I've often complained about the unhealthy obsession some of our diplomats and Nuanced Americans have for talking with thug dictators over results. These people forget that talks are rarely an end to themselves but should be focused on an objective.
So we find ourselves talking to the North Koreans because their psychopathic despot, Kim Jong-Il, wants nuclear weapons and has threatened South Korea with destruction. And he eyes our West Coast cities, too. We naturally want to get nukes away from Kim.
So now we hear rumors that Kim is ill and dying or possibly dead.
Given the situation, I'd say that Kim Jong-Il's death would be a good thing.
But I am neither a Nuanced American nor a diplomat. You see, if I was, I'd have this insight on the situation:
U.S. officials said privately they were concerned that Kim's apparently failing health jeopardized six-nation talks aimed at ridding North Korea of its nuclear weapons. The United States has been a wary partner in those talks, but their success is one of the Bush administration's signature foreign policy goals.
Do you have to be a knuckle-dragger like I am to understand that if you are in difficult talks with a nutball dictator to pry nuclear arms from his possession, that it is actually superior if the nutball dictator dies rather than hoping said nutball dictator lives a long and healthy life so you can negotiate with him to convince him to give up nuclear weapons?
And if you are telling me that denuclearization depends on Kim's and only Kim's good will, why would we make an agreement that relies on that one sickly thug despot?
Is this concept that hard to understand?
