One question for Bush apologists

[MDC 5,892]

One question:

 

What, if anything, has Bush done about the gorwing threat of a nuclear North Korea in the almost five years since he labelled them part of the "axis of evil." Just name one thing, please. Thanks.

[GettnHuge 1]

One question:

 

What, if anything, has Bush done about the gorwing threat of a nuclear North Korea in the almost five years since he labelled them part of the "axis of evil." Just name one thing, please. Thanks.

 

well, actually getting China to start seeing things our way is a huge step. If you have any

non-violent solutions just let us know!

[MDC 5,892]

well, actually getting China to start seeing things our way is a huge step. If you have any

non-violent solutions just let us know!

 

What did Bush do to get China to see things our way?

 

Anyone else want to try?

[Cdub100 3,381]

One question:

 

What, if anything, has Bush done about the gorwing threat of a nuclear North Korea in the almost five years since he labelled them part of the "axis of evil." Just name one thing, please. Thanks.

 

They blamed Clinton

[DuckStupid 40]

[yojimbo81 0]

What has anyone done? There's not much the United States can do other than drop bombs on North Korea. The United Nations is weak and won't do a thing. I have not done much research myself but a few of the things I have read said this nuclear test might be a bluff.

[D_House 0]

What did Bush do to get China to see things our way?

 

Anyone else want to try?

he allowed NK to build a nuke, which turned a potential threat to China into an actual threat?

[jets24 6]

he allowed NK to build a nuke, which turned a potential threat to China into an actual threat?

 

 

HE allowed them to build a nuke? You guys are focking hilarious. Believe me, Bush can be blamed for many many things but it was President Clinton and his staff that supplied them with lots of weapons and lots of money. Good grief.

[Guest Davaco]

What has anyone done? There's not much the United States can do other than drop bombs on North Korea. The United Nations is weak and won't do a thing. I have not done much research myself but a few of the things I have read said this nuclear test might be a bluff.

 

clinton bribed them with aid packages, resulting in zero nuke tests on his watch

 

how many nuke tests on dubya's watch? 1

 

thats a 100% increase on top of the additional terrorists he created in the middle east.

 

way to go dubya

[MDC 5,892]

HE allowed them to build a nuke? You guys are focking hilarious. Believe me, Bush can be blamed for many many things but it was President Clinton and his staff that supplied them with lots of weapons and lots of money. Good grief.

 

Clinton never gave North Korea with weapons: He promised to give them reactors on the condition that they closed suspected weapons plants and submit to inspections, as a way to pay them back for the energy they'd be losing. The reactors were never built. I posted the link in another thread. So Clinton gave North Korea nothing but money and Bush continued to give them $$$. You still haven't answered my question:

 

In the five years since Bush has been in office, what has he done about the growing nuclear threat in North Korea? Other than cut off all negotiations and periodically rattle his sabre at them like a petulent little cheerleader b1tch rattling her baton at them from her focking bedroom window?

 

Anyone? Beuller? Beuller?

[patsnsox04 0]

he allowed NK to build a nuke, which turned a potential threat to China into an actual threat?

 

He, unlike the yellow cowards that preceded him, happened to be in office when a group of sandapes (of which there are millions) decided to kill themselves and 3000 innocent people. He has the nads and forsight to see that this is a 100 year maybe longer war for civilazation and he doesnt let the liberal media and the pols affect his decisions, better get used to this meat head cause God willing the next president will have the same courage, and conviction, God help us if they dont because this enemy isnt going anywhere anytime soon. As for North Korea that seed was planted in the Clinton adminstration and is left for Bush to clean up. HE will cause he has balls! Remeber we were attacked and we aint gonna take it. So tell all your lib friends to stand up and support our troops and our president. THIS IS WORLD WAR III, DO YOU WANT TO WIN OR NOT?

[Guest Davaco]

He, unlike the yellow cowards that preceded him, happened to be in office when a group of sandapes (of which there are millions) decided to kill themselves and 3000 innocent people. He has the nads and forsight to see that this is a 100 year maybe longer war for civilazation and he doesnt let the liberal media and the pols affect his decisions, better get used to this meat head cause God willing the next president will have the same courage, and conviction, God help us if they dont because this enemy isnt going anywhere anytime soon. As for North Korea that seed was planted in the Clinton adminstration and is left for Bush to clean up. HE will cause he has balls! Remeber we were attacked and we aint gonna take it. So tell all your lib friends to stand up and support our troops and our president. THIS IS WORLD WAR III, DO YOU WANT TO WIN OR NOT?

 

Clinton?

 

he had to clean up Bush 1 and regan's mess. They gave saddam his WMDs when they were fighting Iran and like a poosay, Bush 1 didnt finish the job in Iraq, so clinton had to clean up. and he did, with zero terrorist attacks on our soil and zero nuke tests by NK

 

how many terrorist attacks on US soil on dubya's watch and how many NK nuke tests?

 

:owned:

[D_House 0]

He, unlike the yellow cowards that preceded him, happened to be in office when a group of sandapes (of which there are millions) decided to kill themselves and 3000 innocent people. He has the nads and forsight to see that this is a 100 year maybe longer war for civilazation and he doesnt let the liberal media and the pols affect his decisions, better get used to this meat head cause God willing the next president will have the same courage, and conviction, God help us if they dont because this enemy isnt going anywhere anytime soon. As for North Korea that seed was planted in the Clinton adminstration and is left for Bush to clean up. HE will cause he has balls! Remeber we were attacked and we aint gonna take it. So tell all your lib friends to stand up and support our troops and our president. THIS IS WORLD WAR III, DO YOU WANT TO WIN OR NOT?

fastfish? good grief. get a focking grip. if you seriously believe that this is world war III, then you are a discredit to the generation that lived through an actual world war. they actually signed up to fight for the war that they believed in, rather than feeling it's enough to just "stand up and support our troops and our president."

 

btw, my original post was tongue in cheek, meant to get a reaction out of the bored knuckle draggers. Rude Rick, eat your heart out.

[Snoopy1 0]

He, unlike the yellow cowards that preceded him, happened to be in office when a group of sandapes (of which there are millions) decided to kill themselves and 3000 innocent people. He has the nads and forsight to see that this is a 100 year maybe longer war for civilazation and he doesnt let the liberal media and the pols affect his decisions, better get used to this meat head cause God willing the next president will have the same courage, and conviction, God help us if they dont because this enemy isnt going anywhere anytime soon. As for North Korea that seed was planted in the Clinton adminstration and is left for Bush to clean up. HE will cause he has balls! Remeber we were attacked and we aint gonna take it. So tell all your lib friends to stand up and support our troops and our president. THIS IS WORLD WAR III, DO YOU WANT TO WIN OR NOT?

 

 

So you are basically saying that it's like when the French decided to invade and make a colony out of Viet Nam..

 

Yeah how'd that work out for the French and US.

 

Sorry, democracy springs from the ground up, not from bombs from the sky.

 

I'll keep this to the simple soundbites, I'm sure a lecture on US/British Middle East policies for the last 100 years is way to complex for you to understand.

[Uh-huh 0]

Lots of hot, slimy manlove for W in this thread.

 

Homosexual infatuation (or plain ignorance) are the only possible reasons anyone can still claim to approve of W's horrendous record in office.

 

Everything has gone wrong. Everything single thing. The fact we're still here just proves the USA is too damn strong for even W to take it down.

[Toro 1]

I didn't know it was Bush's (or the United States') responsibility to police the globe. You cry because the world hates us because we stick our noses into other countries "illegally" yet when we don't do anything unilaterally, it's still our fault?

 

You can't have it both ways, Kerry.

[Cdub100 3,381]

I didn't know it was Bush's (or the United States') responsibility to police the globe. You cry because the world hates us because we stick our noses into other countries "illegally" yet when we don't do anything unilaterally, it's still our fault?

 

You can't have it both ways, Kerry.

 

I think he's "crying" because every single bad thing that has happened in the past 6 years has been blamed on Clinton

[Flashover 0]

Bush refused to directly talk with NK. It worked so well that he is going to stay the course and continue to refuse to talk with them. That'll show 'em!

[MDC 5,892]

I didn't know it was Bush's (or the United States') responsibility to police the globe. You cry because the world hates us because we stick our noses into other countries "illegally" yet when we don't do anything unilaterally, it's still our fault?

 

You can't have it both ways, Kerry.

 

I didn't blame Bush for North Korea testing a nuke. Just pointing out that his strategy of cutting off all negotiations (but still bribing them to not continue their nuke program) has been at least as much of a failure as Clinton's. Bubba's policies were flawed but at least diplomacy was a weapon in his arsenal. Dubya is just a dimwitted coward b1tch who buried his head in the sand for five years and now tries to blame his predecessor.

[Toro 1]

I didn't blame Bush for North Korea testing a nuke. Just pointing out that his strategy of cutting off all negotiations (but still bribing them to not continue their nuke program) has been at least as much of a failure as Clinton's. Bubba's policies were flawed but at least diplomacy was a weapon in his arsenal. Dubya is just a dimwitted coward b1tch who buried his head in the sand for five years and now tries to blame his predecessor.

 

Yes, you did.

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...t&p=2766290

[MDC 5,892]

Yes, you did.

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...t&p=2766290

 

I didn't blame him for North Korea testing nukes - I asked what he's done in five years to stop it. Apparently you got nothing, since all you do is about Clinton actually trying to negotiate with them. It's not Bush's fault but I'd love to hear what you would do differently, other than and moan about it from the comfort of your mother in law's basement apartment.

[Voltaire 4,560]

As much as I hate Bush, I don't give him grief on North Korea because I don't have any answers either. And the same is true for those that accuse Clinton of things. Clinton had all bad options as well. I do think that Clinton got the bst deal he could to forstall thye problem.

 

The only thing I blame Bush on regarding Korea is the "Axis of Evil" phrase and that his that his adventure in the desert gave Kim the opening to go about his WMD business uncontested. When the UN inspectors were chased out, I would have supported an invasion of Korea the next day before they could move the uranium. Maybe. That opens a lot of cans of worms. Bush chose not, not that he had much of a choice, he's boggd himself down. Still, I understand.

 

Under the circumstances, these six party talks are the best we can do. I know we don't have much options. Fortunatly the Chinese and Russians are p*ssed, maybe with everybody on the same team rowing in the same direction, we can squeeze some concessions out of Kim.

 

This guy is unscrupulous. I know he's got short range missles that can hit Japan, he's tested those. His long range test one ones that can hit the US failed, fortunatly. Even then, I'm not really worried about NK launching nukes. He only acts nutty, but he actually is sane. Mutually assured destruction should hold him in. The US (along with all of east Asia) has him spooked. He wants everybody to know he can use nukes to defend himself.

 

The big problem is that he needs cash badly and he'll have zero hesitation selling nukes to anybody that comes to him with cash for one. And guys that come shopping... those guys won't be concerned about civilian casualties or mutually assured destruction.

 

Also I'm worried any coup in Pakistan could put somebody from the Osama fan club in charge of their nuclear warheads. I'm not sure how strong Musharrif's hold on power is.

[Concrete Charlie 0]

I didn't blame him for North Korea testing nukes - I asked what he's done in five years to stop it.

 

After the agreement that Clinton's pointman, Robert Gallucci, negotiated with the DPRK in the 1990's, after it had failed due to Kim's total, and predictable, disdain for it, Bush decided to play hardball. Clinton's gambit was worth a try, a final try, to use carrots to bring Kim Il Jong to his senses. After it failed, Bush put in place a policy of no more one to one negotiating, because like Clinton's agreement, everyone KNEW North Korea would simply use it as cover to threaten, coerce, buy time, and most of all, for blackmail purposes. It was too easy for Kim, without his neighbors signing on to it.

Alternately, Bush and Co. set about organising the 6 party talks, which included all the regional players. Don't be mistaken, any negotiations with North Korea offering even a small chance of success, must include Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea. They are the countries bordering the North, they are the countries with leverage, they are the countries with, by far, the most to fear from a nuclear North, and they are the only countries who would have a realistic chance to put an end to this game when it comes to a crunch. Especially big brother China, they supply most, if not all, of the North's food and oil. The six party talks are the only realistic way of preventing a nuclear North Korea, but there's no guarantee. Kim may feel that all the incentives in the world aren't as valuable as a nuclear arsenal in hand.

A military answer to this situation does not offer any good prospects. Seoul, South Korea, and possibly much more would be pounded to rubble by North Korean artillery if we make any military move against the North. And that doesn't even address the scenario of the North's army moving South to take the entire peninsula. The six party talks appear to have failed for the time being, but they were the only realistic chance I can see for getting Kim to relent.

 

What would you have done?

[Voltaire 4,560]

And that doesn't even address the scenario of the North's army moving South to take the entire peninsula.

 

Normally, I wouldn't worry about this part. Kicking N. Korea's ass would be a chore, but not much harder than kicking Saddam's ass. It's the fear that Kim's war strategy involves sending bombs all over the south and Japan that is the bigger worry. But the problem is we don't have troops availible to fight him right now.

 

That may be why he's doing this now. This is a golden opportunity for him to go full barrel nuclear while the US is distracted. Even if Bush decides we need to fight, we may not have the manpower to do so.

[JMaximus12 0]

After the agreement that Clinton's pointman, Robert Gallucci, negotiated with the DPRK in the 1990's, after it had failed due to Kim's total, and predictable, disdain for it, Bush decided to play hardball. Clinton's gambit was worth a try, a final try, to use carrots to bring Kim Il Jong to his senses. After it failed, Bush put in place a policy of no more one to one negotiating, because like Clinton's agreement, everyone KNEW North Korea would simply use it as cover to threaten, coerce, buy time, and most of all, for blackmail purposes. It was too easy for Kim, without his neighbors signing on to it.

Alternately, Bush and Co. set about organising the 6 party talks, which included all the regional players. Don't be mistaken, any negotiations with North Korea offering even a small chance of success, must include Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea. They are the countries bordering the North, they are the countries with leverage, they are the countries with, by far, the most to fear from a nuclear North, and they are the only countries who would have a realistic chance to put an end to this game when it comes to a crunch. Especially big brother China, they supply most, if not all, of the North's food and oil. The six party talks are the only realistic way of preventing a nuclear North Korea, but there's no guarantee. Kim may feel that all the incentives in the world aren't as valuable as a nuclear arsenal in hand.

A military answer to this situation does not offer any good prospects. Seoul, South Korea, and possibly much more would be pounded to rubble by North Korean artillery if we make any military move against the North. And that doesn't even address the scenario of the North's army moving South to take the entire peninsula. The six party talks appear to have failed for the time being, but they were the only realistic chance I can see for getting Kim to relent.

 

What would you have done?

 

 

Voice of reason (and fact!) wins the day.

[jets24 6]

I didn't know it was Bush's (or the United States') responsibility to police the globe. You cry because the world hates us because we stick our noses into other countries "illegally" yet when we don't do anything unilaterally, it's still our fault?

 

You can't have it both ways, Kerry.

 

 

After the agreement that Clinton's pointman, Robert Gallucci, negotiated with the DPRK in the 1990's, after it had failed due to Kim's total, and predictable, disdain for it, Bush decided to play hardball. Clinton's gambit was worth a try, a final try, to use carrots to bring Kim Il Jong to his senses. After it failed, Bush put in place a policy of no more one to one negotiating, because like Clinton's agreement, everyone KNEW North Korea would simply use it as cover to threaten, coerce, buy time, and most of all, for blackmail purposes. It was too easy for Kim, without his neighbors signing on to it.

Alternately, Bush and Co. set about organising the 6 party talks, which included all the regional players. Don't be mistaken, any negotiations with North Korea offering even a small chance of success, must include Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea. They are the countries bordering the North, they are the countries with leverage, they are the countries with, by far, the most to fear from a nuclear North, and they are the only countries who would have a realistic chance to put an end to this game when it comes to a crunch. Especially big brother China, they supply most, if not all, of the North's food and oil. The six party talks are the only realistic way of preventing a nuclear North Korea, but there's no guarantee. Kim may feel that all the incentives in the world aren't as valuable as a nuclear arsenal in hand.

A military answer to this situation does not offer any good prospects. Seoul, South Korea, and possibly much more would be pounded to rubble by North Korean artillery if we make any military move against the North. And that doesn't even address the scenario of the North's army moving South to take the entire peninsula. The six party talks appear to have failed for the time being, but they were the only realistic chance I can see for getting Kim to relent.

 

What would you have done?

 

winnah!

[Isotopes 1]

I didn't know it was Bush's (or the United States') responsibility to police the globe. You cry because the world hates us because we stick our noses into other countries "illegally" yet when we don't do anything unilaterally, it's still our fault?

 

You can't have it both ways, Kerry.

 

You say it is our countries duty to liberate Iraqis and protect us from their WMDs but then all of the sudden it is not our job to police the world when people in Darfur are in trouble or N Korea is getting looney.

 

You can't have it both ways either, Kerry.

[Concrete Charlie 0]

Normally, I wouldn't worry about this part. Kicking N. Korea's ass would be a chore, but not much harder than kicking Saddam's ass. It's the fear that Kim's war strategy involves sending bombs all over the south and Japan that is the bigger worry. But the problem is we don't have troops availible to fight him right now.

 

That may be why he's doing this now. This is a golden opportunity for him to go full barrel nuclear while the US is distracted. Even if Bush decides we need to fight, we may not have the manpower to do so.

 

I think open warfare with North Korea would result in many thousands of Americans dead. They have one of the largest standing armies in the world, one hell of a lot of deadly equipment, and have been dug into fortified positions literally for decades.

I agree that another deterent to us acting is the South Korean population centers being vulnerable(as well as Japan). They would be mostly destroyed before we could do anything meaningful against the North. Say, a couple of million dead South Koreans(i think Seoul alone has about 15 million people?).

 

And I also agree with the window of opportunity Kim has used, due to our forces being stretched to the breakiing point in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other locations. We don't have the option of facing them down(or anyone else really), even if we wanted to, because of the strange willingness to not jack up substantially, the numbers in uniform during a time of war. Can anyone name another major war we've been in that didn't require a call-up? This war requires it, but the gov't isn't acting and that could prove fatal.

 

We're a country that wants all of war's spoils: prosperity, security, influence, but we can't be bothered with the details involved in getting or keeping them. We're too busy aren't we? World events have caught up with our lifestyle, and its time to change it, or do something real to keep it going.

[galmgren 0]

clinton bribed them with aid packages, resulting in zero nuke tests on his watch

 

how many nuke tests on dubya's watch? 1

 

thats a 100% increase on top of the additional terrorists he created in the middle east.

 

way to go dubya

I'm sorry, but I can't help but point out that your math skills suck. 1/0 does not equal 100%. Other than that carry on.

[Flashover 0]

Let's remember this:

 

1. George H. W. Bush: one to two bombs worth of plutonium

 

2. Bill Clinton: zero plutonium

 

3. George W. Bush: 4-13 nuclear weapons worth of plutonium

 

 

Here's a timeline:

 

President Reagan

 

Mid-1980s: First signs of North Korea nuclear program detected by US intelligence.

 

1986: North Korea produces plutonium in reactor.

 

President George H. W. Bush

 

1991: U.S. begins talks with North Korea to end to nuclear program.

 

1992: North Korea has separated an estimated 0-10kg of weapons-grade plutonium, enough for 1 to 2 bombs.

 

President Clinton

 

1993: North Korea announces it will leave nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; U.S. prepares to attack nuclear sites.

 

1994: Clinton Administration reaches Agreed Framework, North Korea freezes nuclear production for the next eight years.

 

August 1998: North Korea tests medium-range Taep o-dong-1″ missile.

 

December 1998: North Korea warns they will test another missile, but pressure from US dissuades them.

 

September 1999: Pyongyang agrees to long-range missile moratorium.

 

October 2000: Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is highest ranking US official to ever meet with Kim Jong Il.

 

President George W. Bush

 

March 6, 2001: Secretary of State Colin Powell says the administration will pick up where President Clinton left off.

 

March 7, 2001: President Bush undercuts Powell, declares negotiations will take on a different tone.

 

January 2002: Bush labels North Korea a member of the Axis of Evil.

 

March 2003: United States invades Iraq.

 

April 2003: North Korea withdraws from the Non-Proliferation Treaty; soon thereafter, they restart their reactor.

 

April 2005: North Korea appears to unload nuclear reactor with up to another 15 kg of weapons-grade plutonium.

 

September 19, 2005: In six-party talks North Korea agrees to abandon its nuclear program in exchange for incentives package.

 

September 19, 2005: US places sanctions on bank that provides financial support for North Korean Government Agencies; causes collapse of September 2005 agreement.

 

June 2006: North Korea is believed to have now produced enough plutonium for 4 to 13 nuclear bombs.

 

July 2006: North Korea tests missiles: one medium-range and five short-range. Medium-range Taep o-dong-2 fails.

 

October 3, 2006: Kim Jong Il announces North Korea plans to test nuclear weapons.

 

October 4, 2006: North Korea asserts that nuclear test is a measure to bolstering its nuclear deterrent as a self-defense measure.

 

Mid-2008: If North Korea unloads another batch of fuel, it may have enough nuclear material for 8 to 17 nuclear bombs.

[MDC 5,892]

After the agreement that Clinton's pointman, Robert Gallucci, negotiated with the DPRK in the 1990's, after it had failed due to Kim's total, and predictable, disdain for it, Bush decided to play hardball. Clinton's gambit was worth a try, a final try, to use carrots to bring Kim Il Jong to his senses. After it failed, Bush put in place a policy of no more one to one negotiating, because like Clinton's agreement, everyone KNEW North Korea would simply use it as cover to threaten, coerce, buy time, and most of all, for blackmail purposes. It was too easy for Kim, without his neighbors signing on to it.

Alternately, Bush and Co. set about organising the 6 party talks, which included all the regional players. Don't be mistaken, any negotiations with North Korea offering even a small chance of success, must include Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea. They are the countries bordering the North, they are the countries with leverage, they are the countries with, by far, the most to fear from a nuclear North, and they are the only countries who would have a realistic chance to put an end to this game when it comes to a crunch. Especially big brother China, they supply most, if not all, of the North's food and oil. The six party talks are the only realistic way of preventing a nuclear North Korea, but there's no guarantee. Kim may feel that all the incentives in the world aren't as valuable as a nuclear arsenal in hand.

A military answer to this situation does not offer any good prospects. Seoul, South Korea, and possibly much more would be pounded to rubble by North Korean artillery if we make any military move against the North. And that doesn't even address the scenario of the North's army moving South to take the entire peninsula. The six party talks appear to have failed for the time being, but they were the only realistic chance I can see for getting Kim to relent.

 

What would you have done?

 

Thanks for giving a real answer. The only part of what you said that I sort of disagree with is when you sort of imply that North Korea would use more negotiations to threaten, coerce, buy time, etc. That may be true but it seems like Kim Jong Il is doing that anyway.

 

I'm not sure what I'd do now. There really aren't any answers. But I don't fault Clinton for at least trying to negotiate. It didn't work, but I think we're much more likely to enlist the help of Russia, China, Japan, etc. because of Clinton's efforts. At least he established for the world that reasonably negotiating with NK doesn't work. That's something.

 

All Bush has done, from what I can see, is refuse direct negotiations with North Korea and rattle his saber. That hasn't done so much good either.

 

To be honest with you, I'm not all that concerned with a nuclear North Korea. Like every other dictator, Kim Jong Il is most concerned with self-preservation. At this point we just need to promise him that any nuclear strike on any target and we'd turn his country to rubble, and Russia, China et al. need to be on board with that too. The big sticking point as you said is China - unless they perceive a nuclear NK as a serious threat there's really not much at all we can do.

 

Kind of sad that we're looking to China and Russia now for world leadership.

[Concrete Charlie 0]

Thanks for giving a real answer. The only part of what you said that I sort of disagree with is when you sort of imply that North Korea would use more negotiations to threaten, coerce, buy time, etc. That may be true but it seems like Kim Jong Il is doing that anyway.

 

I'm not sure what I'd do now. There really aren't any answers. But I don't fault Clinton for at least trying to negotiate. It didn't work, but I think we're much more likely to enlist the help of Russia, China, Japan, etc. because of Clinton's efforts. At least he established for the world that reasonably negotiating with NK doesn't work. That's something.

 

All Bush has done, from what I can see, is refuse direct negotiations with North Korea and rattle his saber. That hasn't done so much good either.

 

To be honest with you, I'm not all that concerned with a nuclear North Korea. Like every other dictator, Kim Jong Il is most concerned with self-preservation. At this point we just need to promise him that any nuclear strike on any target and we'd turn his country to rubble, and Russia, China et al. need to be on board with that too. The big sticking point as you said is China - unless they perceive a nuclear NK as a serious threat there's really not much at all we can do.

 

Kind of sad that we're looking to China and Russia now for world leadership.

 

No matter your political leanings, the efforts of both Clinton and Bush, to deny North Korea nuclear weapons, failed. We can cry all day about that and look for blame, but its just a fact that they have them now.

 

Yeah, i agree, China is dealing cards here, and Russia too, but less so.

Kim will survive sanctions, IMO, because China needs a stable North Korea and they will not cut him off unless he completely loses it. Kim knows that. So he'll stay just this side of the line he can't step over. He'll look for the weak links among the six involved nations, and work them. Look for the usual stuff like border violations, maybe more kidnappings, a visit to Beijing or Moscow, something to pisss off the Japs, something else to make the South Korean oppostion demonstrate, etc, etc. He's like Terrell Owens, loving to stir the pot, craving the spotlight. Then when he's got someone(or everyone) leaning the wrong way, he'll try his favorite ploy, blackmail.

This nuke and missile testing has already paid off: he's the biggest profile leader in the world today, and he'll play that card again when it suits him.

The UN vote looks better than it will be in reality, but right now, its all we have.