the nation, the longed for response by
> => the political establishment to the attacks of 9/11. =>
> My understanding from newspaper columns and (IRC) Woodward's
> book, is that "axis of evil" was coined by speech writers
> purely for alliterative and pacing purposes but the President
> seized on it, perhaps, in my view, with visions of Reagan's
> "evil empire" dancing in his head. The phrase was in and out
> of the speech a half dozen times amid much yelling and
> screaming over the next few days. My opinion is that it never
> had the dark nuclear first strike overtones you imply.
If the term "Axis of Evil" doesn't mean what I say it means, what does it in
your opinion mean, then? Remember, this is a unique occation for the US
President to define the political agenda of the US. The nation AND the
entire World is watching. Your interpretation of the speech has to match the
historicity of the actual moment and its precurcors with the political
agenda of the Bush Administration.
> => > You realize, of course, that if North Korea is being
> truthful => > that it is not trying to develop nuclear weapons
> itself, the => > only possible other reason it could have for
> producing nuclear => > bomb fuels is to sell them on the black
> market as they now => > sell missile technology. That is a
> chilling thought. Do you => > suppose they have any customers
> waiting? =>
> => I couldn't tell, having no paranormal abilities. Certainly,
> I wouldn't like => it if the nations of this Earth, including
> the US, could trade openly in => fissile materials or do with
> those materials just as they saw fit. But there => is a right
> way to go about minimizing the dangers of nuclear
> technologies. => That's the road of multilateral cooperation,
> mutual respect, and => trustworthyness, where violence or the
> use of military force is only the => last resort after all
> other solutions and possibilities have been tested and =>
> tried - and failed.
>
> And I say that's exactly what we're doing.
No, in the present case of North Korea, the US is and has been acting
unilaterally, without consultation with even its closest, most endangered
allied nation on the spot, South Korea, which has forced the new South
Korean Government to seek a diplomatic solution to the very dangerous
situation on its own. The US has refused to live up to its formal
obligations, the ones it had signed on to contractally with North Korea, but
it has also seriously offended, endangered, and belittled the other affected
nations of the region for no reason whatsoever, other than the desire by US
politicians and officials to "go it alone" in true Rambo style!
> No nation is
> allowed to trade in fissile materials. The non-proliferation
> treaty is an example of the multilateral cooperation you
> correctly want and the United States is pursuing a diplomatic
> solution to the current problem. North Korea is the one using
> threats like "firestorm". "Word War III" and "nuclear war.
True and false. The North Korean Government is (and has for some time) now
threatening nuclear holocaust on the Korean Peninsula if attacked by the US.
Doing that, they are still well within their legal rights of a souvereign
nation which under international law is entitled to defend itself against
external enemies, which threaten it or attack it. Threatening violence in
defense of "self" is not aggressive - or would only be considered aggressive
if there were no visible and creditable threat in existence. But since the
North Korean Government can prove, with no trouble whatsoever (by referring
to the entire history and development of the current crisis), that they, the
North Koreans, have only reacted to very specific and realistic US threats,
including the threat of a US first strike with nuclear weapons, the North
Korean Government is fully justified in answering in kind. How else could
they be seen to deter (as is their duty, both nationally, in defense of
their nation, and internationally, in order to oppose aggressors in the
spirit of the UN Charter) the US? It's exactly what the US did to the USSR
during the long years of the Cold War.
> => is currently using, attempting to bully a weaker nation
> into compliance, => showing total disregard for the
> international community, for the law, and => for the
> populations in question, acting with extreme cynicism and =>
> forethought of malice. That will make for a very uncertain and
> violent => future, no doubt about it, and the one to be in the
> wrong will be... => I just can't see that. In my view, North
> Korea is the bad guy threatening war and violence and the
> United States is working to a peaceful resolution.
See above...
> <..snip..>
> =>
> => Think it through. What is "hostile", what is "pre-emptive
> action", what and => who are "terrorists groups", and what
> does "developing" mean, and what are => "weapons of mass
> destruction". Examining all these questions, putting the =>
> widest most inclusive meaning onto these words, terms, and
> phrases, would => unerringly result in the conclusion, that
> the "pre-emptive action" which a => nation's government might
> take along the lines, defined as per this official => US
> Government document, include ALL military options, also and
> most => certainly the ability to pre-empt percieved enemies (=
> potentially everybody => in the World, for in the eyes of the
> beholder perception apperantly => overrules every other
> concern, no evidence needed) in whatever way deemed =>
> necessary, and exclude none! => Well, again, I say you are
> bending words and phrases way out of proportion. I say the
> United States is overall a source of good in the world, the
> oldest democracy on the planet and the model, cause or
> protector of all other democracies that followed, all to often
> with American blood.
I'm sorry, but that is a non sequitur. The "good" or "bad" character of
nations is not under debate here, right? How would you ever go about proving
that a nation is either one or the other? Individual human beings might be
good or bad, but that's as far as I'm prepared to go in this context.
No, in the world of politics, especially in foreign relations, the
perception of "good" or "bad" is useless and has no power to explain
anything. Either you as a government, a government agency, an individual
politician etc. play by the "rules of the game" or you don't. If somebody
doesn't do that, from that doesn't automatically follow the right to decide
(by observers or whoever) that a nation, its people, it's society, it's
government are "bad". From that follows only that the people specifically
responsible for the 'non-compliant or illegal acts' are technically guilty
of just that, and nothing else!
Then there's the perception of yours that I'm reading too much into the new
"The National Security Strategy of the
United States of America". There's not a single chance that I'm wrong and
you're right. All the national US Government documents and references
released since President Bush' Union Address last year confirm that. The
only debate among Beltway insiders and within the US defense establishment
is about the speed with which unilateral projects can military proceed. The
old style "realists", like Secretary of State Powell, warning against
impetuosity, and the neo-con hawks pressing for immediate unilateral US
action. That ongoing argument is most likely the reason why Iraq has not yet
been invaded. But the invasion will happen without fail, for both the
neo-con and realist camps are in favour of war.
> => There is no US "Doctrine of Nuclear
> Pre-emption" and your efforts to draw that from defense policy
> statements is unreasonable.
>
> <..snip.>>
> =>
> => Why? Did President Bush or the US Government not want to be
> taken seriously? => Did or do you doubt for a minute that he
> would or will hesitate to make => "good" on his promise to
> bomb North Korea, attack it with nuclear weapons on => a first
> strike basis, pre-emptivily? If you do, you have to accept as
> fact => that you disbelive the earnestly expressed promises of
> your most exhalted => national leader and the entire national
> political leadership! => Absolutely. No thinking person can
> believe the United States, George Bush or not, would ever
> launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against any country. Such
> an act would be a horrible war crime. You're going to say we
> considered the idea in the 50's which is true but not today.
Why do you say that? It's NOT unlikely that the US might use nuclear weapons
in a first strike scenario, and the US has come very close to that
frightening possibility many times since the general deployment of nuclear
weapons by the US took place, during the early stages of the Cold War - and
that in spite of the fact that the professed doctrine of the US during the
entire Cold War years was one of deterrence. Now, with the present doctrine
of strategic pre-emption in place, the probability that the US will use
nuclear weapons (or other weapons of mass destruction or launch wars of
aggression) has naturally increased. The current North Korean-US crisis is a
case in point, where the US might possibly launch a nuclear first strike,
since it has openly expressed that threat and it has officially planned for
that eventuality. See links previously provided.
Naturally, I do agree with your point that launching a nuclear (first)
strike (by any nation) would constitute "...a horrible war crime." But
again, this observation of mine that the current US Government has
officially adopted an illegal military strategic stance of nuclear
pre-emption does not make the US a "bad" nation or US citizens "evil". Those
phrases I would reserve for using only on those who decide to implement such
dangerous, destabilizing, and illegal policies, especially if they really
decide to go ahead with their plans. Some PEOPLE are "bad" some are "good" -
nothing else makes sense.
No, since by definition set down in said document, the US Government has
expressly "given" itself the sole right to decide what constitutes a
terrorist. It is ANYONE whom the US Government PERCEIVES to be a threat. ANY
perceived threat may be "taken out", killed, rendered harmless by the US
military BEFORE it has developed into a real, material threat,
pre-emptivily. Obviously, the POSSIBLE targets for such a strategic stance
as the one defined in "The National Security Strategy of the United States
of America" are basically UNDEFINED and effectivily UNLIMITED, or to be more
specific, only to be named by the US Government acting alone, unilaterally.
The document has been very carefully worded in such a way that ANY reading
which tries to follow the logic of the ideas expressed only can proceed
along the above path and thereby lead to the inevitable conclusion. It all
makes for a general strategic doctrine of pre-emption, in no way different
from the models of recent World history.
> => > Fortunately, some authors telegraph their prejudices by
> using => > diminutive terms like "Bush Jr." and we don't have
> to waste => > our time further analyzing their claims.
> =>
> => No, not any more than referring to the elder Bush as Bush
> Senior, right? =>
> No. It is pejorative in nature and telegraphs the author's
> bias in this particular article. I suppose it's a matter of
> opinion but the structure and feel of the opening sentences in
> the article you posted discourage me from reading or
> considering it. We both know good and serious critics don't
> use words that way to belittle their subjects with pin-prick
> insults.
Don't agree. I care not in the least if the current President Bush has a
famous father. Since I don't know him personally, this information is of
null interest to me, and I am only interested in what he does when acting
out his presidential role, as it were. The reason why I picked the article
by Francis Boyle is because he describes the facts correctly, as far as I
can tell.Why would anybody care about "senior" and "junior" if they don't
know the persons in question?
> => > Your problem in these and other cites below is you are
> => > pointing to what other people have to say about a
> document, => > not the document itself. And many of the
> people and sources => > you pick are hostile to the Bush
> administration. =>
> => That makes them neither more nor less believable. Hostility
> or other feeling => are not of interest or at least not to me.
> Facts and their interpretation => are. If interpetrations or
> analysis result in a certain view that a reader => might not
> like, that's just too bad, for the truth will out! And it is
> not => "bad" per se to be hostile to the Bush Administration,
> is it? Is it "bad" to => be hostile to Aurangzeb or Atahualpa?
> => Of course not. I'm not thrilled with the Bush
> administration either but by twisting facts and words as you
> do, you tell me you don't have valid points to make.
I'm not twisting any words, and you may not agree with my opinions. Both
these statements may be true, right?
> <..snip..>
> =>
> => The North Koreans have withdrawn officially from the NTP.
> They regard this => action as legal and within their rights as
> a souvereign action. Are they => right or are they wrong, in
> your view? =>
> They are right.
>
> North Korea has every right to withdraw from the
> non-proliferation treaty as per the terms of that treaty.
> Technically, although it doesn't much matter, they have to
> give 90 days notice. They did that in 1993 when they withdrew
> but did not do that when they withdrew in 1994 or this month.
> However, in the Framework Agreement, they promised not to
> withdraw anymore - they promised to stay in the NPT and to
> allow IAEA inspectors in return for US aid.
Yes, they did. So they also broke their solemn promise. But they claim they
did it as a response to US threats, pressure, and US reneging of trade
agreements. And it certainly looks as if they have a strong case with that
argument, doesn't it?
> The reactors were promised for a date in 2003 that hasn't
> arrived yet. (Yes, it's obvious construction cannot be
> completed in time but the deadline isn't here yet.) The United
> States has funded KEDO as per our end of the deal and we've
> delivered the promised food aid and fuel.
>
> The friction is mostly over sanctions imposed by both the
> Clinton and Bush administrations against North Korea for
> violations of the Missile Technology Control Regime. North
> Korea violated the Framework when they began enriching uranium
> in 1998 in violation of the non-proliferation treaty. Recall
> that all fuel for the reactors was to be supplied and
> controlled by KEDO so they have no reason to enrich uranium.
Agree with all that...
> <..snip..>
>
>>>
> => > Well, again, we were leaders in getting the
> non-proliferation => > treaty in place and we are active
> members now. =>
> => No, the US has withdrawn or, if you prefer, let its
> never-never "membership" => lapse (in 2000). The NPT has not
> been ratified by Congress and it is thus => not legally
> incumbent upon US Governments to abide by its strictures. The
> US => stance towards North Korea is extremely strange, since
> the US "laspe" or => "refusal" to sign on to the NPT gives iy
> no legal claims or holds on nations => like North Korea which
> have in fact signed on to the treaty, even if they => legally
> or illegally decided to withdraw from it, later. => Now here's
> one I can really knock out of the park.
>
> The United States ratified the non-proliferation treaty in
> 1970 and is still an active and leading member. I ridiculed
> your reference to John G. Mason and William Pateson University
> because it so strongly predicated a whole analysis on wrong
> information. My view of goggle results on this point is that
> many left-leaning sites are dead wrong on the point when they
> say the US has not ratified the NPT. My pick for most
> credible site on the matter is
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/.
This is probably the text (a quote from your link, "Status") which have
convinced you that the US is a member of the NPT treaty:
"The Treaty was opened for signature on 01 July 1968, and signed on that
date by the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and 59
other countries. The Treaty entered into force with the deposit of US
ratification on 05 March 1970."
But as far as I'm aware the treaty has never been ratified by Congress, the
signateur was the US Government. The treaty functioned, from the US
perspective, as an executive order. If Congress had ratified it, the
provisions of the treaty would supercede US domestic laws governing the
legal statutes for which the treaty provides. One way to infer the
correctness of the US status with regard to the NPT is to look into the
inspection regimes currently underway in the US. There are none, for the US
Congress has not ratified the treaty for that very reason, avoiding public
international inspections of the nation's nuclear capabilities and of
potential nuclear proliferation from US sources. Another way would be to
check out current US nuclear arms exports e.g. to Israel. If the US had
signed the NPT such exports would be illegal.
> My wise crack about "good decision" was in response to your
> note "<article cut short>" following a long rambling about how
> the United States had failed to ratify the non-proliferation
> treaty. That's also what I meant when you said your facts are
> wrong.
Those were incidental cuts. I cut all the articles I quoted off after their
first paragraphs. That was so the first message in this thread wouldn't
become too long and messy, but still give potential readers an idea what
each article was about. The "article cut short" remark wasn't meant to
signify anything, just there to let readers know there was a contituation.
Further, I did not imagine that this "cutting short" notice would be
interpreted to have any "external" meaning. I assure you, it didn't!
As to wrong facts. No, I don't think I've got any facts wrong. You'll have
to convince me and point to my errors. So far we've argued, that's it,
right?
> It doesn't escape me that you and your fellow leftists are
> talking about the "Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty" and not the
> "Non-Proliferation Treaty" but you've got to get stuff like
> that right. Your analysis and basic facts are so far wrong I
> get to make fun of your post.
Your terming of me as "a leftist" makes me sort of uneasy. There are wide
variations in what might constitute a left person in the World of today, and
some of those varians I absolutely abhor. Others, I like. Though I do
confess to some leftist ideas and preferred ways of looking at "things", I'm
not at all sure that I conform to any (left) norm. Based on our discussion
so far, I certainly feel unable to pin you down as to which political (if
any) ideology you find yourself in agreement. And, not at all trying to
belittle any personal convictions you might hold, I'm not sure that it is
important in the present case. After all, the facts of our discussion are
quite simple and, for once in foreign politics, rather easy to categorize.
It ought to be reasonably easy for us to find the core matters of
disagreement and what their reasons are, no matter our individual political
convictions, right?
> Them's the rules.
No, you have not made the argument convincingly that I'm wrong [though I do
say so myself, (:-]. You have denied that some of my points are of
importance and claimed that they lead to a wrong conclusion, but you have
not supplied an alternative understanding or analysis. Arguments need
counter arguments in order to be defeated.
Currently, Israel is the recipient of nuclear missiles and technology from
the US. It's all being done hush-hush, more or less. But watch out for those
new conventional Israeli Dolphin class submarines...
> <..snip..>
> => >
> => > I believe President Bush reluctantly certified that North
> => > Korea was in compliance in order to keep the food and
> fuel aid => > humanitarian aid flowing.
> =>
> => Not a change. He's come off looking like an amateur,
> ignoring solid advice => from some of his own most
> knowledgeable people. A real debacle. It was all => done in
> the arrogance of someone who's completely convinced of his own
> good => and absolutely blind to the World as is - and who's
> careless and sloppy, to => boot. =>
> Well now we're coming a little closer to agreement. I believe
> US policy now is too often defined by whoever talked to the
> President last but I do not ascribe to him the evil motives
> you imply.
There you go again with "evil". I think that this way of looking at politics
and history is absolutely wrong and actually causes a lot of
misunderstanding. But never mind. The President of the US has officially
signed (as head of the Executive Branch) of the US Government the new
strategic doctrine of the nation. He has given speeches on numerous
occations. He has done other things. Those are facts which we, the greater
public, know about. Those are what we have to enable us reach understanding
and to argue with. And from such facts it is very difficult to conclude with
any certainty that a person is "good" or "evil", in the ethical sense of
those words. Yes, I my view it's actually counter productive to try to do
that. But there is the matter of the legality of actions. We, the public,
can know about that, correct? That is actually our duty, in my view, for
otherwise how can we observers distinguish between honest or dishonest,
"good" or "bad" politicians? Those, we (who are also the electorate) have to
vote in or out of office?
> => > => US would callously, without even paying compensation,
> or => > even admitting to => reneging on a vitally important
> deal (to => > the N-Korean Government and to the => people of
> N-Korea all => > this is a matter of life and death) was
> probably the => => > determining fact in persuading the
> N-Koreans into trying their => > risky bit of
> => >
> I do not agree this happened because the US "reneged" on the
> deal. North Korea violated the agreement by enriching
> uranium. It admitted doing so (but I don't recall if it was
> us or them who said it has been going on since 1998.) I also
> note they recently denied they had ever admitted "developing
> nuclear weapons" when that was never charged.
That is only an alleged claim by the US Government. It has provided no
proof, at least not publicied any. That makes an observer like me wonder a
lot. Why would the US keep the proof of such North Korean actions secret? If
publicised they would immediately change the legalities of the current
US-North Korean standoff. They would immediately change public perceptions
around the World to a view more favourable to the US. There can only be two
possible explanations why the US Government has not publicised any proof it
might possess about the illegal activities of the N-Korean Government, IMHO.
1) It hasn't got any firm intelligence, so there's nothing to publish. But
in order to wage propaganda war with N-Korea allegations and rumours have
been circulated in the press.
2) It has got firm intelligence but doesn't want to publish it. Instead it
wants to create a local crisis in South-West Asia, which might even threaten
global termonuclear war, it matters got out of hand.
Which of those two alternatives (I certainly can't think of any others) do
you think is true? I'm firmly for #1 hoping, perhaps naivily, that the
members of the US Government haven't taken total leave of their senses.
> We charged and they admitted uranium enrichment in violation
> of the NPT and, hence, of the Agreed Framework.
>
> <..snip..>
>
> => >
> => > Good decision.
> =>
> => Which decision is "good"?
> =>
> My wise crack about "good decision" was in response to your
> "<article cut short>" following a long rambling about how the
> United States had failed to ratified the non-proliferation
> treaty. That's also what I meant when you said your facts are
> wrong.
>
> <..snip..>
>
> So now we get down to where you I said "You're playing word
> tricks with treaty titles. The United States has signed the
> test ban treaty and treaties prohibiting chemical and
> biological weapons."
>
> You said "Yes, but the US has formally withdrawn and is no
> longer bound by that treaty - and will probably never again be
> bound by such a treaty or any treaty forbidding or limiting
> the use of WMD. The US is "going it alone"."
>
> Since the US has not withdrawn from that treaty, your
> conclusion is wrong and we are not "going it alone."
Well, the US Congress has never ratified the treaty, so the US is not bound
by it. The signature on the treaty belonged to the Executive, so that's what
the treaty provisions were under US law, an executive order. Congress failed
to ratify the treaty in 2000, and the executive signature has lapsed after,
what is it, 25 years.
> As to the SORT treaty, you say "Because there is no call for
> reducing the number of warheads in service. It least as long
> as the object is to limit and possibly even to ban nuclear
> weapons, this treaty is of no consequence. It just freezes
> the threat of nuclear holocaust in place."
>
> The usual objection to the SORT treaty is that there is no
> schedule. The treaty calls for a reduction in nuclear
> warheads as of the date the treaty expires so it is
> effectively a "no-op" While that's true, I give President
> Bush credit for saying he would do this during the campaign
> and for doing it, unilaterally at first, when he got into
> office.
Well, that's a whole new discussion, the one about renewing and maintaining
the stockpile of nuclear weapons. But the fact of the matter is, very
shortly put, that the US and Russia have bilaterally agreed to scrap some
older weapons and replace them with newer types. The advances in weapons
technology, allowing for "smart targeting" etc. make some parts of the old
nuclear stickpile obsolete. They're replaced with more accurate weapons
which do not need as much explosive power nor need they be so numerous.
That's all of the reductions right there - no practical deminishment in the
armories of deterrence, and certainly no peace benefit, neither for the US
nor for Russia.
> I don't think it's useful to get partisan about disarmament
> issues but I do admit some joy in pointing out to my
> left-leaning friends that all nuclear arms reduction treaties
> have been signed by a Republican (a Bush, in fact.)
A good joke, but the rest of the World is absolutely indifferent to the
internicide devisions of the US political establishment.
>> The Kyoto Protocol
>>
>> In 1998, the Senate voted unanimously against the US entering
>> the Kyoto treaty. Every Republican, every Democrat, every
>> Liberal, every Conservative.
>
>> Yes, so?
>
> So don't blame President Bush. The Senate voted that way
> because Kyoto exempts the 3 soon-to-be greatest polluters on
> earth - China, India and Mexico. President Bush's counter
> proposal that all nations be included with advanced nations
> like the United States being allowed to meet their pollution
> reduction quotas by curing problems in those nations is a good
> one. The hard "no" and refusal to negotiate that point is no
> way more unreasonable than the US Senate's hard "no" in 1998.
There'll always be seemingly sufficient "logical", "rational", "patriotic"
or whatnot reasons for a nation to deny the benefits of international
cooperation. It's all decided by how the argument is presented. Any
collective tendency for national egotism will certainly move a nation in
that direction. International cooperation is something which you (nation
state, population, government etc.) favour IN PRINCIPLE or not, as the case
may be. Does the fact that the US has recently withdrawn its official
participation from a host of international treaties, projects etc. indicate
something substantial of where the US might currently find itself between
the extremes of harsh rejection and joyous acceptance of international
cooperation? Yes, I my view, those numerous US unilateral withdrawals,
disengagements, are the logical actions of a nation whose political
establishment have decided to "go it alone". Thus my overall argument is
furthered, when pointing out the strong unilateral tendencies of the current
US foreign policy.
> This treaty discussion raises an issue overshadowing other
> treaties the US refuses to sign including those that control
> nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Legal scholars
> still can't agree if the treaty clause in the constitution
> gives the US Senate authority to override the bill of rights.
> That's going to be a long and difficult problem for us.
Naturally, in the traditions of international law so far, there can be not
doubt as to the "correct" outcome. The loss of souzerainty which takes place
by the legal ratification of any international treaty by any nation is an
acknowleded part of the benefit of the treaty (else why would anybody ever
sign a treaty?), and which the treaty accrues on the signateur nations. The
treaty becomes the supreme law of the land, it supercedes local law.
> You asked where I got the idea the proposed International
> Criminal Court treaty was fatally flawed because it do not
> provide a defendant with even the most basic rights. I got
> the idea by reading the treaty:
> http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm
I see. You dislike the provisions of the treaty. That's different, because
that does not have to mean that you abstain from cooperation for the reason
that you don't want the treaty to come into effect, say, with regard to your
own nationals. That, on the other hand, is the typical position of somebody
who does not ON PRINCIPLE favour multilateral cooperation.
> Can the Senate ratify a treaty that gives a UN inspector an
> absolute right to search anytime, anyplace without notice or
> warrant?
That's no worse that what the weapons inspectors are doing in Iraq right
now. And why shouldn't or wouldn't any nation with nuclear technology (and
also those without it) strongly favour the idea of a strict global
inspection regime of EVERY country and nation to prevent illegal nuclear
proliferation, armament, activities? That would certainly work towards
general peace and de-escalation of arms races! The US is actually the nation
which might benefit most from such a regime, since the US percieves itself
to be the target of every "evil" person, ruler, nation out there in the big
bad World. Imagine, the US could have had all the current pressing problems
of nuclear proliferation going on globally reduced to nearly nothing, years
ago. But for reasons of national pride (or whatever) - "You're not going to
search my back yard!" - the US Congress always has balked.
> Can the Senate ratify a treaty that strips US
> citizens of their rights in court?
That is a good question, and I don't know the answer, only part of it. Some
areas of human activity lend themselves more easily to international or
trans-national cooperation that others. I'd say that for a nation to avoid
serious and costly mistakes in has to take time and use diligence in such
matter. Earnest engagement. Trying "things" out in practise is a good idea,
one employed a lot by the EU with some success. When treaties have been
signed they should never be ignored or allowed to lapse, unconspicuoisly.
They should be concientiously carried out, but if for some reason they
cannot contitue in effect, they should be openly and honestly terminated,
damages payed or whatever else is required.
> Say you wake up at 3:00AM to some guy going through your
> dresser drawers. He handcuffs you and takes you off to jail
> in a foreign country, does not tell you why, does not let you
> communicate with anyone or see a lawyer.
That depends. If he was searching for weapons grade plutonium or uranium I'd
certainly appreciate having it found and removed. But I'd probably be dead,
first, from radiation or/and heavy metal poisoning. Of course, your
comparison with the rights of an individual is flawed, for naturally,
nations with nuclear weapons tend to abuse that technology and handle
nuclear materials sloppily, and that fact ought to be build into any weapons
inspection regime. Privacy is of a low priority when deathly technology is
the issue, but the US - and no doubt lots of other nuclear nations - will
scream about their "secrets" being spied upon and inspectors being unfair.
Well, I'll trust the inspectores any time, wouldn't you?
> I say the supreme authority in the United States, the people,
> have established their government to protect their basic and
> natural rights as defined in the constitution and have not
> authorized their government subordinate itself to any higher
> authority that would deny those rights.
That is the basic tenet of US society. But I'm afraid that this very
important revered civic tradition and substance is now under the most dire
attack, possibly only comparable to the McCarthy area. The political
establishment of the US (both national parties) has moved very far to the
right, favouring unilateralism, exceptionalism, and imperial expansion. The
consequences are by far not only a new strategic doctrine, or new wars, or
new domestic oppressive laws, but will become much worse in the coming
years. The end is not in sight.
Nes
Joseph Java
>Absolutely. No thinking person can believe the United States, George Bush or not, would
>ever launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against any country. Such an act would be a
>horrible war crime. You're going to say we considered the idea in the 50's which is true
>but not today.
>
><..snip..>
>
That would definitely be true for a full first strike including
cities. The US would lose all moral authority and be considered evil
even by allies. But there probably are circumstances in which the US
would use nuclear weapons in a limited counterforce-type strike. It
might be the only way to destroy a bunker. It could be used to disable
a country's equipment by high-altitude EMP burst. Or to destroy some
country's nuclear stockpiles if the US thought they were going to be
used.
Et cetera.
Lets hope its not necessary but it did save many American lives in
1945 and would be much more precise and cleaner today, probably.
If any country uses bio/chemical weapons against us troops in a
conventional war, then the US can and should respond with some
airbursts (for very limited fallout) over selected targets such as
bases, though this would not really be a first strike.
-Joseph Java