(Note: I'm not sure if this is where I should post this; however, the "Politics" forum formerly had the description, "Yo, dis be where we talk about Bush" or something to that effect, and since this has nothing to do with Bush...).

I haven't written the paper yet, but I was going for a nice introduction so I could guide my outline.  Tell me what you guys think.

Rational or Irrational: Kim Jong-Il and North Korea
The United States’ continually-tense relationship with Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has left political scholars and United States policymakers divided and unsure as to how to proceed in the best interest of both parties.  Indeed, the leadership of the DPRK – vested only in one eccentric leader, Kim Jong-Il – has raised doubts among the political community of the ability to engage successfully.  While it appears that the North is attempting to extend the proverbial olive branch to the rest of the international community, many policymakers are skeptical about a change in DPRK intentions, particularly while the North’s troops are forward-deployed and Seoul can be targeted.  At the crux of the matter of engagement is whether or not engagement is even possible: can the North be trusted?  While the DPRK does not have a particularly outstanding track record of fulfilling its international obligations, the largest failure in recent times cannot simply be pinned on the North.  However, when a state is commanded by a single individual – in this case, the last surviving member of its Politburo – it becomes necessary not to evaluate a state’s behavior at the state level of analysis, but rather inspect the individual’s motives and rationale.  In this paper, I will examine the case for Kim Jong-Il’s rationality in international political behavior, first by defining rationality in the classical view, then juxtaposing a psychological position of “bounded rationality” based on heuristics.  I will then look at recent DPRK international actions, including the normalization of relations with the European Union, the establishment of the Agreed Framework and subsequent failure, the test-firing of the Taepo-dong II missile, and the so-called “Nuclear Revelation” to provide an analysis of Kim’s rationality.  I will conclude by evaluating United States foreign policy with regard to the North, supporting a controlled level of “hawkish” behavior, while positing clearly that pressure alone will do nothing but exacerbate an already volatile situation.

positing is a strange word.

what do Positing and exacerbate mean? Sounds good, unfortunately it hurts my brain when i read it!

exacerbate means make worse

[quote author=BaDDBLooD link=topic=9426.msg87862#msg87862 date=1099877469]
what do Positing and exacerbate mean? Sounds good, unfortunately it hurts my brain when i read it!
[/quote]

Positing is the gerund of "to posit," which means "to suggest," but implying a kind of theory suggestion.

Exacerbate means, as $t0rm pointed out, to make worse.