I've got a problem with Democrat Foreign Policy

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
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.
 
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.
 
IHateGovernment said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
 
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!
 
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?
 
IHateGovernment said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
IHateGovernment said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
IHateGovernment said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
IHateGovernment said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
IHateGovernment said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top