News NK Attack on SK: International Community Response Needed

[DanP]

I know there are very few wars in the past century that the United States didn't stick its nose in, but there were a few. Whenever a war breaks out on the other side of the world, you can't just jump into the fight because "what if one of them decides to attack us?" That's a horrible reason to go to war.

But you do jump for geopolitical control. Its reason enough to jump in any war whatsoever.

 

[Newai]

Very clever to use the term "axis powers" to conflate the war in Europe with Japan attacking us. Hope you didn't pull any muscles during that stretch.

It doesn't matter. But I can deflate it:

People were saying the same about the Second Sino-Japanese War.

How about all of the wars we didn't get involved in and DIDN'T get attacked? I know there are very few wars in the past century that the United States didn't stick its nose in, but there were a few. Whenever a war breaks out on the other side of the world, you can't just jump into the fight because "what if one of them decides to attack us?" That's a horrible reason to go to war.

I don't see how this addresses my comment.

 

[DanP]

Different political geography, new problems, possibly more than a few tens of thousands of deaths, families broken, children sold and exploited... Oh wait, that's the success story of Iraq.

Nothing solved.

Change shouldn't scare anyone. And yes, Middle east is a success story.

 

[Jack21222]

I don't see how this addresses my comment.

The only point that can be drawn from your comment, as far as I can tell, is "Once, we didn't preemptively jump in a foreign war and then we were attacked. Therefore, we must jump in every war so we don't get attacked."

If that wasn't your point, please clarify.

If that was your point, I provided a set of counterexamples; wars where we didn't jump in and weren't subsequently attacked.

Different political geography, new problems, possibly more than a few tens of thousands of deaths, families broken, children sold and exploited... Oh wait, that's the success story of Iraq.

Nothing solved.

Why do you support another "success story" like Iraq in North Korea then?

 

[Evo]

No, we planted a dozen or so.

We have bases in S Korea because of attacks by N Korea in 1950.

 

[Newai]

The only point that can be drawn from your comment, as far as I can tell, is "Once, we didn't preemptively jump in a foreign war and then we were attacked. Therefore, we must jump in every war so we don't get attacked."

If that wasn't your point, please clarify.

I spoke only of involvement. That doesn't mean to get right in there and fire our cannons at every target.

Why do you support another "success story" like Iraq in North Korea then?

I don't. What do you mean?

 

[Newai]

Change shouldn't scare anyone. And yes, Middle east is a success story.

I'll pull out of this segment for the sake of keeping this thread on target. Maybe a separate thread?

 

[CAC1001]

Completely disagree. We are not a superpower,

Yes we are. We have been the superpower for the last few decades since the Soviet Union collapsed. When the USSR dissolved, it was seen by some that the U.S. would become just one nation amongst many other nations, all fairly equal. Instead, a unipolar world formed where you had the USA as the sole dominant superpower, and everyone else.

It was predicted that this period of American "hegemony" if you will, would only last for a few decades however, probably due to the rise of other nations such as China. But even if that becomes the case, the U.S. will still remain a major superpower.

and we have no obligation to try and "keep peace." Where does this supposed "obligation" come from?

We have an obligation to protect free peoples around the world from bullies. Really, the free world overall has this obligation to protect the other free nations. If a liberal democracy is being bullied by some dictatorship, the free world has an obligation to do their best to protect it and aid it.

Also, what is the definition of "superpower," and why does the US qualify?

I don't know if there's a specific definition, but considering the U.S. has the biggest and most influential economy, strongest military, everyone pays attention to who our President is, what we do, look to us for leadership on issues, etc...

I also disagree about the bases. How would you like a South Korean military base in Kansas? A German military base in Florida? A Kuwaiti military base in California? It's incredibly arrogant for the United States to just plant bases in other peoples countries.

The U.S. doesn't just "plant" bases. If a country tells us to leave, we will. Our base in South Korea is because of North Korea attacking the South as Evo mentioned. Our base in Japan is because we stayed in Japan after World War II to rebuild and then because of the Cold War. Our base in Germany was similar, because after WWII we helped rebuild and also the Cold War.

There was a point in this country's history where we didn't even keep a standing army in our own country. Now we keep a standing army during peacetime in other peoples countries.

That was back during the 19th century when the British Empire was the primary world superpower and the U.S. could piggyback off of the military security they provided (at least when we weren't fighting them). It was also back before things like nuclear weapons, machine guns, battle tanks, and so forth.

Not having a standing military and proper equipment caused us to un-uncessarilly get our butts handed to us to a degree early in WWII and I think even WWI.

After WWII, we had the threat of the Soviet Union. You have to maintain a permanent standing military and constantly develop new weapons and technologies with such a threat, otherwise you'll end up dangerously behind should war ever have broken out.

And I pay for it with my taxes. Wonderful.

Your taxes paid for a military that contributed enormously to our economic growth over the years while also keeping the Soviet Union at bay.

 

[DanP]

And I pay for it with my taxes. Wonderful.

Actually, you do not pay anything. You owe the state taxes as a effect of a social contract.
What the state does with the revenue from the tax, it is not anymore your business. They are not your money, to haggle how they are spent. You just payed your debt.

If you are unhappy with how the government spends the budget, you can always change your electoral options in several years, and hope that the new representatives will fare better.

 

[Jack21222]

We have bases in S Korea because of attacks by N Korea in 1950.

Right. We planted bases in S. Korea because of attacks by N. Korea in 1950. I fail to see the contradiction. Perhaps there is another definition for "planted" that I'm unaware of. To me, it means "placed."

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

You build a base, not place one. You are trying to make it seem as if these bases are there against the host nations will.

 

[Evo]

Right. We planted bases in S. Korea because of attacks by N. Korea in 1950. I fail to see the contradiction. Perhaps there is another definition for "planted" that I'm unaware of. To me, it means "placed."

The difference is the way you posted it was infering we built bases illegally, and/or without the approval of the International community.

Your post

I also disagree about the bases. How would you like a South Korean military base in Kansas? A German military base in Florida? A Kuwaiti military base in California? It's incredibly arrogant for the United States to just plant bases in other peoples countries.

There was a point in this country's history where we didn't even keep a standing army in our own country. Now we keep a standing army during peacetime in other peoples countries.

Bolding mine.

Want to explain why it's arrogant to protect countries that we have alliances with?

 

[Jack21222]

The difference is the way you posted it was infering we built bases illegally, and/or without the approval of the International community.

Your postBolding mine.

Want to explain why it's arrogant to protect countries that we have alliances with?

Because as far as I know, we're the only country who does it, and I don't think the American people would like it if our government consented to, say, a South Korean military base in our borders. I believe we were upset when the Soviet Union planted, if not bases, missiles, in Cuba. Sure, they were allies, but it was right in our back yard.

Maybe arrogance isn't the right word, but I get a sense of "it's alright when *we* do it" about stationing military personnel in over 100 countries around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military

I just don't think we'd take too kindly if China had military in so many countries.

 

[Astronuc]

Some possible insight - Tensions on the Korean peninsula: What you need to know
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101123/ts_yblog_thelookout/tensions-on-the-korean-peninsula-what-you-need-to-know

I certainly haven't verified any of that article, so reader beware.


The US has had a strategic interest in the Western Pacific since 1940-1945, and 1950-1953, the latter being the Korean War. There is a practical interest in maintaining a peace.

I recommend reviewing the last 600 years of history of the nations in that area, and then compare that period with the last 60 years with US presence.

 

[mheslep]

Right. We planted bases in S. Korea because of attacks by N. Korea in 1950. I fail to see the contradiction. Perhaps there is another definition for "planted" that I'm unaware of. To me, it means "placed."

The statement was "we planted", as in the United States alone installed the bases in S.K. without collaboration from S.K. They were not; the bases were installed with collaboration and allocation of land and other resources by S.K.

 

[mheslep]

DanP: sorry I didn't sign up for that particular social contract.

 

[Newai]

Because as far as I know, we're the only country who does it, and I don't think the American people would like it if our government consented to, say, a South Korean military base in our borders. I believe we were upset when the Soviet Union planted, if not bases, missiles, in Cuba. Sure, they were allies, but it was right in our back yard.

Maybe arrogance isn't the right word, but I get a sense of "it's alright when *we* do it" about stationing military personnel in over 100 countries around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military

I just don't think we'd take too kindly if China had military in so many countries.

Apples and oranges. SK has no reason to build one here. And we don't need their help here exactly. But if we were their size with a highly aggressive neighbor, and SK had the power we do, then I would bet the people in the US here would have no problem with SK "planting" a base in our back yard.

 

[Evo]

Because as far as I know, we're the only country who does it, and I don't think the American people would like it if our government consented to, say, a South Korean military base in our borders. I believe we were upset when the Soviet Union planted, if not bases, missiles, in Cuba. Sure, they were allies, but it was right in our back yard.

You need to do some research before you post again in this thread. The US is not the only country with foreign bases.

Also, are you being silly on purpose when you ask why the US does not need small countries (especially ones we are protecting) to protect our mainland?

 

[CAC1001]

Because as far as I know, we're the only country who does it, and I don't think the American people would like it if our government consented to, say, a South Korean military base in our borders. I believe we were upset when the Soviet Union planted, if not bases, missiles, in Cuba. Sure, they were allies, but it was right in our back yard.

Maybe arrogance isn't the right word, but I get a sense of "it's alright when *we* do it" about stationing military personnel in over 100 countries around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military

I just don't think we'd take too kindly if China had military in so many countries.

I think you are confusing establishing formal colonies with establishing military bases with the host countries' cooperation and permission. It is not okay when we do the former. The latter is fine.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Because as far as I know, we're the only country who does it, and I don't think the American people would like it if our government consented to, say, a South Korean military base in our borders. I believe we were upset when the Soviet Union planted, if not bases, missiles, in Cuba. Sure, they were allies, but it was right in our back yard.

Your analogy is also terrible. You're saying that South Korea is upset because we're hijacking their country for a military base. The Soviet Union/Cuba analogy would require you to point out how upset Cuba was with the USSR. Our being upset with the Soviet Union would be similar to how North Korea feels about the military bases in South Korea. Unfortunately for North Korea though, we don't really care all that much what they think and they don't have a whole lot of power over the situation.

 

[WhoWee]

Some possible insight - Tensions on the Korean peninsula: What you need to know
[PLAIN]http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101123/ts_yblog_thelookout/tensions-on-the-korean-peninsula-what-you-need-to-know

I certainly haven't verified any of that article, so reader beware.


The US has had a strategic interest in the Western Pacific since 1940-1945, and 1950-1953, the latter being the Korean War. There is a practical interest in maintaining a peace.

I recommend reviewing the last 600 years of history of the nations in that area, and then compare that period with the last 60 years with US presence.

From the article...

[PLAIN]http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101123/ts_yblog_thelookout/tensions-on-the-korean-peninsula-what-you-need-to-know


"Some analysts have linked Tuesday's action by the North to the impoverished nation's need for food. The Obama administration has refused to remove sanctions against the North, imposed in response to its nuclear program. "They see that they can't pressure Washington, so they've taken South Korea hostage again," Choi Jin-wook, a senior researcher with the South Korean Institute for National Unification, told the New York Times. "They're in a desperate situation, and they want food immediately, not next year.""

This is what happens when the people don't have a voice.

 

[mheslep]

Whitehouse - China needs to step up:

A White House official tells ABC News that the U.S. is going to spend a great deal of effort trying to get China to take a more “robust” stand against North Korea’s actions.

“We need to send a strong signal to the Chinese that they need to stand up to North Korea,” the official says, adding that Russia’s statement condemning this attack was much stronger than after the North Koreans sank the ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772) in March 2010.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/11/white-house-official-china-needs-to-do-more-us-south-korea-joint-military-exercises-possible-in-comi.html

And from China: nothing.

SEOUL, Nov. 23 (Yonhap) -- In a meeting with South Korea's foreign minister on Tuesday, the top Chinese envoy in Seoul refrained from elaborating on his country's position concerning a North Korean artillery attack that killed two South Korean marines, an official here said.

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2010/11/23/33/0301000000AEN20101123014100315F.HTML

I think encouraging Japan to go nuclear and possibly providing tactical nuclear weapons to S.K. is the only think likely to get the Chinese to finally turn off the tap to N. Korea.

 

[mugaliens]

It seems like a territorial dispute that is looking for any excuse to be settled militarily.

Unfortunately, we're on the third generation of N. Korean generals since the uneasy truce began in this Korean War, and the current crop hasn't a clue as to the ravages of war, nor how badly beaten the North was before we pulled back south to the DMZ.

 

[Office_Shredder]

, nor how badly beaten the North was before we pulled back south to the DMZ.

You mean before we were routed by China and forced to retreat?

 

[WhoWee]

You mean before we were routed by China and forced to retreat?

Are you suggesting the US should have engaged China fully?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Are you suggesting the US should have engaged China fully?

No, I'm suggesting we remember history accurately. Why should North Korea look back on the Korean war and tremble at our military might, when it's very possible the exact same scenario of China entering a war if we start one will happen again?

 

[WhoWee]

No, I'm suggesting we remember history accurately. Why should North Korea look back on the Korean war and tremble at our military might, when it's very possible the exact same scenario of China entering a war if we start one will happen again?

I think a second Korean War would be China's worst nightmare. It would disrupt their economy and any aggression towards the US on their part would certainly impede their (economic) growth in the West.

The N Korean puppet dance provides China leverage and frames their importance - war would paint them in a different light.

 

[DaveC426913]

Ok, a little bit of not following the news mixed with a bit of being Canadian, but...

I thought this was a post about someone nuking Saskatchewan...

 

[BobG]

It makes a whole world of difference. Coupled by the fact that they are (for the 3rd time) in a war with each other still.

I dislike North Korea for many reasons but I'm not going to let that bias my judgement in a situation. If South Korea wants to invade and conquer North Korea go for it but if North Korea is defending itself and standing it's ground even in for 'exercise' don't expect me to cry foul play.

As well no civilians were killed just 2 soldiers (in South Korea) so if any civilians DID die it would be North Koreans from the artillery exchange that occurred from the south. So this how it went:

South Korea planned a military exercise in known disputed territory.
North Korea says no, do not conduct a military exercise in this territory.
South Korea says, lol stop me and conducts their exercise which involved firing of weapons in said disputed territory.
North Korea retaliates against South Korea.
South Korea retaliates against North Korea for it's retaliation.

People died. Now if we go all the way back from who was wrong who was right the first wrong which started everything was South Korea conducting the exercise in the disputed territory after being told not to.

You bet your bottom dollar that if America had some disputed territory with another nation and was at war with that nation and that nation conducted a military exercise in the water that the American army would **** those people up. Straight away.

If the territory is disputed, then both sides are claiming the territory belongs to them. In other words, your sequence should be restated:

South Korea planned a military exercise in S Korean territory.
North Korea says no, do not conduct a military exercise in N Korean territory.
South Korea says this is S Korean territory and we can do what we please in our own territory.
North Korea retaliates against South Korea.
South Korea retaliates against North Korea for it's retaliation.

If one conducts military exercises in disputed territories, they shouldn't be shocked if the other side reacts. On the other hand, not conducting military exercises there is a concession that the other side does have some legitimate claim.

 

[zomgwtf]

Ok I agree BobG. Thanks that does make it much clearer for those asking for evidence supporting that this is N Korean territory. I don't feel I need to provide evidence to support this as N Korea made it clear that it felt that was it's territory. (it's even mentioned in the original article)

And no it's not a simple 'claim everything is their territory' I am pretty sure this area is well known disputed territory.

 

[jobyts]

You need to do some research before you post again in this thread. The US is not the only country with foreign bases.

To correct Jack21222's argument, US is the only country to have placed nuclear weapons on the foreign bases. Many countries have military bases in foreign countries.

 

[WhoWee]

To correct Jack21222's argument, US is the only country to have placed nuclear weapons on the foreign bases. Many countries have military bases in foreign countries.

Nothing like a stroll down memory lane...
http://www.history-timelines.org.uk/events-timelines/04-cuban-missile-crisis-timeline.htm

 

[zomgwtf]

Nothing like a stroll down memory lane...
http://www.history-timelines.org.uk/events-timelines/04-cuban-missile-crisis-timeline.htm

Cuba still has Russian missiles? This is a legit question.

Anyways that's kind of the point I believe Jack is making. Look at the fit that USA had when it found out that Cuba had Russian missiles. It should be expected that other countries will act similar when they have American missiles/bases close by.

But he was wrong in saying that USA is the only nation to put military bases in other countries for a mutual benefit. Even Canada has military bases overseas.

 

[WhoWee]

Cuba still has Russian missiles? This is a legit question.

Anyways that's kind of the point I believe Jack is making. Look at the fit that USA had when it found out that Cuba had Russian missiles. It should be expected that other countries will act similar when they have American missiles/bases close by.

But he was wrong in saying that USA is the only nation to put military bases in other countries for a mutual benefit. Even Canada has military bases overseas.

I agree with your overview. As for a base, a very mobile nuclear armed sub makes the whole discussion irrelevant.

 

[mheslep]

The S.K. military drills, to which N.K. say they were responding, were apparently not held on Yeonpyeong Island. N.K. chose unilaterally to fire on Y. Island where it's well known that a couple thousand civilians reside.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/opinion/24wed1.html?_r=1

 

[Gokul43201]

So even if they are not legally at fault, it seems like the RoK is at least partly to blame for jump-starting this mess. They go about on some kind of exhibition of bravado (albeit one which they are well within their rights to do) and essentially spit on the ground near a rabid dog. DPRK reacts in a completely unreasonable manner, as rabid dogs are won't to do, by shelling an island of villagers!

Clearly an avoidable situation.

 

[drankin]

So even if they are not legally at fault, it seems like the RoK is at least partly to blame for jump-starting this mess. They go about on some kind of exhibition of bravado (albeit one which they are well within their rights to do) and essentially spit on the ground near a rabid dog. DPRK reacts in a completely unreasonable manner, as rabid dogs are won't to do, by shelling an island of villagers!

Clearly an avoidable situation.

That's kind of like saying I should be partly to blame for being mugged if I go to an ATM machine. I could have clearly avoided the situation by not going to the machine in the first place.

Military exercises are just that. SK was practicing artillery strikes. Sure, it was a show of force but there were no NK targets. I would argue that it was not a provocation. It was not intended to draw fire from NK.

 

[Gokul43201]

That's kind of like saying I should be partly to blame for being mugged if I go to an ATM machine. I could have clearly avoided the situation by not going to the machine in the first place.

That's a poor analogy. This is more like you driving past all the ATMs in your neighborhood and deciding to use to the one in Chinatown ... while wearing this T-shirt (which, of course, you are fully within your rights to do).

RoK has a lot of water on all sides to shoot into. Are we supposed to believe that their decision to fire shells right outside the DPRK coastline was not meant to provoke a reaction?

Let's not create a false dichotomy here. There's nothing inconsistent about denouncing DPRK's barbaric response, while also scolding RoK for their immaturity.

 

[mheslep]

Gokul - I think the better analogy is posting armed Immigration agents at the US border, which is also seen as provocative (by Mexico), but necessary unless the US effectively cedes the border.

In the case of the Koreas, the S.K. border area military exercises such as they are (lobbing a few rounds from a few guns), pose zero actual military threat of invasion to N.K. What they do accomplish is signal that the S.K. is fully sovereign over the territory, and will protect it if invaded. If S.K. decides to never do any military exercises in the areas that are in fact theirs by international law but disputed by the nut across the border, shrinking back to the South so as not to offend, then in all likelihood they effectively cede the disputed territory to the nut. Yes border exercises can be seen as provocative when living next to a desperate nut, but to draw a border line in these conditions, and then not toe up to the line, is no border at all.

 

[zomgwtf]

I never stated that the island that NK shot was disputed territory, the area which the SK conducted its exercise WAS though. So I find South Korea to blame in all of this.

Although North Koreas reaction was pretty extreme. Everyone is concentrated on South Korea needing to 'prove the territory is its' so why can't the North respond to attacks to defend its claim?

 

[Newai]

Why does it matter? If we're talking rights here, Dear Leader Kim Jong-il is the bad boy who should have shells flying his way. You want to argue over this volley during war, when it's clear just where the wrong side of the line is?

 

[mheslep]

Given the recent https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3000434&postcount=29", SK has demonstrated restraint in the extreme. So:

So even if they are not legally at fault, it seems like the RoK is at least partly to blame for jump-starting this mess.

no I disagree,

They go about on some kind of exhibition of bravado (albeit one which they are well within their rights to do) and essentially spit on the ground near a rabid dog. DPRK reacts in a completely unreasonable manner, as rabid dogs are won't to do, by shelling an island of villagers!

Clearly an avoidable situation.

and no, not by SK anyway.

 

[zomgwtf]

Why does it matter? If we're talking rights here, Dear Leader Kim Jong-il is the bad boy who should have shells flying his way. You want to argue over this volley during war, when it's clear just where the wrong side of the line is?

Then fly shells his way? Just don't say it's their fault when they fight back. That's stupid talk.

If you want to prod them and they shoot back that's your fault, entirely. If you want to attack them YOU bear the responsibility not North Korea.

 

[Gokul43201]

It's not clear to me if the shells fired by RoK landed in RoK territorial waters also claimed by DPRK, or if they landed in international waters near the DPRK coast, and I think that makes a difference. I've been thinking it was the latter.

Nevertheless, I just read that RoK in fact informed DPRK about the exercise in advance, so in my eyes, that absolves them of essentially all the immaturity I claimed they exhibited, with just a little room for doubt, pending clarification to the query raised in the paragraph above.

 

[mheslep]

I never stated that the island that NK shot was disputed territory, the area which the SK conducted its exercise WAS though. So I find South Korea to blame in all of this.

Although North Koreas reaction was pretty extreme. Everyone is concentrated on South Korea needing to 'prove the territory is its' so why can't the North respond to attacks to defend its claim?

SK has nothing to prove regards borders. The territory belongs to the them from the armistice in the last century. SK fails to actively show sovereignty over the territory, and NK thugs will grab it, as thugs do. That's hardly bravado, given several hundred dead SK sailors this year already. Next we'd see Seoul as 'disputed' territory, and such a forecast is not hyperbole. Denying that history demonstrates further aggression as the likely outcome of shrinking back to the South would be the hyperbole.

 

[Newai]

Then fly shells his way? Just don't say it's their fault when they fight back. That's stupid talk.

If you want to prod them and they shoot back that's your fault, entirely. If you want to attack them YOU bear the responsibility not North Korea.

You can call it prodding. But it is a war. And given what their Dear Leader is, that's a responsibility I wouldn't lose sleep over.

 

[russ_watters]

That's a poor analogy. This is more like you driving past all the ATMs in your neighborhood and deciding to use to the one in Chinatown ... while wearing this T-shirt (which, of course, you are fully within your rights to do).

RoK has a lot of water on all sides to shoot into. Are we supposed to believe that their decision to fire shells right outside the DPRK coastline was not meant to provoke a reaction?

Let's not create a false dichotomy here. There's nothing inconsistent about denouncing DPRK's barbaric response, while also scolding RoK for their immaturity.

it would only be reasonable to call it an 'immature provacation' if it wasn't an entirely normal/ordinary occurrence. Your characterization is unreasonable. Heck, us and the Russians are STILL doing that kind of thing, 20 years after the cold war ended!

 

[Gokul43201]

it would only be reasonable to call it an 'immature provacation' if it wasn't an entirely normal/ordinary occurrence. Your characterization is unreasonable. Heck, us and the Russians are STILL doing that kind of thing, 20 years after the cold war ended!

I haven't yet found an article that tells me enough about the exercise, or indicates that it was a normal occurrence. Do you have a link for me to read? The article that mh linked upthread seemed to suggest quite the opposite:

The attack on Yeonpyeong Island occurred after South Korean forces on exercises fired test shots into waters near the North Korean coast. We hope South Korea’s president is asking who came up with that idea. ​

 

[Astronuc]

NKorea warns region is on brink of war
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_clash

Some background/analysis

Why border hot-spot is Korean War relic
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11839284?OCID=fbwin

 

[leroyjenkens]

Why does the US attack Iraq merely on the suspicion of having WMD's and enriching uranium, but doesn't attack North Korea when we know they have WMD's and we know they're enriching uranium and they're attacking our allies?