Originally Posted by machievelli
You missed my point. Claiming that maneuvers are only a disguise for an actual attack is BS, but it's not our BS, it's theirs.
As for protesting against sanctions, the UN has only two options in this case; one, sanctions, and as I pointed out in later posts, there are ways around them. The second is actually calling on member nations to force compliance
Which would you prefer? At least the US isn't even hinting that we might be considering a preemptive strike, which under the UN charter (article 51) is a perfectly legal response, even if we used nukes.
I agree with the first part, claiming the maneuver was preparation for an attack was a bit of a stretch. You have to keep in mind though that politics is a lot like pro. wrestling, there's a lot of posturing and empty dialog on both sides before anything conclusive actually happens.
The UN has the option of staying out of NK's business doesn't it, Why aren't they sanctioning the US for having a nuclear arsenal?