tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34241771.post116094483719399316..comments2023-05-23T10:27:03.057-05:00Comments on Why "Conservatives" Can't Do Foreign Policy: Responsibility for North Korea's Nuclear TestJames A Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17052655149783273982noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34241771.post-1161301558766012822006-10-19T18:45:00.000-05:002006-10-19T18:45:00.000-05:00I was referring to the fact that the Bush 43 admin...I was referring to the fact that the Bush 43 administration has ultimately chosen talking and bluster with Iran and North Korea (often through other parties) rather than follow their "tough guy" approach of threats followed by direct military action. <BR/><BR/>I note that they also continually redraw the lines; when North Korea steps over one line, they draw another one. "You'd better not enrich uranium" becomes "You'd better not build a bomb" becomes "You'd better not sell a bomb to terrorists" etc. They didn't do that with Saddam. Like I said, the writing is on the wall, and with the lack of interest in engagement and diplomacy that you mentioned, I'll bet a significant number of the thirty start going "nuklar."<BR/><BR/>BillAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34241771.post-1161204767617857362006-10-18T15:52:00.000-05:002006-10-18T15:52:00.000-05:00"Given that, out of the three 'axis of evil' natio..."Given that, out of the three 'axis of evil' nations, the Bush Administration chose to attack the nation that was furthest from having a nuclear weapon, and exercise respectful diplomacy with the other two, the writing on the wall should be clear to all other nations."<BR/><BR/>The only problem I have is that the Bush admin's diplomacy with N. Korea and Iran has been "disrespectful" rather than respectful. Did you mean that tongue in cheek?<BR/><BR/>Wow, 30 countries. That's a problem we should do something about. However, doing something would likely require treaties, agreements and following international law, and the Bush 43 admin. doesn't really believe in any of these.James A Bondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17052655149783273982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34241771.post-1161106914514364992006-10-17T12:41:00.000-05:002006-10-17T12:41:00.000-05:00Here's another one on this topic that you can put ...Here's another one on this topic that you can put right at the door of the Bush Administration:<BR/><BR/>IAEA Chief Warns Of Nuclear Proliferation In "Virtual New Weapons States"<BR/><BR/>October 16, 2006 6:43 p.m. EST<BR/><BR/>Shaveta Bansal - All Headline News Staff Writer<BR/><BR/>Vienna, Austria (AHN) - The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Monday warned that up to 30 countries, on top of the nine current nuclear powers, could have the capability to build a nuclear weapon. Mohamed ElBaradei didn't single out any country as being among the "almost virtual new weapons states," but emphasized on the need for developing an international approach to mitigate the future threat.<BR/><BR/>"It's becoming fashionable for countries to try to look into possibilities of shielding themselves ... through the possibility of nuclear weapons," ElBaradei said, adding: "Another 20 or 30 would have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons in a very short time." <BR/><BR/>http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7005197541<BR/><BR/>Given that, out of the three 'axis of evil' nations, the Bush Administration chose to attack the nation that was furthest from having a nuclear weapon, and exercise respectful diplomacy with the other two, the writing on the wall should be clear to all other nations. <BR/><BR/>On the brighter side, at least we have plenty of political and military leaders, not to mention arms suppliers, who have the skills needed to profit in an era of nuclear proliferation and national paranoia. Gee, that's a coincedence.<BR/><BR/>BillAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com