State of the Union
2005.02.03 5:35

I've got more concern to American diplomacy than American domestic economy. It might be unimaginable for American people. Here in Japan we can watch special TV news dealing with North Korea matter every day and night. I am much more concerned about what Mr President would talk about his basic attitude to that country- dialogue or not.
Japan has been stepping up its hubristic attitude toward North Korea very rapidly. It seems to me that the U.S. be the only country that can stop this dangerous torrents to war though...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
State of the Union Preferences Top 13 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 13 comments 0: 13 comments 1: 13 comments 2: 6 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Closely linked(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.02.03 7:54 (#11556037) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 5:50)
Our diplomacy is strongly linked to our domestic economy. Our domestic economy can largely be described as a huge family living entirely on credit cards. All of our foreign policy is designed to get people to send us stuff in return for cash payments that aren't worth the paper they are printed on because we're far overextended. The way we do this is with misdirection- and by pretending to be a larger military power than we can actually afford to be.--Instead of teaching our children the wrong example of genocide, go down in dignity and teach that we are stupid.
Re:Closely linked(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.02.05 4:11 (#11574940) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.24 14:16)
War is not done by cash or bond, etc. paper money. If one country has got unlimited access to oil and steel, beside with advanced technology, whatever you may say, the country is as good as winner of any war. U.S. is positioned in this status. So needless to say, U.S. is ready for war at any time. Of course U.S. fought already two wars and stationed in the liberated country. It is clear that U.S. is not poised to start another war right now. There will be phony war period, now is the one.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:Closely linked(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.02.05 4:37 (#11575214) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 5:50)
If one country has got unlimited access to oil and steel Which the United States no longer does- 60% of our oil production is out of country and is in fields that have already hit their own minature Hubert Peaks, and the steel mills have been shutting down ever since your own Japan proved that American steel production methods, especially worker's wages, were non-competitive. W Bush tried to solve the problem with tarriffs, but it was too little too late- the last American steel mills will be shutting down in the next couple of years. Once the workers are gone, that will be the end of US Steel production entirely.--Instead of teaching our children the wrong example of genocide, go down in dignity and teach that we are stupid. [ Parent ]
Re:Closely linked(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.02.05 5:53 (#11576101) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.24 14:16)
Paper money is only valuable in peace time, when we can have government stable enough to ensure its value. In the event of war, any war including war with terrorism this time U.S. started, relatively the value of goods or other form of any materials, resources tend to be higher than the value of currency. Sometimes at the utmost of all out war, currencies lose all the values. Thus hyperinflation occurs.
So I mean as long as U.S. is materialistically rich enough, they don't have to worry about spending their currencies as much as they want, especially they liberated a country which has got lots of oil fields, U.S. are now not only rich in oil but in their mind.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:Closely linked(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.02.05 6:32 (#11576526) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 5:50)
especially they liberated a country which has got lots of oil fields, U.S. are now not only rich in oil but in their mind. Of course, given the nationality and religion of most of the voters- some would say we've now handed that country over to Iran (the Grand Ayatollah of Shia is Iranian, as is the chief Ayatollah of Shia in Iraq- yes, the guy the right wingers have been quoting as saying "We want a free and democratic Iraq" isn't even Iraqi).--Instead of teaching our children the wrong example of genocide, go down in dignity and teach that we are stupid. [ Parent ]
Re:Closely linked(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.02.08 20:57 (#11605130) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.24 14:16)
One thing is certain- there's no country to decide the annexation to neighbouring countries by way of referendum. Election is a way to achieve political goal within a country in peacetime.
Besides, given that their sect is the same, first and foremost they are different in people. I think all three sects of Iraq are more likely to integrate their political will into newly elected members of parliament.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:Closely linked(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.02.09 3:28 (#11608648) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 5:50)
One thing is certain- there's no country to decide the annexation to neighbouring countries by way of referendum. Election is a way to achieve political goal within a country in peacetime. Actually, the Democratic Republic of Poland used to decide annexation that way- it was in fact written into their constitution. If the Turkish Ottomans hadn't destroyed them, their form of government would probably have overtaken Europe and destroyed the need for the French Revolution (a Democratic Monarchy was an interesting experiment for the 1600s).Besides, given that their sect is the same, first and foremost they are different in people. True slightly- though I doubt you could pick a Persian from an Arab in a lineup. The point though is that Iraqi Shia are LED by Iranian Persian Shia- the leadership that they elect in is Persian.I think all three sects of Iraq are more likely to integrate their political will into newly elected members of parliament. The Shia and the Kurds stand half a chance- but thanks to turnout and truck bombs in the Sunni section, they will have no more than 5 seats (out of 275) on the parliament at best- certianly not enough to integrate their political will. OTOH- they're exactly the group the US invaded to kick out of power....--Instead of teaching our children the wrong example of genocide, go down in dignity and teach that we are stupid. [ Parent ]
Re:Closely linked(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.02.09 23:38 (#11617659) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.24 14:16)
So how do you think about the possibility of breaking up into 3 independent states? Independent Kurdistan -even if America wanted it, surrounding countries cannot allow them to be so. if independent Shiite Iraq wanted to unify Shiite countries, America would not allow them to do so.
So it's true. -Sunnis were kicked out of the power and they boycotted the election. But breakaway is harder and less likely. They will soon find their way in the democratic process.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:Closely linked(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.02.10 1:23 (#11618784) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.24 5:50)
So how do you think about the possibility of breaking up into 3 independent states? Independent Kurdistan -even if America wanted it, surrounding countries cannot allow them to be so. I'm not so sure of that anymore- the surrounding countries for an independant Kurdistan would be Turkey and Iran- both of whom could then export a continuing culture war from their borders and end up with a better situation.. if independent Shiite Iraq wanted to unify Shiite countries, America would not allow them to do so. I'm not so sure of that either- A band of democratic Shia countries across the north would enable one potential solution to the Palestine question- a separate democratic Palestine protected by it's neighbors to the North, with a democratic Israel protected by Egypt to the South would be a more stable solution than what we currently have.But it's this last bit that is the kicker:So it's true. -Sunnis were kicked out of the power and they boycotted the election. But breakaway is harder and less likely. They will soon find their way in the democratic process. It's a bit worse than that- the Sunni Triangle actually contains a democratic plurality and the majority of Iraq's industrialized area (the Kurds and the Shia are largely still desert nomads- though the Shia have oil fields for an industry, the Kurds have just vast expanses of mountainous desert). My guess is that at best Iraq would split in two- and there'd be a fight between the Kurds and the Shia for the Industrialized Old Babylon currently occupied by the Sunni minority. The Sunnis will be even more of a minority before this can even begin to happen- because by and large, their young men make up the insurgency and will not give up anytime soon without genocide.--Instead of teaching our children the wrong example of genocide, go down in dignity and teach that we are stupid. [ Parent ]
US North Korea policy(Score:1)
by johndiii (229824) * <(johndiii) (at) (amilost.com)> on 2005.02.03 11:53 (#11558343) (Last Journal: 2005.09.24 5:57)
US policy toward North Korea has been much too inconsistent. I'm not sure that they will take us seriously. Going back to the Pueblo incident, we run hot and cold. In the last 20 years, they were enemies under Reagan, more or less ignored under Bush 41, rapprochment under Clinton (when ex-President Carter gave them cover for their nuclear program), enemy status under the current Bush. About all one can say is that (1) we will fight them if they invade the South, and (2) if they nuke Japan, we will nuke them.--Under the heavens we journey far, On roads of life we're the wanderers...
Re:US North Korea policy(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.02.05 3:40 (#11574582) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.24 14:16)
We suspect North Korea be from the rogue country to the oppressing country, certainly his expression got alleviated, which made us impress that he has no clear intention to start another war.
We heard the news of newly developed war machine-SWORDS, which cost 200 thousand dollars. As a matter of fact, he will deploy this war machine 18 kits to Iraq next month. He will be able to open another theatre even in a land if he can succeed mass production of this kit.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Surprisingly(Score:2)
by Degrees (220395) <degrees&comcast,net> on 2005.02.03 13:23 (#11558943) (http://home.comcast.net/~gerisch Last Journal: 2005.09.24 11:46)
The cooling relations between Japan and North Korea do not seem to be getting much press here. I'm not the most news hungry person, but I do scan three (small-town) newspaper sites every morning. Since you mentioned the growing tension a few days ago, I've been on the look-out for news stories, but have not seen them.
One thing I expect is that the current administration does not want to have to deal with the problem. Their plan may be to ignore it and hope it goes away. IIRC, officially, the stance is "If North Korea becomes a problem, China had better deal with it - or else." (The "or else" would be trade sanctions. That is the one (only) big stick the USA could use against China.)
Presumably, this has already been communicated to the Chinese government....
But as a politician, George W Bush knows that to add another (real, severe) political problem to his administration's plate, would be very bad. He still has to get out of Iraq, and government spending is still on the rise. He isn't well positioned to give the american public even more bad news.
--The difficulty of Libertarianism: not 'I must be free' but 'That other jerk must be free, as well'.
Re:Surprisingly(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.02.05 3:11 (#11574254) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.24 14:16)
Basically, his main concern would be only limited to Iraq and Palestinian issue, not Afganistan any more, still less North Korea.
Though at the beginning of his first term presidency, he pointed out that North Korea be the rogue country, as you mentioned, he has already fought two wars. It has been naturally thought that he has no clear will to start another theatre in the Far East unless as you say that country made a bold attempt.
But the problem is Japan seems to start economic sanctions soon. One of main imports from North Korea, little neck clams, which shares 40% of all our domestic consumption will be banned soon. That certainly worsens already stagnate economy of that country. Next one, ban of crabs and sea-urchins...
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters