Clinton gave nuclear technology to DPRK in the 90's and made them promise (cross your heart and hope to die) that they wouldn't enrich to weapons grade. Bush called them 'evil' and hurt their feelings. Who is more responsible for the situation today?
2006-12-25 16:50:39 · 9 answers · asked by laohutaile 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Nobody's answering the more important question, which is "Where do we go from here?"
2006-12-25 17:18:34 · answer #1 · answered by hum 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush has been the guy for 6 years now. At some point, his pals gotta stop blaming the last guy. And I'm a republican saying that!
Here's the "genius" of the NK position. They know that we're stretched to the limit in Iraq, and that our public has lost it's taste for war. So they know that there's no way we're gonna fire the first shot in a war with them... They also know that they need food, medicines, and a way out of their current economic purgatory. They also know that the U.N. is the single weakest and biggest waste of time and resources the world has ever known.
They can't get themselves the world attention they need to get the things they want, so they act out like an impetuous child by rattling their sabres. It's all a "hey, don't forget about us" ploy.
What have they got to lose? At some point they figure the U.S. will have to return to the bargaining table and give them what they want - security guarantees and economic assistance, in exchange for some vague "promise" that they'll dismantle their nuclear program... A promise that they'll break immediately, so they can start the cycle all over again... The only way this tactic DOESN'T work is if they believe we're capable and willing to go in there uninvited and kick their commies azzes.
2006-12-25 17:00:20 · answer #2 · answered by I hate friggin' crybabies 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Neither were absolutely successful, but Clinton had them talking and exploring ways to compromise without outright conflict. Bush with his Axis of Evil speech and attitude has started something in the world that he never imagined. He angered people all over the world with one sentence, and then he baited everyone as if he knew what he was doing.
Facts on the ground have proved Bush wrong, not a little wrong but very very badly wrong. The price maybe higher than we ever imagined or can accept even at this late date.
You don't take a stick and knock down a Wasp's nest without calculating the price you may have to pay as a result of your action.
2006-12-25 17:03:32 · answer #3 · answered by zclifton2 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The North Korean dictators would be the obvious ones to blame, don't you think? Russia, China, & a lot of other countries have been horse trading with them also, but the North Koreans supposedly built the bomb. (I say supposedly because no one has seen it yet & the "test" was not conclusively nuclear)
Even if our troops were not all tied up elsewhere & the Treasury past the Empty mark, what is Bush or anyone else supposed to do about it?
I blame Bush & Clinton for a lot of things, but the Korean nuclear situation is not one of them.
2006-12-25 17:05:40 · answer #4 · answered by bob h 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush. Noticed that North Korea and Iran didn't really pursue nukes until Bush invaded Iraq and then it was off to the races.
The person who really helped was the head of the Pakistan Nuclear program. He gave more resources and information directly to North Korea and Iran and he was pardoned for it.
2006-12-25 16:58:49 · answer #5 · answered by darkemoregan 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Barbara's Bush.
2006-12-25 17:22:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's funny that Americans always have to have another American (specifically a leader) to blame for EVERYTHING bad that happens on earth. We sure do have an over inflated opinion of ourselves, don't we?
2006-12-25 16:59:57 · answer #7 · answered by wildraft1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Kim Jong Il is to blame.
2006-12-25 16:55:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
reagan and the other bush. do some research
2006-12-25 17:16:55 · answer #9 · answered by kissmy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋