The Left's Diplomacy Pays Off

[ElvisFan42]

Enlighten me

For a guy pointing the blame at Clinton, you think you would at least know Bush Sr made the offer to pull all of our nukes out of South Korea to appease North Korea into not developing nukes (of course, he was already pulling them out as the start of the down-sizing of the military Clinton also get's the blame for). If you actually knew the history, you know that Bush 41 and Clintons policies regarding NK were nearly identical and not much different than Reagan's (and not much different than every president since the Korean War) as Reagan was pre-occupied with the USSR. Do you know who the Secretary of Defense, Undersecratary of Defense were under Bush Sr.? The same guys in power now, the same tactics. Doesn't really matter much, you'll still blame Clinton and let Reagan and Bush Sr. off.

 

[ElvisFan42]

Wrong, most people expect that the violating first started under Clinton's watch in 1998
Regardless, Clinton should not have signed an agreement that wasn't worth the paper it was on
He conceded too much to NK

Regardless, the OP is about the left's policies (yeah, Clinton's a big lefty) and the truth is the right has had the same exact policies regarding NK. The OP is BS.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Bush obviously came into the situation at a distinct disadvantage.

Incompetence is more than a "disadvantage."

 

[Nathan Poe]

Wrong, most people expect that the violating first started under Clinton's watch in 1998

What most people "expect" and what actually happened may be two distinctly different things.

Regardless, Clinton should not have signed an agreement that wasn't worth the paper it was on
He conceded too much to NK

Well, invading, "liberating," and or nuking them weren't viable options either. Any other suggestions?

 

[ElvisFan42]

What most people "expect" and what actually happened may be two distinctly different things.




Well, invading, "liberating," and or nuking them weren't viable options either. Any other suggestions?

Of course! Blame Clinton!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Of course! Blame Clinton!

EVERYBODY DRINK!

 

[MachZer0]

For a guy pointing the blame at Clinton, you think you would at least know Bush Sr made the offer to pull all of our nukes out of South Korea to appease North Korea into not developing nukes (of course, he was already pulling them out as the start of the down-sizing of the military

Offering to pull out nukes that you are already planning to pull out is hardly a policy of appeasement

If you actually knew the history, you know that Bush 41 and Clintons policies regarding NK were nearly identical and not much different than Reagan's

Let's see. Clinton sent millions in aid to North Korea. Clinton also provided a nuclear reactor to North Korea. North Korea then used the aid funds to work on its nuclear program rather than feed the people. Meantime, Clinton failed to properly monitor North Korea's actions regarding its nuclear program. Clinton should have at the very least learned one thing from Reagan, "Trust but verify". There's no comparison between Bush 41 and Reagan's policies compared to Clinton's.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Well, invading, "liberating," and or nuking them weren't viable options either. Any other suggestions

Clinton could have taken out the reactor in 1994
via B2 Bombers and/or Tomahawk Missles
No reactor/no nuclear program

 

[ElvisFan42]

Offering to pull out nukes that you are already planning to pull out is hardly a policy of appeasement

Let's see. Clinton sent millions in aid to North Korea. Clinton also provided a nuclear reactor to North Korea. North Korea then used the aid funds to work on its nuclear program rather than feed the people. Meantime, Clinton failed to properly monitor North Korea's actions regarding its nuclear program. Clinton should have at the very least learned one thing from Reagan, "Trust but verify". There's no comparison between Bush 41 and Reagan's policies compared to Clinton's.

Wow, there's a big suprise. It's laughable the way you defend everyone with a GOP symbol next to their name.

 

[ElvisFan42]

Clinton could have taken out the reactor in 1994
via B2 Bombers and/or Tomahawk Missles
No reactor/no nuclear program

a. Bush cold have taken it out, as well as Bush Sr.
b. Yes, because it takes more than 12 years to rebuild a reactor, wait, no it doesn't.

 

[jamesrwright3]

a. Bush cold have taken it out, as well as Bush Sr.
b. Yes, because it takes more than 12 years to rebuild a reactor, wait, no it doesn't.

No, more than likely NK already had nukes by the time Bush got into office because they had been cheating on Clinton since 1994
Clinton had a chance to act in 1994 and didn't, and the stupid agreement he signed did nothing

 

[ElvisFan42]

No, more than likely NK already had nukes by the time Bush got into office because they had been cheating on Clinton since 1994
Clinton had a chance to act in 1994 and didn't, and the stupid agreement he signed did nothing

Maybe, and the stupid agreements Reagan and Bush Sr. signed did nothing either. You can fool yourself all day, but, NK is but a speck on GW's issue radar, as it has been for every president before him for the last 40 years.

Again, blaming the entire issue on Clinton solely is ludicrous, heck, expecting the United States to cure all of the worlds alleged woes is crazy, blaming one guy that was it's president for eight years is even worse. Then again, I expect nothing more from you. I have to chuckle when i hear you complain about biased media.

 

[JoshuaW]

If the administration had talked to the North Koreans, this test could have been avoided.

 

[skullcrush]

If the administration had talked to the North Koreans, this test could have been avoided.

I doubt it. Kim is a disturbed individual, and I don't think sitting alone with President Bush would have stopped that. He's already fired a missile over Japan while Clinton was in office, so I don't think this thread should be about appeasment and how it didn't work. We should be concentrating on how to stop Kim from his nuclear ambitions, not playing partisan blame games.

 

[burrow_owl]

Bush sure dropped the ball. Refusing to engage in diplomacy has resulted in a nuclear standoff.

 

[burrow_owl]

IWe should be concentrating on how to stop Kim from his nuclear ambitions, not playing partisan blame games.

One party was concentrating on stopping Kim; another was too busy showboating in cowboy boots and talking about axes of evil to do as much as lift a finger to stop this from happening.

 

[MachZer0]

Bush sure dropped the ball. Refusing to engage in diplomacy has resulted in a nuclear standoff.

I've already proven this notion false. Perhaps you missed it.

 

[burrow_owl]

Talking tough when people believe you is fine; when you're utterly unbelievable, you egg people on. This is what has happened, and it's Bush's simultaneous recklessness and spinelessness that's to blame.

 

[MachZer0]

Talking tough when people believe you is fine; when you're utterly unbelievable, you egg people on. This is what has happened, and it's Bush's simultaneous recklessness and spinelessness that's to blame.

In other words, Bush did engage in diplomacy, just not diplomacy that meets your standards?

 

[reverend B]

No, more than likely NK already had nukes by the time Bush got into office because they had been cheating on Clinton since 1994
Clinton had a chance to act in 1994 and didn't, and the stupid agreement he signed did nothing

wasn't it just a few pages ago you said that it was suspected that nk started violations in 1998? how did that warp into '94? you crack me up, man, you really do! thanks for the giggle!
(and don't make me go back and quote it to you. you know where it is.)