At 09:01 PM 4/24/2005 -0700, Dave Land 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.
The US is the most powerful country in the world. Given how incredibly bad it is for us that the DPRK has nuclear weapons, if we had any ability to prevent the DPRK from acquiring those weapons, shouldn't we do so? >Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead >of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline. Do children ordinarily invade their neighbors, starve millions of people, torture thousands of others, and engage in terrorism? If not, what's the point of the analogy here? Not to let our children play with nuclear weapons? >> 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. I'm all ears. In fact, I am sure that Condi would be very, very, interested as well. At 10:57 PM 4/24/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: >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: Well, I responded anyways, because your message did raise some questions for me that might help clarify our difference in positions. >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. I think you missed my point about "there are simply no good options." It was meant to imply the same conclusion as you do - we should try and find "the least bad options that are left." My dismal attitude was intended to reflect the fact that even the "least bad option that is left" is still incredibly, incredibly, bad for us.... not "let God sort it out." >What law is the DPRK violating in building nukes, and what "community" >employed the US as its police force? I would counter: does the DPRK need to be violating a law for the US to try to stop the DPRK from getting nuclear weapons in your view? >> 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. Since the US has formall commitments to defend both the ROK and Japan, and as the US considers the ROK and Japan to be close friends, the US certainly does care, and this would put us in quite a pickle. >> 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? > >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? For the record, the US has only nominal trade embargos on the DPRK, and is one of the larger donators of humanitarian aid to the DPRK. Starvation in the DPRK is largely a function of how much humanitarian aid the government of the DPRK refuses in a given year. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
