North Korea developments

[financeguy]

Like this guy below?

YouTube - Clinton: Iraq Has Abused Its Final Chance

"the hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government. A government ready to live in peace with its neighbors. A government that respects the rights of its people."

Bill Clinton December 16, 1998

In general, neo-cons always seem to be looking for excuses to make war.

Like this guy below?

Well, yes. Clinton was, like Blair, an interventionist liberal, a heartbeat away from being a neo-con. He didn't kill as many as the neo-cons, but he tried hard.

Why did you even bring up Clinton in response to my post? Can't you see that people like Clinton have more in common with Bush/Cheney than with traditional libertarian conservatives such as myself?

The world isn't as Manichean as you think.

 

[Strongbow]

They might be some kind of bully in their little corner of the world, but any sustained conflict would tax them greatly.
Also, in modern warfare, if you can't control your skies you're in very deep shit. I don't care how big you're army is.

Thats no comfort to the 10 million people who live in Seoul South Korea. They only have minutes or seconds to react to any type of a North Korean attack. The level of destruction in a country that is important to the global economy would be massive. In addition, the ability to hit targets with ballistic missiles in Japan or the sea lanes around Japan with Chemical, Biological, or nuclear warheads can drastically impact the ability of forces inside or outside the area to respond to the crises. The issue here is not what would happen in the long run in any conflict, but the level of destruction that North Korea could cause in the opening minutes, hours, and days of any conflict in an area vital to the global economy.

 

[financeguy]

Avoiding military action at all costs led to the deadliest conflict in history, World War II. When military action is a necessity is something that should be judged on a case by case basis and NEVER beholden to some arbitrary rule. The failure to take military action can have its own devastating consequences. Thats true whether your a die-hard liberal, real conservative, moderate Republican, conservative democrat, communist, liberatarian etc.

Many historians disagree with that judgement regarding WWII. Also, it is simply historically inaccurate to imply that not immediately declaring war on Germany following the coming to power of Hitler constituted 'avoiding military action at all costs'. There were very good reasons for Chamberlain to pursue the so-called 'appeasement' policy.

 

[Strongbow]

Well, yes. Clinton was, like Blair, an interventionist liberal, a heartbeat away from being a neo-con. He didn't kill as many as the neo-cons, but he tried hard.

What about Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt?

Why did you even bring up Clinton in response to my post?

To show you that the world is not as manichean as you think, and your use of the term neocon really has no meaning at all.

 

[financeguy]

Regardless of what part of the political spectrum you think you fall under, its not wise to throw around useless labels like "Neocon" which has really become a term, used by some, to describe ANYONE who supported military action in Iraq at any point in time or favors a strong defense.

Neo-'conservatism' is by no means a useless label, but a defined, well-documented political philosophy. It is also well documented that most of the politicians, writers, journalists who supported the Iraq conqest identified with either the neo-'conservative' philosophy or the interventionist liberal analysis, (as represented by Blair).

 

[Strongbow]

Many historians disagree with that judgement regarding WWII. Also, it is simply historically inaccurate to imply that not immediately declaring war on Germany following the coming to power of Hitler constituted 'avoiding military action at all costs'. There were very good reasons for Chamberlain to pursue the so-called 'appeasement' policy.

The point is that when military action is a necessity is something that should be judged on a case by case basis and NEVER beholden to some arbitrary rule. The failure to take military action can have its own devastating consequences.

There are not many people who argue in favor of the "allies" actions in the 1930s VS Hitler, and I doubt there will be many people in the future who will argue that the security of the Persian Gulf and the world as well as the Iraqi people would be better off with Saddam still in power in Iraq.

 

[financeguy]

What about Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt.

If you could point out to me where any one of the above pursued a doctrine of pre-emptive war, I'd be grateful.

 

[Strongbow]

Neo-'conservatism' is by no means a useless label, but a defined, well-documented political philosophy. It is also well documented that most of the politicians, writers, journalists who supported the Iraq conqest identified with either the neo-'conservative' philosophy or the interventionist liberal analysis, (as represented by Blair).

Unfortunately, too many people have used and abused the term to the point that it has little meaning at all. Just to remind you the majority of the US population supported the invasion of Iraq, as well as nearly all Republicans in congress and a majority of Democrats in congress. In terms of support, it was one of the most popular US military actions taken in US history.

 

[MadForIt]

The point is that when military action is a necessity is something that should be judged on a case by case basis and NEVER beholden to some arbitrary rule. The failure to take military action can have its own devastating consequences.

There are not many people who argue in favor of the "allies" actions in the 1930s VS Hitler, and I doubt there will be many people in the future who will argue that the security of the Persian Gulf and the world as well as the Iraqi people would be better off with Saddam still in power in Iraq.

Well if the allies were not so harsh with Germany at the treaty of Versailles then Hitler would not have been so determined to lead Germany.

and we should have left Saddam. He posed no threat to Europe so should have let him be. If he destroyed Middle East, i couldnt care less.

 

[BoMac]

Just to remind you the majority of the US population supported the invasion of Iraq, as well as nearly all Republicans in congress and a majority of Democrats in congress. In terms of support, it was one of the most popular US military actions taken in US history.

Well, yes, they supported it, but it was under false pretenses.

 

[financeguy]

Well if the allies were not so harsh with Germany at the treaty of Versailles then Hitler would not have been so determined to lead Germany.

I think this is a legitimate point. The Nazis were the most damnable bunch of scum that ever acceded to power, but it's important to look into why they came to power in the first place.

 

[Hobo13]

Boy was that late.

 

[Strongbow]

If you could point out to me where any one of the above pursued a doctrine of pre-emptive war, I'd be grateful.

Every single one of them would not hesitate to enter one if necessary to protect the United States or its interest.

 

[Hobo13]

 

[BoMac]

Every single one of them would not hesitate to enter one if necessary to protect the United States or its interest.

Isn't this a requirement of any president regardless of political affiliations or beliefs?

 

[Strongbow]

and we should have left Saddam. He posed no threat to Europe so should have let him be. If he destroyed Middle East, i couldnt care less.

Anything that impacts the global economy threatens, Europe, North America, Asia and any other country that is developed and has significant amount of trade. Persian Gulf Oil Supply impacts the global economy to a degree greater than any other part of the world.

 

[Strongbow]

Isn't this a requirement of any president regardless of political affiliations or beliefs?

Which is why Secretary of State Colin Powell correctly described the so called "Bush Doctrine" as simply a restatement of past policies held by virtually every President since World War II.

 

[financeguy]

Anything that impacts the global economy threatens, Europe, North America, Asia and any other country that is developed and has significant amount of trade. Persian Gulf Oil Supply impacts the global economy to a degree greater than any other part of the world.

I agree with you that free trade is prima facie a good thing and should be protected. We probably would disagree on how to accomplish that goal.

 

[BoMac]

Every single one of them would not hesitate to enter one if necessary to protect the United States or its interest.

Which is why Secretary of State Colin Powell correctly described the so called "Bush Doctrine" as simply a restatement of past policies held by virtually every President since World War II.

But note your use of the words "if necessary" in your previous post. Pre-emptive war is only necessary if there is certifiable proof of an imminent threat, proof which the Bush administration embellished or outright lied about in order to justify an invasion of Iraq.

 

[Strongbow]

Well, yes, they supported it, but it was under false pretenses.

It was not a false pretense that Saddam was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions, that he had failed to account for thousands of Stocks of WMD, that nearly all intelligence agencies around the world estimated that Saddam had an active WMD program, that after the invasion, programs related to the production of WMD were found and were in violation of the Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

In addition, there is a USA TODAY/GALLUP poll, even before September 11, 2001, taken in February 2001 showing that a majority of the US population supported using military action to remove Saddam from power.

 

[Strongbow]

But note your use of the words "if necessary" in your previous post. Pre-emptive war is only necessary if there is certifiable proof of an imminent threat, proof which the Bush administration embellished or outright lied about in order to justify an invasion of Iraq.

As judged by the Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement, multiple UN resolutions, and even the Clinton administration, the requirments needed for military action were already there.

Listen to what Bill Clinton has to say below paying close attention to the words below in bold:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p58KzMMpILY

"the hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government. A government ready to live in peace with its neighbors. A government that respects the rights of its people."

Bill Clinton December 16, 1998

 

[bigjohn2441]

same old nonsense. n korea makes a big fuss and US gives them money and/or food and they shut up for a while, until the next time they want something.

they must REALLY be hurting for food and money this time.

 

[mikal]

i'm ronry....