.
You don't need to be a White House insider to know that Obama has a more nuanced grasp of international issues and world relations than his predecessor, who only saw things in black and white. Witness his speech in Cairo a couple of weeks ago.
Correction, a historical event that is 58 years old. How can the Korean War not be relevant to the issue here? It is the ROOT of the entire problem. The Korean War has yet to end. A ceasefire was declared but no peace agreement was ever signed. Technically, the two Koreas are still at war. So this is hardly irrelevant.Originally Posted by SPRINGFIELD_XD_40
And just because China's involvement was 58 years ago, it does not change things. China is still a major stakeholder here, now more than ever when North Korea has become its--and not Moscow's--client state.
Huh? Do explain. Because I'm thinking you and I are saying the same thing.Originally Posted by SPRINGFIELD_XD_40
How? Short of war? We know very well economic sanctions won't hurt Kim, only the ordinary North Korean. Do you mean the United States should go to war on the back of silly utterances made by an idiot? If the United States went to war for every time another country's leader said it would make trouble for it, it'd find itself engaged in every continent in the world. Just because Kim has the capability to launch nuclear weapons does not mean he will. Not even Stalin, a certified madman who didn't think twice about murdering his own people by the millions, dared send nuclear bombers to the United States. Not even Kruschev, a demagogue, dared start war with the United States despite strongly worded speeches.Originally Posted by SPRINGFIELD_XD_40
For sure, Kim must be disarmed and his nuclear ambitions reined in. But it's not as easy as using military force at this point in time. It must be a very perplexing puzzle for liberals like Obama. Neo-cons would simply say "bomb him to hell."




Reply With Quote