<p>Neither Republicans or Democrats are responsible for the simple fact that a lunatic is in charge of North Korea. And there is no strategy or person that could have realistically brought him into the world community. He is a megalomaniac who wants to flex his muscle and threaten the entire world. We know what usually happens to dictators like him. There’s a long history of them. To blame either Bush or Clinton for what occurred is absurd. They both tried with this idiot. As far as “appeasement”, well face to face negotiations and drafting “agreements” is how you give legitimacy to a dictator, not giving food to the people in his country that need it. So really it was Clinton practicing the appeasement by treating this maniac like a legitimate leader. Bush’s policy of refusing to have any bilateral negotiations with this maniac until he made some clear committment to join the civilized nations is a much more appropriate way of dealing with the blustering and threat, in my mind. Both techniques were doomed to failure.</p>
<p>Having started this thread, I find myself unwilling to slog through every response…well, not all of the responses require slogs. But.</p>
<p>Puzzle pieces that belong on the table include that the U.S. has a lot less influence on NK than China and the South Koreans have been vehemently against Bush’s blustering approach to confrontation. Might have something to do with the fact that NK has 10,000 artillery pieces within range of Seoul and they have more to lose even in a non-nuclear confrontation that goes hot.</p>
<p>Yes. The artillery situation re Seoul and the fact that we have 50K or so troops there does make a difference, doesn’t it? They don’t need nukes to control the tactical situation there. Strategic situation? That’s where it gets interesting. China could cut off all of NK’s minimal electricity tomorrow. But if they had a missile… Why would anyone think that unilateral talks between US/NK are a good idea?</p>
<p>Because unilateral talks don’t hurt? And because unilateral talks don’t preclude multilateral talks as well? </p>
<p>The NK’s started work on a uranium-based program and in response Bush sabotaged the framework governing NK’s previous agreements to seal their plutonium research, whereupon they taped over the cameras, unsealed the fuel rods, kicked out the inspectors and two years later produced a plutonium-based bomb. Great strategy. And Mr. Bluff-and-Bluster did nothing when the NK’s resumed the plutonium program because he was bogged down in Iraq. NK’s leader may be crazy but he’s not stupid: he knew he could get away with it.</p>
<p>Actually, that’s Bush’s M.O.: take a problem and do something that will make it worse. Iraq, NK, and next up…Iran!!!</p>
<p>What were the south koreans thinking? They had a bitter enemy from the north for 1/2 a century. Nobody in the south thought about moving their industrial,commercial,political centers out of mouth of a tiger?</p>
<p>They should have started long ago of migrating their assets out of harm’s way. Are they arrogant or naive to think US should protect them forever?
Realistically their govmt is to blame for any consequence for putting themselves at risk. Downtown Seoul is within artillery range of an unstable,hostile regime. What arrogant fools !</p>
<p>Next topic: </p>
<p>I am thinking inside my head whether a certain poster who goes by the screen name ‘Mini’ who had held a committee level gov’t position is really a leftist mole. Surely you can’t tell from his posts any difference between him and those seek to destroy America. You are SO READY to cheer American misfortunes and never really offer any constructive advices. Please do your deeds outside of gov’t where you can do less harms.</p>
<p>Edvest, read again. Mini is an equal opportunity party basher.</p>
<p>edvest1 – tounge in cheek… right?</p>
<p>I just want to stand up for America and look in the eyes of those who thought less of it.</p>
<p>There’s nothing wrong with criticizing America. That’s how change happens and that’s how democracy works.</p>
<p>Unilateral talks will not produce any progress, and will not be helpful in the long term. They just give legitimacy to a megalomaniacal tyrant that won’t adhere to any agreement he makes anyway. Read Berlin Diary by William Shirer… You can read about all the countries and leaders that had unilateral talks and agreements with Hitler, and how he broke every treaty and agreement that he ever made. This madman is no better. He has clearly demonstrated he has no interest at all in joining the world community. He enjoys blustering and threatening the entire world because he thinks he can get away with it. Letting him arm himself with nuclear weapons would be the biggest mistake the world can make.</p>
<p>I suggest:take him to the mat and call his bluff. Give him the Pakistan message: you want North Korea to be a big sandbox… try exploding another nuke. Any detonation of a nuclear device anywhere in the world that originates in North Korea will be followed by the delivery of a very large Hydrogen bomb to a North Korean target. Make it clear. This is the policy that we followed against the USSR that resulted in a standoff for 50 years. Kim Jong talks a big game, but he probably has at most 3 devices that are each less than a kiloton, and probably no way to deliver them at present. After this message is clear, then blockade the country, and let him bluster and threaten away. Most likely he will back down… Krushchev did. If he wants the blockade lifted, then he’ll have to give up his nuclear ambitions.
If he wants to explode a bomb and go up in smoke… so be it. Better now than when he has some real firepower in 2 or 3 years. A radical solution?
Maybe. But negotiation is not going to fly with this maniac. There is nothing to suggest that any agreement he makes will be worth the paper it’s written on.</p>
<p>
It looks like Japan is going to do something right. Hopefully the U.N. will take similar action.</p>
<p>EdVest, I agree about arrogant fools. But they aren’t South Koreans.</p>
<p>RDS, nice try but you might want to run that by our South Korean allies on the scene. I’m not sure what they’ll say but it won’t be “kum sa ha mi da.”</p>
<p>I was thinking around while driving today that part of the problem is that the U.S. assumes that it has the ace of trumps in any situation and we really don’t do well if somebody else, e.g. China, has more leverage than we do. How they choose to use it is another point.</p>
<p>I heard a synopsis of Bush’s approach today on the radio and almost barfed. In this situation, he’s perfectly well to go with a multilateral approach. Because unilateral military action is a non-starter. </p>
<p>Trouble is, the Dear Leader isolated in a bubble where he hears only what he wants to hear believes in acting unilaterally when he can, multilaterally only when he must, instead of the other way around.</p>
<p>North Korea saw what Mr. Sleaze does to countries whom he has deemed part of the “axis of evil”, and which don’t have nuclear weapons. And so, based on the evidence before them (and unlike during the Clinton years), they actually built and tested one, and sped up the program on delivery systems. Quite rational, really. I suspect that if any of you were the prime minister of Iran, you’d do the same thing. It’s really not that hard to understand, even if the Hate America crowd doesn’t get it.</p>
<p>It’s difficult to conduct diplomacy with poor intelligence:
<a href=“http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20061012-124127-8808r[/url]”>http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20061012-124127-8808r</a></p>
<p>Yup, 6 years and umpteen “intelligence failures” later, Mr. Sleaze still can’t get his intelligence crew to do their jobs.</p>
<p>Intelligence failures start at the top. ;)</p>
<p>To cut the President and National Intelligence some slack, it isn’t exactly easy to sneak CIA agents into North Korea or it’s nuclear science team. It really is a very isolated place.</p>
<p>Now those North Koreans are gonna get it, all right. Their actions are “unacceptable”, and after six years of appeasement from Mr. Sleaze, it’s time for the U.S. to get tough.</p>
<p>Bolton has proposed and the gang has agreed to an embargo on the export of Louis Vuitton luggage and Coach bags to NK.</p>
<p>I think it is time for North Korea to surrender. How can their fearless leader get up and face the day without Tresemme?</p>
<p>The game with NK was, again was, not a complicated game. NK has and had nothing vs Everybody Else who has everything. HK continued to bluff where need be, or ignore when they had to, and nod their heads when they had to.</p>