North Korea caves in

[Montgomery Burns]

In another stunning victory for President Bush’s policy of confronting weapons expanders, North Korea has caved in to demands that it give up its nuclear weapons and the nuclear program which created them. In a last-minute reversal, as the US threatened to walk away from the latest round of 6-party talks between North Korea, South Korea, the US, Japan, Russia and China, North Korean negotiators agreed to sign an agreement "promising to drop all nuclear weapons and current nuclear programs, and to get back to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as soon as possible." The NPT allows UN inspectors to return to NK and its nuclear sites. In return, the US said it has no nuclear weapons in South Korea and "has no intention to attack or invade North Korea."

Kim was faced with a simple choice - Saddam or Qaddafi? Would he give in to US disarmament demands as did Libyan terrorist dictator Qaddafi, and accept US non-aggression guarantees, or would he end up like his socialist soul-mate Saddam Hussein - cornered in a rat hole by the US 4th Infantry?

This turn of events sharply increases the pressure on Iran. They are now the lone holdout of the original "axis of evil" countries. Holding fast to their nuclear program, they are faced by US forces on two borders – Afghanistan and Iraq. Having refused to bow to European negotiators, Iran is about to be referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions. The chance for a peaceful surrender of Iran’s dangerous nuclear ambitions has never been greater.

Bill Clinton engaged NK in bilateral talks in 1994 agreeing the US would supply NK with nuclear power plants and energy in exchange for NK’s agreement to dismantle its nuclear weapons program over a 10 year period. NK did not honor the agreement.

When Bush took office in 2001 he reversed this policy of appeasement and stared down the Stalinist Kim for 2 years. Finally, his country falling apart around him, Kim agreed to US demands for 6–party talks which have now led to the new nuclear disarmament agreement.

During the Presidential debates, John Kerry called for a return to the failed Clinton-era NK policy. Fortunately Kerry was defeated on November 2, and with him went Kim’s hope for a US capitulation. In February 2005, Kim made a last ditch effort to intimidate Bush, announcing he had built several nuclear bombs and was withdrawing from the 6-party talks. Democrats hammered Bush for refusing to bow to North Korea’s demand for bilateral talks. Now, 7 months later, it is Kim who has capitulated.

This clearly shows that the road to peace is through strength and resolve. The road to war is through appeasement of dictators and terrorists.

[Black Dog]

Kim was faced with a simple choice - Saddam or Qaddafi? Would he give in to US disarmament demands as did Libyan terrorist dictator Qaddafi, and accept US non-aggression guarantees, or would he end up like his socialist soul-mate Saddam Hussein - cornered in a rat hole by the US 4th Infantry?

Hilarious. North Korea doggedly plows away on its nuclear course, forcing the U.S. to the bargaining table and manages to come away with security gurantees and massive energy and economic assistance. And somehow the right wingers see this as a repudiation of appeasement? Amazing.

Fact is, the U.S. had no choice but to bargain: its war fighting capabilities are hamstrung by its involvement in Iraq. They could not risk a second front, especially at a time when public support for the war in Iraq is turning sour. If there's a message to be gleaned from the comparison between the differing treatment accorded Iraq and North Korea it is this: stay strong. The weak (like Saddam's Iraq) will be stomped, but those who show some backbone will be rewarded at the bargaining table. And I highly doubt we've heard the last of Pyonyang's nuclear ambitions.

[Montgomery Burns]

Black Dog:

Hilarious. North Korea doggedly plows away on its nuclear course,...

Thank you, Bill Clinton. Oh wait. I forgot Liberal Rule #6; you can't bring up Clinton because he is not president anymore.

... forcing the U.S. to the bargaining table

Incredible. NK demands bilateral talks; Bush tells Kim no and says 6-party talks or nothing, threatens to walk away from the latest round of 6-party talks, and in Black Dog speak, NK forced the US to the bargaining table.

and manages to come away with security gurantees and massive energy and economic assistance.

Of course there would be security guarantees for NK. Duh.

And what massive energy and economic assistance are you talking about?

And somehow the right wingers see this as a repudiation of appeasement? Amazing.

And somehow the left concludes that Bush appeased Kim. Amazing, indeed.

Fact is, the U.S. had no choice but to bargain:

It was Kim who had no choice but to bargainor eventually be overthrown. He knew he was on the Axis of Evil hitlist.

its war fighting capabilities are hamstrung by its involvement in Iraq...

Its war fighting capabilities are fine. They have many troops in Europe and as two generals recently said, about one-fifth of the US troops will be leaving Iraq in the spring of 2006 with more to leave in the summer and fall. NK has a smaller population than Iraq and its people - and likely military - are starving, and it only took the US 3 weeks to overthrow Saddam with a mere 150,000 troops. Furthermore, when you look at new enlistments AND re-enlistments combined, the military is still keeping up the necessary amount of manpower.

...especially at a time when public support for the war in Iraq is turning sour.

You underestimate the strength and resolve of President Bush and the US populace. Remember what Uday Hussein said (I'm paraphrasing) to one of his bodyguards....I wasn't worried about Clinton, but that Bush guy worries me; he seems like he means business.

If there's a message to be gleaned from the comparison between the differing treatment accorded Iraq and North Korea it is this: stay strong. The weak (like Saddam's Iraq) will be stomped, but those who show some backbone will be rewarded at the bargaining table.

When will you appeasers understand that the only thing dictators understand is force or the threat of it?

In the immortal words of Ann Coulter:

No matter what the evidence, liberals insist that only their tender ministrations are capable of calming murderous dictators. Negotiation and engagement are said to "work" because, after Democrats spend years dillydallying with lunatic despots who threaten America, eventually a Republican president comes in and threatens aggressive military action. In a fascinating fifty-year pattern -- completely indiscernible to liberals -- murderous despots succumb to "engagement" shortly after a Republican president threatens to bomb them. This allows liberals to hail years of impotent negotiation and engagement as a foreign policy "win".

And I highly doubt we've heard the last of Pyonyang's nuclear ambitions.

I think that Kim realizes that Bush has steely resolve when it comes to foreign policy and he will - hopefully - not start up his nuclear ambitions again. He saw what happened to the Anointed One, the Glorious Leader, the Direct Descendant of the Prophet, the President of Iraq, the Arab Ironman - Saddam Hussein.

So did Qaddafi.

[Black Dog]

Of course there would be security guarantees for NK. Duh.

And what massive energy and economic assistance are you talking about?

"In return for Pyongyang's accord, the other nations agreed that North Korea had the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy and said they would discuss providing it a light-water reactor in the future."-LA Times

And somehow the left concludes that Bush appeased Kim. Amazing, indeed.

"The six-party agreement - coupled with a promise to discuss a suspended light-water nuclear energy project - came just a week after (Chief US negotiator Christopher) Hill declared that North Korea's insistence on the right to nuclear energy for peacetime purposes was "a nonstarter."-Christian Science Monitor

It was Kim who had no choice but to bargainor eventually be overthrown. He knew he was on the Axis of Evil hitlist.

...

When will you appeasers understand that the only thing dictators understand is force or the threat of it?

"The deal is seen by some analysts as a clear victory for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic approach over administration forces favoring a more confrontational approach.

...

The agreement comes after an extended period of softening rhetoric. Mr. Bush, in his State of the Union address in 2002, famously included North Korea in an "axis of evil," along with Iraq and Iran, and Ms. Rice in January, before she became secretary of state, identified North Korea as an "outpost of tyranny."

No such comments, however, have emanated from US officials in Washington since then, with the US making pointed statements that it respected the North's sovereignty and had no intention of attacking the country."-Chrsitian Science Monitor

So did Qaddafi.

You've no proof whatsoever that Libya suspension of its WMD program had anything at all to do withIraq or toughening U.S. rhetoric. More likely Qaddafi saw an opportunity to end the U.S. and European sanctions, which were harming Libya's economic development. All he had to do was give up his rather insignificant "weapons of mass destruction" programs. So he made a small concession and received huge rewards. Seems like Kim learned his lesson from Qaddafi after all.

[Shakeyhands]

Burns, if you for a second think that you can credit Bush for this than you are seriously deluded. The only thing you can thank him for was staying out of any talks. The N. Korean people are starving, they played chicken with the big bad US and in my opinion won.

[Montgomery Burns]

Shakeyhands, what is it like living in that little fantasy world of yours?

Incredible! Kim backs down, agrees to stop his nuclear ambitions and he "won".

Why don't you come right out and say it? You're pissed that NK capitualted to the USA's threat and you're pissed that it makes Bush look good.

[Montgomery Burns]

Black Dog:

You've no proof whatsoever that Libya suspension of its WMD program had anything at all to do withIraq or toughening U.S. rhetoric. More likely Qaddafi saw an opportunity to end the U.S. and European sanctions, which were harming Libya's economic development. All he had to do was give up his rather insignificant "weapons of mass destruction" programs...

Yeah right. By amazing coincidence, after years of sanctions, Gaddafi’s first message to Britain, the USA's principal war ally and conduit to White House war councils, occurs just days before the invasion of Iraq. And then Gaddafi randomly picks December 19, 2003, as the day for his final capitualtion to US/British terms - just 6 days after Saddam is fished out of a rat hole.

Pure coincidence, I'm sure.

As Jay Leno would say, what are the odds? The 9 months of negotiations with Libya perfectly frame the war on Iraq and the fall of Saddam. How is it possible to ignore the most blindingly obvious collateral benefits?

And what is the difference between a country being part of an "Axis of Evil" and an "outpost of tryanny"?

[Black Dog]

Yeah right. By amazing coincidence, after years of sanctions, Gaddafi’s first message to Britain, the USA's principal war ally and conduit to White House war councils, occurs just days before the invasion of Iraq. And then Gaddafi randomly picks December 19, 2003, as the day for his final capitualtion to US/British terms - just 6 days after Saddam is fished out of a rat hole.

Pure coincidence, I'm sure

This fallacy is known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc," that is, "afterward, therefore because of."

Interesting interview

One of the things you have to realize is that starting in the mid-1980s, Qaddafi began to face some significant organized opposition at home. And what nobody was paying any attention to, except Qaddafi himself, was the fact that this organized opposition was what we would later come to call an early “Qaeda-type network.”...

Over the course of the succeeding 10 to 15 years, he seemed to everyone else in the world to be leading a rogue state, on the wrong side of everything, but he himself was finding that his purposes were increasingly served by aligning with the establishment, with the status-quo regimes, and with his former enemies. All of that crystallized on the morrow of the September 11 attack. He had already begun to try and get himself back in the good graces of everyone by turning over Lockerbie suspects and living with the verdict.

So this was not an overnight conversion. But September 11 really represented the moment where he saw an opportunity, because he heard loud and clear President Bush saying, “If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists.” He said to himself, “This is my chance to say, ’I’m with you.’” So, literally on the 12th of September, the head of Libyan intelligence, Musa Kusa, who has also been involved in negotiating on the WMD issues, was meeting in Europe with people from the CIA, saying, “This is our list of suspects. These are the terrorists that we know that are connected to al Qaeda, who are operating out of Europe,” and so forth and so on.

...

At this point, if he were overthrown, Libya would be in just awful shape. And if he were overthrown, the only plausible organizer of a successor regime would be probably a very underground and disorganized Islamist opposition. A peaceful transition, á la Syria or something like that, is not in the cards, unless Qaddafi opens up the country and gets more help from Europeans and even the United States in getting that economy, if not necessarily going, at least righted. And the Libyans know they have given President Bush a gift, a deliberate gift [by abandoning WMD]. The quid pro quo is that the United States lift sanctions. That’s what they really want.

So it appears both examples (Libya and North Korea) utterly repuidate your statements that "the road to peace is through strength and resolve" and "the only thing dictators understand is force or the threat of it". The carrot worked better than the stick.

[Toro]

North Korea, despite the rhetoric, was never on the radar for America, or at least not like Iraq and Iran. America's biggest worry wasn't that they'd actually use nuclear weapons, but rather, North Korea would sell the weapons to al-Qaeda. North Korea is starving, thanks to the man-made disaster known as communism and autarky. A starving person - or nation - will do whatever it can to get food. The nuclear weapons are a bargaining chip to get food and keep the regime in power.

Notice the difference in behavior between Iran and North Korea. Iran has steadfastly denied they are developing nuclear weapons but instead are developing nuclear power - complete lies considering Iran has one of the largest oil reserves in the world. But North Korea is like the kid on the block, jumping up and down, trying to get attention and get people to take it seriously. If you really are trying to develop nuclear weapons, its not a particularly good idea to announce loudly you are doing so and flout international convention.

[Shakeyhands]

Shakeyhands, what is it like living in that little fantasy world of yours?

Incredible!  Kim backs down, agrees to stop his nuclear ambitions and he "won".

Why don't you come right out and say it?  You're pissed that NK capitualted to the USA's threat and you're pissed that it makes Bush look good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm.. Yup, you're deluded.

NK has done the exact same thing how many times before? Burns, please pull your head out of Bush's rectum and look around, whilst doing that, try to take in a little reality.

[Black Dog]

North Korea caves in....not.

North Korea accused the United States on Wednesday of using diplomatic talks to try and take away its nuclear arms so that Washington could crush the reclusive state with an atomic weapons strike.

The statement follows another by North Korea on Tuesday which threw into doubt a six-country deal on giving up its nuclear arms, just one day after it was struck.

Obviously, Pyongyang recognizes the derrent value of a nuclear weapon. Either that, or they realize they can probably cut a better deal.

[Cartman]

Notice the difference in behavior between Iran and North Korea. Iran has steadfastly denied they are developing nuclear weapons but instead are developing nuclear power - complete lies considering Iran has one of the largest oil reserves in the world. But North Korea is like the kid on the block, jumping up and down, trying to get attention and get people to take it seriously. If you really are trying to develop nuclear weapons, its not a particularly good idea to announce loudly you are doing so and flout international convention.

I am not going to refute your statement because these sort of things are difficult to prove or disprove, but I could see Iran wanting to develop nuclear power. Currently, Tehran often gets so smoggy that people cannot even see and the city comes to a standstill. It is terrible. On the other hand, if I had the Americans next door and was worried they wanted to attack, I would probably want these weapons too.

Is it not simply a matter of time before all nations possess nuclear weapons? I would assume that it is going to be impossible for the US to invade every country that is supposedly thinking of getting them. The US might have been better off with the Soviet Union intact controlling their nukes rather than this cluster.

[Toro]

Cartman

I think you are dead right about its just a matter of time before Iran has nuclear weapons. Look at where Iran is situated. To the east, there are nuclear powers in India, Pakistan and China. In the north, Russia has nuclear weapons. To the west, Israel and America (in Iraq) have nuclear weapons. Iran is a regional power. They too will have nuclear weapons.

[Black Dog]

Montgomery Burns  Sep 19 2005

Bill Clinton engaged NK in bilateral talks in 1994 agreeing the US would supply NK with nuclear power plants and energy in exchange for NK’s agreement to dismantle its nuclear weapons program over a 10 year period. NK did not honor the agreement.

Took a look at the newest deal and compared it to the 1994 Agreed Framwork put in place by the Clinton administration.

2005:

The six parties unanimously reaffirmed that the goal of the six-party talks is the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner.

1994

The DPRK will consistently take steps to implement the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

2005

The United States affirmed that it has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has no intention to attack or invade the DPRK with nuclear or conventional weapons.

1994:

The U.S. will provide formal assurances to the DPRK, against the threat or use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.

2005

The DPRK and the United States undertook to respect each other's sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize their relations subject to their respective bilateral policies.

1994

The United States and North Korea committed to move toward normalizing economic and political relations, including by reducing barriers to investment, opening liaison offices, and ultimately exchanging ambassadors.

2005

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning at an early date to the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT) and to IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards.

1994

1) The DPRK will remain a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and will allow implementation of its safeguards agreement under the Treaty.

2) Upon conclusion of the supply contract for the provision of the LWR project, ad hoc and routine inspections will resume under the DPRK’s safeguards agreement with the IAEA with respect to the facilities not subject to the freeze. Pending conclusion of the supply contract, inspections required by the IAEA for the continuity of safeguards will continue at the facilities not subject to the freeze.

This latest deal (which North Korea likely won't honour either) is a virtual carbon copy of the 1994 bilateral agreement. The only difference is that the Bush administration did not explicitly promise to build Kim Jong Il a light-water reactor, as Clinton did in 1994, promising instead to talk about building such a reactor "at the appropriate time."

So a question for our resident Bush-boy: given this latest "stunning victory's" stunning resemblence to the "failed Clinton-era NK policy" of "appeasement", why are you supporting a government that supports appeasement of dictators and terrorists?

[Riverwind]

So a question for our resident Bush-boy: given this latest "stunning victory's" stunning resemblence to the "failed Clinton-era NK policy" of "appeasement", why are you supporting a government that supports appeasement of dictators and terrorists?

The answer is: if Bush does it then it is good, if Clinton did it then it is bad.

[Black Dog]

To the issue of nuclear proliferation: the Pentagon just announced its new nuclear policy, which authorizes the "preemptive" use of nuclear weapons against anyone using "or intending to use WMD" against the U.S. or its allies and in cases of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy".

Kinda blunts their credibility on the whole nuke issue, don't it?

Now, given the U.S.'s readiness to go to war on preemptive grounds (the Iraq war war billed, in part, as a preemptive war against an enemy with stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and a dangeropus nuclear program,allegations that were sketchy at the time and subsequently proven false), and are now considering reserving the right to, essentailly, nuke anyone they damn well please, plus the fact that they are sitting on an aresnal of some 7,000 nuclear warheads, I have to wonder about all the fuss over North Korea and Iran...

[moderateamericain]

To the issue of nuclear proliferation: the Pentagon just announced its new nuclear policy, which authorizes the "preemptive" use of nuclear weapons against anyone using "or intending to use WMD" against the U.S. or its allies and in cases of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy".

Kinda blunts their credibility on the whole nuke issue, don't it?

Now, given the U.S.'s readiness to go to war on preemptive grounds (the Iraq war war billed, in part, as a preemptive war against an enemy with stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and a dangeropus nuclear program,allegations that were sketchy at the time and subsequently proven false), and are now considering reserving the right to, essentailly, nuke anyone they damn well please, plus the fact that they are sitting on an aresnal of some 7,000 nuclear warheads, I have to wonder about all the fuss over North Korea and Iran...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

wow, i coudnt have imagined a worse policy. Bush is going over the top now.

[Montgomery Burns]

ABC News: Bush Administration deals death blow to North Korea reactor project

NEW YORK Nov 22, 2005 — The United States and its partners on Tuesday dealt the death blow to a project to build two light-water atomic reactors for North Korea to entice it into dismantling its nuclear weapons program, officials said.

Compare: The Bush administration dealt a death blow to NK building nuclear reactors.

Clinton gave NK a nuclear reactor (at least ChIraq charged Saddam for the Osirak nuclear reactor).

Once again we see proof that thugs only respect power, and conversely appeasement is a failure for foreign policy.

I can't wait to see the Clinton butt-sniffers try and justify Dear Leader's appeasement to democracy's enemies.

[Black Dog]

Compare: The Bush administration dealt a death blow to NK building nuclear reactors.

Clinton gave NK a nuclear reactor (at least ChIraq charged Saddam for the Osirak nuclear reactor).

Once again we see proof that thugs only respect power, and conversely appeasement is a failure for foreign policy.

I can't wait to see the Clinton butt-sniffers try and justify Dear Leader's appeasement to democracy's enemies.

Did you hit your head coming out from under your bridge today? Light water reactors are not useful for weapons programs beacause the uranium they use is far less enriched than weapons grade material (electric power reactors require only enrichment from the 0.7% of natural uranium ore to about 3% U-235, the weapons applications required enrichment to over 90 per cent U-235). Which is why the U.S. agreed to build them in the first place.

Furthermore, this project has been mothballed from years, this announcement merely makes the end official. It does absoultely nothing to dent the North's nuclear weapons ambitions. If anything, this will only spur them on, as the provision of LWR was one of the provisions which kept he DPRK coming back to the barganing table.

I really have to wonder why you bother with this topic, given your consistent record of errors and misinterpretations. You should stick with the simple ad hominems that are your stock in trade.

[GostHacked]

Monty Burns.

You were saying something about the population of Iraq and North Korea. You were also saying that it was easy to bowl over Iraq with the mighty US force.

Now, you very well know that Iraw was easly bowled over, and it was expected. After the first gulf war, a decade of sanctions and no fly zones, their military was utter garbage. So an easy victory was achieved. Iraq simply had NO chance of winning the war.

From Wikipedia

North Korea population 2002 estimate 22,224,1953 (48th)

Iraq population 2005 estimate 26,074,906 (44th)

Not much of a difference really. If you look at it this way, basicly Iraq has been fighting a war for over a decade with the US ect. North Korea has not been invaded ONCE. Yes they do have a smaller population, but they have not been attacked in the last 15 years. So I will go with the assumtion that their military is in very good shape. You have at least ONE MILLION ARMED TROOPS for their infantry. From estimates North Korea throws 25% of it's budget into the military.

The reason the US has pussy footed around with North Korea for so long, is that they are simply not interested in it that much. Nothing to gain by it. No ecomonic, military, resource gain at all. NONE.

We know what went on in Iraq however. And 10 years from now, North Korea will stil be in negotiations with the US. Nothing will change here.

[sharkman]

At the end of the day, I think the fact that NK has signed on is good news. Some want to give Bush credit and some want to blame him for it, but it's still good news.

[Black Dog]

At the end of the day, I think the fact that NK has signed on is good news.  Some want to give Bush credit and some want to blame him for it, but it's still good news.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What are they signing on to, exactly?

[sharkman]

That was covered in the first post that started this thread.

[moderateamericain]

At the end of the day, I think the fact that NK has signed on is good news.  Some want to give Bush credit and some want to blame him for it, but it's still good news.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What are they signing on to, exactly?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was thinking about this thread, and are you sure, that its the US they are backing down to? If i was N.K. Id be more worried about that billion man army that chinese maintan then the 50k or so US Marines. Keep in mind that i seriously doubt the budding chinese economy wants a cornered animal of a nation with nuclear weapons in its near vacinity. No if i was North Korea, i would back down to china a helluva lot faster then i would to the United States.

[Montgomery Burns]

Monty Burns.

You were saying something about the population of Iraq and North Korea. You were also saying that it was easy to bowl over Iraq with the mighty US force.

Now, you very well know that Iraw was easly bowled over, and it was expected. After the first gulf war, a decade of sanctions and no fly zones, their military was utter garbage. So an easy victory was achieved. Iraq simply had NO chance of winning the war.

From Wikipedia

North Korea population  2002 estimate 22,224,1953 (48th)

Iraq population 2005 estimate 26,074,906 (44th)

Not much of a difference really. If you look at it this way, basicly Iraq has been fighting a war for over a decade with the US ect. North Korea has not been invaded ONCE. Yes they do have a smaller population, but they have not been attacked in the last 15 years. So I will go with the assumtion that their military is in very good shape. You have at least ONE MILLION ARMED TROOPS for their infantry. From estimates North Korea throws 25% of it's budget into the military.

The reason the US has pussy footed around with North Korea for so long, is that they are simply not interested in it that much. Nothing to gain by it. No ecomonic, military, resource gain at all. NONE.

We know what went on in Iraq however. And 10 years from now, North Korea will stil be in negotiations with the US. Nothing will change here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nonsense. The Iraqi army was one of the top armies in the world. With the help of the UN, Iraq was able to easily circumvent the UN sanctions and with the billions Saddam made off the Oil for Food Program, were able to project a dangerous force in this world.

AS for NK, do you really think that their "manpower" would stop the US? You sound like these people who claim that China has millions in their military. Big deal. These days, much of war is fought in the air. The Iraqi Air Force fled to Iran and I don't see much difference between them and NK/China.

Admit it. There is no military that can match the US these days.