American military ?

Question

why is it that every time some country does something that America doesnt like we reach for our military . what ever happend to diplomacy.

Answer 1

A diplomatic solution is always looked for. Has America invaded Iran? Iran wouldn't stand a chance, but it wouldn't do anyone any favours to have a war.

Answer 2

How many years did we negotiate with Saddam Hussein? From the end of the Gulf War until the latest one. And he played the west like a cheap violin.

How many years have we negotiated with North Korea? How about Iran? Yeah, we are nice guys for the longest. Then, when we've had it up to our ears, and have been lied to and betrayed by the countries that we negotiate with, we're supposed to roll over?

People never took us seriously before. Now that we have a President that actually owns (and uses) a pair, people whine about negotiating. I think we negotiate way beyond the point of sanity.

Peace has been given its chance. Give war a chance.

Answer 3

Diplomacy? With who? Saddam had 17 resolutions, p-nut man,clinton and Madeline not so bright had diplomacy with N. korea and now they have nukes, thank you slick willie. Talking and trying to make deals with those countries is like dealing with a crackhead, they'll tell you everything you want to hear while they are stealing you blind! Wake up my friend!

Answer 4

Diplomacy does no good. So your saying after 9-11 we should have talked to Osama about it? "Hey Osama buddy you owe America a huge apology better not do it again or you will have to take a timeout!"
Yeah there's diplomacy for you!

Answer 5

bush didn't study diplomacy in school

Answer 6

Because we are going under the assumption that might makes right, unfortunately that that does not work for long.

Answer 7

because the only way that america tries to deal with situations is through war.
NO PEACE!!! it's pretty unfortunate

Hope this helps

Answer 8

Diplomacy like B J Bill and the peanut farmer carried out with North Korea? Yes, THAT WAS ONE FOR THE BOOKS::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Democrats' full-throated moralizing of late, I'm almost tempted to vote for them --
although perhaps "full-throated" is the wrong phrase to use with regard to Democrats and sex scandals.
The sudden emergence of the Swift Butt Veterans for Truth demonstrates that the Democrats would prefer
to talk about anything other than national security.

Unfortunately for them, the psychotic Kim Jong Il seems to be setting off nukes,
raising the embarrassing issue of the Clinton administration's 1994 "peace" deal with North Korea.

At least with former Rep. Mark Foley, you could say the Democrats' hypocritical grandstanding
was just politics. But in the case of North Korea, Democrats are resorting to bald-faced lies.

Current New Mexico governor and former Clinton administration official Bill Richardson has been on tour,
bragging about the groundbreaking Clinton administration negotiations with North Korea --
keeping his fingers crossed that no one has access to news from 1994.

In 1994, the Clinton administration got a call from Jimmy Carter -- probably collect --
who was with the then-leader of North Korea, saying: "Hey, Kim Il Sung is a total stud,
and I've worked out a terrific deal. I'll give you the details later."

Clinton promptly signed the deal, so he could forget about North Korea and get back to
cheating on Hillary. Mission accomplished.

Under the terms of the "agreed framework," we gave North Korea all sorts of bribes --
more than $5 billion worth of oil, two nuclear reactors and lots of high technology. In return,
they took the bribes and kept building nukes. This wasn't difficult, inasmuch as the 1994 deal permitted
the North Koreans to evade weapons inspectors for the next five years.

Yes, you read that right: North Korea promised not to develop nukes, and we showed how much
we trusted them by agreeing to no weapons inspections for five years.

The famed "allies," whom liberals claim they are so interested in pleasing, went ballistic at this cave-in to North Korea.
Japan and South Korea -- actual allies, unlike France and Germany -- were furious. Even Hans Blix thought we were being patsies.

If you need any more evidence that it was a rotten deal, The New York Times hailed it as "a resounding triumph."

At the time, people like William Safire were screaming from the rooftops that allowing North Korea to escape
weapons inspections for five years would "preclude a pre-emptive strike by us if North Korea, in the next
U.S. president's administration, breaks its agreement to freeze additional bomb-making."

And then on Oct. 17, 2002 -- under a new administration, you'll note -- The New York Times reported on the front page,
so you couldn't have missed it: "Confronted by new American intelligence,
North Korea has admitted that it has been conducting a major clandestine nuclear weapons development program for the past several years."

So when it comes to North Korea, I believe the Democrats might want to maintain a discreet silence,
lest anyone ask, "Hey, did you guys do anything with North Korea?"

But by Richardson's lights, the only reason Kim Jong Il is testing nukes is because Bush called him evil.
He said, "When you call him axis of evil or a tyrant, you know, he just goes crazy."
This is the sort of idiocy you expect to hear from an illiterate like Keith Olbermann,
not someone who might know people who read newspapers.

Richardson also blames the war in Iraq, bleating that the poor North Koreans feel
"that there's too much attention on the Middle East, on Iraq. So it's a cry for attention."
If Kim just wanted our attention, he could have started dating Lindsay Lohan.
But Richardson says Kim "psychologically feels he's been dissed, that he's not treated with respect."

Damn that Bush! If only he had ignored the crazy Muslims and dedicated himself into sending flowers
(and more nuclear reactors!) to North Korea, we could be actively helping Kim develop his nukes
like the Clinton administration did.

As Richardson said, Kim "wants us to negotiate with him directly, as we did in the Clinton administration."

To go on TV and propose negotiating with North Korea like Clinton did without ever mentioning that North Korea
cheated on that agreement before the ink was dry would be like denouncing American aggression against Japan in
1942 and neglecting to mention Pearl Harbor. Anyone who is either that stupid or that disingenuous should not be allowed on TV.

When pressed by CNN's Anderson Cooper about the failed deal, Richardson lied, claiming the 1994 deal prevented
the North Koreans from building nukes "for eight years" -- i.e., right up until the day
The New York Times reported the North Koreans had been developing nukes "for the past several years."

Kim is crazier than any leader even South America has been able to produce.
In fact, he's so crazy, we might be able to get the Democrats to take action.
Someone tell Nancy Pelosi that the "Dear Leader" is an actual pederast. Then we'll at least be able to read his instant messages.
THIS ARTICLE BY ANN COULTER::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Answer 9

Because America is a bully.

Answer 10

You're right, Bear we shouldn't talk to Osama, he started action.

Then again, Osama and Iraq had no ties. So going into Afganistan I can support, Iraq... I cannot.