Sunday, May 8, 2005
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
More on North Korea
For a bit more on why I think bilateral talks will soon be imperative (and for a couple of takes on what all this will mean for Iran), check out Democracy Arsenal.posted by on 05.08.05 at 07:47 AM
Is this a joke?
What the hell have bilateral talks with the Creutzfeldt-Jacob afflicted North Korean leadership ever accomplished?
The best foreign policy with that regime is to make sure the next train that blows up doesn't miss the target.posted by: Matthew Cromer on 05.08.05 at 07:47 AM [permalink]
You're kidding right? US intransigence? We're dealing with a sociopathic madman who CANNOT be trusted in the least, who doesn't care about anyone but himself, BUT it's President Bush's fault and HE is the one being "intransigent". Gotta love "progressive" foreign policy. I suppose it fits into the "progressive" worldview: it doesn't matter if nothing gets done, so long as it "appears" we're doing something.
Once again, the point of the 6-party talks is to SHARE THE RESPONSIBILITY for either success or failure. If NK goes nuclear, it will be EVERYONE's fault, instead of just pointing the blame to the US as usual. And EVERYONE in the region will have to live with the consequences afterwards, including China. If Bush has at all failed, it is that he hasn't made it clear enough to the Chinese what a nuclear NK would mean for the region and China's neighbors. Right now, NK is saber rattling, and the worse thing for Bush to do is to give into NK's tantrums and blackmailing efforts. It will only encourage more.posted by: Mike on 05.08.05 at 07:47 AM [permalink]
It's clear what the future holds: Nuclear Japan and South Korea. Noko will collapse. Eventual reunification. Noko is a sideshow anyway, the real question of the 21st century is whether China will reform politically before starting WWIII with its neighbors and the US. Flashpoint -- Taiwan.posted by: Matthew Cromer on 05.08.05 at 07:47 AM [permalink]
Post a Comment: