The land of the flighty

[Griselda]

You're welcome to bust his chops for his position, Occhi, if you can refrain from calling him a fool.

Thanks.

-Griselda

The wonderfulness of Dutch newspapers has nothing to do with a fool calling himself eppie who asserts that "North Korea is next" thanks to a lack of understanding, a narrow world view, and a lack of wit. You make the fallacious presumption that if you dislike a party enough, and can point to odious decisions -- BushCo in this case -- any assertion you make can be presumed true. If you keep making foolish assertions, I'll be happy to bust your chops for it.

Occhi

[eppie]

The wonderfulness of Dutch newspapers has nothing to do with a fool calling himself eppie who asserts that "North Korea is next" thanks to a lack of understanding, a narrow world view, and a lack of wit. You make the fallacious presumption that if you dislike a party enough, and can point to odious decisions -- BushCo in this case -- any assertion you make can be presumed true. If you keep making foolish assertions, I'll be happy to bust your chops for it.
Occhi

I agree that North Korea will probably not be next because there is not much oil over there. But if I'm correct the US and NK are still officially in a state of war. I can imagine that Kim can think he might be subject of an invasion by the US, and if so I can imagine he wants to get a nuke. Not that I agree with him but is a thing that is called empathy something you and as a matter of fact also kim don't have.

Let's just put the facts in a row. Why did Bush invade Irak? Links with terrorists, possesion of WMDs and being a brutal dictator. Only the last one was true for Saddam (although the US and you) thought (wanted to think) that all three were correct.
Now NK: we KNOW they have WMDs, we know that he is a brutal dictator and we are scared that he might help international terrorism (I don't agree with the last one but the people in charge...and you seem to think so). This is at least 2 out of 3....more than in Iraq.

[Occhidiangela]

I agree that North Korea will probably not be next because there is not much oil over there. But if I'm correct the US and NK are still officially in a state of war. I can imagine that Kim can think he might be subject of an invasion by the US, and if so I can imagine he wants to get a nuke. Not that I agree with him but is a thing that is called empathy something you and as a matter of fact also kim don't have.

Let's just put the facts in a row. Why did Bush invade Irak? Links with terrorists, possesion of WMDs and being a brutal dictator. Only the last one was true for Saddam (although the US and you) thought (wanted to think) that all three were correct.
Now NK: we KNOW they have WMDs, we know that he is a brutal dictator and we are scared that he might help international terrorism (I don't agree with the last one but the people in charge...and you seem to think so). This is at least 2 out of 3....more than in Iraq.

Thanks for you tunnel vision. Appreciate your supporting my position with greater evidence. The mental defect that induces an attempt to presume that the political dynamics of the Middle East can be cut and pasted into Asia need treatment, get help.

Let's use the same lack of reasoning to examine South America. Chavez has a load of oil, he's a hostile regime to the US, his human rights record is not great (though he's no Saddam) and he is going out of his way to court anti American interestes in the region. By your cut and paste logic, Venezuela is next. But Occhi, you protest, that's a different case, it's not the same sort of threat. See where this is going?

To reiterate: to presume that the presence of missiles and WMD, neither of which NK has used, creates a like political situation is to ignore the actual political structure of Asia, which you again have done. You also mistake political rhetoric and sound bytes for policy. It takes a bit of sifting to filter out the BS from the substance on policy, particularly when you are dealing with an administration as bad at PR as the BushCo. I also don't find the hot air coming from Teheran to be credible as statements of policy. Another box of mostly hot air.

Here's another side to the matter.

New York Times October 20, 2006 Pg. 14

South Korea Tells Rice It Won’t Abandon Industrial And Tourist Ventures With North

By Thom Shanker and Martin Fackler

SEOUL, South Korea, Oct. 19 — The government of South Korea told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday that it had no intention of pulling out of an industrial zone and a tourist resort in North Korea, even though the operations put hard currency into the pocket of its government.

During a news conference with Ms. Rice, the South Korean foreign minister, Ban Ki-moon, said he had explained “the positive aspects” of the industrial park at Kaesong and described how the tourism zone around Mount Kumgang was “a very symbolic project” for reconciliation between the Koreas.

At the end of a dinner here on Thursday that united Ms. Rice with her South Korean and Japanese counterparts, a senior State Department official, speaking on the customary condition of anonymity when traveling with the secretary, said the South Korean government had said it would review its support for the industrial and tourist projects — in particular the subsidies for the Mount Kumgang zone.

“We never expected them to announce steps today,” the official said.

In her public comments, at least, Ms. Rice only emphasized the importance of the United States alliance with South Korea. The goal is not to elevate tensions on the peninsula, but to put into effect sanctions under a United Nations Security Council resolution as a multinational effort to press North Korea to return to six-party negotiations and end its nuclear program, she said.

“I did not come to South Korea, nor will I go anyplace else, to try and dictate to governments what they ought to do in response to Resolution 1718,” Ms. Rice said after meetings with President Roh Moo-hyun and Mr. Ban, who will be the next United Nations secretary general.

“What I do think is very important is that everyone take stock of the leverage that we have to get North Korea to return to the six-party talks and negotiate seriously the dismantlement of its nuclear weapons programs,” she said.

Ms. Rice is in the region to press for strict enforcement of the Security Council’s sanctions against North Korea for its nuclear test last week. Her toughest job will be persuading South Korea and China, which differ with the United States on how to engage North Korea’s reclusive Communist government.

The senior State Department official said after the dinner that the South Koreans had said they would “have a full program in place” to carry out the resolution in about three weeks, and would not want to announce new steps while Ms. Rice was in town for fear of appearing to bow to American pressure.

South Korea and China hold the key to the effectiveness of the sanctions, which were passed Saturday after intense negotiations, because they share the longest borders with North Korea, and are by far its biggest economic partners. South Korea’s trade with North Korea reached $1.06 billion last year.

Ms. Rice said that she had received no official Chinese report on a visit on Thursday by State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan to the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, but expressed certainty that he had delivered a strong message that North Korea’s “behavior is unacceptable.”

She is to fly to Beijing on Friday.

While the United States has long called for further isolating North Korea to discourage its nuclear ambitions, South Korea has taken a different course. Its decade-old policy of engagement has aimed to ensure peace on the peninsula by opening North Korea to trade, investment and economic interdependence.

The nuclear test raised calls in South Korea to re-examine the policy. But officials here have said the United Nations sanctions will not end broad economic and trade contacts with North Korea, a stand backed by South Korean public opinion.

State Department officials describe the tourism zone in particular as a conduit for cash for North Korean leaders. The project, which opens a revered mountain site and hot springs to foreign visitors, has earned North Korea more than $456.9 million in precious hard currency, said its South Korean developers, Hyundai Asan.

On Wednesday, Song Min-soon, a security adviser for President Roh, replied that the project “is not a policy to be changed following somebody’s order to do this or that.”

“We are not deviating from the international community only because we differ with a certain country,” he told reporters. “I’m not going to name that country,” he added, though the context made it clear he was referring to the United States.

In his comments beside Ms. Rice on Thursday, Mr. Ban said South Korea was awaiting more specific guidelines from a United Nations sanctions committee working on details of carrying out the resolution.

But many in South Korea see the United States as trying to drive a wedge between the Koreas, fueling resentment. In a show of support for the engagement policy, Kim Geun-tae, the chairman of South Korea’s governing Uri Party, said he planned to visit the industrial park on Friday “to show symbolically that the inter-Korean economic cooperation projects must continue,” the JoongAng Daily newspaper reported.

The Security Council sanctions bar the sale or transfer of material that could be used to make nuclear, biological and chemical weapons or ballistic missiles. They also forbid international travel and freeze overseas assets of people associated with North Korea’s nuclear program.

Pull your head out.

Occhi

[eppie]

Let's use the same lack of reasoning to examine South America. Chavez has a load of oil, he's a hostile regime to the US, his human rights record is not great (though he's no Saddam) and he is going out of his way to court anti American interestes in the region. By your cut and paste logic, Venezuela is next. But Occhi, you protest, that's a different case, it's not the same sort of threat. See where this is going?

Please read. Chavez has no WMD's, not linked to terrorism and he is no brutal dictator. 0 out of 3, so he is on the safe side. Plus that nobody, even the boneless chicken goverment of the Netherlands, would agree with such a thing..so there is no international support.

The next part I didn't even bother to read. During the Iraq war you also continuously tried to prove all kinds of things with those quotes that don't say anything to me. I didn't belive you then, I was right, I don't believe you now.
I agree though that NK will not soon be invaded, at least I share the opinion. Still in Kim's point of view taking a nuke as protection is a good thing to do, you must agree with that?

[Occhidiangela]

Plus that nobody, even the boneless chicken goverment of the Netherlands, would agree with such a thing.
So there is no international support.

There is no critical international support among nations who matter -- China, South Korea, Japan -- for attacking North Korea. There hasn't been for some years. That lack of agreement to act seems to me why President Clinton tried the tactic he did. Try something new. It didn't work either.

Still in Kim's point of view taking a nuke as protection is a good thing to do, you must agree with that?

From his point of view, being in the nuclear club does at least two things: it gives him a deterrent, and a position of strength from which to bargain. If I was in his seat, I'd want both. We seem to agree on that.

As to the prewar debate, we both had reasons for believeing as we did. I was very surprised that no further significant WMD programs were uncovered. My reasons for believing their existence was in the continued action of the UN, the re opening of the inspection process, what appeared to be a consensus among the Security Council that the issue wasn't resolved ( or the sanctions could be lifted, which they were not). Powell's brief, 12 years of Saddam's deliberate bluff (he sure fooled me, and apparently, he fooled his own generals. I recommend Cobra II if you have not read it. You will like it, I am sure, as it paints Pres Bush in a poor light, likewise Rummy and Cheney.) Absense of Saddam's compliance in full was a strong indicator of something still being about. The problem of uncertainty remains as yet another problem that decisions makers face that is all to conveniently ignored once the hindsight moment arrives.

You believed for reasons of your own, to include "I don't like Bush, therefore he (and the estimate) must be wrong."

We both guessed based on the information available. Congrats on your accurate guess. It didn't stop me from getting deployed.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

...For sure when a recent research showed that Holland is number one in the world when it comes to freedom of press, the US a lousy 53rd...very close to North Korea:D So or start reading dutch newspapers, or take your sources with a big grain of salt.

I would first ask you to cite your source so I can ascertain their objectivity... For instance, from wikipedia article on Reporters Without Borders assessment; "Reporters Without Borders have called on the US government to free two journalists it said were being unjustly held at a US prison in Iraq, and at the US military base in Guantanamo, Cuba. However, some critics find it questionable that this was only mentioned in 2006. They also claim that RSF supported the invasion of Iraq, even celebrating the illegal bombing of the ministry of information, a civilian target, whitewashed the U.S. killing of Telecinco Cameraman Jose couso and Reuters Cameraman Taras Protsyuk, and have remained silent about about AP Journalist Bilal Hussein who has been imprisoned by occupation troops. However, this is contradicted by statements made by the RSF."

So, in a time of war, the US detains suspects at Gitmo who are claimed to be journalists and this skews the score. We end up lower (but not last as you indicate). Ce la vie!

[Occhidiangela]

I would first ask you to cite your source so I can ascertain their objectivity... For instance, from wikipedia article on Reporters Without Borders assessment; "Reporters Without Borders have called on the US government to free two journalists it said were being unjustly held at a US prison in Iraq, and at the US military base in Guantanamo, Cuba. However, some critics find it questionable that this was only mentioned in 2006. They also claim that RSF supported the invasion of Iraq, even celebrating the illegal bombing of the ministry of information, a civilian target, whitewashed the U.S. killing of Telecinco Cameraman Jose couso and Reuters Cameraman Taras Protsyuk, and have remained silent about about AP Journalist Bilal Hussein who has been imprisoned by occupation troops. However, this is contradicted by statements made by the RSF."

So, in a time of war, the US detains suspects at Gitmo who are claimed to be journalists and this skews the score. We end up lower (but not last as you indicate). Ce la vie!

eppie would rather believe a line of BS that supports his world view, which means he ought to be a Neo Con and work for Dick Cheney. He's in the wrong country, and in the wrong line of work.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

eppie would rather believe a line of BS that supports his world view, which means he ought to be a Neo Con and work for Dick Cheney. He's in the wrong country, and in the wrong line of work.

Occhi

I've been pretty fed up for awhile with the fuzzy headed myopic media on one side, with muddled mantra muttering politicians on the other.

As for eppie, he lost me on defending Saddam's Iraq, Castro's Cuba and Kim's NK. It's that global phenomenon of the politics of victimization.

[sarcasm mode]
I mean you can't blame Saddam for being an SOB, the US made him do it. You can't blame Kim or Castro for isolating their people with a bankrupt ideology for 50 years, even when their former communist sponsors have moved on to market economies, because someone has to stand up to western imperialist capitalist pigs. You can't blame these little dictators for their power grubbing, and making themselves wealthy at the expense of their people. It's all the evil USA that forces them to proliferate WMD's, support terrorism against the west and devote their economies to military hardware. I mean the USA is just after the oil anyway, which is why the North Sea and Scandinavia are next. Right? So... He see's the world through his lens which seems to be to cheer for the underdog, no matter how twisted and heinous their behavior. The underdog is always the victim.
[/sarcasm mode]

[eppie]

As to the prewar debate, we both had reasons for believeing as we did. I was very surprised that no further significant WMD programs were uncovered. My reasons for believing their existence was in the continued action of the UN, the re opening of the inspection process, what appeared to be a consensus among the Security Council that the issue wasn't resolved ( or the sanctions could be lifted, which they were not). Powell's brief, 12 years of Saddam's deliberate bluff (he sure fooled me, and apparently, he fooled his own generals. I recommend Cobra II if you have not read it. You will like it, I am sure, as it paints Pres Bush in a poor light, likewise Rummy and Cheney.) Absense of Saddam's compliance in full was a strong indicator of something still being about. The problem of uncertainty remains as yet another problem that decisions makers face that is all to conveniently ignored once the hindsight moment arrives.

You believed for reasons of your own, to include "I don't like Bush, therefore he (and the estimate) must be wrong."

This is absolutely wrong. You show here that you based your opinion on 'fuzzy media' and strange sources and probably a feeling of that the US had to be right. Something (the other way around) you started blaming me of. The UN said there was absolutely no proof of WMD etc in Iraq. The reason the kept looking is to buy time hoping that the US would not invade.

I don't mind too much, I mean I don't live in the US and know only a little about the media and other information sources, so normally I won't hold this against you, but please stop saying that I base my opinions on things like disliking Bush.


And Kandrathe: I don't defend norht korea, I just say I can imagine their leader of wanting a atom bomb. And Castro? Well yes, OK he is a dictator (for reason I also mentioned earlier) but next to comparable countries, he does not do a bad job. I talked to people who traveled there, I talk to Cubans (no not the right wing extremist drug dealer ones in Florida) and they are not so negative.

And again, just because in the US (or Holland) we can buy 10 different kinds of cola doesn't mean we do everything right. We also try to legalize torturing of people that might be terrorists...Castro put politically dangerous people behind bars. It is both wrong and more or less the same thing.

[Occhidiangela]

This is absolutely wrong. You show here that you based your opinion on 'fuzzy media' and strange sources and probably a feeling of that the US had to be right. Something (the other way around) you started blaming me of. The UN said there was absolutely no proof of WMD etc in Iraq. The reason the kept looking is to buy time hoping that the US would not invade.

What a curious interpretation of history. Anyway, it is water under the bridge, and the uncertainty has now been cleared up, at a considerable cost. :( I find your assertion at odds with UNSCR 1441, however, selective memory can do that to people with blinders on.

And again, just because in the US (or Holland) we can buy 10 different kinds of cola doesn't mean we do everything right. We also try to legalize torturing of people that might be terrorists...Castro put politically dangerous people behind bars. It is both wrong and more or less the same thing.

There's a fine piece of attempted moral equivalency. Way to go, eppie, you restored my faith in your consistency. Here is something for you to ponder:

Can Fidel Castro be impeached by his Congress? (Equivalent body, National Assembly of People's Power, restricted by structure to a single party.) President Bush and VP Cheney can, and may yet, though most of Congress would be signing their own "I am guilty of negligence" cards during such a procedure. I am betting the under, as I don't think the Democrats will get a large enough manority in Senate and House to pursue that course of action.

Could th is sort of dissent and interal struggle have happened without a few people being disappeared in Cuba?

Gitmo interrogations spark battle over tactics

The inside story of criminal investigators who tried to stop abuse

PART ONE OF TWO
By Bill Dedman
Investigative reporter
MSNBC
Updated: 10:35 a.m. MT Oct 24, 2006

Speaking publicly for the first time, senior U.S. law enforcement investigators say they waged a long but futile battle inside the Pentagon to stop coercive and degrading treatment of detainees by intelligence interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Their account indicates that the struggle over U.S. interrogation techniques began much earlier than previously known, with separate teams of law enforcement and intelligence interrogators battling over the best way to accomplish two missions: prevent future attacks and punish the terrorists.

In extensive interviews with MSNBC.com, former leaders of the Defense Department’s Criminal Investigation Task Force said they repeatedly warned senior Pentagon officials beginning in early 2002 that the harsh interrogation techniques used by a separate intelligence team would not produce reliable information, could constitute war crimes, and would embarrass the nation when they became public knowledge.

The investigators say their warnings began almost from the moment their agents got involved at the Guantanamo prison camp, in January 2002. When they could not prevent the harsh interrogations and humiliation of detainees at Guantanamo, they say, they tried in 2003 to stop the spread of those tactics to Iraq, where abuses at Abu Ghraib prison triggered worldwide outrage with the publishing of graphic photos in April 2004.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15361458

Occhi

[kandrathe]

And Kandrathe: I don't defend norht korea, I just say I can imagine their leader of wanting a atom bomb. And Castro? Well yes, OK he is a dictator (for reason I also mentioned earlier) but next to comparable countries, he does not do a bad job. I talked to people who traveled there, I talk to Cubans (no not the right wing extremist drug dealer ones in Florida) and they are not so negative.

And again, just because in the US (or Holland) we can buy 10 different kinds of cola doesn't mean we do everything right. We also try to legalize torturing of people that might be terrorists...Castro put politically dangerous people behind bars. It is both wrong and more or less the same thing.

Here are a couple of other ponderables for you; Why does Cuba have 11.5 million population, while the US has 1.5 million Cubans, and another 4-5 million choose to live outside Cuba? If Castro were so wonderful, why are people willing to risk death to escape?

Cuba: Torture of women prisoners must obviously be a web page built and supported by those drug crazed Florida ex-pats...

Oh, I guess not. I found an epitaph of the founder, Rosa Berre, wife of an ex-pat Cuban Journalist. "Berre once said: "CubaNet will exist as long as there shall remain one independent journalist in Cuba informing the world of what happens in the country." CubaNet is an organization dedicated to distributing the work of the Cuban independent journalists, to inform the world on Cuban affairs, and to foster the development of a civil society in Cuba."

[eppie]

Here are a couple of other ponderables for you; Why does Cuba have 11.5 million population, while the US has 1.5 million Cubans, and another 4-5 million choose to live outside Cuba? If Castro were so wonderful, why are people willing to risk death to escape?

Cuba: Torture of women prisoners must obviously be a web page built and supported by those drug crazed Florida ex-pats...

Oh, I guess not. I found an epitaph of the founder, Rosa Berre, wife of an ex-pat Cuban Journalist. "Berre once said: "CubaNet will exist as long as there shall remain one independent journalist in Cuba informing the world of what happens in the country." CubaNet is an organization dedicated to distributing the work of the Cuban independent journalists, to inform the world on Cuban affairs, and to foster the development of a civil society in Cuba."

O know the stories and I disagree with those acts of course. But it will not change my point of view about the situation. The US also tortures people, their own and foreign. The US pays journalists to write in the way it likes about Cuba, etc. etc.
The only reason the US sees Cuba as enemy is because they are "communists", and maybe jealousy because everybody can get medical assistance (no this has probably nothing to do with it because the people that make the decissions don"t have problems with that).

I would like to see in a discussion like this that you show why you dislike somebody. The torture-thing and press thing don't work for me in this discussion, because the country you support does the same.
I think that when we discuss if we like torture we are finished quite quickly....because we both don't......right?

I have major problems with people agreeing with torture by the US army because of national security while in the same way critizing e.g. Cuba of the same thing.

So last words from me:

-torture bad
-real freedom of press good

[kandrathe]

Mostly, I think what Occhi and I have been saying is that you equivocate. What the US has agreed to legally do in interrogations is not comparable to what I understand as torture. Until you can recognize the difference between an apple and an orange, it would be hard for us to discuss the merits of fruit.

Now, have there been criminal incidents of brutality against prisoners? Of course, and it is appropriate that the offenders are charged, tried, and punished for their crimes. Does a citizen or foreign national have much fear of torture or police brutality? No, not at all. For you to point to what some over zealous CIA black ops guys do as the norm, or what happened at Abu Garib as the norm is intellectually dishonest. We shouldn't believe that all homosexual US congressmen are pedophiles, just because we found out one or two of them have solicited sex from young pages. Another example would be some isolated extreme cases where homosexuals or black people have been targeted by "rednecks" for beatings or death. Are all rural white men brutal homophobic racists? I mean, isn't that line of thinking tantamount to bigotry? Are you an anti-US bigot? If so, I really think it would do you some good to come over to America for a awhile to learn the truth.

More food for thought on Cuba; "... private citizens are prohibited from buying computers or accessing the Internet without special authorization; foreigners may access the Internet in large hotels but are subject to firewalls; some Cubans buy illegal passwords on the black market or take advantage of public outlets, to access limited email and the government-controlled intranet ..."