This just in: North Korea to End armistice!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
NYE: as the Bush admin keeps saying, "Iraq and NK are different situations"

Diplomacy is a lot more important in the ME than in the Koreas where it's basically a "Great Powers only" zone.

Everybody has a stake in the ME, Iraq is surrounded by nations of varying degrees of friendliness to it, Israel, Europe and the US, etc.

Euro reticence on Iraq means a lot more than Euro reticence on NK.

You mean not everyone has a stake in the world going nuclear over Kim?

The ME is no more difficult than the Koreas? AAMOF, it is a damn sight simpler.

btw, Euro softness on dictators is Euro softness on dictators. They have a history of not being effective in handeling them prior to the lid being blown off.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger


Kim's a lunatic. The ****ing US pussyfooted around him when this crisis started brewing a year ago and have basically given him everything he wanted (they made an offer that looks exactly like Kim's original demands, without of course stooping to "negotiate"). Now that was so easy he figures he should be able to get a bit more, and the US is finally figuring out that they've got to make sure the NKers know who's got the warships while at the same time be willing to appear to be generous by continually giving in just a little bit to blackmail.

There's not going to be a war with NK unless:

a) The US keeps giving in way too easily making Kim take more and more or
b) The US gets into a fit of pique and decides to feel its oats a little bit (seriously, instead of bluffing)

You're right frogger. He could try to use this strategy numerous times even if it fails, since it already worked very well the first time.

[KrazyHorse]

The ME is no more difficult than the Koreas. AAMOF, it is a damn sight simpler.

No, actually it isn't.

And I have no clue what that abbreviation means...

btw, Euro softness on dictators is Euro softness on dictators. They have a history of not being effective in handeling them prior to the lid being blown off.

What a crap observation. The Euro powers were a hell of a lot more proactive against, say, Hitler than the US was. They were simply more willing to use force when they had more force to use. Just like the US. Both show remarkable lack of judgment as to when force is required and when they should keep their hands off.

And where was this supposed US willingness to get rid of dictators when the dicators lived right beside them?

Chile, Argentina, Guatemala...

The US doesn't care if people are dictators or not. Period. Just like the Euros didn't care back in the day. Hopefully the US will eventually get over itself the way the Euros were forced to.

[MRT144]

AND WE ALL KNOW IRAQ IS THE REAL THREAT TO THE US.

[DuncanK]

NK wasn't a real threat to the US until a few months ago

[MRT144]

so we reason with the madman(Kim) who can and will hurt us but kill the madman(Saddam) who never bothers us?

[DuncanK]

I don't agree with reasoning with Kim. I don't think we should make deals with him anymore. We never should have.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger

The ME is no more difficult than the Koreas. AAMOF, it is a damn sight simpler.

No, actually it isn't.

And I have no clue what that abbreviation means...

Own Goal protection on. As A Matter Of Fact...

But really, you think dealing with some yokels in a desert with oil is easier than dealing with NK and the Chinese in a game of global brinksmanship that could ignite into several hundreds of million dead? That is very curious. How do you come by that opinion?

btw, Euro softness on dictators is Euro softness on dictators. They have a history of not being effective in handeling them prior to the lid being blown off.

What a crap observation. The Euro powers were a hell of a lot more proactive against, say, Hitler than the US was. They were simply more willing to use force when they had more force to use. Just like the US. Both show remarkable lack of judgment as to when force is required and when they should keep their hands off.

Bwaaaa haaaa haaaaa.

At the time the Americans didn't think that Europe was thier business. When they did decide Hitler was thier business, they were fairly effective, wouldn't you say? How did the French do?

More willing to use force? Are you talking about the Euros? Are you sure?

As far as judgement as to when to use force or not when confronting a hostile state, I'd say the US did a f*ck of a good job in defeating the SU without incinerating most of the planet. Maybe the French could have done the same in '37 with Hitler, or the EU in the '90s with Milosovik. Oh sh*t, I forgot, the Euros would not know how to handle a clear danger until the bombs start to fall, and even then they may try to ignore it.

[q]And where was this supposed US willingness to get rid of dictators when the dicators lived right beside them?

Chile, Argentina, Guatemala...

The US doesn't care if people are dictators or not. Period. Just like the Euros didn't care back in the day. Hopefully the US will eventually get over itself the way the Euros were forced to. [q]

Blah blah blah, Cry me a Cold War river. Like the French did all sorts of good things in Algeria in the 50's and 60's.

And AAMOF, yeah, those bad guys were our guys. They were there to make sure that people worse than them did not take power. Was it nice? No, but neither was the prospect of losing the Cold War. Which, I'll point out again, the Yanks won.

[KrazyHorse]

?

No ****. The French and British kept dreaming they still had an empire into the 60s.

"Cry me a cold war river"



Okay there. We'll just discount the actions of the US in Latin America through 5/6 of its existence as a superpower because those were somehow necessary to defend aganst what? Soviet expansion in Europe?

Elected leaders were tossed out and tyrants were put in their place. The US lost its grip on the moral high ground within a few months of Hiroshima...

[Nubclear]

NYE the crass, performing the usual debate fallacies....

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
?

No ****. The French and British kept dreaming they still had an empire into the 60s.

"Cry me a cold war river"



Okay there. We'll just discount the actions of the US in Latin America through 5/6 of its existence as a superpower because those were somehow necessary to defend aganst what? Soviet expansion in Europe?

Elected leaders were tossed out and tyrants were put in their place. The US lost its grip on the moral high ground within a few months of Hiroshima...

Gee, I don't know. Maybe Castro and the Cuban Missile Crisis had some small effect on the attitudes of the govt of the United States. Do ya think?

Even before that the followers of the various Internationals had attracted the attentions of the governments of the West. You think we should have ignored them?

You think the Cold War was just about Europe? That is very rich. Are you joking?

[KrazyHorse]

So Castro's ascension in 58/59 explains US intervention in Guatemala in 1954? Or tolerance for dictators in LA in the late 40s and early 50s?

They've retarded the democratization of a continent for half a century just because they could.

You're right. While Europe may have a "do-nothing" attitude towards dictators, the US is much better in that it actively aids them.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger
The US lost its grip on the moral high ground within a few months of Hiroshima...

Yes, that was short lived

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Frogger
So Castro's ascension in 58/59 explains US intervention in Guatemala in 1954? Or tolerance for dictators in LA in the late 40s and early 50s?

They've retarded the democratization of a continent for half a century just because they could.

You're right. While Europe may have a "do-nothing" attitude towards dictators, the US is much better in that it actively aids them.

hey

europe actively aids them as much as possible

Jon Miller

[notyoueither]

My my, this thread is getting jacked, isn't it. Frogger doesn't have a leg to stand on vis-a-vis American vs European treatment of threats to peace, so it's off to South America we go to show that the Yanks are nasty brutes.

Guess what? It doesn't freaking matter. Yes, the Yanks treat the Americas as thier sand box. Nothing new in that. Look up a guy called Munroe and read forward from there.

Did the Yanks promote and support a lot of less than savory regimes? Yep. Why exactly did they do that? Commercial interests? Anti Communist efforts? Some of both I'd bet.

But that all doesn't mean sheet. We are talking about a regime that is threatening nuclear destruction unless they get thier fuel oil and what should be done about it. We're talking about what the proper response is to madmen like that. What do you want the world to do, kitty? Give it to him?