okay i haven't read all the post so sorry if this has been said b4...i don't think they want war or anything cause if they did i don't think people would even know about the missile...
theories:
1. they were testing some new underwater technology
2. ....uhhhh

i don't know but i don't think any nation would really be stupid enough to declare another war with the global economy in this situation...plus, i think so many people are out to make north korea a 'bad country'...what exactly is so bad about it? that it wants to make nuclear weapons? well, other countries have their share of them, why can't north korea...?

Don't take this the wrong way, but you might get trampled if you stand by that argument, survivingonrice.

North Korea is a run by a dictator named Kim Jong-Il. The country is closed to the outside world, and its citizens are not allowed to travel freely. The Stalinist dictatorship claims to have no human rights issues, but refugees who manage to escape from N. Korea tell different tales, moving enough to have had the United Nations pass a General Assembly resolution condemning the government's human rights violations.

Average citizens have no freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of travel, freedom of employment. Citizens cannot even buy vehicles. Handicapped people are removed from society, and according to reports, babies born with obvious disabilities are killed.

If that isn't enough, look up the word Gippeumjo.

Inside North Korea
Inside North Korea (part 1)
YouTube - Inside North Korea (part 1)

Inside North Korea (part 2)
YouTube - Inside North Korea (part 2)

Inside North Korea (part 3)
YouTube - Inside North Korea (part 3)

Inside North Korea (part 4)
YouTube - Inside North Korea (part 4)

Inside North Korea (part 5)
YouTube - Inside North Korea (part 5)

Inside North Korea (part 6)
YouTube - Inside North Korea (part 6)

Inside North Korea (part 7)
YouTube - Inside North Korea (part 7)

But I don't think the dictator is enough crazy to use the nuclear weapon, except if he really wants to suicide himself.

If my comments were pointless, why bother replying it? Harping for nothing?

Try living in South Korea for over a decade. You'll know what I'm talking about since it's very hard to describe in words. You have to actually experience it.

At least somebody makes sense about this.

Besides. In this post-modernist world we live in, are democracy and conventional political spectrum (conservatism and liberalism) really relevant? Or are they merely relics of the early 20th century?

He went from being all talk to doing a lot. Which is it?

You are an Australian living in Thai, so I don't expect you to to have a first-hand knowledge, but you don't need to criticize EVERYTHING, do you?

Did some people have bigger expectations? Well, not really...it's only been less than 5% of his first term

Did some people have lower expectations? Of course. And they criticize the way he steps off a plane. No president had been more scrutinized than Obama, especially before he has even been in office 80 days, but he is handling it like a champ. Bush got into office and immediately went on vacation. No one gave a crap.

It is obviously a new generation.

MMM everyone is critic you know that. We all can be critical it takes less energy to be negative about EVERYTHING in the world than to be positive about baby steps. We could name any leader of a foreign country in here and someone would find a way to say how crappy a leader they are or how they do nothing or how they are not qualified for the job. Its easier to criticize than to give your own ideas on actually FIXING a problem.

Iv possed this question several times and I got a DUH answer everytime. If you know how to run a country better than the guy already doing so then put up or shut up. The fact remains we can all sit here and criticize all we want but none of us have the stones to step into a leaders shoes including Obama. If people think they know best then give options of how to solve some of the worlds problems instead of being a naysayer consistently.

Its how things work around here you know better than most.

People have given there opinions on how to run the country, EVERY single time, Obama spouts "I won so I get my way". It's the deal with the so called "stimulus package" that was rushed through congress, without anytime to read what was in the stupid thing. there's a great guy from the British Parliament (he's on youtube) that pretty bluntly said you cannot spend, or barrow your way out of debt, it doesn't happen. You know what the opposite was said? STOP spending and conserve the money, with tax deductions. Others also have proposed to let companies fall (like real capitalism) and let the system sort itself out. That's a difference on running a country isn't it? IThe problem is, Obama doesn't care for others opinions. It's like Tim Geithner wanting to take over Companies that he sees as a financial risk to US economy.

Let's not make it sound like Bush had it easy.
Bush was bombarded with criticism and ridicule for the majority of his term.

Nicely played. I can relate to that argument, but I don't buy the way you've implemented it.
Again, a lot of negativity had been thrown Bush's way, despite the positive results that came from some of his decisions. So, according to your argument, Bush was treated somewhat unfairly also.

In the end, I'm not sure that's the right route to take.
That's almost a method of labeling all negativity unjustified or useless, and I'm sure you don't believe that. Criticism and negativity can be based on valid reasoning.

The President is in service of the people -- not the other way around. In this respect, criticism is an indication of a healthy democracy; it exemplifies the nature in the right of Freedom of Speech.

I'd also like to remind you that simply giving your own ideas can lead to criticism, especially when these ideas contradict or oppose that of the leader. In addition, not all suggestions are going to be logical and adequate.

I'm not excusing excessive negativity, but the difference between productive criticism and irrational pessimism should be clarified.

On a more personal note, I disagree with your "none of us have the stones to step up" statement. To put it simply: you don't know.