There are many people, including people in government, who thought Kim Jong Il was a stupid mad man. Eccentric and ruthless, yes. But stupid, no. Sure, he inherited power from his father. Sure, he was not as charismatic as his father was. Usually sons of politicians are not as capable as the father. But many of his actions that are deemed crazy in the west are in most cases shrewd moves. By playing up his mad man character, it scares the west into thinking that he may use nuclear weapons and thus they are more likely to negotiate with him and give him aid. As I have written before, dictators like Kim and Hussein are not going to use weapons of mass destruction against the west because they know they would not survive the retaliation. Just like Hussein's chemical and biological weapons, Kim's nukes are just for show and as a means of extortion to get concessions.
Now what is next? Well, nobody knows much about his son Kim Jong Un. Supposedly he was educated outside of the country but I don't know where. But in any case I doubt that he would open up the country. I had high hopes for Assad in Syria when he took over for his father because he was a British trained physician. Surely he would be less despotic than his father. But that turned out not to be true. So it is likely the young Kim will not be much different than his father in term of policies. Even if he is different, I think the old generals in the military would control him, maybe use him as a puppet. But one thing for sure, after a transition period, we should try to engage the North Koreans as quickly as possible. I think trying to isolate them would be a mistake. You always try to keep your enemies close to you so you understand them better. We should try to understand the young Kim as soon as possible. I know China will be trying to do this because the last thing they want is for the regime to collapse, spilling millions of refugees into China.
Finally, I think we really have no great reason to keep thousands of troops in South Korea. The South Koreans are perfectly capable of fighting off a convention attack from the north. And if the north use nukes, we would have to respond with nukes. We can do this from anywhere, including the Pacific fleet. We don't have to have soldiers at the DMZ to use nukes. In fact if the north is crazy enough to use nukes, then having our soldiers there would just add to our casualties. So, we don't need a big base in Korea. Ron Paul is right on about this, we don't have to spread our military all over the world to protect us and our allies.
There are too many questions right now regarding Kim Jong Un. These unknowns can either help him or hurt him. There is a consensus that the military would somehow have more power, which is not a positive for peace in the region.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised that China hasn't already had some dealings with him in the past. Seems to me that his father would have included him in some of the talks and meetings.
I understand your view on pulling out of S. Korea but I personally feel safer having troops in the region to be able to respond to any crisis immediately there.
Also, I believe that the S. Korean government wants us there as protection.
We talk about keeping our enemies close and I think this is a good way to do it. If we pull out, I believe that it shows weakness on our part and it'll let N. Korea to try and engage S. Korea in some kind of military action.
Glad we can finally have some disagreements other than the Bowl games!
-LBOAYM
If you are not worried about jinxing yourself. Oh, sorry, that was the disagreement about bowl games. I don't think Paul has any illusion that some of his beliefs will ever be passed as laws. As a libertarian, he has to allow people to have the right to screw up their lives. Whether weed is worse or alcohol is worse is beside the point. They are both no good for you but prohibition was a big failure and so is the war on drugs. So I agree with Paul that people should be free to smoke weed, and we would tax it like alcohol and so the drug dealers won't be the ones making the profit. I have no illusion that this will cut down drug use but I doubt that it would make it worse. But it may drive some of the drug cartels out of business and decrease the violence associated with it.
ReplyDeleteYou say you feel safer having troops in the region. I don't see why that is so. Not that any army is coming to attack us in the U.S. but why spread ourselves all over the world? It takes lot of money to maintain all these foreign bases. Let the South Koreans take care of themselves. They have a much more powerful conventional force than the north. Having Americans in Korea just give the north a target to hit our people if the north decides to attack. We had no forces in Afghanistan but we attacked the Taliban in a very quick time after 9/11.
We have the most powerful navy and air force in the world. We can attack anywhere we want in a short moment of notice. I don't think stationing ground troops all over world is making us safer. It is more of a show of power. But this comes at a cost. As a boy I didn't like seeing the British troops stationed in Hong Kong. They were protecting Hong Kong but they are still a foreign army. Whenever some of the soldiers misbehave, it got into the newspapers and I am sure more people disliked them. Our troops have gotten into problems with the law overseas. And obviously they have fathered children whom they abandoned in many cases. They are not as welcome abroad as many Americans believe. I think if we close the bases and use the money to train for more and better special forces, it would help us more in the future. Remember one of the reason the British lost their empire is because they spread themselves too thin.
Keep up with the good comments, I enjoy responding to them. It keeps me on my toes. So maybe I can dance better as a result!
No problem on the comments...anything to help you dance better...but I don't think it will work. I think you being tone deaf trumps anything I can do for you!
ReplyDeleteAs far as Ron Paul goes, I haven't studied enough of him to know whether he thinks his beliefs would ever be passed as laws. If he didn't think he could change government, why would he run for president 3 times? As far as I know, he's been one of the most active congressmen and definitely walks the walk.
In an ideal world, I could agree with some libertarian beliefs, but in a real world scenario, those things could never happen. However, in the most part, I disagree with a lot of their beliefs and view them as extremists.
I could go more into detail about this but I'm pretty sure you know where I'm coming from.
As far as the weed smoking thing. It would be hard to predict what would happen if we made it legal to smoke. But what I do think would happen is that we would regulate the hell out of it and thus involve more government intervention. Now, we could leave it up to the states, but it will still involve government, so I think that would go against libertarian beliefs. I personally would not want it easily accessible. I've seen too many lives affected by alcohol that I can't imagine what weed would do.
As far as S. Korea goes, unless told otherwise, I believe that the S. Korean government wants us there. Now, what is the point of staying if they didn't want us there? I can agree with you that it could be for show, but it does make me feel safer. I think there is a tactical advantage to have people on the ground, in different regions of the world, that are used to the climate and people in said regions.
As far as spreading ourselves too thin, I contend that the odds of ever being invaded are small and we have enough troops here that can defend the country.
I don't think you can compare the U.S. to the Brits who set out to colonize the world. I don't think our intent is to colonize but to protect ourselves and our allies.
You are right about the misconduct of some of our troops and there should be consequences for every soldier who breaks the law. And if that country doesn't want us there, we should leave. I think that's what we're doing in Iraq. But we still maintain a military presence in the region, like in Kuwait.
-LBOAYM
I think addiction is a problem whether a drug is legalized or not. I think people were addicted by alcohol during the prohibition as well. But there is no mafia or Mexican cartel selling alcohol now. So by legalizing weed we can at least decrease the violence and crime and make some money on tax. We spent billions on the war on drugs now but there is no good results.
ReplyDeleteI don't think having large oversea bases with troops make us safer. It may give our allies some false security and help their military budget as we are footing the bill to protect them. I already talked about Korea. The other regions where we have large troop presence are Europe (mostly Germany) and the Middle East. I hardly think that western Europe need military help. Most of the Soviet states and allies are already on the side of western Europe already. The Russians, if they were to attack, would not drive tanks into Europe. As far as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are concern, isn't our continue presence there after the first Gulf war one of reasons bin Laden used to recruit jihadists? Well, are we there just for the oil? We certainly have not promoted democracy very well since we depend on Saudi Arabia and kuwait to keep their status quo.
I will let you have the last word on this topic. I am going to work on the blog about Obama which was supposed to come out after the blog on the Republicans. Having been side tracked by events in North Korea, I am going to finish the Obama blog and then I can enjoy Christmas and watch the start of the NBA!
No need for the last word. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with each other too! Merry Christmas and Happy
ReplyDeleteFestivus!
-LBOAYM