blah Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:

JTiger Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:

Dogger Wrote:N. Korea-  Yesterday N. Korea backed out of the 6 nation unilateral talks.  They have acquired nuclear weapons and are a KNOWN seller or proliferator of these weapons.  It is my hope that the administration does not sweep this under the rug because they don't want to take the heat for it happening under there watch.  Grade F

The majority of the responsibility for that one falls on the previous administration. You know, Billary.

Would you have supported an invasion of N Korea when Bill was in office? Or would you have just cried "wag the dog"?

I would have to say yes, I would have supported it.

I supported the activities in both Kosovo and Somalia.

Well 75% of America supported invading Iraq too, until things didn't turn out exactly the way we wanted and we weren't in and out in 2 weeks. Are you John "Flip-Flopper" Kerry's brother? That's the part about being President that is hard. You have to make a decision. It is easy to be everyone else and Monday morning quarterback the decision after it was made. Do I agree with everything Bush is doing, no, but I sure as hell know that the United States as a whole won't stand for dealing with Iran or N. Korea right now.

I'd be interested to hear what you and Dogger would have done had you been President.

However, I would give the administration a B- in Iraq and a N/A in N. Korea and Iran. All they have done is identify what is going on.

I am not sure why you are chunking Dogger and Myself in the same boat. He (just guessing here) and I fall to completely different ends of the spectrum. But, oh well.

First of all, I don't want to be President, and I don't spend a lot of time formulating foreign policy, so I don't have a foreign policy plan for NK or Iran. Now with all that being said, i would not follow Clinton's "appeasement" policy. All that got us was a temporary warm fuzzy while NK continued to develop their nukes and the missile systems that can deliver the warheads to <gasp> Cowleefornya. Now we are in a real pickle. Any aggression by us, may send Nukes flying towards the US. If Billary had done more, would it have changed the position that we are in now? Who knows. I do know that his approach did not work. Will Bush's approach fix the situation? Only time will tell. Do I have an answer as to what I would do? No, not really. I don't have access to the intelligence reports, and who knows if they are even accurate.

As far as Iraq goes, I give the result a B (and climbing). Congrats on their elections! I believe the future is bright for them.

If N. Korea Wants nukes let em. I really don't care. There are two options here

A. Everybody has nukes this way there is an assurance of World Destruction.
B. Nobody has nukes. (the better of the options.)

Dogger Wrote:It would have been wise to keep your friends close and your enemies closer in realtions with N. Korea.&nbsp; We had cameras in the nuclear power plant under Clinton.&nbsp; Under Bush they were removed from the lack of dialouge.&nbsp; A collossal failure.

So I take it your solution to this would be to give N. Korea what they want, sign the non-agression pact and allow them to unify Korea under their banner?

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Dogger Wrote:It would have been wise to keep your friends close and your enemies closer in realtions with N. Korea.  We had cameras in the nuclear power plant under Clinton.  Under Bush they were removed from the lack of dialouge.  A collossal failure.

So I take it your solution to this would be to give N. Korea what they want, sign the non-agression pact and allow them to unify Korea under their banner?

What is so wrong with a Non-agression pact.

Tulsaman Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Dogger Wrote:It would have been wise to keep your friends close and your enemies closer in realtions with N. Korea.  We had cameras in the nuclear power plant under Clinton.  Under Bush they were removed from the lack of dialouge.  A collossal failure.

So I take it your solution to this would be to give N. Korea what they want, sign the non-agression pact and allow them to unify Korea under their banner?

What is so wrong with a Non-agression pact.

We're the only ones that will be abiding by it.

RebelKev Wrote:

Tulsaman Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Dogger Wrote:It would have been wise to keep your friends close and your enemies closer in realtions with N. Korea.  We had cameras in the nuclear power plant under Clinton.  Under Bush they were removed from the lack of dialouge.  A collossal failure.

So I take it your solution to this would be to give N. Korea what they want, sign the non-agression pact and allow them to unify Korea under their banner?

What is so wrong with a Non-agression pact.

We're the only ones that will be abiding by it.

so what. i really don't care what they do. and as a sign of non-agression let em overrun the south.

Tulsaman Wrote:What is so wrong with a Non-agression pact.

See this from my first post.

Quote:First, they don't understand what it is N. Korea really wants. What they are seeking is for us to give them a nonaggression pact, one that would recognize and treat it as America's "equal. For us to comply would be to send a message to every tin horn dictator and nuclear wannabe that going nuke gets you what you want. That's a profoundly dangerous message to send and would seriously endanger this country's national security.

Second, N. Korea's ultimate goal is to unify Korea, of course under communist rule. The South is where the money and industry is while in the North poverty and bankruptcy thrive under a corrupt regime. The US gives them the non-agression pact, basically acknowledging them as not a military threat, then support for our troops being in S. Korea will fall.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Tulsaman Wrote:What is so wrong with a Non-agression pact.

See this from my first post.

Quote:First, they don't understand what it is N. Korea really wants. What they are seeking is for us to give them a nonaggression pact, one that would recognize and treat it as America's "equal. For us to comply would be to send a message to every tin horn dictator and nuclear wannabe that going nuke gets you what you want. That's a profoundly dangerous message to send and would seriously endanger this country's national security.

Second, N. Korea's ultimate goal is to unify Korea, of course under communist rule. The South is where the money and industry is while in the North poverty and bankruptcy thrive under a corrupt regime. The US gives them the non-agression pact, basically acknowledging them as not a military threat, then support for our troops being in S. Korea will fall.

Nuclear Weapons have been a curse on Mankind since the day they were created.

Tulsaman Wrote:Nuclear Weapons have been a curse on Mankind since the day they were created.

Whole heartedly agree. And the fewer people that have them the better off we are.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Tulsaman Wrote:Nuclear Weapons have been a curse on Mankind since the day they were created.

Whole heartedly agree. And the fewer people that have them the better off we are.

then you would agree that total world disarment would be a perfect solution. (granted it would never work)

Quote:A. Everybody has nukes this way there is an assurance of World Destruction.

Ah. Good ole M.A.D. Reagan's idea was better. Implement defenses to make sure at least one side survives.

Quote:B. Nobody has nukes. (the better of the options.)

Why are those the only options? Why can't nations that have shown to be responsible and moral keep them as the big stick to remind the looney nations what happens if they get out of hand? And if a moral nation goes looney, the threat posed by weapons of the moral still stand.

Quote:so what. i really don't care what they do. and as a sign of non-agression let em overrun the south.

Sure. That way we can allow the total destruction of an ally and thriving democratic nation. Good plan.

Tulsaman Wrote:then you would agree that total world disarment would be a perfect solution. (granted it would never work)

Sure. But it only works if everyone plays by the same rules. And like you said, it would never work.

Dogger Wrote:...&nbsp; We had cameras in the nuclear power plant under Clinton.&nbsp; Under Bush they were removed from the lack of dialouge.&nbsp; A collossal failure.

well then, clinton probably has some real good photos of korea's illegal uranium enrichment activities. you know, the ones which continued unabated after north korea duped clinton and albright into thinking they could bribe the north koreans into being good and abandoning their nuclear weapons program?

bill probably carries one in his wallet.

They were 12-16 years away from a nuclear weapon in your illegal enrichment scenario. They have 16 now boy wonder.

So, you gice W an A, Gruehls? He's had a fine grasp on the situation????

if we want to blame someone we need to blame Enstein for making that fool Formula.

Bribe, cohort, beg................ I don't give a damn........... they now have NUKES!!!! Yet you guys keep whistlin past the graveyard. This is a monumental utterly inept failure. They pass out propaganda posters celebrating our destruction. Meanwhile, Saddam was making overtures as late as 99' to patch up relations. Too bad Pyongyang doesn't have a resorvoir of oil for Haliburton to exploit.

Dogger Wrote:They were 12-16 years away from a nuclear weapon in your illegal enrichment scenario. They have 16 now boy wonder.

1) Where do you this 12-16 years from?
2) How the hell do you know how many they have. US intellegence doesn't even know.

And I'm still waiting to hear your solution to this.

Dogger Wrote:Too bad Pyongyang doesn't have a resorvoir of oil for Haliburton to exploit.

Hooray!!!!! Liberal nutjob, moveon.org, Garrafolo/Franken loving Dogger is back.

Life is back to normal.

Einstein's formula could satisfy the world's energies needs for the foreseeable future. We need to develop a better battery!!!!!