Posted on 06/26/2009 10:14:09 PM PDT by Jyotishi
“Not I,” said the little red hen.
In particular, it was GOOD, VERY GOOD in the 2001 to 2005 time frame. Then, they got visions of Nobel Peace Prizes and Chris Hill took over at State as the Appeaser-in-Chief at the Six Parties (with Condi and W signing off on everything and every step along the way, finally culminating in the two unspeakable horrors of unfreezing the DPRK's blood and nuke money out of Banco Delta Asia in Macau, and then taking them off the Terror Country List) that by late 2008 it was actually horrendous and anyone visiting the North Korean Threads on FR where Korean specialists discuss these issues, will know -- regardless of how bad this idiot empty suit Obama and his staff is on North Korea -- that Bush was little consolation in the closing years of his own administration when mistake after mistake in the name of appeasement as made with respect to Kim Jong il. Let's be honest here on FR, shall we?
Somebody once said on FR a few days back that "they would never have launched these ICBMs and short/medium range missiles like they did under Obama, if Bush were President." I almost have to laugh. But then again, if you anaylze it, you will see these Freepers, God bless them, were to my knowledge rarely if ever on a North Korean thread during all those North Korean antics during the appeasement phase of the Bush 2nd term, but they may have tended to be the very people on "Day in the Life", and "Pray for President Bush" talkathons.
That is fine with me. Whatever. To each his or her own. But at least for the sake of FR integrity as a global-standard, conservative, anti-communist international news and discussion outlet, let us get our facts straight and not revise actual history: North Korean missile launches every bit as serious under W, as we have had under Obama in the last few months.
Thank you for the sanity, These Bush-bots are in the fantasy world of 2002 and much has gone wrong since those days when Bush looked like Reagan.
If anyone wants to question these facts I have just stated, and defend W on North Korean diplomacy for the latter part of his Administration, I publicly dare them. Otherwise, this thread is liable to go silent REALLLL soon.
I did not drink the koolaid. Seems neither did you.
I am sitting here at 1:10 a.m. Sunday right now in Tokyo even listening to North Korean a.m. radio live as I freep, and I think of all the lost opportunities of W in his administration regarding North Korea and how it is positioned us badly, and how this amateur Obama has come along and will make a bad situation even worse. Lord help us (as the female announcer I hear continues her rabid, anti-US/anti-Japan tirade on Radio Pyongyang)....
Nothing wrong with that, at least until those castles start landing on you.
My looking back theory on Bush is he put all his (and ours) chips on Iraq and once that began to go badly in the News (including FNC) and with the public (who was sold a quick cheap war and WMDs), Bush was in a corner to continue to sacrifice everything and anything to keep Iraq from being a total disaster , even worse with democrats won in 2006.
I generally felt the natural defense when democrats attacked Bush on NK but if he fixed all this stuff bots claim , NK and Afganistan would not be problem and we would have a few thousand troops relaxing in Iraq and we could say “I told you so” NOW.
Bush had to borrow the money for the two wars and reconstruction, borrow from China, so what leverage did he have from China over NK? His sole economic plan of ‘ tax cuts w creating money (Greenspan) and devaluing the dollar to fund his spending’ was not a successful policy for keeping manufacturing from all moving to China, making us dependent on them for everything including computers.
Iraq was hardly worth all the things that bush gave up to dems , including congress and the white house.
My looking back theory on Bush is he put all his (and ours) chips on Iraq and once that began to go badly in the News (including FNC) and with the public (who was sold a quick cheap war and WMDs), Bush was in a corner to continue to sacrifice everything and anything to keep Iraq from being a total disaster , even worse with democrats won in 2006.
I generally felt the natural defense when democrats attacked Bush on NK but if he fixed all this stuff bots claim , NK and Afganistan would not be problem and we would have a few thousand troops relaxing in Iraq and we could say “I told you so” NOW.
Bush had to borrow the money for the two wars and reconstruction, borrow from China, so what leverage did he have from China over NK? His sole economic plan of ‘ tax cuts w creating money (Greenspan) and devaluing the dollar to fund his spending’ was not a successful policy for keeping manufacturing from all moving to China, making us dependent on them for everything including computers.
Iraq was hardly worth all the things that bush gave up to dems , including congress and the white house.
My looking back theory on Bush is he put all his (and ours) chips on Iraq and once that began to go badly in the News (including FNC) and with the public (who was sold a quick cheap war and WMDs), Bush was in a corner to continue to sacrifice everything and anything to keep Iraq from being a total disaster , even worse with democrats won in 2006.
I generally felt the natural defense when democrats attacked Bush on NK but if he fixed all this stuff bots claim , NK and Afganistan would not be problem and we would have a few thousand troops relaxing in Iraq and we could say “I told you so” NOW.
Bush had to borrow the money for the two wars and reconstruction, borrow from China, so what leverage did he have from China over NK? His sole economic plan of ‘ tax cuts w creating money (Greenspan) and devaluing the dollar to fund his spending’ was not a successful policy for keeping manufacturing from all moving to China, making us dependent on them for everything including computers.
Iraq was hardly worth all the things that bush gave up to dems , including congress and the white house.
sorry, slow internet caused the three
Thanks for the link. It is interesting that the professor brought up some similarities between Plato and Machiavelli. But he didn’t, for my liking, comment on Fortuna or accident which both authors mention and which also plays a role in the creation of the state. Plato accepts Fortuna’s power and Machiavelli rebels against it. Perhaps this also highlights the distinction between Ancient and Modern thought. Moderns think that they can conquer nature (thus accident) and human nature through science. This brings forth the possibility of a just state. The Ancients see it as a futile attempt, part of man’s excessive pride that his reason can bring the heavens down to earth in a practical or real way. Better approximate the imaginary kingdoms, accept the Chain of Being and ones station in life. Thus, the Ancients accepted worldly imperfection. They knew Plato’s Republic cannot be actualized. The Christians accepted the same imperfection because of original sin — and they also knew not to question God’s authority or meddle with divine plans.
I also think the lecturer (Scott Erb) is sympathetic to liberals and is playing to a liberal audience in Maine. Reading his lecture reminds me of John Gray’s book “Black Mass” where he puts forth a similar argument: the neocons where utopian idealists who thought that the advancement of liberal Democracy in Iraq would solve its problems and contribute to security in the Middle East. Gray believes this was a religiously inspired, utopian delusion. He took the realist POV. Ironically, his book is now dated because of all the “Americans lost the war” references – he wrote prior to the surge when Iraq was not peaceful. Being a realist Gray argues, like Scott Erb, that Iraq should not have been invaded (no real threat to the US) and sneaky realpolitik tactics would have been the right solution in dealing with Saddam. I disagree with this “realist” approach. First, because it ignores the peaceful political reality of Italy, Japan and Germany who successfully adopted democracy after WWII. Democracy does work in these counties and it is also working in Iraq. Second, this view also ignores the fact that Clinton prepared the US for war with Iraq in 1998 because of the real threat of Saddam’s WMD. Clinton’s speech to the American public sounds exactly like one Bush would have delivered: Iraq being a rogue state with porous borders where terrorists could have easy access to WMD. After 9/11, Bush had little choice but to shut down Saddam and his state-sponsored terrorist activities. In fact, the war was voted for by both Republican and Democrats who saw the threat Saddam posed to the US, to his own people and to the neighboring states. Therefore, it can’t really be called “Bushes war” or solely attributed to the neocons.
One thing I find puzzling with Scott Erb. He says, “But my hope is that we can create conditions where the kind of world confronted by Machiavelli becomes increasingly rare, and that the almost depraved nature he attributed to humans is less true human nature, and rather a result of the beliefs and culture of the times. Perhaps we can construct a world where the pragmatic and expedient approach is also the moral and ethical approach.”(idealist) And yet he still thinks that invasion (democracy and nation building: building western institutions) was a mistake according to Machiavelli’s realism. Can he have it both ways? Realism and idealism?
Another interesting quote from his lecture: “Human nature means that doing what you ought to do according to some moral code simply puts you at a disadvantage because humans, by their nature, are usually willing to throw out such moral concerns if it is to their advantage.” It reminds me of Obama and the Democrats.
Again, thanks for the link.
I find that headline very refreshing......
good background information on Iran/N. Korea....
You also have to worry about a North Korea/Pakistan nexus
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/pdf/npp/Pakistan%20and%20North%20Korea.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.