A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent.You're here, you've consented. If you don't like it, go read some other goddamn blog. It's not as if you're paying me.
11 comments:
You are right.
Then again, "Rational" and "Diplomacy" haven't worked for many years when it comes to North Korea.One must talk to one's adversary in a language he understands. North Korea can't seem to understand diplomacy, so.....
You take everything TheDonald says too literally, and get way too worked up about it.
Wait and see what happens, You and I can't change it anyway....
Actually, North Korean understands (and exploits) diplomacy quite well. They have watched (and learned) as Iraq was falsely accused of possessing WMD’s above and beyond their limited toxic gas program, and then invaded and overthrown because the U.S. knew the accusations were false. They have watched (and learned) as a Libyan government gave up a WMD program and got overthrown. They have watched (and learned) as Iran is pressured into downgrading their program and in exchange is threatened more.
They have successfully developed nuclear weapons, they have successful intermediate range missiles, they have hostages (in the form of South Korea and a few hundred thousand U.S. troops) nearby. North Korea could lob nukes at Japan, South Korea and Australia and the U.S. would still be constrained in their response from using more than a few (if any) nukes themselves. The geography of this confrontation is extremely unfavorable to the United States and its allies.
So North Korea’s nuclear program was slowly greatly under Clinton, then Bush II’s axis of evil movement put them back on the boil. Obama and Trump faced/face an atomic/nuclear armed North Korea and their approaches are very different. Note the threats to the U.S. have ratcheted up under Trump well beyond levels that occurred under Obama.
As for “tak(ing) everything TheDonald says too literally”, the problem is that on this subject, any possible miscommunication threatens WWIII. He is a child throwing a tantrum, and faced with a moody teen with his own anger issues.
According to Lawrence Wilkerson, who actually worked on diplomacy with North Korea, they do actually respond to it. You just have to actually, you know, use it.
Threats of annihilation are not, in fact, diplomacy.
Good faith offers of concessions (like the postponement of military exercises for a while during negotiations) are diplomacy, and only grade school level morons like Fergus (and most of the neocons) see it as weakness.
Adult professionals in the field know that you don't browbeat countries into doing your bidding. What possible reason would North Korea have for just complying with an obvious madman's insulting orders?
They do have an army, you know. They point that out a whole lot.
So even Fergus has to know that they will not simply roll over and do his bidding.
As crazy as you believe them to be (an ironic charge, given our current president) they have goals and interests like everyone else, and can be worked with by understanding just what those are.
And seriously, if you were Kim Jong un, wouldn't you want to have nuclear weapons?
How else would you get the US, China, and Russia to treat you like an actual country? Hint: how did the US, China, and Russia come to their own diplomatic standing with one another?
And what do you have as an example of a brutal dictator who gave up his nuclear ambitions like Libya did, or even negotiated them away like Iran?
Do either of those countries look like something you would shoot for as a model of how your country deals with the world?
The problem with saying "do it or else" is the implied question "or else what?"
When Fergus can answer that question with something better than "or I'll blow you up" then I'll listen to what he has to say.
Until then, I'll keep working to get the congress out of Republican hands and containing the damage he's doing to the country and its government.
-Doug in Oakland
So diplomacy, as (supposedly) practiced by the Obama worked? Don't see it. They ignored Barry and did what they wanted. Which is why we are where we are with their Nukes today.
Barry got nowhere with your version of "diplomacy". Not blaming him, mind you, it is NK that failed (but did they fail? They kept everyone talking while they developed nukes...). Diplomacy assumes both sides are wanting to find a solution. NK doesn't. Nor, I think, does the Donald.
But your version of Diplomacy gave us NK with nukes. I fail to see how Donnie could make it worse, really.
B., no Bush Jr’s Axis of Evil broke the atomic arms race open, by the time Obama was in office, there was no way to stop them...as there’s no way now.
1) Conventional attack - Millions dead in the two Koreas, and hundreds of thousands of Americans dead, a world blaming the U.S.
2) Nuclear strike - Tens of millions dead in the Koreas, hundreds of thousands of Americans dead initially, millions later dead from a Korean device detonated in the Continental U.S., Russian and Chinese casualties in unknown numbers, the world blaming the U.S.
3) Limited Nuclear strike - See conventional attack.
The ugly reality is that the world disapproves of North Korea’s actions, but as long as they don’t attack someone, there is no real justification to attack them. They withdrew from the NPT, prohibiting them from launching satellites is unjust (and, yes, I know it’s a means of testing ICBM’s) and we can no longer argue that only North Koreas leader is too irrational to control nukes.
Y'all oughta read this:
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/index.php?itemid=442
B ,
If your not mobilizing troops diplomacy is working . Kim has the weapons that he feels will make him a respected player on the world stage .
His next move is to thaw relations with his neighbours . and he doesn't have to move very far to isolate the USA from it's allies in the area .
As for taking the presidents words too literally the world doesn't , they're making provision move forward with out the US as a key player .
Glenn
I am frankly astonished at the apologists for North Korea here.
North Korea uses diplomacy to delay actions while they develop nuclear weapons systems. No diplomacy has accomplished much, and their violation of diplomatic agreements is being conveniently forgotten.
How can North Korea be treated like an actual country? They could maybe act like one. Their South Korea is an excellent example of a respected country; there is no reason the North could not have done the same.
North Korea has attacked others- remember the still technically ative Korean War? Ever heard of the Japanese and South Koreans they have kidnapped? They open fire occaisionally across the border, they sank a South Korean naval vessel recently- they use the weapons they have, and I expect them to use nuclear weapons for similar easons eventually.
The Korean War was started by an invasion of the South by the North. That is why Team Spirit exists. Team Spirit is an exercise, not an invasion, to practice what to do the next time North Korea invades. Demanding concessions before entering diplomatic talks is just a way to avoid talks the North isn't interested in having at all.
The only thing anyone is telling North Korea is "stop attacking and threatening to attack with nuclear weapons". Trump may be responding in an undiplomatic way, but he is responding to threats, not initiating them. Nobody wants to invade North Korea, however many of its citizens want to be freed from their despots. No administration has made any progress with preventing North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons.
And thinking the world is planning to "move forward with out the US as a key player"; no. We are too big and too important.
3383: My uncle fought in the Korean war, so yes, I have heard of it. And you find a country who doesn't do your bidding to be illegitimate? Wouldn't that have described us in the late eighteenth century?
And as for us being "too big and important", how's that working out with the TPP?
That whole serving of hubris as the "foreign policy" our semiliterate president is trying to use (and getting eaten as a light snack by actual powerful countries) is stupid at best, and damaging to our standing in the world.
And B:"So diplomacy, as (supposedly) practiced by the Obama worked?"
Col. Wilkerson was Colin Powell's chief of staff during the Bush administration, the way I remember it.
There are some jobs, and diplomat is one of them, that have to be done to the same standards regardless of the party affiliation of the current president, and carry the same consequences for failing to do so.
-Doug in Oakland
3383, well it worked for the Soviets, it works for the Israelis, it worked for the Chinese.
Here’s the real pisser, why do we get to say they can’t have nuclear weapons? No, honestly, why? Because we invented them? Well, we actually built on German, Austrian and British science...so they should all be allowed to have nukes? Wait, the British do have nukes, and so do the French, but they are our friends, so that’s OK? What about India and Pakistan, they have nukes, so what don’t we demand they (and all the others) disarm? The reason, as you should know, is a (secure)nuke is an effective deterrent device against a larger power.
The Pakistanis HAD to get nukes after the Indians got theirs. Saudi Arabia reportedly has a agreement to obtain nukes, if needed I response to an Israeli threat. The USSR needed them to deter the U.S. (and no, that isn’t bullshit...the Soviets feared that the Western Allies were gonna roll into Eastern Europe and through to the USSR, and our military leaders mooted as much).and China needed it to deter the U.S. first, then Russia (don’t forget the plans to use nukes in Korea).
On the whole, we all know that the Norks won’t toss the first nuke, because they are weaker in both conventional and nuclear forces. But it is critical they get a way to strike the U.S. directly to ensure deterrence. As for conventional war, they would lose in the end and lose the opinion battle of they started it...but since a state of war still exists, the Sabre rattling is expected, and not just the Norks do it.
3383
History is littered with countries that were to big and important to be ignored .
Trump thinks that he can treat sovereign countries like small contractors . Not honour his commitments and move on to another.
He can withdraw from TPP and terminate the NAFTA and all he will have done is disadvantage US manufacture .
Since the NAFTA came into effect US manufacture has doubled but the work force is a quarter of what it was .
Those jobs didn't go overseas .
Glenn
Post a Comment