North Korea is a soverign state, and should have the right of self defence, given that George.W.Bush has refered to it as being in an axis of evil, and seeing what was done to Iraq on the premise od Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. Hypocritical to say the least from a country which posseses 5000 nuclear weapons of it's own. Add to that the many other countries with nuclear weapons, the U.S.A. should mind it's own business for a change the globle would be better off. Just because North Korea has a different system of government that the U.S.A. doesn't like, should not give it the right to poke its nose in when it's not wanted.

For a born again Christian Bush certainly didn't learn "thou shalt not kill"

There seems to be an assumption, both from Joseph Camilleri and SHONGA, that North Korea has developed its nuclear weapons solely as a deterrent against the US. Its as if North Korea's closest neighbors (China, Russia, South Korea and Japan) do not count.

In our English speaking centric world we seem to assume that just because less news is coming out from Russia and China - a function of the small amount of Chinese and Russian speaking Western journalists - alternatives to a North Korean/US bilateral standoff reason don't exist.

North Korea in the long term, may be developing its weapons to deter invasion from its most powerful land neighbors, Russia and China. Land invasion from those countries rather than air strikes (probably the only serious option for the US) may be a major factor behind North Korea's buildup, yet this issue goes unexplored.

North Korea has a history of being dominated by Japan, China and Russia, not by the US.

Its so easy for commentators to spin the North Korean issue into America's court but it misses so much about North Korea's long memory of domination by its neighbors. Nuclear weapons are the best way to deter future land invasions by North Korea's neighbors.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

To recommend "slow progress" in dangerous times, is an act of the politically doltish.

Force is not always brutal, and it can be creative if one knows when and how to use it.

Con George
http://www.con.observationdeck.org

I think Camilleri is right.
The West, read USA, promised light water reactors for Korea’s energy needs in place of the Russian provided plutonium ones., oil during the change over, diplomatic recognition and end to the war. Carter and Clinton and South Korea helped, G Bush stopped any progress, already in trouble, with the label evil empire and resorted to attempting Korean self implosion. Failing that, right is might was, as is currently the approach to international problems, to operate.

The media of course ignored the context and ran with the big bad wolf story.
Helpful!
Warm inner glow as hairy cheats exposed!

We saw and see similar in the Lebanon/Israel and Israel/Palestinian problems, indeed detailed analysis suggests we combine in righteous might, probable illegal, under international law.

A dog behaves better if coaxed and to a degree allowed its head with set limits. Beating or spoiling have not dissimilar results to the ones observed in human’s. Vicious behaviour or cowardice on the one hand or cooperation on the other.

The West has been and is hypocritical in its stand on non proliferation.

untutored mind,
You have much wisdom, if the others could see past their predudices, they may also be able to see the situation clearly. That fact is that Bush named them in the axis of evil speech, along with Iraq. North Korea can see what happened to Iraq, invasion under false pretences, so it has armed itself for self defence. If anything the west, se U.S.A. is the aggressor, let them mind their own business instead of everyone else's.

Bush's foreign policy has undoubtedly contributed to the current crisis- it's not so much that he was wrong to agressively condemn the regime, but more the fact that by getting bogged down in Iraq he has lost the ability to coax through threat of force. It is no coincidence that both North Korea and Iran have suddenly trumpetted their nuclear progress while the US and UK are committed in Iraq. However comparing Bush to Kim Jong Il (no matter how fashionable) is an afront to the plight of North Koreans primarily.

The American bashing is old and causes thinkers to lose sight of the bigger picture. What about the roles of France, Russia and China? Does anybody seriously think that they dont share responsibility for the problem? Russia for example has supplied nuclear cores to Iran, and France sold Iraq its nuclear technology. China has no interest in regime change brought about by internal or external factors because a flood of starving refugees will be terrible for the economy and even worse for the upcoming olympics. So why is the US the only state demonised?

The sad fact is that the UN consistently fails to act. The North Korean crisis has proven two things; (a) it wouldnt have mattered if Sadam had WMD's as Chapter 7 deterrents can't even be invoked by blowing up an atom bomb; (b) Millions more will die in Darfur because if the world can accept a nuclear North Korea then its not going to care about a repeat of Rwanda (which the UN said would never happen). I'm not a war monger, and with relatives in the military the prospect of military confrontation is especially close to home, but what price is the UN prepared to pay for peace?