This explains so much.Originally Posted by Runnin
This explains so much.
i seem to think it didn't hurt and given the chance, it might have worked out "really well."
you view politics so short term
More articulately making my point, Jonathon Chaitt has an interesting article this morning
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
It's universally considered a failed approach, much like the former South Korean Sunshine Policy toward North Korea.
Rapprochement was given multiple significant chances. It hasn't worked.
What rock are you living under?
Universally considered by whom?
Neo-Cons
Military Industrial Complex
The same group that assumed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 and Oklahoma City
Diplomacy was cut off at the knees and never given a chance.
It was asked above, but, who has N Korea harmed-invaded-bombed etc etc etc
I tend to see the threat of N Korea the same as the proverbial welfare queen in the Cadillac
both overblown myths to manipulate those with the attention span of ... Donald Trump/George W Bush
It is funny to me but you are willing to give Russia a pass yet preach fear of N Korean intentions.
Telling
Last edited by 57Brave; 04-14-2017 at 09:12 AM.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
When was that?
We've tried giving North Korea food, nuclear technology, and money as good faith gestures. We built huge (now abandoned) industrial complexes on the border in an attempt to massage a positive relationship. We turned a blind eye while they developed ICBMs, nuclear weapons, and modernized their submarine fleet. We practiced restraint when they destroyed the Cheonan, bombed Yeongpyeong, fired missiles into the Sea of Japan.
But let's keep giving Kim Jong-un 'chances' because we're too lazy and selfish to confront the real issue here, which is unification.
That was Clinton's doing. You can try to grab me on the technicality that Bush fulfilled the order (using a company that Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of), but he ultimately reversed the policy in short order.
Are you serious?
Find me a single (non-Vox, non-Daily KOS, non-Huffington Post ... but, honestly, even in those corners I would be surprised if you found anything) contemporary academic source which supports or even faintly praises late 90s/early 00s detente measures by either the United States or by the South Koreans.
Last edited by Hawk; 04-14-2017 at 09:26 AM.
Universally considered by whom ?
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
OK. I wasn't sure what you were referring to, but I figured that was it. I thought that "gave them nuclear technology" was a bit of a misleading construction.
Academics, South Koreans, modern policy makers.
Rather vague answer.
If we are invading and thereby occupying a country I would think after the qugmire we seem to still be bogged down from the last time we militarilly dealt with an Axis of Evil entity Universally Considered is just not justification for that commitment.
South Korea has been threatened by the North since the end of WWII.
Why now.
And who will be doing the occupying
This is just not thought out.
Again
You are putting the cart way before the horse if you are talking about invading/occupying North Korea. That is an entirely different discussion.
Who has ever advocated for that?
Anyways, again:
- Were you serious when you asked who North Korea had 'harmed/invaded/bombed etc'?
- Name a source that supports your belief that we should have offered the North Koreans 'more chances' ... I'd like to learn more details about how anyone might think this mentality would work in reality.
China wouldn't want unification. If South Korea's influence approaches closer to their border that means by default US influence.
If China took over NK then SK and Japan wouldn't like that very much.
The best we can hope for right is for someone on the inside that Kim hasn't executed yet to do the honorable task.
Forever Fredi
And bombing invading instituting a military draft are the only tools at our disposal?
What does talking to N Korea harm ?
You have your man in the /white House that, and I quote him "makes really good deals"
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
The South Koreans don't even want unification. What are they going to do with 30 million uneducated, unskilled, and underfed North Koreans?
There is no good or easy solution to this mess.
So, I know --- we use really big bombs
Brilliant !
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Good golly.
Sense of security that the crazy Kim won't be sounding the alarm every cycle.
Besides. Aren't SK taught in school not to hate the people but the dictatorship up North?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
