North Korea is ready to behave..Thanks George! - Page 6 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Meridious · #76 (**permalink**) 02-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

Agreed, all they have to do is submit to whatever the IAEA wants. It is that simple. Unforunately this wont change their massive abuse of human rights.

There track record consists of taking the money and technology and then turning their backs on any agreement.

I don't know why we should think the midget madman will be any different this time.

chathamfarmer · #77 (**permalink**) 02-15-2007

North Korea is not behaving. They are accepting bribes........for now.

doniston · #78 (**permalink**) 02-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by chathamfarmer

North Korea is not behaving. They are accepting bribes........for now.

Yep, and we are offering them.

TheLastBoyScout · #79 (**permalink**) 02-15-2007

I don't see how John Bolton and others are criticizing the possible deal with North Korea. I think it's a positive thing and who would have thought that they would negotiate at all. More progress will need to be made on this front, but it's a step in the right direction.

I also don't see how this in any way exonerates Bush from the mistakes he's made. I would guess that Bush is actually in the John Bolton camp and this proposed deal with North Korea was made in spite of Bush, not with his help.

So it's good news no matter how you cut it, but it's a small victory for peace and security of the world. It's not a major victory for neo-cons or liberals so anyone laying claim to it is full of it.

TheLastBoyScout · #80 (**permalink**) 02-15-2007

jviehe said:Ah, so now we're back to finding something to criticize Bush for. Lets see:

1. Bush gets no credit for the deal - Correct. I would give the credit to the Chineese diplomats who actually carried the biggest stick in these 6 party talks.
2. if the deal fails, its Bush's fault. - No. If the deal fails, it's Kim Jong's fault
3. if it suceedes. it was in spite of something Bush did wrong - Correct in a way. Bush has nothing to do with diplomacy. This deal got done in spite of Bush's lack of diplomacy. But again, I would give credit to China in making this deal happen anyway.
4. we shouldnt have needed a deal, cause this NK getting nukes is Bushs fault
- Incorrect. Anyone claiming this is full of it.

Really, whats the point of debate any more?

IronMaiden27 · #81 (**permalink**) 02-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sal Munella

Yes, and I think you've just identified to us the reason for your distorted outlook.

Oh cut it with the simpleton act, Sal. I don't see you contributing to the thread other than for personal insults on others to compensate for the fact you cannot counteract in an intelligible manner. Try offering your side of the story.

enigma2 · #82 (**permalink**) 02-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ironman Jack

Breaking news that the Major Liberal Media "mentioned", that N.Korea may be ready to give up their Nuclear ambitions!!

This has to be DEVASTATING to the bitch from NY and her Commie husband who built N.Korea up to destroy close Allies of America!!!

Mr Bush will possibly go down as the best ever, as soon as the new Iraq strategy pays off, and IT WILL!!

Now we need to keep all the Socialist-Progressive fucking Liberal traitors out of the picture and America will once again look GOOD!!!!!!:cool:

Thank you for your honesty, Jack. For you to admit that the US is NOT looking good at the moment is refreshing after all the flag-waving, Watada-blaming, Clinton (both male and female)-hating, irrational, xenophobic..., How many words are there in the Thesaurus to cover the outpourings of the rabid conservatives STILL refusing to see the situation as it is rather than as they want it to be!

There was a cartoon in the Washington Post yesterday. It showed a freeway with a straight road called Clinton leading to Nth Korea, then there was the 'scenic route' which curled and doubled back but finally arrived at the same destination. Guess what that one was called?

jotathought · #83 (**permalink**) 02-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronMaiden27

From what I heard, Kin Jung wants $300,000,000 dollars and NK will dismantle their nuke programs in a phase-process. Each phase, he wants more $$. We have no one else but Bush to partly blame because if you think about it. Kim Jung waited until the time was right to hit us up for cash. Think about it - Bush brought out the whole WMD ordeal with Iraq and now Kin Jung probably thought that he would be able to hit us up for money by claiming he wants to negotiate in order to shut down his WMD program. Now that half the world has us by the balls, he knows that he could possibly get away with this ordeal and make out in dough BIG time. What other choice do we have? We cannot invade them too... we're too occupied in the ME to start a beef with NK. The guy may be crazy, but he's not stupid.

Why don't you go back about 10 years and read up on North Korea .. what do you think the Clinton administration did even after North Korea signed the Agreed Framework [and continued to violate it]? They bribed Kim Jong with food, oil, nuclear reactors and money ..

wrxsti · #84 (**permalink**) 02-16-2007

Bush good, Clinton bad.

QED

jviehe · #85 (**permalink**) 02-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jotathought

Why don't you go back about 10 years and read up on North Korea .. what do you think the Clinton administration did even after North Korea signed the Agreed Framework [and continued to violate it]? They bribed Kim Jong with food, oil, nuclear reactors and money ..

And the AF was a result of their already violating the NPT. As usual, the US has to go clean of the UNs mess.

IronMaiden27 · #86 (**permalink**) 02-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jotathought

Why don't you go back about 10 years and read up on North Korea .. what do you think the Clinton administration did even after North Korea signed the Agreed Framework [and continued to violate it]? They bribed Kim Jong with food, oil, nuclear reactors and money ..

Why don't you fast forward a bit to the year 2000 when Rumsfeld was on the board of the company (can't remember name AB-something) that obtained a $200 million contract in which they provided the designs and materials of chemical reactors in North Korea?

Everyone's, even Clinton's hands are soiled in this one.

Rakkasan · #87 (**permalink**) 02-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronMaiden27

Why don't you fast forward a bit to the year 2000 when Rumsfeld was on the board of the company (can't remember name AB-something) that obtained a $200 million contract in which they provided the designs and materials of chemical reactors in North Korea?

Everyone's, even Clinton's hands are soiled in this one.

wow a liberal that is honest...............

varrussword · #88 (**permalink**) 02-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by enigma2

Thank you for your honesty, Jack. For you to admit that the US is NOT looking good at the moment is refreshing after all the flag-waving, Watada-blaming, Clinton (both male and female)-hating, irrational, xenophobic..., How many words are there in the Thesaurus to cover the outpourings of the rabid conservatives STILL refusing to see the situation as it is rather than as they want it to be!

How do you know it's not you who is wearing the blinders? Have you personally been to Iraq and talked with the troops over there?

Quote:

There was a cartoon in the Washington Post yesterday. It showed a freeway with a straight road called Clinton leading to Nth Korea, then there was the 'scenic route' which curled and doubled back but finally arrived at the same destination. Guess what that one was called?

Ah so this is where you get your info...cartoons.

Varus

jviehe · #89 (**permalink**) 02-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronMaiden27

Why don't you fast forward a bit to the year 2000 when Rumsfeld was on the board of the company (can't remember name AB-something) that obtained a $200 million contract in which they provided the designs and materials of chemical reactors in North Korea?

Everyone's, even Clinton's hands are soiled in this one.

Apples to Oranges. Clinton made a bad foriegn policy move when he attempted to appease a dictator. Rumsfeld was a private citizen whose company made a smart financial decision. I dont even know that Rumsfeld had anything to do with it.

Beer · #90 (**permalink**) 02-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by WPK

Let me remind everyone of the last Presdential debate, with John Kerry stating that "we need to go to one on one talks" with Kim Jung! That's right, for all you libs that voted for good ol' flip-flopping Kerry. Kerry was ready to go round two with Kim Jung, just like Clinton had done, which would have resulted in total FAILURE, again.

Due to President Bush's insistance that there be bi-lateral talks with Japan, S.K & especially CHINA involved, Kim Jungs biggest supporter, things are actually starting to happen.

Now, if we can get Russia, to put to the screws to Iran, they would turn their Nukes in on a dime. It's time to put some pressure on Russia.

Give credit where credit is due:
Condoleeza Rice can be pointed to in connecting these countries to negotiate. Not Bush.

Bookmarks
Digg	del.icio.us	StumbleUpon	Google

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode