It's a tough call--The North is so unpredictable, and yet, predictable at the same time. In the end, keeping them at bay is the best choice.

There's always the possibility of regime change--but do China and South Korea really want millions of refugees on their hands, as well as a humanitarian catastrophe? This is not to mention the perilous nature of war against a rogue state that could fire off nuclear weapons at bay just to save face.

No one is prepared to invade North Korea at the moment,
Why not degrade their weapon facilities, Bosnian style?
"and all other courses of action will ultimately be pointless."
If North Korea refuses to deactivate the Yongbyon reactor, could a bomb not pursue that course of action?
Bush has surrendered North Korea to it's tyranny, as South Korea did long ago...
1 million m3 of oil to Kim Jong Il's regime will kill many more innocent people in the long run then his nuclear weapon arsenal possibly could.

Why doesn't the USA do the same thing that PDRK does? Sign the agreement, then renege -- don't send them any oil.

How the U.S.A. has changed. Remember "millions for defense, not one penny for tribute."

Now, paying blackmail is the name of the game.

I'd re-elect Bush against any slobs the Dems could muster in a heartbeat. The man has a special place in history as having the principles and spine to draw a line in the sand against the depraved terrorists that have been wrecking havoc globally for decades. 9/11 required a response and I thank God Bush was in office.

I wish he had cleaned out the State Department years ago. Clinton's lackeys are still entrenched there. I wish he had roughed up Putin early on and can't understand his hesitation now. NK should be treated like a lethal virus, quarantined them and let them rot. But, then, China, Japan and SK are the ones most in periled by this maniac and need to forge a cohesive response.

Let's substitute "quarantine them". Old age plus ADD is brutal.

It doesn't matter what G.W. Bush does he is damed if he does and damed if he dosen't. The Democrats are the same as our lieberals,all they care about is getting into power so they can line their own nests.

There is more theater involved than actual threat from North Korea. But there is still a threat that has to be dealt with in some way -- sooner rather than later -- if a bigger conflict is to be avoided.

Bush's hardline, at first, was the only option. But always in the balance was pushing North Korea's regime to the brink of collapse and thus inadvertenty encouraging them to greatly increase efforts to develop weapons and to do so to raise a cash cow by supplying those weapons, or weaponized bits and pieces, to the highest bidder.

The hard lesson for future Presidents is that a hardline is not an incremental policy. It is a fast and furious policy that can't be soft pedalled.

There is a defend-the-border idea that has been floated for Iraq. Militarize the Syrian and Iranian borders to shut them tight -- like the zone between the South and North Koreas. Force a standstill.

That approach is aboiut kicking the real problem down the road a safer distance.

Bush has been slugging it out with the Dems over even the idea of making a real winning effort -- no holds barred -- in Iraq, let alone against worldwide islamist terrorism. The political climate -- mainly within the USA -- greatly restrains Bush in ways that Clinton did not experience in terms of foreign policy. Doing the right thing -- now -- comes with a small window of opportunity. Clinton had that; Bush has not.

So, given lost time and lost opportunity during the Clinton presidency, Bush's current choices have always been stacked on the *very awful* end of the spectrum.

The framework is not a deal. It is open-ended. Bush is not tieing the hands of his Administration nor of the next. Eventually, I think, certain prudent elements within China's regime will escort the little leader to exile -- or end his rule with his death. For now, it serves China's interests to allow North Korea to be a thorn in Bush's side.

There is more theater involved than actual threat from North Korea. But there is still a threat that has to be dealt with in some way -- sooner rather than later -- if a bigger conflict is to be avoided.

Bush's hardline, at first, was the only option. But always in the balance was pushing North Korea's regime to the brink of collapse and thus inadvertenty encouraging them to greatly increase efforts to develop weapons and to do so to raise a cash cow by supplying those weapons, or weaponized bits and pieces, to the highest bidder.

The hard lesson for future Presidents is that a hardline is not an incremental policy. It is a fast and furious policy that can't be soft pedalled.

There is a defend-the-border idea that has been floated for Iraq. Militarize the Syrian and Iranian borders to shut them tight -- like the zone between the South and North Koreas. Force a standstill.

That approach is aboiut kicking the real problem down the road a safer distance.

Bush has been slugging it out with the Dems over even the idea of making a real winning effort -- no holds barred -- in Iraq, let alone against worldwide islamist terrorism. The political climate -- mainly within the USA -- greatly restrains Bush in ways that Clinton did not experience in terms of foreign policy. Doing the right thing -- now -- comes with a small window of opportunity. Clinton had that; Bush has not.

So, given lost time and lost opportunity during the Clinton presidency, Bush's current choices have always been stacked on the *very awful* end of the spectrum.

The framework is not a deal. It is open-ended. Bush is not tieing the hands of his Administration nor of the next. Eventually, I think, certain prudent elements within China's regime will escort the little leader to exile -- or end his rule with his death. For now, it serves China's interests to allow North Korea to be a thorn in Bush's side.

The same deal? I thought this deal provides four times the amount of oil. It is a bit bizzare though. After six years of bashing Clinton's policy, and working to reverse it, they ve pretty much reassembled it. Wonder what Iran thinks...or the rest of the world for that matter.

"Why not degrade their weapon facilities, Bosnian style?"

The simple answer is North Korean topography. It is extremely mountainous land, and the North Koreans have vast underground/tunnel complexes that are not easy to target or destroy. Furthermore, mountainous land is easier to defend and harder to capture. Throw in around 10,000 artillery pieces close to the South Korean border, and its quite clear that even a couple of minutes of artillery bombardment can turn Seoul into rubble.

"If North Korea refuses to deactivate the Yongbyon reactor, could a bomb not pursue that course of action?"

They have nukes now, though even without nukes they could wreak havoc in South Korea. With nukes, the equation includes Japan too, since they have delivery systems. The cost of attacking them is, to put it mildly, simply too high. Deterrence is the rule of the day.

"1 million m3 of oil to Kim Jong Il's regime will kill many more innocent people in the long run then his nuclear weapon arsenal possibly could. "

True. And yet one must remember that a North Korean life is far more expendable than an American/Korean/Japanese life. Status Quo affects only the former adversely and not the latter. At the end of the day America is not concerned about freedom, liberty etc, it is concerned about American interests. Saving American lives and allies lives is more important than a couple of million North Koreans. Its just the way the world works.

"Why doesn't the USA do the same thing that PDRK does? Sign the agreement, then renege -- don't send them any oil."

And what will that achieve? Back to square one. Isnt that essentially what happened the last time round. Clinton promised, Bush reneged.

penny,

You re one upset little lady arent you. Its all about bashing the Dems even though Bush has gone and given a deal, that is the same if not worse than the original one.

"I wish he had roughed up Putin early on and can't understand his hesitation now'

And achieved what exactly? Putin's latest outburst, whether you like it or not, reflects the view of a very large number of nations and their leaders, including the so-called rising powers - India, China et al. Bush is playing a tricky game, and he cant afford to isolate America to the extent that he has in the past six years. Poland, great nation though it may be, has little to contribute in comparison to the newcomers. Imagine having Indian troops, steeped with over a decades worth of experience against Islamic insurgency in Kashmir, in Iraq. Might just have made that much of a difference.

"NK should be treated like a lethal virus, quarantined them and let them rot."

Once in a while, it would be worthwhile to check your facts. It is, in fact, treated exactly like this. Alas, when you get nukes, in part motivated by regime changes in other nations, it is hard for the rest of the world to ignore you, especially when you ve voiced your willingness to sell technology to other rogue states and terrorists.

Rob C.

I agree entirely. But I dont think its limited to GW Bush. America, being the worlds superpower is damned if it does and damned if it doesnt. I dont envy their position.

(First of all I'm not an expert on this stuff - I'm just reading the articles that everyone else has read.)

First of all it is easy for journalists and pundits (whatever that means) to jump all over any deal. They are not decision makers and they are trying to coerce the wrong guy (Bush).

I think that the US administration is trying to make sure that all the countries in the region start taking action and acting like regional powers. If Russia and China want to have a say on the world stage - then they have to grow the f**k up and share some responsibility (In fact, I'm happy to see that China didn't act like a bunch of wussies this time). This deal might be similar to the old deal but it is a 6 party deal and there has to be compromise.

We'll will have to see if North Korea shuts down their Reactor in 60 days and lets internation inspectors in to verify this. Then they get their first oil carrot. We will have to see if they really comply this time. Then we will have to see how the next stages of the agreement unfold.
I don't think North Korea is in the driver's seat and they realize that Bush will not be intimidated and they have just seen Bush do the surge routine in Iraq (and directly challenge congress).

its quite clear that even a couple of minutes of artillery bombardment can turn Seoul into rubble.
You highly underestimate American military power:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mlrs/
The basic MLRS tactical rocket warhead contains 644 M77 munitions, which are dispensed above the target in mid-air. The dual-purpose bomblets are armed during freefall and a simple drag ribbon orients the bomblets for impact. Each MLRS launcher can deliver almost 8,000 munitions in less than 60 seconds at ranges exceeding 32km.

Deterrence is the rule of the day.
Deterrence is for leftists. Regime change is all that matters.

"You highly underestimate American military power"

And you highly underestimate political/economic consequences. South Koreans dont care about how good or bad American technology is. In fact, I doubt the Americans even know where the artillery pieces are - hidden as they are in caves and whatnots. South Korea is concerned primarily about Seoul - the destruction of Seoul would also be felt globally in terms of economics. They are not going to take the chances. Even a minutes worth of bombardment - at around 4 shells (probably more) per minute, means severe destruction. There are many things that look good on paper, and America is far superior to North Korea. But there is a very sound reason behind why there is no talk of invading Korea. The cost is simply too high. America can have all the technology in the world, but when the costs are high enough to disrupt virtually everything, from losing Allies in Asia at a time when China is beginning to rise, to causing chaos in the Asian market, which in a global economy means chaos globally. A war would inevitably affect the Japanese economy amongst others. The costs are simply too high. This isnt the wild west. This is the real world. Big guns dont mean anything anymore. If they did, America would have invaded North Korea the day the SU collapsed.

Deterrence is a decidely rightist/realist concept. Disarmament is for leftists.

What a sense of deja vue. I had the opportunity of attending a talk by David Frum in the fall at our local university. His topic was the middle east but an audience member asked about North Korea. His response was to predict exactly what has transpired and his assessment was not good. This was an excellent speech made even better because of the fact that I live in Kamloops, the new home of Mahar Arar, and his wife was in the audience asking questions. What a debate. Who needs TV or the Internet when you live here. Just joking. sandra

I have never understood the reasoning of supplying your enemy with the goods to help the enemy defeat you. Man, that is stupid