The starvation model, which we were doing, was working. Isolate and starve them out. Get them to the point that they can't afford to be a threat and that they get so fed-up they regime change themselves. That's also the least risk and expense for us.
Okay, that's one vote for Obama and Kerry's policy of "strategic patience."
And what happens when such a regime has nuclear weapons, and is willing to keep starving their unarmed people while they develop and test ballistic missiles capable of carrying one of those warheads to the United States? Because that's what happened for the last 8 years.
Obama, Kerry, and you are assuming that the inevitable end result of the "starvation" strategy is that the regime accepts its fate, allows itself to be eventually overthrown, and its leadership executed. You assume the leadership is willing to go quietly into that goodnight, without upsetting tea-time in the outside world.
I'm not. They would be a cornered, extremely desperate, nuclear-armed beast.
Conservatives have warned for decades, especially when appeasement type liberals were in power, that recognition is exactly what the NORK regime wants.
Of what tangible value is "recognition"? If we don't "recognize" North Korea, does that mean it doesn't exist? "Non-recognition" of North Korea was a stupid policy.
This was Bill Clinton level action. Even Obama didn't go this far.
You have gotten it exactly backwards. Bill Clinton lifted sanctions, helped them build two nuclear reactors, and shipped them oil. Obama's ridiculous policy of "strategic patience" - which you esssentially endorsed - permitted them to make massive strides in both warheads and ballistic missiles.
Trump has given them nothing but empty words. All sanctions are still in place, and they haven't gotten a dime.
