SH invaded another country, and he paid for it. When the US came at him and demanded he prove he was living under the agreement that was part of him paying for it, he did so. The US government was unsatisfied at his attitude while he complied, so they invaded and he wound up hung by a legally constituted mob. OK, if you're a tinpot dictator, that's scary. In response to that, Gaddafi rejoins the global community, buying his way in by giving up his WMD program. The Arab Spring happens, and we ditch out on him. And, in response to his repressions to maintain power, we support the rebels, and even ignore his attempts to negotiate an escape to exile. He winds up sodomized on a broomstick and torn apart by a mob.fyodor wrote: ↑09 Aug 2017, 12:47Y'know, I was and am against our invasion of Iraq. But SH did invade another sovereign country (even if our invasion waited a while till after that and was ostensibly in response to violations of agreements forced in response to said invasion). If you're saying NK leaders couldn't tell they only had to follow that rule, I'll take your word for it. But at the risk of sounding like a hawk, I think that's a point that oughtter be included in whatever analysis.Shem wrote: ↑09 Aug 2017, 12:33No, they really weren't. They had stopped for the better part of 10 years. The '93 deal worked. They started back up after they saw what happened to Saddam Hussein, who never would have been regime-changed if he had nukes. It was reinforced after they watched the West abandon Gaddafi even after he gave up his WMD program. The armistice worked for 50 years because they lived in a world where national sovereignty was inviolate as long as you follow some simple rules. The '93 deal was as much about reassuring them that this was still the case after the end of the cold war as anything. Iraq proved, beyond a doubt, that this was no longer the case. We now expect them to make a deal even though we've already shown no willingness to guarantee sovereignty past the end of a current presidential term, even though a guarantee of sovereignty is the only thing they really want from us. A nuke is the means by which they guarantee we won't move on them. If it then allows them to retreat from military spending, so much the better.
The idea that the US hasn't played a role in driving this only works if you assume the Kims are too stupid to notice what happened to their cohorts in the Hobbes Club when the wrong warmongers (we see you still hanging around DC looking for an in, John Bolton) got into a position of influence. Kim sees us as an existential threat. Would you give up your gun to a guy who just invaded your neighbor's house if he offered you cash for it?
BTW, are you saying we just need to verbally guarantee NK's sovereignty and they'll settle down? Or are you saying that ship has already sailed as a result of our invasions of Iraq and Libya?
So, we have two dictators who tried to play ball, and ended up dead. Tell me, given this, if you were in Kim Jong-un's position, would you figure going along were good odds? Or would you fight tooth and nail to get a nuke you could use if they tried to make you the next example?