finknottle

Maybe they are having their cake and eating it too. They get the tests and send a clear message to foreign governments, while simultaneously undermining in the eyes of the left around the world that they should be considered a serious threat.

I was expecting more announcements of 'present.'

NK - for the same reason you don't attack Russia or any other country capable of massive retaliation. It's too late for a military solution, they can devestate South Korea within 10 minutes of hostilities. Iran - the window on military force being a viable option is closing fast. The lesson you seem to want to draw is that if you can't use a tool all of the time, you must use it none of the time. Military force is one option among many, and the costs will vary with the situation.

How many courageous votes of 'present?'

I can think of no greater endorsement for Obama's strategic thinking than that he and Maliki are on the same page on how to stabilize Iraq.

The digression on climate change has probably run its cours, but I just want to point out a news bit that happened over night: The G-8 nations (including the US) apparently agreed (in the sense of a joint photo-op statement) to at least halve CO2 emissions by 2050. Less ballyhood was that China and India clarified their positions at the meeting: they flatly reject any measures that apply to them. So even if by some miracle the G-8 accomplishes its goals, the reductions will be wiped out as the developing economies continue to grow. (I think China has already surpassed the US as an emitter.) Absent herculean political leadership, nothing is going to change.

I think the scientific community is beyond that. The discussion that needs to happen is what should we do about it, since everything we can think of is economically crushing. We (the US) can only come to agreement on that if we are assured that we are not going to be unduly screwed. If everybody takes the same hit economically, then I think everybody becomes more receptive to making sacrifices. But if just the US has to hobble its industry and China et al only grows the problem, then american industry (and their politicians) will rightfully fight it. So what is called for is a global framework which can only come about if the G-8 applies extreme pressure on the rest of the world to mandate compliance. (My personal view is that it can't be done, and it doesn't matter because it is too late anyway. Once a spinning top starts to wobble, it's going to fall where it may. IMO if mankind disappeared from the earth tomorrow, the inertia is such that the planet would find a new equilibriam rather than return to pre-industrial patterns.) As for the campaign, I see two bad ideas currently afloat. Cap-and-trade misses the boat since it assumes that industry-based carbon emmissions are the only problem - deforestation and other factors get a free pass. It is a gimmick that will allow politicians to say they are doing something about the problem. A lesser-known factor in their enthusiasm is the fact that the caps will be auctioned off - Obama uses anticipated cap money to pay for new spending in his straw budget, and McCain (probably) counts it towards deficit reduction. Either way, they like it because it serves as a hidden revenue stream which will surely be passed on to the consumers. The other bad idea is green technology. It's not that there is anything wrong with it - it must be pursued. Rather, Obama (and Clinton) made it the centerpiece of their technology competativeness vision. They argued that it would lead to new economic growth, exports, and jobs. This is dangerous sugar-coating. If green technology pays off, we are not going to be exporting the equipment, any more than we are an exporter of cell phones or PC's today. Some companies may make money off of technology licensing, but that's it. A national strategy of R&D in green technology will not change the unpleasant fact that quickly changing our industry and lifestyle will likely be economically wrenching and neccessary.

I don't know that for a fact, but here is the hospital defending the tripling of her salary two months after Obama was elected: http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/671612...lary/index.html Obviously they are putting it in the best light. She is one of 17 VP's, responsible for the non-profit's PR (not that anyone would anticipate is a conflict of interest with her lobbying a government in which her husband is a congressmen). She is being paid 150% what the average anesthesiologist there makes.

I agree. We need a genuine debate on what we can do, because the economic risks are enormous. But I believe a consequence of shifting the debate to first determining man's exact contribution has stifled the debate that really matters. Instead we have a hardening of camps into deniers and believers of man-made influences along partisan lines and with no meeting of the minds. As a result the only solutions on the table come from the most vocal of the believers and, unfortunately, they are not good ones. But those who might believe climate change is a huge problem but don't agree with Kyoto or trading carbon caps have no alternative. IMO Bush was right to reject Kyoto. But instead for pushing for meaningfull global action which included India and China and attempted to protect our interests, the rejection was a smoke-screen for doing nothing. No alternatives were pushed, just token research into whether there really was a problem, and a coordinated effort to avoid discussion of the entire topic. As unlikely as Kyoto is to make a difference, it remains the only game in town. Regarding your example, I'm sure you are aware that 65 million years passed between the dinosaurs and the Ice Ages. Assuming the trend predictions are reasonablyy accurate, at no time did the temperature change as quickly as we are expecting. Broadly speaking, it warmed a few degrees after the dinosaurs, but from 62 million years ago until about 1 million years ago it was a gradual decline. On those occasions when it did shift globally by 4-6 degrees, the quickest transitions appeared to be on the order of 5-10,000 years. Several of these occured, and were always accompanied by mass exctinctions and significant geographical changes like the initiation of new ocean currents. (Things like the middle ages thaw were geographically local, and not as extreme.)

The problem is that the debate over what to do about climate change has been hijacked into one about proving whether and exactly how much man is to blame. The latter is a textbook maneuver for blocking meaningfull action. Most people agree that in time oil demand will pass supply. Should we begin looking for a new energy strategy, or spend the next few years proving whether or not today's high prices are truely supply-demand related versus being artificially high due to speculation? And should we block any action until such time that all parties agree we has as definitive an answer as we are demanding with climate change or, to cite another example of delay, whether cigarettes cause lung cancer? What if 40 years from now the artic has melted, the Atlantic currents have shifted, Europe is an ice box, half the US is a desert and the other half a rainforest, and everybody south of the Rio Grande is streaming north? What if we still have not determined the definite cause? Do we give it another 40 years? Firefighters don't seem to have a problem putting out wild fires before they know whether it's arson or not.

LOL, hearing people slam the republicans who now believe in climate change reminds me of the speech by Gov. Schwarzenegger, where he said the denier core of the party is like an ever-shrinking party of penguins on a melting iceberg. "Better learn to swim, penguins!"

Promoting his book.

Even so - I predict that if they *do* get things done, it will have to be with somebody else at the helm. Nothing I have seen from Pelosi inspires confidence that she can set a substantive course for congress, deal with the opposition, and herd her own cats at the same time. She certainly has not shown any political acumen to this point. Say what you like about the Republicans, but most of the time they had very effective leadership in congress. Unfortunately for the Democrats, the best opportunity for a leadership challenge was last spring. With the election coming up (and it is safe to assume Obama will win), it is hard to imagine changing speakers any time in the next two years.

I was originally sympathetic to them because I can't stand knee-jerk partisan chicken-littleism. But it is absolutely clear to me that Pelosi is the worst speaker of my lifetime, any way you look at it. Subjectively, I think she is wrong on just about every important issue that has come up. Objectively, she has been an incompetant leader for the Democratic party - she has got nothing done, and consistantly leaves the Democrats looking ineffectual. Whether you like her positions or not, she simply has got to go.

My favorite inconsistancy is the idea that his ~100b/year spending increases will be paid for with the money we are currently spending in Iraq... ... except when he criticizes the Iraq policy as misplaced, and argues that the militry and reconstruction efforts should be shifted to Afghanistan [presumably using the same money]... ... except when he say's that he's not going to act precipiticously and will listen to the generals about the pace of the withdrawl [presumably meaning that the money won't be freed up immeduiately].

The Kargil War, summer of '99. It was fought entirely in the Himilayes, lots of tactical chess, almost a million soldiers activated, several tens of thousands actuallly in combat, and maybe 10-20,000 casulties. Most of the who-did-what-when is wild speculation and likely to remain so for the forseeable future. The basic facts are that Pakistani-supported paramilitaries and/or regular troops infiltrated the LOC and seized the Indian command posts. The Indian army eventually cut them off and regained the territory after a difficult and protracted campaign, All through it tensions were very high, with forces on full alert everywhere else, and with both sides readying nuclear forces for tactical use should the war expand out of the Karshmir theater into a full war. It was a pretty traumatic event for both countries. Some big picture consequences: - Pakistan found itself isolated, didn't get the help it expected from China, and the US played a key role in turning the screws on Pakistan to withdraw in a meeting between Clinton and the Pakistani PM. - The Pakistan leader under which this occured is our current democratic golden boy, Sharif, who had also ordered their nuclear tests in 1998. The Kargil war was a huge black eye for Sharif, both domestically and internationally. He blamed Army Chief-of-Staff Musharraf, his own appointee of a year earlier. Three months after the war came the incident where he tried to bar Musharraf's plane from landing, and he was subsequently removed in a coup. It is popular in the US to blame the military automatically for the war, but some people including Chief/CENTCOM have said that it was Musharraf who pushed for the Pakistani withdrawl and the end to the hostilities. But there are so many contradictory claims that in today's environment an objective account of who was responsible is unlikely to come out. - The war had two effects in India, both driven by what they believed was a unsatisfactory performance of their equipment, defensive posture, and command-and-control. The first was a strengthening of ties between India and Israel and the beginnings of a strategic alignment with the US. The second was a massive buildup of conventional forces which continues today. Here are some references - I again caution you as to the iffyness of the information. I'm sure the political events are still classified by each country, and it's not like there was any press around to chronicle events on the ground. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...r/kargil-99.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

Yes they are. But at this point, how does focusing on Afghanistan do anything more for the war on terror than Iraq? It sounds like just another fragile government fighting an insurgency of those who lost power. Other than being sympathetic to AQ at the grass-roots level, much as the baathists welcomed foreign jihadists, the reconstituted Taliban is *not* sitting around plotting bombings in western countries. So to those who say we shouldn't be in Iraq, why should we be in Afghanistan beyond the role of specialized units looking for AQ remnants? If we are willing to pull our main forces out of Iraq, why not Afghanistan?

I would take Pakistan off that list. Once they've entered the nuclear club they have acted responsibly, in the sense of not using WMD to blackmail their neighbors etc. The only real blemish is the issue of proliferation, and the complete story is not fully known. The fact that Pakistan managed to fight and finish a war with nuclear India without either side threatening offensive use say's alot.

Correct. Same deal with the counterfieting - letting them steal a few hundred million a year is a small price to pay (even if we are the ones who have to pay it). And the state-sponsored drug smuggling. I'm not suggesting that Japan should have acted otherwise, merely pointing out why they kept the truth from their own people and why the US continues to offer sweetheart deals that we wouldn't offer to anyone else.

Carbon emission stickers? Before you know it they will require it for smog emissions too! We're doomed!!!!!

IMO there is a lesson which is constantly ignored by both the left and the right. You can't just send in peace-keepers and money and - God help us - conflict resolution specialists and expect things to work. Peace-keeping has only succeeded in states in which the population has already exhausted it's will to fight, and just want protection. Until they reach that stage, whether by fighting it out themselves or by being beaten into acquiesence by the international community, any attempt at peace-keeping is doomed to failure. One of the big problems with Iraq was that their military was defeated so quickly and so painlessly that we were lulled into thinking that there would be no grass-roots resistence by the Sunni's. Saddam's government may have been a broken force, but they clearly were not.

Yup!

You really should indicate when you are copying the wikipedia entry verbatim. Or at least put it in your own words. It is disconcerting when - intrigued by the discussion - I look up the movie and see your post again.

There was a little bit of discussion recently about how North Korea is *not* effectively blackmailing us by dint of their capacity for destruction, we are just giving them the sorts of trading concessions we would in any negotiation, as we should have been in anyway, etc. Fine. And Bush = Kim Jong Il if you're a relativist. I happened to get caught up in an Independent Lens (PBS) film that is playing right now - despite being in Japanese w/English subtitles, it's really compelling. Called "Abduction - The Megumi Yokota Story," it tells the story of a 13 year old girl who was abducted 30 years ago to train North Korean spies, and secondarily follows some of the other victims. The story is really interesting because it interview all the people, including the beat reporters who finally believed that people were being regularly abducted - normally they seized young couples on dates, sort of a twist on a 50's horror film. The governments refused to comment out of fear of antagonizing NK, and the families involved publically ridiculed for over a decade. It wasn't until after a source in South Korea leaked it to a Japanese reporter that they had a North Korean defector who had known her at spy school (1997), coupled with the earlier case (1987) of a captured female agent from NK who planted the bomb on KAL 858 (killing 115) who confessed that she was taught Japanese by a Japanese native matching Megumi, that the Japanese government was forced to acknowledge the situation. Anyway, the story takes a lot of twists and turns - after NK half-admitted the presence of *some* Japanese citizens, they said Megumi had lived there but had past away. They were caught trying the pass somebody elses remains! To me, the elephant in the room is why the South Koreans and the Japanese did not reveal what they knew and press the issue in the 1980's. I think it all boils down to the capacity for mass destruction that NK already had. It gets them a free pass, and forces other governments in the region to turn a blind eye to anything NK chooses to do. That's the gold at the end of the WMD rainbow. http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/abduction/ You can also find the full program on YouTube. For those interested in what NK's track record is in terrorism and why some are upset about their delisting, http://conservativearticleannals.blogspot....apping-and.html

I don't disagree with the assessment, just whether he has the qualifications on paper. Turning it around, let's look at Richardson. Over and over again he reminded us of his impressive resume: Secretary of Energy, Ambassedor to the UN, Governor of New Mexico, etc. So yes, he's qualified on paper. But he also blew it (IMO) at every stop along the way, which just goes to show that a long resume doesn't neccessarily mean you know what you are doing. I liken Bush and Richardson to the countless NFL coaches who somehow keep getting jobs through connections despite never showing sustained success anywhere. Qualified yes, competant - maybe not. Obama is more like the guy who coached in high school for a few years, was a college secondary coach for three years, and now is going to take over the Dallas Cowboys. Qualified? No. Not yet.