Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News 57% want military response to N. Korea missile

This is saber-rattling, attention-getting behavior from an insular, paranoid regime. It isn't just Kim Jong Il (who is, in fact, ill). The structure is very Stalinist/Maoist/Nazist "cult of personality" driven, but more importantly, totalitarian, and there are other less-than-stable militarists in charge below Kim. Personally, I favor using it as an opportunity to test our interception technology rather than any aggressive action directly against the mainland of North Korea. They can't afford very many such efforts, and the more they try, the poorer their country gets and the closer to collapse. In the grander scheme, there are a number of unstable pseudo-regimes that should be demilitarized. The problem is, "who gets to pick" which ones they are?

Here's an interesting page that ranks the world's various military forces. According to this ranking, North Korea's military is 11th in the world, behind Great Britain, India, Iran, and . . . South Korea!

A closer examination of the actual questions in the survey reveals that the respondents were asked what action would be appropriate next time N. Korea launches a long-range missile.

Question for Ponderer: would you then count yourself among the 57% who favor a military action? Or do you see your suggestion as not being a sufficiently military to be considered a "military" action?

Similarly, logan, do you see yourself among the 57%? Is your suggestion a "military" action, even though it doesn't involve a full-scale invasion?

---Good Lord, you know I didn't say anything remotely like that!
Let me clarify a little further.

If North Korea tries shooting off any more ballistic missiles which are capable of hitting the United States, I say we shoot them DOWN, pluck them right out of the sky.
Then a little discussion ensued about the economics of doing that as opposed to wrecking their little launchpads so that every time the nasty little buggers wanted to shoot off one they'd have to rebuild a launch pad again.

It's actually A BLOODY JOBS PROGRAM for the little totalitarian wastrels!

So I said I'd be fine with either approach and then added that I was certain that they didn't have the scratch to maintain a sustained invasion and occupation anyway, thus I didn't think it mattered because I didn't think they'd be foolish enough to attack us.

So okay...bloody hell, it's wrong for us to drop a bomb on their stupid launch pads and piss them off, but it's okay for them to shoot their stupid missiles in our direction.

Alright, let's wait till they start behaving more like the silly rocket folks in Gaza then.

(The above needs to be read in a snippy Brit accent for maximum effect - I don't know why)

And, Jeff, if they have the technology, it is ok for them to knock down our rockets? How about the Space Station? What gives us the right but not them to space technology?

Yes, it's wrong for us to drop bombs on them. On this we agree. It's okay for them to test missiles, stupid or otherwise, even in our direction. Should they actually arm one of these missiles and get it anywhere near the US mainland then I have no argument with bombing the entire nation to rubble. You spoke of occupation, I see no reason why any American soldier should ever set foot on North Korean soil. Even if they don't have a lot of money there are over 1 million soldiers there armed and trained to Hate and Kill Americans.
Their nation is already crumbling. We don't have to do anything but wait. They will destroy themselves.

F*ck yeah

A client walks into my law office and explains that her neighbor's kid sits in their backyard and throws rocks over the fence. Not little pebbles that just make a racket when they get sucked up in the lawn mower but big ones that put dents in the siding and could break a window. She wants me to represent her in getting an injunction to stop the rock tossing. I do a little investigating and determine that the neighbors have a huge limestone layer in their yard and the husband uses an assortment of tools to harvest the stone for a variety of building projects around town, leaving the "small" stones in the drive way. These are the ones the son is tossing over the fence. I also determine that the family doesn't have the money to hire an attorney to defend them in the suit and learn that the education level of the parents is such that I will have no problem prevailing in court. Do I tell the client a) I can't help her because she would have an unfair advantage in court, b) will help her only if she waits until actual damage has taken place and has asked them to stop their son but he keeps tossing stones anyway, or c) that we have a court date next Tuesday to seek an injunction requiring the husband to cart the large, potentially damaging chunks away.

If the home is in a development with covenants, do I tell her I can't represent only her but if she can get the homeowners association to hire me to protect all their houses and windows, then I can seek multilateral remedy for them?

Kim Il Jung is the little boy. Do we wait for windows to be broken before we stop him? Do we tell Japan they have to stop him, knowing they lack the military capacity to do so?

With the right to toss stones comes the obligation to do so responsibly. And I would submit that the community at large is within its rights to assess the potential rocket launchers and stop those who have demonstrated a disinterest in accepting that obligation.

yes
yes. to the extent that it matters, I suggested a military action by the international community, not a unilateral action by a single nation.

dont you think that the US has a little spring cleaing of its own to do before it clears house anywhere else?

or are war criminals no longer war criminals when theyre out of office?

I have noted before that IMHO there are many officials from the prior administration who belong in the docket at The Hague just as certainly as Milosevic and his ilk. And that we should exercise no leverage in halting their arrest on foreign soil for deposit thereto. And that Congress should review government operations over the past 8 years as part of its oversight responsibility and should refer to the appropriate authorities all matters that appear to warrant domestic criminal prosecutions. I have not changed my views on either topic. I don't think that process needs to conclude before we can join our colleagues on the Security Council or the General Assembly to establish a plan of sanctions against rogue regimes, such as the one ensconced in Pyongyang.