N.Korea plans series of nuclear tests: report

Reuters ^ | 17 Oct 2006 | Reuters

[Sender]

Before, when he had one on one talks, he was given nothing but carrots. I would bring a big stick; the only carrot available to Kim is to join the 21st century and their Southern brethren and thus to have peace and prosperity instead of starvation and paranoia. Do I think it would work? No. I guess I would talk to Kim in the same way that al Qaeda invites their enemies to convert. Submit, or suicide by global police. I guarantee that if we don't talk to him, the loudmouths on the left will holler that cowboy Bush squandered an opportunity at diplomacy and thus made the world a more dangerous place, even if it is a ridiculously blatant lie. No, I would carefully craft a presentation for Mr Kim and deliver it on an ice-cold platter, hold the carrots. What's he going to do...test another nuke? Change his hairdo?

I worry that if we blatantly refuse to meet with him, he will do things even more and more spectacular and destabilizing, little ham that he is, and one of his bluffs and firework shows will spark the dry grass. And the already America-hating portion of the world will blame us, not brushhead.

[quantfive]

"Everything you stated above has been done before, in fact, it is largely responsible for how we got to the possition we are in today. One on one talks are the problem, not the solution."

It wasn't the talks Albright set-up which were the problem. The problem was the lack of accountability when Kim broke the deal. One on one talks with Kim are probably only beneficial for one reason: It shows the world we engage in direct dialogue even when we vehemently disagree so if we have to take strong military action we don't create fear of us being a colonial power.

That IS how most countries view the USA after Iraq. It was almost a foregone conclusiob it was a waste of time the Europeans tried to engage Iran in direct dialogue. But when and if the time comes for military action, we won't have the Europeans and the rest of the world thinking it's about the USA sticking our nose in other countries business.

What would have happened if we engaged in dialogue with Saddam? Perhaps Iraq would not have to have happened.
The point is we'll never know. Is the world better off without Saddam? Damn right! However, we know in hindsight Saddam was bluffind about WMD and Iran and North Korea is where we really should have expended military and/or political capitol. A foreign policy of ignoring direct diplomatic relationships is not working. On the flip side giving concessions (appeasment) with no accountbility (Carter, Clinton policy) is also a failure.

[gafusa]

Not quite. They can level Seoul but their army is not particular powerful, the South Koreans alone could win. South Korea has a massive army, and it is a many times more capable than the North's. The North will not invade the South, because they know they would lose. South Korea is a much more powerful and populous nation. It is more important to attack Iran, North Korea is just trying to black-mail us. We should just isolate them, impose blockade, just call their bluff, and they will have no choice but to concede.