Not scared enough???
 

This just in:

Report: Mushroom Cloud Seen After N.Korea Explosion

29 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!



SEOUL (Reuters) - A mushroom cloud up to 2.5 miles in diameter was seen after an explosion in a remote area of North Korea (news - web sites) near the border with China, Yonhap news agency reported on Sunday, quoting sources in Beijing.



The South Korean news agency said Thursday's blast in Kimhyungjik county in Yanggang province appeared to much worse than a train explosion that killed at least 170 people in April.


South Korean intelligence officials said they were monitoring the report, but declined detailed comment.

Where'd you see that? Drudge doesn't even have it up.

it was just a very large vegatable stir fry accident...

the're just testing one of their nuclear bombs, what's the problem?

If it is true we need to use the Neutron Bomb ASAP on them.

It's one thing to own a Nuke..it's another to get it to the target...

Which is....Japan, South Korea, USA, China, Russia....

I'll give U all one GUESS as to what happens to N Korea if they should accidently use one of their bombs on one of the above targets.

Having one of those things makes one become a responsible actor....

I suppose there is a Trident Missle Nuclear Sub just cruising back and forth out in the Pacific with a couple of the missles (MIRVS) targeted for N Korea....

Silly Rabbit... Only the USA can have weapons of mass destruction...

Don 944 LA

your avatar is a weapon of mass destruction.

:D

If by 'worked very well' means 'had our heads up our asses' then yes, it worked very well. Containment doesn't, hasn't, and won't work. You can't find one specific example of where containment has been effective in the long run.

Well there was that whole Vietnam thing. That was a success, right?

How much has Communism spread since vietnam? umm, not at all is the correct answer. The idea that the spread of communism to vietnam was tied to russia is logical, consindering Ho Chi Minh was an avowed communist, educated in Paris and Moscow.

How did John F. Kennedy put it in his inaguration speech?
See, there were reasonable democrats at one time.

Vietnam was a winnable war, it was just run completely wrong. Bombing missions and individual troop movements were dictated from the White House instead of from the battleground. Hippies like John Kerry coming back to demoralize the country didn't help at all. But a man that friendly to communism couldn't help but hope for a US Loss.

http://www.venezuelanet.org/John%20K...l%20Ortega.jpg
That's John F. Kerry with Tom Harkin meeting with Daniel ortega, Communist Sandinista leader.

If you believe containment won the cold war and that china is a success, you have a serious issue with reality.

Selective leftie memories...they tend to forget who was in the White House when the USA gave N. Korea Nuke power plants...and it was such a short time ago!

Yep...same administration that allowed accurate guidance systems for ICBMs to be sold to China since they could not develop any of their own that were accurate enough to target cities in the US. Aren't we nice to share!!!That was equally in our best interests...LOL

lefties love the idea of mutual assured destruction. it's only fair, right??

Nah, they were out wokking the dog.

Indeed. I've taken some heat here recently for some of my remarks, and when I see what others say, I wonder......

Okay, at the risk of seeming disrespectful, I'll ask about the decision to invade Iraq on the basis of WMD, while at the same time North Korea seemed to be just begging us to focus that attention on them. Does anyone remember that? They were absolutely taunting Dubya. But he knew who the more dangerous target was, as well as who had the most attractive natural resources. Brave Dubya elected to stay away from the dangers of challenging the bully on the playground (N Korea), and focused instead of the wimp in the corner (that would be Iraq) with the candy bars in his lunch pail (something about hydrocarbons).

We're going to pay for this in many ways. But first, we'll need to deal with the national security erosion-for-oil. Then the financial. Then the world scorn. Then the real dangers that will flourish in the meantime.

Now, perhaps someone will suggest I am being disrespectful while calling all democrats traitors and communists and gays.

How many nations has N. Korea attacked since the '50s? How many terrorists have they paid to be suicide bombers? How many times have they used chemical weapons on their people or other nations?

How can you attack the adminstration for going to war upon provocation and then attack them for not going to war in the absense of provocation?

Since N. Korea has openly backed Kerry for president...did it ever occur to you that this was an attempt to make the current administration look bad immediately prior to the election? Good thing our President is too level-headed to fall for such blatant tactics.

New York Times
September 15, 2004
What Bush Did Right On North Korea
By Richard V. Allen
Washington - A fiery explosion in North Korea has set off an unhelpful debate in the American presidential campaign. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, has pointed to the blast, detected by satellite last week, as evidence that President Bush's approach to North Korea is a failure and risks causing "a nuclear nightmare."

In fact, it is Mr. Kerry's rhetoric that is dangerous. The explosion, which caused no known deaths and did not appear to release any radiation, is obviously cause for concern. (Foreign diplomats are trying to get permission to visit the site.) The Bush administration's customary approach to North Korea, based on consultation with North Korea's neighbors and skepticism of its motives, is exactly what is necessary.

In his criticism, Mr. Kerry said that in 2001 Mr. Bush "pulled the rug out from under Kim Dae Jung," then president of South Korea, by refusing to endorse Mr. Kim's policy of engagement with the North when the two presidents met. But Mr. Bush's policy was then and remains the result of careful consideration.

On entering office, the Bush administration announced that it would take a detailed look at policy toward North Korea. President Kim wanted to meet quickly with Mr. Bush and get his endorsement of both the Clinton administration's policy and his own, which closely mirrored each other. Mr. Kim's emissaries pleaded with administration officials for a meeting; the central theme was one of urgency. The foreign minister of South Korea, Lee Joung Binn, made the rounds in Washington just three weeks after President Bush's inauguration, trying to get the meeting on the president's schedule.

But the Bush administration wanted more time to assess its policy options and consult with allies. Mr. Lee met with Secretary of State Colin Powell, who also stressed at the time that the administration was conducting a policy review. Reluctantly, the administration agreed to a summit meeting on March 7, 2001.

Many Republicans, including Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had supported the 1994 "agreed framework" between the United States and North Korea that was the cornerstone of the Clinton policy. Under the agreement, which was carried out by an international consortium, North Korea pledged to freeze its nuclear program, open its borders to international inspections and substitute two Western-built and financed light water reactors for the much more dangerous graphite reactor then under construction. In addition, the agreement called for large quantities of heavy fuel oil to be supplied to the North.

But by early 2001, some of us were questioning whether the agreement was the best way to achieve the goal of eliminating North Korea's nuclear capacity. And in October 2002, the North Koreans admitted to American diplomats that they had been operating a clandestine uranium enrichment program, in violation of the agreement and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

In response, the West's oil shipments to North Korea were suspended, and the International Atomic Energy Agency unanimously adopted a resolution warning that the nuclear program was a violation of the North's commitments. In January 2003, North Korea formally withdrew from the nonproliferation treaty.

This sequence of events tends to vindicate the administration, not embarrass it. President Bush was correct to tell President Kim in March 2001 that he would not resume talks with North Korea begun by the Clinton administration. If Mr. Kim returned to South Korea "embarrassed and bewildered," as Mr. Kerry said, then it was an embarrassment that Mr. Kim visited upon himself by raising expectations that he could persuade Mr. Bush to sign on to Mr. Clinton's failed policy.

What was it about the Clinton policy that prompted President Bush's reluctance? From the tense days of 1993, when it seemed there might be armed conflict on the Korean Peninsula, through the 1994 agreement and the subsequent missions of William Perry, then the former secretary of defense, the Clinton administration's approach had enjoyed substantial bipartisan support.

In late 2000, however, a series of developments aroused skepticism about the wisdom of President Clinton's objectives. In early October Jo Myong Rok, the top deputy of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, visited Washington, was feted at a State Department dinner and held a 45-minute meeting with Mr. Clinton. Later that month Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visited North Korea and met with Mr. Kim for more than six hours.

A few weeks after she returned from Pyongyang and a few days before the election, Secretary Albright held an off-the-record dinner meeting for 20 experts on Korean affairs, including me. At this dinner she argued that Mr. Clinton should visit North Korea after the election, regardless of who won. We were divided in our opinion, but several Democrats and Republicans expressed strong opposition, pointing out that the president would be received only as a supplicant by the reclusive North Korean leader, and that a new administration could never commit to any agreement that might be reached.

These developments informed the incoming Bush administration's attitude toward the review that it was conducting before the president met with President Kim Dae Jung of South Korea in March 2001. Since then, the Bush administration has been attacked for having no policy, especially by those who do not like its steady, multilateral approach and its refusal to be intimidated by the recklessness of the North.

Far from ignoring the North Korean threat, the Bush administration has succeeded in internationalizing the response to it. Through patient diplomacy, it has engaged China, Japan, Russia and South Korea in efforts to bring stability to the region. The involvement of China, in particular, is especially encouraging; although a longtime ally of North Korea, China has been generally helpful by facilitating and hosting the six-party talks.

Mr. Kerry and others who insist that the administration does not have a North Korea policy are wrong. There is a policy - it's just one they don't like.