North Korea

You don't think the United States has learned that it can't front a two front war against insurgent forces?

You don't think the United States has learned that it can't mount international military operations without the support of the rest of the world?

You don't think the United States has learned that it can't fight a war that it's citizens don't support?

I think it has. The extent of the lessons being learned might not be concluded yet. Nor have we seen the full result of those lessons - but there have been some hard lessons learned here, most notably that a traditional invasion and take over of a foreign nation isn't the way to win the war on terror.

Actually, I hope they did,

You don't think the United States has learned that it can't front a two front war against insurgent forces?
Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts, like churchill said, but this is war fighting on fronts, with a clear opposer, if a guy dressed in perfectly normal clothes asks you for a sigarette whil you are waiting in the subway, he lits it, thanks you, then opens up his jackets and pulls a rigged set of grenades while shouting "allahuh ackbar", you don't have use for a Rocket Shield in Eastern europe or any conventional warfare against that, or did you think those guys fought by the rules of the geneve convention?

You don't think the United States has learned that it can't mount international military operations without the support of the rest of the world?
They already knew that since the 1940's, never played call of duty?, also we pay (a lot) for the war at terror as well, US insisted we remained while we had to right to leave, but that's all just politics. Me, I would have simply burned the cocaine fields, set fire to the oilwells and called in the french foreign legion to clean up the caves in torah-borah.

You don't think the United States has learned that it can't fight a war that it's citizens don't support?
The hippies took care of that, however you can play wargames everywhere, but honestly, how many afgans do you think support "US", and as in the word you and i combined, not the united states.


But to the effect, in Afghanistan near the pakistan border, NATO forces are losing ground, beacause the opponents does not play "by the rules", there is no front. In WW1 and 2 there were borders to face and overcome, and enemies would challenge each other, there is no battle field, you could get stabbed in the back or blown up by someone dressed in a burka with grenades strapped them.

So ak them what they want with us? they hate us because we violated their land, and yes, all you can get there is oil, there are only few things for wich we can't replace oil with(food wrapping, unrecycled plastic and paint), local people do not have either of those luxuries, and sell livestock to eachother, not frozen meat.

To get back to north korea,

Kim holds power, because his people believe(or used to) in him. Let him build his military machine, keep overpowering him and then walk in with a truce.

And Eltee, no harm taken,
I know the bastard Saddam bombed his own villages(musterd-gas test), he did that because locals opposed him, and had people starving at his doorway whil he had doorhandles of solid gold and floors of solid marble, he went crazy, and this guy was sicker then the nazi-leader anyday. still he made worth of his promise.
like in any fight, my people have a saying, "when two fight, two are to blame".
 
If you erase this thread, how will we ever solve the North Korea problem? It's up to Wing Commander fans taking the issue very, very seriously.
 
Quarto, I agree with many of your arguments. However, I do take exception to being told what I do or do not think. If you're referring specifically to Jason here, that's fine - but this smells distinctly like you're telling Americans as a whole what they do or do not think, and I definitely take issue to this.
Well, I was talking specifically to Jason. However, the same thing applies to everyone involved - and I don't just mean Americans. I'm saying that all of us are guilty of this. As long as a particular problem doesn't affect us, we're happy to ignore it.

Furthermore, I think this is one of those assumptions that have been proven true so many times in the past, that it's a guilty-until-proven-innocent situation. We've all seen this so many times... altruist motives in politics almost always turn out to be lies.

Why is this *exceptionally* stupid just because it is coming from an American? I think this line of thinking is flawed regardless of the thinker's nationality.

I really don't want to hijack this threat, but this comment bothers me - we didn't go into Iraq or Afghanistan to "teach them a lesson." We went thinking that they posed real threats to our security. Our intelligence was the key variable that distinguished the nature of each invasion - it was mostly correct concerning Afghanistan, largely incorrect regarding the disposition of weapons in Iraq.

How's it working out for us? Not half bad, I'd hazard to say - in fact, better than anyone looking in from the outside could have predicted three years ago.
It's exceptionally stupid coming from an American because you've just spent half a decade fighting - and losing, severely and painfully - the two wars mentioned above. It would be excusable (albeit still stupid) for me to demand that Poland teach Germany a lesson or something, because it would be reasonable for me to be unaware how that worked out the last time. But you - you've experienced the "success" of Iraq and Afghanistan. You Americans have the expertise to understand better than any other nation why it's foolish to undertake military action for the wrong reasons.

Why do I say you are losing both of these wars? Because it takes more than just military victory. Great Britain won WWII militarily - but it lost the war in every other way. It went into the war saddled with heavy, but repayable debt from WWI... and it went out of the war with a debt that literally broke their back, forcing them to give up their empire. So, in assessing Afghanistan and Iraq, you have to consider not only the human costs, but the financial ones as well. It seems that you've really achieved a great and positive change in Iraq (Afghanistan, sadly, seems to have reversed completely), and I think that any American soldier who died there would ultimately consider his own death to be a reasonable price to pay for this change. But if he knew that the debt incurred brought his nation a step closer to financial collapse, endangering his own family's wellbeing - he might not be satisfied about that. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the long-term costs of the two wars (including interests, because they're both financed via credit - Chinese credit, incidentally) will reach $2.4 trillion by 2017. This estimate presumably didn't take into account the possibility that the US would withdraw from Iraq so quickly - but then again, it presumably also didn't take into account that Afghanistan would get worse instead of better either.

BTW, as another aside - speaking as an American, we really don't need anything to distract us from the economy. I love conspiracy theories and the like, but no one here is actually using North Korea as an escape from the 'unbearable,' 'oppressive,' and seamingly 'shattered' American economy which has already begun to recover. ;)
And a pink elephant just flew by my window :). Man, have you read up about your national debt lately? All that your government has achieved so far is to delay the real explosion by taking up even more debt. You're getting to the point where foreign governments are publically saying they will have to stop buying US treasury bonds in the future. When you reach the point where you are no longer able to finance your annual budget deficit, the dollar's price will fall through the floor... while prices on foreign-imported goods go through the ceiling.

So really, America has two choices... 1. Ignore the World's problems and deal with strictly internal matters, and get called snobs and uncaring jerks. Or we could do option 2, get involved in World Politics and problems and get labeled the "World's policeman."

Not saying you personally have said or done anything like the Quarto, from what I've seen you've been pretty unbiased in your remarks and I respect you for it, but this is what I as an American citizen have seen going on over the passed 15 years or so, before and after the invasion.
You're right, that's exactly the case - you don't take action, you'll be accused of being heartless. You take action, you'll suffer other problems. But accusations are accusations, while those other problems - they're real. You can survive European whining - you can't survive the debt you're building up.

This is also not true, so let me go on to further explain. There is a group of nations on this planet that has laughed off diplomacy. They have laughed off UN sanctions. They have laughed off military build up on their borders. A whole group of nations - nations that seize embassies and hold foreign citizens hostage against the rules of diplomacy, or murder foreign citizens on foreign soil.

A whole group. Not just North Korea, or Iran.

These nations believe that they have a God-given right to do whatever they damn well feel like, with blatant disregard for the rest of the worlds populations. Given that they have shoved everyones nose in the fact that they are going to ignore the rules, ignore the talks, ignore the diplomacy, and do what they like regardless, while suckering the rest of the world into providing them with what they want, the only option I see to address this situation is to slap them down - and slap them down hard.
Jason, your country is on that list. Everything you've written above has been said about America. I believe the only thing you haven't done from the above is seize embassies - but definitely holding foreign citizens, and kidnapping or murdering them on foreign soil is a check. You sure you wanna keep going with this kind of attitude? Because, you know, you may not be too happy when China decides to slap you down.

EXCEPT that for thirty years Korea was an occupied territory of Japan, BEFORE World War II during which time the Korean Language was outlawed and they basically set up a dummy government with which to rule over the land.

Given the Japanese treatment of a certain other Asian Nations citizens during World War II, you don't think Korea, after 30 years of occupation that only ended with the destruction of the Japanese Empire after World War II is going to be a little angry?
I do - but not in the way you think. North Korea is no different in this regard to South Korea. If the south can get on with Japan, then it's a non-issue for the north as well.

I fail to see how a US led - or even supported, since you're so fond of pointing out that the North Koreans or Japan could handle it just as well with their expensive military forces - could give China justification to get involved. Once the issue is settled they will have no reason to get involved, but I'm sure they'll bluster and object. But that's all their doing now.
If you honestly fail to see how a US-led intervention in North Korea could lead to Chinese involvement, then you're a... well, I'm sorry to insult you, but if this is your honest belief, then you're a completely illiterate imbecile. The last time North Korea was on the brink of collapse, it was saved by Chinese troops. What could possibly induce you to believe this time it will be different?

First up, the Chinese would intervene just because they intervened once before. They'd do it again, just to show that they still can - otherwise, they'd lose face, which is a hugely important thing in Chinese culture. Secondly, the Chinese would intervene because North Korea is their immediate neighbour, and they will not permit the United States to expand its influence in their neighbourhood. Thirdly, China would intervene because North Korea is their client state, and China would want to show its other client states that it pays to stick with China. Fourthly, China would intervene because a united Korea is not in their interest, unless it were united by their client North Korea. Fifthly, China would intervene because any instability in North Korea could lead to China getting flooded with refugees. Sixthly, China would intervene because they too, are having economic troubles, and a political crisis is a great way to rally the nation in support of the government. I think there's probably a bunch of other reasons I haven't thought of.

And yes, the context of this discussion, as far as military force is concerned, is either no action, or a regional war. There are absolutely no "middle ground" scenarios. Even the most focused military action would lead to escalation.

I find it very interesting that you use the term 'teach them a lesson' in reference to both worlds, and now I hope you can answer a question for me - is that what the world opinion is about the American actions there? As an American, you can understand that my access to world opinions is somewhat limited (though I have a few overseas friend, so I think I'm in a better position then most).
I don't know what the world opinion is about these particular actions, but certainly the world opinion (...insofar as such a thing even exists - it's impossible for 6 billion people to agree about any subject) about American behaviour in general is that you guys are arrogant, blustering, stupid, and desperately need to be taught a lesson. That, I hasten to add, is not my opinion, so don't take it out on me :). About these specific actions, all I can say is what the reaction was at universities. Afghanistan was met with understanding as a reasonable attempt to destroy a government that supported 9/11 by sheltering Al Qaida. There was a fair amount of irritation about the way the war was conducted (...Guantanamo Bay and all that - for the record, I personally think the American government violated some of the most ancient and honourable rules of war with Guantanamo Bay, and I think it lost all moral high grounds simply by trying to pretend that prisoners of war are not prisoners of war and that torture is not torture), but nobody seriously questioned the motives for the war. Iraq is a different story. I have never met a non-American that honestly believed the WMD thing. I know such people must exist, but I've never met one. Everyone I know thought this was mainly a case of America flexing its muscles. Because weapons of mass destruction were chosen as the main justification, and because they seemed like such a blatant lie, everyone (...that I know) assumed the motives behind the invasion were dark ones - otherwise, why lie about them?

I'm not quite sure why you think it didn't work though - certainly we're still there, certainly we're still fighting an insurgency that will probably never die, but at some level we have to accept that.
I've answered this earlier, so I'll refer you to that part of my post. The answer is money. You've picked up a huge debt in these wars, and it has not paid off. What's more, while Iraq is headed for victory, Afghanistan may not be - a military defeat in Afghanistan is very much still a possibility.

...Come to think of it, just pushing the oil price up (which you did by creating instability in the region) was harmful in multiple ways. On one end, you hurt your own, oil-dependent economy, and on the other end, you helped strengthen your oil-producing enemies like Iran and Venezuela. You've gained influence in Iraq... but you've lost a lot of influence in Latin America, with Hugo Chavez bribing half the continent by giving out money he wouldn't have had if it wasn't for the Iraq war.

Has Afghanistan learned that it can't harbor terrorists in the hills? Yes, I think they've learned that lesson too.
Um... you do realise that a large part of Afghanistan is now once again under Taliban control, and that it's Taliban victories in Afghanistan that have been fuelling the Taliban insurgency in Pakistan? In 2008, the US lost more soldiers in Afghanistan than it did in any year since the start of the war. I guess the Afghans are slow learners...



Damn it. I just realised I spent three hours on this post, and I just can't afford to spend this much. I'm sorry, from now on I'm going to have to limit myself to no more than half an hour for reading and responding to this thread, so don't be surprised if I ignore a lot of what's been written.
 
If you erase this thread, how will we ever solve the North Korea problem? It's up to Wing Commander fans taking the issue very, very seriously.
Eh, let's be fair - discussing international politics is a waste of time, but as far as off-topic threads are concerned, this is certainly no worse than Frosty's car thread.
 
Um... you do realise that a large part of Afghanistan is now once again under Taliban control, and that it's Taliban victories in Afghanistan that have been fuelling the Taliban insurgency in Pakistan? In 2008, the US lost more soldiers in Afghanistan than it did in any year since the start of the war. I guess the Afghans are slow learners...

Nobody has ever defeated the ones who call themselves the mujah-hadin(If you do not know who i am referring to watch Rambo III, they explain it there). Taliban are gaining ground because a lot of local liked it better under their law, like the eastern part of germany, or some parts of russia, where no-one had much, but everyone had something. Opposing russian forces the US supplied them with weapons, and the only link any local afghan would have to the us is a dollar bill. Leave them in their desert and they will kill each other and die out, no need to intervene. As for islamic dangers, watch the movie "fitna", (i'm not going to link it here, since some might find it offensive)

Even the Iraqi forces fought a front, Taliban make a guerilla warfare, what use is a nuclear arsenal against an idiot in a mall with a bomb strapped to his back? There is no need for superweapons when your enemy can sneak up on you and hit you in the head with a club or a rock.

Everyone ever asked what it is that Kim Yong Il actually wants in the name of his people, if he want food and supplies for his people, he can just ask for it, my country gives billions of euro's anyway to aid poor countries?
 
But at the same time, as he's getting closer to death, is he really going to care? He had a stroke last year. Reports come out that his health is declining. Simply put, if you're dead, you can't take power with you.

He can't move his left arm, if you look closely :)
 
Eh, let's be fair - discussing international politics is a waste of time, but as far as off-topic threads are concerned, this is certainly no worse than Frosty's car thread.

The key difference is that everyone posting to that thread has seen a car before. :)
 
Ive seen and drove Korean cars, i've never experienced a car dropping value that fast per mileage.
 
Why do I say you are losing both of these wars? .

Ah, point well taken. Per my background, I often get caught up in the tactical situation and tend to not always think 'big picture.' Obviously, the debt situation is 'extreme' to say the least - there is no denying this fact.

Furthermore, I think this is one of those assumptions that have been proven true so many times in the past, that it's a guilty-until-proven-innocent situation. We've all seen this so many times... altruist motives in politics almost always turn out to be lies.

Perhaps I'm a hopeless optimist, but I like to think the average citizen differs from the average politician - if only because the political sub group is worse off by definition. :p

The key difference is that everyone posting to that thread has seen a car before.

Well, I've done seen me plenty o' Iraqies, Afghanies, Koreans, and even them goofy Taliban folks! :D
 
Every time North Korea takes another step in their nuclear programme, they promise to stop... in exchange for extra aid. When they receive this aid, and it turns out the country is still collapsing, they quietly resume the nuclear programme and demand more aid. Their threats are laughable. What are they going to do, nuke South Korea? That's where most of their aid comes from - and we're not talking luxuries, we're talking basic food supplies. Even if there were no military reprisals, that would be the end of all that aid they were begging for. It wouldn't take more than a decade for the country to collapse entirely - and probably closer to a year.

(Note, quoting you simply because you enticed me to reply, not because I agree or disagree. I do both, actually, for various points across various posts. For example, I whole heartedly agree that in truth no one [speaking generally] honestly cares about the suffering of the people in North Korea. And that North Korea has a paper army (at least in comparison to the army of the United States, I'm sure there are some nations in the world where a North Korean invasion would be threatening. However I don't know of any naval delivery capability, so I doubt they can get anywhere. They're effectively land-locked... like Iraq was...).)

Here's my take/opinion :

Note : I base my opinion largely on the presumption that most politics is based on rich people, working with rich people, trying to get richer. They are in power to improve the environment for corporations in which they have some level of ownership, or for the promise of some level of ownership in the future, or related subjects. (I.E. Dick getting the government to outsource army cooking/cleaning/etc to contractors that he has stock in/serves on the boards of.) This applies to the people in government, and the important actors in corporations which operate within each government members' sphere of influence.



North Korea became a target because of their politics, not their nuclear program.
The sanctions and threats have have been going on for decades.
The nuclear program is simply the latest complaint.

When oil deliveries were cut to North Korea, they immediately re-activated their reactor. No one on the news talked about the oil cut... they just complained about the reactor. Whether or not further aide was cut afterwards is irrelevant. The reactor provides energy. It will substitute for the lost oil. You don't get something for nothing. If you want them to work for you, you have to pay them. Cooperation isn't free - they don't owe the U.S. anything. (Especially if you're going to take a nation as poor as North Korea, and given them energy supply problems.)

The T.V. coverage was quite amusing to me. As soon as North Korea declared that they have nuclear weapons, all the "invade North Korea" talk *instantly* became "let's talk with North Korea". I have no doubt that the act of arming is what made the United States more civil.

The only thing keeping North Korea safe this long has been its close relationship with China and Russia.
Russia isn't as close to North Korea anymore, and China is in a symbiotic relationship with the United States. It is less and less likely that Russia or China would aide North Korea in any conflict with the United States.
North Korea needs something else to save them.

[aside] Frankly, at this stage, I doubt the U.S. would help (militarily) Taiwan if China attacked Taiwan. The economical shock of practically all consumer goods going into stop-production would be suicidal.
The United States would not plunge itself into another dust bowl (metaphorically) for one nation.

Frankly I don't care if they have arms. If they don't, we can tell them what to do, and eventually roll them over when their regional support finally fades completely.
If they do, then we'll just forget about them as they stop being a viable target.

As far as fearing the use of arms by North Korea, I've never encountered any society as rapid to say "nuke em" as the one in the United States. People here can't expect the same attitude over there. At worst, North Korea is simply more like the U.S. than not.

No one is crazy. That's just T.V. talk for undereducated people so that the government can get people to go "uh-huh uh-huh" and nod. It's like explaining anything with "god made it so". You can excuse any senseless act/situation with that kind of logic.

[aside #2] I'm of the opinion that if there is anyone in Al-Qaeda that doesn't believe in Muhammad, it's Bin-Laden. If there is anyone in the Vatican that doesn't believe in Jesus, it's the Pope. People in charge are the players. The underlings are the pawns. Players manipulate however they can.

North Korea has a government, that government has a location. Everything they do can come back to them. People in government want power and wealth, not to die. The government in North Korea will do what it can to raise its wealth, which includes doing things that the U.S. doesn't like, so that it can get the U.S. to pay for them to stop doing it.

If there ever was an armed conflict that involved nuclear weapons, North Korea would be open to destruction. This would remove any power or wealth from the government (and potentially lead to the governing population's death), and that's not their goal.

Any nation that uses a nuclear weapon as an act of first aggression will become a pariah. I think short of the U.S. or China, no nation can afford this.
(Those two excepted because their economic connections are so strong, no one can risk any damage to them, which would directly result in damage to one's self, economically).

If North Korea committed a nuclear attack, there would be little international sympathy for them. Any nuclear counter-strike would be generally acceptable, and depending on the target and the longevity of the original attack, a nuclear counter-attack could be imminent.

However, a nuclear counter-attack *from* North Korea could be internationally acceptable. (No one will blame you for defending yourself).

Hence the predicament for the U.S. (and Russia, as Russia is souring at the idea of another nuclear nation). Once North Korea can make their own Nukes and deliver them over long distances (instead of just using the tactical nukes they already purchased), the only political option becomes negotiation.

During a power imbalance, negotiation is very beneficial for the party with a power advantage. (You give us a lot - in exchange for - we'll give you a little AND won't beat you up)
When there is no effective power advantage (no one wants to get nuked), you actually have to play fair. Playing fair is a zero sum game. It's the kind of game that the U.S. isn't accustomed to, and isn't happy about playing.
And frankly, I don't care if North Korea makes the U.S. have to play fair - I'm not rich or powerful, so I have nothing to gain or lose either way.
(The U.S. government definitely cares, as having little ol' North Korea acquire respect only encourages other nations to demand respect - which makes it harder to make lucrative arrangements.)

-scheherazade
 
You're an idiot.

Under what merit?
Is it the economical-motivation stuff?
Or that no one wants to get themselves killed?

(Granted Saddam should have known when to stop with the whole Euro-accepting oil market thing... Bad time to undermine the Dollar. Chavez had better timing, partly thanks to the Iraq and Afghan conflicts.)

-scheherazade
 
Here's my take/opinion :

Note : I base my opinion largely on the presumption that most politics is based on rich people, working with rich people, trying to get richer. They are in power to improve the environment for corporations in which they have some level of ownership, or for the promise of some level of ownership in the future, or related subjects. (I.E. Dick getting the government to outsource army cooking/cleaning/etc to contractors that he has stock in/serves on the boards of.) This applies to the people in government, and the important actors in corporations which operate within each government members' sphere of influence.



North Korea became a target because of their politics, not their nuclear program.
The sanctions and threats have have been going on for decades.
The nuclear program is simply the latest complaint.

When oil deliveries were cut to North Korea, they immediately re-activated their reactor. No one on the news talked about the oil cut... they just complained about the reactor. Whether or not further aide was cut afterwards is irrelevant. The reactor provides energy. It will substitute for the lost oil. You don't get something for nothing. If you want them to work for you, you have to pay them. Cooperation isn't free. (Especially if you're going to take a nation as poor as North Korea, and given them energy supply problems.)

The T.V. coverage was quite amusing to me. As soon as North Korea declared that they have nuclear weapons, all the "invade North Korea" talk *instantly* became "let's talk with North Korea". I have no doubt that the act of arming is what made the United States more civil.

The only thing keeping North Korea safe this long has been its close relationship with China and Russia.
Russia isn't as close to North Korea anymore, and China is in a symbiotic relationship with the United States. It is less and less likely that Russia or China would aide North Korea in any conflict with the United States.
North Korea needs something else to save them.

[aside] Frankly, at this stage, I doubt the U.S. would help (militarily) Taiwan if China attacked Taiwan. The economical shock of practically all consumer goods going into stop-production would be suicidal.
The United States would not plunge itself into another dust bowl (metaphorically) for one nation.

Frankly I don't care if they have arms. If they don't, we can tell them what to do, and eventually roll them over when their regional support finally fades completely.
If they do, then we'll just forget about them as they stop being a viable target.

As far as fearing the use of arms by North Korea, I've never encountered any society as rapid to say "nuke em" as the one in the United States. People here can't expect the same attitude over there. At worst, North Korea is simply more like the U.S. than not.

No one is crazy. That's just T.V. talk for undereducated people so that the government can get people to go "uh-huh uh-huh" and nod. It's like explaining anything with "god made it so". You can excuse any senseless act/situation with that kind of logic.

[aside #2] I'm of the opinion that if there is anyone in Al-Qaeda that doesn't believe in Muhammad, it's Bin-Laden. If there is anyone in the Vatican that doesn't believe in Jesus, it's the Pope. People in charge are the players. The underlings are the pawns. Players manipulate however they can.

North Korea has a government, that government has a location. Everything they do can come back to them. People in government want power and wealth, not to die. The government in North Korea will do what it can to raise its wealth, which includes doing things that the U.S. doesn't like, so that it can get the U.S. to pay for them to stop doing it.

If there ever was an armed conflict that involved nuclear weapons, North Korea would be open to destruction. This would remove any power or wealth from the government (and potentially lead to the governing population's death), and that's not their goal.

Any nation that uses a nuclear weapon as an act of first aggression will become a pariah. I think short of the U.S. or China, no nation can afford this.
(Those two excepted because their economic connections are so strong, no one can risk any damage to them, which would directly result in damage to one's self, economically).

If North Korea committed a nuclear attack, there would be little international sympathy for them. Any nuclear counter-strike would be generally acceptable, and depending on the target and the longevity of the original attack, a nuclear counter-attack could be imminent.

However, a nuclear counter-attack *from* North Korea could be internationally acceptable. (No one will blame you for defending yourself).

Hence the predicament for the U.S. (and Russia, as Russia is souring at the idea of another nuclear nation). Once North Korea can make their own Nukes and deliver them over long distances (instead of just using the tactical nukes they already purchased), the only political option becomes negotiation.

During a power imbalance, negotiation is very beneficial for the party with a power advantage. (You give us a lot - in exchange for - we'll give you a little AND won't beat you up)
When there is no effective power advantage (no one wants to get nuked), you actually have to play fair. Playing fair is a zero sum game. It's the kind of game that the U.S. isn't accustomed to, and isn't happy about playing.
And frankly, I don't care if North Korea makes the U.S. have to play fair - I'm not rich or powerful, so I have nothing to gain or lose either way.
(The U.S. government definitely cares, as having little ol' North Korea acquire respect only encourages other nations to demand respect - which makes it harder to make lucrative arrangements.)

I second what Loaf says... you should seriously work for the Boston Globe, they're good at pointing the finger at the big brother.

"Pirates attack shipping around africa"

Boston Globe - Rich nations allowed their Gov't to collapse making them desperate. Etc etc.

Seriously this kind of editorial is the same blind left wing bullshit that gets stuffed down our throat every day! Some other country goes criminal so its the United States' fault? Too stupid...

On a side note, the Boston Globe CANNOT go under fast enough. :mad:
 
Back
Top