So now you're a History teacher trying to teach him History? I thought you were a Computer tech making Mininum wage while working for Computer geek you tool? Make up your mind because right about now you're doing nothing more than looking like you're getting a cock shoved up your anus in every thread. That includes the Sack and all too bro. Yuh dumb shit. ~BH
. Unfortunately for both him and you, history isn't something thats deniable. Scram punk, let the smart people talk about books and history, you go play outside with the pup.
Then why do you continuously deny history here? Even your two buddies here admited important points against you. "The treaty in itself is not much of a step forwards, says Hugidwyn. Dr Gregg says sanctions don't work when he stated, "NK and Iran became even more belligerent and threatening." A partial reference to the effectiveness of sanctions and diplomacy.
The Russian leadership is very interested in increasing the power it wields on the world stage. In the past (history), that has included nuclear weapons. Since your such a fan of foriegn relations, name me two countries that like the US better today.
See, unlike you, I don't just blindly associate myself with people who share similar views with me. they can disagree with me, that's fine. I personally feel that treaties and sanctions can be efficacious if backed by a legitimate hegemon and his peripheries, as well as if there tempered with "carrots". You can't have all stick or you'll break the people's back, and you can't have all carrots are they'll get lazy and become gluttonous.
I can name many countries in which these "carrot" and "stick" method was efficacious, including in nuclear proliferation talks. The key thing, is that sanctions in their best capacities, can only work if they are tempered, measured, and legitimate. I would be incliend to agree with gregg and hugid that a treaty or sanctions alone are failures, but this is part of an overall overhaul of American FP towards former "rogue" nations that includes enhanced diplomacy, increased cooperation on matters of international security, solidifying consensus against international threats like NK and Iran so that regional hegemonies can take more responsibility for it, and more.
I find it hilarious that you see that people who share similar viewpoints that disagree about specifics must mean that we are all wrong, not that we are all thinking and have our own opinions about the efficacy of sanctions and the use of "sticks" over all.
As for your, likability question. Sorry, I don't believe in things like likeability and friendship on the international stage. Allies are just temporary arrangements of nations that share similar national interest and goals. I don't believe that any two nations are ever "friends", nor should they ever consider themselves so, because when their national interests conflict shit will not be smooth between them. Of course, for someone who's looking to blame the administration for somethin, i'm sure this likability factor matters so much to you.