From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of JDG <snips fair response>
>>And why isn't the US invading North Korea? >>Why is it, as you put it "doing nothing"? >The calculation has to include the probability of success. While "doing >nothing' in the DPRK is clearly resulting in the deaths of North Koreans, >the probability that an invasion of DPRK would result in the flattening of >Seoul, or worse, the detonation of one or more of the DPRK's nuclear >weapons has to weigh in the balance *against* war in DPRK. That is, it is >likely that a war against DPRK would likely result in more deaths than the >status quo. Yes, the realities of global politics. I guess thats what I was getting at. It suited the US to Invade Iraq, for a whole lot of reasons. It does not suit them to invade the DPRK. It wasnt cos GWB was worried about the little Iraqi kiddies, as my rather intemperate response to Gautum's post was trying to make clear. I am fine with that, its the dressing it up as some sweet natured lovey-dovey caring for the people of Iraq bit that annoys me. It was part of the Great Game. And if had not suited GWB to invade Iraq, almost no amount of starving kiddies would have made him. The timing was right, he had a justification ( one I believe he misused, and played upon the baser parts of human nature to get what he wanted, and to be fair, what he thought was best for America, and perhaps the world) and he took the opportunity. Good luck to him. Just dont expect me to buy that he did it for the poor starving kiddies of Iraq. He didn't. He did it as part of as plan to cement American control in a crucial part of the world. What annoys me is that he started a war. And he dragged my country in with him. I dont like staring wars. And there were other ways, flawed as they may have been. How patient do we need to be? When is enough enough? These are the questions I ask myself. And it set a precedent. This idea of a "Justified War", who defines the parameters for that? Does it not give any nation the right, in a philosophical sense, to invade any other nation, on the grounds that they think it is just? Well, the US did it, Australia did it. England did it. Do you see my quandry. I am glad of be rid of Saddam, and I hope Iraq becomes a stable, strong democracy. But, and call me a wimp, but for mine, the only body that has the moral authority to condone the starting of a war is the united people of the world., in the only shape we currently have, ie, that of the UN. I know the UN is a mess, but if not them who? I asked the silly question, about does this validate 9/11. I know it does not. But where is that line, who decides? I am upset that we started a war. Its as simple as that. Without being attacked, we started a war, and a lot of people have died, and more will. This whole doctrine of premptive attack is so fraught with danger, it scares the crap out of me. And to do it on the basis of such flimsy and flawed evidence. Its dangerous incompetence in my mind, and I can see why the Arab world views it as American Imperalism. Thats cos, and I would be interested in your thoughts on this, thats cos it basically is. GWB was elected President of America, not the world. He chose to impose what he saw as American interests on the Middle East. I know why he did it, and in many ways it makes a lot of sense, if you are the President of the USA. Now, and this is another interesting question, is that democracy? >And as I have noted, the DPRK situation is a key reason why it was >important to liberate Iraq. Once a dictator acquires nuclear weapons, it >is *too late*. So, to go back to your earlier question - once we learned >in 2001 that the DPRK had built nuclear weapons, there was suddenly a very >real possibility that an impoverished DPRK might sell a fully assembled >nuclear weapon to a country with large oil revenues - like Iraq. I am opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. They are way kinky, nasty, bad shit, way too dangerous to have live, ( I think we need some on hand for odd alien invasion scenarios, but thats another story, I am talking about live nuclear weapons). But again, who decides that its just fine and hunky-dory for country A to have to have bunkers full of ticking ICBM's and yet a mortal sin, punishable by immediate invasion, for country B to even contemplate the idea of having a few scientists working on them in some back room. The American nuclear deterent is appareantly moral and justified, and needed... the DPRK's nuclear deterent is a crime against humanity. Apparantly. Just as the USA acts in its own interests, so does the DPRK. If the USA was threated with invasion, would it lay down its ICBM's cos they would kill a few people? Why arent we persecuting Pakistan or India, France or England. If you were the President of North Korea, what actions would you take to defend your country? Accord them the same need, and the same right to defend their way of life. You may not like their way of life, but then maybe they dont like yours. So, If you were running the DPRK or Iraq, what would you do? Clearly, as the USA's lack of action over North Korea indicates, you would get yourself the bomb as fast as you bloody well could. So... its not about morality, or ethics, or starving kiddies. It is about power, naked crude, power. I can accept and understand that. Thats why the precedent of starting wars cos you think it is the best interests of your country scares me so. Andrew
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
