Dan, et al, OK, I wrote the whole message below, then realized that I'm getting way too much into argumentation and not nearly enough into being simple and clear.
So go ahead and read and tear apart the message that begins with "Dan Wrote:", but consider this my reply: The main thing that promted me to reply to JDG was the phrase "there are simply no good options." I worry when I hear language like that. It triggers the "desperate times call for desperate measures" meme, in which people and nations often become careless about the relative goodness or badness of options, and start just "killing 'em all and letting god sort 'em out." That's really my point: I don't want to stop trying to find the least bad options that are left. Dave -- And now, my "not-as-good option" in replying -- Dan Wrote: >> 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. OK, and yours is a rhetorical device that I don't find particularly useful, either, especially given this administration's disregard for international legal systems. The activities that the mob engages in violate the laws of the communities (states and nations included) in which they operate. Those communities, states, and nations employ police of various sorts to enforce their laws. (Almost) nobody in those communities questions the right of the police to act on their behalf. What law is the DPRK violating in building nukes, and what "community" employed the US as its police force? These are not (just) rhetorical questions. If the DPRK is the mob, then of what community's laws is it in violation? Would the US would subject itself to that same authority? In what community would (almost) nobody question our right to act on their behalf? > One can let adults do damaging things in relationships too...its often > associated with codependancy. I'm glad you brought up codependency. A common -- in fact, almost defining -- facet of codependent behavior is trying to solve someone else's problems when they didn't ask you to. Like invading a country to rid it of a dictator. >> > 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. Are you defending John's statement, "there are simply no good options" with this history lesson? If Clinton had chosen to do nothing, that would go some way towards demonstrating that there were and are *no* good options. But, as you point out, Clinton did chose an option. Is the jury still out as to whether it is a "good" option? Did he choose the only remaining "good" option? What is your criteria for a "good" option? > 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, [digression] I see this a lot in your messages: paragraphs that just sort of trail off in the middle of a sentence. Is it something technical, or do you start a paragraph, think of something else to write, and never get back to finishing the one you left off? I'm genuinely curious. [/digression] > 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. Inexcusable by whom? The UN? Like we care. International courts? Don't make me laugh. This gets back to the point I made earlier about global entities to whom the US would subject itself. > 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? Without getting too tautological, we can take responsibility for whatever we choose to consider ourselves responsible. This gets back to your earlier invocation of codependency. Why do we not consider ourselves responsible for the starvation of millions of N. Korean citizens? Are we making plans to do something about that? Why is the /potential/ future nuclear annihilation of millions of Japanese or S. Koreans worse than the /actual/ starvation of millions of N. Koreans? In fact, isn't the /actual/ starvation a higher priority, a greater good? We could choose to be in a position to stop all kinds of mass death. How much of it do we choose to be responsible for? How much are we willing to give up in order to maximize life? Dave _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
