----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 11:01 PM Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
> On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote: > > > Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, > > Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a > position to "let" or "not let" nations like the DPRK gain nuclear > weapons. Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead > of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline. That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never found useful. The mob is filled with adults. A police force that looks the other way lets them run a city. One can let adults do damaging things in relationships too...its often associated with codependancy. > > there are simply no good options. > > Certainly none that begin with war. Then again, I imagine that there are > plenty of options that begin with the assumption that war is the *last* > resort, not the first. OK, let's go back 11 years. Clinton had the three options...he chose to pay money in a deal to slow down the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea. They agreed to stop processing fuel...leaving then with enough in hand for two nuclear weapons. Unsurprisingly, they had a clandescent program going on, and were in a position to develop enough enriched U for about 1 bomb every 3-4 years. Much better than 50/year. At the time the North Korean government was willing to starve millions of its own citizens to death as an acceptable price for not just changing the government, but not changing how the government was run. If Clinton wasn't given a third "half loaf" option at the last minute, You obviously were not in favor of stopping the weapons development by force. 200k dead S. Koreans was certainly an overwhelming price. But, to let North Korea get to the point where they could flatten both South Korea and Japan (say 90% dead) would be inexcusable. We have a government that's willing to starve millions of its own citizens for some principal. Why wouldn't it be willing to bring down the whole region instead of giving up that principal? If we don't stop it, when we can, are we not somewhat responsible for that result? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
