The sinking of the South Korean navy corvette Cheonan this spring was and remains an act of war. The investigation conducted by South Korea, careful and painstaking, makes clear beyond any reasonable doubt that elements of the North Korean Navy sank the ship. The Western rim of the Pacific now is contemplating what South Korea and the U.S. will do in response. Go to the U.N.? Stage new exercises? Tighten sanctions? Persuade the Chinese to withdraw their support of Kim Jung-Il?
All that is important. None of that matters.
What matters is this: our enemies have taken our measure. We are undone. To borrow the inscription on the wall: Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin. We have been weighed and have been found wanting.
The North Koreans, the Chinese, the Iranians, the Pakistanis, and the Russians understand what we have become in two short years. In that time we went from having a resolute leader who somewhat understood the world and who somehow managed to move a divided country to doing what was right in Iraq, to now having an irresolute, inept leader who puts politics ahead of both understanding and principle. In a country that remains as sharply divided as before, this is a recipe for disaster. We have been looking for that disaster to unfold in the Persian Gulf, but it may well unfold instead on the Korean peninsula.
South Korea has a well-trained military but is saddled with generals who look to American generals for guidance and approval, and political leaders who are as feckless and unprincipled as our own. The South Korean people, liberated from authoritarian rule just a generation ago and only now enjoying the fruits of their labors as a new, first-world country, not only do not want a war with the North -- they cannot conceive of it. They see the confrontation with their northern cousins more like the ‘sitzkrieg' of France versus Germany in early 1940. That is not stable, but they do not see that.
Bad as that lack of vision is, what is worse is that the left side of the South Korean political divide is more strident then that of America, hard as that is to believe. Their Left is as willing, indeed more so, to sell their own country down the river as is our own.
That means that South Korea does not have the inner confidence to solve this problem and will instead look to the United States. Does anyone think that Barack Obama possesses the wisdom, political will, and leadership necessary to manage the new menace that North Korea insists on being?
No.
We know it. Our enemies know it.
We know that a full, conventional war in South Korea would be horrific, which is why we shy away from it. We understand that the city of Seoul, home to ten million people, is essentially held hostage by North Korean artillery. North Korea could use weapons of mass destruction. It could infiltrate the south with commandos who could attack military bases or further the attacks on civilians. It would be cold comfort to the people of South Korea to see hundreds of thousands of their own citizens dead, dying and wounded in a war that they eventually would ‘win'.
We also know that ‘winning' a war with North Korea means occupying it, and that in turn means feeding the survivors. Those survivors may not be grateful for being ‘liberated' from an army-first policy of juche, no matter how many concentration labor camps are emptied. Most of the North Korean people are but a couple hundred calories per week away from abject starvation. A peninsular conventional war will quickly wreck -- indeed, it must do so -- the transport, electricity and storage that provides the little amount of food that North Korean civilians eat. They know it; their leaders have used food as tool of political control. It is exquisite and masterful, the consummate demonstration of absolute power that should land those responsible in Dante's eighth circle.
So the North Koreans should welcome us as long as we can quickly feed them, correct?
No.
Never mind the enormous logistics of occupying North Korea. Never mind that the same terrible infrastructure will hamper any relief effort. Never mind issues such as finance and reconstruction. The North Korean people have been taught for sixty years that we are the enemy. Starvation, fear, and brutality have been institutionalized. The people have been told that they are the pinnacle of human achievement, that the South and Americans are ogres, and that juche requires their absolute adherence to the Dear Leader. Some of that, much of that, will stick. North Koreans lack initiative and do not respond well to the modern, western world. We will not be welcomed even if we were to occupy the North quickly.
Nothing goes right in planning a war, something that Iraq taught us, and while Iraq also taught us that patience and continued re-examination will eventually find a strategy that will work, there is no one in Washington today with those qualities. North Korea will fall apart, the misery will be as absolute as one can imagine, and thanks to the western press and the western Left, America will be held responsible.
One might argue that we would not occupy North Korea. The South Koreans would have the same problems as we; the cultural barriers are almost as profound, and they too are defined as the enemy. Nor could we count on any assistance from China. China has its own plan, and allowing North Korea to be occupied is not one of them.
Even before one considers a North Korean defeat, we must recognize that China has many ways to aid and abet a North Korean attack without being so direct as to invite retaliation. China believes that the 21st century belongs to them much as the 20th century belonged to the United States and the 19th century belonged to Britain. China patiently seeks hegemony in the Western Pacific.
If using North Korea to start a war so as to push us from that region will succeed, that is what the Chinese will do. If starting a war so as to discredit us in the eyes of the rest of the world will succeed, that is what they will do. If using the threat of a war causes American leaders to concede and buckle, that is what they will do.
China likes North Korea the way it is. China could easily fix the problems in that unhappy land. Just a few train-loads of fertilizer and food a month would fix the chronic malnutrition. Instead they permit North Korea to buy missile parts and weapons. China could restrain Kim Jong-Il with a telephone call. Instead they permit him to sink South Korean naval ships.
North Korea does little without Chinese approval. China approves.
China wants us out of the Western Pacific. They want the Japanese tamed. They want oil, markets, strategic depth and the freedom to take on their next adversary, India. North Korea is a tool that can be used and discarded as is convenient.
China must defeat America. They can't do that militarily; Chinese leaders have watched our military in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they know that today, their 1990s era military can't defeat ours.
They must defeat us politically and more important, psychologically.
They are well on their way.
The United States thought it was electing a post-racial, post-partisan ‘cool cat' when it elected Barack Obama. It quickly discovered that the elected administration, and its supporters in the press, academia and labor, had decided that, as the Newsweek cover proclaimed, “we are all socialists now'. America must be brought down in their eyes so that it can be rebuilt in a statist, more authoritarian, communalist, ‘progressive' republic that worries about building a ‘New America' and ignores the rest of the world. Call that what you like, that is what they have worked for since the twin goblins of Bolshevism and Fascism rose from the ashes of World War One.
A fair portion of this was organized by the Soviets; one need not see a Red under every bed to understand that the Soviets guided a substantial part of the radical, western Left and used it to subvert Europe and America. China is happy to pick up these tools for use alongside their own.
North Korea is a tool. The reconquest of Hong Kong is a tool. The threat to invade Taiwan is a tool, as is the occupation of Tibet, the threat to India, the arming of Pakistan, the provision of nuclear plans to Iran, the oil deals with Chavez, and the co-opting of Burma.
China has used the North Korea tool well. Through three American administrations, Clinton, Bush and now Obama, it has demonstrated that the United States is inconsistent and irresolute. We try to cut deals, we try to negotiate, we seek to involve regional powers. We apply sanctions that are easily circumvented. We continue to ask China to use its ‘good will' to ‘influence' North Korea.
How they must laugh in Beijing.
With virtually nothing at risk, China demonstrates that it is dangerous to trust the United States. George Bush was as responsible as any; witness the weak response to the capture of our patrol plane and the removal of North Korea from the terrorist list. Barack Obama continues the fumbling.
Now South Korea knows that the United States isn't completely behind it as it decides to respond to the sinking of one of its own warships. Indeed, what would the U.S. do if the attack had been against an American destroyer? Would we demand satisfaction from North Korea?
George Bush might have, though our country might not have followed him.
Barack Obama? Demand satisfaction?
Our allies notice, as do our enemies. It is no coincidence that Iran threatens nuclear war, that Hugo Chavez increases the torment of his own people, that Burma cancels elections, that Pakistan sponsors terror attacks against its neighbors, that Syria provides Hezbollah with long-range missiles, and that Russia plans its own reconquest of old Soviet states.
No other country will counter this. Europe is delusional. Britain is weak. Israel is increasingly on its own. India is threatened and not powerful enough to respond outside its own region. Japan is in a long term economic decline. Other regional powers, from Brazil to Turkey, see what is happening and decide to cut their own deals.
The sinking of the Cheonan makes clear to the world that the U.S. will not stand behind its ally in responding to an act of war. The South Koreans will not respond on their own. They understand that in the end, they must live with China, and that now China is the strong horse. South Korea over time must move closer to China, and that means moving away from us.
Now that the point has been made, the Chinese may well discard Kim Jong-Il and the Kim dynasty. They may install a new warlord and quietly install a Chinese model economy in the North. They can prepare their client for a new job.
What does Korea say about the U.S.?
We are wanting.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/31/2010 00:40 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And Obama bowing to China only adds credibility to this idea.
#2
North Korea does little without Chinese approval. China approves.
I doubt this heavily. North Korea does what they want, the days of them being a Chinese client state are over. Agree that NK knew that SK and America would do nothing, though.
#3
That is a very clearheaded and forcefully written essay. But I think that while the Chinese are not quite as capable of controlling the crazy pitbull on the end of their chain as some believe, they are wise enough to take advantage of NK's provocations.
#5
WMF > CHINA WILL NEVER APPROVE OF INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS WHICH LEAD TO THE COLLAPSE OF NORTH KOREA.
* SAME > THE SINO-JAPANESE HISTORICAL STRUGGLE AND MIL CONFLICTS OCCURRED DUE TO JAPAN's DESIRE TO ASSERT SOVEREIGN INFLUENCE, STATION MIL FORCES ON CHINA'S VASSAL STATE OF KOREA. SUPPORT OF TOKYO FOR THE ACTIVITIES OF KOREAN PIRATES, CRIME GROUPS AGZ CHINESE INTERESTS.
* WAFF > GUARDIAN.UK > [1/2-plus] AUSTRALIANS FEAR WAR WID CHINIA, SAYS LOWRY INSTITUTE SURVEY. Majority of Aussies surveyed continue to suppor US despite recognizing the base decline in US econ + geopol influence.
Who is poor in America? This is not an easy question to answer, and the Obama administration would make it harder. It's hard because there's no conclusive definition of poverty. Low income matters, though how low is unclear. Poverty is also a mind-set that fosters self-defeating behavior - bad work habits, family breakdown, out-of-wedlock births and addictions. Finally, poverty results from lousy luck: accidents, job losses, disability.
Despite poverty's messiness, we've tended to measure progress against it by a single statistic, the federal poverty line. It was originally designed in the early 1960s by Mollie Orshansky, an analyst at the Social Security Administration, and became part of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. Talk about your Quagmire! By this measure, we haven't made much progress. Except for recessions, when the poverty rate can rise to 15 percent, it has stayed in a narrow range for decades. But the apparent lack of progress is misleading for two reasons.
First, it ignores immigration, which has increased reported poverty. Many immigrants are poor and low-skilled. From 1989 to 2007, about three-quarters of the increase in the poverty population occurred among Hispanics - mostly immigrants, their children and grandchildren. Poverty "experts" don't dwell on immigration, because it implies that more restrictive policies might reduce U.S. poverty. The definition of poverty, you see, is one of the keys to the redistribution of income.
Second, the poor's material well-being has improved. The official poverty measure obscures this by counting only pre-tax cash income and ignoring other sources of support. These include the earned-income tax credit (a rebate to low-income workers), food stamps, health insurance (Medicaid), and housing and energy subsidies. Spending by poor households from all sources may be double their reported income, reports a study by Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute.
To paraphrase the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan: The administration is defining poverty up. It's legitimate to debate how much we should aid the poor or try to reduce economic inequality. But the debate should not be skewed by misleading statistics that not one American in 100,000 could possibly understand. Government statistics should strive for political neutrality. This one fails. When has 'government' ever been "politically neutral"?
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/31/2010 08:22 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No program, no redistribution will end 'poverty' that is found as a consequence of human free will to engage in behaviors that destroy any opportunity. There has always been poverty, there is poverty, and there will remain poverty as long as people choose to engage in behaviors long since defined as the Seven Deadly Sins.
#3
I take it by 'Immigrant' the author means 'Undocumented Alien' i.e. Illegal Alien. Most legal immigrants have the meas to sustain themselves.
As mentioned - this insures that the 'war on poverty' would never end because, no matter how wealthy everyone is - the lower third will be classified as 'poor'. Its a socialist's wet dream - you will never, ever, end poverty.
And don't forget, that the poor here, would be classified as doing good, middle class, or even well off, in other countries.
#4
Define poverty as the bottom xx% of the population. Now, how do you eliminate poverty? Give the bottom xx% more money? Nope, somebody is still the bottom xx%. Exterminate the bottom xx%? Nope, then you just have a new, though smaller, bottom xx%.
#6
I think the definition of poverty should be defined in relatioon to quality of life: running water, access to transportation, food, shelter, availablity of jobs, ability to work, access to healthcare (any emergency room will do).... and with that definition there are very few folks living in poverty in the US as compared to 40 years ago.
A co-worker from India once asked me "I hear people on TV speaking of poverty in the US; but I do not see them. Where are they?"
#8
Hmm... my wife, who came here from the Philippines was (and still is) amazed at the wealth and opportunities available to the 'poor' here.
She is also amazed at the, for lack of a better word, pure laziness of the 'poor' and the 'entitlement mentality' they have. It pisses her off to see someone, who is well able to work, sit back and collect welfare or disability for nothing.
#11
Poverty is also a mind-set that fosters self-defeating behavior - bad work habits, family breakdown, out-of-wedlock births and addictions. Finally, poverty results from lousy luck: accidents, job losses, disability.
So how does convincing 17% of the population that they are 'poor' rectify this?
#12
Being poor, aka only having a box of white rice and half a bottle of BBQ sauce to live on for a week and a half so I could pay rent, really motivated me to get educated and get the hell out of that way of life.
It made me a financial conservative.
Fuck those that won't better themselves and want my hard earned money.
(Can't is a different story. I will happily help support those that physically can't work.)
#13
I'm with you Darth. If they physically or mentally cant work (and I mean really are unable to work - not that they claim to have a disability.) then I don't mind helping them out.
Many (too many) years ago I live in an apartment, working my ass off to get ahead. The apartment above me had 2-3 families in it, with kids, and all on welfare (and _none_ were disabled). Right after the 1st of the month the parties will start up there. Every night. By about the 15th of the month it quieted down a bit - probably partying every 2 out of 3 nights. Close to the end of the month its about every other nights and occasionally skipping 2-3 nights. Then on the first *BANG* party time again. That went on for _months_.
I'm also of the mind that people on welfare (who are not disabled) should forfeit their right to vote. Sorry you can't vote yourselves more money.
A glorious day in the history of the country, May 28 passed off without any major event to celebrate the singular achievement of a nuclear power status by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. For reasons unknown, there has been a gradual and slow phasing out of the observance of the Day, when the tests were conducted on this memorable day in 1998 which thrilled the nation and it burst into joy with the slogans of Allah-o-Akbar and Pakistan Zindabad.
The nuclear tests that changed the colour of now famous Chaghai Mountains were indeed in response to Indian blasts in May 1998 and earlier in 1974. I vividly remember the day when Dr A.Q. Khan, father of Pakistan's nuclear programme, last time visited the Chaghai test site, inspected the tunnel and arrangements after performing ablution with Aab-e-Zam Zam and gave a go ahead signal. Then followed the cherished nuclear tests on 28th May, 1998 prompting countrywide jubilations, distribution of sweets and offering of thanksgiving prayers. While the morale of the nation went sky-high and people in Islamic countries rejoiced it as their own achievement, others were in a state of shock as they did not expect Pakistan, a developing country, to master the world's most advanced and complicated technology in such a short period of time. For them, it was an unforgivable act of gatecrashing into the otherwise elite nuclear club by an impoverished Islamic State and that is why they continue to malign the country on this account on different pretexts on various occasions.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
05/31/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
One day Bambi will realise the problem in Afghanistan is Pakistan and what is taught in Pakistan is causing all the shit in Afghanistan!
Posted by: Paul D ||
05/31/2010 3:11 Comments ||
Top||
In addition to the upwards of 10 deaths as a result of Monday's botched raid on a Turkish ship carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza in defiance of an Israeli blockade, Jerusalem appears to have suffered another casualty: its nascent security alliance with Greece, Turkey's historical rival.
Over the last few years, as Ankara has increasingly distanced itself from Jerusalem and sought to improve relations with its Arab neighbors as well as Iran, Israel has responded with half-hearted attempts to win back its longtime ally. The assessment in Israeli military and intelligence circles seemed to be that there was little Israel could do as Turkey's Islamist government reoriented the country's foreign policy away from the West, but that Turkey's interests would keep it from straying too far.
Then, last year, in a little-noticed development, Israel conducted its first war games with Greece. Until Monday's events, the two countries were in the midst of joint Air Force exercises that were scheduled to go through June 3. The Greek Foreign Ministry announced the postponement those exercises today, issuing a harsh statement condemning Israel's actions on the Miva Marmara.
As this analysis by a Greek security institute suggests, each side has a lot to offer the other. Geographically speaking, Greece is a "natural bridge" to Europe. And as a member of NATO, Greece could be a valuable market for Israeli defense contractors. Greece spends about 2.8 percent of its GDP on its military, well above the EU average (the U.S. spends about 4 percent). And, though the authors don't say so explicitly, Greece could benefit from Israel's help in resolving the Cyprus conflict to Athens's satisfaction -- or at least preventing Turkey from ever joining the European Union unless it makes concessions over the disputed island.
Last December, according to some reports, a top Greek admiral visited Israel and quietly toured Israeli naval facilities. Was he there to explore how the two countries might stengthen their ties, presumably at Turkey's expense? If so, whatever enhanced cooperation is being contemplated seems at risk now.
As for the Turks, they're reaping an enormous public relations bonanza in the Arab world from this incident. Turn on Al Jazeera right now, and you'll see images of angry demonstrators from Tunisia to Yemen holding up images of Tayyip Erdogan. Palestians are waving Turkish flags on the streets of Gaza. A year ago, what percentage of Arabs would have even been able to pick Turkey's prime minister out of a lineup? Now, he's seen as a regional hero for standing up to Israel.
As I've long suspected, "health care reform" has emboldened the Justice Department to take a more active role in enforcing government price controls against physicians. Today the Antitrust Division, joined by Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, forced a a group of Boise orthopedists to accept price controls for worker's compensation and HMO contracts as part of a settlement accusing the doctors of "price fixing":
According to the complaint, the conspiring orthopedists engaged in two antitrust conspiracies, which took place from 2006 to 2008. In the first conspiracy, through a series of meetings and other communications, the orthopedists agreed not to treat most patients covered by workers' compensation insurance.
They entered into a group boycott in order to force the Idaho Industrial Commission to increase the rates at which orthopedists were paid for treating injured workers. The Idaho Industrial Commission sets the fee schedule that determines the amount that orthopedists and other healthcare providers usually receive for treating patients covered by workers' compensation insurance. The boycott resulted in a shortage of orthopedists willing to treat workers' compensation patients, causing higher rates for orthopedic services.
Continued on Page 49
#2
And when all the doctors are in jail, who will treat the people?
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
05/31/2010 12:47 Comments ||
Top||
#3
who will treat the people?
this isn't about treatment - it's about power. The DOJ doesn't give a rat's ass about Idaho bumpkins, but they are carrying Obama's water for Obamacare
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/31/2010 13:09 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The nationalisation of American bodies is just beginning.
#10
Many areas have a shortage of doctors and nurses now, I'm sure Barry and his commie agenda will really help the situation. I think that now even a doctor attempting to retire can be considered an attempt at a boycott. However, the DOJ action can be considered in violation of this: Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
#11
I think any doctor that opts out of any insurance plan and runs a cash only business would save tons of money on paperwork and could offer lower rates. You could even sell "bundles" of office visits at a even lower discount rate.
Until the government forces you to take Bambi-care. In which case it is time to run those fascist bastards out on a rail after a good tar and feathering.
#12
think any doctor that opts out of any insurance plan and runs a cash only business would save tons of money on paperwork and could offer lower rates. My reading of the DOJ action is that opting-out is no longer an option.
#15
This is interesting: out here in WA state, the number of Drs accepting Medicare is shrinking because of the state's reduction in reimbursment rates. Most are keeping their current patients but not accepting new ones, while a few are retiring. Wonder if this has made the DOJ's radar?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
By this measure, we haven't made much progress. Except for recessions, when the poverty rate can rise to 15 percent, it has stayed in a narrow range for decades. But the apparent lack of progress is misleading for two reasons. 
