Holy Sh*t!

3bf, come on, man, with all the macho bullshit you've laid out there over the last few years, you shoulda been the first to let that go.

I've said this before and I'll say it again about Kim Jong, the guy ain't gonna attack anybody with a nuclear weapon. He wants a seat at the big kids' table so he can alleviate what he views as unfair trade restrictions. To an extent, he's right. And to an even bigger extent, the Bush administration has been wrong in completely cutting off talks with the guy.

The previous two presidents were forced to deal with him and managed to accomplish some decent things. Yeah, Kim Jong broke the deals. He always does. That's his thing. It only means one thing -- he wants more than what he's getting in the current agreement with the US. That's it. The guy knows full well that he can't attack the US. Before he even got the launch codes in, there'd be nothing more than a big-ass hole where NK used to be.

But damn, you've got to talk to the batshit crazy little bastard. Give him a little something, calm him down and move on. Why is that so hard? A simple little insignificant concession of some sorts woulda made the guy go away for a few years. Again, why is that so hard?

 

Well, China might be coming around to doing something...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061010/D8KLRCEG2.html

 

It's a concern that North Korea has nukes, but this is not the Cuban Missile Crisis. They have no way to deliver one.

And I agree, even as someone who detests Bush's policies, the North Korea situation has little to do with partisan politics on our shores.

 

Your entire post is based on a faulty premise: that you need to be consistent in your foreign policy. You don't treat every country, even the dangerous ones, the same. To draw an analogy to parenting, my father once told me that being a fair parent doesn't mean every kid gets treated exactly equally. It means you treat that child fairly in the context of the circumstances. You can justifiably criticize Bush's actions in relation to each country, but claiming he needs some kind of consistency is foolish.

 

you certainly can look to talk story with this Republican. As for the administration in power now, they stepped on their dicks a long time ago. I can't defend them for anything they do including their policy toward North Korea.

However, I must take issue with your assertion that this is a Republican problem. In fact, it's rooted deeper from the policy's of Democratic administrations. So, that aside, the problem transcends politics. And we're talking about 40-50 years of American policy toward North Korea. If anything, it is a generational issue. The generation in power now has left the younger generation a huge mess to clean up.

 

Sorry, guess I need to learn to write in the sarcasm font a little better.

 

So people were crapping on Bush for being too unilateral, now they're crapping on him for being too multilateral.

Yeah, makes sense. :

For once, why don't we try putting the blame were it belongs? On Kim Jong Il.

 

We got the Il communication.

 

You know what, Lyman? For once, I totally agree with you. We are attacking Bush no matter what he does, and it's accomplishing nothing.

And you're even more right when you say when need to put the blame where it belongs.

Right now, my blame money is on you!

 

Do I get a cut of that blame money?

 

I'm not even getting involved in this. Once this is posted, the argument is over.

 

I have to say that I agree with Pope on that point. It's a good one. But I also think Joe is talking more about priorities than anything else. Regardless of which strategy works best, it's logical to assume that more emphasis should be placed on countries that pose a direct nuclear threat, as opposed to an imagined one. Or maybe the strategy with North Korea is to sit back and play chess all day. After all, this could be the new Cold War. I hate to use that analogy, primarily because I'm sure TV pundits have beens spouting such stuff for weeks, but I think it's apt.