Fair enough. So when diplomacy fails time and time again as it obviously has here, what is the alternative? More of the same? To what end is this game played and at what cost if it only delays the inevitable?Castle, I think the idea of diplomacy is to prevent an American city, or any city for that matter from going up in a mushroom cloud as you put it.
Whether it is Bush or Clinton that is continuing this appeasement policy makes little difference to me. I still fail to see why the US needs to make concessions in order to convince NK or Iran to suspend their nuclear programs. I would think any reasonable person could see that their ultimate goal of becoming a nuclear power will be reached with or without our payoffs. I would argue that it is not the fear of starting or not starting a war that turns our politicians into blathering fools but the political pounding that comes with committing to either one. Of course diplomacy is a necessary part of the game but I want to know that if all else fails and our worst fears are realized that we still have the constitution to wipe the smiles of their faces. At this point I get the impression that we do not.But Bush did very much a similar thing to Clinton and it wont make a difference in the long run. Ultimately what we are trying to avoid in a nuclear exchange and threats dont really prevent that. Remember, wars are usually started by people who are afraid, to a lesser extent they are afraid of being involved in a war, but to a greater one, they are more afraid of not starting one.