Quote:

Calling me "anti-appeasment" would be accurate. However, I'm not aware of a single prominent author, speaker or commentator who considers sanctions to be a form of appeasment. I don't mind if we disagree, but I feel that's dangerously misunderstanding those whom I agree with on this subject.


You breezed right past the point of Greenwald's post. Let's back off the word "appeasement" for a second, and look at the purpose of sanctions. Sanctions are a way to force another country into accepting an agreement they normally wouldn't accept without the sanctions in place. In the "carrots" and "sticks" parlance, it's a medium-sized stick, larger than "we'll be very mad at you' (the stick currently wielded by the Bush administration) but smaller than "we'll bomb the shit out of you."

Maybe there are no high-profile conservative pundits equating sanctions with appeasement, but there are certainly plenty of them saying that we ought to forget about negotiation. If we don't negotiate, and (as you've alluded to) we don't have the ability to impose sanctions, all we have left is military action. That's exactly what many of "those whom you agree with" are pushing towards.

Quote:
If we don't agree, let's at least be clear about how and what we disagree about.

Okay, I'll make a few statements, and you can give me your take on them.

When a conflict like this arises:

1. Diplomacy should always be the first step.
2. When diplomacy fails, diplomacy is still an option.
3. If you think diplomacy is no longer an option, you'd better be ready to deal with the conflict militarily.

The problem I have with the Bush policy towards North Korea, and the legions of conservatives lining up to say diplomacy with North Korea is dead, is that we have no other options. Even if you impose sanctions, at some point, you have to sit down at the table and get them to agree to something, unless you're willing to use force. It all boils down to either agreeing to something or involving ourselves in yet another war.

Quote:

I think that "skeptical towards diplomacy" is a more accurate description than "anti-dipylomacy". Diplomacy is great between two sane countries but I'm not aware of it ever working with a dictatorship.



Diplomacy can work with any two parties who want to avoid conflict. North Korea doesn't really want armed conflict with us, and we don't really want armed conflict with them. Therefore, we can engage in negotiations.

Quote:
To me, the real fear about North Korea is poliferation.


Agreed. They sold uranium to Libya, there's no reason they wouldn't sell a weapon to $BAD_ACTOR. But what's your solution?
_________________________
- Tony C
my empeg stuff