Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: gogogodzilla
I already explained how this is so very different from bilateral "kick the can" Maddie deal. I don't know what kind of multi-party agreement you imagine we could ever eventually reach with NoKo (via China, who we really negotiated with, not Kim) that would satisfy these same intractable questions in it -

"What about N. Korea's not-yet-detected secret facilities and bombs? Are you going to take N. Korea's words on it?"

Maybe we can put some language into an agreement along the lines of "and no cheating this time, like you did with Maddie and Bill last time, or we are going to get very angry with you and cut off your energy and food supply except humanitarian aid for North Korean children" ?

Silly Condi, she probably didn't think of that.

21 posted on 03/22/2007 6:36:06 PM PDT by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: CutePuppy
Free and unfettered access for nuclear weapons inspectors would be a good yardstick as the whether the Norks are really fulfilling their end of the bargain.

IE - if they refuse inspectors access to a site, they are in violation of treaty - ergo: no more fuel oil, etc, etc, etc.
26 posted on 03/23/2007 1:59:22 AM PDT by gogogodzilla (Republicans only win if they are conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson