-- Modified on 6/21/2006 10:52:07 PM
Madeline Albright called N. Korea their biggest foreign policy "win". They paid off an insane dictator to stop making nukes. He promised to use the money for nuclear energy only. What happend??? I am so shocked that this didn't work! Diplomacy with psychotic dictators is ALWAYS the solution.
We would be so much safer if Madeline Albright (You gotta love the broaches!) and Janet Reno were here to protect us. This is part 2 of the Clinton defense strategy. Part 1 is running away (Somalia). Part 2 is paying them off (N. Korea). Part 3 is ignoring it and waiting for the next president to deal with it (Al Quada). Maybe we should try part 2 in Iraq. How about we give each terrorist a $2,000 debit card to be nice to us.
I look foward to your defending of this and somehow blaming Bush. I could use a good chuckle right about now. The Clinton legacy continues to grow!
... Both Clinton and Bush appearing to be viewing the NC threat correct. The fundamental insight is to note that the US does not realistically benefit by getting deeply involved in the NC Mess.
First, NK is no threat to the US. They don't gain anything by attacking us. However, NC IS a threat to SC, China, and Japan. Let them take care of it. If we have to be involved, we should get a lot for doing it, especially from China. I'm sure there are major negoiations going on about this that don't see the light of day.
Harry
are you saying that a SK/Chino-Jap arms build-up is exactly what that region needs?
let Taiwan fend for itself too?
don't think so harry
If China wants us to be involved in NC, the status for Taiwan becomes something we can negoiate about.
Do you honestly think that the US is going to go to war with China over the status of Taiwan? Something like this is the ONLY way Taiwan will retain it's independant status over the very long term.
Harry
this holds equally for the iraq quagmire! Apparently,Bush & company thought that the north and south "no fly zones" weren't effective enough and required a more "thorough" fix...
... That does not mean that NC is an important strategic question to us as it is to China, SC, or Japan. Any or all of those countries can handle the situation. Why shouldn't they?
The Dem and GOP foreign policy establishment AGREES with public opinion in the US -- we aren't the world's policeman. People representing the left in the US want us to intervene in the humanatrian disaster "de jour" (many times I would like to see that myself). People representing the right in the US want us to attack NC. Neither side has made their case. For now, and for a long time to come, it's a local issue. Let them fix it.
Harry
how many years has Bush been in office?
Why don't you blame FDR? He's a well-known communist.
Clinton gave N. Korea the money to finance this. This was actually a Jimmy Carter deal. According to annonymous sources, Clinton was very close to attacking North Korea until Jimmy Carter publicly intervened. Apparently he thinks he is a great negotiator with psychotic dictators since his bang-up job with Iran. One of Clinton's cabinet member's was quoted (off the record) as calling Carter a "treasonous prick". For those who don't follow the DC gossip, Clinton and Carter dislike eachother about as much as two ex-presidents from the same party can.
For those who say "It aint broke", you are way off. This is a serious situation that needs to be dealt with. There are currently regional talks going on W/ N. Korea. This isn't accomplishing anything. Just as the UN isn't accomplishing anything with Iran and their nuke talks. North Kore has no exports other than extortion. They wish to use this to get more money from western governments as they did with the Clinton administration. If that does not work they may sell a nuke. Their leader is a Stalin-in-training and he can't have that kind of weapon. I find it shocking that some of you suggest it is not our problem as long as we are the ones who aren't nuked.
If nothing constructive is done about N. Korea and Iran in the next couple of years this will be a bigger election issue than Iraq. My hope is that these countries are bluffing and are much further away than they claim to be. Either way, this can't continue to be put on a back burner for much longer.
Blame a Democrat! Woodrow Wilson didn't kill Hitler! Jefferson was an atheist!
FOAD, dipshit.
So what you're saying is that while the Bush administration was making up stories about imaginary WMDs in Iraq and letting Bin Laden escape in Afghanistan, North Korea was stepping up it's nuclear weapons program. And that adds up to it all being Clinton's fault? What color is the sky in your world?
Clinton made a deal with N. Korea that the international community accepted. He gave money and resources to N. Korea who promised in return to keep their nuclear program going only for energy. They lied!! We never put any inspectors in there to see if N. Korea was keeping up their end of the bargain. We just gave money and resources to a mad man and walked away. This deal actually help speed up NK's progress. They announced in 2004 their nuclear capabilities. This was Clinton's deal gone bad!
Is there a J.V. team or something you guys can post on? I need to deal with people that can read a newspaper every once in a while. I just relayed to you common knowledge. Try to have a response a little more worth while than "FOAD", or "What color is the sky in your world". Are your parents home? Can they answer for you? I'm assuming from your responses that your 12 years old and you borrowed your mommy's credit card to get on this site.
-- Modified on 6/21/2006 5:18:48 AM
FDR gave tons of money to the Russians, and Andrew Jackson murdered thousands of British at New Orleans, and Jefferson fucked a slave.
I will grant that Clinton's BJ absolves every Republican of any responsibility throughout their lifetime, or even the need to ever talk about anything else.
But it doesn't make you ready for the JVs.
We realize that Republicans have a neurological chemical imbalance that obstructs the normal recognition and logic processes.
You're still not ready to watch films of JV practice.
I have yet to EVER mention Clinton's BJ. Nor have I mentioned any other past sin from any other president. I am addressing a deal done less than 10 years ago that Carter brokered and Clinton reluctantly agreed upon. I am bringing it up because it affects us NOW. NK is looking to engage America directly again so they can broker a similar deal. That is why they are saber rattling. In all due respect, you are going nowhere with this argument.
OK, so you haven't mentioned the BJ.
The question is, at what point does anybody, or any party, take responsibility for what they have been doing over, say the past 6 years?
FDR's conduct of WW2 affects us today. Your hypothesis - and maybe not an unreasonable one - is that they want a similar deal, and are throwing their weight around now.
So Bush can't tell them NO? Because why? Because he's overcommitted? Who did that?
Monday morning QBing is very easy. After 10 years, I suggest we learn to live with it, and move on, because the alternative is probably that history will move on anyway without us.
Here is a place that I would be perfectly willing to apply force, because the goal and results are pretty clear and self contained. Flattening DRK missile facilities seems like an acheivable goal. The apparant problem would be getting the PRC to sit still while we did it, and it very well could be that the PRC is letting the Koreans walk point for them, de facto proxies.
As you may have noticed, I don't regard soldiers as very good social workers. Just my experience.
It is not a question of what has been done over the last 6 years. They announced their nuclear capabilities in 2004. Immediately following there have been regional 6 party talks. This is the liberal's wet dream of diplomacy. It unfortunately isn't going to work beacuse they want the money only the USA can deliver. The concept that we are overcommitted and unable to take out NK's nuclear capabilities is ridiculous.
The use of force will be the last resort. And Bush has told then "no" and won't engage in the kind of dialogue that NK had W/ Madeline Albright.
I very much doubt China is pulling the strings. They have an expanding economy and actually have something to lose. NK has nothing to lose.
in any way keep a state from playing games - brinksmanship by proxy, whatever you want to call it.
I for one would like to see us get the hell out of Korea, and avoid the sort of indefinite committment that it has been.
My concern with Iraq is that it is going to become, like Korea, a 50 year committment; and one that costs us 500 lives a year, with no end in sight.
Murtha embodies that POV precisely. Nobody in the administration has anything to say about that except stupidass things like "I don't see any parallels with Vietnam". That's because he's a dolt, or a liar, or both.
The mechanics of insurgency are political. Americans cannot police Arabs any more than Arabs can police Americans; and putting the Army to that task is a fool's errand, and a very bloody one.
I suggest that the Republicans who call Murtha names instead of answering his questions only make themselves look more like liars. But, that's pretty much what they do. Kerry's military record was irrelevant until Bush put it in issue. Then you put the 2 alongside each other, and it says very clearly who is serious, and who is a joker.
The Republicans need to put their tail between their legs, creep off and do 40 years of penance in the wilderness for the likes of Dubya & Cheney. To me, "I didn't inhale" or "depends on what is sex" is laughable. But "I had other priorities" is not.
See there, RW? you started this thread with a legitimate issue of tremendous concern to Amrica, ESPECIALLY those of us on the Pacific Coastline.
But then you hurl the Clinton invectives instead of focusing on the issue itself, which in turn leads to the progressives and liberals of this board responding in kind, which leads to you morphing into just another bloviating right wing clone. Or is it clown?
RW, we've exchanged email, so i know you can present the right wingers argument cohesively and rationally. you aren't that much different from my old friend and colleague BillKile, another conservative rightie with whom I have enjoyed rational conversations.
This degredation into the typical "i know you are but what am i" adolescence, is unbecoming to any of us.
I'm no less guilty of it than anyone else, moreso even perhaps, when my own hot button topic is broached.
But back to the facts of the issue. Clintons dealings with North Korea are not the issue here, just as WMD is no longer the relevant issue of the (I just made this up) Bahgdad Boondoggle.
The RELEVANT issue is North Koreas nuclear DELIVERY capability. They've already got nukes.
China, Japan, and certainly South Korea are all much much closer and far more likely candidates for a NK first strike. And let's face it. with the current administration, any nuclear attack on American soil would lead to that entire country being wiped out in a retaliatory strike from just a single wing of B-1's.
Then what do you have? An instant solution to global warming, which would put Al Gore into a snit.
AHHHHHHHHH NOW I understand!
I definitely see your point. Look at my dialogue with Harry vs. the other clowns to see how I respond in kind. Some of the jabs I throw are to entertain myself.
Reagan had some great success training the militants in Afghanistan, selling weapons to Iran and Iraq, and helping out the Contras.
Imagine how much better the world would be if only Jimmy Carter had used 18 helicopters instead of 9.
You could even explore Prescott Bush and other Republican corporate investors in Nazi Germany.
But the important thing is what we do now and how we've learned from past mistakes.
The party that controls all 3 branches of government plus the lobbyists is the party of abstinence and family values anyway. I'm sure they'll fix everything soon. Happy hobbying mate!
Maybe if Dubya got a BJ, he'd bring back Clinton's economy.
Or maybe nail OBL, instead of the pathetic goat ropers he's chasing now.
Look, you really need to limit yourself to things you know something about. Selling cars, insurance polices, or whatever it is that you do.
But Apparently lying about it is an impeachable offense. I wish someone, Condi?, would give Bush a BJ so we can finally impeach him. Knowing him, it will probably be the first time in his pathetic life he tells the truth and they'll let him go. Dick Cheney too.
A good bumper sticker I saw: Dick Cheney before he dicks you!
-- Modified on 6/21/2006 10:52:07 PM
... did not achieve the desired effect. SFW? BTW, if you want to talk about the Dems "running away", I can't wait to hear how you explain Reagan and Beruit. .You can tell us why the red-meat GOP screamed when Clinton considered sending ground troops into Bosnia. Finally, Do you remember how both the GOP and the Dem establishment kept quiet about Rwanda?
Every administration has implemented foreign policies that did not work. Every administration has worked with "psychotic dictators". Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not.
Do you need a list of Mr Bush's foreign policy problems?
Harry
First off Harry, it's a K and not a C. I keep assuming your talking about North Carolina. (LOL).
My point of this is that the libs need to understand what happens when you choose to essentially ignore a problem. Working through the UN to make some bullshit deal with a psycho usually doesn't turn out well. This seems to be the one and only alternative we ever hear from the libs. Well this is the kind of fruit it brings.
And to your other points:
1) You will be hard pressed to find a conservative who agreed with Reagan pulling out of Beruit. But Reagan did engage terrorism very successfully.
2) I am disgusted at the entire world community (including my party) for letting Rwanda happen.
3) Bosnia was pointless. Clinton said we had nothing to gain as a country for engaging in this. Muslims and Christians resumed a centuries old conflict. This was a war where there were mass graves (like every war) and someone decided to call it a genocide. They had Milosevec in jail for years and they could never build a case against him. Why are Jews and Christians always the bad guys and Muslims the good guys? How could we possibly side with them? BTW, NATO is there and there is still a shit load of violence. More than anyone cares to admit.
(1) You will be hard pressed to find a conservative who was within a thousand miles of Beirut. Every one of them could have volunteered for the organization that reflected their goals, or organized a group to acheive their goals, but they didn't. Because the essence of conservatism is carping about how somebody else should do the dirty work.
(2) Did the world community prevent you from fighting in Rwanda? Or whatever you want to do with Rwanda? Here's a concept for you: put your money where your mouth is. Sign up or shut up. I see any number of people who act on their convictions every day like this. But these people are never conventional conservative Republicans, because conservative Republicans have other priorities, to wit, sitting on their fat asses in their air conditioned offices running their mouth about how tough they are because they whine endlessly about how other people should get dirty and bloody.
(3) But Bosnia didn't result in (a) long term regional anarchy, or (b) a regiment's worth of American casualties. Probably the reason you think it was pointless. Sorry we can't oblige everybody.
Sign up or shut up, tough guy.
See there RW? I knew you could do it!
The point of Bosnia however, is something else.
Genocide is genocide. It is a shame we, as a country, choose to pick our battles in this arena. We go to Bosnia, but not to Rwanda. We ignore the inconceivable carnage of Darfur.
Don't you get it? It's all about Political expedience and Business. If the Sudan was a nation rich in natural resources, there would be mass uproar over Darfur.
If it was just about what's right or wrong, then we as a nation of conscience, would be in all of them. Not just the ones that serve our interests.
and it does not require us to go around the world to stand between people whose highest principles are to murder each other, and get into a fight that cannot do us any good.
I'm not here to civilize the world, and most of our civilizing expeditions do nothing but de-civilize us. I have a hard enough time civilizing my own kids, and I sure can't civilize the likes of Ann Coulter or Dick Cheney, and I am in no way obliged to save the baby seals or baby Rwandans from their own people. Life is tough all over, and when the Mexicans start sending us aid to rebuild our own cities, you would think we would be able to read the handwriting on the wall.
... However, I don't believe the US will go into a protracted war unless the people are behind it. That means that we won't get into a war unless we are fooled into doing it (once a generation) or we see US strategic interests at stake.
That characteristic of American Was has it's bad side and it's good side. If this remains a democracy, the goods will outweigh the bads.
as to your points.
1) Reagan negoitated with Iran to free hostages and gave them arms.
2) Good for you.
3) Bob Dole got up on the floor of the senate and advocated arming the Muslims. He had large scale GOP support for the position. There was enough political support and cover from both parties to allow Clinton to get involved.
My "take away" for you is that you are being disingeneous trying to pin the blame on Mr Clinton for NK (got it right this time). The US should continue to insist on 6 party talks and make sure the regional players either fix this themselves or pay the price for having us do so.
Regards, Harry
If there needs to be a military conflict (God forbid) the international community will get behind it and actually contribute. Kim Jong Ill does not have any oil or any friends. There would also not be any insurgency after the fact because nobody wants him there. NK wants out of the 6 party talks and wants a direct dialogue with the USA. He wants more $$$. Japan is currently on "High Alert".
So, what would you have suggested at the time. Go ahead, what's the solution? Invade North Korea? No, Clinton was too busy fighting his impeachment. Bush has had 6 years to deal with it, and he hasn't had to fight off BBBJ accusations in the meantime. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress would have accused him of getting us involved in a useless foreign war. They would have done anything to undercut him. You probably should realize that there is a cost to weakening a president and following that by putting an incompentent in.
It has been demonstrated by now that NK was able to obtain them from Pakistan, and probably did. Remember that scandal? No, while that scandal was going Bushwacker's neocons were crying about a shovel full of Yellowcake in Niger.
BTW, unlike Vietnam, Bush wasn't obligated by treaty to do anything for North Korea. So, what's stopping him from invading? Perhaps Iraq?
Conservative says: Clinton did it.
Liberal says: Bush did it.
A tie. How do we decide this? What year is it? 2006.
Call it opportunity costs. Bush went after the wrong spoke on the "Axis of Evil."
BTW, this is how I rate it:
Clinton failures: Waco, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Haiti, Healthcare Reform, last minute pardons, '94 elections.
Clinton Successes: Kosovo, Record economic growth, budget surpluses, Decline in Crime.
Clinton Draws: North Korea, Iraq, Welfare reform.
Republican Bullshit around Clinton: Whitewater, affairs, Monica, Vince Foster, Impeachment, "Didn't Inhale", Arkansas Body Count, et al.
All told, not a great record I have to admit. Nevertheless, Bushwacker really makes Clinton look like Bismark, Abraham Lincoln or Disraeli.
-- Modified on 6/22/2006 12:26:10 PM