tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431867968155710087.comments2022-03-21T12:25:20.098-07:00La RiposteEditorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10233154102262589039noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431867968155710087.post-36244503283687826552010-12-01T19:45:57.487-08:002010-12-01T19:45:57.487-08:00Ben Franklin didn't have a "Rubberhose&qu...Ben Franklin didn't have a "Rubberhose" type backdoor "encryption" conduit calling home to Daddy Julian Assange with peoples dirty lil' secrets w/out their knowledge that is masquerading as a free security feature provided freely by the one and only Julius Assange.<br /><br />I found the "Rubberhose" link via Wikipedia on Assange just last night, did a lil' experiment after finding his famous whole disk cryptography tool. (A great tool to say the least), were it not for the backdoor calling home to daddy Assange during the data encryption process of the totally phony secret data I intended to encrypt...And sent in plain text at that.<br /><br />Oh yeah, he will protect the contributors of the info (the leaking "contributors" as he calls them), w/ his life.....Too bad it is he, the thief in the night mainly that he protects. <br /><br />If you use Rubberhose, you better never connect a computer containing that drive to the net. It will call Daddy Assange immediately.<br /><br />Brilliant. Evil, but brilliant.<br /><br />How is that for really big picture?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431867968155710087.post-84423904527636815012010-11-30T16:12:49.527-08:002010-11-30T16:12:49.527-08:00If the US-axis powers agree to let China rebuild N...If the US-axis powers agree to let China rebuild NK as a communist country and agree to foot the reconstruction cost with the caveat that the new state must be non-nuclear, China might act. That's a lot of conditions, but it's still possible.Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17705319062964305417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431867968155710087.post-86247441910836270892010-11-30T06:26:49.207-08:002010-11-30T06:26:49.207-08:00E.,
"Short of maintaining the status quo and...E.,<br /><br />"Short of maintaining the status quo and wishing that North Korea will spontaneously return to the 6-Party table, what other path do you suggest the US take?"<br /><br />Sit and wait for a leadership (not necessarily regime) change in North Korea, and hope that such a shift results in appreciable change in North Korean behavior. This would involve cessation of military attacks on the South, as well as the recognition that any talks regarding the final status (which is what North Korea purports to seek) must include Seoul. Your (and Carter's) position seems to be that US intransigence regarding bilateral talks is the central obstacle; my reply is that the demand for talks that exclude Seoul is, in and of itself, an indication that Pyongyang is uninterested in any reasonable deal. <br /><br />I'm curious (perhaps you'll post on it later); does the Wikileaks release of materials on South Korean and Chinese attitudes towards a North Korean collapse shift your attitudes at all?Robert Farleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12233771830519084383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431867968155710087.post-67502886193332552862010-11-30T03:47:04.507-08:002010-11-30T03:47:04.507-08:00Sir - we appear to have some grounds for agreement...Sir - we appear to have some grounds for agreement; I concur that North Korea seeks "a political, economic, and military settlement that favors there [sic] interests." That simply indicates that they are rational actors, for ALL countries seek settlements of such a nature. The degree to which they achieve their objectives is determined by the instruments of power at their disposal and their skill in wielding them.<br /><br />Similarly, I am happy to see that you will grant me that there is "certainly something to the idea of abandoning the assumption that North Korea will collapse."<br /><br />Your observation that negotiations should not come directly on the heels of an aggressive act by the North raises 2 points; first, it could simply be a condition of negotiations that they occur only after a suitable time has elapsed - just as a condition of the US withdrawal from Vietnam was based on assurances by the North that they would allow a suitable interval before overrunning the South. So, there's precedent. On the other hand, sometimes it is not in the interest of a country to ignore or postpone actions that are demanded by the military threats of another country. Saddam's Iraq gives a good example. Bowing to UN demands in the face of US military threats was certainly not palatable; time has proven that swallowing that bitter pill might have spared Saddam the noose and his country a decade of uncivil war. We don't think twice about the idea that a small, weak country should "logically" submit in the face of military threats by a superpower - but that the situation may be reversed seems difficult for most to grasp - even when the asymmetric nature of the facts on the ground (geography, distribution of forces, costs of probable outcomes) combines to favor the smaller nation. <br /><br />On the other hand, there are areas on which we clearly disagree - you write that "there is certainly no way that bilateral talks can provide assurance to the North Koreans that the United States will not pursue regime change" - but if a signed treaty or a summit-level agreement is not as concrete an assurance of non-aggression that one country can get from another, I'm not sure what is. Such an agreement would render the strident cries of hawks in both the US and North Korea to so much quacking.<br /><br />You seem to agree that there is no reasonable military option at this point, but do not share my view that lifting sanctions and engaging in bilateral negotiations are the way to go.<br /><br />Short of maintaining the status quo and wishing that North Korea will spontaneously return to the 6-Party table, what other path do you suggest the US take?Editorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10233154102262589039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431867968155710087.post-85913474768253938912010-11-28T23:40:36.812-08:002010-11-28T23:40:36.812-08:00E,
I appreciate the response, but I don't fin...E,<br /><br />I appreciate the response, but I don't find it sufficient. There's little to indicate that the North Koreans view bilateral talks in the same way that you (and Carter) do, which is as a gateway to a return to the Six Party talks. Moreover, there is certainly no way that bilateral talks can provide assurance to the North Koreans that the United States will not pursue regime change; opposition politicians in the United States will remain free to advocate such a policy, which will in turn provoke hawks in North Korea, etc. Moreover, I don't agree that there's a degree of legitimacy to Northern perceptions of the South; the North has had ample opportunity to distinguish diplomatically between the United States and South Korea, and in the past (on many, many occasions) has done so.<br /><br />I am not at all convinced that all that the North Koreans want is "a little respect"; I rather suspect that they want a political, economic, and military settlement that favors there interests. The vehicle to accomplishing this is bilateral talks that exclude South Korea, and barring that military escalation that South Korea and the United States cannot provide a reasonable answer to. The best that can be said, in my view, for a return to talks of any kind is that there is no military option, but this isn't saying terribly much. <br /><br />There's certainly something to the idea of abandoning the assumption that North Korea will collapse; however, conceding North Korea's central diplomatic demand, on the immediate heels of a series of North Korean military escalations, hardly seems the way to proceed.Robert Farleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12233771830519084383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431867968155710087.post-51665477834423468462010-11-28T20:54:38.930-08:002010-11-28T20:54:38.930-08:00Mr. Farley, I believe that bilateral talks between...Mr. Farley, I believe that bilateral talks between the US and North Korea are a key part of a wider range of diplomatic actions, which would include a return to a Six-Party format for discussing denuclearization, and no doubt bilateral talks (and actions) in the economic and social spheres between North and South.<br /><br />However, the key importance to North Korea of a bilateral dialogue with the US is to obtain assurances that America will not seek to overthrow their government through the sort of “regime change” currently being publically advocated by various US politicians, or by overt military action.<br /><br />As Carter notes, there is the legitimate point as well that the peace that holds along the DMZ is, on paper, an agreement between the North Korean Army, and a United Nations Command whose signatory representative was a US Army general. It’s not a peace treaty between the governments of North and South Korea. <br /><br />And as the US military assumes control of all Korean forces in the event of a major conflict on the Peninsula, again, there’s a degree of legitimacy to Northern perceptions that the US is the nation that truly holds the military cards south of the DMZ. <br /><br />I hope this satisfactorily answers your question, which is certainly a legitimate one, and I appreciate your efforts to continue and expand the discussion.Editorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10233154102262589039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431867968155710087.post-73954399118053922762010-11-28T18:01:23.860-08:002010-11-28T18:01:23.860-08:00So you think that South Korea should be excluded f...So you think that South Korea should be excluded from talks designed to settle tensions on the North Korean peninsula?<br /><br />I don't mean to be overly snarky, but this is the intention of the North Korean demand for bilateral talks. Carter doesn't dwell on it, probably because it renders the idea of bilateral talks a bit absurd. South Korean preferences regarding a settlement with North Korea would have to be channeled through the United States; this is precisely "what North Korea wants" but hardly suggests that bilateral talks are a way to stabilize the peninsula. Rather, such an approach would appear to legitimize the North Korean claim that South Korea is effectively a puppet state.Robert Farleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12233771830519084383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431867968155710087.post-24990946985804792622010-11-28T03:39:02.450-08:002010-11-28T03:39:02.450-08:00The US military-industrial-financial oligarchy wil...The US military-industrial-financial oligarchy will not give up its dream of full spectrum dominance until it finally destroys the US economy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431867968155710087.post-89665617870087869142010-11-24T20:08:21.693-08:002010-11-24T20:08:21.693-08:00Well, they may not know the militants by name, but...Well, they may not know the militants by name, but they are fully aware they are at least second in command of the local catering arm of al Qaeda.<br /><br />That's how they are able to put out the press releases right after the successful drone attacks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com