First, as I said earlier in the thread, the title is "tongue in cheek". It was meant to parody our approach to matters like this. That said, do you really think that if North Korea continues in the direction it is, that an "ass wuppin'" would not be forthcoming?
In general, your post illustrates the complexity of our current foreign policy landscape. On the one hand you note that the North Korean situation is much more appropriate in terms of presenting a set of causal factors to initiate American military response. You make this point contrasting it with our situation with Iraq. At the same time, in the end, you still seem to reject any potential military response against North Korea.
Originally posted by 0dysseus:
We seek to divide and destroy our 'enemies' economically and militarily.
The first point about your comments is that while I tend to agree with your over-all sentiment about U.S. foreign policy being chronically self-centered and myopic, I'd ask you the following question. The United States is operating directly in how it perceives its interests. We can debate tactics and philosphy all day long, but strategically, are you surprised at what the U.S. is doing? The United States is protecting its national security and economic interests. Period. While I think we should have a more advanced/evolved view of foreign policy, don't you think we should look to minimize the threats from our enemies?
Right to bear Arms:
I find it alarming that we don't want our non-allied countries to have "weapons of mass destruction".
We're not playing a game that requires a set of rules be applied evenly to all players. The world is a classic zero-sum game. There are finite resources in the world. Our economy is based upon consumption. The degree to which we control resources defines the success that our economy and country is able to enjoy.
We're just playing defense. We're trying to both stay on offense and deny our opponents the ball and thus limit their opportunity to harm us. Aside from what you think of U.S. foreign policy, do you really want every country that wants one to have nuclear weapons? It might not seem "fair", but I'll tell you I don't.
Yes, I belive that countries that prove they are a threat to World peace (not Amerikkkan interests) should be disarmed, but only at the hands of an established, globally recognized enforcment agency (The United Nations).
Hey, the United Nations has blessed everything that the United States is doing vis-a-vis Iraq. Colin Powell has done a great job of coalition building. Similarly, regarding North Korea; South Korea, Japan, and Russia are certainly with us. I won't be surprised if China eventually gets on board against North Korea either.
What do you think would happen if every country except us disarmed? Is that fair to other nations, cultures, and governments?
Again, "fairness" is irrelevant.
Practice What we Preach:
Our Constitution, founding fathers, and government ideals are supposed to be about Freedom, Human Rights, Peace, Christianity and Democracy. As a country, our implementation of foreign policy is not consistent with these beliefs.
Our immediate national interests certainly trump any philosophical or political principles that we might apply (to varying degrees) internally. We see this with how Ashcroft has suspended a number of the tenets of the Bill of Rights in the 'War Against Terrorism'. But then again our founding principles have always been applied only when and where convenient.
**Got to run. I'll finish my post later.**