Usa Back In The "police Action" With The Prk?!?!?

[TheScotsman]

It would seem the longest standing cease fire in modern history is declared null, and void by one half of the signers.
Proof elections have consequences, and electing a president with a rubber-band for a spine does not make for a strong foreign policy stance. It also proves that you can not bargain with, or "sit down for face to face talks" with a complete lunatic who won't keep their end of the deal.

Ready to see a shooting war start on the Korean Peninsula? What is the PRC going to do when Taiwan, and more so, Japan, start a fast track development of a nuclear device to counter the real threat from the PRK?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...HufOGwD98EPDL84

Or...
"Since "the U.S. imperialists and the [South Korean President] Lee Myung-bak group of traitors have reneged" on the armistice, North Korea said it is no longer obligated to obey international law or abide by bilateral agreements. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

[Vladimir]

This is purely chest-pounding. Nothing changed between last week and today. It isn't a good sign, but it isn't the calamitous event many are trying to paint it as. Lets be honest, its been a long time since North Korea followed any rule of law it had previously agreed to... all that happened here is they formally declared what their SOP has been for years.

[Rani]

The North Korea situation has been unresolved since the 1950's when we first deployed over there. It ended in a stalemate then and it's never gotten better. In the interim we're had both "hawks" and "doves" in the White House, Senate and House, and none of them has made any impact whatsoever. North Korea has it's own agenda uninfluenced by the US or any other nation. To claim this has to do with the state of the Presidential spine is to completely disregard history and disrespect the intentions of someone who's mind you can't read. We are not the all powerful US who gets to decide the state of the world at every local level. We're just one of the players. A major one, no doubt, but still just one player. Finally we have someone in the White House who actually seems to get that point and doesn't waste his time stamping his feet and demanding that he gets his way like a 2-year old who hasn't been properly potty trained.

'Rani

[Vladimir]

The North Korea situation has been unresolved since the 1950's when we first deployed over there. It ended in a stalemate then and it's never gotten better. In the interim we're had both "hawks" and "doves" in the White House, Senate and House, and none of them has made any impact whatsoever. North Korea has it's own agenda uninfluenced by the US or any other nation. To claim this has to do with the state of the Presidential spine is to completely disregard history and disrespect the intentions of someone who's mind you can't read. We are not the all powerful US who gets to decide the state of the world at every local level. We're just one of the players. A major one, no doubt, but still just one player. Finally we have someone in the White House who actually seems to get that point and doesn't waste his time stamping his feet and demanding that he gets his way like a 2-year old who hasn't been properly potty trained.

I have to disagree with you there. An unabashed critic of Barack Obama's, I will give credit, where credit is due. And he does deserves some in the "spine" department. However, the fact remains that President Obama is a largely untested individual. He came to be the most powerful man in the world- because whether it is politically correct to think it or not, the United States is undoubtadly and unquestionably the single most powerful country in the world, and not just militarily- with little background. I'm not writing this to attack Barack Obama's lack of experience, frankly experience isn't a big selling point for me (it helps, but it isn't the end-game factor). But the fact remains that Barack Obama is untested. He served a minor role in the Senate, not even a complete term.

This means he came to the White House and most of the world had no idea how he would act. That isn't quite true because Barack Obama is the poster child for proof that Foreign Affairs is as Foreign Affairs does. His promises and change was largely political mumbo-jumbo- which isn't necessarily a critique on his character (the intelligence available when you become Commander and Chief should alter your proposed solutions/processes/etc). But no one knew where he was going to stand. North Korea, if only subconsciouslly, will use this as an opportunity to judge Barack Obama and his "spine." This isn't a hawk/dove situation, these two terms are placed almost entirely on speech- North Korea has never given a rats patooty about what someone says, only what someone does. The test for Barack Obama here will of course be to see what he does. And North Korea is absolutely going to use it to test his "spine" factor.

EDIT: And North Korea isn't alone- the whole world will be watching.You can bet three countries that will be watching very hard are South Korea, Israel, and Taiwan. Edited May 28, 2009 by Vladimir

[Rani]

The North Korea situation has been unresolved since the 1950's when we first deployed over there. It ended in a stalemate then and it's never gotten better. In the interim we're had both "hawks" and "doves" in the White House, Senate and House, and none of them has made any impact whatsoever. North Korea has it's own agenda uninfluenced by the US or any other nation. To claim this has to do with the state of the Presidential spine is to completely disregard history and disrespect the intentions of someone who's mind you can't read. We are not the all powerful US who gets to decide the state of the world at every local level. We're just one of the players. A major one, no doubt, but still just one player. Finally we have someone in the White House who actually seems to get that point and doesn't waste his time stamping his feet and demanding that he gets his way like a 2-year old who hasn't been properly potty trained.

I have to disagree with you there. An unabashed critic of Barack Obama's, I will give credit, where credit is due. And he does deserves some in the "spine" department. However, the fact remains that President Obama is a largely untested individual. He came to be the most powerful man in the world- because whether it is politically correct to think it or not, the United States is undoubtadly and unquestionably the single most powerful country in the world, and not just militarily- with little background. I'm not writing this to attack Barack Obama's lack of experience, frankly experience isn't a big selling point for me (it helps, but it isn't the end-game factor). But the fact remains that Barack Obama is untested. He served a minor role in the Senate, not even a complete term.

This means he came to the White House and most of the world had no idea how he would act. That isn't quite true because Barack Obama is the poster child for proof that Foreign Affairs is as Foreign Affairs does. His promises and change was largely political mumbo-jumbo- which isn't necessarily a critique on his character (the intelligence available when you become Commander and Chief should alter your proposed solutions/processes/etc). But no one knew where he was going to stand. North Korea, if only subconsciouslly, will use this as an opportunity to judge Barack Obama and his "spine." This isn't a hawk/dove situation, these two terms are placed almost entirely on speech- North Korea has never given a rats patooty about what someone says, only what someone does. The test for Barack Obama here will of course be to see what he does. And North Korea is absolutely going to use it to test his "spine" factor.

EDIT: And North Korea isn't alone- the whole world will be watching.You can bet three countries that will be watching very hard are South Korea, Israel, and Taiwan.

I don't think we're in disagreement. I was abrupt and sarcastic, but essentially we're on the same page. Obama hasn't faced this type of situation before. We can't presume to know what's in his mind and what he's going to do. Though I will take exception to your hawk/dove statement being applied only to speech, though this might be an age factor. Historically within my lifetime, aggressive politicians who were pro war were referred to as hawks, and those who were perceived to be willing to give away the farm in negotiation were referred to as doves.

'Rani

[liquidglass]

I agree that Obama is untested in certain situation, but to be honest, what president isn't untested in situations like this? What some of our past presidents didn't get is that it's not the skill or intellect of the president but an accumulation of the peoples they surround themselves with. Most 'bad' presidents surround themselves with people who don't know what they're doing so they get inadequate information and depending on how competent they are they bow to bad information, which can result in bad decisions, and they get blamed. By surrounding him/her self with those of higher intellect they can get the best information resulting in (more probable) better decisions and outcomes.

[Vladimir]

I don't think we're in disagreement. I was abrupt and sarcastic, but essentially we're on the same page. Obama hasn't faced this type of situation before. We can't presume to know what's in his mind and what he's going to do. Though I will take exception to your hawk/dove statement being applied only to speech, though this might be an age factor. Historically within my lifetime, aggressive politicians who were pro war were referred to as hawks, and those who were perceived to be willing to give away the farm in negotiation were referred to as doves.

'Rani

I guess I agree, but what I meant to differentiate here was the fact that no one is going to be supporting an invasion of North Korea due to this development. The hawks in this situation may call for more sanctions, some stronger military presence, etc. Not war. Therefore in this case I think it comes down to speech versus action, and I feel that hawks and doves, speech and action, is almost four categories instead of just two. If that made sense, sorry its past my bedtime .

I agree that Obama is untested in certain situation, but to be honest, what president isn't untested in situations like this? What some of our past presidents didn't get is that it's not the skill or intellect of the president but an accumulation of the peoples they surround themselves with. Most 'bad' presidents surround themselves with people who don't know what they're doing so they get inadequate information and depending on how competent they are they bow to bad information, which can result in bad decisions, and they get blamed. By surrounding him/her self with those of higher intellect they can get the best information resulting in (more probable) better decisions and outcomes.

But it isn't about being untested, its that no one really knows how he is going to respond. Let's be honest, say Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul were the two nominees- between the two there are very clear identifiers of how they would respond. This has less to do with campaign promises, and more to do with long records in congress.

[Sonthert]

Thoughts?

Obama has the same exact amount of experience being President of the United States as Bush did 8 years ago today and Clinton 16 years ago today. Lincoln commented that all of his life experiences didn't adequately prepare him to be President of The United States. Comparing the amount of experience that candidate A and B have is irrelevant. Do I believe the candidate will make good choices when they are elected? Thats the question. I believe, without reservation, Obama is the more reasoned and careful of the two between him and McCain or Bush or Clinton or Bush Sr. Or Reagan.

In the Cuban Missile Crisis, the members of the cabinet were convinced that the Joint Chiefs were intentionally defining the Rules of engagement in order to increase the likelihood of conflict...the same thing is seen in the initial actions of the Vietnam War, the Gulf of Tonkin. Robert McNamara talked in great depth about how the Joint Chiefs defined the rules of engagement to trigger a conflict...which occurred and the Vietnam War was ushered in. In fact, the Rules of Engagement surrounding the Gulf of Tonkin was so tightly wound, that the incident that touched off the Vietnam War didn't actually happen. So, ask the Joint Chiefs whether they want to go to war in Korea or not...

[ilikemyusername]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk

[Vladimir]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk

Where to begin...

Freedom, slavery, holocaust... I mean sure the song is catchy but talk about a dumb idea.

[Canon]

theres no chance of japan or Taiwan developing nuclear weapons. theres countless military bases in both.