Well here lets google anything about N korea talks they should all mention it.

Here we go
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...1110-voa02.htm

I dont recall ever claiming that I thought it was ok for Bush to negotiate with despots. In fact, I have criticized him over it many times before.

But the alternatives to Bush want to negotiate with tyrants even MORE than Bush. That is why Bush is preferrable.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Not bad. Only almost three years old. Got anything current? U know, like how many countries participated in those talks a few days ago? That shouldn't be hard.


PROB

It's just amazing that in Iraq we couldn't wait for the weapons inspectors to finish the job or allow diplomacy to work, but in North Korea we had lots of patience for diplomacy. If anything, this shows how impulsive and irresponsible the invasion of Iraq was.

No it's bad all the time.

__________________
Be thou faithful unto Death
And I will give thee a crown of Life

"The problem with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, it's just they know so much that isn't so"
- Ronald Reagan

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger, is prepared for a Master and deserves one"
- Alexander Hamilton

Oh cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.

Out of curiosity I tried to find the speech referenced about and found it. What Bush said was.

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. "

And he, or whoever wrote that, has a point in there. Do people think that Obama is just going to explain why Israel is nice and suddenly Iran will like them? Or really anything? What precisely is Obama hoping to achieve? From the sounds of things he's looking to offer Iran "carrots" to stop attacking us.

And when a nation does that it's appeasement. And if an indavidual was involvedi in something like that it would be racketeering.

Mostly I think Obama is offering the Democrats what they want to hear. The there isn't any need for conflict. If we just talk to them. If they bathe in the majesty of Obama, all our problems will be solved. And there is no need for hard decision. And I'd believe Obama would follow through. He'd either achieve nothing or go for appeasement, but by then he's already in office.

Then I looked around for McCains stance.
"McCain's position is clear and unequivocal: preconditions by subordinates first, then possible negotiations.

Sen. Obama's current position seems to be: negotiate at the top first without preconditions, though he now favors "preparations" first — preconditions by another name.

"Summit meetings" between the U.S. and the USSR during the Cold War were preceded by lengthy low-level discussions. Negotiations with Red China in the '70s were preceded by a year of preliminaries not involving heads of state. Importantly, neither adversary sanctioned the indiscriminate slaughter of women and children or denied another state's right to exist.

Negotiating with terrorists without preconditions confers upon them a legitimacy they have not earned and discourages the terrorists' internal opposition."

Now there are also some points in there. First that, much as people forget it, there are lines of communication between our countries. Since by treaty uranium enrichment is a right of Iran's we're sliding over offers of goodies if they stop. If one side wants to send the other a letter or envoy they get there.

The question is what is to be gained except publicity if subordinates have not determined that they are actually willing to seriously talk?

Where are all the hot female tyrants at? Dang, we need a hot despot sex kitten to make this world more interesting.

Makkede? Hmmm... acceptable name for a Bond villainess. What's it then, biological warfare supplies to terrorists?

Move over, Daniel Craig. There's a new new James Bond in the vicinity. I will not only save the world, but I will correct the opinion of those lovelies who believe they don't like boys.

I am all about rendering patriotic services.

__________________
Two "no's" make a "yes". Can't argue with math.

Completely off topic. But somehow that made me think of this:

What is a tyrant? does anyone know? lets refresh some memorys shell we?


A tyrant is a single ruler holding absolute power through a state.
a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests over the best
interests of the general population which the tyrant governs or controls.



Close enough, now when a tyrant controls his population he uses threats and harsh measures
on anyone who opposes his wishes. This is how a tyrant does business.

A tyrant can be thought of as a spoiled brat, once he decides he wants or needs something
he is bent on having his way. there is nothing you can offer him that would change his mind.

But most tyrants can be threatened, but if the threat is weak, the threat will have to be in forced
by doing what you threatened to do. But it is possible to make a threat to a tyrant and not have
to follow through the threat.

But we today in America, can't use the threat anymore, because for years we have listened to the
liberals and tried negotiations until our face's turned blue and many tyrants around the world now
see America as a paper tiger. we no longer can make a threat and not have to back it up, because
we have lost integrity.

Now sad to say, we ether keep sending the message that we are weak, or we start to show our
strength again, so that all tyrants in the world can see that we do as we say we will with
impunity. But to get to this point, more wars, and more lost lives have to be spent.
and this is a shame, sense we use to already have the title, to which we squandered in just
40 or 50 years. we use to be able to make threats, and never had to back up that threat.

Now more will have to die, to get back that status. if we don't achieve that status again
we can assume that we shell have more wars, and conflicts in the future.


This is just my take on appeasement.

...

__________________
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

Perhaps Sweeden should have put more effort into getting Saddam to comply with inspections. Oh well, I am sure you will know better next time.

The the meantime, the US gained the permanent removal of a hostile dictatorship and the Iraqi People got control of their country. If you want to thwart us next time you will have to try harder.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?