- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,437
- Reaction score
- 47,477
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Reality? Reality is that Clinton policy of containment was shown to be a failure long before Bush. Libs tend to be duped by ignoble parties in things like this, largely because they approach it with emotion and desire instead of using their brains...
But Korea built their nukes during Clinton's reign. Things don't happen overnight. And if it wasn't for the liberals blindness Korea wouldn't have a nuke today.fact is that the north koreans detonated their first nuclear device well into the dicknbush presidency
that's THE reality
one you want to avoid addressing
it was the last republican administration that failed to prevent the north koreans from joining the league of nuclear weapon holders
now, let's compare that outcome with what has happened on Obama's watch
But Korea built their nukes during Clinton's reign. Things don't happen overnight. And if it wasn't for the liberals blindness Korea wouldn't have a nuke today.
Nope because now, during Obama we have the ability and the time to stop them.that is like saying if the iranians detonate a nuclear weapon we can blame it on dicknbush, because the efforts were active during that regime
Nope because now, during Obama we have the ability and the time to stop them.
fact is that the north koreans detonated their first nuclear device well into the dicknbush presidency
that's THE reality
one you want to avoid addressing
it was the last republican administration that failed to prevent the north koreans from joining the league of nuclear weapon holders
now, let's compare that outcome with what has happened on Obama's watch
The primary difference (disclaimer: I support exploring the current deal) is the ability to act. A variety of circumstances made the prospect of a military strike on North Korea very risky with enormous potential for radiating consequences including massive casualties on the Korean peninsula, Japan, and major economic disruption. Nevertheless a strike on Yongbyon was seriously considered by the Clinton administration in 1994 and contemplated a major deployment of troops and equipment to Korea and Japan. The 'breakthrough' Carter achieved put a stop to that and given what they agreed to weighed against the risk of an attack its easy to understand why they opted to accept the agreement.
On Iran the same situation does not exist. Not only have sanctions apparently yielded some results (as they rarely do with autarkik North Korea) but military actions are a plausible option without the attendant catastrophic consequences that a North Korean attack might yield. So the burden on the Bush and Obama administrations is considerably higher than it was for Clinton who did not face the same situation.
that is hogwash
nothing more than an excuse for the dicknbush regime's failure to intercede before NK developed THE bomb
meanwhile criticizing the present administration for actually having accomplished non-proliferation without reliance on warfare
that is like saying if the iranians detonate a nuclear weapon we can blame it on dicknbush, because the efforts were active during that regime
more accurately stated, the honesty of it is deafeningGrow up will ya? But to an extent sure...But let's take a look at shall we? During the time that Bush was in office, his hands were kind of full, but yeah, I suppose if you think we should have invaded Iran at the time then say it.
But you and I both know that Obama sitting down with Iran today from a position of weakness, and signing the deal he did yesterday, all but ensured that Iran will now at the very least remain a 'break out' nation, and use that leverage for decades as a weapon of its own. Good job.
Obama, and his group of mealy mouthed emotion driven progressives, whom think that "America is no more exceptional than Greece, or England, or France" have now all but ensured that at least a regional war is in the offing sometime in the future....
But, hey you go right ahead and continue to go down the road of waiting for a 'republican' to hang it on...The honesty of that is astounding.
more accurately stated, the honesty of it is deafening
as you and your ilk are inclined to show us
I am disappointed in you on this bubba.
that is hogwash
nothing more than an excuse for the dicknbush regime's failure to intercede before NK developed THE bomb
meanwhile criticizing the present administration for actually having accomplished non-proliferation without reliance on warfare
no doubt
you would much prefer your hypocrisy be ignored
blaming Obama for a diplomatic success in working to fashion an agreement keeping nuclear weapons out of iranian hands, while simultaneously ignoring that dicknbush sat on their hands while watching north korea ignore the agreement it had signed while it did go nuclear ... nucular
So now Lil Kim has the bomb, and Iran may get one. Now, the most important issue is whether we can blame the Republicans or the Democrats.
Don't we have to correctly know history in order not to repeat it?
Good point. It is important to know just how NK was allowed to get the bomb, and not repeat it. Now, is arguing about whether the president had a D or an R after his name when this was happening really pertinent?
The process has both involved, however comparison would have to compare equal stages in that process.
The stages in the process don't depend on whether the Tweedleblicans or the Tweedledumocrats had the White House while it was happening. There were many factors, China being chief among them.
I understand you love to portray yourself as not liking either party, and in some respects that is admirable. However, the facts of who did what, at what stage is important. It goes to core differences in ideology.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?