(no subject)

[anthonybaxter]

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday that a successful North Korean nuclear weapon test would show weakness on the part of the international community.
"And that failure ... is something that the international community would have to register and ask itself how comfortable are we being that ineffective in this situation," Rumsfeld said.


Last time I looked:
a) the US was part of "the international community"
b) the US has faffed around for the last 4 or 5 years -- rather than trying to deal with this tiny loony state, they've just issued empty threats and provocative statements
c) "weakness" implies that someone "strength" is the thing that's needed, instead of, say, any form of plan (the "Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics" strikes again)
d) there's 3/8ths of fuck-all the US can do about it in any case. With nearly 30,000 troops in the firing line in South Korea, and no spare military capacity (it's all tied up in Iraq and in threatening Iran), any threats are extremely empty, and the nasty little psychos in charge of North Korea know this
e) there were 3 states in the "axis of evil". The one that got invaded for WMDs (including nukes) didn't have them. The one being threatened right now doesn't have them, and most sensible analysis says it's 10 years away, if ever. The one that was left alone is the one who went nuclear under their watch. Priorities much?
f) Rumsfeld's passive voice shtick is getting seriously old. You're the fucking secretary of defence! This happened under your watch. Take some responsibility, you tool.

updates: In case you're not aware, North Korea has apparently tested one of their nuclear bombs. These are the bombs most likely made with plutonium which, under Clinton, was under seal and unused. Bush, being the anti-Clinton, chose a completely different path - one of bluster and not following through. Yay! Josh Marshall lays out some of the rather damaging facts here. A cut from it:

Talking tough is great if you can make it stick and back it up; it is always and necessarily cleaner and less compromising than sitting down and dealing with bad actors. Talking tough and then folding your cards doesn't just show weakness it invites contempt. And that is what we have here.
The Bush-Cheney policy on North Korea was always what Fareed Zakaria once aptly called "a policy of cheap rhetoric and cheap shots." It failed. And after it failed President Bush couldn't come to grips with that failure and change course. He bounced irresolutely between the Powell and Cheney lines and basically ignored the whole problem hoping either that the problem would go away, that China would solve it for us and most of all that no one would notice.
Do you notice now?

Comments

[lukeii.livejournal.com]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm

[lokicarbis.livejournal.com]

In all fairness: the US is part of the international community to about the same extent that the mugger who haunts the local train station is a part of his community.