USA- Policemen for the world?

[Easy E]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/13/saudi.blast/index.html

Not that I have a problem hunting down al Qaeda (hey, is that the only word that doesn't follow Q with a U?), but what exactly are we defining our role in the world as?

And in other news, I await the Korea II conflict announcement, in order to remove WMDs from another aggressive country.

[IrishHand]

First of all - the war on terror must be winning. The Saudi bombings killed 20 people at the cost of 9 bombers. Their ratio is going down the toilet since 9/11 - perhaps they'll realize they can get better results by just shooting a gun at a couple of people on the street in a drive-by like civilized criminals do. Don't worry - they'll learn the American way yet.

In answer to your question - it only makes sense that we'd want to invade N. Korea too. I mean - it's only been what? 50 years since they last demonstrated obvious aggression despite a military which could occupy the whole of S. Korea within a week. Truly, they present a grave and immediate threat to the US. Then again, there are still any number of undefended nations in the Middle East eagerly awaiting liberation and occupation, so maybe N. Korea will just have to wait their turn.

Irish

PS. "Qaeda" isn't our word - it's either a foreign word or a proper noun, either of which disqualifies it. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[andyfox]

The U.S. does indeed intend to remain the world's policeman. For a terrific exposition of the details, see Andrew Bacevich's American Empire.

[Easy E]

The original article that I linked didn't say anything about Americans being killed (at least not the beginning portions that I read).

So, Bush wasn't reaching out as far as I thought he was, policing Saudia Arabia.

I'll have to check the book out, Andy- looks interesting.

[Chris Alger]

"Policeman" implies one who at least arguably enforces some law. As in the case with Cuba, the Domincan Republic, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Vietnam and Kosovo, among many others, the US not only had no legal basis for attacking Iraq, but did so in direct contravention of the UN Charter, a treaty that supercedes any resolution purporting to "authorize" military force. U.S. Const., Art. VI. Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack; and when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.

"in order to remove WMDs from another aggressive country"

How do North Korea's development of nuclear weapons make it "aggressive" compared to the US?

[TAFKAn]

"How do North Korea's development of nuclear weapons make it "aggressive" compared to the US?"

I don't know how naive you have to be to think that the North Koreans building nukes is not an aggressive threat, but the Great Leader's son Kim Jong Il is as insane and unstable as they come.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but was the North Koreans who invaded the South with the aid and support of the Chinese. The U.S. did not instigate hostilities on that peninsula.

I assume from your rhetorical question that you don't think the U.S. should be using its influence to deter other nations from developing nukes? I'm curious, what exactly do you think would be good about countries such as North Korea developing nuclear arsenals? I myself can't think of any positive ramifications.

[Easy E]

"in order to remove WMDs from another aggressive country"

How do North Korea's development of nuclear weapons make it "aggressive" compared to the US?
-----

You're not too good at tongue-in-cheek, are you?

[MMMMMM]

The U.S. Constitution allows our government to do what is necessary for the common defense of our people. The U.N. Charter does not supersede the U.S. Constitution in this regard.

North Korea:

1) has threatened us with nuclear attack

2) is a large seller of advanced weaponry to the most unstable regimes in the world

3) has stated it will test and export nuclear weapons in the near future

If North Korea is rational they will back off their nuclear program quickly and verifiably. If not, they may suffer a surgical strike. If they are foolish enough to go to war, the world will be rid of a Stalinist regime that has starved between one and two million of its own people over the last few years while simultaneously stockpiling between 1-2 years worth of food and fuel for its military. Note the comparison between numbers here: North Korea has a standing army of 1 million men, so Kim's policy of "military first" and the stockpiling of enough food for them for 1-2 years is an action which resulted in the stavation of 1-2 million of his own people over the same time period.

If there is a war, it will come with higher human cost than in Iraq. But would it come with higher human cost than Kim's starving 1-2 million of his own people in a few years? That seems doubtful.

South Korea is pretty well off financially. If there is a war, the two Koreas will be unified, but not the way Kim and his Stalinist goons would like to see. The economic strength of the South, when integrated with the overthrown North, would before long raise the standard of living for the entire peninsula...and the world wouldn't then see 1-2 million North Koreans starving over the next few years. Today many North Koreans are so famished they are literally eating insects off the streets.

Damn the dictators and damn the U.N. for giving them comfort and support.

Yes, North Korea is a threat. What you may not realize is that the U.N., a bureaucracy comprised primarily of totalitarian regimes, and which is ever looking to expand its power, is a threat too.

[Chris Alger]

"but the Great Leader's son Kim Jong Il is as insane and unstable as they come"

Your hyperbole has no basis. The family dynasty has maintained itself in power for over 50 years. In the 1990's North Korea initiated a series of unprecedented diplomatic overtures, including the first inter-Korean summit, negotiations to achieve mutual diplomatic recognition with Japan. "In addition to improved relations with Seoul, Pyongyang has moved rapidly forward in improving ties in much of Asia with Europe, and even with the U.S." Hisahiko Okazaki, Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific, 11/10/2000. Hardly "as insane and unstable as they come."

"[it] was the North Koreans who invaded the South with the aid and support of the Chinese. The U.S. did not instigate hostilities on that peninsula."

So one attempt to unify a divided country by military force 53 years ago makes it "aggressive" by comparison to a country, since then (1) built and maintains 35,000 nuclear warheads and the means to deliver thousands of them anywhere on earth; (2) has unapologetically initiated the use of military force against more than a dozen countries, mostly defenseless ones, resulting in more than a million deaths; (3) is spending billions annually to build a first-strike nuclear weapons system; (4) now proclaims, as a matter of policy, that the threshold for using military force has been lowered; (5) refuses to even consider a mutual non-aggression pact with N. Korea, even if it means N. Korea's compliance with the nonproliferation treaty and the 1994 nuclear freeze pact. Yet you conclude that N. Korea is the more aggressive of the two countries. On what grounds?

"you don't think the U.S. should be using its influence to deter other nations from developing nukes"

No, I think it shoudl be but isn't. The US is using its "influence" -- such as its open threats to use force wherever it likes -- to encourage other countries to build as many nukes as fast as they can.

"what exactly do you think would be good about countries such as North Korea developing nuclear arsenals?"

I don't think it's good at all. It's very bad. It's one reason that US policy is insane.

[Chris Alger]

No, and if you think so than a few facts about how North Korea has historically been more aggressive than the US should come easily. Maybe read my reply to the post above.

[Chris Alger]

"The U.S. Constitution allows our government to do what is necessary for the common defense of our people."

It does nothing of the sort. The Constitution provides and precludes particular powers to the federal government. Doing "what is necessary for the common defense" is not one of them. The language in the preamble, as every taker of the multistate bar exam knows, is not a power of the federal government. Your argument is absurd in any event because it means that the US can break any treaty if doing so advances some "common defense." It means that the US cannot be trusted to comply with international law, and therefore respects only force, and therefore is the legitimate target of terror and other attacks in order to affect US policy.

"North Korea: 1) has threatened us with nuclear attack"

No it hasn't. It has agreed to do away with its nuclear weapons program in exchange for a mutual nonaggression pact and normalized relations.

"2) is a large seller of advanced weaponry to the most unstable regimes in the world"

Nowhere near the scale as with the US, so by this measure the US is the more aggressive of the two.

"3) has stated it will test and export nuclear weapons in the near future"

When did it say that?

"If North Korea is rational they will back off their nuclear program quickly and verifiably. If not, they may suffer a surgical strike."

This is like saying: if the US was rational, it would have pulled its troops out of the Middle East instead of suffering the "surgical strike" it suffered on 9/11, which killed fewer people that the US did in Iraq, which you admit entailed a lower "human cost" than any attack on North Korea.

The US will never go to war with North Korea because we only attack defenseless countries. We are opportunistic cowards.

"Damn the dictators and damn the U.N. for giving them comfort and support."

But never "damn the US" for supporting dictators because whatever we do must be good, or no worse than error, according to your Stalinist method of filtering reality.

[MMMMMM]

Chris I really think you're comparing apples to oranges to some extent here.

North Korea hasn't attacked a dozen countries (or more) precisely because it couldn't. What they have managed to do, since they could, is starve and enslave their own people, sending even mere dissidents and suspected dissidents' entire families to the gulag.

How many countries do you think North Korea might have attacked had our roles been reversed? Maybe more than we have?

On another point, just how are we going to verify their compliance should they decide to honor their former commitment if we were to provide a non-aggression pact with them? They cheated us once, and quite easily, so?...

I think the only answers are probably surgical strikes or regime change (though I'd like to be wrong). Actually come to think of it regime change would be a good idea--not least for the million(s) Kim has starved and will continue to starve if left alone. And unlike the cases of Afghanistan or Iraq, the new government could simply be an extension of the current South Korean government which is perfectly capable of handling the job and assimilating with the North Koreans--most of whom have lived such insular lives that they really have no idea how prosperous the South is compared to them.

[MMMMMM]

Forgive me for paraphrasing, but "provide for the common defense"...?

Yes, North Korea has threatened us with war if we get sanctions imposed, and it has said it will nuke us if there is war.

North Korea arms unstable regimes more than we do now.

North Korea recently said it will test or export nuclear arms in the near future. t said this at, I believe, the latest meeting. This remark may have been aside from the North Korean ambassador to ours, but it was an official conveyance of intent nevertheless and was widely reported.

Let's just get rid of all the dictators starting with Saddam, shall we? A succession of small surgical battles--not even wars, really--and the world is a much, much better place. Bye-bye Castro: you torturing murdering bastard of journalists, poets and authors who merely wanted the right to free speech.

[andyfox]

The problem with your approach is that our government lies about who are torturing murdering bastards and who are not. When the torturing murdering bastards are our friends, then we claim they're not torturing murdering bastards; when those who are not torturing murdering bastards do anything to bring their countries outside of our economic reach, then we call them torturing murdering bastards.

I guess you have more faith that we'll do the right thing than I do. The President said yesterday that he was going to teach our enemies about American justice. I doubt that he knows what it is.

[Jimbo]

"I guess you have more faith that we'll do the right thing than I do. The President said yesterday that he was going to teach our enemies about American justice. I doubt that he knows what it is.'

Andy, you have Barbara Streisand writing for you now?

[MMMMMM]

Your point is well taken, and I'm also not suggesting that we just go after every dictator willy-nilly. Let's look first to those where strategic interests are at stake and the oppression is worst and our security concerns are highest. And in dealing with lesser tyrants, let's look for places where the populace would revolt if only they could.

It will be a step-by-step process, and if democracy starts taking hold in some of these countries (admittedly a big 'if'), then maybe the movement will spread somewhat to the internals of other countries (with a bit of help available from the guys with the biggest sticks).

[andyfox]

On of my favorite Barbara Streisand stories: when self-serve gas pumping first started out here, there was a picture in the local Beverly Hills newspaper, right on the front page, of Barbara Streisand pumping her own gas.

How fortuitous that the newspaper photographer just happened to be passing by.