> Phssthpok wrote:

> This is probably because Obama is a weak president.

"Yesterday, 15 countries unanimously stood up and spoke out about the launch," Gibbs said."

Yeah probably. They must have thought that Obama is weak and so is every leader of those 14 other nations and so they thought they could get away with it.

Too bad that you aren't President; you'd show 'em.

> esa wrote:

> Why do the NKs always act like little children?

I think Kim is like Benjamin Button.

Well at least how I imagine he is at the end of the movie, cause I haven't seen it.

How do they act like children?

North Korea is weak. They have no economical or diplomatic power
what-so-ever. Their only bargaining chips include threats of war,
their nuclear program, etc...

Anyone with half a brain (Well, i mean any strategist and non-visiting
this forum type person) that works for any of those 15 countries could
have seen this coming...

Exactly what other choice do they have?

How about shut down nukes and missles programs and concentrate on feeding their people with help from other nations. They don't have to be a dominant power, it's their stupid choice to pretend that they are.

I can't be bothered with this one, I was just coming in with some one liners.

> How about shut down nukes and missles programs and concentrate on
> feeding their people with help from other nations.

You are kidding right?

The north was being ignored by the West, and in particular the U.S.
They weren't being taken seriously.

Guess their only way of changing that...

> Our anti missile systems aren't 100% either. NK also has a rather large
> military for being such a small economy and their big brother china has a
> substantial military but the US or another country with a modern military
> could (if we were willing) invade them and depose 'lil kim. We have to at
> least appear as if we are willing to do it.

Any invasion of North Korea would cost MILLIONS of lives, as well as hundreds
of thousands of American (who whoever the invader is). Think Vietnam, but on
a larger scale.

You also have to take into account in any war with North Korea (whoever starts it),
everyone will be a target. If they can hit New York, they will. More then likely they can
just hit the South and Japan, but even if those two stay out the north will STILL throw
everything it has.

Knowing these two things, any action against the north would not be an invasion. And
if the U.S. *starts* a war that kills millions the world will shun the U.S.

Its not as easy as just pushing a button and being done with it. Simple logic, but its
something the U.S. couldn't understand with Vietnam, and didn't understand with
Iraq, and is only just starting to understand with Afghanistan.

If we RETURN to a willingness to kill millions of people--because we did just that 60 years ago -- your "shun" will look a lot better than your current attitude.  It is because we consider a million violent yahoos as some insurmountable challenge that we get rousted by mud farmers.

A global thermonuclear war that kills 4 billion people and 2/3 of America = American victory, because we had those proportions , 120 million to 2 billion globally, in 1939.  And we could feed those 120 million.

But that's XXcentury facts, not wanted in the glorious XXI century.

> sKoE )= wrote:

> > How about shut down nukes and missles programs and concentrate on
> feeding their people with help from other nations.

> You are kidding right?

> The north was being ignored by the West, and in particular the U.S.
> They weren't being taken seriously.

No, I wasn't.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/18/north-korea-us-food-aid

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2008/07/01/us_ships_food_aid_to_north_korea/

I'm really struggling to hold back a really show-offy statement, but since I agree with you in some other threads, I don't want to make you into an anti-Econ person just becase of this.

> Econ wrote:

> Did someone say that we give them whatever they want while they carry on acting like bullies/spoilt children? I >hope you are not insinuating that I did - I certainly did not. And I don't think skoe did either

Maybe we don't literally give them anything but if we give them something for being bad than they will continue on like a spoiled child. And they are betting Obama will do just that maybe not immediately but sooner or later they will negotiate with someone from Obamas administration.

> So what if we stop ignoring them and give them food and
> oil everyone will live happily ever after? Wrong. If you give
> them anything as a result of this you are asking for another
> incident and an escalation and we get closer to having a war.
> This is a hard fact of life but the only way to deal with a bully
> is to confront them if you give them your lunch money it
> encourages them this is true of nations too (not that war is
> the only way). The whole reason they did this is because they
> sense a weakness in Obama because he espouses these ridiculous
> notions about how the west should deal with Iran and NK.

I'll do a proper reply later, but i'd just like to say that i havn't stated
how i feel about this, i've only stated why i think the north is doing it.

I stole some batteries from work because Obama is a weak president