|
 Azmodeus
Seeker
Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
|
 Re: A REAL threat that Bush is doing nothing about  [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
#2610167 - 04/28/04 01:32 AM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
germin8tionn8ion said:
Quote:
Azmodeus said:
...after what happened in iraq you'd have to be stupid not to try and get as many nukes as possible before they turn thier sites to you. N. korea is just protecting its own interests, and i highly doubt they have any visions for world dominance with the current superpowers in check.
It seems like another clear-cut case ofthe democratically elected government of America being entirely in the wrong and the genocidal dictatorship of another nation being entirely in the right. How many more murderous madmen will we come up against before we realize how right and ethical that way of life is!
....so what didn't you agree with in my initial post? 
--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.
Lest we forget. "
|
germin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 18 years, 10 months
|
Re: A REAL threat that Bush is doing nothing about [Re: Azmodeus]
#2612442 - 04/28/04 05:02 PM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Nothing, I totally agree. That peaceful, kind-hearted Mr Iil is trying to get some nuclear weapons so he can protect his democratic government which respects human rights from the evil's of US dictatorial imperialism. Whats to not agree with?
|
HagbardCeline
Student-Teacher-Student-Teacher
 
Registered: 05/10/03
Posts: 10,024
Loc: Overjoyed, at the bottom ...
Last seen: 22 days, 10 hours
|
Re: A REAL threat that Bush is doing nothing about [Re: EchoVortex]
#2619281 - 04/29/04 11:14 PM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Forgive my timeliness, I've been in the hospital suffering from kidney stones again. Probably God's punishment for me with my neocon ways. 
If they were the only ones saying then one would have to take that with a grain of salt. Since I haven't seen NK's facilities and since I'm not qualified to make such determinations myself, I have no choice but to base my beliefs on the sources available to me: on their number, their evidence, and their credibility. The evidence at the moment suggests there's reason enough to be concerned.
So, by your judgement and the concensus you see in the sources you trust, this is believable to you? Fair enough.
Whether NK has the capacity now or could have it in a month or six months is qualitatively not a huge difference.
So the threat level is not determined by current capability, but intent?
If that approach doesn't work, then of course it's back to the drawing board.
So, we just keep trying to negotiate? Forever? Your orignal article said "Time is not necessarily on our side." If negotiations fail, what do we do about the threat, just hope that nothing bad happens?
Who ever said the US has the right to dictate to them what to do? That's why they're called "negotiations," not "orders."
Had they entered into a formal treaty though, without a backdoor, would we have the right to order?
Any deal to be acceptable would call for before-and-after inspections. If you show up for the "before" inspection and they can't produce any of the material they are willing to give up in return for something else, obviously they were bluffing and the deal is off.
They only offer to negotiate the dismantling fo their nuclear program in exchange for assurances by the US that we'll not attack. This says nothing of their other weapons programs the adminstration wants ended. Let's say we didn't promise any aid, but just that we wouldn't attack in exchange for verifiable proof of their cooperation about the nuclear issue. Should we do that? If they still continued on with the development of other military technology that posed a threat, do we just enter a new cycle of negotiation?
In general I think nuclear non-proliferation is a reasonable goal to pursue, even if it means making deals.
Absolutely a reasonable goal. Do you worry though that if we buy them off, that other states might not think it good idea to pursue nukes in order to get something themselves? And if we're willing to negotiate with the threat a state posed with nukes, then shouldn't we also negoatiate with terrorists (not neccesarily Muslim) who obtain WMD or demonstrate anything sufficiently threatening?
--------------------
I keep it real because I think it is important that a highly esteemed individual such as myself keep it real lest they experience the dreaded spontaneous non-existance of no longer keeping it real. - Hagbard Celine
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
Re: A REAL threat that Bush is doing nothing about [Re: HagbardCeline]
#2619485 - 04/30/04 12:04 AM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Forgive my timeliness, I've been in the hospital suffering from kidney stones again.
Ouch. Here's to a speedy recovery.
Probably God's punishment for me with my neocon ways.
I don't recall ever calling you a "neocon," and I'm not sure why you pre-emptively assume that I would.
So the threat level is not determined by current capability, but intent?
Depending on what scale of a timeline you wish to use, six months down the line isn't that much different from "current." We're not talking about years, here.
So, we just keep trying to negotiate? Forever? Your orignal article said "Time is not necessarily on our side." If negotiations fail, what do we do about the threat, just hope that nothing bad happens?
Well, isn't that what you're proposing now? "Just hope that nothing bad happens"? Unless there was a veiled endorsement of a missile defense shield somewhere in your previous posts. Speaking of which, what exactly is it that you propose?
If negotiations fail one has to look at the situation afresh. The next step might be sanctions and other punitive measures, or it might be a missile shield, or it might be a tactical missile strike against NK's known nuclear facilities. I honestly don't know, but I don't see what's wrong with negotiations as a first step.
Had they entered into a formal treaty though, without a backdoor, would we have the right to order?
If they enter into a treat they are giving us that right.
They only offer to negotiate the dismantling fo their nuclear program in exchange for assurances by the US that we'll not attack. This says nothing of their other weapons programs the adminstration wants ended. Let's say we didn't promise any aid, but just that we wouldn't attack in exchange for verifiable proof of their cooperation about the nuclear issue. Should we do that? If they still continued on with the development of other military technology that posed a threat, do we just enter a new cycle of negotiation?
Resolving the nuclear issue is the first step. If they start playing games by announcing new, different weapons programs then it's clear they're not acting in good faith and any existing agreements would have to be reconsidered.
Absolutely a reasonable goal. Do you worry though that if we buy them off, that other states might not think it good idea to pursue nukes in order to get something themselves? And if we're willing to negotiate with the threat a state posed with nukes, then shouldn't we also negoatiate with terrorists (not neccesarily Muslim) who obtain WMD or demonstrate anything sufficiently threatening?
Pursuing a credible nuclear program would cost so much for most states that don't already have one that it wouldn't really be cost-effective in terms of how much aid they could reasonably hope to get. Such things would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
As far as the terrorist issue goes, that's a different case. States can be monitored and held accountable in ways that terrorists can not, so no, I don't advocate negotiating with terrorists.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Injection Grain Bag, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 all )
Rono
SoFarNorth
Learyfan
wingnutx