Originally posted by Wien_Sean:This is not 1930's style Diplomacy, this is the emergence of a new order. They are trying to go after the sources of terrorism rather than use total military might. The problem is, unlike the 1930 what we are fighting cannot be nailed down to individual states. We can no longer blame terrorism and terrorist activities on single states. Unlike pervious threats to the US, and moreover freedom and liberty in general, this one does not have a single face like the Nazis or the USSR did. The EU is working on a system of cooperation with governments, you think it's the appeasement of Chamberlain, I think it is the only way forward.
Good luck with that.
Originally posted by Wien_Sean: How do you use military deterrence against a country like N. Korea that is clearly not deterred by the US and could not care less about what the rest of the world think? Do you think we should invade a country like N. Korea? How do you deal with threats in a new system with old methods that seem heavy handed at best when dealing with these threats? You cannot simply say "this is how all of civilization dealt with it, therefore it must be right", sure there is a place for military might but it should not be what leads our diplomacy.
North Korea is quite the bear. I do hope and believe that situation (created by Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright) can be solved without the use of force. But that doesn't mean we should eliminate force from our list of options, which is what you're suggesting.
