Not talking isn't exactly a hard line. I totally agree though, Bush didn't do enough. I would have enacted crippling sanctions and ok'd some assassination attempts.

Because North Korea's economy is strong and heavily involved in international trade?

 

GMAB. They trade a bit of money with China for electricity and then receive food aid to keep their people from starving.

What grounds does the US have to tell a sovereign nation to change it's government?

And those numbers have been roundly criticized. http://cis.org/ICE-Illegal-Immigrant-Deportations

 

But even if true, you can’t deny the influx of immigrants that have come into the country recently and his pretty lax attitude towards illegal immigration in his 2nd term. The point here is that even with that lax attitude, immigration supporters are still b****ing about the problem. The whole premise of the article is if you give an inch, they want a mile. That’s exactly what’s happening with immigration. X is never enough.

 

Immigration is still a huge problem regardless of what side of the issue you're on. Why should immigration activists (and anti-immigration activists) stop working for their cause just because Obama has made a few executive policies?

 

I don’t think they’d cower in fear, but I do think we look weaker for this agreement than before. We caved. The ayatollah said as much. It’s not like his statement on the deal was “oh great, we’re cool with the US and Israel now!” No, he doubled down on death to Americans/Zionists talk.

 

The leader of a country whose government was essentially founded on hatred of the west in general and the US in particular claimed victory over the hated enemy. Why should we take that at face value as a evenhanded assessment of the agreement and not the political speech that it is? And nobody pretended or thought that this agreement would lead to immediate normalization of relations with Iran. When we signed the nuclear test ban treaties with the USSR, nobody pretended that it meant the US and the USSR were suddenly good friends.

 

This was his one bad example, other than his citation to Carter who was woefully inadequate in responding to the hostage situation.

 

It's part of his whole narrative and the problem with it. He's deliberately misstating historical events and leaving out glaring omissions of others.

 

Again though, give an inch, ask for millions in reparations and refuse to change. What did the US achieve there? How does the US benefit?

The US is on a path to normalizing relations with Cuba, something the rest of the world did long ago. What did the US achieve from its decades of belligerence? How did that benefit the US? How would "tough new sanctions" from Rubio benefit the US?

 

Hey, whatever worked. Putin didn’t act so arrogantly 10 years ago.

 

He didn't? I seem to remember a shooting war between Georgia and South Ossetia while Bush was still President. And you're still stuck with post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

He was appeasing those who thought getting rid of Ghaddafi was beneficial to Libya (and us).

 

Using this definition, pretty much any action can be classified as "appeasing" someone. Seems uselessly broad. The US also explicitly did not lead that coalition.

 

Would ISIS have taken over areas of Iraq if we were still present there? Our departure certainly didn't help. I agree it's wrong to claim that we couldn't have also been an irritant/radicalizing force, but certainly not to the degree that was being claimed.

 

ISIS would probably not have taken over as much territory, but it's not like the US had a perfect track record of putting down insurgencies, sectarian violence and civil wars in Iraq anyway. And what's VDH's solution, keep a large enough force to control Iraq indefinitely?

 

I know you love any slippery-slope argument you can get your hands on so it's not surprising that you liked this, but really, most of his claims are either ahistorical or logically incoherent.

Because North Korea's economy is strong and heavily involved in international trade?

 

GMAB. They trade a bit of money with China for electricity and then receive food aid to keep their people from starving.

 

They have a sweet counterfeit trade with China.

Not talking isn't exactly a hard line. I totally agree though, Bush didn't do enough. I would have enacted crippling sanctions and ok'd some assassination attempts.

 

1) The DPRK is already subject to strong international sanctions.

 

2) Yes, as we've seen, as soon as Kim Jong Il was out of power, the DPRK stopped its aggressive stance and normalized relations with the world. Also, too, they removed the hundreds of missiles pointed at Seoul that definitely wouldn't have been launched if their god-like leader was assassinated.

They have a sweet counterfeit trade with China.

And they keep their little deals with China going because China knows the U.S. will continue focusing on the North Korean issue as long as the U.S. and the North have their issues. They can then use the U.S. interest in the North Korean issue to extract concessions from the U.S. in other ways - allowing China to keep their currency undervalued for example. Everyone knows that, so "crippling trade sanctions" again means you're basically willing to start a trade war with China over the issue. Ditto any obvious "assassination" campaign.

Because North Korea's economy is strong and heavily involved in international trade?

 

GMAB. They trade a bit of money with China for electricity and then receive food aid to keep their people from starving.

 

No, but they rely on the world for their food. That'd hurt after a while. And their people are already dying and living horrible lives.

 

But yes, that's why assassination would have been a better solution.

What grounds does the US have to tell a sovereign nation to change it's government?

 

Grave human rights violations? Threats to allies? There are a number of valid reasons to interfere.

And they keep their little deals with China going because China knows the U.S. will continue focusing on the North Korean issue as long as the U.S. and the North have their issues. They can then use the U.S. interest in the North Korean issue to extract concessions from the U.S. in other ways - allowing China to keep their currency undervalued for example. Everyone knows that, so "crippling trade sanctions" again means you're basically willing to start a trade war with China over the issue. Ditto any obvious "assassination" campaign.

 

Right, because China would go to war with us, in any sense, over NK. Without us their entire balloon economy collapses. They know it and we know it.

No, but they rely on the world for their food. That'd hurt after a while. And their people are already dying and living horrible lives.

 

But yes, that's why assassination would have been a better solution.

 

The people would be the ones suffering from even-tighter sanctions, not the leadership.

 

Assassination means that Seoul and probably a few millions South Koreans are gone in short order.

Most precedent suggest that for nuclear disarmament, treaties work well and sanctions work poorly

For the record, at last measure 54% of Libyans said they liked American leadership, double their opinion of China and Russia. 75% said they appreciated US intervention in their civil war.

That's the weird part of including Libya. What's the other option, stand behind a dictator we've had terrible relations with for decades during an internal uprising? Who exactly was Obama supposed to take a hardline stance against if not that guy?

That's the weird part of including Libya. What's the other option, stand behind a dictator we've had terrible relations with for decades during an internal uprising? Who exactly was Obama supposed to take a hardline stance against if not that guy?

 

Probably should have just invaded and put someone we like in power. Same with Iran. And North Korea. And Egypt. And Russia.

Most precedent suggest that for nuclear disarmament, treaties work well and sanctions work poorly

 

 

So you agree then that Narcissus should have negotiated this as a Treaty? We agree on something..

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/10/11/iran-...f-nuclear-deal/

 

 

 

Congrtas Narcissus.....Like every other aspect of your foreign policy...........FAIL.

 

 

 

Maybe you could ask Mitt about some of his 80's Russian foreign policy you sack of s***.....what a disgrace to the office

Edited October 12, 201510 yr by Cknolls

i am so sick and tired of this b/s ploy that Iran and North Korea keep on doing.

 

hasn't history taught the world anything??? things will repeat it self.

 

look at British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain and his appeasing a certain leader on his aggressive approach to build up his country and the many yrs of that failed effort. that leader was Hitler and the consequences was WW2.

 

the thing is, what can be done about it, short of military response and what of the backlash??

i am so sick and tired of this b/s ploy that Iran and North Korea keep on doing.

 

hasn't history taught the world anything??? things will repeat it self.

 

look at British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain and his appeasing a certain leader on his aggressive approach to build up his country and the many yrs of that failed effort. that leader was Hitler and the consequences was WW2.

 

the thing is, what can be done about it, short of military response and what of the backlash??

 

 

The only thing that can be done is to invade and kill millions of people.

 

If you disagree, you are Neville Chamberlain. Hitler.

The only thing that can be done is to invade and kill millions of people.

 

If you disagree, you are Neville Chamberlain. Hitler.

We can not give them back the $150 billion to start with.

The only thing that can be done is to invade and kill millions of people.

 

If you disagree, you are Neville Chamberlain. Hitler.

 

and since you have this answer, what will you do???

 

I'd go with the agreement that's been received positively by arms control experts around the world. It's not a guaranteed thing, but pointless belligerence and breaking off negotiations is more likely to lead to them continuing to pursue a nuclear weapon (i.e. exactly what NK did) rather than becoming more a part of the international community and stopping nuclear weapons development.

We can not give them back the $150 billion to start with.

I assume you realize that was their money, right? I only ask because I've seen a lot of people who seem to think the US is paying them tax dollars or something.

 

I assume you realize that was their money, right? I only ask because I've seen a lot of people who seem to think the US is paying them tax dollars or something.

Yes, I know that. We should just keep it as payment for putting up with their s*** and for breaking the agreement already. Where are these provisions for if (when!) they break the agreement? This admin supposedly negotiated in good faith, and the negotiating partners pretty much just gave Obama a big F U and decided to do whatever they want. Why? because they know we won't do anything. ANYTHING. Why negotiate at all if you are just going to let them do whatever they want? Why the pretense of an agreement? Keep the money. f*** them.

I'd go with the agreement that's been received positively by arms control experts around the world. It's not a guaranteed thing, but pointless belligerence and breaking off negotiations is more likely to lead to them continuing to pursue a nuclear weapon (i.e. exactly what NK did) rather than becoming more a part of the international community and stopping nuclear weapons development.

You are dreaming if you think that playing nice with them will stop their weapons development. Dreaming.

What is your alternative?