Kevin Gowen wrote:

> > Do to other security risks and regimes, what they have done in Afghanistan and Iraq.
>
> Are you advocating that?

It seems I always have. If what was done in Afghanistan and Iraq was about allowing people to
enjoy some basic freedoms such as education or suffrage for women, other oppressed people of
the world should enjoy them, too.

> > Why is it not in the best interest of the US to bring the North Korean regime or elements
> > in the Middle East under control?
>
> I don't know what "under control" is supposed to mean. Are you familiar
> with the multilateral diplomatic efforts with NK involving the US,
> Japan, SK, China, and Russia?

And other than some freed Japanese abductees and their relatives, what is the result?

> It seems to me that you are criticizing the US for not handling every
> foreign policy dilemma in the same manner.

That is one way to put it. If the US is so concerned about minimal security risks in Iraq that
they overthrow the government, they should be even more concerned about nuclear weapons and
intercontinental missiles being developed in North Korea before a demonstration.

> >>The US, like every other nation, acts out of self-interest.
> >
> > What? The US behaves like every other nation? So why should they be regarded any
> > differently?
>
> I don't understand what you are asking.

Why should any other country help the US in Iraq or aid Iraq, if it is not in their self
interest, and why are any reluctant nations worthy of US scorn?

--
 "I'm on top of the world right now, because everyone's going to know that I can shove more
than three burgers in my mouth!"