Do governments engaged in stupid, shady clandestine activities? Yes. Probably every one has at one time or another. However, the idea that trading arms with contras is on an equal footing with going to war to impress other terrorist nations is a far reach. In fact, it's in a completely different class of speculation.
Obviously, action/reaction are not on a one to one finite basis. There are always many responses to an action; the variables are there, far more than any game with "rules" like chess. There are no "rules" in this current interaction. The difference this makes is that you simply have to evaluate your information and do what you think is BEST. The other side isn't limited in it's reply to your action.
Yes, it takes change to get people to think outside the box. The invention/use of the machine gun made generals "think outside the box" after WW1. So, what's new? It's always been the "better mousetrap" scenario. Someone is always out there thinking of a "better" way to do something...... including terrorism. The idea that you can always be one step ahead of the bad guys is fatuous.
As for threat of war, that's not a new thing either. If it were, "sabre rattling" wouldn't be a stock phrase. Yes, NK is "sabre rattling". Now, you can roll over and give them what they want immediately. What future effect do you think that will have on their behavior. Goes back to what I said earlier. You evaluate your options and do what you think is right.
I think conceding to lunatic dictators that threaten war and have a few nukes is a sure policy for future disaster. You may feel appeasement is the best policy. Historically, that doesn't seem to be true.
Sir Winston Churchill
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Your Iraq scenario falls on the head of April Glaspie. Do you have any evidence that she spoke correctly for Bush or that she simply did not make a diplomatic screw-up of incredible proportions? In short, do you have anything that shows
Bush directed Glaspie to say what she said? As you pointed out earlier, lots of wars have started because of stupid "misunderstandings" like Glaspie's extremely poor choice of words.
Face? Well, let's see here. NK is threatening war and that war will primarily affect it's neighbors. SK, Japan, China, USSR for the most part. Should they use their nukes, the resultant problems will be the most serious for these countries. Now, who understands "face" better than the US? I'd suggest SK, Japan and China? Seems to me that if this is a really serious problem, they better get REAL involved.
As I pointed out, the US isn't acting against NK. Au contraire, we're simply not interacting with them. We're handling the situation in the way we deem best, IE: don't submit to blackmail from lunatic dictators. Pretty good policy, IMO.
Any harm that comes to NK from not honoring their treaty is self-inflicted. Again, they violated the treaty almost immediately. So you want to deal submissively to a greater extent with this lying lunatic?
Yah, "sticking to your guns" and expecting people to honor a treaty just doesn't work in global affairs. What works, what really, really works, is allowing people to disregard treaties, is submitting to blackmail from dishonest leaders, is appeasing dictators. Gotcha.
Mutual Assured Destruction? Well, was their a nuke war? Like I said, you evaluate the information, look at your options and do what you think is best. During the "Cold War" years there was a massive buildup of nukes on both sides. Was there a nuke war? Hmmmmmm... must have worked. Then times change, re-evaluation occurs, better mousetraps are built and the party keeps right on going.
If they didn't know there would be repercussions, they WERE stupid. However, I suspect they knew exactly what they were doing. They are testing the limits. They need fuel and food and they need them for free. Can a few nukes deliver the bounty if you rattle them?
Here's a tinfoil hat game theory for you. China is using NK to regain Taiwan. NK is pretty much a client state of China and dependent upon Chinese goodwill. At the last moment China will step in, resolve the NK issue and the quid pro quo is the US removing its guarantee of protection from Taiwan. Just as likely as any of your "maybes" so far.
Yet isn't this the same kind of thinking and bargaining that the US governement has in giving farm subsidies to farmers for not planting a certain crop!
Easy to keep overlooking that one little niggling detail, isn't it?
A farmer gets paid not to plant corn. He takes the money; he plants corn anyway. What do you think happens when he gets caught trying to sell it?
Less intelligent than your leaders? I don't know; I think it's on an individual basis. Who are your leaders? For example, I think the US folks thought the Taliban were incredibly stupid; SH as well. I think we respect the leaders of what, for lack of a better term, are "reputable" countries. Countries that can sign a treaty and keep their word, for instance.
I think we all think KJI in NK is incredibly stupid. This is because while the US may not fully grasp the concept of "face" in Asia, it's also clear that many in Asia do not full grasp the concept of "resolve" in the US. Which is the greater failing?
I've said I think Bush is correct in not giving in to NK blackmail and requiring the "local" nations to be involved in the discussions with NK.
What's your solution? All I see so far is appeasement and you must have more than that.
