I've got a problem with Democrat Foreign Policy

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Maybe some of you more enlightened pinheads can help me understand the beneficial purpose to the Democrat template of foreign policy. Tell me what I am missing here....

We beg tyrant megalomaniacs into talking to us in negotiations... they promise us things they never intend to deliver... Democrats claim victory. When they completely trash the agreements made, we beg them into talking to us again, where we offer them things in return for more promises they have no intention of keeping... Democrats claim victory. We continue to allow them to break their agreements with us, while we honor our agreements with them, and literally give them the technology and materials to build nukes, when they break their promises to us, and actually build them, we beg them to talk to us again, where they will make more promises they don't intend to keep and we will give them even more in return. Democrats claim victory.

Can someone please explain the logic behind the Democrat model? I don't really grasp what we are supposed to be accomplishing with this. It seems to me, sitting down and negotiating with people who have no intentions of keeping their word, is essentially pointless.

[IHateGovernment]

Perhaps they think if the terms are good enough North Korea will play nice.

It has been mentioned though that our failure to live up to our part of negotiations may have soured things. I believe we promised NK light water reactors so they didn't need to enrich uranium but we didn't deliver them.

Also NK is more provocative in its actions because the admin declared it an enemy nation and the invasion of Iraq has scared them.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Perhaps they think if the terms are good enough North Korea will play nice.

It has been mentioned though that our failure to live up to our part of negotiations may have soured things. I believe we promised NK light water reactors so they didn't need to enrich uranium but we didn't deliver them.

Also NK is more provocative in its actions because the admin declared it an enemy nation and the invasion of Iraq has scared them.

NK began breaking the agreement within weeks of signing it. They never intended to keep the agreement, they simply accepted the generosity bestowed upon them by stupid Democrats, who were desperate to put a feather in the Clinton legacy cap. And they have no intentions of negotiating in good faith NOW! They will, of course, accept any generosity we decide to bestow, and they will indeed lie through their teeth again, they have no problem with that. My question is, what's in it for us? When does the Democrat model pay off?

[maineman]

interesting how Dixie ignored the last two paragraphs of IH8's post.

is anyone surprised?

[IHateGovernment]

By the way I don't see a huge difference between Clinton's strategies and Bush's current strategies at least in general spirit. Bush's speeches about this recent development have stressed the need for diplomacy. So what is Bush going to do differently?

[maineman]

whenever Bush goes beyond his ineffective diplomatic efforts, he gets us embroiled in counterproductive military misadventures....I hope he does NOTHING differently vis a vis NK!

[IHateGovernment]

whenever Bush goes beyond his ineffective diplomatic efforts, he gets us embroiled in counterproductive military misadventures....I hope he does NOTHING differently vis a vis NK!

Huh? You want him to get militarily involved with NK?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

By the way I don't see a huge difference between Clinton's strategies and Bush's current strategies at least in general spirit. Bush's speeches about this recent development have stressed the need for diplomacy. So what is Bush going to do differently?

Well, at this point, there isn't much Bush can do, or Democrats. The damage has been done, and any possible military option is now off the table, so there is no effective strategy now. The time to have acted, was in 1994, when Il broke his end of the agreement. My complaint was not about NK, but about Democrat Foreign Policy. I don't understand the premise behind negotiating with people who can't be trusted. I was hoping for some explanation.

[IHateGovernment]

Did the Clinton admin know that the North Korean government could not be trusted then.

I think the Clinton admit made an error in that department but then I was never a fan of Clinton's foreign policy.

[maineman]

whenever Bush goes beyond his ineffective diplomatic efforts, he gets us embroiled in counterproductive military misadventures....I hope he does NOTHING differently vis a vis NK!

Huh? You want him to get militarily involved with NK?

no ...quite the opposite...I hope he does nothing differently (stick with diplomacy) than Clinton did..... we should wait for someone competent to lead any further military endeavor to be elected in '08

[maineman]

Was Saddam trustworthy when Rummy was shaking his hand?

[IHateGovernment]

Oh ok

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Did the Clinton admin know that the North Korean government could not be trusted then.

I think the Clinton admit made an error in that department but then I was never a fan of Clinton's foreign policy.

They certainly knew within the first few weeks, when Il refused to allow the first IAEA inspections. But beside that point, this is what most all the Democrats are screaming now! That we should enter into two-way talks with NK! It's the Democrat Foreign Policy template, and it doesn't change!

[maineman]

and I bet Dixie is just shitting in his knickers knowing that a democratic congress is going to have some input into Bush's foreign policy.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well, I really hoped that someone could help me understand the Democrat Foreign Policy strategy, but I guess all the Democrats are busy digging up Foley emails or celebrating their recent win of the Congress. It just seems to me, we could accomplish the same objectives by simply asking these tyrants what they want, and giving it to them... what's the point in making them agree to things they have no intention of doing? That's the part I don't fully understand... it's like, we know they have no intentions of doing what they say, yet we are more than willing to continue giving them whatever they want and begging them to keep talking to us. I just don't get how it works to our advantage, and I was really hoping someone could explain what I am just not getting.

I know, it's too late to do any good in NK, that deal is done, but I am thinking in terms of Iran... is this the approach Democrats want to try there too? Let's make a deal with Armagedongoninsane, which he totally doesn't intend to keep, let the Democrats proclaim victory, and then beg him into talking to us some more when he builds his nuke? Is this the plan? Couldn't we just save the time and effort, and send him some nukes along with the money and incentives we plan to give him anyway? I mean, what's the purpose in going through the same dog and pony show of letting him lie and break his agreements with us, like NK and everyone else? Is there something I am missing in the Democrat plan? It just seems like there is a much simpler way to achieve the same results.

[IHateGovernment]

there are three primary options dixie.

Negotiatate and try to get terms that are favorable to you while leaving something in place that will encourage those you negotiate with to follow through on their part.

Not negotiate at all and thus whatever the government you are dealing with decides to do will happen.

Attack the country.

What tactic do you prefer.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

there are three primary options dixie.

Negotiatate and try to get terms that are favorable to you while leaving something in place that will encourage those you negotiate with to follow through on their part.

Not negotiate at all and thus whatever the government you are dealing with decides to do will happen.

Attack the country.

What tactic do you prefer.

Hmmm.... I've not heard these options from Democrats. All I ever hear, when you can get them to actually articulate, is to "talk" to them. I am asking, what purpose does this strategy serve, when they never follow through on their word? If we can't trust them to negotiate, why do we bother with that strategy? Is there some greater reason or pretense involved? I am open-minded, I will listen, I just want someone to clarify this for me, because it seems rather time-consuming to go through negotiations, when we could just give them what they want to begin with, and not bother with the agreement part.

Mayyyyyybe.... it's so that France, Belgium, and Luxemborg will have respect for us? They see us negotiating in good faith with people we know can't be trusted, and they realize what a great and wonderful peace-loving nation we are, and so we get cheap wine, cheese, and waffles? Is THAT the reason? I'm just trying to find answers.

[IHateGovernment]

If we were certain that any terms we gave the North Korean would not be met it would be foolish to negotiate with them.

However I don't think it has been established with certainty that we know that any future terms will not be carried out.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If we were certain that any terms we gave the North Korean would not be met it would be foolish to negotiate with them.

However I don't think it has been established with certainty that we know that any future terms will not be carried out.

Do you have any example of where NK has obliged by their agreements? The '94 Clinton/Albright agreement was the result of their failure to honor the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so there is another one they reneged on. The fact of the matter is, NK has lied to us repeatedy through the years, and it predates Clinton or Bush... either Bush.

No, you can't "establish with certainty" that some miracle of faith will occur, and Kim Jong Il could suddenly start being a man of honor who keeps his word. Is that the idea behind the Democrat Foreign Policy Strategy? Wishfully thinking that someday, somehow, these tyrant maniac dictators are going to start having integrity and honor, and tell us the truth? That, if we just keep on giving them what they want, some day, by some divine intervention, they will suddenly feel guilty and start abiding by the agreements they made?

[IHateGovernment]

Thats the problem with North Korea it is a dictatorship. From what I understand there is not much oversight of Kim Jong Ils actions and thus the stubborness or deceit of one man determines the actions of the nation as a whole.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Thats the problem with North Korea it is a dictatorship. From what I understand there is not much oversight of Kim Jong Ils actions and thus the stubborness or deceit of one man determines the actions of the nation as a whole.

Well, yeah, you know... that's the trouble with dictatorship! It's why we think it might actually be better to install democracies instead. The trouble is, not many people are as smart as you are, and they don't recognize this inherent flaw in dictatorship. For some reason, they think that dictators have some motivation to treat their people fairly and deal in good faith with the rest of the world.

As I said, this isn't about NK policy, because that really doesn't matter now, he's already built the nuke and we have been duped. It's about Democrat Foreign Policy and the template they always seek to use. Let's talk first, and if that doesn't work, let's talk some more, and if that doesn't work, let's agree to talk.... it just seems that something is missing in this approach, I can't put my finger on it, but it seems that something else might be in order... particularly, after talking doesn't work the first dozen times or so. It seems the only "plan" Democrats have, is to talk. My question is, what good is going to do us? If we are negotiating with people who have no intentions of honoring their agreements, it seems a bit pointless to continue talking... yet, the Democrat template calls for it.

[Cancel7]

Well, you know Dixie, there are a lot of things that I would like an explanation for myself, but I'll never get one either. Why do I lust after boots for weeks, and then as soon as I get them, they don't seem so great, and I already have my eye on another pair? Why do men not understand that you worry about them if they're unusually late and don't call, and then claim that it's crazy to imagine they were in a car accident? Why, as soon as I pick a line to get on, does the red light immediately go on and an entire team of supervisors need to be called over to examine the transaction of the person at the register ahead of me?

Oh yeah, and what on earth gave Americans the idea that we have any God-given right to make a list of which countries can, and cannot have the same nuclear power we take as, again, or God-given right, and then go apeshit when someone says "oh by the way, f you"?

These questions don't keep me up at night, but they do dance across my mind. From time to time.

[Cancel7]

Oh, and it's "Democratic foreign policy" Dixie.

I know this is the latest RNC "linguistic" talking point, don't say the Democratic party, as they have always been called, say the Democrat party, because Democratic sounds too much like Democracy. And I see you've received the memo.

Can you people be any more f'ing petty?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Oh yeah, and what on earth gave Americans the idea that we have any God-given right to make a list of which countries can, and cannot have the same nuclear power we take as, again, or God-given right, and then go apeshit when someone says "oh by the way, f you"?

Nuclear power? Is that what you thing Kim Jong set off over there? Sorry dear, he wasn't working on building a nuclear power plant, he was working on a nuclear bomb. We're entitled to have a nuclear bomb, because we won two World Wars, and we aren't a maniacal tyranic dictatorship.... contrary to what Nancy Pelosi says.

Darla, you need to go shop for boots on Election Day!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Oh, and it's "Democratic foreign policy" Dixie.

I know this is the latest RNC "linguistic" talking point, don't say the Democratic party, as they have always been called, say the Democrat party, because Democratic sounds too much like Democracy. And I see you've received the memo.

Can you people be any more f'ing petty?


No, it's Democrat Foreign Policy... implemented by Democrats. There is nothing Democratic about them, it's more Socialist these days. I'll use "Democrat" to describe your party, and that is the "nice" word I have, thank you very much.

[Cancel7]

Oh yeah, and what on earth gave Americans the idea that we have any God-given right to make a list of which countries can, and cannot have the same nuclear power we take as, again, or God-given right, and then go apeshit when someone says "oh by the way, f you"?

Nuclear power? Is that what you thing Kim Jong set off over there? Sorry dear, he wasn't working on building a nuclear power plant, he was working on a nuclear bomb. We're entitled to have a nuclear bomb, because we won two World Wars, and we aren't a maniacal tyranic dictatorship.... contrary to what Nancy Pelosi says.

Darla, you need to go shop for boots on Election Day!

No, I meant nuclear power, as in being, a nuclear power, dumbass.

We have no "right" to anything that any other country does not have the very same right to.

Maybe I will go shopping for boots on election day Dixie. But I vote very early in the morning, always, first thing. I love that feeling of getting my vote in early.

And the good stores after all, don't open till 10am. There will be time for both! Boots and Votes!

[Cancel7]

No, it's Democrat Foreign Policy... implemented by Democrats. There is nothing Democratic about them, it's more Socialist these days. I'll use "Democrat" to describe your party, and that is the "nice" word I have, thank you very much.

It's always been said "Democratic" when used in that manner, and this is a new RNC "point" I read all about it, and you can cry all you want, but you're getting your marching orders from FOX and their ilk. Deny it all you want, I know it and you know it

And it's very, very, smallish of you.

[Damocles]

No, I meant nuclear power, as in being, a nuclear power, dumbass.

We have no "right" to anything that any other country does not have the very same right to.

Maybe I will go shopping for boots on election day Dixie. But I vote very early in the morning, always, first thing. I love that feeling of getting my vote in early.

And the good stores after all, don't open till 10am. There will be time for both! Boots and Votes!
I've been promoted. This year I am the supervisor of three Precincts... :D

I'll be the first to vote.

[Damocles]

It's always been said "Democratic" when used in that manner, and this is a new RNC "point" I read all about it, and you can cry all you want, but you're getting your marching orders from FOX and their ilk. Deny it all you want, I know it and you know it

And it's very, very, smallish of you.
LOL New? I've heard people calling y'all the Democrat Party for at least a decade!

[Cancel7]

I've been promoted. This year I am the supervisor of three Precincts... :D

I'll be the first to vote.

And don't you love voting in the very early morning? I do. I don't understand how people wait until night time. I want my say right up front! Well before the tide has turned one way or the other. But of course, as long as people vote, it doesn't matter, it's just a personal thing.

Except for Republicans. They should really vote the next day.

[Cancel7]

LOL New? I've heard people calling y'all the Democrat Party for at least a decade!

I haven't, as a general rule. Here and there, but now it is how the minions are to address the Democratic party. I read about it, seriously. I laughed over it then, and now that I see someone actually making a point of doing it, I still think it's funny. But petty.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

We have no "right" to anything that any other country does not have the very same right to.

So, you don't have any problem with Kim Jong Il having a nuke, or Akmadenajad, or anyone else? Since we have them, huh?

That's just great, I hope you get a good deal on those boots!

[Damocles]

I haven't, as a general rule. Here and there, but now it is how the minions are to address the Democratic party. I read about it, seriously. I laughed over it then, and now that I see someone actually making a point of doing it, I still think it's funny. But petty.
Each time somebody gets all huffy and makes a point of correcting them it makes me laugh.

Either way I can't see too much of a difference. Other than when somebody corrects somebody it makes them seem cranky.

[Cancel7]

Each time somebody gets all huffy and makes a point of correcting them it makes me laugh.

Either way I can't see too much of a difference. Other than when somebody corrects somebody it makes them seem cranky.


I'm not huffy. It's funny to watch just how petty Republicans can get. You know, now that they are desperate.

Things are swinging my way Damo. I think you misread me once again. I've been having more fun these past few weeks, watching this unfolding debacle. It should really be against the law. And some of it is!

[Damocles]

I'm not huffy. It's funny to watch just how petty Republicans can get. You know, now that they are desperate.

Things are swinging my way Damo. I think you misread me once again. I've been having more fun these past few weeks, watching this unfolding debacle. It should really be against the law. And some of it is!
No. I wasn't saying YOU were huffy, just that I find it funny when they are.

"It's Democrat ICK! 'fu*ktard'!" was one I've read like that.

I fully understand the Ds getting excited right now.

[Cancel7]

We have no "right" to anything that any other country does not have the very same right to.

So, you don't have any problem with Kim Jong Il having a nuke, or Akmadenajad, or anyone else? Since we have them, huh?

That's just great, I hope you get a good deal on those boots!

Dixie, I have a problem with anyone having nukes.

But that genie left the bottle long ago. To ever have deluded oneself that as the natural progession of science and the world went forward, many other countries, some not so friendly to us, would also gain this power, was just short-sighted, to say the least.

I was never that deluded. I'm sorry you were. This must have come as a great shock to you. You know who you can call for some comfort? The perpetually surprised Condi Rice! Oh yeah, she'll have some comfort for you. "I don't think anyone could have predicted" you know, the usual stuff.

[Cancel7]

No. I wasn't saying YOU were huffy, just that I find it funny when they are.

"It's Democrat ICK! 'fu*ktard'!" was one I've read like that.

I fully understand the Ds getting excited right now.

Really? LOl. Was it mainman? lol.

[Damocles]

Really? LOl. Was it mainman? lol.
LOL. I'll never tell... It still makes me laugh though!

[Cancel7]

I should make clear Damo, that I have not been laughing over the N. Korea situation. The other stuff though, yeah.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Each time somebody gets all huffy and makes a point of correcting them it makes me laugh.

Either way I can't see too much of a difference. Other than when somebody corrects somebody it makes them seem cranky.

It's a matter of proper English usage. Democratic denotes support for democratic policy and democracy, which Democrats seem to have lost completely. They now support Socialism and undermine democracy. I can't use Democratic to describe their party, it is not an appropriate use of the word, in my opinion.

...I don't know, they hate being called Liberals, they hate being called Democrats... that's why I just stick with PINHEADS! :pke:

[Cancel7]

It's a matter of proper English usage. Democratic denotes support for democratic policy and democracy, which Democrats seem to have lost completely. They now support Socialism and undermine democracy. I can't use Democratic to describe their party, it is not an appropriate use of the word, in my opinion.

...I don't know, they hate being called Liberals, they hate being called Democrats... that's why I just stick with PINHEADS! :pke:

LOL. That was actually funny Dixie. I guess anyone who writes as much as you do (I mean really, you could publish a book just on the big SR/Dixie who owns who debacle alone), would get off a good one now and again.

[maineman]

ah ...those republics.... seem to be losing their grip. And it seems like just yesterday that Dixie was trumpeting that the democratic party was destined to go the way of the whigs.... but now, it seems like the republics are swirling down the bowl....

Hey dixie...remember that $100 bet we have?

don't forget

[Cancel7]

ah ...those republics.... seem to be losing their grip. And it seems like just yesterday that Dixie was trumpeting that the democratic party was destined to go the way of the whigs.... but now, it seems like the republics are swirling down the bowl....

Hey dixie...remember that $100 bet we have?

don't forget

I'm almost a little worried about how Dixie is going to take it if the "Democrat party" retakes Congress. I hope he'll be ok. Either way, I fear we are in for some very long, post-election posts.

[maineman]

I'm almost a little worried about how Dixie is going to take it if the "Democrat party" retakes Congress. I hope he'll be ok. Either way, I fear we are in for some very long, post-election posts.

personally, I hope he gets so depressed that he swallows the barrel of his gun and pulls the trigger.

it would only make the gene pool that much deeper, which is a good thing.

[maineman]

I would gladly forego the $100 he owes me for the chance to laugh at the reports of his demise.

[maineman]

and before anyone gets all righteous on me, please remember that this asshole gave credence to the slanderous lies of two other trolls who accused me of anally raping my own son. There is no love lost for THIS prick.

[Cancel7]

and before anyone gets all righteous on me, please remember that this asshole gave credence to the slanderous lies of two other trolls who accused me of anally raping my own son. There is no love lost for THIS prick.

I wouldn't get righteous about that Main. I have a list, albeit a pretty short one, of funerals I am looking forward to attending. Even if I can't attend them in person.

I even have a red dress all picked out for Bush's. I plan on putting it on the night I get the good news, and playing "I could have danced all night" over and over as I, yes, dance all night. No matter how old I am. Even if I have to dance with a cane! Lifespans unfolding in natural manners provided, I should and hopefully will, outlive him. Of course, you never know, so I keep my fingers crossed!

And a couple of other, far less known, little shits whose demises I will great with one big grin.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If the pervert doesn't stop running his mouth, lying about me, I am going to start posting his "love letters" to my kid, which he claimed he was so drunk he didn't know what he was saying. I promised Damo I would not bring this up anymore, but that was on the condition the pervert kept his mouth shut, which he apparently doesn't know how to do. Damo, if you don't want this to blow up, you need to speak with the pervert personally, and persuade him to drop it, because he is about to get a double barrel of Dixie in his face. I've heard enough, and I've had enough!

[Damocles]

No. Let's pretend that we all have already read these things and move the frick on!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No. Let's pretend that we all have already read these things and move the frick on!

I've moved on, you've moved on, but a certain predator from Maine wants to keep running his mouth. I have no intentions of continuing to turn the other cheeck indefinately, and I am giving you fair warning, it's going to get really ugly if he doesn't shut up. I think I have been more than tolerant, and I have respected your wishes up to now on this matter, but if he wants to continue slandering me and bringing it all back up again, I am not going to continue my silence. Either you can put a stop to it, or the gloves are coming off.

[Damocles]

One of you can be the hero and end it and I don't care which. I don't expect y'all to like each other and know that this still is there between you. I just don't want it played out here. My post wasn't specific to you, or to maineman.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

One of you can be the hero and end it and I don't care which. I don't expect y'all to like each other and know that this still is there between you. I just don't want it played out here. My post wasn't specific to you, or to maineman.


I don't have a problem dropping it, and I haven't had a problem dropping it. I would like to move on and forget about it, just like you would. This is made impossible, by continued remarks and comments by the pervert, and I am not going to just continue to ignore him. This is your board, and you have to make the decisions on how to handle these things, I have tried my best to ignore him, I have tried my best to avoid the confrontation over this, and I am being met with antagonism and his continued lies.

If you know me, you realize how difficult it is for me to not express what is on my mind, but I have enough respect for you to refrain from posting things you don't want posted. That said, I continue to have to tolerate his mouth, and I've about had my fill of it. If he wants to keep bringing it up and picking at it, I have no intentions of just continuing to be tolerant and silent, and I hope you understand.

[TRGLDTE]

They certainly knew within the first few weeks, when Il refused to allow the first IAEA inspections. But beside that point, this is what most all the Democrats are screaming now! That we should enter into two-way talks with NK! It's the Democrat Foreign Policy template, and it doesn't change!


I'm confused. The UN, France and the dems criticized Bush for not working enough with other nations prior to Iraq, but now, the dems want GWB to abandon the mulitlateral approach to NK and go "bilateral."

[IHateGovernment]

Just put him on ignore than Dixie....PLEASE. This is a political debate site. Lets keep the personal shit to ourselves.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'm confused. The UN, France and the dems criticized Bush for not working enough with other nations prior to Iraq, but now, the dems want GWB to abandon the mulitlateral approach to NK and go "bilateral."

Well, this is because you just don't understand Democrat Foreign Policy hierarchy. First of all, military response is off the table, it's unacceptable under any circumstance. Talking is the primary strategy, preferably one-on-one, because this way, only the US is being lied to, not the other parties. It's much better, from the Democrat perspective, if negotiations result in only us being lied to rather than innocent third parties. So, when the option taken is war, which is unacceptable to Democrats, it's preferable to them, that we hold multi-lateral talks and let our enemy lie to all of us, but if war is not on the table, it's preferable they just lie to us when we talk. I hope that explains it!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Just put him on ignore than Dixie....PLEASE. This is a political debate site. Lets keep the personal shit to ourselves.


Oh, I've had him on ignore, and I have been ignoring him. Unfortunately, when someone posts his quotes, I see it. I have no intentions of sitting silently, while he continues to lie about me, "dropping it and moving on" requires the effort of both parties, I've done my part. I agree, personal shit has no place here, but if the pervert wants to keep it up, we can make it personal. I've tried to keep this off the board, but if he persists with his antagonizing and picking, this moratorium is not going to last much longer.... and I don't give a flying fuck if it's okay with you or not.

[Cancel7]

Sorry, I won't quote posts that have stuff like that in it anymore. I didn't mean to stir up old shit between anybody. I hate that stuff on message boards.