I gave this North Korea nuke "deal" a few days to digest and, frankly, I'm still nauseous. I realize the incessant carping and whining from the Left that we have to negooooootiate and use diplooooooomacy with every Third-World wackjob dictator out there reached a mind-numbing level a long time ago. But to become brain dead to the point of making any kind of deal with this fruitcake?
What are we? Charlie Brown?
Now granted, this isn't the same kind of deal brokered by Slick Willie and his crew back in the mid-90s. In that agreement, an us-and-them-only deal, we gave North Korea a ton of money (humanitarian aid, wink-wink) and basically built nuclear reactors for them in exchange for ... drum roll ... their promise to use them for "peaceful purposes."
Kinda obvious how that deal panned out.
This time, it's a six-party deal, involving our close (cough) allies China and Russia along with South Korea and Japan, which ... let's be honest here ... possess all the muscle of a poodle in this particular ring of pit bulls. The payoff this time, termed "emergency energy assistance," is a gradual supply of 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil ... for starters. So at least this time, we're not handing them another loaded gun. And hey, they've agreed to monitoring and verification by the IAEA as they "halt and eventually eliminate" their nuclear program, including shutting and sealing their Yongbyon nuclear facility.
That's how the agreement was described in the West. In North Korea, it was described as "a temporary suspension of nuclear activity." Which is all this has any realistic hope of being.
We just refuse to learn.
(Imported from Feb. 16, 2007)
Showing posts with label North Korea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label North Korea. Show all posts
Monday, July 6, 2009
Shrillary is at it again
Hillary Clinton over the weekend, spouting her usual garbage about North Korea's reported nuclear test:
"Some of the reason we are facing this danger is because of the failed policies of the Bush administration, and I regret deeply their failure to deal with the threat posed by North Korea, and I hope that the administration will now adopt a much more effective response than what they have up until now."
Typical. Two truths are at play here. The Libs say this kind of crap because they know that the media won't call them on it, won't ask the question that Mrs. Clinton deserves thrown in her face, and because they're counting on a majority of voters to be dense enough to swallow it hook, line and sinker.
The facts are that Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright, with an assist from Jimmy Carter, "negotiated" a deal with North Korea in 1994 that called for the communist state to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program and, in return, we'd help them build two nuclear reactors (for peaceful purposes ... wink, wink). Clinton also later agreed to drastically ease economic sanctions against North Korea.
What the North Koreans have done since that time is increase their nuclear capability with reactors, equipment, etc., that the Clinton administration gave them, all the while laughing in the world's face over the "negotiated" agreement. For Hillary to make that statement is ludicrous, albeit completely parallel with the Democrats' playbook of "Blame Bush" for everything.
What Mrs. Clinton and other Libs are saying is that if only we weren't concentrating so much on Iraq, we'd be better able to deal with North Korea, Iran, etc.
OK, what of the Iraq War's role in North Korea's and Iran's venture into nuclear weapondry? Well, let's say for a moment that we weren't in Iraq these last four years. How exactly would the diplomatic path that the Libs (here and around the world) insist we follow in every crisis situation change? They'd insist we talk and negotiate and only then pursue sanctions, and all the while, the North Koreans and Iranians would be busy doing exactly what they've been doing.
After all, they've thumbed their noses at every other negotiated deal. How did all those U.N. sanctions and resolutions on Iraq from the mid-'90s until 2002 work out? How about those U.N. resolutions that the Hezbos disarm in Lebanon? Heck, the U.N. even threw in some trooops to make sure that would happen. And when the Israeli-Lebanon conflict erupted earlier this year, turned out the Hezbos were better armed than some countries!
And that negotiated deal with North Korea? Kinda obvious how that one worked out, huh?
And we're supposed to continue talking to these people or pursuing "negotiated" deals or more U.N. sanctions? How many more deals do we need to make with these tinhorn dictators before we learn that they've no intention of living up to their ends of the bargains? How many more sets of U.N. resolutions and sanctions before we learn that body has morphed into an utter failure?
What exactly is it going to take for this country to wake up?
(Imported from Oct. 10, 2006)
"Some of the reason we are facing this danger is because of the failed policies of the Bush administration, and I regret deeply their failure to deal with the threat posed by North Korea, and I hope that the administration will now adopt a much more effective response than what they have up until now."
Typical. Two truths are at play here. The Libs say this kind of crap because they know that the media won't call them on it, won't ask the question that Mrs. Clinton deserves thrown in her face, and because they're counting on a majority of voters to be dense enough to swallow it hook, line and sinker.
The facts are that Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright, with an assist from Jimmy Carter, "negotiated" a deal with North Korea in 1994 that called for the communist state to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program and, in return, we'd help them build two nuclear reactors (for peaceful purposes ... wink, wink). Clinton also later agreed to drastically ease economic sanctions against North Korea.
What the North Koreans have done since that time is increase their nuclear capability with reactors, equipment, etc., that the Clinton administration gave them, all the while laughing in the world's face over the "negotiated" agreement. For Hillary to make that statement is ludicrous, albeit completely parallel with the Democrats' playbook of "Blame Bush" for everything.
What Mrs. Clinton and other Libs are saying is that if only we weren't concentrating so much on Iraq, we'd be better able to deal with North Korea, Iran, etc.
OK, what of the Iraq War's role in North Korea's and Iran's venture into nuclear weapondry? Well, let's say for a moment that we weren't in Iraq these last four years. How exactly would the diplomatic path that the Libs (here and around the world) insist we follow in every crisis situation change? They'd insist we talk and negotiate and only then pursue sanctions, and all the while, the North Koreans and Iranians would be busy doing exactly what they've been doing.
After all, they've thumbed their noses at every other negotiated deal. How did all those U.N. sanctions and resolutions on Iraq from the mid-'90s until 2002 work out? How about those U.N. resolutions that the Hezbos disarm in Lebanon? Heck, the U.N. even threw in some trooops to make sure that would happen. And when the Israeli-Lebanon conflict erupted earlier this year, turned out the Hezbos were better armed than some countries!
And that negotiated deal with North Korea? Kinda obvious how that one worked out, huh?
And we're supposed to continue talking to these people or pursuing "negotiated" deals or more U.N. sanctions? How many more deals do we need to make with these tinhorn dictators before we learn that they've no intention of living up to their ends of the bargains? How many more sets of U.N. resolutions and sanctions before we learn that body has morphed into an utter failure?
What exactly is it going to take for this country to wake up?
(Imported from Oct. 10, 2006)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)