So who's more effective

[woodchip]

So who was more effective; Clinton and his cajone wrought Sec of State Madeline Albright producing a non ratified agreement with North Korea? All those angst ridden libs who said Bush should enter into single party talks and appease the NK'ers at whatever cost?
Or Bush who stuck to his guns and said the six party talks were the only way to get NK to stop its nuke building program?

Snip
\"North Korea has agreed to take the first steps towards nuclear disarmament, as part of a deal reached during six-nation talks in Beijing.

Under the agreement, Pyongyang has promised to shut down its main nuclear reactor in return for fuel aid.\"


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6356481.stm

[DCrazy]

Neither. China told NK to sit down, STFU, and disarm or else it would take care of the problem itself. China had no qualms about sending a large chunk of its million-man army for some oversight from the red motherland.

[Testiculese]

That and China doesn't care about SK, so NK can't say \"we'll bomb SK\" and it have any effect.

[Will Robinson]

Fair enough but Woody's got a point, Clinton was happy to give the N. Koreans what they wanted and had no real leverage to get something in return...all he had was hope and all he really wanted was plausible deniability the appearance that he did something. So the N.Koreans laughed at us, took the free stuff and continued their development inspite of our \"demands\".
Bush at least insisted on the regional powers be involved and that is the leverage that Clinton didn't get....

Now of course it is easier to get others to get involved if they see you as a trigger happy Texan instead of a smooth talking politico

After all, what was Bill going to do, bite his lower lip, stare into the camera with his puppy dog eyes and tell China they really need to feel his pain?!?
Everybody knew Bill Clinton wasn't going to put boots on the ground unless they were a couple of state troopers sent somewhere to get him a date

Bush, on the other hand, just might be crazy enough to actually go to war with N.Korea and once the dust settled the U.S. would probably have quite a large military presence in the country for an eternity!
That doesn't fit in with China's desire to rule the world so they felt a little more motivated to control the little dog eating madman who calls himself Dear Leader.

Now will all this talk lead to N.Korea actually giving in and opening up for monitoring? We'll see...
Bush hasn't really done anything great here, it was what any decent president should have done in the situation.

[Testiculese]

What I question is why does the US have anything to do with it? China should have taken care of it before the test launch, etc..

We should not have been involved at all.

[dissent]

What I question is why does the US have anything to do with it?

um ... South Korea, for starters. Not to mention the fact that it makes Dear Leader feel special to be talkin' to one of the big boys.

We've been in a similar situation before, albeit, as DCrazy noted, without the more active participation of China. Let's hope that continues. The real issue is whether or not the DPRK keeps to their word on these issues, and also is willing to pursue further negotiations in good faith. Prior track record does not speak too well.

[Will Robinson]

I think China likes seeing the U.S. have to react. They get to measure their capabilities against what ever we show them when we move troops or ships etc.
Just like Russia is learning from our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, they watch us fighting against their hardware and sometimes against troops they trained too.

[woodchip]

The underlying theme here is negotiation and how you impliment it. Lets look at Iran. The IAEA has been for how long \"negotiating\" with Iran to limit Irans potential for developing a nuclear weapon yet still allow Iran the ability to nave nuclear power. Iran has basically told the IAEA to stuff it and continues to move forward with developing a bomb (does anyone here think otherwise?).
So the question now is what to do about it. Since there are a lot of intelligent people here, how would you now handle the Iran nuke program. Ignore it? Continue negotiations? Bomb the facilities in question?

[Testiculese]

I'd find out who was responsible for delivery, and they'd have an 'accident'