Quote:
You breezed right past the point of Greenwald's post...


Only because I tended to agree with most of it. I just thought that the one line I singled out was a misrepresentation and unfair. How can we discuss a matter such as this if we don't understand the other side's motives or concerns? I thought most of it was accurate but if you were to really think that people who dislike appeasment (such as myself), also consider sanctions to be a form of appeasment, I don't see how you'd even want to discuss the topic with the other side. (Sanctions = Appeasment) is stupid.

Quote:
"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."


I'm not sure that's the US's position on N. Korea. We've never ruled out sanctions but to be honest, Kim is such a nut that he has stated that sanctions would be an act of war. (Sanctions = Military Action) is stupid. Besides this, we do very little trade with North Korea as it is, so how effective can unilateral sanctions be? In my opinion, I think the US sees that the best solution is to encourage China to take action under the threat that Japan will move to militarize itself if they don't. That allows the US to take the non-hostile stance of "We can't promise that Japan won't hit you but we promise not to hit you unless you strike one of our allies."

Quote:
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.


Only if negotiations equate to "give them whatever they want as long as they promise to not build a bomb". But that would be appeasment.

Quote:
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.


Sounds good to me as long as you have some sticks (sanctions or force) to go along with any carrots. And we can't count on Trust. Everything has to be verified.

Quote:
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.


I agree. If Kim wasn't so damned insane maybe I'd feel better about it though. And I'm not aware of any conservatives leaders who are pushing for military action. I have read some blogs and forums where people are calling for this, but they are reacting emotionally and I don't really think they mean it. Some have proposed surgical strikes like Israel did against Iraq back in the day but those people tend to be political people. The military people that happen to be conservative strongly think that will be ineffective.

Quote:
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.


Let's hope you're right on the bolded part. If we do so much as mention the weather on the Korean peninsula, Kim announces it as an act of war. He also happens to pull some stunt every time national attention is pointed away from him.

Quote:
Agreed. They sold uranium to Libya, there's no reason they wouldn't sell a weapon to $BAD_ACTOR. But what's your solution?


Team America.
_________________________
Brad B.