Last week, I awoke to the sound of a news report explaining that North Korea had fueled a long range missile and that they may fire it at the United States. If you don't think that's enough to wake me up, you would be mistaken. My immediate thought, other than, should I really go to work given that World War III could be just around the corner was, why the hell isn't this a major news story - why is this the first I'm hearing about it and why haven't I heard about this before the actual fueling of the missile.
When we were gearing up the nation for the war on Iraq, I couldn't go anywhere without hearing people speculate about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Now we have a crazy guy with a long range missile, who has stated that he will fire it at the United States, and nothing. Nothing! Eventually, I found some news wires regarding the subject on the Internet, and I learned that our government was going to approach this situation with diplomacy. What?! Since when did we become advocates of diplomacy?
We attacked a country when we didn't even know if they had any weapons it could use against us, and now we want to practice the art of negotiation with a country led by a crazy guy that we are sure has nuclear weapons and that doesn't seem afraid to use them? How arbitrary and illogical is that? Then North Korea fired six or seven missiles the other day and what was the response? People talked about a resolution condemning the action. Are you kidding?
North Korea really has nothing to lose, as it has no real economy other than bombs. So really if it could start a war, business would be booming ... so to speak. The fact that we do not seem to be doing anything other than standing around saying, "Don't do that. Stop. No." seems absolutely crazy to me, given our track record of bombing people that we even suspect of having weapons that could kill us. This is not to say that we should go to war with them. I think war is an incredibly costly endeavor, both with respect to environmental, human, and monetary resources. We could probably get equally good or better results with aid and relief.
Yes, that may sound incredibly stupid - give the crazy bomb people money, the terrorists will have won. However, if the global community recognizes that in certain situations, providing relief to countries that have no real income source other than bomb making and arms trading is a less costly solution, we may actually save lives and money.
When we were gearing up the nation for the war on Iraq, I couldn't go anywhere without hearing people speculate about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Now we have a crazy guy with a long range missile, who has stated that he will fire it at the United States, and nothing. Nothing! Eventually, I found some news wires regarding the subject on the Internet, and I learned that our government was going to approach this situation with diplomacy. What?! Since when did we become advocates of diplomacy?
We attacked a country when we didn't even know if they had any weapons it could use against us, and now we want to practice the art of negotiation with a country led by a crazy guy that we are sure has nuclear weapons and that doesn't seem afraid to use them? How arbitrary and illogical is that? Then North Korea fired six or seven missiles the other day and what was the response? People talked about a resolution condemning the action. Are you kidding?
North Korea really has nothing to lose, as it has no real economy other than bombs. So really if it could start a war, business would be booming ... so to speak. The fact that we do not seem to be doing anything other than standing around saying, "Don't do that. Stop. No." seems absolutely crazy to me, given our track record of bombing people that we even suspect of having weapons that could kill us. This is not to say that we should go to war with them. I think war is an incredibly costly endeavor, both with respect to environmental, human, and monetary resources. We could probably get equally good or better results with aid and relief.
Yes, that may sound incredibly stupid - give the crazy bomb people money, the terrorists will have won. However, if the global community recognizes that in certain situations, providing relief to countries that have no real income source other than bomb making and arms trading is a less costly solution, we may actually save lives and money.
I am as confused by this as you are, J. A person could make the argument that Saddam was par for the course concerning Third World dictators. He killed people he saw as threats and acted like a bigger man than he was. Sounds like a lot of dictators I know.
ReplyDeleteBut I think Kim Jong Il is a different kind of dictator. And that scares the hell out of me.
I am completely freaked out by this. A helicoptor flew really low over my house the other day and I almost had a panic attack. It's almost like a movie. But I don't think Harrison Ford or Bruce Willis can get us out of this.
ReplyDeleteSaddam wasn't a real threat; he was a diversion. North Korea is a real threat and not what anyone perceives as an 'easy win.' (Of course, Iraq hasn't turned out to be an easy win, either.) Our troops are tied up, Bush pissed off NK by including them in his 'axis of evil' speech (of course NK perceived that as aggression--we would have too, if the tables had been turned), and here we are.
ReplyDelete