Complying with diplomatic agreements and disarming will get you destroyed (and worse), whereas sticking to your guns will only result in many empty threats.
trenchfoot
Lifer
- Aug 5, 2000
- 14,863
- 7,396
- 136
there are layers upon untold layers of agendas, be they philosophical, political, ethnic, religious, emotionally or spitefully driven. just look at the agendas being played out in this thread alone. try pouring all of that into a pot called "bush and his reason for being president."
the way the bush administration is handling NK, diplomacy means compromising is a show of weakness. and besides, you don't get instant results like invading another country does. it's consistent with the attitude that he and his close supporters have shown from the start: "if you're not going to do what we want you to do, we're going to make you do it even if we have to take your country and culture away from you. and besides, it's for our...(ahem).. your own damn good. long live the doctrine of manifest destiny."
a lesson learned from how bush handles other countries: imo, the art of diplomacy, when left to diplomats, is always a viable and preferred method toward forwarding an national agenda. we all have to make compromises in our daily lives. diplomacy plays a vital role in how we all get along with each other all our lives. diplomatically speaking, walking softly and carrying a big stick seemed to work when applied effectively. bush's foreign policy simply abandoned these principles. too complicating i guess.
so here we have the bush administration dealing with NK, or more accurately, kim jong il. is he anything like hitler, mussolini, stalin, genghis khan, etc.? don't think so. the big difference as i see kim from all of these other despots is that this guy is the most underestimated dictator of the whole lot. he makes saddam look like a "nekkid nun". the bush guys' attitude toward the rest of the world is what got them into the disadvantageous position they're in right now: being arrogant and boorish without the means to do anything about kim and his own arrogance and boorishness.
most of what i've seen and heard about kim is that he's a spoiled little brat that wants attention and equal status with the other superpowers of this planet and cannot fathom why he cannot treat the rest of the world the same way he treats his subjects and get the same kind of results.
it seems bush and co., from the way they're treating kim jong il, has that same impression. i think they've found out that their inflexible attitudes and how that plays out in dealing with kim got them into some deep kim chee.
edit - content
the way the bush administration is handling NK, diplomacy means compromising is a show of weakness. and besides, you don't get instant results like invading another country does. it's consistent with the attitude that he and his close supporters have shown from the start: "if you're not going to do what we want you to do, we're going to make you do it even if we have to take your country and culture away from you. and besides, it's for our...(ahem).. your own damn good. long live the doctrine of manifest destiny."
a lesson learned from how bush handles other countries: imo, the art of diplomacy, when left to diplomats, is always a viable and preferred method toward forwarding an national agenda. we all have to make compromises in our daily lives. diplomacy plays a vital role in how we all get along with each other all our lives. diplomatically speaking, walking softly and carrying a big stick seemed to work when applied effectively. bush's foreign policy simply abandoned these principles. too complicating i guess.
so here we have the bush administration dealing with NK, or more accurately, kim jong il. is he anything like hitler, mussolini, stalin, genghis khan, etc.? don't think so. the big difference as i see kim from all of these other despots is that this guy is the most underestimated dictator of the whole lot. he makes saddam look like a "nekkid nun". the bush guys' attitude toward the rest of the world is what got them into the disadvantageous position they're in right now: being arrogant and boorish without the means to do anything about kim and his own arrogance and boorishness.
most of what i've seen and heard about kim is that he's a spoiled little brat that wants attention and equal status with the other superpowers of this planet and cannot fathom why he cannot treat the rest of the world the same way he treats his subjects and get the same kind of results.
it seems bush and co., from the way they're treating kim jong il, has that same impression. i think they've found out that their inflexible attitudes and how that plays out in dealing with kim got them into some deep kim chee.
edit - content
1. That democracy is fragile; it requires vigilance by the public; it's utterly corrupted in the US today.
2. That money is horribly effective at propagandizing the public, and out corporations being able to pay for political representation dooms the public interest.
3. That the world has a long way to go in figuring out how to run the world peacefully.
4. That blatant lies by con men are all too easily accepted by the third or so of the American people who are just horribly ignorant and wrong on values and morality.
5. That an independant media is critical for democracy.
6. That the natural state of society is some form of feudalism (currently, Republifasicm), and a storng middle class takes strong measures by society/government.
7. That democracy in the world is threatened by the coming increase in power of states like China, empowered by the Bush policies weakening the US.
8. That the military industrial complex is far, far worse than Eisenhower predicted, and going strong today in its terrible corruption.
9. That democrats need to strengthen their bond with the public and run on the fact that they represent the interests of the vast majority.
10. That the public is unable to get informed as a whole. Whatever your political orientation, it's a disgrace that the Foley scandal has more effect on the elections that many of the substantive issues involving hundreds of billions of dollars, constitutinal principles, and other issues.
2. That money is horribly effective at propagandizing the public, and out corporations being able to pay for political representation dooms the public interest.
3. That the world has a long way to go in figuring out how to run the world peacefully.
4. That blatant lies by con men are all too easily accepted by the third or so of the American people who are just horribly ignorant and wrong on values and morality.
5. That an independant media is critical for democracy.
6. That the natural state of society is some form of feudalism (currently, Republifasicm), and a storng middle class takes strong measures by society/government.
7. That democracy in the world is threatened by the coming increase in power of states like China, empowered by the Bush policies weakening the US.
8. That the military industrial complex is far, far worse than Eisenhower predicted, and going strong today in its terrible corruption.
9. That democrats need to strengthen their bond with the public and run on the fact that they represent the interests of the vast majority.
10. That the public is unable to get informed as a whole. Whatever your political orientation, it's a disgrace that the Foley scandal has more effect on the elections that many of the substantive issues involving hundreds of billions of dollars, constitutinal principles, and other issues.
trenchfoot
Lifer
- Aug 5, 2000
- 14,863
- 7,396
- 136
QFT on all points craig. g1:thumbsup:
ref - item #10 - "That the public is unable to get informed as a whole" is the very foundation and philosophical essence of how bush and the neocons that control him want to control our lives.
South Korea loved the Clinton administration, read about the Sunshine policy put in place by the two.
You have picked a small bit of the truth, Jaskalas. The question is, can you see fit to vote for the party which is better at both security and fiscal responsibility, despite all the republican propaganda that makes you afraid to vote for them? Or will you just keep returning the crooks to office as long as they keep manipulating your patriotism?
You rarely see such passionate people as those defending a con man who has duped them from people trying to expose him. We need more people to move on to the 'angry' phase, furious at the con men republicans.
You rarely see such passionate people as those defending a con man who has duped them from people trying to expose him. We need more people to move on to the 'angry' phase, furious at the con men republicans.
I don't know about that, by definition passionate people are easier to dupe and slower to catch on. The former quality comes from the ease with which you can rile them up and get them thinking with something other than their brains. The latter quality happens because when emotions are what is driving your philosophy, you really WANT to believe in the con.
It may sound like I'm rejection passion in politics in favor of cold reason and intellectualism. Not at all, passion certainly has its uses, and sometimes people are TOO quick to abandon their views at the first sign they don't seem to be working. And the fact is that when the con IS discovered, passionate people are certainly rather dangerous. The problem is that they have a lot of momentum that needs to be shifted, people on the more intellectual side of things always seem surprised by this.
Rainsford, when people are still duped by a con man, they often passionately attack anyone who tries to expose the con man. For example, if the con man is a snake oil salesman, the suckers will scream at anyone exposing him that they are threatening the health of the citizens and just hate the snake oil salesman out of envy.
Eventually, IF you can get these suckers to face the facts somehow, then their fury will turn on the con man, and they'll be embarrassed about their earlier behavior.
Today in America, we have too many people in the first phase and we need them to get to the second, and realize how the con men Republifascists are misleading them.
Eventually, IF you can get these suckers to face the facts somehow, then their fury will turn on the con man, and they'll be embarrassed about their earlier behavior.
Today in America, we have too many people in the first phase and we need them to get to the second, and realize how the con men Republifascists are misleading them.
Yup, that was my point
Of course there was a reason snake oil salesmen were so successful...their strategy works!
Originally posted by: catnap1972
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Very clever conspiracy theory insert there.
Did he ever find out how "My Pet Goat" ended?
oh snap!
You can learn from his mistakes. Then again, if he's a genuine idiot, his mistakes would've been obvious. Then again, hindsight is 20/20. Therefore, take the lessons in stride.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter