Sam Harris

[quote author=“Humble Servant”]You stated that you believe that North Korea has WMD’s because it has a nuclear reactor. As you know you don’t need a nuclear reactor for chemical and biological weapons.

Oh, definitely not.  I was not aware that laundry list was tallying Kim Jong-il’s stockpile.  Or was it?  Does he have anthrax, VX, sarin, etc?  Again, this is not a rhetorical question.  I simply have not heard any charges leveled against him in this regard.  If they have been, I am not aware.

Thank you for correcting me on smallpox, if you pay attention you will find typos or mispellings everywhere.

I have done a fair amount of study in virology as well as working for a time at the CDC in Atlanta, and do not need to rely on Wikipedia for that.  :D Actually, I did not use Wikipedia at all, except a quick purusal of Kim Jong-il’s biography.

So Josie, you are going on and on complaining about the way Bush handles things, how would you deal with North Korea? If you give them anything they will take it and continue working on their weapons. What would you do?

I would desist in toying around with Kim Jong-il, because at this point it is becoming a playground taunting of whose wee-wee is the biggest.  Bush toppled a sovereign nation on mere suspicion.  What’s he waiting for?  Why the duplicity?  I would far rather support Bush on military action against a proven threat—and I think foreign support would be far easier to obtain than the arm-twisting that went on before the Iraq war. 

We had the no-fly zone in Iraq, we had IAEA inpectors, and still we attacked.  We have none of that in NK and we sit on our hands.  Why?

Bush’s schizophrenic WMD policy toward rogue nations leaves me confused.  Please explain it to me.  No doubt Barney, the White House Scottish terrier, is less confused than I.  (No fair comparing my I.Q. to that of Barney, Humble Servant.  I feel you are poised at this moment to do just that, and it would leave me to question the “humble” part of your appellation.  )

Josie

Josie
The list was in refference to Saddam’s WMD. You stated that he didn’t have any because he didn’t have a nuclear reactor….....remember? I was pointing out that there is other WMD’s that he may have had.

I would desist in toying around with Kim Jong-il, because at this point it is becoming a playground taunting of whose wee-wee is the biggest.

So you would just stop talking, That’s good, but is it going to stop him from working on his weapons program?

I would far rather support Bush on military action against a proven threat—and I think foreign support would be far easier to obtain than the arm-twisting that went on before the Iraq war.

You think it would be easier to get a consensus on North Korea? Well let’s see, you have another nut in Iran who is calling for the destruction of Israel and he is working on a nuclear program. He has also said that the end of the world is just over two years away and he says that he will do everything he can to assist in making that a reality. Do we have a consensus on Iran? Nope, Russia, China, and the Arab states are not on board. You can forget about N.Korea as well.

Bush’s schizophrenic WMD policy toward rogue nations leaves me confused. Please explain it to me.

I did that in my last post. It is not easy taking out a leader or country who has more than enough ready firepower to kill millions in the blink of an eye. If you were a South Korean I think you would have a little different attitude about this.

We are not getting anywhere with this. I do understabd your point though. You hate Bush and anything he ever does will not be good enough. He can’t leave office soon enough. If another Republican takes his place we will just assume all the above relates to him as well.

[quote author=“Humble Servant”]Josie
The list was in refference to Saddam’s WMD. You stated that he didn’t have any because he didn’t have a nuclear reactor….....remember? I was pointing out that there is other WMD’s that he may have had.

I wasn’t quite sure if you were referring to Saddam or Kim Jong-il.  Saddam was in restraint, before we attacked, much more so than either NK or Iran.  And we had a fairly good knowledge of Saddam’s activities, unlike the secretive DPRK.  Saddam did indeed have some of those items on your list. 

However, we did NOT go to war with Iraq based on the fact that he “might” have sarin gas, we went to war based on what Bush and his advisors called FACT, and said was a very real nuclear threat—and over which our European allies and their intelligence agencies sat around scratching their heads and saying, “Uh, guys, we’re with you on most stuff, and there is that whole NATO thing and all, but…we just can’t seem to find any hard evidence for this nuclear program you are so fixated on.  Please help us?”

So they trotted out pictures of defunct chemical weapons facilities than had a layer of dust ten inches thick and hadn’t been used since the first Gulf War and said “SEE?!  We told you so!”  And Tony Blair said, “Good GOD!  Saddam could have a warhead detonating within the borders of Europe in forty-five minutes!”  People in MI-6 were resiging in protest over this information being fed to the public because they did not believe it to be true.  Robin Cook, a prominent member of Tony Blair’s cabinet, also resigned for the same reason.  Claire Short also resigned, though much later.

The weapons never existed, just as European intelligence proclaimed.  I feel like I was lied to by my government.  Can you see why I would feel this way?

So you would just stop talking, That’s good, but is it going to stop him from working on his weapons program?

Kim Jong-il booted the IAEA inspectors out, didn’t he?  After Bush halted the supply of fuel oil and reactor construction.  During the Clinton years, Kim Jong-il agreed to IAEA inspections.  Diplomatically, our country worked directly with his.  He needs this one-on-one treatment to feed his ego.  When he feels slighted, he pulls these little publicity stunts to impress—I am not really sure who.  His fellow rogue-regime cronies.  At any rate, the Bush administration pushes his buttons.  They’ve got their own strategy, I guess.

You think it would be easier to get a consensus on North Korea?

I think hands down it would be easier to obtain European support for action against North Korea than for Iraq.

Well let’s see, you have another nut in Iran who is calling for the destruction of Israel and he is working on a nuclear program. He has also said that the end of the world is just over two years away and he says that he will do everything he can to assist in making that a reality. Do we have a consensus on Iran? Nope, Russia, China, and the Arab states are not on board. You can forget about N.Korea as well.

I pointedly did not draw Iran into the conversation but of course it is much the same.  What will we do with them?  Kick the can?

It is not easy taking out a leader or country who has more than enough ready firepower to kill millions in the blink of an eye.

And yet they were willing enough to do it with Saddam.  Why stop there?

If you were a South Korean I think you would have a little different attitude about this.

Oh, no doubt.  But they might be glad enough to be rid of a can that has been kicked around since the Eisenhower administration.

We are not getting anywhere with this. I do understabd your point though. You hate Bush and anything he ever does will not be good enough. He can’t leave office soon enough. If another Republican takes his place we will just assume all the above relates to him as well.

Assume anything you like.  I was a Republican for most of my life.  Until this administration, in fact.  I did not vote for Clinton.  Right now I do not consider myself part of any political party since there is not a single one that I admire.  Possibly, in a distant way, Ralph Nader.  But I didn’t vote for him.  I voted for Kerry.

I don’t hate Bush.  He just makes me tired.  I wish I could be proud of an American leader, but I realize that that there is no political leader anywhere in the world that I could be proud of.  They’re all fallible and human, they spout ghost-written rhetoric in a pre-election frenzy that is what pollsters think we plebs want to hear, and then they make good on very few or any of the things that put them in office in the first place.  Bush said he’d lower taxes, and he did.  But I left the US just as he came into office (not for that reason) paying $1.10 for a gallon of gas; when I returned to the States, gas was almost three times that amount.

I think we have to ask of any leader, “Is my life any better because of you?”  Is your life better because Bush is in office and not a democrat?  He represents your particular values?  I’ll tell you what I have seen as a result of Bush in office:  our good name has been eroded away in foreign eyes.  There is very little respect for America now among the British public, when there once was a great deal of respect.  Every time Tony Blair was seen publicly with George Bush his ratings plummeted in the polls, and now he avoids it at all costs.

So, you may say, “So what?  Who cares what other countries think of us?” 

It matters.

I don’t hate Bush.  I’ll tell you what I hate.  I hate what is happening to Africa while the rest of the world squabbles amongst themselves.

Josie

Josie

During the Clinton years, Kim Jong-il agreed to IAEA inspections. Diplomatically, our country worked directly with his. He needs this one-on-one treatment to feed his ego. When he feels slighted, he pulls these little publicity stunts to impress—I am not really sure who. His fellow rogue-regime cronies. At any rate, the Bush administration pushes his buttons. They’ve got their own strategy, I guess

True. Why? Because the Clinton administration was helping build nuclear reactors which would assist KJI in his future wepons plans.

I think hands down it would be easier to obtain European support for action against North Korea than for Iraq.

In this case European support may not mean sqaut. What we need is support from Russia and China and firm conviction from South Korea

Quote:
If you were a South Korean I think you would have a little different attitude about this.

Oh, no doubt. But they might be glad enough to be rid of a can that has been kicked around since the Eisenhower administration

Of course they may only have half of the population that they now have.

I pointedly did not draw Iran into the conversation but of course it is much the same. What will we do with them? Kick the can?

So you would support attacking both Iran and North Korea?

I’ll tell you what I have seen as a result of Bush in office: our good name has been eroded away in foreign eyes. There is very little respect for America now among the British public, when there once was a great deal of respect. Every time Tony Blair was seen publicly with George Bush his ratings plummeted in the polls, and now he avoids it at all costs.

So, you may say, “So what? Who cares what other countries think of us?”

It matters.

I don’t care whether it matters or not. What we have to do to be the “America that countries respect” is to always be there for the world when they need help with no thought of our own needs. We have to give till it hurts and sit humbly by as people still complain that we don’t do enough. We have to send food all over the world and give free medicine to whoever needs it with no thought about our own needs. It is OK and expected when we have to step up and defend the imperiled as long as it is not us. Military action is nobel if used for altruistic reasons but if it is to secure our own future then we will be the target of the worlds ridicule. Let the rest of the world step up and do the lions share of the hard work. Let them spend hundreds of billions of dollars feeding, defending and healing the worlds helpless for the next twenty years without even a kind word of thanks then I might care what they think.

I don’t hate Bush.

Could have fooled me.

I’ll tell you what I hate. I hate what is happening to Africa while the rest of the world squabbles amongst themselves.

The UN is headed by an African who could care less about Africa. He has hardly lifted a finger to help Rawanda, Darfur, Somalia, and Liberia other than talk and ask for calm. I see little hope for them in the foreseable future.

[quote author=“Humble Servant”]Josie

During the Clinton years, Kim Jong-il agreed to IAEA inspections. Diplomatically, our country worked directly with his. He needs this one-on-one treatment to feed his ego. When he feels slighted, he pulls these little publicity stunts to impress—I am not really sure who. His fellow rogue-regime cronies. At any rate, the Bush administration pushes his buttons. They’ve got their own strategy, I guess

True. Why? Because the Clinton administration was helping build nuclear reactors which would assist KJI in his future wepons plans.

I think hands down it would be easier to obtain European support for action against North Korea than for Iraq.

Josie? Kim Jong “ill” agreed…? Diplomatically our country worked with his???

How utterly naive. It is common knowledge that Mr Jong “Ill” completely ignored any agreements. He just wanted the technology and Clinton naively “cut a deal” with him. Clinton always talks about “cutting a deal” with despots.

Hey, does the phrase “peace in our time” mean anything to ya?