Sunday, October 08, 2006

It's time to draw a line

North Korea set to test nuke

I've posted on this lunatic several times. I've said that North Korea and Iran WILL obtain nuclear weapons. They're both rubbing elbows with Chavez, someone who lives in the Western Hemisphere, and if you remember your Monroe Doctrine then you know that's a bad thing. I've felt and still feel that Il, Chavez and Ahmadinejad could unite in a three pronged attack against us and Israel. Some have scoffed at me for saying this, and I hope to God it won't happen. But we seem to be heading in that direction.

Ahmadinejad and Chavez deliver a two day UN comedy routine bashing us on our own soil. Iran has YET to meet any UN demands for halting their nuclear program and no one seems to know how close they are to having the bomb. But Ahmadinejad has made it clear what his intentions are, even though he contradicts himself daily. Anyone who says Israel should be wiped off the map has no business getting anywhere near nuclear weapons, yet we sit back and wait for the UN to do something. And, for some ungodly reason, the Left seems to be more concerned about Darfur.

Now, Il is on the verge of a nuclear test. What happens when the voices in his head tell him to launch against us, or Japan, or South Korea, or even China? Nothing is beyond possible for him.

You better believe that the first chance that comes, they will find a way to share their nukes with Chavez. We don't have an effective missile defense shield and we could very well be facing a nuclear attack from three different directions. Paranoid? No. This possibility is very real. I'd feel safer giving a one-year old child a handgun. At least that child doesn't know how to use the weapon. These three are absolutely nuts, and soon they will all three have "the bomb". It's not paranoia. There's a very good reason to feel fearful.

We should send a clear signal NOW! I'm talking about opening a few silos and fueling a few missiles to somehow help these idiots understand that what they are doing WILL NOT be tolerated, UN be damned! If not that, then we should park a couple of submarines in Pyongyang's backyard so Il will understand that if he launches he'll only have a few minutes to enjoy it. Enough with these idle threats. Somehow people have the idea that nuclear action is NEVER an option and I think that's a mistake. There is a proper time to use our most powerful weapon and, folks, we're getting close to that time. Conventional strikes may not get the job done and there is no denying the fact that allowing Il to test and possess a nuclear bomb is simply unacceptable. A line must be drawn and actions must occur when that line is crossed. Kennedy drew that line with the Soviets, as did Reagan, and now we must do it again.

7 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

So, what's your line and what's the consequences of crossing that line?

Assuming your line is some sort of attack, I'm curious on what you base having the authority to attack a sovereign nation that believes, like you do, that having nuclear weapons is a good defensive option. Do you think we have the right to bomb/attack/nuke N. Korea because they have violated UN rules? Do you think that the US has to also heed UN rules?

I'm curious to know what your line is and on what basis we have authority to enforce that line.

John The Patriot said...

Dan,
We've been through this. There is no need to answer because of our differing opinion on how to protect America. You feel we don't have a right to act in our own defense unless such action is endorsed by the UN. You feel that we should submit ourselves to the court of world opinion. By your logic, we would never have attacked the Taliban prior to 9/11 nor Japan prior to Pearl Harbor. You feel we should wait UNTIL we're actually attacked before taking harsh action.

Even CHINA is upset about North Korea's actions. Somehow, the only ones who are OK with IL having nukes seem to be the American Left. I guess the only way I could justify military action against North Korea is if there were a mushroom cloud over Seattle, and even then you would probably argue against it. So, I'm sorry, but there is no need to go down this road with you again. I understand your position, and I highly disagree with it.

Dan Trabue said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dan Trabue said...

"I understand your position, and I highly disagree with it."

Apparently not. You've misrepresented my position twice in your two paragraphs above, so apparently you either don't understand my position or you're deliberately misrepresenting it. I assume you just don't understand.

"You feel we don't have a right to act in our own defense unless such action is endorsed by the UN."

No, I believe we must obey our own laws. The notion of pre-emptive invasion as Bush has created it is against the very notions of this great nation. I'll not have Bush further sully our name.

This is what I'm asking: Under what US legal basis do you suppose Bush has the authority to attack a country unprovoked?

You further misrepresented my position by saying:
"the only ones who are OK with IL having nukes seem to be the American Left."

This is really a tired strawman. Just because I want our country to obey our own laws and act conservatively (prudently) rather than rashly, does NOT mean that I support NK having nukes.

Rather, I conservatively recognize that we don't know what results there would be from such a pre-emptive attack, but attacking another sovereign nation is an extreme action and must be truly a last resort. We are nowhere near such a point right now.

Given Bush's world-recognized mistake of Iraq's Invasion and the horrible results from that, you'll excuse me and a majority of the US and the world if we require Bush to actually make a solid legal and logical case before making such a mistake again? (And I imagine you'll have to - I doubt that the majority of the US is willing to trust Bush with that sort of power - fool us once, shame on us. fool us twice, and it just won't happen.)

Dan Trabue said...

One of the core tenets of conservatism is that of Prudence. We ought always to act prudently because of our limited genius as humans. We just don't know enough to be able to predict the results of our actions.

And so, in a case where we're afraid that another country MIGHT be a threat to us - that they MAY POSSIBLY bomb us - it is entirely prudent to take actions to lessen the threat. It is NOT prudent, though, to attack based on a possible, maybe threat.

How large a war would that result in? How many would die? How many innocents would die because we acted rashly based on our fears, rather than logically and in a well-thought-out manner? How many of our soldiers will die? What will be the cost? How will we pay for that?

Where will the soldiers come from to engage in a much larger war than Iraq? Will we reinstate the draft? Would drafted soldiers be of the quality needed in order to "win" this preemptive invasion? Will the citizens of NK embrace our invasion or will they try to strike back? What is our plan to win this war? EXACTLY what is the plan?

Under WHAT LEGAL BASIS will we bomb a sovereign nation? Is that an action we can endorse other countries living by (ie, do we support other nations having the legal precedent of pre-emptive invasions based on fear)?

Until you can answer some basic questions in a well-reasoned manner, we are not conservatively ready to begin such an invasion and, fortunately for the US and the world, I don't think Bush has the political clout to do so - having failed so miserably in Iraq.

Since you're in the minority on this (wanting to bomb NK) and you hope to influence the rest of the country into thinking your way, you'll have to either do a much more sound job of convincing us or resign yourself to being ignored.

John The Patriot said...

Dan,
The legal precedent is that our elected leaders have the authority (in fact, the obligation) to protect us from enemies. You say we haven't been provoked, but the statements coming from North Korea are clear and distinct threats of a nuclear strike. Maybe they're bluffing, maybe not. Are you willing to risk it?

Nothing is going to convince Il to give up his nukes. The UN is completely incompetent. I don't think invasion is the answer, but he can't be allowed to have these weapons, especially while he is actively threatening to use them and especially when there are thousands of American troops in the area.

If a MAJORITY of Americans feel that there is a BETTER way of disarming Il, then I want to hear that proposal. So far, there haven't been any ideas other than "we can't attack". That's NOT an idea. True, if we attack thousands die, but what if we don't? Maybe nothing happens, maybe MILLIONS die. Again, your willing to take that risk, not me.

Dan Trabue said...

As I've said, you haven't convinced me nor the majority of the US - Bush included. The ball's in your park.