quote: Certainly not conducive to finding a solution. A nation is not so naive to the world as a child.
Perhaps the analogy was not the best choice. I would say though, that North Korea is run solely by one man, whom the people worship as a godhead. Giving this man a blank check is foolish, no matter how you look at it.
quote: I guess what I am saying is that, given that Clintons policies weren't successful in stopping N. Korea from producing WMD, and didn't stop Saddam from abusing his people, so what? How do you feel that this justifies the policies of Bush, or do you?
So what? So learn from that lesson, and stop appeasing dictators. The North Korea situation is not a justification for any Bush policy, merely a good illustration of the workings of international nuclear politics. Especially when the UN is involved.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine, we shouldn't use Clintonian appeasement. No one was necessarily advocating going back to that. I wasn't at least (I honestly don't have a strong grasp of the nuances of international diplomacy). I also don't advocate the pick-and-choose method of Bush, since I think it belies the true motives (of which I'm sure there are many, including some that ultimately contradict others) for the Iraq war. And that these true motives contradict some of the public, official motives. I used N. Korea as an example of a contradiction that I saw, and then you blame Clinton. All I can say is that I don't care if Clinton caused it, I just think that the difference in treating the two cases (Iraq and N. Korea) differently shows paradox from what our president is saying. If you are going to lump nations together using stark language, then treat them similarly.
It seems to me that all you are saying is that we shouldn't do X. However, this thread is about why our president is doing Y and Z. So can you understand my confusion, and attempts to connect X to Y and Z?
quote: No matter what Clinton's intentions were, sending N Korea money and food was an idiotic idea. No one thought that this money or food would actually go to the people
Mr.Clinton kicked the can on down road reguarding Iraq, North Korea, and other issues. The economy took a nose dive during his last year in office. However, Clinton himself had little to do with the economy, good or bad.
Robespierre. You may have a point about sending N. Korea money. Certainly the money/food in exchange for Kim's giving up his asperations to join the nuclear bomb club deal could have been brokered so as to protect Nato and UN interests in general better, with more aggressive international nuclear inspections and agreed upon sanctions for non-compliance.
But if Clinton is guilty of a bad deal there, Bush Sr. is twice as guilty for his non-resolution of the Saddam situation. The cease-fire agreement allowed Saddam to snatch a partial victory from the jaws of a crushing military defeat, by not forbidding helicopter use to the Iraqi military. This was a major factor in Saddam's crushing of the Shi'ia and Kurd revolts immeadiatly after Gulf I. The US is still feeling the distrust that screw-up engendered. Then the treaty that followed the cease-fire agrrement was not much better, directly leading to Gulf II.
"sending N Korea money and food was an idiotic idea..." ummm, so we should have just let as many N. Koreans starve as possible? Not sure what our options were, other than sending some humanitarian aid. If we send aid and a dictator diverts it (as happens far, far, too often ), is that the president's fault??
Clinton's management of the economy was probably his best legacy. The Clinton administration, with bipartisan Congressional support, balanced the budget, which allowed capital to go to the private sector, instead of being Hoovered up by the federal government. This led to the best US economy in my lifetime, probably even longer. As a capiatalist, I thought you would think that was a good thing, Robes?
Of course, there was a market correction when the internet/tech bubble burst. Atlanta has been hit very hard by this. Bush inherited a bad economy, but by supporting record deficit spending he has hardly helped it, not to mention his tax cuts.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no mystery here. Key members of the Bush adminstration have been vocal for years about their motivations for invading Iraq. I recommend that you check out the Project for the New American Century. Dating as far back as 1997, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfield and other key figures in the Bush administration were argueing that the US need to invade Iraq and they state their reasons clearly. Their goals were to establish a permanent US military presence in the middle east and to privatize Iraq oil. Don't take my word for it, read what they wrote.
You should also check out the web site for the National Security Council, where the Bush administration states in National Security Goals. Most prominently, the goal is to prevent any nation or group of nations from threatening US economic and military superiority. The Bush administration antagonism with Europe is not superficial and it is not about Iraq. It is about the Euro and the Bush administrations stated goal to prevent the Euro from rivaling the US dollar.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: But if Clinton is guilty of a bad deal there, Bush Sr. is twice as guilty for his non-resolution of the Saddam situation.
I agree absolutely. Please don't get the idea that I am a defender of Republican presidents. Regan made a mistake in allowing the mujahadeen fighters to be armed by the CIA. Bush should have finished the job in Gulf War I. Bush should not have befriended Manuel Noriega! There are plenty of mistakes to spread around for all the recent and past presidents.
quote: so we should have just let as many N. Koreans starve as possible?
Did the money and food we sent them prevent any North Koreans from starving? If anything, it has caused the deaths of more North Koreans by prolonging the regime's life, and allowing Jong Il to continue without reform.
quote: Clinton's management of the economy was probably his best legacy. The Clinton administration, with bipartisan Congressional support, balanced the budget, which allowed capital to go to the private sector, instead of being Hoovered up by the federal government.
This is the best attempt I have yet seen at crediting Clinton with the 90's boom. I agree that balancing the budget was a good thing. However, the rise of the late 90's was fueled by technology and technology speculation. Any wealth that was created during that time, was created by the private sector. Bill Clinton did not create the boom of the 90's. Nor did he create the bust the followed. I don't want to get too deep into why the Bush tax cuts are the only reasonable medicine for this economy, because this is a foreign policy discussion.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Promethius, I don't think you're saying what you MEAN to be saying.
Are you familiar with the way this "military action" was approved, when it was approved, and how it's since been applied?
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not Congress caved in like a bunch of idiotic cowards -- which they did -- the actual "approval" you keep harping about fell well short of a declaration of war OR authorization for the continued occupation of a foreign country.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Promethius, I was just making the point that Congress did not make a formal declaration of war, though they did authorize military force. There is a difference.
It's one of my pet peeves, that Congress has allowed the presidency to usurp the power to declare war, a power specifically reserved for Congress in the US Constitution . Congress has basically rolled over and ignored their duties spelled out in the US Constitution re declaring war, hence the US has not declared war since WWII, despite being in 4-5 major wars.
The War Powers Act passed some years ago was a weak, lame attempt to go back to more constitutional methods of force authoriztion, but I think it has already expired without renewal. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
), is that the president's fault?? ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
