Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - cosė fan tutte

Pages: [1]
General Board / Re: 5 years after
« on: September 24, 2006, 08:33:47 PM »
Is this Russian ??

General Board / Re: What's good about being an attorney?
« on: September 24, 2006, 08:32:45 PM »


build what, take down what, dinas?

General Board / Re: Law Schools To Avoid At All Costs!
« on: September 24, 2006, 08:26:37 PM »
Awesome speech, printing it out already

General Board / Re: Asia-Pacific Anger at North Korean missile launch
« on: September 24, 2006, 08:21:00 PM »

The Japanese Government has reacted angrily after a North Korean missile flew over its territory. Officials in Tokyo say the medium-range ballistic missile test-fired by North Korea on Monday landed in the Pacific Ocean, travelling much further than previously thought. Japanese Government officials said the missile was composed of two stages, the first of which landed in the Sea of Japan, with the second falling in waters off Japan's north-east coast. If confirmed, the test is the first reported launch by North Korea of a two-stage missile and marks a significant step forward in its rocket technology.

'Strong protest'

The Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi said on Monday his government had been aware of North Korea's preparations to launch a ballistic missile into the waters that divide the Korean peninsula from Japan. As a result, Japan has refused to sign an agreement on sharing the cost of providing safer nuclear reactors to North Korea and will protest to the North Koreans. Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiromu Nonaka expressed Japan's "strong protest" in a complaint to North Korea's representative at the United Nations. Tokyo and Pyongyang have no diplomatic relations. "It was an extremely dangerous act to conduct without any advance notice in the sea near Japan where a number of vessels and aircraft of our country are operating," Mr Nonaka said.

US concern

The United States expressed concern over the North Korean action. Correspondents say it is likely to overshadow talks which have resumed in New York between Washington and Pyongyang on the progress of an agreement by North Korea in 1994 to freeze its nuclear reprocessing programme.

North Korea's test programme

Russian officials have said the missile launch was a test which misfired. They announced the missile had landed inside their territorial waters and are reported to have sent warships to the area to investigate. South Korea's Defence Ministry identified the missile as a newly-developed Taepo-Dong One, with an estimated range of approximately 1,000 miles. In 1993, North Korea caused anxiety in Japan by test-firing a medium-range Rodong-1 missile into the Sea of Japan, demonstrating that parts of western Japan were within the 1,000km (600-mile) range of the missile. The BBC Tokyo correspondent says there is speculation that the latest missile firing was intended by North Korea as a show of power in advance of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Stalinist state.

The U.S. isn't going to attack North Korea. It was going to attack Iraq as the exemplary action. In part, that's because Iraq's just a lot more important. It's right in the center of the oil-producing region, but in part it's because Iraq was understood to be completely defenseless. If you have any brains, you don't attack anybody who can defend itself. That's stupid. You want to attack somebody that's completely defenseless, and Iraq was known to be completely defenseless. That's why nobody was afraid of it, much as they might have hated it.

North Korea, on the other hand, has a deterrent. The deterrent is not nuclear weapons. It is conventional weapons -- massed artillery on the DMZ, the border with South Korea. Extensive massed artillery aimed at the capital, Seoul, South Korea, and at the U.S. troops in the south. Unless the Pentagon can figure out a way to get rid of that with precision weapons, or something or other, that is a deterrent to a U.S. attack. In fact, U.S. troops have since been withdrawn from the DMZ. And that's caused plenty of concern in both South and North Korea and the region, suggesting a very cynical strategy. You can figure it out. But what the U.S. was telling the world is if you don't want us to attack you and destroy you, you better have some kind of deterrent. And for most of the world, that's going to mean weapons of mass destruction. And terror.

General Board / Re: Chavez Calls Bush 'The Devil'
« on: September 24, 2006, 08:12:42 PM »

Chavez holds up a book by Noam Chomsky as he addresses the General Assembly.

Could anyone comment on this book, what is about, etc

Noam Chomsky's 2003 book, "Hegemony or Survival," presents a view of American foreign policy, which lies in stark contrast to that depicted by corporate media, popular pundits, and US heads of state. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has emerged as the preeminent superpower of the world and Chomsky dissects with meticulous research how the United States has chosen to leverage that position to pursue an "imperial grand strategy", which will ensure itself "unilateral world domination through absolute military superiority".

What sets Chomsky's work apart from so many others who write social and political theory today is that he is equally critical of the Democratic party as he is of the Republican party. Chomsky's theory portrays America's foreign policy as being consistent across partisan lines. Democrats and Republicans for that matter appear more as two wings of a capitalist, imperialist party than the two vastly different political ideologies that are presented in the popular media. The real meat of Chomsky's work lies in the analysis produced from a re-examination of history. By examining key moments in America's history, Chomsky is able to elicit a more consistent and plausible set of motives for US foreign policy actions rather than the hyperbolic calls for democracy and totalitarian regime change that we have become so accustomed to hearing.

Questions immediately begin to rise to the surface while Chomsky exhumes the historical record and aligns it back into context. Was the United States really concerned with democracy when it supported a viscous proxy war in Nicaragua, even though their government had been democratically elected? Is the United States government hypocritical when it condemns state sponsored terrorism when it sponsored terrorism itself against such countries as Cuba and Nicaragua. And, how does the United States rationalize the School of the Americas, which has long been understood as a training ground for Latin American neo-fascist terrorists? Is the United States truly interested in peace in the Middle East when it denies the "Saudi Plan" set forth in early 2002, which would offer "full recognition and integration [of Israel] into the region in exchange for withdrawal to the 1967 borders?" Why did we go to war with Iraq when no imminent threat of WMD's could be found, no connection to Al Qaida could be proven, and multiple studies were produced by leading agencies suggesting that invading Iraq would only decrease domestic security?

The answers for Chomsky are surprisingly consistent with what he feels are a foreign policy guided by imperial global expansion and military dominance. Countries must be aligned with US interest in order to ensure capital penetration and corporate and military hegemony. If a country does not choose to align, then it will wind up a target of US backed aggression, or branded a terrorist state. In 1965,Indonesia expressed its intention to elder statesman Ellsworth Bunker that they wished to "'stand on their own two feet in developing their economy, free from foreign, especially Western influence'.
A National Intelligence Estimate in September 1965 warned that if the efforts of the mass-based PKI 'to energize and unite the Indonesian nation ... succeeded, Indonesia would provide a powerful example for the underdeveloped world and hence a credit to communism and a setback for Western prestige." A US backed coup ensued, killing close to 1,000,000 people, and installed the brutal dictator General Suharto. This is the cost, Chomsky highlights, of not aligning with the "master" state.

If a country does choose to align, as is the case with countries like Israel and Turkey, they become client states and are protected under the aegis of the American military, and given monetary and military aid. Although Turkey is run by an iron fisted dictator with an abysmal human rights record, the US government makes concessions for Turkey's actions, as it is a client state and performs a strategic role in the interest of the American government.This notion of the client state is why popular solutions to the Middle East crisis like the "Saudi Plan" are not accepted. Israel's role as Middle East policeman is too strategically important to deny Israel it's own expansionist desires.

Pages: [1]