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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: 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?

Well, Bush and the NeoCon's like "going it alone". Too bad the chickenhawks don't have to fight the battles they start, maybe they might actually learn something, like talking is better then fighting.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Harvey
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?
Thanks for a piss poor answer. :thumbsdown:

Do you think squandering trillions of dollars and thousands of lives on a war based on lies and pissing in the face of the rest of the world worked out any better? :roll:

At least, we would have had those American lives and dollars we squandered in Iraq and the backing of world opinion on our side while we tried. :(
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
All we had to do is not call them part of the Axis of Evil, not threaten them, and talk to them one on one and this would not have happened.

A few years down the road and Iran will be in the same boat.

Failed diplomacy on our part.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Originally posted by: ayabe
All we had to do is not call them part of the Axis of Evil, not threaten them, and talk to them one on one and this would not have happened.

A few years down the road and Iran will be in the same boat.

Failed diplomacy on our part.

Neville Chamberlain lives!! :Q
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ayabe
All we had to do is not call them part of the Axis of Evil, not threaten them, and talk to them one on one and this would not have happened.

A few years down the road and Iran will be in the same boat.

Failed diplomacy on our part.

Neville Chamberlain lives!! :Q

Yeah, if you actually paid attention to the timeline I posted earlier you would notice that 1 month after we invaded Iraq, NK withdrew from the non-proliferation treaty. But you can keep acting tough, everyone here knows that your balls are hollow.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Harvey
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?
Thanks for a piss poor answer. :thumbsdown:

Do you think squandering trillions of dollars and thousands of lives on a war based on lies and pissing in the face of the rest of the world worked out any better? :roll:

At least, we would have had those American lives and dollars we squandered in Iraq and the backing of world opinion on our side while we tried. :(

*knock knock knock* Are you home? Maybe you missed the rest of the thread...we were talking about N Korea.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: Vic
Neville Chamberlain lives!! :Q
Except that Chamberlain's appeasement at Munich was to cede the German-speaking Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Germany under Hitler's threats of invasion and violence. Not even close to a comparable situation.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ayabe
All we had to do is not call them part of the Axis of Evil, not threaten them, and talk to them one on one and this would not have happened.

A few years down the road and Iran will be in the same boat.

Failed diplomacy on our part.

Neville Chamberlain lives!! :Q

Yeah, if you actually paid attention to the timeline I posted earlier you would notice that 1 month after we invaded Iraq, NK withdrew from the non-proliferation treaty. But you can keep acting tough, everyone here knows that your balls are hollow.

But you only told half of the story. The reason NK withdrew is because Bush reversed what Clinton had put in place in 1992, and halted funding NK's reactor program and stopped shipment of free oil. Get your story straight. It was the end of KEDO that prompted Kim's withdrawal, not Iraq.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ayabe
All we had to do is not call them part of the Axis of Evil, not threaten them, and talk to them one on one and this would not have happened.

A few years down the road and Iran will be in the same boat.

Failed diplomacy on our part.

Neville Chamberlain lives!! :Q

Yeah, if you actually paid attention to the timeline I posted earlier you would notice that 1 month after we invaded Iraq, NK withdrew from the non-proliferation treaty. But you can keep acting tough, everyone here knows that your balls are hollow.

But you only told half of the story. The reason NK withdrew is because Bush reversed what Clinton had put in place in 1992, and halted funding NK's reactor program and stopped shipment of free oil. Get your story straight. It was the end of KEDO that prompted Kim's withdrawal, not Iraq.


No, you can't leave Iraq out of the equation. NK and Iran both feel threatened by what we did and know they are on the hit-list. Iraq has as much to do with this as anything else.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: ayabe

-----------SNIP

But you only told half of the story. The reason NK withdrew is because Bush reversed what Clinton had put in place in 1992, and halted funding NK's reactor program and stopped shipment of free oil. Get your story straight. It was the end of KEDO that prompted Kim's withdrawal, not Iraq.


No, you can't leave Iraq out of the equation. NK and Iran both feel threatened by what we did and know they are on the hit-list. Iraq has as much to do with this as anything else.[/quote]

LOL ok man. Whatever you say.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Here's a nice section from Woodward's new book:

"George W. pulled Bandar aside.
"Bandar, I guess you're the best asshole who knows about the world. Explain to me one thing."
"Governor, what is it?"
"Why should I care about North Korea?"
Bandar said he didn't really know. It was one of the few countries that he did not work on for King Fahd.
"I get these briefings on all parts of the world," Bush said, "and everybody is talking to me about North Korea."
"I'll tell you what, Governor," Bandar said. "One reason should make you care about North Korea."
"All right, smart alek," Bush said, "tell me."
"The 38,000 American troops right on the border." ..."If nothing else counts, this counts. One shot across the border and you lose half these people immediately. You lose 15,000 Americans in a chemical or biological or even regular attack. The United State of America is at war instantly."
"Hmmm," Bush said. "I wish those assholes would put things just point-blank to me. I get half a book telling me about the history of North Korea."
"Now I tell you another answer to that. You don't want to care about North Korea anymore?" Bandar asked. The Saudis wanted America to focus on the Middle East and not get drawn into a conflict in East Asia.
"I didn't say that," Bush replied.
"But if you don't, you withdrawl those troops back. Then it becomes a local conflict. Then you have the whole time to decide, 'Should I get involved? Not involved?' Etc."
At that moment, Colin Powell approached.
"Colin," Bush said, "come here. Bandar and I were shooting the bull, just two fighter pilots shooting the bull." He didn't mention the topic.
"Mr. Governor," Bandar said, "General Powell is almost a fighter pilot. He can shoot the bull almost as good as us."
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: ayabe

-----------SNIP

But you only told half of the story. The reason NK withdrew is because Bush reversed what Clinton had put in place in 1992, and halted funding NK's reactor program and stopped shipment of free oil. Get your story straight. It was the end of KEDO that prompted Kim's withdrawal, not Iraq.


No, you can't leave Iraq out of the equation. NK and Iran both feel threatened by what we did and know they are on the hit-list. Iraq has as much to do with this as anything else.

LOL ok man. Whatever you say.[/quote]



So being part of the Axis of Evil and seeing another member being toppled on thinner than thin reasoning isn't painting Iran and NK into a corner?

Riiiiggghhtt.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ayabe
All we had to do is not call them part of the Axis of Evil, not threaten them, and talk to them one on one and this would not have happened.

A few years down the road and Iran will be in the same boat.

Failed diplomacy on our part.

Neville Chamberlain lives!! :Q

Yeah, if you actually paid attention to the timeline I posted earlier you would notice that 1 month after we invaded Iraq, NK withdrew from the non-proliferation treaty. But you can keep acting tough, everyone here knows that your balls are hollow.

:roll:

I love how the partisan faithful keep looking for ways to blame some recent president for a problem that has been ongoing since Truman.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ayabe
All we had to do is not call them part of the Axis of Evil, not threaten them, and talk to them one on one and this would not have happened.

A few years down the road and Iran will be in the same boat.

Failed diplomacy on our part.

Neville Chamberlain lives!! :Q

Yeah, if you actually paid attention to the timeline I posted earlier you would notice that 1 month after we invaded Iraq, NK withdrew from the non-proliferation treaty. But you can keep acting tough, everyone here knows that your balls are hollow.

:roll:

I love how the partisan faithful keep looking for ways to blame some recent president for a problem that has been ongoing since Truman.



You mean like you labelling me an appeaser coward for saying we should have had direct dialogue with NK, right? Who's the partisan hack?

You obviously don't come around here much, otherwise you would know I'm not a partisan hack. You are obviously more suited for OT or wherever else you troll.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ayabe
All we had to do is not call them part of the Axis of Evil, not threaten them, and talk to them one on one and this would not have happened.

A few years down the road and Iran will be in the same boat.

Failed diplomacy on our part.

Neville Chamberlain lives!! :Q

Yeah, if you actually paid attention to the timeline I posted earlier you would notice that 1 month after we invaded Iraq, NK withdrew from the non-proliferation treaty. But you can keep acting tough, everyone here knows that your balls are hollow.

:roll:

I love how the partisan faithful keep looking for ways to blame some recent president for a problem that has been ongoing since Truman.


Come on Vic didnt you know the following list happened only after Bush took office in Jan of 01?

1. Terrible economy
2. World hates us
3. No credibility
4. NK Nukes
5. 9-11, including planning
6. AQ wanting to kill us
7. Deficit spending
8. Middle Class crunch
9. High oil costs
10. unemployment

Those are only the top 10, I am sure there is well over several hundred issues you can add onto this list that only cropped up after Bush took office. Before Jan 2001, none of the above was an issue, and once Bush leaves office all of the above will be solved!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: Vic
I love how the partisan faithful keep looking for ways to blame some recent president for a problem that has been ongoing since Truman.
Vic -- If we start by giving you the point that other administrations failed in whatever attempts they made at dealing with NK, there isn't much we can do about any of them other than learn from their mistakes.

That still leaves exactly ONE administration that's still in office, and it happens that that their mistakes are continuous, current and ongoing, and their blunders around the world are all inter-related.

What's worse is, everything they've said and everything they've done makes it clear they have no intention of learning anything from anyone else's past mistakes, and they won't even own up to their own. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ayabe
All we had to do is not call them part of the Axis of Evil, not threaten them, and talk to them one on one and this would not have happened.

A few years down the road and Iran will be in the same boat.

Failed diplomacy on our part.

Neville Chamberlain lives!! :Q

Yeah, if you actually paid attention to the timeline I posted earlier you would notice that 1 month after we invaded Iraq, NK withdrew from the non-proliferation treaty. But you can keep acting tough, everyone here knows that your balls are hollow.

:roll:

I love how the partisan faithful keep looking for ways to blame some recent president for a problem that has been ongoing since Truman.



You mean like you labelling me an appeaser coward for saying we should have had direct dialogue with NK, right? Who's the partisan hack?

You obviously don't come around here much, otherwise you would know I'm not a partisan hack. You are obviously more suited for OT or wherever else you troll.

We did have direct dialogue under Clinton and it did nothing. Kim Jong got his aid, and got to work on Nukes while we pretended nothing happened. So your theory is clearly wrong as has been proven by real world events.

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ayabe
All we had to do is not call them part of the Axis of Evil, not threaten them, and talk to them one on one and this would not have happened.

A few years down the road and Iran will be in the same boat.

Failed diplomacy on our part.

Neville Chamberlain lives!! :Q

Yeah, if you actually paid attention to the timeline I posted earlier you would notice that 1 month after we invaded Iraq, NK withdrew from the non-proliferation treaty. But you can keep acting tough, everyone here knows that your balls are hollow.

:roll:

I love how the partisan faithful keep looking for ways to blame some recent president for a problem that has been ongoing since Truman.

You mean like you labelling me an appeaser coward for saying we should have had direct dialogue with NK, right? Who's the partisan hack?

You obviously don't come around here much, otherwise you would know I'm not a partisan hack. You are obviously more suited for OT or wherever else you troll.

:roll: again. That's not what you said at all. You specifically said we should appease them by "not threatening them" even though they make every effort to threaten us.

Given your need to resort to personal attacks, I see that you have no valid argument left.

This would have happened Bush or no Bush, Iraq or no Iraq. No matter how you try to spin it, the incidents are unrelated. NK's only industry is its military. That's why its people live in extreme hardship and primitive conditions, yet with a standing army that comprises some 5% of the total population (by far the highest percentage on earth, in contrast, the US percentage is 0.4% [editted to compare active to active strength numbers, i.e. apples and apples, NK's reserve strength increases its total military involvement percentage to 25% of the total population, in contrast to the US 0.8%]). A nation with this level of military investment, with an outspoken 56 year-old agenda to conquer its nearest neighbor (in fact, has been at a state of declared war for all that time), is going to engage in aggressive acts regardless, and cannot and will not be appeased by any dialogue.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Vic
I love how the partisan faithful keep looking for ways to blame some recent president for a problem that has been ongoing since Truman.
Vic -- If we start by giving you the point that other administrations failed in whatever attempts they made at dealing with NK, there isn't much we can do about any of them other than learn from their mistakes.

That still leaves exactly ONE administration that's still in office, and it happens that that their mistakes are continuous, current and ongoing, and their blunders around the world are all inter-related.

What's worse is, everything they've said and everything they've done makes it clear they have no intention of learning anything from anyone else's past mistakes, and they won't even own up to their own. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:
There is nothing to learn except what we have known from the beginning. NK needs to not exist.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
We did have direct dialogue under Clinton and it did nothing. Kim Jong got his aid, and got to work on Nukes while we pretended nothing happened. So your theory is clearly wrong as has been proven by real world events.

Talks are certainly better than tough-guy postering coupled with apathy; which is what we've had for the past 5+ years.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: Vic
There is nothing to learn except what we have known from the beginning. NK needs to not exist.
Brilliant... as long as you have some practical plan to implement your grandiose visions without any extremely negative repercussions in the rest of the world. :roll:

Oh yeah -- You'd also get to live with yourself while dealing with all the innocent blood you'd shed. :(
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Genx87
We did have direct dialogue under Clinton and it did nothing. Kim Jong got his aid, and got to work on Nukes while we pretended nothing happened. So your theory is clearly wrong as has been proven by real world events.

Talks are certainly better than tough-guy postering coupled with apathy; which is what we've had for the past 5+ years.

Yeah I guess youre right. We shouldnt have stopped funding for NK's nuclear plant productions, we should have never stopped shipping them free oil, and we definately shouldnt have stopped the monetary aid. Afterall, those programs were working so well! What was Bush thinking!

/sarcasm off
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Genx87
We did have direct dialogue under Clinton and it did nothing. Kim Jong got his aid, and got to work on Nukes while we pretended nothing happened. So your theory is clearly wrong as has been proven by real world events.
Talks are certainly better than tough-guy postering coupled with apathy; which is what we've had for the past 5+ years.
It's not apathy, it's acknowledgement that any action you take will not change the direction North Korea's dictatorship is headed.

NK is happy to accept the bribe money we've paid it in the past, but that will not change its aim of developing lucrative weapon systems to sell on the world market for the sake of having an independent, dependable income stream of their own. Not to mention it makes the potential bribes we'd pay them even larger.

There is zero to be done through diplomacy here.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,221
654
126
Ah yes, another round of "Bush didn't do enough..." vs. "BUT CLINTON... !!!!!"