RoR: Forum

".......mankind is more inclined to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to alter or abolish the forms to which they are accustomed...." [Jefferson, Declaration of Independence]

Post 1

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 3:24pm

Living in a Fantasy World

Both South Korea and Japan have been able to indulge in their pacifist fantasies for so long because of America's willingness to shoulder almost the entire burden of protecting them militarily. Neither state has an armed force ready for the type of attack which Andre envisions because for so long we have shouldered that burden for them. This strategic mistake has been compounded by the fact that we simultaneously accept the abuse of the leftist elements of these countries which act toward us as if we are foreign occupiers, rather than their soul means of defense. My father and my friend in the 82nd Airborne have both been to Korea, and both say that the generation which lived through WWII & the Korean war are still very appreciative of Americans. But the younger generations have grown up as spoiled brats at our indulgence.

We should immediately hold an emergency meeting with S. Korea, Japan and Taiwan, Australia & our allies to discuss the need for the East Asians to forgo their mutual distrust and take actions to defend themselves. We should play hardball, and let them know that we will not sit on the DMZ as hostages for their nutty neighbor to threaten. We shoul do all we can to support them, except leave our troops on the Korean front line. As for attacking N. Korea, I have no problem with this in principle. NK's sortie across the DMZ 24 hours before their test was likely meant to see whther we would react to any provocation, and they read well the signal that we would not. Bush should also immediately pardon the elderly Korean man who was imprisoned for firing off a gun outside the UN to protest against the North Korean regime some years back. The gentleman fired once into the air, put down the gun, and waited calmly to be arrested.

Finally, an immediate blockade of Korea with a quiet ultimatum to red China that they must not oppose us is an absolute necessity. We have already intercepted NK shipments of arms to Iran. Talking heads on TV say that this would be an act of war. This is nonsense, we have already been at war with Korea since the '50's. I doubt their actions have not been in violation of the armistice.

It's time for everyone to wake up.

Ted Keer, 11 October, 2006, NYC

Oh, and Bill Clinton, who gave the NK's nuclear material in a treat which he then failed to enforce should be arrested for treason. Perhaps he'll flee the Country for a cushy hemp filled harem in the U.A.E.

Post 2

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 11:40pm

In return for N. Korea abandoning their nuclear program, we should offer to build a Disneyland for them, of course waiving the height requirement so that Kim Jong-Il can go on the rides.

That would be the 'carrot.'

The 'stick' could be a threat to cut off his supply of delightful, rum-filled, chocolate truffles. That'd show him we mean business.

Pardon my sarcasm. If I let the whole business sink in, I would scream madly and uncontrollably at the idiotic collection of namby-pamby ideas that the 'civilized' world (including our own government) is considering. It is obvious that a military solution is required -- not that this would be easy.

President Truman did not permit General MacArthur to drop a nuclear bomb on the Red Army when it was poised to push us out of N. Korea. We are experiencing the end result of that enormous mistake. The immediate result was the 50,000 (perhaps more?) casualties we suffered. When will we ever learn?

Post 3

Thursday, October 12, 2006 - 5:29am

Yeah, a full blockade and air strikes on all suspected positions having to do with their nuclear program doesn't sound like the worst course of action, especially since they've proven that their corrupt communist system can not feed their own people. I guess the main question on a blockade, though, would be whether or not China would ship food in via land.

South Korea and Japan are capitalist democracies as well as allies and should be protected from the lunatics to the north as far as practical.

Post 4

Thursday, October 12, 2006 - 4:45pm

China Has Everything to Lose, Nothing to Gain

Considering the matter from a Realpolitik viewpoint, there are only three conceivable reasons for China to prop up NK or to break a blockade. The first is the fear of a flood of refugees, should NK fail. The second is the fear of an attack by NK. The third is a desire to keep the US & our allies off balance by keeping Korean partitioned.

The fear of a flood of refugees is often touted in the press, but is utter nonsense. China could easily shut the border down if it desired, to say otherwise is shear nonsense. China does not have to deal with a domestic population that would scream bloody murder if there were a brutal crackdown on NK, and shutting down the border wouldn't require all that much brutality. Likewise, Both the SK's and our allies would flood the place with aid if Kim's regime fell. People who have been starving for sic decades won't die in six days.

China's possible fear of an attack from NK is also nonsense. The Chinese would again have no compunction against flattening NK whether with Nukes or conventionally. Given the recent failures of all of NK's tests, and the fact that the recent test yielded only 1% of the expected energy, and may even have been a ruse, since no radiation has been detected as of the time of this post, there is little for anyone to fear from a missile or artillery attack against an y place other than Seoul. This is not a part of the Chinese strategists' equations.

The only actual reason that China would break a blockade is the last, to prop up the regime as a thorn in the side of the West. This is absolutely unacceptable. Bush has flatly said that we will not have a nuclear North Korea. His word is on the line, and he must quietly warn China that China has much much more to lose than to gain by thwarting us. The Chinese have no ideological motivations for there actions.

The current regime could step down, if they were given cushy amnesty, and China, with its peaceful educated populace, its great wealth and burgeoning infrastructure could privatize and hold free elections in a very short time. The privatization would have to be done properly, as it was in Central Europe, rather than as it was pretended to in Russia. Even then, the parasitic warlords running the state now could come out ahead if they were allowed to maintain estates and were given shares in privatized companies that would boom in value after liberalization. The model for this would be (dare I say it?) "neo-con" Jeanne Kirkpatrick's authoritarian vs. totalitarian distinction. Please don't scream that I am advocating rewarding the current regime. I am arguing that they can do everyone a favor by choosing this peaceful path to reform for themselves.

The alternative must be put forth to the Chinese in the starkest terms. Exclusion of China from all civilized forums such as the Olympics and trade talks. The nuclearization of Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Active opposition by the US and its allies in every sphere of interaction China will depend upon in its move into the modern world.

There is only one thing that the West lacks. We have the wealth, the military strength, the expertise and the experience needed to help China transition to a great free nation. All we need is the will.

Ted Keer, 12 October, 2006, NYC

Post 5

Friday, October 13, 2006 - 12:41pm

Like it or not, nuclear weapons are getting cheaper. I don't think there is any way to make them simply disappear. As a result, third-world backward nations which are dirt poor can now get the ability to blow up the world.

Unlike Iraq, North Korea is pretty much homogeneous. The religious element is Marxism. Thanks to Marxism, they are even poorer than probably most in the Middle East and even experienced a famine in the 1990's.

According to Wikipedia, the US has given food aid in exchange for not going nuclear. This foreign aid whoredom has failed naturally.

The best long-term solution would be to let South Korea simply buy all of North Korea. They could do it and have plenty of cash left to spare. I suppose a lot of people in the North would welcome the South taking over. The contrast between these two countries is like the 1800's and today.

Since South Korea is most threatened by this, they should naturally take the lead. The best thing the US could do is get out of their way.

Post 6

Friday, October 13, 2006 - 12:42pm

In return for N. Korea abandoning their nuclear program, we should offer to build a Disneyland for them, of course waiving the height requirement so that Kim Jong-Il can go on the rides.

That may not be a bad idea.

Post 7

Friday, October 13, 2006 - 12:46pm

There is only one thing that the West lacks. We have the wealth, the military strength, the expertise and the experience needed to help China transition to a great free nation. All we need is the will.

I want to see a free China as much as anyone here. But I naturally wonder how that would be accomplished. These problems are often cultural. Even before Mao, China had a poor history with regard to human rights. Consider that the #4 mass murderer in the 20th century was Chaing Kai-Shek.

Post 8

Friday, October 13, 2006 - 6:14pm

While all sorts of weapons are getting cheaper to make and more widely accessible, it is still the responsibility of nation states both to protect their own citizens from attack and to make sure that acts of war towards other countries are launched neither by their own nationals nor from their own soil. This principle, that a nation state is responsible for the actions of its residents and agents, is what justified the US in going to war with Britain over conscription of sailors in the War of 1812, what justified our invasion of Mexico for the incursions of Pancho Villa, what justified the Colonies to attack French interests during the French & Indian War, what led the US to declare war over the (contested, and now generally disbelieved) responsibilty of Spain for the destruction of the U.S.S. Maine in Cuba, and what would have been sufficient in itself for us to go to war to overthrow Saddam. The fact that weapons are getting easier to make means that our statesmen must take this issue seriously and prepare for it. They haven't. And probably won't until a city is nuked. This century is either going to see the greatest collapse of civilization ever, and on a global scale. Or it will see the fortification of nation states along the lines prophesied in Robert Heinlein's Friday and Frank Herbert's White Plague. I recommend these two five-star books most highly.

Ted Keer, 13 October, 2006, NYC

Buying North Korea would only work if Kim Jong-Il didn't want both to have his hostages ransomed and to keep them too.

Post 9

Monday, October 16, 2006 - 9:28am

Ted, those are the two bad scenarios, but it won't be that way unless we do take the advice of the radical left or the radical libertarians. It is more than possible to expand globalization to the whole world, and with that these threats will diminish and disappear. It is possible this can be accomplished by the end of this century.

Post 10

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - 4:29pm

With friends like these...

Yes, Kurt, the books I suggested are bad case scenarios from a political outlook, and if the best case scenarios of China and Russia becoming free and peaceful countries come to be, then we will obviously face a much less threatening future. Even then, the problem with individuals and non-state enties like al qaida getting their hands on weapons remains. Our government has not taken any real steps - of which I am aware - to address this long term threat. (I am happy to learn that manhattan was swept with radiation detectors immediately after the attacks - but we need a permanent and much more comprehensive policy than such after the fact half-measures.) The Congress is engrossed in trivialities and grandstanding, when it's not actually causing problems... I don't expect any change in government policy until after some major disaster that dwarves 9/11. There are scholars and think-tankers addressing these issues. One is Fred Ikl� who has written Annihilation From Within. Consider the recent crash of Cory Lidle. Not only did thousands of people stream out onto the streets within mere seconds after the crash (Where would they be now had the plane been carrying a bomb, nerve gas, or a pathogen?) We also learned that 5 years after 9-11 there is basically has been no rethinking of small aircraft flight around Manhattan. But Mayor Bloomberg has made it a priority to protect us from trans-fats. With friends like these...

Ted

Post 11

Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 9:36am

Well, as you may or may not know Ted, I feel that the thinking by Thomas P.M. Barnett on this issue is very valuable. It is optimistic but not unrealistic. It is the type of thought that can reach broad support, and he actually has real influence (unlike most extremists do). It is heavily pro-capitalist and pro-globalism but also recongnizes that you don't just jump from tribalism to a perfect system right in one big leap. I quote a lot from his thinking. If he goes off-topic, such as anything to do with domestic issues, I think he hasn't a clue, but in his area of expertise he has what I consider to be the most logical and beneficial ideas out there. Everyone else seems hopelessly pessimistic, negative, or doomsdayish. The fact that this sells paper and books doesn't help. That does not mean it is actually more likely, however.

link: http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/

You can find some stuff on North Korea there, too. He thinks it is absolutely critical that we get rid of Kim, since he is 1) Evil with a capital E (so Ok, there is some altruism there maybe? but it is also in our self-interest to get rid of Evil-doers) and 2) Long-lasting stability is impossible in the region without it and 3) It will help move China forward. He is very pro-China, and he changed my mind about China (I used to be virulently anti-China). The reason being that I recognize I cannot expect them to simply change overnight, that reality is rarely as bad as the hype on particular atrocities, and that ultimately, that many people becoming more free is better for me, the world, the economy, everything, and the best way to do that is through engagement.

Post 12

Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 7:45pm

Is China more an Authoritarian than a Totalitarian State?

I hope your hope that there is hope for China is well-founded. Again, I'll ask whether Kirkpatrick's Authoritarian-evolving-toward-Free-Election vs. Totalitarian-evolving-toward-collapse model applies here. It would be nice if we had a long-term national policy on this. I fear that our two-term lame-duck range-of-the-moment four-year Presidential term cycle makes principled long term action politically impossible. I'd prefer a one-term 12 year presidency, with a repeal of the presidential war powers act.

I linked to the thomaspbarnett blog, but found it hard to follow given the acronyms, jargon, and inside references. I'll check out the rest of the site.

Again, my references to the hardening of the state as a security mechanism that I see as an inevitabillty (along the lines of Friday, White Plague & (I add here) Niven & Pournelle's Oath of Fealty, is based not upon external threats, but upon the threat of internal enemies.

Ted Keer

Post 13

Friday, October 20, 2006 - 8:15am

I think China is s-l-o-w-l-y moving toward socio-economic and political freedom in the "traditional authoritarian" sense of Jeanne Kilpatrick's important distinction. But this is hard to do since their official ideology is still communism, unlike the soft-core fascist military dictatorships of South Korea and Taiwan in the 1950s and 1960s. But this hopeful note on China is mainly due to the whole world rejecting communism and socialism.

I think if George Bush wasn't such a Big Brother-loving, budget-busting, anti-civil libertarian, lawless torturer, then the cause of freedom, capitalism, and libertarianism would be a lot further along everywhere on earth. Relative to Al Gore and John Kerry, anti-freedom ignoramus Bush has been a disaster for the planet. Without him, America would have been teaching by example -- and this would have included China. And a significantly more free China would have been a far better ally and friend in this current embroglio with atomic-bombing North Korea.

Post 14

Friday, October 20, 2006 - 6:34pm

Please name one civil liberty that Bush has denied or repealed or hindered and one case of torture (the intentional infliction of pain) rather than interrogation (the forceful questioning of a detainee) in which Bush himself has been involved or sanctioned. Abu Ghraib was disclosed by Americans and it was Americans who have prosecuted and jailed or otherwise punished those few involved in that matter. (And to call what happened at Abu Ghraib "torture" makes frat hazing look like being in a death camp.) Eight other Americans face the possible death penalty in the other alleged cases of rape and murder. I am surprised by these allegations from you, Andre. I will grant that Bush is neither the swiftest nor most eloquent president that we've had. But given Al "I want all the votes (at least in Democratic precincts, but not those of absentee soldiers) counted" Gore and John "I actually voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry as examples to the world, what exactly would they have been learning?

Kurt, I see Barnett wrote "the Pentagon's New Map." I have leafed thru this before and will get it on your advice.

Ted

Post 15

Sunday, October 22, 2006 - 5:31pm

Ignore: Posting to fix the last message.

Post 16

Monday, October 23, 2006 - 7:48am

I think China is s-l-o-w-l-y moving toward socio-economic and political freedom in the "traditional authoritarian" sense of Jeanne Kilpatrick's important distinction. But this is hard to do since their official ideology is still communism, unlike the soft-core fascist military dictatorships of South Korea and Taiwan in the 1950s and 1960s. But this hopeful note on China is mainly due to the whole world rejecting communism and socialism.

China has always been pretty pragmatic. I think they will eventually reject those things simply because a freer market is more practical. It doesn't seem likely that they will embrace laissez-faire fully. The main problem with pragmatism is that it always demands compromise with goons like Chaing and Mao. Of course, the most moral the most practical to deal with such goons is to have them stand before a firing squad.

I think if George Bush wasn't such a Big Brother-loving, budget-busting, anti-civil libertarian, lawless torturer, then the cause of freedom, capitalism, and libertarianism would be a lot further along everywhere on earth.

I don't blame the Shrub as much as I blame Congress. They are the ones who appease evil and vote for such laws, like suspending habeas corpus. They are the ones who surrender powers granted by the Constitution, even though they have no right to surrender them.

If the Constitution says that "Congress shall have the power to...." that means just that. It does not mean that Congress can sign away those powers over to a corrupt cokehead sitting in the chair of the executive or to anyone else.

Relative to Al Gore and John Kerry, anti-freedom ignoramus Bush has been a disaster for the planet.

He's really been a disaster for everything in his life. He is a recovering drug addict and has passed on his vices to his spoiled children. People like George Bush are the reason Planned Parenthood was founded.

When he has not messed up his own life and his family, he has recited sound bites and speeches handed to him by people who are much more intelligent and evil than he is. Bush has no thoughts or ideas of his own, for he is too ignorant. He does not do any physical work, for he is weak and lazy. He is probably barely literate, but he had the pull to get through Yale.

Without him, America would have been teaching by example

America hasn't done this in 100 years.

Your comments have been a pleasant surprise, Andre. I hope you realize that these things are the reasons why I despise this war. War leads to a corruption of the nation's political principles at home. This is yet another reason that war is something to be avoided.

Post 17

Monday, October 23, 2006 - 10:23am

Ted wrote:

Please name one civil liberty that Bush has denied or repealed or hindered and one case of torture (the intentional infliction of pain) rather than interrogation (the forceful questioning of a detainee) in which Bush himself has been involved or sanctioned.

Are you serious? Reality check time. Ok..just to name a few...

1) The sanction by President Bush over the NSA wiretapping program. Which wiretapped American citizens WITHOUT a warrant.

2) The sanction by President Bush of detaining suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial, access to an attorney, or even any public record identifying these suspects in Guatanomo Bay. Including secret prisons operated by the CIA around the world without any judicial oversight. And I quote from the recent bill signed into law by President Bush: "a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a combatant status review tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense."

3) A memo signed by the Attorney General years ago, authorizing the use of force during an interrogation short of organ failure or death was given sanction by the very fact this Attorney General still has a job to which his employment is accountable directly to the President of the United States. The use of waterboarding in an interrogation is permitted despite this country's prosecutions during WW2 over this very type of torture. In addition, the practices of interrogation used in these secret prisons are withheld from any judicial oversight.

Post 18

Monday, October 23, 2006 - 9:54pm

Ted: I think John Armaos answers some of your questions pretty well. A tip of the hat to him, plus a smilie. :-)

In general, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Gonzalez, and their whole amoral, unprincipled, fascist team find themselves very much above the law, in my view. They're honest in this in that they seem to know no alternative to detaining without charge, denying habeas corpus, torturing, etc. And they mostly openly advertised what they were going to do in advance, late in 2001, with no serious or sustained Democratic or Objectivist objections. Even now there really are none from either group. So these extreme criminals in the executive branch deserve a certain respect and sympathy, no doubt.

Still, the Bush Administration and all they control, routinely, wildly violate the constitution, federal law, the Uniformed Military Code, and Geneva Conventions with little restraint. Their only true respect for the law is a strong attempt at covering-up their activities, followed by a fierce intimidation of any whistle-blowers. So long as their egregious rights-violations can be plausibly categorized as part of their dishonestly, cowardly, foolishly named "war on terror," then pretty much any Nazi behavior goes.

Overall, Bush and company -- backed rather strongly by the ignorant, immoral, short-sighted, counter-productive US general public -- fights this pseudo-war against surpassingly weak enemies with a kind of extreme incompetence and confusion. They rather sincerely, and not all that viciously, try to make up for their poor understanding and "stategery" ;-) by operating in a very illiberal, un-American, sneaky, secret fashion. They do dismal police-state stuff no libertarian state should, by avoiding consultation with Congress, and oversight by the courts, and scrutiny by the public and pundits.

And let's not forget all the stuff Bush et al do that we don't know about yet: Perhaps every US email intercepted and data-mined, every credit card transaction reviewed, every cell phone used as a tracking device, all medical and financial transactions surveyed, more secret prisons and procedures, etc. And all without a warrant and in violation of the law.

I could write a book about all the civil liberties transgressed, and no doubt many such high-quality books are in the works right now.

Post 19

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 6:04am