I have a rule about never trusting chubby, syphilis-ridden midgets wearing Carol Channing's glasses and a hybrid Don King/The King haircut. North Korea has the bomb, and that's not da bomb. Kim Jong Il's government admitted Thursday that North Korea has nuclear weapons. The ingrates failed to thank Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton in their declaration.

Yeah this is pretty bad. But I hope it goes a long way to dispelling the myth that you can establish "peace on earth" by sitting down at a table with a bunch of felons.

I can imagine Kim Jong Il turning to his generals during these Jimmy Carter meetings and asking, "You really think I can get trade, worldwide praise, and a chance to rebuild our army... just by signing that peace of paper??"

Too easy, indeed. Just like how this Abbas guy is getting so much praise in Palestine.

It is inevitibible that any country that wants nukes will get nukes. We must stop thinking that we can prevent it and change our foreign policy to recognize this fact.

It’s interesting how our government keeps sweeping Korea under the rug and chooses to have us forget all about it. Outside of Korean Vets, most people don’t even remember the brutal war fought there in the early fifties and all of the American lives lost.

Also, most Americans are completely unaware that we still have close to 37,000 troops stationed in and around the Parallel who have been there since a stalemate “peace” was established after the fighting ended.

The attitude seems to have been to leave them alone and they’ll go away.

How did that work out?

Sweeping Korea under the rug? What do you propose. Multi-lateral talks? Oh wait, we tried that. Unilateral talks? Well, since it's worked so well in the past.... Sanctions? The country is already starving. Full, frontal assault? By last count they had a million soldiers and some nifty Soviet weapons; and they're saying something about a nuke, whatever that is.

There just aren't that many options here.

North Korea is a regional issue. They pose no threat to the United States, so why should we concern ourselves with them. We don't need anything from their country, so why do we care?

Japan, China, South Korea, and India are the ones who should be alarmed here. Kim Jong, although possibly a bit wacky, is not stupid. He knows the minute he would launch some sort of attack on the U.S., or even his neighbors, he would be completely annailated.

We knew North Korea had nukes before Kim Jong enlightened us. His statement is simply a declaration for countries to be aware that he is capable of striking back. Obviously with the recent aggression posed by the U.S., he's feeling vulnerable, and feels that he needs to flex his muscles in order to maintain his power. Power is all these dictators know. If they lose control, then they lose their livelihood.

Don't be alarmed infidels; this is just a game of cat and mouse.

The concern is not a nuclear armed ICMB landing in L.A. It is the sale of nuclear weapons to terrorists or terrorist nations, e.g., Syria. North Korea has no wealth whatsoever. If they can make some cash by arming our enemies, they won't hesitate. In fact, there is good reason to believe that they've already done so.

Make that "ICBM".

Ol' Kim Jong is just rattling his sword over there. He sees that all the eyes of the world are watching the US, Iraq, Iran and Tsunmai victims and he's jumping up and down looking for attention. "Hey guys what about my starving 3rd world country over here! Whoo-hoo, >whistle

"Hey look at me world I have Nukes." I agree with Doyle, we need nothing from that country.

I agree with Brad that a possible black maket distribution of nuclear weapons is a serious concern and so any loony dictator like KJI or even Saddam for that matter having nukes is something that should be frustrated if possible.

The list of nuclear powers is getting pretty expansive though and so the reality is that we will have to accept the restrictions that places on our ability to twist arms.

I am really confused by our current foreign policy. I find it odd that we have such a negative policy and restrictive attitude towards dealing with N. Korea. The policy is to isolate, threaten, sanction, and keep a military presence on their border. But N. Korea is not a regional power, let alone an expansive imperial power, this I am inferring by the extent to which the South Koreans want us gone and have begun dealing with KJI. On the other hand we have such an open and, let's face it, friendly policy or relationship with China which is an expansive imperial power. I am not saying we need to get tough with China necessarily I just can't figure out the specific thinking that makes these cases so different.

Also, the biggest threat to us as far as terrorists getting nukes still comes from the former Soviet provinces in asia and yet our neocon mandarins undermine our biggest resource in controlling those nukes, Putin, on a daily basis. Both the neoliberals and neocons (hardly any difference actually) were ecstatic over the Yushchenko coup in Ukraine mainly for the fact that it was an embarassment to Putin . . . but what is the sense in taking sides in that one?

Brian...how do you peg China as an expansive imperial power? They have not shown any aggression towards anyone. If anything, they are isolationist (except economically).

Brad...yes the fact that Kim Jong could potentially sell his nukes does alarm me, but yet, who would he sell them to that would have the potential to hit us (or would want to)? No one in the Middle-East has the potential to launch a nuke that far...possibly the Saudis, but their government is quite favorable towards us. Bin Laden is a Saudi, but I hardly think he has access to the kind of materials in order to do this. Iran also has nukes, but as far as I know, they too do not have any potential to launch. So we're looking at N. Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and probably Syria as States suspected of either sponsering terror, or hideouts of terrorists. I don't think we have anything to be alarmed of....at least for now. As far as the sanctions and treaties with Jim Jong, as I recall, the last treaty that we had made with him (something like he couldn't produce uranium), he just arbitrarily decided to break it, so why have uni-laterial talks. I think multi-lateral is the only way to go here, with the U.S. taking a very very backseat. Let the countries around Krazy Kim deal with him. We have other things to worry about.

You can't win them all. At least we confiscated Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. He clearly was the bigger threat anyway.

Well, don't look now, but the EU-Iran nuclear deal is pretty much the same thing that the US gave North Korea.

"Ok, you can have nuclear power, but you have to PROMISE that you won't use any spent fuel rods for bombs, ok? Promise?? Swear to God (oh right)? Ok, good."

What's worse is that we seem to be endorsing it.

Homer,

Where's Ronald Reagan when you need him? He stared evil right in the face and called it what it was. All we have now a days is a bunch of pacifists.

C'mon guys! Don't be so pessimistic! Think of all the foreign policy successes we've had lately. I mean, first, we confiscated Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, which were, as Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and Dubya said: "an imminent threat."

Second, we went into Afghanistan and captured Osama Bin Laden, the chief architect of terror against the United States.

Third, due to our isolationist foreign policy, we are now loved all over the world. Our standing in other countries has increased dramatically, so other countries are more likely to listen to us and cooperate with us.

As I see it, Dubya is the best foreign policy president of all time. So, c'mon people, let's look on the bright side of things! Enough with the doom and gloom! Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!

Reader,

Under the circumstances, I would take Dubya over Gore and Kerry any day, but that doesn't mean I have to like it right?

Yes it is important to have good standing with other countries, but when they are just as corrupt as the bureaucrats at the United Nations, one has to wonder if diplomacy is even worth it?

Finally, although not everything in the war on terror has gone as expected, we are nonetheless, safer than we were on 9/11. Give credit where credit is due.

Christopher,

China is an expansive imperial power but expansive in a regional sense. They have of course been subjugating Tibet for years, they (possibly rightly) consider Taiwan to be part of their empire, and have been saber rattling towards it as well as pointing missiles and test firing one every now and again. (I guess you forgot abnout those territories if you think they have not been threatening anyone). Most of their territorial expansions are reestablishments of their more ancient territory after the fall of the Japanese empire w/ WWII. Basically Chinese Anschluss, actually not altogether different than Iraq's attempt to reconquer Kuwait in the early nineties.

Also, they now have almost total dominance as a naval power in Asia, have been pushing us out of the area for awhile. They want to be the dominant player in their backyard, much like our Monroe Doctrine of old, and have control of the Asian seas.

Finally, and most important these days, they are setting the standard economically in Asia and have a live-live relationship with Japan to develop economic hegemony and weaken the U.S.'s authority in the region. I do not see threats to our hegemonic presence in far off regions of the globe as actual threats to our national security so I am not preaching militancy against the Chi-Coms as the neocons would. We don't need to be an imperial presence in the world even if we legitimately fancy ourselves God's gift to humanity much as the Romans used to think of themselves.

Brian,

I understand China's aggression in Taiwan and Tibet, because of the historical foundations there. As you stated, they pretty much are trying to recover what they consider lost ancient territory. I do not view this as imperialistic and expansionist, in the literal sense, because of these factors, hence my previous comments.

As far as China's dominance in Asia...economically they are becoming the supreme entity (if not already). It's interesting though, that they still acquire much of their weaponry and airforce from Russia. I'm still not entirely sure why they aren't technologically saavy in this area (I had a similar conversation with someone recently about this, and they said that although China's software industry is booming, but their military technology is in the stone ages, but I still don't understand why).

And yes, we don't need to be an imperial presence in Southeast Asia, but eventually I think that Communism will completely collapse there. That society is inching towards democracy with their free-market mentality, and I think the democratic institutions there are fostering freedom; it's just a matter of how long the people will accept government oppression. And when the revolution does occur, the United States will be the people of China's best friend.

Free-marketers my ass. Free markets for Chinese goods is more like it. The shipping containers that they send to the US are full of a bunch of poorly made plastic crap. And do you know what we send back? Empty shipping containers. We buy, they sell.

It's total BS. They're turning into rich, and more dangerous,communists. Prediction (suddenly I'm on the McLaughlin Group): They're buying up T-bills like mad, building up their navy. When the US is at its weakest, militarily and economically, they'll strike Taiwan and threaten to dump their T-bills, even at a loss. And we'll sit there and wring our hands and watch.

We're so addicted to cheap crap from China, cheap labor, and the zillions we make from it. The shrewd chinese know we won't let our economy go in the tank for a bunch of Taiwanese on the other side of the world. We just barely had the will to go to Afghanistan and they attacked US! The Chinese are biding their time, and have designs on the whole of Asia.

Advice: Nothing good has ever come from underestimating the Chinese.

Christopher:

In what sense are we safer now than we were on 9/11? Consider the following:

1. Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose.
2. North Korea has the bomb.
3. Iran has the bomb.
4. Israel has the bomb.
5. Israel is considering attacking Iran.
6. Daily pictures in Arab newspapers depict mangled civilian casualties from the Iraq invasion. These pictures are inflaming fanatics all over the world.

Speak for yourself when you say you feel safer. I feel less safe. I'll give lots of credit to the CIA, the NYPD and the LAPD for the remarkable job they are doing, but despite their efforts I feel significantly more vulnerable now than I did before 9/11...

Reader,

1. If you consider hiding from cave to cave in Pakistan, and looking over your shoulder every time you take a piss because U.S. military intelligence is after you, Osama Bin Laden is on the loose. I for one, have a great deal of respect for the CIA and the DIA and their intelligence specialists (I know some of them). I think eventually we will catch Bin Laden, just like we caught Hussein. It's just a matter of time. Remember, we never found Hitler, he committed suicide (albeit different circumstances). But you get the point, the more we inconvenience Bin Laden and his mobility, the more effective we will be in stopping him and his remaining terror cells.
2. North Korea is not threat to the U.S. Aside from selling their nukes to terrorists, they would never strike any major power, cause Kim Jong knows he's be annailated. And as I said above (you may not have read this), I don't see any terrorist organizations capable of launching a nuke at us (although Kim Jong is capable...I believe his rocketry is called the Topol-M).
3. Iran: No capability to launch a nuke. They are just trying to flex their muscles in the effort to keep the U.S. out of their area.
4. Israel is on our side (but i'm sure this is now where you are going). You are probably more concerned with a nuclear conflict between Israel, and say, Iran. Well, let them bomb the shit of themselves, see if I care. It's sad, but Muslims and Jews will never get along. They have too many clerics and not enough comedians. If they would just poke fun at their religion every once in a while, things might be different.
5. And finally, mangled civilians in Iraq? And who is mangling these civilians, Americans? No, terrorists are doing this to their own people. We are slowly eliminating terror cells in Iraq. Once we train enough Iraqi's to defend themselves, things will get better and eventually, we'll leave. Whether democracy will hold up there, is still to be answered. But i'll tell you what, the Shiite's only getting 48% of the vote is great, because that forces them to work with the other 52% of Kurds and Sunnis. This is why I understand that liberal opposition is important in American politics. Although i do not agree, I know the minute we ALL agree, is the minute when tyranny from one side begins.

1. I realize that Osama Bin Laden is in hiding. As such, he can't do any physical damage to the US. But he still has the power to uplift his followers, and stir their passions. In hiding, he also has the ability to plan and plot. Moreover, he can continue to appear on those videos, exhorting his followers to destroy the United States and Israel. He remains a danger, regardless of how marginalized he may seem.

2. By all accounts, Kim Jong Il drinks too much and is a maniac. It is hard to feel safe knowing that an unstable maniac has the bomb.

3. It's an open question what weapons Iran has. Israel has accused Iran of harvesting uranium, so who knows?

4. Sure, Israel is on our side. And Bush is on Israel's side. Notice how many times he denounced Iran in his state of the union speech? If Israel and Iran clash, we are going to be pulled into the conflict. I don't think we should be pulled in, you don't think we should be pulled in either, but we would be pulled in. The Israeli lobby is just too powerful.

5. There have been a LOT of civilian casualties in Iraq. At the request of the United States government, American newspapers do not publish any of these photos. However, Arab newspapers publish photos of slain civilians everyday. The photos inflame readers, and spur anti-American sentiments. More people hate America now than before 9/11. This is a reason why I feel less safe now.

Reader,

1. I think you're missing the point here. Yes Osama is hiding, yes he continues to plot. But honestly, look at the big picture. If and when we do capture Osama, do you think his followers are just going to throw up their hands and say, "Oh well, you got us...without Osama, we're nothing." No, they will continue on killing, fighting, and spreading their hate. You put too much stock in one man. This is an ideology of hate, it does not revolve around one man. So what we haven't captured him yet? What we have done, is destroyed more than half of the terrorists that existed in Iraq, and countless terror cells around the world, and we continue to disrupt their operations daily...THIS DOES MAKE US SAFER!

Put it this way, how many years has it taken to root out communism and socialism in the world? It still exists right? Ronald Reagan called it evil, George W. Bush has called this terrorist ideology of hate evil as well. The war on terror, like the war against communism, will not dissapear after the first political figure denounces it

2 & 3. These are weak arguments in response to my comments. They invoke no debate, and I honestly expect more from you than this, so I will not comment.

4. Yes you are correct. We would come to Israel's defense in a war with Iran. Hell, that would give us an excuse to get rid of their regime. Could the situation be any better for Bush if this would happen?

5. Do the Arab newspapers take pictures of the civilians they kill in a car bomb? The innocent babies and children that die in the name of Allah?
I hardly think so. The point is, the Arab newspapers are propaganda, they have little or no objection in their reporting. Although I detest the New York Times, they have SOME honesty in their reporting.

Finally, the reason why America will win here, is because we are the good guys. We are fighting for freedom. Terrorism thrives on hate. Historically, an ideology of hate has never triumphed in the end. It may kill millions, but eventually enough people will stand up for what is good and decent and put a stop to evil. On a side note, this is also why Kerry lost the election. Instead of rallying behind someone's ideas, the Democrats ralled behind the man who could most effectively preach their hatred for Bush.

Pessimists don't win, optimists do.

Christopher:

1. Yes, we have busted some small "sleeper cells." But the man who engineered the greatest attack ever on American soil remains free THREE YEARS after the attack. If our intelligence agencies cannot track down this man after three years, what reason do we have to think that our intelligence agencies will alert us when another attack is coming?

2. "Aside from selling their nukes to terrorists, they would never strike any major power." That's quite an aside Christopher. The result of that aside--i.e., if North Korea sold the bomb to terrorists--could be a heap of rubble where Chicago once stood.

3. Iran does not have to launch a nuke for it to pose a danger. There are many fanatics within the Iranian government who would gladly sell the weapons technology to a terrorist organization. If that happens both the United States and Israel are in grave danger.

4. No. If the United States were to join Israel in a war with Iran I would not feel any safer.

5. I do not wish to debate newspaper accuracy. My point was that many more individuals hate the United States now than was the case before 9/11. Newspapers only fan these flames. This is a reason to feel anxious--not a reason to feel safe.

Reader,

NO TERRORIST ORGANIZATION IS CAPABLE OF LAUNCHING A NUCLEAR WEAPON AT THE UNITED STATES, THEREFORE, ANY SOLD TO THEM WOULD BE INCONSEQUENTIAL!

Did you not read my comments on this before?