President Bush - about bush

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-11 15:49:34

Hey! I didn't bring China into this. I just said that they were a threat to the US operating on the Korean penninsula if we tried to disarm North Korea. At least we're talking about foreign policy...

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-11 15:57:19

I don't see that particular thing happening, though. I can only see China having issues with Taiwan, and those issues are being cleared up over time since Taiwan is becoming more dependent on China, and basically being assimilated without question. Other than that, I don't see China being ?hostile? to anyone. Right now China is focused on building itself, they could care less about anyone else.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-11 16:01:44

You don't think China would have a problem with losing its next-door communist (sorry, socialist) buddy next door? What if we had to use a nuclear weapon the remove the threat of their nuclear weapons program. NOT A BIG THERMONUCLEAR DEVICE! Just a "strategic" device, like the ones the Pentagon is proposing (and developing as we speak).

If I was China, I would NOT want the US setting up camp in North Korea, not to mention waging a war there.

clark · 2002-12-11 16:20:34

Military strategy is a different ballpark Cal.

Having your enemy know where you are is trivial- it is having capabilities that can counter his that is the point.

MAD is a doctrine specifically designed around this one idea. ultimate and final counter- you attack me, you lose everything.

SDI is a red herring against nations like china- they only need to build enough missles to saturate any SDI- and counters tend to be much cheaper than what it costs to defeat them.

As for korea- China dosen't want us there for the same reason we don't let anyone play in the western hemisphere- it's near our home turf, and we have to live with any repurcussions of action. N Korean refugges head north, to China. Put it together.

China also wants a larger politcal role in what goes on in south asia- this allows for leverage in other dealings with larger nations- it comes with perks becuase it can be abargaining chip- if the US wants to do anything there, it has to pay a price to mother China- just like if we want to attack Iraq, we have to pay off certain countries that have influence there.

We had nuclear weapons in South Korea at one time, but it wasn't worth it.

We have ICBM's, we can obliterate the entire world a few times over- and then we have the Trident subs...

Only madmen who don't care about their people would risk detonating a nuclear weapon in today's reality.

soph · 2002-12-11 16:21:57

Caltech, you have it backwards. who was it that said true communism cant exist? i remember it being me.

and socialism is a system in which the government regulates nearly everything. (for cal, communism has no government) this is totalitarianism. you might want to pick the two apart, but you really cant have socialism without a dictator. find me one real world example, and ill concede the point.

utopian communism, nothing would have value. obviously, this is not the case in any real world economy.

face it, my parents are both economics doctorates- my mother studied the soviet union extensively. socialism is not communism. it may be called that by people who wish to attract people to the cause, but it's not.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-11 16:22:05

Um, China and North Korea aren't friends, if that's what you're suggesting. North Korea is hardly even a reflection of socialism, either. They call themselves a democracy, but there is little within their political structure to suggest as such. At least Cuba as true elections, we can't say the same for North Korea.

North Korea considers China a capitalist state since China does tend to not mind the free market, and associates with South Korea (uh oh! the ultimate paradigm, socialism and free trade! impossible! :0). The only real relations they have with each other is in foreign aid, since North Korea is so far left they have no real economic viablity, are sanctioned somewhat by the US, and rely on China for help.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-11 16:22:59

Do you want to be the person destroyed in a complete and total retalliation? I wouldn't...

soph · 2002-12-11 16:25:09

oh, and about SDI, dont you think that our friendly neighbors, the russians and chinese, would know about it? they both have satallites in the air. i find it doubtful that they wouldnt know about it.

and our SDI has been dead during Clinton's administration (imho, good, it is a bottomless pit of wasted taxpayer money), and i doubt our current genious of a president could whip us up a strategic defense in two years.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-11 16:46:15

I would say that North Korea is a bigger threat to us than Iraq. Saddam is sitting upon a huge chunk of the worlds wealth, despite the fact that it's mostly desert there. Oil is like freaking liquid gold. So he wants to keep it.

North Korea, however, has nothing to lose; they're basically disliked by everyone in the region and even the world. They sell arms as if it's second nature; it wouldn't surprise me if we found years down the road that bin Laden and his sympathizers actually acquired their weapons from North Korea.

I like diplomacy. I really, really do. It's the only sane solution.

Palomar · 2002-12-11 16:52:55

North Korea, however, has nothing to lose; they're basically disliked by everyone in the region and even the world. They sell arms as if it's second nature; it wouldn't surprise me if we found years down the road that bin Laden and his sympathizers actually acquired their weapons from North Korea.
I like diplomacy. I really, really do. It's the only sane solution.

*Did you hear the piece on the news that broke last evening, regarding a North Korean ship found with SCUD missiles on it, near Yemen? The SCUDs were stashed away under bags of cement.

On a related note, a few years ago the Japanese reported the North Koreans had shot a long-range missile over their islands. There was serious speculation that the N. Koreans were/are attempting to see if they can strike U.S. land in Alaska.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-11 17:00:39

Yeah, I saw that, Cindy. Interestingly enough, they had to allow the SCUDs to go on to Yemen due to international law or whatever. I don't think they could have confiscated them had they been going to Iraq, though. They weren't WMD's or could be used as such, as far as I know. Don't know anything about SCUDs, though.

Palomar · 2002-12-11 17:26:33

Yeah, I saw that, Cindy. Interestingly enough, they had to allow the SCUDs to go on to Yemen due to international law or whatever. I don't think they could have confiscated them had they been going to Iraq, though. They weren't WMD's or could be used as such, as far as I know. Don't know anything about SCUDs, though.

*I don't know much about SCUDs either, of course. However, the reporter stated that SCUD missiles are much more expensive than most types of missiles...it being very strongly implied that probably an oil rich nation [such as the Saudis] was behind the purchase and shipment of them.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2002-12-11 20:23:54

They weren't WMD's or could be used as such, as far as I know. Don't know anything about SCUDs, though.

Just for the record: The Scud is a (relatively) short range ballistic missile developed by the Soviet Union, based on what they learned from captured German A-4's. It's crude and cheap, as far as ballistic missiles go. While not a WMD in and of itself, it can be used to deliver nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. In fact, that's about their only real value as they are horribly innaccurate, as demonstrated during the Gulf War. Hope that helps for anyone who cares.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-11 22:18:36

Yeah, I actually google'd a bit about SCUD payloads after I'd written that post, I didn't really think it was necessary to come back to reply. I had initally thought they were just bazooka type missiles for some reason. But they're a lot bigger, and have a much further range. They probably would have been confiscated had they been going to Iraq on some vague technicality. Just makes you wonder, really.

I wonder how in the hell Korea even has access to the resources to make them, myself. It's so surreal to me how some nations make a good deal of money in arms... I'm too much of a nice guy I guess.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-11 22:41:03

Hey soph! Where did you get your economics doctorate from?

Whsspper...whssper...whisper... OH! What's that Big Bird? Just because your parents have a background in something doesn't make you an expert in that field? I HAD NO IDEA!

And on the Josh Cryer/ecrasez_l_infame SCUD debate point, I've been saying that if Iraq is PROVEN to have no WMDs, we should move onto North Korea. My main fear was the Chinese, who, if you don't remember their friendship with North Korea, sent a 100,000+ man army into North Korea during the Korean War.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-12-12 01:25:27

Hi Josh!

Sorry I imagined you as being left-wing in outlook. I'd quite forgotten you're an anarchist ... against all forms of government. (I think? )
It's just that I don't think in terms of anarchy much, and the people here in Australia who criticise America seem to be mainly Australian Labor Party supporters. So, I thoughtlessly put two and two together and got .. five!

Don't worry about taking this any further with references etc. I'm already too far outside my main areas of interest and my reason for being here at New Mars. But thanks anyway!

I guess I just get tired of the constant haranguing against the U.S. and feel some kind of balance needs to be introduced into the argument.
There's probably only a handful of countries I could live in. America is one of them. My country is militarily weak. Do I fear America? .. No. If my country were invaded, would I ask for help from America? .. Yes. And would she come? .. Yes.

That's really all I need to know. She's a great country, she's a strong country, and she's a friend. Long may it stay that way!

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-12 03:13:03

Cal, no! We ought to go after North Korea as soon as possible. We should focus all of our energy on preventing North Korea (and indeed, any nation which participates in arms profiteering) from selling weapons to terrorists. I'm afraid, though, that our resources are going to be misdirected towards Iraq, when all along the real problem is nation states which basically have nothing to lose.

Iraq has a lot to lose. Iraq is blessed there are so many people around the world rooting for them, if only for the sake of humanism, peace, etc. One slip up and Iraq loses all the natural wealth the nation has, and it becomes controlled by the US (much like Kuwait's oil wealth). Iraq isn't going to mess around, believe me. Just like China isn't going to mess around.

A little reading up on Chinese involvement in the Korean War suggests to me that the Chinese were solidifying certain strategic points to insure internal security. It would be akin to the US poking around a little in Mexico or Canada during an invasion. Just a side note, from what I'm reading here, it seems the US had plenty of warning; the recently formed PRC simply didn't want to risk losing power. Anyway, I don't see any parallels here to suggest that North Korea and China were even on good standing some 50 years ago. They certainly aren't now, and probably wouldn't be unless they (meaning China) had reason to believe that an invasion was going to occur (and it wouldn't, considering the whole nuclear situation).

And Shaun, I love the US more than you think. Chomsky put it best recently, when he pointed out that despite the fact that we're losing more and more liberties (see: the Patriot Act et al) we are still the most free people in the world, and we ought to use that to our advantage to criticize the US when we are in opposition. That's what democracy is all about. I don't think I should be in denial about US atrocities. And I don't think it's unfair of me to think that there are alternate, peaceful, solutions to some of our foreign problems.

And yeah, I try to be a nice anarchist, but one should note that anarchy is basically the left wing version of the right wing Libertarian ideal. The only difference is that people are basically nice to each other.

To get back on topic, what do you guys think of Al Gore? He seems to be reemerging in the spotlight lately. Being the first to criticize Bush on his foreign and economic policies, and being more outspoken than any of the other Democrats. Could it be that Bush isn't as popular as he and his administration purports him to be?

soph · 2002-12-12 05:47:08

caltech, wheres your expertise from? ive taken economics in high school. youre far too arrogant. you still dont know your facts. the more i read, the less seriously i take you.

if everybody had to do all their own research, and nothing could be cited from primary sources, nothing would be done in science.

clark · 2002-12-12 10:08:13

Josh, I think Gore is positioning himself for 2004. If Bush isn't careful, Gore will be ready to say "i told you so...". He is also trying to lead the democratic party on these issues- he has a bit more leeway since he no longer holds office, and for all intents and purposes, his only politcal option is to run for president again.

He has less to lose, so he is the first vocal democrat.... more will follow.

Watch Kerry.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-12 12:57:18

caltech, wheres your expertise from? ive taken economics in high school. youre far too arrogant. you still dont know your facts. the more i read, the less seriously i take you.
if everybody had to do all their own research, and nothing could be cited from primary sources, nothing would be done in science.

You were using your parent's experience to make it look like you had more "clout" than everyone in this issue. Until you have a degree of some kind in economics, I will not treat you as such.

And I don't know about Gore in '04. Most of the Democrats don't want him to run again, and many Americans don't want to see 2000 replayed. I was looking at Gephardt, until he resigned. I think Kerry will be the default now.

And as for North Korea, if you can prove to me that China won't intervene on the penninsula, I would support the action. I think Iraq should, and will be kept under watch for now, because the US military has the ability to sustain operations in two theatres.

soph · 2002-12-12 14:06:53

and i will treat you as you are, somebody with a big mouth who doesnt have any experience, and likes to argue for the sake of arguing.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-12 14:27:28

clark, I personally don't think he has actually made a decision yet. I think he's liking the spotlight, though. What I find interesting is that he is indeed the most vocal Democrat. He was and continues to be the first to practically criticize the Republicans on just about any issue. First foreign policy, then economic policy (to both of which Bush heeded his advice, funnily enough), and most recently, his criticism of Trent Lott's gaffe. No one else would criticize Lott, indeed, the house majority leader, Daschle defended Lott, and Liberman (Gore's VP candidate in 2000) did too. It was only after Gore said something did anyone open their traps. The most intreresting bit is that Bush's popularity has been declining quite badly over the past few months.

I agree that we're going to see a Gore / Kerry fight, though.

Cal, it's probably true that many Americans don't want to see 2000 replayed again, but I suspect an equal (if not majority) number of Americans would like to see the person they voted for last time come back and win. I think Gore has plenty of confidence, what with the Bush admin. following his suggestions every step of the way. It's actually kind of funny, because he can use it to his advantage. Politics are like a poker game, had they not done what Gore said, he could have said, ?I told you so? but since they did, he can't. Except he can always say, ?hey, look, I told them to do this, and they did, and it worked,? and even if it doesn't work, he can say that they didn't do it right. (Which is what he's saying now after Bush scrapped his economic team; he reiterates that the team isn't the whole problem, but the economic plan itself must go.)

Also... I don't actually think we should freaking attack North Korea, I think we should just focus on them liek we are Iraq. I think we ought to get inspectors back in, see what's up there. Basically threaten to blow 'em up like we have Saddam with regards to inspectors. It's the least we could do. And the world community would be behind us. Why don't we, though? Could it be that we simply don't really have ethics with regard to foreign policy? We can force one country to do inspections, when it's economically viable to a few corporations within our country, but we can't force another country to do inspections because it won't ?benefit us?? Talk about hypocrisy. And I think my comments about North Korea and China's relationship are fair enoughfor someone to come to their own conclusions. If you don't think China wants to keep out of the spotlight as they grow socially and economically, then I really don't know what to say. I guess I could quote from by subscription of the Beijing Review, but then, why would you believe me? You seem to not agree with my reasons. I guess a Google search is in order...

soph · 2002-12-12 16:23:34

i would rather see mccain run again. he was the best candidate, imho.

clark · 2002-12-12 16:38:26

Gore is testing the waters for the democratic party- he has the leeway to say these things- reactions are evaluated by the party, and then if it plays well, everyone else goes along for the ride. The Republican party reacts to what is being said becuase it is a warning shot- they understand that if the issues addresed by Gore start playing well, the party will be hammered on those issues- so they look to squelch issues before there is an opportunity for the main democratic party to attack.

Case in point how politics work- look at the 9/11 task force headed by Kissinger- most of the democratic people on the task force i retiring democrats- that way they have less to lose and are better equipped for any possible politcal fallout from the investigations.

Attacking North Korea would be stupid. better to simply let them starve themselves back to the stone age. It is an unfortunate choice for the people of N. Korea, but there is little to be gained by going in there.

I agree with you assesment Josh on Chinese and n. korea relations- n.korea means nothin to china, they will sell them down the river.

soph · 2002-12-12 16:47:11

kissinger was a bad choice.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2002-12-11 15:49:34

Re: President Bush - about bush

#177 2002-12-11 15:57:19

Re: President Bush - about bush

#178 2002-12-11 16:01:44

Re: President Bush - about bush

#179 2002-12-11 16:20:34

Re: President Bush - about bush

#180 2002-12-11 16:21:57

Re: President Bush - about bush

#181 2002-12-11 16:22:05

Re: President Bush - about bush

#182 2002-12-11 16:22:59

Re: President Bush - about bush

#183 2002-12-11 16:25:09

Re: President Bush - about bush

#184 2002-12-11 16:46:15

Re: President Bush - about bush

#185 2002-12-11 16:52:55

Re: President Bush - about bush

#186 2002-12-11 17:00:39

Re: President Bush - about bush

#187 2002-12-11 17:26:33

Re: President Bush - about bush

#188 2002-12-11 20:23:54

Re: President Bush - about bush

#189 2002-12-11 22:18:36

Re: President Bush - about bush

#190 2002-12-11 22:41:03

Re: President Bush - about bush

#191 2002-12-12 01:25:27

Re: President Bush - about bush

#192 2002-12-12 03:13:03

Re: President Bush - about bush

#193 2002-12-12 05:47:08

Re: President Bush - about bush

#194 2002-12-12 10:08:13

Re: President Bush - about bush

#195 2002-12-12 12:57:18

Re: President Bush - about bush

#196 2002-12-12 14:06:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#197 2002-12-12 14:27:28

Re: President Bush - about bush

#198 2002-12-12 16:23:34

Re: President Bush - about bush

#199 2002-12-12 16:38:26

Re: President Bush - about bush

#200 2002-12-12 16:47:11

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer