Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Maybe This Helps Explain North Korea's Bluster

In short, things didn't go well for other nations who had given up their weapons to appease the United States. This is not to excuse North Korea acting like a bunch of threatening idiots and not trying to strike a better tone. BUT... I can't help wonder if Kim Jong-un's rational behind his big mouth isn't influenced by some of the past actions United States took against other countries who ended up less fortunate when they tried to somewhat appease the U.S. and got tagged anyway.

Under no certain terms am I agreeing with how North Korea is responding nor that they aren't a threat. But sometimes it may be wise to step back and figure out why the other guy is thinking the way he does. If fear is Kim Jong-un's rational perhaps he could be approached in a much different way then how we approached these other countries.

Again I'm not supporting North Korea's current stance but sometimes scared people shoot first if they feel threatened. Maybe.. just possibly.. a wiser path would be to approach N.K with diplomatic assurances rather then strong arm threats. Like any other animal in the world you'll get further with treats then threatening them with a stick.

Below are a few examples of past policies where we acted in haste where no one was better off for it and things could have turned out far differently.

"The Guardian" (August 2009)
FBI reports describe Saddam Hussein's reasons for refusing UN inspectors
"Saddam Hussein remained preoccupied with the threat from neighboring Iran as the US-led invasion loomed and would have sought a security pact with the US if UN sanctions were lifted, he told an FBI interviewer in his jail cell before his execution....

He said that during the run-up to the US invasion in March 2003, he kept up his bluster about weapons of mass destruction in order to appear strong in front of Iran. Saddam said he believed Iran intended to annex majority Shia areas of southern Iraq, and saw the country as the greatest threat to Iraq. He said he viewed the other Arab countries in the region as weak and unable to defend against an attack from Iran. He said that he refused to allow UN inspectors to re-enter the country not because he still possessed prohibited weapons of mass destruction (he ordered the stock pile destroyed after the 1991 Persian Gulf war) but because he wanted Iran to believe he did."

Wikipedia-Libya U.S. Relations
"After its public announcement of December, 2003, the Gaddafi government cooperated with the U.S., the U.K., the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons toward these objectives. Libya also signed the IAEA Additional Protocol and has become a State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Libyan National Security Adviser Mutassim Gaddafi with Hillary Clinton in 2009: In recognition of these actions, the U.S. began the process of normalizing relations with Libya. The U.S. terminated the applicability of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act to Libya and the President signed an Executive Order on September 20, 2004 terminating the national emergency with respect to Libya and ending IEEPA-based economic sanctions....

Fate of Muammar Gaddafi (October 2011)-- "Finding that while Gaddafi's forces were responsible for numerous war crimes, many other allegations of mass human rights abuses lacked credible evidence and were likely fabrications by rebel forces that had been promoted by Western media.... A Misratan militia took Gaddafi prisoner, beating him, causing serious injuries; the events were filmed on a mobile phone. A video appears to picture Gaddafi being poked or stabbed in the anus "with some kind of stick or knife" or possibly a bayonet. Pulled onto the front of a pick-up truck, he fell off as it drove away. His semi-naked, lifeless body was then placed into an ambulance and taken to Misrata; upon arrival, he was found to be dead.

Wikipedia- Syria U.S Relations
"The Obama administration initiated a policy of rapprochement with Syria. However, with the governments' violent response to the Syrian civil war in 2011, relations have cooled dramatically and senior American officials, including President Obama himself, have repeatedly called for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to resign...

As the situation in Syria deteriorated and the government resorted to increasingly desperate measures to crush the protest movement, Washington's patience flagged, and by mid-August 2011, President Obama stated plainly his belief that Assad should step down.... On 7 April 2017 US missiles destroyed Shayrat Air Base in Homs Governorate which US military claimed to be the base for the aircraft that carried out the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack three days earlier."

So Here It Is In The Nutshell
We're against North Korea, Syria and Iran just as we were Iraq and Libya. The difference was Iraq and Libya were pushovers unlike Syria (with Russia's support), Iran and North Korea with their missiles and nukes. I'm not talking about right or wrong policy or ideologies. What I'm trying to point out some of these nations aren't coming to a gunfight with a knife. Something which is probability not escaping Kim Jong-un's attention. We need to address this with his and other countries. How?

As long as they see us as a threat these issues will never be resolved. Indeed Iran is a threat to Israel and others in the middle east. Syria not as much (they have their own internal struggles). None of these are a direct threat to the United States so long as we don't attack them. So how about this... we play more a role as peacemakers rather then storm troopers in their disagreements with other nations. We have a bad habit of making every other country's problems our own. Nothing wrong with helping out a friend, but we've gone beyond trying to interfere in their own internal problems.

I'll give you other examples where we're sticking our nose in.. Cuba, Venezuela, the Philippines and Somalia each posing little or no threat to our national security. No one appointed us guardians of the world. Sometimes these things have to work themselves out within their countries. Nothing wrong with offering counseling and advice, but I don't see how pointing a gun or nuke at any of them is going to turn out well for anyone.

Just like in personal situations sometimes it's better to avoid getting involved in arguments. Ever try to break up a fight?

No comments:

Post a Comment

COMMENT POLICY: I request they meet the following guidelines. (1) Remain on topic. (2) Be informative (3) Disputing any of the facts or opinions expressed either by myself or another be done in a respectful manner. Personal attacks will not be accepted for publication.