Comments

  1. mark m says

    Yet another example of how the war in Iraq has failed. No longer can the U.S. tell rogue nations that they have to back down on their nuclear weapons program or we will invade you. Everyone has seen how ineffective that approach is.

  2. RB says

    Unfortunately we have all the answers to the worlds problems and bashing
    Bush has become our past time. In reality, only 2% of the gay population actually makes it to the polls! Want to help the “gay” agenda, get your friends to the polls and make a difference. At least then we would actually have a seat at the table.

  3. jimmyboyo says

    Wait for it…..wait for it….wait

    There it is

    “Clinton stormed the white house and tied bush up for 6 years while Hillary slipped sleeping pills to the congress so there love child in NK could develope nukes”

    My goodness. A second after the nuke test, Clinton was blamed by a bunch of neo-con cult memberes despite

    1) Bush is president, has been for 6 years
    2) Congress under republican control since 1994= 12 years
    3) 1995 repub congress guted Clinton deal with NK to not develope nukes

    BUT!!! BUT!!! It is clinton’s fault. This time I don’t think america will buy it. America saw the whole underage male page foley thing being blamed on clinton…….america has finaly woken up to the Blame Clinton schtick of the repubs.

    It is time for them to take some kind of responsibility!!!! Enough is enough

  4. RB says

    God help us all if Hillary EVER makes it to the White House! The last time I checked, her version of how to serve the gays was fried with ketchup! She is NOT on our side…

  5. says

    What. A. Mess.

    It’s been a non-stop chain of disasterous events since Bush “won” his first term. I know it’s not all his fault (and unfair to blame him), but the irony of timing…I mean, what is going on in this world?

  6. jimmyboyo says

    RB

    I will agree with you that Hillary is not the best candidate to run on the dem ticket for president in 2008.

    BUT!!! You really should list your alternative-alternatives after saying something like you did.

    Personaly I would prefer Gore / Edwards 2008

    I am not the biggest fan of Bill and Hill, bit I will not just stand by while people trash them.

    Derrick, I hope you are being sarcastic

  7. RB says

    Hillary is doing a fine job of trashing herself. She really does not need my help. I am simply saying that some of the “leading democrats” of their day were NOT for civil rights and yet we still believe that the democratic party has our back? Come on! Here is a qoute I found from Diane Alden… alden@newsmax.com

    In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

    [See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.

  8. Mark M says

    RB there has been a shift in the parties with regards to liberal vs. conservative. The Dems were once the conservative party in this country, particularly in the South.

    I agree that it is naive to put one’s faith solely in the Democrats, but since we function as a two party system, it’s the lesser of two evils.

    I echo Jimmyboyo’s challenge… where are YOUR alternatives?

  9. jimmyboyo says

    LOL 1933 LOL

    RB

    Uhm yeah we know that. Then the democratic party split with southern pro-segregation dems going repub and northern civil rights wanting dems forming the new democratic party

    pro civil rights repubs joined the dems while the southern pro-segregation repubs formed the new republican party.

    You did know that before all this hundreds of years ago….it was dems vs wigs. The wigs collapsed and formed the Know Nothing Party which itself collapsed and then created the republican party.

    LOL RB

    grasping at straws are you with your 1933 reference.

    You see RB there is this little thing called time. We use dates to designate the passage of time so we can better understand changes that occur. Today is NOT 1933. LOL Desperate RB??

  10. Mark M says

    And I might add a bit of irony… here on these boards, just as in this Administration, we are now talking about the Democrats instead of the subject at hand: how this administration should or will deal with this current threat.

  11. jimmyboyo says

    Good point Mark

    back on subject.

    This is one right royal F up

    A lot of our generals say that with out being bogged down in Iraq, we do not have the troops to go anywhere else to deal with anything else. I am not a fan of sending in the marines at a drop of a hat (or nuke test). Even if we wanted to though, we can’t. We are stuck in Iraq.

    Japan has enough material to build a bomb in months, so they claim. Which they said they will do now that NK prove dit has nukes. China will not tolerate a nuke equiped Japan……Bush and the american taliban of xristianistas wanted WW3 in the middle east. …..well it looks like Asia just topped the list instead

  12. Pompeius says

    Are you guys suggesting Bush is at fault for this…for not pre-emptively invading North Korea?

    When you say stuff like we are “bogged down in Iraq,” that seems to be the implication.

    So, your position is that we invaded the wrong country?

    I dunno…doing some alternate history speculation, it seems to me that invading and occupying North Korea back in 2002 would have been just as much a quagmire as Iraq is today.

  13. jimmyboyo says

    No Pomp

    But

    1) Republican congress refused to fund clinton’s initiative on dealing with North korea

    2) Bush after comingto office refused to have one on one talks with north korea

    3) being so bogged down in Iraq, even if we wanted to utilize a millitary threat…..we don’t have it

    So, yes this Bush and the republican’s fault

    Well, actualy this is Republican FORD’s fault if we want to look back in history. Congress passed a resolution to ban all sale/trade of any kind of nuke tech ….(R) Ford vetoed it. Ironicaly the congressional bill listed Iran, Pakistan, israel, India, and North Korea as future threats if we did not nix all nuke tech sales/ trade…….but US nuke ocmpanies wanted to sell their wares and Ford copitilated to their wishes. You do know that Haliburton is the main US company to have sold technology enabeling Iran to do what it is doing today

  14. Pompeius says

    But…

    1) Clinton’s initiative was basically to pay N. Korea an annual bribe not to build nukes. It seems to me that this would have led to greater nuclear proliferation, as other 3rd world basket case nations would then start nuclear programs in order to hop on the gravy train. Eventually I can see how a huge portion of my tax dollars would then go to an International Welfare Program for Nuclear Blackmailing 3rd World Countries.

    Does not seem like it was a wise policy to me.

    2) So, you are saying we should have NOT insisted on multilateral talks with N. Korea? That we should have adopted a cowboy mentality, and negociated by ourselves, and excluded other countries?

    I thought one of our big mistakes in Iraq was going it alone, and not building an international consensus?

    3) What if, even with the threat of adequate military force in this alternate history scenario of yours…N. Korea did not back down (just as, historically, Saddam did not back down)…would you have been in favor of pre-emptively invading N. Korea?

  15. jimmyboyo says

    pomp

    1) actualy Clinton’s initiative was we pay us farmer tax payer money and send food supplies to NK. It would have been good for the american farmer, especialy since we already them to till under (destroy) excess crops to stabalize food prices. Instead we could have take then excess…..paid a slightly higher amount than we already are paying and shiped it to NK. Repub congress refused to allow it

    2) The thing is that NK wanted 1 on 1 talks…..they have begged for 1 on 1 talks all the way up till this year. CHINA etc those in the 6 way talks begged us to have one on one talks since they felt that the 6 way talks were not working. Kerry brought that up in the debates. China the main force in the 6 way talks said they had failed and PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE america have one on one talks

    3) How do you rpopose we enforce the embargos that are going to come about? That is what will happen since bush has no troops to send to even properly strengthen SK borders. That is what the millitary force would be good for. Strengthening SK borders and enforcing trade sanctions………IT did work with sadam as evidenced that he had NO wmds, and never did start back up his weapons programs

  16. jimmyboyo says

    Thanks for that link Pomp

    I had heard a few rumors last night that NK might have done a TNT explosion instead to puff itself up and freak us out a bit.

    Back when america used to test its nukes in underground bunkers…we would use large amounts of TNT to first test the calibration of the machines measuring seismic disturbances.

    If this truly was a fraud on NK’s part to puff itself up, then we all….liberals and conservatives can TOGETHER!!! breath a sigh of relief. :-) Despit it eing bush’s fault….LOL….we can agree that it is better that it was a fraud

  17. Pompeius says

    1) So the Clinton plan was to send both money AND food to N. Korea. I don’t see how adding the “AND food” to the sentence helps your argument. So, it’s now a food stamp program as well as a welfare program. For 3rd world counties who have fucked up their countries economies through socialism. And which will expand worldwide to other socialist backwaters, once they realize nuclear blackmail vs the US is the way the apply for the programs.

    2) Again, I thought unilateral one-on-one cowboy diplomacy was a bad thing we did to Iraq. How is that now good in the case of N. Korea?

    3) The border between North and South Korea is already ridiculously heavily patrolled. It’s the most fortified and defended border in the world, IIRC. It’s already so well defended it’s practically absurd.

    60 rounds of gunfire were exchanged this weekend during a DMX incursion…apparantly some 4 N. Korean soldiers were sneaking in to go fishing at a local stream, and because tensions were high this provoked a firefight.

    A fieldmouse cannot curently pass thru the DMV w/o being detected, shot at, or stepping at the 100s of 1000s of mines along that border!

    Trust me, Iraq is not diverting any potentially useful forces from “embargo duty.”

  18. Anon says

    Seismometers are so good at detecting exploding nukes we learn more about the NK program when they test then when they don’t, so despite the rhetoric, the US wanted NK to test to see what they had in their arsenal. We knew the USSR had the bomb from our array of detectors first. NK was better off not testing and just bluffing to get payola as before. The SK’s were sending “aid” every year to keep things quiet.

  19. jimmyboyo says

    Anon good point

    I just heard a washington post NPR radio talk about how we are now trying to figure out how much material was actualy used. If NK is well advanced in development, thus able to utilize less material for better results, then they most likely have 11 nukes. Now if they aren’t that advanced in development then they probably have 5-6. They explained just how we can figure that part out from the info we collected from the test…..but for the life of me, I couldn’t explain it back to you. :-)

    Pomp, I am sure you will roll your eyes on the Wapo NPR source for what I just said, but hey….even wacky tree hugging liberals have some interesting things to say.

    On the debate on who to blame. Well, you can blame clinton and I can blame bush….in the end we have to do something now about this.

    Anyway; I much prefer it when we agree.

Leave A Reply