And no, aside from a Clancy book where a 747 was crashed into Capitol Hill, that's new info. Guess I lead a sheltered life.

No, I commented that new information you presented changed the way I think about something unrelated to what we were talking about.

You're seriously telling me this was new information to you?

You just can't resist playing hall monitor, can you?

I've given up trying to moderate you, but I reserve the right to mock you.

Holy crap dude, did you just completely reverse your argument over the course of the last 30 minutes?

No, I commented that new information you presented changed the way I think about something unrelated to what we were talking about.

You just can't resist playing hall monitor, can you?

Casts an interesting light on then National Security Adviser Condi's statement shortly after 9/11 that no one ever dreamed jetliners could be used as weapons...

Holy crap dude, did you just completely reverse your argument over the course of the last 30 minutes?

You're as bad as Bithead, it doesn't matter what the facts are, only how they can be made into something negative about your opponents.

Yeah they did, there were entire scenarios that revolved around pretty much exactly what the terrorists did on 9/11.

Casts an interesting light on then National Security Adviser Condi's statement shortly after 9/11 that no one ever dreamed jetliners could be used as weapons...

Iran leaps to mind.

If Iran were half as isolationist as the DPRK, we'd all be a lot less concerned about them I think.

While they continue to build up their weaponry. In short, we wait until they're ready to do some real damage.

We wait until restraint becomes less desirable than force. It's not there yet.

But you have a couple of million lives riding on that bet, and it is a bet, not a certainty.

There are no certainties, technically we're taking a bet every day that France won't nuke LA.

No one really thought something like 9/11 could happen.

Yeah they did, there were entire scenarios that revolved around pretty much exactly what the terrorists did on 9/11. They just didn't think it was likely enough to warrant the cost of trying to stop it.

And no, Anjin, given the state of their systems there, it doesn't come to Nuclear war

Hopefully not. But you have a couple of million lives riding on that bet, and it is a bet, not a certainty.

No one really thought something like 9/11 could happen. But it did. Life is full of surprises, some of them are really nasty...

I'm not entirely sure it's possible to get more isolationist and paranoid than the DPRK.

Iran leaps to mind.

Our options are to either 1) tacitly endorse it by doing and saying nothing, 2) explicitly disallow it using force, or 3) try to prevent with diplomacy which keeps us from having to commit to force while still allowing us to maintain an opposition.

#While they continue to build up their weaponry. In short, we wait until they're ready to do some real damage.

And no, Anjin, given the state of their systems there, it doesn't come to Nuclear war. If their most recently series of tests is of any indication, we can mount a short conventional attack. Consider the lives saved in that process, instead of waiting for them to get their mushrooms together, as it were.

THeir actions speak clearly of their intent, here.
I guran-damn-tee you that when the day comes they can actually mount an attack you'll blame the Republicans for not reacting to the danger.

How is McCain going to deal with them? What are the options? Diplomacy or nuclear war.

I already listed the options, and oddly enough nuclear war wasn't one of them yet. Maybe in 10 years if we stick with option #3, or 5 if we stick with #1, but not now. The DPRK couldn't successfully nuke a cave at this point, I think LA is safe.

I've got a question for Obama; How do you plan to deal with NORK,

How is McCain going to deal with them? What are the options? Diplomacy or nuclear war.

Don't much like the second. Goodbye Soeul, goodbye Tokyo, and maybe San Francisco (gulp!) LA and Seattle.

It's easy to be an armchair tough guy, a little more difficult in the real world.

Perhaps. OTOH, we could see a leadership change breaking off what little Chinese influence there is, as well, with NORK going more isolationist and paranoid.

I'm not entirely sure it's possible to get more isolationist and paranoid than the DPRK.

Until that gets settled, I wonder that anyone would consider such negotiations with them to be of any utility at all, past being able to say to the remainder of the word... including the Chinese... "hey, man, we tried."

Our options are to either 1) tacitly endorse it by doing and saying nothing, 2) explicitly disallow it using force, or 3) try to prevent with diplomacy which keeps us from having to commit to force while still allowing us to maintain an opposition.

Since we don't want to do #1, and it's not yet worth it to do #2, we're left with #3 which, while not a great option, is still better than the other options.

Applying this to your Chamberlain example, Britain and France didn't want to do #1, were unable to do #2, and so was left with only #3. Hitler understood that #2 wasn't an option for the allies, so he was able to get all the benefit of #1 by allowing Britain to do #3. Chamberlain's error was entering negotiations with only #1 and #3 available to him.

Please tell me one treaty the Nazis actually aboded by.

I can't name a one. Did you have a point on that?

I should think this fairly a obvious point, describing fairly clearly their intent. If they failed to abide by any other treaty, what on earth makes you think your overly benign explanation of their not following this one plausible?

Sorry, clumsy phrasing on my part. We wouldn't gain anything by adhering to the agreement, the only benefit we would get is the DPRK losing something. This was to contrast to the Munich agreement, where Britain and France gained nothing, and Germany lost nothing

Well, it is seldom an analogy survives a full examination.

Maybe not, in fact probably not, but there are elements within the DPRK's communist party that lean more towards Chinese communism, and with them I do believe negotiation is possible, and will be useful in the future

Perhaps. OTOH, we could see a leadership change breaking off what little Chinese influence there is, as well, with NORK going more isolationist and paranoid. Until that gets settled, I wonder that anyone would consider such negotiations with them to be of any utility at all, past being able to say to the remainder of the word... including the Chinese... "hey, man, we tried." And, frankly, past that one small point, I'm forced in large part to agree with William...

If you persist on working the negotiation angle, you are either Jimmy Carter class naive or a political demagogue

You are still barking up the wrong tree. Negotiation had absolutely nothing to do with the situation. That reactor was shutdown either on schedule, due to operator error or due to equipment malfunction. It's all part of the plutonium production cycle, and the U.S. has no control, negotiated or otherwise, over any of it.

You could be right about that, I'm not familiar with the details of the DPRK's program, or the details of the agreement. I would hope that those conducting the negotiation would at least be aware of what you are suggesting is happening, which may be why the US is insisting on verification before continuing to implement the agreement.

Please tell me one treaty the Nazis actually abided by.

I can't name a one. Did you have a point on that?

You mean we wouldn't get what we wanted... and the only reason we were ever negotiating with them in the first place... to get them to stop buidling nukes?

Sorry, clumsy phrasing on my part. We wouldn't gain anything by adhering to the agreement, the only benefit we would get is the DPRK losing something. This was to contrast to the Munich agreement, where Britain and France gained nothing, and Germany lost nothing.

Perhaps. But I submit the test cannot, in reality, be made, assuming il is still functional...

Maybe not, in fact probably not, but there are elements within the DPRK's communist party that lean more towards Chinese communism, and with them I do believe negotiation is possible, and will be useful in the future.