NationStates Jolt Archive

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."


This remark has been repeated often since the debate. Your thoughts? I wish to refrain from commenting, so that this thread will unfold without my prompting.

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

This remark has been repeated often since the debate. Your thoughts? I wish to refrain from commenting, so that this thread will unfold without my prompting.

People who want to hate Kerry will claim it means that he will sell out US security to the UN, but it was not meant that way and I didn't take it that way at all.

The point is that we expect other countries to be able to explain to us why they are doing something like starting a war. If they have no reasons or their "reasons" are not legitimate, we sanction/attack/etc. them. All that comment means is that we should hold ourselves to the same high standard or expect sanctions/attacks/etc. If we don't do what we expect the rest of the world to do, we have no moral high ground from which to "lead" the world.

The phrase also harkens back to a time when the word of the American President was considered as solid as any evidence could be. Unfortunately, and Bush is not alone in this, he's just been the most conspicuously untrustworthy, the word of the American President has eroded to the point where most every other country looks upon our actions with suspicion.

Kerry has said he will not allow another countries to veto our ability to defend ourselves. Unlike the stark, black and white view exhibited by the Bush administration, making your case solidly and respecting global opinion does not mean you are "asking permission."

Once again, there is a right way, and a wrong way to go about things, and Bush chose the wrong way.

It says what it says. There was no mistake in speaking.
He will take the opinions of foreign governments and the UN into account when making decisions regarding US national security and military operations.
He's a long-time Senator & experienced debater. He knows what he said and he said what he meant.
Under Kerry, US actions will be subject to the approval of foreign entities and polls, as usual for Dems. Easy enough!

It doesn't say anything is subject to approval, it says what we do has to be legitimate, like not lying about 550 WMD sites where none exist. In this case "pretty darn good" intelligence on the matter was not legititmate.

It says what it says. There was no mistake in speaking.
He will take the opinions of foreign governments and the UN into account when making decisions regarding US national security and military operations.
He's a long-time Senator & experienced debater. He knows what he said and he said what he meant.
Under Kerry, US actions will be subject to the approval of foreign entities and polls, as usual for Dems. Easy enough!
There's a big step between "taking the opinions of foreign governments and the UN into account" and "US actions will be subject to the approval of foreign entities" bub. You're full of shit if you're arguing that the first and the second statements mean anything close to the same thing.

It says what it says. There was no mistake in speaking.
He will take the opinions of foreign governments and the UN into account when making decisions regarding US national security and military operations.
He's a long-time Senator & experienced debater. He knows what he said and he said what he meant.
Under Kerry, US actions will be subject to the approval of foreign entities and polls, as usual for Dems. Easy enough!

Yes, it says what it says.

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

The test he is describing is one in which the USA does not go to war without proving they have legitimate and understandable reasons to do so. He does not talk about a test of others' approval or permission. Only one of presenting legitimate reasons before acting.

Is that understandable enough for you? Probably not, since you sound like a typical Bush supporter. Just like W and the CIA's initial reports that there was no evidence of WMDs in Iraq, you will send it back over and over until it agrees with what you have already decided to believe.

It doesn't say anything is subject to approval, it says what we do has to be legitimate, like not lying about 550 WMD sites where none exist. In this case "pretty darn good" intelligence on the matter was not legititmate.

I want to address this WMD issue. Most people seem to think that we just made it up that WMD's were there. There were. That is an undisputed fact. What the question was is "are they STILL there?". Hussein's evasion and unwillingness to provide transparency to the IAEA inspectors prompted that question to lead to uncertainty, then to fear, prompting action.

Please refer to the following link for a history of Iraq's prior WMD capacity. The site is the "Nuclear Threat Initiative" and considered a prominent, world renowned source for factual nonproliferation information. Maybe then you will understand where all the problems started:


http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/index.html

I want to address this WMD issue. Most people seem to think that we just made it up that WMD's were there. There were. That is an undisputed fact. What the question was is "are they STILL there?". Hussein's evasion and unwillingness to provide transparency to the IAEA inspectors prompted that question to lead to uncertainty, then to fear, prompting action.

Please refer to the following link for a history of Iraq's prior WMD capacity. The site is the "Nuclear Threat Initiative" and considered a prominent, world renowned source for factual nonproliferation information. Maybe then you will understand where all the problems started:


http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/index.htmlIf we're talking specifically about nukes, Keljamistan, you may want to check out recent statements by Obeidi, the chief nuclear scientist under Hussein, the man who had the blueprints and centrifuge parts buried in his rose garden. He's basically come out and said that not only was there no nuke program, even if they'd been able to get the necessary supplies past the embargo, they'd have been years away from a weapon.

If we're talking specifically about nukes, Keljamistan, you may want to check out recent statements by Obeidi, the chief nuclear scientist under Hussein, the man who had the blueprints and centrifuge parts buried in his rose garden. He's basically come out and said that not only was there no nuke program, even if they'd been able to get the necessary supplies past the embargo, they'd have been years away from a weapon.

"Abstract:
Project Comment: This article contains what is believed to be the first published picture of al-Tuwaitha, the headquarters of Iraq's illicit $10 billion nuclear program. ..... Inspectors from the IAEA have faced "obstruction and deception on a massive scale" in their attempts to investigate the Iraqi nuclear program. The inspectors want to remove fuel rods from the Soviet and French-built reactors at Iraq's al-Tuwaitha plant. The removal of the rods will cost $20 million. Iraq was pursuing three parallel routes to enrich uranium to the concentration needed for nuclear weapons. It had also processed a small amount of plutonium. Al-Tuwaitha's primary focus was the electromagnetic separation of uranium. Using this method, Iraq could have produced enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear weapon within 18 months. Al-Tuwaitha also employed a chemical solvent separation method which has barely passed the experimental stage in the west. Inspectors were surprised to find that Iraq had been using centrifuges to process uranium."

If we're talking specifically about nukes, Keljamistan, you may want to check out recent statements by Obeidi, the chief nuclear scientist under Hussein, the man who had the blueprints and centrifuge parts buried in his rose garden. He's basically come out and said that not only was there no nuke program, even if they'd been able to get the necessary supplies past the embargo, they'd have been years away from a weapon.


So, we don't believe the U.S., the French, the Russians, or the U.N....we believe Obeidi?

So, we don't believe the U.S., the French, the Russians, or the U.N....we believe Obeidi?
He was the guy on the ground, and the guy everyone on the WMD bandwagon pointed to in the early days of the war when he popped those centrifuge parts out of the ground and gave them to US soldiers. Combine his story with the facts on the ground--no working program discovered and nothing to indicate that there were any plans to crank one up any time soon--and yeah, I'd have to say I'll go with Obeidi's story. It fits what we know, not what we surmised prior to the invasion.

So, we don't believe the U.S., the French, the Russians, or the U.N....we believe Obeidi?

What the poster has said is that Obeidi says there was no nuclear program, beyond blueprints, and could not have been one for years. Does anything the French, Russians or UN says refute that? Even the initial US intel reports found no evidence of WMDs in Iraq. That's why W told them to go back and do it again.

Seems like a fairly straightforward statement, except my concern would be what if the US feels it has "legitimate reason", and other countries feel it doesn't. What, then? Considering Kerry's desire to repair our global image, which way would he choose if it came down to taking action on what the US feels is legitimate, if the rest of the world doesn't? Hypothetical, true, but possible.

He was the guy on the ground, and the guy everyone on the WMD bandwagon pointed to in the early days of the war when he popped those centrifuge parts out of the ground and gave them to US soldiers. Combine his story with the facts on the ground--no working program discovered and nothing to indicate that there were any plans to crank one up any time soon--and yeah, I'd have to say I'll go with Obeidi's story. It fits what we know, not what we surmised prior to the invasion.


Perhaps, but it just doesn't make sense to me, and I work in nonproliferation. Here's what bothers me:

1. We know that he oncehad a program, nuke, chem, and bio.
2. We know that he has used them on several occasions.
3. We know that Hussein was a power hungry dictator who relished his authority, and didn't want to lose it.
4. Why, then, would he thwart U.N efforts to verify is disarmament? Why wouldn't he throw open his doors and say "Here ya go...can I get you a soda?".

Let me illustrate further:

If a police officer knows that a man in an apartment is a convicted pedophile who has served his sentence and is now free is the subject of a falsified complaint against him, wouldn't the police officer expect that the man would personally hand over his computer, open his drawers and files, and BEG him to search to prove that he's innocent?

If he's proven innocent, his accuser would look terrible. Instead, he says he has nothing, but will not prove it, and eventually kicks the cop out. Wouldn't the man then expect that the cop would kick his door down, right or wrong, to resolve the issue? Probable cause, and all that...

It's not that I believe that he definitively had or didn't have WMD's...it just doesn't make sense that he would deliberately spit in the face of those trying to exhonerate him before the world, and essentially DARE us to invade.

It makes me feel he either had something to hide, was just insane, or both.

I agree that the war in Iraq was ill-advised and poorly managed. But that doesn't change the fact that I am very suspicious of Iraq's actions re: WMD on their own merit.

First of all that would not be probable cause; he would still need a warrent.

Secondly are you suggesting that the innocent should not make use of their privacy rights?

First of all that would not be probable cause; he would still need a warrent.

Secondly are you suggesting that the innocent should not make use of their privacy rights?

No, I'm not suggesting that, at all.

As to the "probable cause" issue: Many people were afraid (not just the U.S.) that the "judge" in the case (the U.N.) was being paid off by the pedophile, and no warrant would be issue. I'm not saying I agree...I'm just stating the reasoning behind unilateral action, whether right or wrong.

The innocent should, and have absolute right to, their privacy rights. But Saddam knew that if he didn't substantively prove his disarmament, he would have been jubject to Security Council action (eventually military) even if the U.S. HADN'T invaded. Why not stop that before it starts? All countries of the U.N. are jubject to IAEA oversight. Saddam refused that, and many people believed that U.N. was doing nothing to address it, besides pass umpteen resolutions that turned out to have no bite.

Incidentally, the testimony of a victim consitutes probable cause.

No, I'm not suggesting that, at all.

As to the "probable cause" issue: Many people were afraid (not just the U.S.) that the "judge" in the case (the U.N.) was being paid off by the pedophile, and no warrant would be issue. I'm not saying I agree...I'm just stating the reasoning behind unilateral action, whether right or wrong.

The innocent should, and have absolute right to, their privacy rights. But Saddam knew that if he didn't substantively prove his disarmament, he would have been jubject to Security Council action (eventually military) even if the U.S. HADN'T invaded. Why not stop that before it starts? All countries of the U.N. are jubject to IAEA oversight. Saddam refused that, and many people believed that U.N. was doing nothing to address it, besides pass umpteen resolutions that turned out to have no bite.

So if a judge's ethics are suspect, a cop doesn't need a warrent?

Incidentally, the testimony of a victim consitutes probable cause.

In some cases maybe, but not in and of itself. Are you of the impression that if I told the cops that I was raped in your house, they could search every inch of your house without a warrent? That's just total bullshit.

Perhaps, but it just doesn't make sense to me, and I work in nonproliferation. Here's what bothers me:

1. We know that he oncehad a program, nuke, chem, and bio.
2. We know that he has used them on several occasions.
3. We know that Hussein was a power hungry dictator who relished his authority, and didn't want to lose it.
4. Why, then, would he thwart U.N efforts to verify is disarmament? Why wouldn't he throw open his doors and say "Here ya go...can I get you a soda?".
1. Yes, we agree--but the emphasis needs to be on the "had" as in past tense and formerly.

2. Well--he never had nukes, though he was close once, in 1991, so he never used those. He did have chemical weapons and used them in 1988, but as I discovered recently, there's no documentation that he used them since then. If you can show me otherwise, I'll gladly change my opinion on that, but my own research leads to the conclusion that he used them in the Iran-Iraq war and no other time. As to bio weapons, I don't think he's ever used them--although I'm certainly open to being proven wrong--and I've never heard anything definitive on his capability in that regard. Certainly, though, before 1991, he was pursuing those capabilities. You have to admit, though, that there's a long way from pursuit to deployment.

3. Very true. No question there.

4. It's possible that you answered your own question in number three. Consider--Hussein was in control of his own people only because they were terrified of him. If he ever let on that he wasn't as powerful as they thought he was, he'd have been dead in minutes. He had to act belligerent and call the bluff of both the UN and the US in order to maintain the facade of control, but even he knew that he couldn't win a face to face battle with the US, so he dissembles a little, opens the country to inspectors who find nothing, but he puts on the tough guy act for the benefit of his reputation with his own people.

It should be noted that the UN Inspectors stated that they were being given substantial access and that their complaints were minor. Blix certainly didn't feel like he was being substantially hampered in his work of inspection.

In the end, why Hussein acted the way he did is only known by him, but Hussein's actions don't excuse the sloppy way this administration looked at the available intelligence and the exaggerated way they made the case for war, a case they had to know was flimsy at best. Hussein was a bastard, and if there's a hell, there's a special layer just for him, and quite honestly, if they'd made a acse for his removal on humanitarian grounds. I'd have listened--maybe not agreed because we hadn't concluded our work in Afghanistan (and in fact we're losing ground badly there)--but I'd have listened instead of dismissing it out of hand.

While the comment was poorly worded, I do believe Kerry was trying to say that US must stand at an equilibrium in the world where the American people, first and foremost are okay with it and then the world itself is also okay with it. "It" being whatever policy is being flaunted at the moment.

So, we don't believe the U.S., the French, the Russians, or the U.N....we believe Obeidi?
Try Scott Ritter:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3227506.stm

http://www.commondreams.org/views/030900-101.htm

Try Hans Blix:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

Try David Kay:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/

Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.

The Iraq Sanctions WorkedAnd other revelations from David Kay's report.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2089471/

Assuming the French, the US, the Russians were right, WHY did the US violate UN Resolution 1441 and attack Iraq, BEFORE the UN inspectors had been allowed to finish their job? The answer was obvious to many but not to the beguiled or misled....Bush WANTED to attack Iraq period!!

BTW, the French, the Russians, the Chinese, the Germans, etc. were ALL against the US attacking Iraq as long as the UN inspectors were doing their job.

The President makes decisions
based on what america needs to do
not what the world wants.

How much longer should Bush have
tried diplomacy for ever, there is a cut off point.
dictadorships dont change on thier own
dont change under the goodness of thier hearts.

The President makes decisions
based on what america needs to do
not what the world wants.

How much longer should Bush have
tried diplomacy for ever, there is a cut off point.
dictadorships dont change on thier own
dont change under the goodness of thier hearts.
And of course Iraq was an IMMINENT THREAT?

NOT!!

1. Yes, we agree--but the emphasis needs to be on the "had" as in past tense and formerly.

2. Well--he never had nukes, though he was close once, in 1991, so he never used those. He did have chemical weapons and used them in 1988, but as I discovered recently, there's no documentation that he used them since then. If you can show me otherwise, I'll gladly change my opinion on that, but my own research leads to the conclusion that he used them in the Iran-Iraq war and no other time. As to bio weapons, I don't think he's ever used them--although I'm certainly open to being proven wrong--and I've never heard anything definitive on his capability in that regard. Certainly, though, before 1991, he was pursuing those capabilities. You have to admit, though, that there's a long way from pursuit to deployment.

3. Very true. No question there.

4. It's possible that you answered your own question in number three. Consider--Hussein was in control of his own people only because they were terrified of him. If he ever let on that he wasn't as powerful as they thought he was, he'd have been dead in minutes. He had to act belligerent and call the bluff of both the UN and the US in order to maintain the facade of control, but even he knew that he couldn't win a face to face battle with the US, so he dissembles a little, opens the country to inspectors who find nothing, but he puts on the tough guy act for the benefit of his reputation with his own people.

It should be noted that the UN Inspectors stated that they were being given substantial access and that their complaints were minor. Blix certainly didn't feel like he was being substantially hampered in his work of inspection.

In the end, why Hussein acted the way he did is only known by him, but Hussein's actions don't excuse the sloppy way this administration looked at the available intelligence and the exaggerated way they made the case for war, a case they had to know was flimsy at best. Hussein was a bastard, and if there's a hell, there's a special layer just for him, and quite honestly, if they'd made a acse for his removal on humanitarian grounds. I'd have listened--maybe not agreed because we hadn't concluded our work in Afghanistan (and in fact we're losing ground badly there)--but I'd have listened instead of dismissing it out of hand.

A couple of things:

1. Thank you for actually discussing the issues rather than just spouting your favorite candidate's rhetoric. I am grateful for the refreshing change.

2. Yes, the operative word is "had", but, where did they go? You can't simply throw them away, or burn them. Nuclear and chemical weapons, specifically, are incredibly expensive and complex to destroy. Bio, well, just UV light will do it, but to destroy chemical or nuclear weapons takes an enormous infrastructure. Consider Russia. The U.S. and Russia have been working for over 10 years to build a chemical demilitarization plant in Schusch'e. Where did the weapons go? That is what concerns me.

There is really not that long a distance to go from development to deployment. Not missiles, of course, but radioactive materials alone can be delivered in a number of ways.

As to the rest of your response, you make a good case. It is entirely possible that that is the way it happened. I also disagree with the way the Iraq war happened. I on't believe in the conspiracy theory that it was intentional...we all, many nations, believed the threat.

but we don't invade every dictatorship.

and I agree with incertonia's reply to #4.
I remember seeing, Blix is it? the head inspecter, before the invasion saying he'd like to finish the inspections. and that he was so far satisfied as to compliance.

This just set a bad precedent, to me. Bush took advantage of the the feelings after 9/11 to Invade iraq; something he couldn't have done without those feelings for any reason.

Try Scott Ritter:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3227506.stm

http://www.commondreams.org/views/030900-101.htm

Try Hans Blix:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

Try David Kay:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/

Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.

The Iraq Sanctions WorkedAnd other revelations from David Kay's report.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2089471/

Assuming the French, the US, the Russians were right, WHY did the US violate UN Resolution 1441 and attack Iraq, BEFORE the UN inspectors had been allowed to finish their job? The answer was obvious to many but not to the beguiled or misled....Bush WANTED to attack Iraq period!!

BTW, the French, the Russians, the Chinese, the Germans, etc. were ALL against the US attacking Iraq as long as the UN inspectors were doing their job.

Just a response to the French, Germans, Russians issue...

I personally believe they objected because they didn't want to get busted for all the ways in which they were violating oil for food...

...and by the way...

The U.N. inspectors were getting nowhere. Even before the war, it seemed obvious to me. I'm not trying to be stubborn or obtuse...it's just that I work in nonproliferation issues, and what was happening just didn't make sense to me.

A couple of things:

1. Thank you for actually discussing the issues rather than just spouting your favorite candidate's rhetoric. I am grateful for the refreshing change.

2. Yes, the operative word is "had", but, where did they go? You can't simply throw them away, or burn them. Nuclear and chemical weapons, specifically, are incredibly expensive and complex to destroy. Bio, well, just UV light will do it, but to destroy chemical or nuclear weapons takes an enormous infrastructure. Consider Russia. The U.S. and Russia have been working for over 10 years to build a chemical demilitarization plant in Schusch'e. Where did the weapons go? That is what concerns me.

There is really not that long a distance to go from development to deployment. Not missiles, of course, but radioactive materials alone can be delivered in a number of ways.

As to the rest of your response, you make a good case. It is entirely possible that that is the way it happened. I also disagree with the way the Iraq war happened. I on't believe in the conspiracy theory that it was intentional...we all, many nations, believed the threat.
In response to number two, we know he had chemical weapons prior to Gulf War 1, but that's all to my knowledge. He never had nukes, though he had a program that was completely dismantled by the UN after Gulf War 1, and according to Obeidi was never restarted. On biological weapons, like I said, I have no information, but Clinton's bombing in 1998 apparently destroyed whatever remaining programs for either biological or chemical weaponry Saddam had left or had restarted.

but we don't invade every dictatorship.

and I agree with incertonia's reply to #4.
I remember seeing, Blix is it? the head inspecter, before the invasion saying he'd like to finish the inspections. and that he was so far satisfied as to compliance.

This just set a bad precedent, to me. Bush took advantage of the the feelings after 9/11 to Invade iraq; something he couldn't have done without those feelings for any reason.

I doubt very much he was that deliberate...to take advantage of 9/11, but rather thought he was acting appropriately in light of 9/11. He wasn't simply trying to yell "yeeehaaawww" as he killed people. Right or wrong, he thought he was doing the right thing, as did a great number of other people. John Kerry also believes he will do the right thing. Either could be right or wrong.

...and by the way...

The U.N. inspectors were getting nowhere. Even before the war, it seemed obvious to me. I'm not trying to be stubborn or obtuse...it's just that I work in nonproliferation issues, and what was happening just didn't make sense to me.
That's not what they said in the days prior to getting yanked out of Iraq. I was following it pretty damn closely.

In response to number two, we know he had chemical weapons prior to Gulf War 1, but that's all to my knowledge. He never had nukes, though he had a program that was completely dismantled by the UN after Gulf War 1, and according to Obeidi was never restarted. On biological weapons, like I said, I have no information, but Clinton's bombing in 1998 apparently destroyed whatever remaining programs for either biological or chemical weaponry Saddam had left or had restarted.


Bio, you're probably right.

But for chemical...he had almost 4,000 tons of CW agent, and 125,000 delivery rounds. You don't just keep those in a warehouse or even over a city block. That's a huge stockpile.

do you believe he could have invaded Iraq had 9/11 did not happen?

It is a stockpile that would require a long, long time to destroy. They would have to build a specific facility just for that purpose. We had one on Johnston Atoll in the Pacific to destroy some of ours...

That's not what they said in the days prior to getting yanked out of Iraq. I was following it pretty damn closely.


As was I. As I said, I work in this field. What they were saying didn't make sense to me. It had become so political, that it was apparent to me that there was a stall.

do you believe he could have invaded Iraq had 9/11 did not happen?

Could've? Yes. Would've? No. 9/11 changed everyone's perspective.

Bio, you're probably right.

But for chemical...he had almost 4,000 tons of CW agent, and 125,000 delivery rounds. You don't just keep those in a warehouse or even over a city block. That's a huge stockpile.Well, the UN destroyed a lot of it after Gulf War 1 and before they were tossed in 1998. Perhaps the bombing got the rest of it. One thing is for certain--it wasn't there when we invaded and it wasn't readily deployable.

Well, the UN destroyed a lot of it after Gulf War 1 and before they were tossed in 1998. Perhaps the bombing got the rest of it. One thing is for certain--it wasn't there when we invaded and it wasn't readily deployable.

I know. That's exactly my point. It wasn't there (or found). I don't think people realize what these things can do.

How did the UN destroy it?

I know. That's exactly my point. It wasn't there (or found). I don't think people realize what these things can do.

How did the UN destroy it?
Actually, the UN verified the destruction of much of its infrastructure during the war, and a large amount of the stockpile since...but not all.

Kerry wants to run our country based on approval. He wants to make the world happy with all we do, but then we become like them, pacifists, socialists, sometimes corrupt like France which trades enough shit behind its back to fertilize Vietnam. We figured that much out so far in the oil for food investigation and the investigation isnt even done yet. The reason France didnt approve is because its government was under Saddam Hussein's payroll, now they arent getting those extra big bucks since Saddam's been removed. We shouldnt care about the approval of other countries, we dont care how other countries run themselves as long as a million innocent lives arent dying under that governments rule. Our defense should not rely on a presidents ego, our defense doesnt rely on Bush's ego obviously because the world hates him, thats good, that means he doesnt look at a situation and make a judgement based on what would make him look good as maybe Clinton used to do, like he did with the Somolia incident? Thats leadership involving ego, and we all know Clintons ego, especially when it involved a bed and a girl named Monica, oh his ego was soaring there. This is leadership by ego, 18 americans died in Somolia, tactically speaking, it wasnt devastating to our cause, it was bad that such good soldiers died, but wouldnt overly hinder the cause we were fighting for. Liberals were appalled and to appeal to his left wingers, he called us back and costed the lives of thousands of Somolian's who supported us. Aidid killed them all after we left. That's Kerry, he's a crowd pleaser, not a leader, he will not stick to a cause period, Bush may not be right all the time, but he has ethics and morals and he knows what we're fighting for, so do i. I believe Bush was deceived by the world intelligence agencies that brought him the faulty information, he had a choice, wasnt going to be a popular one, and we went to the UN to ask for their support and France opposed us strongly, now we know why of course since they were under Saddam's payroll. So we had to do it without the UN's help, only with the help of select allies. We're getting the job done, you cannot set a timeline on a war, you cant, there's to many question marks, to many things that can go wrong. Kerry set the withdrawl to six months. Victory will not be acheived in six months i can guarantee that. I can guarantee that the borders wont be secured in six months, its not rational. The borders of Iraq and Syria are hundreds of miles of barren desert, not a easy place to secure and definately wont happen in six months. So if Kerry is planning to withdraw in six months, he's talking about a retreat, if we withdraw in six months we're talking a defeated withdraw and will make it a hell of a lot worse in the long run.

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."


I think it was an extremely stupid remark to make. It just shows that Kerry is willing to bow to the power of foreign governments.

Just a response to the French, Germans, Russians issue...

I personally believe they objected because they didn't want to get busted for all the ways in which they were violating oil for food...
If the above nations believed that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US, they would have voted for the invasion of Iraq. However, the inspectors were not finding any WMD.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030901faessay82504-p30/james-p-rubin/stumbling-into-war.html

If, for example, Iraq had refused to allow access to suspected weapons sites or did not at least appear to cooperate with UN inspectors, all the key governments would have backed an invasion. Ironically, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin even made it clear privately that had another power such as Russia or China tried to veto a war under such circumstances, France would have joined the military coalition anyway.

Too many people in the US were buying into Bush's continued harangue that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US, which obviously was untrue and has been borne out by subsequent inspections.

The US diplomacy failed the acid test.

Kerry wants to run our country based on approval. He wants to make the world happy with all we do, but then we become like them, pacifists, socialists, sometimes corrupt like France which trades enough shit behind its back to fertilize Vietnam. We figured that much out so far in the oil for food investigation and the investigation isnt even done yet. The reason France didnt approve is because its government was under Saddam Hussein's payroll, now they arent getting those extra big bucks since Saddam's been removed. We shouldnt care about the approval of other countries, we dont care how other countries run themselves as long as a million innocent lives arent dying under that governments rule. Our defense should not rely on a presidents ego, our defense doesnt rely on Bush's ego obviously because the world hates him, thats good, that means he doesnt look at a situation and make a judgement based on what would make him look good as maybe Clinton used to do, like he did with the Somolia incident? Thats leadership involving ego, and we all know Clintons ego, especially when it involved a bed and a girl named Monica, oh his ego was soaring there. This is leadership by ego, 18 americans died in Somolia, tactically speaking, it wasnt devastating to our cause, it was bad that such good soldiers died, but wouldnt overly hinder the cause we were fighting for. Liberals were appalled and to appeal to his left wingers, he called us back and costed the lives of thousands of Somolian's who supported us. Aidid killed them all after we left. That's Kerry, he's a crowd pleaser, not a leader, he will not stick to a cause period, Bush may not be right all the time, but he has ethics and morals and he knows what we're fighting for, so do i. I believe Bush was deceived by the world intelligence agencies that brought him the faulty information, he had a choice, wasnt going to be a popular one, and we went to the UN to ask for their support and France opposed us strongly, now we know why of course since they were under Saddam's payroll. So we had to do it without the UN's help, only with the help of select allies. We're getting the job done, you cannot set a timeline on a war, you cant, there's to many question marks, to many things that can go wrong. Kerry set the withdrawl to six months. Victory will not be acheived in six months i can guarantee that. I can guarantee that the borders wont be secured in six months, its not rational. The borders of Iraq and Syria are hundreds of miles of barren desert, not a easy place to secure and definately wont happen in six months. So if Kerry is planning to withdraw in six months, he's talking about a retreat, if we withdraw in six months we're talking a defeated withdraw and will make it a hell of a lot worse in the long run.
You certainly spout all the excuses the Bush administration brought forward. Perhaps a little more research on the topic might assist you in having a more informed opinion of the realities rather than the ficticious aspects?

Part of the problem is that the US would have required 9 votes out of 15 members on the UN Security Council to get a Resolution to invade Iraq. Guess what? Only Great Britain and Spain were backing the US, so just blaming France is a cheap shot at best.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p02s01-uspo.html

Also an article that I quoted in another post, suggests that France WOULD have backed the US IF the proper channels had been followed.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030901faessay82504-p30/james-p-rubin/stumbling-into-war.html

If, for example, Iraq had refused to allow access to suspected weapons sites or did not at least appear to cooperate with UN inspectors, all the key governments would have backed an invasion. Ironically, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin even made it clear privately that had another power such as Russia or China tried to veto a war under such circumstances, France would have joined the military coalition anyway.

The only conspiracy I can see in all of these dealings, is the one where Bush continued to insist that Iraq, which was NOT involved in 9/11, was an imminent threat to the US. The UN inspectors were doing their job and finding NOTHING regarding WMD in Iraq. The Security Council suggested that the US wait for the inspectors to finish. Bush and Blair said NO and the war was on. Bush wanted this war BEFORE 9/11. Wake up people.

If the above nations believed that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US, they would have voted for the invasion of Iraq. However, the inspectors were not finding any WMD.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030901faessay82504-p30/james-p-rubin/stumbling-into-war.html

If, for example, Iraq had refused to allow access to suspected weapons sites or did not at least appear to cooperate with UN inspectors, all the key governments would have backed an invasion. Ironically, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin even made it clear privately that had another power such as Russia or China tried to veto a war under such circumstances, France would have joined the military coalition anyway.

Too many people in the US were buying into Bush's continued harangue that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US, which obviously was untrue and has been borne out by subsequent inspections.

The US diplomacy failed the acid test.

Diplomacy, WMD'S, and the question of being a threat to the US are three separate issues, I believe.

1. You're right. Our diplomacy sucked, and much of it was led by knee-jerking politicians who thought they were doing the right thing...just in the wrong direction.

2. The issue of WMD's will never be fully resolved. Not finding proof does not negate the existence of proof. Take a tractor trailer and hide it anywhere you want in the state of California, but assume that California has about half as much metro areas and twice as much desert. Could you do it in a way that would elude inspectors? They buried and entire squadron of fighter jets in the sand....we lucked upon those...

A mobile biological weapons lab can fit into the back of a trailer.

3. I never believed Iraq was crazy enough to directly attack the U.S. I do believe that, if possible, Iraq would divert any possible weapons left to whomever would take them. That, to me, is a far greater threat.

Diplomacy, WMD'S, and the question of being a threat to the US are three separate issues, I believe.

1. You're right. Our diplomacy sucked, and much of it was led by knee-jerking politicians who thought they were doing the right thing...just in the wrong direction.
Well no sense in debating an agreement in principle on the matter of diplomacy.

2. The issue of WMD's will never be fully resolved. Not finding proof does not negate the existence of proof. Take a tractor trailer and hide it anywhere you want in the state of California, but assume that California has about half as much metro areas and twice as much desert. Could you do it in a way that would elude inspectors? They buried and entire squadron of fighter jets in the sand....we lucked upon those...
This is truly a contenscious issue for sure. The UN inspectors were in Iraq from the end of the Gulf War up to 1998. Scott ritter was the Chief UN inspector then and stated that the WMD for Iraq were really a non issue. In the intervening 4 years before the US invasion, who knows what Saddam was able to acquire? Which brings us back to UN inspectors under Hans Blix going into Iraq in Nov. 2002. Blix had basically unfettered access to any sites including presidential palaces and he made this comment in his report:

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.

He too like Ritter before him, was finding nothing substantial. Lets face facts. Iraq was under UN sanctions and there was clearly an embargo on weapons imports into Iraq. Why Bush didn't allow these inspections to continue is anybodies guess. Personally speaking, I think Bush didn't want the inspections to continue because the inspectors were coming up empty handed!! Even if the inspectors had found illegal weapons, they would have been destroyed, and Bush would have lost his made in the US trump card. Make no mistake about it, Bush WANTED to attack Iraq, with or without the discovery of WMD.

Another interesting observation that I made regarding this whole process is the manner in which US troops invaded Iraq. They were NOT wearing the anti biological suits that had been standard issue in the first Gulf War, although the Iraqis didn't use any CBW. Can anybody answer why they were not wearing protective suits?

Another clue that Iraq didn't have any WMD is the fact that Iraq didn't use any against the US invasion forces in 2003. You would think that Saddam would have used them this time, IF he had them to use.

3. I never believed Iraq was crazy enough to directly attack the U.S.Nope, me either and I believe it was not only a matter of not being crazy. It was a matter that he didn't have any to use?

I do believe that, if possible, Iraq would divert any possible weapons left to whomever would take them. That, to me, is a far greater threat.
Which causes many to ask the logical question.....what did the US do to secure against the possibility of the export of these potentially dangerous weapons? From what I understand the US did not effectively seal the borders to prevent such an occurrence.

It was evidently an expression of the reasonable idea that if the united states is to engage in a pre-emptive war, it must genuinely be pre-empting an attack. Not lying to invade an oil rich nation like the US did.

Seems like a fairly straightforward statement, except my concern would be what if the US feels it has "legitimate reason", and other countries feel it doesn't. What, then? Considering Kerry's desire to repair our global image, which way would he choose if it came down to taking action on what the US feels is legitimate, if the rest of the world doesn't? Hypothetical, true, but possible.

If we were really worried about global opinion, we might not act. Kerry would never admit to going that far, but look at dien bien phu. Could have saved the french by lending a few bombers for night-time raids, but there was so much international opinion against helping the french that the americans wouldn't.

It happens.

It's ironic that Bush mocks something such as the "global test", yet when defending Iraq he mentions how all these other countries had similar intelligence and come to similar conclusions about Hussein...which, correct me if I'm wrong, sounds an awful lot like a global test. Of course blatant hypocrisy and massive gaps in logic have become a trademark of this campaign.

While he tries painting the picture as Kerry would not invade a foreign country if it was not approved of by the rest of the world, this clearly is not the case. The United States has, and will, continue to hold itself above the rest of the world, regardless of whoever is in charge. Did this change under Wilson? No. Did it change under Carter? No. It certainly won't change under Kerry.

You certainly spout all the excuses the Bush administration brought forward. Perhaps a little more research on the topic might assist you in having a more informed opinion of the realities rather than the ficticious aspects?

Part of the problem is that the US would have required 9 votes out of 15 members on the UN Security Council to get a Resolution to invade Iraq. Guess what? Only Great Britain and Spain were backing the US, so just blaming France is a cheap shot at best.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p02s01-uspo.html

Also an article that I quoted in another post, suggests that France WOULD have backed the US IF the proper channels had been followed.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030901faessay82504-p30/james-p-rubin/stumbling-into-war.html

If, for example, Iraq had refused to allow access to suspected weapons sites or did not at least appear to cooperate with UN inspectors, all the key governments would have backed an invasion. Ironically, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin even made it clear privately that had another power such as Russia or China tried to veto a war under such circumstances, France would have joined the military coalition anyway.

The only conspiracy I can see in all of these dealings, is the one where Bush continued to insist that Iraq, which was NOT involved in 9/11, was an imminent threat to the US. The UN inspectors were doing their job and finding NOTHING regarding WMD in Iraq. The Security Council suggested that the US wait for the inspectors to finish. Bush and Blair said NO and the war was on. Bush wanted this war BEFORE 9/11. Wake up people.

France admitted themselves they would never have gone to war. Furthermore, you put words in my mouth, i said France strongly opposed us, they led the opposition thats why we are boycotting them. They werent the only ones that opposed us though, Germany and Russia were under Saddam's payroll, thats what the UN investigation team has come up with in the oil for food investigation, but France was the most outspoken.

Kerry wont lift a finger until he gets the approval of the UN. Bush saying other countries had the same intelligence and believed the same thing as us doesnt mean he was following a global test, it just means other people believed the same thing as us. If we thought he was a threat, regardless if anyone believed us or not, we would of gone to war. Im not going to wait for my house to get blown up before i do something about it. Im a national guardsman, im just waiting to get called up, hasnt happened but im more then willing to go and my brother is a marine in iraq.

Cirine your wrong, it changed under Clinton and Kerry's worse.

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

In my opinion what he meant was that when the United States of America engages in a military action they should do so in such a manner that the world understands why it was done and that the International Community fully supports them. He does not mean that we should put our security into other people's hands, he just tried to say in a rather eloquent manner that when the USA does something they should not be seen as dumbasses for it.

Scott Ritter was a joke!

Keljamistan, Keep up the good work.

For those wondering "where they went", here is a pretty good summary:

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweaponsc.html


Most of the argument about possible stockpiles included arguments over accounting. e.g. How much the US thought that Iraq might have made versus how much Iraq claimed to have made, as well as issues of arguing over how much they might have used during the Iran/Iraq war. According to the US accounting there was a possible variance to find. This is where the supposed "stockpiles" derived from.

The argument as to what it would take cost-wise to dispose of these things "safely" is also an interesting issue to try to bring up. It presupposes an interesting dichotomy in that people also note that he was a rutheless bastard who really didn't care if his people died by WMD. So, would this monster bother to care if some of the locals got sick from a destruction site?

Fact is that much of the disarmament was done under the watchful eyes of UN inspectors during the early 90s.

Scott Ritter was a joke!

Keljamistan, Keep up the good work.


Except that "the joke" was right... wasn't he?

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."


This remark has been repeated often since the debate. Your thoughts? I wish to refrain from commenting, so that this thread will unfold without my prompting.

To get back on topic though, why DON'T you think that your government should operate in a way where your countrymen understand and support what you are doing? Or where you can't show legitimacy? Silly me, I thought that democracy was SUPPOSED to be "by the people and for the people....."


Or are you deciding that there is some hidden line in that statement that says "and we won't do anything until the rest of the world tells us directly that we are, indeed, doing something for legitimate reasons"?

If so, then you are the one making that statement. Because Kerry sure as hell didn't.

-Z-

We're getting the job done, you cannot set a timeline on a war, you cant, there's to many question marks, to many things that can go wrong. Kerry set the withdrawl to six months. Victory will not be acheived in six months i can guarantee that. I can guarantee that the borders wont be secured in six months, its not rational. The borders of Iraq and Syria are hundreds of miles of barren desert, not a easy place to secure and definately wont happen in six months. So if Kerry is planning to withdraw in six months, he's talking about a retreat, if we withdraw in six months we're talking a defeated withdraw and will make it a hell of a lot worse in the long run.

You don't listen very well, do you. Kerry said that if his plan was put in place and if everything went well (which we all know wouldn't actually happen) that he could start bringing some (but not all) troops back in six months. He's not talking about a retreat, he is talking about getting things done and getting our men and women back as soon as possible. Six months may be too soon for a goal, because we all know that everything won't go perfectly, but at least there is a goal there.

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."


This remark has been repeated often since the debate. Your thoughts? I wish to refrain from commenting, so that this thread will unfold without my prompting.

The comment made 100% sense, sadly the republicans are trying to take it out of context and spin it. However for those of you who did understand what he was saying, I'm sure you understood perfectly that it made total sense and is the correct way to go about it.

He's still putting a timeline on it, Bush could to, but we all know its pointless to set a timeline because it wont solve anything. Fine i'll make a timeline for Bush, uhhh.....we're be ready in three months. There's the timeline wa la, doesnt matter if we get nothing accomplished in that time, its the timeline right there. Kerry set the timeline for a low withdrawl, why set such a timeline based on standards that we know as well as he does that he cannot stand by? Stupid, just plain stupid. (Im taking this from your point of view from the way you desribed it, im thinking its gonna be a retreat, you say its a goal, its a lame one at best, a real goal is saying that we are going to bring peace no matter how long it takes and if we stay there and bring peace, thats a goal, it may be sketchy but at least it doesnt have a cheap ass due date that no one can live up to anyway, thats like scheduling a doctors appointment for yesterday)

I do believe the following demonstrates the "Global Test" that Kerry was referring too:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030901faessay82504-p30/james-p-rubin/stumbling-into-war.html

What actually happened, however, was the fourth scenario, one for which Washington was wholly unprepared: partial compliance. Iraq did not accept that it bore the burden of proof of showing that it had disarmed, and it gave the UN a preposterously implausible declaration of its weapons programs (comprised, in part, of previous reports to the UN). But it did allow inspectors unfettered access to suspected sites, and it generally cooperated with them. Iraq granted inspectors access to presidential palaces and other locations that they had been barred from or where they had been harassed in the past, and it destroyed dozens of al Samoud missiles after the UN declared that they exceeded their allowed ranges. Some key scientists were also allowed to be interviewed, and new methods were proposed to prove the past destruction of banned weapons. Washington, however, was caught flat-footed by these developments, and the result was disastrous.

The right way to deal with partial compliance would have been to develop a timetable for completing the verification of Iraq's disarmament and a way to judge whether Baghdad had actually met it. To achieve such an outcome would have required careful multilateral diplomacy. The Bush administration could have approached all the key players at the outset to discuss this method and all the other options. Putin, for example, would have viewed summit-level discussions about how to respond to different scenarios as a sign of respect for Russia and a demonstration of real partnership. According to key Russian officials, he would then have agreed in advance to setting a deadline for Iraq's compliance. French officials similarly claim that Chirac would have gone along with the use of force if a nine-month schedule had been set at the beginning. The swing voters on the council (Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, and Pakistan) would have been satisfied with as little as four months. But no such consultations took place between Bush or Secretary of State Colin Powell and their counterparts.

In fact, the partial compliance scenario was not even seriously examined before or immediately after the passage of Resolution 1441. When Iraq then took such an approach, the United States seemed unprepared. This result may have occurred because of divisions within the administration over what to do in such a case, with hard-liners determined not to respond to anything short of unequivocal compliance. Regardless of the reasons, however, Washington had no plan in place. Not having laid the diplomatic groundwork, the allies waited until February to start scrambling for support of a resolution endorsing war.

The hardline tactic taken by the US, resulted in shunting most of the major players off to the side. The failed US diplomacy in this regard led to a war that never needed to happen, unless of course Iraq failed in delivering the goods in the required timeline.

I will stand by my intial thoughts on this whole process, which is shared by many worldwide, is that the US really wanted an excuse to invade Iraq and the US did so, consequences be damned.

If the so called "imminent threat" had been a reality, there would have been a mighty coalition invading Iraq, including the major players.

Scott Ritter was a joke!

Keljamistan, Keep up the good work.
Scott Ritter is a pedophile and Child Porn Advocate.
http://www.hypocrites.com/article10044.html

"However, NewsChannel 13 reported in June 2001 about an arrest of a 39-year-old William Ritter of Delmar on charges he tried to lure a 16-year-old girl he met on the Internet to a Burger King in Menands. According to police, the intent of that meeting was so that she could watch him perform sexual acts on himself.

At that time police said William Ritter was arrested before doing anything, but was facing multiple misdemeanor charges for trying to solicit an underage girl for sexual reasons.

Ritter's attorney, Norah Murphy, confirmed that he was arrested in the town of Colonie in June 2001.
Ritter has not returned calls for comment. His wife told NewsChannel 13 on Sunday that she had no comment on these charges. "

Scott Ritter is a pedophile and Child Porn Advocate.
http://www.hypocrites.com/article10044.html

"However, NewsChannel 13 reported in June 2001 about an arrest of a 39-year-old William Ritter of Delmar on charges he tried to lure a 16-year-old girl he met on the Internet to a Burger King in Menands. According to police, the intent of that meeting was so that she could watch him perform sexual acts on himself.

At that time police said William Ritter was arrested before doing anything, but was facing multiple misdemeanor charges for trying to solicit an underage girl for sexual reasons.

Ritter's attorney, Norah Murphy, confirmed that he was arrested in the town of Colonie in June 2001.
Ritter has not returned calls for comment. His wife told NewsChannel 13 on Sunday that she had no comment on these charges. "

The link from hypocrites.com to the original story didn't work for me. However, it doesn't make sense that you are equating Scott Ritter with William Ritter. Are they the same person, or is this simply made up?

The link from hypocrites.com to the original story didn't work for me. However, it doesn't make sense that you are equating John Ritter with William Ritter. Are they the same person, or is this simply made up?

You have echoed what I was going say regarding the accuracy of it.

Scott Ritter is a pedophile and Child Porn Advocate.
http://www.hypocrites.com/article10044.html

"However, NewsChannel 13 reported in June 2001 about an arrest of a 39-year-old William Ritter of Delmar on charges he tried to lure a 16-year-old girl he met on the Internet to a Burger King in Menands. According to police, the intent of that meeting was so that she could watch him perform sexual acts on himself.

At that time police said William Ritter was arrested before doing anything, but was facing multiple misdemeanor charges for trying to solicit an underage girl for sexual reasons.

Ritter's attorney, Norah Murphy, confirmed that he was arrested in the town of Colonie in June 2001.
Ritter has not returned calls for comment. His wife told NewsChannel 13 on Sunday that she had no comment on these charges. "
Is this how democracy works in the USA?

1. What has Scott Ritter got to do with William Ritter?

2. How can you make the assertion that "Scott Ritter is a pedophile and Child Porn Advocate"?

3. Even if Scott Ritter was William Ritter, the story states that William Ritter is "facing multiple misdemeanor charges for trying to solicit an underage girl for sexual reasons.", and it says nothing about him being a "child porn advocate".

4. In the US, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty?

5. Even if Scott Ritter was in fact a "child porn advocate" (which is not supported by your link), what would that have to do with WMD in Iraq?

If anyone is guilty of anything here, it would be you? This post of yours demonstrates that you have zero credibility.

The entire Bush campaign is one big strawman argument against Kerry. Only by grossly misstating what Kerry says does Bush create any wiggle room.

I notice that none of the Bush supporters have anything to say about the part of Kerry's statement where he includes the American people in his "global test."

Seeking to make a case for legitimacy is light years away from "asking for permission" and you Bush supporters know it, you merely hold on to your arguments because you are simply unwilling to face the truth, and will accept any pretext to bash Kerry.

Criticize Kerry's actually statements if you must, but to simply parrot Bush's either intentional misprepresentation or inability to understand is sad.

The entire Bush campaign is one big strawman argument against Kerry. Only by grossly misstating what Kerry says does Bush create any wiggle room.

I notice that none of the Bush supporters have anything to say about the part of Kerry's statement where he includes the American people in his "global test."

Seeking to make a case for legitimacy is light years away from "asking for permission" and you Bush supporters know it, you merely hold on to your arguments because you are simply unwilling to face the truth, and will accept any pretext to bash Kerry.

Criticize Kerry's actually statements if you must, but to simply parrot Bush's either intentional misprepresentation or inability to understand is sad.That's pretty accurate. For all the screaming from the right about Kerry's so-called negativity, the Bush campaign has yet to actually say anything positive about their accomplishments during the last 3+ years. It's easy to understand why--they don't have anything positive to point to, especially when you consider that their one moment--the overthrow of the Taliban--seems to have come for naught, since they're going to influence (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/30/MNGOU914DA1.DTL) an election that's already rife with fraud--10 million voters registered in a land where there are only 8.6 million people eligible to vote.

It's ironic that Bush mocks something such as the "global test", yet when defending Iraq he mentions how all these other countries had similar intelligence and come to similar conclusions about Hussein...which, correct me if I'm wrong, sounds an awful lot like a global test. Of course blatant hypocrisy and massive gaps in logic have become a trademark of this campaign.


Indeed, much like Kerry's position that he would undercut currently operating multinational diplomacy and seek unilateral talks with North Korea over nuclear proliferation, but criticizes Bush for not letting Diplomacy play out in Iraq before acting unilaterally. And since one of Kerry's main positions is that the Korea situation is so much more important, how dangerous is that?

Indeed, much like Kerry's position that he would undercut currently operating multinational diplomacy and seek unilateral talks with North Korea over nuclear proliferation, but criticizes Bush for not letting Diplomacy play out in Iraq before acting unilaterally. And since one of Kerry's main positions is that the Korea situation is so much more important, how dangerous is that?

Why does everyone assume that both bilateral and multilateral talks can not occur.

If I sometimes talk to three business associates at once, does that mean I can never talk to a single one of them at a time?

Why does everyone assume that both bilateral and multilateral talks can not occur.

Kerry is only talking about Bilateral talks with North Korea, not Multinational talks. Unless you know something that the press doesn't.

If I sometimes talk to three business associates at once, does that mean I can never talk to a single one of them at a time?

No. You can talk to whomever you want however, when you have a problem with one nation in a region like Far East Asia, Multilateral talks are preferable than bilateral talks.

Bush has included China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the USA in talks with North Korea.

Kerry is only talking about Bilateral talks with North Korea, not Multinational talks. Unless you know something that the press doesn't.
Try the transcript from the debate?

LEHRER: I want to make sure -- yes, sir -- but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand -- the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this.

You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?

BUSH: Right.

LEHRER: And you're willing to do it...

KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.

Kerry wants both bilateral and multilateral discussions.

Try the transcript from the debate?

LEHRER: I want to make sure -- yes, sir -- but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand -- the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this.

You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?

BUSH: Right.

LEHRER: And you're willing to do it...

KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.

Kerry wants both bilateral and multilateral discussions.

Nice try! He said both but where in that quote do you see him saying anything about multinational talks with North Korea? The quote you stated says he wants BILATERAL! Nowhere does he state multinational talks outside the word both.

Nice try! He said both but where in that quote do you see him saying anything about multinational talks with North Korea? The quote you stated says he wants BILATERAL! Nowhere does he state multinational talks outside the word both.Jesus Christ, Corneliu! It's one freaking sentence in the whole debate, and you're seizing on that? He said both--what's so hard to figure out? I'm certain if you ask Kerry what he meant, you'll probably get a thirty minute dissertation on the need for bilateral talks on certain issues because there are still issues that NK has with the US and the US alone, and multilateral talks on other issues that affect the entire region, like nuclear proliferation. It is possible to do both at the same time, you know.

Kerry would indeed sell out US security to the UN. He also said he was going to cancel yet another weapons system if he is elected. Why he keeps voting to cancel weapons systems is beyond me, but is definetly shows a pattern of anti military behavior that he has shown for 30+ years.

So, he will raise everyones taxes to pay for some feel good programs and he will align the US with the UN and only take any military action if it meets with UN approval. If we are attacked again and his retaliation does not meet with the approval of the UN, then will he do it anyway? That doubt is there.....

Personally I do not think Kerry will be elected in the end anyway. He did do well in the first debate, but Reagan lost his first debate with Mondale and was elected. Bush Sr. lost the first debate with Dukakis and was elected. The debates are just one element of the process.

The entire Bush campaign is one big strawman argument against Kerry. Only by grossly misstating what Kerry says does Bush create any wiggle room.

I notice that none of the Bush supporters have anything to say about the part of Kerry's statement where he includes the American people in his "global test."

Seeking to make a case for legitimacy is light years away from "asking for permission" and you Bush supporters know it, you merely hold on to your arguments because you are simply unwilling to face the truth, and will accept any pretext to bash Kerry.

Criticize Kerry's actually statements if you must, but to simply parrot Bush's either intentional misprepresentation or inability to understand is sad.

You apparently know nothing about Senator Kerry's previous record. Even a mildly objective person can read his record and see that he places more importance on the corrupt and ineffective UN than he does on "the American people." I suspect that when he speaks of a "global test," what he really means is getting permission from the UN and foreign countries before taking any actions in the international arena.

Jesus Christ, Corneliu! It's one freaking sentence in the whole debate, and you're seizing on that? He said both--what's so hard to figure out? I'm certain if you ask Kerry what he meant, you'll probably get a thirty minute dissertation on the need for bilateral talks on certain issues because there are still issues that NK has with the US and the US alone, and multilateral talks on other issues that affect the entire region, like nuclear proliferation. It is possible to do both at the same time, you know.

Actually, I'm just using the transcript that you are using. If he wants multilateral talks in North Korea, then why did he mention Bilateral talks only when talking about North Korea. Where is he talking about for Multilateral talks?

I'm not seizing on one line of a debate.

I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.

Nowhere in that quote does he mention multilateral talks with North Korea. All he said was bilateral talks with North Korea over Human Rights, artillery disposal issues, the DMZ, and the nuclear issue. Where in there will he include China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia?

I remember quite clearly that, during the debate, Kerry mentionned that in addition to the current talks, he wants to add bilateral talks. It was Bush that said that bilateral talks would undermine the current talks and painted the "either one or the other" picture. Kerry was for both area of discussion. Only Bush has painted this as a black and white "bilateral or multilateral talks".

Only if you agree with Bush that we cannot have both can you say that Kerry was against the current multilateral talks.

I remember quite clearly that, during the debate, Kerry mentionned that in addition to the current talks, he wants to add bilateral talks. It was Bush that said that bilateral talks would undermine the current talks and painted the "either one or the other" picture. Kerry was for both area of discussion. Only Bush has painted this as a black and white "bilateral or multilateral talks".

Only if you agree with Bush that we cannot have both can you say that Kerry was against the current multilateral talks.

If you already have multilateral talks going, why switch?

The NK's have violated EVERY bilateral agreement ever made with them, they will do so again. IF Kerry wins and makes a bilateral agreement with NK, he will be the new Neville Chamberlin. NK violated the bilateral agreement they made with Clinton too. Bush is right on this one....

If you already have multilateral talks going, why switch?

Who said anything about switching. If you listened, he said in addition.

Who said anything about switching. If you listened, he said in addition.

What would be the point? Are you going to say something to the NK's that you would NOT say in front of the others? All this will do is bring about mistrust from China.

What would be the point? Are you going to say something to the NK's that you would NOT say in front of the others? All this will do is bring about mistrust from China.
The argument was not whether it would be good or bad. The argument was whether it was possible or not.

Also, I was originally responding to the argument that Kerry never said he would continue the multinationnal talks.

The argument was not whether it would be good or bad. The argument was whether it was possible or not.

Also, I was originally responding to the argument that Kerry never said he would continue the multinationnal talks.

IF he does bilateral talks, the multilateral talks will end. I find it funny that he wants a coalition on Iraq, but not on North Korea. Whats up with that?

IF he does bilateral talks, the multilateral talks will end. I find it funny that he wants a coalition on Iraq, but not on North Korea. Whats up with that?
Only the Bush party says that the talks will end. I'd like to see a justification for that conclusion.

[Keljamistan #1]
"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

This remark has been repeated often since the debate. Your thoughts? I wish to refrain from commenting, so that this thread will unfold without my prompting.

Proving to the world and your nation's people that what you are doing is a good thing.

The Bush administration succeeded in proving to me that Saddam needed to be taken out when he was taken out, as Saddam was in a position to assist terrorists with money and material. The time of year was a critical factor in the timing of the war, as it would have been much more difficult to do it otherwise, and waiting a year would have been dangerous.

If others don't see it that way, that's fine.

Kerry's statement, in my opinion (as always), is saying "vote for me because I'll never get faulty intelligence and never make decisions on anything but complete knowledge of any situation".

This is a lovely sentiment, but completely meaningless except as an impossible-to-keep promise given by someone who wants votes.

Only the Bush party says that the talks will end. I'd like to see a justification for that conclusion.

China will not continue if they are not included. Afterall, NK does not border on the US, but it does on China. They will not allow any agreement regarding NK that they are not aware of. Why Kerry seems to think he can get the NK's to cooperate is beyond me. He cannot, and neither can Bush. ONLY the Chinese have that kind of influence and taking them out of the picture will ensure there will be nothing but an eventual war with NK.

The Bush administration succeeded in proving to me that Saddam needed to be taken out when he was taken out, as Saddam was in a position to assist terrorists with money and material. The time of year was a critical factor in the timing of the war, as it would have been much more difficult to do it otherwise, and waiting a year would have been dangerous.

That is because you don't care that they changed their story several times until they hit on something that no one could argue with. However, the damage at that point had already been done.

Kerry's statement, in my opinion (as always), is saying "vote for me because I'll never get faulty intelligence and never make decisions on anything but complete knowledge of any situation".

Maybe what he means is "I won't surround myself with incompetent advisors who know I want them to be yes-men who only tell me exactly what I want to hear."

China will not continue if they are not included. Afterall, NK does not border on the US, but it does on China. They will not allow any agreement regarding NK that they are not aware of. Why Kerry seems to think he can get the NK's to cooperate is beyond me. He cannot, and neither can Bush. ONLY the Chinese have that kind of influence and taking them out of the picture will ensure there will be nothing but an eventual war with NK.
China is included if the multinationnal talks continue. It's not like the US stop these talks altogether to start new talks. Also, I'm sure there's a couple of deals the US made in the past that they don't really want to talk in front of China. That's why there will be 2 discussions going simultaneously.

And you're jumping to conclusion when you say there will inevitably be a war. There wasn't one with Russia while thay had the bomb because both countries understood the ramifications. NK will be the same kind of deal.

IF he does bilateral talks, the multilateral talks will end. I find it funny that he wants a coalition on Iraq, but not on North Korea. Whats up with that?

That's funny, because both China & Japan have actually asked Bush to also directly talk to NK as well. So how would both end the multilateral talks when China and Japan have also asked for them? Further, Kerry did say both. It's "Mr. can't be wrong ever" Bush who has refused. Not to mention the multilateral talks are going no where any way. Or don't you guys watch the news?

China is included if the multinationnal talks continue. It's not like the US stop these talks altogether to start new talks. Also, I'm sure there's a couple of deals the US made in the past that they don't really want to talk in front of China. That's why there will be 2 discussions going simultaneously.

And you're jumping to conclusion when you say there will inevitably be a war. There wasn't one with Russia while thay had the bomb because both countries understood the ramifications. NK will be the same kind of deal.

You just don't get it do you? IF China sees us doing what they will consider to be an end run around them, they will pull out of ALL talks about NK and we will be back to square one. NK is literally starving to death. They have NOTHING to lose. When they get hungry enough, they WILL move into the south to fight for freaking rice. I lived in SK and I KNOW the differences and the culture there. Kerry is living in a pipe dream if he thinks he can carry out two sets of talks at the same time. It defies logic and common sense. NK WANTS to break up the coalition arrayed against it and Kerry will play right into that.

That's funny, because both China & Japan have actually asked Bush to also directly talk to NK as well. So how would both end the multilateral talks when China and Japan have also asked for them? Further, Kerry did say both. It's "Mr. can't be wrong ever" Bush who has refused. Not to mention the multilateral talks are going no where any way. Or don't you guys watch the news?

I would have to see that one. China is the ONLY country that has any influence over NK. They KNOW the US has no influence there. NK fooled Clinton and took him for a ride in 1994 and they will do the same thing with Kerry. Giving in on NK is a very serious mistake.

NK fooled Clinton and took him for a ride in 1994 and they will do the same thing with Kerry. Giving in on NK is a very serious mistake.

Riiiiiight, because it was under Clinton that NK threw out the inspectors and cameras.. Oh, no, that's right, it was after Bush included them in the "Axis of Evil" Now you recall?

Riiiiiight, because it was under Clinton that NK threw out the inspectors and cameras.. Oh, no, that's right, it was after Bush included them in the "Axis of Evil" Now you recall?

You don't remember...or you don't know. Clinton gave them oil and food in exchange for them halting their nuclear program. The oil was NOT to be used for any other purpose than for electricity production. However, a large amount of the oil WAS used for military purposes. North Korean Air Force planes were soon flying again after a 3 year grounding due to a lack of fuel. After that, Clinton did not make the second delivery. North Korea then said the US violated the agreement, but we all know it was them all along. They will do the SAME thing with ANY bilateral agreement made with them. Kerry will also be taken in by them.

You don't remember...or you don't know. Clinton gave them oil and food in exchange for them halting their nuclear program. The oil was NOT to be used for any other purpose than for electricity production. However, a large amount of the oil WAS used for military purposes. North Korean Air Force planes were soon flying again after a 3 year grounding due to a lack of fuel. After that, Clinton did not make the second delivery. North Korea then said the US violated the agreement, but we all know it was them all along. They will do the SAME thing with ANY bilateral agreement made with them. Kerry will also be taken in by them.

Just pointing out it wasn't Clinton who dropped the ball with NK, it was Bush. Further, according to you by the sounds of it, you should just cover your eyes and ears and pretend they are not a threat then. We all know the USA doesn't go to war with countries that can defend themselves.. so if not talk, then what? Of course it's about talking to them.

Just pointing out it wasn't Clinton who dropped the ball with NK, it was Bush. Further, according to you by the sounds of it, you should just cover your eyes and ears and pretend they are not a threat then. We all know the USA doesn't go to war with countries that can defend themselves.. so if not talk, then what? Of course it's about talking to them.

There is NO ball to drop with these people. NK is a "cult of personality." There is no "government" there. There is ONE MAN who makes the decisions. He is even the center of their religion. He is worshipped as a god. You cannot deal with this guy one on one because he only understands force and the ONLY country that has ANY influence on him is China. Then again, it is not like Canada is involved anyway now is it? Your obvious bias against Bush has blinded you to the truth that is North Korea. NK is a place where they will let an entire generation of their children starve to death to ensure their military is fed properly. You cannot negotiate with them from a stance of what they will perceive as weakness. The ONLY way to get them to do ANYTHING constructive is to get the Chinese to put influence on them. The multilateral talks are the only way to get that done. They will violate any agreement that the US makes with them bilaterally. Kerry is very wrong in this.

[Dempublicents #85]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The Bush administration succeeded in proving to me that Saddam needed to be taken out when he was taken out, as Saddam was in a position to assist terrorists with money and material. The time of year was a critical factor in the timing of the war, as it would have been much more difficult to do it otherwise, and waiting a year would have been dangerous.

That is because you don't care that they changed their story several times until they hit on something that no one could argue with. However, the damage at that point had already been done.

Heh he he he... Once again, you are dead on correct..!

The "international community" is only interested in one thing, and that is promoting their own interests and saving face when those interests are overridden by the actions of other nations.

The non-US-alligned nations had a vested interest in Saddam's staying put. They knew that the US would make a move to take him down at some point, and set up the situation perfectly for the US to be the "fall guy" when the inevitable happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Kerry's statement, in my opinion (as always), is saying "vote for me because I'll never get faulty intelligence and never make decisions on anything but complete knowledge of any situation".

Maybe what he means is "I won't surround myself with incompetent advisors who know I want them to be yes-men who only tell me exactly what I want to hear."

And I hope what you think he means is correct as well. But we all know that it's simply a campaign tactic, and a good one, to pronounce grand statements of "mother and apple pie" to get votes.

There is NO ball to drop with these people. NK is a "cult of personality." There is no "government" there. There is ONE MAN who makes the decisions. He is even the center of their religion. He is worshipped as a god. You cannot deal with this guy one on one because he only understands force and the ONLY country that has ANY influence on him is China. Then again, it is not like Canada is involved anyway now is it? Your obvious bias against Bush has blinded you to the truth that is North Korea. NK is a place where they will let an entire generation of their children starve to death to ensure their military is fed properly. You cannot negotiate with them from a stance of what they will perceive as weakness. The ONLY way to get them to do ANYTHING constructive is to get the Chinese to put influence on them. The multilateral talks are the only way to get that done. They will violate any agreement that the US makes with them bilaterally. Kerry is very wrong in this.



Things you have failed to explain Bif:

1.) Why having North Korea withdrawing from it's treaty and restarting building an arsenal of nukes was the preferential option when compared to them wasting some oil flying their conventional air force.

2.) Why President Bush calling North Korea "evil" and their leader, Kim Jong il a "loathsome pygmy" was helpful to the diplomatic processes and promoted reaching an agreement BEFORE the first new bomb came off the assemply line.

3.) Why North Korea would view bilateral talks as a "position of weakness", but view multilateral talks as an indication that the US is seriously concerned with the issues at hand.

4.) Why you think that China will suddenly forgo their vested interest in the Korean situation if the US also holds bilateral talks. Sorry, but that makes no sense at all.

5.) Why these multilateral talks should be the only method in use given they have done nothing in the three years that they have been going on. Hey - wasn't that pretty much the argument GW used against letting the UN continue dealing with Iraq? That multi-lateral actions weren't strong enough?

6.) Why these multilateral talks are going to accomplish anything given that North Korea has already walked away from them.

7.) Why Korea will violate bilateral agreements with the most powerful country in the world, but will live up to multilateral ones with lesser players.

8.) For that matter, why bilateral talks must only result in bilateral agreements and cannot be geared towards also promoting the multilateral treaties.


Kim Jong Il is building nukes. As many as he can. The longer you let things continue as they are, the longer he stays away from the table, the more nukes he will have.

Right now, he flouts the talks because NOBODY is putting the needed pressure on him. And that includes China who you seem to think IS putting the pressure on. They aren't.

The status quo is NOT working. The proccess needs a kick in the ass. And if that kick has to come from a direct Washington initiative, then that is what it should have.

Things you have failed to explain Bif:

1.) Why having North Korea withdrawing from it's treaty and restarting building an arsenal of nukes was the preferential option when compared to them flying wasting some oil for their conventional air force.

2.) Why President Bush calling North Korea "evil" and their leader, Kim Jong il a "loathsome pygmy" was helpful to the diplomatic processes and promoted reaching an agreement BEFORE the first new bomb came off the assemply line.

3.) Why North Korea would view bilateral talks as a "position of weakness", but view multilateral talks as an indication that the US is seriously concerned with the issues at hand.

4.) Why you think that China will suddenly forgo their vested interest in the Korean situation if the US also holds bilateral talks. Sorry, but that makes no sense at all.

5.) Why these multilateral talks should be the only method in use given they have done nothing in the three years that they have been going on. Hey - wasn't that pretty much the argument GW used against letting the UN continue dealing with Iraq? That multi-lateral actions weren't strong enough?

6.) Why these multilateral talks are going to accomplish anything given that North Korea has already walked away from them.

7.) Why Korea will violate bilateral agreements with the most powerful country in the world, but will live up to multilateral ones with lesser players.

8.) For that matter, why bilateral talks must only result in bilateral agreements and cannot be geared towards also promoting the multilateral treaties.


Kim Jong Il is building nukes. As many as he can. The longer you let things continue as they are, the longer he stays away from the table, the more nukes he will have.

Right now, he flouts the talks because NOBODY is putting the needed pressure on him. And that includes China who you seem to think IS putting the pressure on. They aren't.

The status quo is NOT working. The proccess needs a kick in the ass. And if that kick has to come from a direct Washington initiative, then that is what it should have.


1. Ask Clinton, he is the one who quit sending them oil. Of course sending them oil just allowed them to build up their military even more and would not assure they would stop their nuclear program.

2. WHAT diplomatic process. You do not understand North Korea either. They ONLY react to force. Kim Jong Il is worshipped as a god there. He has absolute power and he is also quite insane. You cannot negotiate with him like you can with other "rational" countries. The ONLY thing he fears is the Chinese military coming across his border. Not including China in ALL the talks would be a HUGE mistake.

3. North Korea does not want multilateral talks. Why? Because they have violated EVERY bilateral agreement they have EVER made except those made with China. They would be hard pressed to violate multilateral talks that include China. They KNOW that they cannot violate agreements that include China.

4. See number 3 above.

5. Billateral talks "might" result in an agreement...but the North Koreans will violate it.

6. North Korea negotiates that way. They bluster, but they come around in time. They will accuse the US of everything, but in the end they will come around if they see a unified stand against them. IF the multilateral team breaks down, they will see it as a victory.

7. Why do they violate the agreements? Who knows, but they certainly did and do.

8. Would you agree to something that was negotiated for you when you were not there? China will not, nor would any other country. Remember the last time that was done? Munich in 1938 I believe....

We WILL be fighting North Korea eventually. They are starving to death and as soon as the military gets hungry, they will attack. The ONLY way to deal with them is to get the Chinese to pressure them. Kerry making a deal with them is going to work as well as Clinton's deal did. That he cannot see this shows a profound lack of knowledge of what North Korea is.

We WILL be fighting North Korea eventually. They are starving to death and as soon as the military gets hungry, they will attack. The ONLY way to deal with them is to get the Chinese to pressure them. Kerry making a deal with them is going to work as well as Clinton's deal did. That he cannot see this shows a profound lack of knowledge of what North Korea is.

Yes, and I am sure you are in a better position to determine these things than either Bush or Kerry, since you personally have met the leaders of all countries involved and have been a part of talks with them.

Oh, wait...

Yes, and I am sure you are in a better position to determine these things than either Bush or Kerry, since you personally have met the leaders of all countries involved and have been a part of talks with them.

Oh, wait...

No, but any country that allows an entire generation of their children to starve to death to support a military machine will not hesitate to use that machine. When their military starts to get hungry, they WILL use it. Wait and see....the odds are very much in my favor.

No, but any country that allows an entire generation of their children to starve to death to support a military machine will not hesitate to use that machine. When their military starts to get hungry, they WILL use it. Wait and see....the odds are very much in my favor.

Of course, even a country like this would be hesitant to do so knowing that they will be obliterated by some of the most powerful countries in the world.

No, but any country that allows an entire generation of their children to starve to death to support a military machine will not hesitate to use that machine. When their military starts to get hungry, they WILL use it. Wait and see....the odds are very much in my favor.

You are right Biff! If thier intentions are peaceful, then why are they continueing to test launch missiles that can hit Japan? Why are they test launching missiles that could hit the USA? Because they want more power. If we don't confront him, he'll think he can get away with things much like Saddam Hussein did.

Of course, even a country like this would be hesitant to do so knowing that they will be obliterated by some of the most powerful countries in the world.

Also correct but look at Germany! They were powerful and got slapped by the Russians on the east and America, Canada, Poland, Czech Republic, and Britain in the west. Just because there are nations more powerful than one, does not necessarily mean that they would do anything. They will though but the question is, how much?

[Dempublicents #97]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff Pileon
We WILL be fighting North Korea eventually. They are starving to death and as soon as the military gets hungry, they will attack. The ONLY way to deal with them is to get the Chinese to pressure them. Kerry making a deal with them is going to work as well as Clinton's deal did. That he cannot see this shows a profound lack of knowledge of what North Korea is.

Yes, and I am sure you are in a better position to determine these things than either Bush or Kerry, since you personally have met the leaders of all countries involved and have been a part of talks with them.

Oh, wait...

Biffster.. the left does not share our belief that the bad guys must and will be taken out, either by "external" or internal force, inevitably, because they think that unless "the entire international community" simultaneously and collectively acts against EVERY bad guy on the planet, then there is no legitimate cause to take out any one bad guy.

Thus, all bad guys are protected.

To the left:
1) All power is bad.
2) Any use of power is bad (see 1).
3) Possessors of power are bad (see 1).
4) The threat of the use of power is bad (see 1).
5) Talking is the only legitimate form of communication (see 1).
6) Bad guys aren't really bad, they're just "annoyed at being diasdvantaged".
7) Badness, other than as it relates to power, doesn't exist.

Thus,.. the left is quite humorous to relate to. :D

Also correct but look at Germany! They were powerful and got slapped by the Russians on the east and America, Canada, Poland, Czech Republic, and Britain in the west. Just because there are nations more powerful than one, does not necessarily mean that they would do anything. They will though but the question is, how much?

North Korea is now a threat to everyone around it. If they attack SK, we will attack them - that is pretty much set in stone and even UN sanctioned I believe. If China sees NK attacking SK, they know that they might be next, so they will most likely attack NK as well. Japan will most likely jump in because they are only a hop, skip, and a jump away.

Of course, like anything, these are assumptions about what *might* happen. They are just as valid as, "If we ever talk to NK on our own, China will be so made they will go and pout!" ideas though.

Of course, even a country like this would be hesitant to do so knowing that they will be obliterated by some of the most powerful countries in the world.

When a leader of a country is also worshipped as a god, his objectivity is highly doubtful. Kim Jong Il IS worshipped as a god by his people. Do you think such a man is concerned about the US. He has no knowledge of the US, has only left North Korea a couple of times and THOSE trips were to Bejing. He has no world knowledge and feeds propaganda to his people 24 hours a day.

Biffster.. the left does not share our belief that the bad guys must and will be taken out, either by "external" or internal force, inevitably, because they think that unless "the entire international community" simultaneously and collectively acts against EVERY bad guy on the planet, then there is no legitimate cause to take out any one bad guy.

Thus, all bad guys are protected.

To the left:
1) All power is bad.
2) Any use of power is bad (see 1).
3) Possessors of power are bad (see 1).
4) The threat of the use of power is bad (see 1).
5) Talking is the only legitimate form of communication (see 1).
6) Bad guys aren't really bad, they're just "annoyed at being diasdvantaged".
7) Badness, other than as it relates to power, doesn't exist.

Thus,.. the left is quite humorous to relate to. :D

Interesting, good to know that neither I, nor anyone I know, are part of "the left" then.

North Korea is now a threat to everyone around it. If they attack SK, we will attack them - that is pretty much set in stone and even UN sanctioned I believe. If China sees NK attacking SK, they know that they might be next, so they will most likely attack NK as well. Japan will most likely jump in because they are only a hop, skip, and a jump away.

Of course, like anything, these are assumptions about what *might* happen. They are just as valid as, "If we ever talk to NK on our own, China will be so made they will go and pout!" ideas though.

South Koreas military is no match for the North's. The US has 37,000 troops in South Korea, they would be merely a speed bump. North Korea can destroy Seoul without crossing the border. They have nearly 1,000,000 artillery pieces arrayed against the South that can hit Seoul at any time. They could rush across the border and take most if not all of the south before any real reaction could take place. The North Koreans have convinced themselves that the US is weak. Clinton playing into their demands did not help to stop them from thinking that way either.

Unilateral preemption is a failed policy.
Get over it.
What we need is Mossad-free intelligence and then maybe we can actually begin to respond "intelligently" to world events.

Bush sounds so macho when he says "We don't need no effin' world approval, girly man! We're the US of A!" But do you know who else lives to go around talking like that? Mentally deficient and mentally ill people; I've worked with them, they all love unilateral preemption.

That's just a fact; I don't want to imply that those poor challenged people are guilty by association.

South Koreas military is no match for the North's. The US has 37,000 troops in South Korea, they would be merely a speed bump. North Korea can destroy Seoul without crossing the border. They have nearly 1,000,000 artillery pieces arrayed against the South that can hit Seoul at any time. They could rush across the border and take most if not all of the south before any real reaction could take place. The North Koreans have convinced themselves that the US is weak. Clinton playing into their demands did not help to stop them from thinking that way either.

What does this have to do with the price of eggs in China? According to you, it is completely inevitable that NK will eventually attack SK. I was simply pointing out that they know how many countries will come in and destroy them if this happens.

Are you suggesting that we invade NK now, as they are such a threat?

What does this have to do with the price of eggs in China? According to you, it is completely inevitable that NK will eventually attack SK. I was simply pointing out that they know how many countries will come in and destroy them if this happens.

Are you suggesting that we invade NK now, as they are such a threat?

We should have invaded them many years ago. However, by containing them they will eventually get hungry enough to either....

a.) Attack South Korea for food

b.) The military will overthrow Kim Jong Il.

c.) Build enough nuclear weapons to sell on the open market to allow them to buy enough food.

Either way....bilateral talks are a very bad idea. China is the only force that North Korea respects.

Either way....bilateral talks are a very bad idea. China is the only force that North Korea respects.

So only having bilateral talks would be a bad idea. It is simply your opinion that bilateral talks in addition to multilateral talks would be a bad idea.

So only having bilateral talks would be a bad idea. It is simply your opinion that bilateral talks in addition to multilateral talks would be a bad idea.

You HAVE to include China in all talks. North Korea does not want multilateral talks at all. By having China in ALL the talks, North Korea will not be as likely to be able to violate any agreements they make with China present.

[Dempublicents #97]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff Pileon
We WILL be fighting North Korea eventually. They are starving to death and as soon as the military gets hungry, they will attack. The ONLY way to deal with them is to get the Chinese to pressure them. Kerry making a deal with them is going to work as well as Clinton's deal did. That he cannot see this shows a profound lack of knowledge of what North Korea is.

Yes, and I am sure you are in a better position to determine these things than either Bush or Kerry, since you personally have met the leaders of all countries involved and have been a part of talks with them.

Oh, wait...

Biffster.. the left does not share our belief that the bad guys must and will be taken out, either by "external" or internal force, inevitably, because they think that unless "the entire international community" simultaneously and collectively acts against EVERY bad guy on the planet, then there is no legitimate cause to take out any one bad guy.

Thus, all bad guys are protected.

To the left:
1) All power is bad.
2) Any use of power is bad (see 1).
3) Possessors of power are bad (see 1).
4) The threat of the use of power is bad (see 1).
5) Talking is the only legitimate form of communication (see 1).
6) Bad guys aren't really bad, they're just "annoyed at being diasdvantaged".
7) Badness, other than as it relates to power, doesn't exist.

Thus,.. the left is quite humorous to relate to. :D


I wonder is hypothetical left exists
But the Democrats believe power isn't bad. The use of power can be bad. It can also be good.
The threat is bad to republicans, aka Saddam.
Talking is a good idea, but just one idea.
Many bad guys aren't bad, many are annoyed such as the terrorist. Disadvantage leads them to be terrorist.

Republicans as long as Religioius right holds them by balls currently are bad so your seven point is false.

You HAVE to include China in all talks. North Korea does not want multilateral talks at all. By having China in ALL the talks, North Korea will not be as likely to be able to violate any agreements they make with China present.

Well, you could talk to NK alone, but not sign anything until the multilateral talk, now couldn't you?

Well, you could talk to NK alone, but not sign anything until the multilateral talk, now couldn't you?

What would be the point of that? That would be a waste of time. Like a child asking for something from his/her father only to be told to "go ask your mother." China is the key to the North Korea problem.

What would be the point of that? That would be a waste of time. Like a child asking for something from his/her father only to be told to "go ask your mother." China is the key to the North Korea problem.

Biff! Give it up. These people have no knowledge of what that area of the world is like. I guess people don't understand the Lessons of WWII or the history in that part of the world.

NK could care less about the USA. We could enter bilateral talks but they mean crap to a nation like that. However, if you include China, then you have them by the shoestrings. They can piss us off all they like but they will not dare to piss of China.

Biff! Give it up. These people have no knowledge of what that area of the world is like. I guess people don't understand the Lessons of WWII or the history in that part of the world.

NK could care less about the USA. We could enter bilateral talks but they mean crap to a nation like that. However, if you include China, then you have them by the shoestrings. They can piss us off all they like but they will not dare to piss of China.

It amazes me that Kerry did not learn anything from what North Korea did to Clinton. How could he NOT see what they did. They violated his agreement with them before the ink was dry. I am convinced that those who see things like Kerry in this area have absolutely no idea of who and what we are dealing with in North Korea. Kerry's plan would be an absolute disaster in that part of the world.

Biff! Give it up. These people have no knowledge of what that area of the world is like. I guess people don't understand the Lessons of WWII or the history in that part of the world.

NK could care less about the USA. We could enter bilateral talks but they mean crap to a nation like that. However, if you include China, then you have them by the shoestrings. They can piss us off all they like but they will not dare to piss of China.
When did China become more powerful than the US?

Anyway, Kerry wants China to speak with them as we do now but also to us have solo talks every once in a while.

It amazes me that Kerry did not learn anything from what North Korea did to Clinton. How could he NOT see what they did. They violated his agreement with them before the ink was dry. I am convinced that those who see things like Kerry in this area have absolutely no idea of who and what we are dealing with in North Korea. Kerry's plan would be an absolute disaster in that part of the world.
Do you know nothing of the north korean situation? Seeing as up until last month I was living right by them and they were in the news constantly, I know quite well what NK is doing. I also know that every country involved in the multilateral talks with NK (except the US) wants there to be bilateral talks between them and the US. With recent revelations about South Korea's former nuclear activity and continued mistrust with Japan, it would seem that Kerry's plan of bilateral talks would be one of the only viable options right now.

1. Ask Clinton, he is the one who quit sending them oil. Of course sending them oil just allowed them to build up their military even more and would not assure they would stop their nuclear program.

2. WHAT diplomatic process. You do not understand North Korea either. They ONLY react to force. Kim Jong Il is worshipped as a god there. He has absolute power and he is also quite insane. You cannot negotiate with him like you can with other "rational" countries. The ONLY thing he fears is the Chinese military coming across his border. Not including China in ALL the talks would be a HUGE mistake.

3. North Korea does not want multilateral talks. Why? Because they have violated EVERY bilateral agreement they have EVER made except those made with China. They would be hard pressed to violate multilateral talks that include China. They KNOW that they cannot violate agreements that include China.

4. See number 3 above.

5. Billateral talks "might" result in an agreement...but the North Koreans will violate it.

6. North Korea negotiates that way. They bluster, but they come around in time. They will accuse the US of everything, but in the end they will come around if they see a unified stand against them. IF the multilateral team breaks down, they will see it as a victory.

7. Why do they violate the agreements? Who knows, but they certainly did and do.

8. Would you agree to something that was negotiated for you when you were not there? China will not, nor would any other country. Remember the last time that was done? Munich in 1938 I believe....

We WILL be fighting North Korea eventually. They are starving to death and as soon as the military gets hungry, they will attack. The ONLY way to deal with them is to get the Chinese to pressure them. Kerry making a deal with them is going to work as well as Clinton's deal did. That he cannot see this shows a profound lack of knowledge of what North Korea is.


Gosh Bif, nice to know that I "don't understand Korea" but you do. How terribly condescending of you. Of course, John Kerry has no better understanding of dealing with despots in that part of the world than you or I either. Not like he was involved in negotiations in that region before..... oh wait...


But you can't help but contradict yourself on so many levels. You still fail to explain why bilateral talks can't help push forward the multilateral ones - ESPECIALLY when China keeps ASKING for help in exactly this manner.

No, you stick to this fatuous premise that Kerry's plan is to replace multilateral protocols in favour of a bilateral agreement at which point he will wash his hands of it and exclude China. That is obviously NOT what he was proposing, but it suits your agenda so what the hell right?


They only react to force? FINE! Threaten force in a unilateral manner to get them back to the multilateral table! but sitting on your ass hoping that they come back to the table? Can this be being treated any worse than that? What pressure are you applying now? NONE! there are no more sanctions to be made. There is nothing left in the arsenal except calling him up and making threats.

And once again, you simply cannot explain away the fact that bilateral and multilateral talks can occurr concurrently besides a simple assertion that they won't. Why? because GW says they can't?


Oh - well excuse me for having little faith in Mr. Bush's assessment on this matter.


You see, despite what you seem to think I understand quite well that NK reacts to pressure. Clearly Kerry understands that also. He also notices that GW has let this situation slide to the point where there is not enough pressure being applied and wants to turn up the heat in a direct manner rather than by committee. Seems to fall exactly in line with what you claim is needed, but you have to try and spin it into a doomed replacement for existing negotiations when it was clearly presented as an addition to them.


Odd how this same group that needed to rush to disarm a "grave and gathering threat" like Iraq was.. :rolleyes: .... seem to have no problem letting a real threat grow ever stronger.

When did China become more powerful than the US?

They are not but they exert more influence than we do on North Korea and that is a known fact.

Anyway, Kerry wants China to speak with them as we do now but also to us have solo talks every once in a while.

And who do you think they'll listen too more? Us? I doubt it. It'll be China that they'll listen too and there are other nations at risk here. Russia, South Korea, and Japan. What about these nations? Where do these nations fit into Kerry's plan? They don't!

Now show me where Kerry has said that he wants China in on the talks. That kinda defeats the Bilateral talks since the prefix Bi=two. Wouldn't it then turn to trilateral talks with tri=three?

This is basically all the corporate media could really find to misconstrue.

What Kerry was speaking of as regards what they're calling 'global test' is *gasp* Considering the international community's reactions to our actions.


Bush losing us America's respect and prestige in the world was not a worthwhile price to pay for whatever urgency he felt about invading.

And, that was about the only verbal slip I heard from Kerry in the debate. Bilateral when he obviously meant 'multilateral.'

Verbal typo. Considering his opponent's constant and general fumblings around with the English language, .....I think it's ridiculous for his detractors to harp on that.

Gosh Bif, nice to know that I "don't understand Korea" but you do. How terribly condescending of you. Of course, John Kerry has no better understanding of dealing with despots in that part of the world than you or I either. Not like he was involved in negotiations in that region before..... oh wait...


But you can't help but contradict yourself on so many levels. You still fail to explain why bilateral talks can't help push forward the multilateral ones - ESPECIALLY when China keeps ASKING for help in exactly this manner.

No, you stick to this fatuous premise that Kerry's plan is to replace multilateral protocols in favour of a bilateral agreement at which point he will wash his hands of it and exclude China. That is obviously NOT what he was proposing, but it suits your agenda so what the hell right?


They only react to force? FINE! Threaten force in a unilateral manner to get them back to the multilateral table! but sitting on your ass hoping that they come back to the table? Can this be being treated any worse than that? What pressure are you applying now? NONE! there are no more sanctions to be made. There is nothing left in the arsenal except calling him up and making threats.

And once again, you simply cannot explain away the fact that bilateral and multilateral talks can occurr concurrently besides a simple assertion that they won't. Why? because GW says they can't?


Oh - well excuse me for having little faith in Mr. Bush's assessment on this matter.


You see, despite what you seem to think I understand quite well that NK reacts to pressure. Clearly Kerry understands that also. He also notices that GW has let this situation slide to the point where there is not enough pressure being applied and wants to turn up the heat in a direct manner rather than by committee. Seems to fall exactly in line with what you claim is needed, but you have to try and spin it into a doomed replacement for existing negotiations when it was clearly presented as an addition to them.


Odd how this same group that needed to rush to disarm a "grave and gathering threat" like Iraq was.. :rolleyes: .... seem to have no problem letting a real threat grow ever stronger.


Well, I have lived there and spent a LOT of time learning about the conflict and the rulers of the North. Have you ever been to that part of the world? Kerry does NOT want multilateral talks...he said so. He wants to deal with North Korea alone. He will find the same thing that Clinton did and he will come out short just the same. It is all academic anyway, the ONLY thing that will stop North Korea is military intervention and that will be a self-fulfilling prophecy to Kim Jong Il as the North has told their people that the US is preparing to invade at any minute. They will NOT honor any agreements made without China as a signatory.

Well, I have lived there and spent a LOT of time learning about the conflict and the rulers of the North. Have you ever been to that part of the world?

Oh plzzz Bif, usually you at least make sense on some level. You were army. It's not like they sit the soldiers down and have a political science discussion with you all, you take orders and that's it! Sheesh, you must think we're idiots. Some of us actually have degrees in political science and have a much better understanding of the situation and how diplomacy works then an ex military dude. No offence but a spade is a spade.

Oh plzzz Bif, usually you at least make sense on some level. You were army. It's not like they sit the soldiers down and have a political science discussion with you all, you take orders and that's it! Sheesh, you must think we're idiots. Some of us actually have degrees in political science and have a much better understanding of the situation and how diplomacy works then an ex military dude. No offence but a spade is a spade.

No, I was Air Force and unlike the Army, we were given more information about the geo-political structure in both the North and South. I find it striking that you would discount my knowledge of the subject simply because I was in the military. On the contrary, I think that gives me a BETTER understanding of the situation as the North Korean military plays a huge part in the decision making process in North Korea. Of course since you have a degree in political science you already knew that didn't you? Virtually EVERY decision made in North Korea is made with the military in mind. The same is not true in other countries where the civilian population is of the main concern. North Korea places the civilian population below the military. I doubt Kerry even realizes that simple fact. You certainly don't seem to think so.

Oh plzzz Bif, usually you at least make sense on some level. You were army. It's not like they sit the soldiers down and have a political science discussion with you all, you take orders and that's it! Sheesh, you must think we're idiots. Some of us actually have degrees in political science and have a much better understanding of the situation and how diplomacy works then an ex military dude. No offence but a spade is a spade.

Its one thing to have a degree Steph, but another to actually SEE THE CULTURE. My parents have seen the Far East Culture. There is one thing that they respect and that is Strength. Look at the Japanese in WWII. They thought that we were weak but Admiral Yamamoto said that he could garuntee Victory for SIX MONTHS to a YEAR! Guess what? Six Months later, they lose 4 carriers and a heavy cruiser at Midway. They thought they would have an easy victory but they did not. In the end, our industrial might squashed them but not without heavy casualties on both sides.

North Korea thought they could take the South without anyone knowing it. In 1951, they invaded the southern portion of the Korean Peninsula. In 1953, it ended in an armistace but NO peace treaty. Legally, we are still at war with North Korea.

Now come to the Present. They think now that they should have whatever they want. Problem is they have now scared the Chinese. On top of that, you have the culture clash with the Japanese, South Korea and Russia. All of whom have a stake in what happens with North Korea. North Korean Leader Kim Jong Il is worshipped as a God and thinks that he should have everything. However, he is not going to get everything.

Culture and Face are everything over there Stephistan. I guess that if you have never lived there or talked to people who have lived there, you won't understand it totally. I was lucky to have TWO relatives (my parents) that lived in the Region. I know what it means to save face and what their culture means too and I don't have a poli sci degree. Listen to people who have experienced the area. You might be surprised.

Culture and Face are everything over there Stephistan. I guess that if you have never lived there or talked to people who have lived there, you won't understand it totally. I was lucky to have TWO relatives (my parents) that lived in the Region. I know what it means to save face and what their culture means too and I don't have a poli sci degree. Listen to people who have experienced the area. You might be surprised.
You are right about the importance of keeping face. That is acutally a big problem for any player in this game. North Korea is - if it is isolated (really isolated - which would include China) not able to survive.
On the other hand the question is whether the North Korean regime realizes it. And if it realizes it it would need to find a face-saving way out of it. Because loosing face is just not an option.
North Korea has actually demanded this bilateral talks. That would be for them a face-saving way out of the situation. Whether it would solve the issue is another question.
Going for bilateral talks would be a great concession by the United States.
I think it could make sense if the six-party talks have prepared a settlement.
If it doesn´t happen I however don´t see it as possible to avoid a military solution. And whether that is really intended - given the threat North Korea is posing - is a thing I strongly doubt.
North Korea can´t be used for a "preventive strike" since it has already nuclear weapons.
The United States is currently more bound in the Middle East.
I see an invasion of Iran as a very likely development. But that means that more troops are needed in that region. And that puts more pressure to try to find a peaceful solution with North Korea.
If the US can convince China that a nuclear free North Korea is also in its interests it may be possible to achieve the goal.
However that would inevitable mean also discussions about the Taiwan question. After 1970 the US has broken off official diplomatic relations and conducted a policy of strategic ambiguity about its willingness to defend Taiwan. This is partly changed (- i recall the confronatation in early 2001).
So, China is of course playing the North Korean issue probably also for its own interests. A scetchy situation.
I don´t know whether it can be resolved.
Probably an real agreement about a nuclear free area in East Asia (which includes North and South Korea, Japan and Taiwan) would be a solution, which would encourage China to put more pressure on North Korea.

No, I was Air Force and unlike the Army, we were given more information about the geo-political structure in both the North and South.

Sure they do Bif.. was that while you were on the ground doing maintenance? :rolleyes:

Sure they do Bif.. was that while you were on the ground doing maintenance? :rolleyes:

They actually do Steph. Biff and I both know this because he has served in it and I have a relative that serves in it and they do tell you the political situation and what to expect. That is important info that airmen must have.

Sure they do Bif.. was that while you were on the ground doing maintenance? :rolleyes:
What is it that makes you feel superior Stephistan? You seem to think it's impossible that someone in the military can't have an understanding of geo-political structure. You seem to feel that because you have a degree in political science that makes your opinion worth more weight and is free from bias. You dismiss offhand anyone who doesn't believe the way you do. I find that a tad bit arrogant don't you?

My view is that Kerry will try to get UN permission before we take any action and if he doesn't get it, the US will do nothing.

My view is that Kerry will try to get UN permission before we take any action and if he doesn't get it, the US will do nothing.

I suggest you pick up a dictionary and look up the definitions of "legitimacy" and "permission."

America's safety was jeopardized when Bush flippantly pushed away long time allies and tried to bully other countries with faulty intelligence. Our country was divided starkly because of Bush's inability to make a legitimate case for war. Because Bush failed to allow diplomacy enough time, we severely weakend the post-war efforts in Iraq. Bush lied to congress when he promised to use war as a last resort, eroding support for his programs in the legislative branch. Bush has hampered the US economy because of his inability to get significant international monetary support for his Iraq war. Bush tarnished the credibility of the US for using intelligence that his administration had already determined to be "iffy," while simultaneously representing to congress that the intelligence was iron-clad. Yes, congress saw the same intel that Bush did, but congress did not have access to the reports that brought the intel into question.

All in all, America could have done a much much better job of showing legitimacy while still pre-emptively defending itself. Therein lies the much better job Kerry can and will do. How will Kerry do it? Well, not being rude to the international community is a good start. Admitting that America made a mistake and we need more support to make it right would be another good thing. Neither of these things are something Bush is capable of.

Because of Kerry's insistence on cooperation whenever possible, the UN will actually be able to act in a more proactive manner. Saying that the UN is ineffective and then completely failing to support it is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

My view is that Kerry will try to get UN permission before we take any action and if he doesn't get it, the US will do nothing.Then you've made up your mind without actually listening to what he said--not that that's surprising, given your history, FD.

Then you've made up your mind without actually listening to what he said--not that that's surprising, given your history, FD.

Given her history, I find her well informed for someone her age. She is actually right. What is this "Global Test" that Kerry speaks of?

Given her history, I find her well informed for someone her age. She is actually right. What is this "Global Test" that Kerry speaks of?


*points to his previous post.

See all those bad things I pointed out in my last post? This is what happens when you don't pass the "global test."

See, it is possible to not piss off a good portion of the world and still defend ourselves. Bush says that this simply isn't possible, and yet, to his followers, Bush is the optimistic one. :rolleyes: Yes, we have the support of such nations as England, Australia, Poland (don't forget Poland!) and many others (most of which sent no personnel or money, though Morocco did offer to send monkeys that were trained to go kamikazee on mines.)

Bush loves to create false dichotomies. Either you're with us or against us. You're completely for the war, or you're against the war. You either agree or you're unpatriotic. You either pre-emptively attack (or defend) at will, or you're allowing other countries to veto your military action.

There is a multitude of middle grounds out there, but Bush either can't see it, or uses this form of deception for his own ends. (See how it works folks?!)

Kerry set the withdrawl to six months. Victory will not be acheived in six months i can guarantee that. I can guarantee that the borders wont be secured in six months, its not rational. The borders of Iraq and Syria are hundreds of miles of barren desert, not a easy place to secure and definately wont happen in six months. So if Kerry is planning to withdraw in six months, he's talking about a retreat, if we withdraw in six months we're talking a defeated withdraw and will make it a hell of a lot worse in the long run.

Much as I hate to defend Kerry, I have to correct this. I watched the debates, and am still wishing Bush had a stronger showing (but that was just round one :) ). What Kerry said was that he would BEGIN withdrawal in six months, with total withdrawal in 4 years.
If both sides would stick to the facts, avoid the lame insults (generalising), and keep an open mind, these discussions would be more productive.

*respectfully applauds The Far Green Meadow

Thank you, sir, for your fairness.

Riiiiiight, because it was under Clinton that NK threw out the inspectors and cameras.. Oh, no, that's right, it was after Bush included them in the "Axis of Evil" Now you recall?

Wrong.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/27/nkorea.expulsions/
PYONGYANG, North Korea (CNN) -- North Korea said Friday it has decided to expel International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors who have been monitoring its frozen nuclear facilities.

It also told the IAEA that it will resume reprocessing spent fuel rods at its plant, a facility capable of making weapons-grade plutonium.

In response, the IAEA said the inspectors are still needed and asked North Korea to reconsider.

The news came the same day that the United Nations Command on the Korean Peninsula said the North Korean army has brought light machine guns into the Demilitarized Zone in violation of agreements signed in 1953 at the end of the Korean War. (Full Story)

The article goes on to say NK expelled the inspectors for this reason:
Under the so-called Agreed Framework signed in 1994, North Korea said it would no longer seek to develop nuclear weapons and in exchange, the United States, Japan and South Korea agreed to help build two light water nuclear reactors to replace the plutonium-producing reactors Pyongyang was using.

In October, North Korea said it had resumed its weapons program claiming that the United States and its allies had failed to comply with the terms of the deal and rendered it null and void.

You realize that story is from December 2002, as i recall bush was president then, and it was indeed not long after Sept 11th. Them announcing in october they were going to reknew the programs would put it about a year after the "Axis of Evil" speech.

What is it that makes you feel superior Stephistan? You seem to think it's impossible that someone in the military can't have an understanding of geo-political structure. You seem to feel that because you have a degree in political science that makes your opinion worth more weight and is free from bias. You dismiss offhand anyone who doesn't believe the way you do. I find that a tad bit arrogant don't you?

Of course she feels "superior." Afterall, she is Canadian. :rolleyes: Evidently, being Canadian prevents one from having any bias whatsoever. One thing I have learned about those with "degrees." They always doubt others to a degree because they were not taught that in their classes. Classroom instruction is all fine and good, but there is NOTHING out there that can equal to life experience. I found that when I put my degrees into practice in the "real" world. Maybe if Steph would venture over to Korea and see things there for herself, she might not be so keen to disagree with those who have some personal experience there. It is akin to arguing with Neil Armstrong over conditions on the moon.

Of course she feels "superior." Afterall, she is Canadian. :rolleyes: Evidently, being Canadian prevents one from having any bias whatsoever. One thing I have learned about those with "degrees." They always doubt others to a degree because they were not taught that in their classes. Classroom instruction is all fine and good, but there is NOTHING out there that can equal to life experience. I found that when I put my degrees into practice in the "real" world. Maybe if Steph would venture over to Korea and see things there for herself, she might not be so keen to disagree with those who have some personal experience there. It is akin to arguing with Neil Armstrong over conditions on the moon.

You are indeed correct about experience Biff. My family has traveled all over this world. Both of my Parents were stationed in Japan and got married there. My dad hass been to South Korea so he knows what its like over there. My dad has traveled basically around the world and knows alot about different cultures. People with Poli Sci (Something my mother was actually going for) degrees have alot of Classroom Instructions but have they actually experienced a different culture head on? When my dad was in Panama in 1998, I went down there over thanksgiving and experienced a whole different culture. It was a great experience and I have a greater respect for the Latin American Countries. I've seen their heritage and culture. Experience counts for alot more than classroom instruction.

You are indeed correct about experience Biff. My family has traveled all over this world. Both of my Parents were stationed in Japan and got married there. My dad hass been to South Korea so he knows what its like over there. My dad has traveled basically around the world and knows alot about different cultures. People with Poli Sci (Something my mother was actually going for) degrees have alot of Classroom Instructions but have they actually experienced a different culture head on? When my dad was in Panama in 1998, I went down there over thanksgiving and experienced a whole different culture. It was a great experience and I have a greater respect for the Latin American Countries. I've seen their heritage and culture. Experience counts for alot more than classroom instruction.

I have been to Panama as well and now work in the Hispanic Food field. You are correct about the differences in culture. One does not learn the nuances in a classroom. I lived in the UK for 4 years and learned a LOT about the culture there and throughout Europe as I travelled extensively while finishing my degree in History. While studying the crusades, I travelled to many of the sites and saw them for myself to get the whole picture, not just what a textbook told me. Something students in the US are unable to do. My time in Korea was spent working during the week but travelling on the weekends. I spent many weekends in Seoul, Pusan, Chejudo Island and every major city there. I went to the DMZ as well and looked over at the train wreck that is North Korea. ANYONE who doubts the danger that North Korea presents to the entire world should visit the DMZ and see for themselves. Or they can travel to North Korea and be escourted on an "official" tour. Of course any contact with citizens there is forbidden. North Korea cannot be trusted to abide by any agreements they make unless China is involved. Without China, North Korea would be totally isolated. That Kerry does not seem to see that shows me that his policy is unrealistic.

[Gymoor #134]
*points to his previous post.

See all those bad things I pointed out in my last post? This is what happens when you don't pass the "global test."

See, it is possible to not piss off a good portion of the world and still defend ourselves. Bush says that this simply isn't possible, and yet, to his followers, Bush is the optimistic one. :rolleyes: Yes, we have the support of such nations as England, Australia, Poland (don't forget Poland!) and many others (most of which sent no personnel or money, though Morocco did offer to send monkeys that were trained to go kamikazee on mines.)

Bush loves to create false dichotomies. Either you're with us or against us. You're completely for the war, or you're against the war. You either agree or you're unpatriotic. You either pre-emptively attack (or defend) at will, or you're allowing other countries to veto your military action.

There is a multitude of middle grounds out there, but Bush either can't see it, or uses this form of deception for his own ends. (See how it works folks?!)

Yes,.. there is middle ground. And eventually you come down to a simple binary choice.

Do you agree with a "policy set" (ie. the administration) or not..?

Each side uses the "false dichotomies" tactic, and if you think otherwise then take a more observant approach at political observation.

Vote your will. I know I will, though my vote counts for zip, as I'm a California conservative. The electoral votes in my state are committed, essentially.

Talk about "disenfranchisement". :)

[INDENT]Vote your will. I know I will, though my vote counts for zip, as I'm a California conservative. The electoral votes in my state are committed, essentially.

Talk about "disenfranchisement". :)

Thats got to suck. Ever notice that so called "liberal" states also are the most expensive to live in?

[Biff Pileon #143]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Vote your will. I know I will, though my vote counts for zip, as I'm a California conservative. The electoral votes in my state are committed, essentially.

Talk about "disenfranchisement".

Thats got to suck. Ever notice that so called "liberal" states also are the most expensive to live in? [/COLOR]

Liberals OWN cities.

Liberals MAKE everything more expensive.

This is a good thing for "wealth creation", and a good thing for creating a class of government-handout-addicts.

Thus, liberals create enormous wealth for themselves and enormous addictions for their "constituency".

Thus, the blue states (http://www.electoral-vote.com/).

:D

Liberals OWN cities.

Liberals MAKE everything more expensive.

This is a good thing for "wealth creation", and a good thing for creating a class of government-handout-addicts.

Thus, liberals create enormous wealth for themselves and enormous addictions for their "constituency".

Thus, the blue states (http://www.electoral-vote.com/).

:D[/FONT][/COLOR]

Liberals are funny....they create these areas, through taxes and insane business rules that make it too expensive for most people to live there, then they make themselves feel good by creating "feel good" programs that they convince themselves are doing "good" for the less fortunate. :rolleyes: Less fortunates that THEY helped create. As Hillary Clinton said to some wealthy supporters in California... "We are going to take away from you for the common good. "

The last 10 posts or so must have been the most inane things i've read in a long while.
I just I'd mention it before signing off for the night.

[Gymoor #134]
*points to his previous post.

See all those bad things I pointed out in my last post? This is what happens when you don't pass the "global test."

See, it is possible to not piss off a good portion of the world and still defend ourselves. Bush says that this simply isn't possible, and yet, to his followers, Bush is the optimistic one. :rolleyes: Yes, we have the support of such nations as England, Australia, Poland (don't forget Poland!) and many others (most of which sent no personnel or money, though Morocco did offer to send monkeys that were trained to go kamikazee on mines.)

Bush loves to create false dichotomies. Either you're with us or against us. You're completely for the war, or you're against the war. You either agree or you're unpatriotic. You either pre-emptively attack (or defend) at will, or you're allowing other countries to veto your military action.

There is a multitude of middle grounds out there, but Bush either can't see it, or uses this form of deception for his own ends. (See how it works folks?!)

Yes,.. there is middle ground. And eventually you come down to a simple binary choice.

Do you agree with a "policy set" (ie. the administration) or not..?

Each side uses the "false dichotomies" tactic, and if you think otherwise then take a more observant approach at political observation.

Vote your will. I know I will, though my vote counts for zip, as I'm a California conservative. The electoral votes in my state are committed, essentially.

Talk about "disenfranchisement". :)


I feel your pain.

Of course, even a country like this would be hesitant to do so knowing that they will be obliterated by some of the most powerful countries in the world.

You're assuming that they care, Dem. NK has behaved this way for years, every so often threatening nukes or whatever to get attention, which they usually do get, then they quiet down again for a while. They pretty much get what they want because they ARE willing to use whatever they have, even if it means their own destruction.

*respectfully applauds The Far Green Meadow

Thank you, sir, for your fairness.

*ahem* Ma'am. ;)

You realize that story is from December 2002, as i recall bush was president then, and it was indeed not long after Sept 11th. Them announcing in october they were going to reknew the programs would put it about a year after the "Axis of Evil" speech.

Yes, I realize the date. It also states, per NK, why they did what they did. Bush and Jong-il had been exchanging jabs from the beginning. Jong-il isn't concerned with Bush's opinion of him, not when his own people think he's a god. I was not attempting to attribute the issue to another time frame, only to point out what the given reason (from NK) was.

Its understandable what Kerry was trying to say, the problem is he said it very poorly. People give Bush shit about how he talks; Bush stumbles over words and mispronounces them and such. Kerry I think has a bigger problem: he just simply says what he's trying to say in completely the wrong way. How many times during the debate has he asked to "clarify" and restate what he said before so it makes more sense?