id="info"

General discussion

Locked

North Korea, Nukes and You.

By ProtiusX ·
I read all too often the same dull diatribe about how the US government is the real enemy and everything would be better off if we could get rid of Bush. What utter nonsense. Kim Jong Il is a thug much in the same way Saddam Hussein was and like his egomaniacal counterpart feels as though he can do anything he wants to and the rest of the world can go get stuffed. What the liberal sheep in this country don?t understand is that this administration is tasked with protecting the American people and looking out after this nation?s best interest. The reason they are incapable of this is they are incapable of seeing beyond their own lives or personal agendas. Why do liberals think North Korea wants a nuclear weapon? Do liberals honestly believe that North Korea is concerned or worried about an American invasion? No. They are not. If they were they wouldn?t be posturing as they are now. North Korea and more specifically Kim Jong Il wants a nuclear weapon to use as blackmail to get American foreign aid. Why do you think it is so important for him that we talk unilaterally? What could he possibly have to say to the US other than ?Give me money and I will stop setting off nukes??

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

119 total posts (Page 1 of 12)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Agree and Disagree

by JamesRL In reply to North Korea, Nukes and Yo ...

I agree that the dicator in NK is a threat to the US and to the world.

I would argue that in many ways he is more dangerous than Saddam ever was. He has demonstrated that he doesn't mind starving millions, and is paranoid to boot.

I agree that his aim is not to nuke his neighbour, but to blackmail the world into paying him to stop testing. And there is an ego component. A win for him would be to have everyone take NK more seriously. He enjoys the drama and the theatre of the flurry of action at UN.

I'm sure he also enjoys making China squirm.

James

Collapse -

How can paying him off be an option?

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to North Korea, Nukes and Yo ...

He'll take the money, give you a toothy smile build another, and hold his hand out for the next installment!

Paying him off is a 'liberal' policy, if ever I heard one, this guy is not going to stay bought, I mean he's a politician.

Whether liberals were worried about an american invasion I can't say. Given american posturing, history and current on going actions, he'd have to be an outright imbecile not to consider the possibility.

He knows he had no credible defense against an awe and dstruction style manouvre. Doesn't matter whether you intended to do it, he sure as horse apples knows you have the capability.

I'm not saying the iraq war tipped him over, but if your demonstrated ability and willingness to take out regimes you disapprove of didn't cause him a sleepless night or two his IQ must be negative.

I can only see two options now, ignore him and put the entire burden on the chinese, who are definitely not going to be happy.
Or assassinate him and enough others and let the place disintegrate into civil war.

The idea that we could ever stop nuclear proliferation to other nations was a comforting pipe dream that had no basis in reality. Any sensible country want's it's own nuclear deterrent, and while we float about with ours we are in intelligence terms a threat.

No I'm not a unilateralist, that's an even worse pie in the sky proposition. Giving up the weapons, even if that could be proven doesn't mean we can't put togther another one before the weapons inspectors got back in their van.

It would be nice if were were all responsible enough to sort out our differences with a game of conkers or perhaps pistols at dawn, isn't happening any time soon though.

Even if that happened, David set the precedent when he took Goliath out from a safe distance because he knew he couldn't go toe to toe and win.

Collapse -

You must be from someplace strange

by DelbertPGH In reply to How can paying him off be ...

What the **** is "a game of conkers", Tony? That ain't no American metaphor.

Collapse -

ROFL. From the UK. Here you go

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to You must be from someplac ...

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/conkers.html

Kids in the UK still play this, one of the few things that gives me hope in this technological age.

Collapse -

Yes and No, right and wrong, whatever ...

by PSer In reply to North Korea, Nukes and Yo ...

I assume by calling out the "Liberal Sheep" you are either blaming the Libs. for questioning an incompetent Administration or you're just looking to pick a fight. Okay, I'll bite.

<sarcasm>Of course they are not worried about a US invasion, they (N.K.) ACTUALLY have WMD's! <sarcasm>

"The reason they are incapable of this is they are incapable of seeing beyond their own lives or personal agendas."

You are correct sir, give that man a cigar! This Administration IS "incapable of seeing beyond their own lives or personal agendas" to do what is best for our country!

"Liberal Sheep", funny, that's how I see the right wing religious zealots. Y'all were all so ready to follow Cowboy Bush into an (oil field/filled) country with no evidence of Nucalor <Bush speak> weapons (WMD's). Now that there is a Megalomaniac with Nuclear capabilities, it's time to let the "Inspectors do their jobs", "put sanctions in place", "wait and see"!?!? Which is exactly the course that should have been taken with Iraq! Did GWB learn a lesson or is there just less at stake for him and his cronies? No money in it for Halliburton, No money in it for the Carlyle Group, No money in it for the Corporate PTB ... "eh, let's tauwlk bubala" says Bush and Company.

"What the liberal sheep in this country don?t understand is that this administration is tasked with protecting the American people and looking out after this nation?s best interest"

EVERY Administration's job is to "protect the American people and look out after this nation?s best interest". Do you really believe that is why "they" invaded Iraq? To protect American People and the Nation's best interest? No, it was to protect "His" people and "Their" best interest! If you disagree just, Bahhhh ... Bahhhh ... Bahhhh away!

Not for nothing, but I agree with your "ideas" about N.K. and Kim Jung. Also, not for nothing but we "America" WILL be rid of the Bush Administration ... just not soon enough I fear.

Collapse -

Interesting argument

by ProtiusX In reply to Yes and No, right and wro ...

I find it interesting that you dribble on and on all over your keyboard about how utterly evil Bush and the US is and then come to your grand repost "If you disagree just, Bahhhh ... Bahhhh ... Bahhhh away!"

You have no idea why we invaded Iraq and I for one am not going to attempt to explain it to you. It would be a worthless endeavor at any rate.

Oh and misquoting me won't work either. If ever you wish to pose an adequate and well crafted argument I would love to read it. I miss Neal. We disagreed on a lot of things but he was very well written and made me do my homework as it were.

Collapse -

Why did we?

by NickNielsen In reply to Interesting argument

I've been trying to figure it out for over four years with all the evidence available, and I still don't understand. After carefully eliminating all the partisan rhetoric, these are the only reasons for invading Iraq that make sense to me:

a. GWB believed that Saddam had WMD, therefore it was so; or
b. it's about oil; or
c. it's about the current President showing his father how it's done.

Collapse -

Your Naive

by ProtiusX In reply to Why did we?

I don?t know why I am compelled to bite onto these ridiculous arguments. It wasn?t just George W Bush that believed the intelligence reports that stated that Saddam was attempted to acquire nuclear material. Virtually, every Democrat congressman and representative believed it as well. People like the John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer and Joe Kennedy believed the same intelligence reports that were presented to the President. In fact, even the Iraqi generals believed that they had chemical weapons up to within three weeks of the invasion. Saddam trusted no one. The fact that he had them is irrefutable and is testified to by the thousands of dead Kurds who were murdered by nerve gas.

I know I have said this before as well but it is worth restating: A lie is when one knows that what one is saying is an untruth and speaks the lie in an effort to deceive. A classic example is our impeached former president William Jefferson Clinton when he said ?I did not have sex with that woman?. He knew he did in fact have sex with that woman and deliberately lied in order to cover for his misdeeds.
Unlike his predecessor who was only interested in his own interests, our current president was acting in the best interests of our country at the time when he truly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Collapse -

A Couple of Things to Add...

by darinhamer In reply to Your Naive

First, some seem to forget that we had about 12 years of inspectors in Iraq. They were repeatedly refused access to sites while Sadham cleaned up the site, then let them in. We played this cat and mouse game of inspectors, inspectors pulled or thrown out, sanctions, inspectors back in, yadda, yadda, from 1991 to 2003. It seems that post 9/11 it was time to quit playing that game.

Furthermore, I am not saying invading Iraq was the right thing to do, but I understand the logic and now that we have done it, we must stick to it. Successfully, establishing a democracy in the middle of the radical-Muslim world will have long-term positive effects on our national security. But you must connect all of the dots. It seems that most of our population, the detractors to the war, cannot connect more than two dots, which is why it is always about just one thing, like oil. It is more complicated than that and the stakes are very high.

I hear so many comparisons between Iraq and Viet Nam. Unfortunately, the comparisons are true, but not for the right reasons. The fact is that the American people were supportive in committing our troops to war. But, then they don't have the perserverence to continue to support the war. So we get protests and those who detract from the war, just like John Kerry (both Viet Nam and Iraq). Unfortunately, it is this lack of fortitude that will probably cost us the war and we will never see the benefits that a true democratic Iraq would have afforded the entire world. Very sad.

Collapse -

It's because you are so much fun to bait ]:)

by NickNielsen In reply to Your Naive

The problem was that at the time, even constrained by the cease-fire terms, Iraq was still a stabilizing influence in the region, separating the terrorist axis of Iran and Syria. I was not in favor of invading Iraq, primarily for this reason. Additionally, we had not yet (nor have we yet) completed the mission in Afghanistan.

Although I do not agree with all of his arguments and have yet to find references to support all of them, this article (http://tinyurl.com/yf7od4) is probably the best discussion of the actual reason for invading Iraq that I have found. I particularly like this sentence:

There are a huge percentage of Americans that could not tell you the logic of any argument that opposes their na?ve view.

It explains a lot.

Edit: Now that we are there, we need to finish the job and establish a stable, democratically elected government. Unfortunately, planning failures on the part of the Bush Administration, the removal of Saddam, and (very probably) terrorist agents provocateurs allowed the top to **** off the sectarian pot. It will be a very long and very, very difficult process to replace it.

Back to Community Forum
119 total posts (Page 1 of 12)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

General Discussion Forums