PDA

View Full Version : New thread High seas



nAz
01-26-2005, 04:39 PM
that other one was all over the map. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Questions:
1. Should the US impose a Naval Blockade on North Korea?

No I do not see it getting to that point yet NK is not yet a direct treat to us. They maybe to our alleys SK and Japan as well as some others so for now i would advocate trying to negotiate with them to dis-ban their Nuclear programs. Now i know this has not worked in the past but if we stepped up the pressure on the Chinese to do more i think it can get resolved without a military intervention.

2. Would taking the issue to the UN be a mistake?

No not at this time in this situation NK has not threaten us directly so we have time to try to get the rest of the world to help us and themselves by bringing them to the "table".

remember NK has no assperation or might for that matter to try and conquer the world or Us like the USSR did back in the 60s. they are more concerned about keeping power in their region keeping their status quo. so they try to threaten us and hope that we will give them more foreign aid to keep their military fed.

Hey look at Muammar Qaddafi (who by the way i think is one of the best dressed dictators i have ever seen.) a couple of days ago he issued a statement to Iran and NK saying something like "Libya provided the world with peace by giving up on nuclear weapons, and that North Korea and Iran should do the same" if we can more people leaders? like him and atthe UN to help things may work out for the best.

3. If the US blockades North Korea, what should our response be if China then threatens nuclear war over North Korea?

China is not stupid they will not go that far no way will they follow through on any kind of threat. they are prospering right now and their government as well as their people are doing better then they ever have. so why would they go mess that up for a petty corrupt backward regime like NK.


So what do you think the US should do in those situations or with Iran?

highsea
01-26-2005, 05:51 PM
Well, my real reason for asking the questions was to get you to think about the similarities between the North Korea situation and the CMC.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr>NK is not yet a direct treat to us. They maybe to our alleys SK and Japan as well as some others so for now i would advocate trying to negotiate with them to dis-ban their Nuclear programs. Now i know this has not worked in the past but if we stepped up the pressure on the Chinese to do more i think it can get resolved without a military intervention.<hr /></blockquote>We have about 100,000 servicemen in range of Kim's missiles, not to mention Seattle and Los Angeles. So I don't think we should say there is no direct threat. The question is, how imminent is the threat?

However, I agree with you that diplomatic measures have not been exhausted. At the same time, we need to be aware that sanctions can only have a limited effect, because we have already imposed all that we can. Just as the USSR was the key in Cuba, China is the key to the North Korean crisis.

Also, when we blockaded Cuba, Castro was not in a position to retaliate. He was close, but not there. He was 100% defensive militarily. This is not the case with NorK.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr>No not at this time in this situation NK has not threaten us directly so we have time to try to get the rest of the world to help us and themselves by bringing them to the "table".

remember NK has no assperation or might for that matter to try and conquer the world or Us like the USSR did back in the 60s. they are more concerned about keeping power in their region keeping their status quo. so they try to threaten us and hope that we will give them more foreign aid to keep their military fed.<hr /></blockquote>Castro did not have aspirations of taking over anybody either. Kim is blackmailing the US with his nukes, which is what Castro wanted to do. He wanted us out of Guantanimo. Kim cannot take over anybody other than South Korea, which he does want to do. Similar situation.

China is using Kim as leverage against the US, and it is really China who wants to see the US with our hands tied. Kim is a pawn in the game, just as Castro was. Khrushchev wanted US missiles out of Turkey. China wants us out of Taiwan.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr>Hey look at Muammar Qaddafi (who by the way i think is one of the best dressed dictators i have ever seen.) a couple of days ago he issued a statement to Iran and NK saying something like "Libya provided the world with peace by giving up on nuclear weapons, and that North Korea and Iran should do the same" if we can more people leaders? like him and atthe UN to help things may work out for the best.<hr /></blockquote>And Qadaffi's turnaround was the direct result of Bush's policies in the ME. When he saw what happened to Iraq, he looked in the mirror and saw his own future.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr>China is not stupid they will not go that far no way will they follow through on any kind of threat. they are prospering right now and their government as well as their people are doing better then they ever have. so why would they go mess that up for a petty corrupt backward regime like NK.<hr /></blockquote>For now, China does not have the military strength to challenge the US directly. So they will not make the threat. But I guarantee you, that day will come if we let our guard down. China is going through a massive upgrading of their military in anticipation of a confrontation over Taiwan. They will do everything in their power to degrade the US's military power, including helping North Korea and Iran. What they want to see is a weakening of US power through proxies, so that when the real struggle takes place, we are in a weaker position.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr>So what do you think the US should do in those situations or with Iran? <hr /></blockquote>Right now, we are doing the only thing we can do, and that is trying to resolve the situation diplomatically. But both situations are candidates for an escalation and a Naval Blockade. I don't have the answers, I am not smart enough to solve the puzzle. But I think the situation will get worse before it gets better.

One thing we can do is undermine China's position militarily, by improving ties with Russia. Since they are the biggest supplier of weapons to China, they can be a big help to us, either by cutting the supply of weapons to China, or giving us samples of the weapons so we can develop countermeasures. We also need to put pressure on the EU to prevent our own technology from finding it's way to China.

China is also integral to the Iran situation. China's energy needs are increasing exponentially, and they have signed some huge deals with Iran for oil and gas. It's China who is providing the nuclear technology to Iran in violation of the NPT.

So just as Kennedy had to recognize Cuba and Vietnam as proxies of Russia, so does Bush have to treat NorK and Iran as proxies of China.

There are a lot of similarities to the situation today and the CMC. Kennedy's moves in 1962 were probably pretty rash, and led us to the brink of nuclear war. The same thing could easily happen again.
______________________________________________

cheesemouse
01-26-2005, 09:59 PM
Highseas,

I don't mean to highjack this discussion of NKorea, Cuba, and China but these two quotes from your post seem to fly in the face of your support for the war in Iraq....

[ QUOTE ]
&lt;"However, I agree with you that diplomatic measures have not been exhausted. At the same time, we need to be aware that sanctions can only have a limited effect"

&lt;"Right now, we are doing the only thing we can do, and that is trying to resolve the situation diplomatically" <hr /></blockquote>


...it seems your unflagging support of Bushes war in Iraq doesn't support your two reasonalbe statements...correct me if the seeming disparity of lodgic doesn't exist.

The Cheese scrathes his head... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

highsea
01-27-2005, 12:24 AM
The comments were in reference to Iran and North Korea, not Iraq. Apparently you want me to explain why I think the situations are different.

Wrt Iraq:

The US had been trying to enforce the cease-fire agreement in Iraq for 12 years, without success. Sanctions were weakening, and it's pretty clear that Saddam thought he could just wait them out. The official policy of the US was for regime change- a policy that Clinton put in place in 1998.

Bush could have just given up on the UN sanctions, and walked away from the mess. Of course, Congress would have been screaming bloody murder. Given the situation after 9/11, and the fact that our intelligence, and that of our allies said there was a threat, he chose not to do so. Iraq was a case where diplomacy alone was not going to meet our objectives. We either had to abandon the objectives, or take military action.

In hindsight, we can see that the sanctions were fairly effective in dismantling his weapons. Even so, the core capabilities were retained, and there is no doubt in my mind that he would have restarted the programs as soon as he was able. There was a lot of illegal arms traffic across the borders as it was, both from ME countries, and from Europe. The MiG-25 with advanced French avionics that we uncovered in the desert comes to mind. Even the aluminum tubes were against the rules, whether or not they were for centrifuges. Their only other use was for artillery rockets, and those were also under the ban.

I am as well aware as the rest that the intelligence was flawed. But I am not nearly as quick to place all the blame on Bush, as so many here are anxious to do. For one thing, I actually read the Duelfer report. I know how Saddam was trying to deceive the world on his weapons. Unfortunately for him, he did it too well.

And the fact is, the statements on Iraq's threat were coming from both sides of the aisle, and had been for several years. There were calls for the invasion from Dems as well as Reps, and in pretty equal numbers.

I don't believe in being a monday morning quarterback. I would have supported the decision whether it was Bush or Gore in office. I supported Clinton in his sporadic actions against Saddam, though I felt they fell short of what was needed.

We acheived our military goal in Iraq. We took down Saddam and dismantled his army. He will not be a threat to us or his neighbors any more. He will no longer be supporting terrorism in Israel and elsewhere, and he will not be playing any more games of brinkmanship with the US.

Fine. That part's done.

What we need to be doing now, is working to put Iraq back on it's feet so we can get our guys home. This constant bickering helps no one, and spending our days arguing about the decision to go into Iraq and get Saddam is a moot issue. The horse is out of the barn. This mock indignation coming from the left is a shabby example of partisan politics. Their voices were just as loud as the rest before the invasion, so this "righteous indignation" annoys the hell out of me. But I digress.

Wrt Iran and North Korea...

I don't pretend to be a strategic thinker, Cheese. Tactics are more my speed. I prefer to leave the strategic decisions to people who are better equipped to make them.

Regardless, the situations in Iran and North Korea do not parallel well with Iraq. The only parallel with North Korea is that we are enforcing a 50 year old cease fire there, and we were enforcing a 12 year old cease fire in Iraq. At that point the similarities end.

There is too much complexity in the issue to cover here in any comprehensive way, and trying to come up with a combined doctrine for Iraq, Iran, and North Korea can't be done. Each situation has to be dealt with on it's own terms.

So while I supported the invasion of Iraq, based on the information of the day and the official US policy, that doesn't mean that I also have to support an invasion of Iran or North Korea, just because they are belligerent to the US.

In Iran's case, our assessment is that they will implode in the next 10-15 years. The mullah's hold on Iran is unstable, and there is a powerful democracy movement underway. This was not the case in Iraq. If we were to invade Iran, we would solidify the hold that the mullahs have, and the reform movement would be set back.

So anything we can do to prevent them from getting nukes is in order, but an invasion should not be on the table right now. However, we cannot ignore that the mullahs are committed to the destruction of Israel, so it's a race against time. We have to stall Iran's nuclear ambitions without giving the mullah's support from within. So pressure on the EU, Russia, and China to prevent Iran from getting nukes is the logical course of action right now. This has to be tied in with pressure on the IAEA and the UN as well.

We also need to maintain a hard line on Hezbollah. This is a very real threat coming out of Iran, and they have to understand that any International adventures that Hezbollah decides to undertake will be met with immediate retaliation directly on the mullahs.

In North Korea's case, we have China as leverage, if the pressure is applied properly. China does not want a nuclear exchange on the peninsula, and there is a growing refugee problem on their border. There have been signs that China may be planning to get rid of Kim on their own, as they also see him as a destabilizer.

In the last two years, over 100 North Korean Generals have defected to China. Some of these Generals are now commanding PLA troops on the border. Incidentally, these Generals are very popular in North Korea. Last year, China moved the National Police back from the border, and replaced them with PLA troops. On the other side of the border, in some of the northern cities, the portraits and posters of Kim have been disappearing, and not getting replaced. Also last year, a huge explosion narrowly missed Kim's train on his return from a state visit to China. So there are reasons to believe that Kim's hold is weakening. Again, this was not the case in Iraq.

In all three cases, we are (or were) dealing with belligerents as far as their feelings towards the US and/or our allies, but each situation is unique, and has to be adressed on it's own.

Sorry this response got so long, I didn't intend it to drag out so much. It's hard to talk about three different countries/situations in one post.

The reason I asked the question of nAz was to discuss the Iran/North Korea issues in comparison of the CMC. I would hope we can leave this thread for that purpose, and not turn it into another Iraq thread. God knows we have plenty of them as it is. So if you want me to further elaborate on what I have said wrt Iraq, please do what nAz did, and start another thread. If you want to discuss the NorK/Iran parallels to the CMC, then by all means, post your thoughts here.
________________________________________________

Qtec
01-27-2005, 09:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Wrt Iraq:

The US had been trying to enforce the cease-fire agreement in Iraq for 12 years, without success. <font color="blue">??. were any planes shot down or any US personel killed in those 12 years? </font color> Sanctions were weakening, and it's pretty clear that Saddam thought he could just wait them out. <font color="blue">Like he will live forever? </font color> The official policy of the US was for regime change- a policy that Clinton put in place in 1998. <font color="blue">Did it mention invasion? </font color>

Bush could have just given up on the UN sanctions, and walked away from the mess. Of course, Congress would have been screaming bloody murder. Given the situation after 9/11, and the fact that our intelligence, and that of our allies said there was a threat, he chose not to do so. Iraq was a case where diplomacy alone was not going to meet our objectives. We either had to abandon the objectives, or take military action.

In hindsight, we can see that the sanctions were fairly effective in dismantling his weapons. <font color="blue"> Doesnt this conflict with your first sentence? </font color> Even so, the core capabilities were retained, and there is no doubt in my mind that he would have restarted the programs as soon as he was able. There was a lot of illegal arms traffic across the borders as it was, both from ME countries, and from Europe. The MiG-25 with advanced French avionics that we uncovered in the desert comes to mind. Even the aluminum tubes were against the rules, whether or not they were for centrifuges. <font color="blue"> </font color> Their only other use was for artillery rockets, and those were also under the ban.

I am as well aware as the rest that the intelligence was flawed. But I am not nearly as quick to place all the blame on Bush, as so many here are anxious to do. For one thing, I actually read the Duelfer report. I know how Saddam was trying to deceive the world on his weapons. Unfortunately for him, he did it too well.

And the fact is, the statements on Iraq's threat were coming from both sides of the aisle, and had been for several years. There were calls for the invasion from Dems as well as Reps, and in pretty equal numbers.

I don't believe in being a monday morning quarterback. I would have supported the decision whether it was Bush or Gore in office. I supported Clinton in his sporadic actions against Saddam, though I felt they fell short of what was needed.

We acheived our military goal in Iraq. We took down Saddam and dismantled his army. He will not be a threat to us or his neighbors any more. <font color="blue">How many countries bordering Iraq agreed with the invasion? </font color> He will no longer be supporting terrorism in Israel and elsewhere, and he will not be playing any more games of brinkmanship with the US.

Fine. That part's done.

What we need to be doing now, is working to put Iraq back on it's feet so we can get our guys home. This constant bickering helps no one, and spending our days arguing about the decision to go into Iraq and get Saddam is a moot issue. The horse is out of the barn. This mock indignation coming from the left is a shabby example of partisan politics. Their voices were just as loud as the rest before the invasion, so this "righteous indignation" annoys the hell out of me. But I digress.

<hr /></blockquote>

That the US army is in Iraq today is a moot point. How they got there isnt. The tubes, the yellowcake affair and the susequent outing of a CIA agent has not been resolved.
web page (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/09/leak.main/)
Whether or not it was a good thing to depose Saddam is one thing. How the Govt got the support needed to carry out this objective is another.
The fact remains that after 911, the US policy did a 180 degree turnaroud on Iraq, without it being based on any new reasonable evidence. The fact remains that only 9 months or so before, GW himself had taken Iraq of the list of countries supporting terrorists!
The only conclusion /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif can be that the Govt USED the patriotism that was generated in the TT attack. They used every possible worst case senario to strike fear and terror into the hearts of their own citizens.

If you are really concerned with freedom and liberty and Democracy, you have to believe in truth. If you cant believe that your own President and his closest staff are telling the truth when it comes to something as serious as war...............
If its doesnt bother you then thats worse.

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
01-27-2005, 09:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

Sanctions were weakening, and it's pretty clear that Saddam thought he could just wait them out. <font color="blue">Like he will live forever? </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

Apparently you have never heard of Fidel Castro.