There is precious little historical basis to believe that every ethnic hatred in the world will not someday engage in its equivalent.
What, he asks, will keep nuclear weapons from becoming the common trump-card for any millennia-old conflict? Can we verbally convince those with nuclear aspirations to lay down their programs? Did that work with Pakistan? Or India? Is it happening now with Iran? Or fucking North Korea?
The one modern example of a rogue state agreeing to lay down the light-saber is Libya. What, might you ask, could have been the motivation for those clowns to drop the bomb (figuratively speaking fo course)? It certainly wasn't because Brussels promised them a year's supply of organic, non-GMO soy-nuts. It just could, however, be a direct response to the Bush administration's aggressive, flexible and inventive foreign policy. As it turns out, the old cliche of "those that rule with brute force only respond to brute force" just could play out that way.
Let's use a crass, simple analogy. If you awoke one day to the realization that a registered pederast had moved next door, and that he was petitioning for enrollment to the local elementary school, you'd probably oppose it with every means possible. I think many people would (forcefully, if needs be) try to defend their children from exposure to that miscreant. That is, on a base level, what we often see as the "public front" of Bush's foreign policy.
But there are more subtle and crafty things going on. Who would have thought that we'd see a US-arranged alliance between Japan and China against the Il regime? Who would have thought that we'd see a U.S. General (Lt. General William E. (Kip) Ward) appointed as the joint coordinator of security forces in Palestine? And who'd have foreseen Khaddafi laying down his weapons and opening his country up to outsiders for the first time in 25 years? There is now even talk of a possible Syrian pullout of Beirut.
None of these things would have happened without our intervention in Iraq. Period. And you can bet that Iraq looms large in the minds of Jong Ils world-wide. Il is apparently upset at the way he was portrayed in "Team America". Maybe that is what is behind his current puffing. Whatever his reason is, I'll bet that he knows deep down that we're not fucking around anymore, Jimmy Carter isn't there to listen to his side if the story, and the left's best argument for the situation ("Well, if America has nukes, everybody else has a right to them too") has lost all credibility. As Wretchard says;
The alternative is to abandon the "sophisticated" view of a stable international order and understand that we are a planet in crisis; that in some meaningful sense humanity is in a death match with terror.
This is the act of a desperate man. These are also the acts of a desperate religion. We must keep on doing what we say. That is our best weapon now.