Good to know that we tied ourselves down for years and years and years in Iraq so NK could do as they pleased

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: dahunan
Thanks neocons.. I hope you all rot in hell

should have turned out the looney left to peace them to death instead!

Go ahead

EXPLAIN TO US ALL --- > What has your leader done to slow them down or stop them?

calm down lil camper
And what would we do if we had all are troops at our disposal?

We had all our troops at our disposal when GWB took office, but he wouldn't talk to NK (Hmmm... Maybe he had other plans for them already??). Do you have a point here, or is this just more polyanna from the neocons? Not talking to NK sure has come back to haunt them.

So now that the "Axis of Evil" probably has working nukes and NK has a history of selling it's technology, what's the next step? I know. lets put more sanctions on them and starve them to death. Either they will submit or attack.

Your doing a good job, Bushie.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Well FNC and the gang are certainly trying their hardest to pin this on Clinton, but the fact is, W labeled them part of the Axis of Evil, refuses to talk with them, and generally made them feel as if we could attack them at any time.

This is why they went ahead with their nuclear program.

Despite what some are saying, we have no military option, NK has over 10,000 artillery pieces buried in the mountains, pointed at Seoul. We could never hope take them out in a timely fashion before the city was leveled. If there was action, 1 million NK troops coming over the border would not be in a 'killing zone', they would steamroll the DMZ and our 40,000+/- troops there would be dead.

Here's a timeline for the "It's Clinton's fault" crowd.

PRESIDENT REAGAN

Mid-1980s: First signs of North Korea nuclear program detected by US intelligence.

1986: North Korea produces plutonium in reactor.
PRESIDENT GEORGE H. W. BUSH

1991: US begins talks with North Korea to end to nuclear program.

1992: North Korea has separated an estimated 0-10kg of weapons-grade plutonium, enough for 1 to 2 bombs.
PRESIDENT CLINTON

1993: North Korea announces it will leave nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; US prepares to attack nuclear sites.

1994: Clinton Administration reaches Agreed Framework, North Korea freezes nuclear production for the next eight years.

August 1998: North Korea tests medium-range ?Taep?o-dong-1? missile.

December 1998: North Korea warns they will test another missile, but pressure from US dissuades them.

September 1999: Pyongyang agrees to long-range missile moratorium.

October 2000: Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is highest ranking US official to ever meet with Kim Jong Il.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

March 6, 2001: Secretary of State Colin Powell says the administration will ?pick up where President Clinton left off.?

March 7, 2001: President Bush undercuts Powell, declares negotiations will take on a different tone.

January 2002: Bush labels North Korea a member of the ?Axis of Evil.?

March 2003: United States invades Iraq.

April 2003: North Korea withdraws from the Non-Proliferation Treaty; soon thereafter, they restart their reactor.

April 2005: North Korea appears to unload nuclear reactor with up to another 15 kg of weapons-grade plutonium.

September 19, 2005: In six-party talks North Korea agrees to abandon its nuclear program in exchange for incentives package.

September 19, 2005: US places sanctions on bank that provides financial support for North Korean Government Agencies; causes collapse of September 2005 agreement.

June 2006: North Korea is believed to have now produced enough plutonium for 4 to 13 nuclear bombs.

July 2006: North Korea tests missiles: one medium-range and five short-range. Medium-range ?Taep?o-dong-2 fails.

October 3, 2006: Kim Jong Il announces North Korea plans to test nuclear weapons.

October 4, 2006: North Korea asserts that nuclear test is a measure to ?bolstering its nuclear deterrent as a self-defense measure.?

Mid-2008: If North Korea unloads another batch of fuel, it may have enough nuclear material for 8 to 17 nuclear bombs.Linkage

Thanks for posting this, I really get tired of revisonist history. I vividly remember the parts around 92 - 94 as I was still stationed in FT Hood TX at the time and all the local buzz said we were going to war with N. Korea. But thanks to the Administration at that time conflict was adverted. Shows that diplomacy can work, unfortanately Bush and company must have missed that part of the "So you want to be President Seminar".

 

[Schadenfroh]

Meh, even if we did not invade Afgan/Iraq and invaded NK instead, liberals would be whining about a war with NK instead of Iraq/Afgan and saying how the neocons have us tied down in NK when the Taliban is running around in Afgan freely.

 

[Genx87]

Yes we all know it takes a nation that cant feed its citizens just a few short years to devlope nukes. Take your head out of your ass and realize this program transcends at least two presidencys and is not stuck on one ideology.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes we all know it takes a nation that cant feed its citizens just a few short years to devlope nukes. Take your head out of your ass and realize this program transcends at least two presidencys and is not stuck on one ideology.

Speaking of anal-cranial inversion, you're conveniently forgetting that the Clinton administration was talking with NK. Regardless of whether NK lied and cheated, unlike this adimin, at least our door was open, which gave us more credibility with the rest of the world.

And speaking of our credibility, the Bushwhackos' excellent adventure in Iraq has already stretched our military to its limits and turned the majority of the world somewhere between questioning, negative and hostile to anything we say or do, regardless of whether we happen to be right in any given case.

Yer doin' a heck of a job, Bushie! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[piasabird]

First of all one of our staunchest bastions of Democracy in Asia is South Korea, which if you recall is attached to North Korea. Suppose we did attack in any way North Korea and then North Korea Attacked South Korea. Do you even know or care what kind of harm that would do to the security of South Korea and the United States?

We have around 37,000 Military men and women who are stationed in South Korea. It is a very strategic location for us. We also have an Air Force Base on the South Korean Peninsula.

We could not attack North Korea without endangering South Korea. Seoul, the capital of South Korea is just 24 miles from the border to the north and is within Artillery range. South korea is a very small country, and we have fairyly good relations with that country. They are a trading partner as well as one of our stauchest allies in that region. We can not just attack North Korea, without endangering a lot of our friends and also a lot of relatives of people who live in the USA. My Wife's family actually came from North Korea and they may still have some relatives living there. While I agree that something needs to be done, it is also worthy to note that to attack North Korea may also mean we may have to attack China as well if they choose to defend North Korea.

While we have a lot of compounds within artillery range, the topography is such in the North that it would be extremely hard for North Korea to take over South Korea. There are valleys that are surrounded by mountains that seem to rise up almost straight out of the ground. The entire northern part of South Korea is filled with pre-installed Pill boxes, and in many places in the valleys there are Tank Traps already pre-installed just in case. While a war would be costly for South Korea, as well as North Korea, South Korea would be extremely hard to take over. There are very swift rivers to cross, forbidding mountains to cross, and rumors of sub-surface Nuclear devices designed to blow up tunnels. South Korea could not be taken by North Korea. It is just physically impossible. However, there would probably be quite a bit of loss to civilian life and many of our troops in the north are in Artillery range. I still pity the fools who would try to cross the border.

Knowing all of this, what do you propose we do to get North Korea to back off from their nuclear weapons? Please enlighten us what your recommendations would be as Commander-In-Chief. Should we line up our nuclear submarines off the coast of North Korea and China and call a first strike and start world war III?

It is my opinion that the US could put up a blockade, but anything we do could put South Korea in Danger along with thousands of our troops. If North Korea has a nuclear weapon they could also just let one fly and take out Seoul with just one lucky hit. What we have in South Korea is just a Mexican Standoff. We are damned if we attack and we are damned if we dont. My guess is we will not attack North Korea unless South Korea says it is OK.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes we all know it takes a nation that cant feed its citizens just a few short years to devlope nukes. Take your head out of your ass and realize this program transcends at least two presidencys and is not stuck on one ideology.

Speaking of anal-cranial inversion, you're conveniently forgetting that the Clinton administration was talking with NK. Regardless of whether NK lied and cheated, unlike this adimin, at least our door was open, which gave us more credibility with the rest of the world.

And speaking of our credibility, the Bushwhackos' excellent adventure in Iraq has already stretched our military to its limits and turned the majority of the world somewhere between questioning, negative and hostile to anything we say or do, regardless of whether we happen to be right in any given case.

Yer doin' a heck of a job, Bushie! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Oh at least our door was open even if they lied, cheated, and we turned a blind eye to it lmao. Id this really your argument?

I dont see a difference in turning a blind eye or isolating the situation. Both failed to get the job done, just because one didnt piss off our advasary doesnt make it better. I think Kim Jong prefers the Clinton style approach of pretending there isnt an issue. He gets money and aid, and continues to build the nukes.

What next, you going to put on the pom poms and give us a "C" "L" "I" "N" "T" "O" "N"

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

CLINTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes we all know it takes a nation that cant feed its citizens just a few short years to devlope nukes. Take your head out of your ass and realize this program transcends at least two presidencys and is not stuck on one ideology.

Speaking of anal-cranial inversion, you're conveniently forgetting that the Clinton administration was talking with NK. Regardless of whether NK lied and cheated, unlike this adimin, at least our door was open, which gave us more credibility with the rest of the world.

And speaking of our credibility, the Bushwhackos' excellent adventure in Iraq has already stretched our military to its limits and turned the majority of the world somewhere between questioning, negative and hostile to anything we say or do, regardless of whether we happen to be right in any given case.

Yer doin' a heck of a job, Bushie! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Hmm, what was it that Bush told the South Korean president when he had the gall to suggest diplomacy with Lil' Kim?

Who are you and why are you talking to me? I'm the Decider and I have decided that it's my way or the highway! What are we talking about again?

 

[M00T]

I don't understand how discrediting Clinton is a way of proving Bush is doing a good job.

According to my arumentative writing class:
False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar

 

[alchemize]

In 9 words Dahunan distilled the entire strategy of the democrat party!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Oh at least our door was open even if they lied, cheated, and we turned a blind eye to it lmao. Id this really your argument?

I dont see a difference in turning a blind eye or isolating the situation.

I'll repeat the key elements of what I said for the reading challenged:

Regardless of whether NK lied and cheated, unlike this adimin, at least our door was open, which gave us more credibility with the rest of the world.

And speaking of our credibility, the Bushwhackos' excellent adventure in Iraq has already stretched our military to its limits and turned the majority of the world somewhere between questioning, negative and hostile to anything we say or do, regardless of whether we happen to be right in any given case..

Go pedal your lame blame shifting on some tinfoil beany Bushwhacko fanboi site where the mean IQ is below the mean temperature.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

It's pretty sad that in the end, all we might have left is finger pointing. Yes, NK now has a verified operational nuclear operation, and as of earlier this year, they still had no good way to get it in the air for a strike of any distance. SK and China might be changing their underwear this morning, but from a U.S. standpoint, this isn't that big of a deal or that much of a surprise. Just like we have no reason to be in Iraq, we have no reason to move for military action against NK at this point. NK wants a show of strength on their part in hopes of having sanctions against them lifted. The U.S. has constantly pushed NK away from the bargaining table, labelling them a member of an "axis of evil". Whether that's true or not, our government's own foreign relations have been greatly lacking with the current administration, and our cowboy mentality hasn't helped. When we tell countries like Pakistan that we will bomb them back to the Stone Age if they don't cooperate, we're not winning any friends anywhere. You can only scare small middle-eastern and asian countries one at a time for so long until they all decide it would be more beneficial for them to band together and come after you. NK is just a signal of how current U.S. policy has put us in far more danger as Americans than we've had since the peak of the Cold War.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: M00T
I don't understand how discrediting Clinton is a way of proving Bush is doing a good job.

According to my arumentative writing class:
False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar

Unfortunately in the real world when one person is exposed as an imbecile they will usually attempt to deflect attention to another individual who had some questionable policies. The Republican party and its zealot's attempts to blame Clinton borders on megalomania. I am a Republican but watching this President's foreign policy is painful in the extreme. It was President Bush who declared N. Korea an axis of evil partner and then proceded to ... ... ... to do nothing while both N. Korea and Iran develop nuclear technology (one a weapon the other to be determined).

Blaming a former individual in charge for your failures is classic. Bush has been in office six years. I will repeat for my fellow Repubs. SIX YEARS. N. Korea is a problem of four presidents not one. Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. Period.

This isn't about left and right anymore but a serious diplomatic and political problem that faces us AMERICANS. Let us drop the revisionist ideologies on both sides of the isle and begin to work on this problem. I may disagree with my President's policies but a debate about said policies should not entail political revision and name calling and polarization.

Sigh ... oh well, as usuall my idealistic bombast is complete and more coffee for me = reality check

 

[alchemize]

Well said michaelpatrick33 - but this is P&N, Polarization and Name-calling

 

[blackangst1]

You guys who blame ANY administration are f'ing stupid lol. It's boggling how short sighted you are. As I said in another thread, this was unavoidable.

And as far as invading NK, get real. All we know about China's contept for NK is what we read in the news. I wouldnt be so sure China wouldnt jump in to their defense should we land troops there. And I dont think there is anyone in any party affiliation or administration that thinks we have a fighting chance with a ground war with China.

It isnt really ANYONE's fault. It just was unavoidable. Whether it's the wackos on the right assigning blame to Clinton or you freakin bleeding heart liberals on the left assigning blame to Bush, grow up and think like an adult. Whining babies, all of you.

 

[Vich]

Does anyone realize that if we ever-even-hinted-at- trying to bomb NK they would shell SK?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Genx87
Oh at least our door was open even if they lied, cheated, and we turned a blind eye to it lmao. Id this really your argument?

I dont see a difference in turning a blind eye or isolating the situation.

I'll repeat the key elements of what I said for the reading challenged:

Regardless of whether NK lied and cheated, unlike this adimin, at least our door was open, which gave us more credibility with the rest of the world.

And speaking of our credibility, the Bushwhackos' excellent adventure in Iraq has already stretched our military to its limits and turned the majority of the world somewhere between questioning, negative and hostile to anything we say or do, regardless of whether we happen to be right in any given case..

Go pedal your lame blame shifting on some tinfoil beany Bushwhacko fanboi site where the mean IQ is below the mean temperature.

What does credibility get you when you fail? A happy feeling in your pants? Ill trade happy touchy feelings with the world for results.

What does bringing up stretching our military to its limit have to do with the situation? Are you suggesting Bush should have invaded North Korea? Is this part of the Iraq is a bad idea but invading Pakistan who has nukes and is an ally is fine line of thinking the Left has recently been pandering?

Get those pom poms out and get to cheering.

Oh and for the reading challenged, ahem, you.

Originally posted by: Genx87I dont see a difference in turning a blind eye or isolating the situation. Both failed to get the job done

Lets hear it.

 

[crisscross]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Meh, even if we did not invade Afgan/Iraq and invaded NK instead, liberals would be whining about a war with NK instead of Iraq/Afgan and saying how the neocons have us tied down in NK when the Taliban is running around in Afgan freely.

Don't think anybody has a problem with attacking Afghanistan, it was called for and long overdue. But don't equate Afghanistan with Iraq. Iraq was a fvcking blunder.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: yllus
Do you ever do anything on these forums other than spontaneously burst into tears and whine about this group or that group?

Blame and partisanship is how knee-jerkers make themselves feel like they're doing something when they're really not.

"When in panic, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!"

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vich
Does anyone realize that if we ever-even-hinted-at- trying to bomb NK they would shell SK?

< sarcasm >

Hasta la vista, Hyundai, Samsung, etc.

< /sarcasm >

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Take your head out of your ass and realize this program transcends at least two presidencys and is not stuck on one ideology.

Tell that to the FOX neoconservative network.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Genx87
What does credibility get you when you fail? A happy feeling in your pants? Ill trade happy touchy feelings with the world for results.

You ARE reading challenged, but I'll try once again to explain it to you with each spoonful of pablum.

The credibility that the Bushwhackos have cost us in the world would have meant the active cooperation of many of the nations who now just sit on their hands when we need all the help we can get.

What does bringing up stretching our military to its limit have to do with the situation? Are you suggesting Bush should have invaded North Korea? Is this part of the Iraq is a bad idea but invading Pakistan who has nukes and is an ally is fine line of thinking the Left has recently been pandering?

It means that all the manpower, the trillions of dollars of debt and expenditures and the time we've wasted in Iraq aren't available to generate whatever financial, economic and intellectual resources we would otherwise have available to deal with the situation.

That wouldn't guarantee success, but it wouldn't hurt to have them for the effort.

If you can't understand that, at least, you can feel secure because your gluteal cheeks make such fine ear muffs and blindfolds. :frown:

 

[Genx87]

You ARE reading challenged, but I'll try once again to explain it to you with each spoonful of pablum.

The credibility that the Bushwhackos have cost us in the world would have meant the active cooperation of many of the nations who now just sit on their hands when we need all the help we can get.

And you have proof of this how? What do you think China, Russia, SK, Japan would have done any different if Bush didnt blow our credibility?

The answer is the same as it has been for at least 15 years, nothing more than lip service.

It means that all the manpower, the trillions of dollars of debt and expenditures and the time we've wasted in Iraq aren't available to generate whatever financial, economic and intellectual resources we would otherwise have available to deal with the situation.

What are you going to do, talk and outspend NK to death? You are tossing out wishful thinking now as your proof.

That wouldn't guarantee success, but it wouldn't hurt to have them for the effort.

If you can't understand that, at least, you can feel secure because your gluteal cheeks make such fine ear muffs and blindfolds

We tried that in the 1990s, when you know, we had surpluses, a booming economy, and it wasnt exactly effectual.

My blindfolds have been taken off, the NK situation has been royally fvcked up by all people involved. Lets see you stop puckering up for one part of the equation and admit the same.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Genx87

It means that all the manpower, the trillions of dollars of debt and expenditures and the time we've wasted in Iraq aren't available to generate whatever financial, economic and intellectual resources we would otherwise have available to deal with the situation.

What are you going to do, talk and outspend NK to death? You are tossing out wishful thinking now as your proof.

We'll never know because those resources will never be available, and we don't have the full support of the rest of the world.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Genx87

It means that all the manpower, the trillions of dollars of debt and expenditures and the time we've wasted in Iraq aren't available to generate whatever financial, economic and intellectual resources we would otherwise have available to deal with the situation.

What are you going to do, talk and outspend NK to death? You are tossing out wishful thinking now as your proof.

We'll never know because those resources will never be available, and we don't have the full support of the rest of the world.

Although we *did* have the full support of the world in 1992 (under Clinton BTW) when we agreed to deliver free oil, food, monetary aid, and light water reactors to NK. Oh, and when we dropped trade sanctions too.

That worked out well didnt it?