From that humiliation, the Howard Dean revolt was born. In early 2003, the former Vermont governor began captivating the Democratic base with his thunderous attacks on Washington Democrats. But, in their righteousness, Dean and his supporters have embraced an analysis potentially even more damaging than that of the party leaders they seek to depose. We are not speaking primarily about Dean’s general-election prospects (though they are grim, and their potential consequences for the House and Senate even grimmer). The problem with Dean’s vision of the Democratic Party is more than electoral; it is intellectual and moral. And the candidate who offers the clearest, bravest alternative is Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman.

Fundamentally, the Dean campaign equates Democratic support for the Iraq war with appeasement of President Bush. But the fight against Saddam Hussein falls within a hawkishliberal tradition that stretches through the Balkan wars, the Gulf war, and, indeed, the cold war itself. Lieberman is not the only candidate who stands in that tradition--Wesley Clark promoted it courageously in Kosovo, as did Richard Gephardt when he defied the polls to vote for $87 billion to rebuild Iraq. But Lieberman is its most steadfast advocate, not only in the current field but in the entire Democratic Party. In 1991, he broke with every other Northern Democrat in the Senate to support the Gulf war, then broke with George H.W. Bush when the former president allowed Saddam to slaughter tens of thousands of Iraqi Shia in the war’s aftermath. In 1998, Lieberman joined with McCain to co-sponsor the Iraq Liberation Act, which committed the United States to regime change in Baghdad. And, in the 2000 campaign, when the younger Bush was still peddling neo-isolationism, it was Gore and Lieberman who insisted that the United States be prepared to use force to stop genocide and promote democracy.

By deriding Democratic support for overthrowing Saddam as “Bush Lite,” Dean threatens to define that tradition out of the Democratic Party. Reasonable people, including reasonable hawks, can differ about the wisdom of the Iraq war, especially given the apparent absence of an ongoing Iraqi nuclear program. But the nature of Dean’s opposition suggests an old Democratic affliction: an excessive faith in multilateralism and an insufficient faith in the moral potential of U.S. power.

Dean is rightly passionate about the harm done to America’s relations with its allies. Bush, he says, continues to “rub their nose in humiliation.” But he can muster no similar passion about Iraq’s freedom from one of the great monsters of the twentieth century. Saddam’s overthrow leaves him cold; he “suppose[d]” it was a good thing. Dean and his supporters identify viscerally with the foreign governments that resent being bullied by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Yet they identify barely at all with the largely voiceless people--in countries like Syria and Iran--who might consider a democracy’s projection of power into the heart of a region defined by tyranny to be progressive, even inspiring.

tl;dr: it's our fault, like everything else

It doesn't matter which of those two options is easier to believe. The truth can be difficult to believe.

I think North Korea pursues nuclear weapons for the same reasons other diplomatically isolated regimes do: to cling to power, despite their entire propaganda matrix being a total sham and a house of cards.

I think a better question is, what have they got to lose in initiating an attack? On the one hand, nothing, because they are already a pariah, but on the other hand, everything, for the exact same reason. I like to think the second possibility is more likely, but who knows?

You have to dig because it's not headline news, but North Korea is willing to freeze nuclear armament. All they ask is for the U.S. to stop performing military exercises on their border. Both Obama and Trump have said no.

Regardless, word on the street is that the regime in North Korea is rational, in the sense that it's committed to its own survival and wouldn't make self-destructives based on a commitment to some other factor (i.e., ideological hatred of the US). And from the North Korean perspective, its the US that appears to be an irrational actor.

But I think what Jones might've been taking issue with (and I don't want to speak for him: if he doesn't, I'll say that I do) is the implication found in many of your arguments that apparent North Korean agression is actually a defensive response to American regression.

Regardless, word on the street is that the regime in North Korea is rational, in the sense that it's committed to its own survival and wouldn't make self-destructive choices based on a commitment to some other factor (i.e., ideological hatred of the US). And from the North Korean perspective, its the US that appears to be an irrational actor.

But I think what Jones might've been taking issue with (and I don't want to speak for him: if he doesn't, I'll say that I do) is the implication found in many of your arguments that apparent North Korean agression is actually a defensive response to American agression.

Edit: fixed typos

Reid: to be fair, there is a bit of history here I should be paying attention to. I'll try not to forget about the fact that the US participated in the Korean war (which never formally ended, IIRC).

I am interested to know WTF president Bush did in response when the nuclear program got started. Nothing? A peaceful resolution would be nice.

Well I guess I completely wasted an hour and a half watching Team America: World Police, then.




That's kind of it. I'm not sure we should be looking to the North as a paragon of diplomacy. I think everybody would be happier if the regime collapsed.

Well, everyone except South Korea, which would have to take a serious economic hit in absorbing an entire population of malnourished refugees. :-/

It's quite possible for both sides of a conflict to be in the wrong.

Drug dealers shooting cops is a completely rational defensive response to police aggression. Saying that does not mean the drug dealers are good people, and saying that does not mean the police actions provoking the response are appropriate, either. It's quite possible for both sides of a conflict to be in the wrong.

Good news, then: North Korea has approximately a trillion conventional and chemical artillery shells pointed into South Korea, so if the regime collapsed South Korea wouldn't need to worry about supporting any refugees, because there wouldn't be a South Korea anymore.

Regardless, word on the street is that the regime in North Korea is rational, in the sense that it's committed to its own survival and wouldn't make self-destructive choices based on a commitment to some other factor (i.e., ideological hatred of the US). And from the North Korean perspective, its the US that appears to be an irrational actor.

But I think what Jones might've been taking issue with (and I don't want to speak for him: if he doesn't, I'll say that I do) is the implication found in many of your arguments that apparent North Korean agression is actually a defensive response to American agression.

Edit: fixed typos

Yeah, well, I'd say there are probably good reasons for those exercises, and good parenting says not to feed your child's bad behavior by rewarding promises to stop. But then again, I'm a total novice when it comes to this topic.

So let me ask: what do you think is significant about this?

What do you think it reveals that the US has turned this down?

then why are we still doing it?

No it isn't. You trade a possible conviction on lesser charges, to almost certain convection on even worse charges and a vastly elevated chance of getting shot before you are even taken in.

Meh. Counter artillery fire and air strikes would silence NK batteries in about 24 hours. The northern outskirts of Soul would have a bad day, but it wouldn't be all that bad in the grand scheme of things.

Um, no. The US had just finished massively scaling down their forces from the second world war. US leadership had underestimated the degree to which they had lost their world war II capability. If anything, the Korean War was what motivated the Cold War buildup.

I think it reveals that the United States is rarely willing to engage in diplomacy when it already has its teeth sunk into something militarily. It reveals that our leaders value military conquest above the long-term safety of the American people. As can be quoted from the CNN article:

Depends what you mean by American aggression.

So, can you find instances of America, say, taunting North Korea? The answer is yes. Exercises like these are done frequently, and are at least part what North Korea is referring to when they ask the U.S. to stop military exercises on their border.

The most optimistic estimate I've seen is that a million civilians in Seoul would die, and it'd only be that low because of bomb shelters, not because of any effective response. It also assumed the payload is conventional and delivered only from their largest bore HARTS and newer missile launchers, rather than an all-out strike including chemical and nuclear weapons.

Seoul would be devastated by all accounts, losing at least a fifth of its population and basically all of the productive capital that keeps their economy running. It may have some effect on international semiconductor prices.

Some of them at least are just shows of strength. There are news articles on this, so it's not crazy to claim this is the purpose of these exercises

I think it reveals that the United States is rarely willing to engage in diplomacy when it already has its teeth sunk into something militarily. It reveals that our leaders value military conquest above the long-term safety of the American people.

I would argue even further, that the military pressure is one of the major causes of Kim Jong Un developing his nuclear and missile program. At any rate, if military pressure isn't helping the situation, then why are we still doing it?