Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky, you seem to think I'm saying things I haven't said, so let me try again.
The North Koreans did some things according to the agreement -- they stopped processing plutonium. They also broke the agreement -- they processed uranium. Even though they broke the agreement, we were still better off than we would have been had they continued processing plutonium.
|
OK so the bribes didn't work and you admit they kept processing uranium. You think they stopped processing Plutonium, but actually you really don't know.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You seem to think that we can each have our own version of reality -- is that a requirement for Republicans thinking about foreign policy? --
|
No one version of reality. I am just glad you finally admitted to it. Clinton tried to bribe the North Koreans and it didn't work.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
but it is simply a fact that we never built the nuclear reactors promised to the North Koreans under the agreement. As a result, insofar as you think the North Koreans used them to build the bomb, you are wrong.
|
We gave them resources. They have limited resources. We made it easier for them to continue with their nuclear program. How can you argue with that? Would it have been easier for them to continue with their nuclear program if we hadn't given them resources?
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Notwithstanding all your prattle about appeasement,
|
We rewarded bad behavior. How can that be prattle? They do bad stuff we give them things. How can you expect such positive reinforcement to stop them from doing anything?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop the fact is that we were better off bribing the North Koreans to stop processing uranium (the Clinton approach) than we were talking a lot and doing nothing (the Bush approach).
|
Giving them additional resources and training them that if they act badly we will give them more resources is success? Stop dropping acid.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Neither approach was, ultimately, sufficient, since the fundamental problem is that there's not much we can do to stop the North Koreans from building the bomb if they want to, given the number of guns they have pointing at Seoul, etc.
|
We may have limited options. But rewarding them for bad behavior just makes the situation worse. That is exactly what Clinton did. He rewarded them for bad behavior which encouraged them to be more of a problem. They need to be consistently, and without exception, punished for bad behavior. That is just basic diplomacy with dictators that you are in denial about.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Under Bush, though, we apparently have succeeded in convincing the North Koreans that they need nuclear weapons to ensure that we don't do to them what we did to Iraq.
|
In other words, if we hadn't invaded Iraq they wouldn't have built a bomb. That way of thinking is beyond ignorant and incredibly dangerous. Churchill was constantly criticized by Chamberlain for unnecessarily antagonizing the Nazis. What is the difference? The Russians were excused for controlling Eastern Europe because they needed to feel secure and because we were antagonizing them. Castro and Ortega did not call free elections because we made them feel insecure. We are better off bribing them than showing them the consequences of acting badly? We keep paying them extortion money and don't do anything to rile them and everything will be better? Doesn't work with the Mob and it doesn't work with our Dear Leader. You punish bad behavior and never reward it. You keep doing it until they learn the lesson.
Paying extortion money just makes the recipient see you are weak and they can take advantage of you even more. Why can't you see that?
