SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: combjelly who wrote (386232)5/25/2008 1:08:43 AM
From: i-node  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1574848
 

BTW, what was so bad about the Clinton treaty?


I can't believe you have to ask. It was a perfect example of appeasement -- that is, giving them something in exchange for a threat which is either reduced or, in this instance, perceived to be reduced.

And, as appeasement invariably does, it resulted in NK continuing to do exactly what they were going to do in the first place. Clinton administration officials have admitted privately that they agreed to the '94 plan solely because they believed NK would collapse before the LWR project was completed. A Clinton crapshoot gone wrong.

The deal was incompetent from the outset.

When the US has entered into an agreement -- even thought it was obviously appeasement -- once it has been determined the other party is violating its terms, it would be incompetent to act as though the agreement were still in force.

BTW, this isn't unusual during the eight year disaster known as the Clinton administration -- they allowed Saddam to routinely violate HIS agreement, each time bringing us to the brink of military action before backing off. Saddam routinely violated the no-fly zone, refused entry to weapons inspectors, and generally blew off the terms of the ceasefire to which he had agreed. Clinton was paralyzed by his incompetence. So, it is no surprise that NK was walking over us during the last half of the 90s.