It is pretty clear now that North Korea has viable nuclear weapons. (What they don't have is Big Oil.) While their recent efforts to launch a missile capable of reaching America, and potentially delivering such weapons, was not successful, it will not be very long before they do perfect such a delivery system. (There has even been speculation that they deliberately caused the missile to go awry in order to lull us into a false sense of security.)
So, on the one hand, Iraq (who does have Big Oil) was deemed a sufficient threat that we had to invade the country, overthrow its legally constituted government (as despicable as Saddam Hussein was, he pales in comparison to Kim Jong-iL), and botch an occupation that has lead to untold suffering and hardship for the very people that we said we were trying to "liberate." And on the other hand, we are going to "continue diplomacy with North Korea."
Please remember that the main argument supporting the invasion of Iraq that Condi "Mushroom Cloud" Rice and Colin "Unmanned Delivery Vehicles" Powell presented to the World was that Saddam Hussein had the ability to deliver nuclear weapons to the mainland USA. So, please examine the following map:
Do you feel secure knowing that George W. Bush, who never reads a serious book or paper and brags about being a "C" student, is in charge of dealing with Kim Jong-iL who has nuclear weapons and an almost delivery system?
What a silly question.
4 comments:
Kim Jong Il and North Korea do not scare me in the least -specifically anyway.
The "pre-emptive strike" (aka: i thought he was going to hit me so i hit him back first) policy that the Chimp. holds so dear frightens me far more. Other 'cowboys' and power hungry leaders have picked up that mantra.
There are some articles here to peruse and think about.
The reign of terror will be over soon and then the business of attempting to show the world that Bush is as un-American as it gets begins.
Hopefully it is not too late for diplomacy over bombs. Israel worries me more than anybody - those nutbags are just itching to eradicate the Palestinians one way or another. Kim Jong Il has no intention of using a nuclear weapon as a military weapon, he is using it as a political weapon. To use a nuclear weapon against anybody spells certain death and loss of power. Kim Jong Il is well aware of this fact.
Saddam was playing that game too but with a plastic pistol, unfortunately our nation elected a complete idiot and...well - the rest speaks for itself.
RJ,
As always, I appreciate your comments. I guess it does come down to guessing whether Kim Jong iL is capable of launching a nuclear attack against the US, or, as it seems more likely now, Japan. I think he may be crazy enough. Certainly Saddam thought that he could resist the US with his ill equipped Revolutionary Guards that melted away as soon as they were confronted (as I would too, trying to resist a tank with a pea shooter.)
I am glad you look into the future as to when we will have to cleanse the world of the detritus of Bush. It will be like cleaning the Augean stables. He is determined to leave his mark on the world and I think he is crazy enough to do something like use nuclear weapons before he expires, or, at least, his term expires. As for the Israelis, well, you already know what I think
He is determined to leave his mark on the world...
That statement really hit home. In my mind Iraq was that mark, but you have caused me to think that one through a little more. Iraq has turned into the biggest blunder of modern times - and Bush and his gang know this.
I can see your statement as their thoughts or ideas on how to come out of this shithole smelling like a rose and that is certainly a terrifying thought.
Your above post regarding ethics is a very good piece. That topic and the subtopics are being generously discussed at my office. I can honestly say that I disrupt the flow of work by getting the office stirred up about these things daily but I think these times, as you point out, are unlike any other time in American history.
We are seeing an evolution of America coupled with (imho) the metamorphosis of the conservative/right wing/Republican party into the animal that they truly are.
I have argued for some time that conservative ideology is counter to the natural world, of which we are an integral part. One of my current studies is ancient civilizations and quite frankly the writing is literally on the walls.
I have been questioning what is it exactly that makes some humans war mongering fools and some humans pacifists. Why do some people want to solve problems by killing that which they don't understand or cannot deal with as opposed to attempting to understand or looking inward for a solution?
In ALL living systems diversity is the key to a healthy environment - there is a ton of empirical evidence to support that. One need only to look around and see that the forest is full of diverse plants and animals.
Conservative thought dismisses and reviles the idea of of diversity and multiculturalism. This ideology is doomed for failure as not only is the world diverse in every possible facet, but it is everchanging as well.
The evolution or metamorphosis of the right wing/conservative ideology has no choice but to become farther to the right, more militant and extreme as it attempts to hold on to any power or foothold in this world.
Nature is selecting conservative ideology out and its only method of survival is to control and rule the world - which is what we are seeing in the American conservative 'leadership'.
A coworker said to me yesterday: it was a good thing Bush was re-elected, otherwise after four years of Kerry everyone would forget just how vicious and bloodthirsty the GOP really is. That falls in line with my personal maxim of nobody is going to fix the ship until it rams the reef and starts to sink.
Per your post on ethics, we have rammed the reef and are in trouble.
Somehow though I still feel positive and think that people of good stature will rise up and right these wrongs.
We have much work to do.
I still think capitalism is the best form of a society, but we certainly need to take a socialist mindset in applying capitalist ventures. (Ha, let a neocon wrap their head around that one!)
R.J.,
thanks for your comment. I guess as long as there are people in the U.S. who will resist this craziness we at least have a chance. On the other hand, I was particularly disheartened to see yesterday the response of Bush's lawyers to Arlan Spector's committee hearings. They were arrogant and dismissive and the Senators just sat there and took it. They basically claimed, per the Washington Post, that "Bush is always right." I would say the opposite, that Bush has been, and will continue to be, always wrong.
Post a Comment