Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
It is interesting that you easily accept that people in far away places can see our actions in Iraq and decide to act, in some cases taking up arms against us. But on the other hand you can not accept that the NK leader can see our actions in Iraq and decide to act, possibly taking a position that the potential costs of nuclear development are greater than the benefits. I suppose that one fits a political agenda and the other does not.
|
My conclusion has nothing to do with a political agenda. It is based on findings by our intel community and not my personal opinion.
Both an NIE from last year and a national security report from several months ago concluded that our invasion of Iraq has resulted in a propaganda tool for al Queda and more terrorist worldwide. There has been no analysis provided by any credible source that the invasion of Iraq had any influence in NK's actions...other that your opinion which you describe as "speculative".
As to your comments on diplomacy, the threat of force is absolutely a part of diplomacy. The issue is how one makes that threat.
Privately making that threat in face-to-face negotiations, when both sides know that the power behind it is real, is the most powerful negotiating tool and is always on the table.
But as I said before, public bullying and bellicose saber rattling is often counter-productive. It only provides further resolve for the opponent to respond in kind in order to save face and show strength to his own people.