A North Korea thread to break the monotony

I've noticed that North Korea has been awfully quiet lately.

Yup. Besides, the UN should handle this issue.

Isn't it ironic that the pro-Saddam crowd complained when the US exhausted its patience with the UN Security Council and chose to disarm Saddam w/ its own coalition, and yet those same people complain that the US is not doing enough with regards to N. Korea.

Let the friggin UN handle N. Korea.

Is there, in fact, ANYONE NK is NOT accusing of being responsible for a new arms race? Besides NK, I mean...

Perhaps China or Iraq...

If you ask me, those shifty Norwegians aren't getting their fair share of scrutiny.

Just what are they hiding in those fjords anyway?

I seriously doubt that the Vatican has any WMD as well...

Woah! Mass Delirium!

Oh? You think the Holy See's only deterrent is a bunch of Swiss Guards?

I thought the UN was irrelevant and spineless?

What we complained about was that the US assured us Diplomacy would work with NK (which actually has weapons and threatened to use them pre-emptively) but couldn't wait to declare diplomacy dead and give Iraq the smack-down.

It's the double-standard we objected to. And it's not just "lefties". That double standard has been cited by critics of the Bush Doctrine all over the world, especially in the Arab would.

You don't fight the perception of a double standard and of being a bully by using a double standard and being a bully.

By the way, NK hasn't been quiet lately. It's just been ignored.

'Cept that the world sometimes and, it seems, the Arab world almost all the time holds the US to a double standard. When they finish with their double standards, then they can complain.

NK is actually a different situation that deserves different tactics, and not just because of its large military and lack of oil.

First and immediately relevant, NK is not subject to those Chapter VII UN resolutions of which Simey so boldly reminds us.

Secondly, security agreements and arrangements are very delicate there. Peace in Northeast Asia is almost entirely a result of the US's presence, economically, diplomatically, and most importantly militarily.

That's just off the top of my head right after taking a nap. At the very least, it deserves the thought of taking different tactics - considering differing situations.

Besides, whoever said that foreign policy had to be consistent. That would imply that only one thing in the world is important to us, say weapons proliferation or human rights violations or trade. Once you have more than one of those or other considerations, foreign policy consistency is a pipe dream and should be thought of as such.

Granted. Policy to fit the situation.

It should be remember though, that almost the entire world thinks that the diplomatic effort in Iraq was given short shift by the US. Even the UK tried harder.

I'm not trying to rehash the justification debate. I'm just pointing out that the double standard we're referring to (preceptual or real) isn't the use of force vs. diplomacy necessarily. It's also when we declare the UN irrelevant here, but trust it do what it needed there. Or that force is used here, but not there for similar violations.

Looking at a broad picture, it's not hard to understand why there is a perception in the Muslim world that they are always given the stick when others are always given the carrot.

We might look back and say that each was justified in it's own case, but that doesn't address the perception. In our efforts to bring representative government to the Middle East, we had damn well be sure that we manage perceptions. We'd hate to have to scrap the whole Idealism thing if they suddenly started voting for oil embargoes or electing Radical Clerics.

We can't say on one hand that perceptions don't matter (because they are untrue or overly biased or misinformed) and then on the other hand say we want them to have democratic governments. What will those democratic governments do but amplify the popular perception?

Too true, too true! I guess what I was really upset about when writing that post was the idea which seems to be implied in western media distortion. Obviously, our media is distorted. No media can be undistorted, particularly when it depends on a biased clientele for its funding.

However, the form and weight of the information delivered to the Arab world is so much more skewed than what we get here. Now, of course, I'm not just talking about media, but also government excuses and propaganda, education based on violent, vengeful interpretations of the Koran, etc.

Sure, our government makes excuses and uses propaganda, but the nature of that propaganda is so different. While we may cover up/play down a connection between our military and Perle, Arab governments are pandering to their constituents.

They (Arab leaders) say that they can't fight the anti-americanism, but I have a few things to say to that:

1. They help/helped fuel that hate by blaming the West for their economic incompetence. Sure, Britain may have really put them in a real crappy situation economically and politically, but they have had more time and more resources to pull themselves together than Taiwan which has been colonized at least twice and then subjected to a repressive government by Chinese refugees for 26 years (up until 86-96).

2. If they would stop gaining credibility by playing to the using the anti-americanism/anti-westernism/anti-liberalism then it would be easier to stop.

3. They say they can't? Well, sure that's because they aren't supported by their own people. Oh that's right, their government mandate doesn't come from the people, it comes from heredity or whatever else.

It is a shame that we are in bed with them just because of this thing called oil. That is part of why I think this deal in Iraq has the potential to get us started in the right direction. One of the major justifications for Bin Laden hatred of the US is from our military presence in Saudi Arabia. We can finally move our troops from there and put them somewhere else, because they were there for the purpose of enforcing the no fly zones. Both governments have hinted at the withdrawal of US forces after the conflict in Iraq is done.

Anyway, back on topic, many of the same criticisms go to NK. What a bunch of ********ers that government is.

Iraq is the sight of Shia Muslim's holiest shrines in Najaf and Nasiriya, IIRC. Do you think that they will be happy about Americans there?

But by all means, go ahead and attack Iran after this. Kill as many as you want. Just don't be surprised the next time some nutjobs fly some planes in through your bedroom window. (Although, you could just kill some more people afterwards in revenge)

They did this already, and the US hadn't invaded any of their countries. They claim they will continue to wage war against the US and friends because of its way of life, its religious tolerance, the freedom they grant women, etc.