How come Bush is not talking tough with N. Korea now?

Question

UNITED NATIONS - Supporters of a Security Council resolution that would impose sanctions on North Korea agreed to delay a vote in the hope that China can pressure Pyongyang to return to talks on nuclear disarmament and halt missile tests, U.S. officials said Monday. Why is President Bush not talking tough now? Bush is becoming weak SO N. Korea is not worried about weak Bush.

The five veto-wielding nations on the U.N. Security Council are divided over sanctions. The U.S., Britain and France support the resolution proposed by Japan after North Korea test-fired seven missiles on July 5 — one apparently a long-range type that could potentially reach the United States.

China and Russia oppose sanctions and have been pressing for a weaker presidential statement, which is not legally binding, instead of a resolution.

China introduced a draft presidential statement on Monday.

Answer 1

Because as stupid as Bush is even he's not THAT stupid.

There's like over a million of their guys to several thousands of our guys.

Not very good odds.

Answer 2

How many wars do you think the US can realistically sustain simultaneously? Almost USD$1Billion for this year to continue the campaign. Stretched troops. Rapidly diminishing public support. Even if North Korea really truly did have WMDs (which it doesn't * ), as opposed to iraq (which it didn't) there's not alot the US could do about it in terms of an invasion. North Korea are no doubt quite aware of this.

"Legally binding"? The US invaded Iraq contrary to international law. Since when does the US care about the legality of such things?

Answer 3

clit_niblr28,
Don't be stuck on stupid now. N. Korea wouldn't stand a chance at winning any conflict. The only deterrence is that many, many innocent civilians in both North and South Korea would be killed in the process. At best, the worst case scenario I've heard so far is the U.S. suffering 10,000 casualties.

Now that may sound like a crapload, but it's something our country is willing to fight for. Stability in that region could save so many more lives over time (starving poor, genocide, threat to other countries, etc). Hopefully it won't come down to war.

__________

fluffy,
To say the U.S. couldn't sustain another conflict on the scale of North Korea shows how uneducated you are about our defense budget. We have 30,000 troops already in that region with the equipment and power necessary to fend off the first waves of attack. The amount of money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan is different, in the sense that we are "maintaining a presence". That's what we're paying for.

If we get into a conflict with North Korea, it is only going to be with the rest of the world on our side. That way, the cost of "maintaining a presence" won't be out of our pocket only. It's on a much different scale, and I doubt anyone will want to occupy that region for long.

And as for legality...the 17th U.N. resolution against Iraq invoked Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter, which defends the use of military force. It was a "legal" entry, regardless of how you want to spin it.

_______

bostonianinmo,
Not sure I could have summed it up better myself!

Answer 4

Just like with Iraq, GWB is taking the high road, diplomacy. When that has been tried enough or if time runs out on diplomacy we will do something else. Why do you talk so rude, do you want tough talk? Would you prefer he nuke them out of existence? He is not that stupid.. Are you? Do you think the u.s. should bow to the u.n. , or run them all out on a rail? do you think we should have ignored the u.n. the first time(1953) and finished the war by nuking them then, when china was weak..

Answer 5

Because it is best to let the UN handle this one. He is actually very smart for trying to rally allies before just running in there with tanks and blowing crap up. When he gets most of the United Nations on our side of this thing, then maybe we can send a united message to North Korea that we mean business...

Answer 6

I have my doubts about President Bush's 'weakness'. Having read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu, I have suspected that if President Bush hasn't read it and adopted it, someone close to his side has. Watch carefully. He's going to pull a fast (and good for America) one soon.

Answer 7

Because it's in our best interest to let the Chinese and the UN hassle them. Our political capital stinks at this point, and Bush knows it. Probably the first intelligent move he's made since going into Afghanistan.

Answer 8

America is scared of North Korea who wouldnt be they're communists.

Answer 9

because Clinton has precisely one way of coping with N.ok. monetary company on it: They were given missle technologies or another sweet deal and it surely WILL bring about extra of that variety of problem. N.ok. purely were given a wide advantages for taking captives and each and each and every "undesirable guy" contained in the international knows it. Carter easily BALKED the Iran rescue. Reagan did not negotiate, except you call "i'm gonna' kill you" negotiating. one hundred% of our bases are the position host international places favor them. each and every time we've talked of remaining one, the rustic they're IN has a tantrum. "Your" Heavenly Father has given us a pacesetter who loves in ordinary words our enemies and suggested SO in his autobiography. you're unaware of even a unmarried celebration the position peace has EVER been "negotiated."

Answer 10

HELLO!! Bush is doing a better job than what people are putting him up to. Any time you have a Republican president the democrats are going to criticise(vice versa if there is a Democratic president)