Roach for their to be an agreement, wouldn't one party have to abide by it? NK didn't building off that, yes there was no nuclear device when the "last administration" was in office, they just managed to speed up and go about with their programs. I really don't see where Bush is "saber rattling" either, I mean seriously, name any instances where Bush or his administration has said anything that is "Saber rattling". Does staying committed to multi-lateral talks equate to saber rattling? Does not legitimizing NK with bi-lateral talks equate saber rattling? Do statements to the effect of we are not now, nor have we ever had the intentions of attacking North Korea? Tell me how Bush is the bad guy by not legitimizing or propping up a failed nation state such as North Korea? Clinton did both, his policy failed. When Bush stuck to the agreement signed, NK started getting pissy and threw a tantrum and here people such as you RB want to appease them, typical.

Bi-lateral talks amount to nothing, it is only another attempt to black mail the US, something which we shouldn't tolerate, again. It would also legitimize Kim Jong Il and his actions. "Oh yes little Kim you can do what ever you want, don't abide by your agreements, in fact come here to the grown table and sit and talk with us". One ought to approach the situation with the mentality of parents and a spoiled brat. If your kid is an ass and cussing you out and not obeying curfew, and doing drugs, and punting puppies while committing hate crimes, do you really try and talk to them at a level/manner where there behavior is legitimized and not addressed? No, you crack their ass if you have, or hell give them the good ole' 86 and let them fend for themselves if it comes down to it. Besides I would think bringing in regional nations that have some stake in south east Asia might be nice, as NK is also their problem.

Back to the opening paragraph, on what is better the agreed upon agreement, or our current state of threats to a nation in gross violation of international and unprecedented saber rattling. Well again I state NK would actually have to be party to an agreement, and would actually have to follow it. They did not follow the agreement, as such when Bush cut them off, they pulled out of the agreement, there is no framework in that sense to work with.

Nailed it.

I'm still not sure as to why the US would get involved. I know we're experienced at nuking other countries, but its not the US that's being threatened; its not our dog.

Your on a roll today roachboy.

If NK is forced to disarm, so should every other nuclear armed country.

A comment such as that Ch'i is like stating since Criminals can't have guns, neither can law abiding citizens. Go-go disarmament!

Not really. Criminals aren't sovereign, they are part of a set system since they are citizens of a country. Unless you want to argue that the US is a hegemon of the world.

It is held as an intrinsic (that's the word right?) right for us to bear arms, by comparison, a person would be sovereign in that sense.

The police enforce the laws of a soverign state, and anyone living in that state are subject to those laws. The police are charged with enforcing those laws. The same is not true of the US vs. NK. North Korea did break some rules, but the US is not acting in any official or legal role of world police, so we are not justified in attacking whoever we want. Why do you think so many people were pissed aobut the US attacking Iraq after it came out that there were no al Quaeda links or WMDs? Saddam was still a murderous bastard, but he was no threat to the US, and we had no right in removing him from power. We attacked a soverign state without provocation, like me hitting my neighbor with a baseball bat because I thought he was out to get me (without proof).

Send in team america.

Mojo,

add this to his statement equating americas problem with islamofascists to that of a fight between a child's teddybears and you see why its pointless to argue with people who don't believe there are any problems except those caused by bushco itself.

According to the far left in this country there is no such thing as an islamofascist and the problem with the north korean issue is bushco's "cowboy diplomacy."

I second that notion.

How do you figure?

China has nukes, the US has nukes, and Russia has nukes. Don't you see the hypocrisy in any of these countries telling another to disarm?

How do you figure?

They kill terrorists, duh.

I have a gun, my neighbor has guns, does not mean I want the psycho wearing a clownsuit claiming the spiders are crawling inside his skin to have a gun.

This isn't a game of dodge ball where we all should play fair and nice and have good fun for all. I think the biggest liberal mindset mistake is 'playing fair'. I play fair when I play a board game, I play fair when I play a computer game, but when it comes to war and your peoples well being you don't play fair.

Whenever someone says 'its not fair' and its about international politics, they just showed why they shouldn't have a say.

Your right Ustwo.

The US needs to redeploy into North Korea. Target all military installations, and preform a strike on their leadership starting with the military. Send in troops to occupy the capitol, and bunker it down with proper defenses. Have Kim Jong-il sign a treaty, then have him mysteriously "disappear" to a secret prison somewhere in Micronesia. Pull out of Iraq. Once all troops and civilians are evacuated, bomb Iraq entirely and let Israel have the remains. Send out a press release on Iran "threatening the US with nuclear war."Then continue the fight into Iran, and setup bases in NK under the pretense of "keeping the peace"; that way we have some footholds against China in the future, along with a new stock of oil reserves.

Edit: We should also take out NK's banks, and financial reserves in the initial strike to cripple their self sufficiency.

Sure is easy when you don't give a shit about other people, aye Ustwo?

And pick up a gallon of milk and some crisps whilst your at it.

I've read all the posts and have been struck by all of them - some, in my heart with a "Yep, dang, that's true" and some upside my head with a "what the heck? What planet are they on?", but I'd like to try to see if I can boil some stuff down.

1. Bi-lateral talks and agreements with NK and Kimlet do not work - Madame Albright went over and talked and signed with great pomp and circumstance and a butt-load of hoopla, yet we discovered 3-4 years ago that Kimlet's folks signed while keeping their fingers crossed behind their backs. They never intended to follow through, just to get the US off their back and give them their allotment of rice and veggies and that afore mentioned side of beef.

2. Since point 1 is true, the current admin decided to pull into the equation the countries most affected by NK and its shenanigans - China, Japan, SK and Russia, to see how this might work. Kimlet balked and got busy with the enrichment program, since his little plan to blackmail everyone for food to feed his starving countrymen had been thwarted.

3. And now Kimlet has claimed to have successfully tested a nuke, in order to get back his place of power in order to re-establish his blackmail-ability. He has no desire to use it against anyone, just to have leverage for blackmail purposes.

4. China, in the last few days, was livid, and expressing itself in stronger than ever terms, using language they never had before in condemning Kimlet and his nuke escapades, even threatening to cut off all aid, including food. Everyone has been crying "foul", but now the retoric is easing a bit.

5. Kofi and the UN (great name for a rock band, I think) say that the US should do the bi-lateral talks..... gosh, talk about your "no creativity" UN! Been there, done that, Kof', it didn't work.

Now the question is this: do we want to encourage this continued blackmail? Maybe before it would have been acceptable, we'll just shake our heads and quip, "Oh, Kimlet, you little minx!" and fork over the food and bucks so those poor people can have at least one meal a day. Oh, but now the stakes have changed, and we're being threatened by a, what was it, "neighbor in a clown-suit waving a gun while claiming he has spiders crawling all over him".

Do we stand up to blackmail, or don't we? I say we can, unless nukes are involved. Now it's a regional threat, possibly a US threat, if Kimlet can get his Taepodong II's to ever go further than the corner gas station in NK.

Six-way talks are the only option, I say, and if Kimlet won't agree, then do we starve his population further? It's evident by his looks that he is packing away the groceries, so no harm to him.

What a sad day for the Kim family, that his father who was once so revered throughout Korea for his guerilla warfare tactics against the Japanese when they occupied Korea way back when, to have their family name come to such dishonor in the world, especially in Asia.

Spare the rod, spoil the child, I say. He should have been spanked as a kid, maybe we wouldn't be facing this......:)

Seems like the nuclear test has been confirmed, though it was obviously a partial failure given the low yield. Nevertheless, it does indeed appear that NK has nukes:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...tm?POE=NEWISVA

WASHINGTON (AP) — Air samples gathered last week contain radioactive materials that confirm that North Korea conducted an underground nuclear explosion, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte's office said Monday.
In a short statement posted on its website, Negroponte's office also confirmed that the size of the explosion was less than 1 kiloton, a comparatively small nuclear explosion. Each kiloton is equal to the force produced by 1,000 tons of TNT.

ON DEADLINE: Read the statement

"Analysis of air samples collected on October 11, 2006, detected radioactive debris which confirms that North Korea conducted an underground nuclear explosion in the vicinity of P'unggye on October 9, 2006," the statement said.