]I characterize there decision as a response to the threat implied in the Axis of Evil speech, amongst other things. As that French dude in the Matrix would say, cause and effect.[/quote]
North Korea was ignoring the Agreed Framework long before Bush rightfully condemned them by including them in the Axis of Evil. I’m sorry you feel that it’s wrong to call our enemies by name, lest we offend them. Because everybody knows that poor Kim Jong-Il is a completely rational actor who never took advantage of the United States, save after we brought up certain unfortunate aspects of his character he’d have preferred not to discuss.
Idiot.
Is listening bending over? Moron.
In the case of Kim Jong-Il? Absolutely. You imply that it would be acceptable to begin another round of negotiations of exactly the same kind that ended so badly after 1994. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Probably. But why not just go anyway? What's the big fucking deal? Maybe an agreement gets put on the table which starts things moving in an indirect way? Who fucking knows. Just show up you arrogant ass.
Who says it’s a matter of arrogance not to indulge North Korea in what you
admit will most likely be circumvention? We sat down with them once before – and they basically picked our pockets for millions of dollars. But wait, you’re one of the diplomacy-at-any-cost crowd, aren’t you?
Why?
Because after the United States was forced to acknowledge North Korean violations of the Agreed Framework, our new stance made South Korea’s “Sunshine Policy” look silly and craven. Seoul isn’t eager to admit that there’s a problem, and is generally angry about what they see as unnecessary American intervention in their affairs. China is also unhappy about being called up to reign in a long-time ally who is now become an increasingly loose cannon. Beijing loses face if it appears they can no longer silence Kim. Russia is simply disinterested.
I suggest to turn up. I suggest exploring every avenue. And finally I suggest you stop acting like you know EXACTLY what would happen, because you don't.
Gamblers don’t know
exactly what will happen if they make bets with long odds, either. But then, they don’t, because they know what is
likely to happen. They know that others have failed more than succeeded. The same is true in Kim’s case: he took the United States for a walk the first time around – at terrible cost. Why allow him to do so again?
As for dangers of the ICC: there is none, because the ICC only becomes relevant if the US refuses to investigate and take care of incidents itself, something which it consistently does, so no wonder you don't support it.
No, the ICC does not become irrelevant. We do not need the ICC to charge American pilots with reckless endangerment and involuntary manslaughter. We do not need the ICC to look into a command oversight on a United States Navy submarine. And we most certainly do not need the ICC to drag somebody like Tommy Franks or Ricardo Sanchez before a monkey court just because they wear the American flag on their shoulders – which, by the way, we know plenty of tin-pot dictators would love to try and do.
Furthermore, it’s ridiculous to argue that cases need to be reassigned to the jurisdiction of the international community just because they don’t result in the outcome you desire.
