I'm not trolling. Even if the people in NK are hungry (but they are not more hungry then the poor in the west), this does not give you the right to "save" them and take their little left posesions in the process, because you know, US never saved anyone without the army taking ground. If you see a poor man hungry on the street and you give him food, that's "saving him" but if you take his home and take his belongings because you can "manage" them better than him and if you force him to work for you, that's not "saving" him. That's slavery hidden in the form of charity. Isn't it strange that US goverment never saves the real poor of the world (saharian africans - they leave their salvation to red cross and independent charity) instead somehow US gov. always finds some richer "poors" and if they can't be "saved" by corruption and bribery, they are "saved" by armed invasion?