>
> -Threat? What threat? The possibility that NK might
> get
> -the bomb? That's a threat? France has the bonb.
> Should
> -we worry about the French threat?
>
> Um, no-- despite rightwing propaganda to the
> contrary, France is a
> democratic state, a liberal state in your favorite
> phrase.
>
> North Korea is run by a dictatorial monarchy with a
> leader willing to see
> his own people die of starvation to support his
> military spending.
>
I would like you explain why the democratic nature of the French State makes a difference. The US is a democracy. It is also the only country that has ever used these weapons, and is widely regarded as (in my view correctly) a far greater threat to global security than Iraq or (probably) NK. The fact of the matter is that democracy doesn't make much difference when it comes to foreign policy, as we see right now. Disagreements among the elite tend to "stop at the water's edge" in the American expression, and that is true elsewhere too, whether or the borders are wet.
The real issue is whether the leadership of the country involved is rational. In the Cuban Missle Crisis, the democratic US almost blew up the world over the deployment of missiles to Cuba -- the Russians were supposed to sit still and take when we deployed similar missiles to Turkey (the Cuban deployment was in response to that action), but hey, we're "special". The dictatorial USSR acted like grownups in that situation, so you can thank Nikita Khrushchev every time you see the run rise in the morning, that, dictator though he was, he knew that it wasn't worth blowing up the world to salve his country's national pride. This was a point that eluded the Kennedy administration.
No, I don't think NK nuclear weapons would add significantly to global insecurity. I think it might tend to promote global stability, although I am not confident of that.
As to "letting his own people die to support military spending," I can take you on a tour of some neighborhoods in Shytown where that is happening. Or don't you live in Newark or Jersey City? You can see the same thing there. AS you damn well know.
> And the existence of a threat does not mean that
> military intervention is
> the solution.
Glad to hear you say that.
That the
> left cannot make a coherent argument on foreign
> policy dealing with
> justified fears due to Al Qaeda, North Korea, and so
>
There are a lot of left positions out there with varying degrees of internal coherence. Personally I doubt that the right one (mine) has the popular appeal to deal with fears. I think there's a real problem with al Quaida. I support vigorous international police investigation, carried out with due process, to address it. (Btw the Chi Trib came out with an editorial supporting, in a hesitant and qualified way, the use of torture against al Qaida suspects like this Muhammed character whom they just captured. Isn't that sweet?) I do not think that we are threatened by NK, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Palestine, or France. I do not think we'd be threatened by them if they had the bomb ("France has the bomb, but don't you grieve/They're on our side, I believe/Who's next?). There is no chance whatsoever than any of these nations are going to attack us. jks
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/