reply to post by grandmakdw
My comment was tongue in cheek... It was meant to come across as comparing what this administration is doing to that of north korea.
As for speaking up - That has been an ongoing issue for some time now, however it was not that people weren't speaking up. It was more along the
lines of media not reporting on it and the UN being concerned about other things, like how to bilk billions more out of the US so they can waste the
money on crap they don't need.
The topic really comes down to one question - Should the nations of the world intervene or should they stay out?
If we go into N. Korea for humanitarian reasons, then we are obligated to go into any other country who treats its citizens in the same manner as N.
Fundamentally the US is going to get screwed no matter what decision we make.
If we intervene they will scream that we are putting our noses in where it does not belong. If we don't do anything the world will scream because we
are doing nothing.
I think the UN / nations of the world really need to decide exactly what it is they want out of the US. The games the UN / nations of the world play
are getting old.
Like the recent report on North Korea. I don't see Australia jumping up and down to go in militarily, even though it was an Australian investigator
who investigated and put the report together.
Secondly, should the UN successfully bring this issue to the ICC, then they have lost all credibility since the ICC charter prohibits the use of the
ICC towards nations who are not members of it. This brings us to the follow up argument of universal jurisdiction, a theory put forth by Europe that
essentially claims that if injustice is occurring, and the nation it is occurring in fails to act, then the world community must act.
Last I checked the Us had the bulk of the foreign forces in S. Korea. Europe pretty much went home, even though both nations are technically in a
state of war.
I am all for the Europeans to lead by example.
The question is will they?