Three cheers for the North Korean missle test By Fred Kaplan
George Bush's luck hasn't run out just yet.
North Korea's Fourth of July missile fizzle is the biggest diplomatic break that the president has caught all termand the biggest setback ("catastrophe" wouldn't be too strong a word) that his most-loathed nemesis, Kim Jong-il, has suffered in years.
For several weeks, a Taepodong-2 long-range missile had stood on a test site's launchpad, while leaders of the international communitynot just the United States, but Japan, Russia, South Korea, even Chinaurged Pyongyang's "Dear Leader" not to aggravate tensions by launching it.
Yesterday, after our own fireworks celebrations had died down, Kim thumbed his nose and launched his missileonly to see it sputter and crash a mere 35 seconds after liftoff. (A handful of short-range missiles, mainly Scuds, were tested successfully, but they were of little concern, demonstrating nothing remotely new.)
If you're going to defy all your enemies and allies, you'd better come away from the gamble with added strength and leverage. Kim Jong-il emerges from the Taepodong disaster with his chips spent and a pair of deuces on the table.
Once Kim hoisted that rocket onto the launchpad, the scenario could have played out three ways. First, he could have bowed to the international pressure, drained the liquid fuel, rolled the rocket back to the warehouse, and requested direct talks with Washington in exchange for his "good-faith" measures. Bush, who has long avoided direct talks, would have been in a spot.
Second, he could have tested the missile with successful results. His friends and foes would have been furious with him, but in the end they would have had to face the fact that North Korea now had not only a nuclear bomb or two but the potential, someday, to pack a warhead on a missile and fire it wherever he wanted.
In either of those two scenarios, Kim would have come out of the game ahead.
Third, he could have tested the missile and watched it fail. That would have been the worst possible outcome, and that's what happened yesterday. It's like a bank robber who gets everyone's attention by firing his gun at the ceilingand a little flag with the word "Bang!" pops out of the barrel. The only effect is that he's no longer taken seriously.
Continued on Page 49
#4
It is my understanding Kimmie didn't purchase the "siphon hose" option and had no way of standing down. From the moment they started fueling they were committed to launch or "EPA superfund" site.
#5
Wake up. Kimmy is the puppet. It serves his master, Red China for Kimmy to test ordinance. China is checking how our alert system works.
We will need to make changes.
I don't think Kimmy is a puppet of the PRC. The PRC consider him somewhere between a nuisance and a low level threat. However, the PRC, like the Skors doesn't want to see a mass exodus of Nkors into their territory. Thus they keep subsidizing the Nkor electrical system, the Nkor food-for-the-army system, the Nkor weapons procurement system, etc.
If the PRC weren't so horrible in their own right, I would feel some sorrow for them.
Long, but very interesting academic article on global climate with a nice conclusion (below).
This is not just an academic issue. The play that the doomsday scenario has gotten in the mediaeven from seemingly reputable outlets such as the British Broadcasting Corporationcould be dismissed as attention grabbing sensationalism. But at root, it is the ignorance of how regional climates are determined that allows this misinformation to gain such traction. Maury should not be faulted; he could hardly have known better. The blame lies with modern-day climate scientists who either continue to promulgate the Gulf Stream-climate myth or who decline to clarify the relative roles of atmosphere and ocean in determining European climate. This abdication of responsibility leaves decades of folk wisdom unchallenged, still dominating the front pages, airwaves and Internet, ensuring that a well-worn piece of climatological nonsense will be passed down to yet another generation.
#3
Given the role of the Rocky Mountains in weather patterns, might the Larimide orogeny--which formed the basis of the Rocky Mountains as we know them today--have played a role in the extinction of the dinosaurs? It did take place during the late Cretaceous through the early Tertiary.
President William Jefferson Clinton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20502
Dear Mr. President:
We urge you not to make the decision to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system during the remaining months of your administration. The system would offer little protection and would do grave harm to this nation's core security interests.
We and other independent scientists have long argued that anti-ballistic missile systems, particularly those attempting to intercept reentry vehicles in space, will inevitably lose in an arms race of improvements to offensive missiles.
North Korea has taken dramatic steps toward reconciliation with South Korea. Other dangerous states will arise. But what would such a state gain by attacking the United States except its own destruction?
While the benefits of the proposed anti-ballistic missile system are dubious, the dangers created by a decision to deploy are clear. It would be difficult to persuade Russia or China that the United States is wasting tens of billions of dollars on an ineffective missile system against small states that are unlikely to launch a missile attack on the U.S. The Russians and Chinese must therefore conclude that the presently planned system is a stage in developing a bigger system directed against
them. They may respond by restarting an arms race in ballistic missiles and having missiles in a dangerous "launch-on-warning" mode.
Even if the next planned test of the proposed anti-ballistic missile system works as planned, any movement toward deployment would be premature, wasteful and dangerous.
Respectfully,...
(Follows is a list of the Nobel Laureates who signed this ill-advised letter.) I encourage the reposting of this letter with the attached list of names, so that people can see how even supposed "experts" can have ignorant and foolish notions. No longer should these scientists point with pride to their mistake. Instead they should wear it as a scarlet letter.
#2
Dupes, fools, or traitors. Take your pick. Their arguments are, at best, disingenuous and flawed; at worst, they are blatant lies.
I will write to each signatory who hails from my alma mater. Not that it will do any good right now.
Disgusting.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
07/06/2006 12:41 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Highly amusing -- a great many of the signatories won prizes for medicine or chemistry, and one for economics. What arrogance to assume that expertise in one field transposes into expertise in all others. The physicists' work at least can be claimed to be marginally related, but as for the rest...
And History has quickly shown how unkind she plans to be to the poor dears -- only six years of glory before the fall. It would be unkind to point and laugh.
#4
I sometimes wonder if they give these things away based on political persuasion matching some kind of pacifist agenda. "Pacifism is honorable, right?" Only if it sticks. President Carter got one of those things, but if he got his way there would be total chaos within a couple generations. How peaceful is that?
Posted by: grb ||
07/06/2006 13:27 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Dont forget Arafat - the murdering thug and terrorist - also recevied an Noble peace prize.
#7
These kinds of things bring out the intellectual snob in me, Swamp Blondie. Of course that's what they think, which is what makes the whole exercise so amusing (or annoying, depending on one's inclination) to those of us with a vague idea of our limitations. ;-)
#13
"North Korea has taken dramatic steps toward reconciliation with South Korea."
Name one.
Does sending hit teams across the border to kill the South Korean president count? Hmmm...how about blowing up a South Korean commercial airliner full of passengers? Or...killing the South Korean cabinet members visiting another south Asian country? Geez,,,theres got to be something in this list.
(2006-07-06) In another sign of lukewarm support from his own party for Sen. Joseph Liebermans reelection campaign, Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy today branded the Connecticut incumbent as a J.F.K. conservative, a relic of another era.
Im not sure we need someone in the Senate whos still mired in the provincial, hawkish John F. Kennedy ideas about U.S. military power, said Sen. Kennedy. But if he wins the primary, Ill show my party loyalty by refraining from campaigning against him openly.
Meanwhile, Democrat National Committee Chairperson Howard Dean said the national party, in cooperation with MoveOn.org, would fund a last-minute advertising blitz on local TV stations in which Sen. Liebermans face morphs into that of President Kennedy.
Let every candidate know, Mr. Dean said, whether he wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of the war on the war on terror.
The United States holds about 450 men in a prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on suspicion of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that President George W. Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military trials for some Guantanamo Bay detainees.
What should President Bush do with these men now? Should he hold them and pass their situation on to the next president? Should he attempt to try them in civil courts? Should he send them back to their countries of origin? Or what?
#4
Implant tracking devices/bugs in them and let them go. If/when they misbehave, you'll know it, and also where to direct the Hellfire (so you don't need to worry about where to re-imprison them.)
There was a time not long ago when a general would resign rather than follow an order he could not, in good conscience, obey. A conscience is an essential part of the character we expect our officers to possess. But it is an inconvenience to a politician. Some generals who become politicians - such as Dwight Eisenhower - overcome the inconvenience by remaining faithful to their conscience. Lesser men overcome conscience by letting it fall prey to the fatal flaws of political character: ambition and the desire to take revenge.
Last April, six retired generals, each of whom had been promoted to significant rank under the Clinton administration, publicly criticized the president's handling of the Iraq war and - some clearly and some in muddled terms - demanded the firing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. On April 16, in the midst of what he labeled a "military revolt," former Clinton UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke wrote a Washington Post op-ed that characterized the generals' mini-revolt as, "the most serious public confrontation between the military and an administration since President Harry S. Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur."
Asked if the generals were coordinating their campaign, one participant, retired MGen. John Batiste, denied that they were. But to some of us who comment on national security matters there was an unmistakable similarity among the generals' remarks. Holbrooke's article casually attributed the similarity to the fact that recently-retired generals stay in close touch. But there was obviously more going on. Holbrooke, who is said to be a likely Secretary of State in a future Democratic administration but who lacks any military credentials, wasn't a likely candidate to organize and urge the generals to rebel against civilian authority. But his column hinted darkly at more to come:
Continued on Page 49
#3
They keep the stream of propaganda going, but I just don't think is all that effective. The Senate vote 94-3 to stay. The congress vote was also an easy victory.
People think of the newspapers as traitors and useful idiots - and while this will preach well to the choir, it just further cement public opinion against our press and MSM in general.
#4
You're so welcome TW. Reading the many perspectives and the great comments here motivates me to post when I have the opportunity. Since you are one of the people whose comments and posts I most enjoy reading, it's an honor to be appreciated by you. :-)
It is forbidden in Islam to convert to any other religion. The penalty is death. There is no disagreement about it. Islam is being embraced by people of other faiths all the time. They should know they can embrace Islam, but cannot get out. This rule is not made by Muslims; it is the supreme law of God.
It seemed odd to find this in a letter to the editor of the Lansing State Journal, but not odd that it originated in East Lansing.
"As early as 1910 plans were made to construct a mosque in the Detroit suburb of Highland Park, which at that time was the location of the Ford automotive plant and the center of the area's Muslim population."
http://www.pluralism.org/affiliates/jacobs/index.php
#3
The response to such vicious nonsense must be plain. Either accept the law of the land, including religious pluralism and the right of any individual to leave his current faith, or leave. American law is for all -- you do not get to pick some laws and disobey others.
#8
Islam will become a religion when "submission to the will of God" no longer means "submission to the will of Man."
Until then, Islam is just a cult: a primitive, barbaric cult that glorifies murder of non-members, slavery, and ritual abuse of females.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
07/06/2006 17:44 Comments ||
Top||
#9
2b,
one of the allures to go to Michigan State for us guys from the Detroit area was the lack of muslims and prettier girls then UofM could ever deliver. Lansing had a miniscule muzzy population if any. Ann Arbor had all the weirdos as well. Maybe things have changed in the past 10-12 years.
#11
The next time anyone here has any contact with a convert who gushes about how wonderful life with muslims really is, how great their muslim family life is, or praises their non-muslim family for accepting their change of faith, ask them this?
What would all your wonderful muslim friends and family do if you decided to leave islam? Would they accept your decision? Or would all these people that you think are so great now shun you and treat you like you were dead?
All of these modern wetern women who "freely" choose Islam are married off to muslim men as quickly as possible so they can start having muslim babies. If she ever thinks about leaving later, or if it ever dawned on her that the more loving examples in her life come from her devoted non-muslim family, she would immediately be faced with the choice to stay a muslim or lose her kids, her husband, and all of her muslim inlaws and friends. That is one pillar to islam's success. They dont have to kill apostates. Any potential apostate can see all too clearly that they would lose the love of all the people dear to them if they followed their conscience. Most people are not strong enough to walk out on their family for any reason.
Keep on telling the truth. For all the desparate people mesmerized by this "faith" in spite of the truth abou screaming in their face, there have to be hundreds turned off by it. Time will eventually slow its advance by free will choice. After that point, we can more than easily kick the tails of any muslims who resort to the sword. we've already proven that.
AS far as the Bush administration is concerned, Pakistan may be a key strategic ally, but it is also a hotbed of Islamic militancy, an enemy of Israel, and a nation that barely disguises its hostility to the US.
Even worse, Pakistan just never seems to get with the programme, as they say in Washington. This unflattering viewpoint was underlined for all to see during US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rices recent visit to Pakistan.
Secretary Rice reportedly demanded President Pervez Musharraf inflict more punishment on the tribes of North Waziristan and clamp down on Taliban supporters in Balochistan. She demanded Pakistan intensify efforts to root out Al Qaeda supporters and curb its Islamic parties.
One really wonders how much more Pakistan is expected to give. Since coming to power, President Musharraf has been forced by Washington to first abandon, then declare war on its creation, the Taliban, and give up Pakistans historic strategic interests in Afghanistan. Then, Musharraf was forced to purge Pakistans ablest generals, who had put him into power. They were replaced by officers approved by Washington.
ISI was transformed from one of the worlds finest intelligence agencies into a compliant servant of the government that, like CIA, abandoned its professionalism and duty to the nation by allowing itself to become politicised.
The struggle for freedom in Kashmir was abandoned and reclassified as Islamic terrorism, handing a huge victory to the Indians, who gleefully crowed they were getting revenge for Kargil. To the outside world, Pakistan seemed to admit it had indeed been a hotbed and sponsor of terrorism.
There are persistent reports that Pakistans nuclear arsenal, its key to survival against mighty India, has been put under some degree of US supervision. Just how much remains uncertain.
Britains nuclear weapons cannot be used without US approval. Have Pakistans nuclear weapons been similarly put under joint control? We dont know, but we do know that the Bush administration wants to deprive Pakistan of its nuclear weapons. In fact, Bush even told Britains Tony Blair in 2003 that once he finished off Iraq he would go on to deal with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
On top of all this, Islamabad has been forced to wage war against its own people as part of the so-called war on terrorism. Washingtons insistence that Pakistan break its traditional autonomy agreement with the tribes of the NWFP destabilises Pakistan and undermines its national integrity.
Each step along this painful route of submission has increasingly angered and dismayed Pakistanis. President Musharraf has bent over so far backwards that his head is almost touching the ground.
Its hard to think what more he can do to meet Washingtons never-ending demands. As Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri pointedly observed, the government now has 90,000 troops in Waziristan battling its own tribesmen.
Pakistans reward for obeying Washingtons requests is three billion to four billion dollars. But this amount is not enough to make up for forcing Pakistan to repeatedly violate its own national self-interest. If Pakistan is truly Americas most important ally in the war on terrorism, as Washington claims, then the price for this cooperation should be much higher.
The US is spending $6.1 billion a week alone in Iraq, and another $1.5 billion to $2 billion weekly in Afghanistan. To quote the late President Ziaul Haq, three to four billion dollars per annum is peanuts.
Even hints from Washington that it may finally supply modern F-16 models hardly compensates for what Pakistan has been through. Nor does it seriously alter the dangerous military imbalance between Pakistan and India. The US just announced it will provide $2 billion of arms and trucks to its Afghan sepoys. Surely, Pakistan deserves better? Perhaps its time for President Musharraf to start demanding a change.
Posted by: john ||
07/06/2006 19:22 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm just speechless at this nonsense..
Posted by: john ||
07/06/2006 19:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
handing a huge victory to the Indians, who gleefully crowed they were getting revenge for Kargil.
Bizarre reading of history. Kargil was not a Pak victory. They lost.
From
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1039940
The Pakistan Army lost 2,700 military personnel in the Kargil conflict, far higher than its casualties during the 1965 and 1971 wars with India, former Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif has said in his memoirs.
Sharif said the casualties suffered by the Army were so extensive that an entire brigade of the Northern Light Infantry based in the Pakistan-controlled Northern Areas was wiped out
Sharif said adding he was told the Indian artillery bombardment was so extensive that it blew off the heads of Pakistan soldiers hiding in trenches.
Musharraf told Sharif that because the trenches did not have covers, the soldiers were directly exposed to artillery fire.
"Let me tell you by the time when the Washington deal took place, the Indians had already recaptured half of the peaks and were advancing further. I protected the Pakistan Army's honour or they would have been left with nothing," Sharif said.
.
Posted by: john ||
07/06/2006 19:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Pakistan has done more than enough. Who wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta?
Posted by: ed ||
07/06/2006 19:36 Comments ||
Top||
#4
This is the clincher...
ISI was transformed from one of the worlds finest intelligence agencies into a compliant servant of the government
So the ISI was just fine when it was unopposed in formenting jihad ?
Posted by: john ||
07/06/2006 19:39 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Margolis is the former proprietor and chairman of Jamieson Laboratories, a leading manufacturer of vitamins and herbal supplements
Posted by: john ||
07/06/2006 21:03 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I call bullshit: "The US is spending $6.1 billion a week alone in Iraq, and another $1.5 billion to $2 billion weekly in Afghanistan. To quote the late President Ziaul Haq, three to four billion dollars per annum is peanuts."
Let's see. $6.1 billion per week would be $312 billion per year. That would be most of the Defense budget on Iraq alone. Add in another $78-$104 billion on Afghanistan and you're talking serious money. Sounds like fuzzy math to me.
Posted by: Tibor ||
07/06/2006 21:21 Comments ||
Top||
#10
We get what we paided for, if Pakistan wants more money, maybe they should return the investment. Their surrounded by US Afghanistan, India, and Shite Iran, they better take what they can get.
#11
I guess all those assassination attempts didn't "persuade" Mushy our way, either, eh Mr. Margolis? Just like Chechnya/Beslan didn't persuade Putty more in our camp. Geez, what a maroon. One of the few articles where I don't even know where to begin shredding it apart.
Posted by: BA ||
07/06/2006 23:07 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
George Bush's luck hasn't run out just yet.
We urge you not to make the decision to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system during the remaining months of your administration. The system would offer little protection and would do grave harm to this nation's core security interests.
