[MikeV]

tcp_ML500 - 8/2/2004 10:41 AM

China is more dangerous than Iraq, and their agenda is not necessarily one that respects our ideology either. Should we bring them democracy? Yes, there are some that will argue that we are doing just that by investing and moving them along the lines of a "market" economy. As far as a country killing it's citizen, the students at Tien An Men is not so far in our collective memory is it?

I cringed when Clinton signed the preferred trade status agreement! Somehow, we are all responsible for this one. We'd rather pay $1.50 for some idiotic trinket at the Disney store, than live by principles that would end up having us pay $3.00 for the same piece of crap!

If we care about oppressed people, AND if such ruthless dictators so vehemently oppose us, our ideas our freedoms, AND if such have acknoledged (and even demonstrated) the possession of WMDs, AND if all of the above are reasons to go to war, why not nuke North Korea!

Shucks, we can't, China's too close and would not like it a bit, and since China's a big part of the world economy and a huge market, we'll just continue to keep our pants down.

We are not the champions of the free world. We do not do things for altruistic reasons. We do things that will help us protect ourselves from a perceived threat (in some cases we do not, i.e. North Korea) and make economic sense.
Eventually, we do such things. Our actions in the former Yugoslavia republic prove it, our intentions to get Sudan to quit killing and raping it's citizens is another.

History is pretty much irrelevant in that each decision we take affords us the ability to make the right choice.

Yes we supported and put in place people that were not democrats but dictators (Iran is a prime example, and the Ayatollah backslash tells us we should abandon that strategy. I think that to date, we've pretty much avoided that crap.) We liked Saddam being there for a while, we even sold him crap. Heck, we helped a bunch of Afghans when they were fighting the Russians after the 1980 invasion, some of these freedom fighters are the guys we now dispise but hailed a while back...

So what? New age, new reality. Let's deal with the new variables, coming back to past mistakes won't make us better, actions and decisions that we are taking now will speak as to what we're about.

As a side note, if ridding Iraq of Saddam was the goal, could not assassins have done the work? We shy away, for politic reasons, from killing heads of state but find no contradiction when faced with engaging into a full war effort which will be much less efficient in cost of lives (on both sides)?

People have a right to autodetermination. I believe Iraq will screw it up. They won't want a democracy. Democracies require too much from their citizens. Not that we are more virtuous than most, we have crooks just the same, but their mentalities are such that a theocracy will emerge, and perpetuate the cycle of hate.

We've already lost THE war, it's a matter of time, maybe a few generations. The strength of the democratic ideal has in it the germs of its destruction. We are willing to listen, understand, and debate with ideologists that care not to be convinced. They will win because moral decisions do not burden them in face of their cause.

For matters of national security, we cannot afford to be soft.

ML, you're a very smart guy and I hope you know that I have a real respect for your opinions. Although we may not always agree, I know that you put a lot of thought into your assertions and conclusions.

China; we do not want to go to war with China. They are the closest thing to a super power, the have the population, manfacturing capacity, and nuclear weapons. They are getting a taste of capitalism and so far it appears they're begining to embrace it a little more. They do not appear to be suporting "terrorist organizations" however have sold and do sell arms to other nations. This is a problem, but because of their capabilities diplomacy and mutually assured desctruction are the answers here.

North Korea; For the last 12 years our policy has been containment. Years ago we made lots of promises to Kim Jong Il to try to keep him from development of Nukes, when the time came those promises weren't fulfilled or at least put off. North Korea is being looked at as a problem to China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. We're relying more on these countries to work things out. An attack on North Korea would assure the descruction of South Korea. This is not an easy problem to solve.

Iraq: Iraq was a beatable force, would show others in the region that we're not affraid to take action. Did pose a threat (as hard as it is for some to believe that). As for an Assassin, that would have left his sons to step in and would not have changed much.

When and If GW wins come November I would put money some type of action against Syria possibly Iran. In Iran I would say somthing along the lines of a supported uprising.

These are dangerous times. Anything less than a very strong position will invite further attacks.