If NK has working nukes the furthest they could hit is San Diego.



And China, Russia, SK and Japan don't particularly want NK throwing its weight around either so a diplomatic solution is more feasible there.



Just put Saddam Hussein six feet under and Kim Jong Il may learn to behave himself.

Tell it to Ted, the saber-rattler

OJ - surprised by your post - in the past I thought you argued Saddam and then NK.

We're geared up for Iraq, not NK. As Ali notes there are other options right now and other players that can help with NK, we don't have that with Iraq. Besides, if the UN/Europe is balking at taking out Saddam how would they support going after NK? Finally, we're trying to prove a connection between Iraq and Al Queda, hard to believe that a connection between NK and Al Queda is readily proved.

Kennedy's statement is a ruse - no democrats are for action anywhere. Kennedy's statement, like Rangel's idea on the draft, is simply designed to make the Dems look good on national security without doing anything.

I don't see it as an either/or, but that's entirely beside the point. The Only reason Mary Jo's Murderer is agitating for war against Korea is because Bush isn't and it gives him a way to oppose the Iraq war without looking like he's a chamberlain-carter style appeaser. The thing is, the biggest argument against war in Iraq is that it puts servicemen in jeopardy, but the rosiest estimate of a war in Korea has more casualties than worst case Iraq scenario. So Mary Jo's murderer would rather spend more us servicemen on the lesser threat just so he can oppose Bush without appearing to be a wimp. His brothers are rolling in their respective graves.

Gotta make hay while the sun shines.

Saw at another site the thought that France and Germany are strongly against an Iraq invasion because the US, after taking over Iraq, will find evidence that France and Germany broke UN sanctions and sold illegal items/weapons to Iraq. The author believes if this is true it will probably kill NATO, the UN, and the US-European relationship.

If this comes to pass I look forward to the Democrats criticizing Bush for being too friendly with the UN, NATO, France, and Germany

Oh, please. If we allow ourselves to be distracted by North Korea while almost on the verge of solving Iraq, you will find that just as our troops are positioned to take out Pyongyang we'll get a declaration from Saddam that he's ready to nuke Kuwait's oilfields. By the time we turn around to deal with that, North Korea will thrust itself onto the front burner with some maximally bellicose statements, and we'll hang another u-turn.



Saddam first, because he's worst. South Korea (with its 600,000 man army) and Japan, with assistance from our local air and naval forces and oh, yeah, the 37,000 ground forces in South Korea, will just have to hold of Kim "No Dong" Il (it's the name of his missile system) until then.



Thank goodness I'm not driving down the freeway with Kennedy, et al. Their swerving from side to side would make me positively ill (note: not "Il").

While Kennedy is saying this right now, you know that were his demands actually to come to pass and the U.S. did delay its attack on Iraq to target North Korea, Kennedy would be right up there with the other anti-war protestors saying any action on the peninsula would be a bloodbath for civillians and for U.S. troops.



So long as we target Saddam, Ted's for attcking Kim Il Jong. If we went after Kim, Ted might not say "Don't do it until we take care of Iraq," but he probably could find at least a few problems in Colombia or Venezuela he would think should be dealt with first.

This is actulally an excellent opportunity for the military to prove that they are capable of fighting a two front war as layed out in each military readiness review. GWB should send a message to NK to evacuate there nuclear reactor site, because it will cease to exist tomorrow at noon, and then see where the chips fall. We can liberate the North Korean people and the Iraqi people at the same time.

Once again, it comes down to the simple stuff. Take a look at a map of the Middle East. See Iraq? See the countries that neighbor Iraq? Which of these countries, along with Iraq, has been involved in promoting TERRORISM?



There, feel better now? I know I've neglected to use big-ass, impressive words like "risible," but how simple can we make this?



The war on Iraq IS the war on terrorism.

How's this for a solution: we arm South Korea with nuclear weapons, thus putting the whole peninsula into nuclear stalemate. No fuss, no muss.

When Saddam gets his nuke, one of the first things he will probably say to his neighbors is, O.K. boys, lets raise the price of oil. Any objections?



The second may be: I'm Saladin reincarnated so lets get this Pan- Islamic Empire in gear, starting with Israel.



Israel would then try to take him out with nukes before he does them in. Kiss the Middle East oil fields goodbye.



Let's get our troops out of Korea before they become hostages. The longer North Korea plays its game the weaker it becomes.



Kennedy is a blowhard obstructionist and a cynical politician. I wonder what his specific course of action would be?

P.S. Take our troops out of Germany too. We can use them in Iraq.

Noel - that would take care of the threat to South Korea, but it would not address the other, bigger threat from North Korea -- selling nuclear weapons to Middle East terrorists or terror sponsors.