N Korea defies US over nuclear crisis

[Imran Siddiqui]

It may take a while, but I can see in 10-20 years Afghanistan being a fledgling democracy. The US troops there still need to stabilize the country, but elections will come soon enough.

[Graag]

Perhaps this last statement may explain why for some reason you believe Bush is a champion of democracy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hey, Bush is the least realpolitik President we've had in office since Kennedy (who also believed in the promise of spreading democracy). He actually believes in good and evil and believes democracy is good. You don't have to believe me. You can believe Robert Woodward or other journalists who have gotten close to the President.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because he really believes in it. I know, it's hard for someone who believes in demonizing Bush that Bush can believe in good things, but it is the truth. Instead of getting your view on Bush from Democratic and socialist sources perhaps you should listen to people who actually know the man (including journalists).

Cute one Imran!

"demonizing Bush"

My sources are respectable journals like NYT and PBS news, and comon corporate run mediums like TV news. I base my statements on his record, which beyond talk, is very tiny as far as helping spread democracy goes. His actions in venezuela are just oen exmaple of the negative impacts, not positive, that this admin has had as far as democracy goes.

As for "knowing the man": who give a damn! The personal beliefs of leaders matter only as far as they translate into actuality and policy. As I have said above, his policies have not helped demoracy spread, so what he 'believes' in his head is rather a worthless enterprise.

Let me add that most americans don't give a damn about spreading democracy either, so to say Bush really doesn't care is simply to put him among the ranks of 99% of American leaders and diplomats in our long history- hardly demonizing the man. Again, I said he is surrounded by, and may himself be, a Manichean. Unless you have beocme an Inquisitor in tha last few minutes, that is not the same as calling him Satan. Belief in some battle of 'absolute Good' and 'absolute Evil" does not help the spread of a form of government built upon the respect for human individual's and their choices (good or bad) and a form of government built upon compromise. Manichean's don't compromise, and thus, they hardly help Democracy.


Next time Imran, don't resort to poorly constructed rants and baseless arguments. Is that what the Rutger's republicans need in their leadership?

[Graag]

please no more, Imran, it hurts

[Imran Siddiqui]

All I see is someone that really doesn't know Bush and is placing a policy on him. He really does believe in American values of democracy and free markets as being good and those opposing those values being evil.

It's the same thing people on the left said about Reagan. They said he really didn't care about human rights, and it comes out now that he was very concerned about the issue of human rights. From Cabinet meetings to talking to the Soviet Union.

The problem is that you simply cannot see him as being a promoter of democracy. Pakistan had their election, Palestine WILL have theirs. Afghanistan will have their election as well as soon as everything calms down. If Iraq gets taken over look for an election there as well. His actions show a greater emphasis on spreading of democracy than Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ.

Would you like him to call for democratic elections in areas that don't have the infrastructure for them?

Furthermore Good v. Evil does spread respect for humanity if you believe that is a good, which President Bush does believe in. And compromise does not always have to be present in Democracy anyway. Many democracies do not have compromise, especially those who have one party who have enough votes for majority.

[Lord Merciless]

American foreign policy priorities:
1. National Security
2. Economic Interests
3. Cultural Values, incl Democracy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Exactly! Spreading democracy has been important in American foreign policy. Usually, however, it has been overshadowed by National Security. Doesn't mean it isn't still there.

[SlowwHand]

Democracy is much more than voting? Much more than voting. It starts and ends with voting, in the most basic sense.
That's why you people's arguments are so hard to deal with. You work under a cloud of misconception.

[Ned]

Imran, I think your analysis of George Bush is entirely correct. He has become a true believer in democracy and human rights, the so-called American values, and is trying to promote them worldwide to make the world a better and safer place for all, including America. In this, he is in fact very Wilsonian and very much unlike Nixon and Kissinger.

GePap, I have come to know you to a fair and open-minded person. I simply ask you to think about what George Bush has been saying and doing, and least since 9/11. It is very consistent with theory that Imran advances. I do agree, however, that the one flaw in the argument is Saudi Arabia. It's just that we need Saudi Arabia at this point time for two reasons. First, they are leading Arab world toward peace with Israel. Second, Iraq.

In a recent comment to press I recall George Bush saying that bringing democracy to Iraq would be a first step in bringing democracy to the region. I believe the Saudis understood that the George Bush was talking about them, as well as the other autocratic regimes of Arabia.

Both George Bush and Osama bin Laden agree that the autocratic regimes of Arabia are a problem. George Bush wants to bring Arabia "secular," pro-Western democracies. Osama bin Laden wants to bring them "Islamic," anti-Western republics. It looks like that for the foreseeable future, Arabia has the world's attention.

It is also obvious that a regime change in NK is necessary.

[Ned]

As I said at an earlier post, we will not move on North Korea until we have a consensus among China, Russia, South Korea and Japan as to the appropriate course of action. Each has something that it wants from United States. The South Koreans want lrenegotiation of our agreement with them concerning jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions of U.S. troops. The Russians want a free hand in Georgia. The Chinese want Taiwan.

Ultimately, we want to end the North Korea regime and reunite the entire peninsula under one, free and democratic government.

Are willing to pay everybody's price in order to solve the problem of North Korea? I don't know.

[GePap]

First, on Bush:

As I have said before, the 'values' a leader holds in their heads means nothing to me, if it does not translate into policy. Carter was a champion of Human rights, no one disputes that: but his administration (and they are admins, with competing voices and powers, not just the president) did not go very far in the way of spreading them. I do not doubt Reagan thought he was doing the best for the world fighting the evils of communism. But is doing so, he did many things that either were immoral or have had long-term consequences that went badly for us. Nixon may have been a bastard, and the same for Kissinger (and both did do many things that were highly immoral) but they achieved much (as did Carter, if as far as Camp David went). RESULTS matter, POLICIES matter, ACTIONS matter, far more then whant someone believes when that someone is in power. When and if Bush begins to actualy further democracy then I will give him a salute for it, but never before. Just thinking it ain't good enough.

Second; on democracy:
Yes, there is far more to democracy than voting. If there was any other way of tabulating the views of individuas, then voting would not exist. The most important piece of a democracy is a tacit agreement that everyone will abide by whatever the decisions of the group, how ever they come about. It is only after a set of rules is laid down, and a system to enforce, maintain, and perpetuate those rules comes into being, that democracy can go ahead. Holding elections every so often means nothing if their results are invalidated by violence and corruption every time. Pakistan before Musharraf was a "democracy", but it fell, to Musharraf because it was an inept, corrupt place were voting meant nothing since dirty tricks and nepotism destroyed any semblence of law. Building democracy takes time, and it takes compromise, hagling, argung and coming to agreement. How can one agree if one is on a moral crusade? What compromise can be reached with the forces of "Evil"? No, democracy is a form of government built on principles but forged in the gray zone of debate and argument. The 'Bush' approach to 'building' democracy, which seems to be: 'kill the bad guys, get an election, call it victory" does not help to build real democracy. Real democracy is built inside. The US can give help, and if that help need be military, then fine, but it can't create it, and it must be wiling, once it gets involved, to saty there long term an help pay the costs, which invariably are substantil. Bush has had one test case: Afghanistan. They begun well, if with a few problems (as I have said in other posts), but were are we now? Will the US, in the coming years, given Iraq, given internal issues, given N. Korea, increase it forces in Afghanistan, to try to spread central government control outside of Kabul? (and no, I don't think this ia a job for the "allies". They have their own interests, and long term Afgnaistan ain't one fo them. If you believe we are so god-damned powerfull and good, then stop demanding others do our work for us!)


As for the topic, the DPRK:

The current admin. policy of threatening N.Korea with economic collapese to foce it to give up nukes will long-term fail, cause:
1. states can go for longer than most people think with their people starving, specially since starving people are far too weak to rebel, and military men who are being fee might not want to strike the hand that feeds them.
2. An economic colapese of N.Korea is not in the interests of eoither S.korea or China since they would be the ones to pick up the tab, and have to confront directly the consequences of sucha melt-down. As long as that is true, they will not work very hard to push N.Korea into economic collapse, just so that they have to pay for it in the future.

[Sava]

About the Patriot Act: The Patriot Act was an impulsive piece of legislature thrust onto Congress at a time when fear gripped it... Fear from terror and fear from not getting re-elected. The Patriot Act is an example of why there are checks and balances in Democracy; to prevent mob rule and impulsive legislature. Unfortunately this one slipped by. It's irrelevant to argue whether it is Democratic (pertaining to Democracy, not the party) or not. It was passed through a democratic process. But does it represent the ideals of Democracy? Hardly not... but that's another thread.

About NK vs US : Just once I'd like the US to be the more responsible of the two and back down. North Korea doesn't want war, in fact they want a non-agression pact. I say, bury the hatchet, sign the pact, and ease tensions. But unfortunately, big bad Bush wants to win this pissing contest. So I doubt that will happen.

[DanS]

Analogizing Bush to Wilson is very useful, although it may not be a perfect analogy. It is especially useful when thinking about North Korea. I believe Bush when he says that he loathes Kim Jong Il. And I think he will act according to those beliefs, at least in large part.

One thing to note is that Bush has a much larger constituency for democracy than did Wilson. At least 2.5 billion people now live under real democracy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Pakistan before Musharraf was a "democracy"

Why the " "? It WAS a democracy in full sense of the word. It may have been highly corrupt, but it definetly was a democratic country. It also shows why democracy may not always be for the best.

[Ned]

GePap, and I have no fundamental disagreement with what you said about Carter. He did have success at Camp David. However, he achieve little elsewhere. Iran was a disaster.

On Reagan, I don't know how you to dismiss Reagan as being unsuccessful. After all, he won the Cold War.

On Bush, we continue to build democracy in Afghanistan. And don't dismiss the contributions of our allies. The rebuilding of Afghanistan is more than just a military effort. The effort requires substantial resources. Our allies must contribute.

On North Korea, as I said, nothing will be achieved without the cooperation of China. If the Chinese are not willing to support an aggressive sanctions regime, then what would you suggest as being alternative course of action? It is easy to criticize others. But it is less easy to lay out a plan that as a high likelihood of success. If you have one or if any Democrat or for that matter any Republican has one, I like to know what it is.