wtf @ North Korea?

[Xavier]

Clinton tried constructive engagement with North Korea, o how its failed.

[aurik]

Personally, I think the US would be a lot more effective at international diplomacy if the leadership didn't get changed every 4 years. Not that I'm advocating that, I'm just pointing out that the schizophrenic nature of the US legislative/executive branches must make it hard to establish consistent relationships with other nations.

[Xavier]

Equally hard to be forced to live under a dictator for 40 years in turn with the system.

Checks and balances, trade-offs. The biggest check of all is the threat of not being re-elected, being accountable for your actions every few years.

[Bleu]

It's called Mutually Assured Destruction. The reason North Korea is developing nuclear weapons is to prevent crackpot religious fanatics, like the American leadership, from coming over there and "liberating" the people.

Get an education. You don't get it at all do you? Mutually assured destruction doesn't matter in this case. North Korea can NOT presently hit the United States with a nuclear ICBM.

North Korea wants free shit from the US, which is why they are demanding unilateral talks. They have made threats in the past to get what they want, and it worked. Now they are trying it again.

My major "beef" with all this is it is none of America's business what North Korea decide to do.

See above. North Korea is specifically dragging America into this. America is saying "not our problem, talk to South Korea/China/Russia/Japan." North Korea is responding with, "no, just America talks to us or you'll make us do something crazy with our nukes!" But they wouldn't be hurting us with them. If they did anything with them, it'd most likely be firing a missle with a nuclear warhead at Japan.

Of course, if you read the news at all instead of talking out your ass you'd know any of this already.

[aurik]

Equally hard to be forced to live under a dictator for 40 years in turn.

Checks and balances, trade-offs.

True, I'd rather be stuck with shitty international relations than in a dictatorship. That said, some countries do very well at int'l relationships while maintaining a democratically elected domestic gov't. Canada is a good example of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pr ... _of_Canada

[Bleu]

Clinton tried constructive engagement with North Korea, o how its failed.

Exactly. When North Korea made threads back then, the Clinton administration gave them more aide to settle them down.

Jimmy Carter met with Kim Jong Il, and he promised to STOP his nuclear program in return for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of aid. However, Kim Jong Il threw the aid to the wind and decided to use the money to build nuclear bombs.

Now they are using those bombs to scare us into more money. What are they going to do with that exactly...?

[Lylie]

Get an education. You don't get it at all do you? Mutually assured destruction doesn't matter in this case. North Korea can NOT presently hit the United States with a nuclear ICBM.

North Korea wants free shit from the US, which is why they are demanding unilateral talks. They have made threats in the past to get what they want, and it worked. Now they are trying it again.

My major "beef" with all this is it is none of America's business what North Korea decide to do.

See above. North Korea is specifically dragging America into this. America is saying "not our problem, talk to South Korea/China/Russia/Japan." North Korea is responding with, "no, just America talks to us or you'll make us do something crazy with our nukes!" But they wouldn't be hurting us with them. If they did anything with them, it'd most likely be firing a missle with a nuclear warhead at Japan.

Of course, if you read the news at all instead of talking out your ass you'd know any of this already.

Finally saw a post from someone who knows what's happening. North Korea has threaten to build a nuclear weapon forever, and it worked, until recently. Since their "We'll build a nuclear weapon!" threat isn't working anymore, they are upgrading their threat to "We'll lunch a nuclear weapon on you!".

[Xavier]

Equally hard to be forced to live under a dictator for 40 years in turn.

Checks and balances, trade-offs.

True, I'd rather be stuck with shitty international relations than in a dictatorship. That said, some countries do very well at int'l relationships while maintaining a democratically elected domestic gov't. Canada is a good example of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pr ... _of_Canada

Yes, but if you were to remove America's military from the world, more nations would have less favorable international relationships since they'd pick up the slack. America is your big brother who you end up loving and who protects you and you know it, but end up fighting with anyway because of the nature of being siblings.

[aurik]

Equally hard to be forced to live under a dictator for 40 years in turn.

Checks and balances, trade-offs.

True, I'd rather be stuck with shitty international relations than in a dictatorship. That said, some countries do very well at int'l relationships while maintaining a democratically elected domestic gov't. Canada is a good example of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pr ... _of_Canada

Yes, but if you were to remove America's military from the world, more nations would have less favorable international relationships since they'd pick up the slack. America is your big brother who you end up loving and who protects you and you know it, but end up fighting with anyway because of the nature of being siblings.

I think it's precisely that kind of attitude that irritates non-Americans the most: America does what it wants to further its own interests, and the only "protecting of siblings" it does is incidental.

Especially in light of the oil-driven zealotry that has dominated American "world police" efforts for a long time, I laugh when people claim "we're righting wrongs". American troops are much more likely to be found where it serves America's interests best, not necessarily where they should be to "save the world from evil".

[archibaldcrane]

American troops are much more likely to be found where it serves America's interests best, not necessarily where they should be to "save the world from evil".

Correct. We aren't in Iraq to free their people, we're there to keep America safe from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. It's absurd reasoning and terrible execution, but that's what it is.

Don't let the shift in reasoning after the fact make you forget the point of this mess.

[Raineer]

Get an education. You don't get it at all do you? Mutually assured destruction doesn't matter in this case. North Korea can NOT presently hit the United States with a nuclear ICBM.

North Korea wants free shit from the US, which is why they are demanding unilateral talks. They have made threats in the past to get what they want, and it worked. Now they are trying it again.

My major "beef" with all this is it is none of America's business what North Korea decide to do.

See above. North Korea is specifically dragging America into this. America is saying "not our problem, talk to South Korea/China/Russia/Japan." North Korea is responding with, "no, just America talks to us or you'll make us do something crazy with our nukes!" But they wouldn't be hurting us with them. If they did anything with them, it'd most likely be firing a missle with a nuclear warhead at Japan.

Of course, if you read the news at all instead of talking out your ass you'd know any of this already.

Finally saw a post from someone who knows what's happening. North Korea has threaten to build a nuclear weapon forever, and it worked, until recently. Since their "We'll build a nuclear weapon!" threat isn't working anymore, they are upgrading their threat to "We'll lunch a nuclear weapon on you!".

I posted this as well, up above. The only people that have actually acted against North Korea has been Japan cutting off their very important ship routes. America hasn't done shit, besides a few congressmen talking out their ass.

They're targeting us on this one because they are so far removed from an actual war that they are unable to keep up the facade for their people.

[Kyreth]

Too bad we aren't leaving Iraq any time soon.

It's amusing though. The country that didn't have Nuke/Biological/Chemical weapons worth a damn anymore is the one that's keeping us too busy to deal with the country that just detonated it's first nuke.

Hussein > North Korea on the sanity meter, even if they're both crackpot dictators.

Like it or not, the North Koreans just joined the nuclear club and are testfiring long-range ballistic missiles. 1+1 isn't equalling two unless they get the process of small nukes down properly, though...give them 5 years or so and it will.

At which point I'm guessing the world lets them know if they make with the nukes, North Korea gets glassed over. MAD worked with the Russians, and it'll work peachy keen with anybody with a shred of rational thought (ie not pissing or shitting themselves randomly while drooling)

[Byrd]

it'll work peachy keen with anybody with a shred of rational thought

Not sure how much rational thought Kim Jong Il has exactly. And I think that was kind of the concern that started this whole thing.

[Senoska]

American troops are much more likely to be found where it serves America's interests best, not necessarily where they should be to "save the world from evil".

Correct. We aren't in Iraq to free their people, we're there to keep America safe from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. It's absurd reasoning and terrible execution, but that's what it is.

Don't let the shift in reasoning after the fact make you forget the point of this mess.

lol.
We arnt in Iraq for any reason other then oil, get it right.

[Fhqwghads]

At which point I'm guessing the world lets them know if they make with the nukes, North Korea gets glassed over. MAD worked with the Russians, and it'll work peachy keen with anybody with a shred of rational thought (ie not pissing or shitting themselves randomly while drooling)

I think you're putting too much faith in the sanity of Kim Jong Il. Do you think for a moment that Hitler wouldn't have pushed the button if there was one around for him to push? Kim Jong is pretty much on par with Hitler as far as empathy and sanity are concerned from what I've seen. Hitler tried to extinguish the lives of Jews, many of whom were German citizens. Kim Jong has just as much of his people's blood on his hands as Hitler did with the Jews. Hitler was an aggressive bat-shit insane dictator. Kim Jon Il is an aggressive bat-shit insane dictator. Exactly what difference is there between these two men with respect to their actions and logic? I don't think there's enough evidence that Il won't use nukes just because there's a threat of retaliation.

I just hope I am very, very wrong, because if I'm right.... yeah I don't even want to think about it.

[Kyreth]

it'll work peachy keen with anybody with a shred of rational thought

Not sure how much rational thought Kim Jong Il has exactly. And I think that was kind of the concern that started this whole thing.

See above. By "rational", I mean "capable of forming a sentence" rational, not "think up national policy for six nations at once" rational.

They toss more nuke tests, Russia and China take Kim aside, tell him that he gives it up or when he tries to use one outside his own country, everyone's going to send him a little package to make him glow in the dark for the next century or two. Not just the Americans.

And if he does? Korea's nuke capacity isn't much more than what we were using a few years after WWII. Maybe since most of the world wasn't around for Nagasaki and Hiroshima, another reminder about why nuclear bombs are a Bad Idea would be useful. Humanity could use one.

[Ishido]

For christs sake, Europe fucking carved the entire continent of Africa into its many states at the Berlin Conference, without the influence of Africa.

Europe and the US did the same thing with the Middle East and look at what a disaster that didn't turn into.

I didn't say it was a good thing, just the way the world works. Its easy to spew pacifism to everyone, but its just not how the world works.

You can be high and mighty at the point where we're all united under a single banner thanks to the alien invasion.

Reminded me so much of Ender's Game.

[Enkidu]

American troops are much more likely to be found where it serves America's interests best, not necessarily where they should be to "save the world from evil".

Correct. We aren't in Iraq to free their people, we're there to keep America safe from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. It's absurd reasoning and terrible execution, but that's what it is.

Don't let the shift in reasoning after the fact make you forget the point of this mess.

lol.
We arnt in Iraq for any reason other then oil, get it right.

If the war was really just about oil, why didn't the US just lobby with the other half of the world in favor of lifting the sanctions on Iraq? If I remember correctly the only two big nations at the UN against lifting the sanctions were the US and the UK. No sanctions = lots of cheap oil.

[Xavier]

Reminded me so much of Ender's Game.

Thats what I was thinking about when I said it too lol.

[Skyylya]

I don't like a lot of reasons why America does things, but America does do things. Our motives might not be in the right place but i do believe the world is a better place with people like saddam no longer in power. You can argue the mind your own business card all you want. But with all of the international issues going on it gets to a point where you have to expand your point of view to 'your own business' being anything that goes on in the world.

It's not like it was hundreds of years ago when problems only occured for adjacent nations due to geography, communication and transportation issues. As technology, communication, warfare tactics/technology have improved throughout the last century so has the need for some method of regulation. And again as i said i dont' agree with the motives for a lot of the things America gets involved with, but that's not to say that somebody doesn't need to get involved.

Not to sound to cliche, but it is the responsibility of those who can make a difference to do so.