Forums » Off-Topic
War is Peace.
softy2 sorry but raving lunatic holocaust-deniers who think israel should be wiped off the map are not 100% 'sane' in my book.
lecter, chavez has done crazy stuff, but at least he hasnt started any wars (that i know of)
lecter, chavez has done crazy stuff, but at least he hasnt started any wars (that i know of)
ananzi: Nor are the israeli sane who think they 'deserve' the country because they think they're the 'chosen' people.
Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Putin are all VERY sane men who just happen to oppose the United States. Well, not so much for Putin, he's got his own problems internally in Russia. But Chavez and Ahmadinejad for sure. Opposing the United States only empowers them MORE back at home. But we're not talking about Iran or Russia or Venezuela. We're discussing what I see as the inevitable war in the Korean peninsula, precipitated by China cutting off the oil to North Korea.
I seem to recall another war, about 65 years ago, that was precipitated by one country (The US) cutting off the oil to another (Japan). There are similarities to the situation before WW II here.
I'd like to know what other options "'lil Kim" has besides invasion (to obtain resources for his people) or utter surrender? If there's one thing history HAS taught us, it's that dictators, cornered and without options, rarely just "give up."
The lynchpin here is China. They're the only ones with any real leverage on the North Korean government. The fact that they've agreed to stop supplying vital needs to the DPRK is a drastic move on their part, and it signals a change in their support. Without the support of China, North Korea cannot exist as a separate country.
It's sad to note that Honolulu would be the most likely target of any Taepodong-III missile, that is if they have any left, and if they can get it to work. Although I'd suspect that any nukes would be aimed at Seoul or Tokyo instead, since those strikes would have tactical advantages in-theatre as well as strategic value.
You all can say that 'lil Kim won't do it, because that would be the end of his regime. Well, do you think millions of starving North Koreans WOULDN'T be the end of his regime? I'm afraid that this is going to be a cold winter.
I seem to recall another war, about 65 years ago, that was precipitated by one country (The US) cutting off the oil to another (Japan). There are similarities to the situation before WW II here.
I'd like to know what other options "'lil Kim" has besides invasion (to obtain resources for his people) or utter surrender? If there's one thing history HAS taught us, it's that dictators, cornered and without options, rarely just "give up."
The lynchpin here is China. They're the only ones with any real leverage on the North Korean government. The fact that they've agreed to stop supplying vital needs to the DPRK is a drastic move on their part, and it signals a change in their support. Without the support of China, North Korea cannot exist as a separate country.
It's sad to note that Honolulu would be the most likely target of any Taepodong-III missile, that is if they have any left, and if they can get it to work. Although I'd suspect that any nukes would be aimed at Seoul or Tokyo instead, since those strikes would have tactical advantages in-theatre as well as strategic value.
You all can say that 'lil Kim won't do it, because that would be the end of his regime. Well, do you think millions of starving North Koreans WOULDN'T be the end of his regime? I'm afraid that this is going to be a cold winter.
Mr. Leber, you are correct and show great intelligence... as usual. But, when it comes to China, 'lil Kim will back down. China is a volatile nation as far as diplomacy is concerned, and Kim wont push it that far. Politicians are thankful that China is being cooperative at the moment, and they do know that China's involvement is key. With out their support, it will be backing a rat into a corner. That's why the we're holding our breath to see if China will hold out long enough to follow this through.
I disagree with you on this, however. China depriving oil from North Korea wont produce the same results as with the US and Japan 65 years ago.
Before the winter is over, Kim Jong and China will come to an agreement that nowhere near satisfies the UN. China will resume aid, fuel, food, plus some, and the UN will be left scratching their heads and debating subtle consequences to impose on North Korea.
I disagree with you on this, however. China depriving oil from North Korea wont produce the same results as with the US and Japan 65 years ago.
Before the winter is over, Kim Jong and China will come to an agreement that nowhere near satisfies the UN. China will resume aid, fuel, food, plus some, and the UN will be left scratching their heads and debating subtle consequences to impose on North Korea.
This just in: Korea is ready to negotiate.
And, Dr. Lecter: If Japan had had oil (and other resources) available, the U.S. would not have gotten close to bombing Japan. However, they did not, and thus, it worked.
And, Dr. Lecter: If Japan had had oil (and other resources) available, the U.S. would not have gotten close to bombing Japan. However, they did not, and thus, it worked.
Well, if China appeases North Korea unilaterally, all of this will have been for nothing. And we'll have moved a step towards a "cold war" between the US and China. I mean, there has to be some way to stop nuclear proliferation.
If the UN's security council is fractured on this issue (perhaps the most important political-economic-technological issue of the 21st century), then there really IS no point to maintaining the United Nations.
Whatever the solution for North Korea, it MUST appear as if it's a result of 6-party talks with the United Nations's involvement. If it's the result of secret backroom deals between China and North Korea, it just creates a bigger problem.
If the UN's security council is fractured on this issue (perhaps the most important political-economic-technological issue of the 21st century), then there really IS no point to maintaining the United Nations.
Whatever the solution for North Korea, it MUST appear as if it's a result of 6-party talks with the United Nations's involvement. If it's the result of secret backroom deals between China and North Korea, it just creates a bigger problem.
ananzi : they are as much raving lunatic holocaust deniers as Mr Bush is a devoted, Christian man. (Oh wait...)
If you go and check the number of UN resolutions that have been ignored left and right from pretty much since its inception, and who exactly are those ignoring them, you'll come to realize that, as far as world security is involved, the UN is nothing more than a sad joke, Lex.
Why exactly shouldn't North Korea be allowed to have dissuasive weaponry, especially if others are?
Not that I am for the proliferation of nuclear weaponry. I am against nuclear weaponry as such.
Not that I am for the proliferation of nuclear weaponry. I am against nuclear weaponry as such.
softy2: yes, except that ahmadenijad has said in public, repeatedly, the holocaust was a hoax and israel should be destroyed. google it!
I don't want to really get into it, but I've read in a number of places that the western version of Ahmadenejad's comments as per Israel were somewhat distorted to fit the present needs of certain administrations. While we have been led to believe that he called for Israel to be "wiped from the map", I've heard that a more accurate translation is closer to "erased from the pages of time". Semantics perhaps, and not necessarily true (I personally have no experience translating Persian to English), but "wiped from the map" is easier to view as a metaphor for the genocidal tendencies that western leaders prefer to attribute to Ahmadenejad than "erase from the pages of time". For instance one could take such a statement as a view to a long term political and diplomatic end to the Jewish occupation of Palestine.
I also find it hard to believe that he is a holocaust denier when one of his other well known statements is in regards to Europe and Germany providing a home for the Jewish nation because of their responsibility as per the holocaust. Perhaps he is simply contradictory in his beliefs.
Regardless, please don't take this as an endoresment of Ahmadenejad's administration. There's not many I despise more so than the Bush administration.... but they come a close second to Iran. Actually, retract that. I despise the Bush administration more, simply because of the fact that the American foreign policy does nothing but create legitimacy for and justification for the actions of such regimes.
I also find it hard to believe that he is a holocaust denier when one of his other well known statements is in regards to Europe and Germany providing a home for the Jewish nation because of their responsibility as per the holocaust. Perhaps he is simply contradictory in his beliefs.
Regardless, please don't take this as an endoresment of Ahmadenejad's administration. There's not many I despise more so than the Bush administration.... but they come a close second to Iran. Actually, retract that. I despise the Bush administration more, simply because of the fact that the American foreign policy does nothing but create legitimacy for and justification for the actions of such regimes.
ananzi : I think you missed my point. Of course he said it in public, what do you expect him to do? Keep in the closet something that would shore up his support?
Did you even wonder why the U.S. never went after North Korea the way we went after Iraq for presumably working on weapons of mass destruction? Besides the oil?
I actually had the opportunity to ask Gen. Wesley Clark about this just a few years ago.
He explained that North Korea has 30,000 good old fashioned pieces of artillary in range of Seoul, not to mention their ground forces just over the DMZ. It's an all or nothing proposition, with guaranteed heavy losses by the South. There are no surgical strike or missile defense options here.
It's a pretty solid argument to me. I just don't understand why we don't hear about it more often.
I actually had the opportunity to ask Gen. Wesley Clark about this just a few years ago.
He explained that North Korea has 30,000 good old fashioned pieces of artillary in range of Seoul, not to mention their ground forces just over the DMZ. It's an all or nothing proposition, with guaranteed heavy losses by the South. There are no surgical strike or missile defense options here.
It's a pretty solid argument to me. I just don't understand why we don't hear about it more often.
I like General Clark!
Seriously... There's a slew of reasons why the US has not taken any military actions against North Korea.
1. South Korea - has rebounded so well and quickly from the Korean War that the world does not want to hurt their economy, way of life or relative peace. Never mind the severe effects that would be brought on them. If South Korea's economy is hurt, so is the rest of the world's.
2. China - the government is more radical than you think. It's only held at bay by Corporate China who have very good reasons to keep the nation as neutral as possible.
3. Current stale mate position - There's no impending military actions on the board. US would rather go to Kim Jong Il, point at South Korea and say, "See, look at what you could have... But, Noooo! You want your communist dictatorship and destroy your own nation."
4. Time will change - given enough time, someone in Korea will change the way of life there. It's too bad the majority of the people there have to suffer to see it happen.
5. Japan - might go back on their word and enter a war. Not that Japan will ever go against the US again, but the US doesn't want to see Japan take up arms. The US believes they will never put 'em down again.
6. North Korea - is not Iraq. Nor will any of the reasons to take military actions against them be remotely similar to Iraq. Then, there's nothing to gain except a more North Korea people to be pissed at the US.
And the reasons are a lot more in-depth than I can spell out here. But I love to dumb down diplomacy and relate it to the way we deal with our neighbors.
Seriously... There's a slew of reasons why the US has not taken any military actions against North Korea.
1. South Korea - has rebounded so well and quickly from the Korean War that the world does not want to hurt their economy, way of life or relative peace. Never mind the severe effects that would be brought on them. If South Korea's economy is hurt, so is the rest of the world's.
2. China - the government is more radical than you think. It's only held at bay by Corporate China who have very good reasons to keep the nation as neutral as possible.
3. Current stale mate position - There's no impending military actions on the board. US would rather go to Kim Jong Il, point at South Korea and say, "See, look at what you could have... But, Noooo! You want your communist dictatorship and destroy your own nation."
4. Time will change - given enough time, someone in Korea will change the way of life there. It's too bad the majority of the people there have to suffer to see it happen.
5. Japan - might go back on their word and enter a war. Not that Japan will ever go against the US again, but the US doesn't want to see Japan take up arms. The US believes they will never put 'em down again.
6. North Korea - is not Iraq. Nor will any of the reasons to take military actions against them be remotely similar to Iraq. Then, there's nothing to gain except a more North Korea people to be pissed at the US.
And the reasons are a lot more in-depth than I can spell out here. But I love to dumb down diplomacy and relate it to the way we deal with our neighbors.
Second. Largest. Standing. Army.
Anyway, I like Clark too. Were he the Dem candidate, I'd vote for him.
Anyway, I like Clark too. Were he the Dem candidate, I'd vote for him.
fine maybe ahmad didnt say 'wiped off the map'. he is still a lunatic.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/commentary/newsblogs/stakelbeckonterror/060925.aspx
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=39332&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=en&q=ahmadinejad+holocaust+al-jazeera&btnG=Search
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/commentary/newsblogs/stakelbeckonterror/060925.aspx
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=39332&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=en&q=ahmadinejad+holocaust+al-jazeera&btnG=Search
Not to try and further the diversion of this thread into off-topic land, but I don't think any of the two initial examples you provided Ananzi really illustrate your point. The first is an interview with a clearly pro-Isreal businessman. His comments concerning why Palestinians should never be allowed to return to their former homes (they'd swamp the country and there wouldn't be an Israel) are racist and reveal a line of reasoning that requires nations to be homogeneous entities in order for their survival as such.
The second is simple hearsay without a single referenced quote.
That said, as I stated earlier, I don't believe he is actually a Holocaust denier. Some of his contradictory statements have revealed this. Instead, I think he simply enjoys saying things that really, really piss of Isreal and the West, and perhaps sees some strategic reasoning behind such statements. Such as questioning why it is illegal in some countries to undertake resaerch into the validity of the Holocaust (not sure where the strategy behind this resides)
Of course, I'm not arguing that he doesn't suffer from delusions of grandeur, and antisocial behaviour. In short: insane. But as you're first reference points out, quite clever.
The second is simple hearsay without a single referenced quote.
That said, as I stated earlier, I don't believe he is actually a Holocaust denier. Some of his contradictory statements have revealed this. Instead, I think he simply enjoys saying things that really, really piss of Isreal and the West, and perhaps sees some strategic reasoning behind such statements. Such as questioning why it is illegal in some countries to undertake resaerch into the validity of the Holocaust (not sure where the strategy behind this resides)
Of course, I'm not arguing that he doesn't suffer from delusions of grandeur, and antisocial behaviour. In short: insane. But as you're first reference points out, quite clever.
The whole holocaust issue has been beaten to death. Anyone who thinks it did not happen is simply blind. That being said, just think what this world would be like if societies didn't push their views of religion onto others who don't agree with them. More people have died as a result of religious hatred on this earth than for any other reason and the toll is only going to rise exponentially out of control until people can accept people for who and what they are.
"Dirt cleans off alot easier than blood"
(my dumb Gladiator quote, man I love that movie)
"Dirt cleans off alot easier than blood"
(my dumb Gladiator quote, man I love that movie)