From: "Gary Britt" 


"Geo."  wrote in message
news:4168514d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> "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.

nobody said anything about leaving it totally to others.  We are leading
the talks not just asking China and Russia to meet with NK

>
> >  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.

That's exactly what we've done by saying we would love to talk to them
along with China, Russia, etc.  That's strategic nuanced negotiating.

>
> 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.

We've got plenty of muscle left George.  We aren't in the muscle stage
right now.  We are in the multilateral negotiation stage, and selling Iran
nuke technology isn't part of the deal nor should it ever be.

>
> > 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..

They had them when Bush took office and applying that same failed policy
that got them the nukes to Iran is not a good idea.

>
> > 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.


Those are hardly the only difference.  In 1993, Clinton was President, and
he would have been more concerned about getting laid than getting even.
They mistakenly thought all Presidents would be as weak and impotent as
Clinton and Madeline Albright.  They were wrong.  BIG DIFFERENCE.


>
> 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.

Lose 1 Million jobs and over 100 Billion dollars out of the economy, and
facing the threat of 100,000 plus dead, 5 Million jobs lost and 500 Billion
plus cost to the economy and reasonable efforts to prevent that are
over-reacting to you.  I'll take that kind of over-reacting every day and
twice on Sundays.

Gary

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