Re: What WMDs?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday June 04, 2003 02:00, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Neil Stevens wrote:
> > On Wednesday June 04, 2003 01:35, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > > http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030531-depsecdef0246
> > >.htm l .  I have my doubts on this transcript too though since even
> > > Wolfowitz must know that Iraq was subject to serious economic
> > > sanctions for 10 years and hence (a) its oil "wealth" was
> > > paper-only; and (b) economic sanctions were in fact used against
> > > Iraq, for a very long time in fact. Hence it is not clear what this
> > > neo-con(-job) was talking about if this transcript is accurate.
> >
> > Wolfowitz also knows that the Syrian Baathists and others were glad to
> > break the sanctions when they saw fit.
>
> How confident can one be that China or Russia or any of many other
> nations will not violate sanctions against North Korea?  Personally I
> think N. Korea's neighbors are not eager to war with N. Korea, not only
> b/c of past relationships but b/c they are certainly within range of N.
> Korea's nuclear weapons (though so is California).

The ChiComs might want to help North Korea, but I think they have higher 
concerns.  Keeping South Korea and Japan nuke-free and keeping Taiwan 
relatively defenseless would seem to be more important to them.

If North Korea continues to develop its nuclear programs, Japan will re-arm 
and the US and Japan will develop missile defense.  If the US has a missle 
defense system deployed in East Asia, then the US Congress will almost 
certainly order another one deployed for Taiwan.  Given the choice between 
a disarmed North Korea and a defended Taiwan, I think the ChiComs will  
drop the North Koreans without hesitation.

> Moreover, sanctions against N. Korea would be quite difficult to
> enforce, as N. Korea is militarily quite stronger than Iraq,
> particularly its Navy, which amongst other things has a significant set
> of submarines and, as a blockade would be an unprovoked act of war, N.
> Korea would be fully justified under international law in sinking any
> ships enforcing a blockade.

The Korean war never did end.  If North Korea ends the cease fire then 
we'll respond.

Plus, to fire the first shot would not be politically prudent for them, I 
think.  As long as no shooting is taking place their biggest buddies the 
ChiComs are more likely to be able to continue playing on both sides of 
this.  But once the shooting starts, who's on what side becomes a lot 
clearer.

> Moreover, unlike Iraq, which Bush Sr. managed to trick into invading
> Kuwait, there is no plausible case to make for sanctions against N.
> Korea.  If you choose to use the "making nuclear weapons" route, it's
> not clear why the US, Russia, China, France, Britain, India, Pakistan,
> Israel etc. would not be similarly sanctioned.

OK, so you're pro-proliferation?

- -- 
Neil Stevens - [email protected]
"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the
sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him
for the same act as the destroyer of liberty." -- Abraham Lincoln
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+3mT6f7mnligQOmERAmcFAJwM2ExpmKuCGYtn5Uwp7jXzTPCAwQCfceqH
fiR0k9UGfOGsujUtvrhT930=
=cWNp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.