Yeah, the Clinton bashers are out in force. So I'll go back to my question that's been avoided for months around here: if Clinton doesn't get the diplomacy set up with North Korea, what should we have done ten years ago?
Yes, it would have been a magical solution if Bubba had gotten North Korea to sign a document that said "if N.K. has any programs that resemble a Nuclear weapons program the U.S. has a right to obliterate the country."
So, what should we have done ten years ago if we didn't have magical powers?
<strong>What, pray tell, did Clinton's efforts yield? He negotiated a treaty with North Korea in 1994 that was supposed to prevent North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons. Even you have to admit that this initiative was a complete failure.</strong><hr></blockquote>I think it's fair to ask why that policy failed - was it due to Clinton or perhaps his successor? And from what I can tell, his successor has signaled that he's going to do exactly what Clinton did.
[edit]
And one more thing about Clinton, while he was in office, he knew the real meaning of "blow back."
<strong>Yeah, the Clinton bashers are out in force. </strong><hr></blockquote>
And you happily jumped in here bashing Bush. What's sauce for the goose...
[quote]<strong>So I'll go back to my question that's been avoided for months around here: if Clinton doesn't get the diplomacy set up with North Korea, what should we have done ten years ago?
Yes, it would have been a magical solution if Bubba had gotten North Korea to sign a document that said "if N.K. has any programs that resemble a Nuclear weapons program the U.S. has a right to obliterate the country."
So, what should we have done ten years ago if we didn't have magical powers?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, he clearly had more options before NK developed a nuke than Bush has now. And who says we would have had to obliterate the country? Israel set back Iraq's nuclear program 20 years with it's surgical strike at Osirek. Or maybe the diplomacy could have been more demanding of NK. You know, maybe they should have thought of all the ways NK might try to build a bomb. I don't really understand why you think the Agreed Framework was such a terrific response. It clearly wasn't the answer. NK has what the treaty was supposed to prevent them from having.
<strong>Yeah, the Clinton bashers are out in force. So I'll go back to my question that's been avoided for months around here: if Clinton doesn't get the diplomacy set up with North Korea, what should we have done ten years ago?
Yes, it would have been a magical solution if Bubba had gotten North Korea to sign a document that said "if N.K. has any programs that resemble a Nuclear weapons program the U.S. has a right to obliterate the country."
So, what should we have done ten years ago if we didn't have magical powers?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wasn't bashing Clinton. I was simply trying to figure out what good that treaty with NK actually did? How was it effective in preventing NK from startingup a nuclear program? Treaties that can be opted out of have little binding power when states choose to leave them. The treaty is usppoed to have set the groundwork for political/diplomatic/military solutions, yet it odesn't seem to have done that. In fact the implied threat of imminent force against Iraq seems to have accomplished more, in terms of stalling development of weapons, than the treaty with NK is doing.
<strong>I don't really understand why you think the Agreed Framework was such a terrific response. It clearly wasn't the answer. NK has what the treaty was supposed to prevent them from having.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In all honesty, there might not have been/be a way to keep North Korea from doing that. They are 'out there' and diplomacy with them has limited success.
The agreed framework 'worked' not because it kept them from getting a missle, but because we now have an internationally legal stance to stand on.
An attack ten years ago or now, even a simple conventional attack, would trigger 1,000,000+ troops & around 15,000 arterial weapons against the South. So Bubba couldn't have realistically used force back then, even if we create a hypothetical situation where it would have been considered legal.
The diplomacy might never have kept them from getting bombs, but it might now give us a chance at working a coalition to remove them (and even Kim from power.)
I wasn't bashing Clinton. I was simply trying to figure out what good that treaty with NK actually did? How was it effective in preventing NK from startingup a nuclear program? Treaties that can be opted out of have little binding power when states choose to leave them. The treaty is usppoed to have set the groundwork for political/diplomatic/military solutions, yet it odesn't seem to have done that. In fact the implied threat of imminent force against Iraq seems to have accomplished more, in terms of stalling development of weapons, than the treaty with NK is doing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One thing you will notice about Clinton's various peaces and treaties is that vew few of them lasted. Northern Ireland. Israel. NK. All gone.
" And you happily jumped in here bashing Bush. What's sauce for the goose... "
I think he deserves to be bashed. He's gone off the deep end and we will suffer for it in the eyes of the world. As far as bashing goes it's open season as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway. You're lying about what Bush said. I know you're bigoted view about religion makes you recoil whenever someone mentions it, especially a world leader. Here in this country we're more open minded. I'd rather have a religious person like Bush in charge than an atheist like Stalin.
You're government controlled (oops I mean government funded) media lies and distorts when it comes to Bush. Try reading a North American news paper. I hear the Wall Street Journal is good.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think that Bush is an idiot. I think that he has strategically accomplished many of the things that he wanted to through sheer cunning. . . and cunning was once thought of as a primary virtue.
I do think though that those things that he wanted to accomplish are themselves not gracefully thought through and th emeans by which he has attained his goals has been, to say it politely, indelicate in a delicate environment.
I also can not stress that the reliance upon a concept that Western Philosophy, and Science has generally problematized to the point that one does not unquestioningly base the desicions of a whole country on their uncritical use is, if not dangerous, then at least surprisingly retrograde for the leader of the supposedly most advanced country in the world . . . .
"God" is a concept that is more complex then Providential thinking . . . the fact that Providentialist thought has invoked that concept as its guiding light throughout a history of catastrophe after catastrophe, each done in its name says something about the legitimacy of thinking with such assumptions.
As far as what to do about Iran: diplomacy and perhaps much covert funding of reformers.
as far as Clinton and NK: what did it do? it stopped them from working on Nukes!!!!
Bush saying that he 'loathes' Kim is probably more responcible for their continued defiance then any other aspect of diplomacy . . . and it just goes to show how clod-footed his diplomatic efforts are!!!!!!!
When you have a SINGLE person that runs a country and you know that he is a freak it is not a good think to call him a toad!!!
He actually criticizes Bush for believing and saying that God has a hand in world affairs. He actually criticizes the fact that Bush believes it was God's plan for him to be President. Oh, how horrible, to think that one's creator has a plan. Yes, what a misguided religous fanatic Bush is.
I have news for you, pfflam. Anyone who believes in the Almighty knows it was, in fact, His plan for Bush to be President. Anyone who believes in the Almighty knows He has a plan for everyone. One saying that one is guided by one's faith does not mean one can do no wrong. Bush never said that.
The agreed framework 'worked' not because it kept them from getting a missle, but because we now have an internationally legal stance to stand on.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
North Korea had already signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (which they then withdrew from in 1993) before the Clinton diplomatic initiative came along. The Agreed Framework simply got NK to re-sign a treaty that they subsequently disregarded and later withdrew from again. International law doesn't appear to be very prominent in NK's decision tree.
<strong>Of all the absurdity here, pfflam wins the prize.
He actually criticizes Bush for believing and saying that God has a hand in world affairs. He actually criticizes the fact that Bush believes it was God's plan for him to be President. Oh, how horrible, to think that one's creator has a plan. Yes, what a misguided religous fanatic Bush is.
I have news for you, pfflam. Anyone who believes in the Almighty knows it was, in fact, His plan for Bush to be President. Anyone who believes in the Almighty knows He has a plan for everyone. One saying that one is guided by one's faith does not mean one can do no wrong. Bush never said that.
Well I have news for you. Men have been locked up for less. Does he hear voices also?
The following is in a deep rumbling voice. The clouds part ( like in that old Monty Python movie ) and an old face with a grey beard looks out at dubbya.
" Now George you know it's my design that you should smite Saddam and have Iraq's oil. So do it how ever you can! Thus I'm making you president. So let it be written, so let it be done! "
A little thunder in the sky follows this segment.
Come on! This is really sad.
I'm not slamming anyones faith but this is just the most stupid defense I've ever heard.
Comments
Yes, it would have been a magical solution if Bubba had gotten North Korea to sign a document that said "if N.K. has any programs that resemble a Nuclear weapons program the U.S. has a right to obliterate the country."
So, what should we have done ten years ago if we didn't have magical powers?
<strong>
You can't even decide what to call this so-called solution and I'm supposed to give thanks for it? Sorry but I pass.</strong><hr></blockquote>
spaceman_spiff,
You can do better than that. Just try to get those neurons firing....
<strong>What, pray tell, did Clinton's efforts yield? He negotiated a treaty with North Korea in 1994 that was supposed to prevent North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons. Even you have to admit that this initiative was a complete failure.</strong><hr></blockquote>I think it's fair to ask why that policy failed - was it due to Clinton or perhaps his successor? And from what I can tell, his successor has signaled that he's going to do exactly what Clinton did.
[edit]
And one more thing about Clinton, while he was in office, he knew the real meaning of "blow back."
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>
<strong>Yeah, the Clinton bashers are out in force. </strong><hr></blockquote>
And you happily jumped in here bashing Bush. What's sauce for the goose...
[quote]<strong>So I'll go back to my question that's been avoided for months around here: if Clinton doesn't get the diplomacy set up with North Korea, what should we have done ten years ago?
Yes, it would have been a magical solution if Bubba had gotten North Korea to sign a document that said "if N.K. has any programs that resemble a Nuclear weapons program the U.S. has a right to obliterate the country."
So, what should we have done ten years ago if we didn't have magical powers?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, he clearly had more options before NK developed a nuke than Bush has now. And who says we would have had to obliterate the country? Israel set back Iraq's nuclear program 20 years with it's surgical strike at Osirek. Or maybe the diplomacy could have been more demanding of NK. You know, maybe they should have thought of all the ways NK might try to build a bomb. I don't really understand why you think the Agreed Framework was such a terrific response. It clearly wasn't the answer. NK has what the treaty was supposed to prevent them from having.
<strong>Yeah, the Clinton bashers are out in force. So I'll go back to my question that's been avoided for months around here: if Clinton doesn't get the diplomacy set up with North Korea, what should we have done ten years ago?
Yes, it would have been a magical solution if Bubba had gotten North Korea to sign a document that said "if N.K. has any programs that resemble a Nuclear weapons program the U.S. has a right to obliterate the country."
So, what should we have done ten years ago if we didn't have magical powers?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wasn't bashing Clinton. I was simply trying to figure out what good that treaty with NK actually did? How was it effective in preventing NK from startingup a nuclear program? Treaties that can be opted out of have little binding power when states choose to leave them. The treaty is usppoed to have set the groundwork for political/diplomatic/military solutions, yet it odesn't seem to have done that. In fact the implied threat of imminent force against Iraq seems to have accomplished more, in terms of stalling development of weapons, than the treaty with NK is doing.
<strong>I don't really understand why you think the Agreed Framework was such a terrific response. It clearly wasn't the answer. NK has what the treaty was supposed to prevent them from having.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In all honesty, there might not have been/be a way to keep North Korea from doing that. They are 'out there' and diplomacy with them has limited success.
The agreed framework 'worked' not because it kept them from getting a missle, but because we now have an internationally legal stance to stand on.
An attack ten years ago or now, even a simple conventional attack, would trigger 1,000,000+ troops & around 15,000 arterial weapons against the South. So Bubba couldn't have realistically used force back then, even if we create a hypothetical situation where it would have been considered legal.
The diplomacy might never have kept them from getting bombs, but it might now give us a chance at working a coalition to remove them (and even Kim from power.)
<strong>
I wasn't bashing Clinton. I was simply trying to figure out what good that treaty with NK actually did? How was it effective in preventing NK from startingup a nuclear program? Treaties that can be opted out of have little binding power when states choose to leave them. The treaty is usppoed to have set the groundwork for political/diplomatic/military solutions, yet it odesn't seem to have done that. In fact the implied threat of imminent force against Iraq seems to have accomplished more, in terms of stalling development of weapons, than the treaty with NK is doing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One thing you will notice about Clinton's various peaces and treaties is that vew few of them lasted. Northern Ireland. Israel. NK. All gone.
Cheers
Scott
<strong>
I wasn't bashing Clinton. I was simply trying to figure out what good that treaty with NK actually did? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry for accusing you then. Hopefully my above post will be a start to a good conversation about it.
Cheers.
<strong>
Get a clue.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, what he said.
" And you happily jumped in here bashing Bush. What's sauce for the goose... "
I think he deserves to be bashed. He's gone off the deep end and we will suffer for it in the eyes of the world. As far as bashing goes it's open season as far as I'm concerned.
<strong>I agree with Neil Young about Bush " Drunk with power ".
I look to Neil Young for all of my opinions about foreign policy and war. Whatever.
<strong>
I look to Neil Young for all of my opinions about foreign policy and war. Whatever.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He's not the only one.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
One thing you will notice about Clinton's various peaces and treaties is that vew few of them lasted. Northern Ireland. Israel. NK. All gone.
Cheers
Scott</strong><hr></blockquote>
The other thing you will notice is that we were in a better place.
<strong>Who said anything about CNN?
Anyway. You're lying about what Bush said. I know you're bigoted view about religion makes you recoil whenever someone mentions it, especially a world leader. Here in this country we're more open minded. I'd rather have a religious person like Bush in charge than an atheist like Stalin.
You're government controlled (oops I mean government funded) media lies and distorts when it comes to Bush. Try reading a North American news paper. I hear the Wall Street Journal is good.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's an extra big crock you're tote'en there.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
I do think though that those things that he wanted to accomplish are themselves not gracefully thought through and th emeans by which he has attained his goals has been, to say it politely, indelicate in a delicate environment.
I also can not stress that the reliance upon a concept that Western Philosophy, and Science has generally problematized to the point that one does not unquestioningly base the desicions of a whole country on their uncritical use is, if not dangerous, then at least surprisingly retrograde for the leader of the supposedly most advanced country in the world . . . .
"God" is a concept that is more complex then Providential thinking . . . the fact that Providentialist thought has invoked that concept as its guiding light throughout a history of catastrophe after catastrophe, each done in its name says something about the legitimacy of thinking with such assumptions.
As far as what to do about Iran: diplomacy and perhaps much covert funding of reformers.
as far as Clinton and NK: what did it do? it stopped them from working on Nukes!!!!
Bush saying that he 'loathes' Kim is probably more responcible for their continued defiance then any other aspect of diplomacy . . . and it just goes to show how clod-footed his diplomatic efforts are!!!!!!!
When you have a SINGLE person that runs a country and you know that he is a freak it is not a good think to call him a toad!!!
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>...
as far as Clinton and NK: what did it do? it stopped them from working on Nukes!!!!
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um? No he didn't.
He actually criticizes Bush for believing and saying that God has a hand in world affairs. He actually criticizes the fact that Bush believes it was God's plan for him to be President. Oh, how horrible, to think that one's creator has a plan. Yes, what a misguided religous fanatic Bush is.
I have news for you, pfflam. Anyone who believes in the Almighty knows it was, in fact, His plan for Bush to be President. Anyone who believes in the Almighty knows He has a plan for everyone. One saying that one is guided by one's faith does not mean one can do no wrong. Bush never said that.
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>
The agreed framework 'worked' not because it kept them from getting a missle, but because we now have an internationally legal stance to stand on.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
North Korea had already signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (which they then withdrew from in 1993) before the Clinton diplomatic initiative came along. The Agreed Framework simply got NK to re-sign a treaty that they subsequently disregarded and later withdrew from again. International law doesn't appear to be very prominent in NK's decision tree.
<strong>Of all the absurdity here, pfflam wins the prize.
He actually criticizes Bush for believing and saying that God has a hand in world affairs. He actually criticizes the fact that Bush believes it was God's plan for him to be President. Oh, how horrible, to think that one's creator has a plan. Yes, what a misguided religous fanatic Bush is.
I have news for you, pfflam. Anyone who believes in the Almighty knows it was, in fact, His plan for Bush to be President. Anyone who believes in the Almighty knows He has a plan for everyone. One saying that one is guided by one's faith does not mean one can do no wrong. Bush never said that.
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I have news for you. Men have been locked up for less. Does he hear voices also?
The following is in a deep rumbling voice. The clouds part ( like in that old Monty Python movie ) and an old face with a grey beard looks out at dubbya.
" Now George you know it's my design that you should smite Saddam and have Iraq's oil. So do it how ever you can! Thus I'm making you president. So let it be written, so let it be done! "
A little thunder in the sky follows this segment.
Come on! This is really sad.
I'm not slamming anyones faith but this is just the most stupid defense I've ever heard.
What does god need with an oil well?
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>