Oh, of course China wants North Korea propped up! Like you say, they're useful, and the Chinese government is plenty pragmatic when it wants to be (see the current state of Chinese capita--I mean communism). What I can't see is a good reason for China to want their crazy nutjob dependant neighbours waving around nukes. Any "benefits" gained by giving Kim Jong Il more ways to seek attention and stoke his ego with his giant phallic missiles are offset by the fact that he's the first nutter to have his hands on a big red "game over" button.

As you point out, China is perfectly capable of propping up the regime indefinitly, nuclear weapons or no.

"Yes, elements of the war were handled wrongly, but they were mostly those that depended on the media reaction. I doubt anybody could have foreseen the extreme hostility the western media had towards George Bush and his ideology. The "insurgency" couldn't win, and they knew it. But they could convince American opinion that the war was futile (or even morally wrong). And for that they needed the help of the media and it surprised me that they had such support."--Leauki

Funny....we've seen this type of thing before; a little spat called "Vietnam".

Years ago, I read an interview with General Giap; he spoke of how the Tet Offensive was North Vietnam's "Ardenne Offensive". It was a last roll of the dice, like Hitler's gamble that became the Battle of the Bulge, and like Hitler, they lost. We suffered around 4,000 casualties, they took upwards of 50,000.

However, as they were planning to officially begin talks to either surrender or at least negotiate a cease-fire, they began to notice a strange thing: the American media had begun to spin this huge victory as a loss for our side. So, they decided to hold on. Dissention and anti-war sentiment began to increase,thanks to the media influence. They decided against surrender, and the rest is history.

Thanks, Uncle Walter and...oh, yeah...CBS, home of Dan Rather and the Bush/National Guard fiasco. The influence of the media cannot be underestimated. The main difference this time, was the "alternate media" (read: conservative talk radio) and online bloggers, neitherof which, of course, existed during Vietnam.

Makes you wonder how much of our history may have played out differently, had the media been more objective in their reporting, or if there had been a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, or an internet, back then, to keep the people a little more informed.

Would we have followed through in Korea? Would Nixon's fall at Watergate have been the huge deal it was made out to be?