Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (393173)	6/21/2008 1:07:33 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1589092

When Bush leaves office, we are going to be in pretty much the same position with those guys, except they will now have MORE nukes and an underground test under their belt. Of course. Once they get one, your negotiating options are extremely limited. The genie is out of the bottle. This is why it is correct to say the NK problem was created under Clinton, not under Bush. Bush was just left to pick up the pieces. Which is, frankly, the situation with Iraq as well as Al Qaeda.

To: RMF who wrote (393173)	6/21/2008 2:51:53 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1589092

RMF, > It's hard to discuss ways to handle N. Korea with you, because you don't seem to offer ANY options of your own. That makes two of us. > If you don't think Clinton acted properly, then how do YOU think he should have acted toward N. Korea? I wouldn't say that Clinton acted improperly. What he essentially did was buy time. Looking back with hindsight, I'd say that around 1998, Clinton should have gone back to North Korea and renegotiated the deal, offer to rebuild North Korea's rail networks, provide them with tons of food (i.e. enough leftovers after the army gets its unfair share), and basically offered more than mere verbal support for Kim Dae Jung's "sunshine policy." > Do you think that Bush got the best result he could have gotten in dealing with N. Korea? Hard to say. The whole "Axis of Evil" thing turned out to be an exaggeration at best. North Korea was more like a Dr. Evil than anything else. I think the six-party talks produced the desired results, with North Korea now complying with the international community. I believe part of the reason is China, who is entering the international limelight with the Olympics this year. They can no longer tolerate the antics of their bastard child, North Korea, so I think they had a hand in making diplomatic progress. The only problem is the amount of time it took. Patience was the right course of action in the end. I only wish the Bush administration made that choice sooner and didn't mess up the PR in the beginning. > When Bush leaves office, we are going to be in pretty much the same position with those guys, except they will now have MORE nukes and an underground test under their belt. Once again, that's hard to say. I think things are looking better with regard to North Korea, but I could be wrong. North Korea remains a cunning and unpredictable rogue state. > Tell me how YOU would handle N. Korea if you could plan our strategy going into the NEXT Administration. All America cares about are the WMD. Without the nukes, America wouldn't give a rat's ass about Korea anymore, and at least half of South Korea would welcome America's withdrawal. So since South Korea is more than capable of dealing with North Korea themselves, make one more deal. Have North Korea finally give up their nuclear weapons once and for all, and America will withdraw. Then pray that the relations between the two Koreas will thaw on its own. I have faith that they will. North and South Korea isn't like Sunni vs. Shiite at all. Koreans on both sides of the border really are one people. Tenchusatsu