"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
You seem to forget, the North Koreans did not build nukes... and announce
it to the world, while defying us to do anything about it... on Clinton's
watch.



NOYB wrote:
Horsepoop. They were building them all along using the money Clinton
gave them. They didn't develop them overnight.


Not according to the inspectors.

Actually, there were some indications of duplicity by the North Koreans
during the '90s, but it was partially over missiles and partially over
material which the IAEA removed.

If North Korea developed nukes before, it was probably on Bush Sr's watch.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.asp


So his policy by definition was effective.


Why was it effective? Because he paid them off to keep them from
announcing their nuke program until he left office? Yeah...sure...that's
effective policy.


???
Do you really believe this?


I don't believe in paying incentives to countries to keep them from pursuing
WMD. You obviously see nothing wrong with it...and neither do most members
of Congress.

From the Syria Accountability Act:


(c) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO SYRIA AND LEBANON- The President is
authorized to provide assistance to Syria and Lebanon under chapter 1 of
part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.)
(relating to development assistance), if the President--

(1) makes the certification described in subsection (d);

(2) determines that substantial progress has been made in negotiations
aimed at achieving--

(A) a peace agreement between Israel and Syria; and

(B) a peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon; and

(3) determines that the Government of Syria is strictly respecting the
sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of
Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon
through the Lebanese army throughout Lebanon, as required under paragraph
(4) of United Nations Security Council Resolution 520 (1982).

(d) CERTIFICATION- The President shall transmit to the appropriate
congressional committees a certification of any determination made by the
President that--

(1) the Government of Syria does not--

(A) provide support for international terrorist groups; and

(B) allow terrorist groups, such as Hamas, Hizballah, the Popular
Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine--General Command to maintain facilities in Syria;

(2) the Government of Syria has withdrawn all Syrian military,
intelligence, and other security personnel from Lebanon;

(3) the Government of Syria has ceased the development and deployment of
ballistic missiles and has ceased the development and production of
biological and chemical weapons; and

(4) the Government of Syria is no longer in violation of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 661 or a subsequent relevant United Nations
resolution.

(This method of diplomacy *DOES NOT WORK*.)

NOYB wrote:
I don't believe in paying incentives to countries to keep them from pursuing
WMD.

But do you genuinely believe that Clinton paid the North Koreans to not
announce their development of nukes?


... You obviously see nothing wrong with it...

Actually, that depends on how it's done. Money (specifically in dollars)
that is either loaned or granted to other countries comes back to us in
the form of profitable trade with that country... which gives us an
economic lever to use on them, since no countries have as big an economy
as ours.

But I noticed you don't hesitate to attribute to me statements and
attitudes that I have never expressed. Nice going, especially when you
dodge questions and backpedal on previous statements.

As for your statement that this form of diplomacy doesn't work... wrong.
It *has* worked, and worked wuite well. Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
I don't believe in paying incentives to countries to keep them from
pursuing WMD.

But do you genuinely believe that Clinton paid the North Koreans to not
announce their development of nukes?


... You obviously see nothing wrong with it...

Actually, that depends on how it's done. Money (specifically in dollars)
that is either loaned or granted to other countries comes back to us in
the form of profitable trade with that country... which gives us an
economic lever to use on them, since no countries have as big an economy
as ours.

But I noticed you don't hesitate to attribute to me statements and
attitudes that I have never expressed. Nice going, especially when you
dodge questions and backpedal on previous statements.

As for your statement that this form of diplomacy doesn't work... wrong.
It *has* worked, and worked wuite well. Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?

Diplomacy only works when there is a threat of military coercion.

Bert Robbins wrote:
Diplomacy only works when there is a threat of military coercion.


Wrong.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Bert Robbins wrote:
Diplomacy only works when there is a threat of military coercion.

Wrong.


Really? How am I wrong.

If I don't do what you want me to do even after you talk my ear off what are
you going to do? Well, if my military is stronger than your military you
pose no threat to me.

Diplomacy only works when there is a threat of military coercion.


Wrong.


Bert Robbins wrote:
Really? How am I wrong.


Diplomacy works when both parties have something to gain by agreeing.

If I don't do what you want me to do even after you talk my ear off what are
you going to do? Well, if my military is stronger than your military you
pose no threat to me.


I guess we signed NAFTA because we were afraid Mexico & Canada were
going to invade us?

Forcing other people against their will is not "diplomacy," it's
"coercion." Maybe when the Bush Administration learns a slightly bigger
vocabulary, they'll understand the difference.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Diplomacy only works when there is a threat of military coercion.


Wrong.


Bert Robbins wrote:
Really? How am I wrong.


Diplomacy works when both parties have something to gain by agreeing.

Correct, I and my country will be better of by not having my country invaded
by a superior military force if I acceed to the other country's desires.

If I don't do what you want me to do even after you talk my ear off what
are you going to do? Well, if my military is stronger than your military
you pose no threat to me.

I guess we signed NAFTA because we were afraid Mexico & Canada were going
to invade us?

We signed NAFTA because Bill C wanted to look like he was actually doing
something in office. NAFTA quickly opened the borders to move manufacturing
jobs to Mexico.

Forcing other people against their will is not "diplomacy," it's
"coercion."

Why yes, they are one and the same.

Maybe when the Bush Administration learns a slightly bigger vocabulary,
they'll understand the difference.

There is no difference between diplomacy and coersion. Once you understand
that you will also understand that nations are islands unto themselves and
that their survival depends on doing what is in the nations best interests
when dealing with other nations.

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Bert Robbins wrote:
Diplomacy only works when there is a threat of military coercion.

Wrong.

No, he's right. The one example you cited (Marshall Plan) was implemented
*after* military action. Name an instance of international tension that
ended positively as the result of a bribe and *without* the threat of
military action. The closest example that I can find is the downing of the
Navy plane by China just 4 years ago. However, we gained virtually nothing
with our appeasement. China continues to violate international trade laws,
continues to arm rogue nations, and continues to expand its military and
threaten Taiwan.

Diplomacy only works when there is a threat of military coercion.

Wrong.


NOYB wrote:
No, he's right.

No, he's wrong.

Just because you two are simple minded and cannot understand anything
more complex than bashing people over the head when they don't do what
you want, does not make this the only way to succeed in the world.


... The closest example that I can find is the downing of the
Navy plane by China just 4 years ago. However, we gained virtually nothing
with our appeasement.

Because Bush's handlers told told him to kiss the Chinese butts, if
necessary, and the Chinese had more to gain from keeping the plane & crew.

This is a good example of the failure to apply your caveman brute-force
principle when it would have helped the U.S. but it doesn't mean that
this is all there is to "Diplomacy."

... China continues to violate international trade laws,
continues to arm rogue nations, and continues to expand its military and
threaten Taiwan.


And Bush continues to kiss their butts. I expect that if mainland China
decides to invade Taiwan, the 7th Fleet will be ordered to escort them &
make sure they don't get lost or run out of fuel.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Diplomacy only works when there is a threat of military coercion.

Wrong.


NOYB wrote:
No, he's right.

No, he's wrong.

Just because you two are simple minded and cannot understand anything more
complex than bashing people over the head when they don't do what you
want, does not make this the only way to succeed in the world

... The closest example that I can find is the downing of the Navy plane
by China just 4 years ago. However, we gained virtually nothing with our
appeasement.

Because Bush's handlers told told him to kiss the Chinese butts, if
necessary, and the Chinese had more to gain from keeping the plane & crew.

This is a good example of the failure to apply your caveman brute-force
principle when it would have helped the U.S. but it doesn't mean that this
is all there is to "Diplomacy."

... China continues to violate international trade laws, continues to
arm rogue nations, and continues to expand its military and threaten
Taiwan.


And Bush continues to kiss their butts. I expect that if mainland China
decides to invade Taiwan, the 7th Fleet will be ordered to escort them &
make sure they don't get lost or run out of fuel.

We are in another cold war now and it is with the Chinese directly and India
indirectly. Both China and India are purchasing oil at an increasing rate
which is driving up the price of that oil. Regardless of what you think oil
drives our economy in more ways than you realize.