|
Sports » rec.sport.pro-wrestling » Re: What Bush should do about North Korea...
| Re: What Bush should do about North Korea... [message #1083589] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 17:53 |
|
I'm going to try to be non-partisan on this one. North Korea is, for
any Prez, a tough issue. Their leader is pretty clearly crazy and they
are trying to get WMDs. A military option is very difficult because
(i) the likelihood of massive retaliation against South Korea and (ii)
the fact that China doesn't want a major conflict on its border for a
variety of reasons. A diplomatic option is tough because NK is clearly
not trustworthy and, domestically, when a Prez tries it -- and Clinton
did and Bush will -- they will be accused of "appeasement" or whatever
by the other side.
So it's the path of least resistance to conclude, as the original post
did, that we should basically do "nothing." I'm not sure that's a
great idea, but I don't have a great idea, except to say that debating
whether Clinton or Bush is more to blame so far isn't particularly
productive.--Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
|
|
|
| Re: What Bush should do about North Korea... [message #1083603 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 18:16 |
|
<jslater [at] utnet.utoledo.edu> wrote in message =
news:1152805995.655067.274980 [at] 35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I'm going to try to be non-partisan on this one. North Korea is, for
> any Prez, a tough issue. Their leader is pretty clearly crazy and =
they
> are trying to get WMDs. A military option is very difficult because
> (i) the likelihood of massive retaliation against South Korea and (ii)
> the fact that China doesn't want a major conflict on its border for a
> variety of reasons. A diplomatic option is tough because NK is =
clearly
> not trustworthy and, domestically, when a Prez tries it -- and Clinton
> did and Bush will -- they will be accused of "appeasement" or whatever
> by the other side.
>=20
> So it's the path of least resistance to conclude, as the original post
> did, that we should basically do "nothing." I'm not sure that's a
> great idea, but I don't have a great idea, except to say that debating
> whether Clinton or Bush is more to blame so far isn't particularly
> productive.--Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
>
IAWTP. Although if I were Japanese or South Korean I would probably =
have a different opinion.
Squad, would honestly not be *too* upset over a UN-sanctioned =
assassination. Not that it would ever happen, but one can dream...
|
|
|
| Re: What Bush should do about North Korea... [message #1083612 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 18:31 |
|
> Their leader is pretty clearly crazy and they
> are trying to get WMDs.
Correction. They already HAVE WMDs. They've had chemical weapons since
at least the 70's. The best guestimate is that they have something
between 1-3 working nukes as of right now, and they'll get enough
weapons grade enriched uranium to make half a dozen more in the next
year or two. The fear isn't that they will develop WMD's...it's a
given that they already have them...the fear is that they'll do
something really stupid, like selling enriched uranium to Iran or some
stupid shit like that.
>A diplomatic option is tough because NK is clearly
> not trustworthy and, domestically, when a Prez tries it -- and Clinton
> did and Bush will -- they will be accused of "appeasement" or whatever
> by the other side.
I try not to say this often about poiticians, because a lot of times
what people do is to make the best available choice when all the
options are bad, but CLINTON FUCKED UP, BIGTIME in 1998. He gave NK
$300 million on a handshake promise. If you see the history of NK, is
that they're fucking liars and promises don't mean jack to them. For
example, during the last "negotiations" with NK before 1998, NK was
allowed to sell several hundred million dollars worth of government
bonds in Hong Kong. North Korea took the money, then defaulted on the
bonds without making a single payment. These are the type of fuckers
we're dealing with. Clinton handing over $$$ to Kim Jung Il on a
handshake and promise without specifying exactly what would be done in
case they broke their promises was stupid, stupid, stupid.
Grativo
|
|
|
| Re: What Bush should do about North Korea... [message #1083613 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 18:31 |
|
> Their leader is pretty clearly crazy and they
> are trying to get WMDs.
Correction. They already HAVE WMDs. They've had chemical weapons since
at least the 70's. The best guestimate is that they have something
between 1-3 working nukes as of right now, and they'll get enough
weapons grade enriched uranium to make half a dozen more in the next
year or two. The fear isn't that they will develop WMD's...it's a
given that they already have them...the fear is that they'll do
something really stupid, like selling enriched uranium to Iran or some
stupid shit like that.
>A diplomatic option is tough because NK is clearly
> not trustworthy and, domestically, when a Prez tries it -- and Clinton
> did and Bush will -- they will be accused of "appeasement" or whatever
> by the other side.
I try not to say this often about poiticians, because a lot of times
what people do is to make the best available choice when all the
options are bad, but CLINTON FUCKED UP, BIGTIME in 1998. He gave NK
$300 million on a handshake promise. If you see the history of NK, is
that they're fucking liars and promises don't mean jack to them. For
example, during the last "negotiations" with NK before 1998, NK was
allowed to sell several hundred million dollars worth of government
bonds in Hong Kong. North Korea took the money, then defaulted on the
bonds without making a single payment. These are the type of fuckers
we're dealing with. Clinton handing over $$$ to Kim Jung Il on a
handshake and promise without specifying exactly what would be done in
case they broke their promises was stupid, stupid, stupid.
Grativo
|
|
|
| Re: What Bush should do about North Korea... [message #1083636 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 19:15 |
|
grativo wrote:
> > Their leader is pretty clearly crazy and they
> > are trying to get WMDs.
>
> Correction. They already HAVE WMDs. They've had chemical weapons since
> at least the 70's. The best guestimate is that they have something
> between 1-3 working nukes as of right now, and they'll get enough
> weapons grade enriched uranium to make half a dozen more in the next
> year or two. The fear isn't that they will develop WMD's...it's a
> given that they already have them...the fear is that they'll do
> something really stupid, like selling enriched uranium to Iran or some
> stupid shit like that.
Sure, sure, I meant they probably have some and are trying to get more.
> >A diplomatic option is tough because NK is clearly
> > not trustworthy and, domestically, when a Prez tries it -- and Clinton
> > did and Bush will -- they will be accused of "appeasement" or whatever
> > by the other side.
>
> I try not to say this often about poiticians, because a lot of times
> what people do is to make the best available choice when all the
> options are bad, but CLINTON FUCKED UP, BIGTIME in 1998. He gave NK
> $300 million on a handshake promise. If you see the history of NK, is
> that they're fucking liars and promises don't mean jack to them. For
> example, during the last "negotiations" with NK before 1998, NK was
> allowed to sell several hundred million dollars worth of government
> bonds in Hong Kong. North Korea took the money, then defaulted on the
> bonds without making a single payment. These are the type of fuckers
> we're dealing with. Clinton handing over $$$ to Kim Jung Il on a
> handshake and promise without specifying exactly what would be done in
> case they broke their promises was stupid, stupid, stupid.
>
> Grativo
I tried not to be partisan, but if you give me that, I'll just say that
they actually got the nukes on Bush's watch, and they will continue to
get more, because there's not much realistically Bush ever could have
done about it, but now that he's pissed off almost the entire world and
drained a lot of our military resources in a war he didn't need to
fight and is conducting incompetently, he's in even worse shape to do
anything.
Again, however, there is no particularly good option for any president.
--Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
|
|
|
| Re: What Bush should do about North Korea... [message #1083707 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 21:51 |
|
> I tried not to be partisan, but if you give me that, I'll just say that
> they actually got the nukes on Bush's watch
No, they already were producting weapons grade uranium as early as 1993
or 1994. That's why I keep saying Clinton fucked up. It was
absolutely retarded to give them cash on a handshake promise, because
that cash basically financed them to make bigger and better WMD's.
Grativo
|
|
|
| Re: What Bush should do about North Korea... [message #1083712 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 22:02 |
|
"grativo" <grativo [at] aol.com> wrote in message =
news:1152820307.090983.165400 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> I tried not to be partisan, but if you give me that, I'll just say =
that
>> they actually got the nukes on Bush's watch
>=20
> No, they already were producting weapons grade uranium as early as =
1993
> or 1994. That's why I keep saying Clinton fucked up. It was
> absolutely retarded to give them cash on a handshake promise, because
> that cash basically financed them to make bigger and better WMD's.
>=20
> Grativo
>
It's Eisenhower's fault for not nuking them!
|
|
|
| Re: What Bush should do about North Korea... [message #1083722 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 22:12 |
|
grativo wrote:
> > I tried not to be partisan, but if you give me that, I'll just say that
> > they actually got the nukes on Bush's watch
>
> No, they already were producting weapons grade uranium as early as 1993
> or 1994. That's why I keep saying Clinton fucked up. It was
> absolutely retarded to give them cash on a handshake promise, because
> that cash basically financed them to make bigger and better WMD's.
>
> Grativo
Believe your partisan talking points all you want, but there's a good
argument Clinton's policy delayed NK about as long as they could be
delayed, and a good argument that Bush has been contradictory and
clueless in a way even more harmful than Clinton.
In his first debate with Bush, John Kerry vowed to begin bilateral
discussions between North Korea and the United States. Bush's response:
"I can't tell you how big a mistake I think that is, to have bilateral
talks with North Korea. It's precisely what Kim Jong Il wants. It will
cause the six-party talks to evaporate. It will mean that China no
longer is involved in convincing, along with us, for Kim Jong Il to get
rid of his weapons. It's a big mistake to do that. We must have China's
leverage on Kim Jong Il, besides ourselves."
So what is the Bush administration saying now? According to the New
York Times, senior Bush administration officials say that the deadlock
in the six-way talks -- a deadlock that began last June, well before
the presidential debates -- is untenable and that the United States
needs to find "a new strategy to persuade the Koreans to disarm." "In a
change that reflects a failure of the present policy," the Times said
earlier this week, "some officials say that they will no longer rely on
China to sway the North Koreans" because they "now realize" that China
"may never be willing to use its leverage over North Korea."
Making the challenge even more daunting is the fact that the Bush
administration arrived at the current crisis after having actively
ignored Kim for nearly two years. That was part of the Republicans'
stated hard-line policy of not coddling rogue states in the way that
they perceived Clinton had. So, despite the fact that Bush now stresses
he wants to find a "diplomatic" resolution, North Korea and the U.S.
have not shared serious, active diplomacy since 2000.
Critics from the previous administration insist the incoming Bush team
was made aware of simmering problems in North Korea, and specifically
regarding a secret uranium enrichment process, but that the White House
chose to do nothing for 22 months until the crisis exploded into public
view.
Courtesy salon.com
|
|
|
| Re: What Bush should do about North Korea... [message #1083791 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 00:20 |
|
> Believe your partisan talking points all you want, but there's a good
> argument Clinton's policy delayed NK about as long as they could be
> delayed,
And the argument would be TOTAL bullshit. Clinton's policy didn't
delay NK for one single second! They've alread admitted that they took
the cash for UN inspectors to visit processing facilities and went
ahead with the nuclear enrichment at another secret site! This isn't
some guesstimate, conjecture, or speculation. US confronted NK
officials with evidence and they admitted it!
> In his first debate with Bush, John Kerry vowed to begin bilateral
> discussions between North Korea and the United States. Bush's response:
> "I can't tell you how big a mistake I think that is, to have bilateral
> talks with North Korea. It's precisely what Kim Jong Il wants. It will
> cause the six-party talks to evaporate. It will mean that China no
> longer is involved in convincing, along with us, for Kim Jong Il to get
> rid of his weapons. It's a big mistake to do that. We must have China's
> leverage on Kim Jong Il, besides ourselves."
This has been Bush's policy from day 1. North Korea WANTS direct talks
with US, because they had such a grand time taking Clinton and Carter
for a ride. They think that they can get lots of lots of more $$$ from
Uncle Sucker and Russia and China will bail them out when we catch them
breaking their word again. Russia and China are basically telling us
to go fuck ourselves when we complain about NK breaking its word
because their position is that "We were not party to the deal between
you and NK in 1994, and we don't feel like helping you enforce it
because it's your damn fault if you were too gullible to give them cash
for nothing". That's why Bush administration keeps trying to revive
the 6 party talks, because as a signitory on any agreement, China and
Russia would not be able to bail NK out if they fail to live up to any
agreement.
> So what is the Bush administration saying now? According to the New
> York Times, senior Bush administration officials say that the deadlock
> in the six-way talks -- a deadlock that began last June, well before
> the presidential debates -- is untenable and that the United States
> needs to find "a new strategy to persuade the Koreans to disarm." "In a
> change that reflects a failure of the present policy," the Times said
> earlier this week, "some officials say that they will no longer rely on
> China to sway the North Koreans" because they "now realize" that China
> "may never be willing to use its leverage over North Korea."
Yes, it's Bush's damn fault for trying to defuse the situation without
nuking them, making empty threats that we're not ready to carry out,
or giving them blackmail cash.
> Making the challenge even more daunting is the fact that the Bush
> administration arrived at the current crisis after having actively
> ignored Kim for nearly two years.
As stated in the OP, that's the best policy to follow, because what
they want is attention and $$$. They got attention and $$$ from
Clinton and took him for a ride. Only when they become convinced that
they won't get any attention and $$$ when they do stupid shit like
firing missles over Japan will they actually want to make a serious
deal.
>That was part of the Republicans'
> stated hard-line policy of not coddling rogue states in the way that
> they perceived Clinton had. So, despite the fact that Bush now stresses
> he wants to find a "diplomatic" resolution, North Korea and the U.S.
> have not shared serious, active diplomacy since 2000.
Yes, the high level direct talks broke off when they ADMITTED that they
took $$$ from Carter and Clinton and went ahead with getting more
nukes, and wouldn't let anyone into top secret hidden labs to inspect
exactly what they were doing there. So what should Bush do? Go to
them and say "Gee, we tried giving you $300million to stop making nukes
and you broke your word, maybe if we gave you $500 million would you
stop"?
> Critics from the previous administration insist the incoming Bush team
> was made aware of simmering problems in North Korea, and specifically
> regarding a secret uranium enrichment process, but that the White House
> chose to do nothing for 22 months until the crisis exploded into public
> view.
The "simmering problems" were that they already HAD the $$$ from
Clinton administration which helped them survive over the famine and
the falling apart of the Soviet Union and Kim Il Jung didn't feel like
giving up the nukes anymore. It doesn't help that at the time South
Korea had a left wing government who funneled vast amounts of $$$
illegally to Kim Il Sung's personal bank account in Hong Kong.
Grativo
|
|
|
| Re: What Bush should do about North Korea... [message #1083793 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 00:22 |
|
> Believe your partisan talking points all you want, but there's a good
> argument Clinton's policy delayed NK about as long as they could be
> delayed,
And the argument would be TOTAL bullshit. Clinton's policy didn't
delay NK for one single second! They've alread admitted that they took
the cash for UN inspectors to visit processing facilities and went
ahead with the nuclear enrichment at another secret site! This isn't
some guesstimate, conjecture, or speculation. US confronted NK
officials with evidence and they admitted it!
> In his first debate with Bush, John Kerry vowed to begin bilateral
> discussions between North Korea and the United States. Bush's response:
> "I can't tell you how big a mistake I think that is, to have bilateral
> talks with North Korea. It's precisely what Kim Jong Il wants. It will
> cause the six-party talks to evaporate. It will mean that China no
> longer is involved in convincing, along with us, for Kim Jong Il to get
> rid of his weapons. It's a big mistake to do that. We must have China's
> leverage on Kim Jong Il, besides ourselves."
This has been Bush's policy from day 1. North Korea WANTS direct talks
with US, because they had such a grand time taking Clinton and Carter
for a ride. They think that they can get lots of lots of more $$$ from
Uncle Sucker and Russia and China will bail them out when we catch them
breaking their word again. Russia and China are basically telling us
to go fuck ourselves when we complain about NK breaking its word
because their position is that "We were not party to the deal between
you and NK in 1994, and we don't feel like helping you enforce it
because it's your damn fault if you were too gullible to give them cash
for nothing". That's why Bush administration keeps trying to revive
the 6 party talks, because as a signitory on any agreement, China and
Russia would not be able to bail NK out if they fail to live up to any
agreement.
> So what is the Bush administration saying now? According to the New
> York Times, senior Bush administration officials say that the deadlock
> in the six-way talks -- a deadlock that began last June, well before
> the presidential debates -- is untenable and that the United States
> needs to find "a new strategy to persuade the Koreans to disarm." "In a
> change that reflects a failure of the present policy," the Times said
> earlier this week, "some officials say that they will no longer rely on
> China to sway the North Koreans" because they "now realize" that China
> "may never be willing to use its leverage over North Korea."
Yes, it's Bush's damn fault for trying to defuse the situation without
nuking them, making empty threats that we're not ready to carry out,
or giving them blackmail cash.
> Making the challenge even more daunting is the fact that the Bush
> administration arrived at the current crisis after having actively
> ignored Kim for nearly two years.
As stated in the OP, that's the best policy to follow, because what
they want is attention and $$$. They got attention and $$$ from
Clinton and took him for a ride. Only when they become convinced that
they won't get any attention and $$$ when they do stupid shit like
firing missles over Japan will they actually want to make a serious
deal.
>That was part of the Republicans'
> stated hard-line policy of not coddling rogue states in the way that
> they perceived Clinton had. So, despite the fact that Bush now stresses
> he wants to find a "diplomatic" resolution, North Korea and the U.S.
> have not shared serious, active diplomacy since 2000.
Yes, the high level direct talks broke off when they ADMITTED that they
took $$$ from Carter and Clinton and went ahead with getting more
nukes, and wouldn't let anyone into top secret hidden labs to inspect
exactly what they were doing there. So what should Bush do? Go to
them and say "Gee, we tried giving you $300million to stop making nukes
and you broke your word, maybe if we gave you $500 million would you
stop"?
> Critics from the previous administration insist the incoming Bush team
> was made aware of simmering problems in North Korea, and specifically
> regarding a secret uranium enrichment process, but that the White House
> chose to do nothing for 22 months until the crisis exploded into public
> view.
The "simmering problems" were that they already HAD the $$$ from
Clinton administration which helped them survive over the famine and
the falling apart of the Soviet Union and Kim Il Jung didn't feel like
giving up the nukes anymore. It doesn't help that at the time South
Korea had a left wing government who funneled vast amounts of $$$
illegally to Kim Il Sung's personal bank account in Hong Kong.
Grativo
|
|
|
| Re: What Bush should do about North Korea... [message #1083814 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 00:46 |
|
"grativo" <grativo [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1152829367.794986.76400 [at] 75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> The "simmering problems" were that they already HAD the $$$ from
> Clinton administration which helped them survive over the famine and
> the falling apart of the Soviet Union and Kim Il Jung didn't feel like
> giving up the nukes anymore. It doesn't help that at the time South
> Korea had a left wing government who funneled vast amounts of $$$
> illegally to Kim Il Sung's personal bank account in Hong Kong.
>
isn't it a little early for a Friday Kookout?
|
|
|
| Re: What Bush should do about North Korea... [message #1083841 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 01:27 |
|
<< It doesn't help that at the time South
> > Korea had a left wing government who funneled vast amounts of $$$
> > illegally to Kim Il Sung's personal bank account in Hong Kong.
> >
> isn't it a little early for a Friday Kookout?
If you're referring to this part, this is 100% true. People in South
Korean government would have gone to jail over this except that the
left won the next election and refused to prosecute anyone over this...
>From Time 02/03/2003
"After a three-month investigation, the Board of Audit and Inspection
of Korea declared that, just a week before the summit (in 1997), $332
million was transferred from the state-run Korea Development Bank into
Hyundai Merchant Marine, a subsidiary of the Hyundai conglomerate,
which has connections to the North. The business kept $146 million for
itself, while $186 million was paid directly to North Korea."
After this scandal broke, people understood why Hyundai kept insisting
on setting up ventures with North Koreans that had no chance of ever
making a profit. Let's just say that Hyundai didn't become the #1
company in South Korea by getting into businesses that didn't make
money.
Grativo
|
|
|
| Re: What Bush should do about North Korea... [message #1083861 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 01:45 |
|
"grativo" <grativo [at] aol.com> wrote in message =
news:1152829202.578589.63820 [at] 75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Believe your partisan talking points all you want, but there's a good
>> argument Clinton's policy delayed NK about as long as they could be
>> delayed,
>=20
> And the argument would be TOTAL bullshit. Clinton's policy didn't
> delay NK for one single second! They've alread admitted that they =
took
> the cash for UN inspectors to visit processing facilities and went
> ahead with the nuclear enrichment at another secret site! This isn't
> some guesstimate, conjecture, or speculation. US confronted NK
> officials with evidence and they admitted it!
>=20
>> In his first debate with Bush, John Kerry vowed to begin bilateral
>> discussions between North Korea and the United States. Bush's =
response:
>> "I can't tell you how big a mistake I think that is, to have =
bilateral
>> talks with North Korea. It's precisely what Kim Jong Il wants. It =
will
>> cause the six-party talks to evaporate. It will mean that China no
>> longer is involved in convincing, along with us, for Kim Jong Il to =
get
>> rid of his weapons. It's a big mistake to do that. We must have =
China's
>> leverage on Kim Jong Il, besides ourselves."
>=20
> This has been Bush's policy from day 1. North Korea WANTS direct =
talks
> with US, because they had such a grand time taking Clinton and Carter
> for a ride. They think that they can get lots of lots of more $$$ =
from
> Uncle Sucker and Russia and China will bail them out when we catch =
them
> breaking their word again. Russia and China are basically telling us
> to go fuck ourselves when we complain about NK breaking its word
> because their position is that "We were not party to the deal between
> you and NK in 1994, and we don't feel like helping you enforce it
> because it's your damn fault if you were too gullible to give them =
cash
> for nothing". That's why Bush administration keeps trying to revive
> the 6 party talks, because as a signitory on any agreement, China and
> Russia would not be able to bail NK out if they fail to live up to any
> agreement.
>=20
>> So what is the Bush administration saying now? According to the New
>> York Times, senior Bush administration officials say that the =
deadlock
>> in the six-way talks -- a deadlock that began last June, well before
>> the presidential debates -- is untenable and that the United States
>> needs to find "a new strategy to persuade the Koreans to disarm." "In =
a
>> change that reflects a failure of the present policy," the Times said
>> earlier this week, "some officials say that they will no longer rely =
on
>> China to sway the North Koreans" because they "now realize" that =
China
>> "may never be willing to use its leverage over North Korea."
>=20
> Yes, it's Bush's damn fault for trying to defuse the situation without
> nuking them, making empty threats that we're not ready to carry out,
> or giving them blackmail cash.
>=20
>> Making the challenge even more daunting is the fact that the Bush
>> administration arrived at the current crisis after having actively
>> ignored Kim for nearly two years.
>=20
> As stated in the OP, that's the best policy to follow, because what
> they want is attention and $$$. They got attention and $$$ from
> Clinton and took him for a ride. Only when they become convinced that
> they won't get any attention and $$$ when they do stupid shit like
> firing missles over Japan will they actually want to make a serious
> deal.
>=20
>>That was part of the Republicans'
>> stated hard-line policy of not coddling rogue states in the way that
>> they perceived Clinton had. So, despite the fact that Bush now =
stresses
>> he wants to find a "diplomatic" resolution, North Korea and the U.S.
>> have not shared serious, active diplomacy since 2000.
>=20
> Yes, the high level direct talks broke off when they ADMITTED that =
they
> took $$$ from Carter and Clinton and went ahead with getting more
> nukes, and wouldn't let anyone into top secret hidden labs to inspect
> exactly what they were doing there. So what should Bush do? Go to
> them and say "Gee, we tried giving you $300million to stop making =
nukes
> and you broke your word, maybe if we gave you $500 million would you
> stop"?
>=20
>> Critics from the previous administration insist the incoming Bush =
team
>> was made aware of simmering problems in North Korea, and specifically
>> regarding a secret uranium enrichment process, but that the White =
House
>> chose to do nothing for 22 months until the crisis exploded into =
public
>> view.
>=20
> The "simmering problems" were that they already HAD the $$$ from
> Clinton administration which helped them survive over the famine and
> the falling apart of the Soviet Union and Kim Il Jung didn't feel like
> giving up the nukes anymore. It doesn't help that at the time South
> Korea had a left wing government who funneled vast amounts of $$$
> illegally to Kim Il Sung's personal bank account in Hong Kong.
>=20
> Grativo
>
I would seriously like to commend you on not attacking Salon.com or =
the NY Times in your reply. It was refreshing.
Squad, serious.
|
|
|
| Re: What Bush should do about North Korea... [message #1083965 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 04:21 |
|
> I would seriously like to commend you on not attacking Salon.com or the NY Times in your reply. It was refreshing.
>
> Squad, serious.
Well, l thought that it was a given anyone who folllows this issue
closely and thinks Clinton and Carter didn't get played like a violin
by Kim Jung Il has his head so far up his ass that he's probably
tasting breakfast again.
Grativo
|
|
|
| Re: What Bush should do about North Korea... [message #1084231 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 16:50 |
|
grativo wrote:
> > I would seriously like to commend you on not attacking Salon.com or the NY Times in your reply. It was refreshing.
> >
> > Squad, serious.
>
> Well, l thought that it was a given anyone who folllows this issue
> closely and thinks Clinton and Carter didn't get played like a violin
> by Kim Jung Il has his head so far up his ass that he's probably
> tasting breakfast again.
>
> Grativo
Just when you border on someone that can be taken seriously, you fall
off the deep end of kookery. Again, neither Bush nor Clinton found a
way to handle this all that effectively, because there is no obvious
way. The right-wing spin of "everything is Clinton's fault" is getting
awfully tired now that we're in Bush, jr.'s second term.--Joe (n.j.)
[mWo]
|
|
|
| Re: What Bush should do about North Korea... [message #1084288 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 18:24 |
|
> Just when you border on someone that can be taken seriously, you fall
> off the deep end of kookery.
You know very well that ad hominem attacks show that you have no case,
councellor.
>Again, neither Bush nor Clinton found a
> way to handle this all that effectively, because there is no obvious
> way.
No, Clinton fucked up. You don't offer any plausible defense to how
giving NK cash for empty promises wasn't a very good idea. Basically
majority of the people who were following this even back then was
saying that giving NK food, fuel, and cash no strings attached was a
bad idea. People were saying back then that any "humanitarian" aid
given to Kim Il Sung would be siphoned off by the army and the
bureaucracy...and the net result of this would be that it would only
prop up the regime and your average starving North Korean would get
something between jack and shit....and this is exactly what happened.
Actually, it probably made it WORSE in the long run, because as soon as
they started getting free food and money they stopped market refroms,
like letting farmers sell food directly to the consumers.
>The right-wing spin of "everything is Clinton's fault" is getting
> awfully tired now that we're in Bush, jr.'s second term.
Yes, the things that happened between 1993 and 2000 were Bush's fault,
I guess. No body is saying that "everything is Clinton's fault". As I
said earlier in the thread, Clinton was trying to make a choice when
none of the choices were attractive, but somehow he managed to make the
stupid one. The retarded thing is Clinton flunkies STILL think that
what they did was a good idea. Bill Richardson and that what's her
name undersecretary of state wrote editorials this month that we pretty
much should give into Kim Jung Il's demands and start direct talks with
NK.
Grativo
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Jul 31 02:51:38 CEST 2010
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,02682 Sekunden |
