We're actually pretty close on a lot of the underlying issues here, and I think if you reread the original words I quoted, you'll realize nobody is saying what you think they're saying:

Quote:
Sanctions are intended to pressure a country into capitulating to an agreement on favorable terms. But whether they are viewed as a tool for negotiations or as an option unto themselves, they are scorned just the same by the anti-diplomacy crowd as a form of "appeasement."

You said yourself that you don't consider yourself anti-diplomacy, rather, you consider yourself skeptical of diplomacy. So, the statement doesn't apply to you, nor to those who think like you do.

It does, however, apply to the more hawkish of conservatives who are truly anti-diplomacy, and among those are The National Review's Michael Rubin, whose statements were the inspiration behind Greenwald's blog entry. Rubin stated, in no uncertain terms, that diplomacy with North Korea wasn't an option, and did, in fact, liken anyone who wants to engage them in diplomacy as appeasers.

Anyway, I do think that's our main point of disagreement, but I do want to respond to this:

Quote:
I agree. If Kim wasn't so damned insane maybe I'd feel better about it though.

Yes, Kim Jong Il is insane, much more insane than Parker and Stone gave him credit for. But, if you think about it, that's EXACTLY why we need to keep bilateral diplomatic channels open.

I'm sure you've seen movies where a crazy person is about to do something stupid. Maybe he's going to end his own life jumping off a skyscraper, or detonate a bunch of explosives and kill a lot of innocent people. Sometimes, the situation ends in a bunch of gunfire. Other times, though, it ends because the good guys establish a dialogue with the crazy guy and talk him off the ledge, get him to drop the detonator, or whatever. No true trust relationship is established, but enough talking is done that maybe some common ground is found, or the crazy person has a moment of clarity and realizes what they're doing is, well, crazy.

Now, I'm not suggesting the US start taking foreign policy advice from Hollywood (though, sometimes I wonder if they are.) Nor am I suggesting that every crazy person will respond to being engaged in conversation. But, it seems to me that Kim Jong Il, being the egomaniac he is, just wants someone to listen to him. We don't have to trust him to listen to him, but listening to him may just give us information that helps us make the right decisions with our policies going forward. It may make him just a bit more hesitant to do something stupid if he thinks he might get something (a carrot, perhaps) if he doesn't.

Ultimately, there is NO drawback to establishing bilateral dialogue with ANY other country, no matter how crazy their leaders may be, unless you plan to go to war and destroy them. Anything short of that, and diplomatic channels should be open. Like it or not, people on "your side" (though, I suspect, further to the extremes of your side) are indeed suggesting that the time for diplomacy is over, and unfortunately, one of them lives at 1600 Pennsylvania.

Quote:
Team America.

Fuck yeah!