North Korea's attack on South Korea.

[Sasquatch]

ARE YOU SERIOUS!? You're saying 'let them kill eachother'?

How would we stop them from killing each other? Kill them first?

So what happens in the event that North nukes South? If millions die? Morality sets in at some point, surely.

If nuclear weapons are brought into the picture, there would be much more support from the international community to stop them, including (finally) the UN.

What if one of those stray missiles lands on Japan?

... then Japan jumps in and whups their ass, too.

Like it or not this will have an effect on more than just the Koreas. The one good thing about the UN (not just the US) 'policing the world' is that the world does have somebody doing it.

What has the UN done WITHOUT the U.S. in the last, oh, let's go with two decades?

I don't care who does and doesn't agree with me; the only way to stop innocent people dying is by pre-emptive strikes.

When has the UN launched preemptive strikes? How many strikes have they launched against North Korea?

It's all quiet on the Eastern front right now... How long until the whistles of missiles strike again? 160 strikes an hour could hit South Koreas capital. That's too big to ignore. I know I'd be looking to the UN if England was attacked. I wouldn't expect people to say "**** you, deal with your own shit."

You might as well expect people to say "where is America to fight with/for us?" Yes, South Korea's capital would be prettymuch obliterated -- this would happen during any war, regardless of if the UN was involved or not.

I can't understand why people are taking pot-shots at the UN either. You don't see anybody else doing what the do, or try to do. It's the closest thing the word has to a peace force.

The UN does nothing. The U.S. does what the UN is meant to do. You can clearly see that the UN is doing nothing, but instead of bitching that the UN is incompetent, you're bitching that the U.S. is doing the UN's job.

I'm pretty sure that when the UN drops off supplies to war torn countries they don't complain.

Actually they do, because instead of ending the war in those countries, they just drop supplies and say "good luck".

What everyone is overlooking, too, is that if the US supports South then it'll give cause for everybody who hates the US to join hands.

Only if South Korea has more than North Korea for enemies, or if their enemy (North Korea) has multiple allies. Neither of which really applies.

A unity between North Korea and the Arab states we are at war with would bring on a new world war. Like somebody else has said, Aerif I think, I hope they work it out with words. Any other solution could devastate the world. It could be much worse than WWII or any other.

Nah. The Arab states could never launch a large-scale invasion of much territory, or sustain any invasion for long, or state any overseas invasion. Their primary enemies are in Western Europe or the United States, save Israel, of course. And they've already tried wiping Israel off the map -- that didn't go so well for them.

The UN have issued loads of sanctions in the last 50 years.

Hahahahahah, and how many were actually enforced? And the ones that were enforced -- who enforced them?

As for actually taking action with things; most of the UN were involved in the iraq war.

First: Not "most", not by a long shot. Second: Some of the countries themselves were involved, yes, but not the United Nations itself. Third: Many of the countries that did assist did so by lending logistical or territorial support, not by sending troops, and even those that did that only sent a very small number (save UK and U.S., of course). Fourth: Quite a few of the countries you copy-pasted did not have any direct involvement until after the main conflict was over, meaning they went to help rebuild from war and Saddam, not to help oust Saddam.

It all started on the back of what UN inspectors said.

It started on what they said a decade before, and what the United States already knew. The UN didn't do a damn thing about Iraq -- the U.S. said, "we're going in, y'all can help if you want to," and some countries offered assistance.

The U.S. had to do it themselves because the UN is incompetent and refused. Now thirty million people have better lives.

The world doesn't rely on America as much as you seem to want to believe. As I've already said I expect the whole of the UN to be involved in this if it all does flair and spiral out of control.

Why aren't they involved in it already, so that it doesn't spiral out of control? Isn't that what the UN is supposed to be there for?

And the UN does deal with terrorism;

The quote you posted didn't say anything about "dealing with terrorism" -- it prettymuch backed up the line from Team America. What do they do? They say that they're upset. "Strong and unequivocal condemnation" does not mean action.

What is doesn't do is blame the country which they reside in, which is right. If you take Afghanistan, for instance, there are millions of people there that aren't terrorists. They are just people getting on with life. It isn't their fault that Bin Laden was trained by the US, educated by the UK and then unleashed upon the world.

Wrong and wrong. Just like the baseless accusations of Iraq getting biological weapons from the United States. Osama bin Laden was at no time trained, financed, or equipped by the United States. The fighters that were trained by the United States to fight against the Russians were all Afghans -- that was a big deal to them, they did not allow foreigners. bin Laden is not an Afghan. Thus, Osama bin Laden was not trained, financed, or equipped by the United States. This is a simple fact that has been proven countless times.

What really makes that story sad is that he went AWOL because he wanted to help stop the war between Israel and Palestine.

Osama bin Laden did not "want to help stop the war between Israel and Palestine". Whoever told you that is full of shit. What he did want to do is wipe Israel off the map and claim that land for Islam so that Palestine could actually exist -- because Palestine is the name of the land, not the name of any group, country, or organization. Much like "the midwest" is in America. Jewish Palestine exists as the nation of Israel, while Arab Palestine exists as the nation of Jordan.

Wow.

[Alpha]

The UN does nothing. The U.S. does what the UN is meant to do.

The USA does what it has the power to, and what is in "its interests" to do.

The UN attempts to find areas of common ground and mutual/universal support. Would "the UN" (comprised as it is of members of the UN) have invaded Iraq if everyone, bar Iraq and perhaps a few minor states, supported it? Probably. Because there was no such mutual support, the US and UK acted (relatively) unilaterally. I'm not making a judgement on that, but it isn't something the UN was "meant to do", because it does not and should not act without a mandate to.

As long as the USA is the de facto UN, there will be further agitation, as the actions of the USA suit the USA -- it does not need to consider other interests, while the UN must.

So in that sense, do we actually have a common ground in support for a stronger United Nations? (Holds breath.)

Of course, the UN faces the most fundamental problem of international relations: balancing sovereignty. The USA doesn't really have to care.

[Pete]

I still want my question answered.

How would everyone feel if the US went completely isolationist? That means no aid in any circumstances, no support, no troops to watch over global hotspots, absolutely nothing. We just take care of our own business and interests, and everyone else can go screw.

Any takers?

[che]

I still want my question answered.

How would everyone feel if the US went completely isolationist? That means no aid in any circumstances, no support, no troops to watch over global hotspots, absolutely nothing. We just take care of our own business and interests, and everyone else can go screw.

Any takers?

Would not work. If we were to do that, our allies would get pissed, and we'd begin to lose them. We'd lose trade, importing, exporting. We'd fail as a country (even faster than we are now). Ultimately I think we'd feel forced to leave the country to protect ourselves because as one of the best armies in the world, we kind of counter a lot of countries who might want to desperately take action against others. Russia/China would ****ing start wiping out other countries for no reason like it was 1939. As of now we bring the fight elsewhere, instead of fighting it at our borders (for the most part), and a lot of citizens of the U.S. would flip out and be absolutely ignorant if wars were to happen on U.S. territory. Not good.

[Unknown Entity]

I still want my question answered.

How would everyone feel if the US went completely isolationist? That means no aid in any circumstances, no support, no troops to watch over global hotspots, absolutely nothing. We just take care of our own business and interests, and everyone else can go screw.

Any takers?

What chad said. Not only would your trade suffer, but also the trade with the rest of the world. We've all got to eat, and there's nothing more terrifying than a hungry pack.

And what Hyz said makes much more sense, in my opinion. I don't agree with war, and that hand being forced, but I agree with saving lives. Maybe America would have to step in, but from the sounds of things that leads to a war and we really don't need another one of those.

Like I said, America has a huge influence on the world. Maybe they can prevent a war?

[Sasquatch]

The USA does what it has the power to, and what is in "its interests" to do.

And if it's in the United States' interests to free fifty million people from Islamic extremist dictatorship, or to protect the lives and/or freedom of anybody else, what's wrong with that?

The UN attempts to find areas of common ground and mutual/universal support.

It attempts to, yes. Does it? Of course not. And even when they do, what do they do? They write letters telling people how angry they are? They impose sanctions that they don't enforce?

And when the United States doesn't do the UN's work for them, the UN gets together and bitches that the U.S. isn't doing its "fair share". That was exactly the reason Clinton withdrew most support -- if we're going to be doing everything and paying for everything, we're not going to have the same miniscule amount of decision-making power that other countries have.

Would "the UN" (comprised as it is of members of the UN) have invaded Iraq if everyone, bar Iraq and perhaps a few minor states, supported it? Probably.

You mean if certain UN members with veto power had not been conduction under-the-table deals, violating UN sanctions, and trading weapons to Iraq?

That's the kicker with the whole bullshit "blood for oil" argument. Germany, France, and Russia were perfectly happy to not only let the bloodshed continue, but to facilitate it, as long as they were still getting oil that didn't have to be bought and tracked on the open market.

Because there was no such mutual support, the US and UK acted (relatively) unilaterally.

The U.S. and UK acted with 26 other countries' troops, forming a larger coalition than the one that conducted Operation Desert Storm.

As long as the USA is the de facto UN, there will be further agitation, as the actions of the USA suit the USA -- it does not need to consider other interests, while the UN must.

As long as the UN proves itself to be weak and incompetent, the U.S.A. will be forced to be the de facto UN. Somebody's got to do the UN's job, and obviously the UN isn't capable.

So in that sense, do we actually have a common ground in support for a stronger United Nations? (Holds breath.)

Stronger, no. But one that actually acts? Yes. One that acts as a group of united nations, instead of the current and past UN, which only acted to back the United States' actions (when it approved of them)? Yes.

Of course, the UN faces the most fundamental problem of international relations: balancing sovereignty. The USA doesn't really have to care.

I'll give you that. Especially when the most powerful members of the UN see things very differently and have much different interests. But certain situations -- Rwanda, Somalia, Darfur, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. -- should not have that many issues for lacking support.

How would everyone feel if the US went completely isolationist? That means no aid in any circumstances, no support, no troops to watch over global hotspots, absolutely nothing. We just take care of our own business and interests, and everyone else can go screw.

So far, what I get from this topic is "America should keep to itself and stop getting into everybody's business because people dislike it", until you reiterated your question, when it became "America needs to be active all over the world or else people will start disliking it".

I would definitely support a more isolationist policy. Not completely, of course -- at least not suddenly -- but I fully support withdrawing foreign aid from quite a few countries. Hell, Obama is sending foreign aid to at least four countries with known terrorist involvement. I would simply say, "we've got our own problems right now, so we're going to pool our resources and take care of ourselves first." Think of how much money we could save by having our military only where they're needed, or by not throwing away billions of dollars every year to countries that will never like us anyway. Or to other countries that can fend for themselves without our help.

Trade wouldn't take much of a hit. Countries would still trade with us for the trade they receive from us -- they just wouldn't be getting MORE from us. You wouldn't stop shopping at the only supermarket around that gives free samples if they stopped giving free samples, would you? Of course not, because it was the store's prices, capacity, and variety -- not the free samples -- that brought you to shop there in the first place.

But the whole idea of "we need to give money to everybody because without us, they can't afford to feed themselves, because if we didn't, they would somehow have enough money to invade us" is ridiculous.

[Unlucky Rufus]

Like I said, America has a huge influence on the world. Maybe they can prevent a war?

I'm sorry, but force is in many cases the only way to deal with some people in this world. I watched a documentary on escapees from North Korea. They talked in great detail about how things work in North Korea, and let me tell you, it's pretty sad. People there are miserable. In our nations of America and England, we sometimes take our freedom for granted. It's easy to protest war and say "war should never be the answer, there are other ways!!". I guarantee people without our great freedom think differently. We can't always just put sanctions on crooked governments and hope they straighten it up a bit and stop killing innocent civilians. Eventually, you got to take action and make them stop.

[Jin]

I watched a documentary on escapees from North Korea.

Finally there's someone in this thread who's been properly educated on the subject!

You mean if certain UN members with veto power had not been conduction under-the-table deals, violating UN sanctions, and trading weapons to Iraq?

Amen! At least when the US supplied Saddam with weapons, they had the decency not to do it under the table.

[Sasquatch]

Amen! At least when the US supplied Saddam with weapons, they had the decency not to do it under the table.

And they didn't violate any sanctions of organizations that they belonged to, then use their power in that organization to prevent action against Saddam so that they could continue their illegal deals to provide weapons to be used against civilians.

(And please don't tell me that you believe the U.S. supplied Saddam with biological weapons. Conventional weapons, yes.)

[Unlucky Rufus]

In the 80's, Saddam was not the only bad guy in the middle east. Iran was too, and thanks to many insurgencies and boarder disputes against Iraq, he decided to invade them. During that war, Saddam was indeed the lesser of two evils. So the CIA sold him weapons to aid his effort, but in no way did we ally with him.

-And Sasquatch is right, selling those weapons was not against any rules.

[Jin]

I don't recall saying it was against any rules. And I definitely never said the US was allied with Saddam (how the hell did you get that from my post?) I merely said it happened, which is an important thing to remember when touting American intervention as some benevolent act of sacrifice to the world. All countries - America included - are only looking out for themselves and only think in the short term. The US is hardly defending the world because no one else will. People need to stop looking at this as a black and white situation in which America is either a champion of justice or an evil empire. Whether it be the US or the nations of Europe, they're all practitioners of real politik.

[Unlucky Rufus]

I don't recall saying it was against any rules. And I definitely never said the US was allied with Saddam (how the hell did you get that from my post?)

Sorry, i wasn't really going after your post though, i was just trying to clear the air on that one.

[Hyzenthlay]

The UN does nothing. The U.S. does what the UN is meant to do. You can clearly see that the UN is doing nothing, but instead of bitching that the UN is incompetent, you're bitching that the U.S. is doing the UN's job.

Read my post without getting up tight and you'll see that I, in no way, was bitching about the US. I wasn't bitching at all. I was stating that I believe the whole of the UN should be involved, not that the US should or shouldn't. I couldn't give a sh*t what the US did/ does because it isn't my country. I don't see you as a shining knight or a bringer of chaos. I really couldn't care less. This topic is about Korea and I'm saying we (meaning the freakin' UN) should saddle up and do something before more lives are lost. By that, so you don't read into it, it mean that by words or force we need to take action.

You asked how we could stop them; 'by killing them first?'. Yes... Because that's logically what I meant... Obviously if somebody splits up a fight in the street they simply beat the crap out of both perpertrators /sarcasm. My lord. You can end violence with just a presence or words.

As for your point on Bin Laden, I apologise, I read his letter to the US thoroughly today and I see your point. The way I read (in newspapers) previously made it seem that he wanted to end bloodshed. Now that I read it seems he intended to intensify it.

And what Hyz said makes much more sense, in my opinion. I don't agree with war, and that hand being forced, but I agree with saving lives. Maybe America would have to step in, but from the sounds of things that leads to a war and we really don't need another one of those.

Thank you. This is exactly what I'm saying. I really hope things can be sorted out without war too.

All countries - America included - are only looking out for themselves and only think in the short term. The US is hardly defending the world because no one else will. People need to stop looking at this as a black and white situation in which America is either a champion of justice or an evil empire.

Yes.

Hyz

[Unlucky Rufus]

As for your point on Bin Laden, I apologise, I read his letter to the US thoroughly today and I see your point.

We should all take note, thats the way to respond when wrong/mistaken.

Originally Posted by Pete>
How would everyone feel if the US went completely isolationist? That means no aid in any circumstances, no support, no troops to watch over global hotspots, absolutely nothing. We just take care of our own business and interests, and everyone else can go screw.

Lol, well i think the world would end up hating us even more. I know that many people feel that we should mind our own business, but i happen to think those people don't realize some of the good things that the US (and England&Canada) do around the world.

[Rhaps]

The U.S. was an isolated country up until the late 19th century. We did just fine then.
If we look back, when we are connected with the world's issues and whatnot, we always end up in massive recessions, public disapproval, and generally more than we can handle as a country. However, the U.S. managed to do this all before as a fledgling country, so we should be fine now. But if we flipped back to not having ties with the world (although I think this may be impossible due to the massive debts) we may be able to recover and grow again.
On topic, the N. Korea issue may be handled diplomatically. But then again, this is exactly what Vietnam was supposed to be; a diplomatically solved issue. I don't know whether or not a war (conflict sorry) will come of this or not, but if a draft comes on for people aged 18 or older unless you're attending college, does it count if you're in an early college program?