The Political Party

[Hoddy]

---

John Ellis wrote:

 wow, you crack lickers have no problem revising history ,do you?  lol

Clinton negotiated what was known as the agreed framework where we would feed them to halt nuclear research. 

 The problem is.........they cheated the entire time. :eek:

 Clinton and Albright  get the credit for that fuckup. 

---

Carter was in on it, too.

[John Ellis]

---

Hoddy wrote:

---

John Ellis wrote:

 wow, you crack lickers have no problem revising history ,do you?  lol

Clinton negotiated what was known as the agreed framework where we would feed them to halt nuclear research. 

 The problem is.........they cheated the entire time. :eek:

 Clinton and Albright  get the credit for that fuckup. 

---

Carter was in on it, too.

---

  well, almost.

Carter negotiated nucular issues. lol

[savoldi]

---

John Ellis wrote:

 wow, you crack lickers have no problem revising history ,do you?  lol

Clinton negotiated what was known as the agreed framework where we would feed them to halt nuclear research. 

 The problem is.........they cheated the entire time. :eek:

 Clinton and Albright  get the credit for that fuckup. 

---

So we should have nuked them right away there, Zippy? That's the solution?

[Mossy Mossy Mo…]

---

John Ellis wrote:

 wow, I eat out a lot of stinky unwashed hairy hobo anus

---

[Godsky]

SO if this bothers america so much, why not go to war against them?

Obama, bush, whoever the fuck it was, if it bothers you that much, go dump your weapons on them.

Problem solved.

(that's how it works, right?)

[guido61]

---

Jack Walker wrote:

---

GTRMAN wrote:

N.Korea's nuclear weapons development falls squarely on Dumbya's shoulders. Prior to him becoming president, Clinton had negotiated a deal with NK stating that we would send them food in exchange for them not developing weapons and submitting to video surveillance of all their nuclear facilities and UN inspections. Once elected, Dumbya stopped shipping food  and broke the deal so NK resumed their nuclear program .

---

Davo17 wrote:

This is what happens when weak leaders like mobo are elected.

Expect heightened conflicts, and a lead from behind excuse from mobo.

Irans next.

---

---

What a bunch of horseshit. Here we have the HCPP pansie libs playing the blame game again. You don't make deals with rogue states concerning weapons development. That's extortion! You let them know that any agressive measure will be met with deadly force and you keep that promise.

---

LOL.   Blaming "libs" for playing 'blame game' while including a post (the OP, btw) by a conservative playing 'blame game'.

You're so blinded by your own partisan BS that you can't even see straight anymore.  Pwned in your own post!

I swear, it's like I'm reading a forum at The Onion around here sometimes....

[John Ellis]

---

savoldi wrote:

---

John Ellis wrote:

 wow, you crack lickers have no problem revising history ,do you?  lol

Clinton negotiated what was known as the agreed framework where we would feed them to halt nuclear research. 

 The problem is.........they cheated the entire time. :eek:

 Clinton and Albright  get the credit for that fuckup. 

---

So we should have nuked them right away there, Zippy? That's the solution?

---

  OK stupid.  

 I'll type s-l-o-w  s-o  y-o-u- c-a-n k-e-e-p u-p

 Clinton is the one that was duped by the North Koreans.  How do you equate that with me suggesting they be nuked? I'm stating the facts.

 However, they still do not have a delivery system that could retaliate if we did send a smaller tactical nuke. 

[Caulk Rocket]

 Not being able to tell the difference between North and South Korea didn't turn out too well....

 Rolling Blunder: How the Bush administration let North Korea get nukes.

March 7, 2001: Bush Snubs South Korean President, Refuses to Continue Nuclear Dialogue with North Korea President Bush meets with South Korean president Kim Dae Jung (known in the administration as KDJ), and pointedly snubs Kim in an official press conference, announcing that he has no intention of following the Clinton policy of engaging North Korea in any sort of dialogue regarding North Korea’s nuclear buildup. Kim has attempted to implement a “sunshine” policy of open negotiations with the North, including economic trade and nuclear talks, but his efforts are predicated on US support. Secretary of State Colin Powell advocates working with Kim to further implement negotiations with North Korea, but loses out (see March 7, 2001) to pressure from Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, who believe Clinton had been doing little more than appeasing a tyrant in negotiating with North Korea’s Kim Jong Il. Bush misstates the facts in the conference, saying that “we’re not certain as to whether or not they’re keeping all terms of all agreements,” when there has only been a single agreement between the US and North Korea, the 1994 agreement to freeze North Korea’s plutonium processing (see October 21, 1994). Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill believes that the gaffe is due to Bush’s lack of understanding of the complex situation between the US, North Korea, and the US’s allies in Southeast Asia, and Bush’s failure to “do his homework” before Kim’s arrival in Washington. O’Neill attempts to salvage the situation by lauding South Korea’s superb literacy rate among its citizens, earning a look of surprise from Bush. O’Neill privately mulls over the decision-making process in the White House, with Bush damaging ten years of “delicately stitched US policy towards North Korea” in just a few minutes. [Suskind, 2004, pp. 114-115] In 2004, foreign affairs reporter Fred Kaplan will offer an explanation of Bush’s behavior. To negotiate with an “evil regime” such as North Korea’s is, in Bush’s view, “to recognize that regime, legitimize it, and—if the negotiations led to a treaty or a trade—prolong it.” Bush has already told one reporter that he “loathed” Kim Jong Il. He distrusts anyone such as KDJ who has any intention of accomodating or even negotiating with such a regime. Additionally, Bush views the South Korean leader—a democratic activist who had spent years in prison for his beliefs—with what Kaplan calls “startling contempt.” Charles “Jack” Pritchard, who had been director of the National Security Council’s Asia desk under Clinton and is now the State Department’s special North Korean envoy under Bush, will later recall, “Bush’s attitude toward KDJ was, ‘Who is this naive, old guy?’” Bush and his advisers, particularly Rumsfeld and Cheney, hope not only to isolate North Korea, but to undermine Kim Dae Jung’s regime in hopes to shake his administration and drive South Koreans to elect a conservative in the next elections. [Washington Monthly, 5/2004]http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=us_international_relations_31&scale=0#us_internationa...

Kim Dae-jung Attacks U.S. Neo-consFormer president of South Korea criticizes American policy on North KoreaKim Dae-jung, a former president of South Korea, has finally attacked the neo-cons in the United States. He had been protesting with "silence" in the three months after the plan for his second visit to North Korea broke down.Kim criticized the neo-cons in the U.S., saying that they have abused North Korea. He appealed to the governments of South and North Korea and the U.S., as well as conscientious people around the world, asking them to respect South Korea's opinions about North Korea.Based on the common sense that there should be no war in the Korean peninsula in the future, he argued that the alliance of South Korea and the U.S. should be aimed at furthering peace, not war. According to him, the U.S. should offer opportunities for talks with North Korea.During his special interview with the Korean edition of Le Monde Diplomatique he said that American neo-conservatives and Japanese right-wing groups should not abuse or put sanctions on North Korea in order to restrain China."American neo-cons and Japanese right-wing groups. Do not abuse North Korea any more!"Concerning the current tensions and conflicts over North Korea's nuclear weapons in the Korean peninsula, Kim said that the fundamental problems were caused by the relationship between North Korea and the U.S., rather than the relationship between South Korea and the U.S.(as some people wanted to believe). He argued that, in spite of North Korea's desperate wish for talks, American neo-cons have pushed North Korea into the corner just as Israel has built barriers against Palestine.However, he also emphasized that both North Korea and the U.S. were responsible for the current undesirable situation. Furthermore, he clearly pointed out the responsibilities of North Korea; the North has tended to cause events which are then intentionally "used" by American and Japanese conservatives.Nonetheless, Kim argued that even if North Korea already possessed nuclear weapons they would be nothing more than toys from the perspective of the United States.According to Kim Dae-jung, the U.S. is not afraid of North Korea's nuclear power but the neo-cons abuse the situation. In other words, North Korea is trapped by the neo-cons' intentions.Kim Dae-jung further argued that Japan has tried hard to gain its own advantage by attacking North Korea's behavior. Japan's dealings with North Korea are, indeed, abusing the country for its own interests.Kim explained that, despite North Korea's eagerness, the U.S. did not meet with North Korea because of China.He said that American neo-cons understood China as a potential enemy in the future and therefore tried to enhance armaments such as the development of Missile Defense (MD) systems. Kim argued that the neo-cons targeted North Korea in order to excuse the expansion of armaments."President Bush did not keep his promises."Kim Dae-jung criticized Bush's lack of responsibility in dealing with issues on North Korea."As far as I know, the Korea policy of the U.S. is currently drawn by the neo-cons in the U.S. President Bush is busy with Middle East affairs and issues on North Korea are managed by the neo-cons. As a result, Mr. Bush frequently changes his positions in North Korea affairs."Kim Dae-jung takes as an example the fact that Bush fully agreed with him during the summit between them in Feb. 2002 and promised not to attack North Korea. Bush also promised to provide food aid and offer opportunities for talks with the North. Kim criticizes the fact that, although Bush announced these three promises in his press conference, no promise has been realized.In fact, this is the first time that Kim Dae-jung has directly attacked the North Korea policy of the U.S., although he has occasionally expressed his discontent against it.Ironically, Roh Moo-hyun, the incumbent president of South Korea, had a summit with George Bush on the same day as the interview was released, Sept. 14. At the same time, speculations on the North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's visit to China have been circulating. As the situation in the Korean peninsula is developing fast, Kim's messages imply important meanings.The interview was published in Le Monde Diplomatique, which focuses on international affairs and is a monthly magazine of Le Monde, a well-known daily newspaper in France. The special interview with Kim Dae-jung was conducted by Park Sun Sung, the chairperson of the editing committee of Le Monde Diplomatique Korea and professor at Dongguk University in Seoul. This special feature was titled as: "The Korean peninsula at risk, the urgent message of Kim Dae-jung for the world."Meanwhile, Kim Dae-jung will give his lecture on the 21st century and the future of the Korean people at Busan University on the south coast of Korea on Sept. 15. His lecture deserves attention because he may make more statements about the current situation in the Korean peninsula.http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=360217 

[Gromit]

---

Davo17 wrote:

This is what happens when weak leaders like mobo are elected.

Expect heightened conflicts, and a lead from behind excuse from mobo.

Irans next.

---

The gentleman who you incorrectly refer to as 'Mobo' is actually Barack Hussein Obama, the president of the country where you live.  He is not the president, or any part of any country other than the USA.  Most tellingly, he is not a part of the North Korean government.

[Zig al-din]

---

RogueGnome wrote:

---

Zig al-din wrote:

---

RogueGnome wrote:

This is clearly China's problem.

N Korea is their dog. They need to castrate it.

---

Actually, China's not happy about this either, seeing as how they have strong trade relations with South Korea.

---

Right. They need to quit fucking around and slap DPRK down and hard.

You hawks are something else. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about but you're always ready to start killing people, invading countries, dropping bombs.

Then you piss and moan about the deficit and the debt.

"War doesn't cost money. War is good for the economy"; right?

---

I'm a hawk? 

[John Ellis]

 why would Bush negotiate when NK had just spent 8 years duping Clinton? 

They admitted  cheating with no intention of complying. 

[RogueGnome]

---

Zig al-din wrote:

---

RogueGnome wrote:

---

Zig al-din wrote:

---

RogueGnome wrote:

This is clearly China's problem.

N Korea is their dog. They need to castrate it.

---

Actually, China's not happy about this either, seeing as how they have strong trade relations with South Korea.

---

Right. They need to quit fucking around and slap DPRK down and hard.

You hawks are something else. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about but you're always ready to start killing people, invading countries, dropping bombs.

Then you piss and moan about the deficit and the debt.

"War doesn't cost money. War is good for the economy"; right?

---

I'm a hawk? 

---

(Was not referring to you, zig. To the hawks here on this forum.)

[Caulk Rocket]

Snubbing Kim Dae Jung, who won a Nobel peace prize for his work on the Sunshine Policy was clearly a great idea.

[pink freud]

---

Godsky wrote:

SO if this bothers america so much, why not go to war against them?

Obama, bush, whoever the fuck it was, if it bothers you that much, go dump your weapons on them.

Problem solved.

(that's how it works, right?)

---

Would you settle for us only sending the loudmouths who think we should go to war?

[Godsky]

---

pink freud wrote:

---

Godsky wrote:

SO if this bothers america so much, why not go to war against them?

Obama, bush, whoever the fuck it was, if it bothers you that much, go dump your weapons on them.

Problem solved.

(that's how it works, right?)

---

Would you settle for us only sending the loudmouths who think we should go to war?

---

Yep that sounds better.

Maybe start with ted, then davo. and the rest of the chickenhawks.

[Zig al-din]

---

RogueGnome wrote:

---

Zig al-din wrote:

---

RogueGnome wrote:

---

Zig al-din wrote:

---

RogueGnome wrote:

This is clearly China's problem.

N Korea is their dog. They need to castrate it.

---

Actually, China's not happy about this either, seeing as how they have strong trade relations with South Korea.

---

Right. They need to quit fucking around and slap DPRK down and hard.

You hawks are something else. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about but you're always ready to start killing people, invading countries, dropping bombs.

Then you piss and moan about the deficit and the debt.

"War doesn't cost money. War is good for the economy"; right?

---

I'm a hawk? 

---

(Was not referring to you, zig. To the hawks here on this forum.)

---

Ah. Cool.  

One other point is that the Korean War is technically still on. With the US and South Korea conducting war games and intruding on North Korean territorial waters whenever they feel like it, it does give Pyongyang plenty of fodder for all its paranoia and propagandizing, and in fact, I can sort of see their point. Especially with respect to South Korea - these are their Korean brothers who have sided with the enemy in a manner that can be looked at as at best treacherous. That said, the North Korean government is one of the worst there is and needs to go. The sooner, the better.

I'd say negotiating the end of the Korean War with a view toward eventual re-unification of the peninsula would be one way to go in the long term.  

[John Ellis]

 What's funny is how you libs think that the US is the only one concerned about NK and Iran having nukes. 

  It's cuz you're fucking stupid. 

[Zig al-din]

---

Caulk Rocket wrote:
Snubbing Kim Dae Jung, who won a Nobel peace prize for his work on the Sunshine Policy was clearly a great idea.

---

Excellent point which cannot be stressed enough. The belligerence of Lee Myung Bak's policies is part of the picture here. (What I find curious in virtually ALL discussions of foreign affairs in the US is that America and its allies just sit there while stuff happens to them,,,we're never complicit in anything.)

[Godsky]

---

John Ellis wrote:

 What's funny is how you libs think that the US is the only one concerned about NK and Iran having nukes. 

  It's cuz you're fucking stupid. 

---

No Shit.

But you guys are the ones screaming over it.

So what's your suggestion? 

[John Ellis]

---

Godsky wrote:

---

John Ellis wrote:

 What's funny is how you libs think that the US is the only one concerned about NK and Iran having nukes. 

  It's cuz you're fucking stupid. 

---

No Shit.

But you guys are the ones screaming over it.

So what's your suggestion? 

---

 The UN is already preparing more punitive sanctions.

If it were my decision, I'd wipe out the Kim family for starters. I'd drop a bunch of nasty ordinance all around their nuclear sites,  I'd make it obvious that we had nukes in SK and Japan

 I'd sink any ship coming or going.  Instead of 80% of the country being in the dark, all of it would be.

They have made their intentions clear. They want to attack the US. It would be better to act now rather than wait 4 more years