I wouldnt call you an idiot. Thats what Democrats do when they don't have a logical argument. I would call you uninformed about the situation. We negotiated with N Korea in the 90's under President Clinton, which resulted in N Korea attaining nuclear material...which is now the problem! What you are now suggesting is that we come to the table, yet it is N Korea that is balking at talking to US. Perhaps you consider Kim Jong Il's boycott to be Bush's fault...but I think responsibility lies entirely with the N Korean Dictator. Perhaps a President Kerry will be "flexible" as the Communists in Asia would like our President to be. I hope not.

A question remains . . . if nuclear Korea will not negotiate, how will we bring them to compliance?

That is what everyone wants to know . . . much more real threat than Saddam, yet we don't knock him over.

Thanks for the history lesson Keith. I am aware that Clinton's negligence contributed greatly to North Korea's acquisition of Nuclear Weapons. However, President Bush substantially furthered this problem when he ended the "no-nuke-reward" program started by Clinton. Do I think Clinton was intelligent in coddling a dictator? Absolutley not. But did Bush display a better grasp of the situation when he ended aid to Korea and then did nothing else to disarm them? Clearly, no.

I think its funny that you jump all over me about Clinton-- you assume that I think he took a better approach to the situation than Bush. In reality, both men mishandled it. The point of my post (if you missed it) was to demonstrate that President Bush, despite all his pro war rhetoric is not willing to confront a legitimate threat to our national security.

I agree with Zach N. President Bush has really backed down on this one.

All of a sudden Democrats are hawkish about confronting a nuclear threat in N Korea...but we should have never confronted a threat in Iraq?? Hypocritical is not the word I'd use for Bush. I would use it for every anti-war Democrat that is pushing for some aggression against a known nuclear power! Kerry says we should use Diplomacy, and Bush has done just that. Apparently nothing Bush does is good enough for the hypocritical Democrats this year.

HEY DIPSHIT-- just becuase Zach N is a democrat doesn't mean he supports every policy the party (or John Kerry)does. He can be critical of Bush and Clinton at the same time. Just becuase your in mindless lockstep with Bush doesn't mean Zach N has to be. Your a pathetic fucking idiot man.

Name calling...typical liberal response to logic. Oh well. I don't think Zach is stupid...quite smart actually. He's exploring, debating, discussing. These are things intelligent people do, Mugsy. We can disagree and still have intelligent opinions. I'm not in lockstep with anyone...just wondering how Democrats can be hawkish against N Korea but dovish on Iraq. Is it ok to ask these "hard-hitting" questions? Or am I supposed to just beleive what I'm told without considering both sides? Mugsy...call me what you want. You don't offer any intelligent response to any of my questions.

The difference between Korea and Iraq is one has the damn thing and the other was a figment of someones imagination. The Iraqi nuclear progrma was devastated by the bombing of their just completed reactor in the early to mid 80's. I had never recovered; years of sanctions and their own internal policies had so crippled their infrastructure that the threat by Iraq was negligble while the threat from N korea is real and growing every day

This is the reason we must get rid of Bu$h before we are he ones facing sanctions THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511472004