Fred is a prime example of stupid liberals. Clinton's treaty was a joke, at the American tax payers expense. Fred's twisted tale was funny to read, Sadly however he was trying to be serious.

North Korea is a paper tiger. It can be handled in one stroke of the pen. We tell China that Japan and Taiwan will be joining the Nuke Club and suddenly that little pot bellied dictator falls down the stairs and a new government comes to power in North Korea.

John Bolton was an awesome diplomat. The best that has been there in at least 20 years. He was smart enough to know the UN is useless and smart enough to know that deals are made elsewhere. Interestingly enough, he pissed off liberals by asking that the UN clean up its act.

It's funny when a man with a PhD in political science can speak from a standpoint of pretty solid Realist theory (which used to be the favored approach of Conservatives) and then be dismissed as stupid. Especially in the face of the obvious failure of Bush's approach. It's a sad day when American Conservatives abandon the idea of realpolitik and decide instead to base a foreign policy on infantile moralizing and a so-called war against evil. It's an even sadder day when they don't even see what they've become.

In other news, lemonade is made with artificial flavoring while furniture polish is made from real lemons.

Yes, the world has gone mad.

A PhD in poly sci? My friend college professors are the perfect weather vane to use to discover who NOT to vote for. They list of their heros is long; Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Castro are some of their shining stars they envisioned would save the world. Then consider the fact the 99% of college professors are commies (only a slight stretch there), Bush is a liberal, in case you didn't notice look at his spending policy and foreign policy. Both of which are off key.

That's a huge stretch. I only had one Marxist professor, and even he viewed Stalin and Mao as a betrayal of Marx. And come on. Nobody likes Hitler. Your friend is being silly. Most of my professors were classic political and economic Realists.

BTW, this was a university in California, so one would think that I'd have a greater than average concentration of left-leaning professors. That was not evident.

As for Bush being a liberal, nice try. Bush doesn't really fit any definition. Except perhaps insanity. For that matter, the terms liberal and conservative do not imply any absolute placement on the left to right political spectrum. Those relationships change depending on the time and place.

Ah right, so nuclear equipped North Korea, with one of the most powerful armed forces on earth, and ballistic missiles pointed at Seoul and Tokyo is little more than a paper tiger?? I wonder what that makes Iraq...

And when we're explaining to China that Japan and Korea will be joining the nuke club, I suppose we just ignore Japan's pacifist constitution that specifically prohibits atomic weapons, and the fact that S. Korea is terrified of antagonising Pyongyang lest Kim gets an itchy trigger finger? Even in some alternate reality where your suggestion was feasible, are you seriously suggesting we combat nuclear prolifiration with nuclear prolifiration?

The fact is that N. Korea had a viable plutonium enrichment programme in the early 90s, but due to the policies of the Clinton administration, nothing came of this. After less than 8 years of Bush, Pyongyang suddenly is nuclear capable! I think that's a pretty damning assessment of recent American efforts in the area.

And as for Bolton, I actually like the guy and think he was right about the UN needing to get its act together, but can you please explain to me how he was an awesome diplomat? You can't because he wasn't, and you're just involving yourself in partisan cheerleading.

Can you say "DANGEROUSLY NAIVE"??

What's "dangerously naive" is to think that the DPRK halted work on it's nuclear weapon's program(s)....ever. Clinton nor Bush did a damned thing to slow the DPRK down....do you really think the DPRK stopped their work because of the Agreed Framework...then blammo, Bush arrives and they all of a sudden have a nuke? Nice try. With so much to dig on Bush about....this particular topic is the weakest.

You didn't read my post properly. What's dangerously naive is the idea that N. Korea could be brought into the fold by equipping her neighbours with nuclear weapons, and hoping that China would feel threatened enough to prevail on Pyongyang to ditch Kim. As for N. Korea halting work on its nuclear programme, I have no idea whether they did or not. I am sure however, that they now have nuclear weapons, whereas before they didn't. When the aim of a process of engagement with a state is to prevent them from becoming nuclear capable, and they manage to join the nuclear club, well then I think we can all agree that that process has failed.

...In any event, mar1976cus' suggestion that North Korea was a paper tiger only makes Iraq more of a paper tiger. Especially after one acquires nukes and one has not. You called him on that nicely.

And the idea that the issue could be solved "with one stroke of the pen" is a bit absurd. Excessively simplistic thinking and planning only for the best-case scenario is part of why Iraq turned into such a mess.

Then again, maybe if mar1976cus was President, it would all work out... ;-)

"As for N. Korea halting work on its nuclear programme, I have no idea whether they did or not."

You certainly didn't waste any time figuring out where to apply blame though...political opinions getting the better of your logic?

Oh for God sake, why does everything have to boil down to which side of the political spectrum you stand on?! There doesn't seem to be a single post on this whole forum that's judged on its own merit. Instead, political prejudices are applied by the reader, and assumed on the posters part, whether they are applicable or not. I believe that the Bush administration handled the situation badly. It really is as simple as that, and I resent having my opinions twisted in an attempt to pigeonhole me. To suggest my opinions are driven by political bias without any knowledge of my political leanings is fatuous in the extreme.

Just working with what you give me Einhard. If you don't know, as you claimed...then how can you gather up an opinion to assert blame? Your political leanings be damned...I'm trying to understand how your admitted lack of knowledge enables you to come to a conclusion on where to affix blame. Your point A to point B is a mystery to me...I seek an understanding. Fair enough?

I'm not claiming to be an expert on this topic...but I think I know enough to come to a position on it, and I myself find noone to blame but the Norks. They wanted a nuke, and there wasn't a thing either administration did that slowed them down. Obtaining and testing a nuclear weapon during Bush's watch was only a matter of timing, not policy. It wouldn't have mattered who was calling themselves Mr. President.

Whoa Quill-

I graduated from a CSU (Chico State) and now I am a grad student at the University of Iowa and I can say with certainty that the majority of my professors were Commies, or at least closet commies. Most of my general ED was a succession of classes with one message: Western Philosophy, Capitalism, people of European descent and of course the US is the reason for every wrong and evil in the world. Capitalism is the concept most often assaulted. Sad thing is most students eat that stuff up. Want to be a true radical, a real rebel- be a pro-capitalist on a collage campus in the US. Hell, be a republican on college campus. That is why I sought to seek refuge in the seemingly objective world of science (I wanted to be a history major first, but the obvious Marxist propaganda made my stomach turn). I found that the goal of most General Ed classes are to persuade the students to adopt a leftist viewpoint on the world, and come to share the same Marxist ideals of their professors. The same is true out here in Iowa, 90% of the professors here are registered democrats. If memory serves les thatn 3% are registered Repubs, and the rest did not respond to the survey (most likely repubs who know it is best not to make their colleges aware of their political beliefs.) College campuses in the US have some of the least diversity in thought than anyplace on Earth which is ironic. I know this is just a personal anecdote but I’ve been on college campuses for most of my life, and I can say with certainty that is most certainly not “fair and balanced”.

Bush is a liberal. Have you noticed his spending habits? He has expanded entitlements. He has up till the last year done virtually nothing with illegals. He has repeatedly attempted to He has appointed more gays to posts than the previous 3 presidents. While in Texas he opened colleges up for free to 1000s of students. His house in Texas is eco friendly to the point it makes Al Gore look like a leaking oil tanker. So you see, he is hardly a conservative. Oh by the way he lives in Conneticut and visits Texas from time to time.

You need to learn a little bit more about that area of the world. China would bitch slap NK in a heart beat if Taiwan were to hint at getting nukes. If Japan were to even threaten to arm with nukes, once again, China would straighten out NK. What it comes down to is that the US is easy. The Americans are afraid to take a stand and can be shook down for money. NK tried it with Russia, then said no. NK tried it with China they said no. NK tried it with the US and Clinton folded faster than superman on wash day.

So why were so many registered democratics attending Nazi rallies at Madison Square Garden in the 1930s? Many college proffessors and Hollow Wood liberals loved Hitler. Of course it all changed after WW II started but the fact remains liberals have often loved powerful tyrants. Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it

Notice in the following cut and paste. professors conducting this study and what did they find? I've had more than one liberal professor and if they didn't like you your grades suffered. I've even had one tell me that my 3 credit class might be changed to a 2 credit class just so I'd be around another semister. Of course liberals would see nothing wrong with that. Oh by the way, I have a PhD from a different university now. And I do not teach, because as a good conservative I would never get tenure nor would I accept a salary cut to work at a institution of higher learning.

A 2005 study by American and Canadian professors indicated that 72 percent of those teaching at U.S. colleges and universities identified themselves as liberal. Only 15 percent called themselves conservative.

Several students said professors' liberal views tend to spill out in classrooms in subtle and overt ways. It can trigger lively debates but also intimidate some students.