@blatham,
Several American presidents of both parties have allowed the NK threat to grow to this seriously dangerous moment.
What it proves is not that Republicans were more effective than Democrats when dealing with this issue, or the reverse, but that the shared policy of hoping the threat could be contained or might just go away on its own clearly hasn't worked. Regardless of who is in the WH now, it's folly to continue down a feckless path.
What each administration felt was an unacceptable consequence of confronting the Kim Dynasty has simply gotten worse with each passing year. The threat hasn't been contained in any meaningful sense of the word if the consequences have grown more dire.
First it was simply worrying about a full scale invasion of the South, (they currently have the military capability to defeat South Korea with conventional weapons and the US joining in to beat them back is not "acceptable.") then it was worrying that they would secure nukes (they have nukes) and now it's worrying about them developing the means to deliver their nukes to the US homeland (they got nukes why should anyone sneer at their ability to develop the means to send those nuke our way?). Throughout these decades the feckless policy was buttressed by the hope that eventually the North Korean people would rise up and overthrow the Kim Dynasty however that, obviously, never happened, and it is even less likely to happen now. After generations of horrific treatment the North Korean people have been reduced to a truly hopeless condition that won't allow for even a spark of rebellion. If the regime is ever ended and the country opens up to the rest of the world, the stories and studies coming out will be nightmarish.
Short of hoping for a bad case of avian flu to take down Fat Boy something has to take place to interrupt the steady march toward consequences that are almost unthinkable, and unfortunately that something may involve a previously considered "unacceptable" consequence. Republican and Democrat presidents have been kicking the can down the road for decades. It's going to eventually come to rest and we better hope it's not on Hawaii or Seattle or even Japan.
Distrust and dislike of Trump is par for the partisan course and there has been reason for legitimate criticism and there will, undoubtedly be more, however taking a position of total opposition is irrational, at least for Americans (Canadians are pretty much limited to blogging). To the extent that such a position was held during the Obama Administration, it too was irrational, but despite the throaty cries of vengeful partisans it wasn't unlimited among Republicans.
Fortunately, I haven't seen a lot of this total resistance among Democrats as respects the events of the last two weeks (or maybe I've just missed it). I would, however, like to hear or see more of what the people criticizing Trump over Syria and now NK want as the US alternative?
Some, on both sides of the spectrum, seem to think that if we just mind our own business, keep quiet and leave our heads buried in the sand, that these things will all work out on their own. Let Assad do whatever he wants to his people, we'll just open our doors to all the refugees he's created. (We're not to be the world's police but apparently it's OK to be it's homeless shelter). Let NK pursue it's missile program. What's he going to do? Nuke Portland? If he does, we'll bomb into the stone age, while we face a humanitarian and economic crisis unlike any we've ever seen. He's crazy, but he's not
that crazy.
The Bush and Obama policies toward NK were entirely ineffective and the argument can easily be made that they emboldened the regime. It appears that Trump and his administration believe that a different course can be effective, and while there is no guarantee that this will be the case, it would be interesting to see someone explain why continuing to do the same thing that's failed in the past is our best bet for the present and the future.
