Support NeoGAF

[midnightguy]

drudgereport.com via washington post.

U.S. Aide Sees Arms Advance by North Korea
By DAVID S. CLOUD and DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, April 28 - The head of the Defense Intelligence Agency said Thursday that American intelligence agencies believed North Korea had mastered the technology for arming its missiles with nuclear warheads, an assessment that if correct, means the North could build weapons to threaten Japan and perhaps the western United States.

While Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, the Defense Intelligence Agency chief, said in Senate testimony that North Korea had been judged to have the "capability" to put a nuclear weapon atop its missiles, he stopped well short of saying it had done so, or even that it had assembled warheads small enough for the purpose. Nor did he give evidence to back up his view during the public session of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Still, his assessment of North Korea's progress exceeded what officials have publicly declared before.

When asked by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York during a hearing on Thursday whether "North Korea has the ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device," Admiral Jacoby responded, "The assessment is that they have the capability to do that, yes ma'am."

At a White House news conference on Thursday, President Bush said that given the uncertainties, he was worried about the progress North Korea had made on its nuclear program under its leader, Kim Jong Il. "There is concern about his capacity to deliver," he said. "We don't know if he can or not, but I think it's best when dealing with a tyrant like Kim Jong Il to assume that he can."

In 2003, the United States warned South Korea and Japan that satellite imagery had identified an advanced nuclear testing site in a remote corner of North Korea where equipment had been set up to test conventional explosives that could compress a plutonium core and set off a compact nuclear explosion.

Since then, American investigators have been pressing Pakistan for details about the kind of technology North Korea might have been given, perhaps in conjunction with visits to Pakistani nuclear sites. North Korea supplied Pakistan with many missiles it for its nuclear arsenal.

Building a nuclear warhead that can be delivered by a missile requires the technical sophistication to make it small and light. North Korea has never conducted a test that would prove it could manufacture a warhead, though in recent days anxiety has risen in Washington and among North Korea's Asian neighbors that the country could conduct a test in an effort to force the world to deal with it as a nuclear state.

To field a working nuclear missile, North Korea would also have to conduct new tests of its missiles themselves and of their payloads, including such complex components as heat shields for re-entry of the warhead. North Korea's last significant missile test, in 1998, overshot Japan and would not have been able to reach United States territory.

North Korea is considered one of the most opaque intelligence targets for American analysts, and the absence of reliable human spies has made it more difficult to understand the progress of its program.

Admiral Jacoby said North Korea's ability to deliver a nuclear warhead to the continental United States remained "a theoretical capability" because its Taepo Dong 2 missile had not been flight tested. But he added that American intelligence agencies judged that a two-stage Taepo Dong could strike parts of the American West Coast and that a three-stage variant could probably reach all of North America.

In an interview on Thursday, Mrs. Clinton called Admiral Jacoby's statement "the first confirmation, publicly, by the administration that the North Koreans have the ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device that can reach the United States," adding, "Put simply, they couldn't do that when George Bush became president, and now they can."

At his news conference, Mr. Bush defended his decision to pursue the talks in an effort to stop North Korea's nuclear program and noted that the United States was exploring options including taking the issue to the United Nations Security Council, if the North did not return to the talks.

"It's better to have more than one voice sending the same message to Kim Jong Il. It's the best way to deal with this issue diplomatically," he said. "We'll continue to do so."

In a statement, a Defense Intelligence Agency spokesman, Donald Black, said Admiral Jacoby "was reiterating" testimony he gave last month before the committee, in which he said the Taepo Dong 2 intercontinental ballistic missile "may be ready for testing," adding, "This missile could deliver a nuclear warhead to parts of the United States." He did not say then that the North Koreans were able to make a warhead that the missile could hurl such a distance.

Analysts with experience in Asia said the importance of Admiral Jacoby's conclusion was striking.

"This has to constrain the president's ability to deal with the North Korean nuclear problem," said Jonathan Pollack, a professor of Asian and Pacific Studies at the Naval War College who has written extensively on the North's program. "If you believe that Japanese territory is potentially at risk to a North Korean nuclear-armed missile, it has to change the calculation."

If Mr. Bush accepts that judgment, it could significantly complicate choices he must make in the next several months. North Korea declared publicly for the first time in February that it had nuclear weapons. This month, American spy satellites detected that the North had shut down its nuclear power plant at Yongbyon and could be preparing to reprocess its spent fuel, a move that could result in the production of enough plutonium to build up to three more nuclear bombs.

Admiral Jacoby said American intelligence agencies had increased their assessment of the current North Korean arsenal's size, but he gave no numbers. Other government officials, in interviews off the record, have estimated that North Korea's arsenal has increased by six weapons' worth of plutonium since the North threw international inspectors out of the country in early 2003, and began turning a stockpile of 8,000 spent fuel rods into plutonium.

The six-nation talks have been stalled since last June. China has played host to three inconclusive rounds of the negotiations, which involved the United States, North and South Korea, China, Japan and Russia.

John Pike, a defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, said American estimates of the range of the Taepo Dong 2 and other North Korean missiles had nearly doubled in recent years. The increases, he said, may reflect American intelligence agencies' improving understanding of the help the North Korea has received from Pakistan.

I'll bet Bush doesn't have the balls to attack North Korea.

 

[funkmasterb]

Yeah - they don't have enough oil.

Only a disgusting human rights record, and an actual will to kill us.

 

[AntoneM]

Admiral Jacoby said North Korea's ability to deliver a nuclear warhead to the continental United States remained "a theoretical capability" because its Taepo Dong 2 missile had not been flight tested. But he added that American intelligence agencies judged that a two-stage Taepo Dong could strike parts of the American West Coast and that a three-stage variant could probably reach all of North America.

the only important part.

 

[MIMIC]

Last year, they said they could hit California.

 

[Rocket9]

I'll bet Bush doesn't have the balls to attack North Korea.

When it comes to war it's about not balls, it's about common sense. A concept lost on many americans it seems

 

[scorcho]

I'll bet Bush doesn't have the balls to attack North Korea.

it's not a matter of guts, it's a matter of military strength. we don't have anywhere near the troop levels needed for a ground strike on NK for the forseeable future. also, to think that China would allow the US rummage so close to its borders (NK and China share one) and possibly establish a military presence there is foolish.

 

[FightyF]

Well, perhaps with Global Warming the temperatures will increase in North Korea. Rising temperatures could perhaps mean less clouds? With less clouds you'll have more sunshine. Increased sunshine could mean that most North Koreans will get a tan...

Now if they would only grow a few shades darker, the Bush Administration could consider them a serious threat.

Spoiler

heheh, pretty low blow, if MODs want me to edit it out I'll do it.

 

[jett]

it's not a matter of guts, it's a matter of military strength. we don't have anywhere near the troop levels needed for a ground strike on NK for the forseeable future. also, to think that China would allow the US rummage so close to its borders (NK and China share one) and possibly establish a military presence there is foolish.

The correct answer is:

Bush is just a bitch.

 

[MetatronM]

At a White House news conference on Thursday, President Bush said that given the uncertainties, he was worried about the progress North Korea had made on its nuclear program under its leader, Kim Jong Il. "There is concern about his capacity to deliver," he said. "We don't know if he can or not, but I think it's best when dealing with a tyrant like Kim Jong Il to assume that he can."

Translation:

"Shoot first and ask questions later...because that's never gotten us into trouble before."

 

[ourumov]

I doubt there happens a new conflict in NK anytime soon...I higly doubt it and I don't desire it.

 

[RonaldoSan]

Good for them. Now USA won't be able to scare them easily.

Again someone explain to me why USA don't like other countries building bombs?

 

[goodcow]

Good for them. Now USA won't be able to scare them easily.

Again someone explain to me why USA don't like other countries building bombs?

In this case the leader *IS* a certified psychopath.

 

[ourumov]

Since I saw Team America...I cannot take him seriously anymore...

 

[shuri]

The man that you formed your opinion on a puppet comedy film is a Living God to a country that has more troops than America, are much more motivated and has nothing to lose. I would be worried.

 

[ourumov]

Oh, I didn't mean he isn't powerful enough...Just that when I hear his name I think in the pupet from Team America.

And don't answer me like if I had made a crazy american-ish comment because:

1. This wasn't the intention.
2. I am not american.

 

[King Jippo]

Wow, so many jaded people. Or maybe is it really just a bunch of people who have no idea what they're talking about?

 

[jadehorizon1]

Again someone explain to me why USA don't like other countries building bombs?

the less nuclear weapons in the world means the less chance that they will be used which translate into a less chance for a serious disaster for humanity as a whole. This world is too fragile to have these things in it.

 

[Guileless]

Good for them. Now USA won't be able to scare them easily.

Again someone explain to me why USA don't like other countries building bombs?

Yes, good for the absolute dictators and theocrats who answer to no one, they're just the kind of people who need destructive weapons. Good for the people in North Korea who are starving to death and being brainwashed by their government. Who cares if North Korea spends the vast majority of its budget on its military and weapons programs while the people have to resort to cannibalism? Good for them, right RonaldoSon?

Stunning ignorance, even by GAF standards.

 

[Vinzer Deling]

a country that has more troops than America

How many times have we gone over this? We're not living in the middle ages, even relatively recent wars earlier in the 20th century. We're very far from the era of infantry dug into foxholes.

Haven't you been paying attention to modern wars? Air Strikes, Air Strikes, Air Strikes, and MORE Air Strikes.

 

[norinrad21]

Haven't you been paying attention to modern wars? Air Strikes, Air Strikes, Air Strikes, and MORE Air Strikes.

Not in china's backyard you don't, Not in china's backyard you don't, Not in china's backyard you don't.

 

[Vinzer Deling]

Not in china's backyard you don't, Not in china's backyard you don't, Not in china's backyard you don't.

What's China gonna do? They can't even take over little Taiwan.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

North Korea and Bush need to hold off on the button until I have visited a Bombing-free Japan
ThanX

 

[Dilbert]

Haven't you been paying attention to modern wars? Air Strikes, Air Strikes, Air Strikes, and MORE Air Strikes.

North Korea has MASSIVE numbers of artillery emplacements -- over 11,000 according to a 1999 estimate -- within range of key South Korean cities, including Seoul. The only defense against artillery is to destroy the gun...and given how many of them are in locations that are fortified, hidden, or both, there is simply no way of knocking out a significant percentage before suffering a massive retaliation.

 

[Nerevar]

North Korea has MASSIVE numbers of artillery emplacements -- over 11,000 according to a 1999 estimate -- within range of key South Korean cities, including Seoul. The only defense against artillery is to destroy the gun...and given how many of them are in locations that are fortified, hidden, or both, there is simply no way of knocking out a significant percentage before suffering a massive retaliation.

that right there is also the reason we don't do shit about North Korea. If we ever get involved in a military engagement with the DPRK you can say goodbye to Seoul and the millions of people in the surrounding areas. It's not as simple as looking after our own self-interest, but our allies' interests as well.

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

Wow! Some of the responses in here are just stunning.

First of all, the US isn't the only country that doesn't want to see nuclear weapons popping up in every country around the world. There is a little thing called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that nearly every country, North Korea included I believe, have signed. Most countries understand the dangers of these weapons, and the way they can destabilze things all over the planet. China, for instance, definetly does not like the idea of a nuclear power so close to their borders as wells. While we tend to focus on the fact that these missiles can strike Japan, and possibly the US, they can easily be fired the other direction, and that is not lost on the Chinese, who have had their share of conflicts with the North Koreans over the years. The threat goes up considerably if a country that is unstable gets a nuclear device.

As it has already been pointed out, it is very expensive to pursuse these types of weapons, and delivery systems. A country like North Korea has a lot more problems within their own borders to worry about, yet the continue to pursue their nuclear ambitions. I understand that they are doing this because they feel it necessary to insure their own security, and this is a path that they feel will help protect them, but in reality, this path has probably brought more attention to North Korea.

Attacking North Korea is not about having "balls". This is a completely different situation then Afganistan or Iraq. There are other world powers involved, and more threatened by a nuclear power on the Korean Penninsula. China, Japan, and South Korea all have an interest in what happens here. None of those countries is resting easy at the thought of a nuclear missle in North Korea.

Modern warfare is no longer about who has the most troops. The technology advantage of the US over the North Koreans would more then level the playing field. That isn't to say it would be an awful, long, bloody conflict that no one wants to see, but to simply equate the size of the force as a determining factor is grossly misunderstanding modern warfare. Make no mistake though, this is not a war that the US can afford to fight at this point. With troops deployed all over the planet right now, it would be nearly impossible for the US to mount any time of serious effort in Korea. This is not lost on the North Korean leaders however, and has allowed them to increase their sabre rattling over the past few years.

 

[human5892]

I might be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the U.S. had enough equipment monitoring its airspace that a missile would be able to be shot down well before impact. If the missile was nuclear, there would still be some fallout, of course, but much less than if it were actually allowed to smack into a building or something.

Am I correct in this assumption?

 

[King Jippo]

Not in china's backyard you don't, Not in china's backyard you don't, Not in china's backyard you don't.

How do you figure?

 

[jadehorizon1]

I might be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the U.S. had enough equipment monitoring its airspace that a missile would be able to be shot down well before impact. If the missile was nuclear, there would still be some fallout, of course, but much less than if it were actually allowed to smack into a building or something.

Its still in development with a slipping budget ... I remember the most recent test was at a 1 out of 5 success rate ... i wouldnt trust my life with that one ... apparently the only stations in the US are in Alaska and northern California, but I could be wrong.

 

[Nerevar]

I might be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the U.S. had enough equipment monitoring its airspace that a missile would be able to be shot down well before impact. If the missile was nuclear, there would still be some fallout, of course, but much less than if it were actually allowed to smack into a building or something.

Am I correct in this assumption?

Not really. Early on in Bush's presidency he broke a treaty with Russia preventing us from developing a missle defense system, but research has been pretty slow (and pretty damn ineffective in testing). Furthermore, I don't think the systems we have developed are deployed anywhere yet. Suffice it to say, we don't really have an effective means of deterring ballistic missle attacks yet, other than "hit us and we'll nuke you 100 times over" (which worked so well with the Russians because they were in the same position as we were - it doesn't work so well with destabilized regimes).

 

[human5892]

Not really. Early on in Bush's presidency he broke a treaty with Russia preventing us from developing a missle defense system, but research has been pretty slow (and pretty damn ineffective in testing). Furthermore, I don't think the systems we have developed are deployed anywhere yet. Suffice it to say, we don't really have an effective means of deterring ballistic missle attacks yet, other than "hit us and we'll nuke you 100 times over" (which worked so well with the Russians because they were in the same position as we were - it doesn't work so well with destabilized regimes).

Okay, thanks. I think I was thinking of the whole treaty-breaking incident, but I didn't realize it didn't really go anywhere significant.

 

[Che]

Yes, good for the absolute dictators and theocrats who answer to no one, they're just the kind of people who need destructive weapons. Good for the people in North Korea who are starving to death and being brainwashed by their government. Who cares if North Korea spends the vast majority of its budget on its military and weapons programs while the people have to resort to cannibalism? Good for them, right RonaldoSon?

Stunning ignorance, even by GAF standards.

Haha. Guileless mentions ignorance. Haha.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Yes, good for the absolute dictators and theocrats who answer to no one, they're just the kind of people who need destructive weapons.

You just described the emergent qualities of Bush and his cronies.

 

[Guileless]

Haha. Guileless mentions ignorance. Haha.

Haha. Che makes a uselessly sarcastic post because he is incapable of debating any issue on the merits. Haha.

You just described the emergent qualities of Bush and his cronies.

Please enlighten us as to how "Bush and his cronies" qualify as absolute dictators or theocrats in the same vein as Kim Jong Il and the Iranian mullahs.

 

[Dilbert]

Please enlighten us as to how "Bush and his cronies" qualify as absolute dictators or theocrats in the same vein as Kim Jong Il and the Iranian mullahs.

He used the word "emergent," which means that he's talking about new trends in their behavior, not their current state of being. Please read more closely next time.

 

[FightyF]

Please enlighten us as to how "Bush and his cronies" qualify as absolute dictators or theocrats in the same vein as Kim Jong Il and the Iranian mullahs.

In some ways, Bush is worse. The use of torture is far more open in the Bush regime, as compared to Iran. In other ways, Iran is worse since the dictatorship is more "absolute", whereas here it is done because no on has the balls to call Bush out (for example, on the widespread use of torturing "political opponents"). Both regimes use religion to shape it's domestic and foriegn policy (thank God Iran has had the more peaceful ideology).

 

[whytemyke]

They've been able to nail the west coast of the USA for about two or three years now.

Bush doesn't attack North Korea because they can fuck us up. We'd win a war, but Americans piss and moan about the 1500 lost in Iraq, where if we tried to take the DPRK they'd probably inflict ten times the amount of deaths... maybe more.

And it has already been brought up, but I highly, highly doubt China would let us step one foot north of the DMZ without wanting us to basically lick their balls.

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

Not really. Early on in Bush's presidency he broke a treaty with Russia preventing us from developing a missle defense system, but research has been pretty slow (and pretty damn ineffective in testing). Furthermore, I don't think the systems we have developed are deployed anywhere yet. Suffice it to say, we don't really have an effective means of deterring ballistic missle attacks yet, other than "hit us and we'll nuke you 100 times over" (which worked so well with the Russians because they were in the same position as we were - it doesn't work so well with destabilized regimes).

I don't believe the treaty was "broken" so much as that the accords of the ABM treating ran out and were not renewed. I think the Russians basically said that they would continue to abide by the treaty, which was easy for them to say considering they are no longer a Superpower, nor do they have the money to create an anit-missile system of any type. Bush did announce that the US would begin developing such a system, and wanted the allies to help flip the bill. Essentially, these systems are very expensive, and unreliable at the moment. I think the plan is that eventually we'd be able to shoot down stray missiles fired from a country such as North Korea or Iraq, but that a large scale assault, from Russia or China for instance, would overwhelm the system.

 

[Dilbert]

I don't believe the treaty was "broken" so much as that the accords of the ABM treating ran out and were not renewed.

No, we withdrew from the treaty. After signing it in 1972, there were periodic reviews of treaty conditions (and frequent amendments), but there was no expiration date on the accord.

 

[King Jippo]

In some ways, Bush is worse. The use of torture is far more open in the Bush regime, as compared to Iran.

So if the Bush administration were a bit more discreet with the torturing things would be a bit more cool?

In other ways, Iran is worse since the dictatorship is more "absolute", whereas here it is done because no on has the balls to call Bush out (for example, on the widespread use of torturing "political opponents").

I didn't realize the US was a dictatorship.

Both regimes use religion to shape it's domestic and foriegn policy (thank God Iran has had the more peaceful ideology).

Though Bush is an idiot, and his administration largely consists of assholes, it's shocking how many of you turn your off your brains and spout stupid shit just to make your disgust known. Not trying to debate which country's major religion are "more peaceful" ( :lol ), but sayinf stupid shit in regard to Iran & North Korea opposing the US makes the world gumdrops & lollypops is beyond ignorant.

 

[AB 101]

Yeah - they don't have enough oil.

It would be funny if it wasn't so 15 years ago.

 

[FightyF]

So if the Bush administration were a bit more discreet with the torturing things would be a bit more cool?

Yeah, because at least Iran has some element of shame in it.

I didn't realize the US was a dictatorship.

Pretty much anything Bush wants, goes, for the most part. I mean, you do agree that the people have no say in the decision making process after a leader is chosen, right?

Though Bush is an idiot, and his administration largely consists of assholes, it's shocking how many of you turn your off your brains and spout stupid shit just to make your disgust known. Not trying to debate which country's major religion are "more peaceful" ( :lol ), but stupid shit like in regard to Iran & North Korea opposing the US makes the world gumdrops & lollypops is beyond ignorant.

Wait a minute, why don't you address what I've written instead of starting with this rhetoric?

Do you agree that the foriegn and domestic policy of both nations are shaped by religious ideals? If you disagree, please respond in a rational and logical manner.

 

[Nerevar]

Pretty much anything Bush wants, goes, for the most part. I mean, you do agree that the people have no say in the decision making process after a leader is chosen, right?

Wow. How much do you really know about the US government? I'm curious, because comparing the legislative process of a country like the DPRK or Iran to the United States is beyond insane. Seriously - just look at how much difficulty Bush is having with a freaking social security plan. He does get a lot of leeway, mainly because there's a Republican Congress right now, but it is certainly nothing like a dictatorship. Saying it is is borderline insane.

Do you agree that the foriegn and domestic policy of both nations are shaped by religious ideals? If you disagree, please respond in a rational and logical manner.

Once again, just look at current US policy. Has the Bush administration done anything about gay marriage? Abortion? These are issues which are vital to the religious right, yet Bush has done little more than pay lip service to them (sort of like Clinton and gays, except the other way around). The policy of the people in office has hardly been shaped by religion. And if you think the war in Iraq was part of some religious crusade by the Bush administration then you're beyond the point of having rational discourse yourself.

Look, I dislike Bush and his policies very much, but it certainly is in no way comparable to a totalitarian dictatorship.

 

[whytemyke]

Look, I dislike Bush and his policies very much, but it certainly is in no way comparable to a totalitarian dictatorship.

Dude. North Korean officials wipe their ass. Bush probably wipes his ass. THEY'RE TEH SAME!!!11!!

And the US did nothing wrong with the ABM treaty. We followed everything in it that regarded getting out of it. We could have just said "Fuck you" and did what we wanted, but we followed international law and did it the right way. You really can't say we 'broke' the treaty, Nerevar.

 

[Macam]

Dear Kim Il-Jong:

Crawford, Texas.

Thanks,
-The World

 

[FightyF]

Wow. How much do you really know about the US government? I'm curious, because comparing the legislative process of a country like the DPRK or Iran to the United States is beyond insane. Seriously - just look at how much difficulty Bush is having with a freaking social security plan. He does get a lot of leeway, mainly because there's a Republican Congress right now, but it is certainly nothing like a dictatorship. Saying it is is borderline insane.

Let's agree to disagree then. Like I said, it's not as bad a Iran, but I see very little difference in how things are turning out.

You DO know about Iran's government, right? You do know that like the US, it too has a legislative, executive and judicial branch. It has some extra things thrown in (like the power to censor content for the people, including cutting out scenes in movies *zing*), but it's not far off from what the US has. You are almost talking like Iran has a government like Iraq.

You do know they are two different countries, right? heheh j/k

I'm not comparing the US government to a dictatorship like Iraq, but like Iran. Of course, Iran has elections, but there are elements of their government that give too much power to their leaders. As I said, the US has it's own fair share of problems, but it has to do with a lack of opposition. My statement "whereas here it is done because no on has the balls to call Bush out" was pointing to this but I can see that I should have been more explicit. Sorry about that.

Once again, just look at current US policy. Has the Bush administration done anything about gay marriage? Abortion? These are issues which are vital to the religious right, yet Bush has done little more than pay lip service to them (sort of like Clinton and gays, except the other way around). The policy of the people in office has hardly been shaped by religion. And if you think the war in Iraq was part of some religious crusade by the Bush administration then you're beyond the point of having rational discourse yourself.

Those are some really good points about the lack of action on these issues. But I feel that it is inevitable for these things to come to pass. I could be wrong, and he could be just paying lip service.

I can't read Bush's mind when it comes to Iraq, but I can easily say that many religious groups supported it and were very vocal about it, while other were vocally against it. Those for it, where the fundamentalist type. As far as the situation in Iran goes, these very same people are wanting it. Think tanks like "Freedom House" are very clearly for a war against Iran and for the war against Iraq. These people have been close to the Bush Administration and their very purpose is to influence his policies.

To deny the influence (or at least the attempts to influence) the President on issues like Iraq and Iran, using "religious reasoning" is to deny a part of our current reality. There ARE neo-cons out there who use religion and religious rhetoric and at the same time want to see a war with Iraq and Iran.

 

[Dilbert]

Fight for Freeform --

I can't decide if you have a real point to make under the wild rhetoric or not, but I would strongly suggest that if you want to bring anyone around to your point of view, you need to be far more precise in your thinking and in your statements.

Wild and crazy: "Pretty much anything Bush wants, goes, for the most part."
Rational statement: "It concerns me that the Republicans seem intent on forcing their agenda through, due to their control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency, rather than seeking bipartisan support or seeking public endorsement of their policies."

Wild and crazy: "Do you agree that the foriegn and domestic policy of both nations are shaped by religious ideals?"
Rational question: "Don't you find it disturbing how current Republican leadership has been appealing to Christian ethics as a source of policy decisions and Christian groups as a source of political support?"

Wild and crazy (not you): "The Bush Administration is fascist!"
Rational statement: "There are several troubling trends in current American policies which, if left unchecked, might lead to an American variety of fascism, based on historical evidence."

In case it hasn't gotten through to you yet, the Republicans use language as a weapon. They have mastered the art of claiming to espouse certain principles, phrased in generic platitudes that no one could possibly oppose on a surface level ("support the troops" -- what the fuck does THAT mean?), while going about their agenda in any way they see fit. Everyone states the exact same message, even though it's bumper-sticker deep, to hammer their spin on reality into the public sphere. When confronted with empirical evidence which contradicts their position, they ignore the question -- if you watched the news conference last night at all, then you got to see that in action. Until the opposition figures out how to counter with rationality and very determined, focused arguments and questions, political debate is going to be dead in this country.

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

No, we withdrew from the treaty. After signing it in 1972, there were periodic reviews of treaty conditions (and frequent amendments), but there was no expiration date on the accord.

That makes sense. But I stand by my feelings that we didn't "break" the treaty. To me, breaking the treaty means we did something to subvert the treaty, or signed it, but continued with our ABM plans anyway. We announced to the world that we were withdrawing from the treaty and pursuing an anti-ballistic missile system. Not saying I agree with that policy or that it's the right way to go, but it's a far cry from breaking the treaty.

 

[whytemyke]

freeform-- not to be a dick or anything, but you sound like you've read a general book on middle eastern governments and you're quoting general opinions you got from the "Iran" chapter.

Seriously, you should perhaps study the Iranian government. Their power is split between the President, who is secular right now, and roughly eleven ayatollahs acting as a council of ministers.

Last time I checked, the US didn't have an entire council of literal ministers to 'aide' bush. So yes, it IS far from what the US has, and I highly doubt anyone is going to agree to disagree, because it isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of you being horribly and mind-numbingly wrong in your comparison, and now you're trying to cop out of looking like a fool by hoping someone will agree to disagree. Bullshit. You're wrong. Admit it.

 

[Nerevar]

You DO know about Iran's government, right? You do know that like the US, it too has a legislative, executive and judicial branch. It has some extra things thrown in (like the power to censor content for the people, including cutting out scenes in movies *zing*), but it's not far off from what the US has. You are almost talking like Iran has a government like Iraq.

You do know they are two different countries, right? heheh j/k

I'm not comparing the US government to a dictatorship like Iraq, but like Iran. Of course, Iran has elections, but there are elements of their government that give too much power to their leaders. As I said, the US has it's own fair share of problems, but it has to do with a lack of opposition. My statement "whereas here it is done because no on has the balls to call Bush out" was pointing to this but I can see that I should have been more explicit. Sorry about that.

What? The president in Iran doesn't even control the army, rather the Ayatollah, or "chief Cleric", if you will, controls them. Furthermore, the Ayatollah has the right to intervene in any political matter he chooses, superceding the power of the president and the legislative branches. On top of all that, he appoints all of the judiciary, has control over all the media in the country, and appoints half of the people in the Council of Guardians - the people who decide who is "eligible" to run for office. I would daresay that's much more of a dictatorship than the system in western Europe and America.

Those are some really good points about the lack of action on these issues. But I feel that it is inevitable for these things to come to pass. I could be wrong, and he could be just paying lip service.

I can't read Bush's mind when it comes to Iraq, but I can easily say that many religious groups supported it and were very vocal about it, while other were vocally against it. Those for it, where the fundamentalist type. As far as the situation in Iran goes, these very same people are wanting it. Think tanks like "Freedom House" are very clearly for a war against Iran and for the war against Iraq. These people have been close to the Bush Administration and their very purpose is to influence his policies.

To deny the influence (or at least the attempts to influence) the President on issues like Iraq and Iran, using "religious reasoning" is to deny a part of our current reality. There ARE neo-cons out there who use religion and religious rhetoric and at the same time want to see a war with Iraq and Iran.

Of course there are those elements, and he pays lip service to them to get their support. And you could make the argument that their support was vital to his approval of the war, but I would then ask you to present proof. Are you forgetting Bush's constant reminding of America that Iraq was an "imminent threat" to the United States before the decleration of war? I mean, Clinton drew a lot of support from homosexuals, but it would be insane to suggest that homosexuality shaped Clinton's agenda.

 

[RonaldoSan]

Yes, good for the absolute dictators and theocrats who answer to no one, they're just the kind of people who need destructive weapons. Good for the people in North Korea who are starving to death and being brainwashed by their government. Who cares if North Korea spends the vast majority of its budget on its military and weapons programs while the people have to resort to cannibalism? Good for them, right RonaldoSon?

Stunning ignorance, even by GAF standards.

My post was meant to be provocative. America seems to be very sensitive when it comes to weapon production anywhere else than in America. Seeing all these events over the past four years I don't blame country leaders for wanting to upgrade their arsenal.