DPRK has declared the right to defend itself against military threat as well as the free will to mitigate impending threats through offensive strategies. That's hot!

How did we get to this? You remember when Bush declared in public that "he peered into Putin's soul and he saw a friend and a partner"? It turned out Bush miscalculated, wasn't it? Well, a top cabinet staff in Clinton's administration, Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright made such silly miscalculation when she met with Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang in 2000. She called Kim "a non-ideologue". Is there any communist leader in the world that is a non-ideologue?

There are three failures here.

1. US strategy to use food supply and economic impacts to implode the DPRK regime failed.
2. Overreaching with the Soviet and the Chinese to broker a deal in the Korean Peninsula
3. Reversing the Clinton Administration gains on the ground with Pyongyang when Bush declared North Korea as an "axis of evil".

Any idea where you think this might lead?

The problems of DPRK did not start with Bush Junior or Clinton.

Korea was occupied by the Mongols in 1231. The Mongols as history puts it are warriors that roamed Erguna River. That Peninsula has seen many wars.

Although we have so many tribes that roamed and were once warriors that live peacefully with there neighbours in this present day and time, the major problem with North Korea is its Rogue Regime. A regime where virtually an Individual dictates what happens. Sometimes you see the State coming out of its shell to embrace the south when it held talks in 1971, 1984 and 1988. In 2005 it held talks with Japan and United States to cautiously open its doors, and discuss issues of concern. These actions are quite contrary to what happened in 1993 when it pulled out of the NPT.

In other for most Rogue Regimes to hold to power the first thing they always do is up there military capability. Which is exactly the ideology of Kim Il-sung before his death under the disguise of Self Reliance which is now been pursued by his son Kim Jong-il.

So you could see that sometimes there actions are just erratic.

Good examples are Gaddafi of Libya and Castro of Cuba.

To answer your first question, you need to understand that what most well governed nation has is a long term goal. A long term plan exists but never followed to the letter, it changes as events turn out.
The US tried to use aid to implode DPRK after the death of Kim Jong Sung hoping that the new Leader Kim Jong  il would have a different perspective of the west. We all know Father and Son don’t always agree. Unfortunately that tactics failed. Kim Jong –il demonstrated that he was one with the father.

To answer other questions, every leader in there first term tries something different to see if they would achieve a different result and leave a legacy. So Bush seeing Putin’s soul was his way of warming up to the man, but no matter what position you are in life, you could still be surprised.

Well, thanks for your response, quite insightful. There is a cause and effect in all relationships and its definitely playing itself out here. No one nation is useful unto itself. Naturally a nation is like an individual person. There are inner turmoils in the individual and if that energy are not channelled they become too great and eventually destroy the person or keep him/her in a perpetual state of confusion and stagnation. So for self-preservation, it is wise that an individual channells energy for service unto others. The demand of meeting the obligation of this service keeps the spirit going, in bad times and in good times. A nation behaves in like manner. There are internal turmoils that will tear a nation apart and destroy it if left to their cause. So to balance that domestic problem, a foreign effect is needed to channell energy. This is where US and Russia did great, especially after world war II.

Look around the world and what do you see? The world is split into two political alignments. The camps are controlled by two powers. . . everyone else is a puppet in their game. This is where the idea of allied nations and non-aligned nations came from. As you correctly pointed out, ideas and camps are constantly changing from one decade to another. Example is Japan. Japan was a non-aligned nation during second world war and was on Germany side fighting against US and USSR, who were both allies. Today, Japan and Germany are allied with US against Russia and China. In this mix, where is North Korea?

DPRK is allied with China and Russia. Politicians would want us to treat each volatile region as an isolation peculiar to the events in that zone alone . . . but we must not follow their guide because their policies are designed primarily with focus on democracy and capitalism and it lacks consideration for the cultural and historical events peculiar to the different zones but rather would deploy for uniform effect and accomplishments. So for instance the problems in Georgia and North Korea, two different zones, are not the same but US policy for these countries are the same, namely, establish democracy and open up the economy; hence, the effects and the tensions are inter-related. Anywhere America fights a war against communism, the effects of their offensive will draw similar outbreaks at the diplomatic level.

DPRK was a toothless dog. It has acquired some fangs now and it is not yet accustomed to the benefits and dangers of it but it is following the only demonstrated example it knows. . .the footsteps of fanged dogs who behaved badly with impunity when their territory of interests is trespassed. There is a leash around Kim Jong Il's neck. If it's let go, there will be bloodbath in the neighborhood. Russia know this and China know this. . . so does US and Japan. With DPRK's arsenal. . .China and Russia have the upper hand in the Korean Peninsula. . . they can do all kind of things with that dog leash. They can shorten it and limit the radius of menace. . .they can lenghten it and increase the security of the perimeter. . . one thing they will never do is let it go, unless of course America gives them cause to effect that decision.