[Atrocities]

All because Israel and the IS , both non-dictatorial and democratic nation, allegedly have the bomb, doens't justify NK having it. I am sorry but I cannot agree with the logic behind the concept that all because Israel has the "bomb" that so should NK.

Neither Israel nor the US have ever attempted to black mail the world with nuclear weapons.

Inspect everybody, or inspect nobody.

This too is just simply flawed logic. Again the US, France, and other democratic free nations who have nuclear weapons technology and devices are subject to international rules regarding atomic and nuclear power. However none of these nations, including India and Pakastand, have not threatened to black mail the world. While Russa may have sold weapons and technology and cannot account for much of the old Soviet arsnal, they have never black mailed any one. Both NK and Iran are considered rouge nations and viewed by most of the world as being capable of using nuclear weapons, if they have them, for terroristic purposes. They are also most likely to sell the technology and or weapons themselves to terrorist with the intent and before hand knowledge that these terrorist intend to use them to attack a population base of another country.

As for North Korea being a bully, how many soldiers do they have stationed outside their own borders? How many does the US have?

The US is a super power and a founding member of the UN. Of course it stands to reason that the US would have troops abroud. The US has interest and responsibilities throughout the world. I am perplexed as to why any one would make the arguement that all because NK doesn't have troops out side its own boarders, that the US shouldn't either. I wonder if any one who asserts this belief is truly informed as to world afairs and history? I should also point out that the UN looks to the US more often than not as the worlds police force because we are an economic and military super power. Right or wrong, that is the state of world affairs.

What gives the USA the right to give orders to other countries?

I don't think the US has any right to give orders to another country. However as such, I also am unware of the US ever, out side of war, issuing order to another country. Could you please post some specific examples of instances where the US Government has had no right to give orders to other countries?

The US has said repeatedly that it intends to "end" the North Korean state. Any North Korean leader would be irresponsible for NOT taking any steps necessary to ensure his survival. MAYBE "THEY" ARE SCARED OF "US."

I am sorry but I don't believe that this is an accurate statement. Could you please provide specific quotes and include the officials name who has said that the US should "end" the NK state? I believe that you might possibly be paraphrasing official comments about seeking regime change and could possibly be simply missinturpting the comment or perhaps taking it out of context. Again I can only ask you to clearify your comment.

You right, any dictator that is in fear of loosing his power would want to shore up his ability too keep said power. That is a fair observation of what Kim Jong-il has done.

The North Koreans have long pressed for direct talks with the US. Why not talk to them directly then?

Our Government did hold direct talks with NK throught the 90's and Kim Jong-il and his government flat out lied to us and broke the treaty agreement. They played the US humilating our government and the people who took them at face value. NK just want's to try and play the US again by demanding one on one talks. Fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice, shame on us. No, six party talks are the really the only way to insure that NK follows it agreements and its agreed upon obligations under the treaties it signs.


edit:

Anyway, you guys can flame me if you want, but I'm not returning to this thread to read them.

I don't believe, nor would I accept the behavior of any member flaming anyone for their opinion in an open minded discussion about any topic. However it has been my experience that people who believe that their opinions are going to spark flames, and then state that they do not intend to return, feel that their POV is too weak to defend and don't want to answer the questions that said POV brings up. That is a shame, as most post simply help a discussion broaden the perspective of those who are participating in the discussion.