Reply #: And if they aren't bluffing? If Seoul ends up on fire? [View All]

[ConLaw]

Kim Jong Il is a lunatic, and he has said sanctions would be an act of war. The last thing we need to do is hope that he is bluffing. It is easy for us to take risks with North Korea, but if I was living in Seoul, or Tokyo, I would want the solution that is least likely to result in war. Look, we can be immature about this, not giving the commies what they want. But the simple fact is that they are building nukes, and will be much more dangerous when they have more than the 1 or 2 they have now. The hard line was what started this mess, it was what antagonized them in the first place. The Ivory Tower PNACers don't have a clue of what to do when the solution does not involve war. We need to get the North Koreans back under control. Issueing ultamatums will only result in them building more nukes. If the state department can get some kind of comprimise multilateral/bilateral talks then fine. But I don't think the North Koreans are going to give up their nuke program if they don't get SOMETHING in return. We where feeding them and giving them oil during the 90s. Remember when, in 2000, at the end of Clinton's term, when Albright went to Pyongyang and danced with the North Korean leaders? I believe she even had tea with Kim Jong Il. THAT is where we need to be back to by 2008. Issueing ultamatums, antagonizing them, and taking major risks hoping they are bluffing is NOT the way to get them to disarm.