Imagine someone in your neighborhood who was, shall we say, less than a model citizen.

He malnourishes his kids and allows them no contact with the outside world. He locks them up in the house, often chaining them in the basement, and if they attempt to escape, when he's lucky enough to have the neighbors return them to him, he beats them, often to death. Sometimes he even kidnaps the neighbors' children, and treats them similarly. Little justification is required for punishment, often brutal. Sometimes nothing more than disrespect toward him (which could merely of insufficient continual praise), or even looking out the window at the neighbors, brings down the blows.

He has no job. He makes a living by selling drugs and by counterfeiting. He also collects guns, and supplements his income by threatening the neighbors with bodily harm if they don't give him money and food, which he then eats himself, and uses the money to buy porn, while continuing to neglect his children, except those who are willing to join in the abuse and help protect him from the neighbors and police. He repeatedly promises to give up the weapons if he gets enough loot, but he never keeps the promises, and simply continues to accumulate them. He is obviously beyond rehabilitation.

What would we do with such a man?

Isn't it obvious? We would never have allowed it to even get this far. We would arrest him, and try and imprison (if not execute) him for his multiple horrible crimes, and take his children away.

But what if he had some of the older children standing at the window, behind armor, with guns and firebombs aimed at the neighbors, with threats to start killing them and burning their houses if such an attempt was made? What would we do then?

In case anyone hasn't guessed by now, I'm describing the government/thugocracy of the so-called "Democratic" so-called "Peoples" so-called "Republic" of Korea.

Why do we tolerate this regime? Why is it a member in good standing in the UN? Why, rather than negotiating with it, are we not coming up with plans to remove it?

Because the extortion works. The South Koreans fear the onslaught of artillery on Seoul that would result from a war, and both they and the Chinese fear the social and economic cost of supporting the regime's starving masses. But if ever there was a case for liberating a people this is it. While they didn't do it universally in Iraq (and of course, only people unfamiliar with the actual history claim that anyone thought they would), liberating the North Koreans would result in flowers being thrown at us. If they hadn't all ready eaten them, that is.

But a sadder reason is that we've elevated the notion of "national sovereignty" to too high a level. China fears that if the puppy eater is removed on the basis of his abuse of his people, they could be next. The UN has become a club to coddle dictators, because our entrance criteria are set so low. They will all protect each other, fearing that if they don't hang together they will hang separately. All of which, of course, points up, once again, the uselessness of the institution, at least in terms of maintaining the peace, or protecting human rights.

Jeane Kirkpatrick warned against considering internatinal power politics in the same way one does relations with human personal relations. If we adopt the "just like the guy next door" model, US activity for the last 50 years can be compared to the obnoxious busybody who controls a personal SWAT team and the local city council. It's only when you consider the that international situation is not analogous to local relationships that US policy can be defended.

Nonetheless, it provides some perspective on this criminal regime. I didn't say that we should necessarily treat it as an individual human, but the notion that it is a member of the UN with a vote points out the absurdity that is the UN.

In case anyone hasn't guessed by now, I'm describing the government/thugocracy of the so-called "Democratic" so-called "Peoples" so-called "Republic" of Korea.

Oh! I thought that you were describing David Koresh.

Then you must be profoundly ignorant of David Koresh, since few of the parallels described here apply. I'm not aware that he was kidnapping people, selling drugs, counterfeiting money, murdering people, threatening his neighbors, etc.

The UN has become a club to coddle dictators, because our entrance criteria are set so low. They will all protect each other, fearing that if they don't hang together they will hang separately. All of which, of course, points up, once again, the uselessness of the institution, at least in terms of maintaining the peace, or protecting human rights.

Yeah, right. It's not like the US would prop up dictatorships for political expediency is it...

Actually, I do support the objective of North Korean regime change. Anyone have a plan?

Sounds like George W. Bush would do it except that China, Russia and South Korea prefer that we don't. Gosh, if only the rest of the world obeyed us, then life would be so much easier.

Dave, I guess I used the wrong word. The Dear Leader is much more than a dictator. The US has never "propped up" totalitarian monsters.

I think we have gone too far trying to stabilize countries that shouldn't be stable. If we could invade Saudi Arabia and annex it (openly, and say "yes, this is an oil grab - deal") then we could help a lot of people that are in a bad situation. Instead, we have to respect the local government - so we pay them lots of money for oil that they use to opress their population.

I realize that this is impossible - I merely point out that the status quo is rather far below optimum.

OK then, tell us who should be in the UN, and how the UN you want should interact with regimes such as North Korea. Exactly what do you suggest other than not accepting the status quo? The status quo in Iraq wasn't exactly nice either back in 2003, but it hasn't got any prettier there post our neo-con fantasy corrective has it? Sometime things are the way they are because that is the best that can be made of it.

Dave, I guess I used the wrong word. The Dear Leader is much more than a dictator. The US has never "propped up" totalitarian monsters.

Eh. If only that were so. Idi Amin, the Shah of Iran, and Saddam Hussein come to mind.

I think we can't do anything because General Jong Il is God.

I didn't know that we propped up Idi Amin. As to the other two, I think that you're stretching the phrase "totalitarian monsters." Do you really put the Shah in the same class as Kim Il Jung?

And as for propping up Saddam, it was the lesser of two evils, at the time, though I think it was a policy mistake.

"I wonder how long it will take America to recover from George Bush's uniquely blinkered and self-righteous brand of ineptitude? In the past five years he's demonstrated to the world that we don't know how to win a modern guerrilla war. He's demonstrated that we don't understand even the basics of waging a propaganda war. He's demonstrated that other countries don't need to pay any attention to our threats. He's demonstrated that we're good at talking tough and sending troops into battle, but otherwise clueless about using the levers of statecraft in the service of our own interests. If he had set out to willfully and deliberately expose our weaknesses to the world and undermine our strengths, he couldn't have done more to cripple America's power and influence in the world. Beneath the bluster, he's done more to weaken our national security than any president since World War II."

Given all of this it will be a long time before we are in any position to address the failings of other failed states. With the failure of Iraq, it's time to lie low and lick our wounds for a while, hoping for leaders who can restore this nation.

...while, hoping for leaders who can restore this nation.

We shouldn't "hope" for them. We should find them and elect them.

I'd recommend that we first remove sanctions and try to get their economy out of the gutter. At the very least it should make reunification less costly.

Why do we tolerate this regime?

For one reason, because they have their hands full in Iraq. Rumsfeld actually moved to reduce US troops in South Korea two years ago.

Ignoring all the "dirty liberal", "dirty neo-con", "Bush's an idiot" and "Americ's evil" rhetoric, when all is said and done, isn't this really China's problem?

Pretty much. They're the ones who are going to have to deal with all of the refugees once the current regime falls over.

As much as I would like to think the starving slaves of North Korea would welcome liberation I fear it woudn't work out that way. North Korea is such an isolated and brainwashed society most of it's people would probably fight to the death. The fanaticism of the Japanese during WWII comes to mind.

It's interesting how badly people of distant lands misjudge each other. Too often wicked leaders make the mistake of thinking Americans are soft and weak and will roll over with one good blow; not realizing Americans are very violent people who kill each other with great zeal. So if provided adequate provocation Americans are perfectly happy to slaughter foreign enemies instead of domestic ones.

Americans on the other hand make the mistake of assuming reasonableness and rationality on the part of foreign leaders and peoples. Americans find too alien the grip that madness and fanaticism has on so much of the world. Americans make the mistake of thinking the people of the world are just like themselves except with funny costumes and languages.

North Korean regime change would be a good thing.

Finding a plan that accomplishes that without staggering levels of bad consequences (side effects) is a very difficult task.

Exactly like another regime change we recently did accomplish.

East Germany?