Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do We Bomb Iran Now To Teach North Korea A Lesson?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 09:26 AM
Original message
Do We Bomb Iran Now To Teach North Korea A Lesson?
Edited on Sun Oct-15-06 10:18 AM by bigtree
October 15, 2006


A loud noise at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. --Knox


When Bush was asked in a Rose Garden news conference this month whether his administration was to blame for North Korea get nuclear weapons while he bogged our troops down in Iraq, "North Korea," Bush pointed out, "had been trying to acquire bombs and weapons for a long period of time, long before I came into office," he explained.

"Accountability," Bush argued then, "lies with North Korea, not in Washington."

That's the same tack Bush took in his radio address this week as he defensively spelled out his objections to North Korea's apparent test of their nukes; telling Americans and the world how he now intended to respond, and conveniently dodging blame for his five years of inaction while North Korea built bombs.

Bush had his own little summary of the history, as he saw it, behind the development and escalation of North Korea's nuclear arsenal, which began with a predictable feint from responsibility and ended with a "dog ate his homework" defense: "After I came to office (in 2001)," he said, "we discovered that North Korea had been violating this agreement . . . my administration confronted the North Korea regime with this evidence in 2002 . . . the North Koreans subsequently walked away from the 1994 agreement . . . we brought together other nations in the region in an effort to resolve the situation through multilateral diplomacy (ditching unilateral talks) . . . and, unfortunately, North Korea failed to act on its commitment."

From the time Bush ascended to office in 2001, to the end of 2006, Bush sat on his hands as North Korea built up its nuclear arsenal. Bush expected everyone else in the world except his administration to talk to North Korea because he wasn't interested, despite the fact that he has based his entire missile-defense posture around the possibility of a nuclear attack from rogue states like North Korea. Bush invaded and occupied Afghanistan, invaded and occupied Iraq, fostered and facilitated Israel's invasion of Lebanon, yet, failed to directly confront the one nation which is actively threatening the U.S. and the world, and which appears to be in possession of the nuclear means to carry out the threat; unlike the other hapless victims of his Mideast coups.

Bush was asked in 2002 why he was going after Saddam who had no WMDs, and not doing anything to North Korea for walking away from their 1994 agreement. Why, Bush was asked, should we be more worried about Saddam Hussein, who has no nuclear weapons, than Kim Jong-il, who is unstable and does have nuclear weapons?

"First of all," Bush told reporters, "I think it's important to remember that Saddam Hussein was close to having a nuclear weapon. We don't know whether or not he has a nuclear weapon."

"Secondly," Bush said, "the international community has been trying to resolve the situation in Iraq through diplomacy for 11 years . . ." Eleven years?! Is that how long North Korea though they had in 2002 before Bush would get serious? No wonder Kim Jong-il assumed he was free to continue building his arsenal. Bush has been so hot on using our military to defend against these other imagined threats to our security that it would seem a 'slam-dunk' that North Korea would get the military works from the invader-in chief. But, all Bush can manage to do and say as Kim Jong-il plays chicken this time, is to hide behind his "partners in the region" and threaten the regime, again, with "serious repercussions."

Where does Bush see his responsibility in delivering those repercussions he has promised; the repercussions that were due North Korea from the moment he "came to office" and discovered they were in violation? What did he do when he discovered they were in violation of the 1994 bilateral agreement? By his own explanation, Bush waited a year, until 2002, to "confront North Korea with the evidence." He then, simply, allowed North Korea to walk away from the treaty.

Bush's response to the rogue regime was to step back even further from directly confronting Kim Jong-il, and leave that job to China and others as he hid behind his carefully constructed wall of the 'six-party talks' and ducked accountability for allowing the certain violations to continue unabated. Bush is still committed to outsourcing responsibility to the rest of the world for following through on his many ultimatums to North Korea, his swaggering declarations that NK wouldn't be allowed to build their weapons with impunity.

The "serious repercussions" he says North Korea are due will apparently not come in the form of the 'shock and awe' that he insisted Iraq deserved for Saddam's intransigence in making the details of his arsenal available to U.N. inspectors. In the case of North Korea, for Bush, repercussions are to be "negotiated with those in the region." Bush is vowing to "pursue a diplomatic solution" to Kim Jong-il's intransigence. It's in sharp contrast with the fervor and zeal in which encouraged the nation and the world to join him in as he rushed to invade and occupy Iraq.

It shouldn't be seen as so far fetched to suggest that Bush doesn't give a wit at all about North Korea's apparent massing and testing of their nuclear arsenal. Bush waited and watched as Kim Jong-il built up his nuclear arsenal, all the while insisting that we direct the bulk of our defenses to Iraq, where there was no threat at all to our nation. Afghanistan gets only a miserly fraction of the forces Bush put in Iraq as bin-Laden and his accomplices find refuge in the mountains which border Pakistan. How can anyone look at the way Bush has committed our forces and conclude that he's at all serious about actually confronting the most pernicious threats we actually face?

Bush's explanation for his own failure to directly confront North Korea is that Kim Jong-il "failed to act," rather than the more obvious impression he's sending North Korea, and by extension, Iran, of his own unwillingness to act against the defiant regime. The example Bush provided the world in his invasion, occupations, and military muckraking in Iraq and Afghanistan is that our great military power's leader is more content with coveting his conquered prizes, than he is in directly confronting any of the antagonists he's presented as the primary provocateurs of our apocalypse.

Japan has already invited Lockheed's military-industrial warriors to install more of their 'missile defense' boondoggle as a counter to the North Korean aggression. Poland and other Central European nations have, so far, resisted the Bush cabal's hard-sell of similar U.S. 'missile defense' technology on their soil to counter the administration's hyped threat from Iran. Where is the incentive for Bush to actually stop North Korea? He and the industry cronies that he's packed into his Executive offices recognize the political value of maintaining the public perception of a potential threat from North Korea to keeps pressure on Congress at appropriation time.

Why would a "nuclear-free Korean peninsula" need an extensive, costly missile-defense system? Instead of direct diplomacy with North Korea, Iran, and others, Bush is resigning us to these 'cold war' confrontations that allow the antagonists to inflate whatever threat they pose as he zealously inflates our own nation's potential for unleashing devastating, destructive reprisals and pads the bank accounts of his military-industry benefactors. Bush is unconcerned about his own ineptness in confronting the forces massing against our nation, because he's measuring his own importance against the threats that he intends to bequeath to future generations rather than solve.

Former U.S. Secretary Baker, leading the 'Iraq Study Group', created last March by Congress, argues in their 'Stability First' document that, it's important to "work toward political accommodation with insurgents . . ." Baker has been openly encouraging Bush to begin direct talks with countries he's been isolating in his rhetoric, like Syria and Iran. The elders want a solution, and have signaled their exasperation with the younger Bush's crusades. Bush should recognize how far out of line he is as Baker, still strongly in support of the continued occupation, is advocating talking with our nation's enemies. Perhaps they're hamstrung because Bush isn't seen as any more credible in the world community than Kim Jong-il.

The North Korean strongman couldn't have missed the irony in Bush's call for a "nuclear-free, Korean peninsula as the American president actively pursues new nuclear weapons for the U.S. arsenal, with new justifications for their use centering on the potential threat from North Korea. Kim Jong-il couldn't have missed the scrapping of a generation of nuclear disarmament without so much as a blink as the Bush regime turned their backs on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to facilitate their own rush to fiddle with our stockpile. As the Korean head of state complains that he considers Bush's actions and those of the security council threats to his regime, the administration's nuclear hypocrisy makes those threats credible, if only in North Korea's view.

Bush deliberately missed the point of North Korea's rattling of their nuclear war chest just so he could maintain whatever air of fear he could manage to transfer to Americans over the suspected nuclear tests. North Korea, like other nations who seek nuclear power, is trying to gain a level of attention and involvement from the world which is normally only afforded to nuclear states. Kim Jong-il must have been wondering what it would take to re-focus the attention of the U.S. and the world on his impoverished nation as Bush seemed more disinterested in every successive nuke the regime announced.

The Korean strongman must have been thinking that he couldn't have misunderstood the signals Bush was sending by virtually ignoring his nuclear build-up while digging our forces even further into Iraq. Kim Jong-il's bombs must have bored Bush. There's no oil in North Korea for Bush to exploit, so he'll make do with spreading around whatever fear he can siphon out of the festering holes that a bored Jong-il has apparently taken to carving out of the North Korean countryside with his nuclear toys.

Spreading fear is what Bush and his republican party have been banking on as they conduct their smear and fear campaigns, questioning patriotism, boasting about whatever scheme they imagine they're running behind the deaths and sacrifices of the soldiers they sent to fight and die on a whim. Kim Jong-il is more than welcome in their antagonists' club, along with the deposed Saddam and the elusive bin-Laden and associates.

If Jong-il keeps it up, any day now we could be hearing tantalizing excerpts from his revolutionary speeches dutifully repeated by Bush alongside of the fear snippets from al-Qaeda he's fond of throwing into the middle of his fundraising appeals. By doing nothing more than running his mouth with his hands in his pockets, Bush can help return North Korea to the top of his evil axis pyramid. Just like he did in invading Iraq when confronted with bin-Laden in Afghanistan, Bush is free-and-clear now to bomb Iran in order to give North Korea the attention they've earned.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. bush** is a stupid dummy with Dick Cheney's hand up his ass. What
else could these clowns say? Cheney's company and Rumsfeld are the two biggest dealers in nuclear technology on the planet earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. Bush is still putting provisions in the defense and energy bills for nukes
research and development, money still flowing to the industry regulars even though Congress has repeatedly rejected the nuclear weapons agenda at every instance outside of basic infrastructure for research.

NK and Iran say they're building up to defend agaisnt a nuclear attack by us. Everything this admnistration does makes that appear credible. Even if I don't think it'll happen, it doesn't mean Jong-il has all his facts and faculties in order to rationalize it out the same way. These idiots in the White House just add to the threat, let it fester, escalate it. They're dangerous for America and for the rest of the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chat_noir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
2. Boldt of the Calgary Sun...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. heh
love it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
4. Of course we attack Iran
Iran has oil and is years away from a bomb.

It only makes sense to the neocons
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. they want to suppress Iran's oil business more than anything else
reduce their influence with Russia and China that they're getting from the oil deals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dubykc Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
5. That thought isn't that far fetched...
Especially considering the number of cruise missiles that will be well within striking distance of Iran in just a few days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. coupled with the prospect of Bush's dwindling influence
his last chance to play military commander, look for some glory in Iran to offset the Iraq failure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
6. NKorea is no longer a military target because.....
.... there are 1 million NKorean troops near the border with SKorea, and thousands of rockets aimed directly at Seoul. Plus the US has 30,000 troops in danger stationed along the DMZ.

WE cannot stop a massive invasion of SKorean if NKorea decides to take that action.
And SKorea will be completely destroyed if military action is initiated.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Many 'insiders' believe the attack on Iran will be handed off to Israel...
...with the US providing support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. I guess the insiders should have stepped outside
to see the carrier task force sail off to IRAN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. storm's 'a brewin'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. I actually think the reaction would be worse if Israel attacked
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. all sorts of hell could break out if we 'attacked'
there's still no guarantee Jong-il won't flip on his own, in response to the sanctions. Invasion of S.Korea has got to be just one of many potential devastating reactions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chat_noir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
15. found some old political cartoons from 2003






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-15-06 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. sad that it's so obvious
to everyone but Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-16-06 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
17. That Axis of Evil: It's here now. Thank you Bush.
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Wednesday, Oct. 11, 2006, at 4:23 PM ET

In his first State of the Union Address in January 2002, George W. Bush deployed the expression "axis of evil" to describe the governments of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Critics jumped on the president for his belligerent rhetoric. But the problem with Bush's formulation wasn't his use of the term "evil," a perfectly apt description of the regimes of Saddam Hussein, the Iranian mullahs, and Kim Jong-il. The real issue was with the "axis" part. With the reference to the Axis powers of World War II, Bush suggested that there was some sort of alliance or cooperation among these three enemies of the United States. His turn of phrase indicated that they represented a unitary problem and implied that in taking on one, America would be dealing with all three.

Nearly five years later, we can see the damage caused by the president's too-cute slogan and the muddled thinking behind it. By failing to distinguish clearly among the overlapping security threats presented by rogue states, nuclear proliferators, and supporters of terrorism, Bush helped bring his own nightmare to life. Thanks to his foreign policy, many of the world's dictators do now function as a kind of anti-American axis, in a way they didn't when he made that speech.

Let's look back at the members circa 2002. Though they shared an interest in proliferating and were all brutal violators of human rights, the regimes in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea posed distinct and very different problems for American foreign policy. Saddam's Baath fascists in Iraq were shooting at American planes in the no-fly zone and defying the international community over sanctions and inspections. But as we now know, they weren't major sponsors of terrorism, and were nowhere near building, buying, or giving nukes to others. The theocrats in Iran, on the other hand, had a long history of backing anti-American terrorists and presented a longer-term proliferation threat. North Korea's Stalinists were stroking their fuel rods, menacing the South as usual, and counterfeiting dollars, but not supporting terrorism. All three regimes were hostile to the United States, but their animosity wasn't synchronized in any meaningful way.

Now, consider the axis today. Our attacking Iraq prompted Muammar Qaddafi, a Little Brother of Evil, to put up his hands and surrender his nuclear effort. But Iran and North Korea drew from Bush's idealist invasion the realist lesson that only a nuclear deterrent could preserve them from regime change. Kim, in particular, seems to have taken the point that the American war machine could instantly pulverize his tanks and missiles massed along the DMZ. This meant he needed to accelerate his deterrent efforts by trying out his Pacific-spanning Long Dong missile and cramming for a nuclear test. Bush's adamant policy of nondiscussion made matters worse, ensuring that neither country would slow down or back away from its atomic rush. He might just as well have announced a prize for the first successful detonation.

Thank you, Mr President, for giving us the axis of evil.

full article: http://www.slate.com/id/2151353/nav/tap1/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC