Does Bush have any goals regarding North Korea policy whatsoever?

[Beet]

There is no way I can reply to that today in the time left to me. So I'll get back to it.

Sure, no prb

[WMS]

There is no way I can reply to that today in the time left to me. So I'll get back to it.

Sure, no prb

Probably not today, either.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The only people who hold a "no outside intervention at all" policies are Buchanan-type isolationist conservatives. Who's the last Democratic president who did so, or Democratic politician who promoted such a policy?

[WMS]

The only people who hold a "no outside intervention at all" policies are Buchanan-type isolationist conservatives. Who's the last Democratic president who did so, or Democratic politician who promoted such a policy?

That was, in essence, the position held by many on the anti-war left, especially abroad. It's not quite as common inside the U.S. It certainly fits countries like India and Brazil.

[Lunar]

The only people who hold a "no outside intervention at all" policies are Buchanan-type isolationist conservatives. Who's the last Democratic president who did so, or Democratic politician who promoted such a policy?

There's a leftist philosophy that opposes all international intervention.  American imperialism destroys native cultures...blah blah blah...hegemonic corporate capitalism...blah blah... military mindset ... blah blah ... reentrench elite heirarchies ... blah.

[Beet]

There is no way I can reply to that today in the time left to me. So I'll get back to it.

Sure, no prb

Probably not today, either.

Don't feel obligated ever to reply to it

In one sentence, I guess the point of that post would be, America is a unipolar empire that must look beyond (but not away from) Hobbesian geopolitics to fashion an international order to preserve peace and prosperity, under American leadership, benefitting all others, and that others will join happily.

[Lunar]

Consider-- Currently, we have a stable geopolitical situation. This could be due to one or two things. First, we have had either a bipolar or unipolar global power structure since 1945. Second, we have had nuclear deterrence among major powers.

That's only the realist explanation for peace, heh.  There's some merit to some of the liberalist explanation as well: economic integration, the spread of democracy, and so on.

I'm a realist, just a comment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What, exactly, in a bipolar system spurs innovation?  Government spending?  Governments can spend on research now, the bipolar setup just gives an 'enemy' to justify it to the masses.  I don't see why other excuses can't be used to justify spending as well (China, terrorism, Third World labor, etc).

Innovation that occurs due to profit will occur just as much in a unipolar system.  Only socialist economies need real threats to keep them away from stagnation. 

Eh, I got tired in the middle of your post.  Going to go read Thomas Friedman's latest some more and then go to sleep.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, thanks for pointing that out. I only mentioned that argument because it seems the most convincing. Democracy was quite limited for much of the postwar era until 1989, and the world was highly economically integrated in 1914. But I do believe somewhat in the democratic peace theory.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They can, but to a much, much lesser extent. I did mention competition through cheap labor, but that is not real competition per se. It is very, very limited, like a single brush of paint compared to an entire mosaic. What I am talking about is the Soviet Union circa 1957, capable of really spurring America to transform the whole thrust of its education system. Capable of generating the political will to make bold steps, not only through research but in other areas to politics, to make sure America is competitive and gets better and better, and that we are careful in examining ourselves. In a unipolar world, like I said, it is not so much complacency as a lack of urgency.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why will you read Friedman but not me? The USSR had big external threats yet clearly stagnated after 1965, so what you said is not true. Also, note that I'm by no means saying having the motivation to succeed through external threats guarantees success, as the Soviet example shows. However, it does generate the motivation and a process by which those who have bad systems fail, ultimately benefitting everyone. Without the U.S. example of how a better system could be, Gorbachev could have thought that economic stagnation was an inevitable result of industrialization and diminishing returns, thus not realizing that a turn to democracy and capitalism might be better. Even in failure, the Cold War competition between the U.S. and the USSR ultimately benefitted the Russians in the long run by proving to them the merits of capitalism.

Secondly, I never said innovation won't occur without such a threat. But government is a big decision maker in the economy, holding up virtually all basic research, generating enough demand to sustain Dow 30 companies, supporting the education system, etc. It is part of the capitalist economy. From the perspective of government as a decision maker, history shows that, as reason would suggest, one is more lax without competition. Exhibit A, as I mentioned, would be China after unification (221 B.C.) until the 20th century. Companies on the other hand face corporate-level competition, which is what keeps them on their toes, but that is totally different. The same thing would happen to them if only 1 corporation was a monopoly.

[opebo]

Is anyone else rooting for the underdog in this?  I'm awfully impressed that North Korea is managing to defy the Empire - and maybe Iran will too! 

[CARLHAYDEN]

What everyone fails to understand is that North Korea is NOT going to make changes in its policy of becoming a nuclear power unless forced to do so!  They cannot be sucessfully bribed to stop (Clinton tried this, and failed).

Short of a preemptive first strike (or an internal revolt), the only viable source of pressure are the front-line states (China, Russia, South Korea and Japan).

None of the front line states have indicated the willingness to act in concert to restrain the North Koreans.

[Beet]

What everyone fails to understand is that North Korea is NOT going to make changes in its policy of becoming a nuclear power unless forced to do so!  They cannot be sucessfully bribed to stop (Clinton tried this, and failed).

Short of a preemptive first strike (or an internal revolt), the only viable source of pressure are the front-line states (China, Russia, South Korea and Japan).

None of the front line states have indicated the willingness to act in concert to restrain the North Koreans.

I would have supported a front-line first strike in 1994 and Clinton was very prepared to act, but at this point the limitations on the intelligence we have as to the location of all of North Korea's nuclear materials simply no longer makes such an attack feasible. Not to mention there is a high chance it would be followed up by NK artillery retalitaion on Seoul, nothing something that would be very desirable in any case.

Many states have agreed to give up nuclear weapons programs in the past. There are concrete penalties the NK's have when they test or maintain a nuclear weapon. The problem is, those penalties' effectiveness generally assumes they are not already being imposed.

[CARLHAYDEN]

What everyone fails to understand is that North Korea is NOT going to make changes in its policy of becoming a nuclear power unless forced to do so!  They cannot be sucessfully bribed to stop (Clinton tried this, and failed).

Short of a preemptive first strike (or an internal revolt), the only viable source of pressure are the front-line states (China, Russia, South Korea and Japan).

None of the front line states have indicated the willingness to act in concert to restrain the North Koreans.

I would have supported a front-line first strike in 1994 and Clinton was very prepared to act, but at this point the limitations on the intelligence we have as to the location of all of North Korea's nuclear materials simply no longer makes such an attack feasible. Not to mention there is a high chance it would be followed up by NK artillery retalitaion on Seoul, nothing something that would be very desirable in any case.

Many states have agreed to give up nuclear weapons programs in the past. There are concrete penalties the NK's have when they test or maintain a nuclear weapon. The problem is, those penalties' effectiveness generally assumes they are not already being imposed.

The bottom line is that only China has enough influence on North Korea to get them to stop (and only if they are supported in that effort by South Korea, Russia and Japan).

[The Duke]

The only people who hold a "no outside intervention at all" policies are Buchanan-type isolationist conservatives. Who's the last Democratic president who did so, or Democratic politician who promoted such a policy?

Looking at people like Kucinich, you'll see an opposition to both foreign itnerventions and open trade.

[Shira]

For Bush N.Korea is a nuisance.
Remember, N.Korea does not have oil and Cheney/Bush love oil and are going after the oil.
Even into Afghanistan they went reluctantly (because they had no choice), while to Iraq they went enthusiastically behind a screen of smoke and spin.
The regime in Afghanistan was as bad, if not worse, than the Iraqi one. Would they have gone into Afghanistan to "liberate the Afghan people" had 9/11 never happened?

[Lunar]

For Bush N.Korea is a nuisance.
Remember, N.Korea does not have oil and Cheney/Bush love oil and are going after the oil.
Even into Afghanistan they went reluctantly (because they had no choice), while to Iraq they went enthusiastically behind a screen of smoke and spin.
The regime in Afghanistan was as bad, if not worse, than the Iraqi one. Would they have gone into Afghanistan to "liberate the Afghan people" had 9/11 never happened?

[/quote

Even from shallow "Bush only wants corporate economic gains and never anything else" viewpoint, Northeast Asian stability is key.