Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Apr 25, 2005.
maybe i just don't read kristof often enough, but has he ever been so anti-bush?
If Bush's friends didn't have so much money in China, he would have nuked Kim by now. Its amazing that we went off hunting weapons of mass destruction in the sand when the whole time they were in DPRK.
"A bit of background: North Korea made one or two nuclear weapons around 1989, during the first Bush administration, but froze its plutonium program under the 1994 "Agreed Framework" with the Clinton administration."
I just wish the word "froze" was believable.
"North Korea adhered to the freeze on plutonium production..."
I just wish that were believable.
"...but about 1999, it secretly started on a second nuclear route involving uranium."
I thought Dubya was inagurated in 2001. Dumb me.
anonymous161, every major corporation in the world has beaucoup money invested in China. Two of the biggest are Bunge (Brazil) and BHP Billiton (Australia). And, probably, CocaCola. Before I forget, there's also Companhia Vale Do Rio Doce. I guess Dubya's got lotsa friends.
So I take it you think Dubya's pursuing the appropriate policy with regard to NK 'Rat? The ABC policy was/is a success?
So we must admit that Kim stayed within the letter, if not the spirit of the law. He played the game better than we did. Bush, Clinton, and Bush were all outwitted by a guy who gives death sentences for bad hair cuts.
I wonder if Bush, Sr. and Clinton ever really thought they were pursuing a long term solution? I bet not. They both did what they could, with the resources they had available, with the consequences they were willing to accept. That they were acting like the Dutch boy with his finger in the dam was immaterial to their goals.
We may have to accept that the world is going to become ever-more nuclear. If we don't want that, then we must be prepared to put forth the resources and effort to make sure it doesn't happen. In North Korea, Clinton bought ten years of no plutonium-based bombs for the price of several hundred million dollars in fuel oil and food. In Iraq, Bush bought peace of mind from nukes for the price of two hundred billion dollars and countless lives. Was either method worth the effort? Who got the better deal?
My question is, why was Iraq ever considered to be a bigger threat to world and or American safety than the DPRK? Why did Bush insist that we must invade Iraq and bring safety and democracy to a people who felt pretty safe and didn't want democracy but try to sweep Kim under the carpet?
Hmm, Mr. President, what's that on your shoe? Looks sorta black and sticky, smells like money...
Whew! For a minute there, I thought there might actually be something that Bush ****ed up that loyal dittoheads couldn't blame on Clinton.
Clinton is giving a speech in my area next month, and there was a letter to the editor in yesterday's paper from some dittohead who used the term "oral sex" at least 8 times and excoriated Clinton for introducing the act of oral sex to our nation's youth. She had nothing substantial to say, but probably missed the irony in the fact that today's children read the paper too and might have come across her letter and learned something new.
in other news the german opposition party FDP (libertanian perhabs for the US) are making official demands that the US withdraws their nuclear weapons from germany
i wonder how long it takes for politcials campaigns to gather steam...
'Scuse me, pseudobrit. I'm not blaming Clinton for anything. That the Kim regime in NK is a lying pack of rats isn't his fault or Bush's fault. The NK rat pack has had no rational economic reason for their behavior over these last fifty years for any of their hostility. They'll say whatever they think folks want to hear as they continue with their extreme paranoia.
My question is just what does Kim really want? To invade and take control of all of Korea? Then what? He's not gonna take over Japan or China. His general policies would destroy the economy of all of Korea, which leads to another "Then, what?" Or, does he just want to create/maintain his little starving enclave, continuing to be a third-world country with a bunch of nukes for "defense"?
I dunno. I've been watching the world for a long time. I see reports in the media of visits by various foreign leaders who wander through Europe or the US. They enjoy our general largesse in nice hotels and restaurants and go shopping. They then go home and yowl and howl about how decadent is the West. You're evil becuase you don't have a subsistence living, chopping cotton for the Nomenklatura Massas, or kowtowing to some thug in Africa. None of the sorry sacks of dog poop care one iotat about the well-being of their own citizenry.
And yet diplomacy has it that we're supposed to treat with these "leaders" as though they're rational grownups. Create a UN General Asembly where their votes are as good as ours.
I dunno. My own rednecky emotional view is old-timey: "Some folks just need killin'." I just flat-out don't like thugocracies. And I feel sorry for all our political leadership folks, here or Europe or wherever, who have to deal with these thugs as though they're reall human beings...
The earth is a beautiful playground. People keep throwing litter all over it.
If we're going to try to deal with these thugs as you feel we should, we need a legal basis for doing so. If your neighbor shoots your dog, you can't just go next door and shoot *his* dog, or key his car, you have to call the cops and let them deal him, charge him, send him to court to go to jail or pay a fine. That's the agreement we've come up with as a society to make it possible for all of us to live together. We all agree to follow a certain set of rules, and accept that those authorized to do so will enforce those rules when needed.
The problem on the international level is that our own leaders have tried to undermine what little international law we as a global society have tried to create. We won't accept that any rules apply to us but our own, but then we expect to be able to enforce whatever rules we want on everyone else. Stable society can't function this way.
If you want to enforce rules upon your neighbor, you have to accept those same rules yourself. You must also allow the authorities to enforce those rules, you may not enforce them yourself. If we as a country refuse to acknowledge any rules, and try to enforce rules on others, we will end up with the semi-chaos that we have today.
I'm sorry I'm preaching to you, Desertrat, I know you know this, but how do Bush, Cheney et all, not? If we want the world to keep certain standards, we must accept that those standards apply to ourselves and let the enforcement of those standards happen the way they are designed to. Right now Bush is openly deriding what few rules we have, weakening the very system that would get the rest of the world to help us. Are our leaders *that* dumb?
I agree, the Bush administration is out of control, but I'm fairly certain you meant five years instead of fifty.