Marginalized internationally?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

There appears to be a trend here, so tell me if I'm paranoid. I realize that other nations will always talk with other nations, and America isn't necessarily the life of the party all of the time, but it would appear that China and Russia are stepping in where we are leaving a void.

For example, Israel's talks with Russia. Olmert met with Putin, and discussed preventing a nuclear Iran and preventing Syria's influence in Lebanon.

Also, China's recent leash pulling on N. Korea.

Now, it makes sense that you work with those nations that have the most direct influence over problematic regimes. And I still believe that no matter countries like N. Korea and Iran say, we're the ones they want at that negotiating table to guarantee their security.

I'm not entirely sure what my point was now, but I guess it raises two things-- One, have we exhausted our international credit to the point that friendly nations such as Israel and S. Korea will begin to rely more heavily on other nations? Or, is this the way the War on Terrorism should look? When you decide that you will no longer kowtow to the demands of petulant and dangerous regimes, does it seem logical that they would then try to skirt you and go to regimes that will bend a bit, without demanding full reform?

[Grislygus]

The way I see it, if these nations talk to other people for a change, then we might be able to ease out of the "global police" mold.

...


I would also like to make the disclaimer that the previous statement is MY opinion, and I would appreciate it if certain fanatical idealogues didn't freak out over it.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

I think we've been forced out of that role by virtue of our "War on Terror". It seems to me that this whole "with us or against us" mindset that the current administration breeds has left a bad taste in many countries mouths.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

And do we worry about the bad taste in Kim Jong-il's mouth?

[Cosmo Electrolux]

if he has nuclear weapons with the capability to strike within our borders, I would say yes, we should be concerned.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

So when he says jump, you ask how high?

Was the policy of coddling him successful before?

I use him as just one example, btw.

[kahljorn]

how many nukes does he have? one or two? what are the chances of him even using it? I doubt he could do as much damage to us as we could do to him, if a nuclear war developed.

why do people even develop nuclear weapons? It's not like anybody is ever going to use it. It's just a waste of fucking money and resources.

[derrida]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Was the policy of coddling him successful before?

NK has been wanting nukes since the 80's.

In 1994, we managed to persuade them to halt their nuclear program. We had cameras in their reactors, IAEA seals on the hatches, and real, live inspectors in the country. Kim Jong Il was still a crazy dictator, but at least he wasn't going to be a crazy dictator with nukes any time soon.

In January 2002, Bush made his "Axis of Evil" speech. North Korea started spreading rumors about a "secret nuclear program" later that year. Bush responds by cutting off all aid, terminating our end of the 1994 deal. By the end of that year, North Korea has expelled the IAEA inspectors, turned off the cameras, and reactivated their reactors.

March 2003, the US invades Iraq, the sole member of the "Axis of Evil" that didn't have a nuclear program at the time. That summer, NK begins test-firing missiles and drops all nuclear nonproliferation treaties. The US response is more or less nonexistent, refusing to even come to the bargaining table without massive concessions by NK.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

So when he says jump, you ask how high?

Was the policy of coddling him successful before?

I use him as just one example, btw.

hang on, Kevin. what do YOU suggest the US does about Kim? Go in and kick his ass like we did to the Taliban and the Iraquis....I use those as just one exapmle, btw.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

how many nukes does he have? one or two? what are the chances of him even using it? I doubt he could do as much damage to us as we could do to him, if a nuclear war developed.

why do people even develop nuclear weapons? It's not like anybody is ever going to use it. It's just a waste of fucking money and resources.

damage, being human lives lost. How many is acceptable?

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by Grislygus

The way I see it, if these nations talk to other people for a change, then we might be able to ease out of the "global police" mold.

...


I would also like to make the disclaimer that the previous statement is MY opinion, and I would appreciate it if certain fanatical idealogues didn't freak out over it.

Not to freak out like a fanatical ideologue or something, but which other countries did you have in mind when you formed this opinion of yours?

[Grislygus]

To tell you the truth, mainly Israel. A large part of our police image stems from that... situation.

They have incredibly close ties with us, and if they can forge similar ties with other superpowers, then pehaps we can delicately extract ourselves from the Middle East, assuming that no other wars boil over.

Of course, I do have a tendency to assume that the reason we keep being drawn into Middle Eastern conflicts because Israel is a close ally, and quite a few individuals feel that I'm somewhat optimistic.

[Preechr]

We are the "world police" because we are the only nation or entity capable of filling that role.

That's my only point here so far.

[Grislygus]

I'm under the opinion that Europe is very much capable of filling the role, but simply doesn't feel like it.

[Preechr]

I would say that opinion is not based in reality.

Europe has technology, sure, and it also has soldiers. Europe did not have to keep up with the USSR militarily through the Cold War because we did. We kept Europe safe, allowing them to spend their money on things other-than-war... We're talking about decades here.

Our single most important international export is security. I'm not asking you to just believe me, though... but I'm not gonna spend time proving something to you that you haven't so much as cracked a book on. You answered my questions about your opinions, and I appreciate that. I just wondered where you got your opinions from, and you told me.

[kahljorn]

"damage, being human lives lost. How many is acceptable?"

I don't know, but I think most people don't want to kill that many people and the international concensus (and I assume the international pressure) seems to be that nuclear war is a last resort and nobody really wants it even as a last resort because of the undesirable ramifications. In regular wars people die and what-not but it's not on such a mass indiscriminate way and moreover it doesn't ruin the entire land, rendering it useless for all parties.

[Sethomas]

I wonder how I'm going to feel when our military obsession finally causes us to default on all our international debts. I wonder how good of a world security force we'll be then.

France has the third largest standing military in the world, last I heard. The only reason why Germany doesn't is because the rest of the world thinks they should feel bad for their unrequited guilt of being German. Same goes for Japan, I guess. We need a military, yes. But do we need a military that's throwing us trillions upon trillions into debt? I know we xenophobes have to play the cowboy with the biggest gun in town, but the fiscal insanity it incurs isn't going to allow us go on like that much longer.

So, to get back to topic, probably in the next twenty years we're going to come to the sad realization that the United Nations isn't just the United States' Halloween costume with which it just scares its own nutjob conservatives. We only started paying our membership dues and the respective debt in what, 2002? And didn't that have some kind of, umm, ulterior motive? I think we realized fully well that we couldn't keep playing the Cold War game once the Cold War actually ended, so we just moved the badguys to the Middle East to keep it going. It's not going to work, and hopefully it won't ruin us before we figure that out.

In the international community, we're marginalizing ourselves and we're coming very close to self-castration. We're not going to ask for help until we're desperate, and probably the rest of the world realizes this in full. Hence, how can you blame them for not wanting to play with us anymore?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by derrida

NK has been wanting nukes since the 80's.

In 1994, we managed to persuade them to halt their nuclear program. We had cameras in their reactors, IAEA seals on the hatches, and real, live inspectors in the country. Kim Jong Il was still a crazy dictator, but at least he wasn't going to be a crazy dictator with nukes any time soon.

In January 2002, Bush made his "Axis of Evil" speech. North Korea started spreading rumors about a "secret nuclear program" later that year. Bush responds by cutting off all aid, terminating our end of the 1994 deal. By the end of that year, North Korea has expelled the IAEA inspectors, turned off the cameras, and reactivated their reactors.

March 2003, the US invades Iraq, the sole member of the "Axis of Evil" that didn't have a nuclear program at the time. That summer, NK begins test-firing missiles and drops all nuclear nonproliferation treaties. The US response is more or less nonexistent, refusing to even come to the bargaining table without massive concessions by NK.

Derrida, your timeline works if you completely exclude A.Q. Khan. You're forgetting that Khan made over a dozen trips to N. Korea after the 1994 arrangement. He provided them with designs, material, and a network of resources. Khan claims to have even witnessed three plutonium devices on one of his later trips to Pyongyang.

Also, in 2003 the German government intercepted over 100 aluminum tubes used for creating centrifuges.

So, it makes sense to you that N. Korea halts proliferation in 1994, started again in 2002 after their feelings were hurt, and then presto! In three years they have nuclear weapons (remember, they announced in 2005). DOn't get me wrong, I just don't think I'd give a despot the benefit of the doubt like that.

I'm a fan of carrot & stick policy, too. But to get back to my point, maybe giving into the petulant demands of a dictator is how we find ourselves in these spots. N. Korea relies almost entirely on foreign aid. If they don't throw fits like this, they might be forced to open up and rely on their human resources and actually produce stuff. It's kind of hard to maintain a dictatorship once you open up like that.

I don't believe N. Korea played nice from 1994-2002. I think we're seeing the possible results of what happens when you stop capitulating to a dictator and rotten regimes. China is openly throwing regime change on the table, so it's not like they're coddling either.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Cosmo Electrolux

hang on, Kevin. what do YOU suggest the US does about Kim? Go in and kick his ass like we did to the Taliban and the Iraquis....I use those as just one exapmle, btw.

I wasn't suggesting anything, princess. I sincerely used N. Korea as an example b/c it was a good example.

I posed a question-- Is our colder relationship with China and Russia, as well as the current antics of regimes such as N. Korea and Iran, a product of the War on Terror? I believe rotten regimes are going to run to Russia and China for cover, because the latter is less concerned with putting an end to terror, and even less concerned with humanitarianism.

[Grislygus]

Why does it have to be a product of the War on Terror? We've had cold relations with Russia and China to begin with. Furthermore, Kim Jong Il and President Ahmadinejad aren't really the types to sit around and rule quietly.

Now, I wouldn't be qualified to argue as to whether or not the War on Terror exacerbated things, but I'm positive that our current problems aren't the sole result of it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

We may become more isolated for taking a less "realpolitik" position on dealing with these regimes.

The relations with China and Russia are interesting, and you're right, have always been weird. But I guess my point was less about their direct relationship to us and more about the role they'll play on the global stage in a world where we are supposedly trying to isolate terror supporting regimes.