From: "Geo." 

"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:41676baf$1{at}w3.nls.net...

> No that is incorrect.  Bush's plan was not give in to North Korea's demands
> for the failed bi-lateral talks that Clinton used to help NK build its first
> nukes, but to get China and Russia involved.

And what makes you think their needs coincide with ours? I mean obviously
on the nuke issue we will agree but beyond that there are lots of area
where china would rather see us pumping our money instead of them pumping
theirs (or as a supplier we compete). Leaving it totally to others is not
going to help with those.

>  China has very real leverage over NK,

Yeah, an oil pipeline that can break down at the most convenient times
. I noticed that.

> and if Bush can get China to help in the negotiations which he has
> begun to achieve then the chances of a real agreement that NK will HAVE to
> keep is much better.  Its the difference between having the strength not to
> give in immediately so a real agreement can be had (Bush approach) and the
> weenie liberal approach lets do whatever they demand and the pretend we are
> accomplishing something (Kerry approach).

There is no need to give in at all, NK has the need and we have the supply.
What is important is to not do an in your face "fuck you no" but
instead to do a politicians doubletalk let them down without pissing them
off finess type answer that sounds like a maybe but is really a probably
not a chance in hell type answer.

I don't know if you've noticed but lawyers are much better at that type of
doubletalk then texas ranchers...

> Well that attitude certainly paid off with NK.  We sold them the stuff and
> they made nukes right away.  And you are actually arguing we use this same
> successful strategy with Iran.

You don't have a choice, the army is busy with two wars right now in case
you hadn't noticed and the economy is at a very sensitive stage, there is
no muscle (military or economic) left to push iran around with, they are
gonna do as they please.

> Well if that was Clinton's concern then he was an idiot.  They can't sell
> what they don't have.

Yeah well obviously they do in fact have them don't they? I mean even if
they didn't when Bush took office they sure as hell do today..

> LOL.  Geoge, I'm really surprised that a person as rational and logical as
> you could even entertain the above as being accurate.  Just the opposite
> would have happened as Saddam's neighbors would have been either explicitly
> taken over, or Findlandized like the Soviets did to Findland.  Invite us in.
> Hardly.  Just the opposite.

Tell that to Bush1.

> Given 9/11 and George "Slam Dunk" Tenet.  Yes he did have to rush.

Face the facts, the only difference between 9/11 and 1993 bombing was that
9/11 did a little more damage up front and caused the buildings to fall.
Had the 1993 attack had a little more force, the distruction would have
been worse as the building would have toppled over and taken out a long
strip of NY instead of collapsing into it's own basement.

You keep thinking that blowing up a couple buildings is going to destroy
this country but when you look at the country as a whole it's clear this is
a piker attack, the changes bush has made and the money and lives he has
spent and the economic neglect are far more damaging than anything OBL
could ever do.

Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5