posted
Just a few minor clarifications, and they both deal with two of Kerry's comments.
One was the pot shot concerning the subway system during the Republican National Convention and how Kerry addressed it as not functional because of Bush's inadequate funding of domestic programs, including police and fire departments (as well as public transportation):
Isn't this the same party that was encouraging Democrats to fire tons of ammo or practically bathe in gunpowder to throw off bomb squad dogs into believing there was a bomb on the subway, essentially paralyzing the entire system and disrupting the convention? The whole idea is blatant terrorism itself, not to mention a waste of good ammo.
Two, Kerry chastised George H.W. Bush for not pressing further into Iraq and getting Saddam Hussein during the first Iraq war, Desert Storm. I had this professor, a quirky but very well-informed Colenol Lilly, US Army, ret. who was an expert in Middle Eastern and Russian affairs. He was "in-house" when the Iraq/Iran war was in full force and was hushed into Iran during the hostage crisis of the Carter Administration.
He claims that Bush and the coalition of Desert Storm wanted to go all the way to Baghdad and literally bag Saddam Hussein. A "coalition" of the neighboring Middle Eastern countries quietly informed Bush and company that the liberation of Kuwait was something they could tolerate, but not the removal of Hussain from power. (His brother, King Hussain must have helped immensely in this protest against the Coalition Forces). They basically assured Bush that if Saddam were touched that all hell would break loose in the Middle East.
I wonder if this information concerning the first Desert Storm is accurate. It sounds right, but that does not mean much. Many Americans sat at home wondering the same thing: Why not just take out Saddam Hussein? This explanation answers that question effectively.
The more intriguing question becomes: If the info were true and both candidates knew it, then why bring it up? Was Kerry baiting Bush? or did Bush know why and Kerry did not, and Bush did not want to reveal something that a retired Colenol would tell a bunch of college students?
Maybe I am just over-analyzing it all!
P.S. Colenol Lilly once threatened to shoot me because I wore a hat in class the first day, and wearing a hat in the military signifies that a soldier is carrying a weapon. He was fascinating to listen to...
quote:Two, Kerry chastised George H.W. Bush for not pressing further into Iraq and getting Saddam Hussein during the first Iraq war, Desert Storm.
That's false. Kerry said George H.W. Bush was RIGHT in his assessment. He chastised George W Bush for forgetting that assessment.
Here's the quote:
quote:You know, the president's father did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, beyond Basra. And the reason he didn't is, he said -- he wrote in his book -- because there was no viable exit strategy. And he said our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land.
posted
Yes, the US wanted to go all the way, but the coalition did not. The two Husseins are unrelated, however.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alucard, your professor's insight is not inconsistent with Kerry's contention that Bush's father recognized that an invasion of Iraq would be seen as an occupying force and would ultimately result in an unwinnable situation for America.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Isn't this the same party that was encouraging Democrats to fire tons of ammo or practically bathe in gunpowder to throw off bomb squad dogs into believing there was a bomb on the subway, essentially paralyzing the entire system and disrupting the convention? The whole idea is blatant terrorism itself, not to mention a waste of good ammo.
Um, no. The Democratic Party CERTAINLY did no such thing. And the idea that anybody suggested this, other than pseudo-outraged republican New Yorkers, was pretty well debunked on this board a month or so ago.
Find proof. Not a right wing website claiming that it happened. Find the alleged website, or at least a neutral source reporting on the website (as opposed to reporting on what the neocon magazines are saying about it).
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for clarifying the clarification! I would have to read his book to better understand what Kerry remarked on. But yes, we would have been in a very similar situation having to rebuild and police a country with hostile neighbors. But the question I am trying to get answered is:
How did the situation change from Desert Storm? Did the neighboring countries concede and let GWB finally take out Saddam?, or did GWB go in Texas-style and shoot-em-up with little regard for what the neighbors thought?
MrSquicky,
Yes I am serious. That would be a true waste of ammo.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
King Hussein, who is now dead, was royalty but nevertheless a fairly progressive leader who married a Western woman later in life. His son now rules Jordan.
Saddam Hussein is not royalty in any sense I am aware of. He pretty much clawed his way up from the lower or at least middle class through strategic maniacal genius.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saudi Arabia kept American troops ever since the first Gulf war in case Saddam attacked again. Iran was nervous about Iraq, but that's nothing new.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How did the situation change from Desert Storm? Did the neighboring countries concede and let GWB finally take out Saddam?, or did GWB go in Texas-style and shoot-em-up with little regard for what the neighbors thought?
I think the president clearly answered this questions in tonight's debate. He said 9/11 changed everything. He also said that he is willing to do things that make us unpopular in the international community as long as those decisions are right for America.
As for the gunpowder thing, I think that's a fairly serious accusation and you should back it up with some links to serious news organizations, or, at the very least, a really funny blog entry.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
I was under the impression that King Hussein of Syria and Saddam were brothers! I might have to study a bit more.
As far as the gunpowder issue, please excuse me and forget I brought it up. I know full well that the Democratic Party has nothing to do with such actions, but individuals are free to do as they please.
I am sure Jerry Garcia of the Greatful Dead did not want dead heads worshipping him as God and would publically not support it either. Some things are just inherently wrong.
I concede the whole gunpowder thing, but why did John Kerry bring it up? And why did Bush not bite on it?
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
The first I heard of it was on the way home from work on AmeriRight radio on XM radio. Naturally, they mentioned several websites advocating this attack, but did not name them. Also, this is a horribly biased news source and the timing was a few days prior to the RNC.
Sorry I ruffled so many feathers!
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ALucard, The point I think you're missing is that it didn't happen. The subway was shut down, but not because there were hordes of protestors drenched in gunpowder trying to shut it down. That's just a completely unsubstantiated rumor from the more extreme conservative blogs.
edit: I don't think we were particularly upset about it. I know I wasn't. I was embarrassed for you.
I know, because many of the royal family ent to Johns Hopkins University (many to the medical school), and he was supposed to talk at my commencement, but sadly died a few months beforehand.
quote: I don't think we were particularly upset about it. I know I wasn't. I was embarrassed for you.
Hey thanks! But I embrace my ignorance like the fat hairy guy at the football game with his shirt off and rainbow wig on! No need to pity me, I am the first to admit I am out of my league in politics on this forum. To sound really smart, I have to hang out at the ATVForum...
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, he didn't bite on it because it's an easily debunkable bullsh!t allegation?
quote:I am sure Jerry Garcia of the Greatful Dead did not want dead heads worshipping him as God and would publically not support it either. Some things are just inherently wrong.
I concede the whole gunpowder thing, but why did John Kerry bring it up? And why did Bush not bite on it?
What an incredibly irresponsible bit of innuendo.
If anything, the Republicans were the ones who wanted it done, since only Republican websites mention it.
-o-
I think you misinterpret. Nobody's feathers are ruffled by your bold and disturbing points. Rather, people are frustrated that you started a thread allegedly about clarifying half-digested ideas, quickly made two clearly false statements (the other one being the misstatement that the Husseins were brothers), and haven't really backed down on either.
posted
Can someone clarify for me which candidate's position on North Korea is correct? Why are bilateral talks superrior to multi-party talks involving China?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Sorry to upset you. I found this excerpt that states a conversation of Saddam Hussein's from 1990. In a very brotherly way, he refers to many other leaders of other countries as "brother". I was completely wrong. I'd edit or delete my post if I thougt it would help, but it would only make your necessary corrections look strange. Sorry!
I do not mean to take the stance that I am not "backing down". I am just trying to clarify why my posts were so wrong, that's all.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correct? Who knows. But I do know that for the entire time we stayed in talks with NK, things kept getting better in the region (slow military stand-down, increased trade, unified national sentiments, and more). After Bush pulled us out of talks with NK, the situation got worse.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
King Hussein of Jordan (actually I believe there has been more than one by that name) is most definitely NOT related to Saddam. Jordan is actually one of the more benevolent and progressive countries in the region though it is the most resource poor. Jordan was also I believe the first country to quietly build mutual ties with Isreal. Not something that's talked about. The only thing that is an issue is the Palestinians, and one of the reasons why Jordan has kept them in camps is because they couldn't handle the tax on their own poor economy, though I believe it is still easier for palstinian to become a citizen in Jordan than any of the other neighboring countries which have deliberately denied citizenship to Palestinian refugees, in order to use them as a group as political tools.
Very interesting. I just wanted to quote a section, because the entire thing is like a novella:
quote: There's a terrible practice going on at the moment, internally in the DPRK, and there's not enough food and there's a lot of people dying. So foreign economic inter-reaction should reinforce the positive aspects of the development of marketization, should insist on transparency, proper accounting practices, value for money, and through the process of investment and trade, should help to build viable economic institutions including banking, credit and legal systems. So we should be thinking collectively, this isn't just the Sunshine policy, but for all of those with an interest in this, not just about how much is being invested in the DPRK, but how it is being done. I think the South Korean government is in a position, permit me for being impertinent and saying this because it's not my country, where it could, for instance, develop a code of practice for the modalities of investing in the DPRK. We could also be considering policy recommendations, for instance, such as a very light inter-governmental and regional framework for investment in the DPRK, which would involve the DPRK to pan-China, South Korean and Russian, not a U.N. DP, with all U.N., with all its bureaucracy and more for those of you that know the history of the European integration set-up, the European call them sealed communities, functional, as the earlier speaker said, at organization with a technocractic secretary rather than a big, you know, massive organization with integration. This I think helps resolve the sovereignty issue for the PDRK. And in many instances, DPRK's looking for ways to, in my view, to move forward, but to save face. We can go into the details of this. A multinational organization precisely as this happened in other multinational organizations, allows the government which is receiving and having to do things it doesn't want to do, to say, oh, it's not somebody else telling us what to do, another government, it's actually we're doing this for tactical reasons. Also, any inputs that should come forward should come forward along with institution building. You know, we do a lot of nation building, and there's lot of talks about nation building in many different parts of the world. Often, nation building comes after there's been a war, after there's been outright devastation in the country. Well there is outright devastation in North Korea.
I may be incorrect of my analysis, but the multi-national approach to talks with North Korea may be designed to allow them the confidence to nation-build and focus on economic and domestic issues, rather than focus on a military buildup. Supporters of this strategy assume (?) that a bi-lateral approach with the US only may be too inflammatory considering the status of North Korean soverignity and the undercurrent of national pride of these people possess, and that their assumed response would be to favor military buildup in response to US-only relations.
Or I could be completely wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.
I also make the assumption that the Bush administration also chooses not to deal with the beaucracy of the UN, but welcomes the balance of the other nations, especially China, who could be the most influential in convincing the North Koreans to forego the development of nuclear weapons.
Another interesting quote from these minutes that applies to South Korea:
quote:These are the new challenges that Korea and the United States as the staunchest allies and partners in the fullest sense must respond to and resolve those now and in the years to come. Demographically, more than two-thirds of the Korean people now belong to what we call the Post Korean War generations who are under 40 years of age. They are best represented by the soccer fans who call themselves the 'rabdabbles'(?), quote, Red Devils.
They are young, assertive, relatively affluent, information technology friendly, and predominantly urban. Economically, Korea is on the verge of becoming a full-fledged free-market economy. Again, this is owing to the Korean people and their government's gallant reform in restructuring for the past four years under the vision and leadership of President Kim Dae Jung. Politically, the Republic of Korea will demonstrate to the world this year that democracy is firmly entrenched once and for all. First, through tomorrow's local election and this December's presidential election. Geographically, Korea is right in the middle where four major powers, the United States, Japan, China and Russia and their political, economic and strategic aims and ambitions intersect. Amid such regional complexity, the Republic of Korea is now fast becoming the dynamic hub of Asia.
This reminds me of the generational gap that exists between younger Japanese nationals versus the preceeding generations of Japanese that were affected by WWII. The older Japanese are quite offended that younger Japanese want to emulate the US culture...
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alucard, please don't take this the wrong way, but perhaps you should stop listening to AmeriRight Radio. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I've said this is three threads now, would someone, anyone, like to explain the differences between multilateral and bilateral talks to me and why there might be problems with China if we engage in both?
posted
The concern is this: that by opening up bilateral talks with North Korea, we will sabotage the efforts of other countries who are also treating with North Korea -- particularly China, who has its own sincere interest in North Korea's nuclear program. On the other hand, by not speaking with North Korea, we are completely reliant upon the goodwill and diplomatic efforts of the countries doing the talking.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know a lot about the North Korea subject, so I'm not really qualified to answer your qusetion blacwolve. (Like you, I'm here for some of that clarification Alucard promised ).
I guess I took for granted Bush's assumption that China would be upset if the United States conducted negotiations with North Korea alone.
China may consider North Korea as part of its sphere of influence. China is also a very paranoid country (I'm Taiwanese so I may be a little biased in this assessment ). Isn't it logical to assume that China would be paranoid about the United States conducting talks with Korea without Chinese involvement? How can the Chinese government be sure that their interests are being represented by the American negotiators?
Here are the relevant parts from last night's debate if you're interested:
quote:Bush: North Korea, first, I do. Let me say -- I certainly hope so. Before I was sworn in, the policy of this government was to have bilateral negotiations with North Korea.
And we signed an agreement with North Korea that my administration found out that was not being honored by the North Koreans.
And so I decided that a better way to approach the issue was to get other nations involved, just besides us. And in Crawford, Texas, Jiang Zemin and I agreed that the nuclear-weapons-free peninsula, Korean Peninsula, was in his interest and our interest and the world's interest.
And so we began a new dialogue with North Korea, one that included not only the United States, but now China. And China's a got a lot of influence over North Korea, some ways more than we do.
As well, we included South Korea, Japan and Russia. So now there are five voices speaking to Kim Jong Il, not just one.
And so if Kim Jong Il decides again to not honor an agreement, he's not only doing injustice to America, he'd be doing injustice to China, as well.
And I think this will work. It's not going to work if we open up a dialogue with Kim Jong Il. He wants to unravel the six- party talks, or the five-nation coalition that's sending him a clear message.
quote:KERRY: With respect to North Korea, the real story: We had inspectors and television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea. Secretary Bill Perry negotiated that under President Clinton. And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits on their nuclear power.
Colin Powell, our secretary of state, announced one day that we were going to continue the dialog of working with the North Koreans. The president reversed it publicly while the president of South Korea was here.
And the president of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy. And for two years, this administration didn't talk at all to North Korea.
While they didn't talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea.
That happened on this president's watch.
Now, that, I think, is one of the most serious, sort of, reversals or mixed messages that you could possibly send.
quote: LEHRER:....You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?
BUSH: Right.
LEHRER: And you're willing to do it...
KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.
LEHRER: And you're opposed to that. Right?
BUSH: The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. That's exactly what Kim Jong Il wants. And by the way, the breach on the agreement was not through plutonium. The breach on the agreement is highly enriched uranium. That's what we caught him doing. That's where he was breaking the agreement.
quote:BUSH: Again, I can't tell you how big a mistake I think that is, to have bilateral talks with North Korea. It's precisely what Kim Jong Il wants. It will cause the six-party talks to evaporate. It will mean that China no longer is involved in convincing, along with us, for Kim Jong Il to get rid of his weapons. It's a big mistake to do that.
quote:KERRY: Now, I'd like to come back for a quick moment, if I can, to that issue about China and the talks. Because that's one of the most critical issues here: North Korea.
Just because the president says it can't be done, that you'd lose China, doesn't mean it can't be done. I mean, this is the president who said "There were weapons of mass destruction," said "Mission accomplished," said we could fight the war on the cheap -- none of which were true.
posted
This article supports Bush's claim that China will not stand for unilateral action by the United States:
quote:On repeated occasions Chinese spokesmen have publicly and clearly warned their US interlocutors that under no circumstances would the United States be allowed unilaterally to decide the fate of the Korean Peninsula.
China will not be passive or quiet and thus will act, quite strongly if necessary, to safeguard its interests and equities in Korea. That warning could easily signify a willingness to use force either against the Americans or, as some China specialists have warned, against North Korea's territory to prevent Washington from fashioning a unilateral solution that would place its troops on or close to China's border.
Since this war could easily become a nuclear one and the Korean War itself was a sufficiently horrible experience for all concerned, these are hardly easily acceptable options. Yet if North Korea is metaphorically tied to China, its decision to go over the cliff inevitably drags China along with it, something Beijing is naturally reluctant to accept.
Therefore Beijing is exerting every effort to persuade Pyongyang to enter into genuine negotiations with Washington before its nuclearization becomes an issue to be settled exclusively by the deployment of troops.
quote:would someone, anyone, like to explain the differences between multilateral and bilateral talks to me
Just in case your question is more basic than has yet been answered -- "bi" = two, N. Korea and the US, without anyone else in the room. "Multi" = many (or at least more than two) the talks are conducted with other contries directly participating.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, okay I'm less confused now about what Kerry meant when he said "lose China".
I had to tune out for a little while to eat dinner and when I came back it seemed that Kerry was talking about disarming China's nukes.
So Kerry is characterizing that Bush capriciously shut down the bilateral talks- also that NK is justified it sassing off to us because Bush embarassed them. Bush is saying the end of bilateral talks was due to NK violating agreements. Which is right?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Luckily Kerry isn't proposing unilateral decisions about NK, just that we sit down at the table with them, the same as China is doing, SK is doing (we actually sat in on SK's talks, before), et cetera.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see Kerry advocating unilateralism (aka troop deployment to N. Korea, without N. Korean approval), but direct talks between the two nations.
I would expect China to be nervous at US unilateralism on N. Korea. I still think the multilateral talks ought to continue, but if both can be done, I think that'd be ideal.
quote:Shan, how do you feel about multilateral efforts at controlling the spider threat?
The more the merrier and the safer I'll be!!!
***********************************
It appears to me that if we are going to work with the world, then we do the group effort/team-building thing. This, of course, sticks in the craw of many of us . . . if you don't believe me, just harken back to the days of group work in high school, college, and early days on the job. Group work almost always meant one flunky, and six or so floaters . . . not to be cynical, or anything. But unfortunately, "process" and "team building" seem to be the way of the world, so now the hard workers do double time - team building and solitarily completing tasks that otherw . . . oh - wrong topic, sorry . . .
*clears throat*
I think we should work together in terms of world peace and safety, otherwise just call it world domination and be done with it.
posted
That's perfectly true Fugu. However, bilateral talks excluding China may be perceived by China as a step towards unilateral American action.
It is so ironic that I agree with Bush on this point. Because, as I'm sure you agree Fugu, after Bush's aggressive preemptive invasion Iraq, China has every reason to fear unilateral American action.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Before Bush stopped talking to NK, neither side was living up to its treaty responsibilities. However, this was not a case of outright refusal or opposition, just of slowdowns. Both sides were dragging their feet on certain issues, though progress was being made (both in construction of the Light Water (Nuclear) Reactors we had promised NK which they needed to provide energy absent their other nuclear reactors, which we required dismantled as soon as possible, and in NK allowing us more inspectors and control over their nuclear program).
Then Bush pulled out of talks - with an egomaniac, who derives a large part of his internal authority on being able to treat with the great nations of the world on equal footing!
After Bush pulled out of talks, NK waited a while. Then they declared that they were going to remove the weapons grade nuclear material that was still legally in their country (just in a specific monitored location) and use it to do weapons research (they started working on it a bit before they declared it, and such declaration may have been in response to us being about to uncover their work, but my personal suspicion is that they intended the declaration, as it was framed very similarly to Bush's declaration of our withdrawal from ABM treaties with Russia. either way, the program started after Bush withdrew talks). They simultaneously kicked inspectors out and turned off monitoring devices on their existing nuclear power plants (which had been continuously present for quite some time, under the treaty agreement, and continued despite us pulling out of talks, until then).
Did Bush set the situation off by bruising the ego of an egomaniac (and convincing NK that we were never going to meet our treaty obligations on the LWR reactors)? That's my position.
Bush's position appears to be that the ways in which the US was dragging its feet on the treaty obligations didn't really matter, because NK was dragging its feet on its obligations, we could pull out of talks (ceasing any movement at all on our part towards fulfilling our treaty obligations), and that then when the NK's stopped fulfilling their ongoing treaty obligations a year and some later (inspectors and monitoring, no weapons programs), it was them who had done all the treaty breaking.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Alucard, please don't take this the wrong way, but perhaps you should stop listening to AmeriRight Radio.
Tom, actually it is on my preset as #5 right next to #6, which is AmeriLeft. I really do enjoy both programs since I am neither a Republican or a Democrat.
I am more like Joe Sixpack with a stack of Newsweek mags and Wall Street Journals with just enough misinterpreted information to be dangerous.
quote: Like you, I'm here for some of that clarification Alucard promised
I was hoping that this thread would be a chance to examine some of the topics brought up in the first debate and clarify them in more detail. Not by me, I am a political idiot. (See above). I was hoping the minds of Hatrack would further enlighten me and others who have questions.
Kasie's thread almost has me convinced that there are legitimate reasons to vote for Kerry over Bush. That, my friends, is personally shocking.
But I am not voting for Nader.
I do have another comment to clarify though. Kerry repeated at least once that he would hunt down terrorists where ever they were and kill them. I thought this was a bit overdramatic in the way he said it, but in retrospect, this IS a War on Terror, and bringing these terrorists to justice and letting a court or tribunal decide their fate is most likely behind the lines that have been crossed.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, the problem I'm having here is that I'm reading 'bilateral talks' as 'diplomatic relations' and I don't see how China can legitimatly have a problem with us having diplomatic relations with anyone. Which of these premises is wrong?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
