Realism vs. Conspiratorial Pacifism: North Korea, iterated

The Accused Hawk, sarcastic but serious: We should attack North Korea, they’ve crossed the line.

The Conspiricist-Pacifist: Cool! Who exactly did you have in mind for the excursion? You didn’t join the forces did ya? (“Injuns, Koreans –no matter– we’re fucking AMERICANS, and just because so few of us still have our teeth, we’ve still got BITE!”)

The Accused Hawk: Don’t know where you’re going with this, but perhaps, given the statement ‘attack North Korea’ we can start there. Do you think their actions are excusable? If so, defend them. And do you really think this crisis is about American power? If so, how?

The Conspiricist-Pacifist: Perhaps given the statement ‘attack North Korea’, I assumed you wanted to attack North Korea. Did you join the forces, or is this a little personal vendetta you’re about to partake in??

The Accused Hawk: but for china, DPRK’s big brother, I would like to see a coalition remove that most-fucked, most-oppressive regime. I would like see the DPRK dissolved into South Korea. I would like to see all this done in accordance with the UN charter and the conditions of Just War, which I think the DPRK has just helped to satisfy. In fact, I think 2/3 of the ‘axis of evil’ remain, and need to be destroyed. So to progress from nuisance to discussion, I’ll repeat my great friend:

Do you think the DPRK’s recent attacks, their pattern of behavior are excusable? If so, defend them. And do you really think this crisis is about American power? If so, how?

The Conspiricist-Pacifist: no one should attack anyone. Period. And most definitely, American power can’t be discounted, unless of course one completely ignores the history of American hegemony regarding Southeast Asia going back to the Nineteenth Century. I understand the mind set that could even ask such a question though. If it asked outside the war mongering bubble that is dc, its legitimacy would at the very least be ignored as fantastical. Come on dude–Bush-speak? Axis of evil? What exactly is that anyway, three countries without USA military bases?

The Accused Hawk: ‎”No one should attack anyone. Period.” both pacifist and critical of North Korea’s aggression. I’ll take one for the other in this matter. As to American “hegemony back a century” do you mean capitalism as accepted and thrived on from Indonesia to Japan? Or the counter reactionary, “revolutionary” suffering from Vietnam or Cambodia through to the DPRK itself? The ‘bush-speak’ accusation was expected, don’t know what that entails or alleges exactly, but is that formulation wrong? Are these not precisely the demonstrable menaces to the world?

The Conspiricist-Pacifist: Ya know, when the attitude is ‘we own the world’, it’s easy to formulate questions based on the supposed benign and beneficial effects of ideal capitalistic systems, and totally ignore the usual real effects of immoral, empire building campaigns. Iraq was a menace to the world before being destroyed? They went from good buddy, to menace to the world? I also live in the world, and not once did I feel Iraq being a menace. Afghanistan is a menace to the world and needs occupation? Ok. Well, they never seemed to menace me. But they did to you? Iran is a menace to the world because I suppose wanting their arch enemy held at bay by, you know, the one’s that have nukes acquired illegally, but (wink, wink), “They’re our buddies so don’t go there”? When you feel you ‘own the world’, well, isn’t it easy to think that you’re actually speaking for the world?

The Accused Hawk: you are absolutely right about those who make claims from such beliefs, correct in full. And you must be the oracle or something too because you apparently have the ability to ascribe beliefs to me before I’ve articulated my own! That’s not my attitude at all, but it is pretty impressive, knowing another’s worldview before they do. You make a nice, logically consistent argument, however substantively flawed, in this latest post for once, so I appreciate that. And it’s worth noting that I loved Chalmers Johnson and we will miss his views.

Iraq was another with a pattern of behavior, so if you’re discounting 20 years of history (say, from the Iraq-Iran bloodbath thru the Kuwait invasion and repeated defiance of the 90s), making the invalid claim that because Saddam wasn’t a threat to you yourself that he wasn’t a problem for the world, say as the un security counsel agreed, you can deplore our occupation there. You make the same empty argument re Afghanistan; do I fear al Qaeda and Islamist terrorists, yes I do, and they should be routed wherever they are. Iran’s government is a menace to its own people, they consort with terrorist groups, and besides, the whole point of that fucking caliphate is to have a world caliphate. And Americans want to dominate the place? Your ‘empire’ arguments are so tired and tiring.

Intentions matter, particularly when in possession of nukes. Iran’s and Kim Jung Il’s is clear – aggression – which are at once menaces and threats to the world peace, stability even as a kool-aid ideal so dear to you and other conspricist-pacifists.

The Conspiricist-Pacifist: the empire arguments are only tiring to the empire builders and self proclaimed owners of the world– definitely not overlooked by innocents in say Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Yemen, or Somalia, etc., being murdered by drone daily, by cowards in Nevada playing video games. Are these countries in your so-called axis of evil?

Pacifist Observer: Gotta love this one

The Conspiricist-Pacifist: ‎and ‘intentions matter’? That’s interesting. Can you explain what possible use of a nuclear arsenal other than potential or real aggression could be? (What reason did the USA at Los Alamos REALLY have in mind when it developed the bomb?) And if ‘friends’/allies of the owners of the world acquire nukes–illegally or not–then their motives must be benign; certainly not acquired for aggression, or at best blackmail, correct?

Pacifist Observer: Just something as “attack North Korea” is a scary statement. Possibly if they actually attack us then yes, but to just attack them .. That is a scary statement.

The Conspiricist-Pacifist: ‎however, back to the main point: when Israel, for example, decided on teaching those pesky Palestinians a lesson in the concentration camp at Gaza, as they did a couple of years back, with artillery bombardments of white phosphorous, did you scream “Attack Israel”?

The Accused Hawk: neither I nor my country are empire builders, we can clear that up right now. The world and our lives would suck much worse if not for my country’s leadership and, yes, interventions – whether humanitarian, benevolent, with coalitions, ‘Just Wars’; even the wrong-headed, ill-planned failures have resulted in status quo in some regions or ‘blowback’ at worst, fabulous socio-economic ascent at best.

It is this country, and indeed Israel, who bend over backwards not to kill innocents, to abide by Geneva, to attack in accordance with ‘Just War’ tenets. Israel occasionally fails that test, but raining rockets is no prospect for a country. Was the phosphorous incident ever more than accusation or rumor on the discussion boards? Did Hamas not herd families to their rooftops precisely after Israeli notice that this or that civilian edifice – school, hospital, home – was to be destroyed for launching rockets? We can play ‘who’s worse’ if you like.

So innocents in those countries can thank their next-door neighbors, from Hamas to AQAP to Lashkar-e-Taiba. Has battlefield (a dying term) technology so advanced that the physical threat to our troops has been so reduced that they’re not even present in the case of drone attacks? Yes, may look like cowardice to you, but it looks like military superiority to big brass, and death from the sky for a bad guy. There was a car bombing in Yemen last week and I didn’t give a shit; in fact, I was glad, because attacking one’s own (worshippers at mosque, Mumbai, etc – vicious, spectacular, indefensible) serves to rouse non-extremists. Cowardice is targeting civilians themselves, or shipping I.E.D. printer cartridges.

So, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia are a ring around the axis, but the difference has always been state-sponsorship or state activity. Those places are anarchic nowheres, hence great havens.

The history is quite clear about our development and use of the bomb. Like it or not, Truman had a clear calculus about its use, and our efforts ever since, thru Obama’s new start, have been to prevent another use ever again. But there are 20+ countries with it, malevolents among them, state and non-state, where there were 3-4 before.

Finally, the main point remains North Korean aggression – its undeniable blackmail of the international community over time. Observer, thanks for refocusing our friend: the statement was originally sarcastic-cum-suggestive, yes. They attacked the South! A dangerous crescendo in an unacceptable pattern of behavior! You two wrongly and offensively think I’m an unstudied hawk but trust me, I don’t just throw this around. No one says ‘just attack them’ – a complete misreading of the statement and my arguments. The Conspiricist-Pacifist is all conjecture and no more, ever! Do you want to stand down? Let’s all sit back and watch.

The Conspiricist-Pacifist: ‎If you were alluding to my ‘own the world’ idea when you said you’ll miss Johnson– it’s actually from Chomsky. Nice try though.

The Accused Hawk: I’ll take this as conceding; I’ve now won the argument. Mate. Always fun!