Originally posted by donwhite
Keeping gorillas is nearly as costly as keeping pandas.
I love a good punn.
OK, re-run this with me.
Not much correction needed. We "asked" our buddies to get out by grabbing their economic testes and glaring at them of course. And "resolved the
Yom Kippur War" would have to be Latin for made Israel promise not to destroy the Egyptian 3rd Army, then went to DEFCON-3 the minute the USSR wanted
a say in the matter, but the last part is really besides the point.
Exactly what you described is the beauty of engagement activities like working with the Chinese on North Korea.
Sure, we could have double-dog dared the Soviets to make good on their promise to go to war over the Suez, and hindsight being 20/20 of course, they
would have backed down (just as they backed down from their desire for involvement when we went to Defcon-3 during the ceasefire of the Yom Kippur
War, so we would have achieved 1973 by 1956, but then they would have had no reason to trust us in '62, and we wouldn't have been able to save face
by keeping the missile tradeoff secret or getting them out of Cuba with only a promise.
But as I said before, we'd already proved that we liked the status quo and were willing to brow-beat our friends to preserve it, so in 1962 things
I cannot take our side seriously when the start that way.
You're right, but why do you think we do that? We've got nothing to sit down with. The only thing we have that Iran or North Korea wants from us and
can't get elsewhere is the promise not to beat the snot out of them. We've got no cards so we refuse to sit down at the table until they give us all
of the aces.
The way I see it, the way to avoid that impasse is to get our aces from China so that we can sit down at the table while there's still something to
sit down about. What's more, every time we do that, we gain something else that we can sit down with in the future: credibility.
I do not see the US ever “bonding” with China as we are bonded with the UK. Or even France. China does no need our bond.
They do, they just don't know it yet. We on the other hand are in a position to know full well that we're gonna need to bond with them, because
we're the reigning champs on the global chess board and we've apparently decided not to retire after the cold war.
China's gonna need a friendly America to survive, and America's gonna need a China that won't get scared and take a swing when we try to strongarm
them, so America's going to be looking to acquaint China with the rules of the Cold War game while China will probably do what they usually do when
attacked by barbarians- let us in and give us decaf tea and opium until we mellow out.
It won't be the kind of bond we had with the UK or France because there is a certain sense of belonging when you're among your fellow thieves, but I
suspect it'll be that uneasy friendship you have with the neighbor you hate while you're both waiting for eachother to die so that you can move the
fence over a few feet before a new owner gets in there.
I think the current administration is pushing the 6 party over the 1 on 1 talks to muddy the waters.
Standard proceedure per the anti-communist handbook. You ignore them until they die and just hope their country miraculously disappears from the map
when their leader dies. Sometimes it takes a while. Whoever would have thought that Fidel Castro was so hardy?
We probably are holding out for all the wrong reasons. I suspect Bush thinks that if we can just ignore them until Kim dies that there'll be a power
vacuum and that reconciliation will just happen then.
I think we've done the wrong thing by being too stuck to one way. We could give them head to head talks if we engaged in a little shuttle diplomacy-
talk to China, go talk to North Korea, take a break, call China, etc. We need outside help but we don't necessarily need somebody holding our hand
while we talk to the mean, scarry North Koreans.
First off, I heard NK had voluntarily imposed a moratorium on missile testing. There was no “agreement” not to test. That is important. Was then
an agreement? Or a self imposed moratorium?
The missile moratorium was self-imposed. The efforts to keep them from developing anything worth putting on a missile to begin with were not. We cut a
deal to give them enegy if they'd stop pursuing the nukes, and they went ahead with a parallel program to skirt the agreement.
Second, we don’t need to flaunt our superior firepower.
Um, I didn't know there was any disagreement over this between us.
All well and good but for one thing. Taiwan.
So we're going to keep our Korea policy in 1953 just because we haven't revisited our Taiwan policy since 1950? If Bush is reading I'd like to let
him in on a little secret; the ROC's chances ran out in 1949. In retrospect, maybe we should have done something about it sooner but that's life
One cold war is as good as another; let's divie up the world with them same as we always do with a rival. We leave Taiwan to its own devices, since
nobody can seriously think that we're going to slug it out with the Chinese over Taiwan anyway, and in return they take their missiles away from
Fidel Mk.II over there so that we don't have to worry about unbalanced puppets coming off the strings and starting a nuclear war.
Then we're reluctant friends and we've established a commitment to not throwing any low blows in this fight, and we proceed with our little cold war
until one side or the other has been economically castrated. I suppose it ain't perfect but at least nobody gets nuked; trade Taiwan for NK and
you're preventing two nuclear wars for the price of one.