North Korea: Another Liberal Policy Failure (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

I couldn't help but notice as we now face a standoff with North Korea over their long range missiles (which can now reach most of our mainland), that liberals have ridiculed and undermined every Republican since Reagan who has sought a missile defense program.

It struck me that there are yet more sorry chapters being added to the abysmal national security failures of the party no one votes for anymore-with good reason.

 

[PeteEU]

And who is it thats been in control of congress for over a decade and in control of the white house for almost 6 years?...

 

[BWG]

And who is it thats been in control of congress for over a decade and in control of the white house for almost 6 years?...

Not to mention the Presidency for 25 of the last 37 years. Party of NO responsibility. Pass the buck.

 

[Goobieman]

And who is it thats been in control of congress for over a decade and in control of the white house for almost 6 years?...

The party primarily responsible for the US having an operational NMD system?

 

[Kandahar]

The following things you have listed were not "mistakes" in the sense that we should've done something drastically different:

Appeasing North Korea while they developed nukes, when we could've been stopping them.

How would you suggest we stop them? Even before they had nukes, they had an enormous army, and MORE Chinese support than they now have.

Given what we knew at the time, buying off their nuclear ambitions was probably the best course of action. Too bad it didn't work.

Letting Al Queda attack us with impunity for nearly a decade.

No, we should pick our battles wisely. That's not to say we should never have responded to al-Qaeda at all, but until 9/11 they really hadn't done anything that required a major military response. A couple of embassies and a US ship are hardly grounds for a major shift in foreign policy.

Ridiculing, undermining every Republican since Reagan for wanting a missile defense system.

See the other thread on this. Anyone who SUPPORTS this boondoggle favors a weaker military, because it's money that could be more efficiently spent on just about anything else.

Treating terrorist attacks on our troops as criminal matters rather than military ones.

Again, we should pick our battles wisely. Most terrorist actions do not warrant a military response.

Letting Saddam defy us and the U.N. with virtual impunity for eight years.

That was actually an excellent foreign policy. Yes, God forbid he defy the UN, seeing as how we in America hold the UN sacrosanct. :lol:

Calling for an troop withdrawal in the middle of an important war-reassuring our enemies.

And yet again...we should pick our battles wisely. Babysitting an insurgency in Iraq is a foreign policy disaster, because our troops are more urgently needed for other purposes. The major flaw in the arguments of warhawks seems to be the belief that American power is infinite, the US has an obligation to stop every bad guy in the world, and anyone who disagrees is a traitor or a wussy or French.



I don't know enough about what happened in Somalia to determine whether that was an actual foreign policy mistake or just another excuse for you to blame Clinton for something. I suspect its probably the latter (and therefore probably a good thing we got out) but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and didn't vote for it.

 

[Captain America]

Somewhere....in America....a village is missing an idiot.

I'm thinking Amber Alert here people.:mrgreen:

 

[TheNextEra]

The party primarily responsible for the US having an operational NMD system?

Yeah that "Star Wars" plan was a real hoot.

 

[Deegan]

Yeah that "Star Wars" plan was a real hoot.

Hahahahahaha, you don't even at all realize what we can do, do you?:doh

 

[TheNextEra]

Hahahahahaha, you don't even at all realize what we can do, do you?:doh

I don't know what you've been reading, but aside from actually tracking a missle the NMD is not a complete success in my book and if we are to rely on it for national defense against a slew of missles coming at us, I have some land in Iraq to sell you.

For the money and time we have spent on NMD, the system we have now (or in the past) have been money wasted.

 

[Goobieman]

Yeah that "Star Wars" plan was a real hoot.

SDI and the NMD are related only in concept.
Operationally, they share nothing.
Your reference to SDI only indicates you actually know very little about the NMD.

 

[TheNextEra]

SDI and the NMD are related only in concept.
Operationally, they share nothing.
Your reference to SDI only indicates you actually know very little about the NMD.

My point was the SDI was ALSO a republican initiative. I see you missed it.

And as for the NMD we have now, it is USELESS against more than one missle IMO from what I have seen from tests. Yet again, you seem to tout it as a complete success which means you know very little about the NMD.

 

[Goobieman]

My point was the SDI was ALSO a republican initiative. I see you missed it.

Hmm.
OK - so, what's your point?

And as for the NMD we have now, it is USELESS against more than one missle...

It is?
Why?

Yet again, you seem to tout it as a complete success which means you know very little about the NMD.

When did I tout the NMD as a complete success?
Given your statements, its fairly clear I know far more about it than you; why don; tyou visint the "Do ne need a NMD" poll and take a look at the information I posted there.

 

[Billo_Really]

This thread is a classic example of why so many neocon's are mentally unfit to hold public office. The whole message of this thread is that it is all the liberals fault. Whether that is true or not isn't the issue. It is the complete absence of introspection and compromise. No effort has been made by the thread's author to show the conservatives role in all of this. And no effort has been made to find a common ground for which both sides win. I don't see any desire on the part of many neocon's trying to understand liberal points of view and reach a compromise on the issues. No one gets what they want all the time. That's not mentally healthy.

There are a few neocon's that are very intelligent and diplomatic in their debates such as Simon Moon and oldreliable67. But for every two of them, we got ten:

• _______
• _____________
• ______
• ___ ______
• ______ ________ _____
• _________
• ______________

So I applaud the Simon's and ol'67's out there while the ones like those I have listed here can simply go to hell!

 

[fingerdance]

Korean Conflict

"In June 25, 1950, armies of North Korea invaded South Korea, nearly occupying the whole of the peninsula.

Truman promptly urged the United Nations to intervene, and Douglas MacArthur led the struggle in pushing the conflict nearly to the Chinese border in October 1950.

In October 1950, China intervened on North Korea's behalf. MacArthur advised Truman to attack Chinese bases across the Yalu River and use atomic bombs if necessary. The Chinese pushed forces far back into South Korea, but the forces found themselves back at the original starting point in the Spring of 1951. MacArthur publicly aired his views despite the President's disagreement and against his direct orders, as Truman was concerned escalation would draw Russia and its atomic bombs into the conflict. On April 11, 1951, Truman relieved MacArthur of his command.

The Korean War remained a stalemate until a ceasefire took effect on July 27, 1953, under REPUBLICAN President Dwight D. Eisenhower."

Damned Republican liberal with his damn Republican liberal policy.

 

[aquapub]

This thread is a classic example of why so many neocon's are mentally unfit to hold public office. The whole message of this thread is that it is all the liberals fault. Whether that is true or not isn't the issue. It is the complete absence of...compromise.

Correction: all the things I have listed ARE liberal's fault. As to the "compromise" point, I won't even address the outrageous hypocrisy required for somebody as simple and one-sided as you to say anything about anyone else sounding overly partisan :rofl ...But regardless, there are plenty of examples throughout history of people who were right not to "compromise" with the kind of people they were up against.

Habitual lying, perpetual treason, total intellectual dishonesty, economic sodomy....these are the reasons it doesn't make sense to pretend liberals aren't as reprehensible as they are.

 

[Alastor]

Tsk tsk.

If your inent was to sway, you missed.

If your goal was discovery, again you missed.

If your intent was to turn off the audience with zealotous, rigged and outrageous commentary in the guise of a "poll" then you have won.