Listen up Obama

[FFPCogs 863]

I have to agree with you. The notion that either Iran or North Korea have changed their ways based on our recent past practices is laughable. Or, rather, it would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. Both continue to aggressively pursue nuclear arms, missile technology, not to mention the human rights violations and treatment of their own citizens. To suggest that things have changed the course due to the recent elections in Iran is just as absurd, in my humble opinion. There has been no regime change and the leaders of the opposition have, for the most part been jailed or executed. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704878904575030483299887178.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_world). It's that's success, I'd hate to see what we consider a failure!!!

These regimes became far more isolated under the Bush adminstration. And let's not forget that their nuclear ambitions began in earnest under a Democratic administration that did nothing to thwart them.

IMHO what is truly laughable if it weren't so serious is to think that anything other than the threat and actual use of force at times will influence these powers. They cannot be reasoned with or bought off any more than Hitler could.

Edited January 30, 2010 by FFPCogs

[FFEMTPD72 2]

IMHO what is truly laughable if it weren't so serious is to think that anything other than the threat and actual use of force at times will influence these powers. They cannot be reasoned with or bought off any more than Hitler could.

So you feel we should continually use military power to threaten and influence entities which do not see things our way, rather than attempt to research novel diplomatic solutions (which the current administration IS doing, regardless of insufficient 'output' YET)?

As I said, we will only further isolate ourselves by doing this. You cannot compare WW2 to now. Today is TODAY, not 1940.

Edited January 30, 2010 by FFEMTPD72

[FFPCogs 863]

So you feel we should continually use military power to threaten and influence entities which do not see things our way, rather than attempt to research novel diplomatic solutions (which the current administration IS doing, regardless of insufficient 'output' YET)?

No I feel we should maintain and use our military strength to safeguard American lives. Threats and posturing mean nothing. Diplomacy is always preferable to the spilling of blood, any blood, but no man, group or country can negotiate from a position of weakness. To do so invites further bellicose and aggressive action on the part of our adversaries. As I have repeatedly pointed out the easy way now bring much larger problems in the future. This is the lesson of our history you seem so ready to dismiss.

As I said, we will only further isolate ourselves by doing this.

We needn't fear isolation. America is the center of the world economy and as such the world needs us far more than we need them. If as you say we are becoming isolated where is this evident? Surely not in the economic and trade arenas. What nation has called for sanctions against us, or reduced trade? None. If it's lack of willing allies you fear, don't. We fight the free worlds battles as we have since the Cold War because we are the only nation capable of doing so. So if it means we risk becoming isolated for defending American lives and interests around the world, or freeing those who live under the yolk of tyranny, then so be it. For if we don't do it who will?

You cannot compare WW2 to now. Today is TODAY, not 1940.

Ah yes we've heard this before. People around the world have espoused this view for years to justify appeasement, with disasterous results. All I can say is this oft repeated opinion can only be answered by another oft repeated quote:

"Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it"

Edited January 31, 2010 by FFPCogs

[FFEMTPD72 2]

Surely not in the economic and trade arenas.

Absolutely not.

In the diplomatic arena.

[ckroll 101]

No I feel we should maintain and use our military strength to safeguard [[[American]]] lives. Threats and posturing mean nothing. Diplomacy is always preferable to the spilling of blood, any blood, but no man, group or country can negotiate from a position of weakness. To do so invites further bellicose and aggressive action on the part of our adversaries.

"Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it"

First,substitute Iranian for American and that's about the way 'our adversaries' look at us. Actions have consequences. We are where we are because it is human nature to defend territory against threats. Let's talk history. The US overthrew a democratically elected prime minister in Iran in order to install the Shah as a puppet who was willing to trade Iranian oil for hot cars and hotter women.

In response to foreign intervention designed to destabilize an elected government and pillage another country's natural resources there was a revolution that brought into power a hardline response against a soulless aggressor.

When we did it to the British in the 18th century it was an act of heroism on our part. In the 1950's when the US went adventuring in Iran on behalf of Standard Oil and friends we chose the role of aggressor and we got beat at it. We earned the wrath of the Iranians. Their desire to defend themselves against a superpower by putting nuclear capability up against nuclear capability is as justified as it is horrifying.

Earth--and history-- is littered with the remains of super powers that fell prey to hubris, selling off their vast resources to feed a war machine at the expense of domestic investment. As finite resources are sucked out of domestic programs into insatiable militaristic adventures once dominant nations become walled fortresses defending an empty, impoverished, society that fails, not by being overrun, but by succumbing to ignorance, disease and eventual anarchy as desperate people with nothing left but guns have to kill each other for bread.

[FFPCogs 863]

First,substitute Iranian for American and that's about the way 'our adversaries' look at us. Actions have consequences. We are where we are because it is human nature to defend territory against threats. Let's talk history. The US overthrew a democratically elected prime minister in Iran in order to install the Shah as a puppet who was willing to trade Iranian oil for hot cars and hotter women.

In response to foreign intervention designed to destabilize an elected government and pillage another country's natural resources there was a revolution that brought into power a hardline response against a soulless aggressor.

When we did it to the British in the 18th century it was an act of heroism on our part. In the 1950's when the US went adventuring in Iran on behalf of Standard Oil and friends we chose the role of aggressor and we got beat at it. We earned the wrath of the Iranians. Their desire to defend themselves against a superpower by putting nuclear capability up against nuclear capability is as justified as it is horrifying.

I was going to go into a long dissertation on the history that brought us to the world we live in today, but what would be the point. It really just boils down to to the fact that the actions taken in years past, be they right or be they wrong in your estimation, are what has allowed you and every other American to live free and maintain the highest standard of living the world has ever known. What you call "soulless aggression" is unfortunately and ulitimately how the world works, to believe otherwise is to live in a bubble, and to be quite frank is downright dangerous.

Earth--and history-- is littered with the remains of super powers that fell prey to hubris, selling off their vast resources to feed a war machine at the expense of domestic investment. As finite resources are sucked out of domestic programs into insatiable militaristic adventures once dominant nations become walled fortresses defending an empty, impoverished, society that fails, not by being overrun, but by succumbing to ignorance, disease and eventual anarchy as desperate people with nothing left but guns have to kill each other for bread.

History is also full of the hubris of those who fell victim to more powerful aggressors because the expense of defense was considered too high. Ultimately they had neither bread nor the weapons to get it

Yes indeed history has seen many civilizations come and go, for nothing lasts forever. America's decline has far less to do with "insatiable militaristic adventures" then it does with the cancers that rot us from within, but that is another topic far too extensive and contentious to go into now here.

[FFEMTPD72 2]

I was going to go into a long dissertation on the history that brought us to the world we live in today, but what would be the point. It really just boils down to to the fact that the actions taken in years past, be they right or be they wrong in your estimation, are what has allowed you and every other American to live free and maintain the highest standard of living the world has ever known. What you call "soulless aggression" is unfortunately and ulitimately how the world works, to believe otherwise is to live in a bubble, and to be quite frank is downright dangerous.

Yes, we all know that we live free because of this and that. Not one individual doubts those claim.

We want to consider the past in our current affairs, but not live in it.

Also - we are #7 in standard of living. Not important in this debate, but just an interesting fact.

[firefighter-70 27]

Would you call the last 8 years of "hard-line stances" a success? And specifically with North Korea and Iran?

Yes, they are a success! For years prior to GWB we put our head in the sand and many servicemen and women as well as civilians paid with their lives. Remember what the 911 commission report stated, "They have been at war with us and we are not at war with them".

How about we send you down range to talk with some of our current enemy. Try your soft approach, it might work. What could happen? Saw your head off while taking a video of it for your family to watch, just because you are an American (I'll assume you are American). I choose to stand from a position of strength shoulder to shoulder with fellow members of the armed forces. Even if you don't want me too, I'm on that wall with our greatest treasure your sons, daughters and feel privileged to do so.

[INIT915 1,119]

Yes, they are a success! For years prior to GWB we put our head in the sand and many servicemen and women as well as civilians paid with their lives. Remember what the 911 commission report stated, "They have been at war with us and we are not at war with them".

How about we send you down range to talk with some of our current enemy. Try your soft approach, it might work. What could happen? Saw your head off while taking a video of it for your family to watch, just because you are an American (I'll assume you are American). I choose to stand from a position of strength shoulder to shoulder with fellow members of the armed forces. Even if you don't want me too, I'm on that wall with our greatest treasure your sons, daughters and feel privileged to do so.

Interesting how you respond emotionally and offer no actual facts to rebut the argument. Guess that kind of bolsters my point. Thanks for playing!

[FFEMTPD72 2]

Yes, they are a success! For years prior to GWB we put our head in the sand and many servicemen and women as well as civilians paid with their lives. Remember what the 911 commission report stated, "They have been at war with us and we are not at war with them".

How about we send you down range to talk with some of our current enemy. Try your soft approach, it might work. What could happen? Saw your head off while taking a video of it for your family to watch, just because you are an American (I'll assume you are American). I choose to stand from a position of strength shoulder to shoulder with fellow members of the armed forces. Even if you don't want me too, I'm on that wall with our greatest treasure your sons, daughters and feel privileged to do so.

Like I stated before, no one doubts the bravery and courage of our armed forces. Remember, emotionally loaded language is a fallacy in rhetoric.

And, you are using the example of a few isolated executions as representative of all our adversaries? A bit hasty, wouldn't you think?

Edited January 31, 2010 by FFEMTPD72

[ckroll 101]

I was going to go into a long dissertation on the history that brought us to the world we live in today, but what would be the point.

Please do, I'm dying to read it.

[FFPCogs 863]

We want to consider the past in our current affairs, but not live in it.

I guess you are unable to read what I've been saying because your too busy trying to defend your point of view, so I'll repeat it for you.

History has shown that diplomacy and negotiation only work when there is sufficient force and a willingness to use that force to achieve a peaceful resolution. Weakness in either aspect sends the message that we will talk but not act. This is as true now as it has been for the last 5000 years of recorded human civilization. Knowing our shared history and basing your approach to crisis on it IS considering the past, not living in it...it is called being prudent and learning from past mistakes.

Also - we are #7 in standard of living. Not important in this debate, but just an interesting fact.

That is indeed an interesting tid bit, number 7 huh? Out of how many nations is that?

The fact is Americans have known a higher standard of living overall for a longer period of time than any other nation in history. And considering the myriad of problems we face #7 is still far better than most.

[FFPCogs 863]

Please do, I'm dying to read it.

Ah well I'm too tired to write it.

[firefighter-70 27]

Interesting how you respond emotionally and offer no actual facts to rebut the argument. Guess that kind of bolsters my point. Thanks for playing!

Well you might be playing, I'm not. I've had to search for captured Americans under pressure and didn't think it was a game. People got injured doing so and that comes with service. General David Petraeus walks softly but carries a real big stick. Those that would come to the table and seek peace were welcome those that chose killing innocent civilians through cowardice got elimated. Today we are currently preparing to redeploy from Iraq. I guess you think it's the current Commander and Chiefs plan? Think again.

We give North Korea fuel and food, what the world gets in return is broken promises and more of the same from the rouge regime. The N. Korean leaders only understand strength. South Korea reaches out to them and the north shuts down crossing points between the two countries. The US for the most part pulled back from the 38th parallel and let the ROK Army take over, this was done years ago. This was done to ease tensions, it didn't quite hit the mark on the wall. They only understand strength. Until the regime is removed, nothing will change.

[ckroll 101]

History has shown that diplomacy and negotiation only work when there is sufficient force and a willingness to use that force to achieve a peaceful resolution.

Given what Gandhi did with a diaper and determination you might want to rethink that point.

Too tired to discuss history??? WEAKNESS I smell blood in the water!

[ckroll 101]

We give North Korea fuel and food, what the world gets in return is broken promises and more of the same from the rouge regime.

Red though they may be , I think it's rogue.

[firefighter-70 27]

Yes actually I would, inasmuch as we alone can influence the situation without direct military action. Both regimes have faced a loss of access to technology vital to increasing their nuclear capabilities, as well as an upsurge in anti government resisitance from their populace..especially Iran..remember their latest "election". The cracks are forming. Both regimes have been isolated on the world stage, and in the case of N. Korea this stance worked towards bankrupting a teetering regime while containing them on the pennisula. As for Al Qeada and such, well we haven't been attacked at home since 9/11 have we? We have taken the fight to them and kept it off our shores.

Pulling out of Iraq now may yet prove to be a huge mistake as their instability will invite Iran to attempt to influence affairs due to Iraq's large Shi'ite population. Afghanistan is now the hot spot and here the overly long drawn out process to increase troop strength, along with the Iraq pullot are seen as signs of indecision or lack of committment that no President of the United States should portray. This only emboldens our current and any potential future enemies to continue the fight (or begin one) in the belief that we lack the resolve to finish it. The security of this nation does not lie solely on our shores, but on those of distant lands as well. Our enemies must never again think they can inflict a horrific tragedy like 9/11 without an immediate, resolute and overwhelming response.

During my employment in Iraq there was one sentiment that was repeatedly expressed by the troops I had the honor of working for. Even though the war was (is) unpopular, almost to a man they felt it was better to shed their blood in Iraq or Afghan or where ever than to have even one drop of American blood be shed at home again.

So yes as unpopular as it may be, I do believe that overall the "hard line stance" of the last 8 years was a success.

Well said Captain, my best to you and your family.

[INIT915 1,119]

Well you might be playing, I'm not. I've had to search for captured Americans under pressure and didn't think it was a game. People got injured doing so and that comes with service. General David Petraeus walks softly but carries a real big stick. Those that would come to the table and seek peace were welcome those that chose killing innocent civilians through cowardice got elimated. Today we are currently preparing to redeploy from Iraq. I guess you think it's the current Commander and Chiefs plan? Think again.

We give North Korea fuel and food, what the world gets in return is broken promises and more of the same from the rouge regime. The N. Korean leaders only understand strength. South Korea reaches out to them and the north shuts down crossing points between the two countries. The US for the most part pulled back from the 38th parallel and let the ROK Army take over, this was done years ago. This was done to ease tensions, it didn't quite hit the mark on the wall. They only understand strength. Until the regime is removed, nothing will change.

Your ignoring the question that began this debate. Did ignoring them for 8 years yield productive results? They continued with their nuclear ambitions. They developed missile technology. If they are no weaker then they were 8 years ago, how do we call this a success? People make the argument they're isolated. Yes, from us. Not from other nations that continue to deal with them. Notably China. N.K. has a huge friend in China. There is no empirical evidence of substance that suggests N.K. is any worse off then they were.

[FFPCogs 863]

Well said Captain, my best to you and your family.

Thank you and to you and yours.

[firefighter-70 27]

Your ignoring the question that began this debate. Did ignoring them for 8 years yield productive results? They continued with their nuclear ambitions. They developed missile technology. If they are no weaker then they were 8 years ago, how do we call this a success? People make the argument they're isolated. Yes, from us. Not from other nations that continue to deal with them. Notably China. N.K. has a huge friend in China. There is no empirical evidence of substance that suggests N.K. is any worse off then they were.

You have your history wrong. They were given AID from many international sources during the last 8 years. They failed to follow through on their end every time. Its like ground hog day with these N. Korean leaders. Yes the N. Korean people are worse off, famine and sickness is everywhere. Yes China gives them rice, it never makes it to the people, it goes the the Army. The N. Korean people are dying, any aid the US sends for the most part never makes it to the intended people because of the rouge regime. You could offer the N. Korean leaders the world, it would not matter. They only care about themselves, not the people. They only understand strength.

[INIT915 1,119]

You have your history wrong. They were given AID from many international sources during the last 8 years. They failed to follow through on their end every time. Its like ground hog day with these N. Korean leaders. Yes the N. Korean people are worse off, famine and sickness is everywhere. Yes China gives them rice, it never makes it to the people, it goes the the Army. The N. Korean people are dying, any aid the US sends for the most part never makes it to the intended people because of the rouge regime. You could offer the N. Korean leaders the world, it would not matter. They only care about themselves, not the people. They only understand strength.

You continue to ignore the original question posed. (That's more like Groundhog Day then your example.)

Please answer THIS question: Is N.K. better or worse off then 8 years ago. Alternately, did ignoring them for 8 years put us in any better position? If you choose to continue to ignore this premise, I don't see any point in responding.

And do you think the only thing China gives them is rice!?!?

And as an aside, I think everyone agrees that nations understand strength. No one in this debate has proposed giving up any of our "strength."

[firefighter-70 27]

You continue to ignore the original question posed. (That's more like Groundhog Day then your example.)

Please answer THIS question: Is N.K. better or worse off then 8 years ago. Alternately, did ignoring them for 8 years put us in any better position? If you choose to continue to ignore this premise, I don't see any point in responding.

And do you think the only thing China gives them is rice!?!?

And as an aside, I think everyone agrees that nations understand strength. No one in this debate has proposed giving up any of our "strength."

Yes the North Korean people are worse off then they were 8 years ago, your premise is wrong, we did not ignore them. They die in huge numbers everyday. The N.K. regime chose a path that's brought them to this point. The regime has decided to acquire WMDs not the people. The US position has been clear, to maintain a free South Korea. Remember its only a cease fire.

[INIT915 1,119]

Yes the North Korean people are worse off then they were 8 years ago, your premise is wrong, we did not ignore them. They die in huge numbers everyday. The N.K. regime chose a path that's brought them to this point. The regime has decided to acquire WMDs not the people. The US position has been clear, to maintain a free South Korea. Remember its only a cease fire.

Oh, we've haven't ignored them. So, that mean's we engaged them??? Interesting take on the situation.

And you seem to be focusing on the "Korean People". Interesting point of view.

[INIT915 1,119]

Yes the North Korean people are worse off then they were 8 years ago, your premise is wrong, we did not ignore them. They die in huge numbers everyday. The N.K. regime chose a path that's brought them to this point. The regime has decided to acquire WMDs not the people. The US position has been clear, to maintain a free South Korea. Remember its only a cease fire.

Also, to support your contention, could you perhaps cite some examples of where the N.K. leadership was weakened as a result of our unilateralistic foreign policy?

[gamewell45 258]

Two things that divide people in this world: Religion and Politics.

[FFEMTPD72 2]

I guess you are unable to read what I've been saying because your too busy trying to defend your point of view, so I'll repeat it for you.

History has shown that diplomacy and negotiation only work when there is sufficient force and a willingness to use that force to achieve a peaceful resolution. Weakness in either aspect sends the message that we will talk but not act. This is as true now as it has been for the last 5000 years of recorded human civilization. Knowing our shared history and basing your approach to crisis on it IS considering the past, not living in it...it is called being prudent and learning from past mistakes.

That is the point of a debate, is it not?

Again, we are not suggesting that the United States lay down arms in favor of an entirely paper and pen approach.

Our current and past methodologies to achieve "peaceful resolutions" have been largely in vain, especially in regards to the two nations we highlighted. Sure, we have passed economic sanctions, but what did that do? These nations still have dozens of allies which proudly support them, regardless of threat from the United States and its democratic partners. India (world's largest democracy and prime ally for us) and numerous other nations have taken a more diplomatic stance in their approach to North Korea, and receive at least recognition from the North Korean government. Still, India and these nations continue to detain and inspect North Korean ships for weapons (etc.). Therefore, I certainly would not call their approach 'appeasement'.

It is because of our hard-line approach that no significant progress has been made.

That is indeed an interesting tid bit, number 7 huh? Out of how many nations is that?

194 countries, where France France, Australia, Switzerland, Germany, New Zealand and Luxembourg are 1-6, respectively.

[FFPCogs 863]

And as an aside, I think everyone agrees that nations understand strength. No one in this debate has proposed giving up any of our "strength."

Great but it is not only about giving up our strength, it is also about having the will and resolve to use that strength...sometimes pre-emptively and unilaterally...to ensure our national security and protect our vital interests. Talk is cheap and reliance on "international" action to secure OUR safety is a pipe dream.

As for China, N. Korea is nothing but a poker chip used by them in their dealings with us, in much the same way we use Taiwan in our dealing with the PR of China. Is nice? Is it "fair"? Hardly, but it is part and parcel of international politics

Also, to support your contention, could you perhaps cite some examples of where the N.K. leadership was weakened as a result of our unilateralistic foreign policy?

It is not the leaderships per se that have been weakened, but the support of the people is waning for both. The regimes of N. Korea and Iran are both more isolated then they were 8 years ago. N. Korea in particular has lost a number of trading partners including Russia, Pakistan, Japan and the EU. Not only that but arms shipment out of the country have come under increased scrutiny and in at least one case never reached their destination at all.

[firefighter-70 27]

That is the point of a debate, is it not?

Again, we are not suggesting that the United States lay down arms in favor of an entirely paper and pen approach.

Our current and past methodologies to achieve "peaceful resolutions" have been largely in vain, especially in regards to the two nations we highlighted. Sure, we have passed economic sanctions, but what did that do? These nations still have dozens of allies which proudly support them, regardless of threat from the United States and its democratic partners. India (world's largest democracy and prime ally for us) and numerous other nations have taken a more diplomatic stance in their approach to North Korea, and receive at least recognition from the North Korean government. Still, India and these nations continue to detain and inspect North Korean ships for weapons (etc.). Therefore, I certainly would not call their approach 'appeasement'.

It is because of our hard-line approach that no significant progress has been made.

I believe in part that N.K. hard-line approach toward the United States is largely due fighting a war against them. We agreed to provided them with reactors for power, they violate the terms of the agreement for the reactors. This requires the US to condemn the actions not reward it. We seem to be at times the only nation capable of responding.

Good point about India, remember that India cannot project its military to far from its border. India does not have a true blue water Navy to project its power. India shares a large border with Pakistan to it's east, they don't get along well. It places a large part of its armed forces along the India/Pak border for what they believe is there internal security.

I don't believe we will get very far with the current N.K. regime. They don't care about the people, the regimes

actions speak for themselves.

194 countries, where France France, Australia, Switzerland, Germany, New Zealand and Luxembourg are 1-6, respectively.

[INIT915 1,119]

Great but it is not only about giving up our strength, it is also about having the will and resolve to use that strength...sometimes pre-emptively and unilaterally...to ensure our national security and protect our vital interests. Talk is cheap and reliance on "international" action to secure OUR safety is a pipe dream.

As for China, N. Korea is nothing but a poker chip used by them in their dealings with us, in much the same way we use Taiwan in our dealing with the PR of China. Is nice? Is it "fair"? Hardly, but it is part and parcel of international politics

It is not the leaderships per se that have been weakened, but the support of the people is waning for both. The regimes of N. Korea and Iran are both more isolated then they were 8 years ago. N. Korea in particular has lost a number of trading partners including Russia, Pakistan, Japan and the EU. Not only that but arms shipment out of the country have come under increased scrutiny and in at least one case never reached their destination at all.

Interesting.

1) Who has said anything about not being willing to use our strength?

2) I agree 100% with your "poker chip" analogy. I honestly do. In my time in Korea and other places in Asia, I saw that all the time. It doesn't actually negate the fact that NK is still actually receiving shipments that we would like to end.

3) You seem to now be taking the point FF70 was going to with - 'Well, our unilateralism didn't actually affect the regime, it affected the people.' The people of NK have been 'affected' for well over 8 years, so, not really sure how that supports your original hypothesis.

NB: This is my last text in this thread. It's become boring and not very intellectually challenging.

[Goose 188]

Just a few points of interest...

Preemption is an internationally accepted norm, it actually predates the existence of this country.

Bush wasn't my favorite President, but in terms of North Korea - he actually got inspectors back into the country. Clinton's approach was to throw more carrots their way...8 years of carrot throwing will probably take a quarter century to reverse. But, even more generally, NK (in terms of the regime) is just struggling to be relevant....all their pomp and circumstance is posturing.

The problem with Obama is that he's just like President Carter when it comes to foreign policy and politicking. I'm not a warmonger by any stretcher of the imagination, but all he wants to do is talk, talk and talk. Talking alone doesn't work. You need a combination of talking, strong sanctions and military posturing to get things done.

I suppose it's ok though...Obama will go rally the masses in Europe and apologize for all our ills. What's kind of hilarious about it all, is that Europe is probably the biggest fermenter for terrorism in this century. They will never admit it, but many european countries are exponentially more racist and xenophobic than the United States has or will ever be....and thats where terrorism is born. Look at France with the Algerians, Germany with the Turks, the Nordic countries etc.