North Korea again

Well it seems North Korea is at it again, they once again have threatened the U.S. and South Korea. Not only that, there was a cyber attack on South Korea which is assumed to be from North Korea.

While it sounds obvious that North Korea is the one doing these cyber attacks it is not certain. Another possibility is that someone is trying to frame North Korea for the attacks. There are many people that may want to do this.  Though if I were to put money on it I would say North Korea was responsible.

North Korea recently warned that they could not insure the protection of the diplomats from other nations in North Korea in the event of a war. Along with the fact they withdrew workers from Kaesong and the fact they warned visitors to South Korea to be careful shows that they believe that scare tactics will work. Whether or not they will has yet to be seen.

While it is less likely it is always possible that a terrorist group may have been the ones responsible for the cyber attack.

Extremists in the Middle East may be the ones behind it, but because it has not been their style in the past to remain anonymous after an attack, I highly doubt they are the responsible party.The reason they would target South Korea is to make the U.S. retaliate against North Korea and have a war start between the U.S, her allies, and North Korea.

It could very well be a different terrorist group not originating in the Middle East. It may also be that it is a terrorist group that wants to hurt South Korea specifically and has no quarrel with the U.S. If I were to place money on  who was responsible I would say North Korea. With the continued threats coming almost daily, it is obvious they wish to at the very least make us afraid that they will attack the world.

North Korea

North Korea once again has made a move against the rest of the world, specifically the U.S. and South Korea. While technically still at war, North and South Korea have not had open conflict in many years due to an agreement that was titled the Non Aggression Act. Just recently, North Korea said that they were canceling the Non Aggression Act, which could mean war in the Korean Peninsula. But because North Korea does not have the strength to pose a major threat to the rest of the world, this is likely just a bluff.

Not only have they torn up the non-aggression act with South Korea, they have also threatened preemptive nuclear attack on the U.S. They made this claim right before the U.N. placed further restrictions on them. What the further restrictions will do to change North Korea's attitude is unknown; it could either make them change their policies to embrace more of a western ideal, or become more aggressive. However, the odds are that the restrictions won't change North Korea's attitude toward the rest of the world.

North Korea is still has quite a while to go before it will actually be a threat to the U.S. but the fact that some time in the future they may have the capabilities of shooting a nuclear missile at the U.S. is still something to be worried about.

It is unknown exactly what China will do, but they have made it quite clear that they want peace on the Korean Peninsula. China being North Korea's main ally will play a crucial role in deciding the fate of the Korean Peninsula.

It is unclear what North Korea is attempting to do here. Why North Korea would tell everyone they were canceling the Non Aggression Act is rather mysterious. If they were to go to war with South Korea it makes more sense for it to come completely out of nowhere. That way, they would have the element of surprise on their side. It may be that Kim Jong-Un is trying to show the world that he is a man to be feared, but he still knows he does not have the capability to face off against the Western World and her allies.
 

Pope resignation

This could be a very good thing for the Catholic religion, and not because Pope Benedict had his flaws, but because it sets a precedent for a pope to resign if they are unfit for duty for the church.

The reason that a pope has not resigned more recently is due to a combination of reasons. One major reason is the idea of tradition. Traditionally, popes have held office until they die. Another reason is because people become addicted to power, and because they are addicted to this power they will try to rule for as long as they can even if they are not fit for the job.

Before people start yelling at me saying the Pope is infallible, we have to see the fact that he is still human. Whether you believe that the pope directly communicates with God, or if you believe in something else, or nothing at all, we all have to admit that past popes have not always been the best people. So even if they do communicate with God, it does not make them perfect. If you want an example, look at Pope Alexander VI. 

What Pope Benedict does is set a precedent for future popes to resign if they are unfit for their service to the church, which is a great step forward for the Catholic church in general. Whether or not you agree with the Vatican, it is good for the entire world if future popes begin resigning after they are unfit for service to the Catholic church.What this will actually mean for future popes and the world as a whole is unclear, but it certainly looks like a step in the right direction. 

Women in the military

Very recently women were allowed to fight in some combat military positions. This is a step for true equality among the sexes in the U.S. The fact that women were not allowed to serve in combat roles shows just how sexist our country still is.

The idea that there is equality among the sexes in the U.S. is ridiculous. While women should be equal to men, they are not in the U.S. and it will take a while longer until they are. Women are often times not as paid as much as men simply because they are not men and only recently this has gotten media attention.

It is not just how women are paid or how they are not able to do certain jobs, it is also how they are treated on a more individual level. Many people find women to be delicate and think they are not up to the tasks that men are up to. It is true that some women can't do things men can, but there are also men who cannot do the tasks that the stereotypical man can. Going off that point there are things some men can't do that women can.

While it is not official government policy to have sexist laws, the fact that just now women are able to serve in combat positions in the military show just how sexist the U.S. still is.

The truth is that there are many differences between men and women, but neither men nor women should be treated differently just because they are a certain gender. People should be judged by the skills that they have and the skills that they lack, and not by if they are a certain gender or come from a different ethnic background.

Gun control

The idea that people should be able to buy any gun they want is one of the worst ideas imaginable, but people should also be able to own some firearms. There is a happy middle ground but people seem to believe that either we should be able to own whatever gun we want or we shouldn't own any guns.

The argument that people make for no gun control is that guns don't kill people people kill people which is true but guns make it easier for people to kill people. Another argument used is that guns can protect people, but guns end up causing more deaths than they prevent.

People that are for gun control bring up the statistics showing countries with more regulations have fewer deaths caused by guns. Even though this is true people still should be able to own guns because if we make that argument it can be used on virtually anything. It just leads to the government taking away more of our liberties.

People should be able to own some guns but there has to be some regulations on it.

In regards to my last post

I am just clarifying a few things about my last post.

North Korea is not stupid; they will not go to war with the world unless there is a possibility of them winning.  There is always the possibility that diplomatic relations may change and in that case war may not be certain.

I apologize about how long it took me to clarify my last post but I was in India and was unable to access the Internet.

Syrian conflict on Turkey's border

Russia and China originally stonewalled more U.N. and NATO involvement in Syria because Russia was selling weapons to Syria. From Russia's viewpoint, the longer the war went on the more money they would make. 

Three day ago NATO moved forward with its plan to have Patriot missiles on the border between Turkey and Syria. NATO insists the only reason these missiles are being installed is to protect their ally Turkey. The main reason they have done this is to make sure Syria does not use chemical weapons deployed through missiles against the rebels. NATO is simply using the excuse of protecting Turkey so they can put more pressure on Syria without China and Russia stonewalling them by blocking the countries that are in the U.N. from taking action, effectively cutting off NATO from doing anything even though they are not NATO members. 

Russia said that Moscow would not protest Patriot missiles being put on the border between Turkey and Syria if they were for the defense of Turkey only. The only reason that NATO has the excuse that they are simply protecting Turkish citizens is because five Turkish citizens were killed by a missile that came from Syria, even though most likely that missile was a misfire.

Just hours after NATO set up Patriot missiles on the Syrian border, Russia delivered its first shipment of Iskander missiles to Syria. What NATO did ended up backfiring on them. Its true that there is slightly more pressure on Syria but Syria also now has Iskander which helps the Syrian government immensely.


Iskander missiles are designed to get past missile defense systems. They are of Russian make and are extremely successful at pinpoint accuracy and getting past missile defense systems. 

After NATO said that there were signs that Syria would begin to use chemical weapons against the rebels, Russia stated that the Syrian government had assured them that they would not use chemical weapons against the rebels.However, with the Iskander missiles that Russia sold to Syria they now have a very effective way of attacking the rebels with chemical weapons.  It remains to be seen if they will or not.

Syria is worried that the U.N. will frame them for using chemical weapons against the rebels. It is very likely that the U.N. is trying to find a way to frame Syria because if Syria uses chemical weapons the U.S. will become directly involved in the conflict there.

Russia delivered these missiles to Syria so NATO would not easily be able to shoot down missiles shot in Syria. Russia and China will now continue to stonewall the U.N. and NATO now that Russia is once again selling weapons to Syria.