ajpirzada
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 6,011
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
Washington can sanction away as much as it likes. And the rest of the world can follow suit. But the only people who will suffer are the unfortunate citizens of North Korea. So what is Washington going to do about North Koreas nukes? Nuke them?
According to a media report, The US defence secretary, Robert Gates...forced home Americas view that North Koreas recent nuclear test and missile launches were seen as a direct threat. We will not stand idly by as North Korea builds the capability to wreak destruction on any target in the region or on us...we will not accept North Korea as a nuclear state, he said.
The assertion that North Korea poses a direct threat to the mighty United States is dismally reminiscent of the rubbish spoken by Bush and Cheney before their disastrous war on Iraq. (And the malignant and unrepentant Cheney is still repeating many of the absurd lies that Washington cooked up before the invasion.)
Certainly North Korea is run by a psychotic freak whose leadership, to use the word loosely, is irrational and bizarrely ineffective in running a country. Many of his people are driven to eat grass, bark and leaves, while he, according to the BBC, is known to have a taste for Hennessy VSOP cognac.
The thought of regime change is most attractive, as almost any sort of government would be preferable to that currently in Pyongyang. But when the chips come down, what is the worlds largest nuclear power going to do about puny North Koreas nuclear programme or missile tests? What options are open to the nation that has over 9,000 nuclear weapons and 700 military bases worldwide, along with 14 nuclear-armed submarines ready to fire 336 nuclear missiles at who-knows-where?
Sanctions are not the answer. The effect of US sanctions on Pakistan was to convince generations of young movers and shakers that Washington could not be trusted. Many of these people are now in positions of considerable responsibility, and they know that sanctions dont work, except counter-productively.
Sanctions on Pakistan were lifted whenever it seemed that Washingtons interests would be served. There was no question of morality or consistency. The US was well aware that Pakistan had a nuclear programme in the 80s. In 1985 I saw US aerial photographs that showed without doubt that there was a nuclear capability.
So were sanctions imposed? Not a chance, because at that time Pakistan was of value to America in its contest against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. But when the Soviets left and Pakistan suddenly became of no use to America, sanctions were clapped on again. They were intensified when Pakistan went tit-for-tat after Indias nuclear tests in 1998. Then they were lifted in 2001 when Pakistan again became useful following the terror attacks in New York and Washington. It is a painful and pathetic story.
Iran has been subject to US sanctions since 1979. In a public display of support for Saddam Hussein, they were intensified when he invaded Iran in 1980, and civil aircraft spare parts are among items forbidden to be exported. Since then 1,500 Iranians have died in aircraft accidents (not including the 290 killed when an Iranian airliner was shot down by a US warship in 1988). The only effect on Irans leadership has been to make it measurably more hostile to America.
Sanctions are imposed try to change a nations behaviour by inflicting hardship. But who suffers most?
They penalise the poor, and not their leaders. One only has to look at the appalling situation in Zimbabwe, where President Mugabe, a corrupt and brutal dictator, is disgustingly rich (as are his evil henchmen), while the majority of citizens are starving.
Human Rights Watch records that The deteriorating human rights situation in Zimbabwe is the continuation of a consistent pattern of human rights abuses over the past three years...the Zimbabwean government has created a culture of impunity, intolerance, and injustice. The dismantling of this culture is necessary before Zimbabwe can begin political and economic recovery.
So how could the most powerful nation on earth dismantle the culture of domestic terrorism in Zimbabwe?
President Obama declared in March that Zimbabwes actions and policies pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States, which is a quaint and self-centred assertion that the main problem about Mugabes despotic regime is not that it is killing thousands of Zimbabweans, but that it is vexing for Washington.
As the BBC reported, Zimbabwe is facing chronic food shortages, economic stagnation and an outbreak of cholera that has killed nearly 4,000 people. Most of the chaos is the fault of Mugabe but US and EU sanctions are also much to blame.
And remember the effect of international sanctions on Iraq before the invasion by the Bushniks and their misguided, hoodwinked allies. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked if she thought that sanctions were worthwhile when, after all, they had caused the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children. In a chilling and barely believable enunciation of policy, she declared that I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.
You can hardly imagine that an intelligent human being could say such a thing.
And Albrights point of view about sanctions included the ludicrous statement that We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted.
Might that apply, all these years later, to North Korea?
The South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo reported US Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg as stating The United States will pursue independent financial sanctions against North Korea. But although the North Korean leadership is criminal and lunatic it isnt so stupid as to ignore the message of US policy over decades.
Washington can sanction away as much as it likes. And the rest of the world can follow suit. But the only people who will suffer are the unfortunate citizens of North Korea. So what is Washington going to do about North Koreas nukes? Nuke them?
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
According to a media report, The US defence secretary, Robert Gates...forced home Americas view that North Koreas recent nuclear test and missile launches were seen as a direct threat. We will not stand idly by as North Korea builds the capability to wreak destruction on any target in the region or on us...we will not accept North Korea as a nuclear state, he said.
The assertion that North Korea poses a direct threat to the mighty United States is dismally reminiscent of the rubbish spoken by Bush and Cheney before their disastrous war on Iraq. (And the malignant and unrepentant Cheney is still repeating many of the absurd lies that Washington cooked up before the invasion.)
Certainly North Korea is run by a psychotic freak whose leadership, to use the word loosely, is irrational and bizarrely ineffective in running a country. Many of his people are driven to eat grass, bark and leaves, while he, according to the BBC, is known to have a taste for Hennessy VSOP cognac.
The thought of regime change is most attractive, as almost any sort of government would be preferable to that currently in Pyongyang. But when the chips come down, what is the worlds largest nuclear power going to do about puny North Koreas nuclear programme or missile tests? What options are open to the nation that has over 9,000 nuclear weapons and 700 military bases worldwide, along with 14 nuclear-armed submarines ready to fire 336 nuclear missiles at who-knows-where?
Sanctions are not the answer. The effect of US sanctions on Pakistan was to convince generations of young movers and shakers that Washington could not be trusted. Many of these people are now in positions of considerable responsibility, and they know that sanctions dont work, except counter-productively.
Sanctions on Pakistan were lifted whenever it seemed that Washingtons interests would be served. There was no question of morality or consistency. The US was well aware that Pakistan had a nuclear programme in the 80s. In 1985 I saw US aerial photographs that showed without doubt that there was a nuclear capability.
So were sanctions imposed? Not a chance, because at that time Pakistan was of value to America in its contest against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. But when the Soviets left and Pakistan suddenly became of no use to America, sanctions were clapped on again. They were intensified when Pakistan went tit-for-tat after Indias nuclear tests in 1998. Then they were lifted in 2001 when Pakistan again became useful following the terror attacks in New York and Washington. It is a painful and pathetic story.
Iran has been subject to US sanctions since 1979. In a public display of support for Saddam Hussein, they were intensified when he invaded Iran in 1980, and civil aircraft spare parts are among items forbidden to be exported. Since then 1,500 Iranians have died in aircraft accidents (not including the 290 killed when an Iranian airliner was shot down by a US warship in 1988). The only effect on Irans leadership has been to make it measurably more hostile to America.
Sanctions are imposed try to change a nations behaviour by inflicting hardship. But who suffers most?
They penalise the poor, and not their leaders. One only has to look at the appalling situation in Zimbabwe, where President Mugabe, a corrupt and brutal dictator, is disgustingly rich (as are his evil henchmen), while the majority of citizens are starving.
Human Rights Watch records that The deteriorating human rights situation in Zimbabwe is the continuation of a consistent pattern of human rights abuses over the past three years...the Zimbabwean government has created a culture of impunity, intolerance, and injustice. The dismantling of this culture is necessary before Zimbabwe can begin political and economic recovery.
So how could the most powerful nation on earth dismantle the culture of domestic terrorism in Zimbabwe?
President Obama declared in March that Zimbabwes actions and policies pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States, which is a quaint and self-centred assertion that the main problem about Mugabes despotic regime is not that it is killing thousands of Zimbabweans, but that it is vexing for Washington.
As the BBC reported, Zimbabwe is facing chronic food shortages, economic stagnation and an outbreak of cholera that has killed nearly 4,000 people. Most of the chaos is the fault of Mugabe but US and EU sanctions are also much to blame.
And remember the effect of international sanctions on Iraq before the invasion by the Bushniks and their misguided, hoodwinked allies. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked if she thought that sanctions were worthwhile when, after all, they had caused the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children. In a chilling and barely believable enunciation of policy, she declared that I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.
You can hardly imagine that an intelligent human being could say such a thing.
And Albrights point of view about sanctions included the ludicrous statement that We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted.
Might that apply, all these years later, to North Korea?
The South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo reported US Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg as stating The United States will pursue independent financial sanctions against North Korea. But although the North Korean leadership is criminal and lunatic it isnt so stupid as to ignore the message of US policy over decades.
Washington can sanction away as much as it likes. And the rest of the world can follow suit. But the only people who will suffer are the unfortunate citizens of North Korea. So what is Washington going to do about North Koreas nukes? Nuke them?
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
