Hey YONI Speak right UP

[BIG IRISH]

Pyongyang's test -- although possibly a distraction from the Mark Foley mess -- undeniably represents "a failure of U.S. policy

President Bush denounced the Axis of Evil five years ago and promised that he would do everything to keep its members from getting nukes.

Well, North Korea just detonated one.

Iran is well on its way to getting one.

And Iraq, well, that's not quite the bright spot we hoped it would be." Not quite indeed, particularly with former pal Bob Woodward now denouncing the president for concealing the truth about Iraq from the American people and himself.

A little louder Yoni

[Yonivore]

Pyongyang's test -- although possibly a distraction from the Mark Foley mess -- undeniably represents "a failure of U.S. policy

President Bush denounced the Axis of Evil five years ago and promised that he would do everything to keep its members from getting nukes.

Well, North Korea just detonated one.

Iran is well on its way to getting one.

And Iraq, well, that's not quite the bright spot we hoped it would be." Not quite indeed, particularly with former pal Bob Woodward now denouncing the president for concealing the truth about Iraq from the American people and himself.

A little louder Yoni
Yep, Iran and North Korea began their nuclear programs the day after Bush declared them a part of the Axis of Evil.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Yep, Iran and North Korea began their nuclear programs the day after Bush declared them a part of the Axis of Evil.

As much as I hate to say it, he's got a point.

[nkdlunch]

I think Irish's point is that Bush was fucking around in his little sandbox called Iraq, while China was finishing up their Frankenstein, North Korea.

Now even the Chinese are scared of this Frankenstein. Could Bush at least have tried to negotiate a looong time ago along w/chinese? yes. but then again, he ain't that bright

[JoeChalupa]

While conceeding that he has valid point, I hope he remembers and concedes that Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden and Saddam, all started before the Clinton Administration.

But the fact does remain that the Bush Administration, IMO, has not done well in preventing NK to get to the point they are today.

[Crookshanks]

He has tried to negotiate with them. However, the Chinese really don't want to do anything about North Korea. North Korea is their "junkyard dog" and they're letting Kim Jong Mentally Ill do their dirty work.

But let's not forget - the North Koreans were given the green light for their nuclear program from the Clinton Administration. Remember Madelyn Halfbright clinking champagne glasses with the little nutjob? Even she now says that the North Koreans tricked her - but it's all Bush's fault, right?

[JoeChalupa]

I'm not saying it is Bush's fault but the blame on the Clinton's excuse won't fly either.

And I see you've seen the ads being put out by republicans.

[JoeChalupa]

And the nuclear progam was not to create WMD and you know that.

[JoeChalupa]

Remember the picture of Rummy and Saddam shaking hands?

[clambake]

With any luck they'll be shaking hands again, as co-defendants.

[ChumpDumper]

However, the Chinese really don't want to do anything about North Korea. North Korea is their "junkyard dog" and they're letting Kim Jong Mentally Ill do their dirty work.What dirty work? What does China get out of this particular move?

[clambake]

So everybody has a junkyard dog? Who is our junkyard dog? Israel? What is their dirty work for us, besides constant tension in the region?

NK is China's junkyard dog? They guard China's junk? So what?

[Extra Stout]

He has tried to negotiate with them. However, the Chinese really don't want to do anything about North Korea. North Korea is their "junkyard dog" and they're letting Kim Jong Mentally Ill do their dirty work.
Their dirty work? Is China supposed to be gleeful about the prospect of an armed-to-the-teeth nuclear Japan?

Are you capable of independent thought?

[Yonivore]

While conceeding that he has valid point, I hope he remembers and concedes that Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden and Saddam, all started before the Clinton Administration.
Actually, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda became prominint during the Clinton Administration. Yes, their born on date, predates Clinton but, their global terrorism didn't really get started until after Clinton was elected and, as Osama has stated, they were emboldened by Clinton's inaction and retreat in places like Mogadishu.


But the fact does remain that the Bush Administration, IMO, has not done well in preventing NK to get to the point they are today.
I don't think there is much either the Clinton Administration or the Bush Administration could have done to prevent North Korea from getting to the point they are today short of declaring war.

However, while the Clinton administration depended on engagement and bilateral negotiations that only bought NK time and gave them money, to boot; the Bush administration has embargoed and tightened the noose so that North Korea was forced to show their hand -- probably prematurely if the dud explosion and boost phase missile failures are any indication -- to the world and wake everyone, including China, up.

Clinton enabled. Bush exposed. Now the world has to deal with a threat that has existed since before the current administration but of which stupid people were ignorant because of people like Jimmy Carter and Madelaine Albright.

[clambake]

Bush exposed it? Funny. From a classroom full of children? Bush ignored it. nice try.

I think we all know now where Bush was when the reality occured.

We all know something could have been done. Jimmy Carter hahahahaha.

[JoeChalupa]

Actually, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda became prominint during the Clinton Administration. Yes, their born on date, predates Clinton but, their global terrorism didn't really get started until after Clinton was elected and, as Osama has stated, they were emboldened by Clinton's inaction and retreat in places like Mogadishu.

Saying Al Queda became "prominent" is just a cop out to appease your belief in Bush. There were always there. If that is your argument then North Korea has become "prominent" under the Bush administration since they are a much bigger threat NOW than they were under the Clinton administration and that is a simple fact that I don't understand why you cannot agree with.



I don't think there is much either the Clinton Administration or the Bush Administration could have done to prevent North Korea from getting to the point they are today short of declaring war.

However, while the Clinton administration depended on engagement and bilateral negotiations that only bought NK time and gave them money, to boot; the Bush administration has embargoed and tightened the noose so that North Korea was forced to show their hand -- probably prematurely if the dud explosion and boost phase missile failures are any indication -- to the world and wake everyone, including China, up.

Clinton enabled. Bush exposed. Now the world has to deal with a threat that has existed since before the current administration but of which stupid people were ignorant because of people like Jimmy Carter and Madelaine Albright.

That is just your view of things. Bush is being critized for his refusal to have direct talks with NK. It is clear that policy didn't work and you cannot deny that. You can point the finger at Carter and Albright all you want but it doesn't change the FACT that NK threat of today did NOT exist during their administrations. A plain FACT Yonivore that again, I cannot see why it is so hard for you admit that your beloved Bush is not perfect.
Come on guy. You're a libertarian anyways.

[johnsmith]

Bush exposed it? Funny. From a classroom full of children? Bush ignored it. nice try.

I think we all know now where Bush was when the reality occured.

We all know something could have been done. Jimmy Carter hahahahaha.


Are you referring to the reaction Bush had after 9/11 while reading to those children? If not, let me know and I will not continue.

[01Snake]

Are you referring to the reaction Bush had after 9/11 while reading to those children? If not, let me know and I will not continue.

I was thinking the same thing. Not sure what that has to do with Yoni's statement about exposing NK???

[clambake]

i'm referring to the fact that bush is being touted by yoni as the great man that finally exposed the dangers of obl.

The man let the opportunity of doing something that resembled anything slip through his fingers before 9-11. He squandered the greatest oppotunity to unite the world and chose to bully the world after 9-11 instead.

In the end, bullys limp home black-eyed and bloody. (see Iraq)

[clambake]

What do mean expose NK? NK came out on their own. Bush had nothing to do with any efforts regarding NK.

If your the leader of another country, and you saw Bush lurking around your neigborhood, wouldn't you attempt to get your weapons in order?

[Crookshanks]

i'm referring to the fact that bush is being touted by yoni as the great man that finally exposed the dangers of obl.

The man let the opportunity of doing something that resembled anything slip through his fingers before 9-11. He squandered the greatest oppotunity to unite the world and chose to bully the world after 9-11 instead.

In the end, bullys limp home black-eyed and bloody. (see Iraq)

Hey Clam - try reading Yoni's post again. He said Bush exposed the danger of North Korea - not OBL.

[clambake]

He didn't expose anything. If Pakistan hadn't kowtowed, they too would have been included in his "axis of evil" speech.

[Yonivore]

Saying Al Queda became "prominent" is just a cop out to appease your belief in Bush. There were always there. If that is your argument then North Korea has become "prominent" under the Bush administration since they are a much bigger threat NOW than they were under the Clinton administration and that is a simple fact that I don't understand why you cannot agree with.
Well, aside from the fact you can't point to any Somalias, or Coles, or Kenyas, or '93 World Trade Centers, or Tanzanias perpetrated by the North Koreans, your argument is still full of shit.


That is just your view of things. Bush is being critized for his refusal to have direct talks with NK. It is clear that policy didn't work and you cannot deny that.
Stop right there. You're correct -- the Clinton/Albright/Carter policy of bilateral direct talks with North Korea didn't work. That's why Bush refuses to engage them bilaterally except under the framework of the six-party talks. To do so only gives Kim Jong Mentally-Ill a level of respect he doesn't deserve and will only use to engage in further extortion.


You can point the finger at Carter and Albright all you want but it doesn't change the FACT that NK threat of today did NOT exist during their administrations.
Sure it did. North Korea has already admitted, confessed, revealed -- put it however you want -- that they continued their nuclear program the moment Jimmy Carter boarded his plane after reaching the "agreed framework."


A plain FACT Yonivore that again, I cannot see why it is so hard for you admit that your beloved Bush is not perfect.
Come on guy. You're a libertarian anyways.
I've never said he was perfect. I just happen to agree with this policy of confronting North Korea; it's obvious the policy of engagement didn't slow him down one bit.

I think it's better to confront him, and to drag the rest of the world with us to confront this very real danger, now -- while his missiles still fail in the boost phase and his nuclear explosions still resemble .5 KT conventional explosives than when he has real missiles and real nuclear weapons.

[ChumpDumper]

Crookshanks, you've been called out three times to explain yourself.

What are you afraid of?

[JoeChalupa]

Well, aside from the fact you can't point to any Somalias, or Coles, or Kenyas, or '93 World Trade Centers, or Tanzanias perpetrated by the North Koreans, your argument is still full of shit.

No, the fact that you cannot come up with something better than that means your arguments are full of shit.



Stop right there. You're correct -- the Clinton/Albright/Carter policy of bilateral direct talks with North Korea didn't work. That's why Bush refuses to engage them bilaterally except under the framework of the six-party talks. To do so only gives Kim Jong Mentally-Ill a level of respect he doesn't deserve and will only use to engage in further extortion.


They were working. They did NOT have nuclear weapon capability and that is a fact. Bush's refusal to engage them bilaterally has done nothing to deter NK from continuing their nuclear program and we saw the results of that when NK conducted their nuclear testing.




Sure it did. North Korea has already admitted, confessed, revealed -- put it however you want -- that they continued their nuclear program the moment Jimmy Carter boarded his plane after reaching the "agreed framework."

We already knew that but they were not at the level they are today. Again, Bush's refusal to talk has not been any deterent to NK at all. none.



I've never said he was perfect. I just happen to agree with this policy of confronting North Korea; it's obvious the policy of engagement didn't slow him down one bit.
Nor has the Bush policy.


Remember that Reagan at one time refused to have one-on-one talks with the Soviet Union but once he was won over by Nancy and Schultz did things changed.

I also think Bush's refusal to go with bilateral talks is so that any failures will not be directly link to his beloved "legacy".

[Extra Stout]

It appears that Americans for the most part are incapable of rational thought. All anybody seems to be able to do is fling feces back and forth like monkeys.

"It's Bush's fault!"

"It's Clinton's fault!"

Nobody ever sits back and examines why people do things. If anybody puts forth even a token effort, their explanation fits into whatever narrow, oversimplistic narrative they follow according to whether they self-identify as right or left.

This is the nature of political debate in this country. It is why we are weak. It is why we can't solve any problems. Americans don't have brains anymore. We don't engage in critical thought. We are no longer capable of critical thought.

Why do you people think Kim Jong Il has been pursuing nukes since Day 1? And yes, he was pursuing nukes in the '90s. Don't give me this crap about Clinton's plan working. He just kicked the can down the road. KJI traded ballistic missiles for plutonium technology with Pakistan in the 1990's.

Everybody acts like this conflict started in 2000 (if Democrats) or in 1992 (if Republicans). The DPRK believes that the Korean War is still going on, and that South Korea is a U.S. puppet government occupying their peninsula. KJI views himself as the sole rightful ruler of ALL of Korea, and that it is his destiny to reunify the Peninsula under totalitarian communist rule.

The purpose of obtaining nuclear weapons is to provide deterrence against the great powers (U.S., China, Japan, etc.) when he decides to invade South Korea, which he will do when the time is right.

KJI does not care how many hundreds of thousands of his people starve to death. He has no concern for his people. How are sanctions going to deter him? He knows full well the U.S. is not going to stop him. He will get his nukes, and when the bombs start raining down on Seoul, the American people will sit back and do nothing because certainly we aren't going to risk our necks to protect some people half a world away. Worst case, we don't get Hyundais anymore. Yippee! Ford and GM can gain market share!

Liberals will express moral outrage, blame America for the whole thing, and point the finger at conservatives. Conservatives will say "better them than us" and point the finger at liberals.

China will step in and solve the problem. South Korea will survive. Americans will be happy we didn't have to do anything to solve the problem. Liberals and conservatives will bicker about who should get the credit.

Other countries in the Asia/Pacific region will start to see China as a more useful ally than the impotent United States. Liberals and conservatives will point the finger at one another about who was asleep at the wheel while China became the regional power in Asia.

"Clinton sold nuclear secrets!"

"Bush alienated the world!"

I'm starting to understand that it's not because of flukish bad leadership that these things are happening. It's because we are becoming a second-rate nation, and these are the kinds of people we pick to lead us.

[Yonivore]

No, the fact that you cannot come up with something better than that means your arguments are full of shit.
Okay, let's replay the tape, shall we?


Saying Al Queda became "prominent" is just a cop out to appease your belief in Bush. There were always there. If that is your argument then North Korea has become "prominent" under the Bush administration since they are a much bigger threat NOW than they were under the Clinton administration and that is a simple fact that I don't understand why you cannot agree with.
To me, you're implying...no, you're flat out saying...that North Korea has achieved the same prominence under President Bush as did al Qaeda under President Clinton.

I merely pointed out that North Korea has perpetrated no acts, of which I'm aware, that have resulted in the deaths of any Americans between the years of 2001 and 2006. Are you?

The fact that this administration has confronted them on all their shenanigans and probably forced them into prematurely tipping their nuclear hand -- fizzled missiles and dud bombs -- is a good indication that Bush's policies are forcing North Korea into a desperation mode at a time when they aren't able to back up their bluster instead of, somewhere down the road, having to confront them in a desperation mode at a time when they have working missiles and bombs.

I think the strategy is working. At lease China now admits North Korea is a problem.


They were working. They did NOT have nuclear weapon capability and that is a fact.
So, you think they just woke up after Bush named them as part of the Axis of Evil and started a nuclear program? What you're saying belies an ignorance of the North Korean's nuclear ambitions over the past decades.

They may not even have a nuclear weapon now but, the point is Clinton/Albright/Carter didn't even slow their program down. And, once again, the Bush administration is left to confront another threat Clinton spent eight years ignoring.


Bush's refusal to engage them bilaterally has done nothing to deter NK from continuing their nuclear program and we saw the results of that when NK conducted their nuclear testing.
Clinton bilateral engagement did nothing to deter they ambitions either. In fact, they used the money (read extortion/bribes) gained from these talks to further their nuclear ambitions while keeping their citizens in squalor.


We already knew that but they were not at the level they are today.
That's bullshit. We didn't know crap until the Bush administration confronted them with the evidence the Bush administration had accumulated on their continuing nuclear program. You're revising history again, Joe.


Again, Bush's refusal to talk has not been any deterent to NK at all. none.
Yeah, but his imposition of sanctions has caused the North Koreans to shut down their Counterfeit U.S. Mint and also, apparently, caused him to blow his nuclear wad prematurely.

Face it, this tin-horn is desperate right now. The last thing we need to do is give him any respectibility by sitting down like he wants us to? Exactly what would you think would be accomplished by sitting across from the table with Kim Jon Mentally-Ill? Seriously, what do talks offer?


Nor has the Bush policy.
No, but at least North Korea is no longer flooding the world with fake $100.00 bills and at least, now, China and Russia, have to face the fact their proxy has been in the nuclear cookie jar for quite a while.


Remember that Reagan at one time refused to have one-on-one talks with the Soviet Union but once he was won over by Nancy and Schultz did things changed.
Things changed when Reagan told Gorby to go to hell over Missile Defense and walked away from the table. (At least, that's what the Soviets say).


I also think Bush's refusal to go with bilateral talks is so that any failures will not be directly link to his beloved "legacy".
Yeah, right.

His refusal to go with bilateral talks is based on the knowledge that North Korea didn't abide by them the last time they were tried and, in fact, were only emboldened by them. Let Kim Jong Mentally-Ill have bilateral talks with China out behind the wood shed.

[smeagol]

It appears that Americans for the most part are incapable of rational thought. All anybody seems to be able to do is fling feces back and forth like monkeys.

"It's Bush's fault!"

"It's Clinton's fault!"

Nobody ever sits back and examines why people do things. If anybody puts forth even a token effort, their explanation fits into whatever narrow, oversimplistic narrative they follow according to whether they self-identify as right or left.

This is the nature of political debate in this country. It is why we are weak. It is why we can't solve any problems. Americans don't have brains anymore. We don't engage in critical thought. We are no longer capable of critical thought.

Why do you people think Kim Jong Il has been pursuing nukes since Day 1? And yes, he was pursuing nukes in the '90s. Don't give me this crap about Clinton's plan working. He just kicked the can down the road. KJI traded ballistic missiles for plutonium technology with Pakistan in the 1990's.

Everybody acts like this conflict started in 2000 (if Democrats) or in 1992 (if Republicans). The DPRK believes that the Korean War is still going on, and that South Korea is a U.S. puppet government occupying their peninsula. KJI views himself as the sole rightful ruler of ALL of Korea, and that it is his destiny to reunify the Peninsula under totalitarian communist rule.

The purpose of obtaining nuclear weapons is to provide deterrence against the great powers (U.S., China, Japan, etc.) when he decides to invade South Korea, which he will do when the time is right.

KJI does not care how many hundreds of thousands of his people starve to death. He has no concern for his people. How are sanctions going to deter him? He knows full well the U.S. is not going to stop him. He will get his nukes, and when the bombs start raining down on Seoul, the American people will sit back and do nothing because certainly we aren't going to risk our necks to protect some people half a world away. Worst case, we don't get Hyundais anymore. Yippee! Ford and GM can gain market share!

Liberals will express moral outrage, blame America for the whole thing, and point the finger at conservatives. Conservatives will say "better them than us" and point the finger at liberals.

China will step in and solve the problem. South Korea will survive. Americans will be happy we didn't have to do anything to solve the problem. Liberals and conservatives will bicker about who should get the credit.

Other countries in the Asia/Pacific region will start to see China as a more useful ally than the impotent United States. Liberals and conservatives will point the finger at one another about who was asleep at the wheel while China became the regional power in Asia.

"Clinton sold nuclear secrets!"

"Bush alienated the world!"

I'm starting to understand that it's not because of flukish bad leadership that these things are happening. It's because we are becoming a second-rate nation, and these are the kinds of people we pick to lead us.

Ouch!

[01Snake]

Nicely put ES.

[Yonivore]

Nicely put ES.
Sure, but in all honesty, I think we would actually post differently if there were the slightest bit of a chance our words were being consulted by anyone remotely capable of influencing policy or party platforms.

In other words, this is a meaningless forum through which the only entertainment value comes by flinging poo.

Serious discussions are ridiculed and quickly devolve to partisan back and forth.

It may have been nicely put, ES, but, your words are wasted in here.

[01Snake]

Sure, but in all honesty, I think we would actually post differently if there were the slightest bit of a chance our words were being consulted by anyone remotely capable of influencing policy or party platforms.

In other words, this is a meaningless forum through which the only entertainment value comes by flinging poo.

Serious discussions are ridiculed and quickly devolve to partisan back and forth.

It may have been nicely put, ES, but, your words are wasted in here.

Nicely put as well.
:clap

[Spurminator]

Sure, but in all honesty, I think we would actually post differently if there were the slightest bit of a chance our words were being consulted by anyone remotely capable of influencing policy or party platforms.

In other words, this is a meaningless forum through which the only entertainment value comes by flinging poo.

Serious discussions are ridiculed and quickly devolve to partisan back and forth.

Sounds like Congress (except for the parts about influence, platforms and meaninglessness).

[jochhejaam]

But the fact does remain that the Bush Administration, IMO, has not done well in preventing NK to get to the point they are today.
There are 191 Countries that make up the United Nations and 188 States that are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Why then is it the Bush Administrations or Americas responsibility to ensure that rogue Nations don't go Nuclear?

[Yonivore]

There are 191 Countries that make up the United Nations and 188 States that are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Why then is it the Bush Administrations or Americas responsibility to ensure that rogue Nations don't go Nuclear?
An interesting point.

Personally, I think the U.N. needs to grow some and expel both North Korea and Iran from the U.N. and make it 189 Countries.

[clambake]

What good would that do? To show our contempt for all other nations?

Do you think Iran and Chavez would have been so warmly accepted if the world didn't agree with some of their rhetoric?

[Crookshanks]

What good would that do? To show our contempt for all other nations?

Do you think Iran and Chavez would have been so warmly accepted if the world didn't agree with some of their rhetoric?

Well then, let the rest of the world police themselves and fix their own damn problems! Problem is - no one else is willing to do much, if anything, about the problems facing the world as a whole!

[clambake]

Would a country that goes to war based on lies qualify as a world problem?

Look in the mirror.

[Extra Stout]

Sure, but in all honesty, I think we would actually post differently if there were the slightest bit of a chance our words were being consulted by anyone remotely capable of influencing policy or party platforms.

In other words, this is a meaningless forum through which the only entertainment value comes by flinging poo.

Serious discussions are ridiculed and quickly devolve to partisan back and forth.

It may have been nicely put, ES, but, your words are wasted in here.
If only this forum didn't ape the actual policy process.

[Yonivore]

If only this forum didn't ape the actual policy process.
True that.

[Extra Stout]

Well then, let the rest of the world police themselves and fix their own damn problems! Problem is - no one else is willing to do much, if anything, about the problems facing the world as a whole!
If the world polices itself, it will do so as follows:

"Issue #1: We don't like how much power the United States has. Let's all work together to tie down the Americans."

[Yonivore]

If the world polices itself, it will do so as follows:

"Issue #1: We don't like how much power the United States has. Let's all work together to tie down the Americans."
let me finish your sentence.

We don't like how much power the United States has. Let's all work together to tie down the Americans...without sacrificing the economic and military support and stability they provide.

[Extra Stout]

let me finish your sentence.

We don't like how much power the United States has. Let's all work together to tie down the Americans...without sacrificing the economic and military support and stability they provide.
Well, in Crookshanks' hypothetical, the U.S. goes all isolationist and stops providing all that support and stability.

[Yonivore]

Well, in Crookshanks' hypothetical, the U.S. goes all isolationist and stops providing all that support and stability.
In Yoniworld we stop supporting our enemies...such as the Palestinian Authority and North Korea. Oh yeah, and the U.N.

[Extra Stout]

In Yoniworld we stop supporting our enemies...such as the Palestinian Authority and North Korea. Oh yeah, and the U.N.
Real enemies actually do things. The UN sits around and talks, mostly. The worst thing they do to us is call us mean names and tie up Midtown traffic.

I met a European who was incredulous that Americans don't seem to understand that the purpose of the UN is to provide a forum where little nations are led to think that powerful nations care what they have to say.

[Yonivore]

Real enemies actually do things. The UN sits around and talks, mostly. The worst thing they do to us is call us mean names and tie up Midtown traffic.
I disagree. They are working overtime to undermine our foreign policy in every region of the world while at the same time doing absolutely nothing to solve any of the problems for which they were chartered.


I met a European who was incredulous that Americans don't seem to understand that the purpose of the UN is to provide a forum where little nations are led to think that powerful nations care what they have to say.
Yeah, because largely, we don't care what they have to say. And, increasingly, I don't care what many Europeans have to say either.

I seriously believe the U.N. should go back to handing out band aids and rice and get out of the world diplomacy racquet. They're no good at it.

[2centsworth]

It appears that Americans for the most part are incapable of rational thought. All anybody seems to be able to do is fling feces back and forth like monkeys.

"It's Bush's fault!"

"It's Clinton's fault!"

Nobody ever sits back and examines why people do things. If anybody puts forth even a token effort, their explanation fits into whatever narrow, oversimplistic narrative they follow according to whether they self-identify as right or left.

This is the nature of political debate in this country. It is why we are weak. It is why we can't solve any problems. Americans don't have brains anymore. We don't engage in critical thought. We are no longer capable of critical thought.

Why do you people think Kim Jong Il has been pursuing nukes since Day 1? And yes, he was pursuing nukes in the '90s. Don't give me this crap about Clinton's plan working. He just kicked the can down the road. KJI traded ballistic missiles for plutonium technology with Pakistan in the 1990's.

Everybody acts like this conflict started in 2000 (if Democrats) or in 1992 (if Republicans). The DPRK believes that the Korean War is still going on, and that South Korea is a U.S. puppet government occupying their peninsula. KJI views himself as the sole rightful ruler of ALL of Korea, and that it is his destiny to reunify the Peninsula under totalitarian communist rule.

The purpose of obtaining nuclear weapons is to provide deterrence against the great powers (U.S., China, Japan, etc.) when he decides to invade South Korea, which he will do when the time is right.

KJI does not care how many hundreds of thousands of his people starve to death. He has no concern for his people. How are sanctions going to deter him? He knows full well the U.S. is not going to stop him. He will get his nukes, and when the bombs start raining down on Seoul, the American people will sit back and do nothing because certainly we aren't going to risk our necks to protect some people half a world away. Worst case, we don't get Hyundais anymore. Yippee! Ford and GM can gain market share!

Liberals will express moral outrage, blame America for the whole thing, and point the finger at conservatives. Conservatives will say "better them than us" and point the finger at liberals.

China will step in and solve the problem. South Korea will survive. Americans will be happy we didn't have to do anything to solve the problem. Liberals and conservatives will bicker about who should get the credit.

Other countries in the Asia/Pacific region will start to see China as a more useful ally than the impotent United States. Liberals and conservatives will point the finger at one another about who was asleep at the wheel while China became the regional power in Asia.

"Clinton sold nuclear secrets!"

"Bush alienated the world!"

I'm starting to understand that it's not because of flukish bad leadership that these things are happening. It's because we are becoming a second-rate nation, and these are the kinds of people we pick to lead us.


Fantastic Post. The end is near?

[boutons_]

Of course it's bad leadership. both parties suck donkey balls.

"Kinds of people we pick to lead us."

These are kinds of people we as a nation produce.
The politicians we have are the politicians we deserve.

There is some increasing miitigation to that statement by the corps that finance the politicians the corps want to continue gaming the system to shake-down citizens for more money.

The Repugs permitting ATT to buy Bellsouth is just another abusive, uncompetitive monopoly to shake-down the populace while delivering poor service and products to enrich the corps who enrich the politicians.

[jochhejaam]

Another fine editorial from the local newspaper's Jack Kelly.


Democrats share Korea blame


IF DEMOCRATS went after America's enemies with the ruthlessness with which they attack Republicans, the Axis of Evil would be toast.

No sooner had North Korea completed its (botched or faked) nuclear bomb test last weekend than Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) were blaming it on "the failed policies of the Bush Administration."

That annoyed Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.): "I would remind Senator Clinton … that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure," he said. "Every single time the Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something - not to kick out the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from their reactor - they did it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with further talks."

Media commentators spun Mr. McCain's remarks as jockeying with Ms. Clinton for the presidency in 2008, but in fact Mr. McCain had been speaking out against her husband's Agreed Framework deal with North Korea since May of 1994.

Here is the history Democrats would like you to forget: The CIA began worrying in the late 1980s that North Korea was trying to build an atomic bomb. President Clinton attempted to head them off by offering a massive bribe. If the North Koreans would forego their nuke plans, the U.S. would provide them with 500,000 tons of free fuel oil each year, massive food aid, and build for them two $2 billion nuclear power plants. The deal made North Korea the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in Asia.

Mr. McCain was against the deal from the get-go, because it was all carrots and no sticks, and there were no safeguards against North Korean cheating.

North Korea took the bribes President Clinton offered, and kept working on its bomb.

Two experts told a House committee in April, 2000, that North Korea was producing enough highly radioactive material then to build a dozen bombs a year, but it is unclear when the North actually built a bomb (if yet) because our intelligence on the reclusive regime there is so poor.

Most experts think North Korea restarted its nuclear weapons program between 1997 and 1999, said Paul Kerr of the Arms Control Association. But the Congressional Research Service thinks the North began cheating in 1995.

Signs of cheating were abundant by 2000. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright flew to Pyongyang that October to put lipstick on the pig. She offered dictator Kim Jong Il a relaxation of economic sanctions if he'd limit North Korea's missile development. Mr. Kim took those carrots too, but kept building missiles.

The Bush Administration called North Korea on its cheating and suspended fuel aid pending an improvement in its behavior. North Korea declared (in 2002) it had the bomb, and the United States organized six-party talks to try to persuade it to give up its nuclear ambitions.

Like Mr. McCain, I thought the Agreed Framework was a bad idea from the get-go. But I don't blame the Clinton administration (very much) for trying. Massive bribery hadn't been tried before, and if it had worked, it certainly would have been preferable to war. And, since as far as we know, serious cheating didn't begin until 1997 or 1998, it can be argued the deal did buy us a little time.

But even though the ultimate failure of the Clinton policy of appeasement is excusable, the refusal of Democrats to acknowledge that failure is not.

Democrats tend to view foreign policy crises through the narrow prism of their impact on domestic politics. But the villain here isn't Bill Clinton or George Bush. It's Kim Jong Il. And what's important here is not which party controls the House of Representatives. It's whether we can prevent a second Korean War.

Democrats ordinarily make a fetish of "multilateralism," which is what President Bush has been pursuing through the six-party talks, the only format that offers hope of reining in North Korea short of war, because only China is in a position to force North Korea to behave.

Mr. Kim wants direct negotiations with the United States, both to undermine the six-party talks, and because he wants to return to the good old days when the Clinton administration was providing him with aid in exchange for, in effect, nothing. Democrats, astoundingly, want to give him exactly what he wants, without first insisting upon a change in his behavior. They would rather restore a failed policy than admit a mistake.

If tragedy is to be avoided, Democrats must stop putting their partisan ambitions ahead of the security of the United States.
Jack Kelly is a member of The Blade’s national bureau.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061014/COLUMNIST14/610140363

[TurretMonkey]

Yep, Iran and North Korea began their nuclear programs the day after Bush declared them a part of the Axis of Evil.

No, but they certainly ramped up their programs immensely, didn't they?

I guess you are one of the "Bush can do no wrong" crowd.

[johnsmith]

No, but they certainly ramped up their programs immensely, didn't they?

I guess you are one of the "Bush can do no wrong" crowd.


Ummmm, no.

[TurretMonkey]

Ummmm, no.

Ummm, yes.

Both countries, after Bush started making noises started doing more, and more public pushing towards nukes.

Remember that these guys think that Bush will attack them.

If you thought some guy was going to whip out a gun and shoot you, would that make you more or less likely to get a gun to defend yourself?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Well said on the ridiculous Repug-Democrit bickering Extra Stout. It is a failing of the two-party democratic system that we waste so much time and energy attacking the other side and not solving problems.


While conceeding that he has valid point, I hope he remembers and concedes that Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden and Saddam, all started before the Clinton Administration.

But the fact does remain that the Bush Administration, IMO, has not done well in preventing NK to get to the point they are today.

Paragraph 1 - understatement. The US SUPPORTED Iraq in the war on Iran during the 80s. It then trained and funded Bin Laden against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Paragraph 2 - I'll give Bush a break here. What exactly could the US have done to prevent the sequence of events we have witnessed? Not much. The NKs have flip-flopped so many times that it is obvious they were going to build a bomb regardless of anything else. Invasion has never been an option. I think this was inevitable, and that no-one but Kim Jong Il can be blamed for this insanity.

[xrayzebra]

There are 191 Countries that make up the United Nations and 188 States that are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Why then is it the Bush Administrations or Americas responsibility to ensure that rogue Nations don't go Nuclear?

Because the UN hasn't got any balls to enforce edicts that they issue.

Much like big companies and governments. When they have an issue that
they don't want to face, appoint a committee, send the issue there, let it
die a natural death or talk it to death. NK and Iran remind you of that?

It is like they say money talks, BS walks. And let me assure you that
some of the countries that keep stalling on things are making big bucks off
NK and Iran.