thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 12, 2005 13:50:45 GMT -5
Jersey: "This is the kind of nonsense and prejudice that adds nothing to this board. The question is irrelevant because Bush has shown no interest in military intervention let alone a coherent policy with respect to North Korea."
1. What prejudice? 2. Isn't calling what you disagree with "nonsense" in itself the kind of non-argument "that adds nothing to this board?" 3. How has Bush's policy differed AT ALL from Clinton's re: NK except that Clinton took NK's word for it they wouldn't restart their nuke problem when they did just that? Other than the fact that Bush has not trusted NK and been made a fool of in so doing, how has his policy differed in any material respect with regard to the 6 nations framework with which we have multilaterally attempted to contain this massive threat? (I'll give you a clue; it hasn't.) 4. How on earth is the question irrelevant? Are all topics that didn't actually happen yet "irrelevant" in a political discussion? That's certainly news to me. There goes about 80% of the acceptable debate then. Of course its relevant. You have made it relevant. WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE HAD BUSH DO re: NK rather than liberate Iraq?
So basically you attack Bush for doing something in Iraq ON THE BASIS that he should have done something in NK. Then I point out the impossibility of that suggestion- and your only response is that you can't talk about what Bush should have done because its "irrelevant?" Oh I see.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Feb 12, 2005 16:58:51 GMT -5
Showcase: "That's some Doctrine this Administration has got going there. Apparently, it boils down to crushing the paper tiger while ignoring the one feeding in the henhouse out back. "
I have read your post three times. If one can't safely assume that you were implying that Bush should have gone straight after NK rather than Iraq in some sort of aggressive fashion, well then I give up. As with any short statement, a message board contributor reader can, unfortunately, read all the subtext into it that he or she wants. However, there's a huge gulf of possibilities between adopting a "hard line" that amounts to ignoring North Korea and attacking across the DMZ. If you don't see that, perhaps you are being disingenuous. [/size][/quote] Ah yes, I forget I you know exactly what's in my head at all times. My comments come against the following backdrop: I thought Iraq was a waste of time before March 2003 and still do. It was a hastily entered-into campaign when there were far more pressing and convincing threats, like North Korea, which has been working on a nuke and the rocket that could deliver it to the US. It is this Administration's self-congratulatory zeal in going after the "axis of evil" in reverse order of threat and difficulty (why boldly proclaiming that it securing the nation and freedom for others_ that annoys me. From 2000 on, when Bush abruptly about-faced on North Korea, there has been a must stronger case to deal with that situation first, since they had both the very real potential to directly threaten the US with a WMD and the zany leader who could decide that maybe it was worth it. I'm not saying that it wouldn't have been difficult, and I certainly didn't imply by necessity (as you seem to believe) that Dubya should have cowboyed-up with Pyonyang as he did with Iraq. However, North Korea's announcement that it "has" developed a nuke simply serves to underscore the empty rhetoric behind this Administrations foreign policy and 'national security' agenda. As for what Dubya could do, maybe sitting down for bi-lateral talks would have been nice. Instead of continuing close flights of EC-135s in the summer of 2000, Dubya could have been enlisting China and Japan (after all, North Korea exists only through the grace of its sponsor, China). But the Pacific Rim has always seemed like an afterthought for this Administration, so while it's disappointing that the Iraqi distraction has (possibly) allowed a greater potential threat to come to fruition, it's not surprising. [/size][/quote] As suggested above, one can infer whatever one wants from a short post on a message board. Whether that inference is the necessary implication, or even fairly drawn from the post itself is another matter entirely. Moreover, I don't think the Administration is being very engaged. Hearing the North Koreans say "we want bi-lateral talks" and then promptly sitting down at a six-party table and drumming your fingers until North Korea changes its mind is hardly meaningful engagement with a volatile adversary that has the very real capacity to directly threaten the mainland US with a WMD.
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Feb 13, 2005 3:55:33 GMT -5
bin, i agree with you that NK has become a convenient point of focus for the ardently anti-bush crowd, but i think that mentioning NK as part of the "axis of evil" was a very poor tactical choice--one that spurred an irrational government towards more rapid nuclear armorment. w/o getting too deep into it, my basic complaint is that bush scored some cheap political points w/o adequately addressing such mention's consequences. but, agreed again, going after them militarily would obviously result in chaos throughout the region and the end of seoul.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 14, 2005 2:06:29 GMT -5
Jersey: "This is the kind of nonsense and prejudice that adds nothing to this board. The question is irrelevant because Bush has shown no interest in military intervention let alone a coherent policy with respect to North Korea." 1. What prejudice? 2. Isn't calling what you disagree with "nonsense" in itself the kind of non-argument "that adds nothing to this board?" 3. How has Bush's policy differed AT ALL from Clinton's re: NK except that Clinton took NK's word for it they wouldn't restart their nuke problem when they did just that? Other than the fact that Bush has not trusted NK and been made a fool of in so doing, how has his policy differed in any material respect with regard to the 6 nations framework with which we have multilaterally attempted to contain this massive threat? (I'll give you a clue; it hasn't.) 4. How on earth is the question irrelevant? Are all topics that didn't actually happen yet "irrelevant" in a political discussion? That's certainly news to me. There goes about 80% of the acceptable debate then. Of course its relevant. You have made it relevant. WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE HAD BUSH DO re: NK rather than liberate Iraq? So basically you attack Bush for doing something in Iraq ON THE BASIS that he should have done something in NK. Then I point out the impossibility of that suggestion- and your only response is that you can't talk about what Bush should have done because its "irrelevant?" Oh I see. 1) I did not mean it in the sense of racial prejudice or something of its ilk. I meant "prejudice" in the sense of prejudging one's political position based on assumptions and gross generalizations, if not the standard party line. 2) The usage of nonsense was directed toward the comments that I quoted in my original post, nothing more and nothing less. What is contained in the quotes is garbage and deserves to be treated as such. Everything else in your original post is worthy of this board's discussion. 4) Again, the comment about relevance was directed toward the comment you made about liberals (which I quoted) and what they would do if Bush pursued belligerence. The basic premises of your "point" were somewhat faulty and based on a series of assumptions, if I remember correctly. So, I saw the relevance and value of your conjecture to be limited. On the other hand, fair point that politics is often about the future, but this is often done in the context of a serious evaluation of positions and so forth. More often than not in serious political discussions with a level of mutual respect (not necessarily what we see on the Hill because that is often shenanigans), this is done in a tenor that is distinct from what you offered in your original post. I'd be happy to have a discussion on some of these issues with people who are willing to admit mistakes on both sides. You have failed to do that so far as I can tell in this thread, although maybe you agree wholeheartedly with the "policy" that the Bush administration pursued. I may get to point 3 sometime during the week, although my board time and focus is on the Hoyas at this point. Any focus that I might have in that response will be on what I perceive to be the limitations of American grand strategy at this time and would not necessarily focus on NK per se. My issue with the Bush foreign policy is that it is overly reductionist to the extent that they have applied largely a Cold War-esque framework upon a transnational issue, terrorism, which simply defies that kind of categorization. In the meantime, they have ignored or not focused enough on what I deem to be more pressing geostrategic issues, such as the emergence of China (and concomitant issue of Taiwan) and the EU. In the long run, I believe that both of these actors represent greater challenges to the United States' hegemonic status than terrorist organizations. So, if the goal is to preserve our great power status as it should be, I see US grand strategy as sorely lacking. Again, this doesn't speak directly to the issue of NK, but I think it might add some perspective as to where I'm coming from on Bush's foreign policy at this time. Also, don't make any comments about my position on X, Y, and Z without knowing what it is. I said nothing about Bush's policy in iraq and the supposed linkage that I made between NK and Iraq. I see the two as separate in spite of the nonsensical "Axis of Evil" categorization. Anyway, your making this methodological leap of faith suggests to me that you like to prejudge folks on policy issues and categorize them into your pre-packaged labels that correspond to some of the Rovian buzzwords that rally the Republican base on command. It is time that people who are serious about analyzing politicals in an intellectual manner move past that kind of thing.
|
|