So Bush likes to harp on about not negotiating with those he considers on his list of terrorist states... now he's bending over backwards lately to an obviously feigned play from N.Korea regarding bartering fuel resources in exchange for 'de-escalation in their nuke program'.

Isn't it easy to play armchair president from the comfort of our homes with no media present? And no Congress to try and strongarm us?



-Pain

I suspect that this will be another failed attempt at trying diplomacy with evil dictators.

Clinton tried it, and it didn't work then.



Why are we rewarding them for being bad?

Because war with them would worse and more destructive than your war with Iraq.

Next question.

I'd have to agree with Mr. Pain.It is easy but then again Bush so much as farts these days and there all over him anyway.



From what I hear China is helping this time around squeezing the north Koreans money wise..Making it hard for them to pay off the military that keeps him in power..



And what exactly are they willing trade up for fuel and food?Too shut down there nuke plants,stop refining plutonium,or maybe give up the 10 or so nuke bombs they already have?I dont believe them for a second.. Thier still working on a delivery system for ICBM's once they get the bugs out of that technology then things will really heat up..



Who knows the next thing we hear the "Russains" are good buddies...I think not..Will say hey North korea we'll help you out, no strings attached just to put a wrench into things..



I dont know, I guess we need to hope for the best and see what happens.



"T.M"

The bartering of fuel in exchange of limiting their nuclear ambitions has been in place for 15 years.
There has been a quite but growing belief their most recent interest in a nuclear program had nothing to do with them actually becoming a nuclear power.
The real reason was a way to force more aid to big given to them or worse, to possible sell weapons grade uranium and plutonium to other contries.

You miss my point re: 'armchair President'
The N.koreans are clearly desperate when making offers as they did. Bush is 'too ready' to deal graciously with them. It shows again his lack of diplomatic skill. Whether he's grasping for the swift impression of looking all powerful in the eyes of the world in my opinion he's being too hasty. At other moments in his presidency he should've been more diplomatically savvy but stood instead on obstinate grounds. Yes, he's a hypocrite - otherwise he shouldn't toot his horn about never dealing with terrorist states-especially those he pushed into his
onto his 'axis of evil' agenda like N.Korea.

Hey Druid- great to see you - finally

I didn't miss the point at all. I felt the same as you towards Slick Willie. Fact is, neither of us know what's really going on because we are not privy to all the information. Face it, you just don't like the guy. No problem there as these are only opinions we are expressing.

But you can still get your point across without the name calling, ie. hypocrite. Like it or not, he is still the President. Our President.



-Pain

Hipocrit doesn't recognize the complexity of the politics and situation I don't think... he may be, I dunno. Its all positioning to the puppetmasters as far as I can tell.

Seems the US administration is backing down from being the driving force for controlling and eliminating North Koreas nuclear ambitions. As they should. It doesn't make sense for the US to be the driver, when countries most affected by NK's aggressive pursuit of it haven't held them accountable for their actions and their promises.

Frankly the US doesn't need to make this its business. Doesn't mean I think NK should have nukes... The US foreign policy has been so rife with corruption and incredibly poor judgement for decades, it would do better by minding what it has on its plate, rather than widening any tensions unilaterally... which would be a loose loose scenario.

Be nice if the UN would step up and become responsible and the real governor of multination concerns, and not rely on US goodwill to police the world.

Bingo. This is why we are in Iraq to begin with. I think it's time we let the UN stand on their own without our money, influence, and most of all back bone to hold it up. Until the UN decides to grow some teeth nations like Iran, Iraq, and N.Korea will continue to do as they please ignoring pointless resolutions offered up over and over and over. They have set their precedent and should now have to deal with it. Let France, Germany, Russia, and China go at it for a while.....



Junkie

Personally I admire US for their foreign policy. They got guts and determination (we leave diplomatic skills out ) They are the police of the world and we need them to be (not in everyone's opinion I know). In Balkan UN talked an talked - US took action and restored the situation! They have used power to stop Libya creating nuclear weapons (if they had not who knows what would have happened.) And in Israel, how do you think the situation would be like if it wasn't for the support from US. Besides, US have an obligation to support Israel since they were the instigator of this nation, and it's therefore important to sustain a stable situation in the region. And I think this is a partial cause why many muslim states hate US so much......unforunately.

However, to Junkie: You cannot blame other countries to deal with a situation created by US (and partial UK). Remember how the invasion in Iraq almost created a diplomatic crisis because US had no backing from the rest of UN to invade Iraq. Still they did. (Germany and France disagreed in a large scale on this issue.)

I think it's time we let the UN stand on their own without our money, influence, and most of all back bone to hold it up.

Just to clarify about UN. US is a part of UN (UN is named by Roosevelt), so it's not just they and us. US have a total debt to UN to 526 million $ (80% of UN's total debt), and I guess some payback of US debt would be a nice start.

One may have many opinions about the UN policies, but to suggest that UN have to clean up a mess they didn't start is a bit out line in my opinion.

Slick Willie was on my hated list during the Lewinsky drama after he bombed the Sudan... I didn't know at the time -despite the flak thrown up by his opponents over 'I did not...' he was still making efforts to get Bin Laden who he knew to be a predominant growing threat-something that Bush wasn't active in doing pre-9-11.
Now Bush is doing all the right moves in the wrong places. A complete route of the Taliban in Afghanistan should've been the focus.
Let me say first- as a 'normal person' I like Bush alot-he seems fun to be around and respectful and not a bully -one on one with other humans.
However, other than that.....
Whether it was crooked Cheney's deceiving him into his foreign policy blunder's like Sauron's Master Ring, or he got a high when his first term obstinate personality won him popularity for not being a typical political bend with the wind type, this is why I don't like him "as a President". Hypocrite is not name calling- it's a statement/word of fact. In a democracy you don't have to rally behind your leader when its your right and privilege to call him into question. Worse terminology than the word hypocrite have been thrown at Bush by Americans dems/repubs.
Regarding the point is being missed. He doesn't represent the the goodwill of the majority of Americans -in fact he's ignoring the majority consistently .... 70% of Americans disagree with his Iraq policy. It was he who grand-standed for years about not negotiating with 'terrorist' states. If he's got a deal going with North Korea he shouldn't boldly announce it as a victory - all it is, is a deal... that nuke program is just on hold until they want more bargaining chips.

In my opinion, The neo-cons really screwed the US regarding foreign relations. I've always stood up for US interventions in most cases except where tyrants and dictators were propped up and voted leaders of nations were underhandedly vanquished. But the last 4 years the neo-cons have prodded Bush to thumb his nose at the fellow nations and Americans that weren't aboard his choo-choo train. They [neocons] even mocked the tiny nations that left the current coalition in Iraq -well there's gratitude. Well its all backfiring now. Anyway I think most folks in democratic nations are aware its not an america policy underfire. They clearly know the distinction that its the Bush [admin] Foreign Policy at work.

So.... where do I stand, - I see Bush as a person in a social setting at the other end of the spectrum as to Bush the foreign policy maker -post invasion Afghanistan to be precise.

I don't take stock in anything 70% of Americans have to say. Let's face it, a zillion flies can't all be wrong. But they still hover around feces. I listen to all sides and make my decision based on the knowledge I have at the time. Unfortunately, I'm only privy to a small portion of the facts today. Maybe 6 months from now more will be let out due to national security. And I'm ok with that for 2 reasons. One, life is too short to worry about something I have very little control over. And two, at some point I have to trust that whoever is in charge will do what's best in my interest since I'm not there. That may sound a bit naive but my options are quite limited.



-Pain

If Frodo thought that way we'd never have been blessed with the Lord of the Rings trilogy

Quite right...I stand corrected.



-Pain

It's not up to the UN to "grow some teeth". The UN has only the power that's given to it by its member nations. The US is in a better position to increase this power, if they so desired, than any other nation on earth, not least by paying their dues. But the US does not want the UN to have any real power, or they wouldn't be as free to ignore it, as they did by invading Iraq in the first place.

I also don't like it when people refer to the US as "the worlds policeman". Policemen enforce laws. A "world policeman" would enforce international laws. For the US, especially under Bush, self interest trumps international law every time. When a policeman puts self interest above law enforcement, we revile him as a dirty cop.

If US foriegn policy in the Bush era has done anything, it's demonstrated that if you're at odds with the US, you'd better get yourself some nukes. Look at the difference in the US approach to NK and Iraq. The Iranians are saying to themselves "Hmm... axis of evil member with the bomb, get paid. Axis of evil member without the bomb, get invaded. Guess we better go balls out to get the bomb!" Who could be surprised by this?

Personally, I've never understood the attitude common among Americans that they want their president to be a fun, folksy guy they'd enjoy having a beer with. I know I'm never going to find myself getting drunk with my nations leader (I'm Canadian, if it matters), so i don't really give a crap if he'd make a good drinking buddy. I want the guy running MY country to be WAY smart. Bush isn't.

Ok. I'm done my little rant. Gentlement, start your flamethrowers!

No heated responses!?
How come you get away with it??? lol

You Canadians sure seem to have a beef with the U.S. eh?



-Pain

I really wonder where you get that impression? Really - all my 'rants' are solely against Bush's mishandling of events in the last 5 years, and against neo-cons. You will find NOWHERE in all of my posts that I have a beef against Americans - indeed you'll find statements I make where I initially defended the American led movement into Iraq. If you find an anti-American beef that I made I'll apologize... if you don't, maybe you can apologize... I only request that since you're giving the impression I American-bash. Look at what's going on on your homefront; The overwhelming majority of Americans [repubs included] except Cheney lovers and far-rightists have the same anti-Bush "ACTIONS" that I do. What's Bush's popularity rating/ and-or policy approval rating at the moment? Furthermore you simplify the issue by thinking anti-Bush feelings by non-Americans means a beef against the American citizen. In some places that may be the case, but generally that's not true. It's the current policy people have a beef with in a major way.

I will not apologize. I just don't get the whole anti-Bush theme. Go back a few years and pick on the uber liberal administration that handed this can of worms to the republican party. No matter what anyone does to try and fix this abortion will be wrong. I'm one of the few Americans actually proud of Bush for standing up to the onslaught of negativity.



Tell ya what, how about you or anyone else come up with a solution that works? It's real easy to critique someone's effort if you have no answers.



-Pain



ps. Btw, this doesn't even affect your homeland. Why get yer panties in a bunch over it?

Be nice if the UN would step up and become responsible and the real governor of multination concerns, and not rely on US goodwill to police the world. [/quote]

Funny you say that some help...because guess who always pays the majority of the UN bills??? O wait did I hear you say the United States? Well that's correct my friend!

UN is BS and most of the countries in it are scared to do anything against anyone by themselves....thats why we give the most money and the most troops when things need policing in most cases.

I think we should do away with the UN and the countries in it should just pay us lots of money to help police the world...why not we do it anyway and we pay for it...so let them pay.


BTW Pain BUSH SUX...I am not a political person normally but he is an incompetant fool who is known to have ties that go way back with the same people who are supposed to be responsible for 911...but I'll stop now...I just don't like our president and I am sorry I voted for him! To each his own.

Alot of good American Soldier's getting killed over there for nothing.

And one more thing Major Pain, Im Canadian and i got no beef with americans.

I know who finances the UN... the sadest thing I think is that member nations haven't stepped up the way the US has (I would be happy to see Canada contribute more). AND I stand behind my point of view. If the US only paid their fair share it would be a different organization, with contribution relative to influence and comitment.



Interesting thought. I don't know if I like the idea of a world without the UN. It would have to exist in some form, if for no other reason than an opportunity to maintain a dialogue with other nations. It provides a relatively neutral environment for the world to address concerns outside the scope of the american foreign policy. Well kinda.

Just a thought, but the US benefits just by hosting UN facilities. Imagine a city where all the nations of the world have political offices and opportunity to establish economic relationships. The UN may be as much about business as it is about politics and policing.

It affects many of my Iraqi friends who have family over there for one. And I hate seeing patriotic soldiers get mown down for goofball policies [or grieviously wounded and told to wait a year for their compensation/poor outpatient services -where's Bush and the neo-cons fixing that?-that issue is not a recently revealed fact-it was brought up for years]. Also the mass recruitment for jihadists spurred on by the now floundering war will affect the whole world if things turn more sour than they aleady are. The trouble with Bush die-hards is they look at their own limited scope of what they fear will happen rather than various possibilities the course of events may take. In short, I'm saying Bushists and Cheyneynits are creating the monster they feared and have no clue that they are doing it. Globally, that area the Bush admin is stirring up in a quagmire could have detrimental effects on the stock market too.... so economy wise it has the potential to be on anyone's homefront. Look at Afghanistan, the real threat Bin Laden duped Bush into throwing off his focus... Many NATO forces are battling what should've been a routed enemy. Instead -because of the shift to Iraq, the resurgence of stiffer fighting in Afghanistan is a matter of time - so anyone in a nation with forces in NATO is affected by the spill-off effects of the Iraq War.

So you said it yourself;
"No matter what anyone does to try and fix this abortion will be wrong."
So why flounder in the mess by commiting more soldiers in a 'surge'. First it needs to be double the numbers to be a real effective surge. Second Who's to say the mess will not flare up again once Iraq is left in seemingly a peaceful existence. Why waste soldiers lives... Whatevers done is done now. The Iraqi's alone can only solve this, or a mediation with all parties concerned in the area. Guns won't fix it-correct?
Even if the Iraqi's had there own revolution to get rid off Sadam they'd still go through with a civil war [without al-quaeda too]

You can be 'proud' of Bush's maverick/lone wolf stance all you want. But when you have a Prez that promised he'd listen to his Generals advice and doesn't, and ignores the recent November elections results and doesn't get the hint the majority of Americans want a change in policy, then I can see why you don't want to apologize for you twisting my anti-Bush rhetoric into an agitative 'anti-American' beef/statement .... and no doubt you couldn't find a single statement I made to that effect.

ps. Everyone IS telling Bush what they would do [LIBS/DEMS/center REPUBS]... BUT, it's not what Bush-Cheney likes to hear, or not based on a neo-con principle... so he throws it in a garbage can AND starts blabbering about 'Well I still haven't heard what anyone else wants to do?"

Ok Hellfighter, I'll bite. How about you, yourself come up with the overall solution? One that works and pleases everyone. Most Americans have been living under the blanket of freedom for so long they forget (or never knew) what it takes to maintain that freedom.

I wasn't taking a shot at Canada, that was tongue in cheek. My big beef is when people from other countries take potshots at my President. Ya he's not perfect, there's a surprise. Do you see me bashing your leader? How much heat do you think I would get from you if I did? You opened up this can of worms Hellfighter. I'm just defending. Lead, follow or just get the hell out of the way, your cynical crap is not helping anything. Step up to the plate and do something about it instead of running your mouth. Stirring shit just pisses people off. Looks like you got that down just fine.



This will be the last I have to say about the matter. How about you?



-Pain

Ok, Mr.Pain... when I come in these forums, all I'm doing is expressing my opinions. I really don't have anymosity to people with differing opinions. Maybe I get in a riled up fray, but I'm really not getting excited about it. My Real life situations are the things to get anxious about if at all, so trust me , I may have some excitement to my tone, but it's not like I'm in a townhall meeting on a campaign trail.

You seem to have no problem when 'kill all our enemy and any innocent civilians that live beside them' remarks are made, but when a leader you adore is pounced on you fall apart- boo-hoo... it's called criticism..... not stirring up crap.

Where did I say you were taking a shot at Canada?! I'm taking a shot at your misrepresentation of my comments. Get it str8.

If you think everyone must fall in line with what a minority neo-con idea of what freedom means to everyone, then in my opinion you are the one who needs a 101 on democracy. Americans and everyone else in a democracy know what freedom is; the sad thing is right wing nut jobs claim everyone in a democracy who doesn't want to jump off into wars they don't believe in is a traitor. It's laughable and pathetic when that statement is made.

Not a can of worms at all to me or by me; you're the one who falsely accused me of having a beef with Americans based on no statement to that effect. You're dancing around the issue of not being able to back up that statement as I requested.

The cynical crap is a good way of making sure baffoonish leaders know their misleading crap will only end up with a small following of loyalists who are oblivious to the real issues. This is a forum for discussing issues related to War on Terror.... so tell me which thread in this entire forum is actually 'helping anything'. I've given my ideas on possible plans in many threads in this forum....YOU look them up if you really care.

If you get all too brittle with my commentary, I have a solution; ignore my remarks and don't read them. If discussing a topic in a manner you don't agree with is 'running mouth' then you're not really into the topic -correct?

If you want to opt out of a discussion that's your priviledge. I like the discussions generated this forum topic-whether I'm right or wrong- or remain stubborn on a point or learn something new. So really I can go on endlessly if you have interesting things to keep you going in a thread.

Go ahead and slam 'my leader'. Fortunately I'm not a blind loyalist. if my 'leader' or anyone else's is screwing up big time they don't have my backing- and I'll likely be slamming them with you. So point in fact is I don't have the same blind patriotic passions you do. Therefore your off topic bitching and groundless accusations are very boring to read. So run along if you like....... I'll still be here.