Re: [A-List] US Imperialism: North Korea Next?

["Annewilliamson" <Annewilliamson@xxxxxxx>]

Actually the "source" - Buchanan - is one reason I posted the piece.
Buchanan does have direct contact with members of this administration, is a
right-winger, and therefore it should be interesting to A-listers to see
what line dissident Republicans are deploying against Bush.  Another
"conservative" columnist, Steve Chapman, has been a consistent critic of the
coming Iraqi campaign, and also published an interesting piece last night.
I didn't post it, but I was struck that the line of attack is coming down
to:  This is not going to solve the terrorist problem, and - in fact - is
drawing resources from other possibly more threatening situations.  In other
words, though Buchanan et al do ring some "moral" notes, the dissidents'
public argument is based on the ineffectiveness of the administration's
effort.  Ineffective vis a vis terrorism certainly is true, but other
aspects are more egregious to me, i.e. the moral one regarding imperialism.
But, Buchanan has not shied from making that argument also elsewhere.
Useful information is everywhere, I suppose, is my point. -A.

Subject: Re: [A-List] US Imperialism: North Korea Next?


> Consider the source.  Buchanan.
>
> Out on this limb, I'll bet the US will never attack DPRK.
>
>
> 2,000,000+
> Is the US criminal justice system a weapon of mass destruction?
>
> Money for reparations, not for war!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Burford" <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 3:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [A-List] US Imperialism: North Korea Next?
>
>
> > Considering its weak hand, North Korea has been flexible and aggressive
> in
> > its diplomacy in the last year.
> >
> > Presumably it is taking advantage of timing to highlight that not even
> the
> > USA can fight two major wars at the same time. North Korea is presumably
> > trying to extract concessions, and better terms under which Russia and
> > China will sponsor its interests, without dominating it too much.
> >
> > My guess is that it calculates it will have to give up its nuclear
> weapons,
> > and so will other states that have of course secretly tried to
> manufacture
> > them, over the next ten years, but it is bargaining for a more
> multi-polar
> > world than one totally dominated by US imperialism.
> >
> > Chris Burford
> >
> > London
> >
> >
> > At 23/12/02 01:02 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> > >townhall.com
> > >
> > >Pat Buchanan
> > >
> > >December 23, 2002
> > >
> > >2003: a year of wars?
> >
> >
> >
> > >But it is North Korea where the situation appears truly ominous. Caught
> in
> > >flagrante by U.S. intelligence, Pyongyang brazenly confessed that it is
> > >constructing two secret plants to produce weapons grade uranium in
> violation
> > >of the 1994 Agreed Framework, under which North Korea closed a
plutonium
> > >production plant in return for food and fuel aid.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>