What is the US up to with regard to Iran?

[Patine]

Your refusal to directly answer a question about what to do with that situation just reinforces the idea that you support Kim and he should be left alone.

Such a binary, siege mentality point-of-view there. Joe McCarthy would be proud.

My "tactic" is responding to your complaints, asking you questions and repeating your words and responses, or lack there of, back to you and trying to have a discussion. As I said earlier, it is very easy to complain about stuff, but doing so without offering solutions is a waste of time. And finally, I only called you out for your posting behavior and you have resorted to name calling and trying to associate me with right wing blowhards. I am not offended; it is just more bad posting on your part.

Why does the assumption that paternalistic interventions in other nations' affairs, selected on whether or not the given bloody-handed, human-rights-abusing tyrant is pro-Western or anti-Western, and ALWAYS just makes things worse, is a constant need and factor that must always be answered in terms of "what will we do" and "to whom" and not "must be endlessly play Globo-Cop and not come up with a more productive way to interact with the world?"

 

[Lexicus]

I'd let SK lead the NK relations effort and we just follow their lead or not participate.

That's fine with me.

 

[Farm Boy]

Bird as McCarthy? He misses on republicans sometimes, but McCarthy he aint. The years of the hegemon were weird. It's easy to forget the nasty stuff going on in the cat tent when the big top is headlining such a great clown show.

 

[Samson]

So, who will pressure or strongarm the U.S., with one of the five worst human rights records in the First World (and, below Rwanda and the Philippines, which are Third World Nations, on specifically women's right and real opportunities) and among the five most corrupt and rigged and least accountable and transparent political systems in the First World, and the greatest disparity of wealth in the First World- more akin in that area to Mexico, Brazil, or India, to clean up their act, in VERY, LONG-NEEDED ways, internally, may I ask?

How do you work this out? The US is worse than Saudi Arabia on womens rights? One of the 5 most corrupt (I have bribed police in a number of countries, but would never consider it in the US)?

 

[red_elk]

I certainly agree with self determination as a great rule, but is that realistic in NK? If it is not, should we just ignore Kim's rule and treat him and his nation like we treat other countries? You appear to be condoning NK slave camps as acceptable as long as no one actively rebels.

Rhetorical question - what do you think Germany should do about Guantanamo prison and the world's highest incarceration rate in the US?

What US can do about North Korea is first to stop threatening them with weapons and sanctions. You've killed their people in the past, you are threatening to kill them in future and you make their families starve. Because of that they hate you first and foremost, no matter how badly they are treated by their own government. They believe you are a threat for them and you do everything to justify their belief.

Withdraw military from the region and assist in organizing reconciliation process and forming coalition government, if you want to help. Otherwise, leave them alone.

Do you also condemn the Russia attempts to subvert and control the government of Austria?

If that's what happened, I condemn it too.

Your multi-polar world with equal power spread across all nations, would be a nice goal, but it is unlikely given the economic imbalance built into world affairs. That economic imbalance is not going away. In fact just in the past few days, China has decided to weaponize its near monopoly on rare earth minerals in its trade talks with the US. Economic power resides in nations with large urbanized populations that produce and consume quality goods. That economic power almost always translates into political power. Such power is not given up lightly.

No, I'm not suggesting equal power spread, Zimbabwe and China can't have equal political influence. I'm suggesting the system of power centers and counter-balances, where US influence is limited by China and other major powers, such as EU and BRICS members.

If Putin kept his nose out of other people's business, I would be less concerned about him.

That's the elements of multipolar world in action. Putin warned 12 years ago, that you may consider yourselves exceptional, but other countries don't share this belief. And if you consistently violate rules, don't be surprised if other major powers will start doing the same.

 

[rah]

Will start?

 

[red_elk]

Will start?

Yes, 12 years ago it was "will start"

 

[Farm Boy]

That was balls dropping, not fedora-tipping, and I think we know know it.

 

[Lexicus]

And you also refrain from condemning Putin for participating in exactly what you decry the US doing.

If Putin kept his nose out of other people's business, I would be less concerned about him.

Do you really think the US keeps its nose out of others people's business! You are here arguing that if you don't support invading North Korea you must support the Kim regime! This is really too much

 

[rah]

Yes, 12 years ago it was "will start"

That's funny. The only reason you can use the word start is because they were so weak for a while they had to stop (or at least not be so obvious about it). To suggest it was something altruistic is quite laughable.

 

[red_elk]

That's funny. The only reason you can use the word start is because they were so weak for a while they had to stop (or at least not be so obvious about it). To suggest it was something altruistic is quite laughable.

Well, Russia was never weak so much that it was unable to beat Georgia or Ukraine militarily.
It wasn't altruistic, Putin was hoping to make a deal with the US to respect each other's interests. US apparently respects only force. Can't blame Kim for getting nukes.

 

[rah]

Can't blame Kim either. I'm not a big fan of some of the US's attempts at being the world police. You should show similar suspicion of your own government.

 

[Farm Boy]

China could use a nice hat. Nice hats are nice.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think most Koreans want, at the very least, a peace process and normalization of relations.

Most Koreans and likely South Korean government, yes. NK government and US government probably not. I suspect more stability/normality makes it harder for NK government to stay intact, and US has kept that going at own convenience.

Are there even any other nations as repressive as NK?

Today maybe some in Africa are comparable. Historically there were also, and I can't think of examples that were resolved by a peaceful power transfer.

I think that paternalistic intervention to help oppressed peoples from their own leaders (leaders who often were already installed, or came to power taking advantage of, previous paternalistic foreign intervention in the first place) is becoming a fool's game of "whack-a-hole," and one that is NEVER ending well, and only making these nations' worse off in the long-term, increasing anti-Western animosity globally, and leading to the creation, traction, and recruitment appeal of groups labelled as "terrorists" (of which pretty ALL such groups' since the end of WW2's very existence traces to intervention and meddling by the major powers and responses made to them in the first place). I think this is the REAL lesson that yet needs to be learned - and embraced, and foreign policy drastically changed to show it has been learned from.

There are certainly things we disagree on but this isn't one of them. The track record is so brutal. US has thrown away tons of resources and unfortunate lives...and what was accomplished? Where has military intervention since WW2 resulted in a stable, economically well-off nation? Where has it objectively benefited the US, long-term?

How should the world deal with leaders who act terribly towards their own people?

So far we haven't seen a better answer than doing nothing. If one can be demonstrated with reasonable basis to believe it, I'd like to see it.

How should the world respond to leaders who actively spread hate and fear among other countries?

What do you mean by this? Defense against military threats or sabotage is reasonable. If a political leader is instead talking a lot of crap without doing anything best response is probably to prepare in case they act on it and ignore them otherwise.

Is drone warfare better or worse than more conventional warfare to achieve ones military goals?

It is better to use drones than human soldiers. The real question is whether non-conventional warfare as we've seen it over the past several decades should be conducted at all. In an all-out war of conquest or defense from conquest, drones destroyed on either side are lives not lost and they have some applications humans can't easily replicate.

Seems like you see no reason to take any action towards NK. I don't see any twisting of your words. You said intervention makes things worse. When you say things like that in a discussion about NK, it leads me to believe that you think things there are good enough.

They aren't. But it's not USA or non-Koreans' job to make it good enough, and historical track record tells us that external forces trying to make it "good enough" make it "less good" instead. The known exceptions involve actual conquest/borders changing, and most of those are pre-industrial. I don't want to see that in the modern world.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Today maybe some in Africa are comparable. Historically there were also, and I can't think of examples that were resolved by a peaceful power transfer.

So far we haven't seen a better answer than doing nothing. If one can be demonstrated with reasonable basis to believe it, I'd like to see it.

It is better to use drones than human soldiers. The real question is whether non-conventional warfare as we've seen it over the past several decades should be conducted at all. In an all-out war of conquest or defense from conquest, drones destroyed on either side are lives not lost and they have some applications humans can't easily replicate.

They aren't. But it's not USA or non-Koreans' job to make it good enough, and historical track record tells us that external forces trying to make it "good enough" make it "less good" instead. The known exceptions involve actual conquest/borders changing, and most of those are pre-industrial. I don't want to see that in the modern world.

The failure of the US to effectively intervene does not mean that intervention should not be used.

Idi Amin: The invasion of Uganda by Tanzania in 1979.
Pol Pot: Invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam 1979

When you say there is no better answer than doing nothing, for whom? Is the best answer for the people of NK to do nothing? Who benefits from doing nothing? Intervention is not always possible and so people pay the price. We saw that in USSR in the 1930s and China in the 1950s and 60s.

When famine or disaster strikes in this world, people and nations respond to provide relief for the people. Few object. NK is experiencing a Kim family disaster of epic proportions and duration. You appear to be content with "It's none of my business." The goal should be to find an effective way to provide relief.

Who's job is it to help the people of NK?

Drones are here to stay and they will only get better at what they do.

 

[Berzerker]

China, if we do it we'll be in another war with them

 

[rah]

Who's job is it to help the people of NK?

The real question is, Is it the US's role to help every county and right every injustice? That really hasn't worked out very well for us.
It can't be done by one country and shouldn't be. Who is the supreme judge of injustice. Many don't agree with our judgments there. (for good cause)
It leads to considerable resentment.

 

[red_elk]

Who's job is it to help the people of NK?

If it's same old kind of "help", with dropping bombs on people's heads, then help yourself.

 

[Hrothbern]

Do you also condemn the Russia attempts to subvert and control the government of Austria? Their weapon was money rather than guns, but the results they wanted were the same: control of the the country's leadership.

If that's what happened, I condemn it too.

I condemn it too, but Vienna is playing with fire themselves.


Vienna has always been the gate between East and West Europe (nicely situated in a gap of the Danube in a big North-South mountain ridge) since Neanderthal times.
The Habsburgian diplomatic court during many centuries
The Turkish siege in the 17th century delivered us (the West) the cappucino and the croissant.
The Vienna peace congress (after Napoleon) delivered most of our Western Europe nation borders.
And it has been since then and more so since WW2 a den of spies and related opaque cross-Iron Curtain investors. As of today there are still hundreds of cultural attachés spies there from all selfrespecting empires and former empires.
A limited number of Austrian families involved in too much of everything and greatly benefitting from that unique Vienna position.

 

[Patine]

How do you work this out? The US is worse than Saudi Arabia on womens rights? One of the 5 most corrupt (I have bribed police in a number of countries, but would never consider it in the US)?

I think you misread my post. I said among the five worst for human rights in the FIRST WORLD (Saudi Arabia, despite it's undeserved and unmeritable affluence from oil money, is NOT a First World Country, and the ONLY Third World Nations I said were better for women's rights specifically were Rwanda and the Philippines - the two top for that status in THE THIRD WORLD. Also, my corruption and transparency claims were again one of the five worst in, you guessed it (or maybe you didn't ) THE FIRST WORLD. Please, read my posts next time.