Originally posted by Astygia
So how many of those above questions apply to North Korea? How many apply to the rest of the world? And which history have you ignored for the last 40 years? 400 years?
- All those questions can apply to all nations to varying degrees. The thing is though, you only truly have a right to effect your nation, which is incidently the worst in recent memory. Not to say that we couldn't point fingers at other nations - but other nations are not acting like the world police, or have acted without international approval(Not a big deal, unless you wish to be lumped in with the likes of ol Kimmie), and has illegally invaded at least one nation in the last 4 years while making broad sweeping threats against the axis of evil which ol Kimmie is part of? If you beleive the US has the right to defend itself against the threats NK has made towards the US, then surely you can see that Bush started it with this axis of evil crap that he used to fool his nation into war. Note, I am not saying Kimmie is the good guy, merely that he is acting exactly how anyone would after being lumped in with two other countris one of which has been invaded and one is about too - really what would you do?
I don't think I have been missing any history, but if I have please share with me who - other than the US - has invaded a country in the last ten years? Or even the last 20? How about 30?
Originally posted by Astygia
If this is the logic you use to condone war with a country, you should be calling for the eradication of the planet.
- I don't condone war with anyone. If someone gets hit, it is expected that they will hit back. Generally I would think they would try to hit the person/nation that hit them, but once again the US has even failed this simple(IMO) and comman sense approach to conflicts. I do not either call for the eradication of the planet, I do however wish people would stop reacting and start to put this(and others) into perspective. NK is not a threat to the west. Period. They may, or may not, be a threat to the pacific rim, but before they would cause China to lose anything due to their destablizing the region I am positive China would lay the smack down on them. That way the US doesn't potentially make another massive bungle, nor do they create anymore annimosity towards them, nor will it cost them(AKA the tax payers) anything. How is this an unreasonable expectation?
Originally posted by Astygia
Politicians are dirty, and they use their position to play dirty games, nobody's debating that, W2A. But you seem to think that bringing up dirt from the past somehow makes a difference here.
- We can not do anything about the past. It is gone. All we have is the present, and it is that I wish we could focus on. I merely point out the illogical nature of saying we should attack someone because of something they may do in the future - that to me seems less than what our concept of law is about.
Originally posted by Astygia
All the history in the world doesn't change the fact that Kim is either crazy, or a megalomaniac, or both, and has nuclear materials with nuclear ambitions, and is beating the little red button with his face.
- No freaking doubt brother. However that still doesn't change the fact he is not a threat to the west. He "may" be a threat to that region, but if that is the case then it is up to that region(AKA China) to deal with it - not the west/UN/US or anyone that isn't affected by his childish, and juvenille actions.
He is a crazy loon no doubt, but that alone doesn't make NK a threat. Bush, has said his share of crazy nutso stuff, and has demonstrated he is willing to invade other countries. If there is a threat to the world, it isn't coming from some piss pot dictator with bad sunglasses.
At least in my opinion. Really who knows, but he simply can not reach the states. He can not reach Europe. He may be able to hit an outside country(BUt not without being hit back and China would demo them if they did it), he is a threat to his own people no doubt, and he is nutso. But he is no threat.
if you can beleive that. In stark contrast
is Bush and this Admin. Once again - not that overall history means a heck of a lot but recent history(In light of how other preceive you) does. In
this light, the US recently has acted much more dispotic than NK in international terms, if clearly not domestic. I really thought I had made that
clear. 
) Other than that I am not sure what you mean again.
What am I feeding by not going into NK? 
