Is Bush currently appeasing NK or isn’t he?
Regardless of what Clinton and Carter did.
HE DID say NK would be handled diplomatically, didn’t he?
Last I heard, Kim Jong Il is as much a murderous tyrant as Saddam, if not moreso. Starves his own people, and already has WOMD.
I think both should be dealt with equally, if just for consistancy.
NK is a bigger threat to the world right now, IMO, so why appease at all?
Oh, right. The “poker” analogy.
Well, if anyone has a poker-face, can say one thing while meaning the other, it’s Bush.

East Asia is not a tinderbox (yet), but the Middle East already is. That’s why Kim is NOT a bigger threat than Saddam.

It’s simple Sylvain—North Korea isn’t Iraq, and East Asia isn’t the Middle East. And one apparently has nukes, while one just wants nukes. Which would you prefer to attack, the one with nukes or the one that will have them in a year or two if left alone?

Both regimes are roughly equal on the evil scale, but differing circumstances call for differing strategies. To suggest that because both are evil, both should be treated in exactly the same way is mindless.

How about this~
We need to deal with Saddam first because we want to pull out of terrorist-friendly Saudi Arabia but can’t while Saddam is in power, because he’ll probably go in and take over all the oil fields. The Gulf War never ended and there’s very little Iraq could do to us. It shown aggression toward anyone since they got kicked out of Kuwait, and it’s never threatened the US in word or action until it was threatened again by the US.
NK is all about warring us; sanctions mean war, limited trade means war, it’s as if they are saying “pick on someone your own size”.

“NK is all about warring us; sanctions mean war, limited trade means war”

Unless, of course, it’s all bluster. Seems to me the Kims have indulged in that from time to time…