Andrew L. wrote:dipshit jigaboo wrote:Also, Before Bush invaded two of their neighboring states and called them evil (and other dumbass saber-ratting), they were on a path towards a more West-friendly democracy.
More farcical still was the inclusion of N. Korea in the "axis of evil." N. Korea was to the axis of evil as Poland was to the coalition of the willing.
Neil Smith wrote:In order to enhance the impression that nasty dictators with WMDs were the real rationale for war, and this was not just a war against Arabs or Muslims, North Korea was hastily given a proud place in the axis. [This] emboldened a defeated and decrepit Pyonggyang regime to defy the US, assert they did indeed have nuclear ingredients and so what, and then openly offer and demand a non-aggression pact. An embarrassed US was flipped the finger, had no real response, but had to mop up an unneeded distraction. US allies in South Korea, meanwhile, were livid. Not only did the axis of evil suddenly present the prospect of new conflict on the Korean peninsula, but it abruptly re-empowered the North and scuttled an impending leveraged buyout by South Korea[my emphasis]
Did you know:
-- the US military is the world's 11th largest economy, its expenditures surpass those of the next 15 nations combined, and its budget exceeds the entire GDP of India?
-- the Bush administration formally announced that the US no longer supports several key aspects of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
-- the Bush administration is opposed to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
-- the Clinton administration made a mockery of international attempts to ban chemical and biological weapons by establishing a separate set of rules for the US at the Chemical Weapons Convention (1997)
-- Khrushchev called for a mutual reduction of military forces and armaments. The Eisenhower administration ignored this, but Khrushchev implemented reduced military spending unilaterally over the objections of his military command
-- the Kennedy administration also knew about Khrushchev's reductions and his call for reciprocity, but charged ahead (despite being well ahead in the race) and undertook the largest peace-time military build-up in world history (effectively terminating Khrushchev's reformist project)
Some comments about your last three points Andrew. The Clinton Administration's "making a mockery" of the Chemical Weapons Convention is rather misleading in that the fault for the U.S.'s unilateral excemptions lies not with the Clinton Administration, but with Republicans like Jesse Helms and Bob Dole who were needed to meet the 2/3 majority threshold in the Senate for ratification of the treaty as the U.S. Constitution demands and refused to vote for it unless such excemptions were made.
And about Krushchev, Kennedy and Eisenhower: your characterization of the then situation is rather one-sided. Here's a link to a letter written by Eisenhower to Krushchev in which he does not ignore, but responds to
the Soviet leader's proposals and makes some arms reduction proposals of his own.
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presi ... s/1937.cfm
It should also be remembered that it was Eisenhower who in 1958 (against the advice of his military advisors) unilaterally announced a U.S. moratorium on nuclear testing at the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Negotiations to which Krushchev responded in kind.
As for Kennedy, here's an interesting interview 1984 interview with Norman Cousins who was his special envoy to Kruschchev that's well worth reading concerning what was going on at the time and provides a much more nuanced perspective:
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/conver ... sins3.html
As to who was responsible for the failure of Krushchev's "reformist project" I would say the responsibility belongs much more on the Soviet military leaders who never agreed with them and who in 1964 helped overthrow him, along with other elements of the Soviet leadership, and install Leonid Breshnev. Krushchev himself of course had his own problems with serious negotiations as his repeated boorish behaviour at the U.N. clearly shows.
Mel
