Can we pay China with a debt consolidation loan from India?
What?
What if we were to go back to the gold standard? That would certainly help our poorly performing dollar.
Or, we could sell our children into slavery ... oh, wait ... that is what we are already doing.Can we pay China with a debt consolidation loan from India?
What?
Buh? Is this a news article or rhetoric?
What really surprises me is the american tendency to revisit old wars. First up was Iraq II. Then, not having spent enough money there, the US of A felt that maybe they could show the russians how war is done by going back into Afghanistan after the Soviets gave up in the 80s. What would REALLY be perfect is a revisit to the Korean war too, all at the same time. I mean, the results weren't perfect back then, so why wouldn't things improve now? And then, as front #4 and #5, I would suggest a return to Vietnam (wouldn't that be just beautiful?) and maybe even a newcomer in the war business, how about Burma? Oh, right, Stallone killed those black-hearted villains dead in Rambo IV.
All this would of course be in preparation for the big war against Iran, and THEN, the US would be strong enough to take on Russia and China, why not at the same time? Just think of the GOOD the US could do if it really applied itself!
Seriously, guys, keep dreaming.
Or, we could sell our children into slavery ... oh, wait ... that is what we are already doing.Can we pay China with a debt consolidation loan from India?
What?
Way off topic: I consider myself a moderate and I only speak for myself here, but it is alarmist statements like that which turns me off to a certain elephant. Not that the donkey does not make his own crazy statements. If either party were to stop exaggerating facts, I might be able to take them more seriously. Just a bit of advice.
|
One thing I have noticed in this thread is that people have consistently brought up preemptive war, which at this point I have only seen mentioned by the people opposing it and North Korea. Let us put things in perspective here. North Korea engaged in an act of war by sinking the vessel of another nation in that nation's territorial waters. Although North Korea disputes that fact, the international community is pretty much in agreement that this is what happened. After all the North Koreans only recently owned up to kidnapping citizens of other nations.
So what has been the international communities response to this provocative action? They have called for sanctions on North Korea, which is the best route to go in this situation. Other than Kim Jun-Il, the North Korean government has been seemingly moving to a more moderate stance, including opening reunification talks with South Korea. Sanctions could very well speed up the process of replacing Kim with someone who is more open to reforms and reunification.
North Korea is a unique case in that because a large percentage of it's population still lives a subsistence agricultural existence largely without modern technology, sanctions would mostly harm the people who we are trying to harm, the military and ruling elite, without too much disruption or harm to the people of the country.
However, we must ask ourselves two questions. The first is what do we do if North Korea's political-military establishment carries through with it's threats and launches a full scale military strike against South Korea, and possibly Japan and the United States. The medium range missiles that North Korea has been building have the range to reach Japan, and in theory could even reach Alaska. So I ask, if we are attacked first will you support the use of force in response to that attack?
The second question is more philosophical in nature. In the Deceleration of Independence, one of the founding documents of the United States, it is stated that all men have an innate right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The question that we then face is do we believe that this truly is the right of all men or is it a right that only those with the good fortune the be born or move to the Western Democratic world enjoy? If we do believe the former, what steps are appropriate to take in promoting such an ideal? If we believe the later, why do we believe so?
Just some random thoughts I had while reading the responses here.
I do believe all people should have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, I do not believe it is practical for the US to enforce that idea. I believe all people should have sufficient nutrition. Should we also ensure the world is fed?
Unfortunately, we must pick our battles.
I've always been a fan of dropping a 5 ton nickle/iron slug from orbit.
That said, As David points out, it wouldn't be pre-emptive war since NK fired first.
Of course, it technically wasn't pre-emptive war with Iraq, but no one likes to mention that...
That's a pretty considerable technicality...
Something ridiculous is that my paper put this story on the back page. On the front page was a very important story about how the fire department was selling a jeep.
I must have missed something. When did Iraq attack the US? You seem to be mentioning that just to make a point.
Actually, the North Korean population is so indoctrinated that they honestly believe that N. Korea is the best and most powerful country in the world and that everything Kim Jong Il says is gospel truth.This thread scares me - Betatrack dehumanises North Korean civilians so you can justify killing them. Haven't you learnt from the mess that is Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam.
8th Dwarf, I'm sure his intent wasn't to dehumanize people to justify genocide. Have you read about what society in North Korea has become in the last 50 years? Their leadership has come further toward a "1984" dictatorship than anywhere else in the world.
|
Way off topic: I consider myself a moderate and I only speak for myself here, but it is alarmist statements like that which turns me off to a certain elephant. Not that the donkey does not make his own crazy statements. If either party were to stop exaggerating facts, I might be able to take them more seriously. Just a bit of advice.Or, we could sell our children into slavery ... oh, wait ... that is what we are already doing.Can we pay China with a debt consolidation loan from India?
What?
Yeah certain types of elephants are drinking too much and need to lay off of the rhetoric. along with a news (LMAO) channel or two.
|
|
8th Dwarf, I'm sure his intent wasn't to dehumanize people to justify genocide. Have you read about what society in North Korea has become in the last 50 years? Their leadership has come further toward a "1984" dictatorship than anywhere else in the world.Actually, the North Korean population is so indoctrinated that they honestly believe that N. Korea is the best and most powerful country in the world and that everything Kim Jong Il says is gospel truth.This thread scares me - Betatrack dehumanises North Korean civilians so you can justify killing them. Haven't you learnt from the mess that is Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam.
Oh he buys books from world literature yearly for school children to understand what the world outside their borders are like. The one a couple of years ago was The Diary of Anne Frank He then instructed the teachers to explain that young Anne was like North Korea and that the Nazi state was like onto the good old US of A. As such he also instructed the school children to not be like Anne and fight till their dieing breath rather then be killed by us like sheep. Yeah the man is a winner.
Yeah certain types of elephants are drinking too much and need to lay off of the rhetoric. along with a news (LMAO) channel or two.
I fear this country has become too concerned with drawing lines than what is best for the country as a whole. I imagine it has always been like this, only I am more aware of it now.
The one a couple of years ago was The Diary of Anne Frank He then instructed the teachers to explain that young Anne was like North Korea and that the Nazi state was like onto the good old US of A.
Wow. If that is true, I am impressed by the mental gymnastics.
You know what guys..just do it..go it alone..pull back inside your own borders and pretend you are still a major player in this world..after all it's worked for us Brits for over 60 years why not the US
|
|
The one a couple of years ago was The Diary of Anne Frank He then instructed the teachers to explain that young Anne was like North Korea and that the Nazi state was like onto the good old US of A.Wow. If that is true, I am impressed by the mental gymnastics.
“For world peace, America will have to be destroyed,” adds another student. “Only then, will Anne's wonderful dream of peace come true.”
This country has done plenty of things I am not proud of, but…I have no response for this.
So, no one is able to put themselves in the NKs' place, just for a moment?
1. You are a small, impoverished nation located adjacent to a heavily-fortified demilitarized zone.
2. A very large superpower has branded you "evil."
3. Said superpower invades another "evil" nation against the advice of the international community, and destabilizes the place. Seven years later they're still occupying the place, trying to restore stability.
Now, before you call me "anti-American," these are facts. I'm not taking sides as to whether the label was justified -- only that it was actually used. I'm not saying Saddam wasn't a creep who's better off gone -- only that we were asked to hold off. Unless anyone is claiming that North Korea is wealthy compared to the U.S., or that we did not invade Iraq, or that Bush never used the term "Axis of Evil?"
Okay, accepting points 1-3, wouldn't you also feel like a little girl about to be put to death? Again, I'm not interested in rationalizations like "Well, they deserve it because KJI is a nasty troll," or "Well, I could never be in that position because I'm special," or "Well, we would never invade them anyway." Look at it, not as someone who lives in the U.S. and has access to international media, but as someone inside N Korea who has only the facts listed above.
|
|
So, no one is able to put themselves in the NKs' place, just for a moment?
1. You are a small, impoverished nation located adjacent to a heavily-fortified demilitarized zone.
2. A very large superpower has branded you "evil."
3. Said superpower invades another "evil" nation against the advice of the international community, and destabilizes the place. Seven years later they're still occupying the place, trying to restore stability.Now, before you call me "anti-American," these are facts -- unless anyone is claiming that North Korea is wealthy compared to the U.S., or that we did not invade Iraq, or that Bush never used the term "Axis of Evil."
Okay, accepting points 1-3, wouldn't you also feel like a little girl about to be put to death?
Of course the difference is that Anne Frank did not constantly stick her head out the window and try to provoke the Nazis into coming after her.
I never disagreed with you, Kirth. I am certainly not calling for war with North Korea. I do not see a solution.
Of course the difference is that Anne Frank did not constantly stick her head out the window and try to provoke the Nazis into coming after her.
And if she had a .44 Magnuim in her pocket, you don't think she would have whipped that sucker out and told the SS to leave her family alone? Indeed, you'd condemn her for doing so?
|
|
Of course the difference is that Anne Frank did not constantly stick her head out the window and try to provoke the Nazis into coming after her.And if she had a .44 Magnuim in her pocket, you don't think she would have whipped that sucker out and told the SS to leave her family alone? Indeed, you'd condemn her for doing so?
Not at all. However, what North Korea did is not the same. A better analogy would be, do you believe a bank robber has the right to defend himself when the police try to storm his home after he has killed the bank manager.
However, what North Korea did is not the same. A better analogy would be, do you believe a bank robber has the right to defend himself when the police try to storm his home after he has killed the bank manager.
So your argument boils down to "He started it!"
In which case we should really blame the Japanese for occupying Korea in WWII, leading to its postwar partitioning by competing world superpowers. See, we could blame N Korea for invading the ROK, as you seem to do... but then if we back up a step we in turn need to blame the U.S. for continuing to occupy (military bases, etc.) the southern half of Korea long after WWII had ended, forcing the north to try and liberate it from our control. Then back another step, and it's Japan's fault, really. See what I'm getting at here? The simplistic argument that "they're evil and insane" stems from the premise that their point of view is always wrong, and then selectively stopping at a link in the chain that seems to support that argument.
What if we were to go back to the gold standard? That would certainly help our poorly performing dollar.Can we pay China with a debt consolidation loan from India?
What?
I think it tend to stabilize the dollar, but we have printed so much money that it's going to be hard to the dollar with any commodity. I still think it's a much better idea than a caveat money system largely controlled by an unaccountable Fed.
|
|
However, what North Korea did is not the same. A better analogy would be, do you believe a bank robber has the right to defend himself when the police try to storm his home after he has killed the bank manager.So your argument boils down to "He started it!"
Again, not at all. My argument boils down to "the rule of law." North Korea committed a crime, they sunk a South Korean naval vessel. Now the law must be applied in a manner that penalizes them for their actions. Now, in this case I believe that sanctions, if we can get China on board, is the best approach. War in the Korean Peninsula does not benefit anyone except perhaps Kim Jung-Il. However, the international community cannot let a criminal point a gun at them after commiting a crime and say "don't come any closer or I'll pull the trigger." If we do, we will have set a dangerous precedent in international relations. On the other hand, we have to be prepared to face the fact that he may not be bluffing if we take the next step.
Yeah certain types of elephants are drinking too much and need to lay off of the rhetoric. along with a news (LMAO) channel or two.I fear this country has become too concerned with drawing lines than what is best for the country as a whole. I imagine it has always been like this, only I am more aware of it now.
Are you saying the rhetoric is excessive, or are you saying being 14.4 trillion in debt (excluding unfunded liabilities) is less of a problem than most folks think?
I think the national debt is not taken nearly seriously enough by either party or the MSM.
My argument boils down to "the rule of law."
You're a history teacher, correct? So I'm assuming you're aware that the "rule of law" -- from an international standpoint in which not everyone being held to said "law" had a chance to agree on it, and often has the said "law" forced on them by victorious powers -- is nothing more than a might-makes-right argument made in hindsight. It's not as if anyone asked the Koreans if it was OK to divide their peninsula and play cold war games all over it for sixty years. I'd wager that, to the North Koreans, they're still trying to re-unify their nation by kicking out the imperialists.
Did they make an uprovoked attack against a peaceful neighbor? Or did they sink an enemy (U.S.)-funded ship that sailed too close to their territorial waters? Or is it maybe somewhere in between?
|
|
My argument boils down to "the rule of law."You're a history teacher, correct? So I'm assuming you're aware that the "rule of law" -- from an international standpoint in which not everyone being held to said "law" had a chance to agree on it -- is nothing more than a might-makes-right argument made in hindsight.
That is true. However, in this case any sanctions would most likely come through the United Nations which the North Korean government is a member of. Even if the sanctions came through independent means, the laws that were violated are part of the International Maritime Agreement, which was negotiated in the United Nations and to which North Korea is a signatory.
Are you saying the rhetoric is excessive, or are you saying being 14.4 trillion in debt (excluding unfunded liabilities) is less of a problem than most folks think?
I think the national debt is not taken nearly seriously enough by either party or the MSM.
Sure, we have problems. But I remember how Reagan was running this country into the ground and the end was imminent.
|
That is true. However, in this case any sanctions would most likely come through the United Nations which the North Korean government is a member of. Even if the sanctions came through independent means, the laws that were violated are part of the International Maritime Agreement, which was negotiated in the United Nations and to which North Korea is a signatory.My argument boils down to "the rule of law."You're a history teacher, correct? So I'm assuming you're aware that the "rule of law" -- from an international standpoint in which not everyone being held to said "law" had a chance to agree on it -- is nothing more than a might-makes-right argument made in hindsight.
So what penalties should we apply to the US for breaking the NPT by signing a nuclear deal with India, which is expressly forbidden in that treaty as they (India) are not a signatory)? Or how about we put sanctions on Israel for defying the UN over building in the Occupied Terrotires?*
*=
|
|
More to the point, the argument that "I didn't agree to the law, so I'm not bound by it," is a sophism. If that were true, groups like the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would not have to practice their religion by going underground because they would not be bound by anti-polygamy laws.
Authors Note: I do not by any means advocate or support polygamy. It was just an example that popped in my mind because the news was reporting on the sentencing of one of Elizabeth Smart's kidnappers.
David. Kirth. FASCINATING dialogue. I lean a little more towards Kirth(see, I'm agreeing with all sorts of people today!!!), but David does have several VERY good points. The only trope there(in my mind that is) is the might-makes-right principle behind many of the laws that could cook North Korea's goose. And I liked the analogy on what it's like to be branded evil by a more powerful country who could kill you at a moment's notice.
|
|
So what penalties should we apply to the US for breaking the NPT by signing a nuclear deal with India, which is expressly forbidden in that treaty as they (India) are not a signatory)?That is true. However, in this case any sanctions would most likely come through the United Nations which the North Korean government is a member of. Even if the sanctions came through independent means, the laws that were violated are part of the International Maritime Agreement, which was negotiated in the United Nations and to which North Korea is a signatory.My argument boils down to "the rule of law."You're a history teacher, correct? So I'm assuming you're aware that the "rule of law" -- from an international standpoint in which not everyone being held to said "law" had a chance to agree on it -- is nothing more than a might-makes-right argument made in hindsight.
According to my reading on that issue, India was essentially give the status of "honorary signatory" by the United Nations because it what the U.N. terms a "clean non-proliferation record" and because under the Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear agreement the facilities involved are under the scrutiny of the IAEA.
Edit: Israel's weapons program is something I am not familiar with.
FASCINATING dialogue.
I think it goes to show that things are rarely black and white, and that statements like 'nuke them off the map', while humorous, demonstrate a lack of insight.
|
|
Yeah certain types of elephants are drinking too much and need to lay off of the rhetoric. along with a news (LMAO) channel or two.I fear this country has become too concerned with drawing lines than what is best for the country as a whole. I imagine it has always been like this, only I am more aware of it now.Are you saying the rhetoric is excessive, or are you saying being 14.4 trillion in debt (excluding unfunded liabilities) is less of a problem than most folks think?
I think the national debt is not taken nearly seriously enough by either party or the MSM.
the rhetoric is excessive
More to the point, the argument that "I didn't agree to the law, so I'm not bound by it," is a sophism. If that were true, groups like the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would not have to practice their religion by going underground because they would not be bound by anti-polygamy laws
This is probably my Jeffersonian inclinations showing, but I like to think of the whole point of government as a social contract. By accepting the benefits of U.S. government rule (paved roads, national defense, etc.), we accept authority of U.S. law. If some cult decides it's a lousy deal, they can set up shop elsewhere. The fundamentalist polygamists you refer to did indeed agree to the law, by accepting the payoffs, by that logic.
N Korea has consistently denied the authority of U.S. troops to occupy the south. They're not a member of NATO, nor do they have an alliance with the U.S. They are a member of the United Nations, however, so if as a whole that group decides they're culpapble in the current incident, then they'll have to accept that ruling (using my logic, anyway).
Sigh ~~ Hangs head in shameFASCINATING dialogue.I think it goes to show that things are rarely black and white, and that statements like 'nuke them off the map', while humorous, demonstrate a lack of insight.
I use to say it about the middle east.
It also shows that talking provides more insight than slogans.
Engaging people who may disagree with you.
|
|
More to the point, the argument that "I didn't agree to the law, so I'm not bound by it," is a sophism. If that were true, groups like the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would not have to practice their religion by going underground because they would not be bound by anti-polygamy lawsIsn't that the whole point of government as a social contract? By accepting the benefits of U.S. government rule (paved roads, national defense, etc.), they accept authority of U.S. law. If they decide it's a lousy deal, they can set up shop elsewhere. So these fundamentalist polygamists did indeed agree to the law, by accepting the payoffs.
N Korea has consistently denied the authority of U.S. troops to occupy the south. They're not a member of NATO, nor do they have an alliance with the U.S. They are a member of the United Nations, however, so if as a whole that group decides they're culpapble in the current incident, then they'll have to accept that ruling (using my logic, anyway).
The social contract is a good thing, and like I said I was simply using the polygamists as an example. The particular law in question is one that the North Koreans have agreed to, by claiming it's protections for their own territorial waters, and so they should abide by any penalties that they might incur from violating it.
The particular law in question is one that the North Koreans have agreed to, by claiming its protections for their own territorial waters, and so they should abide by any penalties that they might incur from violating it.
We'll likely end up in agreement then -- if the ship was entitled under those rules be be where it was, and if the U.N. (as opposed to NATO) finds the PDRK guilty.
|
|
I use to say it about the middle east.Sigh ~~ Hangs head in shameFASCINATING dialogue.I think it goes to show that things are rarely black and white, and that statements like 'nuke them off the map', while humorous, demonstrate a lack of insight.
Well in truth I think there is other things we can do that will eventually thaw the relationship with NK. Patience is my first choice since KJI can only live so long. His successor may in fact be easier to deal with. As well as the fact that ever few years he tends to tick off China as well as everyone else. They are closer and will be a more inclined to stop his more extreme actions.
Sure, we have problems. But I remember how Reagan was running this country into the ground and the end was imminent.Are you saying the rhetoric is excessive, or are you saying being 14.4 trillion in debt (excluding unfunded liabilities) is less of a problem than most folks think?
I think the national debt is not taken nearly seriously enough by either party or the MSM.
I think we are way more hosed than we think. We're like someone who got his hours and income cut. His expenses went way up, and he is using one credit card to pay the interest on the others. If we're paying more on interest than SS or defense I think we've done it wrong.
It reminds me of a truckers t-shirt that said "If you are upside down in a ditch, you did it wrong!"
8th Dwarf, I'm sure his intent wasn't to dehumanise people to justify genocide. Have you read about what society in North Korea has become in the last 50 years? Their leadership has come further toward a "1984" dictatorship than anywhere else in the world.Actually, the North Korean population is so indoctrinated that they honestly believe that N. Korea is the best and most powerful country in the world and that everything Kim Jong Il says is gospel truth.This thread scares me - Betatrack dehumanises North Korean civilians so you can justify killing them. Haven't you learnt from the mess that is Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam.
Their Society is terrible why make it much much worse. I am sorry but reducing people to a broad negative generalisation is dehumanising/demonising them. Like I said before it would be like me saying "all Americans are far right Christian fanatic gun nuts that like to burn crosses". (PLEASE NOTE I AM USING THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE AS AN EXAMPLE AND IT IS NOT MY VIEW OF US CITIZENS)
Most importantly Its untrue, like the statement I made above it reduces people to a stereotype and makes killing them easier.
Have you read about what society in North Korea has become in the last 50 years? Their leadership has come further toward a "1984" dictatorship than anywhere else in the world.
Yes it is a f!&&ing tragedy. Carpet bombing them, Nuking them, or using a Thor strike (dropping shit on them from orbit)isn't going to help the situation. The people in charge will live and the civilians will die.
Broad military action will punish the civilian populace that are living on below subsistence existence level through no fault of their own.
Do you really think that they care about the politics or do they care about where they are going to find food.
The other thing is N Korea - does not have the resources to wage a war. They do not have the fuel or the heavy industry to support a sustained war.
If they use the Nukes then millions will die in response and China will not interfere.
China will not support the N Korea if it goes on the offensive. China does not want a war it is getting fat and happy. The US has invested a lot of money in China and that money is helping it modernise. A war in Korea will destabilise its prosperity.
|
|
Actually the suggestion that this is what had happened first came up during the rescue of the crew based on the story that the crew was telling rescuers. The United States, particularly under the Obama administration, has nothing to gain by provoking a resumption of hostilities between the two Koreas.Story So North Korea sinks a South Korean vessel and then the government threatens to restart war in the peninsula if any action is taken against them? That sounds like they took a ride on the crazy train.It wasnt until someone suggested that maybe a faction within the US Military fired a torpedo from a US sub - to make it look like the South korean naval vessel was sunk by a North Korean Patrol Boat that this came up.
I dont recall a purge of the Pentagon of the People who have been involved in the fabrication of WMD evidence. As to Obama's agenda - his will be like every other US President - The age of an unacountable and rampant USA is comming to an end - best take down the ones we can while we can because after - we will be licky to get a seat on the UN Security council.
This is going to be pushed through before the loss of a Japananese Government to one who will shut down US bases in Okinawa and Japan overall. THis is where the Stealth Bombers are kept that will raid NK.
Timeline for this: 5 years.
|
|
I dont recall a purge of the Pentagon of the People who have been involved in the fabrication of WMD evidence. As to Obama's agenda - his will be like every other US President - The age of an unacountable and rampant USA is comming to an end - best take down the ones we can while we can because after - we will be licky to get a seat on the UN Security council.Actually the suggestion that this is what had happened first came up during the rescue of the crew based on the story that the crew was telling rescuers. The United States, particularly under the Obama administration, has nothing to gain by provoking a resumption of hostilities between the two Koreas.Story So North Korea sinks a South Korean vessel and then the government threatens to restart war in the peninsula if any action is taken against them? That sounds like they took a ride on the crazy train.It wasnt until someone suggested that maybe a faction within the US Military fired a torpedo from a US sub - to make it look like the South korean naval vessel was sunk by a North Korean Patrol Boat that this came up.
There was no fabrication of WMD evidence, if there had been President Bush would have had a much easier time in office. Instead there was a break down of the Intelligence community in the United States and worldwide. In fact Iraqi generals who were debriefed after the initial push were surprised to learn that there were no WMDs in Iraq, because Saddam Hussian had promised them that he would use them to drive the Coalition back. Also, the United States has a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council and it cannot be taken away so unless the United Nations were dissolved and the reestablished without the United States as a member, an action the we could block with a single vote, your scenario of us not having a seat is impossible.
|
|
There was no fabrication of WMD evidence, if there had been President Bush would have had a much easier time in office. Instead there was a break down of the Intelligence community in the United States and worldwide. In fact Iraqi generals who were debriefed after the initial push were surprised to learn that there were no WMDs in Iraq, because Saddam Hussian had promised them that he would use them to drive the Coalition back.
You so drank the coolade...The evidence used to 'prove it' was faked by Washington -I read that in Time Magazine. Washington couldnt get any of its allies to produce fake intel, so it found some Itallians and got them to do it and sent that back and "Hey! These guys are looking to build nukes!" except it was faked.
The 'Someone has to take the blame so the angry mobs wont lynch the President' list
Scooter Libey
Carl Rove
Remember those dopes?
Also, the United States has a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council and it cannot be taken away so unless the United Nations were dissolved and the reestablished without the United States as a member, an action the we could block with a single vote, your scenario of us not having a seat is impossible.
Sure it Can...the rest of the World votes to suspend the USA, its VETO, and its Allies, and buggers off and builds a New UN city on some rock like Antartica and leaves the USA to play with its loyal allies (in the hope you will all go blind). When the USA jumps up and down demanding entry - the answer is "Phuut!"
Ten minutes after the new UN passes a resolution to fence the USA in - for attempting gunboat diplomacy on some thirdworld UN member who didnt want to trade their Uranium for US occupation...The USA gets censured for being a rogue state...cue the Nukes.