Not that I am defending Kim Jung Ill or the Iranian ruling elites but,...

[Postman]

Could you blame them for ramping up whatever atomic weapons program they may have had?

Bush practically calls them to a duel in the SOTU speech with the "axis of evil" stuff, then proceeds to make war on one of those listed. The signal sent to the others by this action certainly was taken to heart. If I were running those countries I think I'd be trying to get my hands on some nuclear material also as a preventive, defensive measure, a bargaining chip to prevent a like invasion.

Yeah, N. Korea may have been going ahead with its nuclear program regardless of the previous treaties it signed. Treaties, shmeaties. Bush was guilty of this same action with Kyoto, ICC, EPA and God knows what else. So N. Korea dpesn't hold a monopoly on breaking treaties.

[NNN0LHI]

1. Not to mention the ABM Treaty Bush didn't like

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa061702a.htm

Dateline: 06/17/02

US Withdraws from ABM Treaty

Announcing the formal withdrawal of the United States from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, President Bush pressed for rapid development and deployment of the long-debated National Missile Defense system.

In a brief statement issued on June 13, Bush noted new and different threats faced by the U.S. since the Cold War days of the ABM treaty. "As the events of September 11 made clear, we no longer live in the Cold War world for which the ABM Treaty was designed," he said. "We now face new threats from terrorists who seek to destroy our civilization by any means available to rogue states armed with weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Defending the American people against these threats is my highest priority as Commander-in-Chief."

more

[MaverickX]

2. don't bet NK wants nukes ...

Just to defend itself from the U.S. Your theory about NK fearing an attack by the U.S. only proves NK is an irrational actor. The said reason for attacking Iraq was because we believed the had WMD so by throwing their nuclear program in our face NK increased the likelihood that we'd attack them. It's the action of an irrational state to build up arms in the face of a perceived threat by a bigger and stronger nation. This shows NKs only concern is getting a nuke.

[wuushew]

4. You deny the nukes are an effective bargining chip?

what North Korea wants is security,food and oil.

Even if they (A)built them/kept them (B)built them/got rid of them, their position would be better then (C) did nothing and expect U.S. to be nice

[Pepperbelly]

5. disagree vehemently ...

first, the Iraqi WMDs were a figment of the imagination and I have to believe that our intelligence services knew that AND I expect NK knew it as well. Everyone else in the world seemed to know.

What we had was the stupid axis of evil speech followed by ramping up to war against on the the axis members, for want of a better phrase. If I were North Korea, I would make damned sure that a similar act against me would result in a very bitter pill to swallow. Personally, I suspect that only fear stands between Whistleass and an attempt at world conquest.

[Cocoa]

9. It's rational to want to stay in power

I think it's reasonable to look at Bush diplomacy and conclude that if he wants you regime changed, you're going to be regime changed no matter what you do.

[IranianDemocrat]

3. No you can't blame them.

And I seriously doubt they'll do anything to start world war 3 once they do get them.

[DealsGapRider]

6. Yes, I can blame them!

Neither governments are democratically elected. Both governments rule over their citizens using terror to ensure their security. What you are essentially saying is that it is justifiable for these illegitimate governments to ensure their continued oppression over their people by building weapons that will fend off the international community. Especially in the case of North Korea, these weapons are being designed for no other reason than to perpetuate the enslavement of the people under the heel of a despotic ruler. And you think that's all right?

[Iluvleiberman]

7. Dude they are getting nukes as deterrent

OK I realize the monies to build nukes should be spent on food, water and housing but with raving Bush and the football, the only way to stave off an invasion is to build nukes.

Why should the US be so elitist to think we should be the ONLY country to have nukes?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

11. not as a deterrent

but as an object for 'negotiations'. They are using these weapons as a bargaining tool (read : blackmail) so that we will provide them with economic assistance and a non-aggression treaty. The government there has failed to the point that their people are literally starving due to the expenditures that the government makes to support the military. The government of NK knows that unless there is serious outside help for their economic situation, that they soon will not even be able to feed their military thus providing the perfect excuse for a coup if not an all-out revolution.

TheProdigal

[bpilgrim]

16. "as a bargaining tool' - thats what politics is all about

and we were in the proccess of NEGOTIATING a 'SUNSHINE POLICY' with north korea till the neo-cons rolled along and nocked everything over.

now our otptions are starkly black or white talk or wait till war 'breaks-out'

we need to get back to the negotiating table and immediately defuse the extreme situation by signing a NON-AGRESSION TREATY with n. korea - maybe they don't know about the indians - as they have been asking for if they agree to let inspectors - or something - back in.

but remember who's drivin da bus...

:hi:

peace

[DealsGapRider]

13. Yes, you are correct.

They -- the illegitimate leaders of these countries -- are seeking to deter efforts by the US or the international community to bring about change in their countries...namely, to replace them as leaders. The question is, is that all right? I say it's not.

An analogy might be as follows: a man barricades himself in his house, where he proceeds to beat his wife and kids. This alarms his neighbors, who start to make noises about going in and rescuing his victims. In response, he arms himself with a machine gun to ensure that he will be able to continue beating his wife and child. Is this justifiable? Of course not.

As for the arrogance of nuclear powers like the US (and France and Britain, etc.) telling other countries not to develop nukes, you make a fair philosophical point. But look, the Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed by a whole bunch of countries who explicitly acknowledged that even though several countries already had nukes, it was still in the best interest of the world to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. In other words, it's a double standard that everyone has accepted and lived with for decades.

[Pepperbelly]

8. Bush wasn't democratically elected either so ...

what precisely is your point?

The leaders in the Soviet Union weren't "democratically" elected nor the leaders of China.

[Iluvleiberman]

10. Or Vietnam, Burma, ect.

[Karenina]

12. "Neither governments are democratically elected."

And America's is? cough, cough, clear throat...

"Both governments rule over their citizens using terror to ensure their security."

Duct tape and plastic sheeting, anyone? Color codes? 45 minutes?

"What you are essentially saying is that it is justifiable for these illegitimate governments to ensure their continued oppression over their people by building weapons that will fend off the international community."

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! "Missle defence shield," mini-nukes, MOAB????

[DealsGapRider]

14. I think most reasonable people...

...can make a distinction between the government of the United States and the government of North Korea.

[NNN0LHI]

17. I can remember those days too. Ah, the good old days. n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

15. "All The Shah's Men" by Stephen Kinzer...what a read!

i wouldn't trust us....