Announcing to the world that you are going to war means - no war, at least not
When things are really bad domestically, create a crisis and an enemy - it will
distract the people from the real problems. And, looking at history, saber
rattling often brings American dollars home - we'll give you this money to
play nice on the peninsula. Not sure why the media folks can't figure this
Mark,While it's true that announcing you are going to war usually
means "not today"... it usually ends up with bad things happening
somewhere down the road (so I wouldn't just dismiss what's going on
today).I don't expect good things from a leader who rejects
nuclear inspections and official negotiations with representatives from the
nations involved... but gives audience to Dennis Rodman instead.We
don't know how thie will turn out in the end, but leaders who keep saying
they're going to war usually feel forced to do something or risk being seen
as the boy who cried wolf, and lose the fear they use to control their
population and the international community.It not something to just
blow off as the rantings of a nutty leader. Nutty leaders aren't
harmless.If negotiating is the solution... our State Dept needs to
get negotiating. Now.
It's difficult to understand why the USA is not doing more to eliminate the
threat of the obviously unbalanced and unpredictable North Korean dictator.
Their leader is a threat to the entire region, as well as to his own people. He
is spending what little financial funds the country has on an anti-USA military
buildup while so many of his people live in an almost unbelievable state of
poverty.Our country waits and waits while trying diplomacy that has
so far yielded nothing, other than buying more time for North Korea to continue
their research and development of nuclear weapons. If we allow ourselves to be
blackmailed to giving huge amounts of financial aid to North Korea for nothing
meaningful in return, it's a true sign of weakness, but perhaps something
their dictator is counting on. At this point, it appears the longer
we wait to actually take action, the worse the consequences will be. No one
wants a war. But the quicker a sworn enemy can be neutralized, the better off
everyone concerned will be. There has been no indication that anything short of
that will work. In fact, quite the contrary.
Tators: So what do you suggest: Just waltz on over there and start a war? On
our own, or do we want some other countries involved? If the NK leader sees us
coming, will he panick and send every missile he has into the skies? And if
they send the nukes they do have and they explode, what is the potential damage
from fall-out around the globe? Those are just a couple of issues of, I'm
sure, many, many more that a country must think about before it just "goes
to war."With that said, I would agree with you to the extent
that the US and other countries had better start devising a plan to go to war
with NK. Frankly, I think it would be good in the end for the people of NK, so
they can see what reality is, although they might not like reality!
In 1994, Bill Clinton gave nuclear technology to North Korea, and China.Today, Barack Obama gives F-16 jets, new tanks, and billions of dollars
to the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.These kinds of things will back
fire on us. Go figure.
North Korea is waiting for an apology, and cash payout. Let's hope our
commander doesn't fall for it.