<p>All this posturing and slinging of epithets on BOTH sides is what makes me so frustrated! And is exactly why no good person in their right mind would ever think of going into government (politics)…who would want to put up with this??</p>
<p>Nobody has said much of anything of any substance. If there was any, it was couched in so much rhetoric my comprehension was a bit clouded. One thing I do know, members of BOTH parties voted in favor of military action. Yes things are awful, but it is war and who in their right mind expected differently?</p>
<p>I just do not think anything constructive comes with such a diatribe. I would love to see some constructive communication for a change…But I will not hold my breath.</p>
<p>CMM, many people supposedly “in their right minds” expected the war to go differently (cake walk, etcetc). I once linked many, many comments from pundits and politicians (mostly conservatives) who expected everything after the invasion to go smoothly “in a matter of weeks…or months” (not years).</p>
<p>Churchmusicmom,
Just what do you expect us to say besides ’ this is bad news all around.’ ?
Applaud the Bush administration for its bellicose ways? Criticise Clinton for failing (despite TREMENDOUS efforts, btw) to constructively deal with the North Korea situation? </p>
<p>What many of us are bemoaning is our lack of ANY confidence that this administration has the delicacy, the world-wide respect/support, and the know-how to deal with this crisis. Because this administration has made a mess of EVERY foreign policy crisis.</p>
How about stop making ridiculous flaming comments about President Bush. Each foreign policy issue is separate. He has not made a mess of every policy issue but even if he had, he has not made a mess of foreign policy with respect to North Korea. </p>
<p>How about admitting that President Clinton actually made a mess of North Korea policy by giving them nuclear technology. A little honesty and perspective might help your side’s crediblity.</p>
<p>Both Clinton and Bush generally ignored North Korea early in their first terms. They both also had to face North Korean attempts to escalate its nuclear program and each President responded with economic sanctions and incentives. The main difference between their policies were in the use of bi-lateral vs. multi-lateral diplomacy.</p>
<p>Clinton experimented with a combination of the carrot and the stick by using bilateral diplomacy and threatening military exercises in South Korea. The biggest critique of Clinton’s policies is that he permitted North Korea to obtain enhanced nuclear facilities and that he rewarded North Korea for maintaining the status quo rather than requiring North Korea to actually comply with dismantling its nuclear program.</p>
<p>Bush changed tactics and employed multilateralism using the 6-party talks. He also refused to negotiate unless North Korea first offered concessions. The biggest critique of Bush’s policies is that he failed to engage North Korea bilaterally and that his strategy didn’t work because North Korea has not surrendered its nuclear program.</p>
<p>If you read the links about Kim Jong Il posted above, I doubt any policy would have stopped him. Both Presidents tried different tactics to no avail. There are times in life where we can’t control the actions of another and this seems to be one of those times.</p>
<p>Libya’s Qaddafi dismantled his nation’s nuclear and chemical weapons program - a program we were barely aware of - because of President Bush’s foreign policies.</p>
<p>True, DRJ4. Khadafi dismantled his nuclear arsenal. But was it really because of Bush’s foreign policies? I’d think the punishing international sanctions put in place before Bush was elected had as much to do with it…</p>
<p>DRJ4: Thank you so much for posting information rather than rhetoric. I am learning much about the background of the situation from reading your posts. Particularly your brief analysis of how Presidents Clinton and Bush both tried and, obviously, failed…though by differing strategies…to prevent this present situation.</p>
That’s pretty easy. As mentioned above, Libya eliminated its nuclear program and is now attempting to join the world community. President Bush and PM Blair made it happen through backdoor and quiet diplomacy. Since that was already mentioned, you can also consider the removal of the Taliban from power and the ending of their terror camps. There are also many things that often go unnoticed. For example, the significant retrictions on financial transfers by terrorist organizations. It takes an incredible amount of coordination among many differing countries to preventing formerly unlimited funding for terrorist organizations. So there, you asked for one I gave you three.</p>
<p>You are kind but we learn from each other. I learn quite a bit at CC and it almost always makes me see issues in a new perspective.</p>
<p>Katliamom,</p>
<p>We may never know exactly why Qaddafi decided to rejoin the modern world. My recollection is that Qaddafi had been subject to sanctions and diplomatic pressure for years, especially after his involvement in the Lockerbie bombing was revealed, but that he continued to support terrorism and pursue his nuclear program until shortly after Saddam was captured. The timing of his enlightenment suggests that, at least in part, the invasion of Iraq and deposing of Saddam made an impact on Qaddafi. I think the general consensus was that he thought he might be next.</p>
<p>Libya may be North African, and Muslim but their heritage may be more European-Mediterranian than anything else. Qaddafi may have missed the finer things of life far too long.</p>
<h1>21 The problem of “giving” food aid or any other aid is that it kills the local incentive to do more. This is however a dictatorship/communistic society and how food is allocated, even if free and without strings, can be a chancy thing in getting the food to the right people and getting the desired results from the population and their devine leader.</h1>
<p>wow, allmusic. That was particularly insightful.</p>
<p>And very accurately describes how I feel after reading much of this thread and others where both sides of the political spectrum take pot shots at each other with no subtance.</p>
<p>I disagree, CMM. I think there are more than occasional efforts by people to see the other side of the spectrum without any pot shots at all.</p>
<p>It’s the unilateral closemindedness of some positions that doesn’t exactly enhance or advance a dialogue. Not the person, just the position, and we have those aplenty, on both sides. Rather a pity. </p>
<p>But there are several posters (like DRJ, among others), whose political positioning differs from my own, but with whom one (I!) can enjoy healthy debate of serious issues.</p>
![http://rankinrob.typepad.com/rankinblog/Kim-Albright-thumb.jpg[/url]](http://rankinrob.typepad.com/rankinblog/Kim-Albright-thumb.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
