I don't see the administration giving into the NKs at the moment.
It's only been proven to the international community recently that NK was violating it's agreements, while Iraq has been violating it's agreements for a dozen years. Those who accuse the US of acting irresponsible by moving too fast in Iraq, might want to take a step back about the situation in Korea and ask themselves why the NKs don't get a dozen years. After all, the UN SC is just now getting the issue involving NK reactivated nuclear program.
If 12 years is too fast to act, then why is a lack of troop build up and war drums in less than 12 months over NK a sign that the US is ignoring it?
Why?
Because those who oppose the Iraqi war try to justify "giving peace a chance" by saying the North Koreans deserve it more. Are those people suggesting the US act unilaterally against Korea? Shouldn't we wait for the UN to put out a couple of dozen resolutions first?
